The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Quinn on November 09, 2016, 01:49:19 AM

Title: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quinn on November 09, 2016, 01:49:19 AM
It's over, the people have voted. It is what it is, we can't change it. Instead of what-ifs, debating why people voted the way they did, pointing fingers, despair and depression, let's have a civil discussion about what to expect in the next four years.

What will be the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency with Republican control of the House and Senate? The most obvious one is that Trump will get to nominate at least one conservative Supreme Court justice, who will be confirmed by the Republican Senate. The environment and climate change are also goners.

On other issues, it's not as clear to me. For example, Trump has called for protectionist trade policies, but the Republican party has generally been pro-free trade (correct me if I'm wrong). I guess my question is, who/what will determine US policies over the next four years? The Republican party has split itself into fractions, and has been at odds with Trump more often than not. Are we likely to see more party infighting in the years ahead, or will they regroup with their president and congress majorities to push forward their agenda? Who is going to decide their agenda? Will Trump adopt the Republican party platform, or will Republican party adopt his ideas (deportations, congressional term limits, etc)?

What is going to serve as a check and balance to Trump? Will the Republican party do that with their majorities? Will there be any moderate Republicans left? Trump does not seem to understand much about the nuances of policies, and has shown very little interest in learning about the intricacies of governing. In the best case scenario, he might change, if not, he's going to be heavily reliant on his "sources", which appear to be himself, the internet, and TV. Who are going to be his advisors? Who is going to be in his cabinet? Who is really going to run the show? Mike Pence/Paul Ryan/Mitch McConnell/Steve Bannon?

I know that no one has any answers, but I want to be prepared for what's coming.

TL;DR I'm freaking out worried. Tell me how bad it's going to be.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wienerdog on November 09, 2016, 02:01:30 AM
No different than Clinton.  They are same.  If you don't realize that then you need some work.  Trump is no different than Clinton.  No wall.  No magical thing to replace ACA.  Just sit and wait there is no difference.  It isn't any different than 'Hope and Change' that so many fools fell for.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on November 09, 2016, 02:17:05 AM
 I think Hillary would have been the cruise control candidate, Trump wants to blow shit up. Hope and change didn't accomplish anything? Two wars over, Affordable Care act passed, gay marriage rights, auto industry saved, recession killed and unemployment below 5% on his way out...those are just the biggies. Hope and Change wasn't perfect, but I'd hardly call the last 8 years idle time wasted. Contrast what he came into versus where we are now. Now we are going to make America "great" again. Lol. Great like the shape W left us in? Recession, 10% UE, 2 wars?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: 2Cent on November 09, 2016, 02:39:52 AM
Buy stocks now. The shock will wear off in a few days and markets will return to normal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 09, 2016, 03:05:32 AM
Trump will have a Republican Senate for at least two years and a Republican House for probably indefinitely (unless gerrymandering laws are changed), they wont C-block him like they did Obama. He'll have conservative federal judges appointed with no problem. There will be 1-3 Supreme Court Judges up for grabs.

Look for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Expect medical insurance profits to rise.

Expect your middle class taxes to increase and if you're more wealthy, expect your taxes to decrease. Trickle down economics theory will return.

I think relations with other countries will be poor.

I think the ignorant and loud will rule.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BrokenBiscuits on November 09, 2016, 03:06:10 AM
We had a similar unexpected result recently over here in England when my people voted to leave the European union.

It will be near impossible to read any news that doesn't refer to the result in some way for a while.  But hopefully things return to normal or whatever counts for normalish pretty soon.

As for the markets, there will likely be buying opportunities as there were following brexit. I know a lot of mustachians are not market timers but I will occasionally top up extra if I see significant drops. My wealth benefitted from brexit (short term, who knows long term) even if it was not the result I wanted.

I can see the comparisons already, with the media suggesting large numbers of people uneducated beyond high school drove the result. Ultimately, it is what it is and now it's time to sit back and see what the ride will be like.

 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: alsoknownasDean on November 09, 2016, 04:15:46 AM
We'll see a flock to safe haven items (watch gold skyrocket) for a while, and in a while it'll calm down once people realise that the US economy will continue to kick along.

There'll be some areas that get defunded or disbanded. I'd expect Planned Parenthood and the EPA to be endangered species. Watch environmental/climate change regs get wound back.

They'll repeal ACA, but chances are health insurance premiums will continue to increase.

The minimum wage might get cut back again.

The TPP is probably not going to happen.

Restrictions on Chinese imports may harm the Chinese economy, and the economies of countries that have a significant amount of trade with China (including us here in Australia).

More worryingly, Trump's election might serve as propaganda/recruiting material for ISIL.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cerat0n1a on November 09, 2016, 04:29:38 AM
It'll be interesting to see what happens with those US companies that have very large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because tax. I'm assuming Trump will do something to get that money back into America - question is what does it get spent on?

Protectionism is an interesting game to play for a country that owes $6 trillion to foreigners. Fine when you can simply crank up the printing presses to deal with your debts; anything that puts at risk the dollar as the world's de facto trading currency pushes the US over the edge pretty rapidly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: marty998 on November 09, 2016, 05:09:58 AM
I doubt you'll see the apocalypse that some have predicted. Maybe it's the alcohol talking but I think Trump will be determined to prove himself capable in the role.

You will not see any nukes. But you will see swift military retribution against any foreign country that threatens America (in whatever way, shape or form "threatened" takes).

I agree there will be significant tax cuts for the 1%. There will be attempts to shift the centre to the right. There will be a reframing of the culture wars - the topics so beloved by the left - gay marriage, climate change, refugees.

It won't be pretty, but the millions out there who have felt ignored, isolated and left out of 21st century progress will now feel like they are on top.

It won't change a damn thing for them however. Trump will govern for those like him, just as most politicians do. The situation for the server at the local Maccas will still be the same in 4 years time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chasesfish on November 09, 2016, 05:37:25 AM
Who really knows at this point?

20 years ago, Clinton sounded more Republican, Trump sounded more democrat.  I think the general mood outside of NY/Chicago/LA is the average working person is tired of elites telling them how to live their life.  Hillary Clinton was probably the only democrat that could loose to Trump.

At best, we'll have a republican president focused on the economy and regulation and ignore the "social" side of the house.   Worst case, he gets with the far right side and starts trying to "blow stuff up" an d kicks out reasonable house leader in Paul Ryan.

I don't think a lot will change, Democrats can still filibuster the Senate, so cooler heads will prevail. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: The Guru on November 09, 2016, 05:38:39 AM
I doubt you'll see the apocalypse that some have predicted. Maybe it's the alcohol talking but I think Trump will be determined to prove himself capable in the role.

You will not see any nukes. But you will see swift military retribution against any foreign country that threatens America (in whatever way, shape or form "threatened" takes).

I agree there will be significant tax cuts for the 1%. There will be attempts to shift the centre to the right. There will be a reframing of the culture wars - the topics so beloved by the left - gay marriage, climate change, refugees.

It won't be pretty, but the millions out there who have felt ignored, isolated and left out of 21st century progress will now feel like they are on top.

It won't change a damn thing for them however. Trump will govern for those like him, just as most politicians do. The situation for the server at the local Maccas will still be the same in 4 years time.

^ This. I predict trump's blue-collar supporters will be experiencing a steamin' hot bowl of buyer's (voter's?) remorse before his first (and, one hopes, only) term is half over. While I'm sure that what benefits wealthy CEOs also benefits those who work for them in some magical fairyland somewhere I don't see The Donald as having the will to cause that to happen in the real world. As far as bringing jobs back from China, he could have done that with his own signature clothing line. But he didn't. I feel somewhat bad for those who feel like they've been left out of whatever prosperity the rest of us enjoy (if not the racism and xenophobia that seems to accompany it) but that sympathy is tempered by the knowledge that they should have questioned Trump's ability and/or desire to actually make it come about. Instead they blindly accepted what they wanted to hear. In short- they were played, pure and simple.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ysette9 on November 09, 2016, 05:44:11 AM
I'm seriously worried that a repeal of Obamacare means that our FIRE plans are in jeopardy. We can plan for cost increases but we cannot plan for one of us having our coverage dropped and being uncovered, should we develop a health condition down the road.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on November 09, 2016, 05:55:40 AM
You will lose a lot of money in the short term.  It will bounce back.  Your insurance will be go back to the way it was, still increasing year over year but no subsidies to lessen the bite.  If you get cancer, I hope your stash is really big or you pass quickly because you will be dropped.  If you are gay and married, I hope you enjoyed the experience.  at least one and potentially more young conservative supreme court justices will overturn that.  Probably 50/50 odds on Roe v Wade. 

As I told my wife last night who was very upset that so many people could be so wrong.  It will be ok, at least for us.  In many ways a Trump and republican dominated government is personally beneficial to me (assuming no nuclear war is started), but we voted for the greater good at our own expense.  I almost look forward to the schadenfreude I will feel when people who voted Trump start complaining about their taxes, their insurance, their jobs not coming back, spiraling deficits and debt.

People had a lot of doom and gloom predictions on Obama being elected, but remember those where all suppositions based on stereotypes (he will take away your guns.....despite never saying he had any desire to).  There is a lot of doom and gloom for Trump too, but unfortunately that is all based on him doing exactly what he said he wants to do.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on November 09, 2016, 06:05:08 AM
I am cautiously optimistic. I am just glad we have a system of checks and balances.

If Trump does indeed push through his agenda, I believe we'll have another stifling recession. And the very folks he "promised" to help, will be in much worse shape. The real irony of his plan. I am hopeful that President Trump will be vastly different from candidate Trump.

My biggest fears though are starting more wars, possibly with nukes and watching the renewable energy industry take a huge hit. Still hard to believe "we" elected a guy that sexually assaults women and believes China created climate change. Oh what a crazy country we live in.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: boarder42 on November 09, 2016, 06:07:45 AM
lower taxes. and hopefully more efficient and simple tax code in the process. 

republican house/senate/president
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on November 09, 2016, 06:09:10 AM
lower taxes. and hopefully more efficient and simple tax code in the process. 

republican house/senate/president

Are you making 500k a year or more?  In that case, enjoy your lower taxes.  If not......HA HA HA
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jinga nation on November 09, 2016, 06:11:32 AM
I don't see a big change. Corporations and lobbyists will still run DC while the puppets change. Kabuki theater for the masses.

Obama promised no lobbyists, etc etc, railing on big money... etc. Then he rolled over. Or was bent over. Supreme Court grand cockup of corporations are people was the ultimate gangbang.

It was a choice of do you want a male wolf or female wolf, both are hungry. And will herd the sheep.

If Wikileaks did some damage, I'm happy for the truth to come out.

I hope Obama doesn't pardon Hillary on his way out, but I know he will.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: boarder42 on November 09, 2016, 06:13:35 AM
lower taxes. and hopefully more efficient and simple tax code in the process. 

republican house/senate/president

Are you making 500k a year or more?  In that case, enjoy your lower taxes.  If not......HA HA HA

his plan lowers taxes for those making less than 500k ... just the increased standard deduction does alot.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Rufus.T.Firefly on November 09, 2016, 06:13:58 AM
R-E-L-A-X. Relax.

Remember this: about half of the country was beside themselves for the last 8 years that Obama was elected, and re-elected. Before that, about half of the country was distraught over Bush being re-elected. Before that, about half of the country was ready to impeach Clinton at the end of his second term.

The election process lends itself extreme statements and hysteria. None of the above mentioned candidates were as terrible or as disastrous as the rhetoric suggests. In fact, they were all reasonably functional presidents. I knew a lot of Republicans who were rooting against Obama the moment he was in office - that doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't support Trump, but I'll sure as hell root for him now that he's our guy. And I will do so for every president because we're in this together, folks. If he does a terrible job, we'll get to vote him out in 4 years. But let's hope he does a great job. After all, he's surprised us a couple of of times already. Maybe he'll surprise us again.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: redbird on November 09, 2016, 06:19:43 AM
The upside: stocks are gonna be on sale, guys. I wish I had even more money to throw at them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: I'm a red panda on November 09, 2016, 06:37:21 AM
It'll be interesting to see what happens with those US companies that have very large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because tax. I'm assuming Trump will do something to get that money back into America - question is what does it get spent on?


Why would he do that though?  HIS companies have large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because of tax. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: AdrianC on November 09, 2016, 06:41:39 AM
As I told my wife last night who was very upset that so many people could be so wrong.  It will be ok, at least for us.  In many ways a Trump and republican dominated government is personally beneficial to me (assuming no nuclear war is started), but we voted for the greater good at our own expense.  I almost look forward to the schadenfreude I will feel when people who voted Trump start complaining about their taxes, their insurance, their jobs not coming back, spiraling deficits and debt.

Well said. Same here. We're disappointed, but our family will be just fine.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on November 09, 2016, 06:54:00 AM
It'll be interesting to see what happens with those US companies that have very large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because tax. I'm assuming Trump will do something to get that money back into America - question is what does it get spent on?


Why would he do that though?  HIS companies have large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because of tax.

End corporate income tax. The big companies will bring it 'home' in a heartbeat and find a vehicle to return it to shareholders.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KCM5 on November 09, 2016, 07:06:08 AM
I hope Obama doesn't pardon Hillary on his way out, but I know he will.

Pardon her for what?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Freedom2016 on November 09, 2016, 07:07:38 AM
It'll be interesting to see what happens with those US companies that have very large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because tax. I'm assuming Trump will do something to get that money back into America - question is what does it get spent on?


Why would he do that though?  HIS companies have large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because of tax.

End corporate income tax. The big companies will bring it 'home' in a heartbeat and find a vehicle to return it to shareholders.

But not the workers? Isn't this exactly what would benefit Trump supporters - a real increase in wages? Those are not the folks holding index funds that will go up when shareholders get a little slice of that corporate pie.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on November 09, 2016, 07:14:15 AM
It'll be interesting to see what happens with those US companies that have very large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because tax. I'm assuming Trump will do something to get that money back into America - question is what does it get spent on?


Why would he do that though?  HIS companies have large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because of tax.

End corporate income tax. The big companies will bring it 'home' in a heartbeat and find a vehicle to return it to shareholders.

That is so cute you think the big companies will bring back money and enrich their workers and or shareholders. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on November 09, 2016, 07:22:38 AM
As I told my wife last night who was very upset that so many people could be so wrong.  It will be ok, at least for us.  In many ways a Trump and republican dominated government is personally beneficial to me (assuming no nuclear war is started), but we voted for the greater good at our own expense.  I almost look forward to the schadenfreude I will feel when people who voted Trump start complaining about their taxes, their insurance, their jobs not coming back, spiraling deficits and debt.

Well said. Same here. We're disappointed, but our family will be just fine.

To me this is the biggest issue.  Your family may be fine, but what about those whom he has promised to discriminate against.  Ending marriage equality, starting shock therapy for those in the LGBT community to "straighten" them out.  The economy may be just fine(I do not know what the future holds) but human rights have been trampled on by Trump, and we have only seen the beginning.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on November 09, 2016, 07:35:52 AM
Probably no nuclear war where the other side fires back.  I make no guarantees about a nuclear strike in Syria or Iran.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: I'm a red panda on November 09, 2016, 07:39:17 AM
As I told my wife last night who was very upset that so many people could be so wrong.  It will be ok, at least for us.  In many ways a Trump and republican dominated government is personally beneficial to me (assuming no nuclear war is started), but we voted for the greater good at our own expense.  I almost look forward to the schadenfreude I will feel when people who voted Trump start complaining about their taxes, their insurance, their jobs not coming back, spiraling deficits and debt.

Well said. Same here. We're disappointed, but our family will be just fine.

That is little relief to me when I think of all the people who won't be. There are racial minorities, religious minorities, LGBTQ, immigrants (legal ones) who are genuinely scared right now.  My middle class white privilege of "I'm going to be okay" doesn't help me feel better at all.

Although I actually fall into a minority group that is unlikely to be affected, but I'm really really scared of what could happen if they hold a witch-hunt against it. So I have genuine fear for myself too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 09, 2016, 07:45:19 AM
The upside: stocks are gonna be on sale, guys. I wish I had even more money to throw at them.

I wouldn't call a 50 basis point drop in the S&P 500 a "sale". I too was licking my lips over this supposed  huge drop. Didn't happen.

I think in the end the republican congress will be better for business - but maybe not for anyone else.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on November 09, 2016, 07:45:39 AM
Well, given that he also has the House and the Senate, he should get pretty far down this list, at least:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/donald-trump-first-day-in-office
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MandalayVA on November 09, 2016, 07:46:23 AM
When Trump got the nomination I was like "Jesus, he might actually pull this off."  And so he has.  I would also remind various Chicken Littles that he will say ANYTHING if it gets him what he wants.  Yesterday, he wanted to throw Hillary Clinton in jail.  Today, he spoke respectfully of "Madam Secretary" and praised her tenacity.  And remember all the people whom, it was claimed, would never vote for him?  Well, guess what?  LGBTs voted for him.  Women voted for him.  Hispanics voted for him.  Hell, even Muslims voted for him.  Maybe not the majority, but much more than was predicted. 

Remember the kid in junior high who always tried to act tough and macho to fit in?  That's Trump in a nutshell.  He's always been mostly talk.  I think it may be sinking in that for perhaps the first time in his life he's going to be held accountable for what he's said.  And it's scaring the SHIT out of him. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 09, 2016, 07:47:27 AM
The upside: stocks are gonna be on sale, guys. I wish I had even more money to throw at them.

I wouldn't call a 50 basis point drop in the S&P 500 a "sale". I too was licking my lips over this supposed  huge drop. Didn't happen.

I think in the end the republican congress will be better for business - but maybe not for anyone else.

Depends if Trump gets his wishes on NAFTA and the Fed. He could crater the economy very quickly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on November 09, 2016, 07:48:40 AM
It'll be interesting to see what happens with those US companies that have very large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because tax. I'm assuming Trump will do something to get that money back into America - question is what does it get spent on?


Why would he do that though?  HIS companies have large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because of tax.

End corporate income tax. The big companies will bring it 'home' in a heartbeat and find a vehicle to return it to shareholders.

That is so cute you think the big companies will bring back money and enrich their workers and or shareholders.

(http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/trickle-down.jpg)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 09, 2016, 07:51:14 AM
Does anyone have thoughts on his infrastructure ideas? He mentioned it in his speech.

While I think tax cuts will breeze through congress, will infrastructure spending?

I really hope Trump uses his political capital to change the republican party. Force them to do infrastructure and public works projects that the country desperately needs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 09, 2016, 07:58:13 AM
Does anyone have thoughts on his infrastructure ideas? He mentioned it in his speech.

While I think tax cuts will breeze through congress, will infrastructure spending?

I really hope Trump uses his political capital to change the republican party. Force them to do infrastructure and public works projects that the country desperately needs.

Clinton mentioned infrastructure spending, too, and the consensus was that nothing would get done because Congress is reluctant to allocate money.

Will Congress follow his lead because, "Hey friends, we're all Republicans"? It's possible. I expect that it's just another campaign promise that will be forgotten in 6 months.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 09, 2016, 08:03:35 AM
Does anyone have thoughts on his infrastructure ideas? He mentioned it in his speech.

While I think tax cuts will breeze through congress, will infrastructure spending?

I really hope Trump uses his political capital to change the republican party. Force them to do infrastructure and public works projects that the country desperately needs.

Clinton mentioned infrastructure spending, too, and the consensus was that nothing would get done because Congress is reluctant to allocate money.

Will Congress follow his lead because, "Hey friends, we're all Republicans"? It's possible. I expect that it's just another campaign promise that will be forgotten in 6 months.

Perhaps. But I think Trump can use his ability to "primary out" people to force them into Trumpism. There are some things I like about Trumpism more than the traditional Republican platform. Hopefully we get the best of both (socially liberal policies, simpler tax code, more infrastructure spending).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on November 09, 2016, 08:09:24 AM
Chill.

ACA Repeal: 2017 Republicans are smarter than 2010 Dems, they won't cut their own throats.
Verdict; no mandate, some change to the level of subsidy and maybe a time-cap or phase out of the subsidyindividually (5yrs?) and perhaps a an overlap (especially non medicaid expanded states) of subsidy and medicaid. Don't believe me? I live around these people, I do my best to think like they do.

War; Talks big to have greater negotiating power. Everything is on the table until it is not(negotiated off the table).
-We are out of the Middle east, maybe some type of containment involvement but that is it. He will leave it up to Europe/Japan and China to sort out who gets what oil.

Bad trade deals/inflation/jobs; as much as this has been his focus I am not sure how all this will work out. Higher tariffs for sure, Trump will likely fight GOP Congress on this with a consistent veto until he gets it. Actual jobs/factories will be slow to return, but the continued loss stopping of jobs will be immediate. Hopefully a focus on our trade deficit by country.

Gay rights/abortion/religious liberty-he will do his best to ignore.

Taxes; across the board small cut, but mostly a change in the standard deduction and increase in child tax credit/EITC. Between taxes/spending/debt increase we will get a lot of debt increases (if you are investing in the future on infrastructure/lowering unemployment etc I really don't see this as bad as other things we have done, esp. at todays rates)

Immigration/Deporting; Criminals will stay out. Through tariffs, preventing money from being wired to Mexico or some other clever means he will get Mexico to be much more cooperative in keeping people from il(licietly?) crossing the border. give it two years and if there are still lots of refugees some will come here, even Muslim ones.

Eminent Domain/Libel/other civil liberties; Not big on his agenda but there are probably enough libertarian conservatives and democrats to keep this in check.

The one I am worried about; Student loan repayments; Currently in IBR program. not looking forward to how this will go. Luckily a lot of Congress has kids who are probably on this too, fingers crossed but I know I have about 6-10 months before I should be ready to make a much larger payment. Overall, we all borrowed the money, just because someone offers you a handout doesn't mean you deserve it. Kinda like the ACA, it would make retiring easier but does not mean we are entitled to it.

Could people panic and the stock market tumble and stagnate? Sure, but the president can't really do much about that. All that cash sitting around could turn up inflation really, maybe even feel like hyperinflation(bad) but who knows.

EditInfrastructure/Environment/Coal; Congress will be slow to do infrastructure spending, but it will happen. CapnTrade wouldn't have happened with HRC either, this is mostly a wash. Nuclear is actually cheaper than coal, perhaps cooler heads will prevail, just don't expect an new regs on construction or mines. At least coal is point source pollution, can be controlled/mitigated. More instability in the middle east could mean higher gas prices...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 09, 2016, 08:49:57 AM
Bad trade deals/inflation/jobs; as much as this has been his focus I am not sure how all this will work out. Higher tariffs for sure, Trump will likely fight GOP Congress on this with a consistent veto until he gets it. Actual jobs/factories will be slow to return, but the continued loss stopping of jobs will be immediate. Hopefully a focus on our trade deficit by country.

Manufacturing will not come back. It's not a matter of them leaving the States; it's a matter of simply fewer of them due to automation. Nothing Trump can do will fix that.

Quote
Gay rights/abortion/religious liberty-he will do his best to ignore.

Will he have to appease his evangelical voters? Or will he assume that they haven't a choice so he can ignore them and still get their votes?

Quote
The one I am worried about; Student loan repayments; Currently in IBR program. not looking forward to how this will go. Luckily a lot of Congress has kids who are probably on this too

Hahaha, good one.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: pdxbator on November 09, 2016, 09:05:58 AM
I had plans to FIRE next June. It is now on hold to see what happens with the ACA. If Drumpf hands it over to the insurance companies (big businesses) rates will skyrocket even more and they won't accept applicants with pre-existing conditions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 09, 2016, 09:13:29 AM
Does anyone have thoughts on his infrastructure ideas? He mentioned it in his speech.

While I think tax cuts will breeze through congress, will infrastructure spending?

I really hope Trump uses his political capital to change the republican party. Force them to do infrastructure and public works projects that the country desperately needs.

It's interesting how one can spend money to build infrastructure while cutting taxes and reduce the deficit and debt at the same time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on November 09, 2016, 09:22:04 AM
Does anyone have thoughts on his infrastructure ideas? He mentioned it in his speech.

While I think tax cuts will breeze through congress, will infrastructure spending?

I really hope Trump uses his political capital to change the republican party. Force them to do infrastructure and public works projects that the country desperately needs.

It's interesting how one can spend money to build infrastructure while cutting taxes and reduce the deficit and debt at the same time.

It's easy, you do it the same way you somehow restore large amounts of high paying single industry manufacturing jobs to small towns in the age of automation without causing trade wars and spiking the price of consumer goods.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 09, 2016, 09:28:54 AM
Does anyone have thoughts on his infrastructure ideas? He mentioned it in his speech.

While I think tax cuts will breeze through congress, will infrastructure spending?

I really hope Trump uses his political capital to change the republican party. Force them to do infrastructure and public works projects that the country desperately needs.

It's interesting how one can spend money to build infrastructure while cutting taxes and reduce the deficit and debt at the same time.

It's easy, you do it the same way you somehow restore large amounts of high paying single industry manufacturing jobs to small towns in the age of automation without causing trade wars and spiking the price of consumer goods.
Not making fun here, but I'm not sure if this is a sarcastic reply or not. I don't think those manufacturing jobs are ever coming back. I feel for the rust belt, but when the jobs left, they should have too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on November 09, 2016, 09:37:45 AM
Does anyone have thoughts on his infrastructure ideas? He mentioned it in his speech.

While I think tax cuts will breeze through congress, will infrastructure spending?

I really hope Trump uses his political capital to change the republican party. Force them to do infrastructure and public works projects that the country desperately needs.

It's interesting how one can spend money to build infrastructure while cutting taxes and reduce the deficit and debt at the same time.

It's easy, you do it the same way you somehow restore large amounts of high paying single industry manufacturing jobs to small towns in the age of automation without causing trade wars and spiking the price of consumer goods.
Not making fun here, but I'm not sure if this is a sarcastic reply or not. I don't think those manufacturing jobs are ever coming back. I feel for the rust belt, but when the jobs left, they should have too.

sarcastic.  The answer to both my statement and your is pixie dust and wishful thinking, those are the only things that can make Trump's promise to the rust belt come true.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 09, 2016, 09:43:45 AM
Gay rights/abortion/religious liberty-he will do his best to ignore.

Will he have to appease his evangelical voters? Or will he assume that they haven't a choice so he can ignore them and still get their votes?

Former PM Harper managed to control his hotheads about this and keep abortion off the agenda.  Mind you, IMHO Canada is further along the equal rights road than the US, we are mostly more OK with abortion and a lot more open to birth control availability.

Veering off topic a bit, I am curious to see his Cabinet makeup.  After all, PM Trudeau's first cabinet was 50% women (not to mention variable in other ways) and when asked he shrugged and said "It's 2015".  Which was accepted as a perfectly good answer.  Canada's ethnic diversity is different from the US's ethnic diversity, but it would be nice to see more than just white men in his cabinet.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 09, 2016, 09:47:01 AM
Does anyone have thoughts on his infrastructure ideas? He mentioned it in his speech.

While I think tax cuts will breeze through congress, will infrastructure spending?

I really hope Trump uses his political capital to change the republican party. Force them to do infrastructure and public works projects that the country desperately needs.

It's interesting how one can spend money to build infrastructure while cutting taxes and reduce the deficit and debt at the same time.

It's easy, you do it the same way you somehow restore large amounts of high paying single industry manufacturing jobs to small towns in the age of automation without causing trade wars and spiking the price of consumer goods.
Not making fun here, but I'm not sure if this is a sarcastic reply or not. I don't think those manufacturing jobs are ever coming back. I feel for the rust belt, but when the jobs left, they should have too.

sarcastic.  The answer to both my statement and your is pixie dust and wishful thinking, those are the only things that can make Trump's promise to the rust belt come true.
Heh.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on November 09, 2016, 09:53:19 AM
It'll be interesting to see what happens with those US companies that have very large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because tax. I'm assuming Trump will do something to get that money back into America - question is what does it get spent on?


Why would he do that though?  HIS companies have large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because of tax.

End corporate income tax. The big companies will bring it 'home' in a heartbeat and find a vehicle to return it to shareholders.

That is so cute you think the big companies will bring back money and enrich their workers and or shareholders.
Way to be condescending.
Companies are in the business of doing one thing: making money for their owners. The offshore money is already on their books and implicit in the share price. It's just not in an American bank. They can't 'bring it home' and pay it out as a dividend (or do anything else with it) without paying corporate income tax, which shareholders do not want them to do.
Do you own any public companies? Vote as a shareholder? educated on these matters? Your comments indicate not.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FIFoFum on November 09, 2016, 10:00:51 AM
Changes at the federal level won't necessarily dictate change at the state level and changes that require courts to have more than the +1 of Scalia are not imminent. Policies that happen at the agency or executive level are in serious jeopardy (immigration/deportation choices, education, etc.). Dittto for policies that can be defunded easily.

If you live in blue state America, the right to same sex marriage won't be removed. But protections in workplace and schools are now a state/district-by-district matter with no fed support for LGBT people.

If you live in the places where abortion was actually available at all within blue state America, your right to abortion will not change. But all costs for health care, including abortion, in jeopardy.

ACA subsidies and Medicaid expansion are likely toast after 2 year transition unless your state can figure out how to turn a Paul Ryan block grant into enough money to cover these (very unlikely and not a likely priority given other safety net gutting).

Honestly - while I do worry about the white nationalist sentiment, the authoritarianism, racism, etc., the most likely changes are that Congress can push through more of the traditional Republican agenda you would have seen with any candidate (cruz, Rubio, bush, and so on). Tax rates will resemble the W Bush era. Good for rich people and corporations and no one else.

The "best" thing that could happen would be for Trump to stack his branch with whackadoo east coast friends (like a Guiliani), feel ego or power threatened by Paul Ryan, and revert back into the NY billionaire rich dude who was never really a republican in the first place. I don't see Mike Pence running much of anything, given how much Trump doesn't even like him (his last minute thank you to include him was laughable).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on November 09, 2016, 10:40:08 AM
Bad trade deals/inflation/jobs; as much as this has been his focus I am not sure how all this will work out. Higher tariffs for sure, Trump will likely fight GOP Congress on this with a consistent veto until he gets it. Actual jobs/factories will be slow to return, but the continued loss stopping of jobs will be immediate. Hopefully a focus on our trade deficit by country.

Manufacturing will not come back. It's not a matter of them leaving the States; it's a matter of simply fewer of them due to automation. Nothing Trump can do will fix that.

Quote
Gay rights/abortion/religious liberty-he will do his best to ignore.

Will he have to appease his evangelical voters? Or will he assume that they haven't a choice so he can ignore them and still get their votes?

Quote
The one I am worried about; Student loan repayments; Currently in IBR program. not looking forward to how this will go. Luckily a lot of Congress has kids who are probably on this too

Hahaha, good one.

Jobs-mainly meant the factories, the actually # of jobs will be something ~1/10th. It will be slow to happen, decade(s).

(lgbt)/abortion/religious lib-he has their votes. Will begin to seethe as nothing happens. Supreme Court will take some time, if ever, before it turns back gay marriage.

Loans-glad you enjoyed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: asiljoy on November 09, 2016, 10:47:49 AM
Does anyone have thoughts on his infrastructure ideas? He mentioned it in his speech.

While I think tax cuts will breeze through congress, will infrastructure spending?

I really hope Trump uses his political capital to change the republican party. Force them to do infrastructure and public works projects that the country desperately needs.

Clinton mentioned infrastructure spending, too, and the consensus was that nothing would get done because Congress is reluctant to allocate money.

Will Congress follow his lead because, "Hey friends, we're all Republicans"? It's possible. I expect that it's just another campaign promise that will be forgotten in 6 months.

They might follow his lead because he's in a better position to sell infrastructure investment as an investment in communities/businesses/to create jobs.

I don't believe that logically, but because my conservative family has told me that's what they believe.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 09, 2016, 10:49:01 AM
What do you folks think about congressional term limits? Any chance he fights for it? It seems he has the mandate for change, this would be a major overhaul he could push for.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on November 09, 2016, 10:57:05 AM
What do you folks think about congressional term limits? Any chance he fights for it? It seems he has the mandate for change, this would be a major overhaul he could push for.

Nah. He doesn't give a shit about them, really, and members of Congress will convince him to drop it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: zoltani on November 09, 2016, 11:08:24 AM
Buy stocks now. The shock will wear off in a few days and markets will return to normal.

Wait, why aren't stocks crashing?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 09, 2016, 11:17:41 AM
Buy stocks now. The shock will wear off in a few days and markets will return to normal.

Wait, why aren't stocks crashing?

Because republicans are going to lower the corporate tax rate and make the wealthy wealthier. Good for me I guess.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: little_brown_dog on November 09, 2016, 11:18:57 AM
I think if you are white, solidly middle class or wealthy, heterosexual, and not Muslim or an immigrant you are probably going to be fine. Your taxes may go up but meh, that’s really not a catastrophe or a human rights concern. You may not benefit from ACA if it gets dismantled, but if you are solidly middle class or well off chances are you can afford most necessary healthcare. I am genuinely concerned for people of color, religious minorities, the poor, and immigrants though. If Trump’s policies don’t go after them directly, some of his more zealous white nationalist type supporters might. I thought I read somewhere that there was an increase in racially/ethnically motivated hate speech and crimes after Brexit, as if the vote had encouraged people to go out and act on their baser impulses. Not sure how accurate that is, but I am definitely worried that same phenomenon could happen here. I am also very worried about potential impacts on safety net programs and healthcare services for the poor and working classes.

Despite my own personal grief over the election outcome, I am not entirely convinced Trump is going to usher in an apocalypse just yet. He isn’t exactly a true dyed in the wool conservative – no one is really sure what he is. The guy bounces around so much, it’s hard to say who he will nominate for the court, what specific legislation he will go after, etc. If he is truly a narcissist, that means he has a strong desire to look good, and will be willing to do things not on principle, but to make himself more powerful/popular. That makes his decisions unpredictable but not automatically super conservative.

Some realistic projections –

Moderate to conservative justices - Many of my progressive friends seem to think he is going to try to nominate 2 of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse to the court, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he shocks us and chooses moderates in an attempt to appear magnanimous or piss off the religious republicans he hates.

Abortion and LGBT rights – I don’t see Trump crusading against this stuff – that requires moral conviction and a willingness to side with typical republican stances, and the dude just seemed to ride this stuff and take the appropriately conservative and borderline crazy position because he had to in order to secure his voting base. Possible his justices or other leaders would try to go after the legality of these, but I don’t see him personally spearheading an attack or even caring that much.  I do however thing planned parenthood’s funding could be in serious jeopardy.

Immigration – high threat to illegal immigrants. Probable increase in deportations, increased funding for border security. Wall itself possible but doubtful.

Gun control – likely to just do nothing and just block attempts at reform, typical republican stance
Police brutality/minority human rights issues – increased threat to black/latino communities, increased funding and promotion of “law and order” policing strategies

No idea about what foreign affairs would look like. That and the climate/environment are particularly worrying to me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on November 09, 2016, 11:25:48 AM
Lots of policy talk and counter policy talk on this thread.

The reality is that we have NO IDEA what Trump is going to do as President. Every is looking at his statements, his campaign and his life, filtering that through their own hopes and trying to guess what Trump will do.

I don't believe that anything Trump has said during the last 18 months is indicative of his true beliefs and motivations. He's said what his base wants to hear and only that. All politicians do this to some extent but, Trump has taken to another level. He may pursue some of the issues addressed during his campaign...or not. He may acquiesce to the general Republican agenda...or not.

He may prove to as crazy as he looks or he might rip off his mask and turn into Jimmy Carter. No one knows.

Making guesses about what policies will be pursued are just that, guesses, until the bills are introduced to Congress or the executive orders are signed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chesebert on November 09, 2016, 11:30:39 AM
Because market thinks he will be good for the economy, allow companies and individuals to repatriate the shitload of cash they have overseas and make the money go to work for America and rebuild the US infrastructure. If you go abroad often, you will appreciate how crappy US's infrastructure is.

Granted, none of the above can actually happen without Congress's approval and/or state-level action. 

Buy stocks now. The shock will wear off in a few days and markets will return to normal.

Wait, why aren't stocks crashing?

Because republicans are going to lower the corporate tax rate and make the wealthy wealthier. Good for me I guess.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 09, 2016, 11:36:39 AM
lower taxes. and hopefully more efficient and simple tax code in the process. 

republican house/senate/president

Are you making 500k a year or more?  In that case, enjoy your lower taxes.  If not......HA HA HA

his plan lowers taxes for those making less than 500k ... just the increased standard deduction does alot.

I would be surprised if the current 3rd revision of his tax plan got implemented unaltered. But if it did.

Yes its true that the standard deduction is a lot higher. But, correct me if I am wrong, he also couples that with the elimination of the personal exemption. That largely negates the larger standard deduction increase.

On top of that 25% tax bracket remains more or less unmoved and the old 10-15% bracket gets smoothed out to 12%. The net effect will be that all households making around $200,000 or less per year, which are the vast majority of us, will see a very minor bump or drop in taxes but it will more or less be the same saving at most maybe a couple grand un-taxed which isn't going to change your lifestyle.

While the removal of estate taxes and huge drop in top tax bracket will a major tax break for very high income individuals. The only effect of this will be an even wider gap between the rich and the middle class as if it could grow any faster.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 09, 2016, 11:46:01 AM
About the only thing he can do for his constituents is to removed as much regulation as possible from the energy sector. That might bring back some jobs and make him popular among his voters. And he can blow up our trade deals, not sure if he is going to get resistance on that from his own party or not, hard to say.

I am completely unsure if lower or removal of corporate tax would add blue collar jobs.

I think what is administration does will depend more on who he appointments to each position in the executive branch than on what was said in his campaign. I would imagine republicans will have to fall in line to avoid loosing there seats at the 2 year mark as a lot of pro Trump Republicans may try to ride the wave into office in 2 years..
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on November 09, 2016, 11:53:01 AM
Lots of policy talk and counter policy talk on this thread.

The reality is that we have NO IDEA what Trump is going to do as President. Every is looking at his statements, his campaign and his life, filtering that through their own hopes and trying to guess what Trump will do.

I don't believe that anything Trump has said during the last 18 months is indicative of his true beliefs and motivations. He's said what his base wants to hear and only that. All politicians do this to some extent but, Trump has taken to another level. He may pursue some of the issues addressed during his campaign...or not. He may acquiesce to the general Republican agenda...or not.

He may prove to as crazy as he looks or he might rip off his mask and turn into Jimmy Carter. No one knows.

Making guesses about what policies will be pursued are just that, guesses, until the bills are introduced to Congress or the executive orders are signed.

This is the issue to me though. He has said those things.  He has basically bullied himself into the oval.  He ahs said violence is ok, that it is ok to make fun of vets, that it is ok to make fun of handy capped people, that it is ok to shit all over the rights of whoever the hell he wants to.  If you are rich enough and white enough it does not matter.  This is the real issue with this election...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 09, 2016, 12:04:12 PM
Lots of policy talk and counter policy talk on this thread.

The reality is that we have NO IDEA what Trump is going to do as President. Every is looking at his statements, his campaign and his life, filtering that through their own hopes and trying to guess what Trump will do.

I don't believe that anything Trump has said during the last 18 months is indicative of his true beliefs and motivations. He's said what his base wants to hear and only that. All politicians do this to some extent but, Trump has taken to another level. He may pursue some of the issues addressed during his campaign...or not. He may acquiesce to the general Republican agenda...or not.

He may prove to as crazy as he looks or he might rip off his mask and turn into Jimmy Carter. No one knows.

Making guesses about what policies will be pursued are just that, guesses, until the bills are introduced to Congress or the executive orders are signed.

This is the issue to me though. He has said those things.  He has basically bullied himself into the oval.  He ahs said violence is ok, that it is ok to make fun of vets, that it is ok to make fun of handy capped people, that it is ok to shit all over the rights of whoever the hell he wants to.  If you are rich enough and white enough it does not matter.  This is the real issue with this election...



Trump supporters: "Our hope is that the man we elected was completely lying for the past 18 months.  Then everything will be fine."

GuitarStv to Trump supporters: "What the fuck were you voting for then?"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on November 09, 2016, 12:09:33 PM
Quote
Trump supporters: "Our hope is that the man we elected was completely lying for the past 18 months.  Then everything will be fine."

What Trump supporters are you talking to? I'm certainly not one. I was just pointing out that it's possible that he's been lying for the past 18 months. He's been such a charlatan and has played down to his base so far that it's hard to tell where his opinions end and the campaign hyperbole begins.

I'm not particularly optimistic about what Trump will do once in office but, I do think everyone should stop reaching for the hemlock, at least until he starts instituting policy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 09, 2016, 12:12:19 PM
GuitarStv to Trump supporters: "What the fuck were you voting for then?"

I think the answers would be not voting for, but against Clinton and also: change.

They're going to get both now (no Clinton and change).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on November 09, 2016, 12:22:50 PM
Buy stocks now. The shock will wear off in a few days and markets will return to normal.

Or today even.  But ouch, my treasuries
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on November 09, 2016, 12:39:23 PM

Manufacturing will not come back. It's not a matter of them leaving the States; it's a matter of simply fewer of them due to automation. Nothing Trump can do will fix that.


Robot tax
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on November 09, 2016, 12:47:41 PM
It'll be interesting to see what happens with those US companies that have very large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because tax. I'm assuming Trump will do something to get that money back into America - question is what does it get spent on?


Why would he do that though?  HIS companies have large amounts of money overseas that they're not bringing home because of tax.

End corporate income tax. The big companies will bring it 'home' in a heartbeat and find a vehicle to return it to shareholders.

That is so cute you think the big companies will bring back money and enrich their workers and or shareholders.

What exactly do you think they will do with the money if they bring it back?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on November 09, 2016, 12:51:28 PM
Well we know one thing already: he'll try his damnedest to destroy what little we do to protect the planet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

Equally if not more appalling, appointees on deck for other cabinet positions:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rugorak on November 09, 2016, 12:55:33 PM
Here is a personal impact view.

I work for a college and my girlfriend works as a researcher for a medical school/hospital. Given the policies Ryan has been trying to get done for the past few years and Trump proposed during the campaign we both could be out of work next year. They want to end federal student aid. They want it all from private banks. But make the colleges be involved in the loan process and decide if someone is a good risk or not based on past academic records, major, and a plethora of other things. The college I work for is small non-profit school and primarily serves under-served adult learners. So many times we don't have academic records that are recent because the people have been working for years. And we don't have a huge endowment. So it could put us out of business. It is next to impossible to guess how people who have been out of formal education for years and sometimes decades may do.
My girlfriend's job is primarily funded by research grants. And the vast majority originate from the federal government. (She does cancer research if that matters to anyone.) So given how much Trump and the GOP abhor science she is probably screwed. And even if her PhD boss attempted to try and keep her on chances are the same thing that is going to impact my job could hit her for a double whammy.

So basically unless he flips and/or the GOP changes their stated positions my household is screwed. Thankfully we are working towards FIRE so we should be able to survive. But it sets us back years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RosieTR on November 09, 2016, 01:03:30 PM
Remember the kid in junior high who always tried to act tough and macho to fit in?  That's Trump in a nutshell.  He's always been mostly talk.  I think it may be sinking in that for perhaps the first time in his life he's going to be held accountable for what he's said.  And it's scaring the SHIT out of him.

I hope you're right. I get a very different vibe, which is that he doesn't care much of what happens as long as he's getting attention. Which he will get for 4 years, in abundance. I think he's going to hand off all the detail stuff to his underlings (Pence and others) and do things to possibly piss off the GOP now and then because, more attention. I think that will be talk/bluster at international relations (attention from foreigners too!). So yes, agree it's a little unpredictable, but I also think we'll get Pence's agenda: defunding PP for sure, big reductions in other reproductive freedoms, repeal of Roe v Wade in a couple of years if they can install the right judges; legislation to grant the ability to discriminate against people just because you think they're gay, maybe repeal of gay marriage similar to the Roe v Wade situation. Pence cares a lot about the social evangelical agenda, and Trump gives even less of a crap now about it than when he was running. As for the economics, Paul Ryan is the guy. His agenda is very heavy on trickle-down to the point that Reagan looks like a tax-and-spend guy. Ryan cares about this a LOT, so has the will to push it through and has the details lined up. Again, Trump doesn't care all that much about the details as long as people are paying attention to him. They can push all this stuff through, having available all the lines of government (executive, legislative and soon, judicial) and Trump will sign because it will pander to his attention-getting. Maybe once in awhile he'll balk just for fun. But liberals will squawk at a lot of this, so it will still be plenty of attention.

Income taxes for all but the very wealthy will likely rise, capital gains taxes will likely be reduced or stay the same, ACA and other medical programs (Medicaid, maybe Medicare) will be gutted. If you're poor, good luck with that. The real bitch is that the combo of a Pence agenda reducing birth control availability and a Ryan reduction in other services for the poor mean a LOT more children born into struggling families. And that will not only be a moral issue but also reverberate for generations.

Nobody in the administration will give a rat's ass about climate. So if you are in the west, plan now for drought. Don't buy a house in southern Florida; they won't have fresh water in our lifetimes and possibly a lot sooner.

What Trump won't do? Bring much back in the way of jobs. Like previously pointed out, these are moving more toward automation, not less. Elon Musk isn't going to stop building self-driving electric cars because of Trump-he can just take it to Europe or wherever there's a market. Already a truck has made a successful delivery drive down an interstate in Colorado; trucking is one of the biggest employers of low-educated men in the US, especially in Rust Belt and Deep South areas. If there's nothing to stem the loss of those jobs, those guys are going to be disillusioned by Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rubybeth on November 09, 2016, 01:04:18 PM
I'm seriously worried that a repeal of Obamacare means that our FIRE plans are in jeopardy. We can plan for cost increases but we cannot plan for one of us having our coverage dropped and being uncovered, should we develop a health condition down the road.

Yes, get ready for this. You may be lucky if you never need health care, but if you need coverage and have pre-existing conditions, we'll go back to the old way. People who are saying this will have no affect have not really read any of the details or don't understand how insurers make money.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RosieTR on November 09, 2016, 01:14:37 PM
Here is a personal impact view.

I work for a college and my girlfriend works as a researcher for a medical school/hospital. Given the policies Ryan has been trying to get done for the past few years and Trump proposed during the campaign we both could be out of work next year. They want to end federal student aid. They want it all from private banks. But make the colleges be involved in the loan process and decide if someone is a good risk or not based on past academic records, major, and a plethora of other things. The college I work for is small non-profit school and primarily serves under-served adult learners. So many times we don't have academic records that are recent because the people have been working for years. And we don't have a huge endowment. So it could put us out of business. It is next to impossible to guess how people who have been out of formal education for years and sometimes decades may do.
My girlfriend's job is primarily funded by research grants. And the vast majority originate from the federal government. (She does cancer research if that matters to anyone.) So given how much Trump and the GOP abhor science she is probably screwed. And even if her PhD boss attempted to try and keep her on chances are the same thing that is going to impact my job could hit her for a double whammy.

So basically unless he flips and/or the GOP changes their stated positions my household is screwed. Thankfully we are working towards FIRE so we should be able to survive. But it sets us back years.

I agree that NIH, NASA, etc will probably be drastically cut, with the super-conservative idea that somehow this will be funded by industry. It won't. Maybe the EU will fill in some, but it will put a number of people out of work along with delaying discoveries that could be life-saving. Maybe she can retool for big data or compliance work? There will be some industry potential there.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 09, 2016, 01:16:26 PM
Here is a personal impact view.

I work for a college and my girlfriend works as a researcher for a medical school/hospital. Given the policies Ryan has been trying to get done for the past few years and Trump proposed during the campaign we both could be out of work next year. They want to end federal student aid. They want it all from private banks. But make the colleges be involved in the loan process and decide if someone is a good risk or not based on past academic records, major, and a plethora of other things. The college I work for is small non-profit school and primarily serves under-served adult learners. So many times we don't have academic records that are recent because the people have been working for years. And we don't have a huge endowment. So it could put us out of business. It is next to impossible to guess how people who have been out of formal education for years and sometimes decades may do.
My girlfriend's job is primarily funded by research grants. And the vast majority originate from the federal government. (She does cancer research if that matters to anyone.) So given how much Trump and the GOP abhor science she is probably screwed. And even if her PhD boss attempted to try and keep her on chances are the same thing that is going to impact my job could hit her for a double whammy.

So basically unless he flips and/or the GOP changes their stated positions my household is screwed. Thankfully we are working towards FIRE so we should be able to survive. But it sets us back years.

I agree that NIH, NASA, etc will probably be drastically cut, with the super-conservative idea that somehow this will be funded by industry. It won't. Maybe the EU will fill in some, but it will put a number of people out of work along with delaying discoveries that could be life-saving. Maybe she can retool for big data or compliance work? There will be some industry potential there.

Or structural engineering or construction? I hear there might be a lot of workers needed for concrete, particularly along the border.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 09, 2016, 01:59:45 PM
1) Repeal of the estate tax. This aligns with the beliefs of both traditional Republicans and billionaires everywhere.

2) The wall? Will it really be built? Do we raise taxes to build it?

3) The US will stop accepting Muslims as refugees. The Republicans already want to stop this and it aligns with Trump's rhetoric.

4) ACA will be repealed and possibly replaced with a watered-down health care plan. Would Trump and the Republicans kick out those with pre-existing conditions? Possibly. They could be sent back to the super-expensive last resort state pools.

5) NAFTA. Would Trump dismantle it, as hinted? Would this cause Texas to go into a depression? It would certainly hurt Mexico.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on November 09, 2016, 02:03:39 PM
1) Repeal of the estate tax. This aligns with the beliefs of both traditional Republicans and billionaires everywhere.

2) The wall? Will it really be built? Do we raise taxes to build it?

3) The US will stop accepting Muslims as refugees. The Republicans already want to stop this and it aligns with Trump's rhetoric.

4) ACA will be repealed and possibly replaced with a watered-down health care plan. Would Trump and the Republicans kick out those with pre-existing conditions? Possibly. They could be sent back to the super-expensive last resort state pools.

5) NAFTA. Would Trump dismantle it, as hinted? Would this cause Texas to go into a depression? It would certainly hurt Mexico.
Which did not exist in many states before ACA.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 09, 2016, 02:17:45 PM
4) ACA will be repealed and possibly replaced with a watered-down health care plan. Would Trump and the Republicans kick out those with pre-existing conditions? Possibly. They could be sent back to the super-expensive last resort state pools.
Which did not exist in many states before ACA.

Right. Never underestimate the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crowd, though. There wasn't a fix then and there probably won't be a fix in February. Or, rather, the fix will be "move or get healthier."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on November 09, 2016, 02:20:32 PM
This thread is about the realistic impacts of Trump as president.  The general consensus is that his campaign was primarily bullshit, saying what he needed to say to get in.  Epically when it came to the LGBT community rights.

Let me tell you a story.  This is a true story, I cannot share names and locations of the people in this story because I need to respect their privacy.

My youngest son is transgender.  I do not care to argue your belief in this matter, my opinion and beliefs will not change and neither will yours.  Because my son is in the LGBT community, I have gotten involved, very involved.  I am a member of several support groups, including a north American support group for gender diverse children.

Now, everyone know Trumps hate speech towards the LCBT community and the promises he has made to revert marriage equality, and even to start shock conversion therapy again.  Since the election has ended, with Trump as the president elect, the north American support group has exploded with activity.  There has been a total of 15 suicides committed by youth in this group, primarily 16-20 years old ( all but one, who was 14).  They have all left notes, and they all say that they have taken their life.  The notes are all different, of course, but say basically that with Trump in power, they cannot be who they are anyway.  The 1-800 help lines for LGBT youth are jammed full as are those for transgender youth as well.  This is a real effect of this election so far.  Who gives a fuck about policy, about taxes?  Our youth is killing themselves over this.

For those asking who gets to choose what racism is.  This is blatant homophobia causing these deaths...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: oldtoyota on November 09, 2016, 02:49:31 PM
I doubt you'll see the apocalypse that some have predicted. Maybe it's the alcohol talking but I think Trump will be determined to prove himself capable in the role.

You will not see any nukes. But you will see swift military retribution against any foreign country that threatens America (in whatever way, shape or form "threatened" takes).

I agree there will be significant tax cuts for the 1%. There will be attempts to shift the centre to the right. There will be a reframing of the culture wars - the topics so beloved by the left - gay marriage, climate change, refugees.

It won't be pretty, but the millions out there who have felt ignored, isolated and left out of 21st century progress will now feel like they are on top.

It won't change a damn thing for them however. Trump will govern for those like him, just as most politicians do. The situation for the server at the local Maccas will still be the same in 4 years time.

^ This. I predict trump's blue-collar supporters will be experiencing a steamin' hot bowl of buyer's (voter's?) remorse before his first (and, one hopes, only) term is half over. While I'm sure that what benefits wealthy CEOs also benefits those who work for them in some magical fairyland somewhere I don't see The Donald as having the will to cause that to happen in the real world. As far as bringing jobs back from China, he could have done that with his own signature clothing line. But he didn't. I feel somewhat bad for those who feel like they've been left out of whatever prosperity the rest of us enjoy (if not the racism and xenophobia that seems to accompany it) but that sympathy is tempered by the knowledge that they should have questioned Trump's ability and/or desire to actually make it come about. Instead they blindly accepted what they wanted to hear. In short- they were played, pure and simple.

Exactly. I'm thinking of a profile I read about a man in his forties who said he would vote for Trump because voting for Obama didn't help his life or help him get a new job. I wasn't clear on what this person expected a POTUS to do in the job department. It makes me sad. As you said, these people were played.

And, if it matters, the man was a minority, which was part of the point of the article.



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cassie on November 09, 2016, 03:10:14 PM
So very sorry to hear about the suicides.  I really don't know what people were thinking when voting for him.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on November 09, 2016, 03:27:06 PM
If we can't realistically predict how Trump will govern, assuming all his campaign promises are bullshit, is anyone else doing OMY for Trump?  I know I planned to give notice at the end of the year, but now... a lot seems up in the air.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 09, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
If we can't realistically predict how Trump will govern, assuming all his campaign promises are bullshit, is anyone else doing OMY for Trump?  I know I planned to give notice at the end of the year, but now... a lot seems up in the air.

My last day is actually in 3 weeks. I'm thinking of taking another contract for next year until I see what happens to the ACA.

Or, since we're healthy, we might just go for it and do some medical tourism when pre-existing conditions eventually exclude us.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: moof on November 09, 2016, 03:54:41 PM
I expect the next world war to be fought on Twitter.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Julard on November 09, 2016, 04:11:10 PM
I can't guess what the impacts of his presidency will be.  He's such a bullshitter that it's impossible to know what he really believes/understands/plans, or how these will change from day to day.

But his election is an impact on integrity, on honesty, education, respect, compassion, tolerance and even the most basic courtesy.  Perhaps the consequences for global economics and security won't be as dire as many fear, but the impact on values is appalling.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: mtnrider on November 09, 2016, 04:16:33 PM
4) ACA will be repealed and possibly replaced with a watered-down health care plan. Would Trump and the Republicans kick out those with pre-existing conditions? Possibly. They could be sent back to the super-expensive last resort state pools.
Which did not exist in many states before ACA.

Even when they did exist, pre-ACA, some of those states' high-risk pools were difficult to get into.  There was essentially a waiting list.  And they could be unaffordable.

When the ACA is repealed, if you have a pre-existing condition, you're in trouble if you're not working in a company big enough to have shared-cost healthcare coverage.  You may be able to get charity coverage for emergency procedures.

Individual insurance premiums will likely increase at a very high rate, since individuals who opt for coverage are those who need it more.

The silver lining is that, he wants to allow health insurance companies to compete nationally.  It's possible that economies of scale will decrease some overhead costs and increase negotiation power.  It remains to be seen if states will give up their regulatory power though.  And hospitals and insurance companies are already negotiating fiercely. 

Be careful.  If you have employer coverage, you might want to stay employed until we know what will happen.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: moof on November 09, 2016, 04:19:00 PM
My fear is that he meant it when he said that Pence would handle all affairs foreign and domestic.  If Trump only wants to be a puppet and to let Pence run the show for him ala Cheney, then we better watch out.  Pence is a "true believer" of some pretty scary and draconian stuff.  Even with all the tapes, we may find that Trump really is the more respectful of the two when it comes to important women's rights.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FIPurpose on November 09, 2016, 04:27:02 PM
Well we know one thing already: he'll try his damnedest to destroy what little we do to protect the planet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

Equally if not more appalling, appointees on deck for other cabinet positions:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071

Wow one could only hope that this list is a very rough draft. Sarah Palin, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Sessions, all inept to lead just about any department.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on November 09, 2016, 05:21:50 PM
I think Trump will nominate semi-random people to cabinet positions. They won't have much to do since he'll strip most regulations and Ryan will get congress to defund enforcement of the rest.  Undocumented aliens will be deported.  Luckily without the pesky government enforcing regulations, we can pay these newly employed $1/hr. More awesomeness for his supporters since that will bring jobs back to the US. Yeah, a lot will go bankrupt from medical expenses from lack of insurance (diabetes is a pre-existing condition!), lack of pay and lack of welfare, but overall very great outlook. Their church can take care of them and there's always subsistence farming/hunting in a regulation-free utopia (projected deer population, 2018: 2, living off the White House lawn.)

But in all seriousness, no one knows what'll happen. That's why We the People should be heavily armed and ready to defend ourselves.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 09, 2016, 05:50:13 PM
Thats alright Trump can spend eight years fucking the city folk over and we will elect socialist and we can seesaw our way to a full blown fascist if we haven't already gotten there this go around.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on November 09, 2016, 06:53:07 PM
Well we know one thing already: he'll try his damnedest to destroy what little we do to protect the planet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

Equally if not more appalling, appointees on deck for other cabinet positions:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071

Well nothing says "I'm gonna bring this country together" more than choosing a climate denier to head up the EPA. I had a small glimmer of hope, but that is fading fast.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 09, 2016, 07:07:13 PM
4) ACA will be repealed and possibly replaced with a watered-down health care plan. Would Trump and the Republicans kick out those with pre-existing conditions? Possibly. They could be sent back to the super-expensive last resort state pools.
Which did not exist in many states before ACA.

Even when they did exist, pre-ACA, some of those states' high-risk pools were difficult to get into.  There was essentially a waiting list.  And they could be unaffordable.

When the ACA is repealed, if you have a pre-existing condition, you're in trouble if you're not working in a company big enough to have shared-cost healthcare coverage.  You may be able to get charity coverage for emergency procedures.

Individual insurance premiums will likely increase at a very high rate, since individuals who opt for coverage are those who need it more.

The silver lining is that, he wants to allow health insurance companies to compete nationally.  It's possible that economies of scale will decrease some overhead costs and increase negotiation power.  It remains to be seen if states will give up their regulatory power though.  And hospitals and insurance companies are already negotiating fiercely. 

Be careful.  If you have employer coverage, you might want to stay employed until we know what will happen.

To be fair, everything but the pre-existing conditions issue is present in the ACA - still very expensive, still getting more and more expensive every year, hospitals have trouble operating under some of the rules, and many doctors/hospitals are pulling out of the affordable plans.  I refuse to believe there isn't a better option than what we currently have for healthcare in this country.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on November 09, 2016, 07:13:23 PM
Well we know one thing already: he'll try his damnedest to destroy what little we do to protect the planet.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

Equally if not more appalling, appointees on deck for other cabinet positions:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071

Well nothing says "I'm gonna bring this country together" more than choosing a climate denier to head up the EPA. I had a small glimmer of hope, but that is fading fast.

The potential appointment of Myron Ebell to the EPA is concerning in a multi-generational kind of way.

The extent to which Trump will actually deliver the opposite of what we need makes my brain hurt. That it will also disproportionately hurt the marginalized that he tapped into to get elected just pushes it over the edge.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: mtnrider on November 09, 2016, 08:17:23 PM

Even when they did exist, pre-ACA, some of those states' high-risk pools were difficult to get into.  There was essentially a waiting list.  And they could be unaffordable.

When the ACA is repealed, if you have a pre-existing condition, you're in trouble if you're not working in a company big enough to have shared-cost healthcare coverage.  You may be able to get charity coverage for emergency procedures.

Individual insurance premiums will likely increase at a very high rate, since individuals who opt for coverage are those who need it more.

The silver lining is that, he wants to allow health insurance companies to compete nationally.  It's possible that economies of scale will decrease some overhead costs and increase negotiation power.  It remains to be seen if states will give up their regulatory power though.  And hospitals and insurance companies are already negotiating fiercely. 

Be careful.  If you have employer coverage, you might want to stay employed until we know what will happen.

To be fair, everything but the pre-existing conditions issue is present in the ACA - still very expensive, still getting more and more expensive every year, hospitals have trouble operating under some of the rules, and many doctors/hospitals are pulling out of the affordable plans.  I refuse to believe there isn't a better option than what we currently have for healthcare in this country.

Clawbacks and caps were removed with ACA too.  ACA has an option for dental coverage.

I don't have nationwide data, and it's hard to compare apples to apples with insurance plans. But in my northeastern state, the single adult + children ACA plans costs are on par with the coverage and cost I get through a megacorp.  I'd wish for both to be more "affordable", but that's a different problem.

My employer's plans have problems almost every year as they renegotiate with hospitals.  We get warning letters from the insurance company, "Stop using hospital X, we were not able to negotiate an agreement this year."  And doctors frequently drop off my employer's plan too.  "Sorry, we no longer accept that insurance as they only pay out at medicaid rates."  New doctors are added though.

This isn't to defend the current system, but to say that the ACA is not so different, cost-wise.  Like you, I also believe there is a better way, although it may well involve some hard choices.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gimp on November 09, 2016, 08:41:29 PM
I expect the following.

1. Anti-tech, anti-intellectual, anti-press bias. Donnie has already picked out several companies to attack (apple, google, new york times...)

2. Fucked up world standing. He's going to shake his dick at someone on twitter or in a diplomatic meeting, and Russia is going to take over half of Latvia and China will take over half the Philippines, and so on.

3. I expect to see much more gerrymandering, poll obstruction to prevent poor/black/etc people from voting, and a loss of health insurance for some twenty million people.

4. Gay people might lose their right to marry, women are going to continue losing their rights to abortion in many states.

5. Democrats are going to lose even harder in 2018.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 09, 2016, 10:25:38 PM
5. Democrats are going to lose even harder in 2018.

There is a high likelihood just based on the seats that are up for election that republicans will make gains in the senate in 2018, possibly getting to the filibuster proof 60 seat count
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cathy on November 09, 2016, 10:40:41 PM
Gay people might lose their right to marry ...

Gay people have always had the right to marry, everywhere in the United States. That is unlikely to change. The former marriage restrictions were based on gender, not on sexual preference. To be sure, those gender-based restrictions were fundamentally unjust, but I see no reason to obscure the issue by using popular news media rhetoric about "gay marriage" and "gay people ... los[ing] their right to marry".

The gender-based restrictions
and therefore it makes little sense to paint this issue as being about the "right to marry" of "gay people". That language is simultaneously under-inclusive and over-inclusive.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on November 09, 2016, 10:46:48 PM

Manufacturing will not come back. It's not a matter of them leaving the States; it's a matter of simply fewer of them due to automation. Nothing Trump can do will fix that.


Robot tax

I doubt this will actually happen, but it's an interesting thought. Also, if there was such a thing, wouldn't the money just go to the government, and not into creating more jobs? US manufacturing output has doubled in the past 30 years and is still the biggest sector in the US economysource (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has-doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28), despite what many people think. A lot of that increased efficiency is from robots/automation, so even if a  tax were imposed I would bet most manufacturing companies would just pay it and continue using the new technology.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chesebert on November 09, 2016, 10:47:57 PM
Good god. Stop posting like you are writing law review. Does "losing their right to marry another individual of the same gender" work for you?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 09, 2016, 11:02:45 PM
Gay people have always had the right to marry, everywhere in the United States.

Cathy, this is unjustly pedantic even for you.

Saying that gay people weren't unfairly discriminated against because they could legally marry someone of the opposite gender is deliberately missing the entire point. 

You might as well say lynchings were always legal because they didn't actually kill black people, black people just happened to die of asphyxiation after being lynched.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Travis on November 09, 2016, 11:11:47 PM
This morning a number of my coworkers were jokingly taking bets on how quickly NATO would fall apart and which countries Russia would immediately take control of.  Trump made a lot of anti-alliance speeches implying he'd be willing to give up our eastern-most allies for a thaw with Russia.  I hope he or his staff figure out a way to keep his ego/mouth in check when it comes to dealing with other governments. 

I think he'll make maintaining the current size of the military a priority, but his campaign promises of increases are fantasy without major spending.  In the same speech where he almost told the Baltics they'd be on their own, he promised what amounted to $100 billion in more ships, planes, and troops.  He promised numbers without mentioning the price tag, but it's not hard to figure out.  It's in the Republican playbook that he had to give a bigger military speech, so who knows.

With Republicans controlling Congress and the Presidency I'm worried about an anti-science and anti-environmental agenda being pushed through. That was one thing the host of Republican Primary challengers all seemed to agree on.

I hope he's serious about finding a way to jack up funding for infrastructure. We have roads, bridges, pipes, and electrical falling apart.  I read a report from 2010 saying we're $2 trillion short of maintaining it all.

The Republicans will probably see a rollback of their majority if they don't do something with the ACA next year.  Ryan's speech made it sound like a priority, and from what I'm reading a fair chunk of Trump's victory hinged on people's opinions of healthcare so expect to see something soon on that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cathy on November 09, 2016, 11:20:42 PM
Good god. Stop posting like you are writing law review. Does "losing their right to marry another individual of the same gender" work for you?

My preferred phrasing is to speak of the elimination of gender-based restrictions for marriage (or the restoration of them as the case may be). I prefer not to speak about the gender or sexual preferences of the parties to a proposed marriage. Although it may seem like pedantry, I think my terminology is more inclusive and better promotes equality. In contrast, the popular news media terminology propagates certain problematic narratives about the concept of sexual preference and its relation to romantic relationships, among other issues.


As for your other comment, I'm not sure why you are approaching my posts so antagonistically. I also detected a hint of animosity in the post that I replied to here (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/chase-sapphire-reserve-100-000-points-signup-bonus/msg1275039/#msg1275039). My posts on the forum are written in my normal voice.


Cathy, this is unjustly pedantic even for you.

I have always disliked the term "gay marriage" and its derivative forms (such as speaking of the right to marry of "gay people"). As mentioned above, I think those terms subtly endorse problematic views. My complaint with the terms imparts no view on the underlying subject matter.


Saying that gay people weren't unfairly discriminated against

I didn't say this. It's undeniable that the gender-based restrictions had an adverse, and discriminatory, effect on people who identified or identify as gay. This was not disputed in my earlier post.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 10, 2016, 04:32:27 AM
Gay people might lose their right to marry ...

Gay people have always had the right to marry, everywhere in the United States. That is unlikely to change. The former marriage restrictions were based on gender, not on sexual preference. To be sure, those gender-based restrictions were fundamentally unjust, but I see no reason to obscure the issue by using popular news media rhetoric about "gay marriage" and "gay people ... los[ing] their right to marry".

Gay people did not have the right to marry each other.  That did change, and could revert back to the way things were before, therefore losing their right to marry each other.

Basing marriage restrictions on gender impacts only one population . . . the population interested in marrying the same gender.  The commonly used short form for these marriages is 'gay marriage' since straight people (by virtue of being straight) are not interested in marrying the same gender.


The gender-based restrictions
  • did not affect all people who identified or identify as gay, and
  • did not affect only people who identified or identify as gay,
and therefore it makes little sense to paint this issue as being about the "right to marry" of "gay people". That language is simultaneously under-inclusive and over-inclusive.

The gender based restrictions:
- did effect all gay people who wanted to marry their gay partner.
- only effected the rights of people who are gay, since by definition straight people prefer to have sex with and marry those of the opposite sex.

This is entirely about the "right to marry each other" for "gay people".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on November 10, 2016, 05:08:36 AM
I say we get rid of marriage licenses all together. Problem solved. I see no reason for the government to be involved in an individuals decision on who they love.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 10, 2016, 05:55:53 AM
I say we get rid of marriage licenses all together. Problem solved. I see no reason for the government to be involved in an individuals decision on who they love.

The government isn't.  Loving someone isn't a precondition to get a marriage contract, and in fact has little/nothing to do with being licensed.  A marriage license carries with it specific legal and tax related ramifications.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lyssa on November 10, 2016, 07:04:34 AM
I think/hope he won't be that bad because he seems to be motivated by one thing only: to win, to be the first.

He won. He's president.

It's possible he's going to spend most of his term looking at pictures of himself. I don't belief he's going to persecute minorities because that would require a different kind of motivation. He won't be as bad for women as Ted Cruz would have been. He's the kind of misogynist who slaps his secretary's ass, not the kind of misogynist dedicating his life to closing down Planned Parenthood.

Obama care is most likely gone. That's bad. I don't understand how so many US Americans can consider public health insurance to be the road to socialism. Baffling...

Taxes: I dare not predict what happens here. Maybe nothing, maybe yet more taxcuts for the rich and more crumbling infrastructure as a result.

Foreign policy: I honestly belief Trump is going to be a lot less bad than people think. Everything he said points towards that he does not want the US involved in foreign wars that he beliefs cost the US a lot more than it has to gain (he might be on to something there). I've thought for years that the European lefties wish for US interventionism to end, right until they get what they want...

Regarding his temper and machoism: other heads of state who are of the same kind will respect him for it. That's what lefty liberals don't understand: Being nice and trying to reach a compromise is weakness in the eyes of Putin; Erdogan and the likes of them. Just see where all playing nice has gotten Europe with those two sweethearts. Turkey and Russia won't turn into real democracies any time soon (Turkey is wiping out any progress it had made since Atatürk at a breathtaking speed, controversial in this forum about a year ago (hi GuitarStv... :-)), pretty fucking obvious now). Therefore, things need to be dealt with as they are and not glossed over by 'building bridges', 'keeping doors open' etc. IMHO turkey should be kicked out of NATO. Oman and the Kurds in Northern Irak can provide airbases etc. Yes, there are Islamists in Oman too, but the head of state isn't one of them. Yes, a lot of Kurdish militia are socialists, but still the most trustworthy party in this region of the world.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on November 10, 2016, 07:07:07 AM
Gay people might lose their right to marry ...

Gay people have always had the right to marry, everywhere in the United States. That is unlikely to change. The former marriage restrictions were based on gender, not on sexual preference. To be sure, those gender-based restrictions were fundamentally unjust, but I see no reason to obscure the issue by using popular news media rhetoric about "gay marriage" and "gay people ... los[ing] their right to marry".

Gay people did not have the right to marry each other.

Sure they did.  It just had to be a gay man marrying a gay woman.  Just like God intended.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rubybeth on November 10, 2016, 08:01:16 AM
The ACA will go away, as will the recent changes to Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum salary of $47,476 for exempt employees), and I also predict Public Student Loan Forgiveness (or any other loan forgiveness programs) will also go away.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on November 10, 2016, 08:16:47 AM
I think/hope he won't be that bad because he seems to be motivated by one thing only: to win, to be the first.



That's not the only thing he is/was motivated by.

He's motivated to win.

Correlative to this, he is a zero-sum guy: if he is a winner, it means anyone who isn't with him is a loser.

He is also motivated by vindictiveness. We have seen ample evidence of that. If he brings this to the presidency, which I have no reason to think he won't, it will be pretty bad.

He is also motivated by an extreme need to be adored. Which means that he will continue to do things that will make his most ardent supporters stand up and cheer. Not everything, certainly. I mean, I don't at all think he will actually implement policies that will help the working-class white voters who voted for him get better jobs, for example. But, while he's not doing a damn thing about that, he will be loudly crowing about basically dismantling the EPA, removing any climate change policies that were in place, and generally appealing to the "rolling coal" contingent.  Not to mention high-profile acts designed to get people who hate and fear Muslims to go into the back yard and shoot off their guns in exhilaration.

So yeah, he's gonna be motivated by more than just being the first.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cathy on November 10, 2016, 08:38:48 AM
GuitarStv, I think your response to me illustrates the validity of my objection.


The gender based restrictions:
- did effect all gay people who wanted to marry their gay partner.

This is not accurate.

For various reasons, there were gay people who were able to marry their partner of the same sex who under the former system, generally where the state's determination of one person's sex was not accurate.


- only effected the rights of people who are gay

This is not accurate.

The gender-based restrictions also affected, among others:


... since by definition straight people prefer to have sex with and marry those of the opposite sex.

Marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex, despite what the popular news media tells you. There are loving romantic relationships out there that do not involve sex at all, including some marriages. The parties to those relationships might identify as any of a number of things -- not necessarily asexual, actually. For example, there are plenty of cases where a gay man falls in love with a straight woman, and they might decide to get married. This was allowed in some cases under the former system even though it was a sincere, real relationship involving a gay person. I mention this because this is yet another type of experience that the problematic terms erase.


This is entirely about the "right to marry each other" for "gay people".

No, it's not. That's what the popular news media says, but as you now start to see, those popular news media stories have long-erased the experiences and stories of all sorts of different people, and you continue to propagate that erasure when you use terms and phrases like "gay marriage", the "right to marriage of gay people", and even "same-sex marriage".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: begood on November 10, 2016, 08:41:17 AM
I can't guess what the impacts of his presidency will be.  He's such a bullshitter that it's impossible to know what he really believes/understands/plans, or how these will change from day to day.

But his election is an impact on integrity, on honesty, education, respect, compassion, tolerance and even the most basic courtesy.  Perhaps the consequences for global economics and security won't be as dire as many fear, but the impact on values is appalling.

Well said, Julard.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Jack on November 10, 2016, 09:02:53 AM
My posts on the forum are written in my normal voice.

Cathy, you should make this guy your avatar picture:

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/62/62f538b129e13afc6c7d9b9278b63f63f4c91e1f8fd1077c36e088039bf538f8.jpg)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 10, 2016, 09:50:21 AM
GuitarStv, I think your response to me illustrates the validity of my objection.


The gender based restrictions:
- did effect all gay people who wanted to marry their gay partner.

This is not accurate.

For various reasons, there were gay people who were able to marry their partner of the same sex who under the former system, generally where the state's determination of one person's sex was not accurate.

Wow..just wow.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on November 10, 2016, 10:01:11 AM
The Dow. Yowza.

Are we allowed to talk about this positive here, or is this website only a safe space for Never Trumpers?

Anyway, I expected a Trump win to result in an immediate, large, and extended drop in the Dow. My brainwashing was deep that "the Market Does Not Like Uncertainty" and there is nothing more uncertain than the rule of The Orange One.

Yet, the OBVIOUS outcome took place: confidence in a mega businessman, faith in America great Again results in Wall Street happiness.

I predicted HRC wouod win. i predicted the Dow woild drop muchly when Trump won. N one should,sit by me at the blackjack table.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 10, 2016, 10:07:51 AM
The Dow. Yowza.

Are we allowed to talk about this positive here, or is this website only a safe space for Never Trumpers?

Anyway, I expected a Trump win to result in an immediate, large, and extended drop in the Dow. My brainwashing was deep that "the Market Does Not Like Uncertainty" and there is nothing more uncertain than the rule of The Orange One.

Yet, the OBVIOUS outcome took place: confidence in a mega businessman, faith in America great Again results in Wall Street happiness.

I predicted HRC wouod win. i predicted the Dow woild drop muchly when Trump won. N one should,sit by me at the blackjack table.

There was definitely uncertainty in the market in the 2 weeks leading up to the election. In retrospect, that may have been from Trump's "it's rigged" comments and the possibility of an extended decision, a la 2000.

It's too early to conclude that the increase is from "confidence in a mega businessman," though I guess any Republican in office almost ensures lower taxes and regulations. The increase might just be contained worry being released.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cathy on November 10, 2016, 10:18:56 AM
Wow..just wow.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but if you look at the entire context of my post, it's clear what my point is: there are a wide range of experiences that are hidden by the popular news media terminology.

I support equality and inclusion, and therefore I prefer language that does not exclude some people's experiences. This is the same reason why many (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/need-for-touch-in-teen-years/msg1264661/#msg1264661) of (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/wealth-of-people-in-their-30s-has-'halved-in-a-decade'/msg1253919/#msg1253919) my (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/the-massive-incomewealth-gap-of-married-vs-non-married/msg1245729/#msg1245729) posts (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/reaching-fire-married-vs-single/msg925726/#msg925726) acknowledge in passing that a romantic relationship can involve more than two persons; I want to be as inclusive and as nonjudgmental as possible. I would argue that this is a salutary goal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on November 10, 2016, 10:19:29 AM
The Dow. Yowza.

Are we allowed to talk about this positive here, or is this website only a safe space for Never Trumpers?

Anyway, I expected a Trump win to result in an immediate, large, and extended drop in the Dow. My brainwashing was deep that "the Market Does Not Like Uncertainty" and there is nothing more uncertain than the rule of The Orange One.

Yet, the OBVIOUS outcome took place: confidence in a mega businessman, faith in America great Again results in Wall Street happiness.

I predicted HRC wouod win. i predicted the Dow woild drop muchly when Trump won. N one should,sit by me at the blackjack table.

There was definitely uncertainty in the market in the 2 weeks leading up to the election. In retrospect, that may have been from Trump's "it's rigged" comments and the possibility of an extended decision, a la 2000.

It's too early to conclude that the increase is from "confidence in a mega businessman," though I guess any Republican in office almost ensures lower taxes and regulations. The increase might just be contained worry being released.

Oh, no way would I predict that this rise will,contnue, I am just surprised by it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: boarder42 on November 10, 2016, 10:21:51 AM
lots of money was sitting on the sidelines waiting for the election to happen.  and it all got invested.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Jack on November 10, 2016, 10:31:13 AM
Wow..just wow.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but if you look at the entire context of my post, it's clear what my point is: there are a wide range of experiences that are hidden by the popular news media terminology.

I support equality and inclusion, and therefore I prefer language that does not exclude some people's experiences. This is the same reason why many (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/need-for-touch-in-teen-years/msg1264661/#msg1264661) of (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/wealth-of-people-in-their-30s-has-'halved-in-a-decade'/msg1253919/#msg1253919) my (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/the-massive-incomewealth-gap-of-married-vs-non-married/msg1245729/#msg1245729) posts (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/reaching-fire-married-vs-single/msg925726/#msg925726) acknowledge in passing that a romantic relationship can involve more than two persons; I want to be as inclusive and as nonjudgmental as possible. I would argue that this is a salutary goal.

I realize that you're an AI or autistic or something and that it might be difficult, but if you want people to stop getting bent out of shape at your technically-correct posts you should more carefully consider the connotation, tone and implication of your words, not just the denotation.

[MOD NOTE:  Tone trolling and insulting someone as mentally deficient are not acceptable here.]


NOTE TO MOD: Who do you think you are to imply that autistic people are "mentally deficient?!" My wife is on the autism spectrum, you jerk! As with many other so-called "disorders" (like ADD and introversion), [high-functioning] autism just means having a brain that works differently, and that is not the same as having one that doesn't work!


[MOD NOTE:  Oh!  I see!  You weren't using "autistic" as an insult?  Unfortunately, a lot of people missed that, which is how the post got flagged.  I would recommend not going route in the future.]


I do get the impression that Cathy is something other than neurotypical. I do not even slightly think she's "deficient" (on the contrary, I think she's some kind of genius or savant). I honestly don't know if she realizes the effect of the connotation of her posts or not, which is why I wrote the post above. I was going for "understanding while disarming with humor," not "trolling." If I missed the mark, I apologize... but I don't think I did. I think the mod and whoever complained to him are way overly-sensitive.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on November 10, 2016, 10:47:40 AM
uncalled-for.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ponyespresso on November 10, 2016, 11:37:06 AM
just look at who Trump wants to run the EPA. He's not the same as Clinton.

No different than Clinton.  They are same.  If you don't realize that then you need some work.  Trump is no different than Clinton.  No wall.  No magical thing to replace ACA.  Just sit and wait there is no difference.  It isn't any different than 'Hope and Change' that so many fools fell for.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on November 10, 2016, 01:38:33 PM
I can't guess what the impacts of his presidency will be.  He's such a bullshitter that it's impossible to know what he really believes/understands/plans, or how these will change from day to day.

But his election is an impact on integrity, on honesty, education, respect, compassion, tolerance and even the most basic courtesy.  Perhaps the consequences for global economics and security won't be as dire as many fear, but the impact on values is appalling.

Well said, Julard.

Day 1 in Trump's America (https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656?m=1)

This is breaking my heart right now.

On the one hand, thank you for posting this. On the other hand ... fuck.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 10, 2016, 02:58:50 PM
I have pretty little tolerance for climate change deniers simply because even if models are wrong the potential cost of doing nothing is high and irreversible.

But this isn't uniquely bad about Trump. The Repub party has taken up the mantel of denial on this issue and we are pretty much guaranteed a Repub administration every 8 years.

This is so political that our only real hope at this point is for alternative energy to become so economically viable that it simply puts coal and gas out of business. As long as we have lobbyist and corporate money in our politics we will continue to have climate change deniers selling our futures for a paycheck.

That and we still have to do something about all the jobs that will be lost in the old energy sector.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: oldtoyota on November 10, 2016, 08:51:43 PM
I think/hope he won't be that bad because he seems to be motivated by one thing only: to win, to be the first.

He won. He's president.

It's possible he's going to spend most of his term looking at pictures of himself. I don't belief he's going to persecute minorities because that would require a different kind of motivation. He won't be as bad for women as Ted Cruz would have been. He's the kind of misogynist who slaps his secretary's ass, not the kind of misogynist dedicating his life to closing down Planned Parenthood.


Right. Pence will be in charge of policy--and not DT. Pence is far scarier.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cliffhanger on November 10, 2016, 09:09:47 PM
I can't guess what the impacts of his presidency will be.  He's such a bullshitter that it's impossible to know what he really believes/understands/plans, or how these will change from day to day.

But his election is an impact on integrity, on honesty, education, respect, compassion, tolerance and even the most basic courtesy.  Perhaps the consequences for global economics and security won't be as dire as many fear, but the impact on values is appalling.

Well said, Julard.

Day 1 in Trump's America (https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656?m=1)

This is breaking my heart right now.

On the one hand, thank you for posting this. On the other hand ... fuck.

Ok, so I'll be that guy: Not all of those people are being truthful (http://klfy.com/2016/11/10/lafayette-pd-ul-student-made-up-story-about-attack-stolen-hijab)

There are real victims of racism and real victims that are being attacked by idiotic Trump supporters. These other fake victims are assholes who try to ride this media wave on the backs of actual victims. Hopefully they will be prosecuted to the extent of the law. It's unfortunate that I now have to look through these posts and wonder which ones are real.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on November 10, 2016, 10:23:30 PM
No different than Clinton.  They are same.  If you don't realize that then you need some work.  Trump is no different than Clinton.  No wall.  No magical thing to replace ACA.  Just sit and wait there is no difference.  It isn't any different than 'Hope and Change' that so many fools fell for.

Really? I mean, really?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 10, 2016, 11:35:38 PM
Ok, so I'll be that guy: Not all of those people are being truthful (http://klfy.com/2016/11/10/lafayette-pd-ul-student-made-up-story-about-attack-stolen-hijab)

There are real victims of racism and real victims that are being attacked by idiotic Trump supporters. These other fake victims are assholes who try to ride this media wave on the backs of actual victims. Hopefully they will be prosecuted to the extent of the law. It's unfortunate that I now have to look through these posts and wonder which ones are real.

This makes me sick. People should not undermine true victim experiences by making up stories. What kind of person would do this? And who the hell are they trying to win points with?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lyssa on November 11, 2016, 03:10:37 AM
Ok, so I'll be that guy: Not all of those people are being truthful (http://klfy.com/2016/11/10/lafayette-pd-ul-student-made-up-story-about-attack-stolen-hijab)

There are real victims of racism and real victims that are being attacked by idiotic Trump supporters. These other fake victims are assholes who try to ride this media wave on the backs of actual victims. Hopefully they will be prosecuted to the extent of the law. It's unfortunate that I now have to look through these posts and wonder which ones are real.

This makes me sick. People should not undermine true victim experiences by making up stories. What kind of person would do this? And who the hell are they trying to win points with?

It happens when people are convinced that they are fighting ultimate evil. Then anything goes. We've seen this in Germany when the 'Alternative for Germany', our new right-wing party reached double digits. Young lefties made up stories about knife attacks, a female youth politician of 'The Left' (our left wing party) adjusted the description of the men who gang raped her to her political narrative. She felt that the accurate description would have 'fueled racism' and prejudice against refugees.

Of course those stories only fed the right-wingers' own feedback loop and now each and every racist attack is subject to doubt...

An honest inquiry in what made this madness possible would be a lot more useful. But it would also necessitate a painfully honest look into the mirror of both political and media elites.

Same for Brexit.

Same for the 'Alternative' (only moderately successful so far).

Soon same for new French president Le Pen?

Voters are going to continue to send their 'Fuck you too' cards to the establishment until the latter starts to actually listen.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Turkey Leg on November 11, 2016, 08:03:09 AM
Does anyone have an accurate list of Trump's "day one" promises? I can't seem to find a consolidated list from a reputable source (and I'm supposed to be working...not Googling on my phone!).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on November 11, 2016, 08:03:27 AM
I can't guess what the impacts of his presidency will be.  He's such a bullshitter that it's impossible to know what he really believes/understands/plans, or how these will change from day to day.

But his election is an impact on integrity, on honesty, education, respect, compassion, tolerance and even the most basic courtesy.  Perhaps the consequences for global economics and security won't be as dire as many fear, but the impact on values is appalling.

Well said, Julard.

Day 1 in Trump's America (https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656?m=1)

This is breaking my heart right now.

On the one hand, thank you for posting this. On the other hand ... fuck.

Ok, so I'll be that guy: Not all of those people are being truthful (http://klfy.com/2016/11/10/lafayette-pd-ul-student-made-up-story-about-attack-stolen-hijab)

There are real victims of racism and real victims that are being attacked by idiotic Trump supporters. These other fake victims are assholes who try to ride this media wave on the backs of actual victims. Hopefully they will be prosecuted to the extent of the law. It's unfortunate that I now have to look through these posts and wonder which ones are real.

I fully understand that there's going to be some made-up bullshit. But the documented crimes against minorities are what I'm really reacting to there. Assuming 70% of what's there is fictitious, that's still a lot of horrible in one day.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: boarder42 on November 11, 2016, 08:18:38 AM
Does anyone have an accurate list of Trump's "day one" promises? I can't seem to find a consolidated list from a reputable source (and I'm supposed to be working...not Googling on my phone!).

first 100 days

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/10/donald-trumps-campaign-promises-first-100-days/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Turkey Leg on November 11, 2016, 08:54:47 AM
Does anyone have an accurate list of Trump's "day one" promises? I can't seem to find a consolidated list from a reputable source (and I'm supposed to be working...not Googling on my phone!).

first 100 days

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/10/donald-trumps-campaign-promises-first-100-days/

Thanks, boarder. I saw that one, but was looking for his "day one" statements from his speeches, debates, and rallies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on November 11, 2016, 09:41:39 AM
TLDR;  We will lose a generation of young scientists and their discoveries.

Hello.  I've lurked MMM and the forums for about three years, but never was impelled to post before now.  One reason why my family never went hardcore on the FIRE is because we were never interested in retiring: my husband loves what he does and will not retire until forced to, and I  am a SAHM, looking forward to returning to work when our youngest goes to kindergarten. So what pulled me out of the woodwork?

Well, Trump's stance on science leads us to believe that heavy cuts to scientific research funding are imminent.  My husband, a biologist, is very concerned that the science budget will be cut and looted. Atmospheric and earth sciences are toast.  Luckily for us, since Congress is filled with old people who fear getting sick, biomedical research will survive in some form.  All the same, we can expect many scientists to leave the profession as the already-contracted percentage of grants funded shrinks, and basic research (science that seeks to unravel root causes and find novel systems, and that sometimes leads to the great breakthroughs that causes all research to leap forward) will fall off the priority list.

My husband is very good at his profession. We feel that though it's a risky and not a very remunerative life, the knowledge he gathers is a true, if small, contribution to the good of humanity.   But it seems likely that many like him in mid-career will have to abandon basic research and turn to the commercial sector, turning their talents to prioritize corporate profits.  And what will happen to the ten young people working in his lab, four of them also with young families?  They will look for jobs and some will not find them, and perhaps never return to science.

For myself, I was hoping to return to science after doing my time as an IT consultant and at home. But by the time American science recovers (if ever), I may be too old.  My job for now is to help our family prepare for hard times, hence a closer reading of the MMM site.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: boarder42 on November 11, 2016, 01:19:22 PM
TLDR;  We will lose a generation of young scientists and their discoveries.

Hello.  I've lurked MMM and the forums for about three years, but never was impelled to post before now.  One reason why my family never went hardcore on the FIRE is because we were never interested in retiring: my husband loves what he does and will not retire until forced to, and I  am a SAHM, looking forward to returning to work when our youngest goes to kindergarten. So what pulled me out of the woodwork?

Well, Trump's stance on science leads us to believe that heavy cuts to scientific research funding are imminent.  My husband, a biologist, is very concerned that the science budget will be cut and looted. Atmospheric and earth sciences are toast.  Luckily for us, since Congress is filled with old people who fear getting sick, biomedical research will survive in some form.  All the same, we can expect many scientists to leave the profession as the already-contracted percentage of grants funded shrinks, and basic research (science that seeks to unravel root causes and find novel systems, and that sometimes leads to the great breakthroughs that causes all research to leap forward) will fall off the priority list.

My husband is very good at his profession. We feel that though it's a risky and not a very remunerative life, the knowledge he gathers is a true, if small, contribution to the good of humanity.   But it seems likely that many like him in mid-career will have to abandon basic research and turn to the commercial sector, turning their talents to prioritize corporate profits.  And what will happen to the ten young people working in his lab, four of them also with young families?  They will look for jobs and some will not find them, and perhaps never return to science.

For myself, I was hoping to return to science after doing my time as an IT consultant and at home. But by the time American science recovers (if ever), I may be too old.  My job for now is to help our family prepare for hard times, hence a closer reading of the MMM site.

outside of the scope of this thread, but wanting to retire and decreasing your spending so you have life options are one and the same. If you were on a path to FIRE your husband could do this work he loves to do for a lot less money once FIREd and make society a better place.  once you are not relying on your job for your income the sky is the limit to what you can do. so cut costs become more secure do what you want to do regardless of public funding for it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on November 11, 2016, 02:10:04 PM
outside of the scope of this thread, but wanting to retire and decreasing your spending so you have life options are one and the same. If you were on a path to FIRE your husband could do this work he loves to do for a lot less money once FIREd and make society a better place.  once you are not relying on your job for your income the sky is the limit to what you can do. so cut costs become more secure do what you want to do regardless of public funding for it.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but even if my husband worked for free, he would still need money to pay his lab members, buy equipment, pay his hosting institution which takes something like a 10% overhead for administration, rent, etc., and also purchase consumables such as sterile plates, cell media, chemicals, etc.    He's a very thrifty man who even in fat times  used to buy used equipment on ebay until the institution made this difficult, haggles with vendors, trades and shares with other PIs, makes his own equipment in machine shop when possible, and basically stretches the taxpayer dollar as far as possible. But I don't see how he could continue his research without grants.  Hopefully he'll make the new cuts, but that means somebody else will fall off the edge. Less money for science = less science done.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: mtnrider on November 11, 2016, 03:03:09 PM
Does anyone have an accurate list of Trump's "day one" promises? I can't seem to find a consolidated list from a reputable source (and I'm supposed to be working...not Googling on my phone!).

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501476905/what-donald-trump-plans-to-do-on-his-first-day-in-the-white-house

edit: also this list

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a50529/donald-trumps-first-day-in-office/

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on November 11, 2016, 03:22:35 PM
TLDR;  We will lose a generation of young scientists and their discoveries.

Hello.  I've lurked MMM and the forums for about three years, but never was impelled to post before now.  One reason why my family never went hardcore on the FIRE is because we were never interested in retiring: my husband loves what he does and will not retire until forced to, and I  am a SAHM, looking forward to returning to work when our youngest goes to kindergarten. So what pulled me out of the woodwork?

Well, Trump's stance on science leads us to believe that heavy cuts to scientific research funding are imminent.  My husband, a biologist, is very concerned that the science budget will be cut and looted. Atmospheric and earth sciences are toast.  Luckily for us, since Congress is filled with old people who fear getting sick, biomedical research will survive in some form.  All the same, we can expect many scientists to leave the profession as the already-contracted percentage of grants funded shrinks, and basic research (science that seeks to unravel root causes and find novel systems, and that sometimes leads to the great breakthroughs that causes all research to leap forward) will fall off the priority list.

My husband is very good at his profession. We feel that though it's a risky and not a very remunerative life, the knowledge he gathers is a true, if small, contribution to the good of humanity.   But it seems likely that many like him in mid-career will have to abandon basic research and turn to the commercial sector, turning their talents to prioritize corporate profits.  And what will happen to the ten young people working in his lab, four of them also with young families?  They will look for jobs and some will not find them, and perhaps never return to science.

For myself, I was hoping to return to science after doing my time as an IT consultant and at home. But by the time American science recovers (if ever), I may be too old.  My job for now is to help our family prepare for hard times, hence a closer reading of the MMM site.

outside of the scope of this thread, but wanting to retire and decreasing your spending so you have life options are one and the same. If you were on a path to FIRE your husband could do this work he loves to do for a lot less money once FIREd and make society a better place.  once you are not relying on your job for your income the sky is the limit to what you can do. so cut costs become more secure do what you want to do regardless of public funding for it.
And this an example of ignorance. No, researchers at R1 instructions can't do research without grants.  And if they did not get public funding the other option is working for a company.  Chinese and Indian students are paid by their government to come here, but we are so good.  Drying the grants will end that.  I know labs shut down because of lack of funding, good research not being done because you can't one man shop.  Science needs funding to work. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Northwestie on November 11, 2016, 04:16:55 PM

No different than Clinton.  They are same.  If you don't realize that then you need some work.  Trump is no different than Clinton.  No wall.  No magical thing to replace ACA.  Just sit and wait there is no difference.  It isn't any different than 'Hope and Change' that so many fools fell for.

Pants-on-fire rating for that one.

Trump is looking to put a climate-denier in charge of EPA; Sarah Palin or an oil executive in charge of Department of Interior, and Carson - a creationist - as head of Department of Education -- just for starters.   It's like emptying a barrel of monkeys into leadership of the federal government.  Let's just see what the Rust Belt gains from all this - my guess is they will be in worse shape than they are now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 11, 2016, 06:02:01 PM

No different than Clinton.  They are same.  If you don't realize that then you need some work.  Trump is no different than Clinton.  No wall.  No magical thing to replace ACA.  Just sit and wait there is no difference.  It isn't any different than 'Hope and Change' that so many fools fell for.

Pants-on-fire rating for that one.

Trump is looking to put a climate-denier in charge of EPA; Sarah Palin or an oil executive in charge of Department of Interior, and Carson - a creationist - as head of Department of Education -- just for starters.   It's like emptying a barrel of monkeys into leadership of the federal government.  Let's just see what the Rust Belt gains from all this - my guess is they will be in worse shape than they are now.

On the plus side, he looks like he really intends to improve  the ACA, despite all the worry. So there's that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Turkey Leg on November 12, 2016, 09:15:54 AM
Does anyone have an accurate list of Trump's "day one" promises? I can't seem to find a consolidated list from a reputable source (and I'm supposed to be working...not Googling on my phone!).

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501476905/what-donald-trump-plans-to-do-on-his-first-day-in-the-white-house

edit: also this list

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a50529/donald-trumps-first-day-in-office/

Perfect! Thanks, mtnrider!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Trudie on November 12, 2016, 01:04:10 PM
When Trump got the nomination I was like "Jesus, he might actually pull this off."  And so he has.  I would also remind various Chicken Littles that he will say ANYTHING if it gets him what he wants.  Yesterday, he wanted to throw Hillary Clinton in jail.  Today, he spoke respectfully of "Madam Secretary" and praised her tenacity.  And remember all the people whom, it was claimed, would never vote for him?  Well, guess what?  LGBTs voted for him.  Women voted for him.  Hispanics voted for him.  Hell, even Muslims voted for him.  Maybe not the majority, but much more than was predicted. 

Remember the kid in junior high who always tried to act tough and macho to fit in?  That's Trump in a nutshell.  He's always been mostly talk.  I think it may be sinking in that for perhaps the first time in his life he's going to be held accountable for what he's said.  And it's scaring the SHIT out of him.

He's out of his depth.  He'll be a puppet and the Republican Congress and Senate will run the show which -- despite the fact that I don't relish many of the policy decisions they'll likely make -- might be a good thing if they put checks on him so he doesn't aggress against other nations and get us blown to smithereens by weapons of mass destruction.  I think that Washington is so intractable that most changes won't happen overnight and may face severe headwinds from the administrative machinery.  I think he will spend a good deal of time in debate and disagreement with his own party because many of his policies and ideas are not fully-formed and in some cases (entitlements) are out of step with his own party.  In sum, odds are high that he'll be ineffective.  It's quite possible that the Republican party will push him further to the margins, and some are speculating that he'll either get frustrated and resign or that he'll be impeached.   I think it's also possible that the most traditional wings of the party (Paul Ryan) will also be fighting the Tea Party pretty heavily.  Might make for some interesting alliances between Democrats and moderate Republicans to get shit done.

In the end... we don't really know.  I'm starting to stockpile cash and am preparing to work until I am 65 (15 more years than I'd planned) since it's likely my ability to buy insurance just went down the crapper.  Who DOESN'T have pre-existing conditions?  Shit, my husband has kidney stone disease and a form of rheumatoid arthritis -- the latter of which has a strong genetic basis.  Sounds like we'll be SOL.  Trump has said he doesn't want to remove the exclusion.  What does that mean, practically (he probably doesn't even know)?  If policies keep pricing people out they're pretty worthless.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on November 14, 2016, 12:31:31 PM
I say we get rid of marriage licenses all together. Problem solved. I see no reason for the government to be involved in an individuals decision on who they love.

The government isn't.  Loving someone isn't a precondition to get a marriage contract, and in fact has little/nothing to do with being licensed.  A marriage license carries with it specific legal and tax related ramifications.

Agreed. We should remove those too. I guess the only reason for a marriage is for tax related ramifications.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 14, 2016, 12:37:55 PM
Agreed. We should remove those too. I guess the only reason for a marriage is for tax related ramifications.

Marriage confers a long list of rights outside of preferential tax treatment, such a inheritance of property without a will and visitation privileges and decision-making authority in medical emergencies. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 14, 2016, 12:56:27 PM
I say we get rid of marriage licenses all together. Problem solved. I see no reason for the government to be involved in an individuals decision on who they love.

The government isn't.  Loving someone isn't a precondition to get a marriage contract, and in fact has little/nothing to do with being licensed.  A marriage license carries with it specific legal and tax related ramifications.

Agreed. We should remove those too. I guess the only reason for a marriage is for tax related ramifications.

There are important legal considerations associated with marriage:
- If your partner suddenly becomes ill you're automatically considered next of kin and able to make medical decisions for example.
- If your spouse dies, you are legally able to decide if you want to donate parts of his/her body for medical/scientific reasons.
- You are able to decide what happens with any copyrights your spouse held at death.
- Marriage totally changes inheritance.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SouthLand on November 14, 2016, 08:38:48 PM
-A lot of busybody work in healthcare that will ultimately see us return to a similar situation pre-ACA. Healthcare will become a personal responsibility again.

-Closing of the borders. Increased restrictions on immigration. The wall will go up. Some degree of bullying towards Mexico will happen but how much and how far I don't know. Possible increased government oversight of Muslim Americans or Americans of Middle Eastern descent, though things may remain at current levels.

-Possible action taken against traditional targets: rights associated with women, homosexuals, transgenders, and minorities may be limited to some degree, though I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP and Trump try to just ignore these for four years.

-The exit of the US from many international agreements and organizations, perhaps not wholly but to some degree. The US will be less accountable to the rest of the world and abide less to edicts set by such organizations.

-Continued and increased US intervention abroad.

-Possible US nuclear strike against a small threat target (most likely not another nuclear power; non-nuclear, Middle Eastern, "hot spot" most likely).

-Rolling back of the majority of US environmental protection policies. Expect to see advanced climate change within our life time, certainly beyond the point of stopping or reversing.

-A lot of posturing and pedantry from all sides, most of which will have nothing to do with the actual results of American actions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 15, 2016, 04:30:01 AM
I say we get rid of marriage licenses all together. Problem solved. I see no reason for the government to be involved in an individuals decision on who they love.

The government isn't.  Loving someone isn't a precondition to get a marriage contract, and in fact has little/nothing to do with being licensed.  A marriage license carries with it specific legal and tax related ramifications.

Agreed. We should remove those too. I guess the only reason for a marriage is for tax related ramifications.

There are important legal considerations associated with marriage:
- If your partner suddenly becomes ill you're automatically considered next of kin and able to make medical decisions for example.
- If your spouse dies, you are legally able to decide if you want to donate parts of his/her body for medical/scientific reasons.
- You are able to decide what happens with any copyrights your spouse held at death.
- Marriage totally changes inheritance.

This - which is why any two people should be allowed to sign a contract allowing these changes to take place. It'd be easier to keep marriage and just let whoever the fuck wants to attach themselves to another person in this way do so.

What really needs to be changed is divorce. There's no reason that two people who wished to form a single taxable unit and give each other inheritance rights and medical POA should be penalized or forced to equally divide private property, and in some cases future income, when they decide this arrangement is no longer beneficial.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Drifterrider on November 15, 2016, 04:36:49 AM
Trump will have a Republican Senate for at least two years and a Republican House for probably indefinitely (unless gerrymandering laws are changed), they wont C-block him like they did Obama. He'll have conservative federal judges appointed with no problem. There will be 1-3 Supreme Court Judges up for grabs.

Look for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Expect medical insurance profits to rise.

Expect your middle class taxes to increase and if you're more wealthy, expect your taxes to decrease. Trickle down economics theory will return.

I think relations with other countries will be poor.

I think the ignorant and loud will rule.

They always do.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on November 15, 2016, 05:31:34 AM
I say we get rid of marriage licenses all together. Problem solved. I see no reason for the government to be involved in an individuals decision on who they love.

The government isn't.  Loving someone isn't a precondition to get a marriage contract, and in fact has little/nothing to do with being licensed.  A marriage license carries with it specific legal and tax related ramifications.

Agreed. We should remove those too. I guess the only reason for a marriage is for tax related ramifications.

There are important legal considerations associated with marriage:
- If your partner suddenly becomes ill you're automatically considered next of kin and able to make medical decisions for example.
- If your spouse dies, you are legally able to decide if you want to donate parts of his/her body for medical/scientific reasons.
- You are able to decide what happens with any copyrights your spouse held at death.
- Marriage totally changes inheritance.

This - which is why any two people should be allowed to sign a contract allowing these changes to take place. It'd be easier to keep marriage and just let whoever the fuck wants to attach themselves to another person in this way do so.

What really needs to be changed is divorce. There's no reason that two people who wished to form a single taxable unit and give each other inheritance rights and medical POA should be penalized or forced to equally divide private property, and in some cases future income, when they decide this arrangement is no longer beneficial.

Wouldnt a simple Will be able to take care of all of these things? How do single people handle the above items?

I stand by my statement: The only reason for marriage - in the eyes of the government - is for tax purposes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 15, 2016, 05:44:33 AM
Of course one could probably bypass marriage (with perhaps the exception of the tax penalty) with a slew of carefully worded legal documents to effect the same legal rights of each partner. But there's a reason no one does this- we already have a procedure in place for people who want to form this type of partnership.  Wouldn't it be so much easier on everyone to keep the single document we have now?  Would it help if we just changed the name from 'marriage certificate' to 'civil union' or 'partnership will' or something? Seems a lot less work for everybody, with the same effect.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 15, 2016, 07:38:42 AM
I stand by my statement: The only reason for marriage - in the eyes of the government - is for tax purposes.

Do you consider spousal social security benefits to be a tax purpose? How about private pension benefits?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Drifterrider on November 15, 2016, 07:51:02 AM
Gay people might lose their right to marry ...

Gay people have always had the right to marry, everywhere in the United States. That is unlikely to change. The former marriage restrictions were based on gender, not on sexual preference. To be sure, those gender-based restrictions were fundamentally unjust, but I see no reason to obscure the issue by using popular news media rhetoric about "gay marriage" and "gay people ... los[ing] their right to marry".

Gay people did not have the right to marry each other.

Sure they did.  It just had to be a gay man marrying a gay woman.  Just like God intended.

If you and God talk frequently, I'd suggest you ask him to explain mote and beam to you.  Then get back with us.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on November 15, 2016, 08:59:18 AM
I stand by my statement: The only reason for marriage - in the eyes of the government - is for tax purposes.

Do you consider spousal social security benefits to be a tax purpose? How about private pension benefits?

Yes for SS. Private pensions can already have suvivor benefits built into them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 15, 2016, 09:23:19 AM
So you're saying that you support ending social security survivor benefits?

Many of the non-government benefits of marriage are available to private parties via contract, but contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy.  I think it is still discriminatory to make gay couples fight through mountains of paperwork to secure rights that are automatically granted to straight people.  That's not really "equal" is it?

And as we've already established, there are many government rights that gay couples simply cannot reproduce privately at any cost.  Social security survivor benefits are just one good example, but I'm sure you can think of some of the others.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cathy on November 15, 2016, 07:38:20 PM
So you're saying that you support ending social security survivor benefits?

Many of the non-government benefits of marriage are available to private parties via contract, but contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy.

You may be right that under current law, there are certain distinctive advantages to a state-licensed marriage that cannot be replicated through private contract and other private legal devices. However, you frequently like to assert (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/anti-immigrant-republicans-please-help-me-understand/msg1301149/#msg1301149) that "changing the law" is something that can be done "pretty easily". Applying that proposition here, you can conclude only that the fact that marriage currently confers certain legal benefits does not constitute a principled argument in favour of maintaining the concept of state-licensed marriages, since that law can be changed "pretty easily".


Many of the non-government benefits of marriage are available to private parties via contract, but contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy.  I think it is still discriminatory to make gay couples fight through mountains of paperwork to secure rights that are automatically granted to straight people.  That's not really "equal" is it?

It's obvious that if state-licensed marriages are going to exist, they should be open to all on an equal basis, and in particular there shouldn't be any gender-based restrictions on entering into a marriage. However, the more difficult question, and the one raised by the earlier poster, is whether state-licensed marriages should exist at all. You have not yet articulated an argument as to why they should exist, other than an argument that you yourself would reject in any other context.

The removal of gender-based restrictions has made marriage a more equal institution, but it still meets the needs of only relatively privileged individuals (people in stable dyadic relationships), and more importantly, it remains unclear whether marriage is an institution that should exist in a free society. Marriage is an historically deeply patriarchal institution basically rooted in the transfer of women as property. Legally, it no longer serves that function today in the United States and Canada, but it's difficult to deny that many of the social conventions, and even some of the default legal rules, associated with marriage developed in that historical context. And more importantly, once we are free from the historical context, it's unclear what affirmative societal benefit is advanced by the existence of state-licensed marriages.

In a free society, people should be left to arrange their interpersonal relationships as they see fit (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/personals/fi-and-marriage-and-pre-nups/msg1215523/#msg1215523), without the need for the state to privilege one particular form of relationship over any other.

The argument that "contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy" is counter-factual. The large volume of statutory and case law dealing with marriage demonstrates that marriage is neither cheap, nor easy. In fact, marriage involves a large array of complex legal issues. A private contract may actually be far simpler because it can contain only provisions that are relevant to the parties, rather than importing all of the hundreds of years of law regarding marriages, and it can prescribe mechanisms for dispute resolution that are far less expensive than litigation (such as specifying pre-determined outcomes for certain issues, and supplying an arbitration procedure for certain claims). I am not convinced that contracts are more expensive, or more difficult, than marriage, other than the fact that the current legal order privileges marriages in certain ways that cannot be replicated via contract (which, again, you would say can be changed "pretty easily").
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 15, 2016, 08:05:42 PM
You may be right that under current law, there are certain distinctive advantages to a state-licensed marriage that cannot be replicated through private contract and other private legal devices.

That was the whole point about social security's survivor benefits.  Only a legal spouse can get those.

Quote
However, you frequently like to assert (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/anti-immigrant-republicans-please-help-me-understand/msg1301149/#msg1301149) that "changing the law" is something that can be done "pretty easily". Applying that proposition here, you can conclude only that the fact that marriage currently confers certain legal benefits does not constitute a principled argument in favour of maintaining the concept of state-licensed marriages, since that law can be changed "pretty easily".

I would never argue such a thing.  The post you cite is about whether the legality and the morality of a thing are necessarily intertwined.  I even pointed out in that thread that some things which are currently illegal shouldn't be, and some things which currently aren't illegal should be.

The fact that state-licensed marriages exist does not mean that marriages are moral or immoral.  The fact that state-licensed marriages are (were) selectively available to only certain groups of citizens is what is immoral.  To extend the analogy, drinking fountains aren't immoral (or illegal) but racially segregated drinking fountains are.  The legality of the situation has no bearing on whether or not drinking fountains should exist, which is a question best answered by other means.  In this case, I would argue that society has used other means to determine that state-licensed marriages should exist, and morality dictates that they should then be available to everyone equally.

Quote
it remains unclear whether marriage is an institution that should exist in a free society.

It may be unclear to you.  I don't dispute the institution's deep roots in gender oppression.  I might suggest that the way to fix that problem is to grant the privileges of marriage to more people, not abolish the institution entirely.  Cotton farming also has a long history of oppression, but we still farm cotton.  We just don't do it the horrible way anymore.

Quote
The argument that "contracts are expensive and complicated and marriage is cheap and easy" is counter-factual.

I clearly meant "cheap and easy to enter into" and not "cheap and easy for the state to administer."  In Vegas you can get married by a drive-thru Elvis impersonator without ever unbuckling your seatbelt.  In virtually every state a wedding license costs less than $100.  Easy!  Cheap!  Legally binding for life!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on November 16, 2016, 07:20:54 AM
it remains unclear whether marriage is an institution that should exist in a free society.

It may be unclear to you.  I don't dispute the institution's deep roots in gender oppression.  I might suggest that the way to fix that problem is to grant the privileges of marriage to more people, not abolish the institution entirely.  Cotton farming also has a long history of oppression, but we still farm cotton.  We just don't do it the horrible way anymore.



This may be true but then you have to define where you are going to draw the limits of marriage. Polygamy is the first example that comes to mind. Does a person have to marry another human?

The problem with defining limits is that every individual will have their own idea of where those limits should be. Why is changing the laws regarding marriage the preference over changing the laws regarding SS to allow people to designate who should receive their survivor benefits?

Thank you Cathy and Sol for this discussion.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 16, 2016, 07:47:27 AM
To change the subject somewhat, the Trump Presidency is going to be a complete clown show.

    After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.
    — Eliot A Cohen (@EliotACohen) November 15, 2016

The realistic impact will be enrichment at the hands of the public and eventual impeachment, leaving Pence in charge. With all the infighting, there's certain to be gridlock.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on November 16, 2016, 07:58:26 AM
To change the subject somewhat, the Trump Presidency is going to be a complete clown show.

    After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.
    — Eliot A Cohen (@EliotACohen) November 15, 2016

The realistic impact will be enrichment at the hands of the public and eventual impeachment, leaving Pence in charge. With all the infighting, there's certain to be gridlock.
I would like to think infighting will slow down the damage.  I am not optimistic about that.  Trump/Ryan/McConnell are basically on the same page and we are screwed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on November 16, 2016, 08:06:33 AM
To change the subject somewhat, the Trump Presidency is going to be a complete clown show.

    After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.
    — Eliot A Cohen (@EliotACohen) November 15, 2016

The realistic impact will be enrichment at the hands of the public and eventual impeachment, leaving Pence in charge. With all the infighting, there's certain to be gridlock.
I would like to think infighting will slow down the damage.  I am not optimistic about that.  Trump/Ryan/McConnell are basically on the same page and we are screwed.

I agree. Thanks to Trump, the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the presidency, and are about to rebalance the Supreme Court. They aren't gonna be fighting with him on much.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on November 16, 2016, 08:07:18 AM

This may be true but then you have to define where you are going to draw the limits of marriage. Polygamy is the first example that comes to mind. Does a person have to marry another human?


When dogs, cats, horses, and whatever start paying taxes and communicating with us, or we make contact with intelligent alien life, we can have that discussion. At a contractual level, it requires parties to willingly enter into the arrangement. Non-humans can't do that.

A polygamist marriage option, while I don't have any specific objections to it, seems unworkable from a practical legal standpoint.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 16, 2016, 08:16:54 AM
To change the subject somewhat, the Trump Presidency is going to be a complete clown show.

    After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.
    — Eliot A Cohen (@EliotACohen) November 15, 2016

The realistic impact will be enrichment at the hands of the public and eventual impeachment, leaving Pence in charge. With all the infighting, there's certain to be gridlock.
I would like to think infighting will slow down the damage.  I am not optimistic about that.  Trump/Ryan/McConnell are basically on the same page and we are screwed.

I agree. Thanks to Trump, the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the presidency, and are about to rebalance the Supreme Court. They aren't gonna be fighting with him on much.

Don't get me wrong. They'll make sure that their pet projects are pushed through. However, we're already seeing signs of rats-leaving-the-ship syndrome. Whether Trump can stop that is unknown but, given his personality, it's doubtful. With the general disdain that establishment Republicans have for Trump, and the Reality-tv nature of his transition, he may be feuding more with Republicans than Democrats.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on November 16, 2016, 08:29:32 AM

This may be true but then you have to define where you are going to draw the limits of marriage. Polygamy is the first example that comes to mind. Does a person have to marry another human?


When dogs, cats, horses, and whatever start paying taxes and communicating with us, or we make contact with intelligent alien life, we can have that discussion. At a contractual level, it requires parties to willingly enter into the arrangement. Non-humans can't do that.

A polygamist marriage option, while I don't have any specific objections to it, seems unworkable from a practical legal standpoint.


I will concede the non-human point but I think I have heard stories of people leaving money to their cats and dogs with instructions on where the animals should be housed, etc.  I don’t believe they are willing participants in that contract.

Polygamy is not unworkable. Would it be very difficult, yes, but who is going to deny the right of every person to marry who they want because changing the law/contracts would be difficult?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on November 16, 2016, 08:34:25 AM
I will concede the non-human point but I think I have heard stories of people leaving money to their cats and dogs with instructions on where the animals should be housed, etc.  I don’t believe they are willing participants in that contract.

Polygamy is not unworkable. Would it be very difficult, yes, but who is going to deny the right of every person to marry who they want because changing the law/contracts would be difficult?

I would be surprised if the cat and dog trustees didn't have human guardians ultimately responsible for the money and fulfillment of the contract. And in most cases, that's non-binding.

As I said, I raise no specific objections to polygamy, and honestly don't care one way or the other.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sockigal on November 16, 2016, 09:21:37 AM
This thread is about the realistic impacts of Trump as president.  The general consensus is that his campaign was primarily bullshit, saying what he needed to say to get in.  Epically when it came to the LGBT community rights.

Let me tell you a story.  This is a true story, I cannot share names and locations of the people in this story because I need to respect their privacy.

My youngest son is transgender.  I do not care to argue your belief in this matter, my opinion and beliefs will not change and neither will yours.  Because my son is in the LGBT community, I have gotten involved, very involved.  I am a member of several support groups, including a north American support group for gender diverse children.

Now, everyone know Trumps hate speech towards the LCBT community and the promises he has made to revert marriage equality, and even to start shock conversion therapy again.  Since the election has ended, with Trump as the president elect, the north American support group has exploded with activity.  There has been a total of 15 suicides committed by youth in this group, primarily 16-20 years old ( all but one, who was 14).  They have all left notes, and they all say that they have taken their life.  The notes are all different, of course, but say basically that with Trump in power, they cannot be who they are anyway.  The 1-800 help lines for LGBT youth are jammed full as are those for transgender youth as well.  This is a real effect of this election so far.  Who gives a fuck about policy, about taxes?  Our youth is killing themselves over this.

For those asking who gets to choose what racism is.  This is blatant homophobia causing these deaths...

As a parent of two gay teens, the topic of suicide has me very, very worried. I do care about all the other implications in the financial and the environmental sector, but I really care more about the human element. There is a great lack of compassion and empathy spreading through our country. Some groups of people are so much more affected by what they see happening around them and they are scared. The topic of the thread is what are the impacts from a Trump Presidency in the future, but those who are part of minority groups are feeling and have been feeling the wave of anti-compassion and division every day since Trump had decided to run for President.

My daughter saw Nazi symbols spray painted outside the student commons of her college last week. What can you even say to your gay child who goes to school and has to confront symbols of hate. This is just one of many reports of hate crimes committed across the country. My heart goes out to those families who have loved ones who don't feel like they can belong in our society right now. And with the tearing apart of family units that has occurred due to this election, unfortunately many are feeling even more hopeless and isolated right now. I have had to cut off my ties to my family due to this whole mess, which I hated to do. It's a very difficult time in our country right now. So the greatest impacts right now are masses of frightened minority groups and splintering of family units.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on November 16, 2016, 09:30:51 AM
This thread is about the realistic impacts of Trump as president.  The general consensus is that his campaign was primarily bullshit, saying what he needed to say to get in.  Epically when it came to the LGBT community rights.

Let me tell you a story.  This is a true story, I cannot share names and locations of the people in this story because I need to respect their privacy.

My youngest son is transgender.  I do not care to argue your belief in this matter, my opinion and beliefs will not change and neither will yours.  Because my son is in the LGBT community, I have gotten involved, very involved.  I am a member of several support groups, including a north American support group for gender diverse children.

Now, everyone know Trumps hate speech towards the LCBT community and the promises he has made to revert marriage equality, and even to start shock conversion therapy again.  Since the election has ended, with Trump as the president elect, the north American support group has exploded with activity.  There has been a total of 15 suicides committed by youth in this group, primarily 16-20 years old ( all but one, who was 14).  They have all left notes, and they all say that they have taken their life.  The notes are all different, of course, but say basically that with Trump in power, they cannot be who they are anyway.  The 1-800 help lines for LGBT youth are jammed full as are those for transgender youth as well.  This is a real effect of this election so far.  Who gives a fuck about policy, about taxes?  Our youth is killing themselves over this.

For those asking who gets to choose what racism is.  This is blatant homophobia causing these deaths...

As a parent of two gay teens, the topic of suicide has me very, very worried. I do care about all the other implications in the financial and the environmental sector, but I really care more about the human element. There is a great lack of compassion and empathy spreading through our country. Some groups of people are so much more affected by what they see happening around them and they are scared. The topic of the thread is what are the impacts from a Trump Presidency in the future, but those who are part of minority groups are feeling and have been feeling the wave of anti-compassion and division every day since Trump had decided to run for President.

My daughter saw Nazi symbols spray painted outside the student commons of her college last week. What can you even say to your gay child who goes to school and has to confront symbols of hate. This is just one of many reports of hate crimes committed across the country. My heart goes out to those families who have loved ones who don't feel like they can belong in our society right now. And with the tearing apart of family units that has occurred due to this election, unfortunately many are feeling even more hopeless and isolated right now. I have had to cut off my ties to my family due to this whole mess, which I hated to do. It's a very difficult time in our country right now. So the greatest impacts right now are masses of frightened minority groups and splintering of family units.
Oh and it can get even worse, what if her RA is a violent supporter and she knows has a key to her dorm room?  Or the supervisor etc.  College students in dorms often are very vulnerable and we chose to make certain groups even more so.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on November 16, 2016, 09:47:26 AM
This thread is about the realistic impacts of Trump as president.  The general consensus is that his campaign was primarily bullshit, saying what he needed to say to get in.  Epically when it came to the LGBT community rights.

Let me tell you a story.  This is a true story, I cannot share names and locations of the people in this story because I need to respect their privacy.

My youngest son is transgender.  I do not care to argue your belief in this matter, my opinion and beliefs will not change and neither will yours.  Because my son is in the LGBT community, I have gotten involved, very involved.  I am a member of several support groups, including a north American support group for gender diverse children.

Now, everyone know Trumps hate speech towards the LCBT community and the promises he has made to revert marriage equality, and even to start shock conversion therapy again.  Since the election has ended, with Trump as the president elect, the north American support group has exploded with activity.  There has been a total of 15 suicides committed by youth in this group, primarily 16-20 years old ( all but one, who was 14).  They have all left notes, and they all say that they have taken their life.  The notes are all different, of course, but say basically that with Trump in power, they cannot be who they are anyway.  The 1-800 help lines for LGBT youth are jammed full as are those for transgender youth as well.  This is a real effect of this election so far.  Who gives a fuck about policy, about taxes?  Our youth is killing themselves over this.

For those asking who gets to choose what racism is.  This is blatant homophobia causing these deaths...

As a parent of two gay teens, the topic of suicide has me very, very worried. I do care about all the other implications in the financial and the environmental sector, but I really care more about the human element. There is a great lack of compassion and empathy spreading through our country. Some groups of people are so much more affected by what they see happening around them and they are scared. The topic of the thread is what are the impacts from a Trump Presidency in the future, but those who are part of minority groups are feeling and have been feeling the wave of anti-compassion and division every day since Trump had decided to run for President.

My daughter saw Nazi symbols spray painted outside the student commons of her college last week. What can you even say to your gay child who goes to school and has to confront symbols of hate. This is just one of many reports of hate crimes committed across the country. My heart goes out to those families who have loved ones who don't feel like they can belong in our society right now. And with the tearing apart of family units that has occurred due to this election, unfortunately many are feeling even more hopeless and isolated right now. I have had to cut off my ties to my family due to this whole mess, which I hated to do. It's a very difficult time in our country right now. So the greatest impacts right now are masses of frightened minority groups and splintering of family units.
Oh and it can get even worse, what if her RA is a violent supporter and she knows has a key to her dorm room?  Or the supervisor etc.  College students in dorms often are very vulnerable and we chose to make certain groups even more so.

I got one of these when I traveled to Africa: https://www.amazon.com/GE-Personal-Security-Door-Alarm/dp/B0000YNR4M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1479314775&sr=8-2&keywords=travel+door+alarm

It obviously doesn't solve the problem, but it's better than nothing. Just sucks when you forget you set it and have to go pee in the middle of the night ... sucker is loud.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 16, 2016, 11:35:40 AM
This thread is about the realistic impacts of Trump as president.  The general consensus is that his campaign was primarily bullshit, saying what he needed to say to get in.  Epically when it came to the LGBT community rights.

Let me tell you a story.  This is a true story, I cannot share names and locations of the people in this story because I need to respect their privacy.

My youngest son is transgender.  I do not care to argue your belief in this matter, my opinion and beliefs will not change and neither will yours.  Because my son is in the LGBT community, I have gotten involved, very involved.  I am a member of several support groups, including a north American support group for gender diverse children.

Now, everyone know Trumps hate speech towards the LCBT community and the promises he has made to revert marriage equality, and even to start shock conversion therapy again.  Since the election has ended, with Trump as the president elect, the north American support group has exploded with activity.  There has been a total of 15 suicides committed by youth in this group, primarily 16-20 years old ( all but one, who was 14).  They have all left notes, and they all say that they have taken their life.  The notes are all different, of course, but say basically that with Trump in power, they cannot be who they are anyway.  The 1-800 help lines for LGBT youth are jammed full as are those for transgender youth as well.  This is a real effect of this election so far.  Who gives a fuck about policy, about taxes?  Our youth is killing themselves over this.

For those asking who gets to choose what racism is.  This is blatant homophobia causing these deaths...

As a parent of two gay teens, the topic of suicide has me very, very worried. I do care about all the other implications in the financial and the environmental sector, but I really care more about the human element. There is a great lack of compassion and empathy spreading through our country. Some groups of people are so much more affected by what they see happening around them and they are scared. The topic of the thread is what are the impacts from a Trump Presidency in the future, but those who are part of minority groups are feeling and have been feeling the wave of anti-compassion and division every day since Trump had decided to run for President.

My daughter saw Nazi symbols spray painted outside the student commons of her college last week. What can you even say to your gay child who goes to school and has to confront symbols of hate. This is just one of many reports of hate crimes committed across the country. My heart goes out to those families who have loved ones who don't feel like they can belong in our society right now. And with the tearing apart of family units that has occurred due to this election, unfortunately many are feeling even more hopeless and isolated right now. I have had to cut off my ties to my family due to this whole mess, which I hated to do. It's a very difficult time in our country right now. So the greatest impacts right now are masses of frightened minority groups and splintering of family units.
Oh and it can get even worse, what if her RA is a violent supporter and she knows has a key to her dorm room?  Or the supervisor etc.  College students in dorms often are very vulnerable and we chose to make certain groups even more so.

I got one of these when I traveled to Africa: https://www.amazon.com/GE-Personal-Security-Door-Alarm/dp/B0000YNR4M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1479314775&sr=8-2&keywords=travel+door+alarm

It obviously doesn't solve the problem, but it's better than nothing. Just sucks when you forget you set it and have to go pee in the middle of the night ... sucker is loud.

Ah Africa . . . land of the real life vagina dentata.

http://gizmodo.com/5569537/condoms-with-teeth-fight-rape-in-south-africa (http://gizmodo.com/5569537/condoms-with-teeth-fight-rape-in-south-africa)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RosieTR on November 16, 2016, 12:36:21 PM
I suppose now that a complete white supremacist/anti-Semite/anti-Muslim has been appointed to the inner circle, I think it will be very, very bad. I have been thinking a lot about black swan events, since when you have a narcissist linked up with a person who wants to enact a theocracy, and throw in a couple of new world order people for good measure, you don't need too much of a spark to ignite that. I could see a terrorist attack on US soil occurring, and that being used as an excuse to enact quasi-military rule, or maybe full on military rule. Maybe that's a worst-case scenario. Best case scenario is that there's so much infighting and turnover due to Trump's idea that this is all a reality show where he gets to fire people, little gets done. This already seems to be happening.

I think there will for sure be a strongly conservative SC judge, maybe more than one. Passing actual legislation may be more difficult, with a relatively even Senate and many of the GOP in the senate being more reasonable-all of them knowing they have a reelection bid ahead at some point and are beholden to their entire state rather than just a narrow district of friendlies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Jack on November 16, 2016, 02:04:18 PM
I could see a terrorist attack on US soil occurring, and that being used as an excuse to enact quasi-military rule, or maybe full on military rule.

Hopefully enough of the military would realize that their oath of allegiance is to support and defend the Constitution, and to only obey orders of the President subject to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (along with things like the Geneva Convention, which I assume are incorporated by reference) to prevent that. I'd like to think we'd end up with a civil war (with the military splintered to support both sides) sooner than a military dictatorship.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on November 16, 2016, 05:19:00 PM
Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.

Re: what to say about symbols of hate on college campus: I was treated by a swastika when I started freshman year in a fairly liberal university in the south. Apparently I was in the nice dorm that rich kids thought was reserved for "their people" as I recall one saying. My parents told me: this is the way the world is. You can either hide, or you can resist by carrying on with your life. Those people will never see you as an equal, but rise above them and it won't matter how they see you. Most bigots  don't hate you enough to bother doing anything more than casual nonsense and give up if they encounter resistance. For what it's worth, the guy who drew the swastika on my door was dumb enough to admit it while I recorded and was kicked out.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on November 17, 2016, 07:15:51 AM
Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.



I don't know if I mentioned here before but you probably don't need to worry about the military.  Military officers have 2 methods to employ when encountering illegal or questionable orders.  The first is to question and repeat.  "Are you sure you want to do that sir?  It could cause XXXX".  This gives the person giving the orders a chance to take back the order without appearing dumb or you appearing insubordinate.

The other option is to resign.  This is the "nuclear option" as you are effectively saying that I would rather quit than carry out that order.  There is no mechanism for an officer to refuse and order and still remain in the service.

If you ever see on the news a sizeable number of senior officers resigning in a short time frame, you know something is going on in the administration.  Senior officers will carry out orders they do not agree with all the time, but if it rises to a point that you think it is illegal or immoral, there are only the two options above.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 17, 2016, 07:30:22 AM
Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.



I don't know if I mentioned here before but you probably don't need to worry about the military.  Military officers have 2 methods to employ when encountering illegal or questionable orders.  The first is to question and repeat.  "Are you sure you want to do that sir?  It could cause XXXX".  This gives the person giving the orders a chance to take back the order without appearing dumb or you appearing insubordinate.

The other option is to resign.  This is the "nuclear option" as you are effectively saying that I would rather quit than carry out that order.  There is no mechanism for an officer to refuse and order and still remain in the service.

If you ever see on the news a sizeable number of senior officers resigning in a short time frame, you know something is going on in the administration.  Senior officers will carry out orders they do not agree with all the time, but if it rises to a point that you think it is illegal or immoral, there are only the two options above.

I think the issue with this is that resigning does not stop the irder being carried out. As Jack pointed out, the next in command is just asked to do the same thing, over and iver again until someone is found who will do it. It's happened before in administrations.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on November 17, 2016, 07:54:18 AM
Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.



I don't know if I mentioned here before but you probably don't need to worry about the military.  Military officers have 2 methods to employ when encountering illegal or questionable orders.  The first is to question and repeat.  "Are you sure you want to do that sir?  It could cause XXXX".  This gives the person giving the orders a chance to take back the order without appearing dumb or you appearing insubordinate.

The other option is to resign.  This is the "nuclear option" as you are effectively saying that I would rather quit than carry out that order.  There is no mechanism for an officer to refuse and order and still remain in the service.

If you ever see on the news a sizeable number of senior officers resigning in a short time frame, you know something is going on in the administration.  Senior officers will carry out orders they do not agree with all the time, but if it rises to a point that you think it is illegal or immoral, there are only the two options above.

I think the issue with this is that resigning does not stop the irder being carried out. As Jack pointed out, the next in command is just asked to do the same thing, over and iver again until someone is found who will do it. It's happened before in administrations.

You are right, it will probably happen.  But a couple of generals in a row resigning because they are being asked to do something wrong is a big sign to the person doing the asking, the rest of the military, and the public.  That is big attention when the order is to do something shady that might not otherwise be in the public eye like setting up a torture factory or dropping bombs on the families and neighbors of suspected terrorists.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on November 17, 2016, 09:15:03 AM
Multiple current joint chiefs of staff have said they would not carry out torture as Trump advocated at one point (though to be fair he doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture). They'd probably be fired and replaced with someone willing to torture, though.



I don't know if I mentioned here before but you probably don't need to worry about the military.  Military officers have 2 methods to employ when encountering illegal or questionable orders.  The first is to question and repeat.  "Are you sure you want to do that sir?  It could cause XXXX".  This gives the person giving the orders a chance to take back the order without appearing dumb or you appearing insubordinate.

The other option is to resign.  This is the "nuclear option" as you are effectively saying that I would rather quit than carry out that order.  There is no mechanism for an officer to refuse and order and still remain in the service.

If you ever see on the news a sizeable number of senior officers resigning in a short time frame, you know something is going on in the administration.  Senior officers will carry out orders they do not agree with all the time, but if it rises to a point that you think it is illegal or immoral, there are only the two options above.

I think the issue with this is that resigning does not stop the irder being carried out. As Jack pointed out, the next in command is just asked to do the same thing, over and iver again until someone is found who will do it. It's happened before in administrations.

You are right, it will probably happen.  But a couple of generals in a row resigning because they are being asked to do something wrong is a big sign to the person doing the asking, the rest of the military, and the public.  That is big attention when the order is to do something shady that might not otherwise be in the public eye like setting up a torture factory or dropping bombs on the families and neighbors of suspected terrorists.
But for an unreasonable person, who does not care about his immorality, resigning does no good. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 18, 2016, 08:21:22 AM
Another prediction: The new AG, Sessions, is against marijuana. Expect federal drug laws to be enforced harshly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on November 18, 2016, 09:58:50 AM
Predict a war on pornography, reinvigorated drug war, less civil liberties.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 18, 2016, 10:11:30 AM
Predict a war on pornography, reinvigorated drug war, less civil liberties.

Yeah, porn weirdly popped up in the RNC platform this year. F'ing weird. It's like they wanted some kind of campaign to rally their evangelical base and they pulled one out of their hat.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 18, 2016, 10:19:07 AM
Predict a war on pornography, reinvigorated drug war, less civil liberties.

Yeah, porn weirdly popped up in the RNC platform this year. F'ing weird. It's like they wanted some kind of campaign to rally their evangelical base and they pulled one out of their hat.

Haha - I'm imagining the Family Guy tank of manatee's from South Park - Perhaps that's how the platform was picked. :D
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 18, 2016, 11:00:14 AM
Another prediction: The new AG, Sessions, is against marijuana. Expect federal drug laws to be enforced harshly.

It will be fun to see the gymnastics required to say that abortion laws should be decided on a state by state basis but not drug laws.

I love States rights people wanting everything to be settled by the States... except for things they want to happen everywhere.

It will also be fun to see them go against the popular will of people in several swings states with regards to Mary Jane. I think their desire to jail more poor and minority people will override any political cost that might be associated with this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on November 18, 2016, 11:03:45 AM
Another prediction: The new AG, Sessions, is against marijuana. Expect federal drug laws to be enforced harshly.

It will be fun to see the gymnastics required to say that abortion laws should be decided on a state by state basis but not drug laws.

I love States rights people wanting everything to be settled by the States... except for things they want to happen everywhere.

It will also be fun to see them go against the popular will of people in several swings states with regards to Mary Jane. I think their desire to jail more poor and minority people will override any political cost that might be associated with this.

Not to mention line the pockets of investors in for-profit prisons (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/prison-stocks-are-flying-on-trump-victory.html)

This, to me, is one of the greatest potential tragedies of a Trump presidency. Anyone who supports for-profit prisons supports evil. Full stop. Finally ridding our society of that disgrace would have been among the most laudable legacies of the Obama administration. So it goes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 18, 2016, 11:13:47 AM
It will also be fun to see them go against the popular will of people in several swings states with regards to Mary Jane. I think their desire to jail more poor and minority people will override any political cost that might be associated with this.

Like virtually everything else in the GOP platform, this should have negligible impact on me, as a wealthy suburban white professional married man.  I can totally see why so many people like me support these policies, which may be bad for other people but really don't affect me much.  Empathy?  What's that?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 18, 2016, 11:39:45 AM
This, to me, is one of the greatest potential tragedies of a Trump presidency. Anyone who supports for-profit prisons supports evil. Full stop. Finally ridding our society of that disgrace would have been among the most laudable legacies of the Obama administration. So it goes.

Yes. To me, it is obvious that certain things should not be driven by the profit motive and hence why we need a government:

1) Health care
2) Policing (including jails, courts, other enforcement)
3) Military and defense
4) Perhaps other things

Sadly, I may have been influenced by the socialist democracy of my upbringing (Canada) and may just be brainwashed. I'm sure capitalism actually does the above better.... Just look at the US! Prisons are for profit and you guys jail people at a higher rate than any other country in the world! Success!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on November 18, 2016, 11:42:10 AM
So much for "Trump is against more foreign wars"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-national-security-adviser-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Looks like we get the "bomb the shit out of them" version of Trump.

Sigh.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 18, 2016, 12:02:55 PM
Another prediction: The new AG, Sessions, is against marijuana. Expect federal drug laws to be enforced harshly.

It will be fun to see the gymnastics required to say that abortion laws should be decided on a state by state basis but not drug laws.

I love States rights people wanting everything to be settled by the States... except for things they want to happen everywhere.

It will also be fun to see them go against the popular will of people in several swings states with regards to Mary Jane. I think their desire to jail more poor and minority people will override any political cost that might be associated with this.

Not to mention line the pockets of investors in for-profit prisons (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/prison-stocks-are-flying-on-trump-victory.html)

This, to me, is one of the greatest potential tragedies of a Trump presidency. Anyone who supports for-profit prisons supports evil. Full stop. Finally ridding our society of that disgrace would have been among the most laudable legacies of the Obama administration. So it goes.

There are a lot of things Obama could have done that would have been great. Unfortunately, he was unable to push through on some things that would really have made positive change in the country. 

As far as drug legalization; I could see Trump bowing to the tobacco lobbies - they are uniquely set up to capitalize on MJ distribution on a large scale, and he may be able to fit it in as a large source of federal tax revenue.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on November 18, 2016, 12:22:52 PM
So much for "Trump is against more foreign wars"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-national-security-adviser-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Looks like we get the "bomb the shit out of them" version of Trump.

Sigh.

-W

It's not war, he just wants to nuke em.  War over.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on November 18, 2016, 12:42:26 PM
Interesting article on how the Republicans will destroy Obamacare.  Repeal with a 2 year delay, replace with nothing.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/repeal-and-delay-the-republican-plan-to-destroy-obamacare.html

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on November 18, 2016, 12:57:36 PM
Interesting article on how the Republicans will destroy Obamacare.  Repeal with a 2 year delay, replace with nothing.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/repeal-and-delay-the-republican-plan-to-destroy-obamacare.html

Of course. Because there were only ever two options for the Republicans on this, if they gained control:

1) "Repeal" Obamacare but in reality just tweak a couple of things, because there's no way to keep the preexisting conditions and keeping kids on their parents' plans until 26 unless the rest of the plan is in place. Make a couple of minor changes, tout them as amazing improvements that remove government overreach, and rename it "Trumpcare" or something.

2) Repeal it completely, and hope their supporters are too busy consuming fake news to notice.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 18, 2016, 03:13:56 PM
I agree. Thanks to Trump, the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the presidency, and are about to rebalance the Supreme Court. They aren't gonna be fighting with him on much.

I blame those who didn't vote.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/5cd9lq/if_did_not_vote_was_a_candidate_in_2016_it_would/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/5cd9lq/if_did_not_vote_was_a_candidate_in_2016_it_would/)

Fuck you, no voters.
 
I also give a smaller FU to those who voted for Stein, Johnson, and Other. But at least I respect them because at least they got their asses out there and had an opinion.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on November 18, 2016, 03:32:34 PM
Those people will never see you as an equal, but rise above them and it won't matter how they see you.

Just had to quote this, I will remember this if my kids face these issues. Thanks.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on November 20, 2016, 10:34:26 PM

I also give a smaller FU to those who voted for Stein, Johnson, and Other. But at least I respect them because at least they got their asses out there and had an opinion.

This. Even though they may not have helped Trump lose, at least they did get out there...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 21, 2016, 07:10:32 PM
Interesting article on how the Republicans will destroy Obamacare.  Repeal with a 2 year delay, replace with nothing.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/repeal-and-delay-the-republican-plan-to-destroy-obamacare.html

Of course. Because there were only ever two options for the Republicans on this, if they gained control:

1) "Repeal" Obamacare but in reality just tweak a couple of things, because there's no way to keep the preexisting conditions and keeping kids on their parents' plans until 26 unless the rest of the plan is in place. Make a couple of minor changes, tout them as amazing improvements that remove government overreach, and rename it "Trumpcare" or something.

2) Repeal it completely, and hope their supporters are too busy consuming fake news to notice.

Would that be the worst thing in the world to improve the ACA? Who cares who gets credit for it. (I mean, besides Barack Obama and Donald Trump) if its better than it was, its a win for everybody.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on November 21, 2016, 08:56:15 PM
Interesting article on how the Republicans will destroy Obamacare.  Repeal with a 2 year delay, replace with nothing.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/repeal-and-delay-the-republican-plan-to-destroy-obamacare.html

Of course. Because there were only ever two options for the Republicans on this, if they gained control:

1) "Repeal" Obamacare but in reality just tweak a couple of things, because there's no way to keep the preexisting conditions and keeping kids on their parents' plans until 26 unless the rest of the plan is in place. Make a couple of minor changes, tout them as amazing improvements that remove government overreach, and rename it "Trumpcare" or something.

2) Repeal it completely, and hope their supporters are too busy consuming fake news to notice.

Would that be the worst thing in the world to improve the ACA? Who cares who gets credit for it. (I mean, besides Barack Obama and Donald Trump) if its better than it was, its a win for everybody.

Obama himself has said he predicts they will make cosmetic changes and re-brand it without his name, at which point Republicans will be miraculously in favor of it. Obama understands what is really going on. And he has said he's all for it. Because he actually gives a shit what happens to uninsured people.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on November 21, 2016, 09:48:55 PM
Realistic impact of Trump's Presidency:

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on November 21, 2016, 10:03:05 PM
Realistic impact of Trump's Presidency:

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

The broader surfacing of the white supremacists/Nazis often reminds me of Jake and Elwood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU

And yes, their recent time in the limelight is a result of Trump's campaign and presidency. Shame on him for not denouncing those views.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on November 22, 2016, 07:50:31 AM
Realistic impact of Trump's Presidency:

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

There will be radio silence from Trump and his people about this.

His supporters, as well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 22, 2016, 08:13:58 AM
Realistic impact of Trump's Presidency:

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

There will be radio silence from Trump and his people about this.

His supporters, as well.

I'm no Trump supporter, but I would like to believe the heil Trump and nazi salute people are an emboldened fringe element. 

But we've seen so many people on these very pages claim that Trump is not racist that this sort of thing is absolutely relevant.  Even if you yourself don't think you are racist, you have to realize that some hardcore racists are thrilled about Trump's election because they think he is racist and that Americans voted for him because they are racist.  Remember that when you think of your minority friends and try to understand the unease they feel.

There is definitely an active resurgence of open racism in America today due to Trump.  You can pretend you don't support it, but you have to at least see it.  If you voted for him, this is at least partly on your shoulders.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on November 22, 2016, 08:55:48 AM
There is definitely an active resurgence of open racism in America today due to Trump.  You can pretend you don't support it, but you have to at least see it.  If you voted for him, this is at least partly on your shoulders.

I agree with you about the part I bolded above, but I'm also certain that just about every one of those who voted for Trump do not give one fuck about it. I won't be asking the people I know who voted for Trump, but I can accurately foresee their responses. It would be something along the lines of "Oh, that's just a whole lot of nothing, don't get all worked up about it." That is, it would be the same mentality in voting for him in the first place: Ignore all the glaring and horrible deficits in Trump, and vote for him because he tells it like it is to Make America Great Again.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Northwestie on November 22, 2016, 09:20:35 AM
Starting off on a good foot with the press - yesterday Trump met with news staffers and executives and ended up chiding them over their bad coverage - including bad photos that emphasized his double chin -- really!

This morning he tweeted that he canceled a meeting with the "nasty" NYT because they were making unfair demands.  The NYT quickly clarified that Trump wanted to cancel and on-the-record meeting with reporters and the NYTs would not meet his demands of off-the-record.  Trump re-tweeted and relented to the on-the-record requirement.

Oh brother.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on November 22, 2016, 12:56:59 PM
There is definitely an active resurgence of open racism in America today due to Trump.  You can pretend you don't support it, but you have to at least see it.  If you voted for him, this is at least partly on your shoulders.

I agree with you about the part I bolded above, but I'm also certain that just about every one of those who voted for Trump do not give one fuck about it. I won't be asking the people I know who voted for Trump, but I can accurately foresee their responses. It would be something along the lines of "Oh, that's just a whole lot of nothing, don't get all worked up about it." That is, it would be the same mentality in voting for him in the first place: Ignore all the glaring and horrible deficits in Trump, and vote for him because he tells it like it is to Make America Great Again.

So far, the response is along the lines of:

1) no, trump never said or implied anything racist and any evidence you supply is typical left wing hysteria
2) you don't get it, calling trump supporters racist is exactly why we voted for trump because you hurt our feelings and we are tired of it
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RosieTR on November 22, 2016, 01:52:29 PM
Starting off on a good foot with the press - yesterday Trump met with news staffers and executives and ended up chiding them over their bad coverage - including bad photos that emphasized his double chin -- really!

This morning he tweeted that he canceled a meeting with the "nasty" NYT because they were making unfair demands.  The NYT quickly clarified that Trump wanted to cancel and on-the-record meeting with reporters and the NYTs would not meet his demands of off-the-record.  Trump re-tweeted and relented to the on-the-record requirement.

Oh brother.

Very, very concerning. Trump not understanding/caring what one of the most fundamental freedoms of the United States IS, is deeply concerning. The weird use of tweets, as well. I still can't understand how someone who can't really handle Twitter is supposed to handle...anything else.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Northwestie on November 22, 2016, 01:57:30 PM
Starting off on a good foot with the press - yesterday Trump met with news staffers and executives and ended up chiding them over their bad coverage - including bad photos that emphasized his double chin -- really!

This morning he tweeted that he canceled a meeting with the "nasty" NYT because they were making unfair demands.  The NYT quickly clarified that Trump wanted to cancel and on-the-record meeting with reporters and the NYTs would not meet his demands of off-the-record.  Trump re-tweeted and relented to the on-the-record requirement.

Oh brother.

Very, very concerning. Trump not understanding/caring what one of the most fundamental freedoms of the United States IS, is deeply concerning. The weird use of tweets, as well. I still can't understand how someone who can't really handle Twitter is supposed to handle...anything else.

I at least had some hope that he would be humbled by the position.  He looked a bit scared after his meeting with Obama at the WH, but, as expected this has worn off.  The guy has a huge ego and a thin skin.  Add in his lack of world knowledge - and we'll see what mess he makes of things shortly.

The meeting took place in a big boardroom and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate — which was Martha Raddatz, who was also in the room.”

The stunned reporters tried to get a word in edgewise to discuss access to a Trump administration.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on November 22, 2016, 02:15:53 PM
The guy has a huge ego and a thin skin.  Add in his lack of world knowledge - and we'll see what mess he makes of things shortly.

I think I already mentioned in this or another thread that Professor Allan Lichtman, who developed a methodology for accurately predicting presidential winners every single time over the last 3 or 4 decades, correctly picked Trump to win when every other poll and pundit (including the hallowed Nate Silver) and indicator said Clinton would win. I laughed at it at the time, thinking "Well dude, sorry your methodology is going to suffer its first loss in 40 years." He also predicted Trump would be impeached by his own Republican party within about 2 years. Now I've tried not to hang too much hope on this, but I actually can see it happening. Not that a Pence presidency would be any fun, but it would at least be about the best Schadenfreude ever to watch Trump go down in disgrace.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on November 22, 2016, 05:33:13 PM
Realistic impact of Trump's Presidency:

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk


There will be radio silence from Trump and his people about this.

His supporters, as well.

I'm no Trump supporter, but I would like to believe the heil Trump and nazi salute people are an emboldened fringe element. 

But we've seen so many people on these very pages claim that Trump is not racist that this sort of thing is absolutely relevant.  Even if you yourself don't think you are racist, you have to realize that some hardcore racists are thrilled about Trump's election because they think he is racist and that Americans voted for him because they are racist.  Remember that when you think of your minority friends and try to understand the unease they feel.

There is definitely an active resurgence of open racism in America today due to Trump.  You can pretend you don't support it, but you have to at least see it.  If you voted for him, this is at least partly on your shoulders.

I don't know what you want from Trump supporters. I see that a bunch of racists such as the vile Alt-Right or KKK have cooked up in their minds that Trump was elected 'because' he was racist, and now they think they can come out of the shadows. I see that there are reports of petty race crimes... It's obvious that a lot of those people are the above demographic feeling emboldened, and I'm shocked by how brazen they are. I'm sadly not shocked that a significant number of these incidents were either Clinton supporters doing something 'ironically' or were outright made up. That doesn't deserve a pass either.

I see the things trump has actually said, and it's bad stuff. But I also find that it's not as black-and-white as "Trump called Mexican's rapists!" but rather, he said some things that have small elements of truth, are worded without the nuance needed to keep them from being taken as racist/bigoted. there's just enough plausible deniability for the "never Clinton" people to look past it. The Media seizes on lack of nuance to feed the narrative that he is a racist, and the vile people sieze on it to feel like they've got a buddy in the Whitehouse. I even think the poor wording was by design on Trumps part, and find it really shitty that he did it.

I voted for trump. To be fair - I live in a solidly blue state, mailed the ballot in 2 weeks before the election, and voted for trump mainly to undermine Clinton's 'mandate' when she 'inevitably' won... but I voted for trump. And I still think he will be less detrimental to this country in the long run.  I cast my vote knowing full well that Trump's election would create a real perception of doom for some people in minority groups. Expecting him to loose made that a lot easier, but I am truly sorry for the stress, but I do not believe the fears will be borne out.

For the record, I voted for Trump because he WILL drain the swamp... because he is the swamp. He is every newt (gingrich), orange goblin and slimy snail X10. He's the swamp so much, we'll pave over the thing and build a planned parenthood right on top of him. He will teach a new generation to distrust executive power, to see how an orange buffoon can abuse it. Clinton would have been one more step down the path to fascism. Not because she is one, no.. she would merely cement and continue the growth of executive and federal power. she would continue with the shady, behind the scenes corruption that's not-quite-a-scandal, so that someday, a fascist would find a nice seat with all the controls already built in. Trump might wind that kind of thing back.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on November 22, 2016, 05:43:31 PM
Realistic impact of Trump's Presidency:

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk


There will be radio silence from Trump and his people about this.

His supporters, as well.

I'm no Trump supporter, but I would like to believe the heil Trump and nazi salute people are an emboldened fringe element. 

But we've seen so many people on these very pages claim that Trump is not racist that this sort of thing is absolutely relevant.  Even if you yourself don't think you are racist, you have to realize that some hardcore racists are thrilled about Trump's election because they think he is racist and that Americans voted for him because they are racist.  Remember that when you think of your minority friends and try to understand the unease they feel.

There is definitely an active resurgence of open racism in America today due to Trump.  You can pretend you don't support it, but you have to at least see it.  If you voted for him, this is at least partly on your shoulders.

I don't know what you want from Trump supporters.
I see that a bunch of racists such as the vile Alt-Right or KKK have cooked up in their minds that Trump was elected 'because' he was racist, and now they think they can come out of the shadows. I see that there are reports of petty race crimes... It's obvious that a lot of those people are the above demographic feeling emboldened, and I'm shocked by how brazen they are. I'm sadly not shocked that a significant number of these incidents were either Clinton supporters doing something 'ironically' or were outright made up. That doesn't deserve a pass either.

I see the things trump has actually said, and it's bad stuff. But I also find that it's not as black-and-white as "Trump called Mexican's rapists!" but rather, he said some things that have small elements of truth, are worded without the nuance needed to keep them from being taken as racist/bigoted. there's just enough plausible deniability for the "never Clinton" people to look past it. The Media seizes on lack of nuance to feed the narrative that he is a racist, and the vile people sieze on it to feel like they've got a buddy in the Whitehouse. I even think the poor wording was by design on Trumps part, and find it really shitty that he did it.

I voted for trump. To be fair - I live in a solidly blue state, mailed the ballot in 2 weeks before the election, and voted for trump mainly to undermine Clinton's 'mandate' when she 'inevitably' won... but I voted for trump. And I still think he will be less detrimental to this country in the long run.  I cast my vote knowing full well that Trump's election would create a real perception of doom for some people in minority groups. Expecting him to loose made that a lot easier, but I am truly sorry for the stress, but I do not believe the fears will be borne out.

For the record, I voted for Trump because he WILL drain the swamp... because he is the swamp. He is every newt (gingrich), orange goblin and slimy snail X10. He's the swamp so much, we'll pave over the thing and build a planned parenthood right on top of him. He will teach a new generation to distrust executive power, to see how an orange buffoon can abuse it. Clinton would have been one more step down the path to fascism. Not because she is one, no.. she would merely cement and continue the growth of executive and federal power. she would continue with the shady, behind the scenes corruption that's not-quite-a-scandal, so that someday, a fascist would find a nice seat with all the controls already built in. Trump might wind that kind of thing back.

I want you in the strongest possible terms to denounce the racism that many of his supporters seem to feel entitled to now spout. At every available opportunity. And to hold the candidate that you helped elect accountable for denouncing it, too.

As often as necessary.

Because if his supporters do not, there will be no curb on the racist violence committed in his name.

Is that clear enough?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on November 22, 2016, 05:44:24 PM

For the record, I voted for Trump because he WILL drain the swamp... because he is the swamp. He is every newt (gingrich), orange goblin and slimy snail X10. He's the swamp so much, we'll pave over the thing and build a planned parenthood right on top of him. He will teach a new generation to distrust executive power, to see how an orange buffoon can abuse it. Clinton would have been one more step down the path to fascism. Not because she is one, no.. she would merely cement and continue the growth of executive and federal power. she would continue with the shady, behind the scenes corruption that's not-quite-a-scandal, so that someday, a fascist would find a nice seat with all the controls already built in. Trump might wind that kind of thing back.

That's some 60 dimensional chess right there... would you have voted differently if you were in a swing state?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on November 22, 2016, 06:06:17 PM

For the record, I voted for Trump because he WILL drain the swamp... because he is the swamp. He is every newt (gingrich), orange goblin and slimy snail X10. He's the swamp so much, we'll pave over the thing and build a planned parenthood right on top of him. He will teach a new generation to distrust executive power, to see how an orange buffoon can abuse it. Clinton would have been one more step down the path to fascism. Not because she is one, no.. she would merely cement and continue the growth of executive and federal power. she would continue with the shady, behind the scenes corruption that's not-quite-a-scandal, so that someday, a fascist would find a nice seat with all the controls already built in. Trump might wind that kind of thing back.

That's some 60 dimensional chess right there... would you have voted differently if you were in a swing state?

Let me clarify aomething... Trump won't wind those things back... others will do it as a reaction to him.

And yeah, probably. I didn't think he'd win.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on November 22, 2016, 06:09:56 PM

For the record, I voted for Trump because he WILL drain the swamp... because he is the swamp. He is every newt (gingrich), orange goblin and slimy snail X10. He's the swamp so much, we'll pave over the thing and build a planned parenthood right on top of him. He will teach a new generation to distrust executive power, to see how an orange buffoon can abuse it. Clinton would have been one more step down the path to fascism. Not because she is one, no.. she would merely cement and continue the growth of executive and federal power. she would continue with the shady, behind the scenes corruption that's not-quite-a-scandal, so that someday, a fascist would find a nice seat with all the controls already built in. Trump might wind that kind of thing back.

That's some 60 dimensional chess right there... would you have voted differently if you were in a swing state?

Let me clarify something... Trump won't wind those things back... others will do it as a reaction to him.


And yeah, probably. I didn't think he'd win.

Important clarification and I sincerely hope that is the case. But I also see many elected republicans unable to resist the appeal of holding all 3 branches of government and are correspondingly unwilling to take a principled stand against the statements and actions of Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on November 22, 2016, 07:17:03 PM
Realistic impact of Trump's Presidency:

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk


There will be radio silence from Trump and his people about this.

His supporters, as well.

I'm no Trump supporter, but I would like to believe the heil Trump and nazi salute people are an emboldened fringe element. 

But we've seen so many people on these very pages claim that Trump is not racist that this sort of thing is absolutely relevant.  Even if you yourself don't think you are racist, you have to realize that some hardcore racists are thrilled about Trump's election because they think he is racist and that Americans voted for him because they are racist.  Remember that when you think of your minority friends and try to understand the unease they feel.

There is definitely an active resurgence of open racism in America today due to Trump.  You can pretend you don't support it, but you have to at least see it.  If you voted for him, this is at least partly on your shoulders.

I don't know what you want from Trump supporters.
I see that a bunch of racists such as the vile Alt-Right or KKK have cooked up in their minds that Trump was elected 'because' he was racist, and now they think they can come out of the shadows. I see that there are reports of petty race crimes... It's obvious that a lot of those people are the above demographic feeling emboldened, and I'm shocked by how brazen they are. I'm sadly not shocked that a significant number of these incidents were either Clinton supporters doing something 'ironically' or were outright made up. That doesn't deserve a pass either.

I see the things trump has actually said, and it's bad stuff. But I also find that it's not as black-and-white as "Trump called Mexican's rapists!" but rather, he said some things that have small elements of truth, are worded without the nuance needed to keep them from being taken as racist/bigoted. there's just enough plausible deniability for the "never Clinton" people to look past it. The Media seizes on lack of nuance to feed the narrative that he is a racist, and the vile people sieze on it to feel like they've got a buddy in the Whitehouse. I even think the poor wording was by design on Trumps part, and find it really shitty that he did it.

I voted for trump. To be fair - I live in a solidly blue state, mailed the ballot in 2 weeks before the election, and voted for trump mainly to undermine Clinton's 'mandate' when she 'inevitably' won... but I voted for trump. And I still think he will be less detrimental to this country in the long run.  I cast my vote knowing full well that Trump's election would create a real perception of doom for some people in minority groups. Expecting him to loose made that a lot easier, but I am truly sorry for the stress, but I do not believe the fears will be borne out.

For the record, I voted for Trump because he WILL drain the swamp... because he is the swamp. He is every newt (gingrich), orange goblin and slimy snail X10. He's the swamp so much, we'll pave over the thing and build a planned parenthood right on top of him. He will teach a new generation to distrust executive power, to see how an orange buffoon can abuse it. Clinton would have been one more step down the path to fascism. Not because she is one, no.. she would merely cement and continue the growth of executive and federal power. she would continue with the shady, behind the scenes corruption that's not-quite-a-scandal, so that someday, a fascist would find a nice seat with all the controls already built in. Trump might wind that kind of thing back.

I want you in the strongest possible terms to denounce the racism that many of his supporters seem to feel entitled to now spout. At every available opportunity. And to hold the candidate that you helped elect accountable for denouncing it, too.

As often as necessary.

Because if his supporters do not, there will be no curb on the racist violence committed in his name.

Is that clear enough?
I want you to stand up for women who are sexually harassed and assaulted.  I want you to learn around rape culture, and about rapists (Google Dr. David Lasik) and stand up and tell others that behaviors that contribute to assaults need to stop.  And I'd also like to know why the fact that Trump admitted, braggingly about sexually assaulting women was not enough for you not to vote him.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 23, 2016, 04:23:28 AM
Realistic impact of Trump's Presidency:

The neo-nazis alt-right will have a conference in DC blocks from the Holocaust museum. Their leader, Richard Spencer, will proclaim "Hail Trump!" and the attendees will give the Nazi salute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

There will be radio silence from Trump and his people about this.

His supporters, as well
.
Not strictly correct. He denounced them publically yesterday (In his peculiar, often-misconstrued-yet-oddly-direct Trump way.)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-disavow-groups-new-york-times/index.html

I don't really understand the upset about a protected speech gathering? It reminds me of the "They're gonna build a mosque near Ground Zero!!!!" hysteria.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 23, 2016, 06:06:03 AM
Not strictly correct. He denounced them publically yesterday (In his peculiar, often-misconstrued-yet-oddly-direct Trump way.)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-disavow-groups-new-york-times/index.html

I don't really understand the upset about a protected speech gathering? It reminds me of the "They're gonna build a mosque near Ground Zero!!!!" hysteria.

You see a peaceful group trying to build a place of worship to practice their religion as being no different than a hate group dedicated to a message of racial superiority and bigotry gathering to praise the next president for supporting their cause?  Really?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 23, 2016, 06:10:22 AM
Not strictly correct. He denounced them publically yesterday (In his peculiar, often-misconstrued-yet-oddly-direct Trump way.)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-disavow-groups-new-york-times/index.html

I don't really understand the upset about a protected speech gathering? It reminds me of the "They're gonna build a mosque near Ground Zero!!!!" hysteria.

You see a peaceful group trying to build a place of worship to practice their religion as being no different than a hate group dedicated to a message of racial superiority and bigotry gathering to praise the next president for supporting their cause?  Really?

Of course not. I see the overblown reaction to these actions as similar.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on November 23, 2016, 06:24:57 PM
Remember back in the 90s when supremacists would go form militia-communes out in Montana to play pretend "ethno-state"? That was so much more pleasant than them wanting to run the government.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 23, 2016, 06:30:12 PM
Remember back in the 90s when supremacists would go form militia-communes out in Montana to play pretend "ethno-state"? That was so much more pleasant than them wanting to run the government.

Unless you happened to live near one of them, then it kind of sucked.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on November 23, 2016, 06:49:11 PM
That's true. I lived in a KKK-run county during the 90s; was just being facetious. Still better than them thinking they have a chance of them running the nation's intelligence apparatus and so on.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 23, 2016, 07:31:34 PM
Still better than them thinking they have a chance of them running the nation's intelligence apparatus and so on.

Was that statement an optimistic assertion that they won't actually run the nation's intelligence apparatus? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on November 23, 2016, 07:47:46 PM

I want you to stand up for women who are sexually harassed and assaulted.  I want you to learn around rape culture, and about rapists (Google Dr. David Lasik) and stand up and tell others that behaviors that contribute to assaults need to stop.  And I'd also like to know why the fact that Trump admitted, braggingly about sexually assaulting women was not enough for you not to vote him.

Well, if they weren't going to vote third party (and who would amirite?  waste of your vote!) then they might have looked at HRC's support of a serial harasser of women, of her failure to denounce a known serial harasser of women, of her active participation in intimidation of women trying to speak up about harassment of women, of her bragging about defending an actual rapist to the point where he escaped punishment, and then compared that to Trump talking about how when you're rich, women will let you touch them, is talking vs. doing.  Her attacking him on this debates was called out as the height of hypocrisy.  It was a big ole pitch in the dirt and she couldn't help swinging at it.  I get that she doesn't understand how people perceive her on this issue, same as Trump doesn't get it.  That's the problem with people who fundamentally don't respect women.

And then they might have just not voted at all, or come to the conclusion that on this particular issue both candidates suck so look at other issues.  When life gives you shit, you just uh...you just uh..make shit-ade.

It should have been a slam dunk disqualifier for Trump.  I don't think there's any other candidate where that tape wouldn't have tanked the election.  Except that his opponent was HRC, and so there's no good choice.  There's just different styles of bad.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on November 23, 2016, 09:32:29 PM
When life gives you shit, you just uh...you just uh..make shit-ade.

I read that similar to this:
(http://i.imgur.com/wQc9RPi.gif)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 24, 2016, 02:02:42 AM
To answer OP's question: Autocratic Kleptocracy.

Sorry to know what that means now. All the BS is distraction. "Drain the Swamp" indeed. I would love for Trump to prove me wrong however, I have seen no news that makes me feel good to be right.

Thought this was interesting to share

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-23/navigating-post-truth-politics-russia-and-america (http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-23/navigating-post-truth-politics-russia-and-america)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 24, 2016, 05:02:42 AM
To answer OP's question: Autocratic Kleptocracy.

Sorry to know what that means now. All the BS is distraction. "Drain the Swamp" indeed. I would love for Trump to prove me wrong however, I have seen no news that makes me feel good to be right.

Thought this was interesting to share

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-23/navigating-post-truth-politics-russia-and-america (http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-23/navigating-post-truth-politics-russia-and-america)

That was a pretty terrible article. Not only is the subject's view severely slanted, it's also full of misinformation. Whether the PeOTUS is lying through his teeth or not, Trump has walked back almost all of his most divisive campaign rhetoric and has struck a markedly different tone than when he was campaigning. This doesn't excuse him, or imply that he won't try to overstep his authority, or continue to use misinformation to achieve his goals, but to compare his family to the mafia and state that this shows he'll be bad in the same ways that Putin is bad is rather shallow and misguided, in my opinion.

I think the strangest thing one can do, at this point, is assume that they can predict Donald Trump's behavior from a distance.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on November 24, 2016, 10:25:44 AM
Trump's "base" is mad Romney is up for consideration as Secretary of State:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/24/politics/kellyanne-conway-romney-tweets/index.html

Indeed, why would we want a single person that is not an uber-extremist (yet ironically, still an insider but we don't talk about that) serve in his administration? The horror of it. Trump sure is going against his "mandate." God forbid he make a single not completely horrifying choice. Sigh...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 25, 2016, 10:16:30 AM
That was a pretty terrible article. Not only is the subject's view severely slanted, it's also full of misinformation. Whether the PeOTUS is lying through his teeth or not, Trump has walked back almost all of his most divisive campaign rhetoric and has struck a markedly different tone than when he was campaigning. This doesn't excuse him, or imply that he won't try to overstep his authority, or continue to use misinformation to achieve his goals, but to compare his family to the mafia and state that this shows he'll be bad in the same ways that Putin is bad is rather shallow and misguided, in my opinion.

I think the strangest thing one can do, at this point, is assume that they can predict Donald Trump's behavior from a distance.

The article was a summary of the 6:04 radio program. Hoping your listened to that interview, it goes with your post. I can't speak to the mafia statement as I have not read Hungarian sociologist Bálint Magya's work, but the author speaking lays it out in the clip.

"Power associated as a source of enrichment, personal affirmation and domination." That sounds about right to me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rocketpj on November 25, 2016, 11:54:57 AM
If you are wanting a model for what Trump will do in his first year you could probably look at Brazil. 

- Massive and likely irreversible selloff of public assets, as fast as possible, with as much as possible being diverted towards Trump's people.  If not directly then indirectly (think a 40 year booking at one of his hotels, paid in advance).

- Open warfare with the media who dare to report on them.

- Massive and probably irreversible attack on science and evidence in general.

- Worst case, appointment of cronies to the SC, which will in turn protect him from any liability for the above.

Don't underestimate his depravity.  He may drain the swamp, but only to build a huge golf course for himself.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Silverado on November 25, 2016, 12:09:32 PM
If you are wanting a model for what Trump will do in his first year you could probably look at Brazil. 

- Massive and likely irreversible selloff of public assets, as fast as possible, with as much as possible being diverted towards Trump's people.  If not directly then indirectly (think a 40 year booking at one of his hotels, paid in advance).

- Open warfare with the media who dare to report on them.

- Massive and probably irreversible attack on science and evidence in general.

- Worst case, appointment of cronies to the SC, which will in turn protect him from any liability for the above.

Don't underestimate his depravity.  He may drain the swamp, but only to build a huge golf course for himself.

Just to be clear, we can check back in with you late January 2018 and see how your model holds up, right? I assume you are OK with that sort of integrity check. Or are you not willing to own that model?

Ditto for all these threads, both pro and con. Feel free to let us know how long you need to prove your viewpoint. You have to tell us now how long, you don't get to choose your timing based on actions. So many people are convinced x or y is going to happen, put it out for an internet peer review.

If you are not open to a check and be willing to admit you are wrong, well, you suck.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 25, 2016, 02:21:47 PM
If you are not open to a check and be willing to admit you are wrong, well, you suck.

I think most people here would love to be proved wrong by a Trump presidency. The name calling doesn't help with the discussion though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 25, 2016, 03:00:34 PM
Feel free to let us know how long you need to prove your viewpoint. You have to tell us now how long, you don't get to choose your timing based on actions. So many people are convinced x or y is going to happen, put it out for an internet peer review.

You mean just like all those red states did with "Obama is going to take our guns!"?

Yea, didn't exactly pan out that way, despite all of the wailing about the end of western civilization when he got elected.

The difference between then and now, as I see it, is that Obama never even claimed he was going to do all of the things that conservative radio warned people would result if he got elected, while Trump is openly promising to do things that everyone is worried about.  It's not scaremongering when you quote what Trump openly proclaims.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rocketpj on November 25, 2016, 03:03:02 PM
If you are wanting a model for what Trump will do in his first year you could probably look at Brazil. 

- Massive and likely irreversible selloff of public assets, as fast as possible, with as much as possible being diverted towards Trump's people.  If not directly then indirectly (think a 40 year booking at one of his hotels, paid in advance).

- Open warfare with the media who dare to report on them.

- Massive and probably irreversible attack on science and evidence in general.

- Worst case, appointment of cronies to the SC, which will in turn protect him from any liability for the above.

Don't underestimate his depravity.  He may drain the swamp, but only to build a huge golf course for himself.

Just to be clear, we can check back in with you late January 2018 and see how your model holds up, right? I assume you are OK with that sort of integrity check. Or are you not willing to own that model?

Ditto for all these threads, both pro and con. Feel free to let us know how long you need to prove your viewpoint. You have to tell us now how long, you don't get to choose your timing based on actions. So many people are convinced x or y is going to happen, put it out for an internet peer review.

If you are not open to a check and be willing to admit you are wrong, well, you suck.

I would dearly love to be proven wrong.  If I am wrong I will be delighted.  Believe it or not, my statements weren't about winning an internet argument.

So I will thank you for not projecting whatever fantasy of unaccountability you seem to have onto me.  I expect a number of bad things to happen to your country with a Trump presidency.  I would love to be wrong.  I don't think I will be, unfortunately.

Generally I think that when someone says they intend to do something terrible, we should believe them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Silverado on November 25, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
If you are wanting a model for what Trump will do in his first year you could probably look at Brazil. 

- Massive and likely irreversible selloff of public assets, as fast as possible, with as much as possible being diverted towards Trump's people.  If not directly then indirectly (think a 40 year booking at one of his hotels, paid in advance).

- Open warfare with the media who dare to report on them.

- Massive and probably irreversible attack on science and evidence in general.

- Worst case, appointment of cronies to the SC, which will in turn protect him from any liability for the above.

Don't underestimate his depravity.  He may drain the swamp, but only to build a huge golf course for himself.

Just to be clear, we can check back in with you late January 2018 and see how your model holds up, right? I assume you are OK with that sort of integrity check. Or are you not willing to own that model?

Ditto for all these threads, both pro and con. Feel free to let us know how long you need to prove your viewpoint. You have to tell us now how long, you don't get to choose your timing based on actions. So many people are convinced x or y is going to happen, put it out for an internet peer review.

If you are not open to a check and be willing to admit you are wrong, well, you suck.

I would dearly love to be proven wrong.  If I am wrong I will be delighted.  Believe it or not, my statements weren't about winning an internet argument.

So I will thank you for not projecting whatever fantasy of unaccountability you seem to have onto me.  I expect a number of bad things to happen to your country with a Trump presidency.  I would love to be wrong.  I don't think I will be, unfortunately.

Generally I think that when someone says they intend to do something terrible, we should believe them.

Not fantasy. How long will it take for the terrible things to happen? Hoping to be wrong is not the same as admitting to be wrong should the doomsday not come.

I said the same thing to some anti obama folks. They came in saying they were going to lose their 401k accounts shortly after 2008 election. Like sol and the guns, still waiting, but they won't admit to being wrong. Still a couple months to go i guess.

I firmly believe accountability is a big part of integrity, and politics need more of it. So I ask about it sometimes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Silverado on November 25, 2016, 03:21:45 PM
If you are not open to a check and be willing to admit you are wrong, well, you suck.

I think most people here would love to be proved wrong by a Trump presidency. The name calling doesn't help with the discussion though.

I hope I am calling no one names. If the shoe fits, you are a piece of shit and I will not apologize. I hope no shoe fits, and that nothing too bad happens in the next few years. I just want to know at what point both sides have to check the results and admit their rights and wrongs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on November 25, 2016, 03:22:32 PM
Bad things are already happening in this instance. Trump's appointments have been almost universally terrible. He has explicitly stated he will delegate an unusual amount of authority and is now stocking his cabinet with creationists, climate change deniers, white nationalists, anti public school activists, and hawks that make HRC look like a hippy. Yes, they technically haven't been able to enact any policy yet, but they represent much stronger evidence that bad things will come to pass than anything Obama did in the same timeframe.

Plus, you know, Trump has actually said he's going to do horrible things. Might have been a campaign tactic, but Obama's election is not remotely comparable so far as the amount of actual evidence that was used to infer a probable outcome. Would still very gladly admit I'm wrong if somehow every one of the extremists that will end up in control of the country turn against their lengthy histories and actually effect positive change, of course.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on November 25, 2016, 04:33:53 PM
If you are not open to a check and be willing to admit you are wrong, well, you suck.

I think most people here would love to be proved wrong by a Trump presidency. The name calling doesn't help with the discussion though.

I would be beyond thrilled to be wrong and happy to broadcast it. I've already humbled myself to the handful of people on this forum (some no longer here) who called this election correctly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 25, 2016, 04:48:01 PM
you are a piece of shit and I will not apologize.

Classic.

Donald Trump would be proud.  "I'm not saying you're a piece of shit.  I would never say that, because it wouldn't be proper.  But some people are saying you're a huge piece of shit.  I don't say that, but everyone knows that you're a huge piece of shit."

24 hours later...  "I never said he was a piece of shit, you're quoting me out of context.  Some other people have said that he's a piece of shit, but not me.  It's not me saying that, what a shitty thing for him to say, attacking me like that.  Only a real piece of shit would say that."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Silverado on November 25, 2016, 07:14:53 PM
you are a piece of shit and I will not apologize.

Classic.

Donald Trump would be proud.  "I'm not saying you're a piece of shit.  I would never say that, because it wouldn't be proper.  But some people are saying you're a huge piece of shit.  I don't say that, but everyone knows that you're a huge piece of shit."

24 hours later...  "I never said he was a piece of shit, you're quoting me out of context.  Some other people have said that he's a piece of shit, but not me.  It's not me saying that, what a shitty thing for him to say, attacking me like that.  Only a real piece of shit would say that."

I'll be clearer. If you are convinced that x will happen, and x does not happen, and you sidestep, backpedal, deny, etc., you are a 'pick your disparaging descriptive word'. That is my only point. And, if x does happen, please, post and say 'damn it, I was right, this sucks'. Ditto for the opposite of those.

One small example is Chuck Todd. Last November or so he said on national tv, 'well, that will do it for trump, watch next week he will fade away'. I never heard him say 'wow, did I screw that up. You'd think someone who does this for a living would be better than that'. I never heard that. Others have, and I respect that. Have integrity, that is my desire. I am fine with no one caring about my desire, but you should be true to yourself.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BudgetSlasher on November 25, 2016, 07:19:54 PM
The guy has a huge ego and a thin skin.  Add in his lack of world knowledge - and we'll see what mess he makes of things shortly.

I think I already mentioned in this or another thread that Professor Allan Lichtman, who developed a methodology for accurately predicting presidential winners every single time over the last 3 or 4 decades, correctly picked Trump to win when every other poll and pundit (including the hallowed Nate Silver) and indicator said Clinton would win. I laughed at it at the time, thinking "Well dude, sorry your methodology is going to suffer its first loss in 40 years." He also predicted Trump would be impeached by his own Republican party within about 2 years. Now I've tried not to hang too much hope on this, but I actually can see it happening. Not that a Pence presidency would be any fun, but it would at least be about the best Schadenfreude ever to watch Trump go down in disgrace.

I agree I would not put too much faith in that prediction.

He predicted a Trump win using a method that has accurately predict many election cycles and he predicted Trump would be impeached based not on his system, but on his gut; there is a big difference between the two.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 25, 2016, 08:13:35 PM
So in January of 2018 do we need to say we're wrong if Trump decides not to accomplish the bad things he said he was going to do, or only if he tried to accomplish them, but they didn't happen?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: marty998 on November 25, 2016, 11:26:52 PM

If you are wanting a model for what Trump will do in his first year you could probably look at Brazil. 

- Massive and likely irreversible selloff of public assets, as fast as possible, with as much as possible being diverted towards Trump's people.  If not directly then indirectly (think a 40 year booking at one of his hotels, paid in advance).

- Open warfare with the media who dare to report on them.

- Massive and probably irreversible attack on science and evidence in general.

- Worst case, appointment of cronies to the SC, which will in turn protect him from any liability for the above.

Don't underestimate his depravity.  He may drain the swamp, but only to build a huge golf course for himself.

Nobody believed Copernicus. But the earth still went on revolving around the sun.

Even if Trump attacks science, it doesn't stop reality from being true, no matter which way it is spun.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 26, 2016, 04:09:49 AM
Even if Trump attacks science, it doesn't stop reality from being true, no matter which way it is spun.

Very true however, funding for research matters if we want to be globally competitive.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Silverado on November 26, 2016, 04:29:40 AM
Even if Trump attacks science, it doesn't stop reality from being true, no matter which way it is spun.

Very true however, funding for research matters if we want to be globally competitive.

Yeah, that was my first thought also as to a possible impact. But how much can the administration influence  funding? I am too lazy to go research it, but I'd guess enough for sure that people in some areas would feel it. the problem would be we could get behind and not (as a nation) even realize it. Sort of analogous to Kodak. i could imagine some meeting a long time ago where a decision to not fund a project on digital media felt small and fine at the time.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 26, 2016, 04:34:29 AM
So in January of 2018 do we need to say we're wrong if Trump decides not to accomplish the bad things he said he was going to do, or only if he tried to accomplish them, but they didn't happen?

If 2018 is the deadline, yes. Then we will start a check -in thread where everyone who thought Trump was going to xrash the economy and flood Miami and give everyone asthma can say "I was wrong. Big league wrong."*

 I would argue for Q3 2019 before passing judgment, seeing as how slow Congress has been at work lately. But that's purely a gut reaction.

*Or whatever the National Trump Re-education center curriculum approves . :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 26, 2016, 07:32:38 AM
Feel free to let us know how long you need to prove your viewpoint. You have to tell us now how long, you don't get to choose your timing based on actions. So many people are convinced x or y is going to happen, put it out for an internet peer review.

You mean just like all those red states did with "Obama is going to take our guns!"?

Not to totally derail the thread, but it's not as if Obama didnt try different ways to attack gun rights. The m855 ammo ban was not confiscation of all the guns, but it was a pretty blatant, science denying attempt to attack the availability of a wide swath of firearms.

The fact that huge numbers of people stood up for their rights against a government that they felt was doing wrong and stopped said government action from occurring  doesn't mean the government wasn't doing wrong.   Just because there were no riots or school walk outs or looted buildings or marches or protests at govenrment buildings doesn't mean that people didn't stand up for what they believed in, against a government they felt was wrong. Their tactics also happened to be effective at achieveing their stated goal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on November 26, 2016, 09:07:39 AM
you are a piece of shit and I will not apologize.

Classic.

Donald Trump would be proud.  "I'm not saying you're a piece of shit.  I would never say that, because it wouldn't be proper.  But some people are saying you're a huge piece of shit.  I don't say that, but everyone knows that you're a huge piece of shit."

24 hours later...  "I never said he was a piece of shit, you're quoting me out of context.  Some other people have said that he's a piece of shit, but not me.  It's not me saying that, what a shitty thing for him to say, attacking me like that.  Only a real piece of shit would say that."

I'll be clearer. If you are convinced that x will happen, and x does not happen, and you sidestep, backpedal, deny, etc., you are a 'pick your disparaging descriptive word'. That is my only point. And, if x does happen, please, post and say 'damn it, I was right, this sucks'. Ditto for the opposite of those.

One small example is Chuck Todd. Last November or so he said on national tv, 'well, that will do it for trump, watch next week he will fade away'. I never heard him say 'wow, did I screw that up. You'd think someone who does this for a living would be better than that'. I never heard that. Others have, and I respect that. Have integrity, that is my desire. I am fine with no one caring about my desire, but you should be true to yourself.

Silverado,
This sounds like fun, so I will play.

Regarding ACA:
Full repeal of ACA with no replace gets discussed, debated, passed through the house and senate, and placed on Trumps desk. Just as discussed (in the 60 minutes article from a few weeks back), Trump Veto's the bill.

They start over with a repeal and replace plan that Trump signs. 

No mandate, 26 year-olds on parents plan, no denial of pre-existing conditions. There is now a catastrophic option, covering nothing until some large out of pocket max (lets say $25,000). This new option will cost about $2,000 less per year as the current bronze plans but will cover nothing unless you have a serious health event.  There will no longer be ACA credits for health insurance, but there will be some sort of off-set to help make the catastrophic plan affordable to the poor. Prevention services will be reduced to help contain costs.  Healthy people will love the new system. Sick people will not like it as much.

If you are unhealthy you will pay more or not get services, if you are well you will pay less. Many will think that is exactly the way it ought to be. Many will think we are abandoning our sick.

My family will pay more and utilize less services.

Regarding Medicare:
They go with the Ryan Plan voucher idea. Saves government money.  Costs people more. It might be a real problem, but not for 25 years. I hope my goggle reminder goes off in 2041 so I can come back here and gloat :)

Regarding Inheritance:
Full repeal of any taxes for inheritance. This will not effect 99.98% of current estates. The revenue difference will be offset by a combination of deficit increases and less services.

Regarding Taxes
Rates changes much like Trump has been discussing. Increased deficits and decreasing spending on services to offset the tax revenue decrease.

Regarding Military Spending
The largest percentage increase in modern history. All deficit driven.

Regarding infrastructure
Almost nothing changes.   No money. All improvements are deficit driven.

Overall, usual "don't tax and spend a little less" deficit increasing policies.  4 years from now, increased inflation, increased annual deficits, and a greater wealth gap. Trump falls short of his campaign promise to eliminate the debt(not deficit) in 10 years by $40 trillion, because congress does not go along with his idea to default on our debt.

If he runs in 2020, he wins again under the "give my ideas a chance" mantra.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on November 26, 2016, 10:34:58 AM
Trump falls short of his campaign promise to eliminate the debt(not deficit) in 10 years by $40 trillion, because congress does not go along with his idea to default on our debt.
I thought Amendment 14 would prevent the USA from defaulting on its debt, which means that neither Trump nor Congress has any say in the matter -  unless there is a further constitutional amendment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on November 26, 2016, 10:54:28 AM
Even if Trump attacks science, it doesn't stop reality from being true, no matter which way it is spun.

Very true however, funding for research matters if we want to be globally competitive.

Yeah, that was my first thought also as to a possible impact. But how much can the administration influence  funding? I am too lazy to go research it, but I'd guess enough for sure that people in some areas would feel it. the problem would be we could get behind and not (as a nation) even realize it. Sort of analogous to Kodak. i could imagine some meeting a long time ago where a decision to not fund a project on digital media felt small and fine at the time.
The administration has a huge impact, the only ones with more are Congress and they have already cut grants to the bone.  We are losing great researchers to industry, other countries and other fields and we can't afford to keep losing at this rate.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 26, 2016, 12:06:40 PM
We are losing great researchers to industry, other countries and other fields and we can't afford to keep losing at this rate.

Well, "can't" might be a bit of an overstatement, given that it's already happening.

America's glory days are in the past, if we've now decided to stop being innovators or technology leaders.  Empires rise and fall for a variety of reasons, but a key decision point for all of them is the moment they deliberately decide to forego long-term planning in favor of short-term benefits.  That's a guaranteed path to eventual failure.

That decision could be environmental or natural resource based, like the many pre-European empires that stripped their lands of food and fuel.  It could be military based, like overextending your borders into hostile lands where the people feel like subjects instead of citizens.  It can certainly be information based, like the Chinese and Arabic decisions to support their current stability at the cost of future knowledge and technology expansions. 

It would not surprise if Donald Trump tries to make that same bad decision in all three of those realms.  Good leaders need a bigger vision, and that is not something he has ever excelled at. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on November 26, 2016, 12:08:26 PM
For reference, R&D funding as a percentage of GDP across all areas (including defense) is down about 40% from 1976 levels (http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP%3B.jpg).

In terms of inflation adjusted dollars, research spending has been increasing (slowly) over the same time period (at roughly 1%/year: http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/DefNon%3B.jpg)

So you could look at it a couple of ways - if you are concerned with total dollars, research funding has been improving. But it has been improving much more slowly than the overall economy.

Given the general hostility toward science that has been the theme for the GOP for quite a while, I'd assume funding cuts for nondefense areas will decline. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. Defense agencies (ie DARPA, DOE to some extent, and the various branches of the military) often fund a lot of basic research that doesn't have immediate military applications because they *do* think long term, so a sufficient increase in defense research funding could mostly counteract (in theory) cuts in nondefense research.

-Walt
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 26, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
a sufficient increase in defense research funding could mostly counteract (in theory) cuts in nondefense research.

This is not making me feel better about our government being run by creationists and climate change deniers.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on November 26, 2016, 02:09:23 PM
a sufficient increase in defense research funding could mostly counteract (in theory) cuts in nondefense research.

This is not making me feel better about our government being run by creationists and climate change deniers.

Yeah, but they loves them some military spending. And the military, in general (har), is actually pretty concerned about climate change and much less interested in politicizing the science that they fund, since they need shit to work.

That said, it's pretty sad when you're depending on your military to make decent R&D decisions instead of your politicians. What are we, Turkey?

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on November 26, 2016, 03:13:29 PM
A friend of mine put it best:

"Do you know why libertarians want smaller government? It isn't because they are opposed to all the good a benevolent leader could accomplish as they've been accused of time after time. It is because they wish to limit the damage a bad ruler can do."

Whether by actual action or by general discourse/reaction, this election will definitely have a drastic impact on the future.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 26, 2016, 03:46:04 PM
a sufficient increase in defense research funding could mostly counteract (in theory) cuts in nondefense research.

This is not making me feel better about our government being run by creationists and climate change deniers.
Unfortunately, that feeling will probably persist for four years. I wish there was a way to make everyone happy; sadly I cant think of any that are reasonable.  "Elections have consequences."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 26, 2016, 03:50:24 PM
A friend of mine put it best:

"Do you know why libertarians want smaller government? It isn't because they are opposed to all the good a benevolent leader could accomplish as they've been accused of time after time. It is because they wish to limit the damage a bad ruler can do."

Most of the libertarians I'm familiar with are just ornery and arguing for smaller government in all cases gives them something most people will fight them on.  :P
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 27, 2016, 03:36:57 AM
A relevant article I just came across. And this is before we really talk about reducing research funding:

[url][/http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/11/26/university-of-wisconsinmadison-drops-in-research-rankingurl]
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on November 27, 2016, 07:54:40 AM
A relevant article I just came across. And this is before we really talk about reducing research funding:

[url][/http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/11/26/university-of-wisconsinmadison-drops-in-research-rankingurl]

This is an expected result of education cuts in Wisconsin. When a researcher leaves, they usually take their research funding with them.  I expect them to drop further as the University struggles to attract new talents. I think our governor is realizing this and has stated he will replace some of the cuts in the next budget. Time will tell, but the damage might already have been done.  A reputation takes decades to build, yet can be destroyed in moments.

If Trump and the GOP are successful in less funding as a whole, that may actually make UW-Madison rise back up in the rankings due to all funding lowering nationwide. A tide lowers all ships even easier than it raises them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 27, 2016, 03:42:49 PM

"Power associated as a source of enrichment, personal affirmation and domination." That sounds about right to me.

Interesting.  As Donald Trump's actions since being elected have (so far) gone against at least two of those three points, i still disagree that the articles author was insightful or accurate.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 27, 2016, 05:06:25 PM
As Donald Trump's actions since being elected have (so far) gone against at least two of those three points, i still disagree that the articles author was insightful or accurate.

Which three do you think Trump has "gone against"?  It's a serious question, because I honestly can't tell.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on November 27, 2016, 06:54:01 PM
Tonight Trump is on a Tweet storm about recounts and election results.  I think he has dementia.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on November 27, 2016, 07:00:36 PM
Tonight Trump is on a Tweet storm about recounts and election results.  I think he has dementia.

Apparently he is claiming he only lost the popular vote due to voter fraud?  Did I read that right?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on November 27, 2016, 07:10:09 PM
This latest twitter thing is embarrassing to me as an American citizen. One of many such embarrassments I am sure are coming.

I guess claiming voter fraud after you *won* an election, by his standards, is not that high on the embarrassing-tweet scale. Or did he use the c-word or call some ethnicity/gender/nationality all chronic masturbators or something?

Nothing like a gracious victor.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: oldtoyota on November 27, 2016, 07:14:51 PM
A relevant article I just came across. And this is before we really talk about reducing research funding:

[url][/http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/11/26/university-of-wisconsinmadison-drops-in-research-rankingurl]

This is an expected result of education cuts in Wisconsin. When a researcher leaves, they usually take their research funding with them.  I expect them to drop further as the University struggles to attract new talents. I think our governor is realizing this and has stated he will replace some of the cuts in the next budget. Time will tell, but the damage might already have been done.  A reputation takes decades to build, yet can be destroyed in moments.

If Trump and the GOP are successful in less funding as a whole, that may actually make UW-Madison rise back up in the rankings due to all funding lowering nationwide. A tide lowers all ships even easier than it raises them.

I'd be surprised if your governor replaces some of the cuts. Hope he does though.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: oldtoyota on November 27, 2016, 07:15:45 PM
Tonight Trump is on a Tweet storm about recounts and election results.  I think he has dementia.

No. It is called lying and/or gaslighting.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on November 27, 2016, 07:31:40 PM
Tonight Trump is on a Tweet storm about recounts and election results.  I think he has dementia.

No. It is called lying and/or gaslighting.

Thank you for mentioning the gaslighting. It had been a few months since I thought of Trump in that framework and it is very apt. It is also disrespectful and disgusting.

http://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/emotional-psychological-abuse/gaslighting-definition-techniques-and-being-gaslighted/

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/8/13206832/trump-leaked-audio-sexual-assault-rape-gaslighting-abuse
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 28, 2016, 02:14:00 AM

"Power associated as a source of enrichment, personal affirmation and domination." That sounds about right to me.

Interesting.  As Donald Trump's actions since being elected have (so far) gone against at least two of those three points, i still disagree that the articles author was insightful or accurate.

Could you expound on your reasoning?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 28, 2016, 03:55:51 AM
As Donald Trump's actions since being elected have (so far) gone against at least two of those three points, i still disagree that the articles author was insightful or accurate.

Which three do you think Trump has "gone against"?  It's a serious question, because I honestly can't tell.

Enrichment - turning down the presidential paycheck. An easy $400K/year for him, that turning down does not increase either of the other two stated power sources.

Domination - he has walked back his promises to jail political opponents and walked back his originally stated intentions to freeze out/attack journalistic interests that are unfavorable.  He has also stated that his advisors/cabinet/VP will be running more day-to-day operations.  Pretty much the opposite of domination.

(This is not to say that at least some of these drivers do not exist in his plans in at least some capacity, but clearly there is an argument that these are not his primary drivers for power, at least in context of the United States Presidency.)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on November 28, 2016, 04:16:38 AM
As Donald Trump's actions since being elected have (so far) gone against at least two of those three points, i still disagree that the articles author was insightful or accurate.

Which three do you think Trump has "gone against"?  It's a serious question, because I honestly can't tell.

Enrichment - turning down the presidential paycheck. An easy $400K/year for him, that turning down does not increase either of the other two stated power sources.
$400k is chump change compared to what he will be in a position to make by not selling his business interests or putting them into a "blind" trust, and by doing deals on the back of being President including deals with foreign powers.

Domination - he has walked back his promises to jail political opponents and walked back his originally stated intentions to freeze out/attack journalistic interests that are unfavorable.  He has also stated that his advisors/cabinet/VP will be running more day-to-day operations.  Pretty much the opposite of domination

(This is not to say that at least some of these drivers do not exist in his plans in at least some capacity, but clearly there is an argument that these are not his primary drivers for power, at least in context of the United States Presidency.)
Trump had bugger all chance of getting a successful prosecution of HRC off the ground, and he's always known it.  Did he promise to jail anyone else?  He will manipulate the media to his heart's content and he will either back, sack or counteract his advisers/cabinet/VP as the whim takes him.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 28, 2016, 04:27:12 AM
This may be true- but again, why turn down easy money? If enrichment was a primary goal it would contraindicate turning down easy cash. While enrichment may be a side-effect of his actions, it seems that he's done the opposite of what he would do if it were his primary focus.

Point the second - HRC: Trump will probably have a bugger of a time with a lot of things. But if domination were his primary end goal, why would he forfeit even attempting the actions that would so clearly display his domination of political opponents?

I think the arguments presented so far fall pretty flat, and while they may sound good in the echo chamber, when faced with the light of truth they are a little weak. These are the type of evidence that I considered as I formed my argument against the original statements.  There are so many things to dislike about Donald Trump; I'm not sure why people would feel the need to make up more.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on November 28, 2016, 04:56:08 AM
Turning down easy money?  It's an easy win for him.  It makes him look good to his supporters (hey, he's draining the swamp, right?).  He may also be thinking that it will make scrutiny of his finances harder, so less likelihood of them being investigated/challenged.  And he would have to pay federal taxes on it, which may be the biggest reason of all for him not to take it.

It's not domination to try and fail - Trump would be on a loser if he tried to prosecute HRC and being is loser is the opposite of domination - and Trump hates to lose.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on November 28, 2016, 12:07:06 PM
Turning down easy money?  It's an easy win for him.  It makes him look good to his supporters (hey, he's draining the swamp, right?).  He may also be thinking that it will make scrutiny of his finances harder, so less likelihood of them being investigated/challenged.  And he would have to pay federal taxes on it, which may be the biggest reason of all for him not to take it.

It's not domination to try and fail - Trump would be on a loser if he tried to prosecute HRC and being is loser is the opposite of domination - and Trump hates to lose.

Plus he likely can't turn down the money.  It's a super easy promise to make when he doesn't have a choice.  He could donate it back to the government, but we would never know since he doesn't release financial records
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 28, 2016, 12:10:30 PM

Plus he likely can't turn down the money.  It's a super easy promise to make when he doesn't have a choice.  He could donate it back to the government, but we would never know since he doesn't release financial records

This may be an actual point. Claiming to turn down money while not actually doing it would not support my argument very well. Speculation, but a fair point.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RosieTR on November 28, 2016, 12:22:37 PM
Turning down easy money?  It's an easy win for him.  It makes him look good to his supporters (hey, he's draining the swamp, right?).  He may also be thinking that it will make scrutiny of his finances harder, so less likelihood of them being investigated/challenged.  And he would have to pay federal taxes on it, which may be the biggest reason of all for him not to take it.

It's not domination to try and fail - Trump would be on a loser if he tried to prosecute HRC and being is loser is the opposite of domination - and Trump hates to lose.

It may not make his finances harder to investigate, but it's more a symbolic situation that he is not beholden to any sort of salary. Meaning that symbolically, he would not be working for the American people. I don't know as it would make much difference, but it's not like refusing a salary is some sort of angel move on his part.
This article describes it more fully if you care:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-salary-george-washington-214458
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on November 28, 2016, 05:43:24 PM
Trump bought into an Infowars (Alex Jones) story about "millions of illegal voters" throwing the election.  Infowars got the story from some twitter guy who made it up.
So the President-elect tweets based on bullsh#t.  We are so screwed.

Can't wait for the Area 51 files.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 28, 2016, 06:22:01 PM
When your own president spreads made up bullshit.... *face palm*
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on November 28, 2016, 06:42:07 PM
When your own president spreads made up bullshit.... *face palm*
... while simultaneously declining security briefings from the intelligence services.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/donald-trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-amid-warnings/

The logical conclusion is that we actually elected Pence but still have to listen to Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on November 28, 2016, 06:54:01 PM
When your own president spreads made up bullshit.... *face palm*

He did this throughout his campaign.  It's consistent with how he's behaving now as president elect and with how he will behave as president.  It's  partly what got him elected in the first place.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on November 29, 2016, 04:36:05 AM
When your own president spreads made up bullshit.... *face palm*
... while simultaneously declining security briefings from the intelligence services.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/donald-trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-amid-warnings/

The logical conclusion is that we actually elected Pence but still have to listen to Trump.

Great. Now we can have more threads about how "60 million more Americans voted for Hillary than for Pence."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on November 29, 2016, 07:32:54 AM
I don't know....if the transition is any indication, the most important impact might be worse mental health outcomes for millions of Americans.  It's tough to not be demoralized by what is going on right now. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on November 29, 2016, 09:04:12 AM
Trump continues to Twitterbomb the Interwebs.  Now flag burning.  He is a master troll.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on November 29, 2016, 09:07:47 AM
Further news about Trump appointments after Environment and Health appointments -

Early Years Child Care - Herod Agrippa

Supreme Court Justice - Pontius Pilate
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 29, 2016, 10:00:36 AM
Why would Pilate be a poor appointment?  He put aside his personal wishes/beliefs to fulfill the letter of the law.  That's like . . . totally what you want from an SCJ.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Northwestie on November 29, 2016, 10:28:49 AM
I saw an article this morning with interviews of folks in rural KY and TN - yep - they voted for Trump but are now concerned he'll follow thru and remove their health care and are worried about the extra costs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on November 29, 2016, 10:32:19 AM
I saw an article this morning with interviews of folks in rural KY and TN - yep - they voted for Trump but are now concerned he'll follow thru and remove their health care and are worried about the extra costs.

Good, you reap what you sow (or vote for)......even still,  they will probably vote (R) next time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on November 29, 2016, 11:22:59 AM
I saw an article this morning with interviews of folks in rural KY and TN - yep - they voted for Trump but are now concerned he'll follow thru and remove their health care and are worried about the extra costs.

Good, you reap what you sow (or vote for)......even still,  they will probably vote (R) next time.
Matt Bevin ran on getting rid of Medicaid expansion in KY.  He won, got rid of Kynect (the state run ACA web site), made things a lot more inconvenient.  The people he hurt will probably give him a second term.  Amazing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 29, 2016, 03:19:00 PM
Trump continues to Twitterbomb the Interwebs.  Now flag burning.  He is a master troll.

It's all about confusion and deception to remove focus from real problems/crime/moral ethical violations/personal or family enrichment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on November 29, 2016, 04:56:14 PM
Trump continues to Twitterbomb the Interwebs.  Now flag burning.  He is a master troll.

It's all about confusion and deception to remove focus from real problems/crime/moral ethical violations/personal or family enrichment.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

You're giving Trump too much credit. I don't think he's calculating the pros and cons of a twitter storm and then doing it after a conclusion like you've reached above. I think he just blurts shit out cause that's how he is.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 29, 2016, 06:08:48 PM
When your own president spreads made up bullshit.... *face palm*
... while simultaneously declining security briefings from the intelligence services.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/donald-trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-amid-warnings/

The logical conclusion is that we actually elected Pence but still have to listen to Trump.

I think we all assumed this would be the case, but listening to Trump on a regular base with the legitimacy that his office brings is as unhealthy as all of us trolling twitter.

It will be interesting to see how his cabinet members will likely try to play on Trumps emotions to get him to sign off on shit. But in general I agree that it is likely he will try to leave as much management as possible in the hands of Pence and others with experience.

I wonder how long it will take for the insiders to convince Trump to fire the cabinet members he hires now that are too incompetent for the positions he is giving them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 29, 2016, 06:19:24 PM
Trump continues to Twitterbomb the Interwebs.  Now flag burning.  He is a master troll.

It's all about confusion and deception to remove focus from real problems/crime/moral ethical violations/personal or family enrichment.

Maybe, but I think you give him too much credit. Trump really is a troll. He just can't help but argue in his own self defense with whatever ammo the interwebs give him.

There is no master plan behind it. He is simply infamous for this kind of crap and he has learned over a life time that the truth is irrelevant if people agree with you or it a lie gets you what you want.

Why go after flag burners, he doesn't give a shit about the flag. Not like a veteran or real patriot does. But he is definitely annoyed that people are burning the flag because they hate him.

Why post a stupid tweet about the popular vote. Because he is butt hurt people keep reminding him that he is losing it by millions of votes. A normal politician would laugh and enjoy victory but Trump can't handle any negative press.

Literally every stupid ranting tweet he makes is an immediate reaction to a personal attack. I truly hope that this is lowest the office of the president ever sinks. I literally feel like we can freely say to almost every child in America not only could you possibly be the president, you are likely to be overqualified.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on November 29, 2016, 06:22:47 PM
Literally every stupid ranting tweet he makes is an immediate reaction to a personal attack. I truly hope that this is lowest the office of the president ever sinks. I literally feel like we can freely say to almost every child in America not only could you possibly be the president, you are likely to be overqualified.
I think the election results showed pretty clearly that overqualification was, in fact, disqualifying.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 29, 2016, 06:35:20 PM
Literally every stupid ranting tweet he makes is an immediate reaction to a personal attack. I truly hope that this is lowest the office of the president ever sinks. I literally feel like we can freely say to almost every child in America not only could you possibly be the president, you are likely to be overqualified.
I think the election results showed pretty clearly that overqualification was, in fact, disqualifying.

Touche. Though I would probably argue Hillary was a special case. She had the long history of service, but also a boat load of negatives that put her firmly in the camp of political insider. She also had little to no big political wins to draw on from Obama or her recent history.

Like anything else a long resume isn't going to help if its content isn't as impressive as its length.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rocketpj on November 30, 2016, 12:57:41 AM
If you are not open to a check and be willing to admit you are wrong, well, you suck.

I think most people here would love to be proved wrong by a Trump presidency. The name calling doesn't help with the discussion though.

I hope I am calling no one names. If the shoe fits, you are a piece of shit and I will not apologize. I hope no shoe fits, and that nothing too bad happens in the next few years. I just want to know at what point both sides have to check the results and admit their rights and wrongs.

Astonishing.  Is this really about ethics in forum posting?

Meanwhile, Trump blasts out a tweetstorm about stolen votes to mask the fact he just had to pay a $25 Million settlement for fraud.

Did anyone know that HE is charging the US government $1M/day in rent for all the space the Secret Service is taking up in his tower?  So all the talk about his not accepting pay is somewhat beside the point, when he can milk $365M/year by just choosing to live in his tower rather than the White House.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on November 30, 2016, 01:30:19 AM
He's also charging the Secret Service everytime he uses his own jet - $1.6 million so far -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804129/Secret-Service-spent-1-6-million-flights-agents-protect-Trump-goes-reimburse-Donald-private-jet.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 30, 2016, 02:03:41 AM
Trump continues to Twitterbomb the Interwebs.  Now flag burning.  He is a master troll.

It's all about confusion and deception to remove focus from real problems/crime/moral ethical violations/personal or family enrichment.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

You're giving Trump too much credit. I don't think he's calculating the pros and cons of a twitter storm and then doing it after a conclusion like you've reached above. I think he just blurts shit out cause that's how he is.

Yeah, you and RangerOne have it right. But doesn't change the fact that it's still happening.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 30, 2016, 02:52:12 PM
And as much as I don't want Trump to fail for the country's sake I can't root for a person who is so petty and simple minded. For every reasonable thing he is told to say, he says twenty stupid things on twitter which just reminds me how shitty a person our future president is. Whether you think he is going to be dangerous or benign, helpful or harmful is all up for debate but it is an absolute embarrassment that someone like this is able to hold the highest leadership position in the land and speaks very poorly of our political system.

And it is deeply upsetting that the DNC had the gall to ram Clinton down the throats of liberals like she was owed the office of the president because of her sex and loyalty to the party.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on November 30, 2016, 04:07:33 PM
I can't believe he isn't aware enough to know that a US President should not be tweeting.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on November 30, 2016, 06:01:10 PM
Tweeting is Trumps thing. As long as the Republican base is okay with it, no one is going to stop him. If he starts pissing them off they are going to take his account...

Generally tweeting has only ever gotten people into trouble or fired for saying dumb shit.

Trump has already said so much dumb shit I can hardly think of a tweet that would cross the line. I will be interested to see it if he ever writes it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on November 30, 2016, 06:04:22 PM
He is using the tweets to circumvent the media.  He can say whatever he wants, he's the President-elect.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on November 30, 2016, 06:05:50 PM
And it is deeply upsetting that the DNC had the gall to ram Clinton down the throats of liberals like she was owed the office of the president because of her sex and loyalty to the party.

Bet you're going to love seeing her again in 2020!   You know she almost won this time, that popular vote!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ender on November 30, 2016, 06:30:43 PM
He's also charging the Secret Service everytime he uses his own jet - $1.6 million so far -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804129/Secret-Service-spent-1-6-million-flights-agents-protect-Trump-goes-reimburse-Donald-private-jet.html

From that article:

Quote
Politico reported on Thursday that the Secret Service has paid Clinton's campaign far more than Trump's for its travel – $2.6 million in all.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on November 30, 2016, 08:00:34 PM
He's also charging the Secret Service everytime he uses his own jet - $1.6 million so far -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3804129/Secret-Service-spent-1-6-million-flights-agents-protect-Trump-goes-reimburse-Donald-private-jet.html
From that article:
Quote
Politico reported on Thursday that the Secret Service has paid Clinton's campaign far more than Trump's for its travel – $2.6 million in all.

Context, please. The article continues:
Quote
Clinton has had Secret Service protection continuously since 1992, meaning agents have flown with her from the beginning of her campaign.
Their airfare is currently paid to Executive Fliteways, an upstate New York company.
In Trump's case, the reimbursements defray his own costs.

Emphasis mine.

That's the point of the article, and of former player's post.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: aprilchem on December 01, 2016, 08:49:12 AM
I don't usually comment on these types of posts, but there's one idea that I haven't seen in this thread thus far (although I haven't read every single post).

I'm a college professor, and am neither a historian nor a political scientist (I'm a physical scientist) but I associate with a lot of them. I am also very liberal, which isn't necessarily pertinent to this discussion but is honest. 

To a person, nearly all of my friends who are experts are convinced that something very bad is on the horizon.  We just elected an extremely weak, unqualified president and our nation is at odds right now.  Britain is weak because of the Brexit vote.  Russia and Turkey are strong.  Terrorism will thrive under Trump (at least in my opinion), especially if he follows through on his plans to register Muslims in the US.  The world is in a similar place (instability-wise) to where it was before the start of WWI, but now we have nuclear weapons, more effective chemical weapons, and long-range missiles.  Some little thing (a la Archduke Ferdinand) is likely to happen that will start a major war, and millions are likely to die as a result. 

This might sound terribly negative, but given the evidence I do believe it's likely to be true.  The issue is that we don't know where or when this will happen, and who will be affected.   But I believe my life as an American citizen will be very changed 5 years from now from what it is today, and I'm doing my best to prepare for whatever is going to happen.  I really hope that I am wrong. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 01, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
I don't usually comment on these types of posts, but there's one idea that I haven't seen in this thread thus far (although I haven't read every single post).

I'm a college professor, and am neither a historian nor a political scientist (I'm a physical scientist) but I associate with a lot of them. I am also very liberal, which isn't necessarily pertinent to this discussion but is honest. 

To a person, nearly all of my friends who are experts are convinced that something very bad is on the horizon.  We just elected an extremely weak, unqualified president and our nation is at odds right now.  Britain is weak because of the Brexit vote.  Russia and Turkey are strong.  Terrorism will thrive under Trump (at least in my opinion), especially if he follows through on his plans to register Muslims in the US.  The world is in a similar place (instability-wise) to where it was before the start of WWI, but now we have nuclear weapons, more effective chemical weapons, and long-range missiles.  Some little thing (a la Archduke Ferdinand) is likely to happen that will start a major war, and millions are likely to die as a result. 

This might sound terribly negative, but given the evidence I do believe it's likely to be true.  The issue is that we don't know where or when this will happen, and who will be affected.   But I believe my life as an American citizen will be very changed 5 years from now from what it is today, and I'm doing my best to prepare for whatever is going to happen.  I really hope that I am wrong.

I agree. In fact, I can't believe this isn't a fear that is widely shared. Domestically, Trump is likely to have a negative impact on many things, including the economy, but people who are relatively well-off now with a decent amount of social capital don't seem all that worried about his presidency. Internationally, though, having a temperamental, arrogant, incompetent president who doesn't know or care what he doesn't know could trigger, in concordance with other international events, something massive. And Trump will be far too ignorant to know how to try to fix it. Not to mention the members of his cabinet that he is likely to pick are going to be fairly incompetent/unqualified as well. And every single day that he blows off a security briefing in favor of hanging out at Trump tower holding court, I become more convinced of this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ender on December 01, 2016, 10:30:16 AM
The world is in a similar place (instability-wise) to where it was before the start of WWI, but now we have nuclear weapons, more effective chemical weapons, and long-range missiles.  Some little thing (a la Archduke Ferdinand) is likely to happen that will start a major war, and millions are likely to die as a result. 

How do you figure that the world is similarly as unstable now than it was prior to the start of WWI?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on December 01, 2016, 11:00:12 AM
The world is in a similar place (instability-wise) to where it was before the start of WWI, but now we have nuclear weapons, more effective chemical weapons, and long-range missiles.  Some little thing (a la Archduke Ferdinand) is likely to happen that will start a major war, and millions are likely to die as a result. 

How do you figure that the world is similarly as unstable now than it was prior to the start of WWI?

Yeah, I agree with ender's question. I think that assertion is baseless. By pretty much every measure the world is more peaceful now than at any point in history, especially before WWI. (Note there are no large scale wars, no major famines, no massive epidemics - all of which were occurring just prior to WWI and WWII actually).

The world has never been a safer, more stable, place.

War deaths since 1945: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace-after-1945/ (https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace-after-1945/)

War deaths since 1400: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace-long-run/#global-deaths-in-conflicts-since-the-year-1400ref (https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace-long-run/#global-deaths-in-conflicts-since-the-year-1400ref)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on December 01, 2016, 11:27:59 AM
This was written back in July, but I think it makes some good points.  https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-with-brexit-trump-a3fefd154714#.veiqsevng
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 01, 2016, 11:39:20 AM
This was written back in July, but I think it makes some good points.  https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-with-brexit-trump-a3fefd154714#.veiqsevng

Yes. Nicely put. This is pretty much what I would have articulated, had I taken the time and effort to do so.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 01, 2016, 11:57:43 AM
This was written back in July, but I think it makes some good points.  https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-with-brexit-trump-a3fefd154714#.veiqsevng

Yes. Nicely put. This is pretty much what I would have articulated, had I taken the time and effort to do so.

Rationally thinking through the scenarios posited by the article would be a worthwhile exercise for almost anyone, especially those who think everything is going gangbusters. I'm not saying this piece will change their mind, or even that his conclusions are accurate, but having studied history at a graduate level myself, the author is spot on about how all of this has happened before and will happen again. Brexit may not be "it." Trump may not be "it," but global forces are trending in a very reminiscent way right now. Sadly, I'm not sure we're any more capable of learning from the past now than we were previously.

From the article:

"What can we do? Well, again, looking back, probably not much. The liberal intellectuals are always in the minority. See Clay Shirky’s Twitter Storm on this point. The people who see that open societies, being nice to other people, not being racist, not fighting wars, is a better way to live, they generally end up losing these fights. They don’t fight dirty. They are terrible at appealing to the populace. They are less violent, so end up in prisons, camps, and graves. "
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on December 01, 2016, 12:17:45 PM
The article references another one that was written in May, also a good read:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 01, 2016, 12:54:03 PM
We can probably expect more interactions with world leaders that play out like this, sadly (Sad!).

http://www.pid.gov.pk/?p=30445

Quote
PR No. 298 PM TELEPHONES PRESIDENT-ELECT USA Islamabad: November 30, 2016

Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif called President-elect USA Donald Trump and felicitated him on his victory. President Trump said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif you have a very good reputation. You are a terrific guy. You are doing amazing work which is visible in every way. I am looking forward to see you soon. As I am talking to you Prime Minister, I feel I am talking to a person I have known for long. Your country is amazing with tremendous opportunities. Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people. I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems. It will be an honor and I will personally do it. Feel free to call me any time even before 20th January that is before I assume my office.

On being invited to visit Pakistan by the Prime Minister, Mr. Trump said that he would love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people. Please convey to the Pakistani people that they are amazing and all Pakistanis I have known are exceptional people, said Mr. Donald Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on December 01, 2016, 01:36:58 PM
I don't know whether to thank you for linking that article or just to go cry in a corner.   I have felt this way for the past year and a half, like a slow tidal wave building towards some triggering event.  All of the chess pieces are in place now.  A destabilized Europe, an aging nuclear arsenal, radicalized youth combined with xenophobia, an increase in authoritarian and totalitarian leaders in major world powers, weak and fractured media, weak opposition parties. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 01, 2016, 01:45:44 PM
I don't usually comment on these types of posts, but there's one idea that I haven't seen in this thread thus far (although I haven't read every single post).

I'm a college professor, and am neither a historian nor a political scientist (I'm a physical scientist) but I associate with a lot of them. I am also very liberal, which isn't necessarily pertinent to this discussion but is honest. 

To a person, nearly all of my friends who are experts are convinced that something very bad is on the horizon.  We just elected an extremely weak, unqualified president and our nation is at odds right now.  Britain is weak because of the Brexit vote.  Russia and Turkey are strong.  Terrorism will thrive under Trump (at least in my opinion), especially if he follows through on his plans to register Muslims in the US.  The world is in a similar place (instability-wise) to where it was before the start of WWI, but now we have nuclear weapons, more effective chemical weapons, and long-range missiles.  Some little thing (a la Archduke Ferdinand) is likely to happen that will start a major war, and millions are likely to die as a result. 

This might sound terribly negative, but given the evidence I do believe it's likely to be true.  The issue is that we don't know where or when this will happen, and who will be affected.   But I believe my life as an American citizen will be very changed 5 years from now from what it is today, and I'm doing my best to prepare for whatever is going to happen.  I really hope that I am wrong.

I see this too, as a studier of history in a family of history fanatics. It's not just Trump, it's the fact that we have many world leaders of his type: narcissistic, thin-skinned bullies. They all seem to be supporting each other for the moment (think, Trump and Putin) but one of them will make a "tiny hands" joke about another and then shit's going to get real. At the least, I'm worried about a Cold War style stalemate between powers.

This is not to say that I'm certain these things will happen, but in my dark moments and when I take a good look at world politics, this is what I think about.

Ender and Dividendman - Total deaths from war have gone down, but we have the potential for much bigger conflicts now. Think about it, the Holocaust would not have been possible prior to the technology of the time (gas chambers and such). Part of the reason we've had fewer wars recently is because we're so interconnected. Not only can we see the horrors of war more (pictures, video) but we have greater access to mediators. Other governments/the UN will step in if there are potential conflicts. However, this doesn't totally protect us from war, and in fact makes another great world war more likely as more countries would be involved in any conflict. Before it was France v. England with maybe Spain halfheartedly thrown in. Now it's Europe v. Russia and Asia, or something else equally huge. The periods between war will likely get longer, but the wars themselves will be catastrophically worse. Especially when you throw in our globalized food, so people who don't go to war could very well starve due to lack of getting food from where it used to come from.
The article linked by jrhampt expresses so much more clearly than I can what I've been seeing in terms of world trends.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on December 01, 2016, 02:02:51 PM
I think there are parallels between the conservatives calling it the end of the world when Barack Anti-Christ Obama was elected and now liberals are doing the same thing with their Anti-Christ.

It's just fear mongering. People love to think the worst.

I still believe it is less likely for the US to get involved in a war with Trump as President than Clinton.

I also believe that the world is so interconnected that a large scale war won't be palatable to anyone and therefore won't occur.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 01, 2016, 02:06:43 PM
I think there are parallels between the conservatives calling it the end of the world when Barack Anti-Christ Obama was elected and now liberals are doing the same thing with their Anti-Christ.

It's just fear mongering. People love to think the worst.

I still believe it is less likely for the US to get involved in a war with Trump as President than Clinton.

I also believe that the world is so interconnected that a large scale war won't be palatable to anyone and therefore won't occur.

I'm guessing you didn't read the linked piece. All it takes is for the first domino to fall, even if all of the rest are perfectly content staying upright. This has played out time and time again in history, and before every single disaster people like you were confident the worst could never come to pass. Anyway, I'm not yet sure that I think we are at that point, but the warning signs are present and increasingly quantifiable. Regardless, I don't think anyone here would disagree that we hope you are right.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on December 01, 2016, 02:29:12 PM
Trump could lead to a number of bad things at home or abroad and I do take Brexit, Trump and what is happening in France as overall bad signs of a breakdown in our international cooperation.

But the truth is its still too complicated to assume the worst, and even if you do there is little you can do to combat it.

I really could not say how a war in Europe with Russia would look. Surely there is a line they wouldn't cross. I am skeptical an large player would use a nuke simply since the cost of retaliation is too high unless they were given no choice.

Our economic dependencies globally are too interwoven to encourage for a full scale global war to be at all desirable. Ever major global government knows this, though dictator like Putin will certainly seek an opening to redraw lines of influence and seize resources.

Trump may be ignorant of much of this but our government is still run by mostly insiders and he is going to take queues form a number of people. Until we reach the point where we are openly hanging members of congress and a president has direct support to do so form the majority of the military I think we are still in some what stable shape.

Economic turmoil and extreme persecution of Muslims with some minority spill over I think are our most likely dangers for the next 4-8 years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on December 01, 2016, 02:40:17 PM
I think there are parallels between the conservatives calling it the end of the world when Barack Anti-Christ Obama was elected and now liberals are doing the same thing with their Anti-Christ.

It's just fear mongering. People love to think the worst.

I still believe it is less likely for the US to get involved in a war with Trump as President than Clinton.

I also believe that the world is so interconnected that a large scale war won't be palatable to anyone and therefore won't occur.

I'm guessing you didn't read the linked piece. All it takes is for the first domino to fall, even if all of the rest are perfectly content staying upright. This has played out time and time again in history, and before every single disaster people like you were confident the worst could never come to pass. Anyway, I'm not yet sure that I think we are at that point, but the warning signs are present and increasingly quantifiable. Regardless, I don't think anyone here would disagree that we hope you are right.

I did read it. It was long. I just don't agree with the conclusions (although since it was written before the election I do agree with the parts about trying to stop Trump and Sanders precisely because they win by whipping up popular sentiment based on no compromise ideals - I would have preferred Clinton win).

Saying things like "people like you were confident the worst could never come to pass" is just the same as people like you predicting the worst is always coming, just around the corner. You can go to any point in the last 50 years and have people like you showing how the world is coming to an end. How "this time it's different".

Really? From 1950 to 1990 the world was on the cusp of a nuclear engagement between two superpowers. I don't think we're anywhere near that now and somehow we have people claiming it's more likely now than then. Look at the major wars that happened since WWII

War in Korea
Russia/China war
Cuban missle Crises
Suez crises
Vietnam
Israel/Arab various wars
USSR/Afghan war
Iran/Iraq war
India and Pakistan wars with both sides having nukes
Gulf wars

I'm sure I'm missing a bunch, but these were actual wars, where each party has allies that are superpowers (or superpowers themselves are involved) and many claimed the wars would spin out of control and entangle the whole world.

Today we have no significant state to state war actually occurring, and yet you think we're more likely now than in the last 50 years to have this WWIII occur? I just think it's recency bias. The world is so much more stable now than it's been ever.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 01, 2016, 03:05:54 PM
You sure are making a lot of assumptions about me simply because I am willing to entertain an idea you are not. I never said WWIII is around the corner nor do you have any evidence whatsoever that I am a habitual doomsayer or fear-monger. Did I say we are closer to nuclear war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Obviously we are not, but then that was obviously not the point being made. Just because some people who are not me have predicted Armageddon during times that I did not in no way invalidates what I am talking about, which involves different geopolitical trends than existed in the very recent past (which had a whole host of other frightening conditions, as you note), but that have emerged periodically throughout history.

And I didn't say anything was inevitable, only that maybe *gasp* it's worth thinking about history when evaluating the present. But then I also predicted we would not do so as a society, and I see nothing thus far to feel insecure in that prediction. Note what I at no time predicted was the impending end of the world.

All of that said, the U.S. appears to be the least likely country to suffer too extremely (outside of oppressed minority groups anyway), so yay us, I suppose.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 01, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
I think there are parallels between the conservatives calling it the end of the world when Barack Anti-Christ Obama was elected and now liberals are doing the same thing with their Anti-Christ.

It's just fear mongering. People love to think the worst.

I still believe it is less likely for the US to get involved in a war with Trump as President than Clinton.

I also believe that the world is so interconnected that a large scale war won't be palatable to anyone and therefore won't occur.

I can see that there are some parallels here to the extent that a leader with views perceived to be different than our own is viewed more negatively. That's just human nature.

I also think that it is a false equivalence. The fear of Obama (he'll take our guns!) was, for the most part, not actually based on his public statements or on gross misreadings of them with zero allowance for nuance. The issues with Trump are generally based on his stated, reaffirmed, actions and statements. He is clearly a person who will say what he needs to to get his way. However, his rhetoric during this campaign appears to have substance as he assembles his cabinet. Specifically: his appointment to EPA denies climate change, his H&HS person wants to dismantle our medicare system, his appointment for Attny General has been denied appointment in the past due to overtly racist sentiments, his chief strategist facilitated/promoted (via Breitbart) white nationalists / alt-right points of view, and the list goes on.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on December 01, 2016, 06:54:05 PM
I think there are parallels between the conservatives calling it the end of the world when Barack Anti-Christ Obama was elected and now liberals are doing the same thing with their Anti-Christ.

It's just fear mongering. People love to think the worst.

I still believe it is less likely for the US to get involved in a war with Trump as President than Clinton.

I also believe that the world is so interconnected that a large scale war won't be palatable to anyone and therefore won't occur.

I can see that there are some parallels here to the extent that a leader with views perceived to be different than our own is viewed more negatively. That's just human nature.

I also think that it is a false equivalence. The fear of Obama (he'll take our guns!) was, for the most part, not actually based on his public statements or on gross misreadings of them with zero allowance for nuance. The issues with Trump are generally based on his stated, reaffirmed, actions and statements. He is clearly a person who will say what he needs to to get his way. However, his rhetoric during this campaign appears to have substance as he assembles his cabinet. Specifically: his appointment to EPA denies climate change, his H&HS person wants to dismantle our medicare system, his appointment for Attny General has been denied appointment in the past due to overtly racist sentiments, his chief strategist facilitated/promoted (via Breitbart) white nationalists / alt-right points of view, and the list goes on.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I believe it's going to be shitty for a whole host of reasons including the ones you mention above, I just don't think it's going to be a WWI/II type catastrophe.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 01, 2016, 07:07:30 PM
I think there are parallels between the conservatives calling it the end of the world when Barack Anti-Christ Obama was elected and now liberals are doing the same thing with their Anti-Christ.

It's just fear mongering. People love to think the worst.

I still believe it is less likely for the US to get involved in a war with Trump as President than Clinton.

I also believe that the world is so interconnected that a large scale war won't be palatable to anyone and therefore won't occur.

I can see that there are some parallels here to the extent that a leader with views perceived to be different than our own is viewed more negatively. That's just human nature.

I also think that it is a false equivalence. The fear of Obama (he'll take our guns!) was, for the most part, not actually based on his public statements or on gross misreadings of them with zero allowance for nuance. The issues with Trump are generally based on his stated, reaffirmed, actions and statements. He is clearly a person who will say what he needs to to get his way. However, his rhetoric during this campaign appears to have substance as he assembles his cabinet. Specifically: his appointment to EPA denies climate change, his H&HS person wants to dismantle our medicare system, his appointment for Attny General has been denied appointment in the past due to overtly racist sentiments, his chief strategist facilitated/promoted (via Breitbart) white nationalists / alt-right points of view, and the list goes on.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I believe it's going to be shitty for a whole host of reasons including the ones you mention above, I just don't think it's going to be a WWI/II type catastrophe.

I hope it all turns our rainbows and kittens, too. I think that domestically it is going to be very, very hard on those who supported him most. I do not say that with relish or ill will, but with resignment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on December 01, 2016, 10:57:59 PM
Sarah Palin head of the VA. Kill me now!

OK posting mainly to follow but that one was unexpected in a bad way.

There's even talk of privatizing the VA.

With all of this remaking of America, it'll be interesting to see what goes through before the tables flip.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on December 02, 2016, 01:28:16 AM
And it is deeply upsetting that the DNC had the gall to ram Clinton down the throats of liberals like she was owed the office of the president because of her sex and loyalty to the party.

Clinton won the Democratic nomination because a majority of Democratic primary voters preferred her. The DNC did not choose, and did not have the power to choose, the Democratic nominee.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 02, 2016, 03:49:09 AM
I think there are parallels between the conservatives calling it the end of the world when Barack Anti-Christ Obama was elected and now liberals are doing the same thing with their Anti-Christ.

It's just fear mongering. People love to think the worst.

I still believe it is less likely for the US to get involved in a war with Trump as President than Clinton.

I also believe that the world is so interconnected that a large scale war won't be palatable to anyone and therefore won't occur.

I'm guessing you didn't read the linked piece. All it takes is for the first domino to fall, even if all of the rest are perfectly content staying upright. This has played out time and time again in history, and before every single disaster people like you were confident the worst could never come to pass. Anyway, I'm not yet sure that I think we are at that point, but the warning signs are present and increasingly quantifiable. Regardless, I don't think anyone here would disagree that we hope you are right.

Could it be argued that the domino has already fallen? I mean, a group of unhappy people flew planes into buildings 15 years ago. This lead half the world to invade a handful of foreign countries and overthrow their governments, creating huge reactionary forces that have killed hundreds of thousands of people.  The greatest country in the world imprisoned alleged enemies without trial, tortured them, and executed its own citizens without trial for associating with said enemies.

Is it blind to see that the terrible things mentioned in the article are already happening? That the dominos have already fallen, long before Trump or Brexit or anything the author is listing as a precursor- its more a comment on a current trend than a future course of the world.  Maybe I'm just an optimist, figuring things are super bad now and will someday get better.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 02, 2016, 03:54:28 AM
And it is deeply upsetting that the DNC had the gall to ram Clinton down the throats of liberals like she was owed the office of the president because of her sex and loyalty to the party.

Clinton won the Democratic nomination because a majority of Democratic primary voters preferred her. The DNC did not choose, and did not have the power to choose, the Democratic nominee.

I think this misses quite a bit of nuance. Scheduling debates for low viewer turn out after Clinton polled lower after each debate with Bernie, DNC executives giving Clinton debate questions before anyone else, assigning superdelegates to her even when Bernie won the majority of democratic votes in the state; these are some of the things that upset many democratic voters, and show it clearly wasn't a fair and equal primary election.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 02, 2016, 06:00:32 AM
I think the Mattis announcement is really, really interesting. It's the first appointment where I can look at it, and not lose my shit. Obviously, it's far from a done deal (active duty waiver and all that), but from what I've read, he seems really thoughtful about how war happens and at what cost. Whether or not he'll get swept up in the Trumpstorm of insanity remains to be seen. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/could-one-retired-general-really-save-donald-trumps-pen-1789495945
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 02, 2016, 10:02:40 AM
I think the Mattis announcement is really, really interesting. It's the first appointment where I can look at it, and not lose my shit. Obviously, it's far from a done deal (active duty waiver and all that), but from what I've read, he seems really thoughtful about how war happens and at what cost. Whether or not he'll get swept up in the Trumpstorm of insanity remains to be seen. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/could-one-retired-general-really-save-donald-trumps-pen-1789495945

I mostly agree, although his hawkishness on Iran makes me quite nervous. Still, way better than most of the other appointees thus far and definitely as good as anyone a mainstream GOP president was likely to have produced.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 02, 2016, 10:08:07 AM
I think the Mattis announcement is really, really interesting. It's the first appointment where I can look at it, and not lose my shit. Obviously, it's far from a done deal (active duty waiver and all that), but from what I've read, he seems really thoughtful about how war happens and at what cost. Whether or not he'll get swept up in the Trumpstorm of insanity remains to be seen. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/could-one-retired-general-really-save-donald-trumps-pen-1789495945

I mostly agree, although his hawkishness on Iran makes me quite nervous. Still, way better than most of the other appointees thus far and definitely as good as anyone a mainstream GOP president was likely to have produced.

Yeah, that's the thing that stands out as being the most worrisome with him, but I think (hope) that's tempered by the fact that he appears to deeply respect the lives of the people he commands.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 02, 2016, 10:13:28 AM

Could it be argued that the domino has already fallen? I mean, a group of unhappy people flew planes into buildings 15 years ago. This lead half the world to invade a handful of foreign countries and overthrow their governments, creating huge reactionary forces that have killed hundreds of thousands of people.  The greatest country in the world imprisoned alleged enemies without trial, tortured them, and executed its own citizens without trial for associating with said enemies.

Is it blind to see that the terrible things mentioned in the article are already happening? That the dominos have already fallen, long before Trump or Brexit or anything the author is listing as a precursor- its more a comment on a current trend than a future course of the world.  Maybe I'm just an optimist, figuring things are super bad now and will someday get better.

I think this is a fair point and despite dividendman's assumptions to the contrary, I actually prefer to stay optimistic in general as well, if only for my own sanity. But I also believe in seriously contemplating dark alternatives so that I am not blindsided if they do come to pass (although as per the quote above, I am not optimistic about my chances in that world). Also not sure there is much evidence that we have reversed the disturbing course began on 9/11, alas.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on December 02, 2016, 12:19:24 PM
And it is deeply upsetting that the DNC had the gall to ram Clinton down the throats of liberals like she was owed the office of the president because of her sex and loyalty to the party.

Clinton won the Democratic nomination because a majority of Democratic primary voters preferred her. The DNC did not choose, and did not have the power to choose, the Democratic nominee.

I think this misses quite a bit of nuance. Scheduling debates for low viewer turn out after Clinton polled lower after each debate with Bernie, DNC executives giving Clinton debate questions before anyone else, assigning superdelegates to her even when Bernie won the majority of democratic votes in the state; these are some of the things that upset many democratic voters, and show it clearly wasn't a fair and equal primary election.

The debates were either scheduled far in advance or were held after it was already clear that Bernie had no chance to win the nomination. If you're talking about Donna Brazile, she wasn't a DNC executive when she provided a hint about a debate question. I have no idea what you're referring to in your third point, but whatever happened, it was almost certainly insignificant in comparison to Clinton's overall delegate lead, which was a result, again, of voters preferring her.

This "DNC stole the primary for Hillary" narrative is just stupid and wrong.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 02, 2016, 12:25:22 PM
The debates were either scheduled far in advance or were held after it was already clear that Bernie had no chance to win the nomination. If you're talking about Donna Brazile, she wasn't a DNC executive when she provided a hint about a debate question. I have no idea what you're referring to in your third point, but whatever happened, it was almost certainly insignificant in comparison to Clinton's overall delegate lead, which was a result, again, of voters preferring her.

This "DNC stole the primary for Hillary" narrative is just stupid and wrong.

And these sorts of dismissals and sidestepping of the issues probably played a large part in Clinton's eventual loss to Donald Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on December 02, 2016, 12:53:45 PM
Bernie supporters who were poor losers contributed to Hillary 's loss, yes.  The Republicans weren't the only ones in this election who ignored math and fell for fake news.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on December 02, 2016, 02:10:58 PM
Bernie supporters who were poor losers contributed to Hillary 's loss, yes.  The Republicans weren't the only ones in this election who ignored math and fell for fake news.

+10

To be clear, I'm not putting Trump's victory on Bernie supporters. There were a whole lot of factors leading to that, and disgruntled Bernie supporters were only one of many.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 02, 2016, 05:59:26 PM
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on December 02, 2016, 06:22:00 PM
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.
It is just possible that Trump having not yet taken office the Chinese will feel able to turn a diplomatic blind eye.  In which case, it could be a good move on Trump's part.

On the other hand, Trump is playing chicken with a nuclear armed dictatorship.

Four more years of this.  It's a long time to live on a tightrope.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 02, 2016, 06:38:44 PM
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.
It is just possible that Trump having not yet taken office the Chinese will feel able to turn a diplomatic blind eye.  In which case, it could be a good move on Trump's part.

On the other hand, Trump is playing chicken with a nuclear armed dictatorship.

Four more years of this.  It's a long time to live on a tightrope.

I think we can hope for the rest of the world being more mature and just not taking him seriously... which is a really f'd up thing to hope for. Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve... especially given that he has also escalated tensions regarding the US position in the India-Pakistan relationship (who actually have ongoing armed conflict and nukes). Hard to find a silver lining in his recent string of diplomatic encounters. As near as I can tell, Trump is acting like he's trying to sell them condos.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 02, 2016, 08:50:28 PM
And now we have diplomacy by Twitter:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-choice-on-cuba?mbid=social_twitter

on Monday morning, following a series of blustery anti-Castro pronouncements on the Sunday talk shows by his aides Kellyanne Conway and Reince Priebus, and by Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio, Trump tweeted again: “If Cuba is unwilling to make a better deal for the Cuban people, the Cuban/American people and the U.S. as a whole, I will terminate deal.” A few minutes after that tweet, I asked a Cuban diplomat if he’d seen it. He hadn’t. When I read it to him, he said, in a low voice, “No, no, no. This isn’t going to end well.”
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 02, 2016, 09:41:52 PM
Today's developments, in which President Elect Trump overturns decades of diplomatic negotiations with China by casually phoning the leader of Taiwan and then hours later reverses the nation's course on Cuban relations with a tweet, have suddenly made me realize that this thread is going to stay very interesting until Trump leaves office (I almost said "for the next four years" but then thought better of it).

So let's review.  Who predicted that Trump would ignore the pleas of the State Department and attempt to remake the global diplomatic framework that supports US economic dominance by using twitter?  Was that on somebody's list?  If we missed it, then we should all be ashamed of ourselves in retrospect, because OF COURSE he would.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 03, 2016, 12:03:40 AM
I wonder if this is what the citizens of Rome felt like in 400 A.D., when things started to decline?  Now, I'm not saying that Trump single-handedly brings the fall of the US, but there are some interesting parallels, with the election of Trump and subsequent 'Corruption and Political Instability' as being one more of the 8 reasons Rome fell (http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-reasons-why-rome-fell).  See if you can match up some of the others reasons to our current circumstances...  Of course, significant pieces are missing, like the rise of a rival power (maybe China?) and heightened attacks from barbarians (maybe terrorists or domestic threats?).

Of course, this is all just as speculative as saying our future looks like Idiocracy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA).  :)

Anyway, posting on this thread to get involved, I have yet to read through the entirety of what others have said to see all of the positive aspects that I'm missing.  Also, I'm not saying that Hillary wasn't corrupt, but I do believe that she would have maintained political stability more so than Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 03, 2016, 03:56:22 AM
Everything I've read states that the Tsai Ing-wen called Trump, not the other way around.  I think that's a very important distinction to be made.  China has to fly off the handle at this, which is completely expected and boringly predictable - the actual reaction that will matter is the Trump administration's reaction - do they walk back the conversation and downplay it? Or do they double down on the action - the latter would be a clear mistake in U.S. - China relations.

Taking a phone call from Taiwan, in absence of supportive action or further conversations: probably not that big of deal. Continued conversations? Clearly a pivot on decades of U.S. policy. Despite what some of the reactionary pundits are hyping, China is not going to start a nuclear war over a phone call.

Edit: This has to be taken as well with a reflection from China's perspective - their economy is changing, growth is slowing, Chinese manufacturers are opening factories in the United States and essentially exporting jobs. China is going through changes and growing pains just like any world power and this may temper their reactions in ways that it wouldn't have 35 years ago.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 03, 2016, 05:04:09 AM
I'm glad I found this thread, because I feel like I'm losing my mind. There aren't many people I can talk to on this subject. Most of my family is pro Trump. One is outright hateful toward me.

In terms of previous posts here, it seems to me the dominoes are falling (yes, maybe they have been falling for >15 years) and we're in for something very bad. Even as I hope for the best, I wake up, read about Trump - his appointments, his behavior, and his tweets, and the hope dies. Every day.

And it's not just Trump. His win has emboldened GOP reps. The recent tweets out of the House Science Committee sickens me:

Yesterday, @HouseScience tweeted a Brietbart article by an English major who readily admits he doesn't have time to read peer reviewed science. This is the guy who made hay about Climate gate in 2009 that, after 4 independent investigations, turned up ZERO wrongdoing. (Watch This BBC Documentary (https://youtu.be/C3JEaigwAbg) . James Delingpole's statements here: https://youtu.be/C3JEaigwAbg?t=37m51s (https://youtu.be/C3JEaigwAbg?t=37m51s) )

Earlier, @HouseScience mocked Climate scientists for being depressed. I'm not kidding. (https://twitter.com/HouseScience/status/804080425912193024)

The chairman of the committee is a regular author on Breitbart. His stated priority as chairman is to "reduce the regulatory burden on american families."

After Trump won, I decided to focus on one important issue, and fight for it. For me, it's climate change. I read, research, and post simple, thoughtful posts nearly every day on facebook. I exchange emails with my pro Trump brother (through gritted teeth), and read up about the handful of non-climate-scientist deniers who are causing so many problems. Whether it's an anti-communist ideology, or on behalf of Exxon Mobil and whoever is anonymously donating to the 'Donors Trust' foundation, they are a destructive force.

Speaking of Exxon Mobil (XOM). They are the primary fossil fuel company behind climate denial activity. Even as their reported support has waned, it's very likely they are donating to a front group called 'Donors Trust'. It occurred to me that Vanguard ETFs must be a significant shareholder. I calculated they hold at least 5.7% of XOM (see my excel snapshot below).  I'm thinking we could call the fund managers of VTI, VOO, VDE  and others and demand they, as shareholder reps, demand that XOM stop employing these disinformation tactics from the big tobacco playbook. If you want to work with me on this feel free to PM.

I truly hope this lawsuit is effective. (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18112016/exxon-climate-change-research-oil-reserves-stranded-assets-lawsuit) But it's probably not enough. It's too small. We need a class action suit of people with standing, who can expose the climate change denial in the same way the tobacco industry was exposed.

I'm extremely discouraged by the appointment of Myron Ebell to the EPA, and the dangerous statements by Trump. I've found a few gems - like GOP house Rep Bob Ingles of South Carolina who is vocal about the reality of the science. But he was ousted in 2012.

This is a tremendous amount of information to go through - and it is but one topic in an array of terribly discouraging fronts.

Chin up, yes. But I'm preparing for things getting much worse.

tl;dr: so my take on the impact of a Trump presidency is that we'll lose significant ground on climate change mitigation.  I believe it's a crisis. Trump and his appointees could have a very negative impact on our global ecosystems. ... And I'm glad I have you all to talk with about it all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 03, 2016, 05:42:07 AM
I see this too, as a studier of history in a family of history fanatics. It's not just Trump, it's the fact that we have many world leaders of his type: narcissistic, thin-skinned bullies. They all seem to be supporting each other for the moment (think, Trump and Putin) but one of them will make a "tiny hands" joke about another and then shit's going to get real. At the least, I'm worried about a Cold War style stalemate between powers.

This is not to say that I'm certain these things will happen, but in my dark moments and when I take a good look at world politics, this is what I think about.

Ender and Dividendman - Total deaths from war have gone down, but we have the potential for much bigger conflicts now. Think about it, the Holocaust would not have been possible prior to the technology of the time (gas chambers and such). Part of the reason we've had fewer wars recently is because we're so interconnected. Not only can we see the horrors of war more (pictures, video) but we have greater access to mediators. Other governments/the UN will step in if there are potential conflicts. However, this doesn't totally protect us from war, and in fact makes another great world war more likely as more countries would be involved in any conflict. Before it was France v. England with maybe Spain halfheartedly thrown in. Now it's Europe v. Russia and Asia, or something else equally huge. The periods between war will likely get longer, but the wars themselves will be catastrophically worse. Especially when you throw in our globalized food, so people who don't go to war could very well starve due to lack of getting food from where it used to come from.
The article linked by jrhampt expresses so much more clearly than I can what I've been seeing in terms of world trends.

I'm not sure a person can study history and think that wars will get catastrophically worse. Wars have been getting 'better', smaller and less frequent and overall less deadly for world powers than at any time in history.  There are so many reasons for this, some of which you've mentioned, that I find it difficult to believe that most informed people would argue that the planet overall, and especially developed countries, are moving closer to global conflict.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: music lover on December 03, 2016, 06:55:38 AM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings and no one on the left bothered to complain, yet Trump isn't even in office and suddenly the left is having a meltdown because he hasn't attended every single briefing.

How does one reason with such hypocrisy?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: music lover on December 03, 2016, 07:04:44 AM
Today's developments, in which President Elect Trump overturns decades of diplomatic negotiations with China by casually phoning the leader of Taiwan...

He "overturned" decades of diplomatic relations? I highly doubt that.

Maybe you're used to 8 years of ineffective milquetoast leadership, but the fact is that Trump doesn't need China's permission to speak to Taiwan, or anyone else for that matter.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 03, 2016, 07:25:04 AM
It's snowing in Hell: I agree with Sarah Palin.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sarah-palin-calls-out-trump-s-carrier-deal-warns-against-n691426 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sarah-palin-calls-out-trump-s-carrier-deal-warns-against-n691426)

I only agree with her article calling out the deal as "crony capitalism." The rest of the article is full of a lot of the same old hooey.

Original Article:
http://www.youngcons.com/sarah-palin-but-wait-the-good-guys-wont-win-with-more-crony-capitalism/ (http://www.youngcons.com/sarah-palin-but-wait-the-good-guys-wont-win-with-more-crony-capitalism/)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 03, 2016, 09:00:36 AM

Speaking of Exxon Mobil (XOM). They are the primary fossil fuel company behind climate denial activity.

If you're speaking of the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, the Democratic Party was as well.  If you're talking about the 90's, it wasn't really settled.  Actual science wasn't available until after decades of chicken little, so it's a little strange to indict a company that was legitimately concerned with keeping energy prices low when, you know, there were no viable alternatives.

Did their activities delay action?  There's good arguments for that.

Are they still?  No.  That can't really be argued.  All signs point to industry trying to make the transition.

The demonization of individual companies or industries is easy if you decide to become a single issue person.  You lose the complexity of reality, like how oil companies produce the fertilizer that ended famine.  Or produced the synthetic materials that made modern medicine possible.  Or you know, literally enabled the entire world you enjoy to exist at virtually every level.

There were a lot of motivations to oppose bad policy like "tax the shit out of these specific companies despite the fact that we all rely on energy and there isn't an alternative at the moment."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 03, 2016, 09:11:29 AM
The Rockefeller foundation wrote up an extensive investigation into Exxon Mobil and climate change denial efforts. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/12/08/the-rockefeller-family-fund-vs-exxon). It's pretty well established exactly when they abandoned clear eyed honest science and started manufacturing doubt.



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: music lover on December 03, 2016, 09:35:58 AM
The Rockefeller foundation wrote up an extensive investigation into Exxon Mobil and climate change denial efforts. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/12/08/the-rockefeller-family-fund-vs-exxon). It's pretty well established exactly when they abandoned clear eyed honest science and started manufacturing doubt.

Yup...we're supposed to believe that Exxon Oil has "proven" damaging climate change, even though no one else has managed to do so, and then they kept it hidden, and only the efforts of the left leaning Rockefeller Foundation have uncovered this massive cover up.

Time for a new tin foil hat... :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 03, 2016, 09:37:16 AM
And just in case folks don't believe in a link between a Trump presidency and increased environmental degradation, the Trump effect is already happening in Texas...  http://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/EPA-plans-to-withdraw-pollution-rule-for-7-Texas-10645121.php

Quote
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it plans to withdraw a rule that would require seven Texas coal-fired power plants to reduce pollution coming from their stacks, providing at least a short-term reprieve for power companies fearful that the costs of ever stricter regulations would doom their plants.

The rule would have mandated that the Texas plants, as well as eight others in Oklahoma, update scrubbers and other air pollution control devices to preserve air quality near national parks and wilderness areas, including Big Bend National Park on the Texas border with Mexico, and Guadalupe Mountains National Park on the New Mexico border.

Quote
Environmental advocates said they expect the EPA to rework and resubmit the rule, but its future is uncertain as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office.

Trump has pledged to support the coal industry and undo regulations adopted under President Barack Obama that threaten it. The EPA did not respond to requests for comment. Power companies also declined to comment.

Environmental advocates said the EPA’s move represents a setback to efforts to reduce air pollution in Texas. For years, Texas and the EPA have battled over whether the state or federal government should set air standards. Texas developed its own plan to manage air quality, but the EPA in 2014 said it did not go far enough in reducing pollution and imposed a regional power plant rule.

The EPA’s pollution plan would have cut 200,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide emitted into the air in Texas, according to the Sierra Club, a national environmental advocacy group.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 03, 2016, 09:44:19 AM
The Rockefeller foundation wrote up an extensive investigation into Exxon Mobil and climate change denial efforts. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/12/08/the-rockefeller-family-fund-vs-exxon). It's pretty well established exactly when they abandoned clear eyed honest science and started manufacturing doubt.

I think the point that this article shows is that it was wildly known, by massive amounts of important people and large swaths of the scientific community that this was occurring, 35-40 years ago. And no one has done anything. Not a single, damn thing. It's not as if one single company came to this conclusion and no one else in the world knew about it - four decades of this information, and people are still flying around in jets and driving cars and burning coal for lights.

No. It just means that no one is doing anything that matters to address it. Absolutely no one.  Even the people who have huge followings and could motivate large amounts of people are still flying to Ecuador every year, or jetting off to Paris on their private jet or whatever. The scientists still drive to work in their fossil fuel-powered cars and eat food grown several hundred miles away using huge amounts of fuels before being trucked to their area using huge amount of carbon before being persevered using huge amounts of carbon.  They are still posting results on computers powered by fossil fuels and working in labs powered by carbon, wearing clothes made thousands of miles away in factories powered by fossil fuels before being transported using carbon....

etc.

It's not that climate change isn't real, or isn't a problem. It's that there's nothing anyone can do to stop it and NO ONE is willing to do even the small things that could be done to mitigate the effects.

At some point, one looks at the data, sees that it's too late to do anything to stop climate change, and that no one is doing anything anyway, and starts looking at other options.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 03, 2016, 09:48:38 AM
And just in case folks don't believe in a link between a Trump presidency and increased environmental degradation, the Trump effect is already happening in Texas...  http://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/EPA-plans-to-withdraw-pollution-rule-for-7-Texas-10645121.php

Quote
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it plans to withdraw a rule that would require seven Texas coal-fired power plants to reduce pollution coming from their stacks, providing at least a short-term reprieve for power companies fearful that the costs of ever stricter regulations would doom their plants.

The rule would have mandated that the Texas plants, as well as eight others in Oklahoma, update scrubbers and other air pollution control devices to preserve air quality near national parks and wilderness areas, including Big Bend National Park on the Texas border with Mexico, and Guadalupe Mountains National Park on the New Mexico border.

Quote
Environmental advocates said they expect the EPA to rework and resubmit the rule, but its future is uncertain as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office.

Trump has pledged to support the coal industry and undo regulations adopted under President Barack Obama that threaten it. The EPA did not respond to requests for comment. Power companies also declined to comment.

Environmental advocates said the EPA’s move represents a setback to efforts to reduce air pollution in Texas. For years, Texas and the EPA have battled over whether the state or federal government should set air standards. Texas developed its own plan to manage air quality, but the EPA in 2014 said it did not go far enough in reducing pollution and imposed a regional power plant rule.

The EPA’s pollution plan would have cut 200,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide emitted into the air in Texas, according to the Sierra Club, a national environmental advocacy group.

Sound energy policy doesn't constitute environmental degradation.  Building a lower polluting energy grid should be a huge priority.  The idea that you need to go out of your way to shut down the existing grid before that new power is available is false.  Texas is investing a ton of efforts at renewable energy sources.  We would've replaced almost all of our coal decades ago if we'd been allowed to build the nuclear plants we wanted, but environmentalists stopped us from doing that.

Not to mention elimination of some of the cheapest power is going to be a huge burden on the poor.  Why does the left insist on waging war on the poor?  Why tax the poor with all this expensive energy?  Man.  Have some humanity (see how annoying that is?)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 03, 2016, 09:54:56 AM
And just in case folks don't believe in a link between a Trump presidency and increased environmental degradation, the Trump effect is already happening in Texas...  http://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/EPA-plans-to-withdraw-pollution-rule-for-7-Texas-10645121.php

Quote
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it plans to withdraw a rule that would require seven Texas coal-fired power plants to reduce pollution coming from their stacks, providing at least a short-term reprieve for power companies fearful that the costs of ever stricter regulations would doom their plants.

The rule would have mandated that the Texas plants, as well as eight others in Oklahoma, update scrubbers and other air pollution control devices to preserve air quality near national parks and wilderness areas, including Big Bend National Park on the Texas border with Mexico, and Guadalupe Mountains National Park on the New Mexico border.

Quote
Environmental advocates said they expect the EPA to rework and resubmit the rule, but its future is uncertain as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office.

Trump has pledged to support the coal industry and undo regulations adopted under President Barack Obama that threaten it. The EPA did not respond to requests for comment. Power companies also declined to comment.

Environmental advocates said the EPA’s move represents a setback to efforts to reduce air pollution in Texas. For years, Texas and the EPA have battled over whether the state or federal government should set air standards. Texas developed its own plan to manage air quality, but the EPA in 2014 said it did not go far enough in reducing pollution and imposed a regional power plant rule.

The EPA’s pollution plan would have cut 200,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide emitted into the air in Texas, according to the Sierra Club, a national environmental advocacy group.

The EPA has been getting smacked around in court for its 111(D) ruling since 2014.  I never expected it to stand as written, no matter who was in office. It was unworkable for most of the country and their implementation was pretty slimy to-boot.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 03, 2016, 10:42:03 AM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings and no one on the left bothered to complain, yet Trump isn't even in office and suddenly the left is having a meltdown because he hasn't attended every single briefing.

How does one reason with such hypocrisy?

One can forgive a president with years of experience skipping briefings.  How many did he miss in the months after the election when he needed to get up to speed?  Are you being purposefully obtuse? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 03, 2016, 10:42:46 AM
Not to mention elimination of some of the cheapest power is going to be a huge burden on the poor.  Why does the left insist on waging war on the poor?  Why tax the poor with all this expensive energy?  Man.  Have some humanity (see how annoying that is?)

I'm not sure if you were trying to be humorous or if you don't understand externalities (http://philschatz.com/economics-book/contents/m48669.html)

I'm not in support of paying more over the life cycle of an energy resource, but the idea that we should be willing to pollute just to make more money in the short term is an outdated concept for a first world country.  This is what the third world does in order to boot strap up to where we are.  And the poor aren't going to be saved by their relatively tiny usage of cheap energy getting 1% cheaper, but those billionaires are probably going to be 1% richer.  Go USA!  :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 03, 2016, 11:13:08 AM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

This is classic Trump, btw.  You're on video saying "grab them by the pussy?"  Make the false claim that Bill Clinton is a rapist, even though he's not even running for office.  You've been charged with defrauding the American public?  Make the false claim that Hillary Clinton is being charged with mishandling classified information (she wasn't).  You're resume is full of repeated business failures?  Make the false claim that your opponent's record of service to her country is meaningless because [honestly I'm not sure why he claimed that].  For every one of Trump's weaknesses and failures as a candidate, his "defense" has always been a baseless attack on the opposition for the exact same thing.  Try to sow dissent, introduce confusion, muddle the issue.

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.

If you want to defend Trump's blatant disregard for diplomatic protocols, please do so on some grounds other than "I think the other guy sort of did that too."  For example, I know people who think Twitter is the CORRECT avenue to negotiate international treaties and that Trump is saving America by cutting out all that formal bullshit and just publicly announcing every step in his process in a 3am tweet.  If you believe that, or have some other defense of Trump's repeated diplomatic missteps, go ahead and make your case.  But you can stop making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people.

I expect your response to this post to be "sol is making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people!"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 03, 2016, 11:14:07 AM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings and no one on the left bothered to complain, yet Trump isn't even in office and suddenly the left is having a meltdown because he hasn't attended every single briefing.

How does one reason with such hypocrisy?

One can forgive a president with years of experience skipping briefings.  How many did he miss in the months after the election when he needed to get up to speed?  Are you being purposefully obtuse?

music lover is a hyper partisan rightwinger, so yes. Also, his claim is false and, unsurprisingly, based on a partisan rightwing propaganda article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.fb1ab726aeb3

Now, it's legitimate to ask if Trump is maybe doing the same (reading it daily but not always having an in person meeting), although given his frightful lack of experience and foreign policy knowledge, I would still call even that a dereliction of duties if he really wants to take the job seriously.

The Twitter stuff falls into the category of so obviously bad that I would be surprised if Trump supporters even make much of an effort to defend it. Too much cognitive dissonance to be found there. Completely ignoring it is the safer option.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 03, 2016, 11:32:50 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.fb1ab726aeb3

Now, it's legitimate to ask if Trump is maybe doing the same (reading it daily but not always having an in person meeting), although given his frightful lack of experience and foreign policy knowledge, I would still call even that a dereliction of duties if he really wants to take the job seriously.

The Twitter stuff falls into the category of so obviously bad that I would be surprised if Trump supporters even make much of an effort to defend it. Too much cognitive dissonance to be found there. Completely ignoring it is the safer option.

This was my first thought. Can't find any source commenting that he's reading them, though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wienerdog on December 03, 2016, 01:22:05 PM
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 03, 2016, 01:29:30 PM
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/
Diplomacy is mostly gray area and it is natural to have parallel interests that do not appear to dovetail well. This would have been a good time to have staff smart enough to say, "Sorry, it appears that Mr. Trump is in a meeting. Would you like me to connect you to his voice mail?"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 03, 2016, 01:37:33 PM
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/

I'm changing my vote. If China didn't start a war when the U.S. gave missiles to Taiwan, there is even less chance of war over a phone call than I thought.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wienerdog on December 03, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
Diplomacy is mostly gray area and it is natural to have parallel interests that do not appear to dovetail well. This would have been a good time to have staff smart enough to say, "Sorry, it appears that Mr. Trump is in a meeting. Would you like me to connect you to his voice mail?"

Why would that be the smart thing to do?  The call was setup by his campaign staff.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 03, 2016, 02:10:07 PM

FWIW:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2016/12/03/2003660473

"Trump reportedly agreed to the call, which was arranged by Taiwan-friendly members of his campaign staff after his aides briefed him on issues regarding Taiwan and the situation in the Taiwan Strait, sources said."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: music lover on December 03, 2016, 02:33:45 PM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

That is information provided by the government. You could look it up...or heaven forbid, you could have actually have been aware of it for the last 8 years. But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on December 03, 2016, 03:49:15 PM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

That is information provided by the government. You could look it up...or heaven forbid, you could have actually have been aware of it for the last 8 years. But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.
Do you have an official source for it?  The Washington Post (link provided by Lagom) thinks it was generous to only give the story three Pinocchios.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 03, 2016, 04:18:30 PM
But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.

I'm just going to repeat myself...

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 03, 2016, 05:25:48 PM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

This is classic Trump, btw.  You're on video saying "grab them by the pussy?"  Make the false claim that Bill Clinton is a rapist, even though he's not even running for office.  You've been charged with defrauding the American public?  Make the false claim that Hillary Clinton is being charged with mishandling classified information (she wasn't).  You're resume is full of repeated business failures?  Make the false claim that your opponent's record of service to her country is meaningless because [honestly I'm not sure why he claimed that].  For every one of Trump's weaknesses and failures as a candidate, his "defense" has always been a baseless attack on the opposition for the exact same thing.  Try to sow dissent, introduce confusion, muddle the issue.

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.

If you want to defend Trump's blatant disregard for diplomatic protocols, please do so on some grounds other than "I think the other guy sort of did that too."  For example, I know people who think Twitter is the CORRECT avenue to negotiate international treaties and that Trump is saving America by cutting out all that formal bullshit and just publicly announcing every step in his process in a 3am tweet.  If you believe that, or have some other defense of Trump's repeated diplomatic missteps, go ahead and make your case.  But you can stop making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people.

I expect your response to this post to be "sol is making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people!"

Music lover appears to be going back to a claim from around 2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.79e627fc657f

To summarize, every president changes how they receive and respond to intelligence. The "skipped meetings" in question appear to have never been scheduled meetings at all. If this is how that figure was reached, I would rate the 58% stat as deceptive.  To continue to spread it (say 4 years later) I would consider it a lie. 

From the article:
"That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled."

Using the same logic, this article claims one could accuse Reagan of "skipping" 99% of these same never scheduled meetings.  Also an unfair and deceptive assessment in my opinion.

The recent accusation that Trump is skipping security briefings might be just as unfair of an assessment. To me it would depend on whether Trump is receiving the information some other way. Does the president elect receive the PDB, or it that not yet for his eyes?  I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. If it later comes out that Trump is forgoing receiving the information in any way, I would then begin to get more concerned.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wienerdog on December 03, 2016, 06:21:27 PM
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/

I'm changing my vote. If China didn't start a war when the U.S. gave missiles to Taiwan, there is even less chance of war over a phone call than I thought.

Did you vote Hillary or Trump?  I heard she still needs some votes in Wisconsin as she gained 1 but then lost 3 the next day.  Maybe you can tip it over the edge.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 03, 2016, 06:51:44 PM
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/

I'm changing my vote. If China didn't start a war when the U.S. gave missiles to Taiwan, there is even less chance of war over a phone call than I thought.

Did you vote Hillary or Trump?  I heard she still needs some votes in Wisconsin as she gained 1 but then lost 3 the next day.  Maybe you can tip it over the edge.

Not that it's any of your business, but I did not vote for either of those candidates.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wienerdog on December 03, 2016, 07:16:48 PM
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/

I'm changing my vote. If China didn't start a war when the U.S. gave missiles to Taiwan, there is even less chance of war over a phone call than I thought.

Did you vote Hillary or Trump?  I heard she still needs some votes in Wisconsin as she gained 1 but then lost 3 the next day.  Maybe you can tip it over the edge.

Not that it's any of your business, but I did not vote for either of those candidates.

Same.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 03, 2016, 07:19:14 PM
High five. There were much better choices available , overall.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 05, 2016, 11:55:37 AM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

This is classic Trump, btw.  You're on video saying "grab them by the pussy?"  Make the false claim that Bill Clinton is a rapist, even though he's not even running for office.  You've been charged with defrauding the American public?  Make the false claim that Hillary Clinton is being charged with mishandling classified information (she wasn't).  You're resume is full of repeated business failures?  Make the false claim that your opponent's record of service to her country is meaningless because [honestly I'm not sure why he claimed that].  For every one of Trump's weaknesses and failures as a candidate, his "defense" has always been a baseless attack on the opposition for the exact same thing.  Try to sow dissent, introduce confusion, muddle the issue.

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.

If you want to defend Trump's blatant disregard for diplomatic protocols, please do so on some grounds other than "I think the other guy sort of did that too."  For example, I know people who think Twitter is the CORRECT avenue to negotiate international treaties and that Trump is saving America by cutting out all that formal bullshit and just publicly announcing every step in his process in a 3am tweet.  If you believe that, or have some other defense of Trump's repeated diplomatic missteps, go ahead and make your case.  But you can stop making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people.

I expect your response to this post to be "sol is making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people!"

Music lover appears to be going back to a claim from around 2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.79e627fc657f

To summarize, every president changes how they receive and respond to intelligence. The "skipped meetings" in question appear to have never been scheduled meetings at all. If this is how that figure was reached, I would rate the 58% stat as deceptive.  To continue to spread it (say 4 years later) I would consider it a lie. 

From the article:
"That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled."

Using the same logic, this article claims one could accuse Reagan of "skipping" 99% of these same never scheduled meetings.  Also an unfair and deceptive assessment in my opinion.

The recent accusation that Trump is skipping security briefings might be just as unfair of an assessment. To me it would depend on whether Trump is receiving the information some other way. Does the president elect receive the PDB, or it that not yet for his eyes?  I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. If it later comes out that Trump is forgoing receiving the information in any way, I would then begin to get more concerned.
I think the point is that reading a note, if you have the base to understand the note is one thing.  But reading a note without any backstory is a bad idea.  Many presidents (and VP elect Pence) have gotten the background that Trump is refusing to get.
This has a nice summary of the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.b929c1fa677d
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 05, 2016, 01:28:34 PM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

This is classic Trump, btw.  You're on video saying "grab them by the pussy?"  Make the false claim that Bill Clinton is a rapist, even though he's not even running for office.  You've been charged with defrauding the American public?  Make the false claim that Hillary Clinton is being charged with mishandling classified information (she wasn't).  You're resume is full of repeated business failures?  Make the false claim that your opponent's record of service to her country is meaningless because [honestly I'm not sure why he claimed that].  For every one of Trump's weaknesses and failures as a candidate, his "defense" has always been a baseless attack on the opposition for the exact same thing.  Try to sow dissent, introduce confusion, muddle the issue.

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.

If you want to defend Trump's blatant disregard for diplomatic protocols, please do so on some grounds other than "I think the other guy sort of did that too."  For example, I know people who think Twitter is the CORRECT avenue to negotiate international treaties and that Trump is saving America by cutting out all that formal bullshit and just publicly announcing every step in his process in a 3am tweet.  If you believe that, or have some other defense of Trump's repeated diplomatic missteps, go ahead and make your case.  But you can stop making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people.

I expect your response to this post to be "sol is making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people!"

Music lover appears to be going back to a claim from around 2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.79e627fc657f

To summarize, every president changes how they receive and respond to intelligence. The "skipped meetings" in question appear to have never been scheduled meetings at all. If this is how that figure was reached, I would rate the 58% stat as deceptive.  To continue to spread it (say 4 years later) I would consider it a lie. 

From the article:
"That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled."

Using the same logic, this article claims one could accuse Reagan of "skipping" 99% of these same never scheduled meetings.  Also an unfair and deceptive assessment in my opinion.

The recent accusation that Trump is skipping security briefings might be just as unfair of an assessment. To me it would depend on whether Trump is receiving the information some other way. Does the president elect receive the PDB, or it that not yet for his eyes?  I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. If it later comes out that Trump is forgoing receiving the information in any way, I would then begin to get more concerned.
I think the point is that reading a note, if you have the base to understand the note is one thing.  But reading a note without any backstory is a bad idea.  Many presidents (and VP elect Pence) have gotten the background that Trump is refusing to get.
This has a nice summary of the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.b929c1fa677d

This article actually sets my mind more at ease, due to the following:

"A team of intelligence analysts has been prepared to deliver daily briefings on global developments and security threats to Trump in the two weeks since he won. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, by contrast, has set aside time for intelligence briefings almost every day since the election, officials said.
Officials involved in the Trump transition team cautioned against assigning any significance to the briefing schedule that the president-elect has set so far, noting that he has been immersed in the work of forming his administration, and has made filling key national security posts his top priority."

It is hinting that security briefings are happening, just in a way that might not have been considered "normal".  Just speculation here, but those 2 paragraphs imply that Pence will be poised to handle security issues more than vice-presidents in the past. This is consistent with reports that Trump will rely on others for more of the day-to-day actions of the presidency.

Believe me, the morning of November 9th you would never have convinced me I would ever pen a statement that in any way defended Trump.  While I still feel a little dirty, fair is fair.   



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 05, 2016, 01:45:21 PM
you are a piece of shit and I will not apologize.

Classic.

Donald Trump would be proud.  "I'm not saying you're a piece of shit.  I would never say that, because it wouldn't be proper.  But some people are saying you're a huge piece of shit.  I don't say that, but everyone knows that you're a huge piece of shit."

24 hours later...  "I never said he was a piece of shit, you're quoting me out of context.  Some other people have said that he's a piece of shit, but not me.  It's not me saying that, what a shitty thing for him to say, attacking me like that.  Only a real piece of shit would say that."

I'll be clearer. If you are convinced that x will happen, and x does not happen, and you sidestep, backpedal, deny, etc., you are a 'pick your disparaging descriptive word'. That is my only point. And, if x does happen, please, post and say 'damn it, I was right, this sucks'. Ditto for the opposite of those.

One small example is Chuck Todd. Last November or so he said on national tv, 'well, that will do it for trump, watch next week he will fade away'. I never heard him say 'wow, did I screw that up. You'd think someone who does this for a living would be better than that'. I never heard that. Others have, and I respect that. Have integrity, that is my desire. I am fine with no one caring about my desire, but you should be true to yourself.

Silverado,
This sounds like fun, so I will play.

Regarding ACA:
Full repeal of ACA with no replace gets discussed, debated, passed through the house and senate, and placed on Trumps desk. Just as discussed (in the 60 minutes article from a few weeks back), Trump Veto's the bill.

They start over with a repeal and replace plan that Trump signs. 

No mandate, 26 year-olds on parents plan, no denial of pre-existing conditions. There is now a catastrophic option, covering nothing until some large out of pocket max (lets say $25,000). This new option will cost about $2,000 less per year as the current bronze plans but will cover nothing unless you have a serious health event.  There will no longer be ACA credits for health insurance, but there will be some sort of off-set to help make the catastrophic plan affordable to the poor. Prevention services will be reduced to help contain costs.  Healthy people will love the new system. Sick people will not like it as much.

If you are unhealthy you will pay more or not get services, if you are well you will pay less. Many will think that is exactly the way it ought to be. Many will think we are abandoning our sick.

My family will pay more and utilize less services.

Regarding Medicare:
They go with the Ryan Plan voucher idea. Saves government money.  Costs people more. It might be a real problem, but not for 25 years. I hope my goggle reminder goes off in 2041 so I can come back here and gloat :)

Regarding Inheritance:
Full repeal of any taxes for inheritance. This will not effect 99.98% of current estates. The revenue difference will be offset by a combination of deficit increases and less services.

Regarding Taxes
Rates changes much like Trump has been discussing. Increased deficits and decreasing spending on services to offset the tax revenue decrease.

Regarding Military Spending
The largest percentage increase in modern history. All deficit driven.

Regarding infrastructure
Almost nothing changes.   No money. All improvements are deficit driven.

Overall, usual "don't tax and spend a little less" deficit increasing policies.  4 years from now, increased inflation, increased annual deficits, and a greater wealth gap. Trump falls short of his campaign promise to eliminate the debt(not deficit) in 10 years by $40 trillion, because congress does not go along with his idea to default on our debt.

If he runs in 2020, he wins again under the "give my ideas a chance" mantra.

Ryan was interviewed on 60 minutes. 

Question(regarding Obamacare being the first bill with Trump as president): You're going to repeal it (slight pause) ... first?
Ryan: Yes

It is way too early to say it, but I will begin anyway:
'damn it, I was right, this sucks'


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on December 05, 2016, 04:38:36 PM
And the funny thing about this kind of deficit driven government bloat we see from Republicans is the tax load keeps growing for the middle class in the form of near static taxes and continue inflation from the Fed.

Even a great conservative economist like Milton Friedman hammers at the point that inflation is basically a tax. If you keep tax brackets near stagnant at the lower income range and keep up inflation you effectively slowly move people into higher tax brackets.

The effects of a voucher program could be as bad or worse than the ACA for people when it actually would take effect. But if they are able to undo the ACA it gives me hope that a new administration could equally undo a bad program from the right.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 05, 2016, 05:22:43 PM
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve..

The recent accusation that Trump is skipping security briefings might be just as unfair of an assessment. To me it would depend on whether Trump is receiving the information some other way. Does the president elect receive the PDB, or it that not yet for his eyes?  I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. If it later comes out that Trump is forgoing receiving the information in any way, I would then begin to get more concerned.
I think the point is that reading a note, if you have the base to understand the note is one thing.  But reading a note without any backstory is a bad idea.  Many presidents (and VP elect Pence) have gotten the background that Trump is refusing to get.
This has a nice summary of the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.b929c1fa677d

This article actually sets my mind more at ease, due to the following:

"A team of intelligence analysts has been prepared to deliver daily briefings on global developments and security threats to Trump in the two weeks since he won. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, by contrast, has set aside time for intelligence briefings almost every day since the election, officials said.
Officials involved in the Trump transition team cautioned against assigning any significance to the briefing schedule that the president-elect has set so far, noting that he has been immersed in the work of forming his administration, and has made filling key national security posts his top priority."

It is hinting that security briefings are happening, just in a way that might not have been considered "normal".  Just speculation here, but those 2 paragraphs imply that Pence will be poised to handle security issues more than vice-presidents in the past. This is consistent with reports that Trump will rely on others for more of the day-to-day actions of the presidency.

Believe me, the morning of November 9th you would never have convinced me I would ever pen a statement that in any way defended Trump.  While I still feel a little dirty, fair is fair.
Given that Trump and his team have been noted for being liars, I am not sure I buy your ease.  That said, I do agree with your last paragraph that Pence is basically acting President.  That should scare people as well because people will still expect the president to make decisions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Silverado on December 05, 2016, 07:58:49 PM
you are a piece of shit and I will not apologize.

Classic.

Donald Trump would be proud.  "I'm not saying you're a piece of shit.  I would never say that, because it wouldn't be proper.  But some people are saying you're a huge piece of shit.  I don't say that, but everyone knows that you're a huge piece of shit."

24 hours later...  "I never said he was a piece of shit, you're quoting me out of context.  Some other people have said that he's a piece of shit, but not me.  It's not me saying that, what a shitty thing for him to say, attacking me like that.  Only a real piece of shit would say that."

I'll be clearer. If you are convinced that x will happen, and x does not happen, and you sidestep, backpedal, deny, etc., you are a 'pick your disparaging descriptive word'. That is my only point. And, if x does happen, please, post and say 'damn it, I was right, this sucks'. Ditto for the opposite of those.

One small example is Chuck Todd. Last November or so he said on national tv, 'well, that will do it for trump, watch next week he will fade away'. I never heard him say 'wow, did I screw that up. You'd think someone who does this for a living would be better than that'. I never heard that. Others have, and I respect that. Have integrity, that is my desire. I am fine with no one caring about my desire, but you should be true to yourself.

Silverado,
This sounds like fun, so I will play.

Regarding ACA:
Full repeal of ACA with no replace gets discussed, debated, passed through the house and senate, and placed on Trumps desk. Just as discussed (in the 60 minutes article from a few weeks back), Trump Veto's the bill.

They start over with a repeal and replace plan that Trump signs. 

No mandate, 26 year-olds on parents plan, no denial of pre-existing conditions. There is now a catastrophic option, covering nothing until some large out of pocket max (lets say $25,000). This new option will cost about $2,000 less per year as the current bronze plans but will cover nothing unless you have a serious health event.  There will no longer be ACA credits for health insurance, but there will be some sort of off-set to help make the catastrophic plan affordable to the poor. Prevention services will be reduced to help contain costs.  Healthy people will love the new system. Sick people will not like it as much.

If you are unhealthy you will pay more or not get services, if you are well you will pay less. Many will think that is exactly the way it ought to be. Many will think we are abandoning our sick.

My family will pay more and utilize less services.

Regarding Medicare:
They go with the Ryan Plan voucher idea. Saves government money.  Costs people more. It might be a real problem, but not for 25 years. I hope my goggle reminder goes off in 2041 so I can come back here and gloat :)

Regarding Inheritance:
Full repeal of any taxes for inheritance. This will not effect 99.98% of current estates. The revenue difference will be offset by a combination of deficit increases and less services.

Regarding Taxes
Rates changes much like Trump has been discussing. Increased deficits and decreasing spending on services to offset the tax revenue decrease.

Regarding Military Spending
The largest percentage increase in modern history. All deficit driven.

Regarding infrastructure
Almost nothing changes.   No money. All improvements are deficit driven.

Overall, usual "don't tax and spend a little less" deficit increasing policies.  4 years from now, increased inflation, increased annual deficits, and a greater wealth gap. Trump falls short of his campaign promise to eliminate the debt(not deficit) in 10 years by $40 trillion, because congress does not go along with his idea to default on our debt.

If he runs in 2020, he wins again under the "give my ideas a chance" mantra.

Ryan was interviewed on 60 minutes. 

Question(regarding Obamacare being the first bill with Trump as president): You're going to repeal it (slight pause) ... first?
Ryan: Yes

It is way too early to say it, but I will begin anyway:
'damn it, I was right, this sucks'

Yeah, haste here does not seem like a positive direction. This seems like an area where there should be some common ground, but alas, nothing but politics normally.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 05, 2016, 09:05:56 PM
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: davisgang90 on December 06, 2016, 03:45:00 AM
But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.

I'm just going to repeat myself...

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.
Obama violated decades of US foreign policy when he normalized relations with Cuba.  Nixon violated decades of US foreign policy when he went to China.  Given China's adventures building a military base on a coral reef in the South China Sea, I think the phone call was a good idea.  Time to put the "One China" fiction to rest.  The media and US diplomats have reacted more shrilly than the Chinese.  That should be cause for introspection.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 06, 2016, 05:56:15 AM
But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.

I'm just going to repeat myself...

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.
Obama violated decades of US foreign policy when he normalized relations with Cuba.  Nixon violated decades of US foreign policy when he went to China.  Given China's adventures building a military base on a coral reef in the South China Sea, I think the phone call was a good idea.  Time to put the "One China" fiction to rest.  The media and US diplomats have reacted more shrilly than the Chinese.  That should be cause for introspection.

I don't necessarily disagree, BUT that could just be cultural differences manifesting in subtle ways. Americans are really loud.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 06, 2016, 06:55:40 AM
I don't think that is a very accurate assesment. The chinese have reacted pretty damn loudly.  They just reacted more loudly at Tiwan than the USA.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bananarama on December 06, 2016, 07:00:48 AM
But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.

I'm just going to repeat myself...

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.
Obama violated decades of US foreign policy when he normalized relations with Cuba.  Nixon violated decades of US foreign policy when he went to China.  Given China's adventures building a military base on a coral reef in the South China Sea, I think the phone call was a good idea.  Time to put the "One China" fiction to rest.  The media and US diplomats have reacted more shrilly than the Chinese.  That should be cause for introspection.

I don't necessarily disagree, BUT that could just be cultural differences manifesting in subtle ways. Americans are really loud.

Sure, this could put us in a good position in some ways. Right now though, Trump is still a regular citizen so who cares what he says. As president? Might be different, especially if he doesn't leave room for China to come to agreements with us without losing face. They've given him room to let this get dismissed and instead he doubled down.

It's a delicate line to balance, and those examples of that  ”violated decades of US foreign policy" were all relatively mild. We didn't stand to lose anything normalizing relations with China or Cuba and a potential hell of a lot to gain. Destabilizing Pakistan/India or China/Taiwan? Lots more to lose, and a good number of other allies in that area who won't be keen on increasingly strong stances from countries trying to establish new hierarchies and relationships.

President wants to take a hard line? That's fine, we elected him to do the job and he's got the State Department to help him lay out a way forward. However, I'll always be (justifiably) nervous if that President decides twitter is an appropriate place to do diplomatic work (or that his children are acceptable unofficial ambassadors) and who's language is careless, especially when dealing with cultures very different from our own. At some point China (or others) won't be able to downplay things and then the situation will grow in ways we can't imagine now.Or not.

I think it boils down to trust. Looking at his history and considering everything I've read, I am incredibly doubtful that Trump has what it takes to be anything other than an embarrassment. I mean, saving a few jobs (which is good for sure) by giving a company millions (which is bad) can only lead to other companies trying the same tactic.

Interesting thought: I view the job thing as governance by bribe. But then, a lot of attempts to bring new business to an area are essentially bribes. When is the line where it becomes crony capitalism? Is it always crony capitalism?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on December 06, 2016, 07:06:35 AM
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bananarama on December 06, 2016, 07:22:24 AM
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

Pretty sure the 12th amendment doesn't say anything about how the electors are supposed to vote (just that they do) so it sounds like he knows exactly how to do his job. Seriously, even before the election I was for keeping the electoral college (and against the interstate agreement) because I like the idea that there is a built in safe guard for a bad national vote. Why does the prospect of someone voting for their nation over their party (against a candidate they judge is unfit for the presidency) make you so angry?

Pure democracy is a mob rule, either way. While it's unlikely that the electors will vote for anyone other than Trump and this is really just symbolic (electors aren't usually faithless), at some point in our future that tiny little distinction between popular vote and the electoral college might be all that stands between us and tyranny.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on December 06, 2016, 08:34:19 AM
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 06, 2016, 08:45:10 AM
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).

Exactly. The elector's job is precisely to do what this person is doing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on December 06, 2016, 08:46:39 AM
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).

Now I know that I am Canadian and looking at this as an outsider.  But Trump, even if you completely agree with his policy(what are they again?) and the fact that he is a republican(conservative in my world) Is he even qualified to hold office?  As mentioned he goes on twitter rampages when SNL does a skit on him, refuses to put his businesses into a blind trust, so that policy that he may affect does not benefit him unequally, discuses policy through twitter, does not seem interested in existing policy?  I truly wonder how the EC that was designed to protect the US from this, would not be almost obligated to vote elsewhere?

Please fill me in how he is qualified? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 06, 2016, 08:47:39 AM
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).

Now I know that I am Canadian and looking at this as an outsider.  But Trump, even if you completely agree with his policy(what are they again?) and the fact that he is a republican(conservative in my world) Is he even qualified to hold office?  As mentioned he goes on twitter rampages when SNL does a skit on him, refuses to put his businesses into a blind trust, so that policy that he may affect does not benefit him unequally, discuses policy through twitter, does not seem interested in existing policy?  I truly wonder how the EC that was designed to protect the US from this, would not be almost obligated to vote elsewhere?

Please fill me in how he is qualified?

This is my feeling, too, Dycker, and I'm an American.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 06, 2016, 09:48:47 AM
Sure, this could put us in a good position in some ways. Right now though, Trump is still a regular citizen so who cares what he says. As president? Might be different, especially if he doesn't leave room for China to come to agreements with us without losing face. They've given him room to let this get dismissed and instead he doubled down.

It's a delicate line to balance, and those examples of that  ”violated decades of US foreign policy" were all relatively mild. We didn't stand to lose anything normalizing relations with China or Cuba and a potential hell of a lot to gain. Destabilizing Pakistan/India or China/Taiwan? Lots more to lose, and a good number of other allies in that area who won't be keen on increasingly strong stances from countries trying to establish new hierarchies and relationships.

President wants to take a hard line? That's fine, we elected him to do the job and he's got the State Department to help him lay out a way forward. However, I'll always be (justifiably) nervous if that President decides twitter is an appropriate place to do diplomatic work (or that his children are acceptable unofficial ambassadors) and who's language is careless, especially when dealing with cultures very different from our own. At some point China (or others) won't be able to downplay things and then the situation will grow in ways we can't imagine now.Or not.

I think it boils down to trust. Looking at his history and considering everything I've read, I am incredibly doubtful that Trump has what it takes to be anything other than an embarrassment. I mean, saving a few jobs (which is good for sure) by giving a company millions (which is bad) can only lead to other companies trying the same tactic.

Interesting thought: I view the job thing as governance by bribe. But then, a lot of attempts to bring new business to an area are essentially bribes. When is the line where it becomes crony capitalism? Is it always crony capitalism?

The only positive I can see from Trump pissing off China is that he and his family might actually have to--gasp!--manufacture their shit products in America.

dycker - yes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on December 06, 2016, 10:21:53 AM
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).

Now I know that I am Canadian and looking at this as an outsider.  But Trump, even if you completely agree with his policy(what are they again?) and the fact that he is a republican(conservative in my world) Is he even qualified to hold office?  As mentioned he goes on twitter rampages when SNL does a skit on him, refuses to put his businesses into a blind trust, so that policy that he may affect does not benefit him unequally, discuses policy through twitter, does not seem interested in existing policy?  I truly wonder how the EC that was designed to protect the US from this, would not be almost obligated to vote elsewhere?

Please fill me in how he is qualified?

This is my feeling, too, Dycker, and I'm an American.
At the moment Trump is quite possibly disqualified by reason of his business holdings, because of the emoluments clause.  As soon as any foreign government books a representative into any of his hotels and pays for it, he is toast.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 06, 2016, 10:23:14 AM

At the moment Trump is quite possibly disqualified by reason of his business holdings, because of the emoluments clause.  As soon as any foreign government books a representative into any of his hotels and pays for it, he is toast.

Except I don't think the powers that be will do anything but look the other way. I think Trump is going to get away with a massive amount of illegal activity. Hell, he's arguably already getting away with it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 06, 2016, 11:07:41 AM
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 06, 2016, 11:35:20 AM
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 06, 2016, 11:37:41 AM
Sure, this could put us in a good position in some ways. Right now though, Trump is still a regular citizen so who cares what he says. As president? Might be different, especially if he doesn't leave room for China to come to agreements with us without losing face. They've given him room to let this get dismissed and instead he doubled down.

It's a delicate line to balance, and those examples of that  ”violated decades of US foreign policy" were all relatively mild. We didn't stand to lose anything normalizing relations with China or Cuba and a potential hell of a lot to gain. Destabilizing Pakistan/India or China/Taiwan? Lots more to lose, and a good number of other allies in that area who won't be keen on increasingly strong stances from countries trying to establish new hierarchies and relationships.

President wants to take a hard line? That's fine, we elected him to do the job and he's got the State Department to help him lay out a way forward. However, I'll always be (justifiably) nervous if that President decides twitter is an appropriate place to do diplomatic work (or that his children are acceptable unofficial ambassadors) and who's language is careless, especially when dealing with cultures very different from our own. At some point China (or others) won't be able to downplay things and then the situation will grow in ways we can't imagine now.Or not.

I think it boils down to trust. Looking at his history and considering everything I've read, I am incredibly doubtful that Trump has what it takes to be anything other than an embarrassment. I mean, saving a few jobs (which is good for sure) by giving a company millions (which is bad) can only lead to other companies trying the same tactic.

Interesting thought: I view the job thing as governance by bribe. But then, a lot of attempts to bring new business to an area are essentially bribes. When is the line where it becomes crony capitalism? Is it always crony capitalism?

The only positive I can see from Trump pissing off China is that he and his family might actually have to--gasp!--manufacture their shit products in America.

dycker - yes.

Several Chinese companies have already stated plans to open factories in the United States, beginning production next year.  Arkansas and North Carolina, i believe.

Soo... thanks, Trump?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 06, 2016, 11:40:41 AM
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Apparently the humor was lost, so I'll explain more clearly:  being qualified clearly has nothing to do with being elected.  In fact, it turns out that you don't even need to be the country's preferred candidate in order to get elected.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on December 06, 2016, 12:33:28 PM
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 06, 2016, 12:35:00 PM
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it?
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not have much trust in the average person.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on December 06, 2016, 12:38:03 PM
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it?
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not have much trust in the average person.
OK, but would this scenario not apply.  How is trump qualified to be "the leader of the free world"?  He has no experience in politics, well with anything really besides Trump industries, or what ever he calls it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 06, 2016, 12:49:49 PM


In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it?
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not have much trust in the average person.
OK, but would this scenario not apply.  How is trump qualified to be "the leader of the free world"?  He has no experience in politics, well with anything really besides Trump industries, or what ever he calls it.
[/quote]
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite). 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on December 06, 2016, 12:54:11 PM


In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it?
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not have much trust in the average person.
OK, but would this scenario not apply.  How is trump qualified to be "the leader of the free world"?  He has no experience in politics, well with anything really besides Trump industries, or what ever he calls it.
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite).
[/quote]

Makes sense to me...kind of ironic that the founding fathers put this in place to protect the US from stuff like this,  and now everyone is not wanting to do the correct thing and will allow a person with no experience or qualification into office... At least you all have guns to over through a corrupt government.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 06, 2016, 01:44:11 PM
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Apparently the humor was lost, so I'll explain more clearly:  being qualified clearly has nothing to do with being elected.  In fact, it turns out that you don't even need to be the country's preferred candidate in order to get elected.

Is this supposed to be news? America has been electing leaders the same way as long as it's been a country. Perhaps tea leaves or owl bones or weather events or some other meaningless system preferred a different candidate: the electoral college clearly preferred one over the other.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 06, 2016, 01:55:26 PM
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite).

Article II, section I of the Constitution lays out pretty clearly the qualifications to be president. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 06, 2016, 02:08:41 PM
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite).

Article II, section I of the Constitution lays out pretty clearly the qualifications to be president.

No, that article defines eligibility. Not qualifications.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 06, 2016, 02:14:02 PM
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite).

Article II, section I of the Constitution lays out pretty clearly the qualifications to be president. 

I think you mean Presidential eligibility.  You'll have to point me to the the part of the Constitution that says a President that Twitters inflamatory nonsense, debases the office, and takes phone calls with no regard for history, culture, or consequence against the general wishes and better judgement of the rest of the US governement and country is qualified to be President.  The fact that he doesn't have the temperment to represent our fair and balanced nation is abundantly clear, and I have yet to see a strong arguement from anyone that Trump is in any way shape or form qualified to assume office.  For the most part, people expect him to assume office and be summarily impeached, which generally assumes that he is not qualified, but apparently there isn't anything anyone can do except wait until we actually can hold him accountable for f'ing something up.

And yes, the article I linked to explained that the EC was put in place to stop someone like Trump from actually being installed as President if the EC suspected that the popular vote was somehow gamed (like making illegitimate promises in swing states and calling your opponent 'someone who should be in jail' to win votes).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 06, 2016, 02:30:06 PM
Well, i guess we can see how the Electors vote. Won't have to wait long. Interesting to see what happens, no doubt
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 06, 2016, 02:41:38 PM
The Electors are a slate of lackeys put up by each candidate.  No way are they going to break rank.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 06, 2016, 03:20:45 PM
The Electors are a slate of lackeys put up by each candidate.  No way are they going to break rank.

Being a realist, I agree.  But it is historic in the modern age to have two faithless electors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector) and says quite a lot about just how much more screwed up than usual this all is.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 06, 2016, 05:14:53 PM
I would take pretty much any other presidential pairing the EC wants. Paul Ryan? Fine. I think he's a tool, but at least he's an artful tool rather than our artless, inarticulate, flamboyantly ignorant President-Elect. Despite what conservatives seem to think, there would not be all this soul-searching and gnashing of teeth of the GOP had put forth a reasonable candidate. Hell, I'd take Ted Cruz, and I hate the guy's policies. It is Trump the rest of us hate/oppose. He, himself, is not fit to be our president. That's what reasonable and thinking people, including plenty of conservatives, are scared about.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 06, 2016, 05:19:00 PM
I'll take Ryan, I'll take Cruz, I'll even take Ronald Reagan's reanimated corpse.

Those folks disagree with me on policies but are honorable people who I respect. They want what is best for America, even if I think the way they want to go about it won't work well.

Trump, who has no policies anyone can comprehend, is a different story.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 06, 2016, 05:40:39 PM
I'll take Ryan, I'll take Cruz, I'll even take Ronald Reagan's reanimated corpse.

Those folks disagree with me on policies but are honorable people who I respect. They want what is best for America, even if I think the way they want to go about it won't work well.

Trump, who has no policies anyone can comprehend, is a different story.

-W

Completely agree. Shit, I would have even contemplated voting for Kasich. He was such a whiny asshole during the primary season it made me sad. But he would jave been a fine president.

Trump?

I still can't believe there are actually people in the world who argue he will not take a massive dump all over our country, then walk away and wipe his ass with gold leaf TP.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 06, 2016, 05:48:40 PM
I'll take Ryan, I'll take Cruz, I'll even take Ronald Reagan's reanimated corpse.

Those folks disagree with me on policies but are honorable people who I respect. They want what is best for America, even if I think the way they want to go about it won't work well.

Trump, who has no policies anyone can comprehend, is a different story.

-W

Completely agree. Shit, I would have even contemplated voting for Kasich. He was such a whiny asshole during the primary season it made me sad. But he would jave been a fine president.

Trump?

I still can't believe there are actually people in the world who argue he will not take a massive dump all over our country, then walk away and wipe his ass with gold leaf TP.

Right? I'm sure no matter what kind of President he is, he'll walk away wiping his ass with gold tp. Im still in shock that no other political party could field a candidate that could beat him. This is what makes me even sadder than the fact that he'll be terrible, that there were no other options that were significantly better to the point that people in enough states would turn out for them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on December 06, 2016, 06:47:33 PM
I'll take Ryan, I'll take Cruz, I'll even take Ronald Reagan's reanimated corpse.

Those folks disagree with me on policies but are honorable people who I respect. They want what is best for America, even if I think the way they want to go about it won't work well.

Trump, who has no policies anyone can comprehend, is a different story.

-W

Completely agree. Shit, I would have even contemplated voting for Kasich. He was such a whiny asshole during the primary season it made me sad. But he would jave been a fine president.

Trump?

I still can't believe there are actually people in the world who argue he will not take a massive dump all over our country, then walk away and wipe his ass with gold leaf TP.

Agree!  No matter what happens, he and his family are going to end up extremely rich, like Bill Gates/Warren Buffett rich, at the expense of everyone else.  Everyone who tries to claim he was there already, I call BS - why would he whore himself on Trump U, The Apprentice and all the other stupid shit if he was already as rich as he claims.  I truly hope we are not headed for some scary times, but I think it is inevitable.  I'd be thrilled to say I was wrong. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 07, 2016, 06:02:25 AM
I'll take Ryan, I'll take Cruz, I'll even take Ronald Reagan's reanimated corpse.

Those folks disagree with me on policies but are honorable people who I respect. They want what is best for America, even if I think the way they want to go about it won't work well.

Trump, who has no policies anyone can comprehend, is a different story.

-W

Completely agree. Shit, I would have even contemplated voting for Kasich. He was such a whiny asshole during the primary season it made me sad. But he would jave been a fine president.

Trump?

I still can't believe there are actually people in the world who argue he will not take a massive dump all over our country, then walk away and wipe his ass with gold leaf TP.

Having lived through Gov. Kasich "balancing" our state budget by simply not paying for shit, and leaving local government to figure out how to replace services with no money, I completely agree.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on December 07, 2016, 06:35:38 AM
Yep, I keep trying to explain to people that this isn't just me being a "sore loser".  I have been on the losing side of elections before, and while I was grumpy, I didn't feel this level of near terror and sadness.  And the hits just seem to keep on coming.  I really would have been okay with any other of the primary candidates short of Cruz and Carson.  Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, all would have been okay. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 07, 2016, 06:50:05 AM
Trump is Time's "Person of the Year". Interesting.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 07, 2016, 08:00:48 AM
Trump is Time's "Person of the Year". Interesting.

He certainly made an impact on 2016.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 07, 2016, 08:11:48 AM
Trump is Time's "Person of the Year". Interesting.

As was Hitler, shortly after he came to power.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 07, 2016, 08:13:52 AM
Trump is Time's "Person of the Year". Interesting.

As was Hitler, shortly after he came to power.

As was Ghandi.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 07, 2016, 08:48:03 AM
Trump is Time's "Person of the Year". Interesting.

As was Hitler, shortly after he came to power.

As was Ghandi.

As was Stalin. The person of the year is not meant to be an endorsement, good or bad, of the person. Just someone who has been a major influence. Famous or infamous.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 07, 2016, 09:41:28 AM
Yep, I keep trying to explain to people that this isn't just me being a "sore loser".  I have been on the losing side of elections before, and while I was grumpy, I didn't feel this level of near terror and sadness.  And the hits just seem to keep on coming.  I really would have been okay with any other of the primary candidates short of Cruz and Carson.  Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, all would have been okay.

I find myself really, really hoping that Romney is our Secretary of State. My biggest problem with him was simply that he'd been so rich for so long that he didn't seem to realize his normal was not everyone else's normal. But, I think he'd make a fantastic Sec of State.

Which is completely at odds with my disgust of him and all the other Repubs who mocked Trump during the election, openly stated that he'd be terrible for the country, and are now falling all over themselves to curry favor. Sniveling cowards. Putting party politics ahead of what you know to be bad for the country is just...I don't even have words for how much I hate them at this moment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 07, 2016, 10:21:16 AM
Yep, I keep trying to explain to people that this isn't just me being a "sore loser".  I have been on the losing side of elections before, and while I was grumpy, I didn't feel this level of near terror and sadness.  And the hits just seem to keep on coming.  I really would have been okay with any other of the primary candidates short of Cruz and Carson.  Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, all would have been okay.

I find myself really, really hoping that Romney is our Secretary of State. My biggest problem with him was simply that he'd been so rich for so long that he didn't seem to realize his normal was not everyone else's normal. But, I think he'd make a fantastic Sec of State.

Which is completely at odds with my disgust of him and all the other Repubs who mocked Trump during the election, openly stated that he'd be terrible for the country, and are now falling all over themselves to curry favor. Sniveling cowards. Putting party politics ahead of what you know to be bad for the country is just...I don't even have words for how much I hate them at this moment.

Apparently they're looking at the CEO of XOM now for State. Which is just thrilling.

/sarcasm
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on December 07, 2016, 04:22:05 PM
Yep, I keep trying to explain to people that this isn't just me being a "sore loser".  I have been on the losing side of elections before, and while I was grumpy, I didn't feel this level of near terror and sadness.  And the hits just seem to keep on coming.  I really would have been okay with any other of the primary candidates short of Cruz and Carson.  Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, all would have been okay.

I find myself really, really hoping that Romney is our Secretary of State. My biggest problem with him was simply that he'd been so rich for so long that he didn't seem to realize his normal was not everyone else's normal. But, I think he'd make a fantastic Sec of State.

Which is completely at odds with my disgust of him and all the other Repubs who mocked Trump during the election, openly stated that he'd be terrible for the country, and are now falling all over themselves to curry favor. Sniveling cowards. Putting party politics ahead of what you know to be bad for the country is just...I don't even have words for how much I hate them at this moment.

I don't begrudge or feel sadness to see politicians who criticized Trump flocking to him. If he is going to be president I damn well want people in his cabinet who thought well enough of themselves and the country to condemn him during the election.

But now is not the time to stand only on principle. Now is the time to suck it up and play the politician and work to keep shit together that Trump doesn't understand.

If all the Repubs simply refuse to work with him then you are going to get a rogue executive branch listening to god knows who filled with Trump sycophants who are probably the only people I have less respect for than Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 07, 2016, 05:04:15 PM
Yep, I keep trying to explain to people that this isn't just me being a "sore loser".  I have been on the losing side of elections before, and while I was grumpy, I didn't feel this level of near terror and sadness.  And the hits just seem to keep on coming.  I really would have been okay with any other of the primary candidates short of Cruz and Carson.  Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, all would have been okay.

I find myself really, really hoping that Romney is our Secretary of State. My biggest problem with him was simply that he'd been so rich for so long that he didn't seem to realize his normal was not everyone else's normal. But, I think he'd make a fantastic Sec of State.

Which is completely at odds with my disgust of him and all the other Repubs who mocked Trump during the election, openly stated that he'd be terrible for the country, and are now falling all over themselves to curry favor. Sniveling cowards. Putting party politics ahead of what you know to be bad for the country is just...I don't even have words for how much I hate them at this moment.

Apparently they're looking at the CEO of XOM now for State. Which is just thrilling.

/sarcasm

Oh goodie. And I thought about the worst candidate would be Petraeus. You know, the person who actually leaked classified information and is on probation for it.

Ready to wake up from this nightmare any minute....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on December 07, 2016, 07:14:27 PM
Because that guy guarantees we wont get into any wars over oil.....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bananarama on December 08, 2016, 12:57:40 PM
Sure, this could put us in a good position in some ways. Right now though, Trump is still a regular citizen so who cares what he says. As president? Might be different, especially if he doesn't leave room for China to come to agreements with us without losing face. They've given him room to let this get dismissed and instead he doubled down.

It's a delicate line to balance, and those examples of that  ”violated decades of US foreign policy" were all relatively mild. We didn't stand to lose anything normalizing relations with China or Cuba and a potential hell of a lot to gain. Destabilizing Pakistan/India or China/Taiwan? Lots more to lose, and a good number of other allies in that area who won't be keen on increasingly strong stances from countries trying to establish new hierarchies and relationships.

President wants to take a hard line? That's fine, we elected him to do the job and he's got the State Department to help him lay out a way forward. However, I'll always be (justifiably) nervous if that President decides twitter is an appropriate place to do diplomatic work (or that his children are acceptable unofficial ambassadors) and who's language is careless, especially when dealing with cultures very different from our own. At some point China (or others) won't be able to downplay things and then the situation will grow in ways we can't imagine now.Or not.

I think it boils down to trust. Looking at his history and considering everything I've read, I am incredibly doubtful that Trump has what it takes to be anything other than an embarrassment. I mean, saving a few jobs (which is good for sure) by giving a company millions (which is bad) can only lead to other companies trying the same tactic.

Interesting thought: I view the job thing as governance by bribe. But then, a lot of attempts to bring new business to an area are essentially bribes. When is the line where it becomes crony capitalism? Is it always crony capitalism?

The only positive I can see from Trump pissing off China is that he and his family might actually have to--gasp!--manufacture their shit products in America.

dycker - yes.

Several Chinese companies have already stated plans to open factories in the United States, beginning production next year.  Arkansas and North Carolina, i believe.

Soo... thanks, Trump?

I looked this up because I was hopeful for a second. Trump or no low skill jobs are important.

From Fortune: "According to Arkansas Business, over the past five years nearly 100,000 manufacturing jobs have been “reshored” to the U.S.—60% of them from China. And states are taking notice of the potential business opportunity." Fortune also reported a paper plant (which fucking stinks, paper plants are awful) is supposed to provide ~2000 jobs in Virginia around 2020.

From CNN: the Arkansas deal was finalized in October, so... not really a Trump victory there. For a 20 million dollar investment and the creation of ~400 jobs a company called Tianyaun "receives a $1 million infrastructure grant, $500,000 for training assistance and a 3.9% annual tax rebate, which comes to about $1.6 million annually."

Everything I've read seems to be part of a trend that was already happening because it's become cheaper to automate in the USA where a good chunk of the customer base is. So, I guess manufacturing might be coming back - but at significantly reduced rates of needed employees and with zero to do with Trump. I worry how easily China based companies might operate in the US if tensions increase.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/technology/chinese-manufacturers-come-to-america/
http://fortune.com/2016/12/01/this-chinese-manufacturer-is-creating-american-jobs-not-stealing-them/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on December 08, 2016, 05:55:18 PM
Everything I've read seems to be part of a trend that was already happening because it's become cheaper to automate in the USA where a good chunk of the customer base is.

And guess who will be there taking credit for any case where this occurs?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 08, 2016, 06:13:15 PM
Everything I've read seems to be part of a trend that was already happening because it's become cheaper to automate in the USA where a good chunk of the customer base is.

And guess who will be there taking credit for any case where this occurs?

Our new robot overlords?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on December 09, 2016, 12:06:11 AM
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 09, 2016, 12:09:02 AM
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE  ?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on December 09, 2016, 04:53:59 AM
I'll take Ryan, I'll take Cruz, I'll even take Ronald Reagan's reanimated corpse.

Those folks disagree with me on policies but are honorable people who I respect. They want what is best for America, even if I think the way they want to go about it won't work well.

Trump, who has no policies anyone can comprehend, is a different story.

-W

I think the only legitimate option the Electoral College would have, if it wanted to dump Trump and yet not elect Hillary despite the popular vote, is to elect Romney (or at least cast enough votes for Romney to take Trump below 270, throwing the election to the House, and then having the House elect Romney). He's legit because he actually ran for president and got SIXTY-ONE MILLION VOTES in the last election. My vote most emphatically was not among them--viva Obama!--but still, sixty-one million votes in a presidential election, plus the fact that he's sane, experienced, not a religious nut, and apparently reasonably honorable, makes him a legit choice in my book.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on December 09, 2016, 05:40:37 AM
There is no way they are going to put in Romney.  I would personally freak and I'm not the only one.  The person who won the election is the new President, period.  You can't undo it.  It's not going to happen. 

I mean, who picks Romney out of the blue?  Who would have the power to decide that?  No, we had an election and the people voted.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 09, 2016, 05:54:11 AM
There is no way they are going to put in Romney.  I would personally freak and I'm not the only one.  The person who won the election is the new President, period.  You can't undo it.  It's not going to happen. 

I mean, who picks Romney out of the blue?  Who would have the power to decide that?  No, we had an election and the people voted.

What you're arguing for is neither the will of the people, nor in line with the rules of US elections.

Clinton had more of the votes cast for her.  If you're going to argue that the will of the people should rule, you should be arguing that Clinton be given the presidency.

If, on the other hand, you're going to argue that the particular rules of American style democracy should be in effect then you are supporting the possibility of the electoral college overruling Trump's candidacy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on December 09, 2016, 05:57:45 AM
I understand the the Electoral College will vote and that decides the president.  I'm just saying that there is no freaking way that they're picking Romney.  They're going to vote in Trump. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 09, 2016, 08:25:12 AM
No, we had an election and the people voted.

That was an interesting choice of words, considering that "the people" voted for Clinton by approximately 2%.

I agree with you that Trump will be president.  But let's not pretend it's because that is what most Americans wanted.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 09, 2016, 12:19:15 PM
No, we had an election and the people voted.

That was an interesting choice of words, considering that "the people" voted for Clinton by approximately 2%.

I agree with you that Trump will be president.  But let's not pretend it's because that is what most Americans wanted.

She blew him away in one enclave (LA County) and it is suddenly the "whole country" wants clinton, and California should secede. It is just one messed up state with too many people that skews the whole country.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 09, 2016, 12:32:24 PM
It is just one messed up state with too many people that skews the whole country.

I wasn't talking about an enclave, I was talking about how most of the people in the United States voted.  If you ignored the artificially drawn lines and just asked American citizens what they wanted, Clinton would be our next president.

But that's not how we elect presidents in America, land of the free.  In fact, in 40% of the most recent presidential elections, we have elected the person who did NOT get the most votes.

Is everyone really okay with that?  Will we still be okay with it if it starts happening every single time?  Will we be okay with it if we start electing the person who loses the vote by 10%, or by 75%?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 09, 2016, 12:34:03 PM
No, we had an election and the people voted.

That was an interesting choice of words, considering that "the people" voted for Clinton by approximately 2%.

I agree with you that Trump will be president.  But let's not pretend it's because that is what most Americans wanted.

Most Americans wanted neither Clinton nor Trump.  Most Americans voted for someone else.  Neither candidate won the popular vote.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 09, 2016, 12:37:28 PM
No, we had an election and the people voted.

That was an interesting choice of words, considering that "the people" voted for Clinton by approximately 2%.

I agree with you that Trump will be president.  But let's not pretend it's because that is what most Americans wanted.

She blew him away in one enclave (LA County) and it is suddenly the "whole country" wants clinton, and California should secede. It is just one messed up state with too many people that skews the whole country.
Actually she won all over California as well as percentage wise in most populous areas. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on December 09, 2016, 12:44:11 PM
Most Americans wanted neither Clinton nor Trump.  Most Americans voted for someone else.  Neither candidate won the popular vote.

At last count, over 137 million Americans voted and only 7.6 million of them (5.5% of them) voted for anyone other than Clinton or Trump.

Out of the 129 million who voted for Clinton or Trump, more than 65.5 million voted for Clinton while 62.8 million voted for Trump.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 09, 2016, 12:50:32 PM
It is just one messed up state with too many people that skews the whole country.

I wasn't talking about an enclave, I was talking about how most of the people in the United States voted.  If you ignored the artificially drawn lines and just asked American citizens what they wanted, Clinton would be our next president.

But that's not how we elect presidents in America, land of the free.  In fact, in 40% of the most recent presidential elections, we have elected the person who did NOT get the most votes.

Is everyone really okay with that?  Will we still be okay with it if it starts happening every single time?  Will we be okay with it if we start electing the person who loses the vote by 10%, or by 75%?

Sometimes people who are 2k miles away from one another do not see things the same way, even if presented with the same information. Those lines can allow greater freedom, except of course when we try to make it just one 300mil person blob.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 09, 2016, 01:06:57 PM
Neither candidate won the popular vote.

You keep repeating this lie, and I'm not sure why.  Who are trying to delegitimize?

Clinton won the popular vote, because she got more votes than anyone else.  That's what winning means.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 09, 2016, 01:18:40 PM
Neither candidate won the popular vote.

You keep repeating this lie, and I'm not sure why.  Who are trying to delegitimize?

Clinton won the popular vote, because she got more votes than anyone else.  That's what winning means.

Long, but worth reading: https://medium.com/@michaelarnovitz/faking-a-mandate-a379c802e540#.wqhy2r83f
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 09, 2016, 01:24:14 PM

Clinton won the popular vote, because she got more votes than anyone else.  That's what winning means.

You keep saying this because you are trying to delegitimize Trump.  I'm not trying to delegitimize anyone.  Getting more votes than anyone else does not constitute winning the popular vote.  Getting a majority of the popular vote is winning.  More people voted for someone else than voted for HRC.  More people voted for someone else than voted for Trump.

There's a thousand different ways to slice the election aside from the actual rules, and only one shows HRC on top.  This erroneous "she won the popular vote" mantra.  By the only metric that matters, the actual rules of the game they were playing, Trump won the election.  If you go by popular vote, nobody won.  If you go by number of states, counties, cities, senators, representatives, state and local governments, republicans won.  None of that matters though, because that's not the game that was being played.  The electoral college could still do its actual fucking job and send it to the House, in which case the Republicans will select a non-trump President, 85% of the population will breathe a huge sigh of relief, 15% will never shut up about it until they die.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 09, 2016, 02:20:28 PM

Clinton won the popular vote, because she got more votes than anyone else.  That's what winning means.

You keep saying this because you are trying to delegitimize Trump.  I'm not trying to delegitimize anyone.  Getting more votes than anyone else does not constitute winning the popular vote.  Getting a majority of the popular vote is winning.  More people voted for someone else than voted for HRC.  More people voted for someone else than voted for Trump.

There's a thousand different ways to slice the election aside from the actual rules, and only one shows HRC on top.  This erroneous "she won the popular vote" mantra.  By the only metric that matters, the actual rules of the game they were playing, Trump won the election.  If you go by popular vote, nobody won.  If you go by number of states, counties, cities, senators, representatives, state and local governments, republicans won.  None of that matters though, because that's not the game that was being played.  The electoral college could still do its actual fucking job and send it to the House, in which case the Republicans will select a non-trump President, 85% of the population will breathe a huge sigh of relief, 15% will never shut up about it until they die.

Popular vote - the percentage of votes cast by the electorate.

You can argue that too many people couldn't be bothered to vote, so Clinton wasn't voted for by the majority of Americans.  That's perfectly true.  She did win the popular vote though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 09, 2016, 02:38:08 PM

Clinton won the popular vote, because she got more votes than anyone else.  That's what winning means.

You keep saying this because you are trying to delegitimize Trump.  I'm not trying to delegitimize anyone.  Getting more votes than anyone else does not constitute winning the popular vote.  Getting a majority of the popular vote is winning.  More people voted for someone else than voted for HRC.  More people voted for someone else than voted for Trump.

There's a thousand different ways to slice the election aside from the actual rules, and only one shows HRC on top.  This erroneous "she won the popular vote" mantra.  By the only metric that matters, the actual rules of the game they were playing, Trump won the election.  If you go by popular vote, nobody won.  If you go by number of states, counties, cities, senators, representatives, state and local governments, republicans won.  None of that matters though, because that's not the game that was being played.  The electoral college could still do its actual fucking job and send it to the House, in which case the Republicans will select a non-trump President, 85% of the population will breathe a huge sigh of relief, 15% will never shut up about it until they die.

Are you honestly trying to argue that winning a majority of votes cast means that she didn't win the popular vote? What the ever living fuck? It was kind of fun to read the mental squirming through that bit of illogic, however.

Also, it wasn't just California that voted mostly for HRC. Even better, if you do the statistics by age my generation overwhelmingly supported Clinton. You know, the young people who will be most affected in the long-term because of Trump's inevitable (at this point) fuckup.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 09, 2016, 02:46:07 PM
Clinton didn't win a majority of votes.  Only a plurality.  That's still "winning" in my mind
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on December 09, 2016, 08:28:24 PM
Clinton didn't win a majority of votes.  Only a plurality.  That's still "winning" in my mind

Yeah, also in parliamentary democracies, when a party has a plurality of the seats, it's called winning and they get the first shot at forming the government. So, both are winning, one is just winning by more.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 12, 2016, 04:49:29 AM

Clinton won the popular vote, because she got more votes than anyone else.  That's what winning means.

You keep saying this because you are trying to delegitimize Trump.  I'm not trying to delegitimize anyone.  Getting more votes than anyone else does not constitute winning the popular vote.  Getting a majority of the popular vote is winning.  More people voted for someone else than voted for HRC.  More people voted for someone else than voted for Trump.

There's a thousand different ways to slice the election aside from the actual rules, and only one shows HRC on top.  This erroneous "she won the popular vote" mantra.  By the only metric that matters, the actual rules of the game they were playing, Trump won the election.  If you go by popular vote, nobody won.  If you go by number of states, counties, cities, senators, representatives, state and local governments, republicans won.  None of that matters though, because that's not the game that was being played.  The electoral college could still do its actual fucking job and send it to the House, in which case the Republicans will select a non-trump President, 85% of the population will breathe a huge sigh of relief, 15% will never shut up about it until they die.

You're forgetting we're in the post-fact era. Now being very, very slightly less unpopular than your rival is something to be proud of - getting a majority or people to vote for you is apparently no longer the point; simply use whatever slant one can to delegitimize one's opponent, especially if they won fairly.


ETA; still no fuckin' idea why people are still on about the popular vote. It doesn't matter, it never has, and the electoral college is working as designed. Thankfully Hillary Clinton will never be president; sadly Trump will. Write your party, tell them to find better candidates next time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 12, 2016, 04:56:55 AM
Sometimes people who are 2k miles away from one another do not see things the same way, even if presented with the same information. Those lines can allow greater freedom, except of course when we try to make it just one 300mil person blob.

Great point. I like the argument that those lines allow greater freedom.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 12, 2016, 07:00:50 AM

Clinton won the popular vote, because she got more votes than anyone else.  That's what winning means.

You keep saying this because you are trying to delegitimize Trump.  I'm not trying to delegitimize anyone.  Getting more votes than anyone else does not constitute winning the popular vote.  Getting a majority of the popular vote is winning.  More people voted for someone else than voted for HRC.  More people voted for someone else than voted for Trump.

There's a thousand different ways to slice the election aside from the actual rules, and only one shows HRC on top.  This erroneous "she won the popular vote" mantra.  By the only metric that matters, the actual rules of the game they were playing, Trump won the election.  If you go by popular vote, nobody won.  If you go by number of states, counties, cities, senators, representatives, state and local governments, republicans won.  None of that matters though, because that's not the game that was being played.  The electoral college could still do its actual fucking job and send it to the House, in which case the Republicans will select a non-trump President, 85% of the population will breathe a huge sigh of relief, 15% will never shut up about it until they die.

You're forgetting we're in the post-fact era. Now being very, very slightly less unpopular than your rival is something to be proud of - getting a majority or people to vote for you is apparently no longer the point; simply use whatever slant one can to delegitimize one's opponent, especially if they won fairly.


ETA; still no fuckin' idea why people are still on about the popular vote. It doesn't matter, it never has, and the electoral college is working as designed. Thankfully Hillary Clinton will never be president; sadly Trump will. Write your party, tell them to find better candidates next time.

While you're correct that the winner of the popular vote doesn't matter and never has, Sol was responding specifically to this comment:

Neither candidate won the popular vote.

That comment is factually incorrect, which Sol pointed out.  Sol brought it up to correct the statement made by TheOldestYoungMan.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 12, 2016, 07:06:34 AM
Clinton didn't win a majority of votes.  Only a plurality.  That's still "winning" in my mind

Yeah, also in parliamentary democracies, when a party has a plurality of the seats, it's called winning and they get the first shot at forming the government. So, both are winning, one is just winning by more.

Plurality of seats doesn't necessitate a majority of votes, much like the United State's system - Donald Trump won a majority of electoral seats, and a party can control the senate without winning a plurality of actual votes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 12, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Well, that didn't take long - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/12/12/china-trumps-taiwan-comments-spark-serious-concern/95323960/

Quote
“We urge the new U.S. leader and government to fully understand the seriousness of the Taiwan issue, and to continue to stick to the one-China policy,” Geng said, according to the AP.

The Global Times, a state-run Chinese newspaper, said in an editorial Monday that Trump was “as ignorant as a child."
 

If we though fighting in the Middle East was a tremendous waste, it's just an appetizer to fighting the Far East.  Yay Future!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on December 12, 2016, 08:05:25 AM
Well, that didn't take long - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/12/12/china-trumps-taiwan-comments-spark-serious-concern/95323960/

Quote
“We urge the new U.S. leader and government to fully understand the seriousness of the Taiwan issue, and to continue to stick to the one-China policy,” Geng said, according to the AP.

The Global Times, a state-run Chinese newspaper, said in an editorial Monday that Trump was “as ignorant as a child."
 

If we though fighting in the Middle East was a tremendous waste, it's just an appetizer to fighting the Far East.  Yay Future!


It's negotiation.....once China agrees to give Trump Hotels and Casinos a 70 year monopoly on gambling in shanghai and preferential treatment on future development products and to promise to only serve Trump water at future conferences...then we will be back to the one China policy.   See all ok, not conflicts of interest.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 12, 2016, 01:33:52 PM


ETA; still no fuckin' idea why people are still on about the popular vote. It doesn't matter, it never has, and the electoral college is working as designed. Thankfully Hillary Clinton will never be president; sadly Trump will. Write your party, tell them to find better candidates next time.

It doesn't decide the election, but it certainly matters in that it indicates the amount of support each candidate received.  46-48 is much different from 20-80, for example
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 02:31:25 PM


ETA; still no fuckin' idea why people are still on about the popular vote. It doesn't matter, it never has, and the electoral college is working as designed. Thankfully Hillary Clinton will never be president; sadly Trump will. Write your party, tell them to find better candidates next time.

It doesn't decide the election, but it certainly matters in that it indicates the amount of support each candidate received.  46-48 is much different from 20-80, for example

I only bring up the popular vote when people here claim that Trump has some sort of mandate, that his election is reflective of the mood of the country, or that the people support him.

He won the election, but not because he convinced more people to vote for him.  More people voted for someone else.  He didn't motivate the electorate, because he got basically the same number of votes as Romney and McCain.  He only won the election because he effectively suppressed democratic voter turnout.

He still won the election, but let's be honest about the details of how he did it.  It wasn't by being more popular than his opponent.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 12, 2016, 02:40:13 PM
I'm hardly certain Trump suppressed democratic voter turnout. Hillary and the DNC own that.

Trump won the election because a majority of areas of the USA supported him over the other candidates.  I mean, he flipped Florida, and Michigan etc. I just can't get behind any popular vote discussion because it's completely unhelpful and unproductive - either work within the Trump system to make things better, or get a party that can put up candidates that have broader appeal than Trump and win a damn election. Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 12, 2016, 02:41:31 PM
I'm hardly certain Trump suppressed democratic voter turnout. Hillary and the DNC own that.

Trump won the election because a majority of areas of the USA supported him over the other candidates.  I mean, he flipped Florida, and Michigan etc. I just can't get behind any popular vote discussion because it's completely unhelpful and unproductive - either work within the Trump system to make things better, or get a party that can put up candidates that have broader appeal than Trump and win a damn election. Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.
Actually the GOP owns that.  They are been in the business of voter suppression for years now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on December 12, 2016, 02:42:45 PM
I'm hardly certain Trump suppressed democratic voter turnout. Hillary and the DNC own that.

Trump won the election because a majority of areas of the USA supported him over the other candidates.  I mean, he flipped Florida, and Michigan etc. I just can't get behind any popular vote discussion because it's completely unhelpful and unproductive - either work within the Trump system to make things better, or get a party that can put up candidates that have broader appeal than Trump and win a damn election. Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

The only reason it merits any kind of discussion is that people in this thread (and the president elect) are disputing an objective fact. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 12, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
I'm hardly certain Trump suppressed democratic voter turnout. Hillary and the DNC own that.

Trump won the election because a majority of areas of the USA supported him over the other candidates.  I mean, he flipped Florida, and Michigan etc. I just can't get behind any popular vote discussion because it's completely unhelpful and unproductive - either work within the Trump system to make things better, or get a party that can put up candidates that have broader appeal than Trump and win a damn election. Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is a slightly different directly, but voter turnout suppression is systematic in some states:
https://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/inside-the-republican-creation-of-the-north-carolina-voting-bill-dubbed-the-monster-law/2016/09/01/79162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.419779dfb253
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 12, 2016, 11:33:55 PM
I'm hardly certain Trump suppressed democratic voter turnout. Hillary and the DNC own that.

Trump won the election because a majority of areas of the USA supported him over the other candidates.  I mean, he flipped Florida, and Michigan etc. I just can't get behind any popular vote discussion because it's completely unhelpful and unproductive - either work within the Trump system to make things better, or get a party that can put up candidates that have broader appeal than Trump and win a damn election. Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is a slightly different directly, but voter turnout suppression is systematic in some states:
https://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/inside-the-republican-creation-of-the-north-carolina-voting-bill-dubbed-the-monster-law/2016/09/01/79162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.419779dfb253

It should also be noted that these laws are important because they affect almost exclusively the poor and POC. You know, people who tend to vote Dem. They're so good at it that one law was struck down because of its "surgical precision" in marginalizing only those groups. And if you don't think Republicans know about this when they enact these laws, then I've heard of this Nigerian prince that needs your help. All you have to do is send me some money and....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 12, 2016, 11:53:27 PM
Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is SUCH an interesting point I just can't stop thinking about it.

So you're totally fine with the country electing a President who loses the election by 2%, as long as he wins the electoral college.  Would you also be fine with electing someone who lost by 90%?  At what point do you think the country's changing population distribution will warrant changing the electoral college?

If a 2% loss is fine, how about a 5% loss or a 10% loss or a 25% loss?  Surely there comes a point when we would all recognize that an electoral system that habitually elected the minority candidate must be fundamentally flawed, right?  In theory, it's people who are voting and the electoral college is supposed to just be a convenient way of counting up the people.

So as of today 40% of the most recent presidential elections have elected the candidate who did NOT get the most votes.  What if it was the next five in a row?  Would we, as a nation, complain if the minority candidate won in more than half of elections?  How about more than 80% of elections?  When do we decide it's broken?  Shouldn't something as important as American democracy work more than 60% of the time?

Because I don't see this problem going away anytime soon.  It appears to be fundamentally broken, and I'm just trying to identify some ground rules for what it would take to convince people that America's best interests are not being served here. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 13, 2016, 12:54:00 AM
Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is SUCH an interesting point I just can't stop thinking about it.

So you're totally fine with the country electing a President who loses the election by 2%, as long as he wins the electoral college.  Would you also be fine with electing someone who lost by 90%?  At what point do you think the country's changing population distribution will warrant changing the electoral college?

If a 2% loss is fine, how about a 5% loss or a 10% loss or a 25% loss?  Surely there comes a point when we would all recognize that an electoral system that habitually elected the minority candidate must be fundamentally flawed, right?  In theory, it's people who are voting and the electoral college is supposed to just be a convenient way of counting up the people.

So as of today 40% of the most recent presidential elections have elected the candidate who did NOT get the most votes.  What if it was the next five in a row?  Would we, as a nation, complain if the minority candidate won in more than half of elections?  How about more than 80% of elections?  When do we decide it's broken?  Shouldn't something as important as American democracy work more than 60% of the time?

Because I don't see this problem going away anytime soon.  It appears to be fundamentally broken, and I'm just trying to identify some ground rules for what it would take to convince people that America's best interests are not being served here.

Don't forget to disband the senate while you're at it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 03:53:53 AM
Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.

This is SUCH an interesting point I just can't stop thinking about it.

So you're totally fine with the country electing a President who loses the election by 2%, as long as he wins the electoral college.  Would you also be fine with electing someone who lost by 90%?  At what point do you think the country's changing population distribution will warrant changing the electoral college?

If a 2% loss is fine, how about a 5% loss or a 10% loss or a 25% loss?  Surely there comes a point when we would all recognize that an electoral system that habitually elected the minority candidate must be fundamentally flawed, right?  In theory, it's people who are voting and the electoral college is supposed to just be a convenient way of counting up the people.

So as of today 40% of the most recent presidential elections have elected the candidate who did NOT get the most votes.  What if it was the next five in a row?  Would we, as a nation, complain if the minority candidate won in more than half of elections?  How about more than 80% of elections?  When do we decide it's broken?  Shouldn't something as important as American democracy work more than 60% of the time?

Because I don't see this problem going away anytime soon.  It appears to be fundamentally broken, and I'm just trying to identify some ground rules for what it would take to convince people that America's best interests are not being served here.

America is not a democracy. So I don't hold its elections to the same standards I might hold a democracy. Personally, I'd be fine with up to approximately 8% leeway with popular vote. I don't feel that the candidate that gets 1 single more vote than the other should automatically take all, nor do I feel that a 2% majority is a reason to run roughshod over minority views.   

I would absolutely support moving towards a more 'representative republic' to increase the power minority views have in the United States' government. It wouldn't have changed this election results, but would be my preferred route for improvement.

As far as convincing people that it is not in America's best interest to protect minority views while providing a stop-gap against mob rule or a completely dangerous populist candidate; I'm not sure you've presented enough evidence that a simple majority vote would provide these protections while greatly increasing the 'will of the people'.  I'm also of the opinion that in America, people often get the government they deserve, as unfortunate as that is, though it doesn't particularly address the point of improvements.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on December 13, 2016, 04:22:50 AM
The US might be more of a representative democracy if it did away with gerrymandering, which looks utterly corrupt.   I guess the College of Electors is another form of gerrymandering - unless it does its job and saves the US from a corrupt, ill-informed, anti-intellectual idiot who is in hock to the two biggest totalitarian regimes in the world.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 13, 2016, 05:49:07 AM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 06:01:37 AM
The US might be more of a representative democracy if it did away with gerrymandering, which looks utterly corrupt.   I guess the College of Electors is another form of gerrymandering - unless it does its job and saves the US from a corrupt, ill-informed, anti-intellectual idiot who is in hock to the two biggest totalitarian regimes in the world.

I think it could be argued that the electoral college is not gerrymandered, unless you think that state borders were purposely drawn to group as few people into them as possible for the purpose of winning presidential elections.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on December 13, 2016, 07:16:34 AM
Well the impacts are becoming real:

Foreign government involvement into the election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/politics/mcconnell-supports-inquiry-of-russian-hacking-during-election.html?_r=0
http://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-leaders-join-call-for-probe-of-russian-hacking-of-u-s-election-1481589660

Twitter concerns:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/12/donald-trump-questions-us-commitment-to-one-china-policy
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-twitter-national-security-232518
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/trump-china-tweets/index.html

Cabinet concerns:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/donald-trump-cabinet-republican-appointments-campaign
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-06/concerns-in-congress-rise-over-donald-trumps-militarizing-his-cabinet

Secretary of state ties to Russia:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/tillerson-trump-1.3893830
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-20161212-story.html

Avoiding security briefing because he is "smart":
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5087686291001/#sp=show-clips

And now compromising US Interests:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/turkey-threatening-trumps-business-to-sway-policy-report/
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-jeopardize-us-531140.html

There is a lot of smoke here, (any many more Google show me) where there is this much smoke, there has to be fire.   


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Roland of Gilead on December 13, 2016, 07:21:41 AM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 13, 2016, 07:26:00 AM
where there is this much smoke, there has to be fire.   

If this election cycle has taught me anything it's that this adage is no longer true.

That said - I see lots of FIRE in this here smoke. So in the case of our president elect, the adage holds up.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 07:34:33 AM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

I find this argument fascinating. "Land" is apparently people now?  And certain people's votes (because they have the unpatriotic audacity to live in a city) should matter less than others.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on December 13, 2016, 08:00:01 AM
On conflicts of interest:
(Long but interesting)
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-jeopardize-us-531140.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Roland of Gilead on December 13, 2016, 08:09:14 AM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

I find this argument fascinating. "Land" is apparently people now?  And certain people's votes (because they have the unpatriotic audacity to live in a city) should matter more than others.

Actually, it is reasonable.   A place like North Dakota can be very harsh but produces quite a bit of resources for the USA (we drove through there and the giant farms were everywhere).   Giving them a small say in who is president seems to be fair compared to the winters they must endure to live there.

There is a reason everyone crowds to the coasts...it is a very desirable area with decent climate.   So should we reward those who already have the best place to live with the sole power to choose who is president?

If you are so upset about it, you could move from the city to a place like North Dakota and vote there.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Scandium on December 13, 2016, 08:23:52 AM
It is just one messed up state with too many people that skews the whole country.

I wasn't talking about an enclave, I was talking about how most of the people in the United States voted.  If you ignored the artificially drawn lines and just asked American citizens what they wanted, Clinton would be our next president.

But that's not how we elect presidents in America, land of the free.  In fact, in 40% of the most recent presidential elections, we have elected the person who did NOT get the most votes.

Is everyone really okay with that?  Will we still be okay with it if it starts happening every single time?  Will we be okay with it if we start electing the person who loses the vote by 10%, or by 75%?

Can we please stop whining about the popular vote? It's silly and clearly pointless. It means nothing. That's not how the election works so we have no idea who most Americans wanted to be president. Until we have an election were the popular vote matters we just don't know. Having the election by one set of rules, then declaring that the looser won according to these other rules that nobody played by is just stupid, and frankly looks pathetic.

If it was a simple popular vote election Trump would have campaigned in CA and NY. Would that have gotten more votes for him there? Maybe. Clinton could have campaigned in.. states other than FL, OH and PA? Maybe her ignoring WI and Michigan wouldn't have been so bad.. Millions of people don't vote, for the simple reason that their vote don't matter. If you're a republican in a deep blue state, or vise versa why would you bother? What would the balance of non-voting republicans vs democrats be? No idea. Trump is a horrible scumbag, but he won according to how the rules are set up. Deal with it.

PS: I almost hate Clinton as much right now for managing to somehow loose to this pathetic Berlusconi-Stalin hybrid with a spray tan. Seriously, if you can't beat that you're insanely incompetent and clearly don't deserve to be president! So in that regard I'm glad she's not.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 08:31:53 AM
PS: I almost hate Clinton as much right now for managing to somehow loose to this pathetic Berlusconi-Stalin hybrid with a spray tan. Seriously, if you can't beat that you're insanely incompetent and clearly don't deserve to be president! So in that regard I'm glad she's not.

I don't hate Clinton for running. I certainly don't hate her for losing. I don't think she would have been a good president, and I don't support most of her policies.  I do hate the people who thought she could beat Trump for not nominating or voting for someone who could.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Scandium on December 13, 2016, 08:43:42 AM
Actually, it is reasonable.   A place like North Dakota can be very harsh but produces quite a bit of resources for the USA (we drove through there and the giant farms were everywhere).   Giving them a small say in who is president seems to be fair compared to the winters they must endure to live there.

There is a reason everyone crowds to the coasts...it is a very desirable area with decent climate.   So should we reward those who already have the best place to live with the sole power to choose who is president?

If you are so upset about it, you could move from the city to a place like North Dakota and vote there.

Fascinating! Can you tell me some other criteria we should use to decide how much more on person's vote should count over another? So far we have:
- Relative harshness of climate (how do we measure this? Average temperatures? Minimum? Rainfall?)
- Economic output. Per person per sq-mi? GDP/person/sq-mi? In this regard I think cities would still crush rural areas though. And isn't extractive industries just taking advantage of what belongs to everyone? Google create value "out of thin air"...
- Geographic area is more important than number of citizens

Let's think of some more:
- Tax payments? I pay more, shouldn't I have a larger say??
- More miles driven should have more say in transportation policy?
- Hawaii is so nice those people get zero votes.
- Old people will die soon so they get no votes, and:
- Babies have a long life ahead, they get double.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 08:44:36 AM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

I find this argument fascinating. "Land" is apparently people now?  And certain people's votes (because they have the unpatriotic audacity to live in a city) should matter more than others.

Actually, it is reasonable.   A place like North Dakota can be very harsh but produces quite a bit of resources for the USA (we drove through there and the giant farms were everywhere).   Giving them a small say in who is president seems to be fair compared to the winters they must endure to live there.

There is a reason everyone crowds to the coasts...it is a very desirable area with decent climate.   So should we reward those who already have the best place to live with the sole power to choose who is president?

If you are so upset about it, you could move from the city to a place like North Dakota and vote there.

I used to live in a place like that. In fact, I was born and grew up in a place like that. The opportunities for me were so few, and people's disdain for my beliefs and values was so oppressive that I moved away.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 13, 2016, 08:53:19 AM
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 09:20:11 AM
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 13, 2016, 09:22:32 AM
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
I wasn't thinking of minority voters, I was thinking of voters in some states have less voting power than others due to the EC set up.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 09:30:27 AM
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
I wasn't thinking of minority voters, I was thinking of voters in some states have less voting power than others due to the EC set up.

Quite. Especially because the voters who have more power due to the EC set up are almost all white.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 13, 2016, 09:34:37 AM
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
I wasn't thinking of minority voters, I was thinking of voters in some states have less voting power than others due to the EC set up.

Quite. Especially because the voters who have more power due to the EC set up are almost all white.

O Jesus, its always the race card with you isn't it Kris.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 09:36:50 AM
They have no logical argument for unequal voting rights so they most deflect with the most absurd excuses. 
Bottom line is a pure power play and that is the real reason, but they can't just say that.

It is not logical to protect the rights of minority voters. It is still important, however.
I wasn't thinking of minority voters, I was thinking of voters in some states have less voting power than others due to the EC set up.

Quite. Especially because the voters who have more power due to the EC set up are almost all white.

O Jesus, its always the race card with you isn't it Kris.

No. It is not. But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on December 13, 2016, 09:45:09 AM
+1

So sorry people are offended when injustice is pointed out. Be offended by the unjustice instead.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 13, 2016, 09:45:56 AM
But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

I think it does, as long as by "minority" you mean rural whites.

What could possibly be a better argument for protecting the minority's interest than electing the minority's candidate for president?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 13, 2016, 09:49:30 AM
The senate also provides a lot more power to low-population states.

But all of this was deliberate, you have to remember. The rural/urban divide existed (and was, in fact, personified) in Jefferson and Hamilton.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 09:50:14 AM
But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

I think it does, as long as by "minority" you mean rural whites.

What could possibly be a better argument for protecting the minority's interest than electing the minority's candidate for president?

Sure. But it strikes me that the same people who would argue for the rectitude of protecting that "minority" would probably also protest strongly against any reform that would end up privileging any other "minority" that didn't happen to be white.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 13, 2016, 09:55:04 AM
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 13, 2016, 10:11:26 AM
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

So your contention is that (in your words) voluntary "minorities" (by way of geographic location) are rightfully offered better protections by way of a more influential vote than minorities by birth, who have no way of changing that status? Or should all of the inner city black people just move to North Dakota?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 10:11:50 AM
Metric Mouse brought up the term "minority" in this instance, by which I assume he is referring to rural white voters.

However, voluntary geographic location, as you point out, doesn't seem enough to qualify someone as a "minority." Especially when that person is white.

Given that, saying that the EC protects "minority" voters seems specious at best.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 13, 2016, 10:14:38 AM
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

So your contention is that (in your words) voluntary "minorities" (by way of geographic location) are rightfully offered better protections by way of a more influential vote than minorities by birth, who have no way of changing that status? Or should all of the inner city black people just move to North Dakota?

I never said "rightfully". I actually agreed that the current system isn't right. I am objecting to Kris's statement that it's because they are white. That's all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 10:15:41 AM
No. It is not. But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

The minority of people who live in rural areas. While their racial demographics are similar, they have very different concerns, and very different interests than the majority of urban persons. The EC is one way to insure against their concerns being over-run by simple majority mob rule.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 13, 2016, 10:15:58 AM
Metric Mouse brought up the term "minority" in this instance, by which I assume he is referring to rural white voters.

However, voluntary geographic location, as you point out, doesn't seem enough to qualify someone as a "minority." Especially when that person is white.

Given that, saying that the EC protects "minority" voters seems specious at best.

I agree with everythign you said with a slight mod.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 10:16:50 AM
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

So your contention is that (in your words) voluntary "minorities" (by way of geographic location) are rightfully offered better protections by way of a more influential vote than minorities by birth, who have no way of changing that status? Or should all of the inner city black people just move to North Dakota?

I never said "rightfully". I actually agreed that the current system isn't right. I am objecting to Kris's statement that it's because they are white. That's all.

When did I say it's "because" they are white? I said they are mostly white.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 10:17:46 AM
Metric Mouse brought up the term "minority" in this instance, by which I assume he is referring to rural white voters.

However, voluntary geographic location, as you point out, doesn't seem enough to qualify someone as a "minority." Especially when that person is white.

Given that, saying that the EC protects "minority" voters seems specious at best.

I agree with everythign you said with a slight mod.

White people are not yet a racial minority in this country. So you might not agree, but that does not change it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 13, 2016, 10:20:19 AM
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 13, 2016, 10:20:58 AM
Define minority voter. Are you basing it on race, gender, geographic location, sexual orientation, etc. I feel like you are starting to play lose with the term minority voter.

While I agree that it is wrong that certain votes count less than others in the current system. I don't understand how it does anyone any good to try and draw conclusions about voluntary geographic location and skin color.

So your contention is that (in your words) voluntary "minorities" (by way of geographic location) are rightfully offered better protections by way of a more influential vote than minorities by birth, who have no way of changing that status? Or should all of the inner city black people just move to North Dakota?

I never said "rightfully". I actually agreed that the current system isn't right. I am objecting to Kris's statement that it's because they are white. That's all.

Got it, thanks for clarifying. I will add that bringing up race in this context is still meaningful, not because of some "all Trump voters are racist" narrative, but because Trump played with racial identity politics far more blatantly than any recent candidate. Also and more importantly, I think it's fair to point out that the "minorities" many in this and other threads have been defending as needing to be protected from "mob rule" are only minorities in one narrowly defined way. Pointing out their race (by and large) is one way to highlight this fact. If you are all for the EC giving preferential advantages to one particular minority group, you should logically support things like affirmative action, oppose any and all voter suppression efforts, etc.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 10:22:14 AM
However, voluntary geographic location, as you point out, doesn't seem enough to qualify someone as a "minority."

Voluntarily choosing to live in an area that has very slightly less (percentage wise, though still massively greater, in absolute terms) voting power should not be a reason to remove voting power from others.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on December 13, 2016, 10:23:14 AM
No. It is not. But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

The minority of people who live in rural areas. While their racial demographics are similar, they have very different concerns, and very different interests than the majority of urban persons. The EC is one way to insure against their concerns being over-run by simple majority mob rule.

I get a kick out of this. 

democracy - control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"the intended extension of industrial democracy"

So we don't want majority rules then?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 10:23:47 AM
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 10:26:08 AM


I get a kick out of this. 

democracy - control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

What's you point?

As far as American elections and politics is concerned, this is a more important term: Republic
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 13, 2016, 10:28:21 AM
No. It is not. But it is worth pointing out a contradiction when it appears: that is, the EC does not protect the rights of minority voters.

The minority of people who live in rural areas. While their racial demographics are similar, they have very different concerns, and very different interests than the majority of urban persons. The EC is one way to insure against their concerns being over-run by simple majority mob rule.

I get a kick out of this. 

democracy - control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"the intended extension of industrial democracy"

So we don't want majority rules then?

No. I want checks and balances like with the House and Senate. One is majority rule the other allows the "minority states" and equal say.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 13, 2016, 10:29:15 AM
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

It does have a play in that white voters, on average, have a more influential vote than nonwhite voters. This may be largely for geographic reasons but it remains a fact, and if someone is going to wax poetic about the importance of the EC to "protect the 'minority,'" I hope they have given serious additional thought to the many other minority groups in this country beyond those who voluntarily live in middle America.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 10:31:29 AM
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

It does have a play in that white voters, on average, have a more influential vote than nonwhite voters. This may be largely for geographic reasons but it remains a fact, and if someone is going to wax poetic about the importance of the EC to "protect the 'minority,'" I hope they have given serious additional thought to the many other minority groups in this country beyond those who voluntarily live in middle America.

So if (insert problem) is based on voluntary conditions, then persons who are affected should move, yes?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 13, 2016, 10:32:49 AM
Somewhat on topic quote from Dan Rather today:
Quote
I think we should erect a monument built from materials impervious to the elements and list the names of all the elected officials and others in positions of power today in the United States who refuse to stand with the science on climate change.

We can put this monument on the coast - say off Miami - and have its base equal to the lapping waves of high tide. As sea levels rise, the monument will begin to be submerged, at increasingly greater depths. It will become a symbol of the cynicism, stupidity, and folly of our age. And it will be important for future generations to know who was responsible for this failure of action and imagination as this global crisis crescendoed. When I see Donald Trump cast doubt on climate change, I am deeply disappointed. When I see him appoint climate change deniers to key posts in his cabinet, I am deeply worried. When I see those in the scientific community and elsewhere pushing back, I am determined to bring these voices of reason to light.

Science is not a conclusion. It's a process. It's also about the real world. Not a post-truth world. If you're wrong as a scientist, it's hard to keep that hidden for very long because others will do an experiment and show the limitations of your earlier conclusions.

All these climate change deniers are denigrating the very nature of scientific discovery. It's the same enterprise that, in biological research, leads to the cures these climate deniers plead from their doctors, or the geological research that finds and extracts the raw materials that power these climate deniers' lives, or the physics that makes these climate deniers' modern technology work.

To cherry pick the science you like is to show you really don't understand much of anything. That is your right. But when it affects my life, that of my family, the future direction of my country, and the health of our planet, than the ignorance is far from harmless. The world must remember what is happening here and perhaps the judgement of history might induce some to the action we so desperately need.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 10:32:55 AM
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm a "one person, one vote" kind of gal.

But I'm working with the word "minority", which was brought up as a reason why people in NoDak, for example, should have their votes count more than people in California.

There are many ways to define "minority." I didn't bring the term up. But calling people from NoDak "minorities" as a reason their votes should count more seems pretty crazy, since they are not racial minorities, and their choice to live in a particular geographic location is just that: a choice.

My point being, "minority" seems like an argument that crumbles pretty quickly when one brings up the EC and tries to justify it that way.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 13, 2016, 10:35:21 AM
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

It does have a play in that white voters, on average, have a more influential vote than nonwhite voters. This may be largely for geographic reasons but it remains a fact, and if someone is going to wax poetic about the importance of the EC to "protect the 'minority,'" I hope they have given serious additional thought to the many other minority groups in this country beyond those who voluntarily live in middle America.

So if (insert problem) is based on voluntary conditions, then persons who are affected should move, yes?

You're missing the point. I personally think the "if you don't like it, move" argument is asinine, no matter who is making it. But you and others are on record expressing concern that we not have "mob rule" in this country. The problem with that statement is that the EC only protects against that from a geographic standpoint. There are way more minority groups than rural middle Americans. Why should they be the only ones who benefit from this "protection?"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 13, 2016, 10:41:35 AM
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm a "one person, one vote" kind of gal.

But I'm working with the word "minority", which was brought up as a reason why people in NoDak, for example, should have their votes count more than people in California.

There are many ways to define "minority." I didn't bring the term up. But calling people from NoDak "minorities" as a reason their votes should count more seems pretty crazy, since they are not racial minorities, and their choice to live in a particular geographic location is just that: a choice.

My point being, "minority" seems like an argument that crumbles pretty quickly when one brings up the EC and tries to justify it that way.

Before we get too far into semantics, can we just recognize that the term minority usually has to be interpreted within context? As a white male I am in a majority group (for now0, but I am still within a religious minority in this nation. As a person with a PhD, I am in an educational minority, etc... The use of the term minority does not automatically and equivocally invoke the race card.

The electoral college (as Sol discussed above) was set up as a way for states to select the president and to maintain a political balance of power between regions of the fledgling country. Different portions of the country had pretty different cultures. Slaves were also allotted 3/5 representation (but still not allowed to vote) to help balance that power too. Mathematically, more people in this country live in urban areas now. Rural voters are a mathematical minority. Rural votes have disproportionate power in the EC (and the senate).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 10:47:37 AM

You're missing the point. I personally think the "if you don't like it, move" argument is asinine, no matter who is making it. But you and others are on record expressing concern that we not have "mob rule" in this country. The problem with that statement is that the EC only protects against that from a geographic standpoint. There are way more minority groups than rural middle Americans. Why should they be the only ones who benefit from this "protection?"

I would never argue they are the only ones who should benefit from being protected from mob rule. I'm would just argue that EC protects this group, and its protections should not be removed lightly.  Just as I wouldn't argue that handicapped parking spaces should be moved further away, even though they benefit a minority of people (who don't get the same parking spaces; even other minorities); all minorities need protection from mob rule, even though not all laws can help all people at all times, sadly.

Edit: I've always found the 'if you don't like it, move' argument asinine as well, but it is popular among the 'bootstraps' crowd.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on December 13, 2016, 10:48:52 AM
Somewhat on topic quote from Dan Rather today:
Quote
I think we should erect a monument built from materials impervious to the elements and list the names of all the elected officials and others in positions of power today in the United States who refuse to stand with the science on climate change.

We can put this monument on the coast - say off Miami - and have its base equal to the lapping waves of high tide. As sea levels rise, the monument will begin to be submerged, at increasingly greater depths. It will become a symbol of the cynicism, stupidity, and folly of our age. And it will be important for future generations to know who was responsible for this failure of action and imagination as this global crisis crescendoed. When I see Donald Trump cast doubt on climate change, I am deeply disappointed. When I see him appoint climate change deniers to key posts in his cabinet, I am deeply worried. When I see those in the scientific community and elsewhere pushing back, I am determined to bring these voices of reason to light.

Science is not a conclusion. It's a process. It's also about the real world. Not a post-truth world. If you're wrong as a scientist, it's hard to keep that hidden for very long because others will do an experiment and show the limitations of your earlier conclusions.

All these climate change deniers are denigrating the very nature of scientific discovery. It's the same enterprise that, in biological research, leads to the cures these climate deniers plead from their doctors, or the geological research that finds and extracts the raw materials that power these climate deniers' lives, or the physics that makes these climate deniers' modern technology work.

To cherry pick the science you like is to show you really don't understand much of anything. That is your right. But when it affects my life, that of my family, the future direction of my country, and the health of our planet, than the ignorance is far from harmless. The world must remember what is happening here and perhaps the judgement of history might induce some to the action we so desperately need.

Yes.  I've been enjoying dan rather's posts.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 10:51:01 AM
So when you say minority voter you are specifically talking about racial minorities?
Apparently race could have a play in voting power, but other factors should not.

Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm a "one person, one vote" kind of gal.

But I'm working with the word "minority", which was brought up as a reason why people in NoDak, for example, should have their votes count more than people in California.

There are many ways to define "minority." I didn't bring the term up. But calling people from NoDak "minorities" as a reason their votes should count more seems pretty crazy, since they are not racial minorities, and their choice to live in a particular geographic location is just that: a choice.

My point being, "minority" seems like an argument that crumbles pretty quickly when one brings up the EC and tries to justify it that way.

Before we get too far into semantics, can we just recognize that the term minority usually has to be interpreted within context? As a white male I am in a majority group (for now0, but I am still within a religious minority in this nation. As a person with a PhD, I am in an educational minority, etc... The use of the term minority does not automatically and equivocally invoke the race card.

The electoral college (as Sol discussed above) was set up as a way for states to select the president and to maintain a political balance of power between regions of the fledgling country. Different portions of the country had pretty different cultures. Slaves were also allotted 3/5 representation (but still not allowed to vote) to help balance that power too. Mathematically, more people in this country live in urban areas now. Rural voters are a mathematical minority. Rural votes have disproportionate power in the EC (and the senate).

Yes, of course.

The word "fledging" seems operative here.

In the twenty-first century, arguing the rectitude of the EC based on "minority" status seems less justifiable, however, and even arbitrary.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 11:01:14 AM
Before we get too far into semantics, can we just recognize that the term minority usually has to be interpreted within context? As a white male I am in a majority group (for now0, but I am still within a religious minority in this nation. As a person with a PhD, I am in an educational minority, etc... The use of the term minority does not automatically and equivocally invoke the race card.

The electoral college (as Sol discussed above) was set up as a way for states to select the president and to maintain a political balance of power between regions of the fledgling country. Different portions of the country had pretty different cultures. Slaves were also allotted 3/5 representation (but still not allowed to vote) to help balance that power too. Mathematically, more people in this country live in urban areas now. Rural voters are a mathematical minority. Rural votes have disproportionate power in the EC (and the senate).

Yes, of course.

The word "fledging" seems operative here.

In the twenty-first century, arguing the rectitude of the EC based on "minority" status seems less justifiable, however, and even arbitrary.

I think the operative word is Republic. The United States is a Republic of states - those with smaller populations have their power balanced with states with larger population. This would be a problem in a democracy; thankfully the United States is no a pure democracy and thus governmental checks and balances are provided.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 11:34:15 AM
Republic is really not the issue.
Germany is a republic of states but does not have these problems.
The issue is purely the election system of First Past the Post.

Great point. They also have an electoral college. So perhaps we are indeed focusing on the wrong issue.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 13, 2016, 11:47:22 AM
Republic is really not the issue.
Germany is a republic of states but does not have these problems.
The issue is purely the election system of First Past the Post.

Great point. They also have an electoral college. So perhaps we are indeed focusing on the wrong issue.
Yes, but winner-take-all is so inherently intuitive and satisfying to capitalists! (take with humor)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 13, 2016, 12:03:26 PM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

Of course not, the country should be run by its people, each person receiving one vote.  Should we also give rich people extra votes just so the poor and middle class  don't run the country?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 13, 2016, 12:04:49 PM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

Of course not, the country should be run by its people, each person receiving one vote.  Should we also give rich people extra votes just so the poor and middle class  don't run the country?

according to many of the founding fathers, the answer would be an emphatic, "Yes."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 13, 2016, 12:08:51 PM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

Of course not, the country should be run by its people, each person receiving one vote.  Should we also give rich people extra votes just so the poor and middle class  don't run the country?

according to many of the founding fathers, the answer would be an emphatic, "Yes."

And that is exactly the problem with system they created, and the reason I think it should be changed.  We're not the same country we were back then.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 13, 2016, 12:11:36 PM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

Of course not, the country should be run by its people, each person receiving one vote.  Should we also give rich people extra votes just so the poor and middle class  don't run the country?

according to many of the founding fathers, the answer would be an emphatic, "Yes."

And that is exactly the problem with system they created, and the reason I think it should be changed.  We're not the same country we were back then.

Agreed. And a lot of that change has to do with things like widespread public education.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 13, 2016, 12:13:25 PM
How is it fair that my vote counts less than someone else’s?  The EC needs to go away.

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

Of course not, the country should be run by its people, each person receiving one vote.  Should we also give rich people extra votes just so the poor and middle class  don't run the country?

according to many of the founding fathers, the answer would be an emphatic, "Yes."

And that is exactly the problem with system they created, and the reason I think it should be changed.  We're not the same country we were back then.

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 13, 2016, 12:17:34 PM

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.

Ah yes - diplomas and intelligence quotients instead of voter id's.  Certainly that will not disenfranchise large swaths of the population.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 13, 2016, 12:18:09 PM

Damn straight!  The country should just be run by the coasts and the districts in the middle should stfu.

Of course not, the country should be run by its people, each person receiving one vote.  Should we also give rich people extra votes just so the poor and middle class  don't run the country?

according to many of the founding fathers, the answer would be an emphatic, "Yes."

And that is exactly the problem with system they created, and the reason I think it should be changed.  We're not the same country we were back then.

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.
[/quote]
They tried that with the EC, and that seems to be failing us.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 13, 2016, 12:29:53 PM

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.

Ah yes - diplomas and intelligence quotients instead of voter id's.  Certainly that will not disenfranchise large swaths of the population.

Vox just published the transcript of an interview with a Trump voter. Her family had gone without health insurance for two years before ACA. After ACA, they got insurance, and her husband was diagnosed with non-alcoholic cirrhosis (because he didn't get regular LFTs as recommended for the meds he was on). Now he needs a transplant.

She voted for Trump, and is surprised that they're making a serious run at repealing ACA, and don't appear to have a plan.

It was equal parts sad and infuriating. I don't think she should lose her voting rights, but good god people.

edit: found it http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13901874/obamacare-trump-voter-health-insurance-repeal
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 13, 2016, 12:34:03 PM

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.

Ah yes - diplomas and intelligence quotients instead of voter id's.  Certainly that will not disenfranchise large swaths of the population.

Whoa! never thought HRC losing would get the libs to think we need to bring back Jim Crow.

I guess if we are being honest they would want it more of an oligarchy. something like only those with graduate level education and answering a few questions 'correctly.'

"Do you agree with the following statements..."



edit; not just picking on you DC, people have been alluding to this for a while now in the this thread, and others.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 13, 2016, 12:35:23 PM
There are no such requirements to become an elector, are there?

And metric, yes it's ridiculous but that's my point.  If you are going to make arbitrary weights, at least make the ones that will prevent the inherent problems of mob rule
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 13, 2016, 12:35:50 PM

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.

Ah yes - diplomas and intelligence quotients instead of voter id's.  Certainly that will not disenfranchise large swaths of the population.

Whoa! never thought HRC losing would get the libs to think we need to bring back Jim Crow.

I guess if we are being honest they would want it more of an oligarchy. something like only those with graduate level education and answering a few questions 'correctly.'

"Do you agree with the following statements..."

I'm pretty sure Dragoncar was not actually advocating this...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 13, 2016, 12:36:37 PM

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.

Ah yes - diplomas and intelligence quotients instead of voter id's.  Certainly that will not disenfranchise large swaths of the population.

Whoa! never thought HRC losing would get the libs to think we need to bring back Jim Crow.

I guess if we are being honest they would want it more of an oligarchy. something like only those with graduate level education and answering a few questions 'correctly.'

"Do you agree with the following statements..."

This characterization is as preposterous as saying conservatives want only billionaires to run the country... oh wait
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 13, 2016, 12:58:42 PM
Well, you are not going to get enough states to agree to break up the EC, so the next best option is to break up california.

HRC won it by a margin almost twice her national lead, in absolute numbers. Nationally;1.3, Cali; 3.4.

every additional state would automatically get two additional senators and EC votes. It would be a new blue wall.

thrice
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 13, 2016, 01:03:57 PM
Well, you are not going to get enough states to agree to break up the EC, so the next best option is to break up california.

HRC won it by a margin almost twice her national lead, in absolute numbers. Nationally;1.3, Cali; 3.4.

every additional state would automatically get two additional senators and EC votes. It would be a new blue wall.

only if divided in horizontal slices (with each slide including coast).  Vertical slices would create a red wall
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 13, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Well, you are not going to get enough states to agree to break up the EC, so the next best option is to break up california.

HRC won it by a margin almost twice her national lead, in absolute numbers. Nationally;1.3, Cali; 3.4.

every additional state would automatically get two additional senators and EC votes. It would be a new blue wall.

Speaking of new states ... in reading through the 2016 Republican platform, I noticed support for Puerto Rican statehood, which I thought was odd. The only explanation I could come up (and supported by no actual knowledge or facts) was that maybe there's a large population of Catholics who would vote Republican based on abortion?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on December 13, 2016, 01:18:41 PM
only if divided in horizontal slices (with each slide including coast).  Vertical slices would create a red wall

This. I spent almost a year in Eastern California  (the desert), and never encountered so many angry conservatives in my life.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 13, 2016, 01:28:19 PM

I don't know if direct democracy is good for the country, but it's certainly fair.

And if we are really going to weight votes "for the good of the country," we should probably do it by education and intelligence, not by geography.

Ah yes - diplomas and intelligence quotients instead of voter id's.  Certainly that will not disenfranchise large swaths of the population.

If it makes you feel better we could just get a couple celebrities telling the public that voting gave their kid autism . . . the net effect would be the same.  Millions of stupid people stop voting.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on December 13, 2016, 01:32:31 PM
Vox just published the transcript of an interview with a Trump voter. Her family had gone without health insurance for two years before ACA. After ACA, they got insurance, and her husband was diagnosed with non-alcoholic cirrhosis (because he didn't get regular LFTs as recommended for the meds he was on). Now he needs a transplant.

She voted for Trump, and is surprised that they're making a serious run at repealing ACA, and don't appear to have a plan.

It was equal parts sad and infuriating. I don't think she should lose her voting rights, but good god people.

edit: found it http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13901874/obamacare-trump-voter-health-insurance-repeal

She thought it was one of those "He didn't really mean it when he said..." statements that wasn't supposed to be literal.

You reap what you sow.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 13, 2016, 01:50:08 PM
Vox just published the transcript of an interview with a Trump voter. Her family had gone without health insurance for two years before ACA. After ACA, they got insurance, and her husband was diagnosed with non-alcoholic cirrhosis (because he didn't get regular LFTs as recommended for the meds he was on). Now he needs a transplant.

She voted for Trump, and is surprised that they're making a serious run at repealing ACA, and don't appear to have a plan.

It was equal parts sad and infuriating. I don't think she should lose her voting rights, but good god people.

edit: found it http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13901874/obamacare-trump-voter-health-insurance-repeal

She thought it was one of those "He didn't really mean it when he said..." statements that wasn't supposed to be literal.

You reap what you sow.

Reminds me of a story I read last year.  Man losing sight blames Obamacare.  He didn't sign up in open enrollment and his state didn't expand Medicaid.  Yet he is still a Republican.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/health-care/article20696283.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: asiljoy on December 13, 2016, 03:57:44 PM
Well, you are not going to get enough states to agree to break up the EC, so the next best option is to break up california.

HRC won it by a margin almost twice her national lead, in absolute numbers. Nationally;1.3, Cali; 3.4.

every additional state would automatically get two additional senators and EC votes. It would be a new blue wall.

thrice

Would letting the House grow proportionally a la something like the Wyoming Rule also work, since it would also increase the number of electors and even out the ratio so Californians are back to having similar power per vote as the smaller states?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on December 13, 2016, 04:39:48 PM
These are all wonderful ideas.

Of course the problem with electoral reform is that you first have to win (usually some kind of super-majority) in the current way. If you win in the current way.... why do you want to change it again? And so it goes...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ender on December 13, 2016, 05:47:26 PM
Reminds me of a story I read last year.  Man losing sight blames Obamacare.  He didn't sign up in open enrollment and his state didn't expand Medicaid.  Yet he is still a Republican.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/health-care/article20696283.html

There are plenty of people who are rather vocal about feeling they should pay more in taxes than they do -- but who don't voluntarily do so.

Plenty of people have incompatible beliefs on both the R and D side of the aisle.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ender on December 13, 2016, 06:38:25 PM
Wait wait wait, there is a massive difference between thinking one (and others in one's situation) should pay more taxes and 'voluntarily' doing so.

I strongly believe I could easily afford higher taxes and would gladly do so if this would lead to a fairer and better society overall. But voluntarily paying more tax (as if that were even possible) wouldn't change a thing and not lead to a more just tax code.

You believe A but voluntarily choose to act contrary to A for <justifications>.

I get that it's different than another person choosing to act differently than his beliefs. Or something.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 13, 2016, 06:48:29 PM
Reminds me of a story I read last year.  Man losing sight blames Obamacare.  He didn't sign up in open enrollment and his state didn't expand Medicaid.  Yet he is still a Republican.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/health-care/article20696283.html

There are plenty of people who are rather vocal about feeling they should pay more in taxes than they do -- but who don't voluntarily do so.

Plenty of people have incompatible beliefs on both the R and D side of the aisle.

First, people rarely feel that they personally should pay more in taxes, but fail to do so.  They feel that the tax framework should be different, despite the fact that they would end up having to pay more in taxes.  This is a well studied issue called collective action.

Second, blaming Obamacare for health problems while not taking advantage of Obamacare is equivalent to me complaining my taxes are too high while declining tax deductions passed by republicans and blaming the republicans to boot.  Nobody does that and your parallel is not apt.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 13, 2016, 07:27:41 PM
Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 14, 2016, 08:15:37 AM
Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 14, 2016, 08:21:42 AM
Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.
Many religions make donations part of being a good person/going into heaven so I would consider that come authority making them. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 14, 2016, 08:34:16 AM
Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.
Many religions make donations part of being a good person/going into heaven so I would consider that come authority making them.

Non-religious people (or people who are religious but are not required to give charity) give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it. /Correction
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bananarama on December 14, 2016, 08:34:57 AM
Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.
I think you did interpret it wrong. It's not that Americans don’t give to charity, because we do. It's that no charity is large enough or has enough money to tackle nationwide problems. Also, the freeloader problem is still a problem. Also, plenty of people are threatened with eternal damnation and torture their entire childhoods and still manage to give zero fucks, so I don't think that's really an effective way to get people to part with their money.

Also, it's kind of a silly argument. Sure, people donate to charities all the time. Charities, however, aren't going to run school districts, inspect buildings for code (safety) violations, pave roads, run libraries, clean and maintain parks, enforce laws, care for orphans, create and inforce regulation protecting our health, etc. Taxes force everyone to pay their fair share of resources they either use directly themselves or that others currently use and they might someday use themselves.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 14, 2016, 08:46:29 AM
Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.
I think you did interpret it wrong. It's not that Americans don’t give to charity, because we do. It's that no charity is large enough or has enough money to tackle nationwide problems. Also, the freeloader problem is still a problem. Also, plenty of people are threatened with eternal damnation and torture their entire childhoods and still manage to give zero fucks, so I don't think that's really an effective way to get people to part with their money.

Also, it's kind of a silly argument. Sure, people donate to charities all the time. Charities, however, aren't going to run school districts, inspect buildings for code (safety) violations, pave roads, run libraries, clean and maintain parks, enforce laws, care for orphans, create and inforce regulation protecting our health, etc. Taxes force everyone to pay their fair share of resources they either use directly themselves or that others currently use and they might someday use themselves.

I understand waht you are saying. Charities have run schools, libraries, hospitals and taken care of orphans in the past. Actually, other than "enforce laws" the free market could handle everything else.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 14, 2016, 08:54:45 AM
Interesting that the "enforce laws only" societies have failed to outcompete the "solve the freerider problem by taxing people and building infrastructure/ensuring the common good" ones.

I mean, just weird, right?

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 14, 2016, 08:58:50 AM
Interesting that the "enforce laws only" societies have failed to outcompete the "solve the freerider problem by taxing people and building infrastructure/ensuring the common good" ones.

I mean, just weird, right?

-W

What societies are you speaking of? The early stages of US society could be considered a "enforce laws only" society. The railroad industry and infrastructure was built without government tax money.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 14, 2016, 08:59:24 AM
Haha. All of them right now.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 14, 2016, 09:14:57 AM
Interesting that the "enforce laws only" societies have failed to outcompete the "solve the freerider problem by taxing people and building infrastructure/ensuring the common good" ones.

I mean, just weird, right?

-W

What societies are you speaking of? The early stages of US society could be considered a "enforce laws only" society. The railroad industry and infrastructure was built without government tax money.

The early railroad industry in the US is a great example of what happens when you allow free markets to determine things.

A whole bunch of railways were built.  Then the people who had built them became very wealthy, developed a monopoly, fixed prices, and raised prices to the point that they were strangling US development.  The problem became so bad that the American people forced the government to respond to the regular abuses of power.  That's why anti-trust legislation the ICC and Sherman Antitrust Act first came about.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bananarama on December 14, 2016, 09:16:01 AM
Interesting that the "enforce laws only" societies have failed to outcompete the "solve the freerider problem by taxing people and building infrastructure/ensuring the common good" ones.

I mean, just weird, right?

-W

lol. Yes.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd really not like to back to the Industrial Revolution and the quagmire of shit that was. No environmental protects, being unable to pay your debts (for whatever reason) was a criminal offense, orphanages were horrific, workers had no rights (and becoming dead due to working conditions was not terribly unusual), and slums were a reality. The church didn't help then, why would it make any real difference now?

Sometimes I feel like that's what the small government people really want - because the America of the 1800s certainly had fewer regulations and much more power in the hands of industry. It didn't work out so well for anybody not already a part of the industrial elite, but who knows. Maybe next time it'll be different?  Seriously, go look a some photos of London in the 19th century or New York slums or conditions in church run orphanages. Or even church run prisons (some of which were even intended to be /more/ humane than other options).

Interesting that the "enforce laws only" societies have failed to outcompete the "solve the freerider problem by taxing people and building infrastructure/ensuring the common good" ones.

I mean, just weird, right?

-W

What societies are you speaking of? The early stages of US society could be considered a "enforce laws only" society. The railroad industry and infrastructure was built without government tax money.

The early years of the US is not a golden era to harken back to, in any manner for any reason. It was a period of time that happened and was improved upon by subsequent generations. Your nostalgia glasses should be replaced by a thorough investigation of the actual realities of those years - and as a poor worker, not as a member of the class of elites whose names fill our history books. 

As for currently existing societies I can't name any - I honestly don't think any exist.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on December 14, 2016, 09:21:35 AM
Early railroads were privately owned, but don't fool yourself into thinking they weren't government financed. 
In reference to the intercontinental railroad:
Their efforts led to the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864, which provided several forms of assistance. Each railroad received its right-of-way along with a land grant of ten alternating sections on both sides of every mile of track (about 12,800 acres per mile); the government retained the sections in between. In addition, the companies received government bonds totaling $16,000 a mile for each twenty-mile section of track completed on the plains. For the plateau between the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountains the amount per mile went up to $32,000 per mile and for the mountain regions, $48,000. Each company could also issue its own first mortgage bonds for the same amount as the government bonds, relegating the latter to a second mortgage.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 14, 2016, 09:41:07 AM
I'm not saying I want to go back to an 1800's society. What I am saying is our rate of growth and our ability to outcompete other contries was better due to the lack of goverment intervention.

The pacific railroad acts could very well have aided in the monopolies that were created. Once railroads started spanning the US, the government began deciding where railroads should be built to reduce redundancy and used financing to accomplish those goals. This led to other players in the market not being able to compete with government funded projects. With one rail servicing a few areas the rail company could charge whatever they wanted. That lead to ICC.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 14, 2016, 09:42:56 AM
Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.
Many religions make donations part of being a good person/going into heaven so I would consider that come authority making them.

Non-religious people (or people who are religious but are not required to give charity) give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it. /Correction
Except that our culture is one built around this ideal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 14, 2016, 09:44:23 AM
Health and environmental issues are different all together. Many of the things we now know are bad for us weren't even discovered then. Modern med and environmental understand has exploded in the last 50 years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on December 14, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

Maybe I am interpreting this wrong but people give to charity all the time without some authority making them do it.
I think you did interpret it wrong. It's not that Americans don’t give to charity, because we do. It's that no charity is large enough or has enough money to tackle nationwide problems. Also, the freeloader problem is still a problem. Also, plenty of people are threatened with eternal damnation and torture their entire childhoods and still manage to give zero fucks, so I don't think that's really an effective way to get people to part with their money.

Also, it's kind of a silly argument. Sure, people donate to charities all the time. Charities, however, aren't going to run school districts, inspect buildings for code (safety) violations, pave roads, run libraries, clean and maintain parks, enforce laws, care for orphans, create and inforce regulation protecting our health, etc. Taxes force everyone to pay their fair share of resources they either use directly themselves or that others currently use and they might someday use themselves.

I understand waht you are saying. Charities have run schools, libraries, hospitals and taken care of orphans in the past. Actually, other than "enforce laws" the free market could handle everything else.

I've read that Americans are one of the most charitable peoples in the world (in terms of percentage of people self-reporting as having donated to charity, volunteered, or helped a stranger.)

That said, one issue with charities vs. government agencies is coverage.  Sure, it's great if you have a NGO food pantry or church hospital in a community. But what if you don't?  Government services may not be great but at least they are available to everyone in the state. Whereas although private charities may be served with passion and care, coverage will be patchy. 

Anyway, there is room for both government and privately administered groups to work... there is certainly no lack of problems to solve, and Americans definitely have enough spare money to help all, or would if people weren't greedy (it was estimated that in 2006 alone, Americans owed $450 billion more in taxes than they actually paid, possibly due to black market activity and tax havens.)

Let government establish a decent baseline of nutrition, shelter, health, safety, and education for all, and then there is plenty of opportunity for private/free market initiatives to raise quality of life beyond that.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 14, 2016, 11:00:33 AM
I'm not saying I want to go back to an 1800's society. What I am saying is our rate of growth and our ability to outcompete other contries was better due to the lack of goverment intervention.

The pacific railroad acts could very well have aided in the monopolies that were created. Once railroads started spanning the US, the government began deciding where railroads should be built to reduce redundancy and used financing to accomplish those goals. This led to other players in the market not being able to compete with government funded projects. With one rail servicing a few areas the rail company could charge whatever they wanted. That lead to ICC.

So, the example that you picked as a triumph of private industry was railroads.  Now you're saying these same railroads weren't actually an example of private industry.  It turns out that the government was necessary to get the railways working as quickly as they did.

What exactly is your preferred solution to the problem?  There are three possible ways for things to go:
- No government intervention (so no railways are built, or they're built too slowly for the needs of the US).
- More government intervention (additional government hand-outs would probably allow for greater competition).
- No change to the policy of limited government intervention where needed and then regulation when businessmen become too greedy and start hurting the country.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 14, 2016, 11:47:07 AM
I'm not saying I want to go back to an 1800's society. What I am saying is our rate of growth and our ability to outcompete other contries was better due to the lack of goverment intervention.

The pacific railroad acts could very well have aided in the monopolies that were created. Once railroads started spanning the US, the government began deciding where railroads should be built to reduce redundancy and used financing to accomplish those goals. This led to other players in the market not being able to compete with government funded projects. With one rail servicing a few areas the rail company could charge whatever they wanted. That lead to ICC.

So, the example that you picked as a triumph of private industry was railroads.  Now you're saying these same railroads weren't actually an example of private industry.  It turns out that the government was necessary to get the railways working as quickly as they did.

What exactly is your preferred solution to the problem?  There are three possible ways for things to go:
- No government intervention (so no railways are built, or they're built too slowly for the needs of the US).
- More government intervention (additional government hand-outs would probably allow for greater competition).
- No change to the policy of limited government intervention where needed and then regulation when businessmen become too greedy and start hurting the country.

No, I'm saying the railroads the government chose to fund weren't an example of private industry. Those railroads weren't being built because they were most likely not profitable, hence why the goverment had to assist in funding the projects. If they were going to be profitable, someone would have built them.

Why do you assume that if there was no government intervention they would have been built too slowly for the needs of the US?

What is interesting is that in the mid 20th century the railroad industry was deregulated for its survival which led to a massive shift in the amount of rail being maintained, led to huge reductions in passenger cars and an increase in freight cars because of the automobile. In my opinion, based on the information I have gathered, the pricing model acts much quicker and is much more effiecient that the central planning model.

Edit: In what way were buisness men too greedy and hurt the country?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 14, 2016, 12:15:28 PM
You're quibbling now, but it's nice to see that you recognize that there are some situations in which a group of self-interested individuals left to their own devices don't produce an optimal outcome.

Look, everyone understands (even super hardcore libertarians) that things like law enforcement, national defense, courts, and basic infrastructure are best handled by the government (at one level or another, doesn't have to be the feds). Everyone probably (even the most hardcore collectivist) also agrees that there are a bunch of things that the government sucks at (business/profit driven enterprise, picking winners and losers, etc) and we have lots of historical examples of failed communist/very collectivist (Venezuela!) economies.

Then there are problems like pollution where the market doesn't price in the cost to society very well, and things like healthcare where you can debate on and on whether a free market can function well.

But the basic idea that you need some central authority to deal with some things is really not controversial. It's the middle-ground stuff that is interesting (climate change would be a great example - are businesses capable of pricing in the potential consequences? One would thing rationally that the possibility of the entire economy crashing would be a deterrent to business as usual...), not the idea that you need a robust government to make basic things run well.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 14, 2016, 12:34:56 PM
I agree with you.

Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

It's interesting how our conversation evolved from what you posted above to your last statement. I actually like how you broke out services to be perfomed by government vs private industy.

I agree that it is the middle of the road things that are most interesting. Climate change, to use your example, is anyone capable of pricing in the potential consequences? Even if the US can, its futile if we can't get china, india, russia, etc. to agree to the same. If we do get them to agree what about third world contries that are trying to develope? And at what cost to the average american? Difficult stuff
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 14, 2016, 01:33:22 PM
I agree with you.

Look up "collective action problem".

It makes no sense to voluntarily pay more for some social services unless you know that others will. In fact, that's how *all of society* works! Since it's in your self-interest to free-ride, we have something called a government that makes rules to ensure that public goods are paid for by... the public.

The whole "why don't you pay more taxes then" argument is stupid, because all of human civilization is built on the idea that, in fact, you can't trust people to contribute their fair share without some sort of authority to make them do it.

-W

It's interesting how our conversation evolved from what you posted above to your last statement. I actually like how you broke out services to be perfomed by government vs private industy.

I agree that it is the middle of the road things that are most interesting. Climate change, to use your example, is anyone capable of pricing in the potential consequences? Even if the US can, its futile if we can't get china, india, russia, etc. to agree to the same. If we do get them to agree what about third world contries that are trying to develope? And at what cost to the average american? Difficult stuff
Not exactly: "The United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world's fossil fuel resources—burning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world's natural gas."
In addition we are working internationally, see the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the agreement between China and the US.  Oh, I forgot, Trump wants to cancel that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 14, 2016, 01:38:43 PM
I don't care about CO2 emissions, the cow left the barn a long time ago on that.

But...

It's time to spend a f*ckton of money on basic research on mitigation and adaptation. I'd probably increase NIH and NSF budgets by an order of magnitude, with a heavy focus on cell biology/making stuff with CRISPR, plant science, geoengineering, and of course solar power in various forms. Throw some more money at fusion too. Go heavy on the grad student and postdoc level funding, encourage lots of industry/academic collaboration, bring the ag departments into the 21st century and give them the respect they deserve.

Best of all, even if the tinfoil hat skeptics are all right and climate change is a nothingburger, we get a shit ton of great science and new tech and better/cheaper food and energy out of it. Win/win.

Etc, etc. Nobody is going to do that, though. We'll just have to dump stuff in the atmosphere to try to cool things down in a couple of decades and deal with it ad hoc.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 15, 2016, 05:30:10 AM
I don't care about CO2 emissions, the cow left the barn a long time ago on that.

But...

It's time to spend a f*ckton of money on basic research on mitigation and adaptation. I'd probably increase NIH and NSF budgets by an order of magnitude, with a heavy focus on cell biology/making stuff with CRISPR, plant science, geoengineering, and of course solar power in various forms. Throw some more money at fusion too. Go heavy on the grad student and postdoc level funding, encourage lots of industry/academic collaboration, bring the ag departments into the 21st century and give them the respect they deserve.

Best of all, even if the tinfoil hat skeptics are all right and climate change is a nothingburger, we get a shit ton of great science and new tech and better/cheaper food and energy out of it. Win/win.

Etc, etc. Nobody is going to do that, though. We'll just have to dump stuff in the atmosphere to try to cool things down in a couple of decades and deal with it ad hoc.

-W

If we are going to do something big I would like to see it be incentivized the other way. Make fossel fuels so expensive via taxes on emission that whatever technology developes will solve the problem. I don't like to idea of hand picking technology and maybe with huge taxes on emissions fossil fuel companies with come up with technology to solve their own problem.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 15, 2016, 06:45:34 AM
I don't care about CO2 emissions, the cow left the barn a long time ago on that.

But...

It's time to spend a f*ckton of money on basic research on mitigation and adaptation. I'd probably increase NIH and NSF budgets by an order of magnitude, with a heavy focus on cell biology/making stuff with CRISPR, plant science, geoengineering, and of course solar power in various forms. Throw some more money at fusion too. Go heavy on the grad student and postdoc level funding, encourage lots of industry/academic collaboration, bring the ag departments into the 21st century and give them the respect they deserve.

Best of all, even if the tinfoil hat skeptics are all right and climate change is a nothingburger, we get a shit ton of great science and new tech and better/cheaper food and energy out of it. Win/win.

Etc, etc. Nobody is going to do that, though. We'll just have to dump stuff in the atmosphere to try to cool things down in a couple of decades and deal with it ad hoc.

-W

If we are going to do something big I would like to see it be incentivized the other way. Make fossel fuels so expensive via taxes on emission that whatever technology developes will solve the problem. I don't like to idea of hand picking technology and maybe with huge taxes on emissions fossil fuel companies with come up with technology to solve their own problem.

That seems like a reasonable approach to fossil fuels on the surface.

The main issue I see with doing it, is that so much infrastructure has already been built around cheap fossil fuels that the transition period (of undetermined length . . . 10, 15, 20, 25 years?) will be very tough on people.  The people that it will be hardest on are those who can barely make ends meet right now.  Triple the price of gas, and the middle class can absorb it.  The rich don't care but all of a sudden a large number of poor people can't afford to drive to work . . . and until alternative means of transportation are available you're preventing that large portion of the population from being productive.  The free market would likely find a solution in the end, but there's going to be a waiting period and at least a generation of people badly hurt by this decision.

Those people will get angry . . . which means one of several things will happen:
- they'll vote out the party who suggested the policy
- they'll riot, cause civil unrest, increase crime (if you leave 'em to starve this is what tends to happen)
- they'll give up on being productive members of society (drawback of large scale welfare system when no jobs can reasonably be found)

We need a change that eases people off of cheap gas while simultaneously building infrastructure and developing alternative transportation solutions.  A purely capitalist solution isn't going to provide a great answer to this problem for the reasons just mentioned.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 15, 2016, 06:59:40 AM
Any increase would need to be implimented over time and I think you underestimate the speed at which the free market can adjust.

Looking at your idea through the same lens, where is the f*ckton of money going to come from? We are already running huge deficits in the federal budget and most states dont look much better, so debt whoudl be out of the question. Higher taxes? Those taxes will eventually be passed on to consumers through higher prices. When prices rise the things you mention above will happen or companies with automate and manuver to try and keep prices low.

And all the while we are wondering if the money we are throwing at research will pan out at all. lose/lose
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 15, 2016, 07:16:10 AM
Phasing in a predictable increase on gas prices via a tax being increased over a longer period of time is probably the best solution that could be applied to the problem.  It provides the government with a steady revenue stream to work with for building infrastructure and gives industry leaders incentive since they know that development in the field will become increasingly more lucrative over time.

Sadly, I suspect that it's a doomed idea.  People have great incentives to pretend that the reality of climate change is a hoax . . . addressing the problem will cost money and effort.  Any politician proposing such a strategy would be very unpopular.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 15, 2016, 08:48:01 AM
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the pittance we spend on basic research. It's a drop in the bucket, and doing more of it wouldn't cause anyone any distress.

Just for reference, discretionary spending is about 1/3 of the total 3.8 trillion budget, and science/research is about 3% of that - so roughly 1% of the total budget. 54% of the discretionary budget is military spending, on the other hand.


But sure, tax the crap out of fossil fuels if that's your preferred solution. Or do both!

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on December 15, 2016, 08:51:40 AM
Looking at your idea through the same lens, where is the f*ckton of money going to come from? We are already running huge deficits in the federal budget and most states dont look much better, so debt whoudl be out of the question. Higher taxes?

What would happen if we invested in the IRS so that we could investigate the $100 billion in tax revenues lost every year because of the use of accounting tricks and tax havens?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 15, 2016, 08:52:27 AM
I was unfamiliar with those numbers. The Federal Budget has its own issues that we could talk about for centuries (and probably will). Haha
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 15, 2016, 09:08:05 AM
I'm not even interested in taxing fossil fuels, I just want is to start reducing the tax incentives we pay to encourage fossil fuel use.  It doesn't make sense to start taxing something when you're already subsidizing it.

If we just reduced government intervention in the fossil fuel market to zero, alternative energy source would already be more cost efficient.  Stop offering tax breaks to drillers.  Stop leasing federal land.  Stop congressional funding for pipelines.  Stop military protection of tanker routes.  Let the free market determine the actual cost of gas, and we'd all be driving electrics inside of five years.  We only continue to use gasoline because the US government wants us to, and so spends your tax dollars to make it look affordable.

Then, if you want to get all technical about fairness, we should subsidize alternative energy for the next forty years at the same level we have subsidized oil for the past 40.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 15, 2016, 09:24:34 AM
I agree 100%. Removal all tax incentives so that the government is not picking winners and losers.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 15, 2016, 09:36:56 AM
I agree 100%. Removal all tax incentives so that the government is not picking winners and losers.
.

Unfortunately, our shared vision will never come to pass.  There are too many ancillary concerns, like international security, that require Uncle Sam to continue subsidizing fossil fuels. 

As a counterweight, we could just increase alternative energy subsidies to the same level as fossil fuel subsidies, going forward.  About a 15x increase should do it.  Obama's tiny little 35% increase was entirely laughable by comparison.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 15, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
I'm going to ask this as respectfully as possible - why would you comment on the federal budget when you don't know anything about it? It takes (at most) 5 minutes to get a general idea of where the money goes (TL;DR - the government is an insurance company with a big army, basically).

And FWIW, I think we could do a lot to make things work better by BOTH stopping the subsidies of various things (picking winners/losers) AND investing in basic research (which the market does very poorly due to the long payback period). No matter what your ideology, you get to win!

-W

I was unfamiliar with those numbers. The Federal Budget has its own issues that we could talk about for centuries (and probably will). Haha
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 15, 2016, 10:09:09 AM
I'm sorry, its not that I am unfamiliar with the Federal Budget. I simply have never looked into what specically the government spends on research because I don't really care. I don't think the government should be in the research buisness in the first place.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 15, 2016, 10:21:21 AM
I'm sorry, its not that I am unfamiliar with the Federal Budget. I simply have never looked into what specically the government spends on research because I don't really care. I don't think the government should be in the research buisness in the first place.
And how would you like us to have research done in this country and advance medical/scientific knowledge?  Keeping in mind that ALL first world countries fund research to some degree.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 15, 2016, 10:37:35 AM
I'm sorry, its not that I am unfamiliar with the Federal Budget. I simply have never looked into what specically the government spends on research because I don't really care. I don't think the government should be in the research buisness in the first place.

Ever use the (DARPA) internet? GPS? Cell phone? Accelerometers (in everything)? Google (yes, Sergey Brin was funded by the NSF when he wrote the search algorithms that made them what they are now)? Bar codes? Microchips of any kind (or really, computers of any kind)? Most vaccines? Jet airplanes (ok, that was the German government, really, but still)?

CRISPR is going to blow your freaking mind, too. To be fair HHMI contributed to that along with NIH/NSF/etc. Give it a decade.

I could go on and on. Might be time for you to do some more reading up on how science has worked in the 20th century (and arguably well before that with prominent scientists funded by monarchies). The era of Bell Labs was over a long time ago, for better or for worse.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 15, 2016, 10:50:22 AM
I'm sorry, its not that I am unfamiliar with the Federal Budget. I simply have never looked into what specically the government spends on research because I don't really care. I don't think the government should be in the research buisness in the first place.
And how would you like us to have research done in this country and advance medical/scientific knowledge?  Keeping in mind that ALL first world countries fund research to some degree.

Great research comes from Medical Colleges, Hospitals, Foundations, Charities and Parma Companies all the time. Now, you may say, some of that research is funded by the government. True. I cant argue that, but, the question is would that research have happened had the government not given them money? I think it would but who's going to not take free money when it is offered. There are R&D departments in almost every industry that do not recieve government money.

The question for me is at what cost? Are there instances where gov funded some research that turned out great? Sure. Would that research have not been done without the government? Maybe. The government selecting who gets funded and who doesn't always leads to cronyism which defeats the purpose of funding research in the first place.

Again, this is probably another one of those unanswerable questions because everyone has opinion on what the appropriate amount of government funded reseach is.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 15, 2016, 11:07:36 AM
I'm sorry, its not that I am unfamiliar with the Federal Budget. I simply have never looked into what specically the government spends on research because I don't really care. I don't think the government should be in the research buisness in the first place.

Ever use the (DARPA) internet? GPS? Cell phone? Accelerometers (in everything)? Google (yes, Sergey Brin was funded by the NSF when he wrote the search algorithms that made them what they are now)? Bar codes? Microchips of any kind (or really, computers of any kind)? Most vaccines? Jet airplanes (ok, that was the German government, really, but still)?

CRISPR is going to blow your freaking mind, too. To be fair HHMI contributed to that along with NIH/NSF/etc. Give it a decade.

I could go on and on. Might be time for you to do some more reading up on how science has worked in the 20th century (and arguably well before that with prominent scientists funded by monarchies). The era of Bell Labs was over a long time ago, for better or for worse.

-W

I don't disagree with your examples but why only list sucesses? What I find interesting is some of your examples were originally military research advancments picked up by private industry and made usefull for the general public. So was government or private industry the creator of the internet? Because for there to be DARPA there needed to be electricity (which Im not 100% sure, but I think was privatly funded).

Like I said there is most likely a balance, and that balance will forever be argued over.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on December 15, 2016, 11:18:02 AM
Great research comes from Medical Colleges, Hospitals, Foundations, Charities and Parma Companies all the time. Now, you may say, some of that research is funded by the government. True. I cant argue that, but, the question is would that research have happened had the government not given them money? I think it would but who's going to not take free money when it is offered. There are R&D departments in almost every industry that do not recieve government money.

So in other words,  you think that the availability of government money actually suppresses private money from being invested in research? I would guess that more money invested in R&D will usually lead to more R&D being done.


Quote
The question for me is at what cost? Are there instances where gov funded some research that turned out great? Sure. Would that research have not been done without the government? Maybe. The government selecting who gets funded and who doesn't always leads to cronyism which defeats the purpose of funding research in the first place.

Give us some examples of how government selection always leads to cronyism.   Government grants serve a complementary purpose to corporate R&D, in that they are disbursed with an eye to the long-term benefit of the country, rather than short term profits.  People complain about "Big Pharma" and I don't think they would like the results if the ability to make money were the only reason why a research project could get funding.

I was formerly a scientist and have friends and family working as scientists for both government grants and industry. I haven't seen or heard of any examples of "cronyism" when it came to government grants... in fact, usually friends of grant applicants recuse themselves from study sections. 

Does private funding create better quality research? That's debatable. My friends who went to work for pharmaceutical companies sometimes have complained that they had to get used to projects being abandoned (wastefully) because they were deemed unprofitable, or because of a corporate change of focus.  On the other hand, they are paid much better than academic scientists so their complaints are not too loud.

[edited because I accidentally submitted in midsentence]
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 15, 2016, 11:27:50 AM
I'm sorry, its not that I am unfamiliar with the Federal Budget. I simply have never looked into what specically the government spends on research because I don't really care. I don't think the government should be in the research buisness in the first place.
And how would you like us to have research done in this country and advance medical/scientific knowledge?  Keeping in mind that ALL first world countries fund research to some degree.

Great research comes from Medical Colleges, Hospitals, Foundations, Charities and Parma Companies all the time. Now, you may say, some of that research is funded by the government. True. I cant argue that, but, the question is would that research have happened had the government not given them money? I think it would but who's going to not take free money when it is offered. There are R&D departments in almost every industry that do not recieve government money.

The question for me is at what cost? Are there instances where gov funded some research that turned out great? Sure. Would that research have not been done without the government? Maybe. The government selecting who gets funded and who doesn't always leads to cronyism which defeats the purpose of funding research in the first place.

Again, this is probably another one of those unanswerable questions because everyone has opinion on what the appropriate amount of government funded reseach is.
I work for a research university attached to a hospital (which also does research) and got my Master's at another research university.  The research that is done, is done because of the governmental grants.  The universities don't fund that, in fact, the grants even pay for the buildings etc.  And we do know what happens when governments don't fund this, the researchers leave to other countries that do and they lose what little scientific community they have.  You lose undergrad students, graduate students, post docs and faculty.  You don't have the base for industry to grow and develop. That is why all first world countries fund research, it is a net gain to the country.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 15, 2016, 11:44:38 AM
I'm sorry, its not that I am unfamiliar with the Federal Budget. I simply have never looked into what specically the government spends on research because I don't really care. I don't think the government should be in the research buisness in the first place.
And how would you like us to have research done in this country and advance medical/scientific knowledge?  Keeping in mind that ALL first world countries fund research to some degree.

Great research comes from Medical Colleges, Hospitals, Foundations, Charities and Parma Companies all the time. Now, you may say, some of that research is funded by the government. True. I cant argue that, but, the question is would that research have happened had the government not given them money? I think it would but who's going to not take free money when it is offered. There are R&D departments in almost every industry that do not recieve government money.

The question for me is at what cost? Are there instances where gov funded some research that turned out great? Sure. Would that research have not been done without the government? Maybe. The government selecting who gets funded and who doesn't always leads to cronyism which defeats the purpose of funding research in the first place.

Again, this is probably another one of those unanswerable questions because everyone has opinion on what the appropriate amount of government funded reseach is.
I work for a research university attached to a hospital (which also does research) and got my Master's at another research university.  The research that is done, is done because of the governmental grants.  The universities don't fund that, in fact, the grants even pay for the buildings etc.  And we do know what happens when governments don't fund this, the researchers leave to other countries that do and they lose what little scientific community they have.  You lose undergrad students, graduate students, post docs and faculty.  You don't have the base for industry to grow and develop. That is why all first world countries fund research, it is a net gain to the country.

I work for an academic medical institution closely affiliated with an R1 university, and yes, this ^

I've seen labs full of idle equipment because grant money went away. The space isn't being repurposed because nobody is showing up with replacement money, or even money for something completely different. It's literally a room full of equipment just taking up space.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 15, 2016, 11:47:34 AM
I have a bunch of degrees that I no longer use (I was a statistician at one point) and my wife has a biochemistry PhD. So I have actual relevant experience with doing and being around basic research - and I can say definitively that without NIH/NSF/NIST/DOE/etc funding, there would be VERY little basic research happening in the US.

Google is doing quite a bit now, and I am hopeful that they will imitate the Bell Labs model and really do some neat stuff.

I also have to disagree with the "failure is the worst result" perspective. Failure is AWESOME. Failure tells you what you don't need to try next time, it spins off new tech and ideas from all the attempts to work your way around the problem, and it generally is awesome. Lots of research leads to nothing - but as long as some aspect of that work is published/disseminated, it help future research succeed.

I mean, really, what kind of fool doesn't understand that success almost always is the product of many failures?

So when you spend a bunch of money on a research project and it doesn't work, you shrug and you move on to another line of attack or another thing. Just LIKE IN YOUR LIFE. Bold experimentation and lots of trial (meaning failure) and error/hard work is how you kick ass.

Jeez.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 15, 2016, 12:01:20 PM
I'm sorry, its not that I am unfamiliar with the Federal Budget. I simply have never looked into what specically the government spends on research because I don't really care. I don't think the government should be in the research buisness in the first place.
And how would you like us to have research done in this country and advance medical/scientific knowledge?  Keeping in mind that ALL first world countries fund research to some degree.

Great research comes from Medical Colleges, Hospitals, Foundations, Charities and Parma Companies all the time. Now, you may say, some of that research is funded by the government. True. I cant argue that, but, the question is would that research have happened had the government not given them money? I think it would but who's going to not take free money when it is offered. There are R&D departments in almost every industry that do not recieve government money.

The question for me is at what cost? Are there instances where gov funded some research that turned out great? Sure. Would that research have not been done without the government? Maybe. The government selecting who gets funded and who doesn't always leads to cronyism which defeats the purpose of funding research in the first place.

Again, this is probably another one of those unanswerable questions because everyone has opinion on what the appropriate amount of government funded reseach is.
I work for a research university attached to a hospital (which also does research) and got my Master's at another research university.  The research that is done, is done because of the governmental grants.  The universities don't fund that, in fact, the grants even pay for the buildings etc.  And we do know what happens when governments don't fund this, the researchers leave to other countries that do and they lose what little scientific community they have.  You lose undergrad students, graduate students, post docs and faculty.  You don't have the base for industry to grow and develop. That is why all first world countries fund research, it is a net gain to the country.

Good, get those intellectual elites and immigrants out of here.  Why can't the coal miners just do the research?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 15, 2016, 12:04:31 PM
Some actual data on research spending (part 1 of 3):
http://ssti.org/blog/changing-nature-us-basic-research-trends-federal-spending

And yes, what Walt says. Coming from a research scientist background and having done stuff that was pushing into new territory, failure was an integral part of progress. I now work in industry doing applied science where the emphasis is on investigating and figuring things out, and in that context failure is a bug, not a feature. Context matters.

Steady federal-level research dollars should be considered infrastructure investment in a technology-centric economy (and that includes manufacturing, construction, widgets, tech ... all of it).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 15, 2016, 12:39:21 PM
I feel like everyone with a science degree just got offended. I did not mean to do that and I apologize.

I didn't mean for my question to be interpretated as a "failure is the worst result" perspective. Failure breeds success in everything.

As far as cronyism, Sol and I were just discussing tax incentives/hand-outs for the fossil fuel industry vs the renewable industry. We now have the CEO of Exxon as the Secretary of State.

Now that I know I am discussing this with a bunch of scientists, I am interesting in what you think federal spending should be on research. 2x, 5x or 10x what it is now?

Glenstache, thanks for the link. I will be reading shortly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 15, 2016, 12:46:15 PM
I'd say about 10x. There are a huge number of very talented postdocs/grad students leaving to work in industry (or leaving science entirely) and we are going to miss out on big stuff because those people weren't in a place where their creativity and talent had a (relatively unconstrained by immediate profit considerations) place to flourish.

Many of them will get picked up (this is already happening, go browse through the recruiting ads in a copy of Nature or Science) by Chinese universities and research facilities.

I should add: scientists get offended when you start expressing opinions and clearly haven't done any basic research on the topic - NOT when you just disagree with them. You don't need to be an expert on science funding to comment on it, but if you can't even be bothered to look into how the federal budget works (not a large investment of time, really) before doing so, then you will lose the respect of most scientifically minded people.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on December 15, 2016, 01:08:39 PM
Quote
I don't think the government should be in the research buisness in the first place.

This being typed on an internet forum is the modern day equivalent of "keep your government hands off my medicare!".  Priceless.

I personally am not a big fan of just flat government research spending.  I prefer moonshot projects, great big ridiculously ambitious goals that get the public on board and excited about science.  Even if these ultimately fail to reach their end goal, or the goal itself (like the moon landing) may not have any direct practical value, these types of projects spur all kinds of side innovations that recoup the spending by vast margins.  They also have the side benefit of getting a whole generation of kids excited about science and engineering. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on December 15, 2016, 01:25:40 PM
I'd say about 10x. There are a huge number of very talented postdocs/grad students leaving to work in industry (or leaving science entirely) and we are going to miss out on big stuff because those people weren't in a place where their creativity and talent had a (relatively unconstrained by immediate profit considerations) place to flourish.

Many of them will get picked up (this is already happening, go browse through the recruiting ads in a copy of Nature or Science) by Chinese universities and research facilities.

-W

Just agreeing with all of the above on the absolute necessity of gov't funding of research. A sadly miniscule amount of gov't funding is devoted to this.  Most research questions are not like medical research, where medical services and potential drug development can usually be projected to make the funding entitity a lot of money.

As someone with a background in biological/ecological research, and with a husband who is an active researcher, I can tell you that a lot of our knowledge about even basic ecological processes would have been difficult to impossible to learn via any private funding source. The reason is that most questions pertaining to fundamental ecology, as well as most subcategories of research (such as, for example, forest ecology, wildlife ecology, limnology and oceanography, climatology, volcanology, etc etc ) do not have short term, tangible, profit motives sufficient tor drive private research funding. They also require research that often must take place over LONG time periods and often at large spatial scales that cross state and country boundaries.

The country as a whole obtains huge benefits from our understanding of these topics, but individuals are unable and unwilling to fund research at the scale or detail required to obtain that knowledge because most of the time there is no individual monetary profit to be found.

Also, repetition of research many times and regular rejection of research hypotheses is a FEATURE of scientific process of all sorts, NOT a bug. Scientific endeavors must fail more or less constantly, so that incorrect hypotheses can be weeded out. Otherwise there can be no progress toward any objective 'truth'.  ETA: I added this last, presumably obvious, paragraph because pooplips seems to not understand the most fundamental things about how science functions or what the process is. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on December 15, 2016, 01:37:55 PM
I'd say about 10x. There are a huge number of very talented postdocs/grad students leaving to work in industry (or leaving science entirely) and we are going to miss out on big stuff because those people weren't in a place where their creativity and talent had a (relatively unconstrained by immediate profit considerations) place to flourish.

Many of them will get picked up (this is already happening, go browse through the recruiting ads in a copy of Nature or Science) by Chinese universities and research facilities.

I should add: scientists get offended when you start expressing opinions and clearly haven't done any basic research on the topic - NOT when you just disagree with them. You don't need to be an expert on science funding to comment on it, but if you can't even be bothered to look into how the federal budget works (not a large investment of time, really) before doing so, then you will lose the respect of most scientifically minded people.

-W

Specifics of how much more funding should be devoted to which scientific disciplines is always going to be a matter of what we prioritize as a country. Obviously, Americans don't prioritize much except military tech anymore, which is damn depressing. For sure I know that in the biological sciences, there are many more people interested in doing research than there is funding to support them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 15, 2016, 10:53:38 PM
HusbandX left a career in biology (n part) because there was no way to make a living in it, for him. It wasn't consistent, and the "fun" (as in, research) jobs just didn't pay enough. We have plenty of friends who've stuck it out, but most of them are constantly fighting for what little funding they have. A few have "non-traditional" jobs, such as living on an atoll out in the Pacific doing bird research for six months at a time. Or going to Antarctica and working at McMurdo for six months. Then having to find something new when they're done. Or working in fisheries stuff, and then working as a fisherman/woman during the summers to make ends meet.

And I worked for a research university which was constantly dealing with cutbacks from the (Republican) state legislature because those poor oil companies just needed another tax break. Boo-hoo.

So. I think a large part of the problem is that so many people don't realize just how little our government actually spends on research. They'll hear about some study that they think was "stupid" (most likely because it was dumbed down by someone in the press who didn't actually understand it) and assume that a) the research was useless and b) the researchers made tons of money by studying something so asinine. So they assume that the government is wasting all this money on research for what makes dogs fart or some other ridiculous issue (again, that would be how the layman's article presented it, not what was actually being researched) instead of helping them, the good and wonderful taxpayer whose precious money is being wasted. And it adds to their sense of persecution, because the government can afford to pay scientists who want to study such silly things by taking from the good and wonderful taxpayer's pocket? When you add in the fact that most people don't actually know any research scientists and you can actually understand that if that's all they hear about "research", then of course they'd think it's a giant waste of money.

They don't realize that the giant waste of money is all the time researchers spend fighting over the scraps of funding they get now. They don't realize that the giant waste is sending some of our brightest scientists off to other countries because they can't make a decent living doing what they love here. They don't realize that funding for R&D is crucial for how this country will move forward, because they don't understand how it affects their lives. They think "private industry" will fill in, without ever stopping to think that maybe private industry is really only interested in things that will turn a profit. They're not in it for the good of humanity, they're in it for personal gain. Sure, they'll cure cancer if they can, but only so they can turn around and make billions on the cure. That is the point at which the government should step in and say, you know, maybe trying to find a cure for cancer without making tons of money off people's desperation would be a good thing.

Even if it leads to a bunch of failures, which most of the time it doesn't. Because how can you fail when your premise is an open-ended question? "I want to learn how we evolved lungs." Individual experiments can and will fail, but you're still furthering research. It's never "failure" when viewed from that standpoint.

Eventually, however, the research will get big enough that private industry will step in. We know how lungs evolved, so now we can 3D print new lungs for those who need them! Private industry wins! And they never credit all the government funded research that came before theirs, which formed the basis and without which they couldn't have done anything. So then laymen like pooplips never hear about the role government research played, and continue in their happy belief that government money into research is "wasted".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 16, 2016, 06:05:54 AM
Even if it leads to a bunch of failures, which most of the time it doesn't. Because how can you fail when your premise is an open-ended question? "I want to learn how we evolved lungs." Individual experiments can and will fail, but you're still furthering research. It's never "failure" when viewed from that standpoint.

And who knows what those failures will turn up. Viagra anyone? ;)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 16, 2016, 06:16:46 AM
Well, back to the OP.

Looks like the sec of interior will be a little more pro-environment/public use of our national forest/blm lands instead of just a lessor to BigOil/Big Timber.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 16, 2016, 09:50:52 AM
Well, back to the OP.

Looks like the sec of interior will be a little more pro-environment/public use of our national forest/blm lands instead of just a lessor to BigOil/Big Timber.

In context, Zinke appears to be the bright spot among Trump's cabinet picks. I say that largely because I feared appointment of an ally of the American Lands Council or others in favor of public land transfer. Zinke has a record of opposing public land transfer.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 16, 2016, 09:54:13 AM
China just seized a US navy vessel in the South China Sea.

And so it begins.

If the Electoral College doesn't act, which they won't, get ready for the era of adversarial countries just doing shit to see what they can get away with, now that the US is run by a guy who will botch every response and further erode its reputation to potentially disastrous effect.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 16, 2016, 10:11:10 AM
China just seized a US navy vessel in the South China Sea.

And so it begins.

If the Electoral College doesn't act, which they won't, get ready for the era of adversarial countries just doing shit to see what they can get away with, now that the US is run by a guy who will botch every response and further erode its reputation to potentially disastrous effect.

While the next 4 years should prove interesting, I believe this must fall directly on Obama's plate.  He IS still the president. We can speculate as to what Trump would/will do, but I see that so far, a formal protest called a demarche has been delivered to China. Looks like the first move of Obama is diplomacy. Who thinks that will be Trumps first reaction when something like this happens under his watch? Who thinks we will get the ship back?



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on December 16, 2016, 10:18:47 AM
China just seized a US navy vessel in the South China Sea.

And so it begins.

If the Electoral College doesn't act, which they won't, get ready for the era of adversarial countries just doing shit to see what they can get away with, now that the US is run by a guy who will botch every response and further erode its reputation to potentially disastrous effect.

While the next 4 years should prove interesting, I believe this must fall directly on Obama's plate.  He IS still the president. We can speculate as to what Trump would/will do, but I see that so far, a formal protest called a demarche has been delivered to China. Looks like the first move of Obama is diplomacy. Who thinks that will be Trumps first reaction when something like this happens under his watch? Who thinks we will get the ship back?

Yes, it is Obama's issue to deal with through Jan 20th. I think it is in the room to assume that this is at least in part related to Trump's direct talks with Taiwan.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ender on December 16, 2016, 10:23:36 AM
Yes, it is Obama's issue to deal with through Jan 20th. I think it is in the room to assume that this is at least in part related to Trump's direct talks with Taiwan.

And realistically that area has been a mess politically recently. China has built military bases on islands they built in a contested area.

This is definitely not a new geopolitical problem. Though it's likely the action here is deliberately taken given the presidential election.

Also, it wasn't a "ship" it was an underwater drone.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 16, 2016, 11:40:25 AM
China just seized a US navy vessel in the South China Sea.

And so it begins.

If the Electoral College doesn't act, which they won't, get ready for the era of adversarial countries just doing shit to see what they can get away with, now that the US is run by a guy who will botch every response and further erode its reputation to potentially disastrous effect.

UNDERWATER DRONE.

Jesus, don't scare me like that. The Iran debacle was bad enough.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 16, 2016, 11:58:28 AM
UNDERWATER DRONE.

Jesus, don't scare me like that. The Iran debacle was bad enough.

Sounds like it's not even a military drone, just a research drone.  Meh.  Keep it, just maybe email us the temperature data file?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 16, 2016, 12:00:16 PM
For anyone who thinks a trade war with China is going to be a good idea:
Quote
BEIJING: China will slap fines on an unnamed US carmaker for monopolistic behaviour, the state-run China Daily said on Wednesday (Dec 14), as rhetoric over trade heats up between Beijing and US president-elect Donald Trump.  A penalty will be issued "soon" against an American firm for telling distributors to fix prices, the paper said in a front-page story, citing an "exclusive interview" with the director of the price supervision bureau in the country's top economic planner.

Chinese authorities often use state-controlled media to test out lines of attack and broadcast pointed messages while preserving a more neutral official stance.

In an editorial, also published on Wednesday, the China Daily took a swaggering tone, saying that if Trump wants to make Taiwan a bargaining chip, "he has no leverage".  "However, since he has indicated with his pre-office sound bites that his real interest is trade, let's talk about trade," it said.

The editorial singled out General Motors, noting that the US automaker sold more than one-third of its nearly 10 million vehicles in China last year.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/china-to-fine-us-automaker-china-daily/3367204.html

Then there's the issue of Trump singling out companies via his Twitter account.  Hedge funds apparently profited significantly from Trump's attack on Lockheed by shorting the stock prior to his tweet.  Talk about a system ripe for abuse.  Conveniently, accusations of insider trading can be defrayed by explaining that 'sophisticated social media algortithms' had predicted the tweet.  How convenient.

http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/donald-trump-twitter-lockheed-martin-stock-dump/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 16, 2016, 12:29:22 PM
For anyone who thinks a trade war with China is going to be a good idea:
Quote
BEIJING: China will slap fines on an unnamed US carmaker for monopolistic behaviour, the state-run China Daily said on Wednesday (Dec 14), as rhetoric over trade heats up between Beijing and US president-elect Donald Trump.  A penalty will be issued "soon" against an American firm for telling distributors to fix prices, the paper said in a front-page story, citing an "exclusive interview" with the director of the price supervision bureau in the country's top economic planner.

Chinese authorities often use state-controlled media to test out lines of attack and broadcast pointed messages while preserving a more neutral official stance.

In an editorial, also published on Wednesday, the China Daily took a swaggering tone, saying that if Trump wants to make Taiwan a bargaining chip, "he has no leverage".  "However, since he has indicated with his pre-office sound bites that his real interest is trade, let's talk about trade," it said.

The editorial singled out General Motors, noting that the US automaker sold more than one-third of its nearly 10 million vehicles in China last year.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/china-to-fine-us-automaker-china-daily/3367204.html

Then there's the issue of Trump singling out companies via his Twitter account.  Hedge funds apparently profited significantly from Trump's attack on Lockheed by shorting the stock prior to his tweet.  Talk about a system ripe for abuse.  Conveniently, accusations of insider trading can be defrayed by explaining that 'sophisticated social media algortithms' had predicted the tweet.  How convenient.

http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/donald-trump-twitter-lockheed-martin-stock-dump/

The idea that anyone can predict Trump behavior is laughable.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 16, 2016, 12:43:51 PM
Yes, it is Obama's issue to deal with through Jan 20th. I think it is in the room to assume that this is at least in part related to Trump's direct talks with Taiwan.

And realistically that area has been a mess politically recently. China has built military bases on islands they built in a contested area.

This is definitely not a new geopolitical problem. Though it's likely the action here is deliberately taken given the presidential election.

Also, it wasn't a "ship" it was an underwater drone.

Ahh shoot... I thought we could start blaming stuff on Trump already...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 16, 2016, 01:24:15 PM
UNDERWATER DRONE.

Jesus, don't scare me like that. The Iran debacle was bad enough.

Sounds like it's not even a military drone, just a research drone.  Meh.  Keep it, just maybe email us the temperature data file?

Military research tho
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 16, 2016, 01:31:54 PM

The idea that anyone can predict Trump behavior is laughable.

I remember a time when both the political left, and apparently the Soviet Union, thought Reagan was actually crazy.  On some level, I think that Reagan deliberately cultivated that idea, perhaps because it forced his political & diplomatic adversaries to second guess their assumptions about how he would respond to certain provocations.  I wonder if Trump is also cultivating the "unpredictable reaction" persona for similar reasons.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KCM5 on December 16, 2016, 01:42:42 PM

The idea that anyone can predict Trump behavior is laughable.

I remember a time when both the political left, and apparently the Soviet Union, thought Reagan was actually crazy.  On some level, I think that Reagan deliberately cultivated that idea, perhaps because it forced his political & diplomatic adversaries to second guess their assumptions about how he would respond to certain provocations.  I wonder if Trump is also cultivating the "unpredictable reaction" persona for similar reasons.

Really? I was born in the '80s, so have no reference for this. But I have never heard Reagan described as unpredictable/crazy like that. Can you give some examples?

Trump has certainly been doing his best to seem unpredictable. I do think this is a bit of a strategy of his, one that he has used in his business life. However, I think he also just has poor impulse control and thin skin. That's the dangerous part.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 16, 2016, 01:57:27 PM
UNDERWATER DRONE.

Jesus, don't scare me like that. The Iran debacle was bad enough.

Sounds like it's not even a military drone, just a research drone.  Meh.  Keep it, just maybe email us the temperature data file?

Military research tho

Turns out the research project of sneaking through Chinese waters was as failure... need to test a new theory...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 16, 2016, 02:00:54 PM
UNDERWATER DRONE.

Jesus, don't scare me like that. The Iran debacle was bad enough.

Sounds like it's not even a military drone, just a research drone.  Meh.  Keep it, just maybe email us the temperature data file?

Military research tho

Turns out the research project of sneaking through Chinese waters was as failure... need to test a new theory...

Based upon what?  If that was a military drone looking for weak spots in the Chinese submarine sonar net, did you assume we had only one?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on December 16, 2016, 02:01:37 PM

UNDERWATER DRONE.

Jesus, don't scare me like that. The Iran debacle was bad enough.

Sounds like it's not even a military drone, just a research drone.  Meh.  Keep it, just maybe email us the temperature data file?


Does no one ever like to give sources here? This is what I'm reading about it: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-drone-idUSKBN14526J (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-drone-idUSKBN14526J)

Quote
The drone was part of an unclassified program to collect oceanographic data including salinity, temperature and clarity of the water, the U.S. official added. The data can help inform U.S. military sonar data since such factors affect sound.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 16, 2016, 02:11:15 PM
UNDERWATER DRONE.

Jesus, don't scare me like that. The Iran debacle was bad enough.

Sounds like it's not even a military drone, just a research drone.  Meh.  Keep it, just maybe email us the temperature data file?

Military research tho

Turns out the research project of sneaking through Chinese waters was as failure... need to test a new theory...

Based upon what?  If that was a military drone looking for weak spots in the Chinese submarine sonar net, did you assume we had only one?

I think he's saying since they caught it, the tech can't Sneak in undertected.

Of course in reality they only caught it because it was surfaced for retrieval by the US -"and they just yoinked it from us.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the mission was more than mere temperature and salinity readings. That's the unclassified part, but for all we know there's a classified portion that collects other data
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lbmustache on December 16, 2016, 02:34:47 PM


The idea that anyone can predict Trump behavior is laughable.

Eh, maybe not so much Trump himself, but I think we can get a good (or bad, rather) idea from his appointments.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 16, 2016, 02:43:10 PM

I think he's saying since they caught it, the tech can't Sneak in undertected.

Of course in reality they only caught it because it was surfaced for retrieval by the US -"and they just yoinked it from us.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the mission was more than mere temperature and salinity readings. That's the unclassified part, but for all we know there's a classified portion that collects other data

I always wonder when I read things like this "This is what the people in James Bond's universe would read when he used something like this to sneak into a secret military installation..."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on December 16, 2016, 03:03:31 PM
Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the mission was more than mere temperature and salinity readings. That's the unclassified part, but for all we know there's a classified portion that collects other data

Good point. I'm immediately reminded of NASA's/the US Air Force's X-37 Orbital Test Vehicle project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37): There is a lot of it that is unclassified, but much of what this vehicle does is definitely classified.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 16, 2016, 03:49:05 PM
Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the mission was more than mere temperature and salinity readings. That's the unclassified part, but for all we know there's a classified portion that collects other data

Good point. I'm immediately reminded of NASA's/the US Air Force's X-37 Orbital Test Vehicle project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37): There is a lot of it that is unclassified, but much of what this vehicle does is definitely classified.

I mean, you already have a drone in an area of military interest.  Why wouldn't you leverage that by tossing on another sensor or two?  It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just not something the US would want to broadcast to China.

Kinda like when we used to fly that birdwatching plane the SR-71 (hence it's name)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 16, 2016, 04:05:30 PM

I think he's saying since they caught it, the tech can't Sneak in undertected.


And I'm saying that perhaps it can, sometimes.  It's like you're a military commander planning out an attack, and wishing to destroy a radar station with a missile before the ground assault.  But the radar station has a missile defense system that the intelligence geeks tell you has a 50% chance of detecting & destroying your expensive stealth missile.  What would you do?

You just fire two, you didn't pay for them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on December 16, 2016, 05:57:59 PM
I mean, you already have a drone in an area of military interest.  Why wouldn't you leverage that by tossing on another sensor or two?  It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just not something the US would want to broadcast to China.

Kinda like when we used to fly that birdwatching plane the SR-71 (hence it's name)

Ohhhh you went and did it- now I'm geeking out plane style. Even moreso like the supersonic drone that they tried to fly on the back of SR-71's and release it to fly over enemy territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21)

Seeing the crashed/recovered one on display at a museum in China is still one of my oddest/coolest things I saw while travelling.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 17, 2016, 04:41:27 AM
I mean, you already have a drone in an area of military interest.  Why wouldn't you leverage that by tossing on another sensor or two?  It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just not something the US would want to broadcast to China.

Kinda like when we used to fly that birdwatching plane the SR-71 (hence it's name)

Ohhhh you went and did it- now I'm geeking out plane style. Even moreso like the supersonic drone that they tried to fly on the back of SR-71's and release it to fly over enemy territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21)

Seeing the crashed/recovered one on display at a museum in China is still one of my oddest/coolest things I saw while travelling.

They placed a drone on the back of the SR-71? In the '60s!? Wow. I'd never heard of this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 17, 2016, 07:59:00 AM

The idea that anyone can predict Trump behavior is laughable.

I remember a time when both the political left, and apparently the Soviet Union, thought Reagan was actually crazy.  On some level, I think that Reagan deliberately cultivated that idea, perhaps because it forced his political & diplomatic adversaries to second guess their assumptions about how he would respond to certain provocations.  I wonder if Trump is also cultivating the "unpredictable reaction" persona for similar reasons.

Really? I was born in the '80s, so have no reference for this. But I have never heard Reagan described as unpredictable/crazy like that.

I was an adult then. I do not remember this. I do, remember, hearing murmurings in his second term that he seemed mentally addled, and wondering about dementia or Alzheimer's. Which, in retrospect, seem to habe been true.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 17, 2016, 09:52:28 AM
They placed a drone on the back of the SR-71? In the '60s!? Wow. I'd never heard of this.

The history of military drones is fascinating, I highly recommend some online research.  They spent millions developing the required miniaturized technology under classified programs, until it started showing up in iPhones.  You may have noticed that consumer drones followed rapidly on the heels of consumer smartphones.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 17, 2016, 12:20:51 PM

The idea that anyone can predict Trump behavior is laughable.

I remember a time when both the political left, and apparently the Soviet Union, thought Reagan was actually crazy.  On some level, I think that Reagan deliberately cultivated that idea, perhaps because it forced his political & diplomatic adversaries to second guess their assumptions about how he would respond to certain provocations.  I wonder if Trump is also cultivating the "unpredictable reaction" persona for similar reasons.

Really? I was born in the '80s, so have no reference for this. But I have never heard Reagan described as unpredictable/crazy like that.

I was an adult then. I do not remember this. I do, remember, hearing murmurings in his second term that he seemed mentally addled, and wondering about dementia or Alzheimer's. Which, in retrospect, seem to habe been true.

I do remember this.  My grandmother was going through the same thing, and they behaved very similar.  It is worth pointing out that in early Alzheimers, the patient is often very aware of what is happening to them.  Being president, it was very important to put on a face that everything is fine.  I would be shocked if his symptoms were not covered up while he was president. What was going on behind closed doors must have been an incredible story. Terrible disease.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 17, 2016, 03:02:29 PM
But Reagan at least started with all his marbles, even though he might've lost a few toward the end.  He seemed to be able to handle Gorbachev elegantly, given the high stakes.  Trump truly is, in his own Twittery words, 'unpresidented'.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 17, 2016, 03:34:47 PM
He has the best words, bigly best.  It is unpresidented how much winning is ahead for us all.  You will get tired of winning.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 17, 2016, 03:50:52 PM
He has the best words, bigly best.  It is unpresidented how much winning is ahead for us all.  You will get tired of winning.

I'm tired of winning already!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on December 17, 2016, 04:18:20 PM
The history of military drones is fascinating, I highly recommend some online research.  They spent millions developing the required miniaturized technology under classified programs, until it started showing up in iPhones.  You may have noticed that consumer drones followed rapidly on the heels of consumer smartphones.

This. But the D-21 has the distinction of quite possibly being the first supersonic drone. That there is any real record or knowledge of. Getting back on topic,

I wonder if Trump is also cultivating the "unpredictable reaction" persona for similar reasons.

I definitely wonder this as well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 17, 2016, 04:51:00 PM
They placed a drone on the back of the SR-71? In the '60s!? Wow. I'd never heard of this.

The history of military drones is fascinating, I highly recommend some online research.  They spent millions developing the required miniaturized technology under classified programs, until it started showing up in iPhones.  You may have noticed that consumer drones followed rapidly on the heels of consumer smartphones.

Which tech are you referring to?  MEMS accelerometers?  GPS?

I mean, you already have a drone in an area of military interest.  Why wouldn't you leverage that by tossing on another sensor or two?  It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just not something the US would want to broadcast to China.

Kinda like when we used to fly that birdwatching plane the SR-71 (hence it's name)

Ohhhh you went and did it- now I'm geeking out plane style. Even moreso like the supersonic drone that they tried to fly on the back of SR-71's and release it to fly over enemy territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21)

Seeing the crashed/recovered one on display at a museum in China is still one of my oddest/coolest things I saw while travelling.

Aww, it's like a little baby SR-71!

PS, I'm sure you are aware of the highly entertaining copypasta: https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/3e0h8x/sr71_blackbird/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jambongris on December 17, 2016, 05:12:13 PM
They placed a drone on the back of the SR-71? In the '60s!? Wow. I'd never heard of this.

The history of military drones is fascinating, I highly recommend some online research.  They spent millions developing the required miniaturized technology under classified programs, until it started showing up in iPhones.  You may have noticed that consumer drones followed rapidly on the heels of consumer smartphones.

Which tech are you referring to?  MEMS accelerometers?  GPS?

I mean, you already have a drone in an area of military interest.  Why wouldn't you leverage that by tossing on another sensor or two?  It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just not something the US would want to broadcast to China.

Kinda like when we used to fly that birdwatching plane the SR-71 (hence it's name)

Ohhhh you went and did it- now I'm geeking out plane style. Even moreso like the supersonic drone that they tried to fly on the back of SR-71's and release it to fly over enemy territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21)

Seeing the crashed/recovered one on display at a museum in China is still one of my oddest/coolest things I saw while travelling.

Aww, it's like a little baby SR-71!

PS, I'm sure you are aware of the highly entertaining copypasta: https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/3e0h8x/sr71_blackbird/

Phenomenal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 17, 2016, 05:53:53 PM
Which tech are you referring to?  MEMS accelerometers?  GPS?

Yes, along with tiny digital cameras and low power electronics for autonomous navigation and encrypted communications.  We've had most other sensors, like electronic altimeters and proximity sensors, for a while now but tying GPS to the accelerometers in a package that will fit into a nosecone used to be classified guided missile technology.  Now North Korea can buy that technology in a $50 smartphone
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: oldtoyota on December 18, 2016, 06:52:11 AM

The idea that anyone can predict Trump behavior is laughable.

I remember a time when both the political left, and apparently the Soviet Union, thought Reagan was actually crazy.  On some level, I think that Reagan deliberately cultivated that idea, perhaps because it forced his political & diplomatic adversaries to second guess their assumptions about how he would respond to certain provocations.  I wonder if Trump is also cultivating the "unpredictable reaction" persona for similar reasons.

Really? I was born in the '80s, so have no reference for this. But I have never heard Reagan described as unpredictable/crazy like that.

I was an adult then. I do not remember this. I do, remember, hearing murmurings in his second term that he seemed mentally addled, and wondering about dementia or Alzheimer's. Which, in retrospect, seem to habe been true.

I do remember this.  My grandmother was going through the same thing, and they behaved very similar.  It is worth pointing out that in early Alzheimers, the patient is often very aware of what is happening to them.  Being president, it was very important to put on a face that everything is fine.  I would be shocked if his symptoms were not covered up while he was president. What was going on behind closed doors must have been an incredible story. Terrible disease.

I thought everyone knew he had ALZ. It's more surprising to me that people did not realize this...

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 18, 2016, 07:32:42 AM
Reagan's Alzheimer's is common knowledge now, but it was kept under wraps during his presidency.  I'll also add, Melania (and Ivnka) are no Nancy Reagan. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 18, 2016, 08:00:29 AM
Reagan's Alzheimer's is common knowledge now, but it was kept under wraps during his presidency.  I'll also add, Melania (and Ivnka) are no Nancy Reagan.

Melania Trump has stated that her first lady area of focus will be fighting climate change. So in that respect, there are some similarities.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 18, 2016, 08:16:24 AM
Reagan's Alzheimer's is common knowledge now, but it was kept under wraps during his presidency.  I'll also add, Melania (and Ivnka) are no Nancy Reagan.

Melania Trump has stated that her first lady area of focus will be fighting climate change. So in that respect, there are some similarities.

So, (based entirely upon his picks for office) she's going to be fighting against her husband's agenda?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 18, 2016, 08:25:07 AM
Reagan's Alzheimer's is common knowledge now, but it was kept under wraps during his presidency.  I'll also add, Melania (and Ivnka) are no Nancy Reagan.

Melania Trump has stated that her first lady area of focus will be fighting climate change. So in that respect, there are some similarities.

Can you please cite your source on this? I cannot find a single thing about it. The only thing I have heard is that Melania wants to make anti-bullying her focus. Which is a rich irony in and of itself.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 18, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
I agree with what others are saying, that Melania is tackling cyber bullies and Ivanka tacitly seems to be flying an environmentalist flag - although her actions make her words worthless.  But what I was really getting at was how Nancy was Ronald's backbone when his illness manifested.  Melania and Ivanka are nowhere near the confidants and support network if Trump actually is suffering a mental illness.  I'm thinking Banon is like that for Trump, heaven help us.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 18, 2016, 12:02:33 PM
Reagan's Alzheimer's is common knowledge now, but it was kept under wraps during his presidency.  I'll also add, Melania (and Ivnka) are no Nancy Reagan.

Melania Trump has stated that her first lady area of focus will be fighting climate change. So in that respect, there are some similarities.

Can you please cite your source on this? I cannot find a single thing about it. The only thing I have heard is that Melania wants to make anti-bullying her focus. Which is a rich irony in and of itself.

It appears I was wrong. It is Ivanka Trump (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/jasonhopkins/2016/12/05/ivanka-trumps-signature-is-climate-change-n2254976) that will make climate change her prerogative. I get them mixed up....probably because they are close enough in age to be siblings.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 18, 2016, 12:11:01 PM
It appears I was wrong. It is Ivanka Trump (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/jasonhopkins/2016/12/05/ivanka-trumps-signature-is-climate-change-n2254976) that will make climate change her prerogative. I get them mixed up....probably because they are close enough in age to be siblings.

11 years? Not an unheard of gap, especially in previous generations, but about the point where I would not assume siblings.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on December 18, 2016, 12:12:18 PM
Reagan's Alzheimer's is common knowledge now, but it was kept under wraps during his presidency.  I'll also add, Melania (and Ivnka) are no Nancy Reagan.

Melania Trump has stated that her first lady area of focus will be fighting climate change. So in that respect, there are some similarities.

Can you please cite your source on this? I cannot find a single thing about it. The only thing I have heard is that Melania wants to make anti-bullying her focus. Which is a rich irony in and of itself.

It appears I was wrong. It is Ivanka Trump (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/jasonhopkins/2016/12/05/ivanka-trumps-signature-is-climate-change-n2254976) that will make climate change her prerogative. I get them mixed up....probably because they are close enough in age to be siblings.
And Ivanka is the one who is pushing the political issue of 6 weeks of mandatory paid maternity leave.

Fortunately, if this goes forward it wont be the first time  a GOP Congress clamps down on a liberal agenda item.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 18, 2016, 02:53:13 PM


I thought everyone knew he had ALZ. It's more surprising to me that people did not realize this...
The public knew, but not during his presidency. That disease was not very well known then.  It became clear years later.  You can live with this disease for decades, as Reagan did.  Now we say of course he had it, but during the time of his presidency is was hidden. I would bet those under him would still refuse to admit how far along his progression was during his presidency.  In fact, according to google, he died after having Alzheimer's for "over a decade" and died in 2004. The public statement is that he was diagnosed in 1994, 5 years after leaving office. There is no official diagnosis that has been released that shows he was diagnosed while president. His son is on record as saying he thought he had the disease during his presidency. It is clear that his son differs politically than his father, do many see his statements as politically motivated.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 18, 2016, 03:00:49 PM
I agree with what others are saying, that Melania is tackling cyber bullies and Ivanka tacitly seems to be flying an environmentalist flag - although her actions make her words worthless.  But what I was really getting at was how Nancy was Ronald's backbone when his illness manifested.  Melania and Ivanka are nowhere near the confidants and support network if Trump actually is suffering a mental illness.  I'm thinking Banon is like that for Trump, heaven help us.

Outside of hearing their private conversations, I can not see how we could possibly know how much support Melania and Ivanka are.  We can see after the fact with regard to Nancy but that remains to be seen for the PEFL (President Elect First Lady... is that a think? did I create a thing? do I hashtag this thing now? copyright people talk to me :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: purple monkey on December 18, 2016, 07:05:03 PM
Has NPD.
Splitting is constant.
Ivanka is golden child.
Cabinet will be flying monkeys.
Everyday will be chaos.
Normal, empathetic people will constantly  give him the benefit of the doubt and will never understand his behavior.
Will take decades to recover.
Will go down in history  like Grant and Hoover.
But we, the electorate, are to blame.
Would be better to have anyone else that ran in the office.
He is incapable of anything not related to him.
If he were not rich and the president elect,  he might be homeless, where many NPD folks end up.
CHEERS!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 19, 2016, 05:37:49 PM
Well Trump wins again, electors that is.  The man is a winning machine.  So much win.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on December 19, 2016, 06:37:34 PM
Well Trump wins again, electors that is.  The man is a winning machine.  So much win.

He won by a landslide. It was a win by the biggest almost the biggest a really huge percentage. Huge!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: vern on December 19, 2016, 07:31:31 PM
After all of those protests and threats, Hillary lost more electors than Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 19, 2016, 10:32:46 PM
I think (IMHO) that the American people are copacetic with the EC acting in accordance with the outcome of the election.  I don't recall seeing proclamations that the EC carrying out its duty would result in anything other than Trump being certified (with the exception to hack online clickbait news and one imaginative Huffingtonpost article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-could-replace-president-trump-with-little_us_5829f25fe4b02b1f5257a6b7)).

So we move forward.  America will certainly never be the same again.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 20, 2016, 05:28:55 PM
Well Trump wins again, electors that is.  The man is a winning machine.  So much win.

He won by a landslide. It was a win by the biggest almost the biggest a really huge percentage. Huge!

A drastic landslide. If Texas, California, and a few of the three elector states left the union, Trump would still win.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 20, 2016, 07:16:24 PM
A drastic landslide.

I can never tell who is being serious anymore.

Trump's electoral college vote total was smaller than Obama's.  Go ahead, look it up.  I'll wait.

And incidentally, Hillary Clinton's popular vote percentage margin of victory was larger than the one we have used to elect 8 of our 44 Presidents.  You really want to talk about landslides?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 20, 2016, 07:46:35 PM
A drastic landslide. If Texas, California, and a few of the three elector states left the union, Trump would still win.

I can never tell who is being serious anymore.

Trump's electoral college vote total was smaller than Obama's.  Go ahead, look it up.  I'll wait.

And incidentally, Hillary Clinton's popular vote percentage margin of victory was larger than the one we have used to elect 8 of our 44 Presidents.  You really want to talk about landslides?

Please correct me if I miscalculated anything. Not including how the actual electors cast their votes (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/more-faithless-electors-turn-their-back-on-clinton-than-trump-as-he-is-confirmed-45th-u-s-president), Trump beat Clinton 306 to 232. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016) Trump won Texas (38), California (29), Montana (3), and North Dakota (3). If those four states were to have not counted, Trump would have still won. Whereas if California would have ceased to exist, Clinton would have lost the popular vote (45% to 46%) and only had 37% of the electoral college votes.

While this is an unorthodox way to look at things, I'd hope we can agree that this novel way of looking at it shows that it wasn't a close result through some metrics. Trump would have needed to lose Florida and two small states or three medium states to have lost the election; Clinton saved face due to California.

Other notes: The USA election is not decided by population vote. I have no idea why you would bring up anything to do with it. I never made any comment on Obama '08 or '12. I'd agree they were landslides too.

I bring up California because of caxit (sp?). California is a big, blue vanguard.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 20, 2016, 08:00:22 PM
A drastic landslide. If Texas, California, and a few of the three elector states left the union, Trump would still win.

I can never tell who is being serious anymore.

Trump's electoral college vote total was smaller than Obama's.  Go ahead, look it up.  I'll wait.

And incidentally, Hillary Clinton's popular vote percentage margin of victory was larger than the one we have used to elect 8 of our 44 Presidents.  You really want to talk about landslides?

Please correct me if I miscalculated anything. Not including how the actual electors cast their votes (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/more-faithless-electors-turn-their-back-on-clinton-than-trump-as-he-is-confirmed-45th-u-s-president), Trump beat Clinton 306 to 232. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016) Trump won Texas (38), California (29), Montana (3), and North Dakota (3). If those four states were to have not counted, Trump would have still won. Whereas if California would have ceased to exist, Clinton would have lost the popular vote (45% to 46%) and only had 37% of the electoral college votes.

While this is an unorthodox way to look at things, I'd hope we can agree that this novel way of looking at it shows that it wasn't a close result through some metrics. Trump would have needed to lose Florida and two small states or three medium states to have lost the election; Clinton saved face due to California.

Other notes: The USA election is not decided by population vote. I have no idea why you would bring up anything to do with it. I never made any comment on Obama '08 or '12. I'd agree they were landslides too.

I bring up California because of caxit (sp?). California is a big, blue vanguard.
Trump did not win California.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: llorona on December 20, 2016, 08:30:47 PM
Um, Trump most decidedly did NOT win 29 electoral college votes in California. Hell would have frozen over before that happened. All 55 California electors cast their vote for Hillary. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article121894753.html

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on December 20, 2016, 08:50:21 PM
Pretty sure kayvent meant Florida with its 29 electoral votes.

Regarding if this state did this, or that state did that, hell if ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on December 20, 2016, 10:17:48 PM
Clinton saved face due to California.

What does that even mean? Are California voters not voters? Do they not count for some other reason? Please explain?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 21, 2016, 03:54:39 AM
After all of those protests and threats, Hillary lost more electors than Trump.

Yeah... that was crazy! I'm not even sure how to explain Clinton getting dumped by more electors than Trump..... racism sexism alt-rightism, maybe?

On the plus side, Bernie Sanders and Colin Powell picked up some votes... maybe 2020?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 21, 2016, 04:38:10 AM
Pretty sure kayvent meant Florida with its 29 electoral votes.

Regarding if this state did this, or that state did that, hell if ifs were fifths we'd all be drunk.

Yup :) I have this bad habit of calling California Florida and calling Florida California. The ifs are just for illustrative and demonstrative purposes.

Clinton saved face due to California.

What does that even mean? Are California voters not voters? Do they not count for some other reason? Please explain?

It means what I said. Which is a coincidence because it is what I said.  If California didn't exist, it would have been an abject failure for Clinton. For example, if California didn't exist Trump could have lost to her four medium-size states and a large handful of the small ones - and still win.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 21, 2016, 05:45:55 AM
A drastic landslide.

I can never tell who is being serious anymore.

Trump's electoral college vote total was smaller than Obama's.  Go ahead, look it up.  I'll wait.

And incidentally, Hillary Clinton's popular vote percentage margin of victory was larger than the one we have used to elect 8 of our 44 Presidents.  You really want to talk about landslides?

I have a question for everyone discussing the popular vote. How do you think the popular vote would change if we actually decided elections this way?

For example, if you are a dem in and all red state, would you even waste your time voting knowing it doesn't count for anything? or rep in an all blue state? If the election was decided by the popular vote the candidates would have campained differently by simply trying to get everyone to vote for them and not just select swing states.

Sighting the popular vote when things are not determined that way doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If it was determined by the popular vote the election could have been drastically different, one way or the other.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 21, 2016, 06:01:37 AM
A drastic landslide.

I can never tell who is being serious anymore.

Trump's electoral college vote total was smaller than Obama's.  Go ahead, look it up.  I'll wait.

And incidentally, Hillary Clinton's popular vote percentage margin of victory was larger than the one we have used to elect 8 of our 44 Presidents.  You really want to talk about landslides?

I have a question for everyone discussing the popular vote. How do you think the popular vote would change if we actually decided elections this way?

For example, if you are a dem in and all red state, would you even waste your time voting knowing it doesn't count for anything? or rep in an all blue state? If the election was decided by the popular vote the candidates would have campained differently by simply trying to get everyone to vote for them and not just select swing states.

Yes, that's the benefit of the popular vote.  Every vote counts, and counts equally.  It would probably have the effect of engaging more of the population in the democratic process.  Campaigning to the majority of people (rather than the select few who live in special states that can swing an election) would be the ideal way to have campaigns run would it not?

Sighting the popular vote when things are not determined that way doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If it was determined by the popular vote the election could have been drastically different, one way or the other.

Sol cited the popular vote as part of multiple reasons that Trumps presidency can't really be considered a 'drastic landslide'.  Calling Trump's win a 'drastic landslide' doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 21, 2016, 06:04:42 AM
Sol cited the popular vote as part of multiple reasons that Trumps presidency can't really be considered a 'drastic landslide'.  Calling Trump's win a 'drastic landslide' doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Well, it makes 'sense' to me that Trump and his team would call it that. Of course, by almost any objective measure, his victory was not very large, and certainly not a 'landslide'.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on December 21, 2016, 06:05:18 AM
I don't disagree with anything you said. I wasn't citing Sol for that purpose just that his post made me think of it.

I meant for that post to be directed to all the people saying "Hillary should be President because she won the popular vote."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: redbirdfan on December 21, 2016, 07:09:15 AM
Full disclosure: I think we should choose the presidency by popular vote. I fully understand that we do not.  I don't think losing the popular vote makes Trump's presidency less valid, but his tweeting about how he actually "won" the popular vote makes it obvious that he's insecure about it.  What I have little tolerance for is his constantly stating that he has a mandate or that he won in a landslide.  Let's give every voter an equal voice.  I don't put much stock in the argument that electing the president by popular vote would cause politicians to campaign in only a few states.  That's true now only the handful of states aren't the most populated ones. 

The simple truth is that the nation is divided politically (in terms of people who actually do and/or are allowed to vote).  Trump carried the states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan by about 1% give or take.  The winner-takes-all method of voting distorts how divided the country is.  What we really need is a return to bipartisan solutions to issues that affect the American public.  We need a coherent national foreign policy, a bipartisan solution to health care, a bipartisan solution to entitlement reform and just a overall return to common sense.  Republicans proceed at their own peril if they use narrow victories in historically blue-leaning states to gut Social Security and Medicare and repeal Obamacare without a viable replacement. 

I'm a moderate Republican.  I voted for Hillary.  I fully accept that Donald Trump will be the president.  I hope his election will force moderate Republicans in office to become more vocal.  I want bipartisan to cease being a four letter word.  Any meaningful solutions to health care, social security, Medicare and terrorism will require bipartisan effort.  I'm not terribly optimistic about the next four years but I am hopeful that future American generations will be more willing to reach across the aisle to govern responsibly.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on December 21, 2016, 07:57:12 AM
He has the best words, bigly best.  It is unpresidented how much winning is ahead for us all.  You will get tired of winning.

I want comments like this, across the internet, for the next four years.  Non-stop.  So much funny.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 21, 2016, 08:00:05 AM
He has the best words, bigly best.  It is unpresidented how much winning is ahead for us all.  You will get tired of winning.

I want comments like this, across the internet, for the next four years.  Non-stop.  So much funny.

Well, you're going to get them, mostly from Trump himself, so enjoy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 21, 2016, 09:37:17 AM
Looks like we get to say goodbye to government funding of science research. Goodbye, NASA, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Centers for Disease Control.

It was a good run, while it lasted, I guess.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/21/14012552/trump-budget-director-research-science-mulvaney?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on December 21, 2016, 09:44:42 AM
Maybe all the science will take place over at defense.  Muahahaha
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 21, 2016, 11:04:43 AM
The folks who run the DOD and the various military branches know very well that their technological edge is the result of the last 50 years of government funded basic research... I imagine they are A) freaking out, and B) trying to figure out how they can divert funds to doing the stuff the NIH/NSF/etc won't be able to.

Maybe DARPA can make up for some cuts.

Save up your renminbi for your cutting edge alzheimer's prevention meds or nanobot immune boosters or who knows what cool new stuff... the folks who spend the money will invent the next generation of tech.

-W

Maybe all the science will take place over at defense.  Muahahaha
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 21, 2016, 11:19:06 AM
Maybe all the science will take place over at defense.  Muahahaha
Finally some room for the private sector to move in and do their magic /s :(

Have we tried just contracting it all out to Halliburton?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 21, 2016, 03:39:42 PM
Maybe all the science will take place over at defense.  Muahahaha
Finally some room for the private sector to move in and do their magic /s :(

Have we tried just contracting it all out to Halliburton?

Clearly the contract is going to Trump Medical Devices.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 21, 2016, 03:41:02 PM
Have we tried just contracting it all out to Halliburton?

We've moved on from those halcyon days.  Now the US government just contracts directly with Trump Enterprises. 

But don't worry, soon well contract directly with Exxon Mobil, in place of those lost Halliburton deals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on December 21, 2016, 05:04:08 PM
Clinton saved face due to California.

What does that even mean? Are California voters not voters? Do they not count for some other reason? Please explain?

It means what I said. Which is a coincidence because it is what I said.  If California didn't exist, it would have been an abject failure for Clinton. For example, if California didn't exist Trump could have lost to her four medium-size states and a large handful of the small ones - and still win.

Yeah, but who cares? You might as well say that if the 19 states Clinton won didn't exist, it would have been an abject failure for Clinton. It's true but meaningless. I'm not sure what's interesting about that statement, or why it's any more interesting if you single out the largest state.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 21, 2016, 05:20:04 PM
Clinton saved face due to California.

What does that even mean? Are California voters not voters? Do they not count for some other reason? Please explain?

It means what I said. Which is a coincidence because it is what I said.  If California didn't exist, it would have been an abject failure for Clinton. For example, if California didn't exist Trump could have lost to her four medium-size states and a large handful of the small ones - and still win.

Yeah, but who cares? You might as well say that if the 19 states Clinton won didn't exist, it would have been an abject failure for Clinton. It's true but meaningless. I'm not sure what's interesting about that statement, or why it's any more interesting if you single out the largest state.

And if California had the same number of electors per capita as Wyoming, Clinton would have won by 75 electoral votes.  And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 22, 2016, 05:18:42 AM
Have we tried just contracting it all out to Halliburton?

We've moved on from those halcyon days.  Now the US government just contracts directly with Trump Enterprises. 

But don't worry, soon well contract directly with Exxon Mobil, in place of those lost Halliburton deals.

Good. I was getting worried about Trump's conflicts of interest. :D
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ender on December 22, 2016, 11:34:28 AM
We're so fucked. Humanity had a good run though.

You mean how North Korea and Iran both are well on the way to nuclear weapons and the ability to instigate WWIII?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 22, 2016, 11:42:17 AM
We're so fucked. Humanity had a good run though.

You mean how North Korea and Iran both are well on the way to nuclear weapons and the ability to instigate WWIII?

I think he means how the US doesn't need more nukes to be able to obliterate the earth multiple times over, and Trump's attitude indicates a bellicosity that raises genuine concerns over how he views the prospect of a nuclear response to hostile foreign acts. But I try not to be too pessimistic on that one because either it'll be fine, or we'll all be dead.

North Korea remains a joke. Iran should honestly be our ally, and probably would if the government ever comes to its senses on that one. But even if we accept your premise that both countries represent some kind of existential threat, building more nukes while escalating the rhetorical attacks on them is probably the least helpful way to address the situation that I can imagine.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ender on December 22, 2016, 11:45:50 AM
North Korea remains a joke. Iran should honestly be our ally, and probably would if the government ever comes to its senses on that one. But even if we accept your premise that both countries represent some kind of existential threat, building more nukes while escalating the rhetorical attacks on them is probably the least helpful way to address the situation that I can imagine.

North Korea being "a joke" is easy to say when you are not living very near to them. I suspect South Korea or Japan do not find it funny that their insane neighbor is testing nuclear weapons.

If you don't think that Iran/Israel poses one of the most likely nuclear incidents going forward I think you are gravely mistaken about the depth of conflict between them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ender on December 22, 2016, 11:52:57 AM
Which still doesn't explain why (or more precisely if) you think the US having more would somehow help.

There are many ways you can expand or strengthen nuclear capability without purely building more.

You could reduce the number of nuclear weapons the USA has by 50% but still expand the overall capability and strength of American nuclear strength.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on December 22, 2016, 11:56:02 AM
Having a ton of very sophisticated nukes that can hit any target on earth in a matter of half an hour didn't stop North Korea from building them. It didn't stop Pakistan or India.

It's a great way to deter other major powers. It's not so great to deter small nations or subnational actors with questionable judgement.

I'm not opposed to the US having nuclear weapons. But WTF is the point of having more than we already do? We have a ton in a wide spectrum of types/delivery vehicles. Trump presumably has no idea and is just trying to troll liberals, though. Besides, if he wants more/better nukes, he's going to have to, say, refrain from letting Rick Perry defund the DOE...

Or maybe he's trolling Perry AND liberals at the same time! A masterstroke!

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 22, 2016, 12:11:29 PM
North Korea remains a joke. Iran should honestly be our ally, and probably would if the government ever comes to its senses on that one. But even if we accept your premise that both countries represent some kind of existential threat, building more nukes while escalating the rhetorical attacks on them is probably the least helpful way to address the situation that I can imagine.

North Korea being "a joke" is easy to say when you are not living very near to them. I suspect South Korea or Japan do not find it funny that their insane neighbor is testing nuclear weapons.

If you don't think that Iran/Israel poses one of the most likely nuclear incidents going forward I think you are gravely mistaken about the depth of conflict between them.

Your comments about North Korea could be applied to anywhere on the globe that two neighbors don't get along. The point remains that we very obviously don't need to do anything differently with our nuclear arsenal with regards to them.

I do agree that our highly problematic relationship with Israel is one of the driving forces behind continued instability in the Middle East and could easily lead to terrible conflict. But hawkishness regarding our nuclear capabilities is not going to help there either.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 22, 2016, 12:29:56 PM

And if California had the same number of electors per capita as Wyoming, Clinton would have won by 75 electoral votes.  And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Why is this relevant?  The same complaint can be made about seats in the senate - should California get more?  The system is designed to give all states fair representation.  If the electoral college is deemed unfair, congress is identical.  Why are there no calls for an amendment to abolish the senate?

Ok, so it's relevant to propose a hypothetical where California doesn't exist, but irrelevant to propose a hypothetical where California voters get equal representation. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 23, 2016, 02:04:06 AM

And if California had the same number of electors per capita as Wyoming, Clinton would have won by 75 electoral votes.  And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Why is this relevant?  The same complaint can be made about seats in the senate - should California get more?  The system is designed to give all states fair representation.  If the electoral college is deemed unfair, congress is identical.  Why are there no calls for an amendment to abolish the senate?

Ok, so it's relevant to propose a hypothetical where California doesn't exist, but irrelevant to propose a hypothetical where California voters get equal representation.

Not sure where California's existence is being questioned, certainly it does exist!

I was pointing out that the argument of equal representation has implications beyond the electoral college.  Giving all states a say is the foundation of our government.

It's convenient to blame the electoral college as unfair, and ignore the way congress is organized.  But that argument directly applies to congress as well.  Those that believe in weighted representation by population should favor abolishing the electoral college AND the entire senate. 

I don't see how one can be against the electoral college and still support the even greater power states get in the legislative branch via the senate.

See the post I replied to.  I'm not really a fan of the senate either, although I understand where direct democracy can run into problems. 

You say every state should get a say, but why would it have to be an equal say?  Why should states get an equal say while citizens do not?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 23, 2016, 05:20:34 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/8ROpQnO.jpg)

We're so fucked. Humanity had a good run though.

(http://i.imgur.com/lfL0UvH.gif)

Oh shit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 23, 2016, 07:17:05 AM
Nothing calms my nerves like Donald Trump tweeting about a nuclear arms race.  Crazy-n-Chief in full effect.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on December 23, 2016, 07:21:58 AM
Someone explain to me why people on THIS particular forum support Trump, I mean, just as a general principle. 

The reason this forum exists:  Pete, aka MMM.

His blog, as far as I can tell, promotes:

1) Frugality
2) Personal responsibility
3) Minimalism
4) Lowering your personal footprint to minimize your contribution to climate change. 

Trump:
1) Is the opposite of Frugal, spends lavishly on himself.
2) Has filed for bankruptcy multiple times and owes money to banks.  He also spends his life blaming others when things in his life go wrong.
3) Owns multiple houses, boats etc....  Runs a business selling luxury goods and services. 
4) Has stated that climate change is a Chinese hoax. 

I mean, this guy should be the star of the Anti-mustachian forum.  How can a person actually read the blog posts by MMM, say "I agree with this", and then turn around and vote for this guy.  Sure, I get not voting for Hillary, but vote for anyone else.   It just boggles the mind. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 23, 2016, 07:59:37 AM
Someone explain to me why people on THIS particular forum support Trump, I mean, just as a general principle. 

The reason this forum exists:  Pete, aka MMM.

His blog, as far as I can tell, promotes:

1) Frugality
2) Personal responsibility
3) Minimalism
4) Lowering your personal footprint to minimize your contribution to climate change. 

Trump:
1) Is the opposite of Frugal, spends lavishly on himself.
2) Has filed for bankruptcy multiple times and owes money to banks.  He also spends his life blaming others when things in his life go wrong.
3) Owns multiple houses, boats etc....  Runs a business selling luxury goods and services. 
4) Has stated that climate change is a Chinese hoax. 

I mean, this guy should be the star of the Anti-mustachian forum.  How can a person actually read the blog posts by MMM, say "I agree with this", and then turn around and vote for this guy.  Sure, I get not voting for Hillary, but vote for anyone else.   It just boggles the mind.

Never underestimate people's capacity for cognitive dissonance, I guess.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 23, 2016, 08:11:16 AM
I don't get the impression that there are many vocal Trump supporters on the forum, only two come to mind - Metric Mouse (has already said MMM wouldn't approve of his lifestyle) and Acroy.  Maybe a few 'low posters'.  I also agree that being a Trump supporter and Mustachian seems incongruous, Trump is about as 100% non-Elon Musk as possible.  In 4 years, Musk could have our county running on alternative energy and pollution-free vehicles, exporting fossil fuels to 3rd world countries, and continuously put new people to work in new industrial endeavors as the last ones become automated to drive down costs.  In 4 years of Trump, we will have become mired in trade wars, have more toxic nukes rotting in the ground than anybody, have half a wall built (with lots of nice tunnels under it), and probably be on the brink of war (civil, international, terrorist).  I have lost all faith an electoral process that puts Trump in charge and I am actually frightened for other countries because we seem to have lost control of our own country.  The President is supposed to represent the will of the people, to be a public servant - Trump is none of these.  Trump, ultimately, is going to do what his gut tells him - which all point to the US exporting instability.  Great for making quick money and consolidating power at the top, not good for Humanitarian progress. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on December 23, 2016, 09:09:00 AM
North Korea remains a joke. Iran should honestly be our ally, and probably would if the government ever comes to its senses on that one. But even if we accept your premise that both countries represent some kind of existential threat, building more nukes while escalating the rhetorical attacks on them is probably the least helpful way to address the situation that I can imagine.

North Korea being "a joke" is easy to say when you are not living very near to them. I suspect South Korea or Japan do not find it funny that their insane neighbor is testing nuclear weapons.

If you don't think that Iran/Israel poses one of the most likely nuclear incidents going forward I think you are gravely mistaken about the depth of conflict between them.
Which still doesn't explain why (or more precisely if) you think the US having more would somehow help.
(http://i.imgur.com/nSFjZy8l.png)

I think this argument is kind of funny and akin to More Guns will stop Gun violence, but yet, if I were to read into one of the many gun forums on the MMM site that is the belief of many.  This is a belief that seems to get bought in to have more of something, so that that something doesn't get used... weird to me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 23, 2016, 09:57:08 AM
I think the equal voice given to each state in the senate, combined with the weighted voice in congress strikes the right balance.  I'm surprised to see disagreement here, but we can agree to disagree.  I think I have a better understanding of your viewpoint.

The thing is, while congress is semi weighted (though large states are still quite disadvantaged due to the size cap), the electoral college also greatly favors less populated states (largely due to that same congressional cap at 435). So really there is no branch of the government that doesn't favor the smaller states to some extent.

I don't get the impression that there are many vocal Trump supporters on the forum, only two come to mind - Metric Mouse (has already said MMM wouldn't approve of his lifestyle) and Acroy.  Maybe a few 'low posters'.  I also agree that being a Trump supporter and Mustachian seems incongruous, Trump is about as 100% non-Elon Musk as possible.  In 4 years, Musk could have our county running on alternative energy and pollution-free vehicles, exporting fossil fuels to 3rd world countries, and continuously put new people to work in new industrial endeavors as the last ones become automated to drive down costs.  In 4 years of Trump, we will have become mired in trade wars, have more toxic nukes rotting in the ground than anybody, have half a wall built (with lots of nice tunnels under it), and probably be on the brink of war (civil, international, terrorist).  I have lost all faith an electoral process that puts Trump in charge and I am actually frightened for other countries because we seem to have lost control of our own country.  The President is supposed to represent the will of the people, to be a public servant - Trump is none of these.  Trump, ultimately, is going to do what his gut tells him - which all point to the US exporting instability.  Great for making quick money and consolidating power at the top, not good for Humanitarian progress. 

I don't think Metric Mouse supports Trump per se, but there are definitely a good 5-10 individuals who have stood up for him in these various threads. I mean, I suppose kudos to them for making their case against an audience that largely does not see the same way, but I also definitely agree that Trump is probably the least mustachian candidate (both individually and philosophically/politically) I can imagine, even if we were to ignore his many other flaws.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 23, 2016, 01:20:35 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/8ROpQnO.jpg)

We're so fucked. Humanity had a good run though.

(http://i.imgur.com/lfL0UvH.gif)

Oh shit.

I think this is so funny. I honestly don't know if Trump is serious here, but my gut tells me that he is just screwing with the left, and the public reactions so far seem to b exactly the result that a troll would have hoped for.  Trump is definitely going to be the first troll ever elected to the presidency.  I need more popcorn.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dycker1978 on December 23, 2016, 01:29:17 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/8ROpQnO.jpg)

We're so fucked. Humanity had a good run though.

(http://i.imgur.com/lfL0UvH.gif)

Oh shit.

I think this is so funny. I honestly don't know if Trump is serious here, but my gut tells me that he is just screwing with the left, and the public reactions so far seem to b exactly the result that a troll would have hoped for.  Trump is definitely going to be the first troll ever elected to the presidency.  I need more popcorn.
I hope he doesn't troll China, or Russia to ramp up production and who knows what else.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 23, 2016, 02:51:44 PM
I think the equal voice given to each state in the senate, combined with the weighted voice in congress strikes the right balance.  I'm surprised to see disagreement here, but we can agree to disagree.  I think I have a better understanding of your viewpoint.

Ok so you and I win $100 and we want to split it.  I own more land, of course, so I want twice as much money as you get.  You disagree- you want an equal split.  So we compromise.. half of the money will be split equally and half will be split according to land ownership.  So I end up with .5*.5+(2/3)*.5=58%.  This is fair, yes?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 23, 2016, 03:14:14 PM
Trump is like watching a really drunk person at a party.  Everyone tells him you shouldn't drive.  He grabs the keys and goes outside, gets in the car, starts down the road.  January 20th is like when he starts the car.  You know it isn't going to end well and there is nothing you can do about it.  That is how I feel right now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 23, 2016, 07:49:27 PM
Trump is like watching a really drunk person at a party.  Everyone tells him you shouldn't drive.  He grabs the keys and goes outside, gets in the car, starts down the road.  January 20th is like when he starts the car.  You know it isn't going to end well and there is nothing you can do about it.  That is how I feel right now.

That is how you are supposed to feel.  Thank you posting this, but it would be even better if you went on YouTube and posted a video of yourself talking about your imagination.  Make sure that you post the link, so that I can enjoy it properly.  With popcorn.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 23, 2016, 08:19:39 PM
I think this is so funny. I honestly don't know if Trump is serious here, but my gut tells me that he is just screwing with the left, and the public reactions so far seem to b exactly the result that a troll would have hoped for.  Trump is definitely going to be the first troll ever elected to the presidency.  I need more popcorn.

This is exactly why Trump is so dangerous.  He got the nomination by 'saying what others wouldn't say'.  Then he won the election by playing the game better than the one opponent. 

If you supporters or disbelievers still think this nut job is using colorful language and being figurative, then not taking the President seriously is on you.  He is saying these things as President.  This is what the rest of the world knows of what Americans think.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 23, 2016, 09:45:15 PM
So was it a dumb rookie move or could it be part of a calculated plan?  Time will tell.

It was definitely part of plan.  The call was brokered by Bob Dole, who has been working behind the scenes on improving relations with Taiwan because he's a registered foreign agent.  Taiwan pays him to be a sort of sanctioned national lobbyist.

So the real question isn't whether or not Trump had a plan.  The real question is why Trump worked with a foreign agent to upset existing foreign policy before he's even in office, effectively following someone else's plan.  It's the same question we have with Paul Manafort's status with Russia.  Trump seems to be taking his cues from the governments of other nations, rather than acting in the best interests of the country that elected him. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 23, 2016, 10:01:09 PM
Quote
Someone explain to me why people on THIS particular forum support Trump, I mean, just as a general principle.

I think a lot less separates you from many Trump supporters than you realize.  I've seen constant bashing on this and other forums, but little intelligent discussion.  Many can not fathom why anyone with half a brain would support Trump, so when they encounter one, they may assume that person is stupid and no productive discussion can be had.

Trump is an interesting character.  He has many flaws that have been discussed.  Why would anyone support him?  I think part of his appeal is that he has almost no political experience and he does not follow the status quo. 

I'm intrigued by the Taiwan incident.  Obama or Clinton would never have done this.  Here's my understanding:
 President of Taiwan calls Trump to congratulate him on being elected President.
 Trump takes the call and has a short discussion marking the first official contact between US and Taiwan in 37 years.
 China is upset by this as it's against the One China diplomacy rule they have created.
 Trump is called rookie and other bashing ensues for making this mistake.

I also couldn't understand why Trump did this until I learned more. 

US does not officially acknowledge Taiwan as an independent state, but as part of China.  This is in accordance with the One China diplomatic policy that keeps relations smooth with the communist government on mainland China.
 
But wait, there's more - even though US doesn't acknowledge Taiwan as an independent state, we sell weapons to Taiwan.  What for?  So Taiwan can protect itself from China?  Now I admit I don't know much about global politics, but this is some strange arrangement.  From what I read, China is also quite unhappy that US continues to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan.

This is strange politics - US is saying we don't acknowledge your autonomy from China, but here's some weapons so you can defend yourself and remain autonomous.  It's very strange to sell weapons to a state we have no official relations with.

So there's one thing he's done that I like - he's changed the status quo with China.  Some may fear what will come of this, and we really can't say yet.  There is much to be gained if it turns out this is the first step in the improving the US  trade deficit with China. 

So was it a dumb rookie move or could it be part of a calculated plan?  Time will tell.

Would you trust someone with no financial experience with your portfolio?  Why would you trust someone with no political experience with your country?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on December 23, 2016, 11:43:07 PM
Dragon - The same argument was made against Obama in 2008 - he had very little experience and it turns out he did a more than adequate job.

That's not the same thing. Obama didn't have decades of experience, but he did have several years of legislative experience, including four at the national level, and he was a constitutional law scholar. Obama had much more relevant experience than Trump has had.

I find these sorts of comments just bizarre. bender, do you actually think that Trump and Obama were equal in their levels of experience relevant to the presidency? Really?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 24, 2016, 04:35:34 AM
Trump can cram some schoolhouse rock videos on American government and he is good to go, the best, 100% ready.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ender on December 24, 2016, 09:14:55 AM
Dragon - The same argument was made against Obama in 2008 - he had very little experience and it turns out he did a more than adequate job.

That's not the same thing. Obama didn't have decades of experience, but he did have several years of legislative experience, including four at the national level, and he was a constitutional law scholar. Obama had much more relevant experience than Trump has had.

I find these sorts of comments just bizarre. bender, do you actually think that Trump and Obama were equal in their levels of experience relevant to the presidency? Really?

What's the minimum required years of political experiences to "qualify" someone as president? Is two years of political experience enough prior to announcing a presidential run?

I mean, I get that Obama had more than Trump (strictly political experience, it's debatable whether Trump's executive leadership is a value-add or not). But let's not pretend that Obama was vastly overqualified compared to Trump.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 24, 2016, 09:32:46 AM
But it turned out experience wasn't that important in 2008, and obviously again in 2016.  As I've mentioned, Obama did just fine as President, even with minimal experience.

The reason why Obama's relative inexperience turned out okay is that he staffed his administration with good experience.  He kept some of the best people from Bush's administration.  He appointed a Nobel Prize winning PhD physicist to Energy.  Rahm Emanuel was the mayor of a major US metropolis. He put Janet Napoplitano on his transition team.  The entire transition team was full of the country's most experienced and qualified peeps.

Go ahead and do some research on the people Trump is appointing.  He's supplementing his own inexperience with more inexperience, chosen for their loyalty instead of their qualifications.

I would be less worried about Trump's Presidency if he at least looked like he was TRYING to do a good job.  Instead, he keeps appointing people to cabinet posts who want to abolish the agencies they will lead because they have no understanding of what those agencies actually do. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 24, 2016, 09:48:30 AM
But it turned out experience wasn't that important in 2008, and obviously again in 2016.  As I've mentioned, Obama did just fine as President, even with minimal experience.

The reason why Obama's relative inexperience turned out okay is that he staffed his administration with good experience.  He kept some of the best people from Bush's administration.  He appointed a Nobel Prize winning PhD physicist to Energy.  Rahm Emanuel was the mayor of a major US metropolis. He put Janet Napoplitano on his transition team.  The entire transition team was full of the country's most experienced and qualified peeps.

Go ahead and do some research on the people Trump is appointing.  He's supplementing his own inexperience with more inexperience, chosen for their loyalty instead of their qualifications.

I would be less worried about Trump's Presidency if he at least looked like he was TRYING to do a good job.  Instead, he keeps appointing people to cabinet posts who want to abolish the agencies they will lead because they have no understanding of what those agencies actually do.

Agreed. I'm actually quite a bit more worried about Trump's presidency than I was when he was first elected. In the halcyon days of November 9, I stupidly presumed he'd try to make up for the fact that he is remarkably unqualified and ignorant of what a president actually needs to do/know, by appointing people who, if morally bankrupt, at least had some experience that would make up for what Trump lacked. Now, that level of blind optimism seems almost cute in its naïveté.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 24, 2016, 10:11:00 AM
I think a lot less separates you from many Trump supporters than you realize.  I've seen constant bashing on this and other forums, but little intelligent discussion.  Many can not fathom why anyone with half a brain would support Trump, so when they encounter one, they may assume that person is stupid and no productive discussion can be had.

Please note that the posts immediately following this (yet another) claim that all anyone who dislike Trump does is bash his supporters were in fact substantive and thoughtful. On this forum, at least, let's not fall for gaslighting tactics please. Plenty of people are opposing the incoming administration for well-considered reasons and it is highly disingenuous, not to mention dangerous, to continue to push the sore loser, elitist, out-of-touch Democrat narrative.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 24, 2016, 02:20:18 PM
I think a lot less separates you from many Trump supporters than you realize.  I've seen constant bashing on this and other forums, but little intelligent discussion.  Many can not fathom why anyone with half a brain would support Trump, so when they encounter one, they may assume that person is stupid and no productive discussion can be had.

Please note that the posts immediately following this (yet another) claim that all anyone who dislike Trump does is bash his supporters were in fact substantive and thoughtful. On this forum, at least, let's not fall for gaslighting tactics please. Plenty of people are opposing the incoming administration for well-considered reasons and it is highly disingenuous, not to mention dangerous, to continue to push the sore loser, elitist, out-of-touch Democrat narrative.

Agreed!  There is plenty to legitimately criticize - and I've learned a fair bit from the recent posts - thanks all for that.  It's the tired one line zingers and insults that were bugging me most.

Fair enough. Merry Christmas everyone!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 24, 2016, 04:07:08 PM
I think a lot less separates you from many Trump supporters than you realize.  I've seen constant bashing on this and other forums, but little intelligent discussion.  Many can not fathom why anyone with half a brain would support Trump, so when they encounter one, they may assume that person is stupid and no productive discussion can be had.

Please note that the posts immediately following this (yet another) claim that all anyone who dislike Trump does is bash his supporters were in fact substantive and thoughtful. On this forum, at least, let's not fall for gaslighting tactics please. Plenty of people are opposing the incoming administration for well-considered reasons and it is highly disingenuous, not to mention dangerous, to continue to push the sore loser, elitist, out-of-touch Democrat narrative.

Although I agree with you, I've noticed that recently I see a lot of things being called "dangerous".  I see it a few times a day at this point (in political and non-political discussion), and I'm not sure why it's suddenly so common, but I think people should start using a different word.  Most of the things I see being called "dangerous" is hyperbole.

The phrase I hate to see most: "this sets a dangerous precedence"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Carrie on December 24, 2016, 07:02:22 PM
Shouldn't that be "this sets a dangerous precedent? "  or, if you'd rather, "this sets a dangerous president. "
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 24, 2016, 07:56:08 PM
Shouldn't that be "this sets a dangerous precedent? "  or, if you'd rather, "this sets a dangerous president. "

Yes, but typically the person saying it doesn't understand the difference
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 24, 2016, 08:04:05 PM

Although I agree with you, I've noticed that recently I see a lot of things being called "dangerous".  I see it a few times a day at this point (in political and non-political discussion), and I'm not sure why it's suddenly so common, but I think people should start using a different word.  Most of the things I see being called "dangerous" is hyperbole.

The phrase I hate to see most: "this sets a dangerous precedence"

I think you make a fair point. I'll elaborate on why I used the word and leave it to you to decide if I was being hyperbolic. I would say I probably was in retrospect, but I didn't pull the word out of nowhere.

In this instance, the reason I think labeling all who dislike Trump in that fashion is "dangerous" is because it delegitimizes the idea that there can be such a thing as informed dissent. Like many before me, I would argue that dissent is an essential aspect to a healthy democracy, and spreading the idea that only hateful/spiteful/out-of-touch people would dare to disagree is highly problematic, especially when that tactic seems increasingly common (i.e. the "post-truth" world). Note that both sides do this (e.g. "all Trump voters are racist!").

Trump himself is a master of gaslighting and is pretty much the epitome of a cult of personality leader. So while I acknowledge that these sorts of claims get thrown around during most elections, I am personally more worried (as a "dissenter") this time because of the nature of the president elect vis a vis his predecessors. Add in the cronyism and yes-man culture already being cultivated in the incoming cabinet, and while possibly paranoid, "dangerous" feels like a more reasonable conclusion than it might have in earlier elections. To wit, I never called the "you're just a sore loser, hateful, liberal elitist" folks in 2000 "dangerous." I honestly think the difference between then and now is pretty clear.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on December 24, 2016, 11:35:42 PM
I find these sorts of comments just bizarre. bender, do you actually think that Trump and Obama were equal in their levels of experience relevant to the presidency? Really?

What's the minimum required years of political experiences to "qualify" someone as president? Is two years of political experience enough prior to announcing a presidential run?

I mean, I get that Obama had more than Trump (strictly political experience, it's debatable whether Trump's executive leadership is a value-add or not). But let's not pretend that Obama was vastly overqualified compared to Trump.

Regarding years of government work: That's not what I said. I never used or implied the word "vastly." Chill out on the straw men, please.

Regarding actual relevant life experience: You're kidding, right?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on December 26, 2016, 07:00:50 PM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

They have accepted that they can't take his words literally.  If you are at that point with a human being, you are giving him free license to do absolutely anything to anyone.  I really do wonder what would happen if he shot someone on the street tomorrow.  The hard core Trumpers would refuse to believe it, call it a conspiracy, say it was fake news.  If Trump himself admitted it, they would say that the FBI or CIA were coercing him. 

I honestly feel much of the time like the US has turned into Jonestown. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 26, 2016, 07:14:58 PM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

They have accepted that they can't take his words literally.  If you are at that point with a human being, you are giving him free license to do absolutely anything to anyone. I really do wonder what would happen if he shot someone on the street tomorrow.  The hard core Trumpers would refuse to believe it, call it a conspiracy, say it was fake news.  If Trump himself admitted it, they would say that the FBI or CIA were coercing him. 

I honestly feel much of the time like the US has turned into Jonestown.

You do know that we have had a president that shot at least 6 people in the street, right?  Andrew Jackson.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 26, 2016, 07:31:46 PM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

They have accepted that they can't take his words literally.  If you are at that point with a human being, you are giving him free license to do absolutely anything to anyone. I really do wonder what would happen if he shot someone on the street tomorrow.  The hard core Trumpers would refuse to believe it, call it a conspiracy, say it was fake news.  If Trump himself admitted it, they would say that the FBI or CIA were coercing him. 

I honestly feel much of the time like the US has turned into Jonestown.

You do know that we have had a president that shot at least 6 people in the street, right?  Andrew Jackson.

He also grew wealthy by exploiting slaves.  I'm not sure either quality should be lauded.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 26, 2016, 07:42:30 PM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

They have accepted that they can't take his words literally.  If you are at that point with a human being, you are giving him free license to do absolutely anything to anyone. I really do wonder what would happen if he shot someone on the street tomorrow.  The hard core Trumpers would refuse to believe it, call it a conspiracy, say it was fake news.  If Trump himself admitted it, they would say that the FBI or CIA were coercing him. 

I honestly feel much of the time like the US has turned into Jonestown.

You do know that we have had a president that shot at least 6 people in the street, right?  Andrew Jackson.

He also grew wealthy by exploiting slaves.  I'm not sure either quality should be lauded.

I'm just pointing out that, even if Trump personally gunned someone down in the street, that alone wouldn't make him the worst president.  Certainly no worse than Obama & his 'kill list'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 26, 2016, 08:15:41 PM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

That's what is pre-WWIII terrifying to me, that 'normal people' seem to be able to rally behind this thing.  It's not Trump necessarily, it is the thing that he is a channel for.  People seem uncomfortable in the present - the YouTube access to other people, or Facebook judgmental lifestyle, or possibly just the fact we are in front of screens instead of talking face to face.  All of the promise of the internet for healthy sharing has been overwhelmed by bitterness and resentment, and Trump is riding the easy populist wave of being able to tap our addiction to angst via Twitter and Media.  He will either leave the world a barren desert, or better for having realized the perils of his abyss - but nothing in between.  Like no other politician we have ever seen, indeed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 26, 2016, 10:07:24 PM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

They have accepted that they can't take his words literally.  If you are at that point with a human being, you are giving him free license to do absolutely anything to anyone. I really do wonder what would happen if he shot someone on the street tomorrow.  The hard core Trumpers would refuse to believe it, call it a conspiracy, say it was fake news.  If Trump himself admitted it, they would say that the FBI or CIA were coercing him. 

I honestly feel much of the time like the US has turned into Jonestown.

You do know that we have had a president that shot at least 6 people in the street, right?  Andrew Jackson.

He also grew wealthy by exploiting slaves.  I'm not sure either quality should be lauded.

It took me a quantity of time to realize that you were talking about Jackson instead of Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 04:51:43 AM
I'm just pointing out that, even if Trump personally gunned someone down in the street, that alone wouldn't make him the worst president.  Certainly no worse than Obama & his 'kill list'.

Remember, assassinating American citizens (and many others) in foreign countries without trials is different (to some) than shooting someone on the street.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 27, 2016, 06:46:56 AM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

They have accepted that they can't take his words literally.  If you are at that point with a human being, you are giving him free license to do absolutely anything to anyone. I really do wonder what would happen if he shot someone on the street tomorrow.  The hard core Trumpers would refuse to believe it, call it a conspiracy, say it was fake news.  If Trump himself admitted it, they would say that the FBI or CIA were coercing him. 

I honestly feel much of the time like the US has turned into Jonestown.

You do know that we have had a president that shot at least 6 people in the street, right?  Andrew Jackson.

He also grew wealthy by exploiting slaves.  I'm not sure either quality should be lauded.

I'm just pointing out that, even if Trump personally gunned someone down in the street, that alone wouldn't make him the worst president.  Certainly no worse than Obama & his 'kill list'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html

Golden1.... you forgot the "they are ALL murderers defense", but I think your point has been well made.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 27, 2016, 07:14:59 AM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

They have accepted that they can't take his words literally.  If you are at that point with a human being, you are giving him free license to do absolutely anything to anyone. I really do wonder what would happen if he shot someone on the street tomorrow.  The hard core Trumpers would refuse to believe it, call it a conspiracy, say it was fake news.  If Trump himself admitted it, they would say that the FBI or CIA were coercing him. 

I honestly feel much of the time like the US has turned into Jonestown.

You do know that we have had a president that shot at least 6 people in the street, right?  Andrew Jackson.

He also grew wealthy by exploiting slaves.  I'm not sure either quality should be lauded.

I'm just pointing out that, even if Trump personally gunned someone down in the street, that alone wouldn't make him the worst president.  Certainly no worse than Obama & his 'kill list'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html

Absolutely!  Obama's biggest failing as a president is that he continued and expanded the U.S. policy of extrajudicial murder/terror strikes that was begun in the previous administration.  It's disgusting.  I don't think it should be lauded.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 27, 2016, 08:16:26 AM
Sorry, but this is just sad to see this discussion here. So Trump won't be all that bad of a president?  In fact, until he actually nukes or invades someone, we have already excused him for just not knowing a thing about Syria, Crimea, Palestine, etc.  I have no faith in his diplomacy, so eventually some crisis will result in more than 6 Americans dying for no reason.  Sorry, but this is tantamount to excusing Trump for invading a soverign country called Iraq on false premises, but have fun with your little history squabble.  Even his cabinet selection speaks volumes about how he intends to sell out responsible stewardship of our resources. 

Maybe I'm just bitter that I've achieved FI only to give my children a world that is worse off than when we practiced cold war nuclear drills and agreed MAD was indeed a bad policy, this isn't how I wanted their future to be.  I thought this was all behind us.  I have lost so much faith in this great country and Trump hasn't even begun.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 27, 2016, 08:24:15 AM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

They have accepted that they can't take his words literally.  If you are at that point with a human being, you are giving him free license to do absolutely anything to anyone.  I really do wonder what would happen if he shot someone on the street tomorrow.  The hard core Trumpers would refuse to believe it, call it a conspiracy, say it was fake news.  If Trump himself admitted it, they would say that the FBI or CIA were coercing him. 

I honestly feel much of the time like the US has turned into Jonestown.

There are so many issues I don't understand how trump supporters square them all. Lately I can't fathom how anyone gets past his sham foundation. Or Trump U. You know - real projects of his that are undeniably fraudulent operations. I can't comprehend it.

And golden1 - the fear is what you describe. If people are so willing to ignore what he says and does, we are in for years of manipulation and extortion.

While the RNC has their base hating some photoshopped vision of HRC, corporations are taking on their final form of personhood (protected equally under the constitution), and taking over our government. We have forgotten to be proud and grateful for our many public institutions - that protect our rights - and we're handing them over to corporations whose sole interest is in maximizing short term profits, and who take power by working in tandem with ideologues whose intense fear of socialism leads them to extreme positions supporting corporations over humans.

Yeah - the drone program under Obama was wrong and I spoke out against it. That doesn't  change the fact that a huckster is ushering in a corporate takeover of my government.  That doesn't change the fact that he plays on a team that embraces Soviet style disinformation propaganda tactics. At some point you've got to ask what kind of society you want to live in. I can tell you with certainty that his vision - and the vision of his sponsors - is not only dystopian, but decidedly anti-human. It is a vision I reject.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Sorry, but this is just sad to see this discussion here. So Trump won't be all that bad of a president?  In fact, until he actually nukes or invades someone, we have already excused him for just not knowing a thing about Syria, Crimea, Palestine, etc.  I have no faith in his diplomacy, so eventually some crisis will result in more than 6 Americans dying for no reason.  Sorry, but this is tantamount to excusing Trump for invading a soverign country called Iraq on false premises, but have fun with your little history squabble.  Even his cabinet selection speaks volumes about how he intends to sell out responsible stewardship of our resources. 

Maybe I'm just bitter that I've achieved FI only to give my children a world that is worse off than when we practiced cold war nuclear drills and agreed MAD was indeed a bad policy, this isn't how I wanted their future to be.  I thought this was all behind us.  I have lost so much faith in this great country and Trump hasn't even begun.

I find it quite hard to believe the world of today is worse than that.  Trump hasn't even taken office yet - the world of tomorrow may be different than today, but it's hard to argue that overall life in developed countries have been getting better and safer long-term for the last 30 years.  I will completely alter my view if Trump's policies lead to school children being taught to hide under their desks.

I think its fair to withhold judgment from the President Elect until he truly screws stuff up - remember Bush was applauded and supported by congress in his decision to invade the middle east - so popular support of policies is not always a reflection on the correctness of a plan of action. While Trump may be a pretty awful person, and hold views counter to common decency, I don't know that this will automatically make him a poor president.  Probably doesn't set him up for greatness, but if he fixes some things and makes some things worse, that's about par for the course from president's in my lifetime.

Maybe I've got my optimism gun set too high...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on December 27, 2016, 08:55:07 AM
Quote
  People seem uncomfortable in the present - the YouTube access to other people, or Facebook judgmental lifestyle, or possibly just the fact we are in front of screens instead of talking face to face.

There really is something to this.  I beleive that people are evolutionarily wired to be afraid of people that are different, and they are getting superficial exposure to "the other" constantly on the internet with none of the face to face human contact we need in order to humanize people.  It is magnifying some of our worst human instincts. 

Quote
Maybe I'm just bitter that I've achieved FI only to give my children a world that is worse off than when we practiced cold war nuclear drills and agreed MAD was indeed a bad policy, this isn't how I wanted their future to be.  I thought this was all behind us.  I have lost so much faith in this great country and Trump hasn't even begun.

I feel the same.  I have spent the last 14 years teaching my kids not to lie or bully, to be kind and generous and open hearted.  Apparently I was teaching them the wrong life skills. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: StarBright on December 27, 2016, 09:06:50 AM
I feel hyperbolic much of the time when talking about Trump, and I know it, but he legit scares me.  Not him so much as that a giant segment of the population voted for him.  A smaller segment of that population seems to have checked any critical thinking about Trump at the door and really just don't care what he does or says, even if he violates their interests. 

That's what is pre-WWIII terrifying to me, that 'normal people' seem to be able to rally behind this thing.  It's not Trump necessarily, it is the thing that he is a channel for.  People seem uncomfortable in the present - the YouTube access to other people, or Facebook judgmental lifestyle, or possibly just the fact we are in front of screens instead of talking face to face.  All of the promise of the internet for healthy sharing has been overwhelmed by bitterness and resentment, and Trump is riding the easy populist wave of being able to tap our addiction to angst via Twitter and Media.  He will either leave the world a barren desert, or better for having realized the perils of his abyss - but nothing in between.  Like no other politician we have ever seen, indeed.

Plus one-ing all of the above. I feel like I'm going crazy with how upset I am and I look around at my family and social media and most people seem completely unconcerned. Golden1 - this entire climate legitimately scares me too. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 27, 2016, 10:21:55 AM
Sorry, but this is just sad to see this discussion here. So Trump won't be all that bad of a president?  In fact, until he actually nukes or invades someone, we have already excused him for just not knowing a thing about Syria, Crimea, Palestine, etc.  I have no faith in his diplomacy, so eventually some crisis will result in more than 6 Americans dying for no reason.  Sorry, but this is tantamount to excusing Trump for invading a soverign country called Iraq on false premises, but have fun with your little history squabble.  Even his cabinet selection speaks volumes about how he intends to sell out responsible stewardship of our resources. 

Maybe I'm just bitter that I've achieved FI only to give my children a world that is worse off than when we practiced cold war nuclear drills and agreed MAD was indeed a bad policy, this isn't how I wanted their future to be.  I thought this was all behind us.  I have lost so much faith in this great country and Trump hasn't even begun.

I find it quite hard to believe the world of today is worse than that.  Trump hasn't even taken office yet - the world of tomorrow may be different than today, but it's hard to argue that overall life in developed countries have been getting better and safer long-term for the last 30 years.  I will completely alter my view if Trump's policies lead to school children being taught to hide under their desks.

I think its fair to withhold judgment from the President Elect until he truly screws stuff up - remember Bush was applauded and supported by congress in his decision to invade the middle east - so popular support of policies is not always a reflection on the correctness of a plan of action. While Trump may be a pretty awful person, and hold views counter to common decency, I don't know that this will automatically make him a poor president.  Probably doesn't set him up for greatness, but if he fixes some things and makes some things worse, that's about par for the course from president's in my lifetime.

Maybe I've got my optimism gun set too high...

Define "truly screws stuff up" -- if he exacerbates climate change through policies (highly likely, given his contempt for the EPA and, more generally, science) but we don't see the true impact of those effects for decades, does that count? Or is only what happens immediately during his presidency which counts as him screwing stuff up?

Just because our problems today aren't as clearly viewed as kids hiding under desks (which does happen these days, they're just drills for mass shooters rather than nukes, btw) doesn't mean they're any less important.



To all: please, please stop using the "your candidate was bad too therefore we should avoid truly discussing mine" deflection tactic. No matter what you think Hillary was, this discussion is supposed to be about impacts that Trump is or will have. Ignoring people pointing out what his failings clearly already are is not a debate tactic, it's a way to hide your head in the sand.

I also don't care, in this discussion, what Obama's failings as a president have been. Yes, he's had policies I don't like, including many of those pointed out. I still fail to see how that's supposed to make me more complacent about Trump. Yay, Obama has policies which can be viewed as war crimes, so it's not as bad that we've elected an idiot narcissist? Is that really what your point is? You can't come up with anything better in support of your candidate? I mean, really. That's the best stuff you're coming up with in defense of Trump. Oh, that and "he doesn't really mean what he says". When did that become a good thing in a presidential candidate??

Seriously, you're bringing Andrew Jackson up? How is that at all relevant? Are Jackson's duels somehow going to exonerate Trump's history of blatant fraud? We've had a lot of presidents who were slave owners. Are you going to start using them as examples for why Trump could totally bring back slavery and it would be okay because there's historical precedent for it? Your arguments are illogical, and just straight up silly. Stop it. Learn to debate, and stick to the damn point. If you need to bring up other people's failings to avoid talking about your own candidate, then maybe you're trying to avoid thinking about the fact that you helped elect a shitty, shitty candidate.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on December 27, 2016, 10:22:18 AM
No, no, no.  He woke up on Dec. 25 and announced that he has been visited by three spirits, and now he wants to help the poor, feed the hungry, and pay for medical procedures.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 27, 2016, 10:39:33 AM
Trump vs. Obama WWF, can't wait.  They are in the bad mouthing part before the match right now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 27, 2016, 10:43:23 AM
I'll be waiting for the "Miss Me Yet?" billboards a la George W Bush instead with Obama on them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on December 27, 2016, 12:05:03 PM
I'll be waiting for the "Miss Me Yet?" billboards a la George W Bush instead with Obama on them.

I will miss him.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 27, 2016, 12:25:59 PM
I'll be waiting for the "Miss Me Yet?" billboards a la George W Bush instead with Obama on them.

I will miss him.

I doubt it.  He's not even leaving Washington DC.  I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on December 27, 2016, 12:40:46 PM
Quote
I doubt it.  He's not even leaving Washington DC.  I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right.  He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact.  The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 27, 2016, 01:35:26 PM
Define "truly screws stuff up" -- if he exacerbates climate change through policies (highly likely, given his contempt for the EPA and, more generally, science) but we don't see the true impact of those effects for decades, does that count? Or is only what happens immediately during his presidency which counts as him screwing stuff up?

Just because our problems today aren't as clearly viewed as kids hiding under desks (which does happen these days, they're just drills for mass shooters rather than nukes, btw) doesn't mean they're any less important.

To all: please, please stop using the "your candidate was bad too therefore we should avoid truly discussing mine" deflection tactic. No matter what you think Hillary was, this discussion is supposed to be about impacts that Trump is or will have. Ignoring people pointing out what his failings clearly already are is not a debate tactic, it's a way to hide your head in the sand.

I also don't care, in this discussion, what Obama's failings as a president have been. Yes, he's had policies I don't like, including many of those pointed out. I still fail to see how that's supposed to make me more complacent about Trump. Yay, Obama has policies which can be viewed as war crimes, so it's not as bad that we've elected an idiot narcissist? Is that really what your point is? You can't come up with anything better in support of your candidate? I mean, really. That's the best stuff you're coming up with in defense of Trump. Oh, that and "he doesn't really mean what he says". When did that become a good thing in a presidential candidate??

Seriously, you're bringing Andrew Jackson up? How is that at all relevant? Are Jackson's duels somehow going to exonerate Trump's history of blatant fraud? We've had a lot of presidents who were slave owners. Are you going to start using them as examples for why Trump could totally bring back slavery and it would be okay because there's historical precedent for it? Your arguments are illogical, and just straight up silly. Stop it. Learn to debate, and stick to the damn point. If you need to bring up other people's failings to avoid talking about your own candidate, then maybe you're trying to avoid thinking about the fact that you helped elect a shitty, shitty candidate.

Are you even arguing against anyone in this thread, or just discussing stuff you've heard elsewhere? Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Also, I feel that comparisons are valid. When one throws out a claim like "Trump will exacerbate climate change." It should be qualified - how bad was climate change going to be? Is he going to increase the amount of carbon placed in the air by the same rate as it increased during Obama's term? Or are we holding him to a different standard? Are we now blaming missing the 2degree mark (which we were never, never going to hit anyway) solely on 4 years of Trump (who hasn't even begun to affect policy), even though that mark was out the window years ago, and was not helped by any other president in history?  And truly, honestly, if Trump ends some of Obama's most terrible policies, without burning the place down in the process, I would totally consider having elected an idiot narcissist to have some positive aspects.

If the worst thing you can throw at Trump is he's an unlikeable person with some shitty views, that doesn't really debate the issue at hand; what his impact will be - since we don't know, there's quite a strong argument for being reserved in judgement. It's possible he'll be as hamstrung by congress as Obama was and, like Obama, be stopped from doing even more damage than he would if left unchecked.

So I hope you have something more substantial to offer than "I don't like Trump's views, and he's going to ruin the planet with global warming, and he's an idiot." Because that would be true no matter who was elected, and is not productive.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on December 27, 2016, 02:01:20 PM
If the worst thing you can throw at Trump is he's an unlikeable person with some shitty views, that doesn't really debate the issue at hand; what his impact will be - since we don't know, there's quite a strong argument for being reserved in judgement. It's possible he'll be as hamstrung by congress as Obama was and, like Obama, be stopped from doing even more damage than he would if left unchecked.

So I hope you have something more substantial to offer than "I don't like Trump's views, and he's going to ruin the planet with global warming, and he's an idiot." Because that would be true no matter who was elected, and is not productive.

I'm not sure I agree with a strong argument for being reserved in judgement.  This is a 70 year old man we are talking about with a life history that is well known.  He has spent his life as an avaricious entitled misogynist defrauding and suing anyone he can get away with as well as setting up several failed businesses and assaulting women.  Does anyone think he is suddenly going to change or that he'll actually do anything about the unheard conflict of interest levels??  For the first few days I held out naive hope, but then he started naming his cabinet picks, which run the gamut from bad to horrible. 

Since you want concrete examples, fine, Obama appointed a Nobel prize winning physicist to the DOE, Trump wants to appoint Rick Perry who couldn't even remember its name as the head of the DOE.  Obama appointed a consumer advocate and civil rights attorney to head up the DOL, Trump wants Pudzer, a CEO who has been cited by the DOL numerous times for labor violations. 

I'd love for Trump to be hamstrung by Congress, but they show little sign of a backbone right now.  Ryan is practically gleeful at the thought of putting through his sanctimonious, self-serving budget.  I call BS on anyone that thinks this even has the possibility of ending well. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 27, 2016, 02:13:04 PM
Are you even arguing against anyone in this thread, or just discussing stuff you've heard elsewhere? Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Also, I feel that comparisons are valid. When one throws out a claim like "Trump will exacerbate climate change." It should be qualified - how bad was climate change going to be? Is he going to increase the amount of carbon placed in the air by the same rate as it increased during Obama's term? Or are we holding him to a different standard? Are we now blaming missing the 2degree mark (which we were never, never going to hit anyway) solely on 4 years of Trump (who hasn't even begun to affect policy), even though that mark was out the window years ago, and was not helped by any other president in history?  And truly, honestly, if Trump ends some of Obama's most terrible policies, without burning the place down in the process, I would totally consider having elected an idiot narcissist to have some positive aspects.

If the worst thing you can throw at Trump is he's an unlikeable person with some shitty views, that doesn't really debate the issue at hand; what his impact will be - since we don't know, there's quite a strong argument for being reserved in judgement. It's possible he'll be as hamstrung by congress as Obama was and, like Obama, be stopped from doing even more damage than he would if left unchecked.

So I hope you have something more substantial to offer than "I don't like Trump's views, and he's going to ruin the planet with global warming, and he's an idiot." Because that would be true no matter who was elected, and is not productive.

Well, where to start. We can definitely agree that he's unlikable and an idiot and you're right, he's not president yet so we don't know his policies. However, from his cabinet picks alone, it's not looking good. If not weighing at any other problem with Trump (conflicts of interest as an example) solely from the people he wants to place it's disingenuous to "give him a chance." I think a lot of sentiment from people who dislike him can't understand why people would vote for such a piece of shit and instead of saying that Trump is that, the only retort is "well, Hilary is bad too."

The thing that has happened when Republicans have taken office for the last 30+ years is rich people get richer and the poor get poorer, They want to deregulate everything and make it easier for corporations to make money at the expense of, well everyone. So here's a guy who has not even run with a backhanded notion that he would like to do those things, but has made it some of his talking points to deregulate the EPA.

Here's Obama's stance on climate change:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-record/climate (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-record/climate)

Here's Trump's:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/22/whats-donald-trumps-position-on-climate-change-all-of-them/?utm_term=.44047a0853d9 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/22/whats-donald-trumps-position-on-climate-change-all-of-them/?utm_term=.44047a0853d9)

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 27, 2016, 02:25:16 PM
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up?  Not so much.
Build the wall?  Not so much.
Drain the swamp?  Not so much.
Won't change abortion laws?  Not so much.
Will bring in the best people?  Not so much.
Will overturn the ACA?  That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

Plus consider all of the other outrageous stuff he's said, that everyone assumes (hopes?) is a joke.  Climate change is a Chinese hoax?  You can grab 'em by the pussy?  Look at her face?  The man is a walking faux pas, and even his most enthusiastic supporters are hoping he's not serious about this stuff.

Quote
Also, I feel that comparisons are valid. When one throws out a claim like "Trump will exacerbate climate change." It should be qualified

Okay, I'll qualify it.  Trump will not only fail to try to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions the way Obama has, I think he'll actively try to increase them.  He's already talking about opening up national parks and wildlife refuges to oil drilling.  He loves fracking.  He actively opposes renewable energy, regardless of price.  He appointed the head of Exxon to be Secretary of State.  He's setting the stage to be quantifiably worse for global climate than any President in US history.

Quote
honestly, if Trump ends some of Obama's most terrible policies, without burning the place down in the process, I would totally consider having elected an idiot narcissist to have some positive aspects.

What policies would those be?  If you're keen on "qualify it" then let's talk details.  Which of Obama's policies do you want Trump to overturn, and how many of those policy changes would be required for you to consider Trump's presidency to be a success?  Are you ceding any concurrent negative consequences that might  offset those benefits, like if you support overturning the One China policy then does a trade war with China offset improved relations with Taiwan?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on December 27, 2016, 03:02:01 PM
Will overturn the ACA?  That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.

I love your whole post, but this caught my eye.  He is serious about repealing the ACA and anyone that thinks it won't happen needs to look at his past and realize that with Trump everything comes down to his wallet.  The below is why the Republicans in Congress and the Senate HATE the ACA and will do anything to repeal it regardless of the hurt it inflicts on their base.  Also, unlike current Social Security taxes, there is no cap. 

Under the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, the Medicare payroll tax increased by 0.9 percentage point in 2013, but only for couples earning more than $250,000 and unmarried taxpayers earning more than $200,000. And unlike the old Medicare tax, the increase applies to investment income, not just to wages.  More important was an additional 3.8 percent Medicare tax on “net investment income” for those couples earning more than $250,000. That includes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends on stock, income that until now was taxed at a maximum rate of just 15 percent. But it also includes other income that had been taxed at the same rate as earned income, including rent, royalties, interest and short-term capital gains.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 27, 2016, 03:04:08 PM
Tax cuts for the billionaires has the highest priority!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 27, 2016, 06:11:11 PM
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up?  Not so much.
Build the wall?  Not so much.
Drain the swamp?  Not so much.
Won't change abortion laws?  Not so much.
Will bring in the best people?  Not so much.
Will overturn the ACA?  That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.


I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed.  Completely.  And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed.  So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 27, 2016, 06:14:57 PM
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up?  Not so much.
Build the wall?  Not so much.
Drain the swamp?  Not so much.
Won't change abortion laws?  Not so much.
Will bring in the best people?  Not so much.
Will overturn the ACA?  That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.


I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed.  Completely.  And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed.  So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

Well, one out of six is pretty good, right?  Will that make his presidency a success, if he fails on the other five?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 27, 2016, 09:27:48 PM
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up?  Not so much.
Build the wall?  Not so much.
Drain the swamp?  Not so much.
Won't change abortion laws?  Not so much.
Will bring in the best people?  Not so much.
Will overturn the ACA?  That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.


I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed.  Completely.  And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed.  So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

Well, one out of six is pretty good, right?  Will that make his presidency a success, if he fails on the other five?

As far as I'm concerned, yes.  The other five points that you have listed, I never considered terribly realistic anyway.  If he can "secure the borders", either by building an actual wall, or by other methods; that would be great, too.  If he can fix our not-free-trade "free trade" agreements, more power to him.  I never expected much on these issues, because they are so hard.  I couldn't care less about the abortion issue, because I don't consider it socially resolvable, even though I find the practice to be amoral, at best.  As I have noted previously in another thread, I didn't vote for Donald Trump, I voted against Hillary Clinton.  I was never enthusiastic for Trump, and only decided to vote for him when I was standing in the voting booth.  I was planning to write in someone else, since the third party choices were so crappy this round as well, but I knew that no one cares about protest votes.  Of course, my vote didn't matter anyway, as I don't live in any of the close or swing states.  But the real reason that I voted the way that I did was because I didn't want Hillary Clinton to be president, not because I couldn't have voted for any Democrat.  Other than Bernie Sanders, who now is unlikely to even survive to see another presidential cycle, all the Democrats on the national stage sucked.  And I didn't really like Sanders' socialist opinions either, but there was no discounting his honesty.  Given the choice between a good liar who sounds like he might work out, and a good person who sounds like an idiot, I might have preferred the latter; but that is not the choice I was presented.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 27, 2016, 09:58:06 PM
Quote
I doubt it.  He's not even leaving Washington DC.  I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right.  He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact. The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually.

Wait, you think that Obama has been constrained by the position of the presidency?  By what logic?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 27, 2016, 10:10:49 PM
The other five points that you have listed, I never considered terribly realistic anyway.

For MM and others who doubted that Trump's voters never really believed his BS in the first place, let this be exhibit A.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 27, 2016, 10:17:02 PM
Quote
I doubt it.  He's not even leaving Washington DC.  I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right.  He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact. The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually.

Wait, you think that Obama has been constrained by the position of the presidency?  By what logic?

As a very partisan president that stubbornly refused to compromise, yes he was. When he is a lobbyist making millions or a public speaker à la Clinton or runs some charity, that character and his wonderful charms will become assets again instead of albatrosses.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 27, 2016, 10:20:11 PM

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump.  You're scared of the mis-use of presidential power.  You should be, but the left has only itself to blame.  The left should have been crying foul when their constitutional scholar president was unilaterally assuming powers not named to the executive branch by either the constitution, nor by any of the inane resolutions or laws passed by congress that abdicated legislative branch power to alphabet soup agencies with executive branch oversight.  Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined.  And that crap about Obama "needing" to route around the will of congress, because the Republicans were obstructionists, is nonsense.  That's exactly why we have the separation of powers, so that one branch can limit another.  It's not obstructionism, it's the political process as established.  And because almost everything Obama actually did for "hope and change" was via executive orders, it can all be reversed on January 21st, 2016.  With the exception of the ACA itself, Obama's two terms as president will be, in the long term, as much a non-event as Will Harrison's; and Trump's presidency might be as marred as Chester Arthur's.  If any reader just read those names and thought "huh?", look them up.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 27, 2016, 10:23:21 PM
Quote
I doubt it.  He's not even leaving Washington DC.  I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right.  He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact. The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually.

Wait, you think that Obama has been constrained by the position of the presidency?  By what logic?

As a very partisan president that stubbornly refused to compromise, yes he was. When he is a lobbyist making millions or a public speaker à la Clinton or runs some charity, that character and his wonderful charms will become assets again instead of albatrosses.

Well, I don't agree with your analysis; but I can understand where you get it from.  Sort of.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 28, 2016, 12:39:51 AM
Quote
I doubt it.  He's not even leaving Washington DC.  I give him a month before he's back on television saying something.

I hope you are right.  He is only 55 and has a lot longer to make an impact. The idea of Obama not constrained by the presidency but with a full knowledge of how the government works is rather exciting actually.

Wait, you think that Obama has been constrained by the position of the presidency?  By what logic?

As a very partisan president that stubbornly refused to compromise, yes he was. When he is a lobbyist making millions or a public speaker à la Clinton or runs some charity, that character and his wonderful charms will become assets again instead of albatrosses.

Well, I don't agree with your analysis; but I can understand where you get it from.  Sort of.

Wait,now you both claim Obama stubbornly refused to compromise?  Am I in opposite land? Obas compromise with republicans is one of the things I don't like about his presidency
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 28, 2016, 12:58:46 AM
Wait,now you both claim Obama stubbornly refused to compromise?  Am I in opposite land? Obas compromise with republicans is one of the things I don't like about his presidency

He compromised so much that he was able to get bipartisan support on The PPACA and accepted any amendments to it that the duly elected Republican house and senate sent to his desk. Oh wait, he didn't.

And he appointed swing justices to the Supreme Court like Bush and Reagan did. Oh snap, he didn't. They were all ridged ideologues that never seem to vote out of step.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 28, 2016, 02:25:06 AM

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.


I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump.  You're scared of the mis-use of presidential power.  You should be, but the left has only itself to blame.  The left should have been crying foul when their constitutional scholar president was unilaterally assuming powers not named to the executive branch by either the constitution, nor by any of the inane resolutions or laws passed by congress that abdicated legislative branch power to alphabet soup agencies with executive branch oversight.  Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined.

Could you go over some of the extra constitutional powers that he abused more than his predecessors for me? This article is a little dated, but it seems legit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/10/how-obama-has-used-executive-powers-compared-to-his-predecessors/?utm_term=.be576a07f32f (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/10/how-obama-has-used-executive-powers-compared-to-his-predecessors/?utm_term=.be576a07f32f)





Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on December 28, 2016, 07:32:10 AM

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.


I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump.  You're scared of the mis-use of presidential power.  You should be, but the left has only itself to blame.  The left should have been crying foul when their constitutional scholar president was unilaterally assuming powers not named to the executive branch by either the constitution, nor by any of the inane resolutions or laws passed by congress that abdicated legislative branch power to alphabet soup agencies with executive branch oversight.  Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined.

Could you go over some of the extra constitutional powers that he abused more than his predecessors for me? This article is a little dated, but it seems legit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/10/how-obama-has-used-executive-powers-compared-to-his-predecessors/?utm_term=.be576a07f32f (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/10/how-obama-has-used-executive-powers-compared-to-his-predecessors/?utm_term=.be576a07f32f)

Also, Obama used his executive orders to get business done since congress has basically refused to do its job for 6 years.  While congress cannot directly veto an executive action, they can pass a bill that changes or eliminates an executive action.  They refused to do that.  A president (any president) needs to be able to run the country even if the legislature decides that they don't want to work, and the legislature can override the president at any opportunity.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 28, 2016, 07:34:19 AM
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up?  Not so much.
Build the wall?  Not so much.
Drain the swamp?  Not so much.
Won't change abortion laws?  Not so much.
Will bring in the best people?  Not so much.
Will overturn the ACA?  That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.


I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed.  Completely.  And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed.  So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacare—but repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage.  You're good with that?

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 28, 2016, 07:43:23 AM

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.


I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.

You aren't really scared of Trump.  You're scared of the mis-use of presidential power.  You should be, but the left has only itself to blame.  The left should have been crying foul when their constitutional scholar president was unilaterally assuming powers not named to the executive branch by either the constitution, nor by any of the inane resolutions or laws passed by congress that abdicated legislative branch power to alphabet soup agencies with executive branch oversight.  Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined.

Could you go over some of the extra constitutional powers that he abused more than his predecessors for me? This article is a little dated, but it seems legit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/10/how-obama-has-used-executive-powers-compared-to-his-predecessors/?utm_term=.be576a07f32f (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/10/how-obama-has-used-executive-powers-compared-to-his-predecessors/?utm_term=.be576a07f32f)

Here is a more up-to-date graph.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/

I did not verify the data in the graph. Please post any differing stats with sources so we can discuss.

It is just data. Nothing to see here. It only shows Quidnon is LYING. In fact, no one has ever lied in blog postings more than Quidnon. Hey, saying things where the data clearly shows I am full of it is kind of fun.I think you all ought to try it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on December 28, 2016, 07:48:07 AM
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up?  Not so much.
Build the wall?  Not so much.
Drain the swamp?  Not so much.
Won't change abortion laws?  Not so much.
Will bring in the best people?  Not so much.
Will overturn the ACA?  That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.


I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed.  Completely.  And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed.  So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

And what is it that you want instead?  The way things were?  I recognize that the ACA had it's faults and needs tweaks, even major changes, but I am baffled by those that want it repealed without any idea of what comes next.  I have employer coverage now, but with a spouse that was uninsurable back then and now even more so that he is in his 50s and a cancer survivor, I'm very concerned about our ability to retire in the near future with no ACA. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on December 28, 2016, 08:21:38 AM
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up?  Not so much.
Build the wall?  Not so much.
Drain the swamp?  Not so much.
Won't change abortion laws?  Not so much.
Will bring in the best people?  Not so much.
Will overturn the ACA?  That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.


I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed.  Completely.  And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed.  So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

No, he's not wrong.

"Vox senior editor Sarah Kliff wrote a poignant account last week of her visit to Whitley County, Ky., where the uninsured rate declined 60 percent under Obamacare but 82 percent of voters supported Trump. There, Kliff, a former Post colleague, found Trump voters who were downright frightened that the president-elect would do exactly — literally — what he and Republicans promised: repeal Obamacare.

Among those she found was Trump voter Debbie Mills, a store owner whose husband awaits a lifesaving liver transplant; they got insurance through Obamacare, and Mills is hoping the law won’t be repealed.

“I don’t know what we’ll do if it does go away,” Mills said. “I guess I thought that, you know, [Trump] would not do this. That they would not do this, would not take the insurance away. Knowing that it’s affecting so many people’s lives. I mean, what are you to do then if you cannot . . . purchase, cannot pay for the insurance?”

Mills, who supported Trump for other reasons, figured Obamacare repeal was just talk. “I guess we really didn’t think about that, that he was going to cancel that or change that or take it away,” she said. “I guess I always just thought that it would be there. I was thinking that once it was made into a law that it could not be changed.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-voters-didnt-take-him-literally-on-obamacare-oops/2016/12/20/46ef3cae-c6f3-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?utm_term=.bf557e62fe6e

Here's a transcript of the full interview with that voter:
http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13901874/obamacare-trump-voter-health-insurance-repeal

And here's the full article re all the voters interviewed in Kentucky:
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 28, 2016, 08:30:59 AM
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Lock her up?  Not so much.
Build the wall?  Not so much.
Drain the swamp?  Not so much.
Won't change abortion laws?  Not so much.
Will bring in the best people?  Not so much.
Will overturn the ACA?  That one he's apparently serious about, but that's one his supporters were kind of hoping he was joking about.


I certainly don't speak for everyone, but I certainly want to see the ACA repealed.  Completely.  And I have met people who get subsidies that voted for Trump in order to see it repealed.  So I think that you are generally wrong on this issue.

And what is it that you want instead?  The way things were?  I recognize that the ACA had it's faults and needs tweaks, even major changes, but I am baffled by those that want it repealed without any idea of what comes next.  I have employer coverage now, but with a spouse that was uninsurable back then and now even more so that he is in his 50s and a cancer survivor, I'm very concerned about our ability to retire in the near future with no ACA.

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on December 28, 2016, 08:34:10 AM
Wait,now you both claim Obama stubbornly refused to compromise?  Am I in opposite land? Obas compromise with republicans is one of the things I don't like about his presidency

He compromised so much that he was able to get bipartisan support on The PPACA and accepted any amendments to it that the duly elected Republican house and senate sent to his desk. Oh wait, he didn't.

Oh wait, he actually did sign into law at least 13 amendments to the ACA that Congress sent him. This article is about one of them, but it mentions the others:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-passed-bill-to-change-obamacare_us_5612af43e4b076812702b75f

As for bipartisan support for the ACA, that was never going to happen. The GOP didn't want him to succeed in passing any type of healthcare reform. What we've got in Obamacare is the most Republican-friendly version, virtually identical to what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, but the Republicans still wouldn't support it because they did not want Obama to get credit for it. Here's a little background on that (there are footnotes on the source page so you can see where this info comes from):

"...following the adoption of an individual mandate [requirement for everyone to have insurance], Republicans came to oppose the mandate and threatened to filibuster any bills that contained it. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who led the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to prevent defections:

    'It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.'

Republican Senators, including those who had supported previous bills with a similar mandate, began to describe the mandate as "unconstitutional". Journalist Ezra Klein wrote in The New Yorker that "a policy that once enjoyed broad support within the Republican Party suddenly faced unified opposition." Reporter Michael Cooper of The New York Times wrote that: "the provision ... requiring all Americans to buy health insurance has its roots in conservative thinking."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Healthcare_debate.2C_2008.E2.80.9310
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 28, 2016, 08:45:57 AM
And he appointed swing justices to the Supreme Court like Bush and Reagan did. Oh snap, he didn't. They were all ridged ideologues that never seem to vote out of step.

Obama's Supreme Court appointments were all more conservative than the justices they were replacing.  They still lean liberal, but the Court is now a lot less liberal than it used to be.

Conservatives will never be happy, though.  Obama could have appointed Steve Bannon to the Court and they would have complained about contaminating with the "elite media" or something.  From my perspective, the entire country has been getting more and more conservative over the past decade as the right wing wins every consecutive battle with the help of a compliant President, but that narrative doesn't play well with the base so they have to pretend the liberals are taking over instead.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on December 28, 2016, 09:58:14 AM
The GOP didn't want him to succeed in passing any type of healthcare reform anything.

Fixed it for you.

And Republicans were actually told by the RNC to oppose anything and everything that Obama proposed, just for the sake of obstructing his administration. (http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/) That's fucked up. I can't understand why people keep rewarding the party of "we think the government sucks, so we're making sure that it does!"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 28, 2016, 10:04:49 AM

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 28, 2016, 10:09:34 AM
Wait,now you both claim Obama stubbornly refused to compromise?  Am I in opposite land? Obas compromise with republicans is one of the things I don't like about his presidency

He compromised so much that he was able to get bipartisan support on The PPACA and accepted any amendments to it that the duly elected Republican house and senate sent to his desk. Oh wait, he didn't.

Oh wait, he actually did sign into law at least 13 amendments to the ACA that Congress sent him. This article is about one of them, but it mentions the others:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-passed-bill-to-change-obamacare_us_5612af43e4b076812702b75f

I stand corrected and thank you for that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 28, 2016, 10:10:29 AM

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.
There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men.  I am literally in the process of getting my passport to be able to go to Canada because I am pregnant and for my safety, I am better off out of the USA.  A judge ordered a woman if florida a few years back to be tied to a bed because she wanted a second option on bed rest.  Which, btw, there is no medical/scientific evidence that bed rest helps a fetus.  Rest and lack of stress help, but not bed rest specifically.  And guess what, she still lost the fetus.  Huh, who would have thought that tying a woman to bed against her wishes might increase her stress level.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 28, 2016, 10:12:22 AM
And he appointed swing justices to the Supreme Court like Bush and Reagan did. Oh snap, he didn't. They were all ridged ideologues that never seem to vote out of step.

Obama's Supreme Court appointments were all more conservative than the justices they were replacing.  They still lean liberal, but the Court is now a lot less liberal than it used to be.

Conservatives will never be happy, though.  Obama could have appointed Steve Bannon to the Court and they would have complained about contaminating with the "elite media" or something.  From my perspective, the entire country has been getting more and more conservative over the past decade as the right wing wins every consecutive battle with the help of a compliant President, but that narrative doesn't play well with the base so they have to pretend the liberals are taking over instead.

Not to mention the Garland, which should have been a gimmie to the GOP (who previously suggested him by name).

Kayvent, you honestly think Obama didn't want a nationwide single payer model?   The ACA as originally proposed was a compromise from the start, mirroring Romneycare, and much more so including the amendments made to water it down discussed above. 

You guys gotta keep your rhetoric straight.  On the one hand, don't elect Obama cause he's gonna pass single payer death panels.  Oh no he didn't do that, but he didn't compromise.

LOL, and this is just a distraction from Trump who describes himself as "not a huge compromiser."  I certainly hope that you guys are open to compromise as we discuss each of Trump's policies over the next few years.  Lets start by compromising on his cabinet, yet?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 28, 2016, 10:48:57 AM
Not to mention the Garland, which should have been a gimmie to the GOP (who previously suggested him by name).

Kayvent, you honestly think Obama didn't want a nationwide single payer model?   The ACA as originally proposed was a compromise from the start, mirroring Romneycare, and much more so including the amendments made to water it down discussed above. 

The way I understand the history of this topic, the compromise between single payer and the mandate was not between Obama and Republicans but between Obama and the New Democrats in the senate. I suggest that Romneycare and Obamacare are drastically different but that is a topic probably not fit for this thread or forum.

You guys gotta keep your rhetoric straight.  On the one hand, don't elect Obama cause he's gonna pass single payer death panels.  Oh no he didn't do that, but he didn't compromise.

LOL, and this is just a distraction from Trump who describes himself as "not a huge compromiser."  I certainly hope that you guys are open to compromise as we discuss each of Trump's policies over the next few years.  Lets start by compromising on his cabinet, yet?

Trump will be a horrible president. If I've said or implied otherwise, it was a mistake. The fact he won't compromise is a secondary issue though; he's just horrible as is.

Concerning the Scalia replacement, I think that issue has been terribly mangled. Obama is the president, his job is to select competent nominees and the legislative branch is suppose to vet and confirm them. Their stubborn refusal to do so is a mockery of the system. If all eight supreme court judges died today as a result of food poisoning from their office Christmas party, Obama should be unimpeded in selecting nine thirty-something competent judges.

There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men.

Can you name one or two?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 28, 2016, 10:58:45 AM
There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men.

Can you name one or two?

Here's one: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/12/what_does_ohios_new_20-week_ab.html

They tried to pass a heartbeat bill, but Kasich vetoed that because they want to use this to challenge the viability test in Roe v. Wade first. Then they'll pass the heartbeat bill.

And if you're going to make the argument that it's about fetal rights, then you can just stop right there. That's just spouting nonsense.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 28, 2016, 11:19:54 AM
There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men.

Can you name one or two?

Here's one: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/12/what_does_ohios_new_20-week_ab.html

They tried to pass a heartbeat bill, but Kasich vetoed that because they want to use this to challenge the viability test in Roe v. Wade first. Then they'll pass the heartbeat bill.

And if you're going to make the argument that it's about fetal rights, then you can just stop right there. That's just spouting nonsense.

How does that exclusively affect women? Men can be pregnant too and that law does affect pregnant men to the same degree as pregnant women.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 28, 2016, 11:23:47 AM
Men can be pregnant too and that law does affect pregnant men to the same degree as pregnant women.

Kayvent is clearly an alien visitor to our world, and still unclear on the details of human reproduction.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 28, 2016, 11:55:54 AM
Men can be pregnant too and that law does affect pregnant men to the same degree as pregnant women.

Kayvent is clearly an alien visitor to our world, and still unclear on the details of human reproduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_pregnancy
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on December 28, 2016, 12:12:04 PM
Men can be pregnant too and that law does affect pregnant men to the same degree as pregnant women.

Kayvent is clearly an alien visitor to our world, and still unclear on the details of human reproduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_pregnancy

Are you fucking kidding me?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 28, 2016, 12:21:00 PM
Kayvent seems to be unconcerned about conservatives infringing the rights of women, because conservatives have always been so supportive of the rights of the transgendered.  It's a weird world we live in, where this is the right's defense of attacking a woman's bodily autonomy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 28, 2016, 12:40:29 PM
Kayvent seems to be unconcerned about conservatives infringing the rights of women, because conservatives have anyway been so supportive of the rights of the transgendered.  It's a weird world we live in, where this is the right's defense of attacking a woman's bodily autonomy.
Sol, it is actually not uncommon to find extreme sexism and attacks towards feminism from trans communities and their allies.  Keep in mind, many feminist push the idea that there is nothing or very little biologically different about the sexes (abilitywise) and most of gender is sociological.  That does not mesh well with the idea that you are of different gender than your sex. 
I have found more anti-choice statements from the trans community than any other group outside of extreme conservatives.  It was quite jarring.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on December 28, 2016, 01:32:51 PM
The Donald just tweeted - Thanks Donald! (about consumer confidence numbers)
Just screams stable minded.  Gonna be a fun 2017.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 02:07:40 PM

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

Make a new thread, and send me a link, I'll be happy to add details.  But my perspectives on the ACA are way off topic for this thread.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 02:13:22 PM
From my perspective, the entire country has been getting more and more conservative over the past decade as the right wing wins every consecutive battle with the help of a compliant President, but that narrative doesn't play well with the base so they have to pretend the liberals are taking over instead.

I agree completely with the above bolded portion, but I'd say that it's only been picking up speed during the past decade.  I think Obama would have lost if the Republicans had fielded a better candidate at the time, but they weren't ready for a Ron Paul.  I suspect that the Millineal generation isn't as liberal in their hearts as they might appear in public, at least not on all subjects.  As we now know, the new "alt-right" position has been growing in quiet, and didn't even tell the exit pollsters the truth of their vote.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kayvent on December 28, 2016, 02:53:29 PM
Kayvent seems to be unconcerned about conservatives infringing the rights of women, because conservatives have always been so supportive of the rights of the transgendered.  It's a weird world we live in, where this is the right's defense of attacking a woman's bodily autonomy.

Follow the train of conversation please. I asked for an example of a piece of legislation that targeted only women. The given news article talked about something that affected pregnant men seeking abortions too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 28, 2016, 02:56:10 PM
Kayvent seems to be unconcerned about conservatives infringing the rights of women, because conservatives have always been so supportive of the rights of the transgendered.  It's a weird world we live in, where this is the right's defense of attacking a woman's bodily autonomy.

Follow the train of conversation please. I asked for an example of a piece of legislation that targeted only women. The given news article talked about something that affected pregnant men seeking abortions too.
Women was being used to talk about female of reproductive age.  Better?  Do I have to refer to my biological sex instead of a term most people understand?  And frankly, to the GOP those transmen are women.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on December 28, 2016, 03:10:23 PM

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.
There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men.  I am literally in the process of getting my passport to be able to go to Canada because I am pregnant and for my safety, I am better off out of the USA.  A judge ordered a woman if florida a few years back to be tied to a bed because she wanted a second option on bed rest.  Which, btw, there is no medical/scientific evidence that bed rest helps a fetus.  Rest and lack of stress help, but not bed rest specifically.  And guess what, she still lost the fetus.  Huh, who would have thought that tying a woman to bed against her wishes might increase her stress level.

Need a story link to this.  Was the woman in prison?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 28, 2016, 03:40:03 PM

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.
There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men.  I am literally in the process of getting my passport to be able to go to Canada because I am pregnant and for my safety, I am better off out of the USA.  A judge ordered a woman if florida a few years back to be tied to a bed because she wanted a second option on bed rest.  Which, btw, there is no medical/scientific evidence that bed rest helps a fetus.  Rest and lack of stress help, but not bed rest specifically.  And guess what, she still lost the fetus.  Huh, who would have thought that tying a woman to bed against her wishes might increase her stress level.

Need a story link to this.  Was the woman in prison?
[/quote]
She was not: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court-orders-pregnant-woman-bed-rest-medical/story?id=9561460
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lbmustache on December 28, 2016, 04:05:08 PM
From my perspective, the entire country has been getting more and more conservative over the past decade as the right wing wins every consecutive battle with the help of a compliant President, but that narrative doesn't play well with the base so they have to pretend the liberals are taking over instead.

I agree completely with the above bolded portion, but I'd say that it's only been picking up speed during the past decade.  I think Obama would have lost if the Republicans had fielded a better candidate at the time, but they weren't ready for a Ron Paul.  I suspect that the Millineal generation isn't as liberal in their hearts as they might appear in public, at least not on all subjects.  As we now know, the new "alt-right" position has been growing in quiet, and didn't even tell the exit pollsters the truth of their vote.

Interestingly, arguments go both ways on this - depending on what side of the fence you are on. Meaning liberals are quick to say America is becoming more conservative and vice versa. A quick google search for this topic seems to go about 50-50 ("america is becoming more liberal" / "america is becoming more conservative").

I was under the impression that most polls actually have a majority of Americans more liberal-leaning in terms of policies: same-sex marriage, marijuana, raising the minimum wage - not necessarily to $15 though - and a few more, even though they might not personally identify as liberal or democratic. We have more POC and women in politics (aside from Trump's cabinet ha) and there seems to be a lot more discussion of race and various issues (for better or for worse).

North Carolina would be a good example - a Democratic governor won (and yes, I know that the republicans are $%^#%# around with that) in a very Republican state.

The general pattern of educated people leaning more liberal seems to hold true regardless of where or what we are looking at.

I teach college and high school in both liberal and conservative areas - and I've noticed that both groups of students talk about things I never even thought about a decade ago. I grew up in one of the most liberal, diverse, "gayest cities" - this is an actual title given to us by news sources like USA Today - in America. I never thought about feminism, politics, etc. when I was in HS and no one ever talked about it at lunch time. Now I have kids asking me about feminism and giving speeches about police brutality and global warming. I of course have conservative students who do the same for their own topics, like the 2nd amendment (lol), but it seems to me that if younger people aren't more liberal, they are at the very least more aware of things.

Final thing, I think the democrats in general have been very quick to roll over and are not as aggressive as republicans (specifically tea partiers). See voting rights, intimidation, etc. The tea partiers were also VERY VOCAL. Not arguing that there isn't corruption etc. with the dems, because there is. Go back to my N.C. example (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/north-carolina-republicans-make-brazen-bid-permanent-power-after-losing-governors-r) - I can't fathom in a million years a Democratic legislature pulling something like this. (I could be wrong.)

Quite frankly the KKK and co have always been a part of America. They just got a fancy new name ("alt-right"), got more media-savvy, got some people who know how to carry a conversation normally (rather than the stereotypical raving lunatic), and got a white man in office who won't denounce them. I personally don't forsee them rising up and amassing this huge stronghold.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 28, 2016, 04:26:57 PM
I thought it was agreed we are getting more divided.  So there are some getting more liberal and some getting more conservative.  I'm not sure if an "average" is meaningful.

Overall, I'd agree we are getting more socially liberal.  Seems like we are getting more fiscally conservative.  But none of this is based on actual polls -- any anecdotal remarks here will be skewed based on your location and social circle, no?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 04:48:37 PM

Quite frankly the KKK and co have always been a part of America. They just got a fancy new name ("alt-right"), got more media-savvy, got some people who know how to carry a conversation normally (rather than the stereotypical raving lunatic), and got a white man in office who won't denounce them. I personally don't forsee them rising up and amassing this huge stronghold.

The alt-right and the KKK are not remotely the same thing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 28, 2016, 05:43:20 PM

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.

If you don't know that being white, male, straight and middle class will benefit a person in the United States, vs being say, black, female, gay and poor, I cannot help you understand.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 28, 2016, 05:56:04 PM

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

Make a new thread, and send me a link, I'll be happy to add details.  But my perspectives on the ACA are way off topic for this thread.

Not so off topic. Trump has said he would completely repeal the ACA. Which you said you want. A complete repeal. So, per the topic or this thread, that is a "realistic impact" of a Trump presidency.

I asked you this above for clarification,  which you haven't responded to yet:

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacare—but repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage.  You're good with that?

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 06:13:08 PM

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

Make a new thread, and send me a link, I'll be happy to add details.  But my perspectives on the ACA are way off topic for this thread.

Not so off topic. Trump has said he would completely repeal the ACA. Which you said you want. A complete repeal. So, per the topic or this thread, that is a "realistic impact" of a Trump presidency.

He is doing it for different reasons, and my reasons are complex.  Still will be off topic if we dive down this hole.

Quote

I asked you this above for clarification,  which you haven't responded to yet:

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacare—but repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage.  You're good with that?


Yes, so long as the lifetime cap is well disclosed.

Quote

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?


Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

Quote

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?

Seriously?  Do you really think that is a deal breaker?  That's more of a bug than a feature anyway, and I believe that it only holds true if the parents can still claim them as dependents on their tax returns anyway, which implies they are living at home or full time students.  There was a medical plan available for students when I went to school, that was both cheap and subsidized for needs based students.  The ACA didn't really solve any unsolvable issues, mostly reduced the alternative options for individuals who were on the long tail of the distribution curve.  I'd say that half the people on this forum could do the same thing I stated above, with the self-insured up to a very high deductible amount, with very minimal risk of breaking their retirement plans (which cancer or an organ transplant is likely to do regardless) and very cheaply overall.  There are many, many different ways to reduce your individual health/expense risks, as well as to arrange for health care services, than the way the ACA attempts to do it for everyone; but now most of those alternatives are functionally illegal, pushed out of the market of choices by the individual & corporate mandates, as well as the increased regulations upon actual insurance companies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 28, 2016, 06:15:59 PM
Here is a more up-to-date graph.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/

I did not verify the data in the graph. Please post any differing stats with sources so we can discuss.

It is just data. Nothing to see here. It only shows Quidnon is LYING. In fact, no one has ever lied in blog postings more than Quidnon. Hey, saying things where the data clearly shows I am full of it is kind of fun.I think you all ought to try it.

Quidnon...I would love to get your take on that relating to your statement about Obama abusing presidential power.

I always find it interesting that we have this here "internet" thing with vast amounts of data, but so many are unable to use a simple Google search to see if the talking points they are parroting have validity. I mean, a majority have the ability to look this shit up on their cell phones regardless of their physical location. But I suppose that it's just "The Media" lying again pushing their socialist agenda. Why trust a source if it doesn't back up your world view?

As for Democrats- I'm not registered, but I vote that way because...what's the alternative? They do not satisfy my need for revenge. I am tired of the high ground. I want them to punch out some teeth. Maybe the only way for the right to start using facts and science and shit are for the Left to push out an agenda of disinformation? It would only make sense in this Bizarro World.

But they wont. They'll continue to individually craft messages, bumble around, winning battles but losing the war.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 28, 2016, 06:20:53 PM

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

Make a new thread, and send me a link, I'll be happy to add details.  But my perspectives on the ACA are way off topic for this thread.

Not so off topic. Trump has said he would completely repeal the ACA. Which you said you want. A complete repeal. So, per the topic or this thread, that is a "realistic impact" of a Trump presidency.

He is doing it for different reasons, and my reasons are complex.  Still will be off topic if we dive down this hole.

Quote

I asked you this above for clarification,  which you haven't responded to yet:

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacare—but repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage.  You're good with that?


Yes, so long as the lifetime cap is well disclosed.

Quote

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?


Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

Quote

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?

Seriously?  Do you really think that is a deal breaker?  That's more of a bug than a feature anyway, and I believe that it only holds true if the parents can still claim them as dependents on their tax returns anyway, which implies they are living at home or full time students.  There was a medical plan available for students when I went to school, that was both cheap and subsidized for needs based students.  The ACA didn't really solve any unsolvable issues, mostly reduced the alternative options for individuals who were on the long tail of the distribution curve.  I'd say that half the people on this forum could do the same thing I stated above, with the self-insured up to a very high deductible amount, with very minimal risk of breaking their retirement plans (which cancer or an organ transplant is likely to do regardless) and very cheaply overall.  There are many, many different ways to reduce your individual health/expense risks, as well as to arrange for health care services, than the way the ACA attempts to do it for everyone; but now most of those alternatives are functionally illegal, pushed out of the market of choices by the individual & corporate mandates, as well as the increased regulations upon actual insurance companies.

What is the alternative for people with preexisting conditions that there "always has been"?

Also, no, you are wrong about the details of the current age-26 cap.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 28, 2016, 06:28:35 PM

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

Make a new thread, and send me a link, I'll be happy to add details.  But my perspectives on the ACA are way off topic for this thread.

Not so off topic. Trump has said he would completely repeal the ACA. Which you said you want. A complete repeal. So, per the topic or this thread, that is a "realistic impact" of a Trump presidency.

He is doing it for different reasons, and my reasons are complex.  Still will be off topic if we dive down this hole.

Quote

I asked you this above for clarification,  which you haven't responded to yet:

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacare—but repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage.  You're good with that?


Yes, so long as the lifetime cap is well disclosed.

Quote

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?


Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

Quote

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?

Seriously?  Do you really think that is a deal breaker?  That's more of a bug than a feature anyway, and I believe that it only holds true if the parents can still claim them as dependents on their tax returns anyway, which implies they are living at home or full time students.  There was a medical plan available for students when I went to school, that was both cheap and subsidized for needs based students.  The ACA didn't really solve any unsolvable issues, mostly reduced the alternative options for individuals who were on the long tail of the distribution curve.  I'd say that half the people on this forum could do the same thing I stated above, with the self-insured up to a very high deductible amount, with very minimal risk of breaking their retirement plans (which cancer or an organ transplant is likely to do regardless) and very cheaply overall.  There are many, many different ways to reduce your individual health/expense risks, as well as to arrange for health care services, than the way the ACA attempts to do it for everyone; but now most of those alternatives are functionally illegal, pushed out of the market of choices by the individual & corporate mandates, as well as the increased regulations upon actual insurance companies.
I had a pre-existing condition when I aged off my mom's plan at age 24. I could find NO coverage for any amount of money on private market.  I therefore used COBRA but I would have been screwed once that was over.  My fiancé picked a grad school based on spousal coverage, which not all had and we got married early for insurance.  What alternatives do you think I had?  Please, do tell? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 28, 2016, 06:28:57 PM
Quote
How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?
Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

What alternative would that be? Going bankrupt to pay medical bills? Deciding whether to pay for medication or groceries? People getting divorced so one spouse doesn't have to go broke too? "Don't get sick! and if you do get sick, die quickly!"'

Are you just trolling this thread, or do you actually believe what you're saying?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 06:39:53 PM

What is the alternative for people with preexisting conditions that there "always has been"?

There were several, actually.  Most states had "high risk" insurance pools, subsidized by the state but with 'shall issue' rules for insurance policies, my mother used one for a few years between employer sponsored plans, which almost always expire limitations upon pre-existing conditions.  The catastrophic plans I mentioned before could be used to solve for this, in several ways; but most typically by solving a "gap", for the first several years of the policy, the pre-existing condition would not be covered, but eventually that condition ages out.  There are/were health care cost sharing groups such as Samaritan, MediShare & LibertyShare; all of which still have limitations on pre-existing conditions that expire after several years of membership, allowing the "premiums" to be significantly cheaper.  Their legal ability to "discriminate" against high risk lifestyles also helps lower the costs significantly.  The main reason that such limitations ever existed was to permit the policies to be offered cheaper, by limiting the risks involved in exactly what the ACA requires by law; the asymmetric information problem that occurs when a person decides to roll the dice for a few years, and ends up with such a "pre-existing condition".  It's not that the insurance companies can't calculate for any condition going forward, it's that they can't protect the risk pool from sudden cost shocks from new members who know they need more care sooner than later than they would admit.  Since true insurance is a contract to limit personal risks, allowing a pre-existing condition limitation to time out after 3 or 5 years is a legitimate solution that is no longer permitted by the ACA.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 06:41:23 PM
Quote
How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?
Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

What alternative would that be? Going bankrupt to pay medical bills? Deciding whether to pay for medication or groceries? People getting divorced so one spouse doesn't have to go broke too? "Don't get sick! and if you do get sick, die quickly!"'

Are you just trolling this thread, or do you actually believe what you're saying?

I'm not trolling.  I already mentioned this was going to be off topic.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 06:44:37 PM

I had a pre-existing condition when I aged off my mom's plan at age 24. I could find NO coverage for any amount of money on private market.  I therefore used COBRA but I would have been screwed once that was over. My fiancé picked a grad school based on spousal coverage, which not all had and we got married early for insurance.  What alternatives do you think I had?  Please, do tell?

That actually sounds like a pretty smooth solution, and one that I've never heard of before.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 28, 2016, 07:04:38 PM
Quote
How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?
Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

What alternative would that be? Going bankrupt to pay medical bills? Deciding whether to pay for medication or groceries? People getting divorced so one spouse doesn't have to go broke too? "Don't get sick! and if you do get sick, die quickly!"'

Are you just trolling this thread, or do you actually believe what you're saying?

I'm not trolling.  I already mentioned this was going to be off topic.

If the cost is prohibitively expensive, it is not an alternative. I'll stand by my "medications or groceries" statement, because that's what happened.

I'm not sure what else I can call it but trolling when an argument based on a false or inaccurate statements continues after being presented with fact.

There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

Beyond that, I'm genuinely interested in your take on Obama's abuses of executive power after articles presented. What say you?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 28, 2016, 07:17:33 PM
Here is a more up-to-date graph.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/

I did not verify the data in the graph. Please post any differing stats with sources so we can discuss.

It is just data. Nothing to see here. It only shows Quidnon is LYING. In fact, no one has ever lied in blog postings more than Quidnon. Hey, saying things where the data clearly shows I am full of it is kind of fun.I think you all ought to try it.

Quidnon...I would love to get your take on that relating to your statement about Obama abusing presidential power.

I always find it interesting that we have this here "internet" thing with vast amounts of data, but so many are unable to use a simple Google search to see if the talking points they are parroting have validity. I mean, a majority have the ability to look this shit up on their cell phones regardless of their physical location. But I suppose that it's just "The Media" lying again pushing their socialist agenda. Why trust a source if it doesn't back up your world view?

As for Democrats- I'm not registered, but I vote that way because...what's the alternative? They do not satisfy my need for revenge. I am tired of the high ground. I want them to punch out some teeth. Maybe the only way for the right to start using facts and science and shit are for the Left to push out an agenda of disinformation? It would only make sense in this Bizarro World.

But they wont. They'll continue to individually craft messages, bumble around, winning battles but losing the war.

My guess is there will be no response from quidnon. I do not think it was anything he read or saw. I truly believe he was LYING when he said:

"Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined."

He read it nowhere. He just made it up. I believe there to be NO reputable source that said this. Please prove me wrong.  Let me guess: This off topic, right quidnon?





Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 28, 2016, 07:18:13 PM
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

They don't care if people have insurance, or get medical care, as long as the profit margins continue to climb for the industries that fund their political campaigns.  This isn't about making things better for American citizens, it's about making things better for American corporations at the expense of American citizens.

So I expect them to symbolically repeal the ACA, then eventually get around to instituting some sort of plan that provides worse coverage and worse care at a higher price, because that's what keeps profit margins the highest.  Maybe they'll call it "vouchers" and use taxpayer dollars to subsidize private insurance.  Maybe they'll end up keeping the individual mandate, since that is profitable for insurers.  Maybe they'll remove the restrictions that allow insurers to offer worthless insurance that doesn't cover anything.  They certainly won't let medicare negotiate drug prices, that would totally cut into profit margins.  I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions again, because those people are profit sinks. 

The GOP is the party of corporate interests.  They will only do what they think benefits corporations.  They don't care about Americans, just American businesses.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 07:51:22 PM
Quote
How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?
Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

What alternative would that be? Going bankrupt to pay medical bills? Deciding whether to pay for medication or groceries? People getting divorced so one spouse doesn't have to go broke too? "Don't get sick! and if you do get sick, die quickly!"'

Are you just trolling this thread, or do you actually believe what you're saying?

I'm not trolling.  I already mentioned this was going to be off topic.

If the cost is prohibitively expensive, it is not an alternative. I'll stand by my "medications or groceries" statement, because that's what happened.

Maybe to you.
Quote

I'm not sure what else I can call it but trolling when an argument based on a false or inaccurate statements continues after being presented with fact.


I actually haven't made an argument, only stated my opinions so far.  What inaccurate statements do you refer to? 

Quote

There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.


I never attempted to benefit everyone.  I consider that to be likely impossible.  People's situations are too varied for a fixed set of rules to work out well for everyone.

Quote

Beyond that, I'm genuinely interested in your take on Obama's abuses of executive power after articles presented. What say you?

I didn't read any articles that may have been linked here, but generally speaking I don't consider Obama's abuses to be worthy of my time.  All presidents abuse the office; in different ways and to arguably different degrees, but they all have done it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 08:07:14 PM

My guess is there will be no response from quidnon. I do not think it was anything he read or saw. I truly believe he was LYING when he said:

"Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined."

He read it nowhere. He just made it up. I believe there to be NO reputable source that said this. Please prove me wrong.  Let me guess: This off topic, right quidnon?

You are trying to goad me into a defensive reply, but I'm not that emotional.  I didn't claim that Obama wrote more executive orders, but that he has done more more actions outside the limitations of the constitutional parameters of the office than his predecessors.  And I don't consider ANY sources to be trustworthy, so I will cite whatever I please.  I pulled that part about "combined" from memory, but let's see if google can help me out here...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violate-constitution-top-ten-2015

Just one year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/01/10/this-inventory-of-obamas-dozens-of-executive-actions-frames-his-final-state-of-the-union-address/#4016a30041bc

http://www.infowars.com/study-obama-has-issued-more-restrictive-executive-orders-than-past-six-administrations/

I probably can't support my claim that he has done it more than ALL of his predecessors, because that would require an examination of every president's actions and some kind of common ground on what should be considered unconstitutional, which we probably don't agree upon.  But nor do I care much to have that debate, because it's my definition of unconstitutional that I'm using.  This research took 5 minutes or less, so I imagine I could do better if I gave a damn, but I don't.  I don't expect to change anyone's mind anyway.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 28, 2016, 08:07:25 PM
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

They don't care if people have insurance, or get medical care, as long as the profit margins continue to climb for the industries that fund their political campaigns.  This isn't about making things better for American citizens, it's about making things better for American corporations at the expense of American citizens.

So I expect them to symbolically repeal the ACA, then eventually get around to instituting some sort of plan that provides worse coverage and worse care at a higher price, because that's what keeps profit margins the highest.  Maybe they'll call it "vouchers" and use taxpayer dollars to subsidize private insurance.  Maybe they'll end up keeping the individual mandate, since that is profitable for insurers.  Maybe they'll remove the restrictions that allow insurers to offer worthless insurance that doesn't cover anything.  They certainly won't let medicare negotiate drug prices, that would totally cut into profit margins.  I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions again, because those people are profit sinks. 

The GOP is the party of corporate interests.  They will only do what they think benefits corporations.  They don't care about Americans, just American businesses.

And I agree.

How many here want some revenge? I want the Left to be able to fight their way out of a paper bag. I want them to throw dirt in faces. I want blood. I'm tired of how the team with the better idea and vision always loses because they can't implement a message. I remember this from 2010 that explains the incompetent Democrat message pretty well:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/417/this-party-sucks?act=2 (https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/417/this-party-sucks?act=2)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 08:08:27 PM
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 28, 2016, 08:13:52 PM
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

Indeed. This has become a pattern. It was clear he was about to disagree with your conclusions, and thus you stopped reading lest the cognitive dissonance echo too loudly. Don't worry, you're not alone in that approach.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 28, 2016, 08:25:19 PM
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 
Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

I'm doing it wrong. I need to follow the Republican playbook and not use facts or discourse. I need to dumb it down into small soundbites. How about instead I just say to you:

"You lie!"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 28, 2016, 08:28:25 PM

My guess is there will be no response from quidnon. I do not think it was anything he read or saw. I truly believe he was LYING when he said:

"Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined."

He read it nowhere. He just made it up. I believe there to be NO reputable source that said this. Please prove me wrong.  Let me guess: This off topic, right quidnon?

No I just can't...not sure if I should laugh or cry. Articles from opinion pages and Alex Jones website? Christ almighty!

You are trying to goad me into a defensive reply, but I'm not that emotional.  I didn't claim that Obama wrote more executive orders, but that he has done more more actions outside the limitations of the constitutional parameters of the office than his predecessors.  And I don't consider ANY sources to be trustworthy, so I will cite whatever I please.  I pulled that part about "combined" from memory, but let's see if google can help me out here...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violate-constitution-top-ten-2015

Just one year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/01/10/this-inventory-of-obamas-dozens-of-executive-actions-frames-his-final-state-of-the-union-address/#4016a30041bc

http://www.infowars.com/study-obama-has-issued-more-restrictive-executive-orders-than-past-six-administrations/

I probably can't support my claim that he has done it more than ALL of his predecessors, because that would require an examination of every president's actions and some kind of common ground on what should be considered unconstitutional, which we probably don't agree upon.  But nor do I care much to have that debate, because it's my definition of unconstitutional that I'm using.  This research took 5 minutes or less, so I imagine I could do better if I gave a damn, but I don't.  I don't expect to change anyone's mind anyway.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on December 28, 2016, 08:48:30 PM

Quite frankly the KKK and co have always been a part of America. They just got a fancy new name ("alt-right"), got more media-savvy, got some people who know how to carry a conversation normally (rather than the stereotypical raving lunatic), and got a white man in office who won't denounce them. I personally don't forsee them rising up and amassing this huge stronghold.

The alt-right and the KKK are not remotely the same thing.

The term 'alt-right' itself was first coined by white supremacist Richard Spencer (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right)).  According to Breitbart's own guide to the alt-right, the group contains both neo-nazis and members of the KKK (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/)).

There is demonstrable and undeniable overlap between the KKK and the alt-right.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 28, 2016, 09:55:59 PM
Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

Fortunately, I wasn't talking to you!  Get bent!

But while we're here I should mention that I find it hilarious that your refusal to read or engage in conversation has somehow become my fault, in your eyes.  You're not exactly helping your cause, if you want people to take you seriously.

Back on topic, if you think Republicans genuinely do want to improve health care, you've already been asked several times to explain what you think that should look like.  I don't think you're winning hearts and minds by making accusations against me without offering anything of substance in return.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on December 28, 2016, 10:42:06 PM
Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

Fortunately, I wasn't talking to you!  Get bent!

But while we're here I should mention that I find it hilarious that your refusal to read or engage in conversation has somehow become my fault, in your eyes. You're not exactly helping your cause, if you want people to take you seriously.

Hmmm, honestly I don't know that is why I'm still here. I came to this thread out of curiosity, but it's my own experience in life that the same people that are most likely to engage in any kind of topic are also the least likely to have their opinions reversed.  Moving such a conversation to the internet certainly hasn't tempered that much.  Perhaps I should be reevaluating my own participation in this portion of the forum.

Quote
Back on topic, if you think Republicans genuinely do want to improve health care, you've already been asked several times to explain what you think that should look like.
I don't think that, but nor do I think there exists any maliciousness in what they do.  I am kind of mixed on calling myself a republican; part of me wants to reject it, part of me doesn't.  Either way, I'm not actually registered as a republican, and I don't vote by party lines.  I have tried to touch generally on what I'd like to see to improve health care (which I consider the most important issue, not the payment methods), but I don't want to get deep into the weeds as I consider it off-topic.  Again, if it means so much to you, start that thread.  It doesn't mean that much to myself, because I can manage with or without the ACA.

Quote
  I don't think you're winning hearts and minds by making accusations against me without offering anything of substance in return.

Yeah, I don't see that happening either, so...

Bye.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on December 28, 2016, 10:55:40 PM
My favorite part was when he refused to read any links, claimed no sources are reputable, then posted some links.  But other parts were good too.  8/10
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 29, 2016, 12:17:08 AM
Quote
Back on topic, if you think Republicans genuinely do want to improve health care, you've already been asked several times to explain what you think that should look like.
I have tried to touch generally on what I'd like to see to improve health care (which I consider the most important issue, not the payment methods), but I don't want to get deep into the weeds as I consider it off-topic.  Again, if it means so much to you, start that thread.  It doesn't mean that much to myself, because I can manage with or without the ACA.

Payment methods matter, and decreasing costs matter. Go figure, actually having access to healthcare improves the health of those without access. Having a healthy citizenry is good for the economy. This crappy old ACA law was on a roll to save trillions. You cannot improve healthcare in the United States without managing the payment methods. They are inseparable.

What does that mean anyway, "Improve health care?" It's one of those talking point platitudes that the Right throws around when they want people to think they care without doing anything. It's not a simple answer because almost everything they are against tie together here. Give poor people enough subsidy to buy healthy food, or a living wage so they can buy it themselves? Give people time off from work/stress relief? Give families time off to be with a newborn child? Make housing healthy and affordable? Give fact-based sex education for our youth (since abstinence only education has been proven to not work)? Make medication affordable? Design cities to be livable/not car based? Decrease chemicals in food/environment? I could go on.

I just wish I could fit all that crap into a soundbite...oh yeah: "We're going to have the best system. With only the best things with the best people. It's going to be the best."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on December 29, 2016, 12:39:10 AM



I probably can't support my claim that he has done it more than ALL of his predecessors [ don't forget the word COMBINED here!], because that would require an examination of every president's actions and some kind of common ground on what should be considered unconstitutional, which we probably don't agree upon I DIDN'T DO THE WORK AND MADE IT UP .

Fixed that for you.

That was my point all along.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violate-constitution-top-ten-2015


http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/01/10/this-inventory-of-obamas-dozens-of-executive-actions-frames-his-final-state-of-the-union-address/#4016a30041bc

http://www.infowars.com/study-obama-has-issued-more-restrictive-executive-orders-than-past-six-administrations/


Interesting things to read here, but none really supporting your claim regarding extra-constitutional actions of Obama and the frequency compared to other presidents.

I read the infowars article to conclude that Obama uses the words "shall" and "must" a lot, and that he is very wordy. He did this more than the past 6 presidents (except for the one he did not). It is really more than 5 of the last 6 minus the first Clinton term.

The Forbes article was both interesting and confusing to me. It seemed to be a combination of describing past orders in addition to guessing what future orders might be. Since it was written last January, it would be interesting to see a followup as to how many of the presumed orders actually happened. There was also an interesting comment on presidential memorandum and how Obama issued twice as many as Bush.

I find it strange that you would reference the national review article, since it is talking about the constitutionality of Obama's actions, and you have your own definition of unconstitutional. I agree that we would most likely disagree on some of those claims. Maybe the supreme court will someday speak to one of them. To my knowledge, none of these points in the article have been ruled unconstitutional yet.


Thank you for responding. Have a happy new year.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 29, 2016, 06:02:23 AM

What is the alternative for people with preexisting conditions that there "always has been"?

There were several, actually.  Most states had "high risk" insurance pools, subsidized by the state but with 'shall issue' rules for insurance policies, my mother used one for a few years between employer sponsored plans, which almost always expire limitations upon pre-existing conditions.  The catastrophic plans I mentioned before could be used to solve for this, in several ways; but most typically by solving a "gap", for the first several years of the policy, the pre-existing condition would not be covered, but eventually that condition ages out.  There are/were health care cost sharing groups such as Samaritan, MediShare & LibertyShare; all of which still have limitations on pre-existing conditions that expire after several years of membership, allowing the "premiums" to be significantly cheaper.  Their legal ability to "discriminate" against high risk lifestyles also helps lower the costs significantly.  The main reason that such limitations ever existed was to permit the policies to be offered cheaper, by limiting the risks involved in exactly what the ACA requires by law; the asymmetric information problem that occurs when a person decides to roll the dice for a few years, and ends up with such a "pre-existing condition".  It's not that the insurance companies can't calculate for any condition going forward, it's that they can't protect the risk pool from sudden cost shocks from new members who know they need more care sooner than later than they would admit.  Since true insurance is a contract to limit personal risks, allowing a pre-existing condition limitation to time out after 3 or 5 years is a legitimate solution that is no longer permitted by the ACA.
So, your ignorance is showing.  As someone with a pre-existing condition there was no coverage for me within my condition if I lost my insurance coverage for even a day.  And those plans which did not cover it, counted as loss of coverage.  So, your solution is not to cover people with medical issue.  That is not a solution.  And this counted even if I got employer health care which is suppose cover everything. 
And yes, those health "share" plan still exist, just like they did prior to the ACA.  And they exist because they are not insurance and don't cover a lot.  That is why they are cheaper.  Go read some more before you decide you know how things should be.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on December 29, 2016, 06:13:23 AM

What is the alternative for people with preexisting conditions that there "always has been"?

There were several, actually.  Most states had "high risk" insurance pools, subsidized by the state but with 'shall issue' rules for insurance policies, my mother used one for a few years between employer sponsored plans, which almost always expire limitations upon pre-existing conditions.  The catastrophic plans I mentioned before could be used to solve for this, in several ways; but most typically by solving a "gap", for the first several years of the policy, the pre-existing condition would not be covered, but eventually that condition ages out.  There are/were health care cost sharing groups such as Samaritan, MediShare & LibertyShare; all of which still have limitations on pre-existing conditions that expire after several years of membership, allowing the "premiums" to be significantly cheaper.  Their legal ability to "discriminate" against high risk lifestyles also helps lower the costs significantly.  The main reason that such limitations ever existed was to permit the policies to be offered cheaper, by limiting the risks involved in exactly what the ACA requires by law; the asymmetric information problem that occurs when a person decides to roll the dice for a few years, and ends up with such a "pre-existing condition".  It's not that the insurance companies can't calculate for any condition going forward, it's that they can't protect the risk pool from sudden cost shocks from new members who know they need more care sooner than later than they would admit.  Since true insurance is a contract to limit personal risks, allowing a pre-existing condition limitation to time out after 3 or 5 years is a legitimate solution that is no longer permitted by the ACA.
So, your ignorance is showing.  As someone with a pre-existing condition there was no coverage for me within my condition if I lost my insurance coverage for even a day.  And those plans which did not cover it, counted as loss of coverage.  So, your solution is not to cover people with medical issue.  That is not a solution.  And this counted even if I got employer health care which is suppose cover everything. 
And yes, those health "share" plan still exist, just like they did prior to the ACA.  And they exist because they are not insurance and don't cover a lot.  That is why they are cheaper.  Go read some more before you decide you know how things should be.

Agree Gin1984.  My husband had a pre-existing condition and could not get insurance, no matter the price.  He just kept getting denied, we would have agreed on a policy that excluded his condition, but still no go.  And the high risk pools denied us because we lived in a ski area in Colorado, thus must be high risk. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on December 29, 2016, 08:34:39 AM
My favorite part was when he refused to read any links, claimed no sources are reputable, then posted some links.  But other parts were good too.  8/10

Not to mention, judging the legality of presidential actions on what Quidnon? considers as his own private definition of unconstitutional.

This thread has been boggling my mind. Quidnon? has got to be a troll.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on December 29, 2016, 09:00:57 AM
My favorite part was when he refused to read any links, claimed no sources are reputable, then posted some links.  But other parts were good too.  8/10

Not to mention, judging the legality of presidential actions on what Quidnon? considers as his own private definition of unconstitutional.

This thread has been boggling my mind. Quidnon? has got to be a troll.


There's always at least one in "Off Topic." More than once, I've wondered if some of them are just new manifestations of previously banned people.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lbmustache on December 29, 2016, 12:24:46 PM
I thought it was agreed we are getting more divided.  So there are some getting more liberal and some getting more conservative.  I'm not sure if an "average" is meaningful.

Overall, I'd agree we are getting more socially liberal.  Seems like we are getting more fiscally conservative.  But none of this is based on actual polls -- any anecdotal remarks here will be skewed based on your location and social circle, no?

Well, I think "divided" would indicate that people feel more strongly about their beliefs and opinions, and are less willing to compromise on them - not necessarily that we as a whole are skewing heavily to one political extreme or another. But yes you are correct in that Americans seem to be leaning towards social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

I provided anecdotal remarks as just that. I do have some poll data, I was in a rush and didn't have time to link them all. Here you go:

Same-sex marriage: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/191645/americans-support-gay-marriage-remains-high.aspx?g_source=same%20sex%20marriage&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

Marijuana: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/12/support-for-marijuana-legalization-continues-to-rise/ 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx?g_source=marijuana&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

Minimum wage: http://www.gallup.com/video/175157/trend-line-support-minimum-wage-increase.aspx?
g_source=minimum%20wage&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

^ Minimum wage info is a bit more difficult to find. It seems that the Fight for $15 has taken over a lot of previous talk - but it looks like a majority of Americans support raising it ~$2 (to $9).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lbmustache on December 29, 2016, 12:35:02 PM
Anyway. Thank you to the person to responded to the "The KKK and alt-right are not similar." comment. Basically said what I was going to say.

For those of you living in conservative areas and would like to make an impact, this is a good read created by former congressional staffers. Details how the tea party was successful in getting their message across, and how we can start to do the same.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview

I mention conservative areas because a lot of the success of this relies on opposition to Republican representatives. I live in an area that's liberal and has a liberal Dem rep, so there's only so much I can do to disrupt.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 29, 2016, 01:47:25 PM
For those of you living in conservative areas and would like to make an impact, this is a good read created by former congressional staffers. Details how the tea party was successful in getting their message across, and how we can start to do the same.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview

I mention conservative areas because a lot of the success of this relies on opposition to Republican representatives. I live in an area that's liberal and has a liberal Dem rep, so there's only so much I can do to disrupt.

I appreciate your post. But I really wonder if facts and clear concise use of the English language is really the way to combat the seething pitchfork carrying portion of the Right in conservative areas in our "post truth" 24 hour news cycle world? How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

Democrats continue this strategy. They win every once in a while, but the overt trend is to lose elections, especially important positions of power. Only barely holding onto governance is not winning.  Being civil to our opponents and responding rationally has lost not only the presidency but swaths of state and local elections, which they totally forgot about. How do you combat a fact-free driven emotional decision making electorate with fact? These people don't participate with thoughtful helpful comments and decency. There are no Left answers to the foaming at the mouth ultra conservative and neo-nazi Right radio programs and websites and how can there be?

When Democrats do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

Back to the topic of this thread...If a government can make up it's own facts as Trump can and will, Democrats will continue to be herded like cats and they will always lose. Republicans will mob our government with their lies, change positions when needed and deny everything previously said like our next Commander in Chief.

After remembering our President Elect's title will be Commander in Chief I remember how truly fucked we are for the next decades of washing off the shit stank of this presidency.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on December 29, 2016, 01:57:00 PM
For those of you living in conservative areas and would like to make an impact, this is a good read created by former congressional staffers. Details how the tea party was successful in getting their message across, and how we can start to do the same.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview

I mention conservative areas because a lot of the success of this relies on opposition to Republican representatives. I live in an area that's liberal and has a liberal Dem rep, so there's only so much I can do to disrupt.

I appreciate your post. But I really wonder if facts and clear concise use of the English language is really the way to combat the seething pitchfork carrying portion of the Right in conservative areas in our "post truth" 24 hour news cycle world? How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

Democrats continue this strategy. They win every once in a while, but the overt trend is to lose elections, especially important positions of power. Only barely holding onto governance is not winning.  Being civil to our opponents and responding rationally has lost not only the presidency but swaths of state and local elections, which they totally forgot about. How do you combat a fact-free driven emotional decision making electorate with fact? These people don't participate with thoughtful helpful comments and decency. There are no Left answers to the foaming at the mouth ultra conservative and neo-nazi Right radio programs and websites and how can there be?

When Democrats do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

Back to the topic of this thread...If a government can make up it's own facts as Trump can and will, Democrats will continue to be herded like cats and they will always lose. Republicans will mob our government with their lies, change positions when needed and deny everything previously said like our next Commander in Chief.

After remembering our President Elect's title will be Commander in Chief I remember how truly fucked we are for the next decades of washing off the shit stank of this presidency.

Germany, in the 20th century, survived defeat in two world wars, a fascist dictatorship, and a communist dictatorship in 1/2 the country.  They, as a society, lived to tell about it.  Hopefully we will too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 29, 2016, 01:59:31 PM
Overall, I'd agree we are getting more socially liberal.  Seems like we are getting more fiscally conservative.  But none of this is based on actual polls -- any anecdotal remarks here will be skewed based on your location and social circle, no?
Well, I think "divided" would indicate that people feel more strongly about their beliefs and opinions, and are less willing to compromise on them - not necessarily that we as a whole are skewing heavily to one political extreme or another. But yes you are correct in that Americans seem to be leaning towards social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Theoretically speaking, why can't Democrats be "fiscally conservative" (lower case "f") by rebranding the idea? Is it not fiscally conservative that a lot of Democratic policies actually save money in the long term? Government programs are cheaper than private industry doing the same job. Why can't we reduce the military budget for stupid shit, fraud waste and abuse? Who on a forum about finances not like the idea of reducing government debt? Why does this have to be an idea from the Right? Why do Democrats suck so bad at the message?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on December 29, 2016, 02:01:12 PM
Germany, in the 20th century, survived defeat in two world wars, a fascist dictatorship, and a communist dictatorship in 1/2 the country.  They, as a society, lived to tell about it.  Hopefully we will too.

Hopefully we don't need to be blown to smithereens to get there.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cranberries on December 29, 2016, 03:45:32 PM
How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

I don't really know the answer to your broader question, but we have several pretty spectacular answers to this part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on December 29, 2016, 06:43:09 PM
How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

I don't really know the answer to your broader question, but we have several pretty spectacular answers to this part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

Practically speaking, I think the problems liberals (and specifically Democrats) have getting and keeping political power are as follows:

1) Many liberals (from big donors to your average citizen activist) seem to only be attracted to the 'sexy' or 'social' aspects of politics (e.g., this upcoming women's march on Washington). Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics (e.g., women's reproductive rights, LBGT rights, combating climate change, protesting big banks). There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I haven't seen much evidence that it works in the modern political era. I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything.  You know what DOES accomplish things? What the conservatives do, which is learn every boring detail of  local political process, start at ground zero, and mobilize the hell out their voters to take over ALL the offices at the local level. Then move the game up and out. With each step, conservatives have been able to make changes to procedural rules that solidify their gains and make it easier to hold those gains in the future.  And because they organize so much better than liberals, they naturally have a MUCH deeper and better prepared bench of up and coming 'talent'. That is why they now hold the vast majority of state and local offices across the country.

To sum up: Conservatives are much better than liberals at making plans that take decades of work to pay off, limiting themselves to a smaller number of achievable goals, and then busting their asses for years to reach those goals. To sum up, conservatives possess much more interest in, and tolerance for, the dirty, boring, day to day grind of building a political machine than liberals seem to.

2) Liberals seem to fundamentally misunderstand certain things about human nature despite being perpetually smacked in the face with them. Humans are wired to respond to emotion first and reason second. Also, humans are wired to be tribal, to discount the long term, and to view resources as somewhat 'zero-sum' (whether they are or not). It's our default to separate ourselves into in-groups and out-groups using the most obvious criteria at hand.  If nothing obvious is at hand, we will look for something to use to self-sort, even if that criterion is totally meaningless (as Dr. Seuss well knew). And the more Democrats talk about each special-snowflake subgroup of their potential coalition, celebrate their uniqueness, and talk about how special policies should be in place for each group, the more their message divides the electorate. (Note: I didn't say Dems shouldn't create the policies to help certain subgroups that need it, only that they shouldn't focus on the narrowness or specialness of that policy or subgroup in messaging).

Here's a crucial point: Although people of different 'tribes' will readily learn tolerance of each other when they are in position to actually develop personal relationships with each other, mere casual exposure to different 'tribes' often has the opposite effect because it triggers our in group/out group response.  Democrats need to STOP spending so much message time actively highlighting how diverse the nation and start focusing messaging more on the commonalities of their constituency. (Successful Dem candidates tend to not fall into this trap as much...e.g., Obama and Bill Clinton).

Incidentally, one of the things that I find perplexing about the current Dem struggle for Party Chair is one leading contender, Keith Ellison, is almost perfectly designed to symbolize the more problematic form of messaging: he's a black Muslim.  Now, I personally admire Ellison, and for all I know he'd be a great party leader...but the only way the Dems could more aggressively broadcast the the messaging problem I noted above in the form of an individual person, is if Keith was also transgender LOL.  I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be a better choice, but Ellison seems an ironic front-runner given the views of the swing voters of the Midwest who just kicked the Dems out of power.

3. There is a really interesting book out The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt, that I think should be required reading for all politically active liberals.  He posits that ethical and moral principles that underlie our worldviews cluster around six fundamental ideas: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Haidt says that people who identify as conservative tend to place more equal 'weight' across all six ideas when forming their ethical principles and worldview, whereas people who identify as liberal tend to dramatically weight only two (fairness and care) and can be downright dismissive of some of the others (incidentally, as a left-leaning centrist, I personally fit Haidt's formula).  Caveats aside, I suspect Haidt is really onto something in terms of how the two parties 'message' to activate their base. He says conservatives campaign on messages that seek to activate emotions associated with all six ideas; whereas liberals campaign on messages that tend to focus excessively on fairness/care. This works fine to activate the most liberal voters, but swing voters and moderates would likely be more responsive to more 'balanced' messaging.

4. Finally, in terms of policy, I think the tiresomely smug Thomas Frank is correct yet again. The Dems have more or less practically abandoned the working class (of all races) that used to be their base vote. Their policies and messaging are now much more heavily directed squarely at MY demographic: college-educated, upper-middle income, creative class people. They need to actually pursue and message more policies that truly help the working class and the lower middle, and not worry so much about my demo (which is still doing ok in this country).

Ok, Dem strategists, give me a call!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 30, 2016, 04:44:17 AM
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Hey, thanks for proving me wrong.  I guess you and SisterX can argue over whether he means what he says or not; it seems that some people believe some of the things he said (but not all) and other people believe other things he said (though not all.)  I've always assumed he meant the crazy shit he's said, though I trusted the checks and balances of the government would keep him from accomplishing them.
Quote
Quote
Also, I feel that comparisons are valid. When one throws out a claim like "Trump will exacerbate climate change." It should be qualified

Okay, I'll qualify it.  Trump will not only fail to try to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions the way Obama has, I think he'll actively try to increase them.  He's already talking about opening up national parks and wildlife refuges to oil drilling.  He loves fracking.  He actively opposes renewable energy, regardless of price.  He appointed the head of Exxon to be Secretary of State.  He's setting the stage to be quantifiably worse for global climate than any President in US history.

I guess if one can pick the dates, one could say Obama has reduced greenhouse gas emissions during his presidency. But really the trend has been upwards since he took office, and the downward trend over the last few years has been argued to be at least partially due to fracking allowing far more nat. gas to be burned and thus offsetting some worse fuel sources.

I was not intending to argue Trump will be good for global climate; just that he'll be as terrible as everyone else before him. I agree it sucks that no one is doing anything about climate change, but any affect Trump has will be minor noise as Americans and other developed countries continue to spew such massive amounts of carbon into the air.
Quote
Quote
honestly, if Trump ends some of Obama's most terrible policies, without burning the place down in the process, I would totally consider having elected an idiot narcissist to have some positive aspects.

What policies would those be?  If you're keen on "qualify it" then let's talk details.  Which of Obama's policies do you want Trump to overturn, and how many of those policy changes would be required for you to consider Trump's presidency to be a success?  Are you ceding any concurrent negative consequences that might  offset those benefits, like if you support overturning the One China policy then does a trade war with China offset improved relations with Taiwan?

Great question!

Overarching point: I'm not sure how to quantify presidential 'success'. I don't really expect Trump to save the whole world, or bring peace to the middle east or cure cancer or anything. He'll likely be better than others in some areas, and worse in many others. So again, if the world doesn't end up in flames through the direct actions of Donald Trump, I'll give him credit for participation and hope the next person does even better. So since there's no objective scorecard, I don't think it would be fair to grade for 'success'; obviously the negatives of each action need to be taken into consideration with the positives; the world doesn't operate in a vacuum. 

As for specific policies:

Stop fucking assassinating American citizens abroad without trial. Just stop it. JesustittyfuckingChrist.
Stop droning fucking civilians around the world.
Close GITMO. Just close it. - (EDIT: I now see Trump claims he wishes to do literally the exact opposite of this. :( )
ACA individual mandate - if there is literally no way to provide good insurance to people who want it without forcing people who don't want it to have it, then get rid of insurance. If everyone needs to pay for healthcare, then just fucking go single payer. Enriching insurance companies doesn't help people, just their shareholders.  What a damn mess.

So there's a quick list of some foreign and some domestic policies I would hope to see improved.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 30, 2016, 04:56:46 AM

When Democrats Republicans do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right Left doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

I think this could apply to both parties.  While Democrats have been known to 'lose so goddamned always', and to mess things up when they do get a shot, it's not as if Republicans are immune.

This is why I may often agree with a person but not their party of choice, or may disagree with a candidate while supporting the positive aspects of their policies. I look forward to a day when simple party affiliation is not the beginning and end of political debates.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on December 30, 2016, 05:47:35 AM
For those of you living in conservative areas and would like to make an impact, this is a good read created by former congressional staffers. Details how the tea party was successful in getting their message across, and how we can start to do the same.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview

I mention conservative areas because a lot of the success of this relies on opposition to Republican representatives. I live in an area that's liberal and has a liberal Dem rep, so there's only so much I can do to disrupt.

I appreciate your post. But I really wonder if facts and clear concise use of the English language is really the way to combat the seething pitchfork carrying portion of the Right in conservative areas in our "post truth" 24 hour news cycle world? How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

Democrats continue this strategy. They win every once in a while, but the overt trend is to lose elections, especially important positions of power. Only barely holding onto governance is not winning.  Being civil to our opponents and responding rationally has lost not only the presidency but swaths of state and local elections, which they totally forgot about. How do you combat a fact-free driven emotional decision making electorate with fact? These people don't participate with thoughtful helpful comments and decency. There are no Left answers to the foaming at the mouth ultra conservative and neo-nazi Right radio programs and websites and how can there be?

When Democrats do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

Back to the topic of this thread...If a government can make up it's own facts as Trump can and will, Democrats will continue to be herded like cats and they will always lose. Republicans will mob our government with their lies, change positions when needed and deny everything previously said like our next Commander in Chief.

After remembering our President Elect's title will be Commander in Chief I remember how truly fucked we are for the next decades of washing off the shit stank of this presidency.

I'm not sure that the overt trend is for Dems to lose elections.  If you look at who has held Congress, Senate and Presidency since 1981 it's actually fairly balanced.  And looking back over the last hundred years, Dems have held more than Republicans.  Also, looking back on the five Democratic Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson and JFK) - you get four who won by being idealists and one who won by getting in the mud (Johnson).  The two before that, Truman and FDR, FDR won by being an idealist and I truly have no thoughts on Truman.   Also Dems seem to do better after Republicans screwed things up, it is surprising that Obama won after the 2007 Recession, Clinton won after the S&L debacle, FDR won after the Depression and Carter won after the Nixon craziness?  I do agree with Sol, Dems need to learn how to get in the mud again, the blatant lies spewed by Fox News and their ilk has to be met and I don't think it will be met by going high.   

The thing that concerns me is that the Republicans have held Congress, Senate and the Presidency for over three years only three times since 1901 - the years leading up to 2007 and the Great Recession, the years leading up to the Depression and the years leading up to the Panic of 1907 which if I read my history correctly fit in between the other two with how devastating it was.  The other stuff matters also - climate, minority rights, Ryan and Pence gleefully taking apart the safety net, but another economic disaster would impact those groups/causes even more. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on December 30, 2016, 06:05:38 AM

When Democrats Republicans do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right Left doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

I think this could apply to both parties.  While Democrats have been known to 'lose so goddamned always', and to mess things up when they do get a shot, it's not as if Republicans are immune.

This is why I may often agree with a person but not their party of choice, or may disagree with a candidate while supporting the positive aspects of their policies. I look forward to a day when simple party affiliation is not the beginning and end of political debates.
It was like that when I was a child, so less than 30 years ago. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on December 30, 2016, 06:16:57 AM
Quote
Practically speaking, I think the problems liberals (and specifically Democrats) have getting and keeping political power are as follows:

1) Many liberals (from big donors to your average citizen activist) seem to only be attracted to the 'sexy' or 'social' aspects of politics (e.g., this upcoming women's march on Washington). Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics (e.g., women's reproductive rights, LBGT rights, combating climate change, protesting big banks). There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I haven't seen much evidence that it works in the modern political era. I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything.  You know what DOES accomplish things? What the conservatives do, which is learn every boring detail of  local political process, start at ground zero, and mobilize the hell out their voters to take over ALL the offices at the local level. Then move the game up and out. With each step, conservatives have been able to make changes to procedural rules that solidify their gains and make it easier to hold those gains in the future.  And because they organize so much better than liberals, they naturally have a MUCH deeper and better prepared bench of up and coming 'talent'. That is why they now hold the vast majority of state and local offices across the country.

To sum up: Conservatives are much better than liberals at making plans that take decades of work to pay off, limiting themselves to a smaller number of achievable goals, and then busting their asses for years to reach those goals. To sum up, conservatives possess much more interest in, and tolerance for, the dirty, boring, day to day grind of building a political machine than liberals seem to.

2) Liberals seem to fundamentally misunderstand certain things about human nature despite being perpetually smacked in the face with them. Humans are wired to respond to emotion first and reason second. Also, humans are wired to be tribal, to discount the long term, and to view resources as somewhat 'zero-sum' (whether they are or not). It's our default to separate ourselves into in-groups and out-groups using the most obvious criteria at hand.  If nothing obvious is at hand, we will look for something to use to self-sort, even if that criterion is totally meaningless (as Dr. Seuss well knew). And the more Democrats talk about each special-snowflake subgroup of their potential coalition, celebrate their uniqueness, and talk about how special policies should be in place for each group, the more their message divides the electorate. (Note: I didn't say Dems shouldn't create the policies to help certain subgroups that need it, only that they shouldn't focus on the narrowness or specialness of that policy or subgroup in messaging).

Here's a crucial point: Although people of different 'tribes' will readily learn tolerance of each other when they are in position to actually develop personal relationships with each other, mere casual exposure to different 'tribes' often has the opposite effect because it triggers our in group/out group response.  Democrats need to STOP spending so much message time actively highlighting how diverse the nation and start focusing messaging more on the commonalities of their constituency. (Successful Dem candidates tend to not fall into this trap as much...e.g., Obama and Bill Clinton).

Incidentally, one of the things that I find perplexing about the current Dem struggle for Party Chair is one leading contender, Keith Ellison, is almost perfectly designed to symbolize the more problematic form of messaging: he's a black Muslim.  Now, I personally admire Ellison, and for all I know he'd be a great party leader...but the only way the Dems could more aggressively broadcast the the messaging problem I noted above in the form of an individual person, is if Keith was also transgender LOL.  I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be a better choice, but Ellison seems an ironic front-runner given the views of the swing voters of the Midwest who just kicked the Dems out of power.

3. There is a really interesting book out The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt, that I think should be required reading for all politically active liberals.  He posits that ethical and moral principles that underlie our worldviews cluster around six fundamental ideas: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Haidt says that people who identify as conservative tend to place more equal 'weight' across all six ideas when forming their ethical principles and worldview, whereas people who identify as liberal tend to dramatically weight only two (fairness and care) and can be downright dismissive of some of the others (incidentally, as a left-leaning centrist, I personally fit Haidt's formula).  Caveats aside, I suspect Haidt is really onto something in terms of how the two parties 'message' to activate their base. He says conservatives campaign on messages that seek to activate emotions associated with all six ideas; whereas liberals campaign on messages that tend to focus excessively on fairness/care. This works fine to activate the most liberal voters, but swing voters and moderates would likely be more responsive to more 'balanced' messaging.

4. Finally, in terms of policy, I think the tiresomely smug Thomas Frank is correct yet again. The Dems have more or less practically abandoned the working class (of all races) that used to be their base vote. Their policies and messaging are now much more heavily directed squarely at MY demographic: college-educated, upper-middle income, creative class people. They need to actually pursue and message more policies that truly help the working class and the lower middle, and not worry so much about my demo (which is still doing ok in this country).

Ok, Dem strategists, give me a call!

There is a lot of truth here.  I find it interesting that one of Obama's stated goals when leaving the presidency is to "mentor" the left and try to develop new talent.  It concerned me a bit that the two main Democratic presidential candidates were 69 and 74. 

The identity politics of the left also needs to die, for a lot of reasons.  It is a fundamentally flawed strategy that appeals more  to people's narcissism and victimhood instead of the welfare of all citizens.  There was a good interview that Obama did with Ta-Nahesi Coates where he pushed back on the idea that he didn't do enough to help black people.  He argued that he put through more universal programs like Obamacare because those were what would have a chance of passing, not specific programs tied to demographic groups. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lbmustache on December 30, 2016, 12:45:25 PM
How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

I don't really know the answer to your broader question, but we have several pretty spectacular answers to this part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

Practically speaking, I think the problems liberals (and specifically Democrats) have getting and keeping political power are as follows:

1) Many liberals (from big donors to your average citizen activist) seem to only be attracted to the 'sexy' or 'social' aspects of politics (e.g., this upcoming women's march on Washington). Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics (e.g., women's reproductive rights, LBGT rights, combating climate change, protesting big banks). There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I haven't seen much evidence that it works in the modern political era. I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything.  You know what DOES accomplish things? What the conservatives do, which is learn every boring detail of  local political process, start at ground zero, and mobilize the hell out their voters to take over ALL the offices at the local level. Then move the game up and out. With each step, conservatives have been able to make changes to procedural rules that solidify their gains and make it easier to hold those gains in the future.  And because they organize so much better than liberals, they naturally have a MUCH deeper and better prepared bench of up and coming 'talent'. That is why they now hold the vast majority of state and local offices across the country.

To sum up: Conservatives are much better than liberals at making plans that take decades of work to pay off, limiting themselves to a smaller number of achievable goals, and then busting their asses for years to reach those goals. To sum up, conservatives possess much more interest in, and tolerance for, the dirty, boring, day to day grind of building a political machine than liberals seem to.

2) Liberals seem to fundamentally misunderstand certain things about human nature despite being perpetually smacked in the face with them. Humans are wired to respond to emotion first and reason second. Also, humans are wired to be tribal, to discount the long term, and to view resources as somewhat 'zero-sum' (whether they are or not). It's our default to separate ourselves into in-groups and out-groups using the most obvious criteria at hand.  If nothing obvious is at hand, we will look for something to use to self-sort, even if that criterion is totally meaningless (as Dr. Seuss well knew). And the more Democrats talk about each special-snowflake subgroup of their potential coalition, celebrate their uniqueness, and talk about how special policies should be in place for each group, the more their message divides the electorate. (Note: I didn't say Dems shouldn't create the policies to help certain subgroups that need it, only that they shouldn't focus on the narrowness or specialness of that policy or subgroup in messaging).

Here's a crucial point: Although people of different 'tribes' will readily learn tolerance of each other when they are in position to actually develop personal relationships with each other, mere casual exposure to different 'tribes' often has the opposite effect because it triggers our in group/out group response.  Democrats need to STOP spending so much message time actively highlighting how diverse the nation and start focusing messaging more on the commonalities of their constituency. (Successful Dem candidates tend to not fall into this trap as much...e.g., Obama and Bill Clinton).

Incidentally, one of the things that I find perplexing about the current Dem struggle for Party Chair is one leading contender, Keith Ellison, is almost perfectly designed to symbolize the more problematic form of messaging: he's a black Muslim.  Now, I personally admire Ellison, and for all I know he'd be a great party leader...but the only way the Dems could more aggressively broadcast the the messaging problem I noted above in the form of an individual person, is if Keith was also transgender LOL.  I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be a better choice, but Ellison seems an ironic front-runner given the views of the swing voters of the Midwest who just kicked the Dems out of power.

3. There is a really interesting book out The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt, that I think should be required reading for all politically active liberals.  He posits that ethical and moral principles that underlie our worldviews cluster around six fundamental ideas: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Haidt says that people who identify as conservative tend to place more equal 'weight' across all six ideas when forming their ethical principles and worldview, whereas people who identify as liberal tend to dramatically weight only two (fairness and care) and can be downright dismissive of some of the others (incidentally, as a left-leaning centrist, I personally fit Haidt's formula).  Caveats aside, I suspect Haidt is really onto something in terms of how the two parties 'message' to activate their base. He says conservatives campaign on messages that seek to activate emotions associated with all six ideas; whereas liberals campaign on messages that tend to focus excessively on fairness/care. This works fine to activate the most liberal voters, but swing voters and moderates would likely be more responsive to more 'balanced' messaging.

4. Finally, in terms of policy, I think the tiresomely smug Thomas Frank is correct yet again. The Dems have more or less practically abandoned the working class (of all races) that used to be their base vote. Their policies and messaging are now much more heavily directed squarely at MY demographic: college-educated, upper-middle income, creative class people. They need to actually pursue and message more policies that truly help the working class and the lower middle, and not worry so much about my demo (which is still doing ok in this country).

Ok, Dem strategists, give me a call!

I agree with all of this, especially the part about Democrats/liberals mobilization (or lack thereof).

It's one of the reasons I posted the link above. While I think that some of it - as others have rightly pointed out - is like, "good luck hopefully things will turn out our way," it does talk about putting in the work and starting at the city or county level, especially with regards to knowing your representative and being there to ask questions or protest. However we will need to do more than protest this time around.

"Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics ...  I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything." - I personally fell into the trap myself, I donated to Obama and made a few calls, and once he won I was like well! My work is done here, let me kick back for 8 years. This election was a wakeup call to myself, and hopefully others.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lbmustache on December 30, 2016, 12:59:12 PM
Overall, I'd agree we are getting more socially liberal.  Seems like we are getting more fiscally conservative.  But none of this is based on actual polls -- any anecdotal remarks here will be skewed based on your location and social circle, no?
Well, I think "divided" would indicate that people feel more strongly about their beliefs and opinions, and are less willing to compromise on them - not necessarily that we as a whole are skewing heavily to one political extreme or another. But yes you are correct in that Americans seem to be leaning towards social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Theoretically speaking, why can't Democrats be "fiscally conservative" (lower case "f") by rebranding the idea? Is it not fiscally conservative that a lot of Democratic policies actually save money in the long term? Government programs are cheaper than private industry doing the same job. Why can't we reduce the military budget for stupid shit, fraud waste and abuse? Who on a forum about finances not like the idea of reducing government debt? Why does this have to be an idea from the Right? Why do Democrats suck so bad at the message?

It's the way the message is delivered sure, but I think this also goes back to your previous post:

"But I really wonder if facts and clear concise use of the English language is really the way to combat the seething pitchfork carrying portion of the Right in conservative areas in our "post truth" 24 hour news cycle world? ...  Being civil to our opponents and responding rationally has lost not only the presidency but swaths of state and local elections, which they totally forgot about. How do you combat a fact-free driven emotional decision making electorate with fact?"

The basis of the argument that you are proposing - that government programs are more fiscally responsible - is a logical one. You would have to tell people that a program, let's say ACA, is going to cost $x billion or trillion now, and there are going to be some bumps in the road (rising premiums, insurers pulling out), but in 20 years we'll see healthier people and that will mean less money spent and the world will be a better place and blahblahblah. Like wenchsenior mentioned, most tend to not see things long-term and rather see what is right in front of them. Add to this the fact that people respond emotionally. Add the fact that a lot of people seem to see "big government," "socialism," etc. as fundamentally bad.

Arguing for more government programs - in terms of of an emotional, short-term "now" argument - I'm not sure how it could be done.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 31, 2016, 06:51:01 AM
The basis of the argument that you are proposing - that government programs are more fiscally responsible - is a logical one. You would have to tell people that a program, let's say ACA, is going to cost $x billion or trillion now, and there are going to be some bumps in the road (rising premiums, insurers pulling out), but in 20 years we'll see healthier people and that will mean less money spent and the world will be a better place and blahblahblah. Like wenchsenior mentioned, most tend to not see things long-term and rather see what is right in front of them. Add to this the fact that people respond emotionally. Add the fact that a lot of people seem to see "big government," "socialism," etc. as fundamentally bad.

Arguing for more government programs - in terms of of an emotional, short-term "now" argument - I'm not sure how it could be done.

I think one good step would be to be honest. "Yes this is going to cost a shit ton of money; no the effects are not going to be seen for quite awhile and be hard to measure even then, and there are going to be bumps in the road but overall everyone will be healthier and the country will be measurably better for it."

Instead of lies like "This will save everyone $2,500 a year and everything will go smoothly and all healthcare issues will be covered and you can keep your doctor." (For example).

Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism can coexist; but there is still a balancing act between those two actions. Everyone falls along the continuum of which is more important, but being dishonest or blind to the real costs of policies does not do any favors to the people that are affected by, or support, said policies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on December 31, 2016, 10:56:19 AM
The basis of the argument that you are proposing - that government programs are more fiscally responsible - is a logical one. You would have to tell people that a program, let's say ACA, is going to cost $x billion or trillion now, and there are going to be some bumps in the road (rising premiums, insurers pulling out), but in 20 years we'll see healthier people and that will mean less money spent and the world will be a better place and blahblahblah. Like wenchsenior mentioned, most tend to not see things long-term and rather see what is right in front of them. Add to this the fact that people respond emotionally. Add the fact that a lot of people seem to see "big government," "socialism," etc. as fundamentally bad.

Arguing for more government programs - in terms of of an emotional, short-term "now" argument - I'm not sure how it could be done.

I think one good step would be to be honest. "Yes this is going to cost a shit ton of money; no the effects are not going to be seen for quite awhile and be hard to measure even then, and there are going to be bumps in the road but overall everyone will be healthier and the country will be measurably better for it."

Instead of lies like "This will save everyone $2,500 a year and everything will go smoothly and all healthcare issues will be covered and you can keep your doctor." (For example).

Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism can coexist; but there is still a balancing act between those two actions. Everyone falls along the continuum of which is more important, but being dishonest or blind to the real costs of policies does not do any favors to the people that are affected by, or support, said policies.

+1. Well said. Although I'm not sure using your first quote would be effective in the era where gaslighting/spreading fake news is considered a perfectly acceptable tactic. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 31, 2016, 11:35:32 AM
+1. Well said. Although I'm not sure using your first quote would be effective in the era where gaslighting/spreading fake news is considered a perfectly acceptable tactic.

Well, hopefully the people writing and suggesting policies are more diplomatic than I. :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 31, 2016, 11:41:53 AM
Well, hopefully the people writing and suggesting policies are more diplomatic than I. :)

Not so much, those people gave us "build the wall" and "lock her up" and "drain the swamp" and I suspect that three syllables is the maximum capacity for detailed policy analysis provided by these folks.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on December 31, 2016, 11:55:30 AM
Well, hopefully the people writing and suggesting policies are more diplomatic than I. :)

Not so much, those people gave us "build the wall" and "lock her up" and "drain the swamp" and I suspect that three syllables is the maximum capacity for detailed policy analysis provided by these folks.

Well, these polices also seem to fail the 'honesty' part of the equation that I mentioned earlier. So there is obviously much room for improvement.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on December 31, 2016, 01:49:02 PM
Germany, in the 20th century, survived defeat in two world wars, a fascist dictatorship, and a communist dictatorship in 1/2 the country.  They, as a society, lived to tell about it.  Hopefully we will too.

And they're actually doing really well, aren't they. Strongest economy in Europe, very socially liberal, excellent safety net for the poor (disabled, working poor, starving artists, aspiring entrepreneurs etc.), excellent health care, excellent education system. Not to mention their astonishingly beautiful response to the Syrian refugee crisis last year.

Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on December 31, 2016, 01:51:07 PM
Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

Yea!  Let's perpetrate a global war and racial genocide so that we can have a heartwarming comeback story too!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on December 31, 2016, 01:51:37 PM
Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics (e.g., women's reproductive rights, LBGT rights, combating climate change, protesting big banks). There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I haven't seen much evidence that it works in the modern political era. I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything.  You know what DOES accomplish things? What the conservatives do, which is learn every boring detail of  local political process, start at ground zero, and mobilize the hell out their voters to take over ALL the offices at the local level. Then move the game up and out. With each step, conservatives have been able to make changes to procedural rules that solidify their gains and make it easier to hold those gains in the future.  And because they organize so much better than liberals, they naturally have a MUCH deeper and better prepared bench of up and coming 'talent'. That is why they now hold the vast majority of state and local offices across the country.

You've hit the nail on the head. And on a side note, you've explained why I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the Greens, Libertarians or any other U.S. third parties. They don't want to do the work--they just want to run a doomed presidential campaign every four years and complain about how unfaaaaaaaair it is that the "system" is stacked against them. Yeah, it's stacked against political movements that refuse to do what works.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on December 31, 2016, 02:14:18 PM
Germany, in the 20th century, survived defeat in two world wars, a fascist dictatorship, and a communist dictatorship in 1/2 the country.  They, as a society, lived to tell about it.  Hopefully we will too.

And they're actually doing really well, aren't they. Strongest economy in Europe, very socially liberal, excellent safety net for the poor (disabled, working poor, starving artists, aspiring entrepreneurs etc.), excellent health care, excellent education system. Not to mention their astonishingly beautiful response to the Syrian refugee crisis last year.

Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children...  no thanks, I'm going to remain clearly in the camp that I oppose Trump at every incremental turn I disagree with and leave my skepticism that 'it'll all be OK' as an upside if I'm wrong 4 or 8 years from now.  Unless, of course, Trump manages to get a 3rd term since I'm beginning to think that even at 78 years of age people will continue to excuse reasonable doubt. 

There are plenty of areas in life where optimism and hope are exactly the right antidote to creating the change you want.  I guess I'm not seeing how optimism and hope fit with Trump changing some of the most important qualities of American life for the better.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: tralfamadorian on December 31, 2016, 07:09:37 PM
saw this today-

John (while writing Revelations): "So Lord, the end will be signaled by trumpets?"

God: "No... I said Trump/Pence."

John: "Yeah, trumpets."

God: "Never mind. They'll know." 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: purple monkey on December 31, 2016, 08:00:54 PM
Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

Yea!  Let's perpetrate a global war and racial genocide so that we can have a heartwarming comeback story too!

Bow to you Sol!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 01, 2017, 05:20:33 PM
saw this today-

John (while writing Revelations): "So Lord, the end will be signaled by trumpets?"

God: "No... I said Trump/Pence."

John: "Yeah, trumpets."

God: "Never mind. They'll know."

That's hilarious.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 01, 2017, 08:22:38 PM
Yet another important act of a Trump presidency.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 01, 2017, 10:14:22 PM
saw this today-

John (while writing Revelations): "So Lord, the end will be signaled by trumpets?"

God: "No... I said Trump/Pence."

John: "Yeah, trumpets."

God: "Never mind. They'll know."

I have to admit, I literally laughed out loud. My daughter asked me, "what are you laughing about?!" so I showed this to her, and she started laughing too.  My wife didn't see the humor so much.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on January 02, 2017, 08:01:19 AM
Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

Yea!  Let's perpetrate a global war and racial genocide so that we can have a heartwarming comeback story too!

Don't be an idiot, Sol. The point is that a country can come back from the dark side relatively quickly (Germany's been in good shape since at least the 1970s).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on January 02, 2017, 08:05:39 AM
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children...  no thanks, I'm going to remain clearly in the camp that I oppose Trump at every incremental turn

Uh, me too. My vision board features photos of Trump, Ryan and Pence superimposed on an image of the flaming Hindenburg. They lost by almost 3 million votes, "won" on a technicality and thus have absolutely no mandate whatsoever, to do anything. If Democratic members of Congress were listening to me my message would be, "Block those fuckers at every turn. Four years of gridlock is preferable to anything they will ever propose. Oh, and put a trauma team and a heart/lung machine in the Supreme Court building--we will keep RBG alive NO MATTER WHAT!"

There are plenty of areas in life where optimism and hope are exactly the right antidote to creating the change you want.  I guess I'm not seeing how optimism and hope fit with Trump changing some of the most important qualities of American life for the better.

The point is to not completely and utterly lose hope, because loss of hope can sap the will to keep fighting.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 02, 2017, 09:27:47 AM
Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

Yea!  Let's perpetrate a global war and racial genocide so that we can have a heartwarming comeback story too!

Don't be an idiot, Sol. The point is that a country can come back from the dark side relatively quickly (Germany's been in good shape since at least the 1970s).

Don't violate Rule #1 of the forum.

Sol's point, and it is a good one, is that to cheerfully say we can come back from the dark side "relatively quickly" seems horrifically cold, when the tone seems to complacently shrug shoulders at the horrors that so many individuals suffered in the process. It's a tone that speaks of reading about the history from a book, in front of a warm fire with a lovely mug of something, at a very comfortable remove.

People in the present can observe things unfolding from a comfortable remove, as well, if they feel fairly certain the brunt of the impact won't be felt by them too much.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 03, 2017, 12:27:38 PM
Ford cancels 1.6B Mexico plant:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-cancels-1-6-billion-160903623.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-cancels-1-6-billion-160903623.html)

Pretty interesting news and one of the largest that is directly attributable to our President Elect.  I consider reduction of offshoring a positive for the US economy.  I agree that it will likely be more automation and less overall jobs than there would have been in Mexico, but that brings a different (and better) type of job to the US.

Not replying to this news specifically, but in general there are lots of conflicting details emerging, and I think this is going to be the trend with any of the hyperbolic headlines in the coming years.  It is a useful tactic, to blow people's minds with a statement, and then put all of the disclaimers in the small print.  For example, with this news story -

Quote
To be sure, Ford acknowledged that it would still move production of the next-generation Focus sedan to Mexico, as previously announced. But it will be built at an existing plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, not at a new facility.

And spin like - "We've seen our jobs go overseas," UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles said. "It's evident today that Ford is rewarding us for our hard work."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/01/03/ford-motor-co-donald-trump-mexico-us/96106334/

And just in general, using common-sense economics, playing the tariff game and stifling the free market ultimately results in one or all of:  increased cost, longer schedule, lower quality, and/or reduced choice.  I'm one of those folks perpetually amazed by the ability of markets to self-organize and drive efficiency, so putting a bunch of extra tariffs and politics into American manufacturing is not going to help make our products more competitive globally. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 03, 2017, 12:38:28 PM
Ford cancels 1.6B Mexico plant:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-cancels-1-6-billion-160903623.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-cancels-1-6-billion-160903623.html)

Pretty interesting news and one of the largest that is directly attributable to our President Elect.  I consider reduction of offshoring a positive for the US economy.  I agree that it will likely be more automation and less overall jobs than there would have been in Mexico, but that brings a different (and better) type of job to the US.

Not replying to this news specifically, but in general there are lots of conflicting details emerging, and I think this is going to be the trend with any of the hyperbolic headlines in the coming years.  It is a useful tactic, to blow people's minds with a statement, and then put all of the disclaimers in the small print.  For example, with this news story -

Quote
To be sure, Ford acknowledged that it would still move production of the next-generation Focus sedan to Mexico, as previously announced. But it will be built at an existing plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, not at a new facility.

And spin like - "We've seen our jobs go overseas," UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles said. "It's evident today that Ford is rewarding us for our hard work."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/01/03/ford-motor-co-donald-trump-mexico-us/96106334/

Pretty much every "announcement" of jobs or production coming back to the US has been hyperbole or previously announced, just being re-announced so that Trump can take credit.  This, the carrier plant and the T-Mobile (Sofbank owned company) expansion were all previously done deals that Trump has had no influence whatsoever on.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 03, 2017, 01:03:51 PM
The Ford plant is good short term news for the region, and indirectly attributable to Trump in the sense that Ford thought he would be more business friendly than Clinton.   However, they also said that it was due to market forces as well.

It's going to be one eye-rolling headline after the other.  Business will do what it always does and if they think that sucking up to Trump will put more dollars in their pocket, then they will do it.  It is pretty easy to figure out how to get on the guy's good side and use it to their advantage.  It's going to be a giant dick sucking contest.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 03, 2017, 01:57:22 PM
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on January 03, 2017, 02:04:38 PM
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.

Very true, sadly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 03, 2017, 02:31:32 PM
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.
What's kind of amazing is that many of us will look back fondly upon dubya after the next couple of years... Just like Tony Blair is looking real attractive in the UK right now....

I remember saying during the Dubya administration that Republican presidents seemed to get almost exponentially worse every time, and that I was sure the next one would make Dubya look decent by comparison. My own prescience terrifies me.

Now apply that truism to the next Republican president. I can't even imagine.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 03, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
Despite all the Trump hate and hyperbole about how "unprecedented" this election was, I can think of one other Republican President who called his opponents nasty names and reveled in stirring up controversy that swirled around his huge ego. That was Teddy Roosevelt, who is usually listed as a top 10 President.

Imagine Teddy with a Twitter account...Turns out you can find historical precedent for just about anything if you're willing to look back more than 30 years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 03, 2017, 03:06:06 PM
Despite all the Trump hate and hyperbole about how "unprecedented" this election was, I can think of one other Republican President who called his opponents nasty names and reveled in stirring up controversy that swirled around his huge ego. That was Teddy Roosevelt, who is usually listed as a top 10 President.

Personally I haven't seen anyone claim that Trump's name-calling was unprecedented, only that he's the first to use Twitter to do it (at least to this degree).  As you've alluded to, there have been lots of politicians who spent their careers attacking their opponents.  In terms of ego Trump's probably not very different from FDR, LBJ, Nixon or a half a dozen others.

What's unprecedented is that Trump comes to the position having never held public office nor been in the military.  FDR was in the military before being elected state rep before becoming governor of NY before being VP before running for president. Similar story for every one else to ever hold the office.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 03, 2017, 03:11:23 PM
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.
What's kind of amazing is that many of us will look back fondly upon dubya after the next couple of years... Just like Tony Blair is looking real attractive in the UK right now....

I'm looking back fondly on  him NOW, in comparison.  I said all the way through this election, I'd vote for W over Trump in a heartbeat if those were the choices. And I thought W was mostly unprecedentedly terrible.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on January 03, 2017, 03:30:56 PM
There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men. 

Gin, what you're clearly missing here is that those laws were passed by Republican legislatures and governors to protect women -- those frail, helpless damsels that were being killed and hurt by the thousands every day because of super-dangerous conditions in health clinics, because of vicious health practitioners who would "rip fetuses out of their wombs in the ninth month" like Trump said, to sell the body parts and leave the woman on the operating table to die, and because of all kinds of other horrors being committed. It was like a medieval torture dungeon in health clinics before these laws were created; women needed protection. They need health clinics that are up to the standards of a major trauma center in a large city hospital, even if they're only getting routine outpatient care like fixing an ingrown toenail. If a clinic is not up to those kinds of standards, close that mother*er down and have the woman go to an appropriate facility 700 miles away that will protect them.

Women need doctors to show them pictures of their fetus, make them listen to it. They need to have a doctor put an imaging rod in their vagina and do a trans-vaginal ultrasound (even if they think they don't want that), then make the woman look at the image so those ladies know what they're doing, because who else is going to protect those poor women from harm and from themselves? Republicans care about women. Without these new laws women could suffer all kinds of injustices and harm. THAT is why those laws have been created, as stated by the creators of such laws; they have NOTHING to do with restricting abortion or bodily autonomy.

<sarcasm>
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 03, 2017, 06:34:34 PM
Despite all the Trump hate and hyperbole about how "unprecedented" this election was, I can think of one other Republican President who called his opponents nasty names and reveled in stirring up controversy that swirled around his huge ego. That was Teddy Roosevelt, who is usually listed as a top 10 President.

Imagine Teddy with a Twitter account...Turns out you can find historical precedent for just about anything if you're willing to look back more than 30 years.

Sure, but that's not really why most of us here are horrified/terrified by Trump (except when he threatens decades of foreign policy and international relations through unvetted Twitter posts, anyway).

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 03, 2017, 08:33:43 PM

Sure, but that's not really why most of us here are horrified/terrified by Trump (except when he threatens decades of foreign policy and international relations through unvetted Twitter posts, anyway).


I'm welcoming some fresh foreign policy - the last couple of decades have left room for improvement. 

I'm hoping you aren't actually terrified - there is too much fear being spread around.

Terrified in an intellectual sense, sure. But perfectly happy and hopeful for the future in a more general sense.

New foreign policy is fine (even desirable), but not when issued off the top of the head by someone with no experience whatsoever on the topic who has still expressed admiration for many of our worst practices (e.g. waterboarding).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 04, 2017, 01:36:50 AM
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.
What's kind of amazing is that many of us will look back fondly upon dubya after the next couple of years... Just like Tony Blair is looking real attractive in the UK right now....
No, Dubya and Tony Blair still helped kill hundreds of thousands in an unnecessary and illegal war, and that can't be forgiven.  I do get a little bit of a feeling in the UK that perhaps Maggie is not the hate-figure she was (note: I don't live in a former coal-mining area, though).  Perhaps Ronald in the US?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 04, 2017, 03:37:23 AM

Sure, but that's not really why most of us here are horrified/terrified by Trump (except when he threatens decades of foreign policy and international relations through unvetted Twitter posts, anyway).


I'm welcoming some fresh foreign policy - the last couple of decades have left room for improvement. 

I'm hoping you aren't actually terrified - there is too much fear being spread around.

Terrified in an intellectual sense, sure. But perfectly happy and hopeful for the future in a more general sense.

New foreign policy is fine (even desirable), but not when issued off the top of the head by someone with no experience whatsoever on the topic who has still expressed admiration for many of our worst practices (e.g. waterboarding).

Well, at least on this particular subject, Trump has calimed to have evolved his views, thankfully.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 04, 2017, 05:35:15 AM

Sure, but that's not really why most of us here are horrified/terrified by Trump (except when he threatens decades of foreign policy and international relations through unvetted Twitter posts, anyway).


I'm welcoming some fresh foreign policy - the last couple of decades have left room for improvement. 

I'm hoping you aren't actually terrified - there is too much fear being spread around.

Terrified in an intellectual sense, sure. But perfectly happy and hopeful for the future in a more general sense.

New foreign policy is fine (even desirable), but not when issued off the top of the head by someone with no experience whatsoever on the topic who has still expressed admiration for many of our worst practices (e.g. waterboarding).

Well, at least on this particular subject, Trump has calimed to have evolved his views, thankfully.

Citation?  The most recent I can find is this, which says that Trump listened to Mattis on waterboarding but went on to say -

“I’m not saying it changed my mind about torture” and “if it’s so important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-waterboarding-new-york-times-still-in-favour-a7438976.html

Not so big a change of views.  The biggest so-called "democracy" in the world will yet again have a Head of State who would be prepared to order torture.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 04, 2017, 06:04:43 AM
Citation?  The most recent I can find is this, which says that Trump listened to Mattis on waterboarding but went on to say -

“I’m not saying it changed my mind about torture” and “if it’s so important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-waterboarding-new-york-times-still-in-favour-a7438976.html

Not so big a change of views.  The biggest so-called "democracy" in the world will yet again have a Head of State who would be prepared to order torture.

I guess I was referencing the Times and CNN, and Donald Trump which focused on Trump quoting: 'Trump quoted Gen Mattis as saying that “I’ve never found it [waterboarding] to be useful”.' and '(waterboarding) is not going to make the kind of difference that a lot of people are thinking.'

I can see how others would have different conclusions.

So we'll see what he orders, I guess. Currently the leader of the biggest Republic in the world orders extra-judicial assassinations of civilians around the world, so we do have a lot of ground to make up.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 04, 2017, 06:25:44 AM
Citation?  The most recent I can find is this, which says that Trump listened to Mattis on waterboarding but went on to say -

“I’m not saying it changed my mind about torture” and “if it’s so important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-waterboarding-new-york-times-still-in-favour-a7438976.html

Not so big a change of views.  The biggest so-called "democracy" in the world will yet again have a Head of State who would be prepared to order torture.

I guess I was referencing the Times and CNN, and Donald Trump which focused on Trump quoting: 'Trump quoted Gen Mattis as saying that “I’ve never found it [waterboarding] to be useful”.' and '(waterboarding) is not going to make the kind of difference that a lot of people are thinking.'

I can see how others would have different conclusions.

So we'll see what he orders, I guess. Currently the leader of the biggest Republic in the world orders extra-judicial assassinations of civilians around the world, so we do have a lot of ground to make up.
Yes, it's all about the reporting, isn't it?  The reports on Trump quoting Mattis were accurate but incomplete.  Including Trump's follow-on comments changes the outcome of the story.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 04, 2017, 06:26:59 AM
Yes, it's all about the reporting, isn't it?  The reports on Trump quoting Mattis were accurate but incomplete.  Including Trump's follow-on comments changes the outcome of the story.

With Trump, the only constant is that the story will change...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on January 04, 2017, 11:44:51 AM
Yes, it's all about the reporting, isn't it?  The reports on Trump quoting Mattis were accurate but incomplete.  Including Trump's follow-on comments changes the outcome of the story.

With Trump, the only constant is that the story will change...

Just in case we have had enough Godwin and everyone is tired of the Hitler comparisons, click this link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on January 05, 2017, 06:33:54 AM
With Trump, the only constant is that the story will change...

So true.  Now Trump is writing on Twitter that Republicans need to be careful and make sure Dems "own" the repeal of the ACA.  As much as I have hated the endless Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and as much as I fear it will extend my time at a full time job and as much as I hate will affect so many people that did not vote in the crowd that wanted to repeal it, a part of me is looking forward to the lesson many will soon learn of voting against one's own best interest and the best interest of the common good.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 05, 2017, 06:39:31 AM
Quote
Again, if it means so much to you, start that thread. It doesn't mean that much to myself, because I can manage with or without the ACA.

Thank you for finally coming clean and explaining yourself.  It sounds like you simply don't care much if, under Trump, people with pre-existing conditions will actually have access to healthcare at a reasonable cost.  That's a value judgement only you can make, and it sounds like you're good with it. 

This thread makes more sense now.  For a second, I thought you actually believed that Trump's proposed healthcare solutions would provide viable options for those with pre-existing conditions.  Thanks for clarifying. 
 

I don't see what he said as being any different than the people discussing how they or someone they know has a pre-existing condition.

ACA is fantastic for people with pre-existing conditions and provideds them with a health and financial benefit.

He obviously does not have a pre-exisiting condition and the means to pay for his own health care, so, he sees the ACA as just another cost imposed on him.

Everyone has their bias.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 05, 2017, 06:42:31 AM
With Trump, the only constant is that the story will change...

So true.  Now Trump is writing on Twitter that Republicans need to be careful and make sure Dems "own" the repeal of the ACA.  As much as I have hated the endless Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and as much as I fear it will extend my time at a full time job and as much as I hate will affect so many people that did not vote in the crowd that wanted to repeal it, a part of me is looking forward to the lesson many will soon learn of voting against one's own best interest and the best interest of the common good.

Well, remember that this summer there were enough democratic congress people who voted with republicans to get a repeal bill to President Obama's desk; if those votes are still there, it would technically be a bi-partisan effort to repeal/improve the ACA.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 05, 2017, 08:43:56 AM
With Trump, the only constant is that the story will change...

So true.  Now Trump is writing on Twitter that Republicans need to be careful and make sure Dems "own" the repeal of the ACA.  As much as I have hated the endless Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and as much as I fear it will extend my time at a full time job and as much as I hate will affect so many people that did not vote in the crowd that wanted to repeal it, a part of me is looking forward to the lesson many will soon learn of voting against one's own best interest and the best interest of the common good.

Well, remember that this summer there were enough democratic congress people who voted with republicans to get a repeal bill to President Obama's desk; if those votes are still there, it would technically be a bi-partisan effort to repeal/improve the ACA.

When the Republicans "repeal" and forget to "replace," it'll all be on their heads just like the federal government shutdowns. You're dreaming if you think otherwise because a handful of Democrats voted with them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 05, 2017, 09:20:15 AM
When the Republicans "repeal" and forget to "replace," it'll all be on their heads just like the federal government shutdowns. You're dreaming if you think otherwise because a handful of Democrats voted with them.

And yet they suffered little-to-no negative consequences for the shutdown.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 05, 2017, 09:23:52 AM
With Trump, the only constant is that the story will change...

So true.  Now Trump is writing on Twitter that Republicans need to be careful and make sure Dems "own" the repeal of the ACA.  As much as I have hated the endless Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and as much as I fear it will extend my time at a full time job and as much as I hate will affect so many people that did not vote in the crowd that wanted to repeal it, a part of me is looking forward to the lesson many will soon learn of voting against one's own best interest and the best interest of the common good.

Well, remember that this summer there were enough democratic congress people who voted with republicans to get a repeal bill to President Obama's desk; if those votes are still there, it would technically be a bi-partisan effort to repeal/improve the ACA.

When the Republicans "repeal" and forget to "replace," it'll all be on their heads just like the federal government shutdowns. You're dreaming if you think otherwise because a handful of Democrats voted with them.

I disagree. Humans have too short of an attention span. We see the past 8 years as the slowest recovery in history, not the biggest turnaround without sinking into a depression, possibly since the dawn of time. What even IS a depression? Very few have ever seen one. I have not.


I believe Republicans will cut funding while bypassing the filibuster. They will delay a few years to get past mid-terms. We are then left with unfunded Obamacare about 3 years from now. If the Democrats say no to the "replace", no matter how piss poor it might be for the sick, the poor, the middle class, it will still be better than absolutely nothing. If the replace fails to pass, it will rest FULLY on the Democrats. People will not see the plan as worse than Obamacare (it will be worse for some, better for others). They will see it as better than NOTHING and the election 4 years from now will move the Republicans past the filibuster count in the Senate. The ONLY way this could rest with the republicans is if they get EXACTLY what they want and it does not work out well. Democrats will not let that happen. Republicans have played a masterful political game and have won for the next quarter century. I hope I am wrong.

This is like watching a chess match between a Grandmaster and a toddler. The only one that doesn't know the end result from move one is the toddler.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 05, 2017, 10:19:47 AM
When the Republicans "repeal" and forget to "replace," it'll all be on their heads just like the federal government shutdowns. You're dreaming if you think otherwise because a handful of Democrats voted with them.

And yet they suffered little-to-no negative consequences for the shutdown.

If the repeal goes poorly I'm sure that will be reflected in the next voting cycle.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 05, 2017, 11:03:05 AM
Quote
FDR was in the military

You meant Teddy, right?

Anyway, all your points are valid. The only point I was making is that in 100 years when the Trump presidency is looked back upon, 95% of the statements and minor controversies that get everyone so riled up today will be utterly forgotten.

That said, I'm not optimistic that the 5% 'big picture' policies will be remembered fondly either...


Quote
Republicans have played a masterful political game and have won for the next quarter century. I hope I am wrong.

I think you're giving the endlessly fractious coalition of interests that constitute a major political party way too much credit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on January 05, 2017, 12:39:16 PM
When the Republicans "repeal" and forget to "replace," it'll all be on their heads just like the federal government shutdowns. You're dreaming if you think otherwise because a handful of Democrats voted with them.

And yet they suffered little-to-no negative consequences for the shutdown.
Because no one really suffered. Unless of course your camping trip was cancelled ;).

As much  I think redistribution of wealth is immoral I would be absolutely floored if they actually repealed it; your concerns are unwarranted.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on January 05, 2017, 07:25:45 PM
Quote
FDR was in the military

You meant Teddy, right?

Anyway, all your points are valid. The only point I was making is that in 100 years when the Trump presidency is looked back upon, 95% of the statements and minor controversies that get everyone so riled up today will be utterly forgotten.

That said, I'm not optimistic that the 5% 'big picture' policies will be remembered fondly either...


Quote
Republicans have played a masterful political game and have won for the next quarter century. I hope I am wrong.

I think you're giving the endlessly fractious coalition of interests that constitute a major political party way too much credit.

Agree with your points above, but would note that FDR attempted to serve in the military during World War I (he obviously wouldn't be fit for duty for WWII) but was denied as he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy at the time since he was deemed necessary personnel in that role. What part the fact that his family was super-rich and his uncle was Teddy Roosevelt played in the "denial" is unknown.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 06, 2017, 06:39:38 AM
When the Republicans "repeal" and forget to "replace," it'll all be on their heads just like the federal government shutdowns. You're dreaming if you think otherwise because a handful of Democrats voted with them.

And yet they suffered little-to-no negative consequences for the shutdown.
Because no one really suffered. Unless of course your camping trip was cancelled ;).

As much  I think redistribution of wealth is immoral I would be absolutely floored if they actually repealed it; your concerns are unwarranted.

There was that whole veterans memorial thing too. Silly political games. Wasn't Obamas finest moment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 06, 2017, 08:46:01 AM
There was that whole veterans memorial thing too. Silly political games. Wasn't Obamas finest moment.

Why was it Obama's fault when Congress couldn't get its shit together? 

That government shutdown was a legislative branch problem.  Obama bears no more responsibility for it than does the Supreme Court, but for some reason I don't see you blaming them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 06, 2017, 09:35:48 AM
There was that whole veterans memorial thing too. Silly political games. Wasn't Obamas finest moment.

Why was it Obama's fault when Congress couldn't get its shit together? 

That government shutdown was a legislative branch problem.  Obama bears no more responsibility for it than does the Supreme Court, but for some reason I don't see you blaming them.

Sol, if there's one thing you should have learned in the last eight years, it's that everything is Obama's fault. #thanksobama
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 06, 2017, 09:39:43 AM
There was that whole veterans memorial thing too. Silly political games. Wasn't Obamas finest moment.

Why was it Obama's fault when Congress couldn't get its shit together? 

That government shutdown was a legislative branch problem.  Obama bears no more responsibility for it than does the Supreme Court, but for some reason I don't see you blaming them.

Sol, if there's one thing you should have learned in the last eight years, it's that everything is Obama's fault. #thanksobama

This is all I can ever think of when someone says "Thanks, Obama"

(http://i.giphy.com/3opR8lbAcghYQ.gif)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 06, 2017, 09:51:02 AM
I thought the last eight years everything was Bush's fault? The upcoming years Obama will get the blame. haha
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 06, 2017, 10:17:15 AM
I thought the last eight years everything was Bush's fault? The upcoming years Obama will get the blame. haha

Nope. All the backsliding we did from 2000-2008 is on the Bush administration. No way would I let Bush take credit for the job growth and economic improvement of the last eight years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 06, 2017, 02:57:05 PM
The worst part of all of this is now guarantee we have to watch another election cycle where Trump is the focus...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 06, 2017, 03:29:25 PM
There was that whole veterans memorial thing too. Silly political games. Wasn't Obamas finest moment.

Why was it Obama's fault when Congress couldn't get its shit together? 

That government shutdown was a legislative branch problem.  Obama bears no more responsibility for it than does the Supreme Court, but for some reason I don't see you blaming them.

You are confusing the overall shut down with specific closures instructed by the administration.
 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 06, 2017, 05:09:33 PM
The worst part of all of this is now guarantee we have to watch another election cycle where Trump is the focus...
Oh goodness, don't remind us of what is going to happen in 4 years...

Probably in 8 years, also; if you think about it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 06, 2017, 06:09:17 PM
You are confusing the overall shut down with specific closures instructed by the administration.

The "specific closures" are determined by each agency, not by the President.  I was "non-essential" for example, so I had to sit home. 

I was unhappy about it, but I certainly didn't think to blame Obama for it.  Everything was closed except for public health and safety personnel, basically.  No one "ordered" anything in particular to shut down.  Everything shut down, unless it was given specific instructions to stay open for safety reasons that supposedly warranted indefinite deficit spending.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 06, 2017, 06:20:17 PM
You are confusing the overall shut down with specific closures instructed by the administration.

The "specific closures" are determined by each agency, not by the President.  I was "non-essential" for example, so I had to sit home. 

I was unhappy about it, but I certainly didn't think to blame Obama for it.  Everything was closed except for public health and safety personnel, basically.  No one "ordered" anything in particular to shut down.  Everything shut down, unless it was given specific instructions to stay open for safety reasons that supposedly warranted indefinite deficit spending.

Sorry, i was mis remebering. It was the Democratic contolled senate who refused to pass H.J . resolution 70, and not the president specifically.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 06, 2017, 06:23:34 PM
Sorry, i was mis remebering. It was the Democratic contolled senate who refused to pass H.J . resolution 70, and not the president specifically.

Funny, I remember it as the Republican minority that attached an ACA repeal amendment to the federal budget bill, while the Democrats wanted to pass a clean funding bill.  Ted Cruz was on TV!

But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 06, 2017, 06:26:24 PM
Sorry, i was mis remebering. It was the Democratic contolled senate who refused to pass H.J . resolution 70, and not the president specifically.

Funny, I remember it as the Republican minority that attached an ACA repeal amendment to the federal budget bill, while the Democrats wanted to pass a clean funding bill.  Ted Cruz was on TV!

But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.

Both are true, and both would have kept national parks and museums open.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 06, 2017, 06:36:44 PM
But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.

Honestly, Sol; I question whether they ever did.  Perception is everything in the age of social media, and maybe it always has been.  This might be why Trump uses twitter posts to circumvent the mass media, in the same way that FDR used regular "fireside chats".  He who controls the perception of the masses, controls the masses.  We have already had an actor as president, and now a reality tv star; perhaps a talk radio pundit is next.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 07, 2017, 08:54:27 AM
But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.

Honestly, Sol; I question whether they ever did.  Perception is everything in the age of social media, and maybe it always has been.  This might be why Trump uses twitter posts to circumvent the mass media, in the same way that FDR used regular "fireside chats".  He who controls the perception of the masses, controls the masses.  We have already had an actor as president, and now a reality tv star; perhaps a talk radio pundit is next.
This is where progressives dropped the ball. The Obama administration focused on governing, and neglected to spin their efforts/results to be interpreted by the public in a favorable way. Instead, they let the think-tank influenced press morph every action or inaction into a story where Obama was eating live babies.

I don't like it. Don't get me wrong though. I *want* my government focused on policy and not on propaganda. But look where that has us. If only we had a free press that reported government activities objectively. We once did. However, between the lapse of the fairness doctrine (Reagan)  and later the telecommunications act of (iirc) 1994, the press was allowed to abandon their duty to demonstrate their value for the public good. The result is that we end up with heritage foundation talking points baiting the regular press into discussing absolute bullshit.

It sucks man.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 07, 2017, 02:53:31 PM
But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.

Honestly, Sol; I question whether they ever did.  Perception is everything in the age of social media, and maybe it always has been.  This might be why Trump uses twitter posts to circumvent the mass media, in the same way that FDR used regular "fireside chats".  He who controls the perception of the masses, controls the masses.  We have already had an actor as president, and now a reality tv star; perhaps a talk radio pundit is next.
This is where progressives dropped the ball. The Obama administration focused on governing, and neglected to spin their efforts/results to be interpreted by the public in a favorable way. Instead, they let the think-tank influenced press morph every action or inaction into a story where Obama was eating live babies.

I don't like it. Don't get me wrong though. I *want* my government focused on policy and not on propaganda. But look where that has us. If only we had a free press that reported government activities objectively. We once did. However, between the lapse of the fairness doctrine (Reagan)  and later the telecommunications act of (iirc) 1994, the press was allowed to abandon their duty to demonstrate their value for the public good. The result is that we end up with heritage foundation talking points baiting the regular press into discussing absolute bullshit.

It sucks man.

Um, no we didn't.  The media has always had it's biases, although they have shifted repeatedly over the past 100 years.  Fake news is not a new phenomenon, either.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 07, 2017, 03:58:51 PM
I fervently disagree quindon. The press, esp the mainstream press, was quite a bit more objective in the days of Edward R Murrow. Back then, press were required to demonstrate they served the public interest.  They strove for journalistic standards and professionalism. Of course they weren't perfect, but they at least tried to hone in on reality. Sure they neglected to cover salacious scandals. But they didn't spin stories for corporate masters - well, if they did, they didn't spin as brazenly as they do now.

It's been shown that these accusations of liberal bias - starting under the Nixon administration - turned out to actually be a bias for the truth. Edna Efron's News Twisters, the book that seeded this whole 'liberal bias' mantra, was itself full of bias and inconsistencies in her analysis. Yet it's quoted to this day.

Also, news orgs back then were owned by disparate and conflicting owners. After the telecom act under Clinton, massive consolidation occurred. Now the majority of news outlets are owned by 6 corporations.

It's entirely different now. It's demonstrably worse. One main difference is the internet. But as we've seen - that's a many edged sword.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 07, 2017, 05:22:39 PM
I'm skeptical of the idea that "fake news" is demonstrably worse now than it ever has been in the past. 
Propaganda throughout history has often been blatantly false, politicians and parties have 'created' scapegoats and perpetuated horrible and untrue stereotypes (see: Jews, Gypsies, blacks, hispanics, gays, immigrants, socialists, the Japanese... just to name a few from the 20th century alone).
Advertisers in the US used to be able to guarantee products would prevent or cure ailments - now they just suggest it will revive your set life in a claw-foot tub.

Then as now politicians occasionally lost because people believed things about them that simple fact-checking proved to be false.  Jefferson paid a newspaper editor to write a negative Op-Ed about his opponent John Adams. Jackson claimed his opponent's mother was a prostitute. Kerry's extensive military career was called into question when he was 'swift-boated'.  Kennedy claimed the USSR had more missiles than the US (they didn't) and we needed to close the 'Missile gap.'   Nixon, like Trump, aired commercials about crime sweeping our nation when there was no increase.

I have no doubt fake news is a problem, and fake news stories are almost certainly spreading faster today than in any previous decade, but historical perspective is important.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 07, 2017, 05:40:39 PM
I have no doubt fake news is a problem, and fake news stories are almost certainly spreading faster today than in any previous decade, but historical perspective is important.

I'm not even sure that a historical perspective is important anymore.  Sure, the axiom that we are doomed to repeat the past rings loud in my ears, but people *do believe* that this time it's different.  And even I believe that, to a larger extent than usual.  We have one branch of government that has gone off of all historical rails, and there is a Legislative branch and Judicial branch that are leaning over toward augmenting their impact.  So if it's not different this time, then I'll relax for a very long time, but I do think we are in a new realm of what is possible in terms of social reform, and a small, savvy, manipulative group are pulling the strings.  Trump can shift millions of investment dollars and billions of tax / government dollars with each 'new initiative'.  And I do personally think that he puts himself and his family before the will of the nation he is charged with governing and protecting.

Also, even if people have stayed the same, it appears that social media / fake news on people's Twitter / Facebook is more effective than the propaganda methods of the past.  Maybe like when we watch 'special effects' from the pre-2010 era and laugh at how obviously fake it is, then are silent about obvious CGI-enhancement nowadays (legitimizing the extent that many historical special effects are perfected and acceptable, like 'fake weather', tracking, figurants).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 07, 2017, 05:54:32 PM
I have no doubt fake news is a problem, and fake news stories are almost certainly spreading faster today than in any previous decade, but historical perspective is important.

I'm not even sure that a historical perspective is important anymore.  Sure, the axiom that we are doomed to repeat the past rings loud in my ears, but people *do believe* that this time it's different.  And even I believe that, to a larger extent than usual.  We have one branch of government that has gone off of all historical rails, and there is a Legislative branch and Judicial branch that are leaning over toward augmenting their impact.  So if it's not different this time, then I'll relax for a very long time, but I do think we are in a new realm of what is possible in terms of social reform, and a small, savvy, manipulative group are pulling the strings.  Trump can shift millions of investment dollars and billions of tax / government dollars with each 'new initiative'.  And I do personally think that he puts himself and his family before the will of the nation he is charged with governing and protecting.

Please don't mistake my comments for support; I too feel more apprehentious than I ever have about our current federal government, and the failure of Trump to disclose his taxes, his hiring of billionaires and financial insiders only add to my concern.
My point is merely that there are historical analogs, and so far we've endured.  I pray we don't wind up in another avoidable war, and that scapegoats aren't locked up or blacklisted as we've seen in the past.  It could very well be horrible... or it could not.
My serenity statement right now is: This too shall pass.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 07, 2017, 06:03:16 PM
I fervently disagree quindon. The press, esp the mainstream press, was quite a bit more objective in the days of Edward R Murrow.

You just referred to a subjective observation as "quite a bit more objective".  And while the "liberal bias" in the age of Nixon was mostly BS, it certainly wasn't during the age of Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama.  Like I said before, the biases of the media tend to shift, but they do exist, and they always have.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 07, 2017, 06:23:10 PM
I fervently disagree quindon. The press, esp the mainstream press, was quite a bit more objective in the days of Edward R Murrow.

You just referred to a subjective observation as "quite a bit more objective".  And while the "liberal bias" in the age of Nixon was mostly BS, it certainly wasn't during the age of Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama.  Like I said before, the biases of the media tend to shift, but they do exist, and they always have.

I think whether or not there is a "liberal bias" or a "conservative bias" depends on how you attempt to measure the bias. There is no one media, so how do we define whether, on a whole, it leans one way or another? First there's the problem of determining where the line is between liberal and conservative (which is different depending on the decade, country, and even generation you are talking about).

Do we look at the total number of news outlets, or somehow weight outlets based on their number of customers? Do we treat all flavors of news media equally?  There are certainly more radio talk-shows that consider themselves 'conservative' - but there might be (I'm just guessing here) more pod-casts that lean liberal. Does an extremely conservative media outlet balance out an organization that's just left of center, or is the net still conservative in that case?

Finally, if people only or predominatly get their news only from sources that lean solidly one way or another, what use is it to say that there's an overall 'bias' one way or the other?  From the individual's perspective there isn't one.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 07, 2017, 06:31:01 PM
I fervently disagree quindon. The press, esp the mainstream press, was quite a bit more objective in the days of Edward R Murrow.

You just referred to a subjective observation as "quite a bit more objective".  And while the "liberal bias" in the age of Nixon was mostly BS, it certainly wasn't during the age of Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama.  Like I said before, the biases of the media tend to shift, but they do exist, and they always have.

I think whether or not there is a "liberal bias" or a "conservative bias" depends on how you attempt to measure the bias. There is no one media, so how do we define whether, on a whole, it leans one way or another? First there's the problem of determining where the line is between liberal and conservative (which is different depending on the decade, country, and even generation you are talking about).

Do we look at the total number of news outlets, or somehow weight outlets based on their number of customers? Do we treat all flavors of news media equally?  There are certainly more radio talk-shows that consider themselves 'conservative' - but there might be (I'm just guessing here) more pod-casts that lean liberal. Does an extremely conservative media outlet balance out an organization that's just left of center, or is the net still conservative in that case?

Finally, if people only or predominatly get their news only from sources that lean solidly one way or another, what use is it to say that there's an overall 'bias' one way or the other?  From the individual's perspective there isn't one.

This is also a wonderful point.  Never has the media been monolithic in their biases, but neither have they ever been unbiased.  How one perceives the media in general has much to do with what the observer's own biases are, as well as which media outlets they are most likely to be exposed to, both voluntarily and circumstantially.  So it's entirely reasonable for two people living in different cities with different ideological preferences to come to completely different opinions about "the media", while both trying to be as objective as they can from their own position.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: marty998 on January 07, 2017, 07:00:28 PM
Finally, if people only or predominatly get their news only from sources that lean solidly one way or another, what use is it to say that there's an overall 'bias' one way or the other?  From the individual's perspective there isn't one.

Last year the ex-chief executive officer of the ANZ Bank Mike Smith was asked by the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC - Australia's taxpayer funded public broadcaster), to conduct an investigation into perceived left wing bias in content and programming. His part of the review was about the ABC's portrayal of business, companies, the economy and stakeholder groups such as unions.

He freely admitted beforehand that he thought the ABC was full of left wing bias, was anti-business and championed progressive causes too much.

After conducting the review, he explicitly stated that he felt the coverage was rigorous and balanced*, and on the whole portrayed business in a positive light.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/abc-cleared-of-antibusiness-bias-in-independent-review-20160722-gqbp68.html

It's quite amazing how perceptions can be changed if you take the time to engage with content. The broader point is I'd like to make is that how can you claim an organisation is biased if you never consume it's content?

If you do consume enough content from a MSM source and still claim bias, why do you (generally, not specifically directed at any one poster) bother reading it?

It's something that I notice/observe a lot on various internet forums...

Progressives will not consume content from what they perceive to be right wing news sources (such as Fox), and therefore won't really be in a position to argue against it, or will stay silent (because they "know" it's rubbish anyway), and engaging in a debate won't change anything.

Conservatives seem to watch every minute and read every story published on what they perceive to be left-wing media, and will jump on any indication, no matter how small, of left-wing bias. They will also outright ignore any story published by "left-wing" media that supports a conservative point of view.

I honestly don't know how some of them have so much time to spend consuming media that they hate so much.

* The review also found that the ABC is biased in favour of covering big business, and doesn't give enough coverage to small business. The ABC acknowledged this by saying it does not have the resources to cover individual small businesses easily in a mass media format (TV/Radio), and that it is comparatively simpler to cover big business stories and link them to events such as stock-market movements.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 07, 2017, 07:47:54 PM

It's quite amazing how perceptions can be changed if you take the time to engage with content. The broader point is I'd like to make is that how can you claim an organisation is biased if you never consume it's content?


I firmly believe that Americans perceive journalists to be liberal.  Therefore, it is quite easy to dismiss whatever the resultant work to be biased, even if they still use facts to craft a narrative as opposed to a flood of tweets.  It's sad that shortcuts and generalizations to finalize opinions are justified by this information age, but we can hope that folks realize that being preoccupied and distracted ultimately does not count as being informed.  And being truly informed requires that you write something for yourself when you need to know where you stand, and then interact with others, and follow up to fill in the blanks...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 08, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: marty998 on January 08, 2017, 03:38:05 AM
From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.

It's the same in Australia. Both sides generally use the same data to arrive at substantially similar facts and want the same destination/outcomes, they just disagree on how to get to that destination.

Not withstanding Australia being one of the most diverse nations on earth, I would hazard a guess a nation of 320 million is going to have a lot more well resourced "loud voices" and special interest groups arguing their case than a nation of 25 or 60 million.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 08, 2017, 06:57:40 AM
From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.

It's the same in Australia. Both sides generally use the same data to arrive at substantially similar facts and want the same destination/outcomes, they just disagree on how to get to that destination.

Not withstanding Australia being one of the most diverse nations on earth, I would hazard a guess a nation of 320 million is going to have a lot more well resourced "loud voices" and special interest groups arguing their case than a nation of 25 or 60 million.

I can't comment on Australia, but I think there are several factors at play in the US that contribute to the "loud voices" you speak of.  First is sheer size of the US company and with that the number of very large corporations that can afford to lobby hard for their special interests. Unlike authoritarian China corporations and unions here have a healthy degree of autonomy and push for what is in their best interests, often with little discussion about what is best for the country as a whole. Second, we're a large country both in terms of size and population (4th on both accounts, I think). Combined with moderate diversity this creates lots of microcosms where large areas with lots of people can find it hard to relate to other other areas (examples:  California and Texas; New England and the Deep South).  Third, our executive branch has become increasingly more powerful since at least WWII at the expense of the state governments and the US Congress. That's created an environment where whole states feel under threat of the presiding government and fuels this "not my president" mentality.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cranberries on January 08, 2017, 10:41:32 AM

From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.

It's the same in Australia. Both sides generally use the same data to arrive at substantially similar facts and want the same destination/outcomes, they just disagree on how to get to that destination.

Not withstanding Australia being one of the most diverse nations on earth, I would hazard a guess a nation of 320 million is going to have a lot more well resourced "loud voices" and special interest groups arguing their case than a nation of 25 or 60 million.

Up until the 1980's the USA was largely like this as well, but then President Reagan gutted the fairness doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) and the media (fox, etc.) started to spin out of control. The result now is that people on the right are convinced that all democrats want to steal their guns(tm), and people on the far left and far right eating up weird propaganda hit pieces about quite ordinary politicians. We now have a complete breakdown of a large part of the population's ability to tell when something is coming from a reliable source. I've heard it hypothesized that older generations are particularly susceptible to media spin, as they grew up in a time before the fairness doctrine was repealed.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/02/this_is_how_the_clowns_took_over_the_sad_history_leading_to_the_spectacle_of_a_fox_news_debate_starring_front_runner_donald_trump/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 09, 2017, 06:31:17 AM

From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.

It's the same in Australia. Both sides generally use the same data to arrive at substantially similar facts and want the same destination/outcomes, they just disagree on how to get to that destination.

Not withstanding Australia being one of the most diverse nations on earth, I would hazard a guess a nation of 320 million is going to have a lot more well resourced "loud voices" and special interest groups arguing their case than a nation of 25 or 60 million.

Up until the 1980's the USA was largely like this as well, but then President Reagan gutted the fairness doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) and the media (fox, etc.) started to spin out of control. The result now is that people on the right are convinced that all democrats want to steal their guns(tm), and people on the far left and far right eating up weird propaganda hit pieces about quite ordinary politicians. We now have a complete breakdown of a large part of the population's ability to tell when something is coming from a reliable source. I've heard it hypothesized that older generations are particularly susceptible to media spin, as they grew up in a time before the fairness doctrine was repealed.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/02/this_is_how_the_clowns_took_over_the_sad_history_leading_to_the_spectacle_of_a_fox_news_debate_starring_front_runner_donald_trump/

Exactly. Thank you. Between the loss of the fairness doctrine, and the passage of the telecommunications act of 1996, the objectivity of large, professional news sources has degraded to an appalling degree. Frequent and pervasive accusations (by muck-raking radio personalities) of liberal media bias over three decades have baited professional news organizations into presenting 'balance' rather than truth. This means crackpots with no credentials are often given equal air time as legit experts. This is not the path to truth - it's the path to confusion, and it cedes control to the people who pay the crackpots.

Furthermore, loaded phrasing, crafted by people like frank luntz and spread via Grover norquidst's weekly meetings also baited regular news orgs into using conservative language ( e.g. rather than tax policy we speak of tax relief (as if it's an affliction) ... rather than supporting policies which protect our rights to clean water, we are 'oppressed by a nanny state' ...rather than estate tax we talk of death tax... rather than the ACA it's Obamacare. Even Obama used 'Obamacare').

Yes, the dialogue we see in media is very much the result of an organized, highly coordinated effort by a handful of very wealthy people. The end result is that the republican base is distracted into thinking their enemies are liberals. Meanwhile, corporate ceos and neocons are taking over our government. It should make us all irate , yet some people continue to regurgitate this propaganda.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 09, 2017, 06:38:41 AM
I recommend reading David Brock. He was a journalist at the heritage foundation and at the very right wing Washington Times. After 10 years of creating biased propaganda against Anita hill and the clintons, his conscience and integrity kicked in. Since then, he has written oodles exposing what he calls the Republican noise machine.

Another example of language ( sorry I know it's a bit off topic ): think of what anti Clinton people sometimes say : "I don't want dynasties!"

Okay - if that's the case, then you should support an estate tax that applies to only the top .1 - .5% of estates. Bingo: Dynasty problem kept in check. Unfortunately, I fear some of us are too entrenched in the visceral injustice of a death tax that even this sort of argument won't land. And THIS is what we're up against. Language framing that blocks honest and objective dialogue.

Nevertheless I'm trying to reach my trumpeter family members. Civil Asset Forfeiture is the issue I've chosen.  the government is brazenly looting the private property of innocent people. It's a clear 4th amendment violation. If I can't convince them of this - I fear all hope is lost and we may be looking at civil war.... well, that is if progressives grow some spines. I don't have much hope for that. So maybe we'll have to wait until the right realizes their rights are gone. Then it'll be revolution.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2017, 06:45:53 AM
What irks me is that so few understand the differences between being "balanced" and being "objective".

Too many news outlets are so careful of seeming "Balanced" that they believe the correct response is always to give near-equal time to dissenting opinions, regardless of whether that's objectively reasonable or factually accurate. THe result is that fringe ideas and conspiracy theories are frequently given air time even when thoroughly debunked or widely disputed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 09, 2017, 08:10:28 AM
What irks me is that so few understand the differences between being "balanced" and being "objective".

Too many news outlets are so careful of seeming "Balanced" that they believe the correct response is always to give near-equal time to dissenting opinions, regardless of whether that's objectively reasonable or factually accurate. THe result is that fringe ideas and conspiracy theories are frequently given air time even when thoroughly debunked or widely disputed.

EXACTLY.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 09, 2017, 09:50:26 AM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":

The federal week in review:
1. Trump fires all Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day.
2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State.
3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest.
4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.
5. Trump continues to throw the intelligence community under the bus to protect Putin, despite the growing mountain of evidence that the Russians deliberately interfered in our election.
6. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it.
7. Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US.
8. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 09, 2017, 10:07:10 AM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":

The federal week in review:
1. Trump fires all Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day.
2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State.
3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest.
4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.
5. Trump continues to throw the intelligence community under the bus to protect Putin, despite the growing mountain of evidence that the Russians deliberately interfered in our election.
6. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it.
7. Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US.
8. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it.

Bill introduced by Todd Rokita (R) of Indiana that removes all civil service protections from future new hires. (different than Holman rule)  Including but not limited to
•Eliminate an employee’s right to representation at the worksite by no longer allowing union representatives to resolve disputes, address issues of discrimination or retaliation, or propose improvements in the workplace during the workday.
•Allow political appointees to demote career executives and reduce their pay without cause.

so political appointees can clear house of all the people who know what they are doing over ideological differences.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2017, 10:22:14 AM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":

The federal week in review:
1. Trump fires all Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day.
2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State.
3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest.
4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.
5. Trump continues to throw the intelligence community under the bus to protect Putin, despite the growing mountain of evidence that the Russians deliberately interfered in our election.
6. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it.
7. Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US.
8. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it.

Bill introduced by Todd Rokita (R) of Indiana that removes all civil service protections from future new hires. (different than Holman rule)  Including but not limited to
•Eliminate an employee’s right to representation at the worksite by no longer allowing union representatives to resolve disputes, address issues of discrimination or retaliation, or propose improvements in the workplace during the workday.
•Allow political appointees to demote career executives and reduce their pay without cause.

so political appointees can clear house of all the people who know what they are doing over ideological differences.

It seems clear that the president elect is "cleaning house" and removing as many people that do not share his views as possible.  This isn't particularly surprising to me, but the anticipated outcome will be that policy will drive theory, and not the other way around.
Companies that do this quickly find themselves at a disadvantage. I fear so shall we...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wienerdog on January 09, 2017, 11:22:11 AM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2017, 11:33:06 AM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 09, 2017, 11:40:55 AM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 09, 2017, 11:42:48 AM

10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html

You forgot some....

I'd just like to call out the fact that they're laying out $1,000,000,000 in capital, and it's going to generate 2,000 jobs. We need to stop acting like it's 1951. I'm sure those are going to be 2,000 solid jobs with good pay and benefits, but they're going to require specialists, not grunts.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2017, 11:48:46 AM
breaking news:  Jared Kushner officially named as 'special advisor' to Trump.

So:  the husband of one of the children put in charge of the family business is now officially a special advisor to the president?
This further entrenches the conflict of interest.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on January 09, 2017, 11:57:37 AM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":

The federal week in review:
1. Trump fires all Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day.
2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State.
3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest.
4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.
5. Trump continues to throw the intelligence community under the bus to protect Putin, despite the growing mountain of evidence that the Russians deliberately interfered in our election.
6. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it.
7. Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US.
8. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it.

Bill introduced by Todd Rokita (R) of Indiana that removes all civil service protections from future new hires. (different than Holman rule)  Including but not limited to
•Eliminate an employee’s right to representation at the worksite by no longer allowing union representatives to resolve disputes, address issues of discrimination or retaliation, or propose improvements in the workplace during the workday.
•Allow political appointees to demote career executives and reduce their pay without cause.

so political appointees can clear house of all the people who know what they are doing over ideological differences.

I'm actually OK with this. Public employee unions need to be gutted and reformed heavily. whether or not Ford would be changing their plans based on Trump's bluster or not, at least these things are part of the national conversation again, instead of being ignored and openly disdained by the alternative administration.

The rest of what trump has done this week does not sit well with me... especially the double booking of confirmation hearings and bringing back the Holloman rule and the REINS act.

Does anyone else see the irony that we're upset that Russia hacked into the DNC (exposing their very real shadiness)... the main source of new evidence being US hacking into the Russians and leaking their internal communications? There's some nuance to that comparison but I thought it was humorous.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wienerdog on January 09, 2017, 02:03:34 PM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2017, 02:19:14 PM

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused

Bush gets blamed (or gets credit) for most everything that took place in Obama's first ~6 months in office that Obama didn't directly pass.  After that responsibility shifts towards the new guy until he's completely accountable after 2 years.
Example:  Obama can't be held responsible for the great recession, but he and the 111th-113th congresses own the recovery (both that they happened and that they took so long).
Same goes for Trump.

Common sense really - you can't take credit or blame for things your first week in office, nor can you blame everything on your predecessor after you've been there for a few years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 09, 2017, 02:20:32 PM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused

Thanks Bush!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2017, 02:23:44 PM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused

Thanks Bush!

Thanks Washington!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 09, 2017, 02:33:36 PM
From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.
Did you miss brexit?
"People have had quite enough of experts"
"75 Million Turks are about to come to the UK once Turkey joins the EU"
"350 Million for the NHS per week"
An agriculture minister who thinks farming has been around as long as humans have.
...
Regrettably the UK is fully on board the post truth politics train
Yes, thank Trump's best buddy Farage for a lot of that.  Reality seems to be setting in a bit now, though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 09, 2017, 05:39:14 PM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused

It is incredibly difficult and debate even among very experienced and talented economist to determine the exact administration which is at fault for a given financial crises.

At any given point the current economic climate could easily be a result of a combination of rules and regulations spanning many presidencies much further back than Obama and Bush.

Unless anyone on this form is masquerading as a normal poster and are really Mark Blyth or Milton Friedman(risen from the dead) in disguise, or some other notable economist, I doubt any of us could have a truly fair and informed in-depth discussion about who is to blame or congratulate on the great recession and our continuing recovery.

Politicians are certainly offering zero clarity on either side, only presenting simple metrics with spin. Suffice it to say the current state of things would seem to indicate that the US has had the best recovery of any developed nation. Whether that recovery is fast enough, good enough or equally felt by all Americans is another story.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 09, 2017, 05:49:22 PM
I say at least one major problem along the lines being discussed is not necessarily that expert opinion is no longer valid but rather that the rise of equal access to the public ear via the internet has lead to the bar for qualifying yourself as an expert on a subject to drop to zero.

Or rather you can be considered an expert simply based on the size of your following. Your legitimacy on the internet as a spokes person on any subject has less to do with science and education or more to do with how many people are willing to listen to you and believe you.

In some ways this level of information sharing has been an amazing thing. In others, looking at this recent election, it has been a complete and tragic failure for all of us.

All the major social media sites are grappling with these issues right now. How do we evolve the internet beyond the wild west of information that it currently is. How do we do it without giving up the current freedoms that we value on it? Regulation of the internet and its major contributors is going to be a huge issue probably for the remainder of most of our lifetimes. And ultimately the gatekeepers who will craft that future are the social media sites and search engines like google and telecom providers that control bandwidth and accessibility.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 09, 2017, 06:07:58 PM
It is incredibly difficult and debate even among very experienced and talented economist to determine the exact administration which is at fault for a given financial crises.

Agreed.  Lots of people blame Bill Clinton for the 2008/9 crash, for example, because he signed off on Congress's repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999, helping to deregulate banks so they could play on Wall Street. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 09, 2017, 06:19:02 PM
It is incredibly difficult and debate even among very experienced and talented economist to determine the exact administration which is at fault for a given financial crises.

Agreed.  Lots of people blame Bill Clinton for the 2008/9 crash, for example, because he signed off on Congress's repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999, helping to deregulate banks so they could play on Wall Street.

My broader point (which I think is being missed) is that it's ridiculous to blame someone who just took office for any given financial crisis, or give them immediate credit for 'good things'.

Certainly after they've settled in for a while it becomes much harder to distinguish which administration truly set up the circumstances for the current crisis.   Regarding blaming Clinton for the '08 crash, there's some validity there, but one must also acknolwedege that the subsequent 8 years congress and Bush had ample opportunities to increase regulation but didn't.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 09, 2017, 09:56:26 PM
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Meh. Terrible for the planet. I suppose he could use the win though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 09, 2017, 10:00:30 PM
It is incredibly difficult and debate even among very experienced and talented economist to determine the exact administration which is at fault for a given financial crises.

Agreed.  Lots of people blame Bill Clinton for the 2008/9 crash, for example, because he signed off on Congress's repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999, helping to deregulate banks so they could play on Wall Street.

My broader point (which I think is being missed) is that it's ridiculous to blame someone who just took office for any given financial crisis, or give them immediate credit for 'good things'.

Certainly after they've settled in for a while it becomes much harder to distinguish which administration truly set up the circumstances for the current crisis.   Regarding blaming Clinton for the '08 crash, there's some validity there, but one must also acknolwedege that the subsequent 8 years congress and Bush had ample opportunities to increase regulation but didn't.

Good point. And even if one can pin blame to a specific administration, there's the point that the president didn't propose or affect the bills/budgets; they merely passed what congress came up with.

And its a stretch to suggest that the Bush administration should have tightened regulations to avoid a problem that, while clearly likely in retrospect, was only actually foreseen by a handful of people in the world before it occurred.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 09, 2017, 10:17:15 PM
With the current state of just ignoring public opinion (Tweeting "Trump reality"(TM) and having the world revolve around whether Meryl Streep is overrated) coupled with a disorienting confirmation process and Kellyanne Conway rolling out the idea that Russian sanctions will be rolled back in 11 days (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/09/conway-trump-russia-probe-congress-hacking-obama/96338952/), it's no wonder deep, introspective politics has come to a standstill.  Never mind that Jared Kushner slipped in as a Senior White House Advisor (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/09/donald-trump-mitch-mcconnell-transition/96344886/).

Quote
While not mentioning that he is his son-in-law, Trump described Kushner as "a widely respected businessman and real estate developer was instrumental in formulating and executing the strategy behind President-elect Trump's historic victory in November."

Calling the appointment an "honor," Kushner said in a statement he is "energized by the shared passion of the President-elect and the American people."

Who are these American people???  And why will anyone expect politicians to do the hard work of long term strategy when the Trump war is being won on a tactical, day-to-day immediate gratification way?  Defecit spending - Trump's gain, someone else's pain.  Healthcare - disaster, just need to repeal ACA and 'the people' will think we are on their side.  Taxes, need to be cut. 

It's really easy to run the US, as long as you have no historical baggage nor accountability to the future of the citizens.  And you even get 4 years to make some money in the process, just in case things don't work out.  Trump Tower is suddenly the most valuable real estate on the planet, what a great example of selflessness on behalf of our not-yet-even-leader of this free country.  I mean, the White House is not just going to be Trump's vacation home, right?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 10, 2017, 05:51:20 AM
I say at least one major problem along the lines being discussed is not necessarily that expert opinion is no longer valid but rather that the rise of equal access to the public ear via the internet has lead to the bar for qualifying yourself as an expert on a subject to drop to zero.

Or rather you can be considered an expert simply based on the size of your following. Your legitimacy on the internet as a spokes person on any subject has less to do with science and education or more to do with how many people are willing to listen to you and believe you.

In some ways this level of information sharing has been an amazing thing. In others, looking at this recent election, it has been a complete and tragic failure for all of us.

All the major social media sites are grappling with these issues right now. How do we evolve the internet beyond the wild west of information that it currently is. How do we do it without giving up the current freedoms that we value on it? Regulation of the internet and its major contributors is going to be a huge issue probably for the remainder of most of our lifetimes. And ultimately the gatekeepers who will craft that future are the social media sites and search engines like google and telecom providers that control bandwidth and accessibility.

Agreed. This is the reason I am in support of net neutrality. It is also be the exact same reason someone with the ability to gain control would be for it. Is there another reason why someone would be against it?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 10, 2017, 07:52:01 AM
With the current state of just ignoring public opinion (Tweeting "Trump reality"(TM) and having the world revolve around whether Meryl Streep is overrated) coupled with a disorienting confirmation process and Kellyanne Conway rolling out the idea that Russian sanctions will be rolled back in 11 days (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/09/conway-trump-russia-probe-congress-hacking-obama/96338952/), it's no wonder deep, introspective politics has come to a standstill.  Never mind that Jared Kushner slipped in as a Senior White House Advisor (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/09/donald-trump-mitch-mcconnell-transition/96344886/).

Quote
While not mentioning that he is his son-in-law, Trump described Kushner as "a widely respected businessman and real estate developer was instrumental in formulating and executing the strategy behind President-elect Trump's historic victory in November."

Calling the appointment an "honor," Kushner said in a statement he is "energized by the shared passion of the President-elect and the American people."

Who are these American people???  And why will anyone expect politicians to do the hard work of long term strategy when the Trump war is being won on a tactical, day-to-day immediate gratification way?  Defecit spending - Trump's gain, someone else's pain.  Healthcare - disaster, just need to repeal ACA and 'the people' will think we are on their side.  Taxes, need to be cut. 

It's really easy to run the US, as long as you have no historical baggage nor accountability to the future of the citizens.  And you even get 4 years to make some money in the process, just in case things don't work out.  Trump Tower is suddenly the most valuable real estate on the planet, what a great example of selflessness on behalf of our not-yet-even-leader of this free country.  I mean, the White House is not just going to be Trump's vacation home, right?
But they are only getting rid of Obamacare not the ACA.
(https://i.imgur.com/A5V7svI.png)

That is an epic facebook discussion.  Unfortunately a not insignificant number of other Americans make the same mistake or are just idiots.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on January 10, 2017, 11:46:57 AM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 10, 2017, 11:57:01 AM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Both, and probably at the same time.

Quote
That is an epic facebook discussion.  Unfortunately a not insignificant number of other Americans make the same mistake or are just idiots.
My father's a doctor, and for several years he's mentioned how patients will come in complaining about Obamacare, but when he asks them what they think about the Affordable Care Act the opinions are much better.  When he asks about many of the provisions like not being denied coverage for a pre-existing condition his patients say they love that, and often will say things like "why couldn't the democrats have put those things in Obamacare in the first place?"

::headbang::

also - very few people seem to realize that the bulk of the ACA/Obamacare was actually expanding Medicaid. I've heard many people (some of them liberal democrats) talk about how we need to do away with "Obamacare" and instead increase the funding and coverage of Medicaid

Me thinks there has never been another law so misunderstood.  I'd wager that Republicans could repeal ACA and vote to implement a "new" law that was in fact the ACA in verbatim and we'd have Republicans singing its praises and Democrats talking about how vile it is.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 10, 2017, 04:13:33 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-meets-anti-vaccine-activist-after-raising-fringe-theory-trail-n705296 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-meets-anti-vaccine-activist-after-raising-fringe-theory-trail-n705296)

Quote
President-elect Donald Trump met with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a leading anti-vaccine activist, on Tuesday to discuss vaccination policy, incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

Kennedy drew fire last year for describing a "holocaust" of children allegedly hurt by immunization (he later apologized for the term), and both Trump and Kennedy have spread fringe theories linking vaccines to autism in children, an idea that medical experts overwhelmingly reject and have warned is endangering public health.

https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/818897616222191617 (https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/818897616222191617)

Quote
RFK Jr says Trump asked him to chair a committee on vaccines. Both of them support fringe anti-vaccine theories.
Make Polio Great Again.

(http://i.imgur.com/RQeCdPL.gif)

Hopefully even in this position an idiot anti-vaxxer can't do that much harm but I don't know that for sure. Being anti vaccine is really somewhere around the bottom rung of being moronically anti science. Just above being a flat Earther or faked moon landing conspiracy theorist.

If a person still believes based on today's science that vaccines are likely to be linked to autism they are dangerously ignorant and should not be in a position of power over public health.

When it comes to being anti science I give maybe a bit of leeway to climate change deniers, because the outcome is so long term it is hard for most to follow the science.

But vaccine science is tested and sound. We see the results of it everyday. Doctors and scientist understand very well how vaccines lead to immunity. People who push this nonsense deserve to be ridiculed and then ignored. So that false information and fear mongering doesn't lead frighted parents to make bad decisions for all of us.

This isn't really a conservative issue though, plenty of liberals believe this bull shit. This is just another area where unregulated ignorance flying around the internet masquerading as expertise has lead to a large number of people believing insane, unsupportable, and harmful ideas. And news as entertainment trying to spice up science by blowing up bad studies or early studies with scary false headlines hasn't been helpful either.

We have paid a high price for free access to information in that people with stupid ideas are as likely gain a following as experts with good ideas.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 10, 2017, 07:22:12 PM
Yes, anti-vaxxers represent one anti-fact group that if anything is probably filled with more liberals than conservatives. But, I mean, "post truth" isn't just a handy catch phrase. It is literally a "realistic impact of a Trump presidency." I just hope RangerOne is correct that he can't do much harm, because if the official White House opinion on vaccines is declared to be that they are potentially dangerous, the impact could be devastating. This is especially worrisome to me because the media, in its continued puppet dance to avoid accusations of "liberal bias" will likely blast it all over their front pages with headlines like "Trump appointed committee finds links between vaccines and autism!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 11, 2017, 02:35:08 AM
Can I try out a thought?  That the last several decades that the evangelical churches have spent decrying the theory of evolution and pushing creationism, to the extent that a significant part of the US population is openly creationist, have primed the pump for the stupidity of the anti-vaxers, the climate change deniers and the post-truth society.

Not to say that other societies don't have their betises, of course, but they do seem to be growing bigger and better in the USA at the moment.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 11, 2017, 07:28:55 AM
Meanwhile while everyone is focused on Trump's ties with Russia, the house just passed the REINS Act. Nothing like having Congress be the final say on clean water, toxic chemicals, etc. I mean really who needs scientist to determine this stuff?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 07:48:24 AM
Yes, anti-vaxxers represent one anti-fact group that if anything is probably filled with more liberals than conservatives. But, I mean, "post truth" isn't just a handy catch phrase. It is literally a "realistic impact of a Trump presidency." I just hope RangerOne is correct that he can't do much harm, because if the official White House opinion on vaccines is declared to be that they are potentially dangerous, the impact could be devastating. This is especially worrisome to me because the media, in its continued puppet dance to avoid accusations of "liberal bias" will likely blast it all over their front pages with headlines like "Trump appointed committee finds links between vaccines and autism!

This is pretty wild speculation, even with the noted appointees views. It's extremely doubtful the white house would put out anything like that.
Given that Trump has already stated that with his lie that vaccines cause autism, why is that doubtful or wild speculation?  People are likely to repeat previous behaviors.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 11, 2017, 07:59:27 AM
Yes, anti-vaxxers represent one anti-fact group that if anything is probably filled with more liberals than conservatives. But, I mean, "post truth" isn't just a handy catch phrase. It is literally a "realistic impact of a Trump presidency." I just hope RangerOne is correct that he can't do much harm, because if the official White House opinion on vaccines is declared to be that they are potentially dangerous, the impact could be devastating. This is especially worrisome to me because the media, in its continued puppet dance to avoid accusations of "liberal bias" will likely blast it all over their front pages with headlines like "Trump appointed committee finds links between vaccines and autism!

This is pretty wild speculation, even with the noted appointees views. It's extremely doubtful the white house would put out anything like that.
Given that Trump has already stated that with his lie that vaccines cause autism, why is that doubtful or wild speculation?  People are likely to repeat previous behaviors.

I tend to agree.  We have a president-elect who publicly opined that we need to change vaccine policy because it caused defects in your children, and now he's appointed a very vocal member to be chairman on the committee on vaccinations.
hard not to add up these statements.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 11, 2017, 08:05:14 AM
Quote
That the last several decades that the evangelical churches have spent...

Sure, the evangelical and unlearned nature of American Christianity has been a driving force in American anti- intellectual and anti-rational thought since the mid-eighteenth century.

Once Americans began rejecting the need for learned ministers to interpret scripture for them and the ability of the common person to commune with God was established, what need was there for education?

The usual argument is that if common sense and open spirit are enough to save your soul, then rationality and education can only be a distraction from that goal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 11, 2017, 08:43:00 AM
Meanwhile while everyone is focused on Trump's ties with Russia, the house just passed the REINS Act. Nothing like having Congress be the final say on clean water, toxic chemicals, etc. I mean really who needs scientist to determine this stuff?

This country is so unbelievably screwed.   You know, 'Muricans love to pat themselves on the back about how awesome our western societies are comparison with those countries governed under philosophies of stone age Islamic magical thinking that reject facts.....and now we are racing to join them.

FUCK FACTS! WHO NEEDS THEM?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 11, 2017, 11:22:26 AM
Meanwhile while everyone is focused on Trump's ties with Russia, the house just passed the REINS Act. Nothing like having Congress be the final say on clean water, toxic chemicals, etc. I mean really who needs scientist to determine this stuff?

This country is so unbelievably screwed.   You know, 'Muricans love to pat themselves on the back about how awesome our western societies are comparison with those countries governed under philosophies of stone age Islamic magical thinking that reject facts.....and now we are racing to join them.

FUCK FACTS! WHO NEEDS THEM?

A small point of contention . . . Islam was at the forefront of scientific research and discovery in the world around the middle ages.  In the west we were rushing desperately trying to catch up to them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 11, 2017, 11:41:44 AM
Just to weigh in with a little optimism, listening to Tillerson's confirmation hearing is actually like listening to the kind of straightforward, reasonable, non-politician 'breath of fresh air' that many Americans had hoped for.  Although I've had reservations about his background, I'll admit that I knew very little about the guy.  I am finding myself much more reassured and optimistic by his stance on the UN (supporting Article 5), Iran (maintaining sanctions), and Russia (actions in Crimea were deplorable and Russians will not be given a clean slate).  Of course, this follows the Trump news conference where we were reassured that Trump passed up a $2B deal in Dubai that he didn't have to pass up, Democrats are lucky Trump will repeal and replace ACA instead of wait because it is such a disaster, the wall will be built and will be paid for by Mexico....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Freedom2016 on January 11, 2017, 12:25:00 PM
I agree with you EscapeVelocity2020. I'm not 100% thrilled with Tillerson's answers but they are far more reasonable, on the whole, than I was expecting.

Though what is with the repeated use of "cyber" and "the cyber" by Tillerson and just now by Sen Cardin? I thought that wasn't a word!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 11, 2017, 12:26:24 PM
Just to weigh in with a little optimism, listening to Tillerson's confirmation hearing is actually like listening to the kind of straightforward, reasonable, non-politician 'breath of fresh air' that many Americans had hoped for.  Although I've had reservations about his background, I'll admit that I knew very little about the guy.  I am finding myself much more reassured and optimistic by his stance on the UN (supporting Article 5), Iran (maintaining sanctions), and Russia (actions in Crimea were deplorable and Russians will not be given a clean slate).  Of course, this follows the Trump news conference where we were reassured that Trump passed up a $2B deal in Dubai that he didn't have to pass up, Democrats are lucky Trump will repeal and replace ACA instead of wait because it is such a disaster, the wall will be built and will be paid for by Mexico....
Did you miss this : In 2014 Tillerson strongly opposed the sanctions against Russia. He has previously been the director of the joint US-Russian oil company Exxon Neftegas. In January 2017, it was revealed that while Tillerson was a senior executive at ExxonMobil, a European joint venture called Infineum conducted business with Iran, Syria, and Sudan when those states were under US sanctions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 11, 2017, 01:40:40 PM
Meanwhile while everyone is focused on Trump's ties with Russia, the house just passed the REINS Act. Nothing like having Congress be the final say on clean water, toxic chemicals, etc. I mean really who needs scientist to determine this stuff?

This country is so unbelievably screwed.   You know, 'Muricans love to pat themselves on the back about how awesome our western societies are comparison with those countries governed under philosophies of stone age Islamic magical thinking that reject facts.....and now we are racing to join them.

FUCK FACTS! WHO NEEDS THEM?

A small point of contention . . . Islam was at the forefront of scientific research and discovery in the world around the middle ages.  In the west we were rushing desperately trying to catch up to them.

Excellent point. "...currently governed under..."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 01:57:58 PM
Meanwhile while everyone is focused on Trump's ties with Russia, the house just passed the REINS Act. Nothing like having Congress be the final say on clean water, toxic chemicals, etc. I mean really who needs scientist to determine this stuff?

This country is so unbelievably screwed.   You know, 'Muricans love to pat themselves on the back about how awesome our western societies are comparison with those countries governed under philosophies of stone age Islamic magical thinking that reject facts.....and now we are racing to join them.

FUCK FACTS! WHO NEEDS THEM?

A small point of contention . . . Islam was at the forefront of scientific research and discovery in the world around the middle ages.  In the west we were rushing desperately trying to catch up to them.

A small point of contention of my own.... It was not Islam that was at the forefront of such research, it was scientists living under a tolerant Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire.  Mostly under and after Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered much of Southern Europe.  Certainly, they are responsible for a great many of the libraries that led to the Renaissance period, but more than a few of the greatest advancements in science were discovered by Christians living within the Ottoman Empire; In Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Belgrade.  The Ottoman Empire peaked during this time, but their scientific achievements were not due to their Islamic background, culture or state religion; it was mostly due to their (mostly unprecedented) tolerance for other cultures within the empire, as well as Suleiman's own example of marrying a Christian woman.   Of course, their descendants screwed up that historical goodwill during the first world war.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 11, 2017, 02:09:34 PM
Cyber is definitely a word.  Horny 80s kids know
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 11, 2017, 02:11:20 PM
Meanwhile while everyone is focused on Trump's ties with Russia, the house just passed the REINS Act. Nothing like having Congress be the final say on clean water, toxic chemicals, etc. I mean really who needs scientist to determine this stuff?

This country is so unbelievably screwed.   You know, 'Muricans love to pat themselves on the back about how awesome our western societies are comparison with those countries governed under philosophies of stone age Islamic magical thinking that reject facts.....and now we are racing to join them.

FUCK FACTS! WHO NEEDS THEM?

A small point of contention . . . Islam was at the forefront of scientific research and discovery in the world around the middle ages.  In the west we were rushing desperately trying to catch up to them.

A small point of contention of my own.... It was not Islam that was at the forefront of such research, it was scientists living under a tolerant Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire.  Mostly under and after Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered much of Southern Europe.  Certainly, they are responsible for a great many of the libraries that led to the Renaissance period, but more than a few of the greatest advancements in science were discovered by Christians living within the Ottoman Empire; In Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Belgrade.  The Ottoman Empire peaked during this time, but their scientific achievements were not due to their Islamic background, culture or state religion; it was mostly due to their (mostly unprecedented) tolerance for other cultures within the empire, as well as Suleiman's own example of marrying a Christian woman.   Of course, their descendants screwed up that historical goodwill during the first world war.

Agreed. This is mostly an example that a society with Islam as a prominent faith can be as open minded and scientific as a christian nation, in spite of the religion not in any way because of it. But if you allow society to be completely ruled by hard line religious zealots driven by faith or a desire to control people that same religion can be used to stifle education, science and tolerance as we see in most if not all current Islamic regimes.

A hard line christian state could have many of the same repressive anti education, anti science and anti women qualities that we see with Islam. Probably how ever absent the incentive for Jihad and terrorism.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 11, 2017, 02:17:55 PM
Just to weigh in with a little optimism, listening to Tillerson's confirmation hearing is actually like listening to the kind of straightforward, reasonable, non-politician 'breath of fresh air' that many Americans had hoped for.  Although I've had reservations about his background, I'll admit that I knew very little about the guy.  I am finding myself much more reassured and optimistic by his stance on the UN (supporting Article 5), Iran (maintaining sanctions), and Russia (actions in Crimea were deplorable and Russians will not be given a clean slate).  Of course, this follows the Trump news conference where we were reassured that Trump passed up a $2B deal in Dubai that he didn't have to pass up, Democrats are lucky Trump will repeal and replace ACA instead of wait because it is such a disaster, the wall will be built and will be paid for by Mexico....
Did you miss this : In 2014 Tillerson strongly opposed the sanctions against Russia. He has previously been the director of the joint US-Russian oil company Exxon Neftegas. In January 2017, it was revealed that while Tillerson was a senior executive at ExxonMobil, a European joint venture called Infineum conducted business with Iran, Syria, and Sudan when those states were under US sanctions.

Just two small things - I did miss the 2014 info, but I also appreciate Tillerson 'can' have different views as CEO then and now as a private citizen or public government employee.  And most importantly, I did state that I was listening to Tillerson after listening to Trump, the bar was set really low.  I just cannot fathom the idea that Trump is going to be representing the United States of America.  Literally every single thing Trump said was abusive, abrasive, ridiculous, offensive, combative ... except when he walked away to let his lawyer put everyone to sleep.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 11, 2017, 02:18:03 PM

A small point of contention of my own.... It was not Islam that was at the forefront of such research, it was scientists living under a tolerant Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire.  Mostly under and after Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered much of Southern Europe.  Certainly, they are responsible for a great many of the libraries that led to the Renaissance period, but more than a few of the greatest advancements in science were discovered by Christians living within the Ottoman Empire; In Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Belgrade.  The Ottoman Empire peaked during this time, but their scientific achievements were not due to their Islamic background, culture or state religion; it was mostly due to their (mostly unprecedented) tolerance for other cultures within the empire, as well as Suleiman's own example of marrying a Christian woman.   Of course, their descendants screwed up that historical goodwill during the first world war.

Huh??!!  So if I follow your line of thinking, we can't give any credit to a mostly tolerant and civil Islamic society for fostering the advancement of scientific development, and instead we ought to credit some of the Christians who lived and worked within this system?  That's just bizarre and frankly biased.  Also, the list of Muslim scientists and philosophers during the height of the Ottoman Empire (c 1300 - mid 1800s, though it lasted longer) is vast.  Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they didn't contribute.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 11, 2017, 02:54:26 PM

A small point of contention of my own.... It was not Islam that was at the forefront of such research, it was scientists living under a tolerant Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire.  Mostly under and after Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered much of Southern Europe.  Certainly, they are responsible for a great many of the libraries that led to the Renaissance period, but more than a few of the greatest advancements in science were discovered by Christians living within the Ottoman Empire; In Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Belgrade.  The Ottoman Empire peaked during this time, but their scientific achievements were not due to their Islamic background, culture or state religion; it was mostly due to their (mostly unprecedented) tolerance for other cultures within the empire, as well as Suleiman's own example of marrying a Christian woman.   Of course, their descendants screwed up that historical goodwill during the first world war.

Huh??!!  So if I follow your line of thinking, we can't give any credit to a mostly tolerant and civil Islamic society for fostering the advancement of scientific development, and instead we ought to credit some of the Christians who lived and worked within this system?  That's just bizarre and frankly biased.  Also, the list of Muslim scientists and philosophers during the height of the Ottoman Empire (c 1300 - mid 1800s, though it lasted longer) is vast.  Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they didn't contribute.

Missed that part when I read that.... lol. Yeah sorry being Christian lends no special powers of being more scientific. In fact being deeply religious is a guarantee you are going to believe things that completely fly in the face of reason and science.

There do exist scientists that are deeply religious of course, but if you press them you will certainly find that they have to draw a hard line between their faith and science because the two simply cannot be reconciled with reason when they overlap. Faith is the opposite of science in application requiring you to believe things in the absence of strong evidence while science would only have you believe something under rigorous burden of proof.

The fact that scientific advancement occurred in Western society that happened to have primarily Christian faiths is just a matter of how repressive those societies chose to be with regards to education. If you have a religious society that is able to promote education and literacy you will likely have science and advancement in spite of the boundaries religion places on peoples world views.

We would honestly also have no idea how many prominent scientist in history were actually Atheists at heart given that publishing work that was counter to religion would have been seen as heresy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 11, 2017, 03:08:21 PM

A small point of contention of my own.... It was not Islam that was at the forefront of such research, it was scientists living under a tolerant Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire.  Mostly under and after Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered much of Southern Europe.  Certainly, they are responsible for a great many of the libraries that led to the Renaissance period, but more than a few of the greatest advancements in science were discovered by Christians living within the Ottoman Empire; In Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Belgrade.  The Ottoman Empire peaked during this time, but their scientific achievements were not due to their Islamic background, culture or state religion; it was mostly due to their (mostly unprecedented) tolerance for other cultures within the empire, as well as Suleiman's own example of marrying a Christian woman.   Of course, their descendants screwed up that historical goodwill during the first world war.

Huh??!!  So if I follow your line of thinking, we can't give any credit to a mostly tolerant and civil Islamic society for fostering the advancement of scientific development, and instead we ought to credit some of the Christians who lived and worked within this system?  That's just bizarre and frankly biased.  Also, the list of Muslim scientists and philosophers during the height of the Ottoman Empire (c 1300 - mid 1800s, though it lasted longer) is vast.  Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they didn't contribute.

I didn't claim that they didn't contribute.  My point was that the dominate religion of the empire was not the important factor, and doesn't deserve the kudos your statement implies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 11, 2017, 03:56:06 PM

A small point of contention of my own.... It was not Islam that was at the forefront of such research, it was scientists living under a tolerant Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire.  Mostly under and after Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered much of Southern Europe.  Certainly, they are responsible for a great many of the libraries that led to the Renaissance period, but more than a few of the greatest advancements in science were discovered by Christians living within the Ottoman Empire; In Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Belgrade.  The Ottoman Empire peaked during this time, but their scientific achievements were not due to their Islamic background, culture or state religion; it was mostly due to their (mostly unprecedented) tolerance for other cultures within the empire, as well as Suleiman's own example of marrying a Christian woman.   Of course, their descendants screwed up that historical goodwill during the first world war.

Huh??!!  So if I follow your line of thinking, we can't give any credit to a mostly tolerant and civil Islamic society for fostering the advancement of scientific development, and instead we ought to credit some of the Christians who lived and worked within this system?  That's just bizarre and frankly biased.  Also, the list of Muslim scientists and philosophers during the height of the Ottoman Empire (c 1300 - mid 1800s, though it lasted longer) is vast.  Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they didn't contribute.

I didn't claim that they didn't contribute.  My point was that the dominate religion of the empire was not the important factor, and doesn't deserve the kudos your statement implies.

Why does the dominant religion in this case not constitute an important factor. This wasn't an open democracy where a plethora of religious persuasions permeated government and the society; this was an overwhelmingly Islamic society. Islam was the primary identity - it was a part of both government and daily life. That society carried the torch for virtually all forms of intellectual advancement in the region for several hundred years until the enlightenment, and then existed in parallel for a century or two more.

To say "yeah, they were Muslim but it wasn't at all important to why the society was successful" seems dishonest to me.  Also, I was not one giving kudos - that was GuitarStv (see upthread)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 12, 2017, 07:16:39 AM
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same time period, but in Spain,  Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully together.  The other religions were not dominated, but they coexisted.  It sounds good.  I am sure it was not perfect because perfect does not exist, but peaceful sounds very good. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on January 12, 2017, 07:22:11 AM
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference.  I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 12, 2017, 07:24:54 AM
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference.  I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

No, he brought a bunch of his paid staffers with him to clap and cheer.

Because of course he did.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 12, 2017, 07:26:16 AM
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference.  I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

My understanding was that it was Trump's staff and supporters who were cheering. Yeah - the cheering was alarming - more like a rally than a press conference. This administration is toxic.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 12, 2017, 07:29:20 AM
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c)

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 12, 2017, 07:45:00 AM
Quote
yeah, they were Muslim but it wasn't at all important to why the society was successful"

Quidnon isn't arguing that Islam wasn't a factor in the success of the society/empire/caliphate etc. He's arguing that you can't credit a religion for individual technological advancements. The credit goes to the people who invented or discovered those things regardless of their faith or the predominant faith of the nation they lived in.

You see this false argument on a lot of misguided (but well meaning) memes that usually go something like:
"Without religion X, we wouldn't have <list of technologies>!"
ex. Without the mystery cult of Apollo, we wouldn't have aqueducts, shaped roads or newspapers!

This is obvious a specious argument since presumably many of the listed technologies would have been discovered regardless of the religion or invented elsewhere.

The most credit you can give the theology or government is that they either directly patronized scientific inquiry or created a congenial atmosphere of collaboration that promoted innovation through rapid cultural diffusion.

Quidnon - if I'm misrepresenting your argument, let me know and I'll delete this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 12, 2017, 08:02:40 AM
Quote
yeah, they were Muslim but it wasn't at all important to why the society was successful"

Quidnon isn't arguing that Islam wasn't a factor in the success of the society/empire/caliphate etc. He's arguing that you can't credit a religion for individual technological advancements. The credit goes to the people who invented or discovered those things regardless of their faith or the predominant faith of the nation they lived in.

You see this false argument on a lot of misguided (but well meaning) memes that usually go something like:
"Without religion X, we wouldn't have <list of technologies>!"
ex. Without the mystery cult of Apollo, we wouldn't have aqueducts, shaped roads or newspapers!

This is obvious a specious argument since presumably many of the listed technologies would have been discovered regardless of the religion or invented elsewhere.

The most credit you can give the theology or government is that they either directly patronized scientific inquiry or created a congenial atmosphere of collaboration that promoted innovation through rapid cultural diffusion.

Quidnon - if I'm misrepresenting your argument, let me know and I'll delete this.

My point is simply that the two are inseparable.
It isn't fair to say that religion has nothing to do with it, nor is it fair to say that it has everything to do with it. It's impossible to tease out to what degree it factored in to scientific advancement, yet one has to recognize that under those circumstances that region was more prolific, prosperous and stable than most of Europe.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 12, 2017, 08:26:50 AM
Meanwhile while everyone is focused on Trump's ties with Russia, the house just passed the REINS Act. Nothing like having Congress be the final say on clean water, toxic chemicals, etc. I mean really who needs scientist to determine this stuff?

This country is so unbelievably screwed.   You know, 'Muricans love to pat themselves on the back about how awesome our western societies are comparison with those countries governed under philosophies of stone age Islamic magical thinking that reject facts.....and now we are racing to join them.

FUCK FACTS! WHO NEEDS THEM?

A small point of contention . . . Islam was at the forefront of scientific research and discovery in the world around the middle ages.  In the west we were rushing desperately trying to catch up to them.

A small point of contention of my own.... It was not Islam that was at the forefront of such research, it was scientists living under a tolerant Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire.  Mostly under and after Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered much of Southern Europe.  Certainly, they are responsible for a great many of the libraries that led to the Renaissance period, but more than a few of the greatest advancements in science were discovered by Christians living within the Ottoman Empire; In Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece and Belgrade.  The Ottoman Empire peaked during this time, but their scientific achievements were not due to their Islamic background, culture or state religion; it was mostly due to their (mostly unprecedented) tolerance for other cultures within the empire, as well as Suleiman's own example of marrying a Christian woman.   Of course, their descendants screwed up that historical goodwill during the first world war.

Agreed. This is mostly an example that a society with Islam as a prominent faith can be as open minded and scientific as a christian nation, in spite of the religion not in any way because of it.

Given the way that medieval religious practices permeated all aspects of life, I'm not sure that your point is entirely valid.  I don't personally believe that religion of any kind necessarily helps or hinders scientific endeavor . . . it's all up to the interpretation of the adherents at the time.  I'd agree that in modern times Islamic states have lost the conditions that gave them intellectual supremacy for so long in the middle ages.

There's a common narrative of Western Christian superiority that often rears up in these sorts of conversations, and all I was trying to do was offer a counterpoint to it.



But if you allow society to be completely ruled by hard line religious zealots driven by faith or a desire to control people that same religion can be used to stifle education, science and tolerance as we see in most if not all current Islamic regimes.

Absolutely.  A viewpoint intolerant of change, and an excess of reverence for the past seems to doom intellectual pursuits and reduce creative output through many means.



A hard line christian state could have many of the same repressive anti education, anti science and anti women qualities that we see with Islam. Probably how ever absent the incentive for Jihad and terrorism.

If you truly believe this, you should read up a bit about Christian history.  St. Augustine's concept of 'Just War', the Crusades, the French Catholic/Protestant Wars . . . Christians have been involved in an awful lot of holy wars.  As far as terrorism, you don't have to look far either.  There have been regular terror attacks by Christians against abortion clinics in the US, the murder/rape/torture performed by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, the NLFT's actions in north east India, etc.

Repressive anti-education, anti-science, and anti-woman qualities tend to show up because of quality of life and the subsequent (mis?)interpretation of a religion.  The idea that Christianity is somehow less dangerous than any other method of worship is an unsupportable one, but one that people from predominantly Christian places cling to.  Religions are liable to change (hence my example of Islam in the middle ages) and how they affect public life depends entirely on popular interpretation and variable ideas of what is acceptable.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lyssa on January 12, 2017, 12:16:12 PM
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same time period, but in Spain,  Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully together.  The other religions were not dominated, but they coexisted.  It sounds good.  I am sure it was not perfect because perfect does not exist, but peaceful sounds very good.

No, it was not perfect. Jews and Muslims had to pay the dhimma (protection money in order to be left alone and not face execution or enslavement) and were second-class citizens in a lot of respects (made to live in ghettos, not allowed to ride horses, testemony worth little to nothing in court).

Better second-class citizen than a non-citizen (or slave), but "coexistence" makes it sound a lot nicer than it was.

Al-Andalus gets idealized a lot in order to contrast it with the state of affairs in the Christian world back then or Saudi Arabia now.

Realistically, it was not bad as a lot of other times and places but surely no example to emulate today...

And honestly: that this is trumpeted as a prime example of Muslim tolerance centuries later says a lot about Islam practised in other times and places including today....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 12, 2017, 12:18:55 PM
Quote
The most credit you can give the theology or government is that they either directly patronized scientific inquiry or created a congenial atmosphere of collaboration that promoted innovation through rapid cultural diffusion.

Quote
It isn't fair to say that religion has nothing to do with it, nor is it fair to say that it has everything to do with it. It's impossible to tease out to what degree it factored in to scientific advancement, yet one has to recognize that under those circumstances that region was more prolific, prosperous and stable than most of Europe.

I would argue that these statements are saying essentially the same thing and that we are in agreement.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 12, 2017, 01:07:41 PM
Quote
The most credit you can give the theology or government is that they either directly patronized scientific inquiry or created a congenial atmosphere of collaboration that promoted innovation through rapid cultural diffusion.

Quote
It isn't fair to say that religion has nothing to do with it, nor is it fair to say that it has everything to do with it. It's impossible to tease out to what degree it factored in to scientific advancement, yet one has to recognize that under those circumstances that region was more prolific, prosperous and stable than most of Europe.

I would argue that these statements are saying essentially the same thing and that we are in agreement.
sounds good to me :-)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on January 12, 2017, 05:05:38 PM
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c)

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 12, 2017, 06:31:26 PM


Quidnon - if I'm misrepresenting your argument, let me know and I'll delete this.

Gondolin, you said it better than I.  Perhaps I could hire you as my interpreter?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on January 12, 2017, 10:32:37 PM
A 1990 Prediction.
http://www.heavymetal.com/news/president-elect-donald-trump-as-foretold-in-a-1990-heavy-metal-story/ (http://www.heavymetal.com/news/president-elect-donald-trump-as-foretold-in-a-1990-heavy-metal-story/)

(http://www.heavymetal.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/trump-wall-4-769x1024.jpg)

The entire comic:
http://thebristolboard.tumblr.com/post/151814104810/forgotten-masterpiece-the-wall-by-peter-kuper (http://thebristolboard.tumblr.com/post/151814104810/forgotten-masterpiece-the-wall-by-peter-kuper)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 13, 2017, 05:55:26 AM

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.

Amen to that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 13, 2017, 06:08:02 AM
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c)

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.

While I agree that civil service protections can and should be modified (short of filing a fraudulent time card, it is very difficult to fire someone) there are very good reasons why they are in place.

It prevents new administrations from coming and fire everyone over ideological views and installing their own people who may or may not be equipped for the job.  Before the civil service protection laws were put in place, people were fired frequently by new administrations and if you wanted a job with the new administration you had to either be a party member and/or pay off the right people in the party structure to get a job.  By making it hard to clean house every few years, you can build up an institutional knowledge and a much more knowledgeable and capable force.  Are there inefficiencies...yes, but it is a better system than it used to be.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 07:28:44 AM
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c)

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.

Deadlymonkey and FLiXFantatier did a good job of explaining a few of my concerns.
First, I'd argue its disingenuous to say that this is how employment is "for the rest of the people". Under most corporation jobs, contracts and "working professional" businesses full time employees DO have protections from being fired without cause - including severence packages, minimum notice (with pay) and labor unions to negotiate on your behalf.  Some states have blanket protection for workers if your office is shut down (I know Maine did when I lived there). What this bill would do is prevent civil workers from having similar benefits.

Practically speaking, federal employees need protection from becoming political footballs. Unlike most businesses, "upper management" (aka the executive branch) shifts every ~4-8 years between opposing factions. Without these protections federal workers could become political footballs, tossed out and replaced with new people... it's a recipe for nepotism and political abuse. This is rampant in the more corrupt governments - political favors and loyalty are traded for government jobs, and competent employees are let go.

I'm actually for revamping the protections for federal workers, having been one myself.  I think its sometimes too hard to get rid of employees for just cause (basic incompetence) but simultaniously it's hard to hire skilled workers because the compensation can be so much less than it is in the private sector (I get paid 2.5x as an independent contractor with less restrictions for doing a job that actually requires slightly less experience).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 13, 2017, 08:00:17 AM
4 - 8 years in a job, is really not a bad run at all.   Most people nowadays do not spend 20 years with a company,  Also, the changes are very predictable -- if you know your job may only be 4 - 8 years, you can prepare for that.  It doesn't sound all that bad.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 08:18:07 AM
4 - 8 years in a job, is really not a bad run at all.   Most people nowadays do not spend 20 years with a company,  Also, the changes are very predictable -- if you know your job may only be 4 - 8 years, you can prepare for that.  It doesn't sound all that bad.
Seriously?  I was speaking about the frequency in changes of the president and his cabinet. The duration of FTE (full time employees) is going to be different; some will have been hired only in the last 1-2 years.
Whether or not the change is predictable does not mean this is a good way to run a government. My major concerns is that this promotes corruption and nepotism while making it harder for the gears of the government to actually work as they're supposed to.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 13, 2017, 08:46:47 AM
The voters get to check on whether the government is running better or worse every 4 years or so, so it's not that big of a risk.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 08:49:01 AM
The voters get to check on whether the government is running better or worse every 4 years or so, so it's not that big of a risk.
Are you talking about the Rokita bill, or responding to something else?
What is "it"?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 13, 2017, 09:04:08 AM
The press conference was truly frightening, although I only listened to it and did not watch.  I noticed one weird thing, but my perception may have been skewed since I only listened.  Were reporters clapping and cheering for him?  It seemed bizarre to hear clapping and cheering at a press conference. I guess only more bizarre then ending a press conference with "You're Fired".

Unfortunately the Trump administration is setting itself up to be able to do just that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/12/new-feds-could-be-fired-for-no-cause-at-all-under-planned-legislation/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.2dc887fc563c)

tl/dr: Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has proposed a bill which would allow the Trump administration to have enormous control over civil servants.  It says: "Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." (emphasis added).
Trump wants to be the boss that can continue to say "You're Fired" to anyone at any time and for any reason. This would allow his administration to do just that for federal employees.

Why is this bad? Welcome to the world of employment for the rest of the people. I don't think government employees should have any special rights or protections. A person can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons, e.g. race, gender, religion, etc.) in the private sector. The public sector should be the same.

Deadlymonkey and FLiXFantatier did a good job of explaining a few of my concerns.
First, I'd argue its disingenuous to say that this is how employment is "for the rest of the people". Under most corporation jobs, contracts and "working professional" businesses full time employees DO have protections from being fired without cause - including severence packages, minimum notice (with pay) and labor unions to negotiate on your behalf.  Some states have blanket protection for workers if your office is shut down (I know Maine did when I lived there). What this bill would do is prevent civil workers from having similar benefits.

Practically speaking, federal employees need protection from becoming political footballs. Unlike most businesses, "upper management" (aka the executive branch) shifts every ~4-8 years between opposing factions. Without these protections federal workers could become political footballs, tossed out and replaced with new people... it's a recipe for nepotism and political abuse. This is rampant in the more corrupt governments - political favors and loyalty are traded for government jobs, and competent employees are let go.

I'm actually for revamping the protections for federal workers, having been one myself.  I think its sometimes too hard to get rid of employees for just cause (basic incompetence) but simultaniously it's hard to hire skilled workers because the compensation can be so much less than it is in the private sector (I get paid 2.5x as an independent contractor with less restrictions for doing a job that actually requires slightly less experience).

I suspect the GOP is pushing 'fire at will' on the feds so that they can threaten and intimidate all the federal scientists who might possibly be publishing factual info that counters their more fantastical forms of ideology.  It's really a horrifying  prospect to have basic research put at the whims of getting on the wrong side of some nutty congressman (which would totally happen in our state). 

But to your bolded point, my husband is a federal research scientist and we would both agree with you.  There's always a handful of crappy employees in every pool. Although most are weeded out at these higher level, high-qualification positions there are still a few.  They create incredible headaches for everyone.  And no one gets more pissed at the inability to demote and or fire them than their functional co-workers.  Some reform is definitely in order.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bananarama on January 13, 2017, 09:05:54 AM
4 - 8 years in a job, is really not a bad run at all.   Most people nowadays do not spend 20 years with a company,  Also, the changes are very predictable -- if you know your job may only be 4 - 8 years, you can prepare for that.  It doesn't sound all that bad.

I think all the arguments trashing the Federal work force (or teachers) have some seriously faulty logic and suffer from magical thinking. Turning over even a few thousand positions a year (on top of political appointments and ambassadorships) would mean incredible additional outlays of time and money. Time to pick people AND time as well as significant amounts of money running security investigations on them all (not to mention more investigators). A very large portion of the Federal work force has a clearance, and the higher that clearance is the more expensive it was to complete. They already can take a year to complete, so that's a lot of time for people to work with only the most cursory of background check/finger print check.

I highly doubt anyone is actually disagreeing with the idea that it would be nice to have an easier method of firing bad Federal employees, to keep them accountable for their work. Everyone raising concerns regarding the Holman rule/Rokita's bill are actually trying to explain that there is a significant space for nepotism, cronyism, and dysfunction/failure.

Does no one care about the long-term view anymore? Are we doomed to only govern in 4-to-8 year blocks? Because seriously, that path leads to the end of our experiment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 13, 2017, 09:11:34 AM
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.  That's the thing about being the leader, you actually get to have the control and power.

It's ridiculous to say to the new boss, here you go, but you don't get to fire anyone.  Then you have the inmates running the asylum.  People's jobs are not life appointments and they should not be ever treated or thought of as such. 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 13, 2017, 09:15:32 AM
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.  That's the thing about being the leader, you actually get to have the control and power.

It's ridiculous to say to the new boss, here you go, but you don't get to fire anyone.  Then you have the inmates running the asylum.  People's jobs are not life appointments and they should not be ever treated or thought of as such.

The power you're talking about doesn't exist because of how prone it is to abuse.  If a CEO takes over the company that you work for tomorrow, he doesn't have the ability to fire you without cause though.  If he does then he'll end up paying for it from the severance that they have to pay to prevent you from suing, or the money you'll get when you win your wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

Nobody's arguing that jobs should be life appointments.  Being fired without notice or cause is patently unfair though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bananarama on January 13, 2017, 09:23:09 AM
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.  That's the thing about being the leader, you actually get to have the control and power.

It's ridiculous to say to the new boss, here you go, but you don't get to fire anyone.  Then you have the inmates running the asylum.  People's jobs are not life appointments and they should not be ever treated or thought of as such.

I think you're missing the point. No one is arguing that getting a Federal position should be a life long job - regardless of whether or not you suck at it. The argument is that there are ways to structure the presumed goal (a better way to get rid of bad/low productivity employees) without creating an environment that encourages people to shut up and tow the party line. Putting a block between a micro-managing ideologue (of any kind) and a Federal employee doing their job is vital to the health of our government.

And the new boss gets to fire plenty of people. There are a significant number of presidential appointments and ambassadorships that turn over with every new president. These people head the departments and dictate the direction to the Federal employees who then create the policy that makes it happen. The guy in State running a program to push for LGBTQ/women's rights in whatever country isn't making the choice for State's direction - he's doing the job his fucking boss assigned him. Whether or not Pence (or whoever) has issue with that is irrelevant, and the potential of these new rules to cost that guy his job make them a problem.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 13, 2017, 09:28:29 AM
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.

Does it make you at all nervous that they requested lists of names of federal employees working on climate change and gender equity issues at the same time they passed a rule allowing them to fire any federal employee by name, without cause?

Maybe just coincidence?  Maybe not?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 13, 2017, 10:13:22 AM
If they don't want to work on climate change and gender equity, that's their call.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 10:17:41 AM
They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.

Does it make you at all nervous that they requested lists of names of federal employees working on climate change and gender equity issues at the same time they passed a rule allowing them to fire any federal employee by name, without cause?

It makes me, personally, very nervous. My entire job is looking at changing aquatic ecosystems and how recent and predicted shifts alter fisheries. Today I'm literally writing a grant to start a new project, and there's a vivid string of emails about whether we try to avoid ever using the words "Change" or "shift" or "warming" at all in the proposal, even though we aren't specifically addressing climate change.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bananarama on January 13, 2017, 10:34:47 AM
If they don't want to work on climate change and gender equity, that's their call.

I'm not sure what this is referencing. In regards to Trump's intended direction forward - that's true. In regards to some random dude in State that's also true. So...? What's the issue here that deserves bolded text?

The problem I see is some random dude in State potentially getting fired over work he did under a different administration with a different direction or for a personally held belief. Or some random chick in the EPA getting fired because she's a scientist and human caused climate change is, short of any new compelling data currently not really in existence, a scientific reality. Or some lawyer in the DoJ getting fired because they don't believe a particular case might have merit - or because they do.

They're not going to fire everybody.  But they should have the power to fire anyone they choose at any time.

Does it make you at all nervous that they requested lists of names of federal employees working on climate change and gender equity issues at the same time they passed a rule allowing them to fire any federal employee by name, without cause?

It makes me, personally, very nervous. My entire job is looking at changing aquatic ecosystems and how recent and predicted shifts alter fisheries. Today I'm literally writing a grant to start a new project, and there's a vivid string of emails about whether we try to avoid ever using the words "Change" or "shift" or "warming" at all in the proposal, even though we aren't specifically addressing climate change.

What I do isn't as directly involved in areas of interest that Republicans generally don't value, and I'm terrified. I'm not a Federal employee, but I can certainly see many potential conflicts of interest and suppression of workers voices.

The last thing we need right now is a civilian force of yes men, scared to speak out when we really need them to (while always hoping there is no need to) because they'll loose their jobs and livelihoods.

eta: words
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 13, 2017, 10:41:09 AM
If they don't want to work on climate change and gender equity, that's their call.

Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

Say for example you have been hired by the EPA to determine what causes a massive fish kill in Ohio.  You investigate, you draw samples, you analyze results, and you determine that the fish died because a nearby mining operation illegally dumped waste materials into the lake.  You report these findings, and President Trump fires you because the mining conglomerate is a profitable business that donated to his campaign.  Are you okay with that?

These are the sorts of things civil service protections were designed to prevent.  Federal scientists, like university professors, are some of the jobs that require a certain level of protection from political shenanigans in order to be done effectively.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 13, 2017, 11:24:08 AM
If they don't want to work on climate change and gender equity, that's their call.

Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

Say for example you have been hired by the EPA to determine what causes a massive fish kill in Ohio.  You investigate, you draw samples, you analyze results, and you determine that the fish died because a nearby mining operation illegally dumped waste materials into the lake.  You report these findings, and President Trump fires you because the mining conglomerate is a profitable business that donated to his campaign.  Are you okay with that?

These are the sorts of things civil service protections were designed to prevent.  Federal scientists, like university professors, are some of the jobs that require a certain level of protection from political shenanigans in order to be done effectively.

My guess is that Kbecks is, indeed, okay with that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 11:42:36 AM
I worry about the scenario Sol describes.
I also worry that it is ripe for corruption and nepotism for reasons outlined above my myself and others.
Additionally, it creates an obvious end-run for the executive branch to circumvent programs put into place by Congress. Don't like a program? Fire everyone on it and it's effectively dead in the water. Want to pressure a particular lawmaker into voting one way or another? Put the job(s) of a particular workforce into the cross-hairs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 13, 2017, 12:07:29 PM
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 12:14:25 PM
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Well, that isn't the same as what the Rokita bill is proposing. What concerns many of here is the ability to fire people without cause at any time.

It's also decidedly NOT like many corporate layoffs, where contract employees are given severence pay, advocated for by their unions and contractually protected from being individually fired without just cause.
Yes, he could use it to gut a department that was underperforming in his view, but it could also be used to do the nefarious things Sol and others have suggested.  That's what we are objecting to.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on January 13, 2017, 01:54:29 PM
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Ah, so that's how you want to "make America great again". Fire people. Tell me, again, how any of this is going to create the jobs he's been promising, or how firing entire segments of government workers because he just doesn't like their mission puts the country on firmer standing, or bridges the divides between us as a people, or really does anything positive?

Or is it just about fucking ideology? (Don't answer that, from your other posts I already know what it is.)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 13, 2017, 03:02:27 PM
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Well, that isn't the same as what the Rokita bill is proposing. What concerns many of here is the ability to fire people without cause at any time.


It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do.  What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 13, 2017, 03:13:23 PM

It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do. What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?

Trump is draining the swamp?!?!!!

That's the best laugh I've had in quite a while.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 03:23:55 PM
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Well, that isn't the same as what the Rokita bill is proposing. What concerns many of here is the ability to fire people without cause at any time.


It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do.  What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?

ok, what we are talking about here are contract employees (FTEs) - and the proposed bill extends beyond the Executive branch to all civil servants (there are dozens of independent agencies in the federal government, including the EPA, FCC, NASA, the NSF...).

What did I think the moniker "drain the swamp" meant?  Well certainly I've been disappointed to see a bunch of Goldmans Sachs alumns paraded through (4 at last count) plus billionaires and hundred-millionaires and everyone who curried favor with Trump from Perry to Carson, plus some of his biggest donors over the years.  Pretty much the very kinds of people that he accused HRC of being too cozy with. The "swamp" hasn't been drained - it's just been refilled.

Also - it's pretty offensive to say "welcome to the real world" as if we're somehow not living in it. I'm not currently in the government, though I have been in the past.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 13, 2017, 03:29:01 PM
It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do.  What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?
If ever a President needed someone to speak truth to him it's Trump.  And he is being given the powers to say "you're fired" to any government worker who tries to speak truth to him.  Including presumably any member of the FBI or CIA who says anything unfavourable about Putin, or any government lawyer who says that there is no good cause to prosecute Hilary Clinton, or any public servant who objects to an order to use forms of torture more extreme than waterboarding.

It makes Trump into a fucking dictator.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 13, 2017, 03:32:43 PM
Are you suggesting that President Trump should be allowed to fire individual scientists who report findings that conflict with his political agenda?

No, but I am suggesting that the President decides he wants to gut the EPA, he can lay off hundreds of people and that's OK.   If he wants to close down entire initiatives, he can do that.  If a segment of any department is overstaffed, underperforming or wasteful in his view, they can cut it.  It's just like a corporate layoff.

Well, that isn't the same as what the Rokita bill is proposing. What concerns many of here is the ability to fire people without cause at any time.


It's called "at will employment" and it is the case for pretty much everyone that doesn't have a labor contract.  Welcome to the real world.  Those people that work for agencies that fall under the Executive branch, serve at the will of the president.  Always have, really; these proposed bills just spell it out plainly.  Likely because that is exactly what Trump is planning to do.  What did you think he intended when he said "drain the swamp"?

ok, what we are talking about here are contract employees (FTEs) - and the proposed bill extends beyond the Executive branch to all civil servants (there are dozens of independent agencies in the federal government, including the EPA, FCC, NASA, the NSF...).


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. 

Quote
What did I think the moniker "drain the swamp" meant?  Well certainly I've been disappointed to see a bunch of Goldmans Sachs alumns paraded through (4 at last count) plus billionaires and hundred-millionaires and everyone who curried favor with Trump from Perry to Carson, plus some of his biggest donors over the years.  Pretty much the very kinds of people that he accused HRC of being too cozy with. The "swamp" hasn't been drained - it's just been refilled.

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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 13, 2017, 03:34:06 PM

It makes Trump into a fucking dictator.

Time will tell.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 03:42:24 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 (https://www.hg.org/independent.html)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on January 13, 2017, 03:42:40 PM
You're pretty sure?  That is flippin laughable.  Seems like he was pretty damn clear throughout the campaign that he meant all the toadies cozying up and doing corrupt backroom deals.  And it was clear he was just pissed because he couldn't drain the swamp into his own pocket.  Trump is not for America or the miners or the working class or anyone else, Trump is for Trump.   


Quote
What did I think the moniker "drain the swamp" meant?  Well certainly I've been disappointed to see a bunch of Goldmans Sachs alumns paraded through (4 at last count) plus billionaires and hundred-millionaires and everyone who curried favor with Trump from Perry to Carson, plus some of his biggest donors over the years.  Pretty much the very kinds of people that he accused HRC of being too cozy with. The "swamp" hasn't been drained - it's just been refilled.

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.



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 13, 2017, 03:49:24 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 (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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 03:52:27 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 13, 2017, 04:03:05 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 (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.

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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 13, 2017, 04:03:55 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 13, 2017, 04:16:04 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 (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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 13, 2017, 04:27:10 PM
Acts like Silvio Berlusconi + talks like Hugo Chavez?

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

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? on January 13, 2017, 04:31:37 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?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks 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
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? 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.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks 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
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne 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 (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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? 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 (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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 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...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? 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".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: disconneked 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
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: disconneked 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
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: disconneked 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?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: realDonaldTrump on January 15, 2017, 05:40:23 AM
Widening gap between rich and poor. Trump voters will get what they asked for :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Psychstache 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

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: disconneked 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 15, 2017, 09:35:57 AM
Yup, Russia troll. Got it now.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: disconneked 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: disconneked 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? 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.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Quidnon? 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo 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).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo 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?''
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris 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"?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth 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 (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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo 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 (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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo 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).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 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 :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache 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 (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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/the-most-dangerous-bill-y_b_14067390.html)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ysette9 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?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ysette9 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!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 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.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ysette9 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.)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo 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'?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 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 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers)

Rockefeller family calling Exxon Mobil out and divesting... (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/12/08/the-rockefeller-family-fund-vs-exxon/)

Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html)

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))  (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/)

detailed accounting (http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/ExxonMobil-Climate-Denial-Funding-1998-2014.pdf)

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 (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kaci9_bbc-horizon-2011-science-under-attack-pdtv-xvid_tech). 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 (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/). 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. (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/) I wonder if there's a reason for that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 16, 2017, 06:49:21 PM
THanks for the sources - I'll read them tomorrow. 
What I was getting at (and may be included in your links) was TILLERMAN specifically supporting junk science, not just Exxon Mobil.  I realize he was CEO from 06-2016, and has a lot of culpability there, but it would seem more damning to me if he were personally linked to funding such "studies" than the company in general, which probably has a robust PR division actively combating its negative global image any way it can
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 16, 2017, 07:00:42 PM
What I was getting at (and may be included in your links) was TILLERMAN specifically supporting junk science, not just Exxon Mobil. 

Some of the complaints against Exxon Mobil aren't just that it supported junk science, but that it deliberately concealed good science.

For example, there is ample evidence that Exxon executives met with a variety of federal scientist in the 1980s about the threat icebergs in Prince William Sound would pose to their tanker ships if the glaciers in Alaska continued to recede.  Exxon knew this was becoming a problem, and they not only suppressed the science they actively turned down offers to help, such as iceberg fences around the shipping lanes.  In 1989, the exact threat they had been warned about caused the Exxon Valdez to leave the established shipping corridor to avoid icebergs, run aground on Bligh reef, and proceed to leak approximately 30 million gallons of oil into one of America's most pristine environments.

This is the issue that led the Attorneys General of several states to band together to sue Exxon Mobil in 2015.  For securities fraud.  Their argument was that Exxon had a legal responsibility to disclose these known risks to their investors, and they instead concealed them. 

So it's not just spreading junk science, though there has certainly been a bunch of that too, but illegally suppressing good science (in circumstances where they had a legal obligation to disclose it).  That's fraud, too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:55:03 AM
Obviously not for the next few years, but at some point Exxon and some other big oil companies will be successfully sued like the Tobacco Companies for deliberately hiding the damage their products caused.  Many current climate researchers acknowledge how much more advanced the oil companies climate science is since they have been working on it for 50+ years and have known for most of that time that fossil fuels were contributing to the temperature rise.  They deliberately withheld it, but kept researching.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on January 17, 2017, 09:52:55 AM
In 1989, the exact threat they had been warned about caused the Exxon Valez to leave the established shipping corridor to avoid icebergs, run aground on Bligh reef, and proceed to leak approximately 30 million gallons of oil into one of America's most pristine environments.

I know someone who was on-call for the docks in Valdez that night. Among all the other problems, Bligh reef should have been absurdly easy to avoid. Like, she thought the call she got was a joke at first because what drunk dipshit* would ever run aground there? She's STILL furious with Exxon for that, and for the subsequent shit-show that was their attempt at "cleanup" that kept people running around rather than doing anything effective. They were basically trying to put on a show of how hard and impossible it would be to clean up their mess, rather than take responsibility for their disaster. They love to tout what a great job they did, pat themselves on the back and try to get some environmental credibility that way. Don't believe it.

Oil companies, and their executives, are really adept at talking out both sides of their mouths. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who are willing to believe them. Reminds me of this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaXigSu72A4)

*The captain had been drinking, but was not at the helm. It was the tired third mate. Her point was that you have to be a complete fool to run aground on that particular reef because it's very obvious and everyone knows about it. There are no good and reasonable excuses for that disaster to have happened.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 17, 2017, 12:29:44 PM
Thanks for the sources - I'll read them tomorrow. 
What I was getting at (and may be included in your links) was TILLERMAN specifically supporting junk science, not just Exxon Mobil.  I realize he was CEO from 06-2016, and has a lot of culpability there, but it would seem more damning to me if he were personally linked to funding such "studies" than the company in general, which probably has a robust PR division actively combating its negative global image any way it can

Interesting question. You got me thinking and pulling up stuff I've seen / read. Here's a few things:

He's been in exec staff / at the helm since before 2004. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Tillerson.

"In 2004, (Tillerson) became president and director of ExxonMobil. On January 1, 2006, Tillerson was elected chairman and chief executive officer (CEO)"

If there was any evidence that during that time he ever stood up and said that the climate change denialism was wrong, I'd change my tune. But so far as I can tell, he has not done such a thing.   

(btw, excuse my potty mouth last night - I perhaps shouldn't have checked in after our wine drinking music jam night. Nothing pushes my buttons like people who are putting my kids' world in jeopardy. And after a couple glasses of wine I'm prone to drop a few f bombs. whoops.)

Let's start with this snippet.  a 30 second secret recording in 2007 shareholder's meeting (https://youtu.be/f7P3eVCAUZQ?t=15s). Keep in mind this is after a long history of Exxon mobil being on the forefront of global science, turning away from it in the mid-80s to produce doubt rather than science.

And this.   'Too many complexities around climate change to know.'  ... 2015 press conference  (https://youtu.be/TNXOjIV7Vow?t=1m35s)after Rockefeller shareholder attempt to cleave chairman of board role from CEO role (It failed).

He claims to have become aware of global warming around 1995. Surely between then and 2004, and during his long career including a decade in top leadership, he was aware of the science that Exxon itself was fully aware of in quite a bit of detail - even before 1980. (http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1978-exxon-memo-on-greenhouse-effect-for-exxon-corporation-management-committee/)

Before he became CEO, Exxon mobil was actively funding global warming disinformation campaigns. He continued it at least through 2012 (but I believe through today too). But Exxon no longer needs to fund denial campaigns as the anonymous donor-advised-fund "Donor's Trust" has taken up the slack, and then some.  (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/DonorsTrust.pdf)

In 2009 he expressed the opinion that a carbon tax would be the best way to curb carbon emissions (which I agree with so far as I understand the issue ), but that was in the context of massive public and congressional discussion of cap and trade. In that light, yes, a carbon tax would be far more straight forward and desirable - eg a better choice if XOM had to choose. However, once cap and trade talk died down, so too did Tillerson's talk of a carbon tax (as far as I know - he maybe mentioned it on occasion afterward when asked.). However, he continues to this day to make comments that instill ever more doubt (https://youtu.be/TNXOjIV7Vow?t=1m35s).

Exxonsecrets.org details contributions to think tanks and orgs that actively pump out global warming doubt (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php) - data found in quarterly and annual statements.

This video is interesting - open questions at his alma mater UoT (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEPVy4OGO6M).

The last question of the Q&A is on Climate Change - the evolution of Rex Tillerson's understanding of climate change (https://youtu.be/ZEPVy4OGO6M?t=50m27s) (my typed up notes paraphrasing his talk):

Quote
I first heard of climate change personally in 1995. XOM has 4 science divisions. XOM members of IPCC. Climate consensus means nothing to us* you can't have scientific consensus, ... you can have it around a theory, but climate is complicated study of science going on - we have a ton of data - but the challenge is the models to try and predict the future. none of the models agree*. There's no model that's competent at predicting the future. I've spent time with MIT. We conclude this is a serious risk, and anyone who says they know beyond a shadow of doubt, and we need to manage the risk. So how do we manage it? We are engaged in participating ... We get engaged in policy side. Policies are going to have impacts on economy. 1.7B people still don't have electricity. It's going to take energy to lift them out of poverty. How are we going to meet the world energy needs and manage environmental risks. The discourse is at the extremes, but the solution will be found in the middle...
*See - I have a problem with the way he talks about this. The whole consensus came about because policy makers were getting confused and they asked the IPCC scientists to agree on a statement. So - they debated and came up with a statement that the vast majority agreed upon. It wasn't scientists colluding on a statement - their arms were twisted into making it - and now they are vilified for not doing 'real science' because science is based on skepticism. Ugh. can't win. So R Tillerson alludes to this in his language. It's really crafty. Again - it slows action. Now I do agree that more of the conversation needs to take place in the middle - I think the documentary 'Cool It' addresses this topic really well. But I find his discussion of science is crafted in a way to make non-scientists think there's some conspiracy going on.

A couple side-items from that UoT video: He talks about integrity an awful lot. Almost too much. Not that it's evidence, but it boils my blood. It chaps my hide, as it were.  About 15:00 in - early 80s - mid level manager with 120 workers had to lay people off. Lesson - if I had anything to say about it, we'd never get in that situation again. (just an interesting insight into a facet of his motivations - not that it's evil - it's just what it is).
~22:00 minutes his leadership philosophy is all about business integrity and ethics, and personal integrity and ethics.
~38:30 his long good close relationship with Putin and the enormity of the Exxon investments in Russia. discussions of sanctions.
And again, the Climate Change Q&A from the UoT forum (https://youtu.be/ZEPVy4OGO6M?t=50m27s)

more info from union of concerned scientists (http://blog.ucsusa.org/kathy-mulvey/who-is-rex-tillerson-trumps-egregious-choice-for-secretary-of-state)

Profile of Tillerson from a polluter tracker website  (http://www.polluterwatch.com/rex-tillerson)

If you watch the film Greedy Lying Bastards (this is a good source for leads for info - but the documentary is a little, uh, skewed) ... , there's a scene toward the end where the documentary host sneeks a camera in to an Exxon shareholder meeting. Tillerson doesn't answer the guy's question about the company’s funding of denialist organizations, but says that climate change poses a serious risk, and so ExxonMobil is “going to continue to be actively engaged in that debate." I assume that means continuing to fund misinformation.

Ultimately, the buck stops with Rex Tillerson. If his integrity was what he purports in that UofT video, then he would have ended the denialism funding back in the early noughts. But he hasn't. On top of that, he continues to make statements that make it seem like he's taking the problem seriously 'as an engineer who deals in facts,' but these comments, IMO, merely serve to punt the action ball further.

Extra viewing (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/climate-of-doubt) - touches on Exxon not Rex. But during the time he led the org.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 18, 2017, 07:35:37 AM
If you read through everything I linked above, you might be feeling like Mr. Tillerson is a straight shooter.

In reality, he's using crafty language to put us off our guard. I find this language all over climate denial literature (not that I've read it all, but I've read enough).

Another forum member asked me via PM why global warming is so dire. I gave my explanation - that the models that were made in the 80s actually under called the observed warming we're seeing now. Nasa uses ~60 or so models to predict warming. His point was that if we couldn't predict global warming with the same precision as say, mapping the orbit of Mercury around the sun - then we couldn't really trust it. This is the line of thinking that Rex Tillerson is appealing to. In fact, Tillerson goes so far as to say that some models call for global cooling. Yes - a handful of models from the 70s suggested that cooling might be coming but over a few years those models were generally found to be limited and wrong - and that was long ago - but people still keep bringing them up.

Ultimately, we have overwhelming evidence that warming is happening, it's human caused and the results will range anywhere from highly-inconvenient-and-uncomfortable to GREAT filter disaster.  All of this crafty language is just confusing people and delaying action. So what if the models don't totally match up with each other? They all go up and to the right. To me this is enough info - coupled with the fact that 97% of actual climate scientists agree that antrhopomorphic climate change is happening. Burning ever more fossil fuels is like a patient ignoring the advice of 99 doctors who recommend chemo, and instead following the advice of the one doctor who says brocolli will cure her pancreatic cancer. It's silly.

Who cares if shareholder value is created this year, if in a century the earth is not suitable for human life?

I just don't get it. I DO agree that we need to talk about lots of solutions - and have those conversations with people in the oil industry. Take my brother-in-law for example. He's an expert in fracking and carbon sequestration. But since he's from the oil industry, his ideas are dismissed out of hand by CA policy makers. (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/fair-verona-where-we-lay-our-scene/msg1350838/#msg1350838) It makes him so angry that, despite agreeing with the climate scientists, he wants to advocate burn baby burn.

We need to be careful to not make enemies of people in the oil industry. Yes - I regret using curse words against Mr. Tillerson. But it requires that people be honest. Based on his experience and statements, I think he's being disingenuous. That's why I don't want him as SoS.

So, the realistic impact of Tillerson as SoS is that he is likely to convince the administration to lift sanctions with Russia and dig up even more carbon to be pumped into the air (and absorbed in the oceans). If we keep doing this - our oxygen producing plankton dies, and after that - our descendants die too.

Our country can fall into revolution and the stock market can crash for all I care. I'll manage. But deliberately delaying action on stopping the causes of global warming? That's unforgivable.  And while Mr. Tillerson may talk like he wants to cooperate - it's only that: talk.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 18, 2017, 07:50:52 AM
If you read through everything I linked above, you might be feeling like Mr. Tillerson is a straight shooter.

In reality, he's using crafty language to put us off our guard. I find this language all over climate denial literature (not that I've read it all, but I've read enough).

Another forum member asked me via PM why global warming is so dire. I gave my explanation - that the models that were made in the 80s actually under called the observed warming we're seeing now. Nasa uses ~60 or so models to predict warming. His point was that if we couldn't predict global warming with the same precision as say, mapping the orbit of Mercury around the sun - then we couldn't really trust it. This is the line of thinking that Rex Tillerson is appealing to. In fact, Tillerson goes so far as to say that some models call for global cooling. Yes - a handful of models from the 70s suggested that cooling might be coming but over a few years those models were generally found to be limited and wrong - and that was long ago - but people still keep bringing them up.

Ultimately, we have overwhelming evidence that warming is happening, it's human caused and the results will range anywhere from highly-inconvenient-and-uncomfortable to GREAT filter disaster.  All of this crafty language is just confusing people and delaying action. So what if the models don't totally match up with each other? They all go up and to the right. To me this is enough info - coupled with the fact that 97% of actual climate scientists agree that antrhopomorphic climate change is happening. Burning ever more fossil fuels is like a patient ignoring the advice of 99 doctors who recommend chemo, and instead following the advice of the one doctor who says brocolli will cure her pancreatic cancer. It's silly.

Who cares if shareholder value is created this year, if in a century the earth is not suitable for human life?

I just don't get it. I DO agree that we need to talk about lots of solutions - and have those conversations with people in the oil industry. Take my brother-in-law for example. He's an expert in fracking and carbon sequestration. But since he's from the oil industry, his ideas are dismissed out of hand by CA policy makers. (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/fair-verona-where-we-lay-our-scene/msg1350838/#msg1350838) It makes him so angry that, despite agreeing with the climate scientists, he wants to advocate burn baby burn.

We need to be careful to not make enemies of people in the oil industry. Yes - I regret using curse words against Mr. Tillerson. But it requires that people be honest. Based on his experience and statements, I think he's being disingenuous. That's why I don't want him as SoS.

So, the realistic impact of Tillerson as SoS is that he is likely to convince the administration to lift sanctions with Russia and dig up even more carbon to be pumped into the air (and absorbed in the oceans). If we keep doing this - our oxygen producing plankton dies, and after that - our descendants die too.

Our country can fall into revolution and the stock market can crash for all I care. I'll manage. But deliberately delaying action on stopping the causes of global warming? That's unforgivable.  And while Mr. Tillerson may talk like he wants to cooperate - it's only that: talk.

QFT
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 18, 2017, 08:51:02 AM
Thanks for your detailed posts, Maylasia41 -

I get particularly irritated by the line of thinking that "since models don't agree and aren't 100% accurate we cannot trust them."
In part this is due to the general publics poor understanding of what modeling actually is. I can't help but draw parallels to people's mistrust of 'safe withdrawal rates' and the perpetual idea that we can't trust in something unless gives us 100% success rates, and even then we need to be skeptical because blah blah blah...
...Or the public's distrust of weather predictions.  If 90% of models show a hurricane offshore will hit your coastal neighborhood in two days, you GTFO, not question whether hurricanes exist.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 18, 2017, 10:07:17 AM
If 90% of models show a hurricane offshore will hit your coastal neighborhood in two days, you GTFO, not question whether hurricanes exist.
In context, it absolutely makes sense to address climate change on a risk adjusted basis, just because the potential extreme outcomes are so severe.  When you drive your car, you don't expect to have an accident but you always buckle up, because the consequences of that slim chance are catastrophic.  When you design a jet airplane you don't expect it to crash into the ocean, but you still equip it with life boats.  In cases where there is even the slightest chance of such a horrible outcome, we take steps to mitigate the risk.  Just in case, even though the risk is small.

The expected impacts of climate change are bad, but survivable.  Yes, millions of extra people will die, but humanity will endure in most places.  There's also a slight chance that it willl be less bad, and only a few tens of thousands of extra people will die.  There's also a slight chance it will be worse than expected, and civilization will end.

I don't understand the people who look at this spread of possibilities and decide to do nothing.  I mean I understand being optimistic and hopeful, but please still wear your damn seatbelt.  Hope for the best, but plan for the worst, right?

And in this case, taking preventative precautions against the worst case scenario actually helps in the expected median scenario, too.  Seatbelts are a waste if your drive goes as expected, but reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes things better in every possible scenario, not just the ones where we revert to scattered preindustrial societies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 18, 2017, 10:25:20 AM
Excellent points Sol.  I'd add that we've long passed the point where real impacts from the changing climate will be an unlikely outcome. In very real ways we're already experiencing the first effects (like unprecedented changes in species distributions), yet those are small potatoes to the effects we are expecting.

What pisses me off is that its a solvable issue.  Cheap? Heck no, but every year that goes buy increases both the costs of real action later as well as the magnitude of its effects.
It feels like many are waiting for some sort of magical fix to emerge, kind of like how people honestly believe that 'Trumpcare' will cover more people with far better service and lower deductibles all without adding to the debt or requiring those pesky subsidies that Obamacare has.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malloy on January 18, 2017, 10:46:40 AM


I don't understand the people who look at this spread of possibilities and decide to do nothing. I mean I understand being optimistic and hopeful, but please still wear your damn seatbelt.  Hope for the best, but plan for the worst, right?

And in this case, taking preventative precautions against the worst case scenario actually helps in the expected median scenario, too.  Seatbelts are a waste if your drive goes as expected, but reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes things better in every possible scenario, not just the ones where we revert to scattered preindustrial societies.

The Venn overlap between the people who collectively shrug in response to a potential global calamity predicted by about every single credible scientist and those who carry a gun at all times because you NEVER KNOW when you'll be called on to be Captain America is astonishing to me.  The likelihood of the first is approaching 100% but the likelihood of the second is vanishingly small. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 18, 2017, 10:55:41 AM


I don't understand the people who look at this spread of possibilities and decide to do nothing. I mean I understand being optimistic and hopeful, but please still wear your damn seatbelt.  Hope for the best, but plan for the worst, right?

And in this case, taking preventative precautions against the worst case scenario actually helps in the expected median scenario, too.  Seatbelts are a waste if your drive goes as expected, but reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes things better in every possible scenario, not just the ones where we revert to scattered preindustrial societies.

The Venn overlap between the people who collectively shrug in response to a potential global calamity predicted by about every single credible scientist and those who carry a gun at all times because you NEVER KNOW when you'll be called on to be Captain America is astonishing to me.  The likelihood of the first is approaching 100% but the likelihood of the second is vanishingly small.

Yeah, but reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 18, 2017, 11:10:43 AM
Yep, the key to understanding Trumps appeal is understanding that the number one thing Trumpers hate, worse than terrorists, worse than a bad economy, worse than immigrants or muslims, is liberals.  They view them as the enemy trying to take "their" country away from them.  SO it doesn't matter if they get poorer or lose rights, as long as the liberals suffer, they are all good with it. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 18, 2017, 11:15:27 AM
Yep, the key to understanding Trumps appeal is understanding that the number one thing Trumpers hate, worse than terrorists, worse than a bad economy, worse than immigrants or muslims, is liberals.  They view them as the enemy trying to take "their" country away from them.  SO it doesn't matter if they get poorer or lose rights, as long as the liberals suffer, they are all good with it.

How exactly do you think they'd define a 'liberal'?

What's the endgame of these 'evil liberals'?

What specifically has led them to the conclusion that 'liberals' are the enemy?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 18, 2017, 11:22:10 AM
Liberals are those big bad boogeymen that Fox news talks about, you know, those elitist weak snobs who hate God and want to take away their guns.  Our endgame is to make all their kids weak, gay and godless. 

It's just a useful construct for manipulating the masses into acting against their interests, and keeping the poor divided and fighting for the scraps. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 18, 2017, 11:25:42 AM
Yep, the key to understanding Trumps appeal is understanding that the number one thing Trumpers hate, worse than terrorists, worse than a bad economy, worse than immigrants or muslims, is liberals.  They view them as the enemy trying to take "their" country away from them.  SO it doesn't matter if they get poorer or lose rights, as long as the liberals suffer, they are all good with it.

How exactly do you think they'd define a 'liberal'?

What's the endgame of these 'evil liberals'?

What specifically has led them to the conclusion that 'liberals' are the enemy?
1) anyone who doesn't think like them.  Also, anyone who lives in an urban locale by choice, and/or works white-collar, 'professional' jobs. Anyone that doesn't regularly attend a christian church, too.

2) world domination, and the elimination of the 'conservative' way of life. Taking your guns, too.

3) about 2.5 decades of talk radio and certain television news stations. Seriously on these shows there's constant talk about the "covert liberal agenda" as if its a cloak-and-dagger sort of thing, and not stated policy that certain people believe will make the world a better place.

FWIW I relate to (and am also related to) a lot of rural-dwelling folks that would call themselves bonafide conservatives.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 18, 2017, 11:42:49 AM
Our endgame is to make all their kids weak, gay and godless. 

I think they've gotten over the "gay agenda" thing. They still care about Sharia law being imposed by tolerant liberals.

http://ijr.com/opinion/2015/12/251031-liberal-sympathy-sharia/

Quote from: sarcasm_or_real?
3 Examples Of Liberals Showing Sympathy For Sharia Law While Persecuting Christians

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 18, 2017, 11:43:59 AM
Exactly, I am going from experience here.  Some of my relatives have bought this hook, line and sinker, and there is no reasoning with them,ever.  It is really nothing short of a radicalization of rural and conservative America.  I saw people I got along with and enjoyed the company of begin to get more angry and paranoid.  I used to vote conservative (always been a registered independant) back in the day, but the conservatives drifted away from me when they started to go in this direction.   It is now even worse with Trump because he has gone one step farther.  It used to be that one could throw up history, data, or science to attempt to prove or disprove an arguement, but now any news with a liberal slant (or any news that attacks him) is "fake news".  So you have millions who have been primed for a generation to hate and fear liberals, and now they only trust what is said to them by the people that primed them in the first place.  There really is no coming back from that I'm afraid. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 18, 2017, 11:45:44 AM
Our endgame is to make all their kids weak, gay and godless. 

I think they've gotten over the "gay agenda" thing. They still care about Sharia law being imposed by tolerant liberals.

http://ijr.com/opinion/2015/12/251031-liberal-sympathy-sharia/

Quote from: sarcasm_or_real?
3 Examples Of Liberals Showing Sympathy For Sharia Law While Persecuting Christians

Holy crap that's an awful article.  I'm going to go wash my eyeballs out.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 18, 2017, 11:48:36 AM
Our endgame is to make all their kids weak, gay and godless. 

I think they've gotten over the "gay agenda" thing. They still care about Sharia law being imposed by tolerant liberals.

http://ijr.com/opinion/2015/12/251031-liberal-sympathy-sharia/

Quote from: sarcasm_or_real?
3 Examples Of Liberals Showing Sympathy For Sharia Law While Persecuting Christians
That was an interesting article.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 18, 2017, 11:58:57 AM
I'm done caring. If poor white trash want to vote me a tax cut, bring it on. I've spent too much time trying to use logic to get these folks to *raise* my taxes so their kids don't grow up malnourished and uneducated. It doesn't work. Screw it.

Idiots.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 18, 2017, 11:59:40 AM
That gif is pure AWESOME. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 18, 2017, 12:07:07 PM
I'm close to that point as well.  If they weren't so bound and determined to drag us all down with them I would be totally done.  The cabinet position hearings are like a who's who of incompetence, corruption and dismantling of the government. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 18, 2017, 12:18:03 PM
America has survived previous episodes of corrupt and incompetent leadership precisely because people like you did NOT disengage from public life.  We'll muddle through for a few years, then we'll slowly get back on track just like we always have before.

Progress is a slow march.  Sometimes we take a few steps back before we realize we're going in the wrong direction.  Eventually we'll abandon the march completely, but not until people like you refuse to participate in finding the right direction. 

So maybe don't give up on us quite yet?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 18, 2017, 12:20:21 PM
I'm close to that point as well.  If they weren't so bound and determined to drag us all down with them I would be totally done.  The cabinet position hearings are like a who's who of incompetence, corruption and dismantling of the government.

Yes, part of the problem is we have things like anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers now in charge. Those are topics where moronic policy shifts can still have an impact even on us rich folks, alas.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 18, 2017, 12:23:24 PM
I'm close to that point as well.  If they weren't so bound and determined to drag us all down with them I would be totally done.  The cabinet position hearings are like a who's who of incompetence, corruption and dismantling of the government.

Yep - if it wasn't for global warming, I'd probably be able to step back and laugh. Move money overseas, sit back and muah ah ah ah.

But I have kids. And I want them to have a habitable planet.

One aunt of mine spewed venom at me via email - calling me the liberal elite. Whatever the hell that means. Thinking of her specifically, here are my answers to my three questions:

1) I would say she defines a liberal as someone who doesn't comprehend the infinite wisdom of the invisible hand of the free market. A liberal is someone who wants the government to take care of them so they can go be lazy on her hard-earned dime. An elitist liberal wants to raise her taxes so they can use them to control every aspect of her life such as whether she can say "Merry Christmas." And a liberal is a snooty elite who looks down their nose at the working class.

2) The liberal's end game is straight up godless communism, where 'every behavior is okay' (for liberals) but somehow still saying "Merry Christmas" is banned. Yeah - it doesn't really compute, but that's what it is.

3) What led them to this conclusion? Multiple parts.
 - Ayn Rand
 - The Republican Noise Machine  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_Noise_Machine) that tells them that the (largely truthful) media is liberal*, the liberal elites want to make their lives awful, the liberal healthcare policies will impose death panels that will kill your dear aging parents, etc etc etc.
 - A mental framework that, when presented with scary things, embraces an authoritarian father nation-as-family model (versus a nurturant parent model) (which is why the GOP / Fox beats the 'world is scary' drum so much)
 - A chip on their shoulder (missed opportunities / grass greener on TV / IDK)

*unfortunately - this accusation baited the mainstream media into trying to demonstrate no bias - they stopped reporting truth and moved to reporting 'balance'. IMO this shift was what Trump easily tapped into - people had been fed so much crazy, he just had to waft the flames in his direction.
 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 18, 2017, 12:29:02 PM
I'm done caring. If poor white trash want to vote me a tax cut, bring it on. I've spent too much time trying to use logic to get these folks to *raise* my taxes so their kids don't grow up malnourished and uneducated. It doesn't work. Screw it.

Idiots.

-W
I feel like this could be the biggest con (in a long line of cons) against poor and rural citizens.  DJT's goals include reducing taxes on the wealthy, eliminating the estate tax (which only benefits the wealth), reducing corporate taxes and cutting out environmental protections.  At the same time the GOP wants to get rid of health care subsidies and reduce benefit programs.
Everywhere I look it seems good for rich people and bad for poor rural people.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 18, 2017, 12:30:18 PM
I'm done caring. If poor white trash want to vote me a tax cut, bring it on. I've spent too much time trying to use logic to get these folks to *raise* my taxes so their kids don't grow up malnourished and uneducated. It doesn't work. Screw it.

Idiots.

-W
I feel like this could be the biggest con (in a long line of cons) against poor and rural citizens.  DJT's goals include reducing taxes on the wealthy, eliminating the estate tax (which only benefits the wealth), reducing corporate taxes and cutting out environmental protections.  At the same time the GOP wants to get rid of health care subsidies and reduce benefit programs.
Everywhere I look it seems good for rich people and bad for poor rural people.

Yep. That's the goal of the Republican Noise Machine. Dupe voters into supporting policies that create dynasties.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 18, 2017, 12:36:01 PM
1) I would say she defines a liberal as someone who doesn't comprehend the infinite wisdom of the invisible hand of the free market. A liberal is someone who wants the government to take care of them so they can go be lazy on her hard-earned dime.

If we followed that to its logical end, we'd take all the money that California, New York, and Illinois give to the southern states and they could become even shittier in terms of education and health. Fuck 'em.

Quote
3) What led them to this conclusion? Multiple parts.
 - Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand definitely appeals to invincible young turks who were born on 3rd base...

Quote
- A chip on their shoulder (missed opportunities / grass greener on TV / IDK)

Education and job training would go a long way to fixing this. Getting the Republicans in Congress to fund job training would probably be impossible.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malloy on January 18, 2017, 12:59:08 PM
I'm done caring. If poor white trash want to vote me a tax cut, bring it on. I've spent too much time trying to use logic to get these folks to *raise* my taxes so their kids don't grow up malnourished and uneducated. It doesn't work. Screw it.

Idiots.

-W

Someone on this board said something that I think summed it up so well.  There are haves, have-a-littles, and have-nots.  Most of us on this board who think we don't need a tax cut are have-a-littles.  We are white collar professionals who make enough to qualify at the very lowest end for Republican tax cuts. However, our downside in Republican administrations is potentially quite high, because we don't have enough in savings to self-insure if the ACA goes away.

The haves, true multi-millionaires, stand to gain quite a bit more through tax cuts and the elimination of the estate tax and are largely shielded from insurance down sides if there is no ACA.  Plus, their income is mostly via investments and not W-2 wages.

The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on January 18, 2017, 01:37:40 PM
The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.

We're not "great at business" like that guy who went bankrupt six times.

Sol - your point about climate change was exactly how I feel about the issue, but much more eloquently stated. There's no down side! Why the fuck can't people see that?

Even more than people who deny it, though, I'm annoyed by the people who will give lip service to "concern" about the environment and don't do shit to help. Yeah, sure, I believe you care about the environment with your giant-ass SUV to carry around just yourself just as much as I believe someone's a Christian while actively despising poor people and ignoring what their Man-God actually said. Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 18, 2017, 01:42:14 PM
I'm done caring. If poor white trash want to vote me a tax cut, bring it on. I've spent too much time trying to use logic to get these folks to *raise* my taxes so their kids don't grow up malnourished and uneducated. It doesn't work. Screw it.

Idiots.

-W

This is exactly how I feel. As does my husband, who grew up poor and rural, pulled himself up by the bootstraps with no help, proudly served in the military, and then served as a border patrol agent in the field, before putting himself through college and getting the first PhD in his extended family.  At this point his attitude is that he's sorry he ever bothered to put himself in danger in defense of his family or the huge segment of the population that are anti-science, anti-fact, and downright self-destructive lunatics.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 18, 2017, 01:47:13 PM
Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

I'm not so sure.  One of the defining characteristics of the progressive agenda is a concern for the well-being of all people, even the illiterate, the deceived, and the actively counter productive ones who fight against society's welfare.

Everyone's children are equally deserving of inheriting a planet that is at least as amazing as the one we inherited, regardless of their political beliefs or the destruction they have caused.  If we all just think a little bigger, maybe we can get past this us vs them mentality and realize we all live here together.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 18, 2017, 01:53:59 PM
Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

I'm not so sure.  One of the defining characteristics of the progressive agenda is a concern for the well-being of all people, even the illiterate, the deceived, and the actively counter productive ones who fight against society's welfare.

Everyone's children are equally deserving of inheriting a planet that is at least as amazing as the one we inherited, regardless of their political beliefs or the destruction they have caused.  If we all just think a little bigger, maybe we can get past this us vs them mentality and realize we all live here together.

I agree. I'm working on talking with the Trumpsters in my family - using language that resonates with them, even if that language makes me nauseous (e.g. 'patriotic' and 'unamerican'). I've been trying to establish common ground with them.  For example: I had a whole email exchange with that rabid aunt. I made a case about fighting against Civil Asset Forfeiture. She came around to saying that it sounds like it incentivizes cops to be criminals.

It's slow going, and who knows if it'll change anything. But I'm trying. One conversation at a time.

At the winter break I voice recorded a bunch of conversations with Trumpsters. I may write it up. Right now I'm still too angry to do anything with that material. Probably I will feel that way for another, oh ... four years or so. But I was thinking of writing something up - something that a Trumpster could read and possibly take a few steps toward our side. Thinking about it. For now, it's email exchanges with my elite-liberal-hating aunt.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 19, 2017, 08:31:28 AM
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 19, 2017, 08:39:26 AM
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 19, 2017, 08:49:29 AM
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?

The SECDEF is really the only intermediary.  There are lots of pages that describe the notional process since I think the official process is probably classified, but the President does not talk directly to the launch facilities.  There is no official approval process but intermediaries can refuse to transmit the orders.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 19, 2017, 08:50:13 AM
Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

I'm not so sure.  One of the defining characteristics of the progressive agenda is a concern for the well-being of all people, even the illiterate, the deceived, and the actively counter productive ones who fight against society's welfare.

Everyone's children are equally deserving of inheriting a planet that is at least as amazing as the one we inherited, regardless of their political beliefs or the destruction they have caused.  If we all just think a little bigger, maybe we can get past this us vs them mentality and realize we all live here together.

I agree. I'm working on talking with the Trumpsters in my family - using language that resonates with them, even if that language makes me nauseous (e.g. 'patriotic' and 'unamerican'). I've been trying to establish common ground with them.  For example: I had a whole email exchange with that rabid aunt. I made a case about fighting against Civil Asset Forfeiture. She came around to saying that it sounds like it incentivizes cops to be criminals.

It's slow going, and who knows if it'll change anything. But I'm trying. One conversation at a time.

At the winter break I voice recorded a bunch of conversations with Trumpsters. I may write it up. Right now I'm still too angry to do anything with that material. Probably I will feel that way for another, oh ... four years or so. But I was thinking of writing something up - something that a Trumpster could read and possibly take a few steps toward our side. Thinking about it. For now, it's email exchanges with my elite-liberal-hating aunt.

Not too long ago I was at a scientific conference, and there was a workshop about how to more effectively communicate with the broader public.  Since this was shortly after the US election there was a lot of focus on how to bridge the gap.

One of the core messages was making a connection that initially avoids 'trigger' concepts but that everyone can make both an emotional as well as an intellectual connection to.  For example, if I were to explain my latest research as "looking at the effects of climate change on invertebrate populations, and how current and proposed fisheries policies might affect them"  - I've lost many red hat people because they'll automatically reject what I'm doing.  Instead I could simply start by saying that my work centers around "how do we protect our valuable seafood industry in New England".  People inherently want to protect things, but are less likely to support having policies ("regulations") or admit that we may have caused this change.
Etc. etc

The bottom line I've taken from this is that there's still a lot of common ground, but we're surrounded by a field of verbal land-mines. I can (and should) be sensitive to their concerns while still finding what common ground we share. I'm currently doing exactly this, as I"m working with five different groups ("shareholders") trying to build a project that will benefit everyone in some way yet involves aspects that each group isn't too keen on.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 19, 2017, 08:55:21 AM
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?

The SECDEF is really the only intermediary.  There are lots of pages that describe the notional process since I think the official process is probably classified, but the President does not talk directly to the launch facilities.  There is no official approval process but intermediaries can refuse to transmit the orders.

I think that's kind of what I'm saying, aside from whether or not Secretary of Defense is involved. That was the whole thing a while back about the personnel responsible for literally pressing the launch button on the sub/silo/bomber, and whether or not they would go through with it based on the fact that it came from Trump. The way the articles I saw portrayed it, was that mutiny was basically the only safeguard in the case of a nuclear order from the President.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 19, 2017, 09:00:11 AM
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?

The SECDEF is really the only intermediary.  There are lots of pages that describe the notional process since I think the official process is probably classified, but the President does not talk directly to the launch facilities.  There is no official approval process but intermediaries can refuse to transmit the orders.

I think that's kind of what I'm saying, aside from whether or not Secretary of Defense is involved. That was the whole thing a while back about the personnel responsible for literally pressing the launch button on the sub/silo/bomber, and whether or not they would go through with it based on the fact that it came from Trump. The way the articles I saw portrayed it, was that mutiny was basically the only safeguard in the case of a nuclear order from the President.

Yeah the way the system is designed, you need to be able to respond to a Soviet launch in under 10 minutes there is not time for committees or approvals.  I would think/hope that a much more significant portion of the people involved would mutiny rather than obey in the event of a first strike situation rather than a response, sure silo operators might not know the difference but all the associated people in the pentagon would.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 19, 2017, 09:07:08 AM
Quote
One of the core messages was making a connection that initially avoids 'trigger' concepts but that everyone can make both an emotional as well as an intellectual connection to.  For example, if I were to explain my latest research as "looking at the effects of climate change on invertebrate populations, and how current and proposed fisheries policies might affect them"  - I've lost many red hat people because they'll automatically reject what I'm doing.  Instead I could simply start by saying that my work centers around "how do we protect our valuable seafood industry in New England".  People inherently want to protect things, but are less likely to support having policies ("regulations") or admit that we may have caused this change.
Etc. etc

Yep, at this point, a lot of language is politicized, so when I talk to my conservative friends and relatives about environmental issues, I stay away from "global warming", "climate change" or even the word "environment".  I talk about how we should not be wasteful, and not pollute the water or air, and most people are on board.  People are weird. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 19, 2017, 09:10:08 AM
Quote
One of the core messages was making a connection that initially avoids 'trigger' concepts but that everyone can make both an emotional as well as an intellectual connection to.  For example, if I were to explain my latest research as "looking at the effects of climate change on invertebrate populations, and how current and proposed fisheries policies might affect them"  - I've lost many red hat people because they'll automatically reject what I'm doing.  Instead I could simply start by saying that my work centers around "how do we protect our valuable seafood industry in New England".  People inherently want to protect things, but are less likely to support having policies ("regulations") or admit that we may have caused this change.
Etc. etc

Yep, at this point, a lot of language is politicized, so when I talk to my conservative friends and relatives about environmental issues, I stay away from "global warming", "climate change" or even the word "environment".  I talk about how we should not be wasteful, and not pollute the water or air, and most people are on board.  People are weird.

I think that funny that people often associate liberals with "trigger words" but it is true on both sides. 

"I agree that we should not drink poisoned water."
"Maybe we should have a regulation saying you can't poison drinking water?"
"AHHH trigger, no regulations!!!!"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 19, 2017, 09:14:21 AM
(https://delphinius56.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/ch151129.jpg)

THis was first published two decades ago.
Side note:  Really miss Watterson's C&H.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 19, 2017, 09:20:20 AM
sigh, C&H best comic ever, followed closely by the Far Side.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 19, 2017, 09:39:53 AM
Quote
THis was first published two decades ago.

And this is why Bill Watterson became a hermit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 19, 2017, 10:22:18 AM
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?

The SECDEF is really the only intermediary.  There are lots of pages that describe the notional process since I think the official process is probably classified, but the President does not talk directly to the launch facilities.  There is no official approval process but intermediaries can refuse to transmit the orders.

I think that's kind of what I'm saying, aside from whether or not Secretary of Defense is involved. That was the whole thing a while back about the personnel responsible for literally pressing the launch button on the sub/silo/bomber, and whether or not they would go through with it based on the fact that it came from Trump. The way the articles I saw portrayed it, was that mutiny was basically the only safeguard in the case of a nuclear order from the President.

Humans are fallible.  We must upgrade to the WOPR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReJ3RltihME
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on January 19, 2017, 10:35:41 AM
Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

I'm not so sure.  One of the defining characteristics of the progressive agenda is a concern for the well-being of all people, even the illiterate, the deceived, and the actively counter productive ones who fight against society's welfare.

Everyone's children are equally deserving of inheriting a planet that is at least as amazing as the one we inherited, regardless of their political beliefs or the destruction they have caused.  If we all just think a little bigger, maybe we can get past this us vs them mentality and realize we all live here together.

Ah, apparently I accidentally deleted (along with a more general, angrier, and downright unfair statement) that our, the world's, children deserve better than to have people like that in charge. I just meant that those particular people who espouse such ideals and do jack shit to change things, or make the world better, deserve to lead sad, miserable little lives. And I hope their kids learn from their mistakes. (I hope my kid learns from my mistakes, too, so I'm not holding myself blameless by any means, I just try harder than some people to be less of a hypocrite.)

Yes, I'm concerned about the welfare of all people in a broad sense. However, I am most concerned about those less able to make and influence decisions. Those who can do something to make the world better and choose not to are bastards. Those who think of dolla bills as the bottom line, rather than the much more important issues such as keeping the planet habitable, are putting greed ahead of everything truly important. Fuck that attitude.

Malaysia - Good for you, trying to change minds. I'm still too angry at this point. Reading the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond hasn't helped, because I see so many parallels between past societies screwing themselves over and current global trends. Figuring out how to change those trends, influence things for the better, is my current self-project. And your way (talking to people) is probably the only real way to do it, so I need to keep that in mind. :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jeninco on January 19, 2017, 01:40:42 PM
Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

I'm not so sure.  One of the defining characteristics of the progressive agenda is a concern for the well-being of all people, even the illiterate, the deceived, and the actively counter productive ones who fight against society's welfare.

Everyone's children are equally deserving of inheriting a planet that is at least as amazing as the one we inherited, regardless of their political beliefs or the destruction they have caused.  If we all just think a little bigger, maybe we can get past this us vs them mentality and realize we all live here together.

Well, shit. I've spent the last 2 1/2 months basically thinking (when I can think about it) "f*ck you right back, and the horse you rode in on, too.  Hope you enjoy spending the next 4 years watching your relatives die of untreated opioid addictions and other curable maladies, and your children remain uneducated and unemployable because 'local control' of schools means no real science and not much history, and no economically healthy potential employer would choose to hire ignorant employees. Maybe Walmart will add medical insurance for employees!"   

Sol's framing here is the first angle on this sh**storm that feels helpful and constructive. (Granted, I live in a pretty hippy-dippy place, so the conversations tend to go "we just need to understaaaand where they're coming from" followed by me thinking "um, nope. Ignorant sexist bigots, clutching their bibles. Don't need to "understand" squat." Interpersonal bullshit is not really my thing.

Thanks, Sol. I'll try to keep that in mind for the next few months/years.
(Man, I sound like a total grouch: helping kids with math is  my thing, and I volunteer to do lots of that. And I do some medical volunteering as a ski patroller. I just have no patience for pussyfooting around with adults who should be able to think rationally, but somehow can't be bothered to. My goal for the next four years: more kids finishing high school with an understanding of basic statistics!)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on January 19, 2017, 06:25:00 PM
Quote
One of the core messages was making a connection that initially avoids 'trigger' concepts but that everyone can make both an emotional as well as an intellectual connection to.  For example, if I were to explain my latest research as "looking at the effects of climate change on invertebrate populations, and how current and proposed fisheries policies might affect them"  - I've lost many red hat people because they'll automatically reject what I'm doing.  Instead I could simply start by saying that my work centers around "how do we protect our valuable seafood industry in New England".  People inherently want to protect things, but are less likely to support having policies ("regulations") or admit that we may have caused this change.
Etc. etc

Yep, at this point, a lot of language is politicized, so when I talk to my conservative friends and relatives about environmental issues, I stay away from "global warming", "climate change" or even the word "environment".  I talk about how we should not be wasteful, and not pollute the water or air, and most people are on board.  People are weird.

I think that funny that people often associate liberals with "trigger words" but it is true on both sides. 

"I agree that we should not drink poisoned water."
"Maybe we should have a regulation saying you can't poison drinking water?"
"AHHH trigger, no regulations!!!!"

Totally agree.

Obamacare = hate
ACA = love

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6m7pWEMPlA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6m7pWEMPlA)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 19, 2017, 10:54:10 PM
If you read anything by George Lakoff, you understand why trigger words work on both, and why for the past 4 decades - trigger language has been used to great effect by the GOP and little effect by the DNC. 

The GOP - who had the benefit of insightful business marketers - put this framing language to use many decades earlier than the DNC. Coupled with the end of the Fairness Doctrine and Telecommunications act of 1996, our largely objective media got baited into using this GOP crafted trigger language. ... and the country swung GOP - hard. Read up on Frank Luntz, for example, and you'll see what I mean about language.   

tax 'relief' instead of tax 'policy'  *trigger!* ("it's an affliction brought on by evil government." (never mind that the gov't is formed by people who are democratically elected)
gun control instead of gun policy *trigger!* ("they're trying to take our guns!" (even tho they've never said that))
death tax instead of estate tax *trigger!* ("I'm taxed my whole life and then the gubmint takes more when I die? I'm outraged!!!" (never mind that an estate tax is one of the most effective tools at preventing dynasties from forming - it should be called a dynasty prevention tax).

It works the other way too. You may recognize heavy use of these: 
Freedom fries
War on Christmas
Patriotic Hero
unAmerican
etc. etc etc.

All I can say is don't take the bait. Use honest (mainly progressive IMO) language instead. "Protect rights." "Opportunity for all." "Injustice"  "Violation of our constitutional rights" (e.g. with civil asset forfeiture).

It's hard work putting thought into EVERY frigging WORD. I mean, it's always been worth doing, but today, some phrases are landmines, still others are like heroin hitting the blood stream. So at this point, you really HAVE to think about every word, and use the right ones. Now more than ever. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 19, 2017, 11:32:50 PM
The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.

We're not "great at business" like that guy who went bankrupt six times.

Sol - your point about climate change was exactly how I feel about the issue, but much more eloquently stated. There's no down side! Why the fuck can't people see that?

Even more than people who deny it, though, I'm annoyed by the people who will give lip service to "concern" about the environment and don't do shit to help. Yeah, sure, I believe you care about the environment with your giant-ass SUV to carry around just yourself just as much as I believe someone's a Christian while actively despising poor people and ignoring what their Man-God actually said. Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 20, 2017, 12:22:30 AM
Yeah, very frustrating.

Typical liberals acknowledge the problem, but then have ridiculously ineffective solutions in mind.

Typical conservatives refuse to admit there's a problem at all.

IMO Elon Musk will be spraying the upper atmosphere to cool the planet eventually, because nobody has their shit together. Rich people will just take it on themselves - they have kids too, and sooner or later the problem will get really clear to everyone.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 20, 2017, 12:34:49 AM
Yeah, very frustrating.

Typical liberals acknowledge the problem, but then have ridiculously ineffective solutions in mind.

Typical conservatives refuse to admit there's a problem at all.

IMO Elon Musk will be spraying the upper atmosphere to cool the planet eventually, because nobody has their shit together. Rich people will just take it on themselves - they have kids too, and sooner or later the problem will get really clear to everyone.

-W

At some point it'll have to tackled, and then it will be. I wouldn't mind if Elon or some other batman like figure just solved it for everyone though - of course it would give all the AGW deniers such fits "See, wasn't a problem anyway!"  But I'd take that easily over the alternative...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on January 20, 2017, 03:49:08 AM
IMO Elon Musk will be spraying the upper atmosphere to cool the planet eventually, because nobody has their shit together.

Saw that in Snowpiercer. Didn't work out too well for them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 20, 2017, 06:18:55 AM
IMO Elon Musk will be spraying the upper atmosphere to cool the planet eventually, because nobody has their shit together.

Saw that in Snowpiercer. Didn't work out too well for them.

Why are documentaries so scary these days?

;-)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 20, 2017, 06:31:50 AM
The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.

We're not "great at business" like that guy who went bankrupt six times.

Sol - your point about climate change was exactly how I feel about the issue, but much more eloquently stated. There's no down side! Why the fuck can't people see that?

Even more than people who deny it, though, I'm annoyed by the people who will give lip service to "concern" about the environment and don't do shit to help. Yeah, sure, I believe you care about the environment with your giant-ass SUV to carry around just yourself just as much as I believe someone's a Christian while actively despising poor people and ignoring what their Man-God actually said. Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 20, 2017, 07:42:51 AM
The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.

We're not "great at business" like that guy who went bankrupt six times.

Sol - your point about climate change was exactly how I feel about the issue, but much more eloquently stated. There's no down side! Why the fuck can't people see that?

Even more than people who deny it, though, I'm annoyed by the people who will give lip service to "concern" about the environment and don't do shit to help. Yeah, sure, I believe you care about the environment with your giant-ass SUV to carry around just yourself just as much as I believe someone's a Christian while actively despising poor people and ignoring what their Man-God actually said. Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.

I suspect Canada is more progressive politically than the U.S., and certainly I think science and objective measurable data are held in higher regard there. Not so here, with our long and 'proud' history of anti-intellectualism.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: StarBright on January 20, 2017, 07:55:47 AM
I agree with Nereo that I see people (Americans in my case) making active choices for the environment. I know lots of people, in many different cities/states who are choosing to eat less meat, signing up for CSAs, forgoing air conditioning in the summer and biking/taking public transit to work. All for the environment.

One of my coworkers teaches a few adjunct classes for a local university's business program and his final project for one class was to have his students come up with an effective business that helps people offset their carbon.  One of the outcomes of his project was that several of us at the office ended up pooling funds to donate to a tree planting organization and we're just middle class business and engineering people (though some of us have hippy dippy leanings for sure).

People are thinking and taking action. Not enough yet, but I do agree there is a change happening.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 20, 2017, 08:02:42 AM
I also see people changing/modifying their actions because of climate change.

Then on the other side, there are people who are "rolling coal."

We can only hope that the ridiculous attitudes of the latter will change over time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Roland of Gilead on January 20, 2017, 08:10:35 AM
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 20, 2017, 08:15:08 AM
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Me, too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 20, 2017, 08:23:45 AM
Quote
I suspect Canada is more progressive politically than the U.S., and certainly I think science and objective measurable data are held in higher regard there

I was speaking of the US actually, though I live in both countries.  Sadly I think Canada fell behind the US on the environmental front over the last decade, though that might change with the change in governments (though time will tell).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 20, 2017, 08:44:40 AM
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Me, too.

Isn't this the line of thinking that leads supervillains to try to wipe out humanity?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 20, 2017, 08:47:42 AM
Yes, but one of us breeders might make the scientist that creates a solution to mitigate climate change, so feel free to thank us now. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 08:52:57 AM
Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.

That was the trend, but that trend has been reversing. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/01/17/vehicle-miles-traveled-another-look-at-our-evolving-behavior

I look at this a little different. I don't want to discount any form of energy: coal, oil, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear. One good thing I see happening is the fossil fuel industy is getting a ton of pressure to clean things up (generally speaking). If the industy is able to develope new tech that can cost effectivly scrub their stack air I don't see why we shouldn't use those sources of energy.

I don't want coal to be demonized simply because it's coal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 20, 2017, 09:07:42 AM
Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.

That was the trend, but that trend has been reversing. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/01/17/vehicle-miles-traveled-another-look-at-our-evolving-behavior

I look at this a little different. I don't want to discount any form of energy: coal, oil, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear. One good thing I see happening is the fossil fuel industy is getting a ton of pressure to clean things up (generally speaking). If the industy is able to develope new tech that can cost effectivly scrub their stack air I don't see why we shouldn't use those sources of energy.

I don't want coal to be demonized simply because it's coal.

Like unicorn-hair filters?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 09:27:27 AM
No like actual air scrubbers that remove imputies from the air. They are extremely expensive to run so coal companies simply shut down.

This is actually how they are being shut down in the US, by increasing the air quality standards to a point that makes them cost ineffective. If the tech catches up they will be a fine source of energy for people to use. Until then they will continue to export to countries that don't have those standards.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 20, 2017, 09:34:26 AM
Perhaps I simply see a different subset of the population, but I disagree that "literally no one is doing [things to help the planet]". I'm encouraged by the shift in public perception at the local level that yes, climate change is serious problem. I've been absolutely astounded at the number of homes with residential photo-voltaics on their roofs, and conversations with many people who have installed them suggest that their motives were at least partly driven by a desire for cleaner energy. We're still a car-crazy country, but its importance has started to wane with total # of miles driven declining.  Volts and Leafs are popping up everywhere, as are EV charging stations (my tiny ass library has two!). I'm seeing a lot more LEEDs-certified buildings pop up, and based on the most recent one by me there's genuine interest in expanding this trend.

It isn't enough, and it certainly doesn't extend to everyone, but I firmly believe that there's been a sea-change in the last decade where the perception of living a "green" lifestyle has gone from "extreme-hippie-wacko" to something both desirable and obtainable.

That was the trend, but that trend has been reversing. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/01/17/vehicle-miles-traveled-another-look-at-our-evolving-behavior

I look at this a little different. I don't want to discount any form of energy: coal, oil, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear. One good thing I see happening is the fossil fuel industy is getting a ton of pressure to clean things up (generally speaking). If the industy is able to develope new tech that can cost effectivly scrub their stack air I don't see why we shouldn't use those sources of energy.

I don't want coal to be demonized simply because it's coal.

Regarding the coal, there's really two issues at play.  One is harmful particulates and the other is greenhouse gases. Filters and scrubbers can take care of the particulate issue to some degree, though they still present a problem of what to do with the spent cartridges (which are now basically super-concentrated). Good scrubbers are incredibly expensive, and require frequent maintenance and monitoring.  Preventing the release of green-house gases are far trickier and hasn't been accomplished at a commercial scale. Even if you eliminate 100% of harmful particulates you're still releasing green-house gases.  This still happens if you burn, say, natural gas or petroleum, but gas doesn't have the particulate problem coal does. Obviously "clean" source have neither problem, but have their own inherent impacts.

Regarding the miles driven - you are right that it's a bit more complicated. Total number of miles driven has risen from it's lull, though the correlation to fuel prices suggests that may explain some of what we are seeing. Accounting for changes in population we still haven't hit our former peak, and again, we might not should fuel prices increase a bit more. Expressed as fuel consumed the curve looks even more rosy, as fuel efficiency standards have shot up int he last decade, especially on the least efficient vehicles (trucks and small SUVs).  Unfortunately many people are still buying them, and the latest surge has been more people to SUVs (again coupled with low fuel prices).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 09:51:10 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 20, 2017, 09:58:39 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 20, 2017, 10:02:32 AM
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Me, too.

Isn't this the line of thinking that leads supervillains to try to wipe out humanity?

Well, something can be said for thinking outside the box, getting to the root of the problem and taking drastic steps to adress the issue.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 20, 2017, 10:11:07 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

I agree, but it's not just limited to solar. Wind turbines, particularly the offshore kind which would produce the most energy/cost have run into major roadblocks for people who don't want it to 'spoil the view' and (ironically) to environmental groups concerned with bird strikes. Ironic since both mining and burning of fossil fuels creates their own major environmental problems, but it's easier to litigate against point-source impacts than diffuse ones.

Often ignored is that a large chunk of energy concerns could be addressed by much better energy efficiency in our homes and buildings (currently ~50% of our energy budget). Unlike cars which have a roughly decade-long lifespan, homes last on average 50 years - commercial buildings slightly longer.
Geothermal (another green energy source) can also help with this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 10:12:34 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. The market will decide which technology wins or looses, it always does. I'm just hoping people keep an open mind about all sources of energy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 20, 2017, 10:16:49 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

I agree, but it's not just limited to solar. Wind turbines, particularly the offshore kind which would produce the most energy/cost have run into major roadblocks for people who don't want it to 'spoil the view' and (ironically) to environmental groups concerned with bird strikes. Ironic since both mining and burning of fossil fuels creates their own major environmental problems, but it's easier to litigate against point-source impacts than diffuse ones.

Often ignored is that a large chunk of energy concerns could be addressed by much better energy efficiency in our homes and buildings (currently ~50% of our energy budget). Unlike cars which have a roughly decade-long lifespan, homes last on average 50 years - commercial buildings slightly longer.
Geothermal (another green energy source) can also help with this.

That's the thing though, solar has the fewest negative externalities out of any of the currently viable technologies, or technologies likely to be viable in the near-term. I mean, hydrogen would be great, but right now it costs more energy to extract than it produces.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 10:17:38 AM
Nereo, I agree with you about housing efficiency. One of the issues I see with this is strict building codes. I watched a documentary on the guy that builds earth ships. His biggest issue was being allowed to experiment and actually build his houses because of the building codes. Allowing people more freedom might help get new technology experiments doing on a very local level.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 20, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 20, 2017, 10:23:15 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. The market will decide which technology wins or looses, it always does. I'm just hoping people keep an open mind about all sources of energy.

Have to disagree Pooplips, but the market hasn't decided which technology wins or loses in the energy sector. Regulation, subsidies, public sentiment and 'inertia' often skew things.  As examples, several nuclear power stations have gone offline recently before their end-of-service dates(I'm currently doing sub-contract work for one decommissioning).  The broad reason given was that smaller-capacity nuclear plants cost more to operate than other sources, but when you look at the costs it's predominately for storage and safety, both of which are heavily influenced by ornerous regulations (e.g. The promised nuclear repository was never built).
Wind farms are being challenged because they 'ruin the view' in many locales. At the same time there are subsides paid to the oil and gas industries, as well as both federal and state taxes on gasoline. SHift those in either direction and whether driving an EV is a good economical decision changes with it. FInally, there's 'inertia'.  Most homes in New ENgland use heating oil, because the infrastructure was built out first. It's often the MOST expensive option for heating in the region, but the cost to convert older homes is prohibitive. There are a lot of restrictions on wood burning and pellet stoves.

To say the market will decide is completely false.

ETA: to avoid accusations of favoring only 'green' technologies, we currently provide federal subsidies on residential solar, and for buying EVs.  On and on...
The "market" is deciding our choices only after we (often arbitrarily) place incentives or burdens on all different sorts of energies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 20, 2017, 10:26:16 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

Apples and oranges though. Fossils are here, we use them, they're cheap and efficient. I get it. I'm talking about research spending. Improving solar cell efficiency and/or bringing down cost is going to have a more significant payback, dollar-for-dollar, than trying to clean up existing dirty tech. Hell, improving battery technology for transportation (even when it's fueled by fossil-electric) is probably a better use of our money.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 10:32:43 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. The market will decide which technology wins or looses, it always does. I'm just hoping people keep an open mind about all sources of energy.

Have to disagree Pooplips, but the market hasn't decided which technology wins or loses in the energy sector. Regulation, subsidies, public sentiment and 'inertia' often skew things.  As examples, several nuclear power stations have gone offline recently before their end-of-service dates(I'm currently doing sub-contract work for one decommissioning).  The broad reason given was that smaller-capacity nuclear plants cost more to operate than other sources, but when you look at the costs it's predominately for storage and safety, both of which are heavily influenced by ornerous regulations (e.g. The promised nuclear repository was never built).
Wind farms are being challenged because they 'ruin the view' in many locales. At the same time there are subsides paid to the oil and gas industries, as well as both federal and state taxes on gasoline. SHift those in either direction and whether driving an EV is a good economical decision changes with it. FInally, there's 'inertia'.  Most homes in New ENgland use heating oil, because the infrastructure was built out first. It's often the MOST expensive option for heating in the region, but the cost to convert older homes is prohibitive. There are a lot of restrictions on wood burning and pellet stoves.

To say the market will decide is completely false.

ETA: to avoid accusations of favoring only 'green' technologies, we currently provide federal subsidies on residential solar, and for buying EVs.  On and on...
The "market" is deciding our choices only after we (often arbitrarily) place incentives or burdens on all different sorts of energies.

Listen we are on the same side. I agree with what your saying. Sol and I had this discussion months ago. I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

I have to disagree with you though. The market does decided... based on the information available. As taxes, subsidies, regulations, tech, etc. change the market changes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 10:35:00 AM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

Apples and oranges though. Fossils are here, we use them, they're cheap and efficient. I get it. I'm talking about research spending. Improving solar cell efficiency and/or bringing down cost is going to have a more significant payback, dollar-for-dollar, than trying to clean up existing dirty tech. Hell, improving battery technology for transportation (even when it's fueled by fossil-electric) is probably a better use of our money.

Maybe.

We do need to figure out the battery situation though. Lithium mines aren't exactly "clean".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 10:37:58 AM
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 20, 2017, 10:42:06 AM
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

As long as you don't care about groundwater or earthquakes.

Fracking is a bad idea. It is not fun to see.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 20, 2017, 10:43:58 AM
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 20, 2017, 10:45:27 AM
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Me, too.

Isn't this the line of thinking that leads supervillains to try to wipe out humanity?

Well, something can be said for thinking outside the box, getting to the root of the problem and taking drastic steps to address the issue.

", he said, glaring out at the world from behind his monocle and sinister mustache while stroking a fluffy white cat.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 20, 2017, 10:52:56 AM
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

There's an enormous amount of energy available with fracking, but much of it is natural gas which has its own challenges.  We currently don't have the infrastructure to use lots of natural gas (e.g. Few cars are set up, no fueling network) and limited ability to ship it to foreign markets (plus large LNG storage terminals have huge risks associated with them(. Oil of course is extracted too but lately we have a glut of global oil - that will probably flip at some point, and the technology will likely keep a ceiling on future oil prices for a while.

Regarding getting rid of all subsidies how exactly would we accomplish this?  Is the cost of burning coal simply the cost of pulling it from the ground, or do we require it to be burned "cleanly"?  What level of "clean" do we establish (and do we use Carbon Taxes or Trade-and-cap?) Who's responsible for security of our LNG terminals and nuclear waste?  If we say "the companies who own them" what happens when they go out of business?
Is the federal tax on gasoline imposed for our highway fund fair when EVs don't pay into it?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 10:53:42 AM
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 20, 2017, 11:02:21 AM
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

...yet one of the stated purposes of the subsidies for cleaner technologies is to get people and municipalities to switch.  Its opposite sides of the same coin.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 20, 2017, 11:03:39 AM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 11:07:27 AM
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

There's an enormous amount of energy available with fracking, but much of it is natural gas which has its own challenges.  We currently don't have the infrastructure to use lots of natural gas (e.g. Few cars are set up, no fueling network) and limited ability to ship it to foreign markets (plus large LNG storage terminals have huge risks associated with them(. Oil of course is extracted too but lately we have a glut of global oil - that will probably flip at some point, and the technology will likely keep a ceiling on future oil prices for a while.

Regarding getting rid of all subsidies how exactly would we accomplish this?  Is the cost of burning coal simply the cost of pulling it from the ground, or do we require it to be burned "cleanly"?  What level of "clean" do we establish (and do we use Carbon Taxes or Trade-and-cap?) Who's responsible for security of our LNG terminals and nuclear waste?  If we say "the companies who own them" what happens when they go out of business?
Is the federal tax on gasoline imposed for our highway fund fair when EVs don't pay into it?

Natural gas does have it's challenges, but everything has challenges. Natural gas is an option in the Trucking industy. Trucks can be cheaply converted to natural gas. The infrastructre will certainly take time to develope but so will any alternative energy source infrastructure.

I partially answered your question in my last post. It's easier to explain with an example.

In the industry I work the EPA sets limits on what we can discharge to the local waterways. As long as we are below that limit everything is great. If we go over we pay heavy fines. We have found ways to lower our discharges further below the limits with some investments and no one wants to hear it. Why spend money when we already meet the limits?

I would like to see a particulate or pollution tax ($/1 ppb or whatever). That way special interests and what not can be kept out of it. If your industy produces pollution you get taxed accordingly with no favoritism. That way you have every incentive to reduce your pollution as it keeps you cometitive in the market against other technology.

I am writing this fast, I haope it makes sense.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 20, 2017, 11:08:11 AM
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

Just to be totally clear about this, fossil fuels are only cost competitive because they are so heavily subsidized by the government. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 20, 2017, 11:09:11 AM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Maybe the problems have been solved?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 11:11:43 AM
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

...yet one of the stated purposes of the subsidies for cleaner technologies is to get people and municipalities to switch.  Its opposite sides of the same coin.

I think it is different because who decides which tech gets the subsidy? Wind? Solar? Fossil Fuels? Some magical energy we don't even know of yet? All of them.

Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

I think doing it the way I descibed creates a level playing field as well as imposes costs on polluting industries.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 20, 2017, 11:33:30 AM
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

...yet one of the stated purposes of the subsidies for cleaner technologies is to get people and municipalities to switch.  Its opposite sides of the same coin.

I think it is different because who decides which tech gets the subsidy? Wind? Solar? Fossil Fuels? Some magical energy we don't even know of yet? All of them.

Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

I think doing it the way I descibed creates a level playing field as well as imposes costs on polluting industries.

I'm not disagreeing with you per-se, but rather saying that it would be functionally near-impossible.

To illustrate, consider this.  You mentioned EPA regulations - but what level do we set the regulations at?  One idea is to look at the existing technology and take what's 'cleanest'* and say that all other sources must meet this level or penalized/taxed up the wazoo.  For wind there's a minor environmental penalty with their construction, plus bird/bat strikes of about 1.6/turbine (location dependent).  No particulates or green-house gases over 3 decades of operation

So - oil/gas/coal would have to not only strip out all particulates, but also somehow recapture all greenhouse gases.  That would make them non-starters, particularly if we eliminated the governmental subsidies already in place. I saw one group try to calculate out the costs and they put gasoline between $12-15/gallon.

To be clear that would be extreme, but where we set the line precisely determines whether a technology is viable or not. Most environmentalists would argue they are already way too leanent.  The GOP thinks they are already way too stringent.

Adding to the complexity is that the effects of pollutants are non-linear.  If we had only one coal fired plant we'd be fine just doing some particulate filtration and calling it a day.  But each one ton of pollutants we add is more costly than the last ton.  That in a nut-shell was the idea behind cap-and-trade.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SomedayStache on January 20, 2017, 11:35:31 AM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Fuck.  This is really happening.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on January 20, 2017, 11:36:20 AM
Grab America by the pussy and don't let go.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 20, 2017, 11:36:53 AM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Thanks for giving an appropriate response to this post on my FB feed:

(http://i.imgur.com/AxHAhj4l.jpg?1)


Blech.  Patriotism: so we can take credit for accomplishments you had no part in, and have an excuse to hate people we never met. (-Carlin I think)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 20, 2017, 11:38:57 AM
Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

Is my mic on?  I feel like I'm repeating myself.

We already subsidize fossil fuels more than any other energy source except maybe nuclear (just because the long term costs of nuclear are less well known).  The government has been "playing favorites" for over a hundred years on this issue, and the last decade of incrementally increased subsidies to renewable energies are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

When official US foreign policy is driven by access to renewable energy for the next 100 years, I'll consider the scales evened out a little.  Oh, and we'll have to make all of our federal lands available for lease at below-market rates to renewable energy companies.  And we'll have to use imminent domain to acquire property for renewable energy processing and transportation facilities.  And the US Navy will have to protect all of the renewable energy shipping routes.  And renewable energy companies will have to get the same tax breaks that oil and gas companies get for all costs related to research, exploration, production, and equipment amortization.  And whatever negative consequences the renewable energy industry generates will have to be paid for and cleaned up by several new federal agencies with multibillion dollar per year budgets devoted to the renewable energy equivalent of acid mine drainage, retention reservoir failures, fly ash uranium contamination, acid rain, strip mining operations that go bankrupt, black lung disease, increased asthma rates, river and aquifer contamination, mercury contamination of fish, and oh yes let's not forget the slow and inevitable release of greenhouse gas emissions that threaten all life on earth for the next twenty thousand years.

When faced with the trillions of dollars we have spent on subsidizing the oil and gas industry over the past 200 years, we'd be hard pressed to ever give renewables a fair shake.  We could devote half of the federal budget to it for the next decade and totally solve the world's energy crisis, and STILL be way behind what we've spent on subsidizing carbon extraction industries.

So ya'll can just knock it off with the "renewables aren't cost competitive" bullshit.  Renewable have been cheaper than carbon burning since the middle 90s, if you look at the cost to the country instead of the cost to the consumer.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 20, 2017, 11:41:18 AM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on January 20, 2017, 11:43:14 AM

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Just because this is true of you and your peer group does not mean it's true everywhere. And I can't even say what I see is because I'm currently in a liberal state. My former red state, people are thinking about these things and talking and making changes as well. I currently know quite a few people who are carless -- with families! My own family has one car which gets used approximate 1-2 times per week, always with more than one person, and there are three adults/drivers who have use of it. (Me, spouse, brother.) We each, individually, put more miles on our bikes each week than we collectively do for the car.
I could list all the other ways we work at being environmentally friendly (giving up the dryer, turning down the heat, turning off lights and electronics, etc.) and we didn't even need to buy fancy new tech for it! You know, we "gave stuff up" the way you're saying people don't. And it's spreading among my peer group! Yes, my life and those of my family are having an impact on the planet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're trying to minimize that impact.
On the other hand, why should I tell you about these measures? You think it's useless anyway, and are using that as a shield to ignore your own hypocrisy and avoid taking action. Awesome.
I'm thinking that your dander is up because you are one of those people I was talking about. Go ahead and whine that we're screwed anyway. The rest of us will actually be out there trying to make the world a better place because that's worthwhile. Your defeatist attitude? It is not worthwhile, in any way shape or form. (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/) Have fun with it, though! "Here lies MetricMouse, who believed we were all screwed anyway and lived his life in a way that ensured it. RIP."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 11:51:37 AM
Obviously, this would need to be phased in over time and I wouldn't expect any industy to retroactively capture green house gases if thats what you meant by recapture.

I agree it is an open-ended fallacy type peoplem because everyone has there own line they would like to have drawn. I agree pollution is non-linear. Exponentially increases may be needed.

It will be forever changing. Somethings that aren't pollutants now may be in the future.

My issue is, picking which energy to subsidise will be at the expense of some energy not even discovered yet. Its impossible to prove that negative but imagine if the goverment subsidised the pneumatic/steam power industry because they thought it was a better technology than electricity. (That may be a terrible illustration but you get the idea)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on January 20, 2017, 11:53:36 AM
Quote
The Trump Administration is also committed to clean coal technology, and to reviving America’s coal industry, which has been hurting for too long.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy (https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy)

There is no such thing as clean coal. Public Relations talking point. We're so fucked.

Edit. All of the new whitehouse.gov policy positions make me sick.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on January 20, 2017, 11:56:24 AM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

so it begins, we're all screwed. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 11:57:00 AM
Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

Is my mic on?  I feel like I'm repeating myself.


I didn't mean to make you upset Sol. haha. Yes, those were bad things done in the past but is your solution really to just tip the scales as far as you can the other way?

My goal it to even the scale by the way.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 20, 2017, 12:33:45 PM

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Just because this is true of you and your peer group does not mean it's true everywhere. And I can't even say what I see is because I'm currently in a liberal state. My former red state, people are thinking about these things and talking and making changes as well. I currently know quite a few people who are carless -- with families! My own family has one car which gets used approximate 1-2 times per week, always with more than one person, and there are three adults/drivers who have use of it. (Me, spouse, brother.) We each, individually, put more miles on our bikes each week than we collectively do for the car.
I could list all the other ways we work at being environmentally friendly (giving up the dryer, turning down the heat, turning off lights and electronics, etc.) and we didn't even need to buy fancy new tech for it! You know, we "gave stuff up" the way you're saying people don't. And it's spreading among my peer group! Yes, my life and those of my family are having an impact on the planet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're trying to minimize that impact.
On the other hand, why should I tell you about these measures? You think it's useless anyway, and are using that as a shield to ignore your own hypocrisy and avoid taking action. Awesome.
I'm thinking that your dander is up because you are one of those people I was talking about. Go ahead and whine that we're screwed anyway. The rest of us will actually be out there trying to make the world a better place because that's worthwhile. Your defeatist attitude? It is not worthwhile, in any way shape or form. (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/) Have fun with it, though! "Here lies MetricMouse, who believed we were all screwed anyway and lived his life in a way that ensured it. RIP."
Turning down the heat, replacing light bulbs with leds, carpooling... really? People are absolutely going to die because of climate change. If anyone thinks that riding a bike built from parts sourced around the world and shipped across oceans using diesel electric engines that spew pollution directly into the ocean, and are then assembled in factories powered by fossil fuels is offsetting the harm that they are creating to others, they are delusional.  I am quite aware of my impact on the environment, and how much it will harm hundreds of people  (just my own impact will be responsible for this, if not greater damage). I don't pretend that sharing a xar or line drying my clothes means I won't cause serious pain to hundreds or thousands of others. To do so is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, especially if one has children, which will add exponentially to one's climate impact.

The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone; this is fine if one recognizes that and accepts that their choices are murdering hundreds of others; it's not ok for one to ride a bike "more than they use their car" and think they are accomplishing something. Millions of people live without cars, or even bicycles; and life is about to get even worse for them.  The fact that people in North America even have clothes dryers or cars or imported bicycles or food from other states is the problem.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 20, 2017, 12:36:28 PM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

Where's my dividend check?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 20, 2017, 12:38:29 PM
Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

Is my mic on?  I feel like I'm repeating myself.


I didn't mean to make you upset Sol. haha. Yes, those were bad things done in the past but is your solution really to just tip the scales as far as you can the other way?

My goal it to even the scale by the way.

You have an interesting definition of "even" if you think Sol's advocating tipping as far as you can the other way. He's saying coming anywhere close to "even" would take metric assloads of money subsidizing renewables, and immediately cutting off the fossils.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 20, 2017, 12:39:13 PM
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone;

I disagree.  Your personal individual choices can absolutely have a positive impact on other people.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: calimom on January 20, 2017, 12:40:33 PM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Fuck.  This is really happening.

...and somewhere people are cheering about this. It's so fucked up.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 20, 2017, 12:45:43 PM
He's saying coming anywhere close to "even" would take metric assloads of money subsidizing renewables, and immediately cutting off the fossils.

For hundreds of years, yes.  And that's clearly not going to happen.

So instead, I'd settle for offering identical subsidies to renewable energy companies that we currently offer to carbon industries.  Those subsidies probably can't be zero, because we have so much national security investment in protecting carbon industries, but we could at least increase renewable energy subsidies to match the carbon subsidies we're committed to.

But this is fantasy land.  Our new President hates renewable energy and adores coal.  He thinks climate change is a hoax, and clearly has no understanding of the basic physics behind energy balances.  He'll slash investments in renewable energy and increase oil drilling on US federal lands.  He'll withdraw from the Paris climate accord.  He'll do everything one man can do to ruin the planet that he and his own family have to live on, in part because he and his can live forever inside a hermetically sealed Trump Tower and so they don't really care what happens to wherever everyone else lives.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Pooplips on January 20, 2017, 12:46:34 PM
Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

Is my mic on?  I feel like I'm repeating myself.


I didn't mean to make you upset Sol. haha. Yes, those were bad things done in the past but is your solution really to just tip the scales as far as you can the other way?

My goal it to even the scale by the way.

You have an interesting definition of "even" if you think Sol's advocating tipping as far as you can the other way. He's saying coming anywhere close to "even" would take metric assloads of money subsidizing renewables, and immediately cutting off the fossils.

I don't know why I am entertaining you NoStache but I would consider no subsidies for anyone fair, which is what I am advocating for.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 20, 2017, 12:50:34 PM
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone; this is fine if one recognizes that and accepts that their choices are murdering hundreds of others; it's not ok for one to ride a bike "more than they use their car" and think they are accomplishing something. Millions of people live without cars, or even bicycles; and life is about to get even worse for them.  The fact that people in North America even have clothes dryers or cars or imported bicycles or food from other states is the problem.

It's true that one single person on a planet of billions is unlikely to have a serious impact on the world.  It's a big problem, there's no quick fix, and we aren't really treating it seriously yet.

Attempting to reduce your personal ecological footprint on the world will probably not reverse climate change.  That doesn't mean that your actions have no value.  People are social creatures . . . and we have shown the ability to learn from mistakes and alter behavioural patterns based on social whim.  (Look at how behaviour regarding religion, smoking, discrimination, and homosexuality have changed in the west in the last 100 years.)  One person may not have much of an impact, but when many people start to change how they view their own link to the environment there is a noticeable difference.

Your stated view is not just wrong, the bleakness acts as disincentive to even attempt to change things for the better.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 20, 2017, 12:59:48 PM
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone;

I disagree.  Your personal individual choices can absolutely have a positive impact on other people.

While i absolutely agree with this statement in the general sense, I am unconvinced that it applies to the global imoact of climate change.  There was a time when individual choices could have had an impact upon the devastation that will occur; that time has passed. Now the options range from global shit storm to even worse global shit storm; turning down the temp on every water heater in North America will not move that needle measurably. I'm open to science that disagrees, but I have struggled to find overwhelming evidence that the suggested measures, even if appliedto the larger population, would improve the outcome for even a mdoerate number of persons.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on January 20, 2017, 01:03:54 PM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

Where's my dividend check?

Going into Trump's pocket. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 20, 2017, 01:19:36 PM
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone;

I disagree.  Your personal individual choices can absolutely have a positive impact on other people.

While i absolutely agree with this statement in the general sense, I am unconvinced that it apllies to the global imoact of climate change.  There was a time when individual choices could have had an impact upon the devastation that will occur; that time has passed.

Do you think your personal choices can have value beyond their impact on other people?

I'm a scientist and an atheist, so I won't pretend to believe in some magical fairy tale interpretation of human values.  But I have found useful perspectives on how to be a good person in a variety of religions, and one of the most helpful to me has been Buddhism's five remembrances.  The fifth one is sometimes translated as "I am the owner of my actions and nothing else.  Whatever I choose to do, good or bad, become all that I am."

The remembrances are designed to help a person overcome their natural human faults, like pride and greed.  The fifth one is designed to help a person overcome their natural irresponsibility.  It reminds you that while the universe goes on without you, you are still a little part of it and your choices do matter.  You can't abdicate your existence, and you thus can't avoid being defined by the choices you make.

In the context of this discussion about climate change, your decision to conserve or waste resources still defines who you are as a person, regardless of the impact of that decision on others.  Are you a person who is wasteful?  Are you a person who contributes more to the destruction of our world than is necessary?  Are you a person who prioritizes your own luxury over the suffering of others?

By analogy, Donald Trump is also just one individual.  Do his personal choices also not matter?  If they do matter but yours don't, what has he done to make his choices more meaningful than yours, that you could not also do?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on January 20, 2017, 01:43:21 PM
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone;

I disagree.  Your personal individual choices can absolutely have a positive impact on other people.

While i absolutely agree with this statement in the general sense, I am unconvinced that it applies to the global imoact of climate change.  There was a time when individual choices could have had an impact upon the devastation that will occur; that time has passed. Now the options range from global shit storm to even worse global shit storm; turning down the temp on every water heater in North America will not move that needle measurably. I'm open to science that disagrees, but I have struggled to find overwhelming evidence that the suggested measures, even if appliedto the larger population, would improve the outcome for even a mdoerate number of persons.

My impact individually might not be great, and it will always be more than some starving kid in India's. Fine. But it's about spreading that impact, getting more people to follow a better way. I have an impact on those around me when I'm cheerful or not, why would my reduction in driving not have an impact as well? I might not be able to influence the world but I can sure as hell impact my community.

I'm not going to argue with you any more because you clearly have your mind set. I just want to say that you have a very sad, bleak outlook on life, and I refuse to buy into it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 20, 2017, 02:56:58 PM
Look, it's just mathematically too late for the Nissan Leaf/vegetarian solution (keep in mind, I say this as someone who practically never drives a car and hasn't eaten meat for 25 years). CO2 levels have been rising because of humans since the mid/late 1800s - do you have any idea how much more we generate now than then? It's many orders of magnitude. Cutting our emissions by 50 or 60 or even 90% wouldn't be enough at this point.

Hell, the energy required to run our collective Facebook (and MMM) accounts and data is probably more than all of human civilization used 100 years ago.

We are going to have to hope for a bailout from biotech (rocket fuel trees!) or fusion or something similar. Or we'll have to do some geoengineering and/or adapt to a different climate.

Cutting emissions is still a good idea, of course. It buys time, and it's always dumb to waste resources. But it's not a realistic solution to the greenhouse effect.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: adamb on January 20, 2017, 03:21:44 PM
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

New wind and solar power are now cheaper than new natural gas power, significantly cheaper than new coal and nuclear power (but not current, fully depreciated coal power, altho its catching up). Specifically, 9.5 GW of solar, 8 GW of LNG, 8 GW of wind,and 1 GW of nuclear was added in the US last year. Note this is capacity, where wind/solar are at about 40% while LNG and nuclear are in 80-90% (tho most LNG being added going forward are 'peaker' plants, which only run a few hours at a time to meet peak demand, and will not run all the time).

0 GW of coal was added. That is tremendous. The transition is should be encouraged responsibly, not have roadblocks thrown in front of it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: adamb on January 20, 2017, 03:32:40 PM

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Just because this is true of you and your peer group does not mean it's true everywhere. And I can't even say what I see is because I'm currently in a liberal state. My former red state, people are thinking about these things and talking and making changes as well. I currently know quite a few people who are carless -- with families! My own family has one car which gets used approximate 1-2 times per week, always with more than one person, and there are three adults/drivers who have use of it. (Me, spouse, brother.) We each, individually, put more miles on our bikes each week than we collectively do for the car.
I could list all the other ways we work at being environmentally friendly (giving up the dryer, turning down the heat, turning off lights and electronics, etc.) and we didn't even need to buy fancy new tech for it! You know, we "gave stuff up" the way you're saying people don't. And it's spreading among my peer group! Yes, my life and those of my family are having an impact on the planet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're trying to minimize that impact.
On the other hand, why should I tell you about these measures? You think it's useless anyway, and are using that as a shield to ignore your own hypocrisy and avoid taking action. Awesome.
I'm thinking that your dander is up because you are one of those people I was talking about. Go ahead and whine that we're screwed anyway. The rest of us will actually be out there trying to make the world a better place because that's worthwhile. Your defeatist attitude? It is not worthwhile, in any way shape or form. (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/) Have fun with it, though! "Here lies MetricMouse, who believed we were all screwed anyway and lived his life in a way that ensured it. RIP."
Turning down the heat, replacing light bulbs with leds, carpooling... really? People are absolutely going to die because of climate change. If anyone thinks that riding a bike built from parts sourced around the world and shipped across oceans using diesel electric engines that spew pollution directly into the ocean, and are then assembled in factories powered by fossil fuels is offsetting the harm that they are creating to others, they are delusional.  I am quite aware of my impact on the environment, and how much it will harm hundreds of people  (just my own impact will be responsible for this, if not greater damage). I don't pretend that sharing a xar or line drying my clothes means I won't cause serious pain to hundreds or thousands of others. To do so is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, especially if one has children, which will add exponentially to one's climate impact.

The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone; this is fine if one recognizes that and accepts that their choices are murdering hundreds of others; it's not ok for one to ride a bike "more than they use their car" and think they are accomplishing something. Millions of people live without cars, or even bicycles; and life is about to get even worse for them.  The fact that people in North America even have clothes dryers or cars or imported bicycles or food from other states is the problem.

What a terrible, (and uniformed attitude). Obama pushed through massive energy efficiency that have brought tremendous benefits. LED's use 90% less electricity, fridges use 75% less, hell his rule on AC alone brought the entirety of US electricity use down by 1% by itself. These rules mostly had industry support btw.

Know all the coal plants that have closed over the past 10 years? many closed BC natural gas is cheaper, but many also closed and simply were not replaced because the energy produced by them simply wasn't needed anymore!

https://powerforthepeopleva.com/2016/08/30/the-fuel-thats-helping-america-fight-climate-change-isnt-natural-gas/

Guess what, if every car on the road is electric, and all energy production is 0 carbon, it makes a difference! No one wants people to live a spartan life. There is a world of difference in between wasteful and sleeping outside with no amenities.

FYI no one is doing this so they can act smug to you so stop making it about yourself. They are doing it because they want to leave a better future to the next generation. Implying there's no point in trying' doesn't benefit anyone.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 20, 2017, 05:11:46 PM
FYI no one is doing this so they can act smug to you so stop making it about yourself.

Yeah, that's just a fringe benefit!  :P
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 20, 2017, 07:59:30 PM

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Just because this is true of you and your peer group does not mean it's true everywhere. And I can't even say what I see is because I'm currently in a liberal state. My former red state, people are thinking about these things and talking and making changes as well. I currently know quite a few people who are carless -- with families! My own family has one car which gets used approximate 1-2 times per week, always with more than one person, and there are three adults/drivers who have use of it. (Me, spouse, brother.) We each, individually, put more miles on our bikes each week than we collectively do for the car.
I could list all the other ways we work at being environmentally friendly (giving up the dryer, turning down the heat, turning off lights and electronics, etc.) and we didn't even need to buy fancy new tech for it! You know, we "gave stuff up" the way you're saying people don't. And it's spreading among my peer group! Yes, my life and those of my family are having an impact on the planet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're trying to minimize that impact.
On the other hand, why should I tell you about these measures? You think it's useless anyway, and are using that as a shield to ignore your own hypocrisy and avoid taking action. Awesome.
I'm thinking that your dander is up because you are one of those people I was talking about. Go ahead and whine that we're screwed anyway. The rest of us will actually be out there trying to make the world a better place because that's worthwhile. Your defeatist attitude? It is not worthwhile, in any way shape or form. (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/10/03/the-practical-benefits-of-outrageous-optimism/) Have fun with it, though! "Here lies MetricMouse, who believed we were all screwed anyway and lived his life in a way that ensured it. RIP."
Turning down the heat, replacing light bulbs with leds, carpooling... really? People are absolutely going to die because of climate change. If anyone thinks that riding a bike built from parts sourced around the world and shipped across oceans using diesel electric engines that spew pollution directly into the ocean, and are then assembled in factories powered by fossil fuels is offsetting the harm that they are creating to others, they are delusional.  I am quite aware of my impact on the environment, and how much it will harm hundreds of people  (just my own impact will be responsible for this, if not greater damage). I don't pretend that sharing a xar or line drying my clothes means I won't cause serious pain to hundreds or thousands of others. To do so is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, especially if one has children, which will add exponentially to one's climate impact.

The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone; this is fine if one recognizes that and accepts that their choices are murdering hundreds of others; it's not ok for one to ride a bike "more than they use their car" and think they are accomplishing something. Millions of people live without cars, or even bicycles; and life is about to get even worse for them.  The fact that people in North America even have clothes dryers or cars or imported bicycles or food from other states is the problem.

What a terrible, (and uniformed attitude). Obama pushed through massive energy efficiency that have brought tremendous benefits. LED's use 90% less electricity, fridges use 75% less, hell his rule on AC alone brought the entirety of US electricity use down by 1% by itself. These rules mostly had industry support btw.

Know all the coal plants that have closed over the past 10 years? many closed BC natural gas is cheaper, but many also closed and simply were not replaced because the energy produced by them simply wasn't needed anymore!

https://powerforthepeopleva.com/2016/08/30/the-fuel-thats-helping-america-fight-climate-change-isnt-natural-gas/

Guess what, if every car on the road is electric, and all energy production is 0 carbon, it makes a difference! No one wants people to live a spartan life. There is a world of difference in between wasteful and sleeping outside with no amenities.

FYI no one is doing this so they can act smug to you so stop making it about yourself. They are doing it because they want to leave a better future to the next generation. Implying there's no point in trying' doesn't benefit anyone.

How'd that work out for agw? Still happening? Still getting worse every day? Still no real plans to head off the worst of the effects? Let me know when that changes.

I mean, if people want to think that driving an electric car made from precious metals mined halfway around the world and formed from processed  petroleum products or that eating more vegetables is going to save lives or mitigate the effects of climate change for the poorest people on the planet, they are welcome to. They are wrong, but welcome to think whatever they want. If they are doing it to feel better about themselves while effecting zero real change, that's cool too: just be informed and honest about it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 20, 2017, 11:59:26 PM
Today Trump has apparently banned all Department of Interior agencies from using Twitter anymore.

I'm not even sure what to say to that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 21, 2017, 06:14:10 AM
Today Trump has apparently banned all Department of Interior agencies from using Twitter anymore.

I'm not even sure what to say to that.
Did he think they were stealing his limelight? I can't say that I've ever read a tweet from any Dept. Of Interior agency, so I guess I am personally unaffected.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Indio on January 21, 2017, 06:22:31 AM
Did anyone see this petition that started yesterday right after oath to force him to release his tax returns?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance

Not sure there are laws that can force him to do this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 21, 2017, 07:43:35 AM
Today Trump has apparently banned all Department of Interior agencies from using Twitter anymore.

I'm not even sure what to say to that.
Did he think they were stealing his limelight? I can't say that I've ever read a tweet from any Dept. Of Interior agency, so I guess I am personally unaffected.

They tweeted a picture of the crowd at his inauguration, next to a pic of the crowd at Obama's.

And Trump's fee-fees got hurt.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 21, 2017, 07:44:17 AM
Today Trump has apparently banned all Department of Interior agencies from using Twitter anymore.

I'm not even sure what to say to that.

This is called disciplinary action.  Here is the news story.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/interior-department-banned-from-twitter-after-retweet-of-smaller-than-usual-trump-inauguration-crowd/?utm_term=.b7cb78052886

Not to mention that the inaugural crowds were getting blocked by Black Lives Matter and other protesters who were holding up attendees and shutting down entrances to the events. Bah.

If the department is misbehaving, then I am all for discipline until they get their roles understood.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 21, 2017, 09:07:07 AM
Wow, BLM is impressive if they can block hundreds of thousands of people from DC...

Look, he's the least popular incoming president in modern American history. There is no way around that. He might do great, he might not, but there is no reason to get upset that very few people (relatively speaking) are excited about him or his inauguration.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 21, 2017, 09:18:00 AM
From the number of buses, the women's march looks like it'll be much bigger as well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 21, 2017, 09:23:04 AM
I can't say that I've ever read a tweet from any Dept. Of Interior agency, so I guess I am personally unaffected.

Around here, NPS uses Twitter to announce all of the road closures to the parks, usually due to snow conditions.  They are now going to use Facebook instead, which is apparently still allowed.

This is called disciplinary action. 

I think it's punitive action, and poor leadership.  Social media accounts are run by people, who can make mistakes and be disciplined or fired.  But to shut down an entire communications service for nine entire agencies because you're afraid of pictures retweeted by one communications person at one facility in one agency?  That just seems petty and small minded.

In comparison to some of the things Trump has retweeted over the past year, I think the park service retweeting inauguration photos that took place in one of their parks is pretty harmless.  Our new Pres is a little thin skinned, though, so I expect every perceived slight to be met with punitive action for as long as he is in office.

He's a bully.  There was a correct way to deal with this situation, and this definitely wasn't it.  This is not inspiring confidence in his leadership abilities.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 21, 2017, 10:13:12 AM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

sigh.....tons of pages were taken down. That is what happens you re-design webpages after a change in power.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 21, 2017, 10:15:55 AM
I can't say that I've ever read a tweet from any Dept. Of Interior agency, so I guess I am personally unaffected.

Around here, NPS uses Twitter to announce all of the road closures to the parks, usually due to snow conditions.  They are now going to use Facebook instead, which is apparently still allowed.

This is called disciplinary action. 

I think it's punitive action, and poor leadership.  Social media accounts are run by people, who can make mistakes and be disciplined or fired.  But to shut down an entire communications service for nine entire agencies because you're afraid of pictures retweeted by one communications person at one facility in one agency?  That just seems petty and small minded.

In comparison to some of the things Trump has retweeted over the past year, I think the park service retweeting inauguration photos that took place in one of their parks is pretty harmless.  Our new Pres is a little thin skinned, though, so I expect every perceived slight to be met with punitive action for as long as he is in office.

He's a bully.  There was a correct way to deal with this situation, and this definitely wasn't it.  This is not inspiring confidence in his leadership abilities.

lol.   Maybe he can have a beer summit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 21, 2017, 10:25:51 AM
Quote
lol.   Maybe he can have a beer summit.

DJT does not drink alcoholic beverages.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 21, 2017, 11:07:24 AM
Around here, NPS uses Twitter to announce all of the road closures to the parks, usually due to snow conditions.  They are now going to use Facebook instead, which is apparently still allowed.

I think it's punitive action, and poor leadership.  Social media accounts are run by people, who can make mistakes and be disciplined or fired.  But to shut down an entire communications service for nine entire agencies because you're afraid of pictures retweeted by one communications person at one facility in one agency?  That just seems petty and small minded.
 This is not inspiring confidence in his leadership abilities.

All the National Parks have their own dedicated Web sites for tourist and travel information.  This should not affect the public in a dramatic way, and I do not expect that the Twitter access will be cut for long,  at least for essential communication.

It is one thing if the parks are asked to give information to the media but another thing for the department to make comments about the new President, on day one!  If the department wants to initiate game-playing with the Executive, they should be disciplined!!!  It is small minded to post garbage about the President.  I am confident in Trump and he's not going to let any underlings pull any shit and get away with it.  T
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on January 21, 2017, 11:09:31 AM
(http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss258/accolay_accolay/missmeobama_zpscxpxy0en.jpg) (http://s581.photobucket.com/user/accolay_accolay/media/missmeobama_zpscxpxy0en.jpg.html)

Thought I'd make my own.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 21, 2017, 11:11:33 AM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

sigh.....tons of pages were taken down. That is what happens you re-design webpages after a change in power.
Thank you for the update. It's amazing how these claims can float around until someone refutes them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 21, 2017, 11:14:38 AM
Around here, NPS uses Twitter to announce all of the road closures to the parks, usually due to snow conditions.  They are now going to use Facebook instead, which is apparently still allowed.

I think it's punitive action, and poor leadership.  Social media accounts are run by people, who can make mistakes and be disciplined or fired.  But to shut down an entire communications service for nine entire agencies because you're afraid of pictures retweeted by one communications person at one facility in one agency?  That just seems petty and small minded.
 This is not inspiring confidence in his leadership abilities.

All the National Parks have their own dedicated Web sites for tourist and travel information.  This should not affect the public in a dramatic way, and I do not expect that the Twitter access will be cut for long,  at least for essential communication.

It is one thing if the parks are asked to give information to the media but another thing for the department to make comments about the new President, on day one!  If the department wants to initiate game-playing with the Executive, they should be disciplined!!!  It is small minded to post garbage about the President.  I am confident in Trump and he's not going to let any underlings pull any shit and get away with it.  T
Intersting perspective.  Im not sure if I'm impressed that even small, petty, unprofessional acts will be handled quickly and sternly, or worried that everyone will be too afraid of the POTUS to act at all. There's definitely a fine line there, and I'm sure there will be acts that fall on both sides of it. President is a tough job after all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on January 21, 2017, 11:15:32 AM
Around here, NPS uses Twitter to announce all of the road closures to the parks, usually due to snow conditions.  They are now going to use Facebook instead, which is apparently still allowed.

I think it's punitive action, and poor leadership.  Social media accounts are run by people, who can make mistakes and be disciplined or fired.  But to shut down an entire communications service for nine entire agencies because you're afraid of pictures retweeted by one communications person at one facility in one agency?  That just seems petty and small minded.
 This is not inspiring confidence in his leadership abilities.

All the National Parks have their own dedicated Web sites for tourist and travel information.  This should not affect the public in a dramatic way, and I do not expect that the Twitter access will be cut for long,  at least for essential communication.

It is one thing if the parks are asked to give information to the media but another thing for the department to make comments about the new President, on day one!  If the department wants to initiate game-playing with the Executive, they should be disciplined!!!  It is small minded to post garbage about the President.  I am confident in Trump and he's not going to let any underlings pull any shit and get away with it.  T

Already back up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/interior-department-banned-from-twitter-after-retweet-of-smaller-than-usual-trump-inauguration-crowd/?utm_term=.fb137cc938d1 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/interior-department-banned-from-twitter-after-retweet-of-smaller-than-usual-trump-inauguration-crowd/?utm_term=.fb137cc938d1)

What exactly are you confident in Trump for?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 21, 2017, 11:23:47 AM
Around here, NPS uses Twitter to announce all of the road closures to the parks, usually due to snow conditions.  They are now going to use Facebook instead, which is apparently still allowed.

I think it's punitive action, and poor leadership.  Social media accounts are run by people, who can make mistakes and be disciplined or fired.  But to shut down an entire communications service for nine entire agencies because you're afraid of pictures retweeted by one communications person at one facility in one agency?  That just seems petty and small minded.
 This is not inspiring confidence in his leadership abilities.

All the National Parks have their own dedicated Web sites for tourist and travel information.  This should not affect the public in a dramatic way, and I do not expect that the Twitter access will be cut for long,  at least for essential communication.

It is one thing if the parks are asked to give information to the media but another thing for the department to make comments about the new President, on day one!  If the department wants to initiate game-playing with the Executive, they should be disciplined!!!  It is small minded to post garbage about the President.  I am confident in Trump and he's not going to let any underlings pull any shit and get away with it.  T

Already back up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/interior-department-banned-from-twitter-after-retweet-of-smaller-than-usual-trump-inauguration-crowd/?utm_term=.fb137cc938d1 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/interior-department-banned-from-twitter-after-retweet-of-smaller-than-usual-trump-inauguration-crowd/?utm_term=.fb137cc938d1)

What exactly are you confident in Trump for?
Interesting. The article claims the shutdown was both directed by the new administration and by the departments communication team for probably being against policy. Not very enlightening, but if it's back up it would seem to be internal to the department and not Trump jumping down their throats. Unclear from the source though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sockigal on January 21, 2017, 02:11:29 PM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

so it begins, we're all screwed.

I am pretty scared about many of the predictions for our future under Trump, but am aware that much legislation can be redone over time and the people will heal. I read the full Republican Party Platform and asked anybody thinking of voting for Trump/Pence to read it before voting. The Platform was loaded with extreme Right Wing Tea Party ideas that I know most Republicans do not agree with.  Using federal land for mining was in the platform, which sounded crazy at the time. I think 90% of Americans agree that using Federal Lands for any type of mining is not in the best interest of the country. I can't even believe we are going to have to defend America's greatest treasures. It's a complete disaster! Mining the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosmite......... Tears!!!!!!! Many, many tears! Mining cannot be undone. There is just so much to protest.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 21, 2017, 02:16:19 PM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

so it begins, we're all screwed.

I am pretty scared about many of the predictions for our future under Trump, but am aware that much legislation can be redone over time and the people will heal. I read the full Republican Party Platform and asked anybody thinking of voting for Trump/Pence to read it before voting. The Platform was loaded with extreme Right Wing Tea Party ideas that I know most Republicans do not agree with.  Using federal land for mining was in the platform, which sounded crazy at the time. I think 90% of Americans agree that using Federal Lands for any type of mining is not in the best interest of the country. I can't even believe we are going to have to defend America's greatest treasures. It's a complete disaster! Mining the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosmite......... Tears!!!!!!! Many, many tears! Mining cannot be undone. There is just so much to protest.

Do you even have any idea how much federal land is leased for mining purposes currently? I mean, this is not new, or strange or nearly as disastrous as you are implying.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: adamb on January 21, 2017, 03:03:47 PM
Quote
How'd that work out for agw? Still happening? Still getting worse every day? Still no real plans to head off the worst of the effects? Let me know when that changes.

I mean, if people want to think that driving an electric car made from precious metals mined halfway around the world and formed from processed  petroleum products or that eating more vegetables is going to save lives or mitigate the effects of climate change for the poorest people on the planet, they are welcome to. They are wrong, but welcome to think whatever they want. If they are doing it to feel better about themselves while effecting zero real change, that's cool too: just be informed and honest about it.

I see the current president is not the only one skilled in gas-lighting.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 21, 2017, 03:06:35 PM
Quote
How'd that work out for agw? Still happening? Still getting worse every day? Still no real plans to head off the worst of the effects? Let me know when that changes.

I mean, if people want to think that driving an electric car made from precious metals mined halfway around the world and formed from processed  petroleum products or that eating more vegetables is going to save lives or mitigate the effects of climate change for the poorest people on the planet, they are welcome to. They are wrong, but welcome to think whatever they want. If they are doing it to feel better about themselves while effecting zero real change, that's cool too: just be informed and honest about it.

I see the current president is not the only one skilled in gas-lighting.

Do you have data that contradicts the currently understood  effects of global warming? If you do, I would love to see it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 21, 2017, 04:11:14 PM
Quote
How'd that work out for agw? Still happening? Still getting worse every day? Still no real plans to head off the worst of the effects? Let me know when that changes.

I mean, if people want to think that driving an electric car made from precious metals mined halfway around the world and formed from processed  petroleum products or that eating more vegetables is going to save lives or mitigate the effects of climate change for the poorest people on the planet, they are welcome to. They are wrong, but welcome to think whatever they want. If they are doing it to feel better about themselves while effecting zero real change, that's cool too: just be informed and honest about it.

I see the current president is not the only one skilled in gas-lighting.

Do you have data that contradicts the currently understood  effects of global warming? If you do, I would love to see it.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 21, 2017, 04:17:01 PM
Quote
How'd that work out for agw? Still happening? Still getting worse every day? Still no real plans to head off the worst of the effects? Let me know when that changes.

I mean, if people want to think that driving an electric car made from precious metals mined halfway around the world and formed from processed  petroleum products or that eating more vegetables is going to save lives or mitigate the effects of climate change for the poorest people on the planet, they are welcome to. They are wrong, but welcome to think whatever they want. If they are doing it to feel better about themselves while effecting zero real change, that's cool too: just be informed and honest about it.

I see the current president is not the only one skilled in gas-lighting.

Do you have data that contradicts the currently understood  effects of global warming? If you do, I would love to see it.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Well there is this...
Early research indicates that tea growing regions could decline in some parts of the world by up to 40-55 percent in the coming decades and the qualities, particularly for high end teas, could also change. (http://Early research indicates that tea growing regions could decline in some parts of the world by up to 40-55 percent in the coming decades and the qualities, particularly for high end teas, could also change.)

Quote
Early research indicates that tea growing regions could decline in some parts of the world by up to 40-55 percent in the coming decades and the qualities, particularly for high end teas, could also change.

...perhaps I am not supposed to be so literal?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 21, 2017, 04:23:02 PM
Quote
How'd that work out for agw? Still happening? Still getting worse every day? Still no real plans to head off the worst of the effects? Let me know when that changes.

I mean, if people want to think that driving an electric car made from precious metals mined halfway around the world and formed from processed  petroleum products or that eating more vegetables is going to save lives or mitigate the effects of climate change for the poorest people on the planet, they are welcome to. They are wrong, but welcome to think whatever they want. If they are doing it to feel better about themselves while effecting zero real change, that's cool too: just be informed and honest about it.

I see the current president is not the only one skilled in gas-lighting.

Do you have data that contradicts the currently understood  effects of global warming? If you do, I would love to see it.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Well there is this...
Early research indicates that tea growing regions could decline in some parts of the world by up to 40-55 percent in the coming decades and the qualities, particularly for high end teas, could also change. (http://Early research indicates that tea growing regions could decline in some parts of the world by up to 40-55 percent in the coming decades and the qualities, particularly for high end teas, could also change.)

Quote
Early research indicates that tea growing regions could decline in some parts of the world by up to 40-55 percent in the coming decades and the qualities, particularly for high end teas, could also change.

...perhaps I am not supposed to be so literal?

Yeah, but Metric Mouse was suggesting...eh, nm. Trying to follow the quotes is too confusing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 21, 2017, 04:32:58 PM
Sorry, i couldn't resist taking that cliche to it's literal conclusion :-)
Apologies for the derailment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 21, 2017, 04:59:10 PM
The lies are getting even sillier by the day:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-accuses-media-of-lying-about-inauguration-crowds/ar-AAm5Zn0?li=BBnb7Kz

And msn leans right. The best excuse I saw in the comments was "lots of people had to work!"

SAD! ;p
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 21, 2017, 05:03:48 PM
Isn't this just the same thing he did all through the campaign?

OF COURSE he says the media is lying.  We should all just get used to listening to Trump speak with the clear understanding that he's saying what he wants to be true, not what is actually true. 

And there will be more punitive action, of course.  He's already saying that news outlets that posted any pictures of the inauguration crowd will pay a "big price" for their "dishonesty".  Is this how the erosion of the free press starts?  With retribution for posting photographs of things that actually happened?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on January 21, 2017, 05:18:31 PM
Well, back to answer the OP topic...

The President has already signed an executive order to start fucking up the ACA. Sorry for those that thought things were going to be better and cheaper or more affordable or whatever he said, and thought that he wouldn't be the one to undermine the law, but it's going to happen, people will lose insurance, and they only plan, if you can call it that, is to make income tax lower.

Also, at least people got out to march today. Too bad they didn't get out to vote.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on January 21, 2017, 05:25:41 PM
Also, at least people got out to march today. Too bad they didn't get out to vote.

Ah, they just live in the wrong states.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 21, 2017, 05:39:03 PM
Sorry, i couldn't resist taking that cliche to it's literal conclusion :-)
Apologies for the derailment.
Touche...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 21, 2017, 07:13:23 PM
Isn't this just the same thing he did all through the campaign?

OF COURSE he says the media is lying.  We should all just get used to listening to Trump speak with the clear understanding that he's saying what he wants to be true, not what is actually true. 

And there will be more punitive action, of course.  He's already saying that news outlets that posted any pictures of the inauguration crowd will pay a "big price" for their "dishonesty".  Is this how the erosion of the free press starts?  With retribution for posting photographs of things that actually happened?

Obviously no one here (who dislikes Trump anyway) is surprised. I just keep hammering away because I have this crazy idea that at least a few people who keep mindlessly defending him will finally admit (to themselves if not to us) that just maybe he has one or two itty bitty flaws that might be a teeny tiny bit concerning.

Many prominent conservatives agree with me. To wit, per CNN (in b4 someone calls CNN fake news!), Bill Kristol on the travesty of a press briefing following Trump's claims:

Conservative commentator Bill Kristol said "it is embarrassing, as an American, to watch this briefing by Sean Spicer from the podium at the White House. Not the RNC. The White House."

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 21, 2017, 10:02:02 PM
Well, back to answer the OP topic...

The President has already signed an executive order to start fucking up the ACA. Sorry for those that thought things were going to be better and cheaper or more affordable or whatever he said, and thought that he wouldn't be the one to undermine the law, but it's going to happen, people will lose insurance, and they only plan, if you can call it that, is to make income tax lower.

Also, at least people got out to march today. Too bad they didn't get out to vote.

Well, there is one campaign promise kept, i guess.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 21, 2017, 11:32:32 PM
Isn't this just the same thing he did all through the campaign?

OF COURSE he says the media is lying.  We should all just get used to listening to Trump speak with the clear understanding that he's saying what he wants to be true, not what is actually true. 

And there will be more punitive action, of course.  He's already saying that news outlets that posted any pictures of the inauguration crowd will pay a "big price" for their "dishonesty".  Is this how the erosion of the free press starts?  With retribution for posting photographs of things that actually happened?

Obviously no one here (who dislikes Trump anyway) is surprised. I just keep hammering away because I have this crazy idea that at least a few people who keep mindlessly defending him will finally admit (to themselves if not to us) that just maybe he has one or two itty bitty flaws that might be a teeny tiny bit concerning.

Many prominent conservatives agree with me. To wit, per CNN (in b4 someone calls CNN fake news!), Bill Kristol on the travesty of a press briefing following Trump's claims:

Conservative commentator Bill Kristol said "it is embarrassing, as an American, to watch this briefing by Sean Spicer from the podium at the White House. Not the RNC. The White House."

It's getting downright surreal. Wow.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 22, 2017, 01:58:01 AM
Well, there is one campaign promise kept, i guess.
But but but - Trump promised to repeal and replace simultaneously, didn't he?  So now he's signing something to do with repeal without signing something about replacement?  Without even a plan or statement about replacement?  How is that keeping a promise?

Trump has just proved his batshitcrazy levels while in office as President by trying to argue over photographs of the attendance levels at his inauguration.

Ye gods and little fishes.  The man is utterly, irredeemably, bat shit crazy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 22, 2017, 07:19:30 AM
Isn't this just the same thing he did all through the campaign?

OF COURSE he says the media is lying.  We should all just get used to listening to Trump speak with the clear understanding that he's saying what he wants to be true, not what is actually true. 

And there will be more punitive action, of course.  He's already saying that news outlets that posted any pictures of the inauguration crowd will pay a "big price" for their "dishonesty".  Is this how the erosion of the free press starts?  With retribution for posting photographs of things that actually happened?

Obviously no one here (who dislikes Trump anyway) is surprised. I just keep hammering away because I have this crazy idea that at least a few people who keep mindlessly defending him will finally admit (to themselves if not to us) that just maybe he has one or two itty bitty flaws that might be a teeny tiny bit concerning.

Many prominent conservatives agree with me. To wit, per CNN (in b4 someone calls CNN fake news!), Bill Kristol on the travesty of a press briefing following Trump's claims:

Conservative commentator Bill Kristol said "it is embarrassing, as an American, to watch this briefing by Sean Spicer from the podium at the White House. Not the RNC. The White House."

Why does anyone care what conservative commentators say. Trump is not a republican or democrat. He is pissing off everyone. Which is why he won. I hope he blows up the entire system.  I love the fact he called all of them out for doing nothing for decades. Good for him.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 22, 2017, 07:33:49 AM
Well, there is one campaign promise kept, i guess.
But but but - Trump promised to repeal and replace simultaneously, didn't he?  So now he's signing something to do with repeal without signing something about replacement?  Without even a plan or statement about replacement?  How is that keeping a promise?

Trump has just proved his batshitcrazy levels while in office as President by trying to argue over photographs of the attendance levels at his inauguration.

Ye gods and little fishes.  The man is utterly, irredeemably, bat shit crazy.

No he is not.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on January 22, 2017, 08:06:44 AM
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

so it begins, we're all screwed.

I am pretty scared about many of the predictions for our future under Trump, but am aware that much legislation can be redone over time and the people will heal. I read the full Republican Party Platform and asked anybody thinking of voting for Trump/Pence to read it before voting. The Platform was loaded with extreme Right Wing Tea Party ideas that I know most Republicans do not agree with.  Using federal land for mining was in the platform, which sounded crazy at the time. I think 90% of Americans agree that using Federal Lands for any type of mining is not in the best interest of the country. I can't even believe we are going to have to defend America's greatest treasures. It's a complete disaster! Mining the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosmite......... Tears!!!!!!! Many, many tears! Mining cannot be undone. There is just so much to protest.

Do you even have any idea how much federal land is leased for mining purposes currently? I mean, this is not new, or strange or nearly as disastrous as you are implying.

A lot of federal lands are open to mining, but a lot of land is not, see below.  I don't think Trump will try to open up National Monuments or Parks to mining and drilling, but there is a lot of currently protected land that could be in danger.  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as many other areas.   

• Most Bureau of Reclamation Lands
• Most Conservation Areas
• Land Otherwise Withdrawn from Public Access Such as Endangered Species Habitat
• Military Reservations
• National Monuments
• National Parks
• Some National Recreation Areas if Administered by the Park Service
• Most National Wildlife Refuges
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Within 1/4 Mile of the Bank on Each Side of River
• Wilderness
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 22, 2017, 08:41:03 AM
Seems to me like drilling in our national parks and monuments and on military reservations is a really bad thing to do (not to mention lots of other places).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 22, 2017, 08:56:47 AM
Seems to me like drilling in our national parks and monuments and on military reservations is a really bad thing to do (not to mention lots of other places).
There are certainly pros and cons to it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 22, 2017, 09:09:09 AM
"No he is not"?  That's all you've got?

Let's look at the evidence.  He is on film, in his first speech after his inauguration, saying -

"I was explaining about the numbers.  We did a thing yesterday, the speech - did everybody like the speech? You had to like it, so I've been given good reviews - but, but we had a massive field of people, you saw them.  Packed.  I get up this morning, I turn on one of the networks, and they show an empty field.  I said "wait a minute".  I made a speech.  I looked out. The field was - it looked like a million, a million and a half people.  They showed a field where there were practically nobody standing there.  And they said "Donald Trump did not draw well".  I said "It was almost raining.  The rain should have scared them away but God looked down and he said "we're not going to let it rain on your speech."" Fact is.  When I first started, "oh no", the first line, I got hit by a couple of drops, and I said "oh, this is too bad but we'll go right through it".  But the truth is that it stopped immediately, it was amazing, and then it became really sunny and then I walked off and it poured right after I left.  It poured but, you know, we have something that's amazing because we had, it looked, honestly, like a million and a half people, whatever it was, it was, but it went all the way back to the Washington Monument.  And I turn on the thing and by mistake I get this network and it showed an empty field.  And it said we drew 250,000 people.  Now that's not bad.  But it's a lie.  We had 250,000 people literally around you know in the little bowl that we constructed, that was 250,000 people.  The rest of the you know 20 block area all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed.  So we caught them, and we caught them in a beauty, and I think they're going to pay a big price."

Those are the words of a man who is so narciscistic that the preservation of his own ego is more important than the truth, and more important than his role as President of the United States.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 22, 2017, 09:32:44 AM
"No he is not"?  That's all you've got?

Let's look at the evidence.  He is on film, in his first speech after his inauguration, saying -

"I was explaining about the numbers.  We did a thing yesterday, the speech - did everybody like the speech? You had to like it, so I've been given good reviews - but, but we had a massive field of people, you saw them.  Packed.  I get up this morning, I turn on one of the networks, and they show an empty field.  I said "wait a minute".  I made a speech.  I looked out. The field was - it looked like a million, a million and a half people.  They showed a field where there were practically nobody standing there.  And they said "Donald Trump did not draw well".  I said "It was almost raining.  The rain should have scared them away but God looked down and he said "we're not going to let it rain on your speech."" Fact is.  When I first started, "oh no", the first line, I got hit by a couple of drops, and I said "oh, this is too bad but we'll go right through it".  But the truth is that it stopped immediately, it was amazing, and then it became really sunny and then I walked off and it poured right after I left.  It poured but, you know, we have something that's amazing because we had, it looked, honestly, like a million and a half people, whatever it was, it was, but it went all the way back to the Washington Monument.  And I turn on the thing and by mistake I get this network and it showed an empty field.  And it said we drew 250,000 people.  Now that's not bad.  But it's a lie.  We had 250,000 people literally around you know in the little bowl that we constructed, that was 250,000 people.  The rest of the you know 20 block area all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed.  So we caught them, and we caught them in a beauty, and I think they're going to pay a big price."

Those are the words of a man who is so narciscistic that the preservation of his own ego is more important than the truth, and more important than his role as President of the United States.

People that are crazy don't accomplish what he has done. I guess I have different definitions of crazy.  Most crazy people can't accomplish the daily tasks of basic living like cleaning themselves, washing clothes or cooking a meal.  What is your definition of crazy.

This is simply a bunch of butthurt from liberals who thought they had this election wrapped up and the "republican party was dead." 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 22, 2017, 09:37:57 AM
People who are born to millionaires (would be billionaires in today's dollars) can be pretty crazy and still do well.

Note that I don't think Trump is crazy. He is very rational. He has gotten where he is by ignoring the truth completely whenever it suits him and people have eaten it up. I'd be doing the same thing in his shoes - straight out of the Hugo Chavez (or Peron) playbook.

It works as long as things go your way, and since he's been handed a pretty solid economy, my guess is he'll do allright for a few years.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 22, 2017, 09:42:38 AM
packlawyer04, another low post count individual coming in not to actually engage but only to tell us that if we dislike Trump we are a obviously nothing but butthurt liberals. Lies don't matter. Misogyny doesn't matter. Corruption doesn't matter. Only winning matters.

Move along, folks, nothing more to see here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 22, 2017, 10:00:43 AM
People who are born to millionaires (would be billionaires in today's dollars) can be pretty crazy and still do well.

Note that I don't think Trump is crazy. He is very rational. He has gotten where he is by ignoring the truth completely whenever it suits him and people have eaten it up. I'd be doing the same thing in his shoes - straight out of the Hugo Chavez (or Peron) playbook.

It works as long as things go your way, and since he's been handed a pretty solid economy, my guess is he'll do allright for a few years.

-W

From a die hard liberal. I'm amazed that some of you are still just about Tump. You have much bigger problems than Trump:

The ongoing contest between the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders wings of the Democratic Party continues to divide Democrats. It’s urgent Democrats stop squabbling and recognize seven basic truths:

The Party is on life support. Democrats are in the minority in both the House and Senate, with no end in sight. Since the start of the Obama Administration they’ve lost 1,034 state and federal seats. They hold only governorships, and face 32 state legislatures fully under GOP control. No one speaks for the party as a whole. The Party’s top leaders are aging, and the back bench is thin.

The future is bleak unless the Party radically reforms itself. If Republicans do well in the 2018 midterms, they’ll control Congress and the Supreme Court for years. If they continue to hold most statehouses, they could entrench themselves for a generation.

We are now in a populist era. The strongest and most powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep and profound distrust of elites, including the current power structure of America.

That force propelled Donald Trump into the White House. He represents the authoritarian side of populism. Bernie Sanders’s primary campaign represented the progressive side.

The question hovering over America’s future is which form of populism will ultimately prevail. At some point, hopefully, Trump voters will discover they’ve been hoodwinked. Even in its purist form, authoritarian populism doesn’t work because it destroys democracy. Democrats must offer the alternative.

The economy is not working for most Americans. The economic data show lower unemployment and higher wages than eight years ago, but the typical family is still poorer today than it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation; median weekly earning are no higher than in 2000; a large number of working-age people – mostly men – have dropped out of the labor force altogether; and job insecurity is endemic.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/22/seven_truths_for_democrats_132868.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 22, 2017, 10:04:27 AM
Actually median income hasn't increased since the mid 1970s, so it's even worse than that. But yes, agreed with all of that. Nobody has yet offered a realistic solution to the stagnation of the middle class (either here in the US or in Europe). And nothing that anyone has tried has made an impact, from the progressive or conservative side.

Time for a UBI, I think.

-W

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 22, 2017, 10:07:33 AM
FYI:

There's a petition on the White House website for DJT to release his tax returns.  While it's already garnered the requisite number of signatures for an official response, Kellyanne Conway had this to say yesterday:

Quote
The White House response is that he’s not going to release his tax returns,” said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, during an appearance on ABC’S This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “We litigated this all through the election. People didn’t care.”

If you care, sign the petition.  The more that sign the more ridiculous the administration's line that the public doesn't care becomes.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 22, 2017, 10:10:41 AM
Actually median income hasn't increased since the mid 1970s, so it's even worse than that. But yes, agreed with all of that. Nobody has yet offered a realistic solution to the stagnation of the middle class (either here in the US or in Europe). And nothing that anyone has tried has made an impact, from the progressive or conservative side.

Time for a UBI, I think.

-W

I agree with everything you say. And frankly, I don't know if Trump really has any plan to fix it at this point. But Trump is the first person running for president quite some time that has actually talked about it. Which is why he is now living in the white house.

People keep saying the economy is great but the election proves the country does not actually agree.  Might work for some people but many are being left behind.

Democrats would be well served to actually go back and develop policies that help the middle class versus trying to show up at BLM rallies and figuring out a way to get as many immigrants across the border as possible.  They have moved so far off track that they lost their core base which is why they have basically been destroyed from the white house all the way down to the county level across the country in the last 6 years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on January 22, 2017, 10:12:03 AM
Well, there is one campaign promise kept, i guess.
But but but - Trump promised to repeal and replace simultaneously, didn't he?  So now he's signing something to do with repeal without signing something about replacement?  Without even a plan or statement about replacement?  How is that keeping a promise?

Note that Trump did not and cannot repeal the ACA. What his executive order did is to direct the agencies to give the widest possible interpretation of the law. E.g. more people are expected not to pay the penalty for not having insurance since there will be a wider definition of hardship.

An act of Congress is required to repeal the ACA.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 22, 2017, 10:14:03 AM
FYI:

There's a petition on the White House website for DJT to release his tax returns.  While it's already garnered the requisite number of signatures for an official response, Kellyanne Conway had this to say yesterday:

Quote
The White House response is that he’s not going to release his tax returns,” said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, during an appearance on ABC’S This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “We litigated this all through the election. People didn’t care.”

If you care, sign the petition.  The more that sign the more ridiculous the administration's line that the public doesn't care becomes.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance)

Meh. I for one, don't care. Unless he's filing checks directly from Putin, and at that point I would hope that the IRS would have caught something that massively improper. There are clearly much larger problems with Trump than his income streams, imo.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 22, 2017, 10:14:36 AM
I have to (throwing up a little in my mouth) agree with Ms. Conway here. Nobody cares. I guess I would be vaguely interested, but what in his tax returns would possible convince anyone of anything at this point? He's already openly lied about all sorts of things, bragged about grabbing genitals, been an adulterer (probably many times), and almost managed to lose his shirt in business despite being born a multimillionaire in 1950's dollars.

None of that is disqualifying to be president, apparently, so why worry about tax returns? If you really dislike him, go recruit that great charismatic member of the school board to run for city council, or that city councilor you like to run for state senate, etc. Political change happens from the local level up.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 22, 2017, 10:15:37 AM
packlawyer04, another low post count individual coming in not to actually engage but only to tell us that if we dislike Trump we are a obviously nothing but butthurt liberals. Lies don't matter. Misogyny doesn't matter. Corruption doesn't matter. Only winning matters.

Move along, folks, nothing more to see here.

True. I often wonder how many of the new trolls are just new iterations of previous trolls.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 22, 2017, 10:17:00 AM
We are now in a populist era. The strongest and most powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep and profound distrust of elites, including the current power structure of America.

If you really believe the things you're typing (that we live in a populist era), then you should believe that the strongest and most powerful force in American politics is an acceptance of the status quo.  Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump, which is a repudiation and indication of a deep/profound distrust of crazy politics by elites like Trump.  That she didn't win is simply an example of how the system currently is set up to ignore popular will.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 22, 2017, 10:20:08 AM
I have to (throwing up a little in my mouth) agree with Ms. Conway here. Nobody cares. I guess I would be vaguely interested, but what in his tax returns would possible convince anyone of anything at this point? He's already openly lied about all sorts of things, bragged about grabbing genitals, been an adulterer (probably many times), and almost managed to lose his shirt in business despite being born a multimillionaire in 1950's dollars.

None of that is disqualifying to be president, apparently, so why worry about tax returns? If you really dislike him, go recruit that great charismatic member of the school board to run for city council, or that city councilor you like to run for state senate, etc. Political change happens from the local level up.

-W

I agree with you. The cowards in the Republican congress only care that they're in power now, so they wouldn't do anything, no matter how egregious what they found in his returns was. And Trump's supporters would still support him if he shot someone in the street, as he himself has said. The press is basically AWOL. So... i think it's wasted energy. Concentrate on what he does as president. There should be more than enough stuff that is illegal or even skirting (or crossing) the line to treason, based on what he's already shown us by his actions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: oldtoyota on January 22, 2017, 10:20:46 AM
I'm attending a conference call organized by MoveOn and other Dem groups tonight at 8 pm Eastern.

Talking and posting is cathartic but it's not getting work done, so I challenge myself to take even more action.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 22, 2017, 10:24:37 AM
We are now in a populist era. The strongest and most powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep and profound distrust of elites, including the current power structure of America.

If you really believe the things you're typing (that we live in a populist era), then you should believe that the strongest and most powerful force in American politics is an acceptance of the status quo.  Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump, which is a repudiation and indication of a deep/profound distrust of crazy politics by elites like Trump.  That she didn't win is simply an example of how the system currently is set up to ignore popular will.

Maybe you should go back and read my post.  99% of my post was quoted from the article I linked which came from a hard core liberal professor (Rober Reich) from University of Cal which is on the front page of real clear politics. Reich worked for Clinton. They don't get more liberal than him. I simply pressed ctr-c, ctl-v.

He also discusses how Bernie Sanders run further cements his belief of a rejection of the status quo.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 22, 2017, 10:31:31 AM
"No he is not"?  That's all you've got?

Let's look at the evidence.  He is on film, in his first speech after his inauguration, saying -

"I was explaining about the numbers.  We did a thing yesterday, the speech - did everybody like the speech? You had to like it, so I've been given good reviews - but, but we had a massive field of people, you saw them.  Packed.  I get up this morning, I turn on one of the networks, and they show an empty field.  I said "wait a minute".  I made a speech.  I looked out. The field was - it looked like a million, a million and a half people.  They showed a field where there were practically nobody standing there.  And they said "Donald Trump did not draw well".  I said "It was almost raining.  The rain should have scared them away but God looked down and he said "we're not going to let it rain on your speech."" Fact is.  When I first started, "oh no", the first line, I got hit by a couple of drops, and I said "oh, this is too bad but we'll go right through it".  But the truth is that it stopped immediately, it was amazing, and then it became really sunny and then I walked off and it poured right after I left.  It poured but, you know, we have something that's amazing because we had, it looked, honestly, like a million and a half people, whatever it was, it was, but it went all the way back to the Washington Monument.  And I turn on the thing and by mistake I get this network and it showed an empty field.  And it said we drew 250,000 people.  Now that's not bad.  But it's a lie.  We had 250,000 people literally around you know in the little bowl that we constructed, that was 250,000 people.  The rest of the you know 20 block area all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed.  So we caught them, and we caught them in a beauty, and I think they're going to pay a big price."

Those are the words of a man who is so narciscistic that the preservation of his own ego is more important than the truth, and more important than his role as President of the United States.

People that are crazy don't accomplish what he has done. I guess I have different definitions of crazy.  Most crazy people can't accomplish the daily tasks of basic living like cleaning themselves, washing clothes or cooking a meal.  What is your definition of crazy.

"According to the DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most or all of the following symptoms, typically without commensurate qualities or accomplishments:[8][11]
1.Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from others
2.Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
3.Self-perception of being unique, superior and associated with high-status people and institutions
4.Needing constant admiration from others
5.Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
6.Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
7.Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs
8.Intensely envious of others and the belief that others are equally envious of them
9.Pompous and arrogant demeanor"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Let's take another bit of evidence from Trump's CIA speech -

"Time magazine - and I have been on their cover like 14 or 15 times, I think we have the all time record in the history of Time magazine.  Like if Tom Brady's on the cover it's one time because you won the Superbowl or something, right?  I've been on for 15 times this year.  I don't think that's a record, Mike, that can ever be broken, do you agree with that?  What do you think?"

That is Trump, in his first full day as President of the United States, telling the CIA how many times he has been on the cover of Time magazine.  Twice.  Donald, it's the CIA: if they cared they could find out.  And you are the President of the United States, why are you still concerned about how many times you've been on the front cover of Time magazine?  And why do you think that the number of times you've been on the front cover of Time magazine is something it's important for you to tell the CIA?

Official diagnosis: Narcissistic Personality Disorder so extreme that it is more important to him than the role of President of the United States.  Unofficial diagnosis: Bat. Shit. Crazy.



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on January 22, 2017, 10:36:39 AM
I'm attending a conference call organized by MoveOn and other Dem groups tonight at 8 pm Eastern.

Talking and posting is cathartic but it's not getting work done, so I challenge myself to take even more action.

That's the right attitude. Hopefully number the agenda includes how to
1. float a good likeable candidate and
2. how to get people to vote.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 22, 2017, 10:40:28 AM
We are now in a populist era. The strongest and most powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep and profound distrust of elites, including the current power structure of America.

If you really believe the things you're typing (that we live in a populist era), then you should believe that the strongest and most powerful force in American politics is an acceptance of the status quo.  Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump, which is a repudiation and indication of a deep/profound distrust of crazy politics by elites like Trump.  That she didn't win is simply an example of how the system currently is set up to ignore popular will.

Maybe you should go back and read my post.  99% of my post was quoted from the article I linked which came from a hard core liberal professor (Rober Reich) from University of Cal which is on the front page of real clear politics. Reich worked for Clinton. They don't get more liberal than him. I simply pressed ctr-c, ctl-v.

He also discusses how Bernie Sanders run further cements his belief of a rejection of the status quo.

My mistake.  I thought that you believed the things you were re-posting.  Could you point out which parts of your posts you actually agree with and which parts you already know are patently false?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 22, 2017, 10:42:43 AM
I'm attending a conference call organized by MoveOn and other Dem groups tonight at 8 pm Eastern.

Talking and posting is cathartic but it's not getting work done, so I challenge myself to take even more action.

https://www.womensmarch.com/100/

For those looking for inspiration, here's one place to start.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 22, 2017, 10:43:43 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38711701

Another realistic impact.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 22, 2017, 10:51:09 AM
I have to (throwing up a little in my mouth) agree with Ms. Conway here. Nobody cares. I guess I would be vaguely interested, but what in his tax returns would possible convince anyone of anything at this point? He's already openly lied about all sorts of things, bragged about grabbing genitals, been an adulterer (probably many times), and almost managed to lose his shirt in business despite being born a multimillionaire in 1950's dollars.

None of that is disqualifying to be president, apparently, so why worry about tax returns? If you really dislike him, go recruit that great charismatic member of the school board to run for city council, or that city councilor you like to run for state senate, etc. Political change happens from the local level up.

-W

If you don't care that's your choice.  Personally I *do* still care, because I believe that the American public should be aware of all potential financial conflicts of interest among our leaders. Transparency is the only way to accomplish this, and is the very reason why most positions of power (CEOs, elected officials, federal appointees) are required to make their records available, and its why every president since Nixon has done so voluntarily.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 22, 2017, 10:53:32 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38711701

Another realistic impact.

To be fair this has nothing to do with Trump, Israel was always going to approve more settlement.  My assumption is that they will eventually annex the entirety of Palestine . . . it's really the only way that the area will ever see peace.  Think about it.  You have land that Israel has steadily invaded and captured through the history.  Palestine can never be a real country because Israel controls all movement of goods and people and enforces their own policing of the area.  Having separate countries just means continued hardship and fighting until the Palestinian people are completely driven from their land or absorbed into Israel.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 22, 2017, 10:55:30 AM
Canadian citizens intending to join the protests yesterday were denied entry after explaining they opposed Trump. Another impact:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/20/womens-march-canada-protesters-denied-entry-us
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-canada-idUSKBN1542UD
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montrealers-bound-for-trump-inauguration-turned-away-at-border-1.3944657
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 22, 2017, 10:57:48 AM
We are now in a populist era. The strongest and most powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep and profound distrust of elites, including the current power structure of America.

If you really believe the things you're typing (that we live in a populist era), then you should believe that the strongest and most powerful force in American politics is an acceptance of the status quo.  Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump, which is a repudiation and indication of a deep/profound distrust of crazy politics by elites like Trump.  That she didn't win is simply an example of how the system currently is set up to ignore popular will.

Maybe you should go back and read my post.  99% of my post was quoted from the article I linked which came from a hard core liberal professor (Rober Reich) from University of Cal which is on the front page of real clear politics. Reich worked for Clinton. They don't get more liberal than him.

... Robert Reich... They dont' get more liberal than him. 
That's funny (and so wrong). He's liberal but not even close to the extreme end of the spectrum.  ha!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 22, 2017, 11:02:31 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38711701

Another realistic impact.

To be fair this has nothing to do with Trump, Israel was always going to approve more settlement.  My assumption is that they will eventually annex the entirety of Palestine . . . it's really the only way that the area will ever see peace.  Think about it.  You have land that Israel has steadily invaded and captured through the history.  Palestine can never be a real country because Israel controls all movement of goods and people and enforces their own policing of the area.  Having separate countries just means continued hardship and fighting until the Palestinian people are completely driven from their land or absorbed into Israel.

A pessimistic, but possibly accurate assessment. If we want to be optimistic and assume it is (was?) possible for a two state solution to work, Trump being elected will definitely impact how brazenly Israel continues to flout international law and continue down the path you predict.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 22, 2017, 12:52:50 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38711701

Another realistic impact.

To be fair this has nothing to do with Trump, Israel was always going to approve more settlement.  My assumption is that they will eventually annex the entirety of Palestine . . . it's really the only way that the area will ever see peace.  Think about it.  You have land that Israel has steadily invaded and captured through the history.  Palestine can never be a real country because Israel controls all movement of goods and people and enforces their own policing of the area.  Having separate countries just means continued hardship and fighting until the Palestinian people are completely driven from their land or absorbed into Israel.

A pessimistic, but possibly accurate assessment. If we want to be optimistic and assume it is (was?) possible for a two state solution to work, Trump being elected will definitely impact how brazenly Israel continues to flout international law and continue down the path you predict.

Eh, Israel can't annex Palestine. The Palestinians have more kids than Israelis. Unless the Palestinians are denied the right to vote (like apartheid and definitely possible with the Likud party in charge), Israel would be facing a voting demographic change they may not like.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 22, 2017, 01:29:33 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38711701

Another realistic impact.

To be fair this has nothing to do with Trump, Israel was always going to approve more settlement.  My assumption is that they will eventually annex the entirety of Palestine . . . it's really the only way that the area will ever see peace.  Think about it.  You have land that Israel has steadily invaded and captured through the history.  Palestine can never be a real country because Israel controls all movement of goods and people and enforces their own policing of the area.  Having separate countries just means continued hardship and fighting until the Palestinian people are completely driven from their land or absorbed into Israel.

A pessimistic, but possibly accurate assessment. If we want to be optimistic and assume it is (was?) possible for a two state solution to work, Trump being elected will definitely impact how brazenly Israel continues to flout international law and continue down the path you predict.

True or not, the sentiment expressed boiled down to: the only way there can be peace* is for one side to completely win.
That just depresses me.

*footnote: historically surpressed populations have often come back; peace in this sense may not last.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on January 22, 2017, 04:17:12 PM
Trump's policy objectives are up   https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community (https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community)

Energy
Foreign policy
Jobs and growth
Military
Law enforcement
Trade

Looks like he's going to create 25M jobs through a bold plan to reduce taxes, while at the same time asking congress for more money to rebuild the military, and removing environmental regulations that interfere with the business of business.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on January 22, 2017, 04:33:52 PM
Quote
You have land that Israel has steadily invaded and captured through the history.

You know, this has always bothered me a bit.   Israel captured those territories in the 6 days war which was started by Egypt.

And pragmatically, Israeli society has a lot more in common with US or Canadian society than the various Arab states do.   You know, things like women's rights, democratic leadership, being able to industrialize and innovate and produce things.    There's a pretty good argument that the UN resolutions around this topic aren't for the best.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Fireball on January 22, 2017, 07:19:58 PM
Trump's policy objectives are up   https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community (https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community)

"We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. "

Makes me want to puke. Seriously.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 22, 2017, 08:27:50 PM
Trump's policy objectives are up   https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community (https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community)

"We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. "

Makes me want to puke. Seriously.
Leveraging our future for the present?
More to the point, all this talk of increasing drilling and fracking and mining will do little while the cost of fossil fuels is as low as it is. While supply has dipped and demand has increased, we still have an over-supply of oil already.  Basic economics; for each additional barrel of oil we get less for it; trying to "unlock" large chunks of fossil fuels will face the laws of diminishing returns.
Then of course there's the OPEC bloc (plus Russia) - if the US market share starts increasing they're likely to flood the market with cheap oil again to preserve market share.  US rigs are all privately owned, so they'll respond to market forces.
They did it two years ago.

The current WH energy plan sounds like it was conjured by a climate-denying elementary school kid.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FIRE me on January 22, 2017, 08:28:52 PM
Trump's policy objectives are up   https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community (https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community) 

I notice that under the list of “Top Issues”, health care is conspicuous in its absence.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 22, 2017, 08:31:48 PM
All I can say is that if he wants to create 25 million new jobs, he's going to have to convince more people to immigrate... the whole US labor force is only 160 million people. You'd have unemployment at zero and 18 million jobs left over...at the same time that a ton of boomers are retiring out of the workforce.

Indeed interesting that health care is nowhere on the site.

-W




Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 22, 2017, 08:36:40 PM
All I can say is that if he wants to create 25 million new jobs, he's going to have to convince more people to immigrate... the whole US labor force is only 160 million people. You'd have unemployment at zero and 18 million jobs left over...at the same time that a ton of boomers are retiring out of the workforce.

It would basically push the labor participation rate up to levels not seen since shortly after WWII.  There would ahve to be a sea-change of retirees and stay-at-home-spouses all rushing into the work force.  Doesn't sound probable, or even desireable to me.
That, or a crapload of immigrants, which he seems equally opposed to with his new mantra of "America First".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on January 23, 2017, 01:38:30 AM
Thought the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's lies were pretty good today. So totally brazen.

Quote
This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-traditional-way-of-reporting-on-a-president-is-dead-and-trumps-press-secretary-killed-it/2017/01/22/75403a00-e0bf-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sullivan-514pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f4071ee21d07 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-traditional-way-of-reporting-on-a-president-is-dead-and-trumps-press-secretary-killed-it/2017/01/22/75403a00-e0bf-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sullivan-514pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f4071ee21d07)


Wow.

And then Kellyann Conway's assertion that their team has "alternative facts."

I'm going to have to stop reading the news to stop being drenched with the daily deluge of stupid.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: purple monkey on January 23, 2017, 05:16:22 AM
.[/quote]

"According to the DSM-5, individuals with NPD have most or all of the following symptoms, typically without commensurate qualities or accomplishments:[8][11]
1.Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from others
2.Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
3.Self-perception of being unique, superior and associated with high-status people and institutions
4.Needing constant admiration from others
5.Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
6.Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
7.Unwilling to empathize with others' feelings, wishes, or needs
8.Intensely envious of others and the belief that others are equally envious of them
9.Pompous and arrogant demeanor"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

Let's take another bit of evidence from Trump's CIA speech -

"Time magazine - and I have been on their cover like 14 or 15 times, I think we have the all time record in the history of Time magazine.  Like if Tom Brady's on the cover it's one time because you won the Superbowl or something, right?  I've been on for 15 times this year.  I don't think that's a record, Mike, that can ever be broken, do you agree with that?  What do you think?"

That is Trump, in his first full day as President of the United States, telling the CIA how many times he has been on the cover of Time magazine.  Twice.  Donald, it's the CIA: if they cared they could find out.  And you are the President of the United States, why are you still concerned about how many times you've been on the front cover of Time magazine?  And why do you think that the number of times you've been on the front cover of Time magazine is something it's important for you to tell the CIA?

Official diagnosis: Narcissistic Personality Disorder so extreme that it is more important to him than the role of President of the United States.  Unofficial diagnosis: Bat. Shit. Crazy.


+1
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 23, 2017, 06:14:15 AM
Thought the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's lies were pretty good today. So totally brazen.

Quote
This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-traditional-way-of-reporting-on-a-president-is-dead-and-trumps-press-secretary-killed-it/2017/01/22/75403a00-e0bf-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sullivan-514pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f4071ee21d07 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-traditional-way-of-reporting-on-a-president-is-dead-and-trumps-press-secretary-killed-it/2017/01/22/75403a00-e0bf-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sullivan-514pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f4071ee21d07)


Wow.

And then Kellyann Conway's assertion that their team has "alternative facts."

I'm going to have to stop reading the news to stop being drenched with the daily deluge of stupid.

At least CNN had that balls to straight up call them lies.  Foxnews didn't go that far but admitted the crowd sizes were smaller.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2017, 06:22:57 AM
Thought the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's lies were pretty good today. So totally brazen.

Quote
This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-traditional-way-of-reporting-on-a-president-is-dead-and-trumps-press-secretary-killed-it/2017/01/22/75403a00-e0bf-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sullivan-514pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f4071ee21d07 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-traditional-way-of-reporting-on-a-president-is-dead-and-trumps-press-secretary-killed-it/2017/01/22/75403a00-e0bf-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sullivan-514pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f4071ee21d07)

Wow.

And then Kellyann Conway's assertion that their team has "alternative facts."

I'm going to have to stop reading the news to stop being drenched with the daily deluge of stupid.

Once again I'm left wondering: Does DJT really believe his own lies, or is he just convinced that he can sell them to enough people?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 23, 2017, 06:30:18 AM
Once again I'm left wondering: Does DJT really believe his own lies, or is he just convinced that he can sell them to enough people?
He believes them because he has to believe them, otherwise his fragile ego collapses in a heap (see my Narcissistic Personality Disorder post above).

The extraordinary thing is that his NPD is so severe that it is more important to him than the role of President of the United States.  I mean, the NPD was pretty obvious during the campaign but there was always the hope that becoming President would outweigh it: I think Trump has already conclusively proved that it hasn't.

The really scary thing is of course that Trump has surrounded himself in office with people who have also either bought into Trump's pathological errors or who are going along with them for their own reasons.  I would love a reporter to stand up in the next Presidential news briefing that tries to peddle a lie and ask "Do you honestly believe the lie you have just told or are you merely pandering to the President's delusion?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2017, 06:49:11 AM
Once again I'm left wondering: Does DJT really believe his own lies, or is he just convinced that he can sell them to enough people?
He believes them because he has to believe them, otherwise his fragile ego collapses in a heap (see my Narcissistic Personality Disorder post above).

The extraordinary thing is that his NPD is so severe that it is more important to him than the role of President of the United States.  I mean, the NPD was pretty obvious during the campaign but there was always the hope that becoming President would outweigh it: I think Trump has already conclusively proved that it hasn't.

The really scary thing is of course that Trump has surrounded himself in office with people who have also either bought into Trump's pathological errors or who are going along with them for their own reasons.
I won't diagnose anyone's personality disorder, but I will agree with you that the number of people who are complicit with these most blatant lies is extremely troubling.
Until there's some sort of consequence for repeating them I don't think this will stop.
I wonder if this period in our history will be studied as another example of group-hysteria.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 23, 2017, 07:04:51 AM
Eh, Israel can't annex Palestine. The Palestinians have more kids than Israelis. Unless the Palestinians are denied the right to vote (like apartheid and definitely possible with the Likud party in charge), Israel would be facing a voting demographic change they may not like.

Palestine is currently under control by Israel (police control, military control, Israeli enforced curfew, Israeli control of movement within Palestine, Israeli control of goods in/out of the country, etc.) and unable to vote in Israeli elections.  They're a separate country in name only.  I'd be shocked for this to change at all once Israel completes their ongoing annexation of Palestine.



Quote
You have land that Israel has steadily invaded and captured through the history.

You know, this has always bothered me a bit.   Israel captured those territories in the 6 days war which was started by Egypt.

Israel has regularly expanded their territory since coming to the area.  The last large territory grab was taken when Israel attacked Egypt and started the six day war.  Since then (over the past forty years) Israeli settlers have regularly moved into Palestinian lands, forcibly evicted Palestinians, and then enlisted the aid of the Israeli armed forces to prevent the Palestinians from retaking it.  There is no indication that this behaviour will ever stop, and the Palestinians have no recourse to prevent it.



And pragmatically, Israeli society has a lot more in common with US or Canadian society than the various Arab states do.   You know, things like women's rights, democratic leadership, being able to industrialize and innovate and produce things.    There's a pretty good argument that the UN resolutions around this topic aren't for the best.

Generally, yeah.  Israel treats Israeli women much better than Palestine treats Palestinian women.  I mean technically there's suffrage in Palestine . . . but there are plenty of problems with enforcing Islamic codes of dress, honor killings, etc.  In that way, I guess that it's more like Canada or the US.

For your other points though . . . Palestine has held regular elections and had democratic leadership for 20 years.  They've actually got pretty good education rates for a middle eastern country.  It has been proven impossible for the Palestinians to industrialize and innovate under Israeli occupation.  How is industrialization supposed to happen when most goods going either way are turned back at the border by Israelis?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 23, 2017, 07:46:02 AM
Once again I'm left wondering: Does DJT really believe his own lies, or is he just convinced that he can sell them to enough people?
He believes them because he has to believe them, otherwise his fragile ego collapses in a heap (see my Narcissistic Personality Disorder post above).

The extraordinary thing is that his NPD is so severe that it is more important to him than the role of President of the United States.  I mean, the NPD was pretty obvious during the campaign but there was always the hope that becoming President would outweigh it: I think Trump has already conclusively proved that it hasn't.

The really scary thing is of course that Trump has surrounded himself in office with people who have also either bought into Trump's pathological errors or who are going along with them for their own reasons.
I won't diagnose anyone's personality disorder, but I will agree with you that the number of people who are complicit with these most blatant lies is extremely troubling.
Until there's some sort of consequence for repeating them I don't think this will stop.
I wonder if this period in our history will be studied as another example of group-hysteria.
Which is why people need to call people who do this, out.  Flat out say it is a lie.  Or if that is too harsh, factually inaccurate. Don't let people "agree to disagree", you can do that with opinions, not facts.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2017, 07:57:07 AM
Once again I'm left wondering: Does DJT really believe his own lies, or is he just convinced that he can sell them to enough people?
He believes them because he has to believe them, otherwise his fragile ego collapses in a heap (see my Narcissistic Personality Disorder post above).

The extraordinary thing is that his NPD is so severe that it is more important to him than the role of President of the United States.  I mean, the NPD was pretty obvious during the campaign but there was always the hope that becoming President would outweigh it: I think Trump has already conclusively proved that it hasn't.

The really scary thing is of course that Trump has surrounded himself in office with people who have also either bought into Trump's pathological errors or who are going along with them for their own reasons.
I won't diagnose anyone's personality disorder, but I will agree with you that the number of people who are complicit with these most blatant lies is extremely troubling.
Until there's some sort of consequence for repeating them I don't think this will stop.
I wonder if this period in our history will be studied as another example of group-hysteria.
Which is why people need to call people who do this, out.  Flat out say it is a lie.  Or if that is too harsh, factually inaccurate. Don't let people "agree to disagree", you can do that with opinions, not facts.
While I absolutely agree with you in principle, it hasn't been very effective so far. DJT lashes out at the media for being "dishonest", countless websites are dedicated to fact-checking and there are angry howls every time a new falsehood surfaces, regardless of whether the falsehood has important and far-reaching implications ("Obama's birth certificate is fake!") or not ("biggest crowd ever!").
Despite this, the lies are becoming more brazen and ridiculous, and supporters seem no less inclined to believe them. In some ways pointing out obvious lies causes the opposite of the anticipated effect in a true example of political irony.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Daleth on January 23, 2017, 08:00:10 AM
Quote
You have land that Israel has steadily invaded and captured through the history.

You know, this has always bothered me a bit.   Israel captured those territories in the 6 days war which was started by Egypt.

And pragmatically, Israeli society has a lot more in common with US or Canadian society than the various Arab states do.   You know, things like women's rights, democratic leadership, being able to industrialize and innovate and produce things.    There's a pretty good argument that the UN resolutions around this topic aren't for the best.

Totally agree.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 23, 2017, 08:10:13 AM
Trump's policy objectives are up   https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community (https://www.whitehouse.gov/law-enforcement-community)

"We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. "

Makes me want to puke. Seriously.
Leveraging our future for the present?
More to the point, all this talk of increasing drilling and fracking and mining will do little while the cost of fossil fuels is as low as it is. While supply has dipped and demand has increased, we still have an over-supply of oil already.  Basic economics; for each additional barrel of oil we get less for it; trying to "unlock" large chunks of fossil fuels will face the laws of diminishing returns.
Then of course there's the OPEC bloc (plus Russia) - if the US market share starts increasing they're likely to flood the market with cheap oil again to preserve market share.  US rigs are all privately owned, so they'll respond to market forces.
They did it two years ago.

The current WH energy plan sounds like it was conjured by a climate-denying elementary school kid.

Yep, not much money to be made in drilling these days.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 23, 2017, 08:32:03 AM
Quote
I won't diagnose anyone's personality disorder, but I will agree with you that the number of people who are complicit with these most blatant lies is extremely troubling.
Until there's some sort of consequence for repeating them I don't think this will stop.
I wonder if this period in our history will be studied as another example of group-hysteria.

One of the things I have noticed since the election that troubles me is the underlying anger of the hard-core trumpers.  Their guy won, but they aren't celebrating, they are still furious.  Trump has an extremely loyal group of people that will justify and fall in line with every lie he says.  It is absolutely crazy, and tremendously disturbing.  It reminds me of Jonestown.  I think if he asked, they would kill and die for him.  They are already at the point where they are perfectly okay with saying 2+2 =5.  They are all in, forever. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 23, 2017, 08:37:23 AM
Quote
I won't diagnose anyone's personality disorder, but I will agree with you that the number of people who are complicit with these most blatant lies is extremely troubling.
Until there's some sort of consequence for repeating them I don't think this will stop.
I wonder if this period in our history will be studied as another example of group-hysteria.

One of the things I have noticed since the election that troubles me is the underlying anger of the hard-core trumpers.  Their guy won, but they aren't celebrating, they are still furious.  Trump has an extremely loyal group of people that will justify and fall in line with every lie he says.  It is absolutely crazy, and tremendously disturbing.  It reminds me of Jonestown.  I think if he asked, they would kill and die for him.  They are already at the point where they are perfectly okay with saying 2+2 =5.  They are all in, forever.

Of course they're alright with 2+2 equalling 5.  It's simply an alternate fact.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2017, 08:44:04 AM
Quote
I won't diagnose anyone's personality disorder, but I will agree with you that the number of people who are complicit with these most blatant lies is extremely troubling.
Until there's some sort of consequence for repeating them I don't think this will stop.
I wonder if this period in our history will be studied as another example of group-hysteria.

One of the things I have noticed since the election that troubles me is the underlying anger of the hard-core trumpers.  Their guy won, but they aren't celebrating, they are still furious.  Trump has an extremely loyal group of people that will justify and fall in line with every lie he says.  It is absolutely crazy, and tremendously disturbing. It reminds me of Jonestown.  I think if he asked, they would kill and die for him.  They are already at the point where they are perfectly okay with saying 2+2 =5.  They are all in, forever.

What's Jonestown?
(I also share your view that the most hard-core supporters, of which I am related to two, seem to be angry and combative)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 23, 2017, 08:53:29 AM
Quote
I won't diagnose anyone's personality disorder, but I will agree with you that the number of people who are complicit with these most blatant lies is extremely troubling.
Until there's some sort of consequence for repeating them I don't think this will stop.
I wonder if this period in our history will be studied as another example of group-hysteria.

One of the things I have noticed since the election that troubles me is the underlying anger of the hard-core trumpers.  Their guy won, but they aren't celebrating, they are still furious.  Trump has an extremely loyal group of people that will justify and fall in line with every lie he says.  It is absolutely crazy, and tremendously disturbing. It reminds me of Jonestown.  I think if he asked, they would kill and die for him.  They are already at the point where they are perfectly okay with saying 2+2 =5.  They are all in, forever.

What's Jonestown?
(I also share your view that the most hard-core supporters, of which I am related to two, seem to be angry and combative)

Jonestown was a cult that relocated to South America from the states and resulted in the largest mass suicide recorded, more than 900 people willing walked up and knowingly drank poisoned Kool-Aid (creating the phrase, he drank the Kool-Aid...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2017, 09:13:25 AM
Quote
I won't diagnose anyone's personality disorder, but I will agree with you that the number of people who are complicit with these most blatant lies is extremely troubling.
Until there's some sort of consequence for repeating them I don't think this will stop.
I wonder if this period in our history will be studied as another example of group-hysteria.

One of the things I have noticed since the election that troubles me is the underlying anger of the hard-core trumpers.  Their guy won, but they aren't celebrating, they are still furious.  Trump has an extremely loyal group of people that will justify and fall in line with every lie he says.  It is absolutely crazy, and tremendously disturbing.  It reminds me of Jonestown.  I think if he asked, they would kill and die for him.  They are already at the point where they are perfectly okay with saying 2+2 =5.  They are all in, forever.

As a counterpoint, I find this statement quite generic and it can be applied to any politician.  There are always hardcore loyalists.  I find the rest of the comment non-productive to the topic and seems more like fear-mongering than any meaningful discussion.

It seems pretty on-topic to me.  Allow me to rephrase it like this: One of the impacts of Trump being president is that his core supporters continue to support his lies (now "alternative facts"), and unlike previous supporters who have been mixtures of joyful and jubilent at having their candidate in office, Trump supporters seem angry and are pushing to have large parts of the system blown up.

To me it seems to be very different from the core supporters of Obama, W, Clinton or Bush Sr. after their respective victories.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2017, 10:09:03 AM
Much better put nereo.  Trump ran with a nationalist agenda and a big part of it was to make significant changes or "blow up the system" as you stated.  So it seems logical that his supporters continue to push for this.  Why would they simply be happy that their candidate got elected - they want the changes he promised.

I watched some of the news coverage and I didn't see angry supporters - I saw joyful supporters.  Joyful supporters that still want to blow up the system.  The anger I saw was coming from the protesters - and this is expected as well.

I see a desire to destroy as being a form of anger. I'm also seeing a lot of combativeness vs attempts at unification. Perhaps we are just seeing different subsets of this population. Shrug.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on January 23, 2017, 10:41:07 AM
That is Trump, in his first full day as President of the United States, telling the CIA how many times he has been on the cover of Time magazine.  Twice.  Donald, it's the CIA: if they cared they could find out.

Let's add to this that he chose the Memorial Wall at the CIA (honoring officers who gave their lives in service to the CIA and their country) as his literal backdrop for his rant against 'media lies' and his crowd sizes. What a disgusting display of lack of honor and decency. I'm so glad Brennan called him out on this. His next trip should probably be to Arlington Cemetery or the Holocaust Museum so he can rant about how great Trump Steaks are and how the Mexicans and Chinese are raping us and how he didn't grab any pussies like the lying media says he did.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2017, 10:47:24 AM
That is Trump, in his first full day as President of the United States, telling the CIA how many times he has been on the cover of Time magazine.  Twice.  Donald, it's the CIA: if they cared they could find out.

Let's add to this that he chose the Memorial Wall at the CIA (honoring officers who gave their lives in service to the CIA and their country) as his literal backdrop for his rant against 'media lies' and his crowd sizes. What a disgusting display of lack of honor and decency. I'm so glad Brennan called him out on this.

I was flabbergasted that he did this, but I'm going to chalk this up to him and his team being utterly inexperienced at politics. Any small-town mayor would have seen that as inappropriate, but DJT looks at the Memorial Wall and says "What a fabulous backdrop this would make.  It's got stars and a flag and words like 'Honor'"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on January 23, 2017, 11:08:10 AM
That is Trump, in his first full day as President of the United States, telling the CIA how many times he has been on the cover of Time magazine.  Twice.  Donald, it's the CIA: if they cared they could find out.

Let's add to this that he chose the Memorial Wall at the CIA (honoring officers who gave their lives in service to the CIA and their country) as his literal backdrop for his rant against 'media lies' and his crowd sizes. What a disgusting display of lack of honor and decency. I'm so glad Brennan called him out on this.

I was flabbergasted that he did this, but I'm going to chalk this up to him and his team being utterly inexperienced at politics decency. Any small-town mayor would have seen that as inappropriate, but DJT looks at the Memorial Wall and says "What a fabulous backdrop this would make.  It's got stars and a flag and words like 'Honor'"

Ha, agreed, but FTFY
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 23, 2017, 11:13:09 AM
Met with business leaders this morning trying to find a way to create more middle class jobs here in America. Oh the horror.  Hitler............

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 23, 2017, 11:16:34 AM
^
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 23, 2017, 11:17:23 AM
^

Thanks for posting pictures of the protesters I saw on TV Saturday. I also saw some crazy green colored hair as well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 23, 2017, 12:18:19 PM
Today's impacts:  another federal hiring freeze which is going to cost millions of dollars, and another federal pay freeze which is going to save millions of dollars but cost my family thousands.

Fortunately this only pushes my retirement date back by a few weeks/months, because we are already so close.  It would suck a lot more to be an early career federal employee.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 23, 2017, 12:47:14 PM
Met with business leaders this morning trying to find a way to create more middle class jobs here in America. Oh the horror.  Hitler............

Hitler regime’s economic policy was describes as "large scale borrowing for public expenditures, and at first this was principally for civilian work -- railroads, canals and the Autobahnen [highway network]. The result was a far more effective attack on unemployment than in any other industrial country."

Hitler often spoke of the misery of the middleclass: "Along with the hungry unemployed millions of industrial workers there is the impoverishment of the whole middle class and the artisans."

I could go on. The similarities in rhetoric is absolutely frightening.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 23, 2017, 01:00:38 PM
Met with business leaders this morning trying to find a way to create more middle class jobs here in America. Oh the horror.  Hitler............

Hitler regime’s economic policy was describes as "large scale borrowing for public expenditures, and at first this was principally for civilian work -- railroads, canals and the Autobahnen [highway network]. The result was a far more effective attack on unemployment than in any other industrial country."

Hitler often spoke of the misery of the middleclass: "Along with the hungry unemployed millions of industrial workers there is the impoverishment of the whole middle class and the artisans."

I could go on. The similarities in rhetoric is absolutely frightening.

Even if you set aside the Hitler comparisons for a moment ... I don't think anyone expects him to focus all of his time on punching poor people in the face. Blind squirrels and all that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on January 23, 2017, 01:28:53 PM
Met with business leaders this morning trying to find a way to create more middle class jobs here in America. Oh the horror.  Hitler............

Hitler regime’s economic policy was describes as "large scale borrowing for public expenditures, and at first this was principally for civilian work -- railroads, canals and the Autobahnen [highway network]. The result was a far more effective attack on unemployment than in any other industrial country."

Hitler often spoke of the misery of the middleclass: "Along with the hungry unemployed millions of industrial workers there is the impoverishment of the whole middle class and the artisans."

I could go on. The similarities in rhetoric is absolutely frightening.

Even if you set aside the Hitler comparisons for a moment ... I don't think anyone expects him to focus all of his time on punching poor people in the face. Blind squirrels and all that.

I've always found the Hitler comparisons to be rather lame, when used against trump, Clinton, Bush, Sanders, etc. He said the things people wanted to hear. So did sanders, so did Obama, so did Bush, etc. Its just politicking. I'm not unconcerned about some of the material proposals Trump has made, but it's a little early to tap out on the whole 'godwin's law' thing.

That said, how should Trump handle it when there's a factual inaccuracy? should he just do what Obama did and be quiet about it?

As someone who hoped trump would get in line and accomplish some of the things that actually WOULD be beneficial to us, it's incredibly frustrating to see him wasting time and continuing to be a shithead, for what seems to be the sake of it.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 23, 2017, 01:56:13 PM
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for women’s reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isn’t strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trump’s executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 23, 2017, 02:54:59 PM
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for women’s reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isn’t strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trump’s executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jeninco on January 23, 2017, 03:04:20 PM
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for women’s reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isn’t strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trump’s executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.

OK, I'm genuinely curious (and I have a one-topic-per-day policy for calling my representatives): if this is a presidential decree, what can my representatives do about it?  If there's some constructive purpose in calling, I'll send out a group email, but this one feels like spitting into a tsunami.
(And, to be clear, this kind of BS completely infuriates me. It disproportionately hurts poor women and children in poor countries and accomplishes no good whatsoever.)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 23, 2017, 03:11:11 PM
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for women’s reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isn’t strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trump’s executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on January 23, 2017, 03:13:20 PM
Can anyone point to data about how whether this is rescinded/not rescinded actually affects outcomes? I spent a while googling for it, and found no data either way. Even the pro-choice groups who are against this just insist that it's bad...  seems like we should have that data, since the bit has been flipped Reagan+bush/Clinton/bush/Obama. This data would help make a case to a legislator to support rescinding the rule.

I'm wondering if this is one of those things where the rule doesn't really affect anything because they just shift dollars around and do the same thing. Lets hope, anyway.  If it does actually affect outcomes, the data should show it. If there is no change, that speaks for its self.

*I am pro-"not the gov'ts place to ban abortion, but think some discussion about whether the government directly funds it is warranted" so if you want to paint with a brush, you can pre-emptively fuck off.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 23, 2017, 03:15:58 PM
Quote
OK, I'm genuinely curious (and I have a one-topic-per-day policy for calling my representatives): if this is a presidential decree, what can my representatives do about it?  If there's some constructive purpose in calling, I'll send out a group email, but this one feels like spitting into a tsunami.
(And, to be clear, this kind of BS completely infuriates me. It disproportionately hurts poor women and children in poor countries and accomplishes no good whatsoever.)

there is nothing that your congress person can do directly. They can put political pressure by telling the WH they wont' support future/current bills if he does things like that. If your congress person leads any sub-committees (which is very likely) he/she can have a large influence about which bills make it to the floor and when.
Ultimately the WH needs votes in congress (especially with it being so closely divided), and your representatives are always going to do what they think it best to stay in power and get relected. Having worked as a congressional page many years ago I'll say that congress members do listen when their constituents complain, in part because so few actually take the time.

But I agree at times it feels like spitting into a tsunami.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 23, 2017, 03:45:13 PM
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for women’s reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isn’t strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trump’s executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.

If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 23, 2017, 03:55:05 PM
If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?

Lots of people who oppose abortion do so for the same reason that they oppose birth control:  they want more babies in the world.  They don't want women to terminate pregnancies and they don't want women to avoid getting pregnant.  They want all women pumping out babies at a steady clip.

Mostly this is a remnant of the early days of religious teaching, where rapid procreation among believers was the only way to ensure the survival of your religion.  You had to outbreed all of the other religions.

The fact that it keeps women servile and uneducated and homebound is just a lucky side effect, to this crowd.  You know, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and all that.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on January 23, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
Well there is this:
WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for women’s reproductive health access worldwide.

Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, which was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

The United States spends about $600 million a year on international assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, making it possible for 27 million women and couples to access contraceptive services and supplies.

None of that money is spent on performing abortions. The Helms amendment has prevented U.S. tax dollars from funding overseas abortions since 1973. Proponents of the global gag rule believe the policy is nevertheless still necessary, arguing that Helms isn’t strong enough by itself.

The executive order is one of the first Trump has signed since taking office. Sitting in the Oval Office Monday, he also signed ones freezing federal hiring and withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

A pan of the people standing by his side showed that there were few, if any, women present.


MSNBC
Trump’s executive order has severe implications and could be deadly for women and girls in developing countries and conflict zones, who often resort to dangerous methods of ending their pregnancies when they lack access to safe abortion. The World Health Organization estimates that more than 21 million women a year have unsafe abortions in developing countries, accounting for about 13 percent of all maternal deaths.

The policy is rescinded and reinstated based on which party is in power. President Bill Clinton did away with it, President George W. Bush put it back and then President Barack Obama rescinded it again when he took office.

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.

If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?

The Helms amendment states simply "no foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions."

I'm not sure how this  blocks access to contraceptives?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 23, 2017, 04:03:21 PM
If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?

Lots of people who oppose abortion do so for the same reason that they oppose birth control:  they want more babies in the world.  They don't want women to terminate pregnancies and they don't women to avoid getting pregnant.  They want all women pumping out babies at a steady clip.

Mostly this is a remnant of the early days of religious teaching, where rapid procreation among believers was the only way to ensure the survival of your religion.  You had to outbreed all of the other religions.

The fact that keeps women servile and uneducated and homebound is just a lucky side effect.  You know, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and all that.

While the catholic church opposes birth control as a policy, many Christians (and many catholics) are quite all right with family planning and birth control while being pro-life.

I would go as far as to speculate pro-life people opposing family planning and contraception are the minority. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 23, 2017, 04:09:52 PM
If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?

Lots of people who oppose abortion do so for the same reason that they oppose birth control:  they want more babies in the world.  They don't want women to terminate pregnancies and they don't women to avoid getting pregnant.  They want all women pumping out babies at a steady clip.

Mostly this is a remnant of the early days of religious teaching, where rapid procreation among believers was the only way to ensure the survival of your religion.  You had to outbreed all of the other religions.

The fact that it keeps women servile and uneducated and homebound is just a lucky side effect, to this crowd.  You know, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and all that.

Yeah, I understand that. But when I talk to pro-life people, their main argument is that abortion is MURDER. Well, okay, if you don't want MURDER, then you want fewer abortions. So... make decisions that will make that possible. Anything else seems at the very least hypocritical.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 23, 2017, 04:10:42 PM
I'm not sure how this  blocks access to contraceptives?

Not the Helms amendment, which has been in continuing effect, but the new Trump order reinstating the Mexico City policy.  It specifically withholds funding to NGOs that offer contraception in developing nations.  Why is this at all confusing?

I would go as far as to speculate pro-life people opposing family planning and contraception are the minority. 

Sure, but this was specifically in response to a poster who claimed to support the decision to defund contraception services because they were also pro-life.  I was just trying to explain how a person could hold those two seemingly contradictory views.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 23, 2017, 04:14:21 PM


I would go as far as to speculate pro-life people opposing family planning and contraception are the minority. 

Sure, but this was specifically in response to a poster who claimed to support the decision to defund contraception services because they were also pro-life.  I was just trying to explain how a person could hold those two seemingly contradictory views.

Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on January 23, 2017, 04:26:11 PM
I'm not sure how this  blocks access to contraceptives?

Not the Helms amendment, which has been in continuing effect, but the new Trump order reinstating the Mexico City policy.  It specifically withholds funding to NGOs that offer contraception in developing nations.  Why is this at all confusing?


I'm clear now. I had glossed over the fact that the Mexico city policy was a separate thing entirely. 

edit: Now that I'm searching for the right thing...

 the jury is out on whether the Mexico city rule has any effect at all, according to these guys:
http://www.aei.org/publication/mexico-city-policy/print/  This one says the Mexico city has no effect either way.

WHO Says enacting the Mexico city rule actually causes more abortions. There are some questions you could raise as to methodology the WHO used, relying on people recalling things over spans of times etc, but... the data seems to respond significantly to the change in policy. They don't speculate too much on why this paradox exists, but it's probably because of the reduction in access to other contraceptives caused by stopping funding due to the MCr.
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/

WHO conclusion: if you want to prevent abortions, well, uh, fund abortions.

So, I guess my policy leans toward we should infact KEEP the helms rule, but eliminate the mexico city rule. this scheme seems to maintain good outcomes without directly funding abortions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Burghardt on January 23, 2017, 05:46:20 PM
I suppose the most significant impact is everybody continuously shooting themselves in the foot until they run out of space and have to pick a new body part.

Everybody's being lead around on a leash arguing about crowd sizes and abortions in other countries while the big political moves are barely reported on.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on January 23, 2017, 06:25:19 PM
Trump is being tactical and distracting everyone from his real activities?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 23, 2017, 06:31:00 PM
WHO conclusion: if you want to prevent abortions, well, uh, fund abortions.

More specifically, I think the conclusion is "if you want to prevent abortions, fund effective contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies."

Unfortunately, Trump is trying to appeal to the pro-life people by reinstating the Mexico City policy, which prevents contraception and thus increases abortion.  I'm not sure if he's just confused about the impacts, or doesn't care, or what.  I doubt it's because he's actually trying to cause more abortions, because NOBODY wants that.  Even the most strongly pro-choice among us would like to see abortions be less common.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 23, 2017, 07:03:53 PM
If you are pro-life:
-You're against abortion, which means promoting contraception, because you're not going to prevent sex. See: prohibition.
-You're against the death penalty.
-You're probably vegetarian and maybe vegan. Good for animals and humans.
-You promote universal free health care, especially for children.
-You are for aggressive actions to prevent/mitigate global warming. Hard to imagine a greater threat to life, really.

If you don't really mean "pro life", don't fake it. Abortion is horrible, but if that's all you're against, you're not "pro life", you're "against abortion". Not the same thing.

FWIW, I can check all those boxes and consider myself pro-life.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on January 23, 2017, 07:18:31 PM
If you are pro-life:
-You're against abortion, which means promoting contraception, because you're not going to prevent sex. See: prohibition.
-You're against the death penalty.
-You're probably vegetarian and maybe vegan. Good for animals and humans.
-You promote universal free health care, especially for children.
-You are for aggressive actions to prevent/mitigate global warming. Hard to imagine a greater threat to life, really.

If you don't really mean "pro life", don't fake it. Abortion is horrible, but if that's all you're against, you're not "pro life", you're "against abortion". Not the same thing.

FWIW, I can check all those boxes and consider myself pro-life.

-W

You're probably against wars and predator drones, too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 23, 2017, 07:20:16 PM
If you are pro-life:
-You're against abortion, which means promoting contraception, because you're not going to prevent sex. See: prohibition.
-You're against the death penalty.
-You're probably vegetarian and maybe vegan. Good for animals and humans.
-You promote universal free health care, especially for children.
-You are for aggressive actions to prevent/mitigate global warming. Hard to imagine a greater threat to life, really.

If you don't really mean "pro life", don't fake it. Abortion is horrible, but if that's all you're against, you're not "pro life", you're "against abortion". Not the same thing.

FWIW, I can check all those boxes and consider myself pro-life.

-W

You're probably against wars and predator drones, too.

No doubt. And the war on drugs. And for profit prisons. And border protections that drive illegal immigrants into increasingly dangerous situations and terrain. Damn, I guess I'm pro-life too!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 23, 2017, 07:40:19 PM
I suppose the most significant impact is everybody continuously shooting themselves in the foot until they run out of space and have to pick a new body part.

Everybody's being lead around on a leash arguing about crowd sizes and abortions in other countries while the big political moves are barely reported on.

He is a master of the dead cat technique.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 23, 2017, 08:31:48 PM
You're probably against wars and predator drones, too.

Darn it, you got me!

It's almost like I'm a Christian...

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on January 23, 2017, 08:43:08 PM
Did anybody mention this?

Sayonara net neutrality. (https://www.wired.com/2017/01/trumps-fcc-pick-signals-end-net-neutrality-efforts/)

What a busy little bee he is!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 06:01:06 AM
Trump is being tactical and distracting everyone from his real activities?

I do wonder if this isn't an intentional strategy.  Quick! We need something to distract the public from a policy they will protest against, say something ridiculous!  Um... 5 million illegals voted and handed Clinton the popular vote! I'm the biggest person for the enviornment and have won many awards! No one is a bigger protector of women than I am!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 07:11:25 AM

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.

If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?
[/quote]
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 24, 2017, 07:19:13 AM
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

That's great for you. When your archaic notions start interfering with my (marital) sex life (say, banning IUDs), you can go fuck yourself right off a cliff.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 07:22:37 AM

I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.
we'll have to agree to disagree on this then. I don't see what is immoral or unethical about two consenting adults deciding to have sex while also deciding they don't want a pregnancy right now. To me that's the heart of sound family planning.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 24, 2017, 07:38:43 AM
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

- If a man ejaculates into a condom, the sperm will eventually die.

- If a man fails to ejaculate into a condom, his sperm will be reabsorbed into his body and die.

Where is the moral/ethical difference coming from?




- If a woman takes hormal birth control, it prevents ovulation.  The ovum is simply never released.

- If a woman fails to take hormonal birth control, she will ovulate every month and the ovum will die.

If your objection to abortion is that it kills a living thing, then you should have an objection to women who fail to take hormonal birth control.  They kill a living thing every month that they are not inseminated.  Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on January 24, 2017, 07:45:45 AM
Trump is being tactical and distracting everyone from his real activities?

I do wonder if this isn't an intentional strategy.  Quick! We need something to distract the public from a policy they will protest against, say something ridiculous!  Um... 5 million illegals voted and handed Clinton the popular vote! I'm the biggest person for the enviornment and have won many awards! No one is a bigger protector of women than I am!
Trump was on about winning the popular vote again just yesterday.  I would be relieved if it was part of some master strategy, but sadly I just think he is just 100% coo-coo for cocoa puffs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 24, 2017, 08:05:07 AM
I have been on both sides of the abortion debate and over time I have come to some conclusions. 

Many pro-lifers WANT to believe that abortion is murder, and they WANT to view their opponents as murderers because it makes them feel good about themselves without doing anything.  Righteous anger feels awesome.  If you believe your opponent is a murderer, it gives you a sense of the moral high ground, and makes it easy to dismiss any arguments or suggestions.  After all, why would you listen to a murderer about anything they have to say? 

The converse is, many pro-choicers WANT to believe that anyone who opposes abortion is trying to chain women back into the stone age.  They WANT to frame pro-lifers as evil people who hate women, want to control their bodies entirely, and want to make the Handmaid's Tale a reality. 

Quote
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

A fringe viewpoint that would lead to the suffering of billions of people. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 08:07:53 AM
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure I’ll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion – violates #3
Contraception – violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 08:09:34 AM
Quote
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

A fringe viewpoint that would lead to the suffering of billions of people.
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 08:10:51 AM
Trump is being tactical and distracting everyone from his real activities?

I do wonder if this isn't an intentional strategy.  Quick! We need something to distract the public from a policy they will protest against, say something ridiculous!  Um... 5 million illegals voted and handed Clinton the popular vote! I'm the biggest person for the enviornment and have won many awards! No one is a bigger protector of women than I am!
Trump was on about winning the popular vote again just yesterday.  I would be relieved if it was part of some master strategy, but sadly I just think he is just 100% coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

I keep going back and forth on this one (and I have been for well over a year).

I just cannot decide which is worse: a Commander in Chief who is so thin skinned that he'll flip out when people rightfully note that his crowd sizes weren't "the biggest in history"...
OR... a President who intentionally lies about crazy stuff just to keep the media focused on him and the lie.

Either way it's bad.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SomedayStache on January 24, 2017, 08:14:00 AM
Quote
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

A fringe viewpoint that would lead to the suffering of billions of people.
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

Could you please spell this out for me as if I am a second grader?  With this specific topic (not one of the examples in the linked definitions page)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 24, 2017, 08:17:07 AM
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure I’ll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion – violates #3
Contraception – violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.
I hope you will allow your kids access to information on contraception and allow them to form their own views on its use.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 08:17:50 AM
Quote
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.

A fringe viewpoint that would lead to the suffering of billions of people.
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm
I fail to see how it is a post-hoc fallacy. If you're speaking strictly about abortion, and whether prohibiting it causes more, that's one thing (and there's lots of evidence showing there is a causual relationship).
But you appear to be saying using any birth control besides is immoral and unethical. That doesn't fly. There's a pretty convincing link between having unprotected sex and the probability of pregnancy. Ergo, enacting this view would lead to either lots of people not having sex that they want to have, or preganancies they didn't intend to happen.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 24, 2017, 08:19:21 AM
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure I’ll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion – violates #3
Contraception – violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

To be clear, you are not arguing that contraception is murder.  Correct? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 24, 2017, 08:23:07 AM
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

I would point out, Acroy, though, that the example of Prohibition should be instructive. Sex is something people want to do for pleasure, regardless of your feelings about the morality of the activity. They will have sex (for fun! without being married!) regardless of what you want. If you'd like fewer abortions, allowing them to have sex with birth control (or even promoting it!) is probably a good course of action.

It's also worth mentioning that if you think sex is purely for procreation, you should be timing your wife's ovulations and ONLY having sex when there is a good chance she'll conceive. Any other time? Sin.

See how ridiculous that gets?

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm more pro-life than you are by any reasonable standard.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 08:26:57 AM
Well I didn't see this coming...

From now on, by executive order of DJT, Jan 20th, 2017 (the day of DJT's inauguration) will officially be known as the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion".

WTF?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Carlin on January 24, 2017, 08:31:29 AM
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure I’ll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion – violates #3
Contraception – violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

To be clear, you are not arguing that contraception is murder.  Correct?

Correct...I grew up with this ideology.  The idea is that if you're having sex just for the pleasure, even if it's with your spouse, you are taking advantage of "god's gift."  It's kind of like saying drinking diet soda is a sin.  You want the yumminess, but not the fat inducing sugar, so you find a way around it (aspartame, condoms).  That pisses the big guy off.  There must be retribution for pleasure.  Always.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: StarBright on January 24, 2017, 08:32:22 AM
Well I didn't see this coming...

From now on, by executive order of DJT, Jan 20th, 2017 (the day of DJT's inauguration) will officially be known as the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion".

WTF?

I'm not a Trump fan but this isn't as sinister as it sounds. All presidents name their inauguration day  - Obama's was something like "National Day of Reconciliation" or something similar.

Patriotic Devotion is totally creepy though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: t5inside on January 24, 2017, 08:37:52 AM
Well I didn't see this coming...

From now on, by executive order of DJT, Jan 20th, 2017 (the day of DJT's inauguration) will officially be known as the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion".

WTF?

I'm by no means a Trump fan but have a hard time making a big deal of this : https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/what-does-trumps-day-of-patriotic-devotion-really-mean/514196/

"That bit isn’t all that unusual. Presidents christen National Days Of Things all the time. President Barack Obama, for example, proclaimed the day of his own inauguration in 2009 a “National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation,”


"The last president to declare a Day of Patriotic Devotion was Woodrow Wilson"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 24, 2017, 08:38:26 AM
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.


I'm not speaking for Acroy, but how does disagreeing with contraception impact other's bodies?  Has Acroy argued for banning contraception?

I don't agree with his viewpoint, but he is free to do as he wishes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 08:41:11 AM
Well I didn't see this coming...

From now on, by executive order of DJT, Jan 20th, 2017 (the day of DJT's inauguration) will officially be known as the "National Day of Patriotic Devotion".

WTF?

I'm not a Trump fan but this isn't as sinister as it sounds. All presidents name their inauguration day  - Obama's was something like "National Day of Reconciliation" or something similar.

Patriotic Devotion is totally creepy though.

Huh.  Looked it up and Obama declared his first inauguration day (Jan 20th 2009) as the "National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation.  I'm not a fan of retroactively declaring inauguration days "National Day(s)" regardless of the president.

Agree that "patriotic devotion" is creepy.  Lots of wars have been fought over patriotism/nationalism and over devotion.  I can't think of a war that was fought over reconciliation though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 08:44:12 AM
To be clear, you are not arguing that contraception is murder.  Correct?
Correct. The definition of contraception = prevent conception (no life)..
Abortifactants, even if called 'contraceptives', cause abortion (end life).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 24, 2017, 08:45:32 AM
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure I’ll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion – violates #3
Contraception – violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 24, 2017, 09:03:06 AM
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure I’ll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion – violates #3
Contraception – violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.

Ahh you beat me to it.

Don't forget "god" also intended for us to procreate as much as possible so abstaining from sex is against god's will.  "Go forth and multiply" and all that garbage. I think the circular reasoning list is endless. I kind of laughed when I read the list to be honest.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 09:03:37 AM
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.
Incorrect. See what I wrote above re: the legitimate duties of the State. I wish/hope/pray others will control their own bodies. I will work to prevent murder. I am investing my time, right here right now, in the hope it will educate/sway people.

I would point out, Acroy, though, that the example of Prohibition should be instructive. Sex is something people want to do for pleasure, regardless of your feelings about the morality of the activity. They will have sex (for fun! without being married!) regardless of what you want. If you'd like fewer abortions, allowing them to have sex with birth control (or even promoting it!) is probably a good course of action.
See above re: legit duties of the State. I would not have the State prohibit birth control; nor promote it. The State should prohibit murder.

It's also worth mentioning that if you think sex is purely for procreation, you should be timing your wife's ovulations and ONLY having sex when there is a good chance she'll conceive. Any other time? Sin.
Correct, if I thought sex was purely for procreation. But I don't. I think it's primary purpose is procreation.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 24, 2017, 09:09:42 AM
What's your position on climate change? That's IMO the greatest possible threat to human life, even if you think there's only a 10% chance that it's actually happening.

How about the death penalty?

Pro life means stepping up for all people, not just unborn ones.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 09:13:46 AM
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure I’ll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion – violates #3
Contraception – violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.

The only faith-based point is #1
The rest follows from reason.
Sheez, I'm continually accused of wanting to control others. Not so. I hope you exercise your own free will to make moral choices.
Ovum is not a person.
God 'meant us to....have consequence free sex'? You made me smile, thanks.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 09:17:10 AM
...oh what the hell... Two points:
1) if God had intended sex to be primarily about procreation, the fertilization rate would reflect this. Plenty of animals (mammals even!) have fertilization success that exceeds 50%.
Likewise, God could have made it far less complicated, as with other species.
It seems clear to me that sex serves a social function first, and a procreation function second.


2) I do not consider termination of a newly fertilized zygote to be murder, regardless of whether it is alive.  Both un-fertilized eggs and sperm are definitely alive.  Many things can interfere with development, both naturally and unnaturally. In my view calling it 'murder' accomplishes nothing but frothing up the debate.

That said, my personal choice is to never have an abortion.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 24, 2017, 09:22:33 AM
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure I’ll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion – violates #3
Contraception – violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.

The only faith-based point is #1

Really?

2.  God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.

^ Sounds pretty faith based to me.

3.  Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation

^ Why is human life more precious than any other life?

4.  Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.

^ Why do you believe that sex should only be for procreation, and not for fun?

5.  Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

^ Why?

I think that you'll have a very difficult time answering any of those questions without relying on articles of your faith.


The rest follows from reason.

Please provide non-faith based reasoning then.


Ovum is not a person.

Why do you view an ovum as any different from a fetus?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 09:25:14 AM
What's your position on climate change? That's IMO the greatest possible threat to human life, even if you think there's only a 10% chance that it's actually happening.

How about the death penalty?

Pro life means stepping up for all people, not just unborn ones.

-W
Climate change:
Climate change is constant
Human activity does change the climate
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy.
I do not buy the alarmism.
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there.

Death penalty:
No strong opinion either way on this one.
Pro: A human can lose his 'right to life' by heinous crimes against other humans. Those crimes demand justice.
Con: Human life is too valuable to ever intentionally destroy. The justice system cannot be 100% correct, so some innocents will be destroyed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 09:33:43 AM

Climate change:
Climate change is constant
Human activity does change the climate
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy.
I do not buy the alarmism.
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there.

Climate change is constant Nope.  Change is accelerating
Human activity does change the climate Actually, it does. We've altered the climate at regional and global scales.
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy. Models are far more accurate thn you give them credit for.  I'd postulate you just don't understand how models work.  Take a model showing the growth of $10,000 invested over 30 years - the range will be quite large, but that doesn't mean investing is a scam.
I do not buy the alarmism.  Neither do I.  I believe the science, and the data.
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there. So... we need to colonize other planets because this one is doomed even though we aren't the ones causing its destruction?  Is this God's work?  I honestrly don't get this comment when added onto your others
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 24, 2017, 09:40:24 AM
Do you wear a seatbelt when in a car, Acroy?

Because even if you think climate change has a low probability of harming humans, it's the same sort of calculation - you insure against catastrophic outcomes.

Life, man! You should be onboard with this if anyone is.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 24, 2017, 09:48:35 AM
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.
Incorrect. See what I wrote above re: the legitimate duties of the State. I wish/hope/pray others will control their own bodies. I will work to prevent murder. I am investing my time, right here right now, in the hope it will educate/sway people.

I would point out, Acroy, though, that the example of Prohibition should be instructive. Sex is something people want to do for pleasure, regardless of your feelings about the morality of the activity. They will have sex (for fun! without being married!) regardless of what you want. If you'd like fewer abortions, allowing them to have sex with birth control (or even promoting it!) is probably a good course of action.
See above re: legit duties of the State. I would not have the State prohibit birth control; nor promote it. The State should prohibit murder.

It's also worth mentioning that if you think sex is purely for procreation, you should be timing your wife's ovulations and ONLY having sex when there is a good chance she'll conceive. Any other time? Sin.
Correct, if I thought sex was purely for procreation. But I don't. I think it's primary purpose is procreation.
Removing use of one's body is not murder.  Unless you think not having access to your blood, marrow and organs is murdering people every day.  And therefore you are a murderer.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 09:54:28 AM
Really?

2.  God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.

^ Sounds pretty faith based to me.

3.  Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation

^ Why is human life more precious than any other life?

4.  Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.

^ Why do you believe that sex should only be for procreation, and not for fun?

5.  Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

^ Why?

I think that you'll have a very difficult time answering any of those questions without relying on articles of your faith.


The rest follows from reason.

Please provide non-faith based reasoning then.


Ovum is not a person.

Why do you view an ovum as any different from a fetus?
If #1 is correct, the others come from it. Aristotle, Sts Augustine, Thomas are pretty reasonable. If God exists, is reasonable and has a purpose, we can use reason (a facility we take for granted, but if given by a purposeful God, must have a purpose) to figure out the purpose of Creation - including our own purpose.

Fetus = fertilized ovum = person
Non-fertilized ovum /= fetus /= person
Definition of fetus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
We could debate when an embryo becomes a fetus, however 'prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus'
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 24, 2017, 10:05:52 AM
Can you explain your moral/ethical choice in light of these facts?
Sure I’ll explain the logic, at the risk of thread derailment. Warning: this is reeealy unpopular.

1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Abortion – violates #3
Contraception – violates #4

All that said, the only portions of the above I think it is the duty of the State to enforce is point 2b and (following) point 3.

Ah, your ethics and morals are based on faith rather than reason.  I guess there's little point in demonstrating the inconsistencies/issues then but what the hell:

- Your attempts to control the lives of others violates #2 - treat other humans well.  You can't treat someone well while violating their freedom to perform an act that has no bearing on you of any kind.
- According to your viewpoint, anyone incapable of having a child should be prevented from having sex as per #4.  So, no gay sex.  No sex between old people.  No sex if either partner has a problem that would prevent conception.
- Women who menstruate kill human life (ovum) every month.  Avoiding birth control is in violation of #3.
- If there is a God and he did things intentionally as per #1, then he meant for us to learn to be able to have sex without pregnancy and have consequence free sex.  You're working against the intent of God.

The only faith-based point is #1
The rest follows from reason.
Sheez, I'm continually accused of wanting to control others. Not so. I hope you exercise your own free will to make moral choices.
Ovum is not a person.
God 'meant us to....have consequence free sex'? You made me smile, thanks.

Thank you for the dialog Acroy. It is becoming increasingly rare that people are willing to share their views if they disagree with others. I welcome other perspectives.

I certainly do not consider this topic to be a hijack of this thread. As it relates to Trump, it looks like religion and faith is WAY more important to him than it originally appeared. I would be interested in hearing from people that voted for him to tell us whether his faith was an important factor in voting for him.

I did not see him talk all that much about his faith, so was it just known and not said, or did the trump voters get a more religious president then they realized?  I believe one of his latest opinions on abortion was to maintain the status quo, for example.

I disagree with you about your points. I see all of them as only faith based.

#2. Without faith in the first part it is impossible to reach the conclusions of the remainder. I do not have faith that god made man and woman and do not agree with your reason of human life. There may not be reason at all.

#3. Assumes faith that human life is somehow defined to be more important than all other life. I see no reason why the universe is all here for man. Earth and the universe will survive man. Of course there will be no need for "proof" :)

#4. Not really that big of a deal. I've seen birds do it(really), bees do it(ok, lying here). Everything we see does it, or leaves this earth eventually. Some even appear to do it before they are even born! http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/health/zebra-shark-reproduction/
Some would even argue that some humans that have sex in order to procreate are the ones that are abusing (the poor or people of differing races for examples). I am "fixed".  It is no longer for procreation for me. I agree with you that it is fun :) I in no way believe this is abuse. My wife and I just don't swing that way,not that there is anything wrong with that (funny if you watch Seinfeld).

#5. Marriage can be a religious act, but it also maintains a legal status in the US. The legal status is very important to me, because of the advantages it gives me. The religious act means nothing to me. Legal advantages should not have been given to marriage, but since there are some, all should be allowed to advantage from them. I would be fine with government recognizing zero marriages but giving legal advantage to "something else", like civil unions, as long as all are invited to benefit.

I see Guitar said much the same thing, but since I took the time to write it, I will post it anyway. Have a great day
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on January 24, 2017, 10:08:39 AM
Thank God we don't live in a Theocracy. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 24, 2017, 10:11:03 AM
Thank God we don't live in a Theocracy.

BEST POST OF THE DAY AWARD WINNER!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 24, 2017, 10:12:32 AM
Thank God we don't live in a Theocracy.

Yet.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-radical-crusade-of-mike-pence-w462223
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on January 24, 2017, 10:25:14 AM
Acroy wishes to control other's bodies. That is really a pretty fringe viewpoint, but I guess we can agree to disagree.
Incorrect. See what I wrote above re: the legitimate duties of the State. I wish/hope/pray others will control their own bodies. I will work to prevent murder. I am investing my time, right here right now, in the hope it will educate/sway people.

I would point out, Acroy, though, that the example of Prohibition should be instructive. Sex is something people want to do for pleasure, regardless of your feelings about the morality of the activity. They will have sex (for fun! without being married!) regardless of what you want. If you'd like fewer abortions, allowing them to have sex with birth control (or even promoting it!) is probably a good course of action.
See above re: legit duties of the State. I would not have the State prohibit birth control; nor promote it. The State should prohibit murder.

It's also worth mentioning that if you think sex is purely for procreation, you should be timing your wife's ovulations and ONLY having sex when there is a good chance she'll conceive. Any other time? Sin.
Correct, if I thought sex was purely for procreation. But I don't. I think it's primary purpose is procreation.

I strongly agree with the bolded above statement.*

 I still cannot figure out why so many people have cognitive dissonance about this issue.

*Agree with pretty much everything acroy has written here. Acroy and myself both agree that contraception in all forms is wrong but it is order of magnitudes a much smaller deal than when it results in the death of an unborn human. Maybe people just say 'the Church/people say two things are wrong so if I am going to do one bad thing I might as well do them both'. I'm not sure why people do not understand the difference.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 10:25:45 AM
Climate change is constant Nope.  Change is acceleratingI did not claim the rate of change was constant

Human activity does change the climate Actually, it does. We've altered the climate at regional and global scales.
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy. Models are far more accurate thn you give them credit for.  I'd postulate you just don't understand how models work.  Take a model showing the growth of $10,000 invested over 30 years - the range will be quite large, but that doesn't mean investing is a scam.questioning my understanding is  unconvincing. Try harder. Here is a fun article about models. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/
I do not buy the alarmism.  Neither do I.  I believe the science, and the data.I believe in science and data as well. Science is a collection of tools used to analyze the Universe. Data is the result of the analysis. I do not easily believe extrapolation of poorly understood multi-variable formula (it's poor science).
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there. So... we need to colonize other planets because this one is doomed even though we aren't the ones causing its destruction?  Is this God's work?  I honestrly don't get this comment when added onto your othersThe earth has suffered extinction-level events before and will again. The Universe is out there waiting for us. We're sitting on a small rock in an enormous random shooting gallery, arguing over best use of the rock, with no way off. The Universe is out there, empty. If God is purposeful, then there is a purpose for that enormous empty Universe.

I doubt we'll convince each other, but perhaps we can encourage each other to sharpen our intellect.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 10:32:28 AM
Thank God we don't live in a Theocracy.
Theocracy: "a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives."
Where would you have authority derived from?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 24, 2017, 10:34:11 AM
I strongly agree with the bolded above statement.*

 I still cannot figure out why so many people have cognitive dissonance about this issue.

*Agree with pretty much everything acroy has written here. Acroy and myself both agree that contraception in all forms is wrong but it is order of magnitudes a much smaller deal than when it results in the death of an unborn human. Maybe people just say 'the Church/people say two things are wrong so if I am going to do one bad thing I might as well do them both'. I'm not sure why people do not understand the difference.

Not to speak for others, but I would venture that what most of us have a hard time understanding is why individuals like you and Acroy think that promoting the (by your words) orders of magnitude less bad option of contreceptives is still something to be opposed when it is demonstrable that such actions drastically reduce the worldwide rate of abortion, which we all agree is much worse.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 24, 2017, 10:39:12 AM
Climate change is constant Nope.  Change is acceleratingI did not claim the rate of change was constant

Human activity does change the climate Actually, it does. We've altered the climate at regional and global scales.
How much, we have proven we don't know. The models are consistent in their inaccuracy. Models are far more accurate thn you give them credit for.  I'd postulate you just don't understand how models work.  Take a model showing the growth of $10,000 invested over 30 years - the range will be quite large, but that doesn't mean investing is a scam.questioning my understanding is  unconvincing. Try harder. Here is a fun article about models. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/
I do not buy the alarmism.  Neither do I.  I believe the science, and the data.I believe in science and data as well. Science is a collection of tools used to analyze the Universe. Data is the result of the analysis. I do not easily believe extrapolation of poorly understood multi-variable formula (it's poor science).
IMO the greatest threat to long-term human life is not getting off this rock. we gotta get out there. So... we need to colonize other planets because this one is doomed even though we aren't the ones causing its destruction?  Is this God's work?  I honestrly don't get this comment when added onto your othersThe earth has suffered extinction-level events before and will again. The Universe is out there waiting for us. We're sitting on a small rock in an enormous random shooting gallery, arguing over best use of the rock, with no way off. The Universe is out there, empty. If God is purposeful, then there is a purpose for that enormous empty Universe.

I doubt we'll convince each other, but perhaps we can encourage each other to sharpen our intellect.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm (https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm)
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought.html (https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought.html)

As for your reference to a well known denier website, it's chock full if disinfo.
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm (https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 24, 2017, 10:40:48 AM

Anyone who is truly pro-life should be outraged by this and calling their congresspeople to demand action.
Can't get much more pro-life than I am, and I am delighted this policy is rescinded.

If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, helping women to get access to contraceptive services and supplies is a major part of that. This policy will result in more unwanted pregnancies. Which will result in more abortions. I am sure your pro-life stance is not limited to only American women, or American children. So how can you think this is a good thing?
I 100% understand your position and it sounds convincing, but contains the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc / Faulty Causality'
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm
I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence.
[/quote]

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on January 24, 2017, 10:41:30 AM
Thank God we don't live in a Theocracy.
Theocracy: "a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives."
Where would you have authority derived from?
Can't speak for jim555, but I would have it come from the consent of the governed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 10:47:18 AM
Thank you for the dialog Acroy. It is becoming increasingly rare that people are willing to share their views if they disagree with others. I welcome other perspectives.

I certainly do not consider this topic to be a hijack of this thread. As it relates to Trump, it looks like religion and faith is WAY more important to him than it originally appeared. I would be interested in hearing from people that voted for him to tell us whether his faith was an important factor in voting for him.

I did not see him talk all that much about his faith, so was it just known and not said, or did the trump voters get a more religious president then they realized?  I believe one of his latest opinions on abortion was to maintain the status quo, for example.

I disagree with you about your points. I see all of them as only faith based.

#2. Without faith in the first part it is impossible to reach the conclusions of the remainder. I do not have faith that god made man and woman and do not agree with your reason of human life. There may not be reason at all.

#3. Assumes faith that human life is somehow defined to be more important than all other life. I see no reason why the universe is all here for man. Earth and the universe will survive man. Of course there will be no need for "proof" :)

#4. Not really that big of a deal. I've seen birds do it(really), bees do it(ok, lying here). Everything we see does it, or leaves this earth eventually. Some even appear to do it before they are even born! http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/health/zebra-shark-reproduction/
Some would even argue that some humans that have sex in order to procreate are the ones that are abusing (the poor or people of differing races for examples). I am "fixed".  It is no longer for procreation for me. I agree with you that it is fun :) I in no way believe this is abuse. My wife and I just don't swing that way,not that there is anything wrong with that (funny if you watch Seinfeld).

#5. Marriage can be a religious act, but it also maintains a legal status in the US. The legal status is very important to me, because of the advantages it gives me. The religious act means nothing to me. Legal advantages should not have been given to marriage, but since there are some, all should be allowed to advantage from them. I would be fine with government recognizing zero marriages but giving legal advantage to "something else", like civil unions, as long as all are invited to benefit.

I see Guitar said much the same thing, but since I took the time to write it, I will post it anyway. Have a great day
You are quite welcome, I enjoy this as well. It is unfortunate it has become rare to debate without rancor. Such very important topics too!

Above points: If #1 is rejected, the rest do not follow. I attempted to lay them out in logical progression. #1 (existence of a purposeful God; thus everything was created for a purpose) is the foundation upon which the others are built.

For those reading along, I don't hold these views by accident. They are unpopular and difficult. It has been an intentional journey to this point and I did not always think this way. Please: think critically, use your intellect, and go find the reason you exist.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 10:47:34 AM
I doubt we'll convince each other, but perhaps we can encourage each other to sharpen our intellect.

I doubt we'll change each others mind either, but sharpening ones analytical skills is a useful exercise none-the-less.

1) climate change is constand/rate of change: Perhaps I misunderstood your argument, but its pretty clear that the rate of change and the variance of weather extremes is getting larger.

2) re: models are consistent in their inaccuracy:  I wasn't intending to offend, but here you're offering an often-repeated and false assumption that climate change models are inaccurate. The article you linked highlights how misunderstood models are poorly represented, starting with an average model from 1979 and its divergence from observed values over a 35 year.  It doesn't show the confidence intervals, states a long and misleading list of factors and whether they are understood and.or included in the model, and then assumes models are "wrong".

3) regarding data and "mutli-variable formula [sic]"-  I believe the data is far more convincing than you are suggesting, and there is nothing inherently "poor" about including multiple factors in an analysis.

4) re: mass extinction events and the "point" of all that stuff in space - In order to colonize anything (the moon, mars, an asteroid) we have to provide all the things we already have on earth, including an atmosphere, liquid water, radiation shielding and carbon/nutrient cycling ("the food chain").  True, mass extinctions have happened and some have been cosmic in nature, but these have not eliminated life on this planet, and IMO a far more reliable strategy on a species level would be to armor ourselves against potential events.  Even an asteroid-strike that caused an ice-age would be a far easier challenge to survive on a species level than sending people to permanently and sustainably live on Mars for the reasons listed above.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 24, 2017, 10:51:13 AM
Really?

2.  God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.

^ Sounds pretty faith based to me.

3.  Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation

^ Why is human life more precious than any other life?

4.  Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.

^ Why do you believe that sex should only be for procreation, and not for fun?

5.  Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

^ Why?

I think that you'll have a very difficult time answering any of those questions without relying on articles of your faith.


The rest follows from reason.

Please provide non-faith based reasoning then.


Ovum is not a person.

Why do you view an ovum as any different from a fetus?
If #1 is correct, the others come from it. Aristotle, Sts Augustine, Thomas are pretty reasonable. If God exists, is reasonable and has a purpose, we can use reason (a facility we take for granted, but if given by a purposeful God, must have a purpose) to figure out the purpose of Creation - including our own purpose.

Fetus = fertilized ovum = person
Non-fertilized ovum /= fetus /= person
Definition of fetus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
We could debate when an embryo becomes a fetus, however 'prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus'

Since creation is simply made from common "ingredients" found in the Universe, given the right conditions life is inevitable, and therefore the "purpose of life" is as valid a question as asking what color are your farts. We aren't special, well okay maybe like 5% special considering we share roughly 95-98% common DNA with a chimp who shows intelligence by flinging it's own feces. Heck we share roughly 50% common DNA with a banana. But are we really that much different, that much special? Imagine we discover another life form living on a distant planet that has evolved a mere 2% more advanced than humans. How do you think we would appear to them? We would be the poop throwing unintelligible chimps.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 11:02:16 AM
Quote
Fetus = fertilized ovum = person
...
Definition of fetus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
Well just from the start a fertilized ovum is not always a fetus, ergo ≠ person.
From the wiki page you linked: n humans, the fetal stage commences at the beginning of the ninth week.
so - for 2.5 months post fertilization the mass of cells isn't even a fetus.  Even then: The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation.

That doesn't really jive with the concept of a person.

I agree that there is a continuum which makes pinning down an exact date problematic, but that doesn't mean that we treat day 1 the same as day 275.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: pbkmaine on January 24, 2017, 11:04:00 AM
Really?

2.  God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.

^ Sounds pretty faith based to me.

3.  Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation

^ Why is human life more precious than any other life?

4.  Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.

^ Why do you believe that sex should only be for procreation, and not for fun?

5.  Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

^ Why?

I think that you'll have a very difficult time answering any of those questions without relying on articles of your faith.


The rest follows from reason.

Please provide non-faith based reasoning then.


Ovum is not a person.

Why do you view an ovum as any different from a fetus?
If #1 is correct, the others come from it. Aristotle, Sts Augustine, Thomas are pretty reasonable. If God exists, is reasonable and has a purpose, we can use reason (a facility we take for granted, but if given by a purposeful God, must have a purpose) to figure out the purpose of Creation - including our own purpose.

Fetus = fertilized ovum = person
Non-fertilized ovum /= fetus /= person
Definition of fetus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
We could debate when an embryo becomes a fetus, however 'prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus'

Acroy, does this mean you are against IVF for infertile couples and embryonic stem cell research? What about abortion in case of danger to the mother's life?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GetSmart on January 24, 2017, 11:08:34 AM
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 24, 2017, 11:08:55 AM
Quote
1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

If #1 is correct, the others come from it.

I'm trying to play along but don't follow your reasoning.  Assuming that God exists, and he has some purpose (which is already well along the way into :

2.  This contains an awful lot of assumptions and very little evident reasoning.
- You first assume that God made man and woman.  Why do you assume this?
- If we're assuming that there is a God, then why not assume that there are many Gods?
- If we're assuming that there is only one God, all-powerful and responsible for everything . . . then why does God let children around the world be raped (sometimes to death)?
- You assume to know God's purpose for humans.  How?
- Why do you assume that God wants us to be servants?
- Why do you assume that there is a 'heaven'?  Why should we attempt to enter it?

3.  More assumptions, no evidence of reason:
- Again, you're assuming to know what God thinks.  How?
- If human life is the most precious thing in creation, why does God end it millions of times a day?

4/5.  Again, assuming to know what God thinks.  Why do you believe that God is upset by people enjoying sex without procreation?


If God exists, is reasonable and has a purpose, we can use reason (a facility we take for granted, but if given by a purposeful God, must have a purpose) to figure out the purpose of Creation - including our own purpose.

Sure, I agree with this in principle.  When will you start using the reason mentioned?  So far all that you've argued is 'This is so because God.'  You haven't demonstrated any evidence of how you know the will of the presupposed God, and there has been no logic to support the why for your other rules.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 24, 2017, 11:09:54 AM
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.

Or having sex while pregnant which is a special kind of fun as well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 24, 2017, 11:16:57 AM
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.

Or having sex while pregnant which is a special kind of fun as well.

God doesn't want you to poke the baby.  :P
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 24, 2017, 11:24:13 AM
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.

Or having sex while pregnant which is a special kind of fun as well.

God doesn't want you to poke the baby.  :P

Well that is being generous :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 24, 2017, 11:32:04 AM
Quote
1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Holy shit!

We really are doomed, aren't we. 

You mean there are living, breathing married people that only have sex if they think it will result in a baby? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 24, 2017, 11:37:04 AM
Where would you have authority derived from?

I believe the only officially correct answer to this question in the United States is "the consent of the governed".

It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.  They borrowed it from John Locke, who specifically proposed it as the foundational principle of democracy, in contrast to the divine right of kings that previously dictated European political structures.

You only get to argue with me in this point if you also believe we should have a king instead of a president.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 24, 2017, 11:37:53 AM
You mean there are living, breathing married people that only have sex if they think it will result in a baby?

I wonder where they land on blowjobs?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 24, 2017, 11:39:18 AM
This is reminding me of the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is sacred"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 24, 2017, 11:40:13 AM
Quote
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.

This means you will have no problem giving it up once your wife is past a healthy child-bearing age - right ? ;)

And that would mean all the people who are not capable of bearing children are abusing God's gift.

Or having sex while pregnant which is a special kind of fun as well.

And this is why super-religious people end up justifying really weird things like having multiple, much younger wives....  nothing would suck worse than only having sex like 10 times only to find out that you could've been doing it 10 times a month with absolutely no discernable consequence (other than elevated mood, better mental and physical health, deeper emotional bond with your spouse...).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 24, 2017, 11:41:39 AM
Not to speak for others, but I would venture that what most of us have a hard time understanding is why individuals like you and Acroy think that promoting the (by your words) orders of magnitude less bad option of contraceptives is still something to be opposed when it is demonstrable that such actions drastically reduce the worldwide rate of abortion, which we all agree is much worse.

Quoting myself since I am still genuinely interested in hearing a justification for this. Not sure I ever have from a "pro-lifer," as the conversation always seems to move to other areas, as it has so far since I posted the above.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on January 24, 2017, 11:47:55 AM
Quote
1 There is a God and He did things intentionally, purposefully (not randomly, not for no purpose)
2 God made man and woman. The purpose of human life is a) know love serve God so as to make it to heaven b) treat other humans well.
3 Human life is precious; the most valuable thing in creation
4 Sex is a big deal. It is for procreation. It also is fun (bennies! Thank You God!). If it’s done only for fun, it’s being abused.
5 Marriage is a big deal. Marriage legitimizes sex/procreation.

Holy shit!

We really are doomed, aren't we. 

You mean there are living, breathing married people that only have sex if they think it will result in a baby?

I think that it is important to acknowledge that acroy has a valid world view. I do not personally agree with his points or wish to apply them to my own life. However, I think he has just as much choice to apply them to his life (and with his partner in life) as the choices I make as an individual in mine. Arguing whether a specific person's world view is ok is valid only to the extent that it impacts the lives of others, and in the context of this thread to the extent that that impact is via legislation and law.

As an anecdote, this is why I think the rigorous separation of church and state are important: it is simply too challenging to be fair to multiple beliefs if the state is aligned with a single religion. Our elected officials are clearly influenced by their beliefs and will vote accordingly in most cases, and IDEALLY will also recognize that as members of government they also have a duty to respect the beliefs of others and act/vote in a secular manner (not intended to imply atheistic) in those instances. This is an imperfect solution, but far preferable in all of its messiness to state-religion alignment and the greater problems that come with that system.

TL/DR: we aren't doomed if people believe there is a god with a plan. We are doomed if elected officials make laws assuming the rapture is next Thursday, or that the view points of others are automatically invalid if they do not align with a specific set of beliefs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 11:54:59 AM
Not to speak for others, but I would venture that what most of us have a hard time understanding is why individuals like you and Acroy think that promoting the (by your words) orders of magnitude less bad option of contraceptives is still something to be opposed when it is demonstrable that such actions drastically reduce the worldwide rate of abortion, which we all agree is much worse.

Quoting myself since I am still genuinely interested in hearing a justification for this. Not sure I ever have from a "pro-lifer," as the conversation always seems to move to other areas, as it has so far since I posted the above.
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 24, 2017, 11:55:37 AM
Quote
I think that it is important to acknowledge that acroy has a valid world view. I do not personally agree with his points or wish to apply them to my own life. However, I think he has just as much choice to apply them to his life (and with his partner in life) as the choices I make as an individual in mine. Arguing whether a specific person's world view is ok is valid only to the extent that it impacts the lives of others, and in the context of this thread to the extent that that impact is via legislation and law.

Meh, it might be a "valid world view"  but it is also my right to call this "valid world view" the dumbest thing I have ever heard.   It can be "valid" in his eyes, and if it works for him, great, but if I said that there was a giant space monster who hovered over the planet and if I did the wrong thing, it would suck me into a vortex, you are perfectly free to laugh at me.  It might make me behave in all sorts of responsible ways and make me the best person imaginable, but you are still free to laugh your ass off. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 24, 2017, 11:56:49 AM

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 24, 2017, 12:01:43 PM
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)

Thank you for replying. So just to be clear, in the hypothetical train scenario (pull a lever to divert a train to run over one person instead of  a busload of people), you would take no action because by pulling that lever you are now responsible for a death and doing that bad thing is still wrong even though it prevents a worse thing? There are certainly schools of ethics that might advocate that action so to be clear, I'm not trying to imply anything about you. Genuinely curious about your approach to this sort of thing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 12:07:00 PM

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Let me catch up ;)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 12:12:59 PM
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)

Thank you for replying. So just to be clear, in the hypothetical train scenario (pull a lever to divert a train to run over one person instead of  a busload of people), you would take no action because by pulling that lever you are now responsible for a death and doing that bad thing is still wrong even though it prevents a worse thing? There are certainly schools of ethics that might advocate that action so to be clear, I'm not trying to imply anything about you. Genuinely curious about your approach to this sort of thing.

Above hypothetical chocie is:
(1 really bad) or (many really bad)
Of course, choose (1 really bad)

The contraception / abortion choice is presented as:
(contraception) or (abortion)
This is a false presentation. It suffers from the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc or Faulty Causality'  http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

The ignored 3rd choice is abstinence.

Applied to the train scenario: The best choice is to stop the train.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 24, 2017, 12:14:37 PM

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Let me catch up ;)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

What about people who are infertile? Past menopause?

I'm assuming you have only had sex 7 times, correct? Otherwise you're a repeat sinner...

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 24, 2017, 12:19:04 PM
Above hypothetical chocie is:
(1 really bad) or (many really bad)
Of course, choose (1 really bad)

The contraception / abortion choice is presented as:
(contraception) or (abortion)
This is a false presentation. It suffers from the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc or Faulty Causality'  http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

The ignored 3rd choice is abstinence.

Applied to the train scenario: The best choice is to stop the train.

It is not a fallacy because you are making the assumption that we can force people to be abstinent. Since we cannot, it is unequivocally true that expanding access to contraceptives reduces the number of abortions.

The train has no breaks. It weighs a million tons. Assuming you accept the ethics of choosing bad to prevent far worse, it is not fallacious to say that a small sacrifice in religious morals in the name of saving millions is logically the more ethical choice.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 12:22:26 PM
Where would you have authority derived from?

I believe the only officially correct answer to this question in the United States is "the consent of the governed".

It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.  They borrowed it from John Locke, who specifically proposed it as the foundational principle of democracy, in contrast to the divine right of kings that previously dictated European political structures.

You only get to argue with me in this point if you also believe we should have a king instead of a president.

Well done!
An expanded quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

Can God be removed from this?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: robartsd on January 24, 2017, 12:24:48 PM
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)
If I understand acroy correctly; he believes abortion is akin to murder and should be illegal (the unborn has rights that deserve legal protection). He also believes that contraceptives are immoral and should not be promoted with taxes (people should not be forced through taxation to promote something they believe is immoral). Acroy's beliefs seem to be consistent with my understanding of Catholic doctrine on the subject. My understanding of most other religions is that they agree with the first point; but disagree with or are less clear on the second point. I think some people in this thread misunderstand acroy's stated beliefs and project an assertion that contraceptives should be illegal from his belief that they are immoral.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 24, 2017, 12:27:41 PM
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)
If I understand acroy correctly; he believes abortion is akin to murder and should be illegal (the unborn has rights that deserve legal protection). He also believes that contraceptives are immoral and should not be promoted with taxes (people should not be forced through taxation to promote something they believe is immoral). Acroy's beliefs seem to be consistent with my understanding of Catholic doctrine on the subject. My understanding of most other religions is that they agree with the first point; but disagree with or are less clear on the second point. I think some people in this thread misunderstand acroy's stated beliefs and project an assertion that contraceptives should be illegal from his belief that they are immoral.

No misunderstanding here, I don't think. All I'm saying is that if saving lives is the most moral choice and should be enforced by the government, then why is using government $ to improve contraceptive access, which demonstrably reduces abortions and thus saves lives, something to be opposed?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 12:31:21 PM

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Let me catch up ;)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Why the "no" to the last question?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 12:31:45 PM
Above hypothetical chocie is:
(1 really bad) or (many really bad)
Of course, choose (1 really bad)

The contraception / abortion choice is presented as:
(contraception) or (abortion)
This is a false presentation. It suffers from the logical fallacy of 'Post Hoc or Faulty Causality'  http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm

The ignored 3rd choice is abstinence.

Applied to the train scenario: The best choice is to stop the train.

It is not a fallacy because you are making the assumption that we can force people to be abstinent. Since we cannot, it is unequivocally true that expanding access to contraceptives reduces the number of abortions.

The train has no breaks. It weighs a million tons. Assuming you accept the ethics of choosing bad to prevent far worse, it is not fallacious to say that a small sacrifice in religious morals in the name of saving millions is logically the more ethical choice.
No, no force involved.
Only free will, which your statement implies (million ton train with no brakes) some people do not have.
We do have free will. We are responsible for our own actions. It is hard.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on January 24, 2017, 12:33:04 PM
Where would you have authority derived from?

I believe the only officially correct answer to this question in the United States is "the consent of the governed".

It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.  They borrowed it from John Locke, who specifically proposed it as the foundational principle of democracy, in contrast to the divine right of kings that previously dictated European political structures.

You only get to argue with me in this point if you also believe we should have a king instead of a president.

Well done!
An expanded quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

Can God be removed from this?
Bolded part seems to do this pretty clearly. The creator part is vague: which God?

A little later in the history of our country (1796), the Treaty of Tripoli has this text:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Treaty signed by John Adams.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 24, 2017, 12:34:24 PM
Not to speak for others, but I would venture that what most of us have a hard time understanding is why individuals like you and Acroy think that promoting the (by your words) orders of magnitude less bad option of contraceptives is still something to be opposed when it is demonstrable that such actions drastically reduce the worldwide rate of abortion, which we all agree is much worse.

Quoting myself since I am still genuinely interested in hearing a justification for this. Not sure I ever have from a "pro-lifer," as the conversation always seems to move to other areas, as it has so far since I posted the above.
Very simply:

Contraception = bad
Abortion = REALLY bad

I cannot promote (bad) in attempt to reduce (REALLY bad)


But isn't that exactly what you did when you voted for Trump? It sounds like you voted Trump, not because he was what you wanted, but it was the best option available, and a way to get things closer to what you wanted. I can not see why you can not think of Trump as a great reason for birth control (sorry about that.... I couldn't help putting those 2 points together in a witty, smart ass kind of way).

My point is still dead serious.


In your own words:
I plan to hold my nose and vote Trump.
My vote will not be a vote for Trump – it will be a vote against the establishment. I consider myself a patriot, proud to be an American, of our history, of what we can and have achieved. I think the current Establishment system is causing (encouraging!) stagnation, bureaucracy, slowly eroding standards of education and personal responsibility, and a narrow-minded, selfish, juvenile entitlement mind-set.

Rant:
I have a severe dislike of the Establishment. The Establishment is an enormous monster mutated disgusting parasitical octopus running the country, an unholy alliance of big biz/academia/big government/high finance, doing what is right for big biz/academia/big government/high finance. I don’t blame them, it’s human nature. It’s the 1% doing what is best for the 1%. The ‘average everyday American’ has been shamefully, comfortably apathetic towards their government for decades. How many of us know the name of our city councilmen? Mayor? State Rep? Voter turnout in local elections is something like 2-10%. This has allowed the Establishment to get away with it. It starts local and builds from there. Look at real household income, national debt, embarrassing standards of primary education at staggering cost, ridiculous and increasing cost of secondary education while grade standards decrease, entitlement programs, the ludicrous size of our military and intrusive arrogant foreign policy, etc etc etc. We have a revolving door of industry/academia/government. I see it first-hand every day in my own industry. Money/power/cush guaranteed govt’ jobs/’regulatory moat’ to discourage competition. It’s a nasty parasitical system.
End rant.

Hillary has promised to be more of the same.
Johnson does not have a chance.
Trump looks like a big-ass nasty 4ft 30lb monkey wrench I can toss into the well-oiled Establishment machine.

Give me a ballot with Trump’s name on it so I can lob it into DC. I’ll enjoy the sweet music of bureaucratic gears crunching and grinding, wails of despair from the major media, plaintive cries of Establishment parasites as their carefully crafted system is disrupted. The White House will look good with neon lights, extra-sized fountains and gold trim. I'll smile. I am (more or less) Michael Moore’s Point #5. http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/. I am sick of the sick system and have a pragmatic but darkly humorous attitude towards it. A LOT of us are going to show up....and check the box for Trump.

Will the Trump presidency actually change anything? For better or worse? I doubt it. In fact, I bet he slots into the system pretty smoothly and becomes part of the problem. The lights will stay on, America will not default on it's debt, no one will nuke anyone, no one will move to Canada, the only 'wars' we enter will be for oil and the military-industrial complex, illegals will continue to penetrate the borders. But at least for a while it’ll be noisy and fun to watch!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 12:34:53 PM

Since you seem to have not wanted to respond to the questions I asked above, I'd like to pose them again.

You said, "I adhere to the archaic notion that the only moral/ethical form of birth control is abstinence."

I asked:

Even for married people who don't want to have children? What about a married woman whose life would be put in danger by a pregnancy? What about a married woman with a condition that would almost certainly produce a baby with severe illness or birth defects if she got pregnant? You really think those people should be condemned to never having sex?
Let me catch up ;)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Why the "no" to the last question?
They can choose to have sex while accepting the risks.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 24, 2017, 12:35:31 PM
Trump wanted his mistress to get an abortion.   

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 24, 2017, 12:37:37 PM
Trump wanted his mistress to get an abortion.

Considering all the extramarital sex he has bragged about having, my guess is that there are a few abortions in his history.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 24, 2017, 12:37:44 PM
Quote
Can God be removed from this?

YES! 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 12:46:20 PM

A little later in the history of our country (1796), the Treaty of Tripoli has this text:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Treaty signed by John Adams.

If you'd like to go a little further into the framers...
Two of the driving forces (Jefferson and Franklin) were Deists, while most were Presbyterian or Episcopalian.  Others were Catholic, Unitarian and Quakers. While all believed in a God in some form, overwhelmingly they agreed that the laws of the United States should be separate from the laws of any religion or church.  It was Jefferson who coined the term "separation of church and state."

These are the very same men who wrote and required the first amendment (along with the proceeding nine) to be included during ratification.

Also, article six states that :no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 24, 2017, 12:50:30 PM
But isn't that exactly what you did when you voted for Trump? It sounds like you voted Trump, not because he was what you wanted, but it was the best option available, and a way to get things closer to what you wanted. I can not see why you can not think of Trump as a great reason for birth control (sorry about that.... I couldn't help putting those 2 points together in a witty, smart ass kind of way).

My point is still dead serious.
Nice background research! So just to be clear we're discussing my personal decisions now (ad hominem), not the validity of the argument.

Explaination
Hillary = many really bad with possibility of more really bad
Trump = many really bad with possibility of fewer really bad

The choice is clear.

And, Trump is hilarious. My previous post is entertaining to read, thanks for finding it. The big-ass nasty orange monkey wrench is busy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 24, 2017, 01:01:48 PM
Where would you have authority derived from?

I believe the only officially correct answer to this question in the United States is "the consent of the governed".

It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.  They borrowed it from John Locke, who specifically proposed it as the foundational principle of democracy, in contrast to the divine right of kings that previously dictated European political structures.

You only get to argue with me in this point if you also believe we should have a king instead of a president.

Well done!
An expanded quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

Can God be removed from this?

My mom and dad created me, in an unholy union that I try my best to never imagine.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 01:17:39 PM

Hillary = many really bad with possibility of more really bad
Trump = many really bad with possibility of fewer really bad

The choice is clear.

And, Trump is hilarious. My previous post is entertaining to read, thanks for finding it. The big-ass nasty orange monkey wrench is busy.
So by your own logic you should support the choice (birth control) which leads to the "really bad" abortion (your words).
I'm not understanding why it is any different.

ETA: your expanation that committed adults who have inherent and large risk factors should either "accept the risks" or completely abstain seems oppressive and unethical to me and leaves out the obvious "express your physical love responsbily (e.g. by using condoms)"

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 24, 2017, 01:23:07 PM
But isn't that exactly what you did when you voted for Trump? It sounds like you voted Trump, not because he was what you wanted, but it was the best option available, and a way to get things closer to what you wanted. I can not see why you can not think of Trump as a great reason for birth control (sorry about that.... I couldn't help putting those 2 points together in a witty, smart ass kind of way).

My point is still dead serious.
Nice background research! So just to be clear we're discussing my personal decisions now (ad hominem), not the validity of the argument.

Explaination
Hillary = many really bad with possibility of more really bad
Trump = many really bad with possibility of fewer really bad

The choice is clear.

And, Trump is hilarious. My previous post is entertaining to read, thanks for finding it. The big-ass nasty orange monkey wrench is busy.

So you CAN promote bad in favor of less bad. That is why others question why favoring birth control (what you believe is a bad) in favor of having less abortions (what I believe most everyone would consider a VERY bad) is not a position you can agree with.

I agree it will be entertaining, but I am concerned it will be funny at the expense of others, many of them less fortunate than me. I like to think I am above that sort of thing, but I am human.

I thought this was funny, for example. I probably shouldn't. How the rest of the world views us will have a real impact on our ability to be prosperous in a world economy:
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/5pjfno/introduction_to_the_netherlands_for_donald_trump/


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 02:17:17 PM
More "real impacts" today:

DJT has instituted a media blackout for all EPA employees, and has ordered a freeze on awarding any new contract or grants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-admin-orders-epa-contract-freeze-and-media-blackout/2017/01/24/f578db56-e271-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.31eff258f025 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-admin-orders-epa-contract-freeze-and-media-blackout/2017/01/24/f578db56-e271-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.31eff258f025)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sockigal on January 24, 2017, 03:02:54 PM
More "real impacts" today:

DJT has instituted a media blackout for all EPA employees, and has ordered a freeze on awarding any new contract or grants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-admin-orders-epa-contract-freeze-and-media-blackout/2017/01/24/f578db56-e271-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.31eff258f025 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-admin-orders-epa-contract-freeze-and-media-blackout/2017/01/24/f578db56-e271-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.31eff258f025)

This thread has been hijacked by a major religious discussion. Maybe we can lead it back on topic. When I saw this latest news about the media blackouts for the EPA, NPS, and the USDA I became very concerned. I was not aware the President had the power to tell these organizations they may not speak about anything they are doing, with national security the only real exception. Much of what the EPA, NPS and USDA do require sharing of knowledge and informing the public. It seems like something out of a different era or time for a President to try to control this information. He is obviously trying to control all information that is released from Government agencies and keep the public uninformed. I am just wondering if congress is going to set by and let this stand. It is such an overreach of power.

I haven't posted much on MMM threads, but have been a lurker for many years. I value the information and opinions discussed by an obviously very intelligent base of posters. Any opinions on this latest news? I have been mostly upset over environmental policies of the new administration as some of the impacts cannot be reversed, but this latest news has me terrified. We might not even get a chance to know what is going on before it happens. What the heck! Public information is for the public!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Inaya on January 24, 2017, 03:14:07 PM
It is my understanding that peer-reviewed articles can still be published. But without funding, we probably won't see many of those either.

From the above-linked WaPo article: ARS spokesman Christopher Bentley said the ban would not include scientific publications released through peer-reviewed professional journals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on January 24, 2017, 03:44:58 PM
Ok.   Is he going to send government handlers with any scientists presenting papers to make sure they toe the line?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 03:46:58 PM
More "real impacts" today:

DJT has instituted a media blackout for all EPA employees, and has ordered a freeze on awarding any new contract or grants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-admin-orders-epa-contract-freeze-and-media-blackout/2017/01/24/f578db56-e271-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.31eff258f025 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-admin-orders-epa-contract-freeze-and-media-blackout/2017/01/24/f578db56-e271-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html?utm_term=.31eff258f025)

This thread has been hijacked by a major religious discussion. Maybe we can lead it back on topic. When I saw this latest news about the media blackouts for the EPA, NPS, and the USDA I became very concerned. I was not aware the President had the power to tell these organizations they may not speak about anything they are doing, with national security the only real exception. Much of what the EPA, NPS and USDA do require sharing of knowledge and informing the public. It seems like something out of a different era or time for a President to try to control this information. He is obviously trying to control all information that is released from Government agencies and keep the public uninformed. I am just wondering if congress is going to set by and let this stand. It is such an overreach of power.

I haven't posted much on MMM threads, but have been a lurker for many years. I value the information and opinions discussed by an obviously very intelligent base of posters. Any opinions on this latest news? I have been mostly upset over environmental policies of the new administration as some of the impacts cannot be reversed, but this latest news has me terrified. We might not even get a chance to know what is going on before it happens. What the heck! Public information is for the public!

In a tragic sort of way I feel like fate is screwing with me.
PM Stephen Harper placed a similar order on the governmental scientists here in Canada which Trudeau recently lifted. I can say that the effect on morale and on science were both decidedly negative, as scientists stopped sharing their findings with the public.  The reasons given for Harper's ban sound earily similar; "we're trying... to make sure what goes out reflects the priorities of the administration".
Now that the ban has been lifted in Canada and we're looking at jobs in the US we find a similar restiction has just popped up there.

Make no mistake about it, this is an attempt to control information.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on January 24, 2017, 03:50:15 PM
Ok.   Is he going to send government handlers with any scientists presenting papers to make sure they toe the line?

It will be much easier to not fund any travels, conference fees, or other costs associated with preparing, publishing, or presenting papers.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 24, 2017, 03:52:29 PM
From the above-linked WaPo article: ARS spokesman Christopher Bentley said the ban would not include scientific publications released through peer-reviewed professional journals.
That's good, but a valid criticism of science and scientists is that what's published in peer reviewed journals is not seen or even very comprehensible to the average layperson.  A lot of effort has been made in the past few decades for scientists to share their research more directly with teh public by writing blogs, using social media, talking to journalists and giving community-level talks open to the public.  This seems to put a stop (at least temporarily) to all of those.

When there was a similar ban here in Canada, scientists couldn't even confirm their findings to journalists when they published important studies. Everything had to go through a government spokesperson, and it was a comlpete black=box regarding what was shared and what wasn't (as well as the reasons why some communications were blocked).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 24, 2017, 03:56:47 PM
Ok.   Is he going to send government handlers with any scientists presenting papers to make sure they toe the line?

Don't worry, we've always had government handlers following us around to make sure we toe the line.  It's one of the worst parts of this job.

Usually "the line" is pretty easy.  Stick to the facts, represent your agency with dignity and professionalism, articulate your findings in language people can understand, and try not to piss people off.  The only political pressures I've felt in this job have been about internal power struggle between agencies, not national politics intervening with facts.

Some of my colleagues at other agencies were deep sixed under the Bush administration, but I haven't heard of a single instance of the executive branch interfering in federal research under Obama.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that I haven't heard about it the way I used to hear about Dick Cheney sending cease and desist letters to researchers.

I think today's EPA ban will be temporary, while they figure out what leverage they have to control their communications officers, and will be lifted once they restrict access to Twitter to people who have sworn the loyalty oath or whatever.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on January 24, 2017, 06:01:55 PM
If the democrats were smart and/or had any balls they would simply accuse Trump of something every other day on the house or senate floor (or some other way that gets good news coverage) that gets him mad like:
1) he's a sexual predator
2) he got less votes than Clinton
3) he has small hands, or penis, fuckit
4) say how he had sexual relations with putin
5) etc.

It doesn't have to be true, just say it. Then he'll spend four years (or less) just being mad and fighting with folks via twitter/press conferences and won't do much.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on January 24, 2017, 06:06:39 PM
If the democrats were smart and/or had any balls they would simply accuse Trump of something every other day on the house or senate floor (or some other way that gets good news coverage) that gets him mad like:
1) he's a sexual predator
2) he got less votes than Clinton
3) he has small hands, or penis, fuckit
4) say how he had sexual relations with putin
5) etc.

It doesn't have to be true, just say it. Then he'll spend four years (or less) just being mad and fighting with folks via twitter/press conferences and won't do much.

He'd show up all like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYLNEFY-Gnc
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 24, 2017, 06:53:21 PM
If the democrats were smart and/or had any balls they would simply accuse Trump of something every other day on the house or senate floor (or some other way that gets good news coverage) that gets him mad like:
1) he's a sexual predator
2) he got less votes than Clinton
3) he has small hands, or penis, fuckit
4) say how he had sexual relations with putin
5) etc.

It doesn't have to be true, just say it. Then he'll spend four years (or less) just being mad and fighting with folks via twitter/press conferences and won't do much.
Trump spent years tweeting about Obama being born in Kenya.

We only have "a Trump spokesperson"'s word that Trump has sold his stakes in Energy Transfer Partners (the company overseeing construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline).  So why not spend the next four years demanding Trump prove that he has no financial interest in any of the companies involved in the pipeline?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 24, 2017, 07:45:39 PM
If the democrats were smart and/or had any balls they would simply accuse Trump of something every other day on the house or senate floor (or some other way that gets good news coverage) that gets him mad like:
1) he's a sexual predator
2) he got less votes than Clinton
3) he has small hands, or penis, fuckit
4) say how he had sexual relations with putin
5) etc.

It doesn't have to be true, just say it. Then he'll spend four years (or less) just being mad and fighting with folks via twitter/press conferences and won't do much.

I think the actions of this week have shown very clearly that Trump is perfectly capable of both complaining loudly and getting shit done in fucking record time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 24, 2017, 07:54:35 PM

I think the actions of this week have shown very clearly that Trump is perfectly capable of both complaining loudly and getting shit done in fucking record time.

Source on how much more shit he's getting done than his predecessors? That's not to mention, of course, the quality, consistency, and smell of this particular shit he's taking on us all, which is obviously quite debatable.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: mtnrider on January 24, 2017, 09:27:39 PM
Source on how much more shit he's getting done than his predecessors? That's not to mention, of course, the quality, consistency, and smell of this particular shit he's taking on us all, which is obviously quite debatable.

He can certainly sign executive orders quickly.  And issue media blackouts to federal agencies.  And put the EPA on a financial freeze.  It might not be more work on his part, but these things can have wide-reaching consequences.

It's a lot easier to tear things down than to build them up.  The second law of thermodynamics is working in your favor.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 24, 2017, 09:39:43 PM
getting shit done in fucking record time.

Personally, I don't consider the hiring freeze, pay freeze, media blackout, and press conferences full of "alternative facts" to be the kinds of shit that count as getting shit done.  Those are all the opposite of getting shit done.  Those are preventing shit from getting done.

But he did do SOME stuff, like name his inauguration day "National Day of Patriotic Devotion" like we're the DPRK.  That's some straight up Kim Jong Il style bullshit right there.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 24, 2017, 10:52:47 PM
getting shit done in fucking record time.

Personally, I don't consider the hiring freeze, pay freeze, media blackout, and press conferences full of "alternative facts" to be the kinds of shit that count as getting shit done.  Those are all the opposite of getting shit done.  Those are preventing shit from getting done.

Also - remember - these orders that Trump is signing aren't Trump's doing. These policies were hand crafted by Pence, McConnell, Gingrich (yes I know he's not in congress anymore but its clear he's having a say), possibly Cheney, and the entire tea party entourage including 'think tanks' like the Heritage foundation. They're writing and pushing their dream policy / policy that will create liberal tears (God I hate that component of their motivation - it's so puerile). Trump is just holding the pen and *possibly* is filtering out a few items. But these are not the work of Trump.

These policies are the work of the people whose movement Trump's psychological trickery tapped into.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 24, 2017, 11:13:26 PM
getting shit done in fucking record time.

Personally, I don't consider the hiring freeze, pay freeze, media blackout, and press conferences full of "alternative facts" to be the kinds of shit that count as getting shit done.  Those are all the opposite of getting shit done.  Those are preventing shit from getting done.

But he did do SOME stuff, like name his inauguration day "National Day of Patriotic Devotion" like we're the DPRK.  That's some straight up Kim Jong Il style bullshit right there.

And approving infrastructure projects and repealing mortgage fee cuts, etc. Again, not commenting on whether these are great or poor policies, but clearly he's not afraid to get things rolling. Looks like quite a few people were caught off-guard by some of his actions; I can see why they would become defensive that he has surprised them yet again.

And yes, his inauguration day name was dumb. But he's not the first to name his inauguration day something dumb. He's not even the first to name it "National Day of Patriotic Devotion", so I guess I won't personally get my panties in a bunch over this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: marty998 on January 25, 2017, 01:53:17 AM
If the democrats were smart and/or had any balls they would simply accuse Trump of something every other day on the house or senate floor (or some other way that gets good news coverage) that gets him mad like:
1) he's a sexual predator
2) he got less votes than Clinton
3) he has small hands, or penis, fuckit
4) say how he had sexual relations with putin
5) etc.

It doesn't have to be true, just say it. Then he'll spend four years (or less) just being mad and fighting with folks via twitter/press conferences and won't do much.
Trump spent years tweeting about Obama being born in Kenya.

We only have "a Trump spokesperson"'s word that Trump has sold his stakes in Energy Transfer Partners (the company overseeing construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline).  So why not spend the next four years demanding Trump prove that he has no financial interest in any of the companies involved in the pipeline?

Still haven't seen Trump's birth certificate.

Just saying.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 25, 2017, 10:10:14 AM
And approving infrastructure projects and repealing mortgage fee cuts, etc. Again, not commenting on whether these are great or poor policies, but clearly he's not afraid to get things rolling. Looks like quite a few people were caught off-guard by some of his actions; I can see why they would become defensive that he has surprised them yet again.

And yes, his inauguration day name was dumb. But he's not the first to name his inauguration day something dumb. He's not even the first to name it "National Day of Patriotic Devotion", so I guess I won't personally get my panties in a bunch over this.

Still curious what your source is concluding that he is accomplishing anything noteworthy in record time. I would wager a lot of this stuff, like reviving the Mexico City Policy, are par for the course when a new party comes into office, as is getting the ball rolling on various top priorities.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 25, 2017, 10:39:47 AM
Every president in recent memory has undergone a "first 100 day" blitz of new appointments, executive orders and budget proposals.
I've seen no evidence that DJT has accomplished more in his first 5 days in office vs. other Presidents.

in fact, he is behind Obama, Reagan and Bush Sr. so far in getting cabinet positions confirmed.  So that's one area where he's lagging behind.

That said, I deeply disapprove of the things he has done so far.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 25, 2017, 10:44:05 AM
From the above-linked WaPo article: ARS spokesman Christopher Bentley said the ban would not include scientific publications released through peer-reviewed professional journals.
That's good, but a valid criticism of science and scientists is that what's published in peer reviewed journals is not seen or even very comprehensible to the average layperson.  A lot of effort has been made in the past few decades for scientists to share their research more directly with teh public by writing blogs, using social media, talking to journalists and giving community-level talks open to the public.  This seems to put a stop (at least temporarily) to all of those.

When there was a similar ban here in Canada, scientists couldn't even confirm their findings to journalists when they published important studies. Everything had to go through a government spokesperson, and it was a comlpete black=box regarding what was shared and what wasn't (as well as the reasons why some communications were blocked).
So fix education so people actually can understand.  Don't stop people from doing the research.  Most people don't understand coronary artery bypass and level of difficulty etc.  They could if they chose, but they don't.  We don't stop learning and improving because some people don't understand.
You can go to the library and read most journal articles.  It's not that hard.  But yes, it also requires education.  I don't see THAT coming from the GOP.


From the above-linked WaPo article: ARS spokesman Christopher Bentley said the ban would not include scientific publications released through peer-reviewed professional journals.
That's good, but a valid criticism of science and scientists is that what's published in peer reviewed journals is not seen or even very comprehensible to the average layperson.  A lot of effort has been made in the past few decades for scientists to share their research more directly with teh public by writing blogs, using social media, talking to journalists and giving community-level talks open to the public.  This seems to put a stop (at least temporarily) to all of those.

When there was a similar ban here in Canada, scientists couldn't even confirm their findings to journalists when they published important studies. Everything had to go through a government spokesperson, and it was a comlpete black=box regarding what was shared and what wasn't (as well as the reasons why some communications were blocked).


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 25, 2017, 11:44:14 AM
getting shit done in fucking record time.

Personally, I don't consider the hiring freeze, pay freeze, media blackout, and press conferences full of "alternative facts" to be the kinds of shit that count as getting shit done.  Those are all the opposite of getting shit done.  Those are preventing shit from getting done.

But he did do SOME stuff, like name his inauguration day "National Day of Patriotic Devotion" like we're the DPRK.  That's some straight up Kim Jong Il style bullshit right there.

And approving infrastructure projects and repealing mortgage fee cuts, etc. Again, not commenting on whether these are great or poor policies, but clearly he's not afraid to get things rolling. Looks like quite a few people were caught off-guard by some of his actions; I can see why they would become defensive that he has surprised them yet again.

And yes, his inauguration day name was dumb. But he's not the first to name his inauguration day something dumb. He's not even the first to name it "National Day of Patriotic Devotion", so I guess I won't personally get my panties in a bunch over this.

And let's not forget that we'll finally get to the bottom of all of this rampant voter fraud and finally prove that Trump won the popular vote!  It will be such a relief to know that Trump actually is the best, most popular President.  Period.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 25, 2017, 12:00:50 PM
Two More:

The big one as we all know is the call for a voter fraud investigation. Utterly ridiculous, of course.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-seeks-%E2%80%98major-investigation%E2%80%99-into-unsupported-claims-of-voter-fraud/ar-AAmejnl?li=BBnb7Kz

Also, he wants to reopen/expand black site CIA torture prisons:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-poised-to-lift-ban-on-cia-%E2%80%98black-site%E2%80%99-prisons/ar-AAmenXv?li=BBnb7Kz

Interested to see how those who cited Guantanamo as a strike against Obama (even though that one is demonstrably not on him) respond to this one.

As an aside, I also am amazed at how quickly the Trumpists have co-opted the orange-one's Newspeak. If you look at the comments on those articles (I deliberately chose the right-leaning MSN for these links), you'll see quite a few Trump supporters accusing the liberal posters of using "fake news" and "alternative facts" to back up their views. Fascinating.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 25, 2017, 12:05:03 PM
As an aside, I also am amazed at how quickly the Trumpists have co-opted the orange-one's Newspeak. If you look at the comments on those articles (I deliberately chose the right-leaning MSN for these links), you'll see quite a few Trump supporters accusing the liberal posters of using "fake news" and "alternative facts" to back up their views. Fascinating.

This reminds me of elementary school ... [bully grabs your hand and hits you] "DUR! Why are you hitting yourself?"

I can feel the rage building ...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 25, 2017, 12:07:48 PM
And approving infrastructure projects and repealing mortgage fee cuts, etc. Again, not commenting on whether these are great or poor policies, but clearly he's not afraid to get things rolling. Looks like quite a few people were caught off-guard by some of his actions; I can see why they would become defensive that he has surprised them yet again.

And yes, his inauguration day name was dumb. But he's not the first to name his inauguration day something dumb. He's not even the first to name it "National Day of Patriotic Devotion", so I guess I won't personally get my panties in a bunch over this.

Still curious what your source is concluding that he is accomplishing anything noteworthy in record time. I would wager a lot of this stuff, like reviving the Mexico City Policy, are par for the course when a new party comes into office, as is getting the ball rolling on various top priorities.
Oh absolutely.  My point is that while the media and most of Trump's detractors are focusing on inaugural crowd sizes and personal spats, Trump is clearly working at a pace at least on Par with Obama, and actually faster than GW bush or Clinton.   One source  (http://m.newser.com/story/237372/how-trumps-executive-order-pace-compares-to-obamas.html) It is clear that  to claim that he is spending all of his time arguing with reporters or tweeting or pouting about news coverage is clearly incorrect.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 25, 2017, 12:13:31 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-climatechange-idUSKBN15906G?

Lets wipe out our climate change data so there won't be any proof.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 25, 2017, 01:01:30 PM
And expand Trump's business empire even though he totally isn't one bit trying to cash in on being elected president:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-25/trump-hotels-to-triple-locations-in-u-s-expansion-ceo-says?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 25, 2017, 01:10:19 PM
And expand Trump's business empire even though he totally isn't one bit trying to cash in on being elected president:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-25/trump-hotels-to-triple-locations-in-u-s-expansion-ceo-says?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Trumps is a businessman. That's just Trump getting shit done, for himself you know.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 25, 2017, 01:18:08 PM
And expand Trump's business empire even though he totally isn't one bit trying to cash in on being elected president:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-25/trump-hotels-to-triple-locations-in-u-s-expansion-ceo-says?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

Trumps is a businessman. That's just Trump getting shit done, for himself you know.

Indeed. I suppose we should be glad that he's keeping his focus domestic thus far. Wouldn't want to run afoul of the emoluments clause, at least not until doublethink has fully permeated the voting base.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 25, 2017, 02:49:03 PM
Apparently there has already been one case of 'voter fraud' discovered - Steve Bannon (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-registered-to-vote-in-two-states-despite-trumps-cries-of-voter-fraud/ar-AAmeM2p)

Quote
Bannon, whose registration lists a rented apartment in Manhattan as his address, cast his ballot for Trump in New York, according to a source familiar with his arrangements, who was not authorized to speak to the media.

Bannon, however, also remains registered to vote in Florida, according to state records. His registration lists as his address the home of Andy Badolato, a friend of Bannon’s who has worked on some of his political documentary films and written for Breitbart News, the far-right website that Bannon controlled before entering the White House as chief strategist and senior counselor to the president.

His registration in Florida was moved to Badolato’s home shortly after the publication of the Guardian report in August. Bannon has not cast a ballot in Florida, according to state records. Badolato, who was also registered to vote at the home with his adult sons, declined at the time to answer questions on whether Bannon actually lived at the property, which is required under the registration rules of the Florida division of elections.

In a pair of tweets early on Wednesday morning, Trump said that arrangements such as Bannon’s were unacceptable as he appeared to threaten a crackdown on access to the ballot box.

“I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states...

Like many other crazy aspects of this conspiracy theory, Trump assumes that everyone registered in two states committed fraud AND voted that extra time for Hillary...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 25, 2017, 03:13:46 PM
Apparently there has already been one case of 'voter fraud' discovered - Steve Bannon (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-registered-to-vote-in-two-states-despite-trumps-cries-of-voter-fraud/ar-AAmeM2p)

Quote
Bannon, whose registration lists a rented apartment in Manhattan as his address, cast his ballot for Trump in New York, according to a source familiar with his arrangements, who was not authorized to speak to the media.

Bannon, however, also remains registered to vote in Florida, according to state records. His registration lists as his address the home of Andy Badolato, a friend of Bannon’s who has worked on some of his political documentary films and written for Breitbart News, the far-right website that Bannon controlled before entering the White House as chief strategist and senior counselor to the president.

His registration in Florida was moved to Badolato’s home shortly after the publication of the Guardian report in August. Bannon has not cast a ballot in Florida, according to state records. Badolato, who was also registered to vote at the home with his adult sons, declined at the time to answer questions on whether Bannon actually lived at the property, which is required under the registration rules of the Florida division of elections.

In a pair of tweets early on Wednesday morning, Trump said that arrangements such as Bannon’s were unacceptable as he appeared to threaten a crackdown on access to the ballot box.

“I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states...

Like many other crazy aspects of this conspiracy theory, Trump assumes that everyone registered in two states committed fraud AND voted that extra time for Hillary...

I wonder if that's true of Tiffany?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316146-tiffany-trump-is-registered-to-vote-in-two-states-report

I'm guessing Bannon definitely used his two votes for Trump, out of self-interest anyway.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/25/report-steve-bannon-registered-vote-2-states-amid-trumps-voter-fraud-complaints
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 25, 2017, 03:17:48 PM
Looks like Trump is kinda leaving Georgia and Florida swinging in the wake of these tornadoes.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/im-begging-fema-for-boots-on-the-ground-donald-trump-leaves-gop-leaders-begging-for-aid-after-deadly-storms-in-the-south/

In other news, a conservative opposition group led by Evan McMullin is rising:

https://standuprepublic.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGk3Q2znF5g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P18i6uS536c

EDIT: Seriously, Mnuchin too?!

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/25/1625143/-Trump-s-Voter-Fraud-Tiffany-Trump-Bannon-Mnuchin-all-Registered-to-Vote-in-Two-States?detail=facebook

Good lord, people. The irony is pretty freaking rich here. Too bad Trump voters will just excuse this, like they excuse everything else.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Inaya on January 25, 2017, 03:33:15 PM
Looks like Trump is kinda leaving Georgia and Florida swinging in the wake of these tornadoes.
Sounds like they need to get those bootstraps out.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on January 25, 2017, 04:08:47 PM
https://twitter.com/AP/status/824374557893083146

AP reports - Trump administration to require all EPA scientific studies be run by political staff before being published. Weeeeeee!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 25, 2017, 04:58:18 PM
https://twitter.com/AP/status/824374557893083146

AP reports - Trump administration to require all EPA scientific studies be run by political staff before being published. Weeeeeee!

Gotta make sure to take the REAL facts out and put those alternative ones in.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 25, 2017, 05:12:43 PM
Looks like Trump is kinda leaving Georgia and Florida swinging in the wake of these tornadoes.

Trump ain't got time for weather disasters. He's busy getting shit done for the po white folk. Buildi'n walls and stuff.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on January 25, 2017, 06:09:46 PM
On the bright side, the market is up. :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 25, 2017, 08:24:39 PM
Looks like Trump is kinda leaving Georgia and Florida swinging in the wake of these tornadoes.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/im-begging-fema-for-boots-on-the-ground-donald-trump-leaves-gop-leaders-begging-for-aid-after-deadly-storms-in-the-south/

In other news, a conservative opposition group led by Evan McMullin is rising:

https://standuprepublic.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGk3Q2znF5g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P18i6uS536c

EDIT: Seriously, Mnuchin too?!

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/25/1625143/-Trump-s-Voter-Fraud-Tiffany-Trump-Bannon-Mnuchin-all-Registered-to-Vote-in-Two-States?detail=facebook

Good lord, people. The irony is pretty freaking rich here. Too bad Trump voters will just excuse this, like they excuse everything else.
Umm... the studies show voter fraud is a non issue, despite what Trump would have you believe. Though I'm sure Trump haters will ignore these studies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 25, 2017, 08:26:01 PM
On the bright side, the market is up. :)
I'll take the good with the bad!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ysette9 on January 25, 2017, 08:28:53 PM
I realize that the conversation has moved on from this by now, but I wanted to add something because it relates so perfectly to something I was reading just last night.

Quote
Correct, if I thought sex was purely for procreation. But I don't. I think it's primary purpose is procreation.

This quote is thoroughly wrong but illustrates nicely what I just learned in the book The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond, author of Collapse and Guns, Germs, and Steel (you may have heard of him; MacArthur Fellow, awarded National Medal of Science, professor, etc.).

From the chapter titled "The Evolution of Human Sexuality"

Quote
Whatever the main biological function of human copulation, it isn't conception, which is just an occasional by-product. ... In no species besides humans has the purpose of copulation become so unrelated to conception, or the rhythm method so unsuited for contraception."

Quote
Most mammals are sexually inactive most of the time. They copulate only when the female is in estrus - i.e., when she is ovulating and capable of being fertilized. Female mammals apparently "know" when they are ovulating, for they solicit copulation then by presenting their genitals towards males. Lest a male miss the point, many female primates go further: the area around the vagina, plus in some species the buttocks and breasts, swells up an turns red, pink, or blue....

Quote
Human sexual cycles are quite different. The human female maintains her sexual receptivity more or less constantly, instead of having it sharply confined to a short estrus phase. Indeed, despite numerous studies aimed at settling whether a woman's receptivity varies at all through her cycle, there is still no agreement about the answer - nor about the cycle phase when receptivity is maximal if it does vary.

Quote
Our concealed ovulation, constant receptivity, and brief fertile period in each menstrual cycle ensure that most copulation by humans are at the wrong time for conception.

Summary: if the main purpose of human copulation were indeed reproduction, we would only mate when the female is fertile and it would be damn obvious to both females and males when that fertile window is. As someone who has purposefully studied my cycle in order to become pregnant, I can tell you that I can only now, after 5 years, be certain when I have ovulated, and that is often with the aid of tools such as ovulation predictor kits. Furthermore, from a purely biological point of view, copulation comes at a price, both in time and energy spent having sex rather than looking for food, making yourself distracted and vulnerable to predators, and for the male, making and ejecting sperm also takes energy. In most other animals whose sole purpose is procreation, all of this energy expenditure is carefully regulated to get the most bang for the buck, so to speak. We humans are clear outliers in this trend because we do not mate primarily for reproductive purposes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 25, 2017, 08:33:10 PM
Not even through his first week as the leader of the free world, a Nation that once was a shining beacon of hope, and our President is being trolled on Twitter by the former Mexican president. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/25/former-president-mexico-not-going-pay-expletive-wall/97055844/)  Let's hope Trump can hold his thumbs back for a day or two, although the opposition to all of his 'progress' is really starting to pile on at this point.  Environmentalists, fact checking media, big city mayors (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/25/big-us-city-mayors-vow-defy-trump-sanctuary-cities-order/97066272/), Seth Meyers... 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ysette9 on January 25, 2017, 08:37:39 PM
Quote
although the opposition to all of his 'progress' is really starting to pile on at this point.  Environmentalists, fact checking media, big city mayors, Seth Meyers...

and the national parks service! Let's not forget them. It must be really bad when the gentle, smiling people in big hats and green and khaki uniforms are trolling you on twitter.
#AltUSNatParkService
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 25, 2017, 09:06:49 PM
On the bright side, the market is up. :)
have to take good with the terrible, i guess.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on January 25, 2017, 09:28:21 PM
Not even through his first week as the leader of the free world, a Nation that once was a shining beacon of hope, and our President is being trolled on Twitter by the former Mexican president. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/25/former-president-mexico-not-going-pay-expletive-wall/97055844/)  Let's hope Trump can hold his thumbs back for a day or two, although the opposition to all of his 'progress' is really starting to pile on at this point.  Environmentalists, fact checking media, big city mayors (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/25/big-us-city-mayors-vow-defy-trump-sanctuary-cities-order/97066272/), Seth Meyers...

Don't forget (https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/5pjfno/introduction_to_the_netherlands_for_donald_trump/) the Dutch (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/25/netherlands-trump-gag-rule-international-safe-abortion-fund). Bless them. I'll never mock Edam cheese again.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ysette9 on January 25, 2017, 09:30:40 PM
That was such a good video. A family friend sent us a link to a Finnish parody of him that aired recently as well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Ymr9E7u1Y&feature=youtu.be (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Ymr9E7u1Y&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 26, 2017, 05:16:19 AM
Also, he wants to reopen/expand black site CIA torture prisons:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-poised-to-lift-ban-on-cia-%E2%80%98black-site%E2%80%99-prisons/ar-AAmenXv?li=BBnb7Kz

Interested to see how those who cited Guantanamo as a strike against Obama (even though that one is demonstrably not on him) respond to this one.

Obama attempted to close Guantanamo and failed.  Although much of the failure was due to the republican held congress, I suppose that he does shoulder some responsibility for that.  Trump though, has indicated that his top people are telling him that torture works and that's why it's necessary . . . so, we have (yet more) evidence that his top people don't know what they're talking about.


"(Torture) is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear." - US Army FM 34-52 on Intelligence Interrogation

“(Torture is) not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation.”   and
“I personally remain firm in my belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not an appropriate method obtain intelligence and that their use impairs our ability to continue to play a leadership role in the world.”
- CIA Director John Brennan

http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf (http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf)

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=ilj (http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=ilj)

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022343313520023 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022343313520023)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233006674_Erroneous_Assumptions_Popular_Belief_in_the_Effectiveness_of_Torture_Interrogation (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233006674_Erroneous_Assumptions_Popular_Belief_in_the_Effectiveness_of_Torture_Interrogation)

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_effectiveness_of_torture/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_effectiveness_of_torture/)

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/tortureandrendition/p/is_torture_just.htm (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/tortureandrendition/p/is_torture_just.htm)

http://www.livescience.com/9209-study-torture-techniques-unethical-ineffective.html (http://www.livescience.com/9209-study-torture-techniques-unethical-ineffective.html)

etc. etc. etc.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 26, 2017, 05:47:36 AM
I think his "top people" who told him it works is some talking head on Fox.  Most if not all of the major IC heads and military leaders have publically said it does not work and they would resign rather than order it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: teen persuasion on January 26, 2017, 05:58:55 AM
Also, he wants to reopen/expand black site CIA torture prisons:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-poised-to-lift-ban-on-cia-%E2%80%98black-site%E2%80%99-prisons/ar-AAmenXv?li=BBnb7Kz

Interested to see how those who cited Guantanamo as a strike against Obama (even though that one is demonstrably not on him) respond to this one.

Obama attempted to close Guantanamo and failed.  Although much of the failure was due to the republican held congress, I suppose that he does shoulder some responsibility for that.  Trump though, has indicated that his top people are telling him that torture works and that's why it's necessary . . . so, we have (yet more) evidence that his top people don't know what they're talking about.


"(Torture) is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear." - US Army FM 34-52 on Intelligence Interrogation

“(Torture is) not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation.”   and
“I personally remain firm in my belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not an appropriate method obtain intelligence and that their use impairs our ability to continue to play a leadership role in the world.”
- CIA Director John Brennan

http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf (http://www.cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf)

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=ilj (http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=ilj)

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022343313520023 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022343313520023)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233006674_Erroneous_Assumptions_Popular_Belief_in_the_Effectiveness_of_Torture_Interrogation (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233006674_Erroneous_Assumptions_Popular_Belief_in_the_Effectiveness_of_Torture_Interrogation)

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_effectiveness_of_torture/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_effectiveness_of_torture/)

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/tortureandrendition/p/is_torture_just.htm (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/tortureandrendition/p/is_torture_just.htm)

http://www.livescience.com/9209-study-torture-techniques-unethical-ineffective.html (http://www.livescience.com/9209-study-torture-techniques-unethical-ineffective.html)

etc. etc. etc.

Bolding added by me.

Last night on the national news they played a clip from David Muir's interview with Trump where David asked about this issue.  Trump claimed his people said torture worked.  Then in real time David asked another reporter what he thought of this clip - "Simply FASCINATING, because those same people have told me that they don't want torture, it doesn't work".

Just because Trump claims someone told him something doesn't make it true.  I've decided that, at least as far as truth goes, Trump is a five year old.  When asked for the truth, 5 year olds tell you what they wish was the truth.  Actual truth is a slippery concept at that age.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 26, 2017, 06:03:10 AM
Also, he wants to reopen/expand black site CIA torture prisons:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-poised-to-lift-ban-on-cia-%E2%80%98black-site%E2%80%99-prisons/ar-AAmenXv?li=BBnb7Kz

Interested to see how those who cited Guantanamo as a strike against Obama (even though that one is demonstrably not on him) respond to this one.

 so, we have (yet more) evidence that his top people don't know what they're talking about.


To be fair they are probably just relying in alternative truths. You know those non-truth truths?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 26, 2017, 06:20:22 AM
Looks like Trump is kinda leaving Georgia and Florida swinging in the wake of these tornadoes.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/im-begging-fema-for-boots-on-the-ground-donald-trump-leaves-gop-leaders-begging-for-aid-after-deadly-storms-in-the-south/

In other news, a conservative opposition group led by Evan McMullin is rising:

https://standuprepublic.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGk3Q2znF5g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P18i6uS536c

EDIT: Seriously, Mnuchin too?!

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/25/1625143/-Trump-s-Voter-Fraud-Tiffany-Trump-Bannon-Mnuchin-all-Registered-to-Vote-in-Two-States?detail=facebook

Good lord, people. The irony is pretty freaking rich here. Too bad Trump voters will just excuse this, like they excuse everything else.
Umm... the studies show voter fraud is a non issue, despite what Trump would have you believe. Though I'm sure Trump haters will ignore these studies.

I'm apt to write off the two-state registration as a non-issue. First, there are bigger problems. Second, there's no indication any of them voted twice (or even attempted to). Third, I wouldn't even know how to cancel old voter registration after moving to a new state, and I'm sure most people don't even think about it in the first place. We should really have an automated system that can just transfer the record to the new state, showing that this unique voter went from state A to state B, and is duly registered in their new place. You could even do it under the auspices of preventing fraud, while making it easier to vote. Everyone wins. Too bad it would cost 0.0002% of the federal budget or whatever.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 26, 2017, 06:27:34 AM
Looks like Trump is kinda leaving Georgia and Florida swinging in the wake of these tornadoes.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/im-begging-fema-for-boots-on-the-ground-donald-trump-leaves-gop-leaders-begging-for-aid-after-deadly-storms-in-the-south/

In other news, a conservative opposition group led by Evan McMullin is rising:

https://standuprepublic.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGk3Q2znF5g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P18i6uS536c

EDIT: Seriously, Mnuchin too?!

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/25/1625143/-Trump-s-Voter-Fraud-Tiffany-Trump-Bannon-Mnuchin-all-Registered-to-Vote-in-Two-States?detail=facebook

Good lord, people. The irony is pretty freaking rich here. Too bad Trump voters will just excuse this, like they excuse everything else.
Umm... the studies show voter fraud is a non issue, despite what Trump would have you believe. Though I'm sure Trump haters will ignore these studies.

I'm apt to write off the two-state registration as a non-issue. First, there are bigger problems. Second, there's no indication any of them voted twice (or even attempted to). Third, I wouldn't even know how to cancel old voter registration after moving to a new state, and I'm sure most people don't even think about it in the first place. We should really have an automated system that can just transfer the record to the new state, showing that this unique voter went from state A to state B, and is duly registered in their new place. You could even do it under the auspices of preventing fraud, while making it easier to vote. Everyone wins. Too bad it would cost 0.0002% of the federal budget or whatever.

Of course two-state registration is a non-issue. But that is precisely what Trump brought up as "evidence" of voter fraud. It's literally the only thing he has said about how one could know it was there. So, this is why I said it was an irony that two of his staffers and his daughter are registered in two states. As are probably most prople who vote and then move states and vote again.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 26, 2017, 06:28:45 AM
Of course two-state registration is a non-issue. But that is precisely what Trump brought up as "evidence" of voter fraud. It's literally the only thing he has said about how one could know it was there. So, this is why I said it was an irony that two of his staffers and his daughter are registered in two states. As are probably most prople who vote and then move states and vote again.

I guess it's just frustrating to see people on the left take that bait.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 26, 2017, 06:49:12 AM
Of course two-state registration is a non-issue. But that is precisely what Trump brought up as "evidence" of voter fraud. It's literally the only thing he has said about how one could know it was there. So, this is why I said it was an irony that two of his staffers and his daughter are registered in two states. As are probably most prople who vote and then move states and vote again.

I guess it's just frustrating to see people on the left take that bait.
What bait?  And what left?

All we have here is someone correctly pointing out yet another indication that Trump is bat shit crazy, in this case about the fact that he got less of the popular vote than Hilary.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 26, 2017, 06:50:47 AM
Of course two-state registration is a non-issue. But that is precisely what Trump brought up as "evidence" of voter fraud. It's literally the only thing he has said about how one could know it was there. So, this is why I said it was an irony that two of his staffers and his daughter are registered in two states. As are probably most prople who vote and then move states and vote again.

I guess it's just frustrating to see people on the left take that bait.
What bait?  And what left?

All we have here is someone correctly pointing out yet another indication that Trump is bat shit crazy, in this case about the fact that he got less of the popular vote than Hilary.

There were a bunch of articles going around shouting about how Bannon, et al are fraudsters. Mostly pearl clutching.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 26, 2017, 08:00:31 AM
Of course two-state registration is a non-issue. But that is precisely what Trump brought up as "evidence" of voter fraud. It's literally the only thing he has said about how one could know it was there. So, this is why I said it was an irony that two of his staffers and his daughter are registered in two states. As are probably most prople who vote and then move states and vote again.

I guess it's just frustrating to see people on the left take that bait.
What bait?  And what left?

All we have here is someone correctly pointing out yet another indication that Trump is bat shit crazy, in this case about the fact that he got less of the popular vote than Hilary.
No. It's detractors making a logically fallacy in their attacks on their opponent. That's the bait; and people are falling for it left, right and center. There's so much to counter Trump on that seeing people distracted by things like voter registration of his family and inauguration crowd sizes is frustrating to those in the country that would like to see discussion and progress on actual issues.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2017, 08:03:34 AM
People need to stop hedging their bets and flat out say "Trump, you are lying and wrong".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 26, 2017, 08:10:02 AM
Of course two-state registration is a non-issue. But that is precisely what Trump brought up as "evidence" of voter fraud. It's literally the only thing he has said about how one could know it was there. So, this is why I said it was an irony that two of his staffers and his daughter are registered in two states. As are probably most prople who vote and then move states and vote again.

I guess it's just frustrating to see people on the left take that bait.
What bait?  And what left?

All we have here is someone correctly pointing out yet another indication that Trump is bat shit crazy, in this case about the fact that he got less of the popular vote than Hilary.
No. It's detractors making a logically fallacy in their attacks on their opponent. That's the bait; and people are falling for it left, right and center. There's so much to counter Trump on that seeing people distracted by things like voter registration of his family and inauguration crowd sizes is frustrating to those in the country that would like to see discussion and progress on actual issues.
I thought that Trump was saying that there were 3 million illegal votes for Hillary, and one of the ways that he could prove this was by the number of double registrations?  So pointing out that double registrations are common even among his closest followers (who presumably voted for him, lawfully, once) nicely points out the absurdity of Trump's position.

And it is Trump himself that is bringing up all these stupidities, like the numbers at the inauguration and the non-existent "voter fraud".  You should be directing your frustration at him, not the people who are rightly and properly pointing out that he is the problem here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 26, 2017, 08:43:47 AM
And it is Trump himself that is bringing up all these stupidities, like the numbers at the inauguration and the non-existent "voter fraud".  You should be directing your frustration at him, not the people who are rightly and properly pointing out that he is the problem here.

Except it's noise, and distracting from substantive policy discussions, and legitimate criticisms of cabinet appointments. I'd rather see opponents ignore the claims of voter fraud and whatever other nonsense he throws up, and focus on some of the more core issues.

If and when they actually start investigating (doubtful), then criticize the investigation, methods, etc. Right now he's just running his mouth and trying to keep his base amped up.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on January 26, 2017, 08:45:37 AM
And it is Trump himself that is bringing up all these stupidities, like the numbers at the inauguration and the non-existent "voter fraud".  You should be directing your frustration at him, not the people who are rightly and properly pointing out that he is the problem here.

Except it's noise, and distracting from substantive policy discussions, and legitimate criticisms of cabinet appointments. I'd rather see opponents ignore the claims of voter fraud and whatever other nonsense he throws up, and focus on some of the more core issues.

If and when they actually start investigating (doubtful), then criticize the investigation, methods, etc. Right now he's just running his mouth and trying to keep his base amped up.

What policy discussions? I've seen a string of executive orders...not so much discussion.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 26, 2017, 08:53:21 AM
And it is Trump himself that is bringing up all these stupidities, like the numbers at the inauguration and the non-existent "voter fraud".  You should be directing your frustration at him, not the people who are rightly and properly pointing out that he is the problem here.

Except it's noise, and distracting from substantive policy discussions, and legitimate criticisms of cabinet appointments. I'd rather see opponents ignore the claims of voter fraud and whatever other nonsense he throws up, and focus on some of the more core issues.

If and when they actually start investigating (doubtful), then criticize the investigation, methods, etc. Right now he's just running his mouth and trying to keep his base amped up.

What policy discussions? I've seen a string of executive orders...not so much discussion.

That's my point. We need to be having actual discussions. Cabinet confirmations need to be discussions. We need to discuss the new legislation Congress is introducing.

We aren't. We're talking about imaginary voter fraud and Melania's dress.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Ottawa on January 26, 2017, 09:01:41 AM
Could it be that Trump is exercising 'Outrage Dilution'?

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 26, 2017, 09:01:46 AM
And it is Trump himself that is bringing up all these stupidities, like the numbers at the inauguration and the non-existent "voter fraud".  You should be directing your frustration at him, not the people who are rightly and properly pointing out that he is the problem here.

Except it's noise, and distracting from substantive policy discussions, and legitimate criticisms of cabinet appointments. I'd rather see opponents ignore the claims of voter fraud and whatever other nonsense he throws up, and focus on some of the more core issues.

If and when they actually start investigating (doubtful), then criticize the investigation, methods, etc. Right now he's just running his mouth and trying to keep his base amped up.

What policy discussions? I've seen a string of executive orders...not so much discussion.

That's my point. We need to be having actual discussions. Cabinet confirmations need to be discussions. We need to discuss the new legislation Congress is introducing.

We aren't. We're talking about imaginary voter fraud and Melania's dress.

Since I'm the one you were originally policing here...

I can send you the log of the phone calls I've made in the past few weeks to my congresspeople about the cabinet nominees and legislation the Republicans are proposing to Congress.

Can I also talk about how batshit crazy Trump is now?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Rimu05 on January 26, 2017, 09:06:32 AM
I was willing to give Trump a chance and thought he wouldn't follow up on campaign promises but now he's talking about the wall yet again and I'm losing respect here that I never had.

The wall is such a stupid idea I can't believe it is still up for discussion. The wall thing is so embarrassing on just about every front. I can understand wanting to keep illegal immigration down, but a wall? Is there going to be a night's watch patrolling around that wall.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 26, 2017, 09:11:59 AM
Could it be that Trump is exercising 'Outrage Dilution'?

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution)
Likely. And it's working, in my opinon. Dat guy got trolling skills.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 26, 2017, 09:13:43 AM
Could it be that Trump is exercising 'Outrage Dilution'?

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156399716951/outrage-dilution)
Likely. And it's working, in my opinon. Dat guy got trolling skills.

I really don't think so. The guy is way too unhinged to be that skilled. He's just nuts, and can't help himself.

Not to say the effect isn't the same.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 26, 2017, 09:19:26 AM
Since I'm the one you were originally policing here...

I can send you the log of the phone calls I've made in the past few weeks to my congresspeople about the cabinet nominees and legislation the Republicans are proposing to Congress.

Can I also talk about how batshit crazy Trump is now?

I'm not trying to be the thought police. I'm just expressing frustration that nonsense gets more media and public attention than substance.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on January 26, 2017, 09:24:17 AM
And it is Trump himself that is bringing up all these stupidities, like the numbers at the inauguration and the non-existent "voter fraud".  You should be directing your frustration at him, not the people who are rightly and properly pointing out that he is the problem here.

Except it's noise, and distracting from substantive policy discussions, and legitimate criticisms of cabinet appointments. I'd rather see opponents ignore the claims of voter fraud and whatever other nonsense he throws up, and focus on some of the more core issues.

If and when they actually start investigating (doubtful), then criticize the investigation, methods, etc. Right now he's just running his mouth and trying to keep his base amped up.

What policy discussions? I've seen a string of executive orders...not so much discussion.

That's my point. We need to be having actual discussions. Cabinet confirmations need to be discussions. We need to discuss the new legislation Congress is introducing.

We aren't. We're talking about imaginary voter fraud and Melania's dress.

Trump is talking about imaginary voter fraud.  My social circle is far more concerned with the assault on science and communication from other government agencies (http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/25/14370712/trump-science-gagging-explained).

I've heard nothing about Melania's dress. Not sure if that was a red herring or something that's actually happening.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: robartsd on January 26, 2017, 09:28:01 AM
That's my point. We need to be having actual discussions. Cabinet confirmations need to be discussions. We need to discuss the new legislation Congress is introducing.

We aren't. We're talking about imaginary voter fraud and Melania's dress.
On a talk radio program I heard yesterday, the host was discussing the possibility that the Trump administration was using a these dumb things as a strategy to distract from the actual policy making going on in the background.

On voter fraud, it is insanely easy to create a fake voter registration. People have successfully registered and obtained ballots in the name of their pets to demonstrate this. Of course the risks associated with being caught committing voter fraud far outweigh any possible benefit of being successful (unless you're an illegal alien that thinks your risk of deportation hinges on the election's outcome). I just checked my state's voter registration form online, it never asks if you are a citizen (it does ask for place of birth [select state or country], state driver's license/ID card number [or indicate you don't have one], and last four of SSN [or indicate that you don't have one]).  I could see aliens registering without realizing that they're committing voter fraud. Many aliens in my state have SSNs and file state income tax returns (I saw some of those returns when I worked for the tax board in 2000 - the tax board simply issues its own identification number to tax payers where multiple people file with the same SSN, some SSNs have dozens of individual taxpayers). I don't think this happens on the order of 3 million+ people, but it's very difficult for me to believe that there is no voter fraud happening.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 26, 2017, 09:31:15 AM
I've heard nothing about Melania's dress. Not sure if that was a red herring or something that's actually happening.

Sadly, it is not a red herring.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: farmecologist on January 26, 2017, 09:42:34 AM
And it is Trump himself that is bringing up all these stupidities, like the numbers at the inauguration and the non-existent "voter fraud".  You should be directing your frustration at him, not the people who are rightly and properly pointing out that he is the problem here.

Except it's noise, and distracting from substantive policy discussions, and legitimate criticisms of cabinet appointments. I'd rather see opponents ignore the claims of voter fraud and whatever other nonsense he throws up, and focus on some of the more core issues.

If and when they actually start investigating (doubtful), then criticize the investigation, methods, etc. Right now he's just running his mouth and trying to keep his base amped up.

What policy discussions? I've seen a string of executive orders...not so much discussion.

That's my point. We need to be having actual discussions. Cabinet confirmations need to be discussions. We need to discuss the new legislation Congress is introducing.

We aren't. We're talking about imaginary voter fraud and Melania's dress.

Trump is talking about imaginary voter fraud.  My social circle is far more concerned with the assault on science and communication from other government agencies (http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/25/14370712/trump-science-gagging-explained).

I've heard nothing about Melania's dress. Not sure if that was a red herring or something that's actually happening.


...and if Trump wants to talk about "voter fraud", we also need to talk about voter suppression ( gerrymandering, etc.. ).  I've never heard Trump mention that.




Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 26, 2017, 09:48:19 AM
The ‘entire senior level’ of State Department management just resigned to avoid working for Trump.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/the-entire-senior-level-of-state-department-management-just-resigned-to-avoid-working-for-trump-report/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 26, 2017, 10:13:40 AM
I think voter fraud is largely a non-issue. I mean people talk about it because it's news and adds to the bat shit craziness of the orange monkey. But millions of folks didn't march because of voter fraud or a dress. He's uniting folks, just not in the way he intended.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 26, 2017, 10:27:32 AM
The ‘entire senior level’ of State Department management just resigned to avoid working for Trump.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/the-entire-senior-level-of-state-department-management-just-resigned-to-avoid-working-for-trump-report/

This is on Washington post too.  Why is this not all over the rest of the news stations!!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: robartsd on January 26, 2017, 10:27:58 AM
The ‘entire senior level’ of State Department management just resigned to avoid working for Trump.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/the-entire-senior-level-of-state-department-management-just-resigned-to-avoid-working-for-trump-report/
I totally understand resigning from the state department - who in their right mind would want to stick around for the job of smoothing things over in international relations every time something offensive shouts out of Trump's mouth?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 26, 2017, 10:34:17 AM
It honestly seems like if things continue at this current pace, Trump will effectively cripple the Federal Government within the year.  Regardless of whether you think that's a good thing, this is the first time I'm really worried about what the nation will look like in the medium term - there was always the hope that rational Republicans would be able to guide him away from the biggest mistakes.  Does anyone else have a serious case of "market uncertainty" now or am I reading too much in a bubble (I do try not to hang out in political echo chambers too long)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2017, 10:42:14 AM
What do people think about re-negotiation of NAFTA?

I see labor unions are for making changes.  Some are saying it could hurt national security if we push it too far.  So far I'm thinking it would be beneficial to update the agreement to make trade more balanced and update it for the 21st century.

My worry is that anytime you completel 'scrap' a deal, you run the risk of getting an even worse deal.  Trump is uber-confident that he's the best deal maker, but it's a legitimate concern.  Also an issue is that completely drafting a new deal will almost certainly take a couple of years, tens-of-thousands of staffers time and lots of uncertainty in teh meantime.

Personally, my spouse and I both benefit from NAFTA, since we have been able to study and work in Canada without the visas which would be necessary had we come from elsewhere.  So this interjects a lot of uncertainty into our lives. IMO it would be far better to start within the framework we already have and adjust it as necessary.  SCrapping and starting over is risky, time consuming and costly.

One of the biggest problems I see with NAFTA is that it doesn't mention lots of job categories that simply didn't exist when it was drafted in 1996 (?).  So that clearly needs to be addressed, as does more comprehensive rules on 'guest' and non-resident/temporary workers.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on January 26, 2017, 11:24:11 AM
The ‘entire senior level’ of State Department management just resigned to avoid working for Trump.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/the-entire-senior-level-of-state-department-management-just-resigned-to-avoid-working-for-trump-report/

This is on Washington post too.  Why is this not all over the rest of the news stations!!

Reuters is reporting it slightly differently as if it's normal, but who knows what is normal anymore.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/at-least-two-senior-us-state-department-diplomats-leave-posts-officials/ar-AAmhqwj
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 26, 2017, 11:30:13 AM
The ‘entire senior level’ of State Department management just resigned to avoid working for Trump.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/the-entire-senior-level-of-state-department-management-just-resigned-to-avoid-working-for-trump-report/

This is on Washington post too.  Why is this not all over the rest of the news stations!!

Reuters is reporting it slightly differently as if it's normal, but who knows what is normal anymore.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/at-least-two-senior-us-state-department-diplomats-leave-posts-officials/ar-AAmhqwj
Because it is four people, four important people but still.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 26, 2017, 11:34:47 AM
The ‘entire senior level’ of State Department management just resigned to avoid working for Trump.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/the-entire-senior-level-of-state-department-management-just-resigned-to-avoid-working-for-trump-report/

This is on Washington post too.  Why is this not all over the rest of the news stations!!

Reuters is reporting it slightly differently as if it's normal, but who knows what is normal anymore.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/at-least-two-senior-us-state-department-diplomats-leave-posts-officials/ar-AAmhqwj

That's odd, considering this quote:

“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff during John Kerry’s tenure as America’s top diplomat, tells the Post. “Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.”
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ysette9 on January 26, 2017, 11:54:38 AM
This might provide context

Quote
Ambassador Richard Boucher, who served as State Department spokesman for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said that while there’s always a lot of turnover around the time a new administration takes office, traditionally senior officials work with the new team to see who should stay on in their roles and what other jobs might be available. But that’s not what happened this time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/01/26/the-state-departments-entire-senior-management-team-just-resigned/?utm_term=.f75c20272f2f&wpisrc=nl_most-draw10&wpmm=1 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/01/26/the-state-departments-entire-senior-management-team-just-resigned/?utm_term=.f75c20272f2f&wpisrc=nl_most-draw10&wpmm=1)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Inaya on January 26, 2017, 12:28:50 PM
Doesn't this ultimately just give Trump the ability to insert even more of His People into important positions?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 26, 2017, 12:33:06 PM
Doesn't this ultimately just give Trump the ability to insert even more of His People into important positions?

That was gonna happen anyway. This way it happens without the benefit of the old guard helping the new make the transition. In the meantime, there is no one in those positions at all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2017, 12:37:13 PM
Doesn't this ultimately just give Trump the ability to insert even more of His People into important positions?
I worry about this, but I also wonder how its going to play out.  If you hire someone who's clearly an outsider or idealouge, he/she won't have the respect of their department and it's very, very hard to get any real productivity out of your department.

This *could* be one method for destroying entire federal agencies; make them so ineffective that you can cut them piecemeal. A combination of "death by attrition + 1,000,000 tiny cuts."  The problem then becomes that these agencies have real functions, and if they become ineffective we lose those functions. We're not going to make deals that are "great for America" if our diplomats and embassies are ineffective and unsupported.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on January 26, 2017, 12:48:07 PM
I am also concerned because it seems to me that civil servants are the only ones now who stand between Trump and illegal behavior. They are the ones who can say "no" or blow the whistle if he steps over the line.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on January 26, 2017, 01:00:32 PM
Yep, Trump is trying very hard to establish his dominance over the US govt.    This is a typical step for a new executive to take in a company, no reason he wouldn't do it as head of the executive branch.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2017, 01:49:04 PM
News: The Mexican Border Wall will be paid for by a 20% tax on Mexican goods.

How is this not Americans paying for the wall?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 26, 2017, 02:01:55 PM
News: The Mexican Border Wall will be paid for by a 20% tax on Mexican goods.

How is this not Americans paying for the wall?

Wow, this will not end well for the public or for Trump. He'll have to be damn good (and his supporters will have to be total suckers) to avoid being blamed for a trade war and the resulting economic recession.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on January 26, 2017, 02:55:48 PM
Free market/free trade folks must be freaking out. Which I would assume would be a ton of traditional conservatives, since protectionist trade policies are usually seen as a liberal/pro-labor sort of thing.

I'm sort of baffled by the whole thing. Why not just enforce existing laws against hiring illegals better, or increase the penalties?

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 26, 2017, 03:00:47 PM
Free market/free trade folks must be freaking out. Which I would assume would be a ton of traditional conservatives, since protectionist trade policies are usually seen as a liberal/pro-labor sort of thing.

I'm sort of baffled by the whole thing. Why not just enforce existing laws against hiring illegals better, or increase the penalties?

-W

And penalize businesses?  Never!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 26, 2017, 03:23:58 PM
Free market/free trade folks must be freaking out. Which I would assume would be a ton of traditional conservatives, since protectionist trade policies are usually seen as a liberal/pro-labor sort of thing.

I'm sort of baffled by the whole thing. Why not just enforce existing laws against hiring illegals better, or increase the penalties?

-W

Because he's obsessed with the damn wall. Trump doesn't have coherent policies. Just obsessions and vanity projects.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2017, 03:25:24 PM
Yes to avocados!
No to angry carrots!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 26, 2017, 04:43:32 PM
His core followers need the wall.  They will bend over backwards rationalizing how somehow Mexico is paying for the wall, but if he outright renegs on that promise he could lose his fanatical base.

I think the wall is dumb, but it's hardly his most troubling goal. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 26, 2017, 06:36:13 PM
His core followers need the wall.  They will bend over backwards rationalizing how somehow Mexico is paying for the wall, but if he outright renegs on that promise he could lose his fanatical base.
You are probably right.

I think the wall is dumb, but it's hardly his most troubling goal.
I think the wall is a $20B boondoggle that will accomplish nothing to slow drugs OR immigrants, cause a fortune to police and maintain and symbolically is the polar opposite of our nation's values.

Did none of these people play computer games?  The bigger the wall the more it costs and the harder it is to protect.  I predict that within months people are going to start blowing holes in random sections while drones fly overhead and tunnels are dug benieth.  This will all happen before it ever gets completed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 26, 2017, 06:51:24 PM
I am also concerned because it seems to me that civil servants are the only ones now who stand between Trump and illegal behavior. They are the ones who can say "no" or blow the whistle if he steps over the line.
The worst part of this is America's mixed history on governmental whistle blowers... not great in a normal administration, but possibly even worse under a Trump administration.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: calimom on January 26, 2017, 07:09:37 PM
…..and you can be sure the no-bid contract to build the wall will go to someone in Betsy Devos's  family or some "subsidiary" of the Koch Brothers.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 26, 2017, 07:41:07 PM
…..and you can be sure the no-bid contract to build the wall will go to someone in Betsy Devos's  family or some "subsidiary" of the Koch Brothers.

That's optimistic.  I figured it would go directly to Trump Enterprises.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 26, 2017, 08:04:27 PM
Trump is walking back the 20% tariff idea.

It's like no one in the White House has studied history (Bueller? Bueller?).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 26, 2017, 08:34:25 PM
Trump is walking back the 20% tariff idea.

It's like no one in the White House has studied history (Bueller? Bueller?).

The tariff just got 10% higher
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on January 26, 2017, 08:39:07 PM
Trump is walking back the 20% tariff idea.

It's like no one in the White House has studied history (Bueller? Bueller?).

The tariff just got 10% higher

That's a little ambiguous dragoncar... do you mean it's going to be a 22% tariff or a 30% tariff?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 26, 2017, 08:43:40 PM
Trump is walking back the 20% tariff idea.

It's like no one in the White House has studied history (Bueller? Bueller?).

The tariff just got 10% higher


That's a little ambiguous dragoncar... do you mean it's going to be a 22% tariff or a 30% tariff?

Those are just alternative interpretations, both are equally valid
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 27, 2017, 05:30:16 AM
Trump is walking back the 20% tariff idea.

It's like no one in the White House has studied history (Bueller? Bueller?).

The tariff just got 10% higher

Eh, why stop at 20 or 30%? Let's do 400%!! That will really hurt middle class Americans and US corporations Mexico
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on January 27, 2017, 08:06:48 AM
I don't get the wall thing.  Couldn't someone just book a flight and overstay the visa?  I see many Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, etc. and they are not coming in from south of the Rio Grande.

Tariffs will raise the prices in Walmart and hurt the poor, especially in the south.  Trumpees will pay for the wall, not Mexico.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 27, 2017, 08:47:50 AM
I don't get the wall thing.  Couldn't someone just book a flight and overstay the visa?  I see many Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, etc. and they are not coming in from south of the Rio Grande.


I don't get it either, except that it's symbolic to some. Walls aren't very effective at stopping immigration, in part for the reasons you mentioned, but also because a 2,000 mile border is nearly impossible to patrol, especially when there is rough terrain along much of it and lots of towns on both sides. A small group of people can scale a 40' wall in under a minute. IEDs could blow holes in the wall on a daily basis.

Its even less effective at stopping the flow of drugs. All you need to do is get a package of drugs to the other side where someone will pick them up.  You can buy remote-controlled drones which can do this (with minor modification) at Best Buy. Bigger ultra-lights can drop 300lbs (or even a person) several miles past the wall. Any kid in shop class can design an air cannon which can clear a wall. The cartels have gotten very good at building tunnels; I was listening to a story on NPR about how a $1M, mile-long tunnel could be built in a few months and paid for with a single run of drugs.

Heck, if were an engineering professor I might give my students a term project to come up with the best low-cost solution for delivering ~20kg packages over a 50' barrier with only supplies available from Home Depot.

To paraphrase someone else: It's medieval technology trying to stop a 21st century problem.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 27, 2017, 09:07:28 AM
It'll be interesting to see how the US government plans to build the wall given that so much of the land they'll be building on belongs to private citizens.  Will they just appropriate the land outright, will they build the wall behind this land, or what?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 27, 2017, 09:09:45 AM
I don't get the wall thing.  Couldn't someone just book a flight and overstay the visa?  I see many Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, etc. and they are not coming in from south of the Rio Grande.


I don't get it either, except that it's symbolic to some. Walls aren't very effective at stopping immigration, in part for the reasons you mentioned, but also because a 2,000 mile border is nearly impossible to patrol, especially when there is rough terrain along much of it and lots of towns on both sides. A small group of people can scale a 40' wall in under a minute. IEDs could blow holes in the wall on a daily basis.

Its even less effective at stopping the flow of drugs. All you need to do is get a package of drugs to the other side where someone will pick them up.  You can buy remote-controlled drones which can do this (with minor modification) at Best Buy. Bigger ultra-lights can drop 300lbs (or even a person) several miles past the wall. Any kid in shop class can design an air cannon which can clear a wall. The cartels have gotten very good at building tunnels; I was listening to a story on NPR about how a $1M, mile-long tunnel could be built in a few months and paid for with a single run of drugs.

Heck, if were an engineering professor I might give my students a term project to come up with the best low-cost solution for delivering ~20kg packages over a 50' barrier with only supplies available from Home Depot.

To paraphrase someone else: It's medieval technology trying to stop a 21st century problem.

I was listening to a talk show about this topic yesterday, and they were discussing the impracticality and expense of a wall and wondering why The Wall concept was so attractive to Trump supporters when it was so obviously not an efficient way to reduce border crossings. And this Trump supporter called in and explained that he personally REALLY wanted a HUGE AWESOME wall, not so much because it was practical, but because he wanted America to send a message that we could build something so impressive and spectacular and symbolically important. He actually said he was sure it would become a massive tourist attraction, and generate of ton of money, just like the Great Wall of China.

So, just one Trump supporter's view on The Most Beautiful Wall.

(Incidentally, my husband used to be a border patrol field agent. He spent plenty of time patrolling, placing and monitoring sensors, and laying up fully armed in the desert to bust illegal drug deliveries and migrants. He thinks the concept of a wall is the stupidest and most impractical thing he's ever heard in his life and anyone who supports it is a complete moron.  So there you have one opposition view, for balance LOL).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 27, 2017, 09:24:58 AM
It'll be interesting to see how the US government plans to build the wall given that so much of the land they'll be building on belongs to private citizens.  Will they just appropriate the land outright, will they build the wall behind this land, or what?

WaPo did a good synposis of the challenges faced with building a wall (link here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/challenges-building-border-wall/)).
Regarding land - that's a huge problem.  60% of the border in Texas is privately owned and there will doubtless be lawsuits and 'eminent domain' challenges up the wazoo.
Logistically there's the problem that part or the border is along the Rio Grande, and you can't build large concrete structures easily next to a river that likes to miander - so either you build it away from the riverbanks or you spend a god-awful amount of time/money 'armoring' the shoreline, which only works for short (~decade) timescales.  If you build further back from the river you are effectively cutting off many towns, ranches and roads that currently are right next to the river.
Currently there already some people and property who live on the mexican side of border fences.

In the more remote places (of which there are hundreds of miles) we'll need to build paved roads in order to get heavy construction equipment in.  It's like building a highway to nowhere so that you can build a wall only to (presumably) get rid of the highway a year or two later.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 27, 2017, 09:40:28 AM
Quote
I was listening to a talk show about this topic yesterday, and they were discussing the impracticality and expense of a wall and wondering why The Wall concept was so attractive to Trump supporters when it was so obviously not an efficient way to reduce border crossings. And this Trump supporter called in and explained that he personally REALLY wanted a HUGE AWESOME wall, not so much because it was practical, but because he wanted America to send a message that we could build something so impressive and spectacular and symbolically important. He actually said he was sure it would become a massive tourist attraction, and generate of ton of money, just like the Great Wall of China.

That's not very comforting.  Most historians regard the Great Wall of China to be an economic failure. It cost too much to build (both in treasure and lives), took an enormous amount of money and soldiers to maintain and defend, and ultimately illicit trade occcurred between the border guards and those 'barbarians' on the other side.

Everything I've seen is for construction of a simple, ~40' concrete slab wall.  If Trump wants it to be a tourist attraction (like something you could walk/run on top of) the cost will go up exponentially.  Tourism also effectively nullifies its purpose; how do you keep a barrier secure when lots of people keep traveling to it and want to touch it and take selfies on/in front of it?  It would be a security nightmare.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on January 27, 2017, 09:43:48 AM
The realistic impact for today is that we are actually sitting here in 2017 having a conversation about building a border wall on Mexico.  Like, think about an alternative universe where we could be actually think about doing useful shit. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on January 27, 2017, 09:50:02 AM
Quote
I was listening to a talk show about this topic yesterday, and they were discussing the impracticality and expense of a wall and wondering why The Wall concept was so attractive to Trump supporters when it was so obviously not an efficient way to reduce border crossings. And this Trump supporter called in and explained that he personally REALLY wanted a HUGE AWESOME wall, not so much because it was practical, but because he wanted America to send a message that we could build something so impressive and spectacular and symbolically important. He actually said he was sure it would become a massive tourist attraction, and generate of ton of money, just like the Great Wall of China.

That's not very comforting. Most historians regard the Great Wall of China to be an economic failure. It cost too much to build (both in treasure and lives), took an enormous amount of money and soldiers to maintain and defend, and ultimately illicit trade occcurred between the border guards and those 'barbarians' on the other side.

Everything I've seen is for construction of a simple, ~40' concrete slab wall.  If Trump wants it to be a tourist attraction (like something you could walk/run on top of) the cost will go up exponentially.  Tourism also effectively nullifies its purpose; how do you keep a barrier secure when lots of people keep traveling to it and want to touch it and take selfies on/in front of it?  It would be a security nightmare.

That was kind of my point. If this is the 'reasoning' driving the desire for a wall, then my opinion is the supporters are idiots.  In reality, who knows how many supporters think this way...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on January 27, 2017, 09:51:17 AM
Quote
I was listening to a talk show about this topic yesterday, and they were discussing the impracticality and expense of a wall and wondering why The Wall concept was so attractive to Trump supporters when it was so obviously not an efficient way to reduce border crossings. And this Trump supporter called in and explained that he personally REALLY wanted a HUGE AWESOME wall, not so much because it was practical, but because he wanted America to send a message that we could build something so impressive and spectacular and symbolically important. He actually said he was sure it would become a massive tourist attraction, and generate of ton of money, just like the Great Wall of China.

That's not very comforting. Most historians regard the Great Wall of China to be an economic failure. It cost too much to build (both in treasure and lives), took an enormous amount of money and soldiers to maintain and defend, and ultimately illicit trade occcurred between the border guards and those 'barbarians' on the other side.

Everything I've seen is for construction of a simple, ~40' concrete slab wall.  If Trump wants it to be a tourist attraction (like something you could walk/run on top of) the cost will go up exponentially.  Tourism also effectively nullifies its purpose; how do you keep a barrier secure when lots of people keep traveling to it and want to touch it and take selfies on/in front of it?  It would be a security nightmare.

That was kind of my point. If this is the 'reasoning' driving the desire for a wall, then my opinion is the supporters are idiots. In reality, who knows how many supporters think this way...

That's effectively the conclusion I arrived at as well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 27, 2017, 10:00:18 AM
Which global leader will be the first to say:
"Mr Trump - tear down this wall" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A)?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on January 27, 2017, 10:01:50 AM
Quote
I was listening to a talk show about this topic yesterday, and they were discussing the impracticality and expense of a wall and wondering why The Wall concept was so attractive to Trump supporters when it was so obviously not an efficient way to reduce border crossings. And this Trump supporter called in and explained that he personally REALLY wanted a HUGE AWESOME wall, not so much because it was practical, but because he wanted America to send a message that we could build something so impressive and spectacular and symbolically important. He actually said he was sure it would become a massive tourist attraction, and generate of ton of money, just like the Great Wall of China.

That's not very comforting. Most historians regard the Great Wall of China to be an economic failure. It cost too much to build (both in treasure and lives), took an enormous amount of money and soldiers to maintain and defend, and ultimately illicit trade occcurred between the border guards and those 'barbarians' on the other side.

Everything I've seen is for construction of a simple, ~40' concrete slab wall.  If Trump wants it to be a tourist attraction (like something you could walk/run on top of) the cost will go up exponentially.  Tourism also effectively nullifies its purpose; how do you keep a barrier secure when lots of people keep traveling to it and want to touch it and take selfies on/in front of it?  It would be a security nightmare.

That was kind of my point. If this is the 'reasoning' driving the desire for a wall, then my opinion is the supporters are idiots. In reality, who knows how many supporters think this way...

That's effectively the conclusion I arrived at as well.

Oh, come on, guys! Walls work! (https://twitter.com/monicacrowley/status/651043858541879296?lang=en) Duh.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 27, 2017, 10:02:14 AM
Which global leader will be the first to say:
"Mr Trump - tear down this wall" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A)?

If we include former leaders, it might be Gorbachev:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/65094/wwiii-threat-of-nuclear-war-seems-real-again-warns-gorbachev

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 27, 2017, 10:05:08 AM
Which global leader will be the first to say:
"Mr Trump - tear down this wall" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A)?

If we include former leaders, it might be Gorbachev:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/65094/wwiii-threat-of-nuclear-war-seems-real-again-warns-gorbachev

a bit naive of me, but I honestly didn't realize that Mikhail Gorbachev was still alive. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 27, 2017, 10:17:11 AM
Which global leader will be the first to say:
"Mr Trump - tear down this wall" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A)?

If we include former leaders, it might be Gorbachev:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/65094/wwiii-threat-of-nuclear-war-seems-real-again-warns-gorbachev



a bit naive of me, but I honestly didn't realize that Mikhail Gorbachev was still alive.

+1 Me too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 27, 2017, 10:31:35 AM
Which global leader will be the first to say:
"Mr Trump - tear down this wall" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A)?

If we include former leaders, it might be Gorbachev:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/65094/wwiii-threat-of-nuclear-war-seems-real-again-warns-gorbachev



a bit naive of me, but I honestly didn't realize that Mikhail Gorbachev was still alive.

+1 Me too.

Add me to that list. Geesh!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 27, 2017, 11:44:20 AM
Trump in press Conference with British PM May today.

I see this as the largest reason for optimism:  EDIT to clarify

Trump stated he will defer the running of Homeland Security Secretary of Defence to Gen. Kelly Mattis, after saying he and Kelly Mattis disagree on torture techniques.  There is great hope for me here. Kelly was largely confirmed 88-11 Confirmation for Mattis was 99-1. Both my Wisconsin Senators, Baldwin and Johnson voted yes. There can not be 2 senators more diametrically opposed. If Trump is true to his word on this issue, I like what I saw today.

While I am still reserved with many other statements from Trump, I am encouraged regarding Homeland Security.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 27, 2017, 12:27:41 PM
Similarly, he had said he would defer to Mattis on using torture, and Mattis opposes it.

In that context, maybe this is just buying himself political cover?  This way he can still say he wants to torture people, and get lots of republicans excited about that evil, without actually be charged for war crimes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 27, 2017, 01:04:13 PM
Similarly, he had said he would defer to Mattis on using torture, and Mattis opposes it.

In that context, maybe this is just buying himself political cover?  This way he can still say he wants to torture people, and get lots of republicans excited about that evil, without actually be charged for war crimes.

so... "I'd waterboard the hell outta those people, but Mattis won't let me?"
Sounds so schoolyard-esque.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 27, 2017, 01:07:40 PM
Trump in press Conference with British PM May today.

I see this as the largest reason for optimism.

Why?  This seems like the biggest example of a shifting baseline.  It shouldn't even be noteworthy that the new US President met with the PM of our most reliable ally for the past 100 years.  But it is, such has become life around Washington...

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 27, 2017, 01:20:25 PM
Trump in press Conference with British PM May today.

I see this as the largest reason for optimism.

Why?  This seems like the biggest example of a shifting baseline.  It shouldn't even be noteworthy that the new US President met with the PM of our most reliable ally for the past 100 years.  But it is, such has become life around Washington...

Should have read

I see this as the largest reason for optimism:


The semi colon should have shown the reason was coming(Kelly "in charge"), not the simple fact that they met. Edited original post
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 27, 2017, 01:25:16 PM
Trump in press Conference with British PM May today.

I see this as the largest reason for optimism.

Why?  This seems like the biggest example of a shifting baseline.  It shouldn't even be noteworthy that the new US President met with the PM of our most reliable ally for the past 100 years.  But it is, such has become life around Washington...

Should have read

I see this as the largest reason for optimism:


The semi colon should have shown the reason was coming(Kelly "in charge"), not the simple fact that they met. Edited original post
ah - thanks for the clarification.
I was getting my dander up thinking that "optimism" was suddenly in order anytime DJT didn't start an international incident.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 27, 2017, 01:42:36 PM
Similarly, he had said he would defer to Mattis on using torture, and Mattis opposes it.

In that context, maybe this is just buying himself political cover?  This way he can still say he wants to torture people, and get lots of republicans excited about that evil, without actually be charged for war crimes.

You are correct. That part was Mattis, not Kelly. Edited original, again.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FIRE me on January 27, 2017, 04:51:58 PM
It'll be interesting to see how the US government plans to build the wall given that so much of the land they'll be building on belongs to private citizens.  Will they just appropriate the land outright, will they build the wall behind this land, or what?

They will use eminent domain. the land owners would be "fairly compensated" (with the government defining fair), but in the end they would not get to say no.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 27, 2017, 04:54:36 PM
Another impact.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 27, 2017, 04:57:02 PM
They will use eminent domain.

I bet not.

We just don't DO eminent domain anymore.  To modern sensibilities, that's considered government overreach and theft of personal property, and it's the most unAmerican thing imaginable.  You might as well eat a bald eagle.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 27, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
They will use eminent domain.

I bet not.

We just don't DO eminent domain anymore.  To modern sensibilities, that's considered government overreach and theft of personal property, and it's the most unAmerican thing imaginable.  You might as well eat a bald eagle.

"We" don't, but Trump does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/?utm_term=.bf0bc66e4960

So I bet he'll propose it. And won't understand why it could be in the least problematic.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 27, 2017, 05:34:13 PM
Similarly, he had said he would defer to Mattis on using torture, and Mattis opposes it.

In that context, maybe this is just buying himself political cover?  This way he can still say he wants to torture people, and get lots of republicans excited about that evil, without actually be charged for war crimes.

I don't know that Trump really cares about political cover. I mean, he has literally said "I happen to feel that it (torture)does work, I've been open about that for a long period of time, but I am going with our leaders and we are going to win with or without (torture)." He honestly believes, despite the experts telling him otherwise, that torture works.

But, he also said "Mattis said that he doesn't intend to use it. I'm with him all the way." He's not going to force anyone to torture other people (not that he could do that, I guess), and presumably he is not going to be torturing people himself; so his views are just that: his views. So no war crimes, as no one is going to be torturing anyone. And even when they did torture prisoners - I don't recall anyone in an administration being charged with anything.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on January 27, 2017, 07:28:01 PM
Impact #527 - Poor bigots (and some poor non-bigots, to be fair) will realize they've been had by the billionaires AGAIN, and blame everyone and everything except their own poor choices and bad luck AGAIN, and then probably re-elect the same billionaire.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: A mom on January 27, 2017, 09:08:05 PM
They will use eminent domain.

I bet not.

We just don't DO eminent domain anymore.  To modern sensibilities, that's considered government overreach and theft of personal property, and it's the most unAmerican thing imaginable.  You might as well eat a bald eagle.

Are you kidding me? Have you followed anything about the Dakota Access pipeline?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 27, 2017, 09:33:19 PM
Are you kidding me? Have you followed anything about the Dakota Access pipeline?

Yes, in great detail, and I stand by my original assertion.

There was a time in America when the federal government routinely relocated entire towns, by force, for the good of the nation.  These days, federal infrastructure programs are routinely stymied by nosy neighborhood watch groups who think every local landmark belongs on the national historic register.

And don't even get me started on the Indians.  Guess what we took from them?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 27, 2017, 09:45:52 PM
Are you kidding me? Have you followed anything about the Dakota Access pipeline?

Yes, in great detail, and I stand by my original assertion.

There was a time in America when the federal government routinely relocated entire towns, by force, for the good of the nation.  These days, federal infrastructure programs are routinely stymied by nosy neighborhood watch groups who think every local landmark belongs on the national historic register.

And don't even get me started on the Indians.  Guess what we took from them?

I don't think eminent domain was used on any Native American lands regarding the DAPL. In fact, it doesn't even run through any Native American lands...  Eminent domain was used in Iowa though, for its construction.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 27, 2017, 09:55:45 PM
I don't think eminent domain was used on any Native American lands regarding the DAPL.

I didn't mean that we stole land from the Indians to build a pipeline.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cerat0n1a on January 28, 2017, 05:50:45 AM
It shouldn't even be noteworthy that the new US President met with the PM of our most reliable ally for the past 100 years. 

I'm hoping that she was persuading him to build a big deep moat round the country, like we have for most of Britain. So much classier than a wall.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 28, 2017, 07:53:07 AM
They will use eminent domain.

I bet not.

We just don't DO eminent domain anymore.  To modern sensibilities, that's considered government overreach and theft of personal property, and it's the most unAmerican thing imaginable.  You might as well eat a bald eagle.

Are you kidding me? Have you followed anything about the Dakota Access pipeline?

Eminent domain has been used less and less by the federal government, in part because lawsuits to protect homeownership have been so successful at blocking and/or delaying projects. One of the burdens the federal government will have is that there could be thousands of land owners fighting loss of their land, and these all have to be litigated separately.

The courts require fair compensation to the land owners (which itself is a point of intense arguing) as well as proof that an alternative route is not feasible.  Since large sections of the boarder wall/fence is already not built on the actual border plaintiffs could argue that the fence should be moved off their property.

FOr a modern example, check out the eminent domain problems that have occurred in California trying to build the high-speed rail from SF to LA.  Last I looked >50% of the total cost was tied up with eminent domain.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 28, 2017, 08:22:07 AM
Implications so far look really good. Get some of these regulations rolled back and maybe we can see GDP growth above 3%. something we have not seen for 8 years.  Jobs are returning and companies are investing in the United States again. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 28, 2017, 08:37:28 AM
Implications so far look really good. Get some of these regulations rolled back and maybe we can see GDP growth above 3%. something we have not seen for 8 years.  Jobs are returning and companies are investing in the United States again.
Jobs have been returning for eight years and our unemployment is near all-time lows, and essentially none of that has been due to the current, 7 day old administration. Giving up many of these regulations will give us negligable short-term gains but long-term problems. Of course DJT could torpedo everything with a few ego-driven trade wars.  Nice trolling
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/US_Employment_Statistics.svg/450px-US_Employment_Statistics.svg.png)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on January 28, 2017, 10:12:50 AM
Implications so far look really good. Get some of these regulations rolled back and maybe we can see GDP growth above 3%. something we have not seen for 8 years.  Jobs are returning and companies are investing in the United States again.

Really?  Lots of jobs returning and companies investing in the last 7 days that weren't already planning to do so?  Please back this up with actual facts, or should I say alternative facts?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on January 28, 2017, 10:42:34 AM
Looks like Muslims with green cards and H1-B visas who have been out of the country are being blocked from returning.   Hard to know how many will be stopped though.   Linky  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/five-iraqis-one-yemeni-barred-from-flight-after-trump-ban/article33818104/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/five-iraqis-one-yemeni-barred-from-flight-after-trump-ban/article33818104/)

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 28, 2017, 10:46:37 AM
Looks like Muslims with green cards and H1-B visas who have been out of the country are being blocked from returning.   Hard to know how many will be stopped though.   Linky  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/five-iraqis-one-yemeni-barred-from-flight-after-trump-ban/article33818104/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/five-iraqis-one-yemeni-barred-from-flight-after-trump-ban/article33818104/)

Seems like we're continuing the approach of using a sledgehammer and buzzsaw for problem solving, carnage-be-damned.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 28, 2017, 10:51:56 AM
Looks like Muslims with green cards and H1-B visas who have been out of the country are being blocked from returning.   Hard to know how many will be stopped though.   Linky  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/five-iraqis-one-yemeni-barred-from-flight-after-trump-ban/article33818104/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/five-iraqis-one-yemeni-barred-from-flight-after-trump-ban/article33818104/)

Any bets on how long it takes the Supreme Court to declare this particular form of religious discrimination to be unconstitutional? 

I think it will take at at least two or three years, to find a party with standing and then work its way up through the court system to the Supremes.  The only possible way to avoid this outcome, I think, is if Trump's justice department stops appealing all of the consistent lower court decisions that will tell him it's unconstitutional every day, from day one onwards.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 28, 2017, 11:00:18 AM
Looks like Muslims with green cards and H1-B visas who have been out of the country are being blocked from returning.   Hard to know how many will be stopped though.   Linky  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/five-iraqis-one-yemeni-barred-from-flight-after-trump-ban/article33818104/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/five-iraqis-one-yemeni-barred-from-flight-after-trump-ban/article33818104/)

Preventing permanent residents from returning to their home. This is super shitty. Where exactly are they supposed to go when they live here? Presumably they also have jobs and responsibilities in the United States, AKA the place where they permanently, legally live.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on January 28, 2017, 11:31:10 AM
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/google-recalls-staff-to-us-after-trump-immigration-order/article33818090/

We are generally  quite fond of tax payers in Northern Europe, so if google and Facebook need a new place to locate their employees with "wrong" backgrounds, I'm sure we can reach a solution that benefits both sides: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/google-recalls-staff-to-us-after-trump-immigration-order/article33818090/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 28, 2017, 11:40:15 AM
Implications so far look really good. Get some of these regulations rolled back and maybe we can see GDP growth above 3%. something we have not seen for 8 years.  Jobs are returning and companies are investing in the United States again.
Jobs have been returning for eight years and our unemployment is near all-time lows, and essentially none of that has been due to the current, 7 day old administration. Giving up many of these regulations will give us negligable short-term gains but long-term problems. Of course DJT could torpedo everything with a few ego-driven trade wars.  Nice trolling
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/US_Employment_Statistics.svg/450px-US_Employment_Statistics.svg.png)

You are right. The economy is booming.  Can't believe Trump won with such an exploding economy since Clinton promised more of the same policies as the last 8 years. People just must be crazy and not realize how good they have it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on January 28, 2017, 11:40:39 AM
Nooo,  come to Canada.    Help us rebuild our tech base.   
Public  health care and a Liberal government await you!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 28, 2017, 12:14:43 PM
Nooo,  come to Canada.    Help us rebuild our tech base.   
Public  health care and a Liberal government await you!

No.  We really should build a wall to prevent that.  Remember:

When America sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 28, 2017, 12:17:09 PM
Nooo,  come to Canada.    Help us rebuild our tech base.   
Public  health care and a Liberal government await you!

No.  We really should build a wall to prevent that.  Remember:

When America sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

I don't think you guys will need to worry.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 28, 2017, 12:44:54 PM
Nooo,  come to Canada.    Help us rebuild our tech base.   
Public  health care and a Liberal government await you!

No.  We really should build a wall to prevent that.  Remember:

When America sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

I don't think you guys will need to worry.

Working at a Canadian research institution I can't help but notice the number of extremely bright, well educated and driven people from the countries DJT has restricted that have populated our department over the last few years.  Several of them have been debating whether they should apply for jobs in the US once they get their graduate degrees.  I'm fairly certain this will turn many of them off.

Such a damn shame, and such a loss for the US.  On the plus side, good for Canada!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 28, 2017, 12:49:24 PM
Implications so far look really good. Get some of these regulations rolled back and maybe we can see GDP growth above 3%. something we have not seen for 8 years.  Jobs are returning and companies are investing in the United States again.
Jobs have been returning for eight years and our unemployment is near all-time lows, and essentially none of that has been due to the current, 7 day old administration. Giving up many of these regulations will give us negligable short-term gains but long-term problems. Of course DJT could torpedo everything with a few ego-driven trade wars.  Nice trolling
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/US_Employment_Statistics.svg/450px-US_Employment_Statistics.svg.png)

You are right. The economy is booming.  Can't believe Trump won with such an exploding economy since Clinton promised more of the same policies as the last 8 years. People just must be crazy and not realize how good they have it.

Trump won because of the electoral college not because he was more popular. Clinton garnered nearly 3 million more votes and nearly 400,000 more than Obama. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 28, 2017, 12:53:04 PM
Implications so far look really good. Get some of these regulations rolled back and maybe we can see GDP growth above 3%. something we have not seen for 8 years.  Jobs are returning and companies are investing in the United States again.
Jobs have been returning for eight years and our unemployment is near all-time lows, and essentially none of that has been due to the current, 7 day old administration. Giving up many of these regulations will give us negligable short-term gains but long-term problems. Of course DJT could torpedo everything with a few ego-driven trade wars.  Nice trolling
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/US_Employment_Statistics.svg/450px-US_Employment_Statistics.svg.png)

You are right. The economy is booming.  Can't believe Trump won with such an exploding economy since Clinton promised more of the same policies as the last 8 years. People just must be crazy and not realize how good they have it.

Trump won because of the electoral college not because he was more popular. Clinton garnered nearly 3 million more votes and nearly 400,000 more than Obama.

I know, it was awesome how they were able to switch the election from a popular vote to the electoral college at the last minute. Clinton never saw it coming.

Plus, a bunch of KKK moved to Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,  Florida and Wisconsin between 2012 and 2016.  Because surely people who elected a black president wouldn't vote for racist Trump.  Damn republicans.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 28, 2017, 01:18:49 PM

I know, it was awesome how they were able to switch the election from a popular vote to the electoral college at the last minute. Clinton never saw it coming.

Plus, a bunch of KKK moved to Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,  Florida and Wisconsin between 2012 and 2016.  Because surely people who elected a black president wouldn't vote for racist Trump.  Damn republicans.

Besides spouting non-sense, what exactly is your point?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: packlawyer04 on January 28, 2017, 02:03:25 PM

I know, it was awesome how they were able to switch the election from a popular vote to the electoral college at the last minute. Clinton never saw it coming.

Plus, a bunch of KKK moved to Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,  Florida and Wisconsin between 2012 and 2016.  Because surely people who elected a black president wouldn't vote for racist Trump.  Damn republicans.

Besides spouting non-sense, what exactly is your point?

I have spouted no nonsense. My point is that I expect to see major growth in the economy and a GDP back up in the 3 range, something Obama (the first president ever) could not do.  We are going to have a pro-business environment now.

At the rate democrats are going, Union money might be heading to republican campaigns for the next cycle.  Democrats are in a very precarious spot right now.  Do they keep moving further left or actually try to help what use to be their core base, average, blue collar, middle-class Americans.  But to do so, they will have to work with Trump who is already one step ahead of them. They will be damned if they do, damned if they don't.  Do they vote against legislation designed to open more factories in the U.S. or vote with Trump's plans.  My guess is democrats make the same mistake and continue to spout off about refugees and immigration while ignoring working class America.

Going to be a long 4 years for some of you, especially after the midterms. Democrats are defending tons of seats in the senate.  Not looking good for them.  They were expected to lose seats even before Trump won the election. Plus democrats never turn out for midterms.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/306210-10-senate-seats-that-could-flip-in-2018

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/senate-democrats-2018-midterms-231516

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 28, 2017, 02:30:27 PM
I have spouted no nonsense.
ah, but much of what you've said has stretches the truth to put it mildly.
as examples:
"maybe we can see GDP growth above 3%. something we have not seen for 8 years"
 Real GDP growth was under 3% for W. Bush Sr., Nixon, Ford and Truman.  Post WWII average has been 2.9%So - misleading to say "we have not seen for 8 years"
"democrats never turn out for midterms."
Demonstrably false. In general turnout is lower for midterms, but the pattern is that the party not holding the white house turns out in greater numbers.  THis occurred in 2014 and 2010 for the republicans, as well as 2006 and 2002 for the democrats.
"Clinton promised more of the same policies as the last 8 years"
apparently you weren't paying attention to her platform.

I do agree with what you said about people "not realizing how good they ahve it". While many like to complain about wages being 'stagnant' it is equally true that they are also as high as they have ever been. What has happened is that people feel poorer than before, and that's in no small part because of rising expectations.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FIRE me on January 28, 2017, 04:28:35 PM
They will use eminent domain.

I bet not.

We just don't DO eminent domain anymore.  To modern sensibilities, that's considered government overreach and theft of personal property, and it's the most unAmerican thing imaginable.  You might as well eat a bald eagle.

They can't put the border somewhere else. If they build the wall, they will use eminent domain. As for sensibilities, are you kidding? We are talking about Donald J Trump.

The Keystone pipeline is already making extensive use of eminent domain in Texas.
 
http://keystone.steamingmules.com/maps/keystone-xl-eminent-domain-map/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 28, 2017, 05:38:31 PM
Implications so far look really good. Get some of these regulations rolled back and maybe we can see GDP growth above 3%. something we have not seen for 8 years.  Jobs are returning and companies are investing in the United States again.
Jobs have been returning for eight years and our unemployment is near all-time lows, and essentially none of that has been due to the current, 7 day old administration. Giving up many of these regulations will give us negligable short-term gains but long-term problems. Of course DJT could torpedo everything with a few ego-driven trade wars.  Nice trolling
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/US_Employment_Statistics.svg/450px-US_Employment_Statistics.svg.png)

You are right. The economy is booming.  Can't believe Trump won with such an exploding economy since Clinton promised more of the same policies as the last 8 years. People just must be crazy and not realize how good they have it.

Trump won because of the electoral college not because he was more popular. Clinton garnered nearly 3 million more votes and nearly 400,000 more than Obama.

I know, it was awesome how they were able to switch the election from a popular vote to the electoral college at the last minute. Clinton never saw it coming.

Plus, a bunch of KKK moved to Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,  Florida and Wisconsin between 2012 and 2016.  Because surely people who elected a black president wouldn't vote for racist Trump.  Damn republicans.

Ahhh, I got suckered in by the troll.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 28, 2017, 05:42:50 PM
Ahhh, I got suckered in by the troll.

Don't feel bad, there's a lot of that going around.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 28, 2017, 05:52:00 PM
Widespread depression and debilitating angst? This is all so hard to watch. Aside from being evil and callous and harmful to so many people and our national interest, Trump's policies are just so incredibly stupid. My boyfriend and I have decided not to have kids, and are saving like crazy so we can flee the country as quickly as possible (yay EU and South American citizenships!). Even when Trump leaves, his supporters will still be here...which makes me pretty uncomfortable.

To be fair, his supporters have always been here. The population of the country didn't magically change overnight in early November. Trump has just given voice to a minority that has not had their voices heard for the better part of a decade.  It's a slow march, but progress is still happening. It's just not always a straight line in the direction that some people think it should go. Such is the process of checks and balances.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 29, 2017, 12:32:08 AM
Ahhh, I got suckered in by the troll.

Don't feel bad, there's a lot of that going around.

My favorite part was when Obama was the first president
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: aspiringnomad on January 29, 2017, 09:38:26 AM
Widespread depression and debilitating angst? This is all so hard to watch. Aside from being evil and callous and harmful to so many people and our national interest, Trump's policies are just so incredibly stupid. My boyfriend and I have decided not to have kids, and are saving like crazy so we can flee the country as quickly as possible (yay EU and South American citizenships!). Even when Trump leaves, his supporters will still be here...which makes me pretty uncomfortable.

Same situation here. It's saddens me, but we'd rather be someplace where people care about other people and facts.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2017, 10:01:46 AM
Nooo,  come to Canada.    Help us rebuild our tech base.   
Public  health care and a Liberal government await you!

No.  We really should build a wall to prevent that.  Remember:

When America sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

I don't think you guys will need to worry.

Since when has need ever entered a debate about building a wall?  It's all about feelings, racism and alternative facts.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ShoulderThingThatGoesUp on January 29, 2017, 11:01:11 AM
Well, I wasn't looking forward to his presidency, but so far it's worse than I expected. Not just bad policy, but invompetently administered bad policy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 29, 2017, 11:13:07 AM
Since when has need ever entered a debate about building a wall?  It's all about feelings, racism and alternative facts.

I wonder if/when DJT will start talking about the need for a glorious new wall along the US/Canada border. 
It's been a sad, sad week for many.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EverCurious on January 29, 2017, 11:30:09 AM
I'm truly terrified, but I have nowhere I think my husband and I can go. We don't exactly have STEM jobs so moving to Canada seems like a dream.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 29, 2017, 11:41:12 AM
As part of my quest to understand what values the GOP stands for today, I was reading over it's most recent platform.
Lots jumped out at me, but there's this in particular (emphasis added):

Quote

We reaffirm the Constitution’s fundamental principles: limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, and the rule of law. We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to America’s difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today.
...
Administrative Law
Article I of the Constitution directs that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States....” For more than a century, however, Congress has delegated increasing amounts of legislative authority to executive departments, agencies, and commissions, laying the foundation for today’s vast administrative state. Unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch now write countless rules with the force of law and arbitrarily punish individuals who disobey those rules. The Constitution makes clear that these powers were granted to Congress by the people and must therefore remain solely with the people’s elected representatives. We call on Congress to begin reclaiming its constitutional powers from the bureaucratic state by requiring that major new federal regulations be approved by Congress before they can take effect, such as through the Regulation Freedom Amendment. We further affirm that courts should interpret laws as written by Congress rather than allowing executive agencies to rewrite those laws to suit administration priorities.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2017, 11:44:38 AM
Since when has need ever entered a debate about building a wall?  It's all about feelings, racism and alternative facts.

I wonder if/when DJT will start talking about the need for a glorious new wall along the US/Canada border. 
It's been a sad, sad week for many.

Perhaps Trump could pitch in right around the Niagara Falls region.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on January 29, 2017, 02:19:32 PM
Since when has need ever entered a debate about building a wall?  It's all about feelings, racism and alternative facts.

I wonder if/when DJT will start talking about the need for a glorious new wall along the US/Canada border. 
It's been a sad, sad week for many.

We have some crazy people in our Parliament too, who have become inspired by Trump and want a wall. So far it has resulted in a 250 meter long fence along the Russian border, that had to be torn down before it was finished because it was 1 cm too close to the "Peace zone". How anyone can think it is a good idea to provoke Russia, I don't know.

They have also been talking in capital letters about closing the border (against Sweden and Finland). But we have some experience from border smuggling from WW2, and while a lot of people escaped through the forests, most used the coast line. With all the islands and islets, and long parts of the border being fjords, you can easily swim across in several places. With a boat, you will be able to hide 99% of the time.

I did some simple calculations, and considering the difficult conditions along the border, and Norwegian labor laws (very strict regulations of the length of the work days, work weeks, and break time), we would need about 300 million people to enforce a closing of the border. In addition, the Sami people have UN protected rights to follow their reindeer herds across the border, and our fishermen would need to cross the coastal border control every day to get out to the fishing fields.

And then we have Spitsbergen, Jan Mayen, and Queen Maud's land (~1/6 of Antarctica). This "closed border" idea will be very expensive. On the positive side, we will get rid of the unemployment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 29, 2017, 04:58:31 PM
I'm truly terrified, but I have nowhere I think my husband and I can go. We don't exactly have STEM jobs so moving to Canada seems like a dream.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Unreasonable immigration requirements hurt everyone.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Merlion on January 29, 2017, 11:41:55 PM
I'm truly terrified, but I have nowhere I think my husband and I can go. We don't exactly have STEM jobs so moving to Canada seems like a dream.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Not sure of your backgrounds and ages, but if you haven't done so do check out the immigration points calculators for countries like Canada.

The order from this weekend has made 2 things clear to me: 1. Things can change suddenly overnight on the whim of one person, even when you're out of the country on vacation - destroying your life. 2. Even green card holders are not safe. My wife is a green card holder from China. She's not impacted by by this order now, but who knows what could happen (Say, conflict in South China Sea leading to a similar ban and maybe registry for Chinese citizens? Far-fetched, I would hope, but not unimaginable like it had been before 46% of American voters decided Trump was what we needed).

We are seriously talking about beginning the immigration process to Canada even though it would really mess up our finances since job opportunities for both of us are much better in NYC, where we are now. A job hunt could be difficult, but ultimately we'd be fine, and our total points for immigration even without a job offer should be around the minimum required for Canada.

When we moved back to the US last year, we thought it would be a semi-permanent move. Now? The writing looks to be on the wall, and we don't want to still be here when stuff really hits the fan...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 30, 2017, 05:49:29 AM
Speaking of stuff hitting the fan, this piece in Medium is worth a read.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.iiwh1udux
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 30, 2017, 07:54:35 AM
I'm truly terrified, but I have nowhere I think my husband and I can go. We don't exactly have STEM jobs so moving to Canada seems like a dream.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Not sure of your backgrounds and ages, but if you haven't done so do check out the immigration points calculators for countries like Canada.

Add to this - in the face of these new restrictions by DJT's executive order, Canada has upped its affirmation of taking in refugees.  From PM Trudeau:To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada

If you have reason to believe you will be persecuted in the US you might want to contact CIC - STEM fields or not.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: oldtoyota on January 30, 2017, 07:59:54 AM
Will Canada take American refugees?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 30, 2017, 08:03:44 AM
Another facet of what is so alarming about Trump is not so much that he is crashing through all of the delicate foreign relations that previous administrations have tended to over decades, bringing us to Pax Americana and some of the best times this Superpower has ever known, but that he has insulated himself inside of his bubble.  He has to be right and now only listens to the people that agree with his world view.

People like Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-advisor-kellyanne-conway-blames-133116604.html):

Quote
Appearing on "Squawk Box," Conway said President Donald Trump needs to tweet to get the real information out. "This total misinformation and what I would say information 'underload' about the facts and figures ... are astonishing."

Trump tweeted this morning:

"Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage,.....

"protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer. Secretary Kelly said that all is going well with very few problems. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!

"There is nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they can enter our country. This was a big part of my campaign. Study the world!

"If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!"

And let's not overlook Trump kicking opposing, experienced viewpoints out of his National Security Coucil so that Steve Bannon (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-national-security-council.html?_r=0) can whisper in Trump's ear:
Quote
It started with the doom-hued inauguration homily to “American carnage” in United States cities co-written by Mr. Bannon, followed a few days later by his “shut up” message to the news media. The week culminated with a blizzard of executive orders, mostly hatched by Mr. Bannon’s team and the White House policy adviser, Stephen Miller, aimed at disorienting the “enemy,” fulfilling campaign promises and distracting attention from Mr. Trump’s less than flawless debut.

But the defining moment for Mr. Bannon came Saturday night in the form of an executive order giving the rumpled right-wing agitator a full seat on the “principals committee” of the National Security Council — while downgrading the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, who will now attend only when the council is considering issues in their direct areas of responsibilities. It is a startling elevation of a political adviser, to a status alongside the secretaries of state and defense, and over the president’s top military and intelligence advisers.

Fortunately Jared Kushner, Trump's son-on-law, is also in there to help tend to the interests of the Trump empire. 

I wonder if Trump realizes that he is already lowering the quality of life for all Americans (some more than others)?  Nah, he seems so detached from reality that all it takes is a handfull of people telling him he is doing a good job and that America will eventually thrive once he goes 'just a little further' and creates 'just a little more pain'....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 30, 2017, 08:09:35 AM
Will Canada take American refugees?
Like many countries, Canada makes distinctions between refugees and 'ordinary' immigrants. If you fear persecution within your own country, you can apply for refugee status.  Otherwise, Canada has a points system for evaluating potential immigrants.  Having an in-demand job, being young, and having money all help your score.  Having a job offer (or acceptance letter from a Canadian university) is one of the best ways of gaining a temporary permit.
If you are older, deeply in debt and don't have a college education you will find it far harder.
Once you have a temporary permit (be in a student permit or temporary work permit) you can begin the process of applying for permanent residency. Once you have permanent residency you can apply for full citizenship.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: oldtoyota on January 30, 2017, 08:09:50 AM
Read this. Good summation.


https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.tml9ikepu
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 30, 2017, 08:12:14 AM
Now I know we live in bizzaro-world...
The Koch Bros are the organized resistance against Trump and his policies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-poised-for-new-role--as-the-conservative-resistance-to-trump/2017/01/30/7750ef02-e67c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_kochnetwork-635a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a93f2401180e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-poised-for-new-role--as-the-conservative-resistance-to-trump/2017/01/30/7750ef02-e67c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_kochnetwork-635a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a93f2401180e)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: boy_bye on January 30, 2017, 08:13:27 AM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/mVH0rZ6R6CrVS/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 30, 2017, 08:18:12 AM
Now I know we live in bizzaro-world...
The Koch Bros are the organized resistance against Trump and his policies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-poised-for-new-role--as-the-conservative-resistance-to-trump/2017/01/30/7750ef02-e67c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_kochnetwork-635a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a93f2401180e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-poised-for-new-role--as-the-conservative-resistance-to-trump/2017/01/30/7750ef02-e67c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_kochnetwork-635a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a93f2401180e)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

No doubt.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Freedom2016 on January 30, 2017, 08:24:17 AM
Read this. Good summation.


https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.tml9ikepu

Okay, can someone talk me out of my rising panic?

What can any of us do except stand by and watch this unfold? It really feels like protests, phone calls, petitions, donations to ACLU, etc. aren't going to be enough.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 30, 2017, 08:28:18 AM
Read this. Good summation.


https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.tml9ikepu

Okay, can someone talk me out of my rising panic?

What can any of us do except stand by and watch this unfold? It really feels like protests, phone calls, petitions, donations to ACLU, etc. aren't going to be enough.

Act. You have to act. And you have to get your friends and family to act, as well. Work on your circle of influence. Do not back down. Don't get complacent. Don't let those episodes of (insert binge-watched show) call to you and keep you on the couch instead of going to a rally.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Freedom2016 on January 30, 2017, 08:44:58 AM
Read this. Good summation.


https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.tml9ikepu

Okay, can someone talk me out of my rising panic?

What can any of us do except stand by and watch this unfold? It really feels like protests, phone calls, petitions, donations to ACLU, etc. aren't going to be enough.

Act. You have to act. And you have to get your friends and family to act, as well. Work on your circle of influence. Do not back down. Don't get complacent. Don't let those episodes of (insert binge-watched show) call to you and keep you on the couch instead of going to a rally.

I am doing those things--and will keep at it-- but it feels like it won't be enough. :(
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 30, 2017, 08:45:33 AM
Okay, can someone talk me out of my rising panic?

What can any of us do except stand by and watch this unfold? It really feels like protests, phone calls, petitions, donations to ACLU, etc. aren't going to be enough.

My SO and I have been talking about this extensively.  Executive actions aside, changes aren't going to be immediate. The Framers made sure that enactment of new laws took time (particualrly through the Senate) exactly because they didn't want a single President (and by procedurals the majority party) to have unfettered rule.

One thing I think is very important is to keep contacting your Congressional representatives.  If they are GOP even better. The best immediate resistance to the executive branch is the legislature. If those folks feel their re-election is in danger in 22 months they'll (eventually) find their balls and start standing up.

If your representative isn't actively speaking out, give money to the opposing candidate(s). If he/she does speak out, support them (they are going to need it)

This goes for your state governor too. State governors and state governments are responsible for handling voter registration and voting procedures.

Stay active, stay outraged. One of the factors that got us here is that too few people payed any attention, and too few people actually voted. This may be the hardest thing to do for the American public, and at the heart of DJT's strategy is most likely the bet that the country won't be able to stay tuned for very long.

Participate in voter registration drives NOW. DJT (and to a lesser extent the GOP) is already making noise about tightening up voter laws.
<60% of voting-age citizens turned out in November, and the number of registered voters has been in decline for decades. But most accounts if >60% of eligible voters turned out on election day this result would not have happened.

In two years DJT's powers will either be curtailed or expanded.  In four years we'll either have a new president or a re-affirmation of everything he has done and will do between then and now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 30, 2017, 08:48:44 AM
Read this. Good summation.


https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.tml9ikepu

Okay, can someone talk me out of my rising panic?

What can any of us do except stand by and watch this unfold? It really feels like protests, phone calls, petitions, donations to ACLU, etc. aren't going to be enough.

Act. You have to act. And you have to get your friends and family to act, as well. Work on your circle of influence. Do not back down. Don't get complacent. Don't let those episodes of (insert binge-watched show) call to you and keep you on the couch instead of going to a rally.

The only thing that will stop Trump is the law, by which I mean administrative, civil and criminal cases brought before the courts to enforce the rule of law and the upholding of the constitution.  The constitution itself is not enough, it needs to be enforced by people bringing cases before the courts and the judges upholding them.

Of course, that only works for what Trump is doing inside the USA.  Outside it, Putin is already on the move in the Ukraine and 10 people are dead - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38794679

God help us all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on January 30, 2017, 09:35:59 AM

Okay, can someone talk me out of my rising panic?


How about this?

If our country can allow itself to be turned into something it does not want to be, then maybe we are not as great as everybody thinks. There will be many changes. Many of them I will disagree with. I believe changes that "the people" disagree with will not stand once subjected to our system of checks and balances. Our nation is so much stronger than 1 man that tries to divide succeeds in dividing capitalizes on what divide us. (I just decided to edit immediately)

I am firmly against the Muslim ban in any form. I believe it can do nothing other than enrage a fringe group and make them stronger, as well as bring the US down a few pegs in the international community. Quite frankly, we could use that anyway (the later, not the former).

Does that make you feel any better? Honestly, no sarcasm intended.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Freedom2016 on January 30, 2017, 10:48:39 AM
I'm in a fairly reliably liberal state so it feels a bit like protesting and contacting my reps is shouting in the wind. (Yes, I know it's good to call reps anyway, at least to thank them.) Lately I've been wondering if we should move back to the midwest, where I grew up, to feel like I have a chance to break up the more extreme "red" ideologies there. But my stomach turns at the thought; I don't actually WANT to, and I doubt DH would go for it.

Radram thanks for trying but that doesn't exactly warm the cockles of my heart. :\ For awhile I've felt that the US isn't as "great" as everybody thinks, going strictly by numbers like maternal health, life expectancy, gini coefficient, education metrics, etc.

former player, I have a friend who used to work for DHS who on Sunday reactivated his license to practice law in light of the EO. I do believe the law is what we have to rely on...which makes me wish I was a lawyer. And makes me terribly concerned that the white house page has removed links and information about the Judicial Branch. It's almost as though they (Bannon) know that the law is the thing that could bring them down, and they don't want to remind people about its existence. Barf.
 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: seattlecyclone on January 30, 2017, 12:12:15 PM
Now I know we live in bizzaro-world...
The Koch Bros are the organized resistance against Trump and his policies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-poised-for-new-role--as-the-conservative-resistance-to-trump/2017/01/30/7750ef02-e67c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_kochnetwork-635a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a93f2401180e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-poised-for-new-role--as-the-conservative-resistance-to-trump/2017/01/30/7750ef02-e67c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_kochnetwork-635a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a93f2401180e)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

I don't find this all that surprising, honestly. The Kochs seem to really, truly believe in libertarianism. Fascism is basically the opposite.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 30, 2017, 12:50:15 PM
Now I know we live in bizzaro-world...
The Koch Bros are the organized resistance against Trump and his policies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-poised-for-new-role--as-the-conservative-resistance-to-trump/2017/01/30/7750ef02-e67c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_kochnetwork-635a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a93f2401180e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-network-poised-for-new-role--as-the-conservative-resistance-to-trump/2017/01/30/7750ef02-e67c-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_kochnetwork-635a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a93f2401180e)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

I don't find this all that surprising, honestly. The Kochs seem to really, truly believe in libertarianism. Fascism is basically the opposite.

In a way I'm not surprised that the Kochs have maintained their positions. Argue for or against it, they've been very steadfast to their ideals for the last couple decades.

Its more surprising to me that so many GOPers are finding themselves on the wrong end of that large stick. The Kochs committment to increase spending on 2018 races to $350-400MM adds a new dimension. Presumably they will support conservative candidates who challenge those who've dropped in line with the Trumpian world view of tarrifs, trade-wars and military posturing, but will they support a moderate democrat over a Trumpian?
I'm certain it will boil down to a their assessment of who the 'better' choice is for each individual race.  In that regard they are extremely pragmatic.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 30, 2017, 01:37:31 PM
Trump is smashing records and getting shit done!!

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 30, 2017, 01:45:55 PM
Trump is smashing records and getting shit done!!

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Ouch...

So is it weird that a Republican president is the one that makes me really feel like I may actually need to buy a rifle to protect my neighbors from an overly opressive government? I've never felt so tinfoily before, and am generally pretty positive, but if relocation camps are next on the list...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 30, 2017, 01:51:48 PM
Trump is smashing records and getting shit done!!

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Ouch...

So is it weird that a Republican president is the one that makes me really feel like I may actually need to buy a rifle to protect my neighbors from an overly opressive government? I've never felt so tinfoily before, and am generally pretty positive, but if relocation camps are next on the list...

Where is that line between being tinfoily and truly being scared of an oppressive government?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 30, 2017, 01:59:23 PM
Trump is smashing records and getting shit done!!

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Ouch...

So is it weird that a Republican president is the one that makes me really feel like I may actually need to buy a rifle to protect my neighbors from an overly opressive government? I've never felt so tinfoily before, and am generally pretty positive, but if relocation camps are next on the list...

Where is that line between being tinfoily and truly being scared of an oppressive government?
Tinfoily - you lock your doors, set up VPNs, take your name off your mailbox and never use grocery-store discount cards

Truly scared - stockpile bullets, build a bunker and learn how to filter your own pee.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on January 30, 2017, 02:12:23 PM
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on January 30, 2017, 02:22:26 PM
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Dude, you laugh, but I'm considering it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on January 30, 2017, 02:56:53 PM
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Dude, you laugh, but I'm considering it.

Other side of the pond here, but the last time dear neighbour Russia got fascist friends, it didn't turn out so good for us. I've been considering getting a hunting license for several years, maybe it is time to do that now. And hide a couple of radios around. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: t5inside on January 30, 2017, 03:03:01 PM
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Dude, you laugh, but I'm considering it.

Yep same here. I already picked out what I'm ordering and just need to call the local FFL. I didn't expect MMM to be my reminder!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cranberries on January 30, 2017, 03:04:52 PM

I am doing those things--and will keep at it-- but it feels like it won't be enough. :(

I am finding that directly engaging is helping a lot with the despair. I just spent most of the weekend at SFO. One thing they never tell you is that activism can be really fun. The connection with others is awesome, the chants and music can sweep you along, the signs and direct actions are often hilarious. It's really, really hard for me to stay inspired and hopeful when I'm trying for the sixth time that week to get through to my senators, but much easier to do so when I am surrounded by three thousand people bouncing to a brass band, and sharing food and struggles and joys with all of the people around me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BrightFIRE on January 30, 2017, 03:25:36 PM
before 46% of American voters decided Trump was what we needed

I feel the need to correct this, mostly because it makes me feel better to know it's a smaller percentage of the country who supports hateful bigots. 27.2% of eligible voters voted for Trump. 44.37% of the population didn't even vote. He doesn't remotely have the support of "the people".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on January 30, 2017, 03:35:54 PM
This is just the 'establish dominance' phase.    Once he's demonstrated that he's in charge, purged the ranks of the disloyal and finished appointing his supporters you'll start to see real change!

Makes me glad you have a strong constitution down there.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 30, 2017, 03:39:35 PM
Trump is smashing records and getting shit done!!

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Ouch...

So is it weird that a Republican president is the one that makes me really feel like I may actually need to buy a rifle to protect my neighbors from an overly opressive government? I've never felt so tinfoily before, and am generally pretty positive, but if relocation camps are next on the list...

Would it at all be surprising? I mean his Muslim ban is more likely to encourage even more home grown terrorism. He just might use the next domestic terror attack to enforce interment camps or whatever. Well at least he left countries with personal business interest off the list.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 30, 2017, 03:55:41 PM
While removing many "federal" government business regulations would help it make it easier for some business to boost profits, blanket stating that you are going to cut X% of "federal regulations", not stating whether you mean existing or new yet to be implemented ones is an unsupportable statement.

I understand that there is truth behind the thought process that government is just a machine that pumps out shit laws and regulations made to bloat the governments size. But its a sentiment that is often taken to far and used as an excuse to give a conservative administration popular license to take a sledge hammer to good laws and regulations to help their corporate donors.

Its just the flip side of the coin of a Democratic administration allowing shitty regulations to persist or be created to help their corporate donors... So forgive me if I don't get excited when an administration makes vague statements about making new regulations or shit canning X% of existing ones.

The major complaint about the Obama administration was that he use too many executive orders and was fucking up the normal balance of what influence the executive branch is meant to have. Within 1 week Donald Trump is on course make Obama's approach seem tame. Its seems like his governing approach is targeting make everything an executive order, undermine the media's response, and then probably find a way to undermine the judicial branches response to bad orders. Definitely sounds democratic to me...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 30, 2017, 03:59:25 PM
This is just the 'establish dominance' phase.    Once he's demonstrated that he's in charge, purged the ranks of the disloyal and finished appointing his supporters you'll start to see real change!

Makes me glad you have a strong constitution down there.

Why would he ever leave the establish dominance phase? Trump has an endless desire to create controversy and shit on his public opponents. He is going to keep signing executive orders till he is shitting blood.

People said he would calm down after he won. Every-time he has progressed he has just doubled down and moved 10 times faster. He is trying to full fill all his promises like a bat out of hell regardless of consequences, legality or planning.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 30, 2017, 04:02:52 PM
Trump is smashing records and getting shit done!!

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Ouch...

So is it weird that a Republican president is the one that makes me really feel like I may actually need to buy a rifle to protect my neighbors from an overly opressive government? I've never felt so tinfoily before, and am generally pretty positive, but if relocation camps are next on the list...

Would it at all be surprising? I mean his Muslim ban is more likely to encourage even more home grown terrorism. He just might use the next domestic terror attack to enforce interment camps or whatever. Well at least he left countries with personal business interest off the list.

It would be the smart thing to do. If a terrorists goal is to take our freedoms nothing would be easier than to push Trump over the edge and given him the popular support to actively attack Muslims. Right now he only has support of most of his base but those people are only scared because of fake news.

If we had another 9/11 type attack then real fear we overtake his entire base and some of those who are against him now. The sad part is such and attack would be 100% confirmation that his approach is the wrong one.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on January 30, 2017, 04:04:40 PM
I take some solace that in just one week, the sheer magnitude of lunacy and demonstrated hostility towards facts, may end up hastening a Trump impeachment. Congressional Republicans are going to give this nut-job all kinds of latitude since he will allow them to pass their agenda and appoint Supreme Court justices that undo all the things they hate like gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, etc. But they may reach a limit pretty quickly if the craziness continues on this scale on a weekly basis. Not to mention that no one should be shocked if someone digs up some stuff on Trump that truly threatens his presidency. Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob, it doesn't take that much. They know that a "President Pence" would be just as agreeable to their agenda, but without the lunacy. Liberals won't like that agenda any better, but at least Pence would likely follow the rule of law and ditch the craziness and opposition to reality/facts.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on January 30, 2017, 04:04:43 PM
While removing many "federal" government business regulations would help it make it easier for some business to boost profits, blanket stating that you are going to cut X% of "federal regulations", not stating whether you mean existing or new yet to be implemented ones is an unsupportable statement.

I understand that there is truth behind the thought process that government is just a machine that pumps out shit laws and regulations made to bloat the governments size. But its a sentiment that is often taken to far and used as an excuse to give a conservative administration popular license to take a sledge hammer to good laws and regulations to help their corporate donors.

Its just the flip side of the coin of a Democratic administration allowing shitty regulations to persist or be created to help their corporate donors... So forgive me if I don't get excited when an administration makes vague statements about making new regulations or shit canning X% of existing ones.

The major complaint about the Obama administration was that he use too many executive orders and was fucking up the normal balance of what influence the executive branch is meant to have. Within 1 week Donald Trump is on course make Obama's approach seem tame. Its seems like his governing approach is targeting make everything an executive order, undermine the media's response, and then probably find a way to undermine the judicial branches response to bad orders. Definitely sounds democratic to me...

Compared to who?

Obama averaged 34.6 executive orders per year, which puts him at 23rd of all presidents -- the fewest orders per year of any president since Grover Cleveland in the 1880's.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 30, 2017, 04:08:54 PM
Quote
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Dude, you laugh, but I'm considering it.

Yep same here. I already picked out what I'm ordering and just need to call the local FFL. I didn't expect MMM to be my reminder!

What the hell for? Is there some scenario where you imagine yourself revolting in armed militias? Or just dying in shootout with the Gestapo?

Please remember all this 5-10 years from now when there's another spasm of anger over lax gun laws and everyone is shrieking about how dumb 2nd amendment militiamen are.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 30, 2017, 04:10:41 PM
While removing many "federal" government business regulations would help it make it easier for some business to boost profits, blanket stating that you are going to cut X% of "federal regulations", not stating whether you mean existing or new yet to be implemented ones is an unsupportable statement.

I understand that there is truth behind the thought process that government is just a machine that pumps out shit laws and regulations made to bloat the governments size. But its a sentiment that is often taken to far and used as an excuse to give a conservative administration popular license to take a sledge hammer to good laws and regulations to help their corporate donors.

Its just the flip side of the coin of a Democratic administration allowing shitty regulations to persist or be created to help their corporate donors... So forgive me if I don't get excited when an administration makes vague statements about making new regulations or shit canning X% of existing ones.

The major complaint about the Obama administration was that he use too many executive orders and was fucking up the normal balance of what influence the executive branch is meant to have. Within 1 week Donald Trump is on course make Obama's approach seem tame. Its seems like his governing approach is targeting make everything an executive order, undermine the media's response, and then probably find a way to undermine the judicial branches response to bad orders. Definitely sounds democratic to me...

Compared to who?

Obama averaged 34.6 executive orders per year, which puts him at 23rd of all presidents -- the fewest orders per year of any president since Grover Cleveland in the 1880's.

From conservatives and radio personalities... Not saying the criticism is historically valid. Though I admit I hadn't found time to verify how off base those statements were or are.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on January 30, 2017, 04:11:08 PM
Quote
The major complaint about the Obama administration was that he use too many executive orders and was fucking up the normal balance of what influence the executive branch is meant to have.

Compared to who?

'Alternative' news sources mostly. I hear Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya too!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on January 30, 2017, 04:12:09 PM
While removing many "federal" government business regulations would help it make it easier for some business to boost profits, blanket stating that you are going to cut X% of "federal regulations", not stating whether you mean existing or new yet to be implemented ones is an unsupportable statement.

I understand that there is truth behind the thought process that government is just a machine that pumps out shit laws and regulations made to bloat the governments size. But its a sentiment that is often taken to far and used as an excuse to give a conservative administration popular license to take a sledge hammer to good laws and regulations to help their corporate donors.

Its just the flip side of the coin of a Democratic administration allowing shitty regulations to persist or be created to help their corporate donors... So forgive me if I don't get excited when an administration makes vague statements about making new regulations or shit canning X% of existing ones.

The major complaint about the Obama administration was that he use too many executive orders and was fucking up the normal balance of what influence the executive branch is meant to have. Within 1 week Donald Trump is on course make Obama's approach seem tame. Its seems like his governing approach is targeting make everything an executive order, undermine the media's response, and then probably find a way to undermine the judicial branches response to bad orders. Definitely sounds democratic to me...

Compared to who?

Obama averaged 34.6 executive orders per year, which puts him at 23rd of all presidents -- the fewest orders per year of any president since Grover Cleveland in the 1880's.

From conservatives and radio personalities... Not saying the criticism is historically valid. Though I admit I hadn't found time to verify how off base those statements were or are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

The answer is "very."

Quote
The major complaint about the Obama administration was that he use too many executive orders and was fucking up the normal balance of what influence the executive branch is meant to have.

Compared to who?

'Alternative' news sources mostly. I hear Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya too!

Ha. Pretty much!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 30, 2017, 04:18:13 PM
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Dude, you laugh, but I'm considering it.

Yep same here. I already picked out what I'm ordering and just need to call the local FFL. I didn't expect MMM to be my reminder!
Oooh! Do let us know what you're looking at.  Either here or in the "Firearms in the home" thread.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 30, 2017, 04:34:11 PM
I take some solace that in just one week, the sheer magnitude of lunacy and demonstrated hostility towards facts, may end up hastening a Trump impeachment. Congressional Republicans are going to give this nut-job all kinds of latitude since he will allow them to pass their agenda and appoint Supreme Court justices that undo all the things they hate like gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, etc. But they may reach a limit pretty quickly if the craziness continues on this scale on a weekly basis. Not to mention that no one should be shocked if someone digs up some stuff on Trump that truly threatens his presidency. Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob, it doesn't take that much. They know that a "President Pence" would be just as agreeable to their agenda, but without the lunacy. Liberals won't like that agenda any better, but at least Pence would likely follow the rule of law and ditch the craziness and opposition to reality/facts.
That is not true.  The GOP has been anti-fact and science for decades.  They spent over twenty years lying about the Clintons and other issues.  Trump is their logical conclusion.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on January 30, 2017, 04:40:03 PM
Quote
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Dude, you laugh, but I'm considering it.

Yep same here. I already picked out what I'm ordering and just need to call the local FFL. I didn't expect MMM to be my reminder!

What the hell for? Is there some scenario where you imagine yourself revolting in armed militias? Or just dying in shootout with the Gestapo?

Please remember all this 5-10 years from now when there's another spasm of anger over lax gun laws and everyone is shrieking about how dumb 2nd amendment militiamen are.

The gun owners on the left I've talked to aren't imagining defending themselves against the military. They are imagining defending themselves from angry Trump supporters with guns. (Before the election, it was that they were afraid that a Clinton victory would bring out crazed anti-Clinton people who would descend in the streets and go "liberal hunting." Now, it's that they feel emboldened and empowered by the idea that a Trump presidency basically encourages violence against people who don't agree with it. Which... isn't that far off.)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 30, 2017, 04:42:24 PM
Quote
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Dude, you laugh, but I'm considering it.

Yep same here. I already picked out what I'm ordering and just need to call the local FFL. I didn't expect MMM to be my reminder!

What the hell for? Is there some scenario where you imagine yourself revolting in armed militias? Or just dying in shootout with the Gestapo?

Please remember all this 5-10 years from now when there's another spasm of anger over lax gun laws and everyone is shrieking about how dumb 2nd amendment militiamen are.
No, it because people are afraid of being attacked by other citizens and not getting help from the police.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on January 30, 2017, 04:52:58 PM
I take some solace that in just one week, the sheer magnitude of lunacy and demonstrated hostility towards facts, may end up hastening a Trump impeachment. Congressional Republicans are going to give this nut-job all kinds of latitude since he will allow them to pass their agenda and appoint Supreme Court justices that undo all the things they hate like gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, etc. But they may reach a limit pretty quickly if the craziness continues on this scale on a weekly basis. Not to mention that no one should be shocked if someone digs up some stuff on Trump that truly threatens his presidency. Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob, it doesn't take that much. They know that a "President Pence" would be just as agreeable to their agenda, but without the lunacy. Liberals won't like that agenda any better, but at least Pence would likely follow the rule of law and ditch the craziness and opposition to reality/facts.
That is not true.  The GOP has been anti-fact and science for decades.  They spent over twenty years lying about the Clintons and other issues.  Trump is their logical conclusion.

I get what you're saying, but the magnitudes of lying aren't even close. We're talking mountain vs. molehill. Sure, plenty of politicians bend truth or interpret facts differently, choose to disbelieve scientific theories, or even sometimes outright lie when expedient. But there's no comparison between "regular" politician lies and the batshit craziness of Trump who spews out lies and wild conspiracy theories by the day that are demonstrably false (like from pictures at an inauguration). That's in a whole other league than objecting to climate science, IMO.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: t5inside on January 30, 2017, 04:58:24 PM
Quote
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Dude, you laugh, but I'm considering it.

Yep same here. I already picked out what I'm ordering and just need to call the local FFL. I didn't expect MMM to be my reminder!

What the hell for? Is there some scenario where you imagine yourself revolting in armed militias? Or just dying in shootout with the Gestapo?

Please remember all this 5-10 years from now when there's another spasm of anger over lax gun laws and everyone is shrieking about how dumb 2nd amendment militiamen are.
No, it because people are afraid of being attacked by other citizens and not getting help from the police.

Exactly. No need for personal attacks... I spent 6 years in the Air Force and didn't vote for this guy, I'm not a "militiaman" by any stretch, rather a concerned citizen who this administration has already shown open hostility towards. God forbid we ever have a need to use them, but prices are low after the Clinton loss (buy low sell high!) and it's better to have one and not need it than the opposite.

Do some research on Bannon and Flynn, they're openly calling for a "bloody war" against Islam (Bannon wants a "Christian militia", his own words) and are the closest advisors to this president to whom the ends justify the means. I have little doubt our institutions and people are strong enough that we will not let things reach that point, but at the same time I'm not going to be naive.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on January 30, 2017, 05:13:27 PM
A war would help to cement Trump's authority and provide more justification for increased homeland security and reduced freedoms for those who aren't members of the club.   It doesn't even have to be victorious, just drag on to justify whatever actions he wants to take.

I can see that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on January 30, 2017, 09:41:45 PM
What happens if most of the civil servant and Cabinet positions go unfilled? Can Trump  continue to function as he has, emitting executive orders? Are there any rules that he has to use the Secret Service, CIA, etc? Can he simply just hire his own private army and information service, and what regulations would they be subject to?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: teen persuasion on January 30, 2017, 09:44:38 PM
Local news was discussing how things are tightening up at the bridges (US - Canada border).  Things like increased scrutiny coming AND going, slower crossing times, biometric controls...  we like cross-border traffic here, it's an important part of the economy.  Slow things down, and people just won't choose to visit because it's too inconvenient.

Then there's all the students and faculty at local colleges and universities affected by the travel ban.  DS4's classes just resumed today, so not everyone may have made it back in time - if you had a semester break of more than 5 weeks, wouldn't you travel home for the holidays? Especially when you are expected to leave the dorms, and meal service doesn't resume until 1/29.  If home is too far away, might you take the opportunity to travel to Canada between semesters?  The news mentioned the economic effect here - universities encourage foreign students, since they pay up to 3.3 times what locals pay.  Scare them away, and the schools are underfunded.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on January 30, 2017, 10:09:09 PM
I take some solace that in just one week, the sheer magnitude of lunacy and demonstrated hostility towards facts, may end up hastening a Trump impeachment. Congressional Republicans are going to give this nut-job all kinds of latitude since he will allow them to pass their agenda and appoint Supreme Court justices that undo all the things they hate like gay marriage, Roe v. Wade, Obamacare, etc. But they may reach a limit pretty quickly if the craziness continues on this scale on a weekly basis. Not to mention that no one should be shocked if someone digs up some stuff on Trump that truly threatens his presidency. Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob, it doesn't take that much. They know that a "President Pence" would be just as agreeable to their agenda, but without the lunacy. Liberals won't like that agenda any better, but at least Pence would likely follow the rule of law and ditch the craziness and opposition to reality/facts.
That is not true.  The GOP has been anti-fact and science for decades.  They spent over twenty years lying about the Clintons and other issues.  Trump is their logical conclusion.

I get what you're saying, but the magnitudes of lying aren't even close. We're talking mountain vs. molehill. Sure, plenty of politicians bend truth or interpret facts differently, choose to disbelieve scientific theories, or even sometimes outright lie when expedient. But there's no comparison between "regular" politician lies and the batshit craziness of Trump who spews out lies and wild conspiracy theories by the day that are demonstrably false (like from pictures at an inauguration). That's in a whole other league than objecting to climate science, IMO.

The House has to impeach. When Ryan spoke out against Trump, his ratings dropped by almost 30% in less than 2 weeks. He won't chance it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on January 30, 2017, 10:44:26 PM
What happens if most of the civil servant and Cabinet positions go unfilled?

This probably isn't coincidence.  Trump has cleaned house at the State Department, which would normally oppose something as blatantly illegal as a muslim ban, leaving it with a skeleton crew of senior executives and basically incapable of standing up for America's interests.  Trump seems to have no regard for what is best for the country.  Your concerns about "what if" are to my eyes deliberate machinations. 

He's not taking advantage of unfilled positions to remake America into a totalitarian regime, he's instituted a totalitarian regime by purging senior levels of government of anyone who's not a Trump loyalist.  Instituting illegal policy is step two in the process, not step one.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: llorona on January 31, 2017, 02:44:39 AM
Trump and his posse are trampling over the Constitution. Too much is happening too fast. Information coming from the White House is opaque, convoluted, and cannot be trusted.

Republican Members of Congress need to open their eyes, start putting their country over party, and move to impeach, otherwise it's game over for the USA as we know it.

As a liberal, I will consider us lucky if we're left standing with Pence at the helm and both the ACA and Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 31, 2017, 05:22:36 AM
What happens if most of the civil servant and Cabinet positions go unfilled?

This probably isn't coincidence.  Trump has cleaned house at the State Department, which would normally oppose something as blatantly illegal as a muslim ban, leaving it with a skeleton crew of senior executives and basically incapable of standing up for America's interests.  Trump seems to have no regard for what is best for the country.  Your concerns about "what if" are to my eyes deliberate machinations. 

He's not taking advantage of unfilled positions to remake America into a totalitarian regime, he's instituted a totalitarian regime by purging senior levels of government of anyone who's not a Trump loyalist.  Instituting illegal policy is step two in the process, not step one.

+1. One word "stategery." As batshit crazy as Trump is, he knows exactly what he is doing. It's amazing (well not really) how many of his die hard supporters are still defending him all in the name of "jobs and border security."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 06:36:17 AM
Quote
Apparently a real affect of DT presidency is liberals buying guns
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

Dude, you laugh, but I'm considering it.

Yep same here. I already picked out what I'm ordering and just need to call the local FFL. I didn't expect MMM to be my reminder!

What the hell for? Is there some scenario where you imagine yourself revolting in armed militias? Or just dying in shootout with the Gestapo?

Please remember all this 5-10 years from now when there's another spasm of anger over lax gun laws and everyone is shrieking about how dumb 2nd amendment militiamen are.
No, it because people are afraid of being attacked by other citizens and not getting help from the police.
Oddly, this is the exact same reason conservatives carry guns... perhaps they are not so different after all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Freedom2016 on January 31, 2017, 06:43:46 AM
What happens if most of the civil servant and Cabinet positions go unfilled?

This probably isn't coincidence.  Trump has cleaned house at the State Department, which would normally oppose something as blatantly illegal as a muslim ban, leaving it with a skeleton crew of senior executives and basically incapable of standing up for America's interests.  Trump seems to have no regard for what is best for the country.  Your concerns about "what if" are to my eyes deliberate machinations. 

He's not taking advantage of unfilled positions to remake America into a totalitarian regime, he's instituted a totalitarian regime by purging senior levels of government of anyone who's not a Trump loyalist.  Instituting illegal policy is step two in the process, not step one.

+1. One word "stategery." As batshit crazy as Trump is, he knows exactly what he is doing. It's amazing (well not really) how many of his die hard supporters are still defending him all in the name of "jobs and border security."

Except I don't think it's Trump who knows what he's doing....it's Bannon.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 06:44:31 AM
Trump and his posse are trampling over the Constitution. Too much is happening too fast. Information coming from the White House is opaque, convoluted, and cannot be trusted.

Republican Members of Congress need to open their eyes, start putting their country over party, and move to impeach, otherwise it's game over for the USA as we know it.

As a liberal, I will consider us lucky if we're left standing with Pence at the helm and both the ACA and Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Too much is happening too fast? All this was laid out long ago in his 100 day plan. I am continually surprised by people's surprise.

AS far as unconstitutional acts: Thank goodness we have checks and balances, and provisions in place to rectify bad laws.  The previous administration got slapped by the courts all the time over their actions. They took the licking and moved on.  The game will not end because of this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 31, 2017, 06:51:08 AM
Trump and his posse are trampling over the Constitution. Too much is happening too fast. Information coming from the White House is opaque, convoluted, and cannot be trusted.

Republican Members of Congress need to open their eyes, start putting their country over party, and move to impeach, otherwise it's game over for the USA as we know it.

As a liberal, I will consider us lucky if we're left standing with Pence at the helm and both the ACA and Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Too much is happening too fast? All this was laid out long ago in his 100 day plan. I am continually surprised by people's surprise.

AS far as unconstitutional acts: Thank goodness we have checks and balances, and provisions in place to rectify bad laws.  The previous administration got slapped by the courts all the time over their actions. They took the licking and moved on.  The game will not end because of this.

Checks and balances like this (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/01/31/new-attorney-general-says-enforce-president-trump-travel-ban/NB46XtoVU8exvu7yckY30H/story.html)?

Quote
WASHINGTON — Longtime federal prosecutor Dana Boente, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was named Monday by President Trump to replace Sally Yates as acting attorney general.

Yates was fired after she publicly questioned the constitutionality of his controversial refugee and immigration ban and refused to defend it in court.

Boente was sworn in privately, the White House said.

Boente promptly ordered Justice Department lawyers to ‘‘do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our President.’’
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 31, 2017, 06:55:27 AM
Trump and his posse are trampling over the Constitution. Too much is happening too fast. Information coming from the White House is opaque, convoluted, and cannot be trusted.

Republican Members of Congress need to open their eyes, start putting their country over party, and move to impeach, otherwise it's game over for the USA as we know it.

As a liberal, I will consider us lucky if we're left standing with Pence at the helm and both the ACA and Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Too much is happening too fast? All this was laid out long ago in his 100 day plan. I am continually surprised by people's surprise.

AS far as unconstitutional acts: Thank goodness we have checks and balances, and provisions in place to rectify bad laws.  The previous administration got slapped by the courts all the time over their actions. They took the licking and moved on.  The game will not end because of this.

Yeah but when you manipulate the system of checks and balances it doesn't work very well. Again Trump et al. know what they are doing. "You're fired" isn't just a TV meme anymore.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 06:58:11 AM
Trump and his posse are trampling over the Constitution. Too much is happening too fast. Information coming from the White House is opaque, convoluted, and cannot be trusted.

Republican Members of Congress need to open their eyes, start putting their country over party, and move to impeach, otherwise it's game over for the USA as we know it.

As a liberal, I will consider us lucky if we're left standing with Pence at the helm and both the ACA and Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Too much is happening too fast? All this was laid out long ago in his 100 day plan. I am continually surprised by people's surprise.

AS far as unconstitutional acts: Thank goodness we have checks and balances, and provisions in place to rectify bad laws.  The previous administration got slapped by the courts all the time over their actions. They took the licking and moved on.  The game will not end because of this.

Checks and balances like this (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/01/31/new-attorney-general-says-enforce-president-trump-travel-ban/NB46XtoVU8exvu7yckY30H/story.html)?

Quote
WASHINGTON — Longtime federal prosecutor Dana Boente, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was named Monday by President Trump to replace Sally Yates as acting attorney general.

Yates was fired after she publicly questioned the constitutionality of his controversial refugee and immigration ban and refused to defend it in court.

Boente was sworn in privately, the White House said.

Boente promptly ordered Justice Department lawyers to ‘‘do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our President.’’
Exactly like that. Court cases in which one side defends their actions while the other argues they were wrong. This is our system, as imperfect as it is.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 31, 2017, 06:59:06 AM
Trump and his posse are trampling over the Constitution. Too much is happening too fast. Information coming from the White House is opaque, convoluted, and cannot be trusted.

Republican Members of Congress need to open their eyes, start putting their country over party, and move to impeach, otherwise it's game over for the USA as we know it.

As a liberal, I will consider us lucky if we're left standing with Pence at the helm and both the ACA and Roe vs. Wade overturned.
I think that is/was the GOP plan.  Let Trump go and go and go and then we will see them as moderates.  They have successfully moved us right on a lot and I think they are now going for what they lost (gay rights, what is left of women's rights).  No, that is not lucky.  We need to stop being defensive.  Keep fighting and don't stop.  We deserve a certain standard as first world country.  That means as a woman, I am still an autonomous human being.  It means we have basic care for our citizens.  I won't stop fighting because the other option is to accept us turning into a 3rd world country for many of citizenship and I love our country too much that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 31, 2017, 07:01:17 AM
Trump and his posse are trampling over the Constitution. Too much is happening too fast. Information coming from the White House is opaque, convoluted, and cannot be trusted.

Republican Members of Congress need to open their eyes, start putting their country over party, and move to impeach, otherwise it's game over for the USA as we know it.

As a liberal, I will consider us lucky if we're left standing with Pence at the helm and both the ACA and Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Too much is happening too fast? All this was laid out long ago in his 100 day plan. I am continually surprised by people's surprise.

AS far as unconstitutional acts: Thank goodness we have checks and balances, and provisions in place to rectify bad laws.  The previous administration got slapped by the courts all the time over their actions. They took the licking and moved on.  The game will not end because of this.
The Trump administration ignored the court order.  Ignoring the check and balance.  This is not acceptable and it is scary.  It sets the scene for them to ignore any check on their power.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 31, 2017, 07:02:22 AM
Trump and his posse are trampling over the Constitution. Too much is happening too fast. Information coming from the White House is opaque, convoluted, and cannot be trusted.

Republican Members of Congress need to open their eyes, start putting their country over party, and move to impeach, otherwise it's game over for the USA as we know it.

As a liberal, I will consider us lucky if we're left standing with Pence at the helm and both the ACA and Roe vs. Wade overturned.
Too much is happening too fast? All this was laid out long ago in his 100 day plan. I am continually surprised by people's surprise.

AS far as unconstitutional acts: Thank goodness we have checks and balances, and provisions in place to rectify bad laws.  The previous administration got slapped by the courts all the time over their actions. They took the licking and moved on.  The game will not end because of this.

Checks and balances like this (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/01/31/new-attorney-general-says-enforce-president-trump-travel-ban/NB46XtoVU8exvu7yckY30H/story.html)?

Quote
WASHINGTON — Longtime federal prosecutor Dana Boente, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was named Monday by President Trump to replace Sally Yates as acting attorney general.

Yates was fired after she publicly questioned the constitutionality of his controversial refugee and immigration ban and refused to defend it in court.

Boente was sworn in privately, the White House said.

Boente promptly ordered Justice Department lawyers to ‘‘do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our President.’’
Exactly like that. Court cases in which one side defends their actions while the other argues they were wrong. This is our system, as imperfect as it is.
Not when one side IGNORES the response of the court if they don't like the decision.  Are you somehow missing that?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 07:07:37 AM
Not when one side IGNORES the response of the court if they don't like the decision.  Are you somehow missing that?
Are you suggesting that ignoring court rulings comes with no consequences? Or that Trump ignoring a ruling would automatically make the behavior legal, and therefore the people actually enforcing these laws side with Trump and not the court?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on January 31, 2017, 07:09:25 AM
Not when one side IGNORES the response of the court if they don't like the decision.  Are you somehow missing that?
Are you suggesting that ignoring court rulings comes with no consequences?
So far they have.  I very much hope the court will order a contempt of court but that should not be what I have to hope for.  The executive branch should not disobey a court order, it says something about them as a whole and it is not normal.  This is not a normal checks and balance situation.  Can you get that?  When they ignore one, they show how they plan to govern. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 07:12:29 AM
Not when one side IGNORES the response of the court if they don't like the decision.  Are you somehow missing that?
Are you suggesting that ignoring court rulings comes with no consequences?
So far they have.  I very much hope the court will order a contempt of court but that should not be what I have to hope for.  The executive branch should not disobey a court order, it says something about them as a whole and it is not normal.  This is not a normal checks and balance situation.  Can you get that?  When they ignore one, they show how they plan to govern.
Absolutely it shows how they plan to govern. But if a court is unwilling to stand behind its decision and punish those who unlawfully act, then you're right, there is no check to anything. I, however, have faith in the courts, as slow and imperfect though they are.

I would also hope that the people actually acting on the laws and enforcing said bans would obey the court as well. But that may be too optomistic to expect citizens to act according to the law.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on January 31, 2017, 07:24:14 AM

Too much is happening too fast? All this was laid out long ago in his 100 day plan. I am continually surprised by people's surprise.


FYI everybody, the 100 day plan (http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days). Painful as it may be to read his words, we should look at them closer in order to move from the reactive to the proactive.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on January 31, 2017, 07:30:08 AM
Not when one side IGNORES the response of the court if they don't like the decision.  Are you somehow missing that?
Are you suggesting that ignoring court rulings comes with no consequences?
So far they have.  I very much hope the court will order a contempt of court but that should not be what I have to hope for.  The executive branch should not disobey a court order, it says something about them as a whole and it is not normal.  This is not a normal checks and balance situation.  Can you get that?  When they ignore one, they show how they plan to govern.
Absolutely it shows how they plan to govern. But if a court is unwilling to stand behind its decision and punish those who unlawfully act, then you're right, there is no check to anything. I, however, have faith in the courts, as slow and imperfect though they are.

I would also hope that the people actually acting on the laws and enforcing said bans would obey the court as well. But that may be too optomistic to expect citizens to act according to the law.

It would be interesting to see how you'd react if you were affected by this Presidential Order.  I think civil disobedience and protest might just enter into your head as an acceptable way to state your opinion, as opposed to firing off smug opinions of how everyone should just fall in line and wait for things to slowly work themselves out.  I value your comments because they remind folks that there really are people out there that are happy to stand on the sidelines and watch others suffer, and explain why you think that this is OK.

I would like to know, from someone who supports the immigration ban, why they think this isn't helping ISIS recruit.  Trump is giving terrorists a giant juicy target to focus its energy on by saying we are keeping Muslims out.  Imagine if the Middle East suddenly kicked Christians out and instituted a travel ban - the extremesits would immediately interpret this as preparing for war.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 31, 2017, 07:54:28 AM
Not when one side IGNORES the response of the court if they don't like the decision.  Are you somehow missing that?
Are you suggesting that ignoring court rulings comes with no consequences?
So far they have.  I very much hope the court will order a contempt of court but that should not be what I have to hope for.  The executive branch should not disobey a court order, it says something about them as a whole and it is not normal.  This is not a normal checks and balance situation.  Can you get that?  When they ignore one, they show how they plan to govern.
Absolutely it shows how they plan to govern. But if a court is unwilling to stand behind its decision and punish those who unlawfully act, then you're right, there is no check to anything. I, however, have faith in the courts, as slow and imperfect though they are.

I would also hope that the people actually acting on the laws and enforcing said bans would obey the court as well. But that may be too optomistic to expect citizens to act according to the law.

It would be interesting to see how you'd react if you were affected by this Presidential Order.  I think civil disobedience and protest might just enter into your head as an acceptable way to state your opinion, as opposed to firing off smug opinions of how everyone should just fall in line and wait for things to slowly work themselves out.  I value your comments because they remind folks that there really are people out there that are happy to stand on the sidelines and watch others suffer, and explain why you think that this is OK.

I would like to know, from someone who supports the immigration ban, why they think this isn't helping ISIS recruit.  Trump is giving terrorists a giant juicy target to focus its energy on by saying we are keeping Muslims out.  Imagine if the Middle East suddenly kicked Christians out and instituted a travel ban - the extremesits would immediately interpret this as preparing for war.

I've asked the same question. ISIL itself has continually stated it's the west vs Muslims. Trump basically said "yep it sure is, stay the hell out of our country." It's most certainly adding fuel to the fire. Domestic terrorism is far more likely than some random refugee and this continued rhetoric only encourages it. Trump may well be ISIL's best recruiter.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 08:21:52 AM
It would be interesting to see how you'd react if you were affected by this Presidential Order.  I think civil disobedience and protest might just enter into your head as an acceptable way to state your opinion, as opposed to firing off smug opinions of how everyone should just fall in line and wait for things to slowly work themselves out.  I value your comments because they remind folks that there really are people out there that are happy to stand on the sidelines and watch others suffer, and explain why you think that this is OK.

I would like to know, from someone who supports the immigration ban, why they think this isn't helping ISIS recruit.  Trump is giving terrorists a giant juicy target to focus its energy on by saying we are keeping Muslims out.  Imagine if the Middle East suddenly kicked Christians out and instituted a travel ban - the extremesits would immediately interpret this as preparing for war.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I support a travel ban. (On a second reading, perhaps you were asking a supporter, and not me.) I don't think it's an effective means to the goals the administration claims they are trying to achieve. This particular instance was also rolled out very poorly, though that is a separate issue, imo.

If I were affected by this ban, I would be sure to follow the law. Protest is quite lawful. (Personally, I would not protest at an airport - the employees there are not the fuckers making the rules, and bothering them is neither effective nor helpful, but that's just me.)

If ISIS uses a travel ban from the other side of the world as an excuse to behead muslims of a slightly different faith or blow up markets or funerals in their own backyard, then that is a perfect example of how ineffective their methodolgy is at obtaining their goals. I would not use the fear of terrorism as the sole measure of a policy. Certainly drone striking ISIS or landing more soldiers in the region would cause the same effect; but the last administration thought these were effective techniques. Terrorism deaths are declining around the world, and have been for decades. Terrorism is not a threat to American citizens, statistically speaking, so if ISIS should recruit 50 persons or 500 persons this month, it will not increase the danger stateside. Sadly Trump will likely make the same mistakes as Obama, thinking that the USA can bomb ISIS out of existence. It's a complex issue, but more violence has not helped the region.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Merlion on January 31, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
Not when one side IGNORES the response of the court if they don't like the decision.  Are you somehow missing that?
Are you suggesting that ignoring court rulings comes with no consequences?
So far they have.  I very much hope the court will order a contempt of court but that should not be what I have to hope for.  The executive branch should not disobey a court order, it says something about them as a whole and it is not normal.  This is not a normal checks and balance situation.  Can you get that?  When they ignore one, they show how they plan to govern.
Absolutely it shows how they plan to govern. But if a court is unwilling to stand behind its decision and punish those who unlawfully act, then you're right, there is no check to anything. I, however, have faith in the courts, as slow and imperfect though they are.

I would also hope that the people actually acting on the laws and enforcing said bans would obey the court as well. But that may be too optomistic to expect citizens to act according to the law.

How exactly can the courts punish the President? If the courts rule that an action by the executive is unconstitutional, and the executive ignores the court ruling, then it doesn't really serve as a check unless others act. The legislature could in theory impeach, but does anyone see that happening soon? And what happens when impeachment is ignored, combined with private security supplementing secret service protection and high levels of law enforcement and military support for the President?

Our democracy is quite fragile when you have leadership that doesn't respect democratic norms or the rule of law. What happens when there's much more draconian measures introduced after an actual terrorist attack (even a small one)? We'll be told that the courts must be ignored because of national security. What do we do then?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 31, 2017, 08:48:22 AM
It would be interesting to see how you'd react if you were affected by this Presidential Order.  I think civil disobedience and protest might just enter into your head as an acceptable way to state your opinion, as opposed to firing off smug opinions of how everyone should just fall in line and wait for things to slowly work themselves out.  I value your comments because they remind folks that there really are people out there that are happy to stand on the sidelines and watch others suffer, and explain why you think that this is OK.

I would like to know, from someone who supports the immigration ban, why they think this isn't helping ISIS recruit.  Trump is giving terrorists a giant juicy target to focus its energy on by saying we are keeping Muslims out.  Imagine if the Middle East suddenly kicked Christians out and instituted a travel ban - the extremesits would immediately interpret this as preparing for war.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I support a travel ban. (On a second reading, perhaps you were asking a supporter, and not me.) I don't think it's an effective means to the goals the administration claims they are trying to achieve. This particular instance was also rolled out very poorly, though that is a separate issue, imo.

If I were affected by this ban, I would be sure to follow the law. Protest is quite lawful. (Personally, I would not protest at an airport - the employees there are not the fuckers making the rules, and bothering them is neither effective nor helpful, but that's just me.)

If ISIS uses a travel ban from the other side of the world as an excuse to behead muslims of a slightly different faith or blow up markets or funerals in their own backyard, then that is a perfect example of how ineffective their methodolgy is at obtaining their goals.

I would disagree. The mere fact that we elected a President who supported a Muslim ban from the get go actually shows how affective their strategies are. Killing innocent people is just the means to a bigger purpose.

Quote
Certainly drone striking ISIS or landing more soldiers in the region would cause the same effect; but the last administration thought these were effective techniques.

I agree to a point. Drone strikes certainly encourage ISIL sympathizers, but does not have the same affect as a ban on all Muslims. We had no issues with refugees before. But now we are essentially condemning them to be tortured, raped and murdered because of their faith. 

Quote
Terrorism deaths are declining around the world, and have been for decades.


That's not true at all. Note the chart showing terrorism related deaths doubled between 2013 and 2014.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/global-terrorism-declined-last-year-but-not-in-the-west/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/global-terrorism-declined-last-year-but-not-in-the-west/)

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 09:06:32 AM
How exactly can the courts punish the President? If the courts rule that an action by the executive is unconstitutional, and the executive ignores the court ruling, then it doesn't really serve as a check unless others act. The legislature could in theory impeach, but does anyone see that happening soon? And what happens when impeachment is ignored, combined with private security supplementing secret service protection and high levels of law enforcement and military support for the President?

Our democracy is quite fragile when you have leadership that doesn't respect democratic norms or the rule of law. What happens when there's much more draconian measures introduced after an actual terrorist attack (even a small one)? We'll be told that the courts must be ignored because of national security. What do we do then?
Why would the court punish the president for unlawful laws? That doesn't happen, and shouldn't happen.  The court is not there to 'punish' lawmakers - it is there to check their power. The court would act by striking down the law. If TSA agents or DHS employees or whomever continue to act under a law that was struck down, they would need to be sued in the court by the people with standing. If they continue to ignore the court, the individual actors who are causing harm would need to be punished, but not the people who legally passed the law that was legally struck down.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 09:13:40 AM
I agree to a point. Drone strikes certainly encourage ISIL sympathizers, but does not have the same affect as a ban on all Muslims. We had no issues with refugees before. But now we are essentially condemning them to be tortured, raped and murdered because of their faith. 

Quote
Terrorism deaths are declining around the world, and have been for decades.


That's not true at all. Note the chart showing terrorism related deaths doubled between 2013 and 2014.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/global-terrorism-declined-last-year-but-not-in-the-west/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/global-terrorism-declined-last-year-but-not-in-the-west/)
Thanks for the chart. My info was out of date - there has been a big spike in deaths over the last decade, completely reversing the trend that had been occurring since the 70's.

But to be fair, the USA has been condemning these people to this fate for years. There has always been a 'cap' on the number of refugees from these areas allowed into the USA; everyone after the cap was condemned to the fate, plus the risk of civilian murder by drone or airstrike. The USA is an imperfect place, for sure.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 31, 2017, 09:16:45 AM
How exactly can the courts punish the President? If the courts rule that an action by the executive is unconstitutional, and the executive ignores the court ruling, then it doesn't really serve as a check unless others act. The legislature could in theory impeach, but does anyone see that happening soon? And what happens when impeachment is ignored, combined with private security supplementing secret service protection and high levels of law enforcement and military support for the President?

Our democracy is quite fragile when you have leadership that doesn't respect democratic norms or the rule of law. What happens when there's much more draconian measures introduced after an actual terrorist attack (even a small one)? We'll be told that the courts must be ignored because of national security. What do we do then?
Why would the court punish the president for unlawful laws? That doesn't happen, and shouldn't happen.  The court is not there to 'punish' lawmakers - it is there to check their power. The court would act by striking down the law. If TSA agents or DHS employees or whomever continue to act under a law that was struck down, they would need to be sued in the court by the people with standing. If they continue to ignore the court, the individual actors who are causing harm would need to be punished, but not the people who legally passed the law that was legally struck down.

I think the essence of the question is that the courts still rely on the executive branch to actually do a lot of the work. In an extreme example, if the court found a high-ranking official in contempt, or a grand jury handed down a criminal indictment, and the executive branch ignored the indictment, what then? Are U.S. Marshals going to get into a shootout with Secret Service or DHS cops? Would they even attempt to carry out the court's orders, since they're under the Attorney General?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 31, 2017, 09:26:48 AM
I agree to a point. Drone strikes certainly encourage ISIL sympathizers, but does not have the same affect as a ban on all Muslims. We had no issues with refugees before. But now we are essentially condemning them to be tortured, raped and murdered because of their faith. 

Quote
Terrorism deaths are declining around the world, and have been for decades.


That's not true at all. Note the chart showing terrorism related deaths doubled between 2013 and 2014.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/global-terrorism-declined-last-year-but-not-in-the-west/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/global-terrorism-declined-last-year-but-not-in-the-west/)
Thanks for the chart. My info was out of date - there has been a big spike in deaths over the last decade, completely reversing the trend that had been occurring since the 70's.

But to be fair, the USA has been condemning these people to this fate for years. There has always been a 'cap' on the number of refugees from these areas allowed into the USA; everyone after the cap was condemned to the fate, plus the risk of civilian murder by drone or airstrike. The USA is an imperfect place, for sure.

The Obama admin. was pushing to increase that cap to 100,000 in 2016 (not sure if it ever happened). Unfortunately the US is quite a ways away and not necessarily the most sought after place for refugees. Certainly less desirable now. I know they were grappling with how to keep raising the cap while keeping comprehensive background checks in place. I am all for that as opposed to "just stay the hell away." 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on January 31, 2017, 09:30:19 AM
What happens if most of the civil servant and Cabinet positions go unfilled?

This probably isn't coincidence.  Trump has cleaned house at the State Department, which would normally oppose something as blatantly illegal as a muslim ban, leaving it with a skeleton crew of senior executives and basically incapable of standing up for America's interests.  Trump seems to have no regard for what is best for the country.  Your concerns about "what if" are to my eyes deliberate machinations. 

He's not taking advantage of unfilled positions to remake America into a totalitarian regime, he's instituted a totalitarian regime by purging senior levels of government of anyone who's not a Trump loyalist.  Instituting illegal policy is step two in the process, not step one.
Unfortunately the ban may be legal due to a clause in the Immigration Act that allows Trump to do exactly what he's doing:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bc.marfeel.com/amp/www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&espv=1

"Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (emphasis added).

 Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”)."

But is it still legal if they've obviously left open routes for people of the "minority" (i.e., Christian) religion to come to the US? That strikes me as singling out one religion, which is very definitely unconstitutional.
Also, does he actually need to show that there are national security reasons behind this? Because he left out a lot of countries that have been proven breeding grounds for terrorism, and they just happen to be countries his empire does business in. Where's his national security concern there? I think there's quite a bit to argue against this actually being done for security purposes, or that any of these people are "detrimental" to the U.S.
Not to mention, it's against the UN. Now, I understand that Trump wants to withdraw from the UN (another source of checks and balances against him--funny how he wants all of those to disappear) but he hasn't done so yet. I kinda hope he gets a slap from them for this asinine and inhumane action.

Gin - I agree, we shouldn't be "hoping" to reduce our rights and standards to those of the third world. But with Trump trying to alienate our allies and neighbors, and the rest of the GOP rushing to take away our civil rights, it's going to be a long, hard fight and I don't see how we can win all of it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 31, 2017, 11:18:50 AM
How exactly can the courts punish the President? If the courts rule that an action by the executive is unconstitutional, and the executive ignores the court ruling, then it doesn't really serve as a check unless others act. The legislature could in theory impeach, but does anyone see that happening soon? And what happens when impeachment is ignored, combined with private security supplementing secret service protection and high levels of law enforcement and military support for the President?

Our democracy is quite fragile when you have leadership that doesn't respect democratic norms or the rule of law. What happens when there's much more draconian measures introduced after an actual terrorist attack (even a small one)? We'll be told that the courts must be ignored because of national security. What do we do then?
Why would the court punish the president for unlawful laws? That doesn't happen, and shouldn't happen.  The court is not there to 'punish' lawmakers - it is there to check their power. The court would act by striking down the law. If TSA agents or DHS employees or whomever continue to act under a law that was struck down, they would need to be sued in the court by the people with standing. If they continue to ignore the court, the individual actors who are causing harm would need to be punished, but not the people who legally passed the law that was legally struck down.

The court doesn't punish the president for unlawful laws.  We are talking about ignoring a court order (issued because the court finds it likely the Executive order will be found unconstitutional).

In this case, the court issued an injunction against CBP detainng certain immigrants and some (not all) CBP officers refused to follow the court order.  Supposedly at the request of their superiors but that's just an issue of degree.

Quote
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents defied the orders of federal judges regarding Donald Trump’s travel bans on Sunday, according to members of Congress and attorneys who rallied protests around the country in support of detained refugees and travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/customs-border-protection-agents-trump-muslim-country-travel-ban)

At this point, the court should be holding anyone involved in contempt, up to and including the president (although I imagine there is no paper trail of him ordering the officers to ignore the order).  The court should have asked the US Marshalls to enforce the order (ironic and scary since the Marshalls still technically report to the president, but that would at least let us know how broken the system is).

So the bottom line is no, individual citizens were not all obeying the court and our system of checks and balances seems (at least temporarily) broken.  I have hope that medium term we can fix this, but I do not rely solely on hope.  Hope must be realized by action
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 31, 2017, 11:25:50 AM
At this point, the court should be holding anyone involved in contempt, up to and including the president (although I imagine there is no paper trail of him ordering the officers to ignore the order).  The court should have asked the US Marshalls to enforce the order (ironic and scary since the Marshalls still technically report to the president, but that would at least let us know how broken the system is).

So the bottom line is no, individual citizens were not all obeying the court and our system of checks and balances seems (at least temporarily) broken.  I have hope that medium term we can fix this, but I do not rely solely on hope.  Hope must be realized by action

Are there any police who don't ultimately report to the President?

SCOTUS has their own police force that reports directly to the justices, but that's the only one I know of. What's the structure for Capitol police?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 31, 2017, 11:29:25 AM
At this point, the court should be holding anyone involved in contempt, up to and including the president (although I imagine there is no paper trail of him ordering the officers to ignore the order).  The court should have asked the US Marshalls to enforce the order (ironic and scary since the Marshalls still technically report to the president, but that would at least let us know how broken the system is).

So the bottom line is no, individual citizens were not all obeying the court and our system of checks and balances seems (at least temporarily) broken.  I have hope that medium term we can fix this, but I do not rely solely on hope.  Hope must be realized by action

Are there any police who don't ultimately report to the President?

SCOTUS has their own police force that reports directly to the justices, but that's the only one I know of. What's the structure for Capitol police?

Aren't all state and local police departments independent of the federal government (instead reporting to State governors)?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: llorona on January 31, 2017, 11:36:43 AM
Too much is happening too fast? All this was laid out long ago in his 100 day plan. I am continually surprised by people's surprise.

AS far as unconstitutional acts: Thank goodness we have checks and balances, and provisions in place to rectify bad laws.  The previous administration got slapped by the courts all the time over their actions. They took the licking and moved on.  The game will not end because of this.

Oh, I'm not surprised that he's enacting what's in the 100 day plan. However, I have been taken aback by the chaos including: the endless lies and insistence on distorting the number of attendees at the inauguration; baseless allegations of 3-5 million illegal ballots and voter fraud investigation; gag order/Twitter feud with the National Park Service; the bullying of our neighbor Mexico; provocation of China regarding the South Sea; sticking son-in-law Jared Kuchner in a senior adviser role; prioritization of Christian Syrian refugees when/if they are allowed to apply for refugee status in the future; clearing out entire State Department; and perhaps most ominously, appointing Bannon as the head of the National Security Council.

Need I continue?

So, yes, I stand by my original statement that too much is happening too fast. It's a game of smoke and mirrors. There's too much deception and diversion.

Check and balances? Where have you seen anyone in the government successfully take action to prevent the regime from bulldozing forward with their plans? The people who have tried - federal judges and the acting AG - have been tossed aside. It's also telling that four days into the presidency, the U.S. was downgraded from a full democracy to a flawed democracy according to the Economic Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index.

While this is anecdotal, many people in my life are scared of their government for the first time. 

This is not normal.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 11:38:32 AM
At this point, the court should be holding anyone involved in contempt, up to and including the president (although I imagine there is no paper trail of him ordering the officers to ignore the order).  The court should have asked the US Marshalls to enforce the order (ironic and scary since the Marshalls still technically report to the president, but that would at least let us know how broken the system is).

So the bottom line is no, individual citizens were not all obeying the court and our system of checks and balances seems (at least temporarily) broken.  I have hope that medium term we can fix this, but I do not rely solely on hope.  Hope must be realized by action
Yes. If individuals will not follow the law, then there is indeed a disconnect.  Officers not obeying a lawful injunction should indeed be sanctioned, as should the immediate superiors ordering such actions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 31, 2017, 12:07:01 PM
At this point, the court should be holding anyone involved in contempt, up to and including the president (although I imagine there is no paper trail of him ordering the officers to ignore the order).  The court should have asked the US Marshalls to enforce the order (ironic and scary since the Marshalls still technically report to the president, but that would at least let us know how broken the system is).

So the bottom line is no, individual citizens were not all obeying the court and our system of checks and balances seems (at least temporarily) broken.  I have hope that medium term we can fix this, but I do not rely solely on hope.  Hope must be realized by action
If staff in your immigration service have been ignoring a court order (eg by deporting people when the order specifically states that this should not be done, then the judge issuing the order should be taking the following actions -

1.  Order the head of the service responsible for the implementation of the order to appear before them, and require the police to enforce that order and produce the head of service,
2.  Require the head of service, on oath, to provide details of all persons deported,
3.  Require the service, at their expense, to return all of those persons who had been deported in contravention of the order to be USA as soon as possible, and on their return to provide them with access to legal advice    Any proposal to deport the person again not to be acted upon until a court hearing has determined its lawfulness,
4.  Hold the head of service in prison until actions 1 to 3 have been completed and the contempt of court discharged.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on January 31, 2017, 12:16:10 PM
Paul Ryan 2016 - "I do not think it is reflective of our principles, not just as a party, but as a country. And I think the smarter way to go in all respects is to have a security test, not a religious test. I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country's interest.”

Paul Ryan 2017 - Paul Ryan on Tuesday defended President Donald Trump's divisive executive order on refugees and immigration, arguing that while the rollout was bumpy, the policy is consistent with Republican principles.

I would agree with his arguments. The ban is not reflective of our countries principles but is indeed consistent with Republican principles.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 31, 2017, 12:59:35 PM
At this point, the court should be holding anyone involved in contempt, up to and including the president (although I imagine there is no paper trail of him ordering the officers to ignore the order).  The court should have asked the US Marshalls to enforce the order (ironic and scary since the Marshalls still technically report to the president, but that would at least let us know how broken the system is).

So the bottom line is no, individual citizens were not all obeying the court and our system of checks and balances seems (at least temporarily) broken.  I have hope that medium term we can fix this, but I do not rely solely on hope.  Hope must be realized by action
If staff in your immigration service have been ignoring a court order (eg by deporting people when the order specifically states that this should not be done, then the judge issuing the order should be taking the following actions -

1.  Order the head of the service responsible for the implementation of the order to appear before them, and require the police to enforce that order and produce the head of service,
2.  Require the head of service, on oath, to provide details of all persons deported,
3.  Require the service, at their expense, to return all of those persons who had been deported in contravention of the order to be USA as soon as possible, and on their return to provide them with access to legal advice    Any proposal to deport the person again not to be acted upon until a court hearing has determined its lawfulness,
4.  Hold the head of service in prison until actions 1 to 3 have been completed and the contempt of court discharged.

I don't know if that's possible, but I would like to see it happen, and for any officers willfully defying the court order lose their jobs.  They take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  If the court says "stop detaining people, it's probably not constitutional" they should listen.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on January 31, 2017, 01:02:11 PM
http://usuncut.com/politics/syrian-family-voted-trump

Syrian family living in the US for years, voted for Trump.  Their family that they spend several years trying to get visas for, where arriving in the US and deported before the stay went into effect.  They thought because they were Christians, they would be ok with Trump's policies...


"I never thought the leopards would eat MY face" says woman who voted for the Leopards eating people's faces party.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on January 31, 2017, 01:06:54 PM
The entire executive order is either the result of gross incompetence or a bullshit smoke screen pushed by Bannon to distract from other shit they are pulling in the background.

I suspect it is a mix of both. I don't like to assume grand political schemes are in the works and most conspiracy theories are bullshit.

In that respect I have to imagine that Trump took his advice from someone other than his Generals who would be more cautious and pragmatic in tampering with immigration policy. While I am pretty sure Trump was clueless, someone in his inner circle, like Bannon, must have guessed an order as hastily prepared as this would meet with strong resistance in the media and the court system. So someone likely discerned that it may be beneficial to create some conflict between the courts and the executive branch now and further polarize the republican base against the courts and the media.

Beyond that the EO is basically symbolic bullshit that stands to do nothing to improve security, so I can only assume someone wanted a political reaction since the EO is sure to get torn apart in the courts. If it were trying to be a real immigration lock down it would include unfriendly nations like the UAE. Legally also you can easily argue that this is technically not a Muslim ban even given its vague poorly written language. However it is equally easy to read between the lines and see how such a vague order could be implemented as a half ass temporary halt on Muslims coming to and from the country. The countries were clearly chosen for their lack of fiscal entanglement and Muslim majority populations.

Overall Trump's administration is setting a number of terrible precedents for his administration. He is showing an incompetent willingness to  use his power, without doing any due diligence, to make political plays without any caution for legal ramifications for average people. Though his base will rally behind him for now, some in slight denial and others because they couldn't give two shits about any of the countries on the list or people from them. 

I think even for those who think that we should hold off on admitting Muslim immigrants for whatever reason, you should have some concern for how the administration chooses to achieve those goals.

Trump is not some fucking Archangel raining terror down on Islam and bleeding red, white and blue. He is just a self centered man, with a lust for attention and power, with a gross level of ignorance about his office, being guide by a group political and power hungry sycophants with questionable political motives.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 31, 2017, 01:07:52 PM

"I never thought the leopards would eat MY face" says woman who voted for the Leopards eating people's faces party.

This sentiment has been pretty common throughout history.
It's also surprising how many people are surprised that a guy who compaigned on building a wall and banning Muslims now is taking steps to build a wall and ban Muslims.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 31, 2017, 01:13:23 PM
The entire executive order is either the result of gross incompetence or a bullshit smoke screen pushed by Bannon to distract from other shit they are pulling in the background.

The problem that I have with this strategy is that it can't work forever.  Its a fine strategy to have when you are in a ratings game and your only metric is whether you've misdirected most of the people to your tomfoolery.  The problem with being in political office is that you've literally got to fool everyone, all the time, an there are some very tenacious people out there that will keep digging.

You might get some orders through with minimal protest because the masses are distracted protesting something else, but if you do something really subversive and illegal - eventually (I hope) a few people are going to put it together and blow the lid off it.  That's what investigative journalism is at its core.
I'm anticipating big scandals after a year or so.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on January 31, 2017, 01:17:48 PM
At this point, the court should be holding anyone involved in contempt, up to and including the president (although I imagine there is no paper trail of him ordering the officers to ignore the order).  The court should have asked the US Marshalls to enforce the order (ironic and scary since the Marshalls still technically report to the president, but that would at least let us know how broken the system is).

So the bottom line is no, individual citizens were not all obeying the court and our system of checks and balances seems (at least temporarily) broken.  I have hope that medium term we can fix this, but I do not rely solely on hope.  Hope must be realized by action
If staff in your immigration service have been ignoring a court order (eg by deporting people when the order specifically states that this should not be done, then the judge issuing the order should be taking the following actions -

1.  Order the head of the service responsible for the implementation of the order to appear before them, and require the police to enforce that order and produce the head of service,
2.  Require the head of service, on oath, to provide details of all persons deported,
3.  Require the service, at their expense, to return all of those persons who had been deported in contravention of the order to be USA as soon as possible, and on their return to provide them with access to legal advice    Any proposal to deport the person again not to be acted upon until a court hearing has determined its lawfulness,
4.  Hold the head of service in prison until actions 1 to 3 have been completed and the contempt of court discharged.
I don't know if that's possible, but I would like to see it happen, and for any officers willfully defying the court order lose their jobs.  They take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  If the court says "stop detaining people, it's probably not constitutional" they should listen.
It is pretty much what has happened here in the UK when someone was deported contrary to a court order (the head of service was not imprisoned because it was more of a miscommunication than a deliberate defiance, but the rest did happen).  Contempt of court is taken extremely seriously here: it is the final remedy which enforces the rule of law.

Democracy is usually considered to be about voting, but voting only creates a democracy if the people voted into office obey the rule of law: "be you never so high, the law is above you" - as first set out in Magna Carta. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 31, 2017, 01:19:52 PM
The entire executive order is either the result of gross incompetence or a bullshit smoke screen pushed by Bannon to distract from other shit they are pulling in the background.

I suspect it is a mix of both. I don't like to assume grand political schemes are in the works and most conspiracy theories are bullshit.


I think there's also an element of staking out an extreme position you ultimately intend to walk back (to what you really wanted in the first place) in the name of "compromise."

He's also testing boundaries and loyalty. How will the courts respond? Will DHS defy court orders?

DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cchrissyy on January 31, 2017, 01:54:50 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 31, 2017, 01:56:03 PM

I think there's also an element of staking out an extreme position you ultimately intend to walk back (to what you really wanted in the first place) in the name of "compromise."

...or perhaps it's even more simple.  DJT sees himself as a great negotiator, and thinks the best thing to do is strike first and exploit weaknesses to gain leverage. Then you can force more concessions.

Works ok when you are negotiating between businesses, but government isn't business.  When speaking about domestic affairs, your side "winning" usually means another group of Americans loses. DJT has not yet shown that he is capable of striking a deal that's mutually agreeable for all parties involved  when he has the leverage to smash his opponents.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 31, 2017, 02:09:33 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

That's not a new policy under Trump.  If a reasonable candidate had run on fixing constitutional infringements like that, they might have one.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cchrissyy on January 31, 2017, 02:13:55 PM
Right, I didn't say it's a new policy, just news to me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 31, 2017, 02:15:12 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

That's not a new policy under Trump.  If a reasonable candidate had run on fixing constitutional infringements like that, they might have one.

LOL https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 31, 2017, 02:21:28 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

That's not a new policy under Trump.  If a reasonable candidate had run on fixing constitutional infringements like that, they might have one.

LOL https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/

and.... the democratic party actively worked to rig their primary against him.  I disagreed with a lot of what Sanders had to say.  On civil liberties for citizens, however, he would have been a better choice than either of the 2 main party candidates.

To add - You don't have to be an advocate of open borders to disagree with unconstitutional search policies for citizens.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 31, 2017, 04:10:58 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

That's not a new policy under Trump.  If a reasonable candidate had run on fixing constitutional infringements like that, they might have one.

LOL https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/

and.... the democratic party actively worked to rig their primary against him.  I disagreed with a lot of what Sanders had to say.  On civil liberties for citizens, however, he would have been a better choice than either of the 2 main party candidates.

To add - You don't have to be an advocate of open borders to disagree with unconstitutional search policies for citizens.

and... at this point Trump is the pres and he bears full responsibility for doing the right thing regardless of what anyone else does/would do.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 31, 2017, 04:24:52 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

That's not a new policy under Trump.  If a reasonable candidate had run on fixing constitutional infringements like that, they might have one.

LOL https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/

and.... the democratic party actively worked to rig their primary against him.  I disagreed with a lot of what Sanders had to say.  On civil liberties for citizens, however, he would have been a better choice than either of the 2 main party candidates.

To add - You don't have to be an advocate of open borders to disagree with unconstitutional search policies for citizens.
I've never put much stock in that argument.  The Democratic party is a private party, and for his entire career as a Senator Sanders has been an independent.  Why would the Democrats NOT favor a lifelong party member over someone who only joins them out of convenience?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 31, 2017, 04:57:55 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

That's not a new policy under Trump.  If a reasonable candidate had run on fixing constitutional infringements like that, they might have one.

LOL https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/

and.... the democratic party actively worked to rig their primary against him.  I disagreed with a lot of what Sanders had to say.  On civil liberties for citizens, however, he would have been a better choice than either of the 2 main party candidates.

To add - You don't have to be an advocate of open borders to disagree with unconstitutional search policies for citizens.

and... at this point Trump is the pres and he bears full responsibility for doing the right thing regardless of what anyone else does/would do.

Dragoncar - I'm not a Trump fanboy, but blaming Trump for the years old 100 mile non-constitution zone less than 2 weeks into his presidency is ludicrous. 

If you want to blame him for blocking people from this country that should have been allowed in I'll agree with you.  4 years from now when the 100 mile non-constitution zone still exists, I'll agree with you that he should have done something about it.  2 weeks in, not so much.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Warlord1986 on January 31, 2017, 05:04:14 PM
I'm torn between going full on doomsday prepper and considering what I'll do if the Fourth Reich actually rises and DHS starts goose-stepping down Pennsylvania Avenue, and telling myself to quit overreacting. There is no in between.

I've already downloaded this app to my phone for secure communications. https://whispersystems.org
If anyone knows of anything better, please let me know.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 31, 2017, 05:05:44 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

That's not a new policy under Trump.  If a reasonable candidate had run on fixing constitutional infringements like that, they might have one.

LOL https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/

and.... the democratic party actively worked to rig their primary against him.  I disagreed with a lot of what Sanders had to say.  On civil liberties for citizens, however, he would have been a better choice than either of the 2 main party candidates.

To add - You don't have to be an advocate of open borders to disagree with unconstitutional search policies for citizens.
I've never put much stock in that argument.  The Democratic party is a private party, and for his entire career as a Senator Sanders has been an independent.  Why would the Democrats NOT favor a lifelong party member over someone who only joins them out of convenience?

Nereo - There is much consternation about Trump's lack of care for constitutional protections for citizens of this country.  My point, which I'll stand by, is that neither party put forth a candidate advocating a good platform in that regard.  We can argue that Trump is worse, but both candidates were piss poor on rolling back big brother.

The response I received was - Sanders.  If the democratic establishment cared anything about this topic (they don't and neither do the Repubs), they would have found someone besides Clinton to run.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on January 31, 2017, 05:33:12 PM
Dragoncar - I'm not a Trump fanboy, but blaming Trump for the years old 100 mile non-constitution zone less than 2 weeks into his presidency is ludicrous. 

If you want to blame him for blocking people from this country that should have been allowed in I'll agree with you.  4 years from now when the 100 mile non-constitution zone still exists, I'll agree with you that he should have done something about it.  2 weeks in, not so much.

I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for the 100-mile rule. My original point was that DHS has demonstrated loyalty to Trump in spite of a court order, AND that they have actual, legal jurisdiction way beyond where most people realize, AND that they can bend the Fourth Amendment (not that it matters much when you're already ignoring the courts) within that 100 mile zone.

If they, by and large, are more loyal to Trump than to the Constitution and United States Code, it's a big problem.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 31, 2017, 05:38:06 PM
Dragoncar - I'm not a Trump fanboy, but blaming Trump for the years old 100 mile non-constitution zone less than 2 weeks into his presidency is ludicrous. 

If you want to blame him for blocking people from this country that should have been allowed in I'll agree with you.  4 years from now when the 100 mile non-constitution zone still exists, I'll agree with you that he should have done something about it.  2 weeks in, not so much.

I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for the 100-mile rule. My original point was that DHS has demonstrated loyalty to Trump in spite of a court order, AND that they have actual, legal jurisdiction way beyond where most people realize, AND that they can bend the Fourth Amendment (not that it matters much when you're already ignoring the courts) within that 100 mile zone.

If they, by and large, are more loyal to Trump than to the Constitution and United States Code, it's a big problem.

The theme seems to be, however, sudden worries about constitutional infringements under Trump.  Constitutional erosion has been going on for quite some time.  I didn't vote for Obama, but one of the things I hoped he might do, is roll back govt over reach.  That certainly didn't happen.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 31, 2017, 05:40:52 PM
Dragoncar - I'm not a Trump fanboy, but blaming Trump for the years old 100 mile non-constitution zone less than 2 weeks into his presidency is ludicrous. 

If you want to blame him for blocking people from this country that should have been allowed in I'll agree with you.  4 years from now when the 100 mile non-constitution zone still exists, I'll agree with you that he should have done something about it.  2 weeks in, not so much.

I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for the 100-mile rule. My original point was that DHS has demonstrated loyalty to Trump in spite of a court order, AND that they have actual, legal jurisdiction way beyond where most people realize, AND that they can bend the Fourth Amendment (not that it matters much when you're already ignoring the courts) within that 100 mile zone.

If they, by and large, are more loyal to Trump than to the Constitution and United States Code, it's a big problem.

The theme seems to be, however, sudden worries about constitutional infringements under Trump.  Constitutional erosion has been going on for quite some time.  I didn't vote for Obama, but one of the things I hoped he might do, is roll back govt over reach.  That certainly didn't happen.

Constitutional infringements are at a whole different level when the executive disobeys the judiciary.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on January 31, 2017, 05:47:29 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

That's not a new policy under Trump.  If a reasonable candidate had run on fixing constitutional infringements like that, they might have one.

LOL https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/

and.... the democratic party actively worked to rig their primary against him.  I disagreed with a lot of what Sanders had to say.  On civil liberties for citizens, however, he would have been a better choice than either of the 2 main party candidates.

To add - You don't have to be an advocate of open borders to disagree with unconstitutional search policies for citizens.
I've never put much stock in that argument.  The Democratic party is a private party, and for his entire career as a Senator Sanders has been an independent.  Why would the Democrats NOT favor a lifelong party member over someone who only joins them out of convenience?

Nereo - There is much consternation about Trump's lack of care for constitutional protections for citizens of this country.  My point, which I'll stand by, is that neither party put forth a candidate advocating a good platform in that regard.  We can argue that Trump is worse, but both candidates were piss poor on rolling back big brother.

The response I received was - Sanders.  If the democratic establishment cared anything about this topic (they don't and neither do the Repubs), they would have found someone besides Clinton to run.

I'll agree that the respective choices weren't acceptable or optimal for a huge swath of the country.  I just don't agree when people use terms like "rigged" (a Sander's and Trump sound bite).  It wasn't rigged.  There was no reason why should have supported Sanders.  What the DNC *did* fail to do was support a Democrat without so much political baggage.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 31, 2017, 07:38:49 PM
Dragoncar - I'm not a Trump fanboy, but blaming Trump for the years old 100 mile non-constitution zone less than 2 weeks into his presidency is ludicrous. 

If you want to blame him for blocking people from this country that should have been allowed in I'll agree with you.  4 years from now when the 100 mile non-constitution zone still exists, I'll agree with you that he should have done something about it.  2 weeks in, not so much.

I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for the 100-mile rule. My original point was that DHS has demonstrated loyalty to Trump in spite of a court order, AND that they have actual, legal jurisdiction way beyond where most people realize, AND that they can bend the Fourth Amendment (not that it matters much when you're already ignoring the courts) within that 100 mile zone.

If they, by and large, are more loyal to Trump than to the Constitution and United States Code, it's a big problem.

The theme seems to be, however, sudden worries about constitutional infringements under Trump.  Constitutional erosion has been going on for quite some time.  I didn't vote for Obama, but one of the things I hoped he might do, is roll back govt over reach.  That certainly didn't happen.

Constitutional infringements are at a whole different level when the executive disobeys the judiciary.

As opposed to the Obama administration - http://aclj.org/executive-power/federal-court-throws-rulebook-at-obamas-intentionally-deceptive-doj-in-scorching-smackdown

For the record, executive branch should obey court order.  I disagree with both actions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on January 31, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote
DHS police (customs, border patrol, etc.) have jurisdiction within 100 miles of any border (including water), which covers ~60% of U.S. citizens, and most of the left-leaning population centers.

I just learned that too   (sigh)

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

That's not a new policy under Trump.  If a reasonable candidate had run on fixing constitutional infringements like that, they might have one.

LOL https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/

and.... the democratic party actively worked to rig their primary against him.  I disagreed with a lot of what Sanders had to say.  On civil liberties for citizens, however, he would have been a better choice than either of the 2 main party candidates.

To add - You don't have to be an advocate of open borders to disagree with unconstitutional search policies for citizens.
I've never put much stock in that argument.  The Democratic party is a private party, and for his entire career as a Senator Sanders has been an independent.  Why would the Democrats NOT favor a lifelong party member over someone who only joins them out of convenience?

Nereo - There is much consternation about Trump's lack of care for constitutional protections for citizens of this country.  My point, which I'll stand by, is that neither party put forth a candidate advocating a good platform in that regard.  We can argue that Trump is worse, but both candidates were piss poor on rolling back big brother.

The response I received was - Sanders.  If the democratic establishment cared anything about this topic (they don't and neither do the Repubs), they would have found someone besides Clinton to run.

I'll agree that the respective choices weren't acceptable or optimal for a huge swath of the country.  I just don't agree when people use terms like "rigged" (a Sander's and Trump sound bite).  It wasn't rigged.  There was no reason why should have supported Sanders.  What the DNC *did* fail to do was support a Democrat without so much political baggage.

In the context of this discussion, Sanders was thrown as a response for a candidate favoring reigning in constitutional over reach..  Rigged may not be the best term, but the DNC certainly did everything in their power to put him away and get Clinton in the general. 

On this topic, neither the democratic establishment nor the republican establishment seems concerned about correcting the situation. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 09:14:27 PM
Dragoncar - I'm not a Trump fanboy, but blaming Trump for the years old 100 mile non-constitution zone less than 2 weeks into his presidency is ludicrous. 

If you want to blame him for blocking people from this country that should have been allowed in I'll agree with you.  4 years from now when the 100 mile non-constitution zone still exists, I'll agree with you that he should have done something about it.  2 weeks in, not so much.

I don't think anyone is blaming Trump for the 100-mile rule. My original point was that DHS has demonstrated loyalty to Trump in spite of a court order, AND that they have actual, legal jurisdiction way beyond where most people realize, AND that they can bend the Fourth Amendment (not that it matters much when you're already ignoring the courts) within that 100 mile zone.

If they, by and large, are more loyal to Trump than to the Constitution and United States Code, it's a big problem.

The theme seems to be, however, sudden worries about constitutional infringements under Trump.  Constitutional erosion has been going on for quite some time.  I didn't vote for Obama, but one of the things I hoped he might do, is roll back govt over reach.  That certainly didn't happen.

Constitutional infringements are at a whole different level when the executive disobeys the judiciary.

As opposed to the Obama administration - http://aclj.org/executive-power/federal-court-throws-rulebook-at-obamas-intentionally-deceptive-doj-in-scorching-smackdown

For the record, executive branch should obey court order.  I disagree with both actions.
Interesting read. Thank you.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on January 31, 2017, 09:19:21 PM

I think there's also an element of staking out an extreme position you ultimately intend to walk back (to what you really wanted in the first place) in the name of "compromise."

...or perhaps it's even more simple.  DJT sees himself as a great negotiator, and thinks the best thing to do is strike first and exploit weaknesses to gain leverage. Then you can force more concessions.

Works ok when you are negotiating between businesses, but government isn't business.  When speaking about domestic affairs, your side "winning" usually means another group of Americans loses. DJT has not yet shown that he is capable of striking a deal that's mutually agreeable for all parties involved  when he has the leverage to smash his opponents.
While Trump may be an extreme example of this, certainly it has been a while since an administration has neglected to use their leverage to the fullest extent possible to accomplish their policy goals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on January 31, 2017, 10:21:25 PM

Constitutional infringements are at a whole different level when the executive disobeys the judiciary.

As opposed to the Obama administration - http://aclj.org/executive-power/federal-court-throws-rulebook-at-obamas-intentionally-deceptive-doj-in-scorching-smackdown


Those are not parallel cases.  In the story you link, as far as I can tell (and I certainly didn't read every related opinion), Obama's DOJ obeyed the injunction once issued.

Moreover, the underlying issue, giving extensions to undocumented workers who entered the US as a child, was hardly an infringement of individual constitutional rights.

So yes, I stand by my assertion that detaining/deporting people up without due process is a whole different level.

I agree that lawyers should be slapped down for lying, and they probably got off easy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 01, 2017, 07:37:47 AM

Constitutional infringements are at a whole different level when the executive disobeys the judiciary.

As opposed to the Obama administration - http://aclj.org/executive-power/federal-court-throws-rulebook-at-obamas-intentionally-deceptive-doj-in-scorching-smackdown


Those are not parallel cases.  In the story you link, as far as I can tell (and I certainly didn't read every related opinion), Obama's DOJ obeyed the injunction once issued.

Moreover, the underlying issue, giving extensions to undocumented workers who entered the US as a child, was hardly an infringement of individual constitutional rights.

So yes, I stand by my assertion that detaining/deporting people up without due process is a whole different level.

I agree that lawyers should be slapped down for lying, and they probably got off easy.

One of the assertions in the case I quoted is that DOJ lawyers lied to the court in order to keep the program in place.  In both instances, the executive branch was thumbing their noses at the court.  The end does not justify the means in either case.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 01, 2017, 08:28:47 AM
A friend shared this on FB, and I couldn't decide exactly where to put it, but this seemed like the best spot. Feel free to copy and share on FB.

Why not take a break from negativity and learn about each other? 😃
1. Who are you named after?
There is a literal, fascist administration in office in the United States.
2. Last time you cried?
Resist it, unerringly, with all your strength.
3. Soda or water?
A woman, scheduled to be deported, attempted suicide in the airport.
4. What is your favorite lunch meat?
Donate to the ACLU.
5. Longest relationship?
Law enforcement is illegally enforcing the ban, even though a stay has been issued by the court system.
6. Do you still have your tonsils?
Soon, we won't have the courts to depend on, either.
7. Would you bungee jump?
Get your news from Twitter, not Facebook. FB manipulates what you see. Getting an account is easy. Ask me who to follow.
8. How many years at current job?
Stand up for minorities and women's health and freedom of the press.
9. Do you untie your shoes when you take them off?
Make sure to take care of your mental health in this tumultuous and stressful time.
10. Roller coasters?
Punching unapologetic actual Nazis is illegal and you definitely should do it every chance you get.
11. Favorite ice cream?
Many of the Democrats are folding. Keep the heat on them, keep writing and calling them.
12. Favorite thing to do?
This is not normal. Don't act like it is. You can't ignore this.
13. Football or baseball?
Steve Bannon has said himself he is a Leninist who wants to destroy and remake society, and he is manipulating the POTUS to sow chaos as a pretext for crushing civil liberties and others seizing permanent power.
14. Leggings or Jeans?
Install the Signal or Wickr app to make sure your messages are end-to-end encrypted and stop using FB messenger, Google Voice/Hangouts, and texting, which are easy to spy on.
15. What are you listening to?
Keep up with everything going on, do not let up.
16. Favorite Color?
Prepare for the increased repression of American citizens. It is coming.
17. Tattoos?
Keep in mind that he is constantly lying to us. Do not believe anything he says. If he says the sky is blue, look up and check it, yourself, or save time and assume that he's lying.
18. Married?
They still haven't fixed the pipes in Flint, Michigan.
19. Hair color?
Stop being complicit.
20. Eye color?
Stop being obedient.
21. Favorite to eat?
Stop fooling yourself that you won't have to fight somehow.
22. Scary movies or happy endings?
Stop being scared. Stand up for what you believe in.
23. Android or iPhone?
America is a country of immigrants. We are better because of our diversity.
24. Chevy, Ford, or Buick?
Elevate people less privileged than you who are being actively repressed.
25. Favorite holiday?
It will get worse. You are stronger than you think, and you can take it.
26. Beer or wine?
You have to. We don't have any other options.
27. Night owl or morning?
Your children and grandchildren will remember you by what you did during these years.
28. Favorite day of the week?
Dissent is American. *All* enemies, foreign *and domestic.*
Come on....someone do this with me. 😄 Let's have some fun, take a break from negativity and learn about each other.
Copy and paste into your status and just change your answers!
(I stole this: Writer unknown)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on February 01, 2017, 09:45:40 AM
I'm torn between going full on doomsday prepper and considering what I'll do if the Fourth Reich actually rises and DHS starts goose-stepping down Pennsylvania Avenue, and telling myself to quit overreacting. There is no in between.

I've already downloaded this app to my phone for secure communications. https://whispersystems.org
If anyone knows of anything better, please let me know.

Signal. It's end-to-end encryption and they hang onto the bare minimum of your data that they are legally required to. That is, they can give out the phone numbers you've contacted (via warrant) but that's all. You can also make secure calls. However, the person on the other end needs to have Signal (or maybe just any encryption app?) for it to be secure. Get your friends and family on board.
MonkeyJenga is setting up a webpage called "I Marched Now What" for the resistance (seems silly to call it that, but that's basically what it is--resisting Trump) and I'm working on the "prudent paranoia" page as I have a lot of friends and family who work in security. If you want, MJ is putting this stuff up in her journal (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/the-politics-of-dating/) and she's going to let people know when the page is up and running.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: robartsd on February 01, 2017, 10:25:42 AM
I'm torn between going full on doomsday prepper and considering what I'll do if the Fourth Reich actually rises and DHS starts goose-stepping down Pennsylvania Avenue, and telling myself to quit overreacting. There is no in between.

I've already downloaded this app to my phone for secure communications. https://whispersystems.org
If anyone knows of anything better, please let me know.

Signal. It's end-to-end encryption and they hang onto the bare minimum of your data that they are legally required to. That is, they can give out the phone numbers you've contacted (via warrant) but that's all. You can also make secure calls. However, the person on the other end needs to have Signal (or maybe just any encryption app?) for it to be secure. Get your friends and family on board.
MonkeyJenga is setting up a webpage called "I Marched Now What" for the resistance (seems silly to call it that, but that's basically what it is--resisting Trump) and I'm working on the "prudent paranoia" page as I have a lot of friends and family who work in security. If you want, MJ is putting this stuff up in her journal (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/the-politics-of-dating/) and she's going to let people know when the page is up and running.

Increasing the general awareness of how technology can make your communications more secure and private is a positive impact.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 01, 2017, 11:00:10 AM
Increasing the general awareness of how technology can make your communications more secure and private is a positive impact.

Good job finding the silver lining in the destruction of American ideals.

America may never again be the great nation it once aspired to be, but at least the remaining pockets of underground resistance patriots will learn to love crypto.  So I guess that's a win?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on February 01, 2017, 11:10:09 AM
Increasing the general awareness of how technology can make your communications more secure and private is a positive impact.

Good job finding the silver lining in the destruction of American ideals.

America may never again be the great nation it once aspired to be, but at least the remaining pockets of underground resistance patriots will learn to love crypto.  So I guess that's a win?

Shouldn't we take those where we can get them?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: A mom on February 01, 2017, 11:41:19 AM
Thank you so much for this! I had a friend post on Facebook that she was tired of seeing political posts and wanted to go back to seeing pictures of people's dinners.

A friend shared this on FB, and I couldn't decide exactly where to put it, but this seemed like the best spot. Feel free to copy and share on FB.

Why not take a break from negativity and learn about each other? 😃
1. Who are you named after?
There is a literal, fascist administration in office in the United States.
2. Last time you cried?
Resist it, unerringly, with all your strength.
3. Soda or water?
A woman, scheduled to be deported, attempted suicide in the airport.
4. What is your favorite lunch meat?
Donate to the ACLU.
5. Longest relationship?
Law enforcement is illegally enforcing the ban, even though a stay has been issued by the court system.
6. Do you still have your tonsils?
Soon, we won't have the courts to depend on, either.
7. Would you bungee jump?
Get your news from Twitter, not Facebook. FB manipulates what you see. Getting an account is easy. Ask me who to follow.
8. How many years at current job?
Stand up for minorities and women's health and freedom of the press.
9. Do you untie your shoes when you take them off?
Make sure to take care of your mental health in this tumultuous and stressful time.
10. Roller coasters?
Punching unapologetic actual Nazis is illegal and you definitely should do it every chance you get.
11. Favorite ice cream?
Many of the Democrats are folding. Keep the heat on them, keep writing and calling them.
12. Favorite thing to do?
This is not normal. Don't act like it is. You can't ignore this.
13. Football or baseball?
Steve Bannon has said himself he is a Leninist who wants to destroy and remake society, and he is manipulating the POTUS to sow chaos as a pretext for crushing civil liberties and others seizing permanent power.
14. Leggings or Jeans?
Install the Signal or Wickr app to make sure your messages are end-to-end encrypted and stop using FB messenger, Google Voice/Hangouts, and texting, which are easy to spy on.
15. What are you listening to?
Keep up with everything going on, do not let up.
16. Favorite Color?
Prepare for the increased repression of American citizens. It is coming.
17. Tattoos?
Keep in mind that he is constantly lying to us. Do not believe anything he says. If he says the sky is blue, look up and check it, yourself, or save time and assume that he's lying.
18. Married?
They still haven't fixed the pipes in Flint, Michigan.
19. Hair color?
Stop being complicit.
20. Eye color?
Stop being obedient.
21. Favorite to eat?
Stop fooling yourself that you won't have to fight somehow.
22. Scary movies or happy endings?
Stop being scared. Stand up for what you believe in.
23. Android or iPhone?
America is a country of immigrants. We are better because of our diversity.
24. Chevy, Ford, or Buick?
Elevate people less privileged than you who are being actively repressed.
25. Favorite holiday?
It will get worse. You are stronger than you think, and you can take it.
26. Beer or wine?
You have to. We don't have any other options.
27. Night owl or morning?
Your children and grandchildren will remember you by what you did during these years.
28. Favorite day of the week?
Dissent is American. *All* enemies, foreign *and domestic.*
Come on....someone do this with me. 😄 Let's have some fun, take a break from negativity and learn about each other.
Copy and paste into your status and just change your answers!
(I stole this: Writer unknown)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Luck12 on February 01, 2017, 01:12:00 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/trump-immigrants/515310/ 

From the article:

"The language is vague, but immigration law experts I spoke with on background said it might mean that millions of legal immigrants who have ever received public assistance—as half of native-born Americans currently do—would be targeted for deportation. "

I left a message on one of my senators' vmails to fight this vigorously.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on February 01, 2017, 01:36:25 PM
I'm honestly torn about the Supreme Court. 

On one hand it doesn't look this nominee is horrible.  If anything he is adamantly on the record as not showing any deference to other branches and focusing only on the law, which might be good about inevitable Trump related legal challenges.

He is very conservative though and tends to side with religion interests.

On the other hand, Garland was also an exemplary middle of the road choice that was previously approved on voice vote and we see how the (R)s treated him, so turnaround is fair play.

If the dems do roadblock him, the nuclear option will be used, and political capital will be spent now instead of on a possible future selection (like if RBG dies).

Just sad that after 200+ years, our most unique political activity (the senate) where the minority party holds significant power will inevitably be neutered with the nuclear option (if not now, then soon).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on February 01, 2017, 01:50:44 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/trump-immigrants/515310/ 

From the article:

"The language is vague, but immigration law experts I spoke with on background said it might mean that millions of legal immigrants who have ever received public assistance—as half of native-born Americans currently do—would be targeted for deportation. "

I left a message on one of my senators' vmails to fight this vigorously.

So, once again we see that he's not going to "create" jobs, he's just going to open up a bunch by kicking people out of the country and making it harder for certain groups to get the jobs that do exist. Lovely.
At least for some of this we can count on the big tech companies to strongly come out against it. I can think of at least four people in my office who would be directly affected by the second order.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 01, 2017, 01:52:54 PM
Increasing the general awareness of how technology can make your communications more secure and private is a positive impact.

Good job finding the silver lining in the destruction of American ideals.

America may never again be the great nation it once aspired to be, but at least the remaining pockets of underground resistance patriots will learn to love crypto.  So I guess that's a win?
Of course, America was never as great as it aspired to be, so it would be hard to lay this at the feet of a president who has only been in office a few days, when the trend has been away from greatness for at least two decades.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 01, 2017, 01:57:36 PM
I'm honestly torn about the Supreme Court. 

On one hand it doesn't look this nominee is horrible.  If anything he is adamantly on the record as not showing any deference to other branches and focusing only on the law, which might be good about inevitable Trump related legal challenges.

He is very conservative though and tends to side with religion interests.

On the other hand, Garland was also an exemplary middle of the road choice that was previously approved on voice vote and we see how the (R)s treated him, so turnaround is fair play.

If the dems do roadblock him, the nuclear option will be used, and political capital will be spent now instead of on a possible future selection (like if RBG dies).

Just sad that after 200+ years, our most unique political activity (the senate) where the minority party holds significant power will inevitably be neutered with the nuclear option (if not now, then soon).
This is how I feel.  The dems are going to tilt at this windmill, when it could be reasonable to accept him, and burn out before the next appointment, which could be much, much worse. Of course, the classic, ever helpful "But they did it too!!!" Will ring out from people interested only in their own needs, and not true progress for the country.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 01, 2017, 01:58:52 PM
I'm honestly torn about the Supreme Court. 

On one hand it doesn't look this nominee is horrible.  If anything he is adamantly on the record as not showing any deference to other branches and focusing only on the law, which might be good about inevitable Trump related legal challenges.

He is very conservative though and tends to side with religion interests.

On the other hand, Garland was also an exemplary middle of the road choice that was previously approved on voice vote and we see how the (R)s treated him, so turnaround is fair play.

If the dems do roadblock him, the nuclear option will be used, and political capital will be spent now instead of on a possible future selection (like if RBG dies).

Just sad that after 200+ years, our most unique political activity (the senate) where the minority party holds significant power will inevitably be neutered with the nuclear option (if not now, then soon).
If he sides with religion, he is not following our Constitution.  Because what you really means is that he allows for Christians to enforce their beliefs on others.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 01, 2017, 02:03:43 PM
I mean, I totally agree this is a stolen supreme court pick (and anyone on the right claiming otherwise is about as disingenuous as one can be), but frankly it could have been a lot worse. I know a lot of analysts are saying he's similar to Scalia but from what I can tell he's not as outright hypocritically partisan as that old bastard was. And he actually has some history of standing up to executive authority.

Regardless, I don't think it matters if "political capital" is expended now or for a hypothetical future pick. the Repubs long ago proved that they will never cooperate whatsoever either way so if they didn't go nuclear now they would just do it next time and the outcome would be the same. Plus, if the Dems take back congress in 2018, they'll have a much easier time stonewalling picks until a moderate is put forth.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 01, 2017, 02:11:56 PM
Just got word of a draft EO adding additional countries to the ban.  If signed, this will cost me a lot in travel already booked.  Might have to move to another country (if wife's family can not visit, I'm sure this will be the result).  This is not good for America and really depressing. 

Why didn't I travel last year????
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 01, 2017, 02:15:04 PM
Just got word of a draft EO adding additional countries to the ban.  If signed, this will cost me a lot in travel already booked.  Might have to move to another country (if wife's family can not visit, I'm sure this will be the result).  This is not good for America and really depressing. 

Why didn't I travel last year????

Now I know it's all gone to shit. A dour, straight post from dragoncar. Not a single clause of wit. This is not good for America and really depressing.

edit: time to sell more VTSAX.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 01, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
Just got word of a draft EO adding additional countries to the ban.  If signed, this will cost me a lot in travel already booked.  Might have to move to another country (if wife's family can not visit, I'm sure this will be the result).  This is not good for America and really depressing. 

Why didn't I travel last year????

Now I know it's all gone to shit. A dour, straight post from dragoncar. Not a single clause of wit. This is not good for America and really depressing.

edit: time to sell more VTSAX.

At least we have the financial means to get through this.*  I really feel for those without.  Maybe if I bone up on immigration/constitutional law (this is not my area of expertise) I can help some people before I go.

*A cheaper country might even be good for us, financially.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 01, 2017, 03:26:54 PM
I'm honestly torn about the Supreme Court. 

On one hand it doesn't look this nominee is horrible.  If anything he is adamantly on the record as not showing any deference to other branches and focusing only on the law, which might be good about inevitable Trump related legal challenges.

He is very conservative though and tends to side with religion interests.

On the other hand, Garland was also an exemplary middle of the road choice that was previously approved on voice vote and we see how the (R)s treated him, so turnaround is fair play.

If the dems do roadblock him, the nuclear option will be used, and political capital will be spent now instead of on a possible future selection (like if RBG dies).

Just sad that after 200+ years, our most unique political activity (the senate) where the minority party holds significant power will inevitably be neutered with the nuclear option (if not now, then soon).
This is how I feel.  The dems are going to tilt at this windmill, when it could be reasonable to accept him, and burn out before the next appointment, which could be much, much worse. Of course, the classic, ever helpful "But they did it too!!!" Will ring out from people interested only in their own needs, and not true progress for the country.

I really doubt it. There are a number of Democrats in right-leaning states who won't dare oppose him, so he'll get through in the end.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on February 01, 2017, 03:42:27 PM
If the dems do roadblock him, the nuclear option will be used, and political capital will be spent now instead of on a possible future selection (like if RBG dies).

 Had it not been for Garland, maybe there would have been a case for an easy confirmation. But this is not a time for building up  political capital... the Reps have not shown themselves to be honorable of late, anyway.  This is where Dems show that they have the toughness to hold together.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 01, 2017, 04:00:56 PM
With regard to the pick, it is a done deal, but the Dems probably shouldn't back down because there is no point in saving an option for later that doesn't work. You may as well make the Repubs change the rules now and get it over with. If you don't have a majority in Congress you lose and the other side gets to appoint whoever the fuck they want.

It sucks and it shouldn't be that way. In the end it has more potential to work out poorly for both sides, but it is how the rules work currently.

That is basically a summary of this:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/make-republicans-nuke-the-filibuster-to-confirm-gorsuch.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/make-republicans-nuke-the-filibuster-to-confirm-gorsuch.html)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 01, 2017, 07:14:16 PM
I'm honestly torn about the Supreme Court. 

On one hand it doesn't look this nominee is horrible.  If anything he is adamantly on the record as not showing any deference to other branches and focusing only on the law, which might be good about inevitable Trump related legal challenges.

He is very conservative though and tends to side with religion interests.

On the other hand, Garland was also an exemplary middle of the road choice that was previously approved on voice vote and we see how the (R)s treated him, so turnaround is fair play.

If the dems do roadblock him, the nuclear option will be used, and political capital will be spent now instead of on a possible future selection (like if RBG dies).

Just sad that after 200+ years, our most unique political activity (the senate) where the minority party holds significant power will inevitably be neutered with the nuclear option (if not now, then soon).
This is how I feel.  The dems are going to tilt at this windmill, when it could be reasonable to accept him, and burn out before the next appointment, which could be much, much worse. Of course, the classic, ever helpful "But they did it too!!!" Will ring out from people interested only in their own needs, and not true progress for the country.

The republicans abused the system to prevent nomination of a perfectly acceptable appointee.  If the Democrats do the same, it will either:
- force the Republicans to change in rules to something that prevents the type of self-serving behaviour that they pioneered (America benefits)
- prevent nomination of the Republican selected judge (No real change to America)
If the Democrats roll over, then the next time that they need to appoint someone what will stop the Republicans from abusing the system again?

In this case, opposing the nomination out of hand will most likely serve to strengthen America and is true progress for the country.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 01, 2017, 07:17:14 PM
If the dems do roadblock him, the nuclear option will be used, and political capital will be spent now instead of on a possible future selection (like if RBG dies).

 Had it not been for Garland, maybe there would have been a case for an easy confirmation. But this is not a time for building up  political capital... the Reps have not shown themselves to be honorable of late, anyway.  This is where Dems show that they have the toughness to hold together.
I just love how these exact same arguments were used by the other side during the last presidency. It's very frustrating that neither side will work with the other, the only reason being that they're the other side.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 01, 2017, 07:21:28 PM
The republicans abused the system to prevent nomination of a perfectly acceptable appointee.  If the Democrats do the same, it will either:
- force the Republicans to change in rules to something that prevents the type of self-serving behaviour that they pioneered (America benefits)
- prevent nomination of the Republican selected judge (No real change to America)
If the Democrats roll over, then the next time that they need to appoint someone what will stop the Republicans from abusing the system again?

In this case, opposing the nomination out of hand will most likely serve to strengthen America and is true progress for the country.
We'd be back in the same boat. I disagree that there is 'no real change to America' from congressional deadlock. I believe in the long-term it is detrimental, and when both parties put their political affiliations before the functioning of the country, it gets me a bit depressed about the entire system.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 01, 2017, 08:12:47 PM
I just love how these exact same arguments were used by the other side during the last presidency. It's very frustrating that neither side will work with the other, the only reason being that they're the other side.

I don't see the same equivalency that you do.  Republicans broke with protocol on this point.  You can't blame the Democrats for that decision.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 01, 2017, 09:05:52 PM
Holy Crap, it's already happening.  We are all too distracted by Supreme Court implications (do we block this somewhat too far Right but not that bad guy) and Tweets (his comments on Frederick Douglass are so easy to ridicule) that we miss the fact that Trump really only cares about making money (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/01/millions-campaign-funds-went-trump-firms/97357954/). 

As such, he is severely compromised and everyone except him and his inner circle should be terrified.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 01, 2017, 09:10:44 PM
I just love how these exact same arguments were used by the other side during the last presidency. It's very frustrating that neither side will work with the other, the only reason being that they're the other side.

I don't see the same equivalency that you do.  Republicans broke with protocol on this point.  You can't blame the Democrats for that decision.
I would totally blame them for not working to fix the system. If "well they did it first" is the only argument for an action that everyone agrees is improper, I will completely blame both sides for engaging in the same behavior.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 01, 2017, 09:30:55 PM
I just love how these exact same arguments were used by the other side during the last presidency. It's very frustrating that neither side will work with the other, the only reason being that they're the other side.

I don't see the same equivalency that you do.  Republicans broke with protocol on this point.  You can't blame the Democrats for that decision.
I would totally blame them for not working to fix the system. If "well they did it first" is the only argument for an action that everyone agrees is improper, I will completely blame both sides for engaging in the same behavior.
Seriously, do you think Democrats or liberals are just plain evil and dismiss them?  Did you see my last post about Trump using his businesses to profit off of his run for Presidency.  This is probably not an isolated incident.  After Obama and GW and Clinton, I didn't like much of what was going on, but I don't think any of the recent Presidential runs were money hungry like Trump.  If he doesn't make billions and move markets, he probably will be #Sad. For all we know, sitting atop incredible 'potential energy', he is planning out how to make a great deal of what once was a 14T economy flow to Donald Jr., Ivanka / Kushner, Eric, and even a few hundred million to Tiffany.  We've handed over our global face to the fox in the henhouse.  Sadly, he will also blow this up for his kids but we are all strapped to the same missile.  What once was destined to challenge the Universe and venture to Mars is now targeted on Iran and moving around rocks on our quickly receding land masses.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 01, 2017, 09:35:28 PM
I just love how these exact same arguments were used by the other side during the last presidency. It's very frustrating that neither side will work with the other, the only reason being that they're the other side.

I don't see the same equivalency that you do.  Republicans broke with protocol on this point.  You can't blame the Democrats for that decision.
I would totally blame them for not working to fix the system. If "well they did it first" is the only argument for an action that everyone agrees is improper, I will completely blame both sides for engaging in the same behavior.
Seriously, do you think Democrats or liberals are just plain evil and dismiss them?  Did you see my last post about Trump using his businesses to profit off of his run for Presidency.  This is probably not an isolated incident.  After Obama and GW and Clinton, I didn't like much of what was going on, but I don't think any of the recent Presidential runs were money hungry like Trump.  If he doesn't make billions and move markets, he probably will be #Sad. For all we know, sitting atop incredible 'potential energy', he is planning out how to make a great deal of what once was a 14T economy flow to Donald Jr., Ivanka / Kushner, Eric, and even a few hundred million to Tiffany.  We've handed over our global face to the fox in the henhouse.  Sadly, he will also blow this up for his kids but we are all strapped to the same missile.  What once was destined to challenge the Universe and venture to Mars is now targeted on Iran and moving around rocks on our quickly receding land masses.
So how is stonewalling a quite acceptable (by most accounts) SCOTUS judge nomination helping to stop Trump from immoral and illegal business dealings?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 01, 2017, 10:05:28 PM
(not quoting a wall of text)
I think that SCOTUS is a long term (more significant than normal) appointment.  Maybe it is politicized, but stonewalling should not immediately raise hackles.  For some multi-decade decision, time should be taken.  Maybe that is the problem in this modern world, in fact, that we make permanent decisions about our future in a week.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 01, 2017, 10:09:13 PM
(not quoting a wall of text)
I think that SCOTUS is a long term (more significant than normal) appointment.  Maybe it is politicized, but stonewalling should not immediately raise hackles.  For some multi-decade decision, time should be taken.  Maybe that is the problem in this modern world, in fact, that we make permanent decisions about our future in a week.

Or in rage/revenge-filled seconds, in the case of our current POTUS.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 01, 2017, 10:13:10 PM
Absolutely the decision should be carefully weighed. There is a process in place for considering SCOTUS appointments, and as far as I can tell that process is not broken. Republicans did an end run around that process with the last nomination. Suggesting that the Democrats attempt, or supporting for, the same maneuver is not a positive direction for political action in this country, and makes them just as bad as Republicans. (IMO)

If the nominee is not suited or unwanted, then they should be voted down, regardless of the party nominating them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 01, 2017, 10:20:26 PM
I honestly feel like I'm living through the movie "Idiocracy".  Surely this was a parody on what was possible but not real.  And yet here we are.  Trump now pulling out his 'world class diplomacy' on Iran (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-iran-idUSKBN15G5ED).  Won't it be awesome to watch a first world country withdraw from the global economy (that benefits it disproportionately), closes its borders to cheap labor and talented academics from other countries, and uses significant assets to attack third world countries (as opposed to maybe renewable energy or space programs) .
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 01, 2017, 10:43:16 PM
I have yet to hear a convincing argument why we should be treating Iran like we do. There are many other countries that sponsor terrorism against the US and our allies at a much more demonstrable level. Iran is also an enemy of pretty much all of those countries and yet because we have such deep business ties with them (looking at you Saudi Arabia), we pretend like Iran is the problem. A war with them is probably among the scariest realistic impacts I could see emerging from a Trump presidency.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 01, 2017, 11:57:50 PM
I honestly feel like I'm living through the movie "Idiocracy".  Surely this was a parody on what was possible but not real.  And yet here we are.  Trump now pulling out his 'world class diplomacy' on Iran (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-iran-idUSKBN15G5ED).  Won't it be awesome to watch a first world country withdraw from the global economy (that benefits it disproportionately), closes its borders to cheap labor and talented academics from other countries, and uses significant assets to attack third world countries (as opposed to maybe renewable energy or space programs) .

There are now too many people in our simulation and it's breaking down
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 02, 2017, 04:36:24 AM
I honestly feel like I'm living through the movie "Idiocracy".  Surely this was a parody on what was possible but not real.  And yet here we are.  Trump now pulling out his 'world class diplomacy' on Iran (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-iran-idUSKBN15G5ED).  Won't it be awesome to watch a first world country withdraw from the global economy (that benefits it disproportionately), closes its borders to cheap labor and talented academics from other countries, and uses significant assets to attack third world countries (as opposed to maybe renewable energy or space programs) .

There are now too many people in our simulation and it's breaking down

The news this morning is unreal.  This is what happens when you put an unqualified egotistical individual with anger management issues being whispered to by a anti-Islamic Leninist in the White House.  Absolute f&%$ing chaos. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2017, 05:42:31 AM
Well, according to the AP, Trump got angry with the PM of Australia over a pre-existing deal on refugees which was covered under the EO he signed.  Apparently he bragged about the size of his (ahem) electoral win and crowd sizes, then hung up.

Where in his "first 100 days" strategy did it say "piss off every one of our staunch allies"?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 02, 2017, 06:17:39 AM
I just love how these exact same arguments were used by the other side during the last presidency. It's very frustrating that neither side will work with the other, the only reason being that they're the other side.

I don't see the same equivalency that you do.  Republicans broke with protocol on this point.  You can't blame the Democrats for that decision.
I would totally blame them for not working to fix the system. If "well they did it first" is the only argument for an action that everyone agrees is improper, I will completely blame both sides for engaging in the same behavior.
Seriously, do you think Democrats or liberals are just plain evil and dismiss them?  Did you see my last post about Trump using his businesses to profit off of his run for Presidency.  This is probably not an isolated incident.  After Obama and GW and Clinton, I didn't like much of what was going on, but I don't think any of the recent Presidential runs were money hungry like Trump.  If he doesn't make billions and move markets, he probably will be #Sad. For all we know, sitting atop incredible 'potential energy', he is planning out how to make a great deal of what once was a 14T economy flow to Donald Jr., Ivanka / Kushner, Eric, and even a few hundred million to Tiffany.  We've handed over our global face to the fox in the henhouse.  Sadly, he will also blow this up for his kids but we are all strapped to the same missile.  What once was destined to challenge the Universe and venture to Mars is now targeted on Iran and moving around rocks on our quickly receding land masses.
So how is stonewalling a quite acceptable (by most accounts) SCOTUS judge nomination helping to stop Trump from immoral and illegal business dealings?
For many democrats, he is not acceptable.  He is no way moderate (like the previous proposed SCOTUS judge).  Frankly the dems should be fighting against him.  The only reason to consider him "acceptable" is in comparison to the crazies he has otherwise nominated. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2017, 06:31:05 AM
Many people consider him "acceptable" because he will (presumably) not shift the balance of the court.  Its worth mentioning that the court has been conservative since the early 1970s. With this affirmation the most likely scenario is a court that retains a conservative position for the next decade or more, regardless of whether or not RBG, SGB or Kennedy are replaced during this presidential term.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Inaya on February 02, 2017, 07:16:46 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/trump-immigrants/515310/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/trump-immigrants/515310/) 

From the article:

"The language is vague, but immigration law experts I spoke with on background said it might mean that millions of legal immigrants who have ever received public assistance—as half of native-born Americans currently do—would be targeted for deportation. "

I left a message on one of my senators' vmails to fight this vigorously.
But... but... but... Trump only wants to deport illegal immigrants. Because they're breaking the law.

Seriously I don't get this. Immigrants pay their taxes just like everyone who is native born (well, except Trump), so they have the right to the same social services as every other taxpayer.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 02, 2017, 07:56:48 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/trump-immigrants/515310/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/trump-immigrants/515310/) 

From the article:

"The language is vague, but immigration law experts I spoke with on background said it might mean that millions of legal immigrants who have ever received public assistance—as half of native-born Americans currently do—would be targeted for deportation. "

I left a message on one of my senators' vmails to fight this vigorously.
But... but... but... Trump only wants to deport illegal immigrants. Because they're breaking the law.

Seriously I don't get this. Immigrants pay their taxes just like everyone who is native born (well, except Trump), so they have the right to the same social services as every other taxpayer.

Per his conversation with the Australian PM yesterday, individuals applying for refugee status through official channels are now illegal immigrants. Potato/potahto?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 02, 2017, 08:24:25 AM
Quote
There is a process in place for considering SCOTUS appointments, and as far as I can tell that process is not broken. Republicans did an end run around that process with the last nomination. Suggesting that the Democrats attempt, or supporting for, the same maneuver is not a positive direction for political action in this country, and makes them just as bad as Republicans. (IMO)

The Republicans stole a seat, and got away with it.  So the process IS broken.  If the democrats take the high road, guess what will happen next time this same scenario happens.  They will pull the same shit again.  And again.  The Republicans decided long ago that demographics aren't working in their favor, so they would bend the system to the point of breaking to ensure minority rule. 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 02, 2017, 10:10:09 AM
+1. One word "stategery." As batshit crazy as Trump is, he knows exactly what he is doing. It's amazing (well not really) how many of his die hard supporters are still defending him all in the name of "jobs and border security."

I've been wondering how many of those WalMart shoppers (KMart, Target, etc) will appreciate the tariffs and prices that tariffs might lead to. The big box shoppers I know will drive miles to get something on sale and cheap and almost always made in China.

In one sentence they'll talk about what a great deal they got on their thing. In the next sentence they'll begin a lecture about jobs and immigrants and Chinese junk.

So border security and foreign Muslim terrorists are suddenly a huge problem? Trump's policies will likely radicalize more folks on already easily influenced.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 02, 2017, 10:10:58 AM
Absolutely the decision should be carefully weighed. There is a process in place for considering SCOTUS appointments, and as far as I can tell that process is not broken. Republicans did an end run around that process with the last nomination. Suggesting that the Democrats attempt, or supporting for, the same maneuver is not a positive direction for political action in this country, and makes them just as bad as Republicans. (IMO)

If the nominee is not suited or unwanted, then they should be voted down, regardless of the party nominating them.

The process broke during the last presidency. Were you not there? 10 months and no hearings and no vote seems pretty broken to me.

I for someone who votes for Democrats, and for a lot of progressives and liberals who vote for Democrats don't mind if they stonewall. Give us a nominee that we like and then maybe we can talk.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 02, 2017, 10:19:26 AM
The Republicans stole a seat, and got away with it.  So the process IS broken.  If the democrats take the high road, guess what will happen next time this same scenario happens.  They will pull the same shit again.  And again.  The Republicans decided long ago that demographics aren't working in their favor, so they would bend the system to the point of breaking to ensure minority rule.

I would say beyond the demographics, look what's happened in South Dakota, a largely Republican red state:

http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/01/sd-senate-strikes-voter-approved-ethics-law/97333962/

That's pretty fucked up if you ask me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on February 02, 2017, 11:27:27 AM
Absolutely the decision should be carefully weighed. There is a process in place for considering SCOTUS appointments, and as far as I can tell that process is not broken. Republicans did an end run around that process with the last nomination. Suggesting that the Democrats attempt, or supporting for, the same maneuver is not a positive direction for political action in this country, and makes them just as bad as Republicans. (IMO)

If the nominee is not suited or unwanted, then they should be voted down, regardless of the party nominating them.

The process broke during the last presidency. Were you not there? 10 months and no hearings and no vote seems pretty broken to me.

I for someone who votes for Democrats, and for a lot of progressives and liberals who vote for Democrats don't mind if they stonewall. Give us a nominee that we like and then maybe we can talk.

Don't bother. MM will give lip service to "one side's just as bad as the other" but will always defend the Republican moves. "Oh sure, they did this bad thing but Dems should be held to a higher standard than that. Even if Republicans are about to tank the country and doing something deeply unpopular, Dems shouldn't fight dirty. I'd lose [my already non-existent] respect for them." Go back and read his comments. That's pretty much how they all go.

I agree. Stonewall the shit out of this guy. He's not for religious freedom unless your definition of that is the freedom for Christians to impose their beliefs on others. He might be a moderate Republican, but he's not, in any sense of the word, an actual moderate. That was Garland, the nominee that Republicans shut things down over. The one they changed the rules of engagement over. Fuck them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 02, 2017, 11:50:58 AM
Absolutely the decision should be carefully weighed. There is a process in place for considering SCOTUS appointments, and as far as I can tell that process is not broken. Republicans did an end run around that process with the last nomination. Suggesting that the Democrats attempt, or supporting for, the same maneuver is not a positive direction for political action in this country, and makes them just as bad as Republicans. (IMO)

If the nominee is not suited or unwanted, then they should be voted down, regardless of the party nominating them.

The process broke during the last presidency. Were you not there? 10 months and no hearings and no vote seems pretty broken to me.

I for someone who votes for Democrats, and for a lot of progressives and liberals who vote for Democrats don't mind if they stonewall. Give us a nominee that we like and then maybe we can talk.

Don't bother. MM will give lip service to "one side's just as bad as the other" but will always defend the Republican moves. "Oh sure, they did this bad thing but Dems should be held to a higher standard than that. Even if Republicans are about to tank the country and doing something deeply unpopular, Dems shouldn't fight dirty. I'd lose [my already non-existent] respect for them." Go back and read his comments. That's pretty much how they all go.

I agree. Stonewall the shit out of this guy. He's not for religious freedom unless your definition of that is the freedom for Christians to impose their beliefs on others. He might be a moderate Republican, but he's not, in any sense of the word, an actual moderate. That was Garland, the nominee that Republicans shut things down over. The one they changed the rules of engagement over. Fuck them.


^^^^^Agree, stonewall him if they don't agree to at least give Garland a hearing.  I had my fingers crossed for Hardiman, there was always the chance that he was a Souter in disguise.  He was a Notre Dame grad, there the same time I was and although ND is conservative there is (or at least was) a strong social justice undercurrent. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 02, 2017, 11:58:16 AM
Absolutely the decision should be carefully weighed. There is a process in place for considering SCOTUS appointments, and as far as I can tell that process is not broken. Republicans did an end run around that process with the last nomination. Suggesting that the Democrats attempt, or supporting for, the same maneuver is not a positive direction for political action in this country, and makes them just as bad as Republicans. (IMO)

If the nominee is not suited or unwanted, then they should be voted down, regardless of the party nominating them.

The process broke during the last presidency. Were you not there? 10 months and no hearings and no vote seems pretty broken to me.

I for someone who votes for Democrats, and for a lot of progressives and liberals who vote for Democrats don't mind if they stonewall. Give us a nominee that we like and then maybe we can talk.

Don't bother. MM will give lip service to "one side's just as bad as the other" but will always defend the Republican moves. "Oh sure, they did this bad thing but Dems should be held to a higher standard than that. Even if Republicans are about to tank the country and doing something deeply unpopular, Dems shouldn't fight dirty. I'd lose [my already non-existent] respect for them." Go back and read his comments. That's pretty much how they all go.

I agree. Stonewall the shit out of this guy. He's not for religious freedom unless your definition of that is the freedom for Christians to impose their beliefs on others. He might be a moderate Republican, but he's not, in any sense of the word, an actual moderate. That was Garland, the nominee that Republicans shut things down over. The one they changed the rules of engagement over. Fuck them.
So, so, so sick of tu qouque fallacy...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 02, 2017, 12:03:35 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/trump-immigrants/515310/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/trump-immigrants/515310/) 

From the article:

"The language is vague, but immigration law experts I spoke with on background said it might mean that millions of legal immigrants who have ever received public assistance—as half of native-born Americans currently do—would be targeted for deportation. "

I left a message on one of my senators' vmails to fight this vigorously.
But... but... but... Trump only wants to deport illegal immigrants. Because they're breaking the law.

Seriously I don't get this. Immigrants pay their taxes just like everyone who is native born (well, except Trump), so they have the right to the same social services as every other taxpayer.

Per his conversation with the Australian PM yesterday, individuals applying for refugee status through official channels are now illegal immigrants. Potato/potahto?
I really, truly feel for those people.  They have been abused, literally abused, by Australia for years. They deserve to be in Australia, or as a strong second choice, moved to another country. These are true refugees, and the entire world has left them to languish in a hell hole for over two years. If Australia doesn't want them, and America doesn't want them, maybe Canada will step up? Such a terrible situation.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 02, 2017, 12:45:42 PM

I really, truly feel for those people.  They have been abused, literally abused, by Australia for years. They deserve to be in Australia, or as a strong second choice, moved to another country. These are true refugees, and the entire world has left them to languish in a hell hole for over two years. If Australia doesn't want them, and America doesn't want them, maybe Canada will step up? Such a terrible situation.

I would not be surprised if PM Trudeau steps up and makes a public statement saying "If the US won't honor its agreement with Australia, Canada stands ready to be the leader!"
He's basically already said as much when he promised sanctuary for anyone caught in limbo from the ban, as well as taking in a healthy number of refugees relative to the size of the Canadian population.

Trudeau's statement would be largely popular here, Canada would look like the moral leader and ultimately it wouldn't change their existing policy much.  US/Trump looses more moral high ground.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 02, 2017, 12:59:35 PM

I really, truly feel for those people.  They have been abused, literally abused, by Australia for years. They deserve to be in Australia, or as a strong second choice, moved to another country. These are true refugees, and the entire world has left them to languish in a hell hole for over two years. If Australia doesn't want them, and America doesn't want them, maybe Canada will step up? Such a terrible situation.

I would not be surprised if PM Trudeau steps up and makes a public statement saying "If the US won't honor its agreement with Australia, Canada stands ready to be the leader!"
He's basically already said as much when he promised sanctuary for anyone caught in limbo from the ban, as well as taking in a healthy number of refugees relative to the size of the Canadian population.

Trudeau's statement would be largely popular here, Canada would look like the moral leader and ultimately it wouldn't change their existing policy much.  US/Trump looses more moral high ground.
That would be truly awesome. It hurts a bit as an American to have to hope that some other country steps up to do the right thing. While Australia is to blame for the conditions these people are trapped in, and for doing its best to hide it from the world, 1200 people is peanuts to accept; and such a low risk of extremism- I mean, they weren't even tryin to make it to America, so it's hard to argue these are sleeper terrorists just waiting to strike the Red, White and Blue.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cellista on February 02, 2017, 01:07:07 PM
Absolutely the decision should be carefully weighed. There is a process in place for considering SCOTUS appointments, and as far as I can tell that process is not broken. Republicans did an end run around that process with the last nomination. Suggesting that the Democrats attempt, or supporting for, the same maneuver is not a positive direction for political action in this country, and makes them just as bad as Republicans. (IMO)

If the nominee is not suited or unwanted, then they should be voted down, regardless of the party nominating them.

The process broke during the last presidency. Were you not there? 10 months and no hearings and no vote seems pretty broken to me.

I for someone who votes for Democrats, and for a lot of progressives and liberals who vote for Democrats don't mind if they stonewall. Give us a nominee that we like and then maybe we can talk.

Don't bother. MM will give lip service to "one side's just as bad as the other" but will always defend the Republican moves. "Oh sure, they did this bad thing but Dems should be held to a higher standard than that. Even if Republicans are about to tank the country and doing something deeply unpopular, Dems shouldn't fight dirty. I'd lose [my already non-existent] respect for them." Go back and read his comments. That's pretty much how they all go.

I agree. Stonewall the shit out of this guy. He's not for religious freedom unless your definition of that is the freedom for Christians to impose their beliefs on others. He might be a moderate Republican, but he's not, in any sense of the word, an actual moderate. That was Garland, the nominee that Republicans shut things down over. The one they changed the rules of engagement over. Fuck them.
So, so, so sick of tu qouque fallacy...

Or just offer to vote on Gorsuch as soon as Trump releases his tax returns. 

Permitting a sitting president's SCOTUS nominee to get a hearing and a vote is not written in the Constitution but is well-established tradition.  So is releasing your tax returns when you are running for/in office as President.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on February 02, 2017, 01:26:57 PM

I really, truly feel for those people.  They have been abused, literally abused, by Australia for years. They deserve to be in Australia, or as a strong second choice, moved to another country. These are true refugees, and the entire world has left them to languish in a hell hole for over two years. If Australia doesn't want them, and America doesn't want them, maybe Canada will step up? Such a terrible situation.

I would not be surprised if PM Trudeau steps up and makes a public statement saying "If the US won't honor its agreement with Australia, Canada stands ready to be the leader!"
He's basically already said as much when he promised sanctuary for anyone caught in limbo from the ban, as well as taking in a healthy number of refugees relative to the size of the Canadian population.

Trudeau's statement would be largely popular here, Canada would look like the moral leader and ultimately it wouldn't change their existing policy much.  US/Trump looses more moral high ground.
That would be truly awesome. It hurts a bit as an American to have to hope that some other country steps up to do the right thing. While Australia is to blame for the conditions these people are trapped in, and for doing its best to hide it from the world, 1200 people is peanuts to accept; and such a low risk of extremism- I mean, they weren't even tryin to make it to America, so it's hard to argue these are sleeper terrorists just waiting to strike the Red, White and Blue.

Trump and his cabinet don't really care. They need to save face even if that means these folks get sent back to where they came from and were killed. I mean what would his followers think if he suddenly reversed course for a few in desperate need folks? They know they are no threat but don't give a shit. Politics are more important than human decency.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 02, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
Increased Russia-backed violence in Ukraine, just days after Trump's first official phone call with Putin (for which apparently all recording devices were turned off):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-fighting-avdiivka-1.3962203

Can we directly blame this on Trump? Not yet, I suppose. But at a minimum it's clear he did a terrible job at diplomacy here, and given his love of Putin it seems likely Trump at least indirectly emboldened him.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on February 02, 2017, 05:55:22 PM
Absolutely the decision should be carefully weighed. There is a process in place for considering SCOTUS appointments, and as far as I can tell that process is not broken. Republicans did an end run around that process with the last nomination. Suggesting that the Democrats attempt, or supporting for, the same maneuver is not a positive direction for political action in this country, and makes them just as bad as Republicans. (IMO)

If the nominee is not suited or unwanted, then they should be voted down, regardless of the party nominating them.

The process broke during the last presidency. Were you not there? 10 months and no hearings and no vote seems pretty broken to me.

I for someone who votes for Democrats, and for a lot of progressives and liberals who vote for Democrats don't mind if they stonewall. Give us a nominee that we like and then maybe we can talk.

Don't bother. MM will give lip service to "one side's just as bad as the other" but will always defend the Republican moves. "Oh sure, they did this bad thing but Dems should be held to a higher standard than that. Even if Republicans are about to tank the country and doing something deeply unpopular, Dems shouldn't fight dirty. I'd lose [my already non-existent] respect for them." Go back and read his comments. That's pretty much how they all go.

I agree. Stonewall the shit out of this guy. He's not for religious freedom unless your definition of that is the freedom for Christians to impose their beliefs on others. He might be a moderate Republican, but he's not, in any sense of the word, an actual moderate. That was Garland, the nominee that Republicans shut things down over. The one they changed the rules of engagement over. Fuck them.
So, so, so sick of tu qouque fallacy...

Oh, I'm not trying to invalidate your opinions or your arguments. I'm just saying that trying to have a constructive debate with you is rather useless because you seem to be one of those people who knows what they know and no one else will change your mind.

For the most part, I've been getting a lot of constructive stuff out of debating these topics. Mostly, other posters have articulately argued things that I saw/felt but didn't know how to express. On occasion, people have brought new information to light that has been helpful in informing my opinions. I see no such evolution in your attitudes. I might be doing you a disservice, but that's what I've seen.

As for realistic impacts, shitting all over other world leaders (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/hill-republicans-new-role-playing-cleanup-with-the-world-for-president-trump/2017/02/02/d33b3c52-e954-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.d6d39bd0d00b)  (except his good buddy Putin, of course), actively trying to destroy the environment in the name of "business" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2017/01/24/as-trump-signals-rollback-on-environmental-regulations-new-jobs-report-indicates-thats-a-bad-idea/#12566d966161), and trying to put forth the idea that religion is greater than the law when it comes to discrimination (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-considering-order-on-religious-freedom-that-critics-warn-could-lead-to-discrimination/2017/02/02/631ea41a-e8ee-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html?utm_term=.66f699d1a3c7).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on February 02, 2017, 09:04:07 PM
I haven't been reading the Off-Topic forums for long, but I think it says something for Metric Mouse that he cares enough about these issues enough to discuss them in depth, and is clear-eyed enough to see how bad Trump is, despite his conservative/libertarian leaning.  I will admit to the same fault, SisterX, with the difference being that I give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt... and, of course, I am right. ;) 

Anyway,
If the dems do roadblock him, the nuclear option will be used, and political capital will be spent now instead of on a possible future selection (like if RBG dies).

 Had it not been for Garland, maybe there would have been a case for an easy confirmation. But this is not a time for building up  political capital... the Reps have not shown themselves to be honorable of late, anyway.  This is where Dems show that they have the toughness to hold together.
I just love how these exact same arguments were used by the other side during the last presidency. It's very frustrating that neither side will work with the other, the only reason being that they're the other side.

It IS frustrating. There is no trust any more. Rules and precedent seem to be flying out the window. There will be no Gang of 14 to save the day.

But any change to the current no-compromise, slice-the-baby-in-half culture, would have to come from the group in power.  I don't see how this can happen under Trump, unless what's left of the moderate Republican party stands up to Trump, the Tea Partiers, and Bannon's crowd. Even so-- no, I don't see healing happening under this president until it gets so bad that Trumps own supporters desert him (or, I suppose, it gets so wonderful that Trump's detractors flock to him, but that just doesn't seem very likely so far, even accounting for my liberal bias.)

In this climate, it is like the last few moves before checkmate, no point in going through the motions is there? Filibuster, nuclear option, shutdown. Though I don't know what kind of havoc Trump would wreak out of a shutdown... does not seem to bother him to have a nonfunctional government.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 03, 2017, 10:08:46 AM
Democrats in the senate need to grow some balls and ACTUALLY filibuster everything. Just stand there and give 5 hour speeches, every democractic senator. This way even if the repubs change the rules to end debate at 51 votes you can still take up time by actually being on the floor of the senate.

Why should dems do this? 1) It worked for republicans. They showed that if your party isn't in the white house, it's not in your interest to do anything because you can't take credit for it and you'll end up winning elections because you can point to the white house doing nothing, 2) more people voted democratic than republican and the demographics will come along eventually to override the gerrymandering in the house and the voter suppression efforts in some states
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 03, 2017, 10:32:00 AM
On a more positive, constructive note, for the first time in my life, people are more excited about using the SuperBowl as a platform to elevate their protesting activity than watching some boring, overhyped game.  Houston will be in the news expressing outrage at what has been seen as overreaching and divisive policy making trampling the freedoms of legal immigrants, as well as preaching free speech, inclusiveness, and acceptance. 

There are some terrible policies in the works to deport immigrants that use social services as well as deny immigrants that might require any benefit (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14457678/trump-order-immigrants-welfare)s.  I can only hope that the world sees that this is not how all Americans think and do not support this wild swing toward protectionism, nationalism, and beligerence.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 03, 2017, 11:34:50 AM
I have yet to hear a convincing argument why we should be treating Iran like we do. There are many other countries that sponsor terrorism against the US and our allies at a much more demonstrable level. Iran is also an enemy of pretty much all of those countries and yet because we have such deep business ties with them (looking at you Saudi Arabia), we pretend like Iran is the problem. A war with them is probably among the scariest realistic impacts I could see emerging from a Trump presidency.

Because Trump's team needs a boogieman or scapegoat - just like Bush Jr did with Iraq after 9/11. Just like Hitler did with the Jews and all the European minorities.

I feel like this playbook is pretty superficial.  I guess it would be more difficult to actually FIX something rather than just breaking things?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 03, 2017, 11:45:46 AM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 03, 2017, 11:46:26 AM
Democrats in the senate need to grow some balls and ACTUALLY filibuster everything. Just stand there and give 5 hour speeches, every democractic senator. This way even if the repubs change the rules to end debate at 51 votes you can still take up time by actually being on the floor of the senate.

Why should dems do this? 1) It worked for republicans. They showed that if your party isn't in the white house, it's not in your interest to do anything because you can't take credit for it and you'll end up winning elections because you can point to the white house doing nothing, 2) more people voted democratic than republican and the demographics will come along eventually to override the gerrymandering in the house and the voter suppression efforts in some states

Absolutely. Republicans face no repercussions from their base.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 03, 2017, 12:00:24 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 03, 2017, 12:10:59 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.
I would also imagine they usually go easy on people with diplomat passports?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 03, 2017, 12:20:36 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.
I would also imagine they usually go easy on people with diplomat passports?

That's how it's supposed to work. Detaining someone on a diplomatic passport without a really good reason may actually be some kind of treaty violation. I'm not sure.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 03, 2017, 12:27:25 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.
I would also imagine they usually go easy on people with diplomat passports?

That's how it's supposed to work. Detaining someone on a diplomatic passport without a really good reason may actually be some kind of treaty violation. I'm not sure.
Depends if that person also had diplomatic immunity or not.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 03, 2017, 12:33:41 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.
I would also imagine they usually go easy on people with diplomat passports?

That's how it's supposed to work. Detaining someone on a diplomatic passport without a really good reason may actually be some kind of treaty violation. I'm not sure.
Depends if that person also had diplomatic immunity or not.
I doubt he has immunity. He runs a peace center, and does some work on peace negotiations and treaties. But honestly, he generally thinks he is more important than he is, so no one is getting very upset by this ordeal. But it might be an idea to sort this out before they mess with someone who really is important.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 03, 2017, 12:40:35 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.

Unfortunately, "from" isn't a defined term in the order.   It could mean a lot of things besides "born in"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 03, 2017, 12:47:16 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.
I would also imagine they usually go easy on people with diplomat passports?

That's how it's supposed to work. Detaining someone on a diplomatic passport without a really good reason may actually be some kind of treaty violation. I'm not sure.
Depends if that person also had diplomatic immunity or not.
I doubt he has immunity. He runs a peace center, and does some work on peace negotiations and treaties. But honestly, he generally thinks he is more important than he is, so no one is getting very upset by this ordeal. But it might be an idea to sort this out before they mess with someone who really is important.
The problem is that, at least if all passports are the "same" as the one I saw, they don't say if you have diplomatic immunity or not.  So given they stopped him, and held him without knowing, could be a problem.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 03, 2017, 12:56:37 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.

Unfortunately, "from" isn't a defined term in the order.   It could mean a lot of things besides "born in"

Given that his point of origin for this trip wasn't one of the six countries, I don't see how anyone could reasonably apply "from" to a Norwegian who traveled somewhere else two or three years ago.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 03, 2017, 02:17:03 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.

Unfortunately, "from" isn't a defined term in the order.   It could mean a lot of things besides "born in"

Given that his point of origin for this trip wasn't one of the six countries, I don't see how anyone could reasonably apply "from" to a Norwegian who traveled somewhere else two or three years ago.

Reasonably?  HAHAHA.  This guy is clearly from Iran.  He just spent an intervening 4 years in Norway to hide it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 03, 2017, 02:39:35 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.

Unfortunately, "from" isn't a defined term in the order.   It could mean a lot of things besides "born in"

Given that his point of origin for this trip wasn't one of the six countries, I don't see how anyone could reasonably apply "from" to a Norwegian who traveled somewhere else two or three years ago.

Reasonably?  HAHAHA.  This guy is clearly from Iran.  He just spent an intervening 4 years in Norway to hide it.
Considering he is from my home town, and I know his family, he must have done a fabulous job covering his true background. His cousin was a bishop in the State Church, his uncle was a Secretary of state (for Church and Education); I guess the entire family was in on it? Did they adopt him, switch him out for an Iranian, or are they all from Iran? Also, it is very scary this wasn't picked up when he visited previous US presidents at the White House, or when he mingled with all types of state leaders through his two periodes as PM, or his work on peace and human rights. Good thing you have Trump in office now, who has implemented GOOD security.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on February 03, 2017, 05:28:32 PM
Pretty sure dragoncar was being sarcastic 😉
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 03, 2017, 05:45:30 PM
Well, on a positive side, detaining the former PM of Norway (and protestant pastor) who was planning to attend a prayer Meeting in the US, should remove any fear that Trump's travel ban is based in race or religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm-bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran

The travel ban also isn't supposed to apply to people from countries outside the six specifically mentioned. Whether or not the person ever went there isn't a factor.

I realize they're just making it up as they go along, but damn.

Unfortunately, "from" isn't a defined term in the order.   It could mean a lot of things besides "born in"

Given that his point of origin for this trip wasn't one of the six countries, I don't see how anyone could reasonably apply "from" to a Norwegian who traveled somewhere else two or three years ago.

Reasonably?  HAHAHA.  This guy is clearly from Iran.  He just spent an intervening 4 years in Norway to hide it.
Considering he is from my home town, and I know his family, he must have done a fabulous job covering his true background. His cousin was a bishop in the State Church, his uncle was a Secretary of state (for Church and Education); I guess the entire family was in on it? Did they adopt him, switch him out for an Iranian, or are they all from Iran? Also, it is very scary this wasn't picked up when he visited previous US presidents at the White House, or when he mingled with all types of state leaders through his two periodes as PM, or his work on peace and human rights. Good thing you have Trump in office now, who has implemented GOOD security.
Thank Mother freaking Earth for Trump.  It's exactly these sort of dangerous sleeper agents we need the most protection against! :D
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 03, 2017, 05:53:37 PM
Good thing you have Trump in office now, who has implemented GOOD security.

It is the goodest security their is. It is so bigly. Everyone else's is SAD!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 03, 2017, 06:00:33 PM
Good thing you have Trump in office now, who has implemented GOOD security.

It is the goodest security their is. It is so bigly. Everyone else's is SAD!

No more security! Judges want terrorists to win! SAD!

It could be a showdown between the executive and judicial branch. This is where the real coup magic happens.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 04, 2017, 12:02:31 AM
I have to start to wonder if the realistic impact of a Trump presidency is that the US gets sued by lots of aggrieved parties and win.  Just as Trump strategically declared bankruptcy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.367926dd2772) in order to get ahead in the business world, maybe this mindset leads the US into a new avenue of turmoil.  Sure, on one hand, he is bogged down in litigation and maybe Trump takes his foot off the gas, but even these first 100 days of silly 'keystone cops (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/03/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-trumps-travel-ban-from-majority-muslim-countries.html)' Executive Orders will provide enough ammunition for the professionals of the world to sue the US taxpayer via Trump.  Think of the legacy that can be left behind by amateurs surrounded by people that are also new to the game. 

When I saw what life was like inside a courtroom for the first time (jury duty, as one of 12 jurors), it was disorienting.  I can only imagine that business outsiders (and Trump the ultimate unprepared) stepping out on the hallowed grounds of global politics from the highest POV in the Oval Office, might not have any idea of the fact that picking up the phone and then hanging up prematurely might just send the world into one more day of less than optimal use of its time and resources.  But forcing his inexperience on others is probably costing the US untold future dollars. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 04, 2017, 05:05:53 AM
Pretty sure dragoncar was being sarcastic 😉

Pretty sure I got it in the first go ;)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: StarBright on February 04, 2017, 06:51:15 AM
I suspect we'll start to notice more stuff like this:

http://theslot.jezebel.com/someone-is-paying-strangers-online-to-beg-for-betsy-dev-1791976320

Wasn't sure where to post that but figured this thread is as good as any.

There seems to be such an obvious outcry against Devos (anecdotally from both sides of the aisle - but I know a lot of Republican public school teachers) that I would not be shocked if the above link were true.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 04, 2017, 07:26:55 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html  (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html)

So for one small positive: Lockheed Martin is crediting Trump with slashing 700 Million USD off the cost of the F 35 fighter.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 04, 2017, 07:55:05 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html  (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html)

So for one small positive: Lockheed Martin is crediting Trump with slashing 700 Million USD off the cost of the F 35 fighter.

To clarify, that is $700 million off of a batch of 90 planes. Which is probably literally not worth the time he put into the effort as president.

The whole point of being president is not to get one company at a time to make you a better deal via twitter. You don't have the time for that. It's to run the whole *system* to be more efficient. That would probably, in this case, mean just cutting back funding for the program whatever you think is an appropriate amount (politically hard) and letting the military/contractors figure it out from there.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 04, 2017, 08:28:03 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html  (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html)

So for one small positive: Lockheed Martin is crediting Trump with slashing 700 Million USD off the cost of the F 35 fighter.

To clarify, that is $700 million off of a batch of 90 planes. Which is probably literally not worth the time he put into the effort as president.

The whole point of being president is not to get one company at a time to make you a better deal via twitter. You don't have the time for that. It's to run the whole *system* to be more efficient. That would probably, in this case, mean just cutting back funding for the program whatever you think is an appropriate amount (politically hard) and letting the military/contractors figure it out from there.

-W
I don't know, 700 mil is 700 mil.I'll take it every day of the week, whether from a tweet or a phone call or a persoanl meeting. Quite a bit more efficient than an 6 month investigation by a subcommittee involving dozens of people.    It would take Congress to cut back the funding, and with one side stonewalling the other in everything, I don't see that happening. Small miracles, I guess.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on February 04, 2017, 09:31:06 AM
Now this is good.   Democracy at work!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/airlines-allow-passengers-to-board-after-court-suspends-trump-travel-ban/article33902945/?cmpid=rss1 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/airlines-allow-passengers-to-board-after-court-suspends-trump-travel-ban/article33902945/?cmpid=rss1)

This is the sort of behaviour I expect to see from a country governed by rule of law with a strong constitution and an independent judiciary.   Apparently the judge was appointed by a Republican president, as well.    President   Trump seems unhappy though, and is complaining on Twitter.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 04, 2017, 09:34:36 AM
I don't know, 700 mil is 700 mil.I'll take it every day of the week, whether from a tweet or a phone call or a persoanl meeting. Quite a bit more efficient than an 6 month investigation by a subcommittee involving dozens of people.    It would take Congress to cut back the funding, and with one side stonewalling the other in everything, I don't see that happening. Small miracles, I guess.

For context, the budget is about $3.8 trillion. It is literally a rounding error, in that it is a .00018th (700 mil divided by 3.8 trillion) of the budget.

Bludgeoning fellow politicians to systemically look at military spending (to be fair, Trump has said he wants to *increase* this) is a far more effective use of the president's time and effort, and he's *good* at bludgeoning people via Twitter!

I mean, I'm not complaining about the government spending less money on a stupid airplane with a fragile slow dumb expensive human inside it that we arguably don't need. But the president can't just browbeat every single company in the United States. He has to think systemically/strategically about this kind of issue. We don't have the stupid F-35 because we didn't negotiate the right deal. We have it because we have an out of control military industrial complex. Saving a few bucks here and there is spitting into the wind.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 04, 2017, 09:52:57 AM
I'm betting the total costs of the legal proceedings which are going to result from Trump's batshitcrazy unconstitutional orders and eventual impeachment is going to be far greater than $700m.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 04, 2017, 10:26:28 AM
I don't know, 700 mil is 700 mil.I'll take it every day of the week, whether from a tweet or a phone call or a persoanl meeting. Quite a bit more efficient than an 6 month investigation by a subcommittee involving dozens of people.    It would take Congress to cut back the funding, and with one side stonewalling the other in everything, I don't see that happening. Small miracles, I guess.

For context, the budget is about $3.8 trillion. It is literally a rounding error, in that it is a .00018th (700 mil divided by 3.8 trillion) of the budget.

Bludgeoning fellow politicians to systemically look at military spending (to be fair, Trump has said he wants to *increase* this) is a far more effective use of the president's time and effort, and he's *good* at bludgeoning people via Twitter!

I mean, I'm not complaining about the government spending less money on a stupid airplane with a fragile slow dumb expensive human inside it that we arguably don't need. But the president can't just browbeat every single company in the United States. He has to think systemically/strategically about this kind of issue. We don't have the stupid F-35 because we didn't negotiate the right deal. We have it because we have an out of control military industrial complex. Saving a few bucks here and there is spitting into the wind.

-W

This has already been posted but it has relevance.

Quote from: David Frum
The business community learned its lesson early. “You work for me, you don’t criticize me,” the president was reported to have told one major federal contractor, after knocking billions off his company’s stock-market valuation with an angry tweet. Wise business leaders take care to credit Trump’s personal leadership for any good news, and to avoid saying anything that might displease the president or his family.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 04, 2017, 12:12:17 PM
I don't know, 700 mil is 700 mil.I'll take it every day of the week, whether from a tweet or a phone call or a persoanl meeting. Quite a bit more efficient than an 6 month investigation by a subcommittee involving dozens of people.    It would take Congress to cut back the funding, and with one side stonewalling the other in everything, I don't see that happening. Small miracles, I guess.

For context, the budget is about $3.8 trillion. It is literally a rounding error, in that it is a .00018th (700 mil divided by 3.8 trillion) of the budget.

Bludgeoning fellow politicians to systemically look at military spending (to be fair, Trump has said he wants to *increase* this) is a far more effective use of the president's time and effort, and he's *good* at bludgeoning people via Twitter!

I mean, I'm not complaining about the government spending less money on a stupid airplane with a fragile slow dumb expensive human inside it that we arguably don't need. But the president can't just browbeat every single company in the United States. He has to think systemically/strategically about this kind of issue. We don't have the stupid F-35 because we didn't negotiate the right deal. We have it because we have an out of control military industrial complex. Saving a few bucks here and there is spitting into the wind.

-W

From what I've read this $700MM reduction in costs has little to do with the Trump administration here.  Claiming false credit would be my read...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on February 04, 2017, 01:26:58 PM
Aw, crap! It looks like Lugar-Cardin will be repealed! A dawn vote! Sneaky f*cks!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-congress-payment-disclosure-regulation-20170203-story.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/rex-tillerson-tried-to-get-this-rule-killed-now-congress-is-about-to-do-it-for-him-214725
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/oil-industry-regulations/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 04, 2017, 02:12:36 PM
Aw, crap! It looks like Lugar-Cardin will be repealed! A dawn vote! Sneaky f*cks!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-congress-payment-disclosure-regulation-20170203-story.html
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/rex-tillerson-tried-to-get-this-rule-killed-now-congress-is-about-to-do-it-for-him-214725
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/oil-industry-regulations/
Which swamp does that drain?  Answer Not the one Trump and Tillerson will be swimming in.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EverCurious on February 04, 2017, 06:06:54 PM
I'm truly terrified, but I have nowhere I think my husband and I can go. We don't exactly have STEM jobs so moving to Canada seems like a dream.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Not sure of your backgrounds and ages, but if you haven't done so do check out the immigration points calculators for countries like Canada.

Add to this - in the face of these new restrictions by DJT's executive order, Canada has upped its affirmation of taking in refugees.  From PM Trudeau:To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada

If you have reason to believe you will be persecuted in the US you might want to contact CIC - STEM fields or not.
I thought about it for sure. I am going to renew my passport BC it's about that time anyway, and I am saving up to take the English proficiency test. I wonder if, with my current job working in group homes, there is a need for similar type of work in Canada. Nova Scotia perhaps? Just churning my brain, trying not to get too paranoid.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 04, 2017, 09:45:53 PM
I don't know, 700 mil is 700 mil.I'll take it every day of the week, whether from a tweet or a phone call or a persoanl meeting. Quite a bit more efficient than an 6 month investigation by a subcommittee involving dozens of people.    It would take Congress to cut back the funding, and with one side stonewalling the other in everything, I don't see that happening. Small miracles, I guess.

For context, the budget is about $3.8 trillion. It is literally a rounding error, in that it is a .00018th (700 mil divided by 3.8 trillion) of the budget.

Bludgeoning fellow politicians to systemically look at military spending (to be fair, Trump has said he wants to *increase* this) is a far more effective use of the president's time and effort, and he's *good* at bludgeoning people via Twitter!

I mean, I'm not complaining about the government spending less money on a stupid airplane with a fragile slow dumb expensive human inside it that we arguably don't need. But the president can't just browbeat every single company in the United States. He has to think systemically/strategically about this kind of issue. We don't have the stupid F-35 because we didn't negotiate the right deal. We have it because we have an out of control military industrial complex. Saving a few bucks here and there is spitting into the wind.

-W

From what I've read this $700MM reduction in costs has little to do with the Trump administration here.  Claiming false credit would be my read...
The reports I read said the opposite, coming from Lockheed, but the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 04, 2017, 10:56:22 PM
I don't know, 700 mil is 700 mil.I'll take it every day of the week, whether from a tweet or a phone call or a persoanl meeting. Quite a bit more efficient than an 6 month investigation by a subcommittee involving dozens of people.    It would take Congress to cut back the funding, and with one side stonewalling the other in everything, I don't see that happening. Small miracles, I guess.

For context, the budget is about $3.8 trillion. It is literally a rounding error, in that it is a .00018th (700 mil divided by 3.8 trillion) of the budget.

Bludgeoning fellow politicians to systemically look at military spending (to be fair, Trump has said he wants to *increase* this) is a far more effective use of the president's time and effort, and he's *good* at bludgeoning people via Twitter!

I mean, I'm not complaining about the government spending less money on a stupid airplane with a fragile slow dumb expensive human inside it that we arguably don't need. But the president can't just browbeat every single company in the United States. He has to think systemically/strategically about this kind of issue. We don't have the stupid F-35 because we didn't negotiate the right deal. We have it because we have an out of control military industrial complex. Saving a few bucks here and there is spitting into the wind.

-W

From what I've read this $700MM reduction in costs has little to do with the Trump administration here.  Claiming false credit would be my read...
The reports I read said the opposite, coming from Lockheed, but the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

What reports from Lockheed? This seems to pretty clearly show this all started before the election:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/03/trumps-claims-of-saving-millions-on-f-35-fighter-untrue-says-armed-services-committee-dem.html

Not super comprehensive, but then neither are Trump's claims of any of the things he's taking credit for.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 05, 2017, 03:14:24 AM
Well, according to the AP, Trump got angry with the PM of Australia over a pre-existing deal on refugees which was covered under the EO he signed.  Apparently he bragged about the size of his (ahem) electoral win and crowd sizes, then hung up.

Where in his "first 100 days" strategy did it say "piss off every one of our staunch allies"?

What Trump has done to the Australia-USA relationship has batfucked it out of hell. Turnbull is a millionaire businessman (sure not a billionaire), Rhodes scholar, 'Spycatcher' lawyer, not some puny little political rep that can be bullied by him. He has literally shocked the diplomatic circles here in this country. Sure we didn't think he'd be this much of a shithead but by being incredibly rude to OUR  national political leader, he's given Australia a massive fuck you.

The policy is shit but the deal was done and should be honoured as is due. I don't agree with the policy but you don't hang up on the ally who has fought every fucking war America has got itself into since WW2.

So Trump has pissed off a lot of people in this country - and it was totally unneccessary. Our view is we sacrifice our soldiers for America's wars, get into some hundred million dollar defence contract to buy duds, support America in the region when it gets into trouble, and your current president shits all over us.

China is going to win out of President Trump and Australia may not be there for the next war America embarks on. Actually, Australians don't want any participation in any Trump war.

People are pissed.

And as for Sean Spicer, how much disrespect can you show our Prime Minister? Get his fucking name right. A twitter trend for mispronouncing his name two days in a row is just fucking rude.

*end rant*

Love youse all except for Trumpie and his cabal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 05, 2017, 09:52:48 AM
I know the Trump supporters have largely abandoned this thread, but another area they seem intent to ignore - Bannon's Rasputin-like influence on the office:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/steve-bannon-is-making-sure-theres-no-white-house-paper-trail-trump-president/

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: A mom on February 05, 2017, 04:03:51 PM
Well, according to the AP, Trump got angry with the PM of Australia over a pre-existing deal on refugees which was covered under the EO he signed.  Apparently he bragged about the size of his (ahem) electoral win and crowd sizes, then hung up.

Where in his "first 100 days" strategy did it say "piss off every one of our staunch allies"?

What Trump has done to the Australia-USA relationship has batfucked it out of hell. Turnbull is a millionaire businessman (sure not a billionaire), Rhodes scholar, 'Spycatcher' lawyer, not some puny little political rep that can be bullied by him. He has literally shocked the diplomatic circles here in this country. Sure we didn't think he'd be this much of a shithead but by being incredibly rude to OUR  national political leader, he's given Australia a massive fuck you.

The policy is shit but the deal was done and should be honoured as is due. I don't agree with the policy but you don't hang up on the ally who has fought every fucking war America has got itself into since WW2.

So Trump has pissed off a lot of people in this country - and it was totally unneccessary. Our view is we sacrifice our soldiers for America's wars, get into some hundred million dollar defence contract to buy duds, support America in the region when it gets into trouble, and your current president shits all over us.

China is going to win out of President Trump and Australia may not be there for the next war America embarks on. Actually, Australians don't want any participation in any Trump war.

People are pissed.

And as for Sean Spicer, how much disrespect can you show our Prime Minister? Get his fucking name right. A twitter trend for mispronouncing his name two days in a row is just fucking rude.

*end rant*

Love youse all except for Trumpie and his cabal.

Thanks for letting us know what it feels like there. Unfortunately, as bad as I thought. So sorry.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 05, 2017, 06:41:36 PM
Although we Americans are blithely celebrating our silly universal gathering under Football, Trump is paranoidly calling the world down on our happy celebration of universiality.  Like we should be expect to be attacked.  Like someone is going to bomb this enthusiastic celebration of being young.  Maybe if you have a lot of money invested in the advertisements or companies that profit, you get stressed about the profits that may be lost, but the rest of us are just watching for fun. 

How the hell did this happen?  And, more concerning, where does it go from here?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 05, 2017, 11:58:31 PM
Although we Americans are blithely celebrating our silly universal gathering under Football, Trump is paranoidly calling the world down on our happy celebration of universiality.  Like we should be expect to be attacked.  Like someone is going to bomb this enthusiastic celebration of being young.  Maybe if you have a lot of money invested in the advertisements or companies that profit, you get stressed about the profits that may be lost, but the rest of us are just watching for fun. 

How the hell did this happen?  And, more concerning, where does it go from here?
Fear sells, and I firmly believe that fear is the single biggest reason he is currently president.

If the majority of people stopped being afraid, if they were to realize that they are living among the safest* country in the world, in one of the safest decades in history - that support would vanish.

*"'safest' here described as the probability that you will be killed or injured by the intentional act of someone else - i..e. from acts of terrorism, homicide, and violent crime. We're doing a great job of killing ourselves from drastically poor diet, drugs and alcohol and poor driving.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on February 06, 2017, 05:37:36 AM
Although we Americans are blithely celebrating our silly universal gathering under Football, Trump is paranoidly calling the world down on our happy celebration of universiality.  Like we should be expect to be attacked.  Like someone is going to bomb this enthusiastic celebration of being young.  Maybe if you have a lot of money invested in the advertisements or companies that profit, you get stressed about the profits that may be lost, but the rest of us are just watching for fun. 

How the hell did this happen?  And, more concerning, where does it go from here?
Fear sells, and I firmly believe that fear is the single biggest reason he is currently president.

If the majority of people stopped being afraid, if they were to realize that they are living among the safest* country in the world, in one of the safest decades in history - that support would vanish.

*"'safest' here described as the probability that you will be killed or injured by the intentional act of someone else - i..e. from acts of terrorism, homicide, and violent crime. We're doing a great job of killing ourselves from drastically poor diet, drugs and alcohol and poor driving.

Yeah but someone on Facebook told me Muslims are all bad and it got a lot of likes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: llorona on February 06, 2017, 01:11:31 PM
Yeah but someone on Facebook told me Muslims are all bad and it got a lot of likes.

Aw, man. That's disturbing. According to a 2010 Pew Research report, 1.6 BILLION people -- or 23% of the world's population -- is Muslim.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 06, 2017, 01:54:32 PM
RIP Net Neutrality:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/technology/trumps-fcc-quickly-targets-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on February 06, 2017, 02:17:04 PM
I know the Trump supporters have largely abandoned this thread, but another area they seem intent to ignore - Bannon's Rasputin-like influence on the office:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/steve-bannon-is-making-sure-theres-no-white-house-paper-trail-trump-president/
There's not many of us on MMM. What was the poll? like 16%? The majority of ya'll sit around and agree with each other on the hideousness of Trump.... gets boring....

Bannon: That guy is a badass. He is deadly, seriously, carefully smart. It's tough to find information on him, and he gives few interviews. I did find this transcript of a meeting from 2104. Interesting insight into how the guy thinks. The recent EO's, responses, etc have been carefully planned (despite MSM continually hysterically screaming the opposite). He is 6 steps ahead of everyone, playing a strategic and focused game on a national and global chessboard. Watch the Administration's moves carefully, using game theory. It starts to make sense.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.amwEPkV53r#.auDwJbKoRG

What Trump has done to the Australia-USA relationship has batfucked it out of hell. Turnbull is a millionaire businessman (sure not a billionaire), Rhodes scholar, 'Spycatcher' lawyer, not some puny little political rep that can be bullied by him. He has literally shocked the diplomatic circles here in this country. Sure we didn't think he'd be this much of a shithead but by being incredibly rude to OUR  national political leader, he's given Australia a massive fuck you.

Australia: Irrelevant.
On the global strategy board, there are only 3 classifications of countries:
Enemy
Pivot
Irrelevant

Enemy: The Establishment, in the forms of Nato, EU, UN, etc. Particularly Merkel. ISIS/extreme Islam powers.
Pivot (to bring down the Establishment): France, possibly Italy. Note the Trump/Farage bromance. UK started the process. France may destroy the EU. Note recent LePen romance.
Irrelevant: everyone else. Including Australia, Canada, Mexico etc. They may headline as 'ally' or 'enemy' but it doesn't matter. They are not a pivot. Their worth is only what they bring to the game.

Ignore the noise. Watch the moves.

This is a friggin amazing time to be alive. The world order is changing. At least as interesting as late 80's early 90's, when Reagan played the long game to stress and finally destroy the USSR.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on February 06, 2017, 02:38:07 PM
Sydneystache - the rest of us don't want any part of a Trumpian war either. :( God, I really hope it doesn't come to that.
Please ignore acroy's sad view of international relations. The rest of us aren't thinking of our allies and friends as merely pawns on a giant world chessboard, because that's a pathetic way to view the rest of humanity. Most of us are decent people, I promise. Apologize loudly on our behalf to anyone who will listen. Most of us voted against the Trumpsterfire. We're trying to limit the damage as much as we can!

Lagom - My biggest worry with that is about the media. If Trump can strong-arm providers not to show content unfavorable to him (and we all know he'd love to) then there goes our free press, any balance we might have claim to, and any reasonable fact-checking. :(

Acroy - My guess is that there's a reason there aren't many of you on MMM.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on February 06, 2017, 03:14:57 PM
Acroy,  I'm slowly working through your article (getting ready to cook dinner at the same time).

Right now, I'm reading his first assertion. He states that the world was at peace before WWI, that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the "pivot" that swiveled the world to a state of bloody war.  "But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people [...etc...] really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal."

What he's saying is that Judeo-Christianity led to wealth, which enabled one side "to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East". 

This first assertion is already debatable, isn't it? True, the Allies were richer than the Central powers, but they were also much more populous. I think that their victory had much more to do with geography, technology, and alliances, than their religion. But maybe he will go on to show what key elements of Judeo-Christianity made all these things possible.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: charis on February 06, 2017, 03:22:46 PM
...The recent EO's, responses, etc have been carefully planned (despite MSM continually hysterically screaming the opposite). He is 6 steps ahead of everyone, playing a strategic and focused game on a national and global chessboard. Watch the Administration's moves carefully, using game theory.

I don't know what the main stream media is screaming.  But I am certainly aware, as anyone with a nickle of sense is, that this is a carefully executed strategy, which includes a well-fitted set of blinders for us "liberals."  And it is certainly not a great time to be alive, in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on February 06, 2017, 03:26:21 PM
Still reading Bannon's talk...
He says we're at the beginning of a bloody conflict that could destroy our civilization unless he is heeded.

Next, he discusses two strands of Capitalism that he doesn't like, state-sponsored capitalism and "Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism". He also warns against increasing secularization in the West.

Describes rise of technologically sophisticated ISIS, and other militant Islamic groups that it may join up with. 

Then switches to, "So I think the discussion of, should we put a cap on wealth creation and distribution? It’s something that should be at the heart of every Christian that is a capitalist — “What is the purpose of whatever I’m doing with this wealth?"

Okay, so if he's going where I think he's going, he means to say that there should be no cap on wealth accumulation but that this wealth should be gathered with an eye to using it to fight an upcoming war.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 06, 2017, 03:57:36 PM
Quote from: Poundwise link=topic=64129.msg1419176#msg1419176
What he's saying is that Judeo-Christianity led to wealth, which enabled one side "to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East". 

It's much worse than this.  Steve Bannon used to be a documentary film maker, and he  laid out his world view in a series of films.  Basically, he thinks the baby boomers ruined  America by rejecting the ideals of their parents that made America great.  He specifies that those values America abandoned, and needs to find again, are modesty, capitalism, religion, and patriarchy. 

He literally believes that gender equality is one of the four reasons why America is failing.

Not even shitting you.  Look it up.  This man now directs all US policy, since Trump doesn't seem to have any policy positions of his own.

In fact, Trump was reportedly outraged to find out that he had inadvertently elevated Steve Bannon to a seat on the National Security Council when he signed the Executive Order doing so, because he "hadn't been sufficiently briefled" on what Bannon was having him sign.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 06, 2017, 04:06:31 PM
Trump reads at a 4th grade level so that is why he signs EOs and doesn't know what is in them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on February 06, 2017, 04:09:07 PM
Still slogging through the Bannon interview, dinner is in oven.

-Next, asked about Breitbart, it's working men all over the world unite! They unite against "crony capitalists" and establishment conservatives. He throws in a shout-out to social conservatism.

-Then a discussion of the then-recent wins of the Tea Party over establishment Republicans, by working and middle class over crony capitalists. Followed by examples of crony capitalists using taxpayer money to finance their own wealth (my aside: if he doesn't like crony capitalists, why on earth is he with Trump?)

-Next in a response to a question about how to counter "this epidemic" (of poverty? of crony capitalism?), a discussion of the financial crisis of 2008 and how no one was made accountable, plus a need for bank reform.

-A question about how to counter tribalist, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist movements: He discusses  "this partnership of big government and corporatists" and the need to "sort out particularly this crony capitalism so that the benefits become more of this entrepreneurial spirit and that can flow back to working-class and middle-class people". (no specifics... does he mean break the partnership of gov't and corporations? otherwise change the flow of wealth?)

- Rails against bailouts, discusses the populist revolt.

- Feels that secularism is a greater threat to Judeo-Christianity than the Muslim world, but repeats that a global war is brewing and that action needed

- dismisses concerns about racist elements of UKIP, FN, and Tea party as being fringe elements

Okay, next he'll talk about Putin.

P.S. Gotta run, everybody is hungry, will finish it tonight.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on February 06, 2017, 04:09:29 PM
In the words of Steve Bannon:

Quote
People are looked at as commodities. I don’t believe that our forefathers had that same belief.

Hmmph.   We're living in a golden age now.   M. Bannon can go back 100 years if he wants to.   Maybe he can join a union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States)

Forefathers didn't believe people were commodities, my butt.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: davef on February 06, 2017, 04:16:35 PM
eeeeegh, some of you people are pessimists

"You will lose a lot of money in the short term."
"ACA will be gone you will loose your insurance"
"if you are in a gay marriage I hope you enjoyed it"
 


Let me start by saying, I didn't vote for Trump, I also didn't vote for Clinton. I thought Kasich was the most viable candidate, or Biden. Since one didn't make it very far and one didn't run we were left with two of the worst candidates in history. Unqualified and/or corrupt both of them. I voted for Johnson.



It sounds like he wants to leave gay marriage alone, that's a start.

I think we do need immigration reform, but his idea of reform seems extreme, hopefully the result will be something more sensible after all of this plays out.

I don't mind the wall. I've watched international travelers walk across the boarder myself while working in Southern California. I do think that securing our borders, whether that is a wall, fence, or increased patrols is sensible. A bipartisan almost unanimous senate vote in 2006 agreed, it was just never funded.  Afterwords however, I hope he offers a path to citizenship for those who are otherwise law abiding residents. I think Trump and his supporter grossly overstate the damage of illegal immigrants, while the left grossly overstate the benefits.

I hope he doesn't try to overturn Roe V. Wade. I hate abortions, but I also hate the alternative.  I feel like we should be able to have a constructive discussion and find ways to compromise and substantially minimize abortions by, providing contraception, education, plan B, improving adoption processes and outlawing late term abortions unless the mother's life is in jeprody. Unfortunately, that idea is inherently flawed because 1/3 of this country believes their faith precludes the formal while another 1/3 believes the latter is an assault on their rights.  I think both of those 2/3 need to remove their head from their hind quarters.

I'm all for mercy laws, unfortunately Trump's supreme court nominee isn't. states that currently have those could get overturned, but I doubt it.

I'm all for a raise in the federal minimum wage to at least $10. Its been frozen for far too long. $15 may be sensible in NYC or SFO where the cost of living is high, but $10 is still sensible in many places where a 2 bedroom apartment goes for $500/month. Unfortunately I dont think Trump will make any changes here. It looks like its up to the states.

I think its possible Trump could do good things for the economy. Its possible he could streamline the federal government and run it more like a business, hold people accountable and fire non-performers. Gary Johnson said he thought at least 20% waste could be eliminated from each sector of government. I don't have personal experience with every branch of government, but based on my experiences with the DOE, DOT, FAA, TSA, USFS, BLM, EPA and FDA, I would wager that statement could easily be true. In some cases, that 20% may be more like 50%. over 22million  Americans work for the government. That is more than 10% of working age Americans.

Some of his projects, keystone, etc, are certain to help the economy in the short term but I fear the long term implications. I agree, that transporting oil by rail (a 300% spike since 2008 and the result of Obama's policies) may be even worse for the environment than pipelines, but was hoping Obama would have approved the pipelines with some sensible protections in pace. I guess democrats are finally seeing when you play obstructionist and roll the dice on all or nothing sometimes you get nothing....

I sure hope we don't open up coal mining burning again. The only sensible thing to with Coal is leave it in the ground. Selling it to China (which has been what we have been doing increasingly over the past 8 years, again result of Obama's policies) was good for the environment on a local level, but far worse on the global level, and also bad from a national security standpoint. Don't stop the burning. Stop the mining, consider it a strategic reserve.

I'm glad he stopped TPP and hope he reforms NAFTA, since the invention of the internet, the ability of companies to outsource has make NAFTA a poor deal. Support and customer service jobs vanished. The USA is a net importer on Agriculture now since 2010. For the first time in our history, we buy more food than we make. Like just about every other civilized nation, we should use tarrifs on trade. I feel we have moral obligation to do so. our failure to do so has led to the subjugation and servitude of peoples globally, increased global emissions, and the loss of manufacturing and agriculture in America.  We owe it to a world to impose a tarrif on all nations imports to the USA that do not share our values. nations, that have no environmental law, no worker safety, no minimum wage or an artificially low one, no patent laws protection.  Imposing should tarriffs would have the affect of promoting those values, globally raising the bar, and your bring some manufacturing that is borderline profitable in the USA today back. Such as heavy industry and other items that are expensive to ship from china,and perishable items, such as agriculture. The USA cannot compete with third world manufacturing without tarriffs, except in jobs that can be heavily automated.

I think his idea of repealing onerous regulation has some merit, but if he uses the approach he used on immigration to implement this idea I am scared.   

I hope he puts stop to the Ethanol scam. But he hasn't said much about it so I doubt it.

Based on the tax plans I looked at, it simplifies things, and doesn't charge hardly anything for those who make less than 400k. Most of us should expect little or no changes.

For those saying, he keeps money overseas and is a hypocrite for calling for repatriation, no. He is actually right here. You take every write off you are legally allowed to on you taxes. If he can legally avoid taxes by keeping money offshore he SHOULD. But we should change the law so no one can legally do that.  Don't ever get upset with millionaires and billionaires for following the law, you would too. change the law. I am looking forward to this change.

I'm all for repeal and replace of ACA provided the replace is reasonable, and keeps the preexisting condition language and the coverage of boomerang kids., ACA is pretty messed up. I looked at getting plans since I am somewhat self employed and the plans were absolutely awful. 14k per year in premiums for a plan that covered almost nothing and had an out of pocket maximum of 8k! I think the ACA plans should be structured more like HDHP plans.

I think he could do some damage in the foreign relations department, I just hope its nothing that cannot be undone.
His hard line stance may do well against ISIS, and Russia may prove valuable as an ally in this fight. I'm not implying they should be trusted, but we dont have to trust them to have shared goals, just like in WWII
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 06, 2017, 04:50:50 PM
over 22million  Americans work for the government. That is more than 10% of working age Americans.

Where did you get this horribly wrong number from?

In truth, there are about 2.8 million civilian federal employees, and about 1.5 million people in the US military.  This number has been essentially flat for decades, even as the size and scope of the government has grown tremendously.  Government now does more per federal employee than at any time in history.

Maybe you're also counting state and county and city employees?  Plus irrigation districts, home owner's associations, fire department retirees unions, part time librarians, and everyone who has ever received unemployment?  I just can't fathom how else you turn 2.79 million civil servants into 22 million people without deliberately trying to distort the truth.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 06, 2017, 05:11:21 PM
Quote
It sounds like he wants to leave gay marriage alone, that's a start.
Two words scare me right now;  Mike Pense

Quote
I don't mind the wall.
I think the wall is entirely symbolic, and functionally worthless.  We are going to spend tens of billions building a symbol that won't curb immigration or drug-running.  It doesn't help that I think the symbol itself is an incredibly bad.

Quote
I hope he doesn't try to overturn Roe V. Wade
This can only be done by the supreme court, and only in the context of cases brought in front of them.  Regardless of what happens, I don't think abortions will go away - they'll jst become black-market and dangerous.
I do hope that 'Plan B' and contraceptives are readily available to all, which will limit abortions

Quote
Some of his projects, keystone, etc, are certain to help the economy in the short term but I fear the long term implications.
Again, this seems entirely symbolic and for the wrong reasons.  IT won't result in many full time jobs, and as long as we've got fracking it's unlikely that the tar coming from Canada will be desireable

Quote
I sure hope we don't open up coal mining burning again
me too.  BUt we've been explorting the hell out of it recently.

Quote
I'm glad he stopped TPP and hope he reforms NAFTA, since the invention of the internet, the ability of companies to outsource has make NAFTA a poor deal.
I'd like to see better deals too, but this approach seems kinda like going 'all-in' before your cards have been dealt.  The risk here is that once you pull out of a deal you must try to negotiate another.  Trump seems convinced that he can get deals that are far more favorable to the US by attacking the other partners, but we could just as easily wind up with a deal that is less favorable to the US.  I hate that uncertainty. This isn't his money he's playing with; it's millions of people's livelihoods.

Quote
I think his idea of repealing onerous regulation has some merit, but if he uses the approach he used on immigration to implement this idea I am scared.   
I feel the same. So far it's seemed to be more of an ideologically driven crusade, not a careful plan to maximize growth while retaining the most sensible regulations

Quote
Based on the tax plans I looked at, it simplifies things, and doesn't charge hardly anything for those who make less than 400k.
Beef #1 - it is perhaps the greatest windfall for those making over $400k, and could set up the next set of dynasties in the US.  Beef #2 - tax code complexity isn't as big an issue for the average tax payer as its made out to be.  My internal combustion engine in my car is rediculously complicted over what I had just 20 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's bad and we should go back to single-piston engines and no electronic ignition.

Quote
For those saying, he keeps money overseas and is a hypocrite....
My concern is with his conflicts of interest, and dozens of ethical observers have agreed.  Simply put *no one* can avoid making biased decisions when peronsal money is at stake. We now have a situation where the president, either intentionally or simply through basic psycology will be making decisions that benefit his own wealth.

Quote
I think he could do some damage in the foreign relations department,
I'm reminded of his campaign speeches about how "ISIS will be gone very, very quickly" and that these conflicts will be over almost immediately.  Here I think Trump is convinced of the US's superiority, and thinks that a bigger/smarter bomb can be used to solve all the international conflicts. We are unquestionably better equipped than our foes, but that won't win these battles. I'd have more respect for him if he just pulled out, but instead he seems to want to deploy his new war toys.  THe first special forces mission didn't go so well - I'm expecting the quagmire to get much worse in the next 2 years, and we'll throw money into the mud to try to fix it.

Quote
we dont have to trust them to have shared goals, just like in WWII
I'm not sure what our "shared goals" are here:  if we want few/no foreign terrorist attacks on US soil we've been pretty damn successful.  IF we want ISIL to completely fall under - that's going to be a lot harder, nad we'll risk the next threat popping up someplace else.  Peace in the middle east?  what makes Trump think he can achieve this were over a dozen administrations failed after two thousand years of fighting?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 06, 2017, 05:25:55 PM

Quote

Quote
I don't mind the wall.
I think the wall is entirely symbolic, and functionally worthless.  We are going to spend tens of billions building a symbol that won't curb immigration or drug-running.  It doesn't help that I think the symbol itself is an incredibly bad.





Especially because the administration will be wasting time and money on this, which plays well to Trump's base, while at the same time, he's not bothering to do his due diligence before authorizing "anti-terrorism" actions that go horribly awry. Or even bother to be in the Situation Room when it occurred.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-not-in-situation-room-yemen-raid-30-civilians-killed-us-navy-seal-dead-first-military-a7561596.html

All Trump really cares about are ratings. He doesn't seem to really care about protecting us, as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 06, 2017, 05:39:31 PM
Quote
I hope he doesn't try to overturn Roe V. Wade
This can only be done by the supreme court, and only in the context of cases brought in front of them.  Regardless of what happens, I don't think abortions will go away - they'll jst become black-market and dangerous.
I do hope that 'Plan B' and contraceptives are readily available to all, which will limit abortions

So I started reading Freakonomics last week. Here's a fun tidbit (in the sense that no abortion tidbit is ever fun):

They partly attribute the sharp drop-off in violent crime that happened in the 90s (when it had previously been rising) to Roe v. Wade. Fewer babies being born into high-risk families leading to fewer violent criminals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 06, 2017, 05:54:03 PM

This is a friggin amazing time to be alive. The world order is changing. At least as interesting as late 80's early 90's, when Reagan played the long game to stress and finally destroy the USSR.

I read through most of the article and I could see someone like Bannon taking us in both good and bad directions. He is obviously intelligent and very historically aware, though I wouldn't confuse that with being correct about all his assertions.

He has some intelligent views on what lead to our financial crises and the lack of accountability, though lacking some of the depth you may be able to get from an economist on the problem with globalism and the EU.

However I think his assertion that secularism is the greatest enemy to the judeo-christian western culture is a dangerous one and not one to be celebrated. But I am not surprised he would find support for it. I would argue Western culture has nearly fully embraced religious freedom which inevitably leads to some level of secularism. I think you(royal you) are lying to yourself if you believe the greatest thinkers over the last few millennia have not potentially been secular in their heart, but chose remain silent when faced with the power of the church in most Western nations.

Believing that judeo-christian faith is the only solution to our current ills as a culture stands to eventually undo the very religious freedom our country is supposedly founded on. To truly have religious freedom we have to have some form of government where laws that would spring from religious convictions can be challenged or we may as well all be back living under the church of England.

Science both social and physical combined with philosophy(possibly religiously guided) should be the tools we use to define morals and social constructs. Some good Judeo-christian values are certainly a strong part of current Western culture but that should not stop us from moving beyond its dated or broken constructs.

I think it is probably possible to formulate an argument that the maturity of judeo-christian faiths, that has given rise to the ability to be secular and move to and away from religion as the individual sees fit, is the very moderating force that has taken the sting away from the darker sides of religion that lead to holy wars in the past. Judeo-christian faiths are currently held in higher regard in Western nations because of their ability to peacefully coexists with secularism and other faiths not in spite of it. This gets at the very core of the separation of church and state, and that a nation can be based on a foundation not rooted in a single faith that is forced upon its people. To strongly believe otherwise is simply not very American.

Secularism, science, education, social freedom and capitalism are our greatest tools to help bring Muslims into the fold and moderate their religion into what judeo-christian faiths have become over millennia. Our only good choice is to continue to moderate their religion and remove the evil elements that are still practiced. The alternative is a bloody war to attempt to eradicate the faith. That probably isn't possible given its size.

Oh and Steve Bannon warning of an impending war is about as insightful as people predicting the next big crash. War is a cyclical and there will always be peaks and valleys of human conflict globally. There is no avoiding war until something fundamental changes about human nature.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 06, 2017, 06:01:49 PM
Quote
I hope he doesn't try to overturn Roe V. Wade
This can only be done by the supreme court, and only in the context of cases brought in front of them.  Regardless of what happens, I don't think abortions will go away - they'll jst become black-market and dangerous.
I do hope that 'Plan B' and contraceptives are readily available to all, which will limit abortions

So I started reading Freakonomics last week. Here's a fun tidbit (in the sense that no abortion tidbit is ever fun):

They partly attribute the sharp drop-off in violent crime that happened in the 90s (when it had previously been rising) to Roe v. Wade. Fewer babies being born into high-risk families leading to fewer violent criminals.

I would think the bigger component to that is just family planning in general. In theory if we had near perfect contraception and safe sex for those who partake, there would be limited need for abortion since unwanted pregnancy would be an extremely rare issue.

At least some recent statistics seems to bare this out as the rate of abortions has been dropping.

I can almost sympathies with anti-abortion sentiment in certain cases even as an atheist. But the fight against contraception is the epitome  of religious oppression and insanity.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 06, 2017, 06:14:07 PM
Sydneystache - the rest of us don't want any part of a Trumpian war either. :( God, I really hope it doesn't come to that.
Please ignore acroy's sad view of international relations. The rest of us aren't thinking of our allies and friends as merely pawns on a giant world chessboard, because that's a pathetic way to view the rest of humanity. Most of us are decent people, I promise. Apologize loudly on our behalf to anyone who will listen. Most of us voted against the Trumpsterfire. We're trying to limit the damage as much as we can!

No need to apologise over your numpties. Glad acroy is not working for your State Department and berating his/her Australian equivalent as irrelevant. We are living in the age of #trumpdiplomacy after all.

What was amazing was our main newspaper printed all these apologies from Yanks on behalf of your prez the day after. John McCain's gesture was lovely - I have read a lot of pro-Trumpies decrying him but you know what, McCain knew what happened in Vietnam (Trump couldn't serve because of ---) and he knew our history. So McCain is a lightning rod for Aussies who still believe there are sane American politicians with foreign policy interest.

I'm sure the diplomatic lines are working overnight here but the has damage been done. Australia is thinking post-Trump. Bye bye pax americana.

As our former PM Rudd said, our alliance is ugly enough to overcome this snafu but what a big snafu. According to insiders, Turnbull's phone call was to gauge how unhinged Trump is...and clearly he totally is. That and he is Putin's Manchurian candidate.

The big problem for the US here is China is loving this chaos and they're the ones who are going to win the region over with soft power. It is hard to defend America with Trump in power.

Trump's attack on the fourth estate is resonating with China with its bigger propaganda piece. So yes, it's now president-sanctioned to shut the media with fake news. On the bright side, the UK House of Commons today don't want Trumpie speaking.

Anyway, best of luck y'all and we just wonder how the world will survive the next 4 years!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 06, 2017, 06:16:18 PM
What reports from Lockheed? This seems to pretty clearly show this all started before the election:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/03/trumps-claims-of-saving-millions-on-f-35-fighter-untrue-says-armed-services-committee-dem.html

Not super comprehensive, but then neither are Trump's claims of any of the things he's taking credit for.
I guess I was just going off what Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed CEO has tweeted and said in statements since meeting with Donald Trump in December.  I wouldn't base much off what Trump claims, but if the other party backs it up, there may be some truth.

Quote
“I’ve heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35,” Hewson said in a statement. “I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively.”

Quote
Lockheed Martin credited President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price" of what is already the most expensive weapons program in history.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 06, 2017, 06:18:21 PM

I read through most of the article and I could see someone like Bannon taking us in both good and bad directions. He is obviously intelligent and very historically aware, though I wouldn't confuse that with being correct about all his assertions.

I'm not getting the "very historically aware" vibe from him.  All his ideas seem to spring from some sort of idealisation of his parents' generation and from a USA point of view.  That's a dangerously limited set of information on which to try to remake the world - if he knew more, he would do less.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 06, 2017, 06:18:43 PM
Trump reads at a 4th grade level so that is why he signs EOs and doesn't know what is in them.


https://www.twitter.com/trumpdraws (https://www.twitter.com/trumpdraws)

My partner's favourite is pretty. I like train.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 06, 2017, 06:40:31 PM
(possibly religiously guided) should be the tools we use to define morals and social constructs. Some good Judeo-christian values are certainly a strong part of current Western culture

I feel compelled to point out that "good Judeo-Christian values" have been with us a lot longer than either Judaism or Christianity.  Don't make the mistake of believing that humanity was immoral before the Old Testament came along.

Advocating for those values does not in any way require the participation of any religion.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 06, 2017, 06:44:58 PM
Sydneystache - the rest of us don't want any part of a Trumpian war either. :( God, I really hope it doesn't come to that.
Please ignore acroy's sad view of international relations. The rest of us aren't thinking of our allies and friends as merely pawns on a giant world chessboard, because that's a pathetic way to view the rest of humanity. Most of us are decent people, I promise. Apologize loudly on our behalf to anyone who will listen. Most of us voted against the Trumpsterfire. We're trying to limit the damage as much as we can!

No need to apologise over your numpties. Glad acroy is not working for your State Department and berating his/her Australian equivalent as irrelevant. We are living in the age of #trumpdiplomacy after all.

What was amazing was our main newspaper printed all these apologies from Yanks on behalf of your prez the day after. John McCain's gesture was lovely - I have read a lot of pro-Trumpies decrying him but you know what, McCain knew what happened in Vietnam (Trump couldn't serve because of ---) and he knew our history. So McCain is a lightning rod for Aussies who still believe there are sane American politicians with foreign policy interest.

I'm sure the diplomatic lines are working overnight here but the has damage been done. Australia is thinking post-Trump. Bye bye pax americana.

As our former PM Rudd said, our alliance is ugly enough to overcome this snafu but what a big snafu. According to insiders, Turnbull's phone call was to gauge how unhinged Trump is...and clearly he totally is. That and he is Putin's Manchurian candidate.

The big problem for the US here is China is loving this chaos and they're the ones who are going to win the region over with soft power. It is hard to defend America with Trump in power.

Trump's attack on the fourth estate is resonating with China with its bigger propaganda piece. So yes, it's now president-sanctioned to shut the media with fake news. On the bright side, the UK House of Commons today don't want Trumpie speaking.

Anyway, best of luck y'all and we just wonder how the world will survive the next 4 years!

Has there been any mounting internal pressure on the government from citizens of Australia to allow these refugees asylum into the country? It sucks that America won't take them, I wonder if the story has ramped up any efforts to stop the AUS gov. from holding these people prisoner?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 06, 2017, 06:51:48 PM
Sydneystache - the rest of us don't want any part of a Trumpian war either. :( God, I really hope it doesn't come to that.
Please ignore acroy's sad view of international relations. The rest of us aren't thinking of our allies and friends as merely pawns on a giant world chessboard, because that's a pathetic way to view the rest of humanity. Most of us are decent people, I promise. Apologize loudly on our behalf to anyone who will listen. Most of us voted against the Trumpsterfire. We're trying to limit the damage as much as we can!

No need to apologise over your numpties. Glad acroy is not working for your State Department and berating his/her Australian equivalent as irrelevant. We are living in the age of #trumpdiplomacy after all.

What was amazing was our main newspaper printed all these apologies from Yanks on behalf of your prez the day after. John McCain's gesture was lovely - I have read a lot of pro-Trumpies decrying him but you know what, McCain knew what happened in Vietnam (Trump couldn't serve because of ---) and he knew our history. So McCain is a lightning rod for Aussies who still believe there are sane American politicians with foreign policy interest.

I'm sure the diplomatic lines are working overnight here but the has damage been done. Australia is thinking post-Trump. Bye bye pax americana.

As our former PM Rudd said, our alliance is ugly enough to overcome this snafu but what a big snafu. According to insiders, Turnbull's phone call was to gauge how unhinged Trump is...and clearly he totally is. That and he is Putin's Manchurian candidate.

The big problem for the US here is China is loving this chaos and they're the ones who are going to win the region over with soft power. It is hard to defend America with Trump in power.

Trump's attack on the fourth estate is resonating with China with its bigger propaganda piece. So yes, it's now president-sanctioned to shut the media with fake news. On the bright side, the UK House of Commons today don't want Trumpie speaking.

Anyway, best of luck y'all and we just wonder how the world will survive the next 4 years!

Has there been any mounting internal pressure on the government from citizens of Australia to allow these refugees asylum into the country? It sucks that America won't take them, I wonder if the story has ramped up any efforts to stop the AUS gov. from holding these people prisoner?


Yes, of course. No one I have talked to at all supports the deal. See #bringthemhome

Legacy of previous admins that decided to have all these offshore detention centres instead of processing them on Australian soil. If Trump honours the deal, the reffos would probably be sent to Gitmo.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 06, 2017, 07:04:51 PM
I guess I was just going off what Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed CEO has tweeted and said in statements since meeting with Donald Trump in December.  I wouldn't base much off what Trump claims, but if the other party backs it up, there may be some truth.

Quote
“I’ve heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35,” Hewson said in a statement. “I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively.”

Quote
Lockheed Martin credited President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price" of what is already the most expensive weapons program in history.

So the best we can surmise, even if we assume Hewson wasn't trying to suck up to someone who can send truckloads of money his way and take him at his exact words, is that Trump "accelerated" a process that was already happening. Color me unimpressed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 06, 2017, 07:27:47 PM
Yes, of course. No one I have talked to at all supports the deal. See #bringthemhome

Legacy of previous admins that decided to have all these offshore detention centres instead of processing them on Australian soil. If Trump honours the deal, the reffos would probably be sent to Gitmo.
After reading the few reports out from Nauru that have slipped passed the government censors, I'm not sure Gitmo would be a significant downgrade.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 06, 2017, 07:39:18 PM
I guess I was just going off what Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed CEO has tweeted and said in statements since meeting with Donald Trump in December.  I wouldn't base much off what Trump claims, but if the other party backs it up, there may be some truth.

Quote
“I’ve heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35,” Hewson said in a statement. “I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively.”

Quote
Lockheed Martin credited President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price" of what is already the most expensive weapons program in history.

So the best we can surmise, even if we assume Hewson wasn't trying to suck up to someone who can send truckloads of money is way and take him at his exact words, is that Trump "accelerated" a process that was already happening. Color me unimpressed.
Meh. Some people are never happy. I try to take the good with the bad.


Speaking of more bad from internationl news for Trump: Pakistan arrests terrorist leaders, blames the USA and Trump.  Hafiz Saeed (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/analysis-here-s-why-pakistan-finally-arrested-hafiz-saeed-n715891) arrested, the mastermind (https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/hafiz_saeed.html) of the infamous 2008 Mumbai attacks (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/27/mumbai.investigation/).  Pakistan blames the Trump administration for its actions. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/asia/hafiz-saeed-house-arrest-pakistan/index.html)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on February 06, 2017, 08:17:09 PM
I'm continuing my read of the Bannon article...
On Putin, Bannon points out correctly that Putin is a kleptocrat, but he admires his strategy of using nationalism and traditionalism to build his base (and we have seen that Bannon and Trump successfully used these in their playbook.)
While admitting that Putin is an imperial expansionist, Bannon feels that dealing with the Islamic caliphate is most important.

In the end, he says he believes we should take "a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam," and that we are  already "in a war of immense proportions" for the survival of church and civilization. 

----

Okay. Very interesting. 
 The main questions I have are, if Bannon hates crony capitalists so much, why on earth is he so cozy with Trump and the GOP?  Also, does he propose to save us from the Islamic state by somehow triggering a global war?

It feels like he proposes fighting the enemy by assuming the properties of the enemy... government in bed with capitalists are the enemy, so... become the government, become the capitalist? Become nationalists with strong boundaries like Russia?
Fight ISIS, the religious would-be state, by becoming a religious state?

I still have an issue with his starting premise that Judeo-Christianity is the secret weapon that will save us from the caliphate. Well, yes, in that we might fight, win, and avoid being overrun by Muslims. But it doesn't do us much good if we become like Daesh in cruelty, intolerance, aggression, etc. does it?

Christ is love, acroy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on February 06, 2017, 08:20:46 PM
Furthermore, RangerOne had a very good analysis, in my POV:
Quote
Judeo-christian faiths are currently held in higher regard in Western nations because of their ability to peacefully coexists with secularism and other faiths not in spite of it. This gets at the very core of the separation of church and state, and that a nation can be based on a foundation not rooted in a single faith that is forced upon its people. To strongly believe otherwise is simply not very American.

Secularism, science, education, social freedom and capitalism are our greatest tools to help bring Muslims into the fold and moderate their religion into what judeo-christian faiths have become over millennia. Our only good choice is to continue to moderate their religion and remove the evil elements that are still practiced. The alternative is a bloody war to attempt to eradicate the faith.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 06, 2017, 08:22:15 PM
I'm continuing my read of the Bannon article...
On Putin, Bannon points out correctly that Putin is a kleptocrat, but he admires his strategy of using nationalism and traditionalism to build his base (and we have seen that Bannon and Trump successfully used these in their playbook.)
While admitting that Putin is an imperial expansionist, Bannon feels that dealing with the Islamic caliphate is most important.

In the end, he says he believes we should take "a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam," and that we are  already "in a war of immense proportions" for the survival of church and civilization. 

----

Okay. Very interesting. 
 The main questions I have are, if Bannon hates crony capitalists so much, why on earth is he so cozy with Trump and the GOP?  Also, does he propose to save us from the Islamic state by somehow triggering a global war?

It feels like he proposes fighting the enemy by assuming the properties of the enemy... government in bed with capitalists are the enemy, so... become the government, become the capitalist? Become nationalists with strong boundaries like Russia?
Fight ISIS, the religious would-be state, by becoming a religious state?

I still have an issue with his starting premise that Judeo-Christianity is the secret weapon that will save us from the caliphate. Well, yes, in that we might fight, win, and avoid being overrun by Muslims. But it doesn't do us much good if we become like Daesh in cruelty, intolerance, aggression, etc. does it?

Christ is love, acroy.

I have found trying to understand and follow Bannon's mental processes leaves me a little off-balance and sick to my stomach. I admire the effort and composure you are putting into this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on February 06, 2017, 08:46:24 PM
Well, I have never wanted to look closely at him before, but since he seems to be the power behind the throne, we have to steel ourselves and look into the abyss (to mix metaphors madly.)

I have further developed my thought below:
I still have an issue with his starting premise that Judeo-Christianity is the secret weapon that will save us from the caliphate. Well, yes, in that we might fight, win, and avoid being overrun by Muslims. But it doesn't do us much good if we become like Daesh in cruelty, intolerance, aggression, etc. does it?
Perhaps Judeo-Christianity is the secret weapon after all. But not in the way Bannon thinks.  Perhaps tolerance and understanding, as the children of the love that is preached in churches-- could conquer radical Islam in a generation.

Northern Ireland, after all, saw peace in our generation after decades of terrorism and guerilla warfare; an all-out war is not needed to tear everything down.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 06, 2017, 08:54:19 PM
Well, I have never wanted to look closely at him before, but since he seems to be the power behind the throne, we have to steel ourselves and look into the abyss (to mix metaphors madly.)

I have further developed my thought below:
I still have an issue with his starting premise that Judeo-Christianity is the secret weapon that will save us from the caliphate. Well, yes, in that we might fight, win, and avoid being overrun by Muslims. But it doesn't do us much good if we become like Daesh in cruelty, intolerance, aggression, etc. does it?
Perhaps Judeo-Christianity is the secret weapon after all. But not in the way Bannon thinks.  Perhaps tolerance and understanding, as the children of the love that is preached in churches-- could conquer radical Islam in a generation.

Northern Ireland, after all, saw peace in our generation after decades of terrorism and guerilla warfare; an all-out war is not needed to tear everything down.

I posted this in another thread. Glenn Back would agree with you (and I with him in this instance). Worth a read for those who haven't seen it:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/02/02/both-the-uc-berkeley-anarchists-and-milo-yiannopoulos-are-despicable-but-i-stand-with-one/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 06, 2017, 09:02:21 PM
Meh. Some people are never happy. I try to take the good with the bad.

I'm perfectly happy with my life and think your philosophy is a fine one in general, but it will take a lot more than a pretty inconsequential "victory" that was going to happen with our without Trump for me to see this one random rounding error of a dent in our spending to be a silver lining.

My own hope for finding good in the bad is that Trump's pathological obsession with being adored eventually leads him to reject the deeply unsettling influence of Bannon (@acroy him being smart in no way reassures anyone) and actually listen to the majority of Americans.

I suppose some of the regulations he wants to end are bad ones, but others (re: net neutrality) are fundamentally important so its hard to take that good with the overwhelmingly worse bad either.

But hey, we're only in week 3...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 06, 2017, 09:21:11 PM
Furthermore, RangerOne had a very good analysis, in my POV:

I agree it's an outstanding analysis, but it's from about 2004 and we haven't done shit in that direction since then.

The national security apparatus spent approximately a billion dollars on trying to understand the root causes of 9/11 and then formulate a long term action plan to deal with those causes.  Their suggestion was exactly what RangerOne suggested, but none of that analysis was ever put into practice.  Quite the contrary, we have only continued to assist the radicalization of Islam over time.  Trump and Bannon are just the icing on that cake.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 06, 2017, 10:29:26 PM
I'm glad he stopped TPP and hope he reforms NAFTA, since the invention of the internet, the ability of companies to outsource has make NAFTA a poor deal. Support and customer service jobs vanished. The USA is a net importer on Agriculture now since 2010. For the first time in our history, we buy more food than we make. Like just about every other civilized nation, we should use tarrifs on trade. I feel we have moral obligation to do so. our failure to do so has led to the subjugation and servitude of peoples globally, increased global emissions, and the loss of manufacturing and agriculture in America.  We owe it to a world to impose a tarrif on all nations imports to the USA that do not share our values. nations, that have no environmental law, no worker safety, no minimum wage or an artificially low one, no patent laws protection.  Imposing should tarriffs would have the affect of promoting those values, globally raising the bar, and your bring some manufacturing that is borderline profitable in the USA today back. Such as heavy industry and other items that are expensive to ship from china,and perishable items, such as agriculture. The USA cannot compete with third world manufacturing without tarriffs, except in jobs that can be heavily automated.

I couldn't believe your statement regarding the US being a net importer of agriculture; turns out, neither would the USDA:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foreign-agricultural-trade-of-the-united-states-fatus/us-agricultural-trade-data-update/interactive-chart-us-monthly-agricultural-trade/ (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foreign-agricultural-trade-of-the-united-states-fatus/us-agricultural-trade-data-update/interactive-chart-us-monthly-agricultural-trade/)

NAFTA's impact on net US employment levels is small (between zero and 850K net jobs lost), see for example:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/bernie-s/sanders-overshoots-nafta-job-losses/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/bernie-s/sanders-overshoots-nafta-job-losses/)

TPP would have addressed some of the deficiencies you cited regarding consistency in IP regulation and environmental/labor standards. And from a geopolitical perspective, a successful ratification of TPP would have counterbalanced China's ascendancy through an increase in the US's soft-power by having established trade policy in their backyard; the presumption is if China takes the lead in setting the tone for multi-lateral trade deals in east Asia, the outcome will be worse for the US than the alternative of TPP.

Finally, the tariffs required to bring back the sort of manufacturing being romanticized in the current political environment would be so onerous as to cause a variety of currently extant global supply chains to collapse. Manufacturing in the US is increasingly automated and increasingly a high-skill activity. Why low-skill back-breaking or mind-addling assembly work as seen in China is fetishized as some ideal to strive for is hard to understand. The US has been successful by looking forward at what's next rather than looking backwards while choking back nostalgic tears.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 06, 2017, 11:02:57 PM
According to the NYTimes article, Trump is pissed at Bannon over the EOs, especially the NSC one; this article might be falling into the trap of engaging in speculative Trumplinology but is nonetheless interesting in the power dynamics potentially at play:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html)

Regarding Bannon, while it might be unwarranted to misunderestimate his intelligence simply because he always appears as if he just woke up from a drunken nap on top of a sidewalk grate, I am reminded of what Deep Throat said of Nixon's men during Watergate -- "...the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand".

Bannon's comments on Islam are a mixed bag. On the one hand, it's hard to argue in the short- to medium-run that Islamic extremism, which kills fewer people in the US each year than anal beads (I assume), is the existential threat he depicts it to be. However, even an Economist magazine-carrying internationalist at-heart like myself recognizes that there are differences between cultures and that moreover, those differences can be judged on their merits. There is a good part of the Muslim world (though it pays to decouple the religion itself from the various cultures it is embedded within) that is illiberal, anti-reason, is deeply dysfunctional in its institutions, inferior in its morality, and is hostile towards the West.

While the US and (it seems to a much lesser extent) Europe has some capacity to gradually absorb immigrants from dysfunctional civilizations, there is a breaking point at which assimilation fails. The US is extraordinarily good at assimilation, so this argument might play out better in Europe (e.g. Identitarians).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: kei te pai on February 06, 2017, 11:28:26 PM
New Zealand has repeatedly offered to take some of the refugees detained by Australia on Nauru and Manus Island but the Aussies said no.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/307428/pm-stands-by-offer-to-take-150-asylum-seekers
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 06, 2017, 11:41:14 PM
New Zealand has repeatedly offered to take some of the refugees detained by Australia on Nauru and Manus Island but the Aussies said no.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/307428/pm-stands-by-offer-to-take-150-asylum-seekers

New Zealand is to Australia what Canada is to the USA.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 06, 2017, 11:44:48 PM
Quote
TPP would have addressed some of the deficiencies you cited regarding consistency in IP regulation and environmental/labor standards. And from a geopolitical perspective, a successful ratification of TPP would have counterbalanced China's ascendancy through an increase in the US's soft-power by having established trade policy in their backyard; the presumption is if China takes the lead in setting the tone for multi-lateral trade deals in east Asia, the outcome will be worse for the US than the alternative of TPP.

Already in the works - Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Comprehensive_Economic_Partnership

Also, China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to counter the World Bank
https://www.aiib.org/en/index.html

Quote
Finally, the tariffs required to bring back the sort of manufacturing being romanticized in the current political environment would be so onerous as to cause a variety of currently extant global supply chains to collapse. Manufacturing in the US is increasingly automated and increasingly a high-skill activity. Why low-skill back-breaking or mind-addling assembly work as seen in China is fetishized as some ideal to strive for is hard to understand. The US has been successful by looking forward at what's next rather than looking backwards while choking back nostalgic tears.

America is strong in its technology industry - you lead the world in it. Sad that so much xenophobia/romanticism directed at manufacturing industry - we lost ours too but we'd swap your Silicon Valley for any of our sectors any time...(except for the tax evasion bit)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 06, 2017, 11:53:10 PM
New Zealand has repeatedly offered to take some of the refugees detained by Australia on Nauru and Manus Island but the Aussies said no.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/307428/pm-stands-by-offer-to-take-150-asylum-seekers
Sad. :( Such an easy request to say yes to.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: davef on February 07, 2017, 04:48:09 AM
over 22million  Americans work for the government. That is more than 10% of working age Americans.

Where did you get this horribly wrong number from?

In truth, there are about 2.8 million civilian federal employees, and about 1.5 million people in the US military.  This number has been essentially flat for decades, even as the size and scope of the government has grown tremendously.  Government now does more per federal employee than at any time in history.

Maybe you're also counting state and county and city employees?  Plus irrigation districts, home owner's associations, fire department retirees unions, part time librarians, and everyone who has ever received unemployment?  I just can't fathom how else you turn 2.79 million civil servants into 22 million people without deliberately trying to distort the truth.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001 (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001)

I got that horribly wrong number from the BLS website. You were right, I was off a bit, it is not 22 million, it is 22,276,000
The title for the chart is All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted
It doesn't say anything about unemployment, but as you said, I assume it does include state and local government and military.
When I said 20% waste, manpower is only part of that, I am not implying we could cut 4 million jobs. I meant 20% of dollars.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: davef on February 07, 2017, 04:56:26 AM
Quote
It sounds like he wants to leave gay marriage alone, that's a start.
Two words scare me right now;  Mike Pense

Quote
I don't mind the wall.
I think the wall is entirely symbolic, and functionally worthless.  We are going to spend tens of billions building a symbol that won't curb immigration or drug-running.  It doesn't help that I think the symbol itself is an incredibly bad.


Agreed, on those two points and many of your others. Then again, most of the jobs created by the TARP stimulus were equally functionally worthless, ( saw this first hand) so I guess you could call it another stimulus.

We have done a decent job stopping  terror attacks on the US from foreign attackers, its foreign inspired domestic attacks that we have not done a good job with.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 05:47:35 AM
I guess I was just going off what Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed CEO has tweeted and said in statements since meeting with Donald Trump in December.  I wouldn't base much off what Trump claims, but if the other party backs it up, there may be some truth.

Quote
“I’ve heard his message loud and clear about reducing the cost of the F-35,” Hewson said in a statement. “I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively.”

Quote
Lockheed Martin credited President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price" of what is already the most expensive weapons program in history.

So the best we can surmise, even if we assume Hewson wasn't trying to suck up to someone who can send truckloads of money his way and take him at his exact words, is that Trump "accelerated" a process that was already happening. Color me unimpressed.

Pretty much this. Trump is well known for responding to people who suck up to them, and getting into twitter fights anytime someone criticizes him.
If I were a CEO who depended on military contracts I'd probably have said the same things to get my money. 
Think of the alternative - had he put out a statement saying "while our meeting with DJT was productive, we'd like to correct the record and say that these cost-cutting measures were already being implamented before DJT took office" - um, no.  He would have yanked the rug out so fast, then blamed all the fallout on Obama, and only after 6 months would he have come back to the same deal and claimed "amazing cost-savings, I was right!!"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 06:04:10 AM
I've been reading through the articles and synopses posted about Bannon, and my conclusion is that his approach is as much of the problem as his end goals.

Running a diverse country is not the same as running a company. In business the primary goal is to defeat your competitors, and it seems DJT is continuing that stategy.  Problem is, the competitors here tend to be minorities and trading partners.

As an example, imagine there was a policy that would do little for the US in the short term but would substantially help Mexico. DJT would rail against it as being a 'horrible deal - the US gets nothing!  Mexico gets everything! BAD' ... yet globally and long term these are the sorts of policies we should consider.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 07, 2017, 06:18:41 AM
I am fucking fuming at that fucking liar Trump right now.

Here's what he said:  "And all across Europe you've seen what happened, in Paris and Nice.  All over Europe it's happening.  It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported.  And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it.  They have their reasons, you understand that."

Who the fuck is that meant to be a message to?  People in Europe?  We have pluralistic, free press, of all political persuasions and none, which reports freely and fairly - here is the BBC summary of the White House list of "European" attacks (most of which were not in Europe) and how the BBC reported them-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38890090

So Trump here is gaslighting Americans.  There isn't enough "real" terror in the world for him, so he has to invent some that Americans are not being told about, for "reasons", so he can defeat it and keep them safe.  Fucking Trump has read 1984 and taken it as his fucking manual for being President.

Please, how long is it going to be before you can impeach this fucker?

Edited to add: I guess what Trump might also be trying to do is to get the media to provide excessive coverage of terrorist events in order to prove that they are not underreporting?  Which would have a similar effect in ramping up Bannon's "clash of civilisations" narrative.  Yeah, fuck that.

Further edited to add: the grieving mother of one of the victims in the attack in Queensland Australia in August 2016, one of the attacks listed by the White House as being a "terror" attack, has stated that it was not a terror attack and must not be used as an excuse to persecute innocent people.

Fucking Trump, fucking White House.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-38893253
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on February 07, 2017, 06:25:38 AM
I hope he puts stop to the Ethanol scam. But he hasn't said much about it so I doubt it.
It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 07, 2017, 06:33:17 AM
over 22million  Americans work for the government. That is more than 10% of working age Americans.

Where did you get this horribly wrong number from?

In truth, there are about 2.8 million civilian federal employees, and about 1.5 million people in the US military.  This number has been essentially flat for decades, even as the size and scope of the government has grown tremendously.  Government now does more per federal employee than at any time in history.

Maybe you're also counting state and county and city employees?  Plus irrigation districts, home owner's associations, fire department retirees unions, part time librarians, and everyone who has ever received unemployment?  I just can't fathom how else you turn 2.79 million civil servants into 22 million people without deliberately trying to distort the truth.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001 (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9000000001)

I got that horribly wrong number from the BLS website. You were right, I was off a bit, it is not 22 million, it is 22,276,000
The title for the chart is All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted
It doesn't say anything about unemployment, but as you said, I assume it does include state and local government and military.
When I said 20% waste, manpower is only part of that, I am not implying we could cut 4 million jobs. I meant 20% of dollars.

The number you're showing does include federal government employees, state and local employees, city officials, teachers/educators, the military, librarians, the post office, etc.  That makes it rather misleading.

There are 2.136 million Federal government employees as of 2014, with a projected loss of more than 200,000 jobs by 2024.  https://data.bls.gov/projections/nationalMatrix?queryParams=999100&ioType=i (https://data.bls.gov/projections/nationalMatrix?queryParams=999100&ioType=i)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 06:33:49 AM
I am fucking fuming at that fucking liar Trump right now.

Here's what he said:  "And all across Europe you've seen what happened, in Paris and Nice.  All over Europe it's happening.  It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported.  And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it.  They have their reasons, you understand that."

...
There isn't enough "real" terror in the world for him, so he has to invent some that Americans are not being told about, for "reasons", so he can defeat it and keep them safe. 

I share your frustration Former Player

Once again DJT seems to be dredging up things that never happened in an effort to get his base to play along, and to keep the whole country fearful of a phantom threat.  He did it in the primaries when he stated that "I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. It never happened (fact-checked here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/)).  Then he doubled-down on this assertion and (shock!) some people now swear they remember this from happening.  Memory is a funny and meldable thing.
He's also claimed that "I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally"(also debunked (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-millions-illegal-vo/))

This list goes on. 

His latest is sinister claim that there are lots more Muslim terrorist attacks we need to protect against, but we don't know about them because they aren't being reported. Again, false (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/06/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-media-not-reporting-terrorism-a/).
The best way of getting more power is ofr the populace to be mortally afraid.  That's what happened with the patriot act following 9/11, not to mention during WWII and WWI (and most every other major war).  I'm guessing that in DJT's mind all he needs to do is convince people their greatest threat to life is terrorism and he can accomplish everything he wants to (complete Muslim ban, a 'beautiful wall', some targeted wars againt "very bad people"... 

The best counter I think is to not be afraid.  The average person is safer now than at any time in our history.  The EU certainly has helped with that (all of its problems aside)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 06:35:08 AM

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Fishindude on February 07, 2017, 06:43:32 AM
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   I always have hopes for positive change, but the way the DC bureaucrats (Repub or Dem) have things so jammed up, major changes of any type rarely happen.

One thing I do have an interest in and will predict:
Firearms and and ammunition sales will level out or decrease now that there isn't much fear of a gun grab, and ammo that has been hard to get will be more readily available, hopefully cheaper too.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: AdrianC on February 07, 2017, 07:08:00 AM
One thing I do have an interest in and will predict:
Firearms and and ammunition sales will level out or decrease now that there isn't much fear of a gun grab, and ammo that has been hard to get will be more readily available, hopefully cheaper too.

Already happening:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/317806-gun-sales-slow-following-trump-election

They'll go back if Trump is impeached.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 07, 2017, 07:11:01 AM
Yes, let's support those coal miners by letting their owners pollute the water they drink.  That'll show em! 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 07:13:09 AM
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   
Normally I'd be one to agree with you, but we are both seeing some immediate and negative impacts to our own lives. The complete shut-down of the EPA grants plus freezes in the federal hiring have directly and negatively impacted us.  I also have to collegues, both with families, that now feel they cannot travel to and from the country.

Ironically my greatest hope right now is that the bureaucracy will act as a buffer from some of the more extreme changes proposed.  So far DJT seems willing to run roughshot over it though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 07, 2017, 07:16:24 AM
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   I always have hopes for positive change, but the way the DC bureaucrats (Repub or Dem) have things so jammed up, major changes of any type rarely happen.

One thing I do have an interest in and will predict:
Firearms and and ammunition sales will level out or decrease now that there isn't much fear of a gun grab, and ammo that has been hard to get will be more readily available, hopefully cheaper too.
A leader who lies to his nation about non-existent threats has no good purpose or outcome in mind.  When that nation has the most powerful military on the planet and an excess of nuclear weapons, there is the potential for us all to be affected.  The scale of these lies and the potential adverse effects is unprecedented: Dubya lied about Iraq, but the effects at the time were mostly limited to Iraq itself - although I concede the subsequent spread.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 07, 2017, 07:38:04 AM
It seems like every day is packed full of impacts of Trump being so incredibly outrageous.  The one I'm still trying to explain is his comment 'You think our country is so innoncent...' (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin/).  Holy crap, what a demeaning backward thing for a US President to even think, let alone go on the record with.

I literally wake up every morning dreading what Trump might do.  Even in this relative calm with the travel ban halted, I fear that Bannon is whispering in Trump's ear that the jihad is coming and refugees are pouring in.  I worry that, even when democracy and the will of the people reassert itself, when the checks and balances work, that Trump gets a little more crazy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 07, 2017, 08:28:49 AM
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   I always have hopes for positive change, but the way the DC bureaucrats (Repub or Dem) have things so jammed up, major changes of any type rarely happen.

One thing I do have an interest in and will predict:
Firearms and and ammunition sales will level out or decrease now that there isn't much fear of a gun grab, and ammo that has been hard to get will be more readily available, hopefully cheaper too.

Me personally?  Not much. I'm a US-born non-Muslim straight white male.

That said, I'm not selfish enough to ignore the potential repercussions for everyone else.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on February 07, 2017, 08:37:04 AM

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.

Dead serious.
Read up on the rule. Perhaps a source you trust: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
Even Vox acknowledges the 1,700+pg rule (which is in addition to all the other thousands of pages of regulations) is "almost ludicrously complex".
It was one piece of the Establishment's War on Coal
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Good riddance. Many more to follow.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: farmecologist on February 07, 2017, 08:47:16 AM
I think people so upset by Trump read, listen to, and watch too much news, get over it.  Do you really think your life is going to be affected much by this guy?   How did the last several presidents positively or negatively impact your life?   I always have hopes for positive change, but the way the DC bureaucrats (Repub or Dem) have things so jammed up, major changes of any type rarely happen.


Fishindude - I've been thinking a lot about what you say recently. I'm starting to think that liberals are actually way more likely to be affected by the current administration, in part because liberals seem to be drawn to careers and vocations that are currently "threatened" (in short - liberals are drawn to civil service).

A few examples of how I and people I'm close with are being directly affected:
  • The small business I work for has already had a couple planned projects for 2017 put on hold due to uncertainty within Fed agencies and defense contractors. 
  • My local library presents an adult education series every year that is funded with a grant from the NEH. I was talking to the program director this weekend and she is afraid they will lose all their funding for it next year
  • I have two friends who work directly for the NEA as well as family, several friends and acquaintances who have received funding from the NEA - everything there is up in limbo right now.
  • Friends from a local interfaith community group who are skipping travel home to visit their families this summer due to the travel ban
  • One of my good friends from college is now an asylum attorney specializing in LBGTQ cases from predominantly muslim countries - her last two weeks have been insane.
  • Additionally I have friends that work for NPS, have grants funded by NIH, work in climate research, are profs at Berkeley (and a million other institutions - but the Pres only threatened to take away UCB's funding as of now), and who work for homeless (re HUD) outreach - All are unsure what their jobs will look like in the near future.
  • Our local JCC had to be evacuated from a bomb threat, and a Muslim family's home was defaced with hate graffiti.

Among my close friend group I would be shocked if there were people who did not feel their lives/livelihoods threatened by upset from the current admin.

Now to be fair - my many members of my Midwestern (Hoosier) family feel very differently and as of right now their lives have only changed for the better (one of my uncles works at Carrier).  So I get where you are coming from for sure.  But please don't dismiss those of us who feel like our lives may be dramatically changed by some of this administration's plans.


It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 

Personally, we may do a road trip to Yellowstone this year.  We also went 2 years ago and the place was absolutely overrun with foreign tourists.  Not complaining...but it was very noticeable from when we went the previous time (about 10 years ago).   It will be interesting to see if there are any differences this year.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 08:49:27 AM

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.

Dead serious.
Read up on the rule. Perhaps a source you trust: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
Even Vox acknowledges the 1,700+pg rule (which is in addition to all the other thousands of pages of regulations) is "almost ludicrously complex".
It was one piece of the Establishment's War on Coal
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Good riddance. Many more to follow.
why on earth would you think that vox would be a source I would trust over others?
I wouldn't characterize myself as a bleeding-edge liberal.

As for the 'ludicrously complex' regulations surroudning coal, I think it's inherent in an implicit strategy to limit the amount of coal we mine.
I agree we could make this less complex overall, but then we run into the question about what the fair cost for coal should be; is it merely the cost of pulling it out of the ground, or do we incorporate the wide range of health risks to both humans and the planet that it creates?
Since carbon-taxes and cap-and-trade regulation have largely stalled, what would you propose?

If we are going to remove overly ornerous regulation (which I support doing) I believe we need to have some sensible regulations to replace it with. 
Striking down regulations and then saying "well, we'll come up with something better down the line as problems arise" is a really dumb strategy IMO.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 07, 2017, 08:51:30 AM
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ (http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/)

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 07, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
I am fucking fuming at that fucking liar Trump right now.

Here's what he said:  "And all across Europe you've seen what happened, in Paris and Nice.  All over Europe it's happening.  It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported.  And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it.  They have their reasons, you understand that."


Among the attacks the Trump administration claims were not covered by the press are the Pulse nightclub and Brussels. Only in Crazy-As-Fuck-Alternative-Facts-Land did those attacks not completely overwhelm all forms of media when they occurred, wall-to-wall coverage, and of course it's completely verifiable. But facts don't matter. And also the Bowling Green Massacre was completely squelched by the press, the Holocaust never happened, the moon landing was faked, and jet contrails are from the CIA spraying mind-control drugs over everyone.

Meanwhile back in reality, people and the GOP Congress STILL support Trump somehow.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 07, 2017, 09:01:37 AM
Quote
Meanwhile back in reality, people and the GOP Congress STILL support Trump somehow.

Of course they do.  Because his base hates liberals MORE than they care about pretty much anything else.  We are the threat and the enemy above all other threats.  Once you understand that, you understand his appeal.  His values and personality are anti-liberal at a basic level.  His ability to upset liberals is his best feature, even if it is at the expense of his supporters own standard of living.  This is why they will justify anything he does, because it gives them jollies to upset liberals and that is worth it to them. 

The congress just uses Trump's ability to rouse and distract his base in order to suck up wealth and demolish the safety net.  They made a deal with the devil and so far it's working out pretty well for them. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Fishindude on February 07, 2017, 09:16:48 AM
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.




Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: farmecologist on February 07, 2017, 09:18:42 AM
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ (http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/)

Another recent bit of news is that 'Wind Turbine Technician' is the USA's 'fastest growing occupation'.  Regardless of what this administration does, wind and solar will only continue to grow...

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: StarBright on February 07, 2017, 09:18:56 AM

It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 

Personally, we may do a road trip to Yellowstone this year.  We also went 2 years ago and the place was absolutely overrun with foreign tourists.  Not complaining...but it was very noticeable from when we went the previous time (about 10 years ago).   It will be interesting to see if there are any differences this year.

NPR did a piece about travel just this morning! One of the things they brought up (in addition to foreign tourists not coming to the US) was American travel abroad being cancelled because people are angry at the US and american's are worried about retaliation. They talked to travel agencies whose business was (anecdotally ) falling off rather quickly because no one wants to come in or go out right now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 07, 2017, 09:26:05 AM
Cheap natural gas (fracking) killed coal, not "burdensome regulations". That trend will continue, the natural gas reserves available now for development in the US are just insane.

So, Acroy, if your goal is to sell lots of coal to China, you might get your wish. I have mixed feelings about that. If you want to see US coal plants staying in business/being built... sorry. Not going to happen in our lifetimes.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 07, 2017, 09:31:55 AM
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on other types:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 07, 2017, 09:32:02 AM


It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 

Personally, we may do a road trip to Yellowstone this year.  We also went 2 years ago and the place was absolutely overrun with foreign tourists.  Not complaining...but it was very noticeable from when we went the previous time (about 10 years ago).   It will be interesting to see if there are any differences this year.

We are among those who are considering not going on vacation to the US this year. I hear a lot of people saying the same thing, both IRL and in Norwegian social media. But we are a small nation, not a large part of the statistics. What should worry you more, is that there is a lot of outcry in the academic environments about larger conventions that often are placed in the US. Some, like the psycologists association, have asked their members to boycott already planned conferences. The medical association are considering doing the same. But many more are working to have the next international meetings and conferences located in countries where their colleagues won't be denied access. It is simply becoming too inconvenient to arrange things in a country where you can't know what the rules will be next week.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 07, 2017, 09:36:09 AM


It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 

Personally, we may do a road trip to Yellowstone this year.  We also went 2 years ago and the place was absolutely overrun with foreign tourists.  Not complaining...but it was very noticeable from when we went the previous time (about 10 years ago).   It will be interesting to see if there are any differences this year.

We are among those who are considering not going on vacation to the US this year. I hear a lot of people saying the same thing, both IRL and in Norwegian social media. But we are a small nation, not a large part of the statistics. What should worry you more, is that there is a lot of outcry in the academic environments about larger conventions that often are placed in the US. Some, like the psycologists association, have asked their members to boycott already planned conferences. The medical association are considering doing the same. But many more are working to have the next international meetings and conferences located in countries where their colleagues won't be denied access. It is simply becoming too inconvenient to arrange things in a country where you can't know what the rules will be next week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/trump-immigration-ban-a-boon-for-canadian-tech-industry-say-executives/article33818200/

I'm curious to see if I end up in Canada in a year or so.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 09:36:54 AM
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.
As Walt stated, cheap natural gas has depressed coal, not solar panels.  The major cost for nuclear is the incredible costs for security and the long-term storage of spent rods (I'm currently working on a decommissioning advisory board for two nuclear plants).  Those are largely regulatory burdens put into place to keep i) terrorists from getting the materials to make a 'dirty bomb' as well as ii) ensure the public they won't blow up, a-la-3 mile island. 

The fastest increase among fossil-fuel powered plants is LNG.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

I hear you on solutions being cost-effective and reasonable, but I think your response has a lot of holes in it.  First, it doesn't address the questions of what a 'fair cost' for dirtier technologies should be.  Do we require extremely expensive scrubbers and impost a carbon tax? Do we pay for the disposal of the filters as part of the cost (now concentrated toxic waste)? I'd be fine eliminating all subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines if we also did the same with the fossil fuel industry (oil has been getting the motherload of tax breaks for the past century) as well as include the cost of everything that goes into the air and into our landfills.


Then there's the statement that "solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow."  That's frequently used as an argument why we shouldn't use or expand their usages.  What it ignores is storage capacity, which is one of the fastest growing fields in the energy industry.  Adding to that, wind tends to blow strongest in the evening and at night, while solar is best during the day; the two strategies do a lot towards complimenting each other's weakness. To be clear, I agree with you that fossil fuels can and should have uses for our electricity grid.

If your quotes for providing all your electricity via solar came out to $70k you are using a TON of energy.  Even ignoring all subsidies we priced it out just under $30k, and that was in cold, snowy New England.  I'd start by doing a comprehensive energy audit to figure out where all this electricity us going.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: davef on February 07, 2017, 09:48:04 AM
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ (http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/)

You have to look at the unanticipated consequences of your roadblocks. The roadblock put-up by Obama caused stopped burning, not mining. so our cheapest source of energy  25% cheaper than natural gas 80% cheaper than wind and 90% cheaper than solar (DOE numbers from 2014), yes renewables have gone down some, but the DOE has not quantified it yet.   Was still extracted (albeit at a slower rate) and shipped to mexico and mostly china, were it was sold, and burned and did even more damage to the environment because they have absolutely no controls or EPA. Not to mention the fuels burned in shipping. In the case of mexico so they could generate energy and sell that energy back to Southern California.  Do you think that is really good for clean air and water? Perhaps on a very local basis but that is very short sighted.It is far worse than if Obama had done nothing. The only sensible strategy is to keep it in the ground, all of it. The second best strategy, would be to burn it. Sure we get pollution, but at least we get cheap energy. What you got form Obama's strategy is pollution and expensive energy. the worst of both worlds!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: farmecologist on February 07, 2017, 09:55:25 AM

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/


Cool chart!  However, I'll tell you that many 'flyover states' are starting to produce quite a bit of alternative power ( mostly wind )..and will soon surpass the coastal states.

I'm from SE Minnesota.  Looks like we almost produce as much wind power as California now.  The entire I-90 corridor in the western half of Minnesota is solid wind generation...you can even see it on this chart.  Many more turbines are being added each year.  The grid was also updated recently to increase capacity.

Even 'king coal' North Dakota is adding quite a bit of wind generation.  We have family in central North Dakota and visit every year.  We pass a huge coal power plant there (Coal Creek Station).  This power plant also exports power to Minnesota. When you get close to it...you can tell that the air quality is 'slightly off', etc... BIG polluter.  Even so, most folks in North Dakota are very pro-coal.   And I'm happy to see that wind power is encroaching there as well.  Believe me, if wind can be successful in North Dakota, it can be successful anywhere.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 07, 2017, 10:00:54 AM
Quote
This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

I chose solar as an example, but it isn't the only source of replacement.  Fossil fuel replacement isn't a one trick pony.  And I like natural gas as a stop gap, and I like nuclear as long as it is smart and well regulated. 

I know solar only works during the day, but they are quickly working on affordable battery storage to compensate for that. 

But I will be happy if coal gets moved to the periphery.  I know it won't, especially in the developing world, but I see that developing the expertise for next gen energy is a smart bet, and better that pouring federal funds into subsidizing old style power sources.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: davef on February 07, 2017, 10:01:51 AM
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/

Great graph, but I think it proves HIS point. If you consider all but 5 states flyover states, you may have a point.

The fact of the matter is if you omit hydro (which most people dont consider renewable anymore), only 6% if our energy comes from the renewables, sun and wind. Even if you look at California it is only 15% between sun and wind, and even that fact is deceivingly high because that is only generation, not usage. California buys a huge percentage of its energy from Nevada, Mexico and Canada, I know because I built the 500kv and 230 kv transmission lines to pipe the energy in Also not quantified in this chart is when that energy is generated. Those of us in the industry familiar with the duck curve know that Solar works when the demand is moderate (afternoon) but not when it is most needed (evening) the result of that, and a lack of a suitable means of storage, is that a lot of solar energy sold back to the grid during the mid-day solar spike ends up getting wasted, un-utilized and dissipated as heat over time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on February 07, 2017, 10:02:31 AM

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.

Dead serious.
Read up on the rule. Perhaps a source you trust: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
Even Vox acknowledges the 1,700+pg rule (which is in addition to all the other thousands of pages of regulations) is "almost ludicrously complex".
It was one piece of the Establishment's War on Coal
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Good riddance. Many more to follow.

... you might want to re-read that Vox article. To put the "ludicrously complex" into context, here is the surrounding text:
Quote
And while it’s almost ludicrously complex, updating hundreds of older regulations, it basically puts a couple of key restrictions in place for coal companies seeking permits to expand or start new mines in the future:

    First, a company that wants to open a surface or underground mine needs to avoid causing damage to the “hydrologic balance” of waterways outside of its permit area. The rule goes into excruciating detail on what these definitions mean, but it’s basically a much stricter limit on dumping waste and debris in surrounding ecosystems.
    Second, companies and regulators have to do a baseline assessment of what nearby ecosystems look like before any new mining begins. They then have to monitor affected streams during mining, and the company has to develop a plan for restoring damaged waterways to something close to their natural state after mining is done.

This sounds basic, but the rule-making process involved numerous debates over best how to define “hydrologic balance,” how exactly to monitor waterways, how to deal with the variety of coal industry practices out there, and so on.

Having worked on rule revision processes, I can easily see how the final document would be long, because it would also track the changes in related rules to (hopefully) keep the regulations internally consistent. The baseline that they are asking for in the rule is reasonable and prudent policy. Elsewhere in the article, the economic analysis said that it would cost 124 jobs, within the conext of the industry shedding tens of thousands of jobs. Want to help coal miners? Work on things that will address the actual problem, not allow the very water they drink to become poison for very modest short term economic gain.

IMHO: this is the opposite of winning.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 07, 2017, 10:14:45 AM
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Your post is lacking in facts and is rife with speculative gibberish.

Solar power has decreased in cost dramatically and will only continue to do so as technology improves.   This is an interesting graph showing how each state gets its power. Note that coal is primarily used in flyover states and coastal areas are almost exclusively on

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/

Great graph, but I think it proves HIS point. If you consider all but 5 states flyover states, you may have a point.

The fact of the matter is if you omit hydro (which most people dont consider renewable anymore), only 6% if our energy comes from the renewables, sun and wind. Even if you look at California it is only 15% between sun and wind, and even that fact is deceivingly high because that is only generation, not usage. California buys a huge percentage of its energy from Nevada, Mexico and Canada, I know because I built the 500kv and 230 kv transmission lines to pipe the energy in Also not quantified in this chart is when that energy is generated. Those of us in the industry familiar with the duck curve know that Solar works when the demand is moderate (afternoon) but not when it is most needed (evening) the result of that, and a lack of a suitable means of storage, is that a lot of solar energy sold back to the grid during the mid-day solar spike ends up getting wasted, un-utilized and dissipated as heat over time.

I'm not sure he had a point other than "coal is cheap so we should use it because I'm tired of my money being stolen to pay for better alternatives."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 07, 2017, 12:30:18 PM
Excluding hydro from renewables sounds like a very good way to shoot yourself in the foot. Yes, there are environmental drawbacks, but so has all the other energy sources. When the hydro power plant has been built, it can continue producing for centuries without additional damages to the environment. You can't get that from fossil fuels. More than 90% of our electricity is from hydro, and I've never heard a single European voice calling it anything other than renewable, on par with or better than solar/wind. The Germans pay high prices for green certificates from these plants. We have stopped building the large dams, and curtailed the small scale hydro development to ensure we can keep the rest of the waterfalls for tourists. But even improving the old plants is enough to increase the amount of green power we can export.

Hydro is the perfect balancing power for solar and wind. There have even been experiments done where they use surplus wind to pump water back into the reservoir to store the energy.

What about biomass and waste? Do you exploit all this?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: davef on February 07, 2017, 12:52:58 PM
Very little Biomass and waste. its growing but still less than .001%

In the US the environmentalists are call for dams to be torn out because they interfere with salmon migration. Even though all the dams that I know of have Salmon ladders. Hydro is a big deal in Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  Its the reason those three states (if you do consider it a renewable) have been more than 50% renewable for decades. MT, SD, TN, NY have respectable amount of hydro as well, but we pretty much have maxed out capacity. Many of the rivers in the rest of the US don't have enough vertical drop to make hydro worthwhile. There are a few, such as the Platte that may work. and others in northern California that would work if the environmentalists didn't oppose them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 07, 2017, 12:58:54 PM
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 01:51:28 PM

In the US the environmentalists are call for dams to be torn out because they interfere with salmon migration. Even though all the dams that I know of have Salmon ladders. Hydro is a big deal in Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  Its the reason those three states (if you do consider it a renewable) have been more than 50% renewable for decades. MT, SD, TN, NY have respectable amount of hydro as well, but we pretty much have maxed out capacity. Many of the rivers in the rest of the US don't have enough vertical drop to make hydro worthwhile. There are a few, such as the Platte that may work. and others in northern California that would work if the environmentalists didn't oppose them.

As it so happens my SO works on salmon and dams.  A few points:
Fish ladders don't work nearly as effectively as once though, and dams (even with decent fish ladders) are sizable barriers to salmon migration. As big a problem as they are to upstream migration, there's an additional problem with downstream migration; fish that errantly choose the turbine path get pummeled to bits, ones that go over the spillway often die (falling from great heights and whatnot), which leaves downstream fish-ladders... which many dams don't have and the ones that are only semi-effective.

Also, this isn't just environmentalism for environmentalists sake.  Salmon are important both for the ecosystem and for fisheries.  In California (until very recently) the Salmon fishery was valued at over $4B.  Now it's frequently closed for the entire year. In Puget Sound and BC it's a much bigger (and currently sustainable) fishery, in part because dams there were better constructed and because we use methods other than fish ladders to bypass dams such as active transport (capturing and trucking them above dams and natural barriers).  There's an entire scientific conference every year that's dedicated to nothing but studying and improving fish passage, because its so important and because its still far from optimal.  Ecologically, salmon (and their carcasses) are pretty vital to streams.  Those environments tend to be nutrient-poor, and salmon (+ alewife and others) are a huge transfer of ocean productivity into terrestrial environments.  For example, trees which grow near the river benefit from these nutrients, and you can actually see a "salmon signature" in the wood of trees.  No salmon, less tree growth.

The elephant in the room here though is cost.  In order to be economically competitive, dams need to be very large. Currently Canada has two major hydro projects, one in Quebec's Romaine river, and another one in BC on the Peace River.  Current costs are $13B and $8.3B, respectively. That dwarfs the cost of medium-sized LNG plants, coal plants, wind farms, etc. Only nuclear plants cost more (and there have been no completely new ones built for a generation due to cost, complexity and regulatory burdens. Dam construction takes longer than any other electricity project; the Rivière Romaine damn will take 15 years assuming it doesn't run over. For a region it also "puts all your eggs in one basket" - a bit risky, especially given that droughts, sediment runoff, natural disasters and additional regulatory burdens (e.g. What you must do if your fish ladder does not operate as planned - a common problem)
 
I'm not saying dams are bad. I'm glad that most of our power here in Quebec comes from hydro, though its far from a 'perfect' technology. There's just a lot more issues at play than people often realize.  Hope this primer was a bit useful.


ETA: Final note: we are moving increasingly to a less centralized system of power generation.  This has positives and negatives, but things like solar and wind turbines and much smaller (yet efficient) LNG plants are allowing small municipalities to generate much of their power. Hydrodams, particularly the very large ones needed to be economical, move in the opposite direction.  This presents challenges with power distribution (new corridors of transmission lines are highly controversial, as they have a large overall footprint and get into NIMBY politics).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 07, 2017, 01:57:56 PM
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: HPstache on February 07, 2017, 02:01:18 PM

In the US the environmentalists are call for dams to be torn out because they interfere with salmon migration. Even though all the dams that I know of have Salmon ladders. Hydro is a big deal in Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  Its the reason those three states (if you do consider it a renewable) have been more than 50% renewable for decades. MT, SD, TN, NY have respectable amount of hydro as well, but we pretty much have maxed out capacity. Many of the rivers in the rest of the US don't have enough vertical drop to make hydro worthwhile. There are a few, such as the Platte that may work. and others in northern California that would work if the environmentalists didn't oppose them.

As it so happens my SO works on salmon and dams.  A few points:
Fish ladders don't work nearly as effectively as once though, and dams (even with decent fish ladders) are sizable barriers to salmon migration. As big a problem as they are to upstream migration, there's an additional problem with downstream migration; fish that errantly choose the turbine path get pummeled to bits, ones that go over the spillway often die (falling from great heights and whatnot), which leaves downstream fish-ladders... which many dams don't have and the ones that are only semi-effective.

Also, this isn't just environmentalism for environmentalists sake.  Salmon are important both for the ecosystem and for fisheries.  In California (until very recently) the Salmon fishery was valued at over $4B.  Now it's frequently closed for the entire year. In Puget Sound and BC it's a much bigger (and currently sustainable) fishery, in part because dams there were better constructed and because we use methods other than fish ladders to bypass dams such as active transport (capturing and trucking them above dams and natural barriers).  There's an entire scientific conference every year that's dedicated to nothing but studying and improving fish passage, because its so important and because its still far from optimal.  Ecologically, salmon (and their carcasses) are pretty vital to streams.  Those environments tend to be nutrient-poor, and salmon (+ alewife and others) are a huge transfer of ocean productivity into terrestrial environments.  For example, trees which grow near the river benefit from these nutrients, and you can actually see a "salmon signature" in the wood of trees.  No salmon, less tree growth.

The elephant in the room here though is cost.  In order to be economically competitive, dams need to be very large. Currently Canada has two major hydro projects, one in Quebec's Romaine river, and another one in BC on the Peace River.  Current costs are $13B and $8.3B, respectively. That dwarfs the cost of medium-sized LNG plants, coal plants, wind farms, etc. Only nuclear plants cost more (and there have been no completely new ones built for a generation due to cost, complexity and regulatory burdens. Dam construction takes longer than any other electricity project; the Rivière Romaine damn will take 15 years assuming it doesn't run over. For a region it also "puts all your eggs in one basket" - a bit risky, especially given that droughts, sediment runoff, natural disasters and additional regulatory burdens (e.g. What you must do if your fish ladder does not operate as planned - a common problem)
 
I'm not saying dams are bad. I'm glad that most of our power here in Quebec comes from hydro, though its far from a 'perfect' technology. There's just a lot more issues at play than people often realize.  Hope this primer was a bit useful.


ETA: Final note: we are moving increasingly to a less centralized system of power generation.  This has positives and negatives, but things like solar and wind turbines and much smaller (yet efficient) LNG plants are allowing small municipalities to generate much of their power. Hydrodams, particularly the very large ones needed to be economical, move in the opposite direction.  This presents challenges with power distribution (new corridors of transmission lines are highly controversial, as they have a large overall footprint and get into NIMBY politics).

There's always the salmon cannon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9qA8c-E_oA
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 02:08:36 PM
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 02:13:44 PM
Quote
There's always the salmon cannon

Yup - I thought about including that but decided someone else was sure to bring it up anyway.  Thanks v8xr7guy!
In all seriousness, the fact that the salmon cannon even exists kinda shows how fish ladders tend to be inadequate. There's both a real economic and ecological need to keep fish habitat. 

Just one of those things that have to be taken into consideration when debating energy sources, like coal's impact on the environment, solar's 'duck curve' or the likelihood that an LNG plant could go "boom".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 07, 2017, 02:18:58 PM
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination

Yep. It is literally possible -- maybe even likely -- that she has never been INSIDE a public school.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malloy on February 07, 2017, 02:32:02 PM
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination

Yep. It is literally possible -- maybe even likely -- that she has never been INSIDE a public school.

This one is bad, but not nearly as WTF as Ben Carson being HUD Secretary.  I mean, the dude is clearly smart on many levels and would even be a great candidate for something like Sec of HHS or head of the NIH or Surgeon General under a Republican president.  There is just no logic to him being the HUD pick other than the saddest answer.  Even Trump supporters have to admit that Trump probably picked him because his neurons have forever linked "black" and "urban" and HUD has the word urban in it. 

On the other hand, I think that Ben Carson is a decent human being and will try his level best to do a good job, while Betsy DeVos will instead use her position to try and make things worse.  I mean, she's part of the Amway family and the Blackwater family. Hasn't that family caused enough misery to last a century? I shudder to think of the Amway-ization of public schools.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 02:39:44 PM
^^ Privatization of wars, privatization of public schools.
I guess the ethos is the same - why should government be involved when you can contract out?
/sarcasm.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on February 07, 2017, 03:12:35 PM
There is a somewhat distinctive irony in not knowing about the job you are about to take when it is secretary of education. I wonder if she will hire a tutor?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 07, 2017, 03:55:14 PM
There is a somewhat distinctive irony in not knowing about the job you are about to take when it is secretary of education. I wonder if she will hire a tutor?

Those who can, teach.
Those who can't, become Secretary of Education.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 07, 2017, 04:28:15 PM

This one is bad, but not nearly as WTF as Ben Carson being HUD Secretary.  I mean, the dude is clearly smart on many levels and would even be a great candidate for something like Sec of HHS or head of the NIH or Surgeon General under a Republican president.  There is just no logic to him being the HUD pick other than the saddest answer.  Even Trump supporters have to admit that Trump probably picked him because his neurons have forever linked "black" and "urban" and HUD has the word urban in it. 

On the other hand, I think that Ben Carson is a decent human being and will try his level best to do a good job, while Betsy DeVos will instead use her position to try and make things worse.  I mean, she's part of the Amway family and the Blackwater family. Hasn't that family caused enough misery to last a century? I shudder to think of the Amway-ization of public schools.

Agreed.  Carson's appointment to HUD seems like nothing but a kickback for loyalty to me.  Neither Carson nor DeVos have any experience either in government or in the fields they are suddenly in charge of (though Carson presumably will do his best while DeVos apparently wants to tear apart public education).


I just have this skit in my head where Betsy DeVos came in to interview for the position

EdDept:  So Mrs. DeVos.  You're here to interview for a position within the education department. We have many listed on our website, so which positions do you think you are best fitted for?

DeVos: No, I'm interviewing to RUN the education department

EdDept: Oh - well we do have an opening in our top spot, and this it is an open hire, so let's start. What experience do you have with our country's public education system?

DeVos: none whatsoever. 

EdDept: okaaay.  Well where did you go to school?  Any of our fine public institutions?

DeVos; god no.  I went to a private christian high school and then Calvin College, another fine Christian school.  Both very excellent schools, both very expensive, very exclusive.

EdDept. I see.  Well with our public schools we aim to provide education to everyone.  And we can't mix religious teaching with our secular curriculum.

DeVos: oh, I see.  Well I have some wonderful ideas on how we can get around those restrictions.

EdDept: Um..yeah.  Well we don't see them so much as restrictions as our 'guiding principles'.  But let's move on.  What suggestions do you have for improving our public education system?  Let's start with k-12.

DeVos:  I'm glad you asked.  I think the best thing we can do is allow for more children NOT to be in it.

EdDept: So your solution is fewer students, with more money for the ones that remain?  that could work, only how will you -

DeVos: Not exactly.  It isn't fair to make families who aren't using the public school system to pay for it, so I want to start a voucher program where we take money AND students away from the public system and funnel it towards special "charter" schools.

EdDept:  I see.  Leaving less for everyone left behind.

DeVos: Best of all it gets around all those pesky rules of not including Jesus in the classroom! Parents can send their children to religious institutions and get money from the public school system to help offset the cost!  Everyone wins

EdDept: except for those who choose to remain in the public education system

DeVos: Right, but they will have the choice to leave too.  Maybe someday we won't need public schools at all.

EdDept.  Interesting that you followed that logic.  Tell me then, what role should the federal government play in education?

DeVos: My personal motto is: "the less, the better!"

EdDept: And yet you are applying to lead the Department of Education.  Interesting.  Well thanks for coming in, we'll be in contact.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 07, 2017, 08:43:15 PM
Heh, okay.  So you are okay with poisoning people if it puts a few more $$$ in some millionaires pocket.  Good to know. 

I am for anything that kills off coal quicker.  The more burdensome rules, the happier I am.  And before you say "What about the poor coal miners?", there are twice the number of people employed in solar as in all fossil fuels combined.  Let a dying industry die, retrain those folks or provide them assistance if they aren't able.  Supporting coal is dumb on a number of levels.  It's also a horrible job that kills people.  I don't care if it's part of their culture.  My ancestors were from West Virginia, and thankfully, my grandfather got out.  So now I get to work a cushy office job.  I'll take breathing clear air and drinking clean water over "culture" any day. 

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/ (http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/)

"Anything" is a rather strong word to use. Here is Tyler Cowen on this issue:

Quote
Now, I know how this works.  Many of you probably are thinking that we need to do whatever is possible to attack or shrink the coal industry, because of climate change.  Maybe so!  Maybe we want to stultify the coal companies, for reason of a greater global benefit.  But a) there is still a role for evaluating individual policy changes by partial equilibrium methods and reporting on those results accurately, and b) “putting down the coal companies,” as you might a budgie, is not what the law says is the proper goal of policy.

Imagine holding an attitude that places the Trump administration as the actual defenders of the rule of law!

...

On a more practical political level, Trump wishes to send a signal to Appalachian voters that he is looking out for coal and looking out for them.  This is actually a very weak action, and it was chosen because for procedural reasons it was quite easy to do.  The more you complain about it, the stronger it looks, and that’s probably a more important fact than any of the particular details of this study.  Whether you like it or not, the coal debate is not really one that favors the Democrats.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/02/wants-coal-company-pollution-water-streams.html

I understand the downsides to coal but Braziling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)) it to death is foolish for the reasons given above. It's the same strategy used by pro-lifers to keep abortion technically legal but practically inaccessible in some states.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 07, 2017, 09:16:43 PM
Cut all the regs on coal you want. It doesn't mean anything. There is a basically inexhaustible (in the medium term) supply of cheap natural gas that will strangle it faster than anything else, and has been for the better part of a decade.

Now, if you want to extract coal to sell it abroad, it's no longer benefitting Americans nearly as much. As such, you better do a damn good job making sure you don't f things up for our local environment just because you want to sell it to China.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 07, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
Again, it's shocking how fast we have gone from 'Make America Great by reinvigorating US Coal' to 'holy crap, we should subsidize our coal industry in order to make a buck to supply China'.  WTF happened to our great nation, seemingly overnight?  We are better than this!  Why is it that every other country knows that we are better than this, but we have loud stupid people telling us that we aren't?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 07, 2017, 11:38:11 PM

It's coming. We're in week 3. Give it a little time. Even MSM is catching on.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/finally-america-may-be-catching-ethanol-racket

Senate killed off the ridiculous coal ban
http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/senate-ends-obama-coal-mining-rule.php
So much winning I can barely stand it.

I can't tell if that was intended to be serious or sarcastic Acroy.

Dead serious.
Read up on the rule. Perhaps a source you trust: http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
Even Vox acknowledges the 1,700+pg rule (which is in addition to all the other thousands of pages of regulations) is "almost ludicrously complex".
It was one piece of the Establishment's War on Coal
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

Good riddance. Many more to follow.
why on earth would you think that vox would be a source I would trust over others?
I wouldn't characterize myself as a bleeding-edge liberal.

As for the 'ludicrously complex' regulations surroudning coal, I think it's inherent in an implicit strategy to limit the amount of coal we mine.
I agree we could make this less complex overall, but then we run into the question about what the fair cost for coal should be; is it merely the cost of pulling it out of the ground, or do we incorporate the wide range of health risks to both humans and the planet that it creates?
Since carbon-taxes and cap-and-trade regulation have largely stalled, what would you propose?

If we are going to remove overly ornerous regulation (which I support doing) I believe we need to have some sensible regulations to replace it with. 
Striking down regulations and then saying "well, we'll come up with something better down the line as problems arise" is a really dumb strategy IMO.
Why in the world would overly-burdensome regulations have to be 'replaced with something'? If the plan is bad, it's bad. This stream rule was bad. It was designed for one specific type of coal mining, and then applied to coal operations in entirely different environments in which is served zero purpose except to make things more expensive.  Jesus, it's not the 70's anymore - coal has come a long way, and is still improving. It's still very much needed until renewable technology is feasible and cost efficient to take over our energy needs.

This thinking is nuts.  We still get a huge percentage of our electricity in America from evil Coal and Nuke, and natural gas is gaining ground. 
Newsflash .....solar doesn't work after dark, and wind doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.  There wouldn't even be much wind or solar power initiative in the US had the government not stepped in and highly subsidized (read took our money) to make it happen, because the clean power you want will not support itself unless you are willing to pay a bunch more for your normal monthly electric bill.  Even then, you will still need a percentage of nuke, coal or gas power to run things when the wind doesn't blow and sun doesn't shine.

Also think about what huge increases in electrical bills will do to business and industry.  It will either put them out of business or severely jack up the prices of all the things we consume and need everyday.  Or price a solar system that will provide enough power for your home, I did and the price tag was $70,000.  Would take near 25 years for me to break even, and in all likelihood the stuff wouldn't last that long to begin with.

Ever seen a reclaimed coal mine?   Yes, it's a dirty operation while they are mining, but once reclaimed, these are some of the nicest, best hunting and fishing properties in my state and neighboring states, I spend a lot of time on these properties every year.   What's going to happen when all of these windmills start wearing out in 20 years?

I'm all for clean and green, but solutions need to be cost effective and reasonable.

Yes, raising energy prices in some of the poorest communities across the country would be a direct problem from shutting down coal before technology catches up. Of course, this is not a problem for some people.

And clearly some people are quite uniformed on reclamation work, current and proposed EPA standards, clean air standards (some of the cleanest air reports from the EPA come from counties with coal-fired power plants) or the exciting progress in energy generation (such as the Allam Cycle) that will allow coal to play a part in domestic energy portfolio for a long time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 07, 2017, 11:40:08 PM
There is so much misinformation in this thread I'm not even sure where to start.

Please, people, don't believe everything you read on the forums.  If something looks suspect to you, go do your research and decide for yourself.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 07, 2017, 11:45:53 PM
Back on topic...

Today's potential impact of a Trump Presidency:  In 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear two groundbreaking new environmental cases, one about whether or not the Clean Water Act applies to tributaries or just to the main stem of rivers and the other about whether or not the Clean Power Plan applies to all pollutants or just the ones with immediate human health impacts.

The Clean Water Act and the Clean Power Plan are both enforced by the EPA.  The plaintiff in both cases is former Oklahoma Attorney General (and current climate change denier) Scott Pruitt, who is the new head the EPA. 

So the Supreme Court is going to hear two landmark  environmental law cases in which Scott Pruitt will be responsible for defending the US government from the lawsuits that he himself originated. 

Trump has already promised to repeal the Clean Power Plan and to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act ("burdensome regulations" you know), but for now these are still US law that he cannot just unilaterally overturn as President, despite what he thinks.  The Supreme Court provides him with a potential shortcut around Congress to overturning these laws, and since he now owns both the plaintiff and the defendant in these cases, he apparently gets to decide which side is going to fail to show up for court that day. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 08, 2017, 12:11:39 AM
Cut all the regs on coal you want. It doesn't mean anything. There is a basically inexhaustible (in the medium term) supply of cheap natural gas that will strangle it faster than anything else, and has been for the better part of a decade.

Now, if you want to extract coal to sell it abroad, it's no longer benefitting Americans nearly as much. As such, you better do a damn good job making sure you don't f things up for our local environment just because you want to sell it to China.

-W
Correct. As long as fracking is not litigated out of existence, nat. gas will kill coal (and possibly slow the growth of development of many other forms of energy production) as humanely as possible, without any worry of destabilizing the energy grid. It'll be exciting to see the infrastructure projects that evolve from this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 08, 2017, 12:13:30 AM
Back on topic...

Today's potential impact of a Trump Presidency:  In 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear two groundbreaking new environmental cases, one about whether or not the Clean Water Act applies to tributaries or just to the main stem of rivers and the other about whether or not the Clean Power Plan applies to all pollutants or just the ones with immediate human health impacts.

The Clean Water Act and the Clean Power Plan are both enforced by the EPA.  The plaintiff in both cases is former Oklahoma Attorney General (and current climate change denier) Scott Pruitt, who is the new head the EPA. 

So the Supreme Court is going to hear two landmark  environmental law cases in which Scott Pruitt will be responsible for defending the US government from the lawsuits that he himself originated. 

Trump has already promised to repeal the Clean Power Plan and to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act ("burdensome regulations" you know), but for now these are still US law that he cannot just unilaterally overturn as President, despite what he thinks.  The Supreme Court provides him with a potential shortcut around Congress to overturning these laws, and since he now owns both the plaintiff and the defendant in these cases, he apparently gets to decide which side is going to fail to show up for court that day.

Yikes...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 08, 2017, 05:38:25 AM
It's almost impossible to keep up.  You do know that tax reform is going to kill the estate tax too?  So folks like Trump and DeVos can be dynastic with their wealth.  Ugh.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on February 08, 2017, 06:29:20 AM
Trump has already promised to .... to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act
really? source?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 08, 2017, 07:03:51 AM
Trump has already promised to .... to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act
really? source?

Trump has vowed to slash funding for the EPA as well as curtail enforcement of its regulation
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-vows-to-slash-funding-for-education-epa-1452551107 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-vows-to-slash-funding-for-education-epa-1452551107)

As Sol already pointed out above, he hired the attorney who was suing the EPA over Clean Power Plan which regulates discharges into tributaries among numerous other things.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-vows-to-slash-funding-for-education-epa-1452551107 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-vows-to-slash-funding-for-education-epa-1452551107)

In his 2015 interview with Chris Wallace Trump called talked about the need for eliminating more environmental regulation:
Quote
TRUMP: Environmental protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations. They're making it impossible...
WALLACE: Who's going to protect the environment?
TRUMP: -- they -- we'll be fine with the environment. We can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/18/full_replay_and_transcript_donald_trump_with_fncs_chris_wallace.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/18/full_replay_and_transcript_donald_trump_with_fncs_chris_wallace.html)
Trump has also spoken of eliminating the EPA entirey as an "aspirational goal" that would best be achieved by incremental demolation rather than an executive order. 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-plans-to-abolish-environmental-protection-agency (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-plans-to-abolish-environmental-protection-agency)

I'm not sure how much clearer this could be - DJT has actively campaigned on curtailing EPA regulations and seeks to dismantle it entirely, and has put in charge its biggest legal foe
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on February 08, 2017, 07:42:21 AM
Trump has already promised to .... to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act
really? source?

Trump has vowed to slash funding for the EPA as well as curtail enforcement of its regulation

As Sol already pointed out above, he hired the attorney who was suing the EPA over Clean Power Plan which regulates discharges into tributaries among numerous other things.

I'm not sure how much clearer this could be - DJT has actively campaigned on curtailing EPA regulations and seeks to dismantle it entirely, and has put in charge its biggest legal foe
No argument.
Still looking for the "promise to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 08, 2017, 07:49:59 AM
Trump has already promised to .... to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act
really? source?

Trump has vowed to slash funding for the EPA as well as curtail enforcement of its regulation

As Sol already pointed out above, he hired the attorney who was suing the EPA over Clean Power Plan which regulates discharges into tributaries among numerous other things.

I'm not sure how much clearer this could be - DJT has actively campaigned on curtailing EPA regulations and seeks to dismantle it entirely, and has put in charge its biggest legal foe
No argument.
Still looking for the "promise to stop enforcing the Clean Water Act".
Now you are just being pedantic. Vowing to eliminate EPA regulations (which include the CWA), having an aspirational goal of eliminating it entirely, and nominating the very person to lead the EPA who has sued over the CWA all adds up to the same thing. DJT's statements have been pretty clear (cited in part above) and his actions have backed up his statements.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 08, 2017, 08:04:06 AM
I've come to realize that Trump is a symptom of our privately funded two party system. Even if you voted for him, I imagine you don't like the fact that congressional action correlates with the wishes of donors and not constituents. Fixing the system would hopefully fix this phenomenon.

As such, I'm focusing on ways to fix the system.  Here's something you can do right now.  Read my post about House Resolution 48 - check out the link to the text of the bill, and if you like what it says, follow my lead and contact your rep. So far, it's all dems and one republican sponsoring this bill. If we tell our reps to support it, maybe we can get bi-partisan support.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/house-res-48-stop-corp-personhood-trump's-a-symptom-let's-fix-the-system (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/house-res-48-stop-corp-personhood-trump's-a-symptom-let's-fix-the-system)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on February 08, 2017, 08:08:49 AM
I believe long term unemployment will skyrocket in the coming decades due to automation. Think about never needing a human driver again within 20 years. To that end, I believe "full employment", currently stated to be 5%, will jump to be 40-50%, while the country will still prosper. I have long wondered what we will do with all those people "doing nothing", and have even halfheartedly joked that we could have half of them dig a hole, and then have the other half fill it up the next day. No net benefit, but everyone "working".

I now believe that the border wall idea, on the wrong side of the country, no less, (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz), will eventually be realized as my dig-a-hole theory, only you fill it up first, wait until the wall deteriorates, and then remove it instead of paying to maintain it. It is really the exact same thing.


Thoughts?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 08, 2017, 08:40:34 AM
I've come to realize that Trump is a symptom of our privately funded two party system. Even if you voted for him, I imagine you don't like the fact that congressional action correlates with the wishes of donors and not constituents. Fixing the system would hopefully fix this phenomenon.

As such, I'm focusing on ways to fix the system.  Here's something you can do right now.  Read my post about House Resolution 48 - check out the link to the text of the bill, and if you like what it says, follow my lead and contact your rep. So far, it's all dems and one republican sponsoring this bill. If we tell our reps to support it, maybe we can get bi-partisan support.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/house-res-48-stop-corp-personhood-trump's-a-symptom-let's-fix-the-system (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/house-res-48-stop-corp-personhood-trump's-a-symptom-let's-fix-the-system)
ROFL
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 08, 2017, 09:09:50 AM
I believe long term unemployment will skyrocket in the coming decades due to automation. Think about never needing a human driver again within 20 years. To that end, I believe "full employment", currently stated to be 5%, will jump to be 40-50%, while the country will still prosper.
...
Thoughts?

Are you familiar with Keynes' 15 hour work week?
In summary, John Kaynes predicted in 1930 that increasing automation and productivity gains would reduce our necessary work week down to ~15 hours, and we would have the same quality of life.  In one way he was right; productivity and autonomy did mean huge economic gains, but people continued to work 40+ hours, mostly because we've all increased our consumption to match (2.5x larger houses, fancy cars, eating out, etc). Much of the jobs lost in factories were offset by gains in the service industry - the 'average' person pays other people to do many of the things we used to do ourselves. 

It's likely that automation and productivity gains will continue, but this doesn't mean people will work less or have less to do. In a very real way this has been the way our country has been progressing for the last 150+ years; ever increasing specialization.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on February 08, 2017, 09:44:53 AM
Now you are just being pedantic.
No, I asked for source of a very specific claim. None has been forthcoming. The claim smells like misinformation.

Back on the general topic of realistic impacts of the Trump presidency: He has turned conventional communication on it's head.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/312146-how-trump-changed-the-political-communication

Trump's methods are reminiscent of WJ Bryan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan_presidential_campaign,_1896

I am curious if this will be a 'communication expectations reset moment' - i.e. future candidates will be expected to twit, etc.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 08, 2017, 09:51:56 AM
Quote
I now believe that the border wall idea, on the wrong side of the country, no less, (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz), will eventually be realized as my dig-a-hole theory, only you fill it up first, wait until the wall deteriorates, and then remove it instead of paying to maintain it. It is really the exact same thing.

Don't forget wars.  The best damn jobs programs ever.  Trust me, they never really want people to stop working, because work is become less about providing value, and more about social and economic control. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 08, 2017, 10:04:25 AM
Now you are just being pedantic.
No, I asked for source of a very specific claim. None has been forthcoming. The claim smells like misinformation.

Here is a White House statement saying that "President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule" -

https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy

The "Waters of the US rule" appears to also be known as the "Clean Waters rule", presumably because it was made under the Clean Waters Act -
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/315339-us-supreme-courts-waters-of-the-us-gift-to-the-trump
https://www.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule

Possibly the problem with finding definitive information about it is because the White House required the EPA not to announce it, and the White House Press Office only confirmed it after a leak -
http://anewdomain.net/trump-gags-epa-dump-clean-water-rule-for-113-americans/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 08, 2017, 10:43:49 AM
The fact of the matter is if you omit hydro (which most people dont consider renewable anymore), only 6% if our energy comes from the renewables, sun and wind. Even if you look at California it is only 15% between sun and wind, and even that fact is deceivingly high because that is only generation, not usage. California buys a huge percentage of its energy from Nevada, Mexico and Canada, I know because I built the 500kv and 230 kv transmission lines to pipe the energy in Also not quantified in this chart is when that energy is generated. Those of us in the industry familiar with the duck curve know that Solar works when the demand is moderate (afternoon) but not when it is most needed (evening) the result of that, and a lack of a suitable means of storage, is that a lot of solar energy sold back to the grid during the mid-day solar spike ends up getting wasted, un-utilized and dissipated as heat over time.

I too priced out a system big enough to get us off of the grid almost entirely (power neutral, still grid-tied) and we were looking at $25K or so - and that was full retail, not even bargain hunting.

http://www.backwoodssolar.com/

Excess grid power can be used in some creative ways that seldom get discussed in these debates such as pumped-hydro storage. Use the excess power to pump water on top of a mtn and then let it fall back to a lake in a valley in times of electrical need.

Then there are the stationary battery designs which can last decades and still be recyclable. Nickel-Iron comes to mind - they can last 50+ years. So does some of the NiMH batteries that were used in EVs until GM/Chevron/Cobrasys patent encumbrance. Some of those batteries were very long lived and well suited to different uses such as solar and wind electrical storage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 08, 2017, 10:45:45 AM
Now you are just being pedantic.
No, I asked for source of a very specific claim. None has been forthcoming. The claim smells like misinformation.


Acroy- with Former Player's addition to the dialog, including this from the WH's energy plan -
Quote
For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
and
Quote
Then, in a move it ordered the EPA to keep confidential, it killed the Clean Water Rule. After a leak, Pres. Donald Trump’s press secretary confirmed the move.
do you concur that DJT is actually attacking the EPA's CWR and in general seeking to reduce the environmental regulations surrounding US rivers and tributaries?

Adding to the dialog, DJT also froze all new grants, work assignments and grants for the EPA.  This effectively (if only temporarily) cuts the ability of the EPA to monitor and enforce its own regulations.  Its akin to saying "Highway speed limits will remain in effect, but we're removing all police enforcement of speeding for the time being"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 08, 2017, 11:52:41 AM
Well, today we learned how many Republican Senators care at all whether a person nominated for a Presidential Cabinet position has any qualifications for the job whatsoever.

That number, in case anyone wants to keep track, is: 2.

It really has been shocking how fragile democracy is.  How can the Senate think that DeVos is representative of what the public wants?  Once again, we are left hoping and praying nothing too bad happens in the meantime.

I wonder how many GOP senators voted for DeVos because they actually thought she was a decent candidate, vs. how many did so out of fear of what DJT might say and do to them.  In the cases of the latter, this is our checks and balances failing us.

Regarding DeVos - I cannot believe she's been confirmed; again it seems like a bad joke.
Let's review:
She's a billionaire who gave huge sums of money to the GOP (suggests nepotism)
She never attended any public schools, nor did her children
She has degrees in business and poltical science, not education. 
In fact, she has no real experience in education at all. Closest we come is being a board member for charter school advocacy, which is basically the opposite of public education.
Many of the groups she will now represent objected to her nomination

From Wikipedia:

"DeVos is married to Dick DeVos, the former CEO of multi-level marketing company Amway, and is the daughter-in-law of billionaire and Amway co-founder Richard DeVos. Her brother, Erik Prince, a former U.S. Navy SEAL officer, is the founder of Blackwater USA. DeVos is the daughter of Edgar Prince, founder of the Prince Corporation and owner of the Orlando Magic."

"...in response to Senator Maggie Hassan's questions, that she had nothing to do with the contributions made by her mother’s foundation to anti-gay rights groups including Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. The Council has also lobbied against preventative health care programs, such as "needle exchanges."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 08, 2017, 02:42:25 PM
For those wondering whether DJT would indeed separate his family's business aspects with the presidency, these two incidents are cause for concern:
1) DOD is inquiring about renting out a floor of Trump Tower at an estimated cost of $1.5MM/year (http://time.com/4663587/donald-trump-pentagon-trump-tower/)
2) Trump uses twitter to lash out at Nordstoms for dropping daughter Ivanka's clothing line (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/02/08/trump-lashes-out-at-nordstrom-in-a-tweet-for-dropping-his-daughters-apparel-line/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_nordstrom-120pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.9fc2cc9d1dc9)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on February 08, 2017, 05:39:25 PM
^Coupled with his wife suing a paper.....this is quite the first family. I'm amazed. Our conservatives.....please dig Jeb or Cruz out of the dustbin and dust him off as a threat come 2020. This is horrible. Making Bush look like an effing statesman here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 08, 2017, 07:49:03 PM
Its fucking Trump of course he is going to cash in on being President. His only asset is his brand and nothing could make him more famous than being the reality star that became a President. There is literally nothing anyone can do to stop him from making money off of this deal. I will literally puke in my mouth if someone bitches about the Clinton's and their foundation again. Keeping track of Trump and his families potential profiteering and pay for play is an absolute cluster fuck by comparison.

As for good old Betsy. I would imagine, with my limited understanding of the scoop of Federal Educational department, that the worst should could do is divert all federal funding away from public schools or get the department shut down all together.

I believe the net effect of this would simply be to crush poor public schools that can't get enough funding locally and rely on federal funding to keep afloat. Which means poorer states, and poorer school districts will see schools go away and consolidate. While school districts in wealthy districts or reasonably well off areas will go more or less untouched since they get plenty of local funding.

Maybe if that happens enough of the lower middle class base will wake up and not vote for the clowns that put here that position again.

I understand the sentiment behind wanting to argue for privatizing schools and avoiding federal intervention in state education but the Republican solutions in that direction rarely seem to try to adapt to reality and will go right ahead and rip the rug out from under the poorest Americans who rely on the current federal funding system.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 08, 2017, 09:58:57 PM
I believe long term unemployment will skyrocket in the coming decades due to automation. Think about never needing a human driver again within 20 years. To that end, I believe "full employment", currently stated to be 5%, will jump to be 40-50%, while the country will still prosper.
...
Thoughts?

Are you familiar with Keynes' 15 hour work week?
In summary, John Kaynes predicted in 1930 that increasing automation and productivity gains would reduce our necessary work week down to ~15 hours, and we would have the same quality of life.  In one way he was right; productivity and autonomy did mean huge economic gains, but people continued to work 40+ hours, mostly because we've all increased our consumption to match (2.5x larger houses, fancy cars, eating out, etc). Much of the jobs lost in factories were offset by gains in the service industry - the 'average' person pays other people to do many of the things we used to do ourselves. 

It's likely that automation and productivity gains will continue, but this doesn't mean people will work less or have less to do. In a very real way this has been the way our country has been progressing for the last 150+ years; ever increasing specialization.

There is an argument that this time is different. Prior technological innovation automated only highly routine physical work, which left non-routine and cognitive-based jobs for people.

In narrow domains, the ascendancy of AI can be quick--and the rate at which systems improve is also getting faster (time taken from project initiation to better than best human players: Chess -- Deep Blue -- 12 years, Jeopardy -- Watson -- 6 years, AlphaGo -- Go -- 3 years). Recently, deep learning has taken image recognition and translation between many language pairs up to parity with human performance or better. The problem of driving is also being solved. Rather than being merely fun and games, these are increasingly the sorts of domains in which people are employed. If machines are stronger and computers/algorithms smarter, that doesn't leave much behind for low-skilled people.

Naturally, there will be adjustments made along the way as people reorient their efforts to other tasks. But the rate of dislocation due to technological progress will only increase and the impacts broaden--and it's hard for people, who might successfully accommodate such shifts on the timescale of decades or generations, adjust adequately when the disruptive technologies emerge and dominate within several years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on February 09, 2017, 07:47:51 AM
I believe long term unemployment will skyrocket in the coming decades due to automation. Think about never needing a human driver again within 20 years. To that end, I believe "full employment", currently stated to be 5%, will jump to be 40-50%, while the country will still prosper.
...
Thoughts?

Are you familiar with Keynes' 15 hour work week?
In summary, John Kaynes predicted in 1930 that increasing automation and productivity gains would reduce our necessary work week down to ~15 hours, and we would have the same quality of life.  In one way he was right; productivity and autonomy did mean huge economic gains, but people continued to work 40+ hours, mostly because we've all increased our consumption to match (2.5x larger houses, fancy cars, eating out, etc). Much of the jobs lost in factories were offset by gains in the service industry - the 'average' person pays other people to do many of the things we used to do ourselves. 

It's likely that automation and productivity gains will continue, but this doesn't mean people will work less or have less to do. In a very real way this has been the way our country has been progressing for the last 150+ years; ever increasing specialization.

But it DID reduce the NECESSARY work week, as measured by the amount of time spent maintaining the household.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/16/keynes-15-hour-work-week-is-here-right-now/#28ec4c19767e

Where Kaynes was off in his theory is what people then would do with that "extra time". Instead of taking it as leisure, it was exchanged for a higher standard of living, 8x higher as measured by the article (greed, not always bad). More-so in the US than in other countries.

While this desire to seek a higher standard of living will still exist, I believe it will reach a point of diminishing returns. It already has for 1 small, but increasing group of people, those of us on this thread.

We already see large swaths of the population uncounted or under-counted in the unemployment numbers. Those no longer looking, or those working part time for example.

I do believe that as technology makes people more productive, they will begin to see that trying for that higher standard of living will no longer be the payback it used to be. That will result in using that "extra" time for leisure.

Where "it is different this time" is that the standard of living will reach a point that more and more people will say enough.

It is kind of like Microsoft word upgrades. It reached a point where "different" was no longer better, and what people had was good enough. They no longer needed the added features, as the new features did not add enough significance to justify the cost. Now you can have google docs for free, and it is "good enough". Does anybody really believe there will be long lines waiting for the Apple 15 phone? Oh, but now I can get a watch that I can charge EVERYDAY. How great is that?

I also agree with Nero that the KIND of work about to be replaced will be an added game changer.

Interesting times.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Fishindude on February 09, 2017, 08:14:58 AM
Back to the original thread question ..... What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?

My hopes have always been that since he is a lifelong businessman he will try to influence government spending from a businessman's point of view and do things like; eliminate departments that don't make sense, reduce staff where not needed, require departments to hit reasonable budgets, free up burdens and restrictions on private business, reduce taxes on the tax payers, etc.   I think a lot of the exec orders, etc. that he has made recently have this stuff in mind as the end goal, but the libs and media are fighting it all tooth and nail.

Would also hope that sometime in the next four years someone has the guts to try to push for term limits and eliminate the "paid for life" programs our elected officials currently enjoy.

This is probably all too much to ask for, but I'm still hopeful that since he is not a DC insider / career politician personally affected financially by these decisions, we might see a little progress in these areas.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 09, 2017, 08:24:51 AM
Back to the original thread question ..... What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?

My hopes have always been that since he is a lifelong businessman he will try to influence government spending from a businessman's point of view and do things like; eliminate departments that don't make sense, reduce staff where not needed, require departments to hit reasonable budgets, free up burdens and restrictions on private business, reduce taxes on the tax payers, etc.   I think a lot of the exec orders, etc. that he has made recently have this stuff in mind as the end goal, but the libs and media are fighting it all tooth and nail.

Would also hope that sometime in the next four years someone has the guts to try to push for term limits and eliminate the "paid for life" programs our elected officials currently enjoy.

This is probably all too much to ask for, but I'm still hopeful that since he is not a DC insider / career politician personally affected financially by these decisions, we might see a little progress in these areas.

This overlooks the fact that he isn't a talented businessman.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Fishindude on February 09, 2017, 08:30:22 AM
This overlooks the fact that he isn't a talented businessman.

Easy response.  Most business people have had some failures, and when you are as big in business as Trump they can be "big, newsworthy" failures.
But I'm still betting he has; employed a whole lot more people, made a lot more payrolls, made more people wealthy, paid a lot more taxes, spent a whole lot more money in his communities, etc. than any of us posting on this thread. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 09, 2017, 08:34:28 AM
This overlooks the fact that he isn't a talented businessman.

Easy response.  Most business people have had some failures, and when you are as big in business as Trump they can be "big, newsworthy" failures.
But I'm still betting he has; employed a whole lot more people, made a lot more payrolls, made more people wealthy, paid a lot more taxes, spent a whole lot more money in his communities, etc. than any of us posting on this thread.

Except that he isn't big. Trump's company is sort of unremarkable, middle of the pack as far as size, earnings, however you want to calculate it. Calling him average is highly charitable.

Also, he's bankrupted a lot more vendors and ruined a lot more lives than anyone on this thread. Whether or not he's paid any taxes is up for discussion. He definitely spends lots of money, I'll give you that.

He's no Jack Welch.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 09, 2017, 08:38:12 AM
I believe long term unemployment will skyrocket in the coming decades due to automation. Think about never needing a human driver again within 20 years. To that end, I believe "full employment", currently stated to be 5%, will jump to be 40-50%, while the country will still prosper.
...
Thoughts?

Are you familiar with Keynes' 15 hour work week?
In summary, John Kaynes predicted in 1930 that increasing automation and productivity gains would reduce our necessary work week down to ~15 hours, and we would have the same quality of life.  In one way he was right; productivity and autonomy did mean huge economic gains, but people continued to work 40+ hours, mostly because we've all increased our consumption to match (2.5x larger houses, fancy cars, eating out, etc). Much of the jobs lost in factories were offset by gains in the service industry - the 'average' person pays other people to do many of the things we used to do ourselves. 

It's likely that automation and productivity gains will continue, but this doesn't mean people will work less or have less to do. In a very real way this has been the way our country has been progressing for the last 150+ years; ever increasing specialization.

But it DID reduce the NECESSARY work week, as measured by the amount of time spent maintaining the household.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/16/keynes-15-hour-work-week-is-here-right-now/#28ec4c19767e

...
No arguements there.  Keynes got it right that advances in productivity meant the same amount of work was accomplished in much less time. Where he got it wrong was in his assumption that people would be content (basically consumption increased to match productivity gains).

My personal belief is that, while we'll continue to see productivity gains, even in seemingly highly complex fields, the nature of work will just transfer to more specialized and more service-based fields.  While it's easy to look back at many jobs that have been lost to mechanization and say "but those were low-skill jobs" - I think we've got a historical bias; what we consider menial work better done by machines today (e.g. assembling a car chassis, for example) were in fact 'semi-skilled" or "highly skilled" jobs a few decades ago. Things like driving a truck will probably seem as low-skilled in a generation as mass-producing t-shirts seems to us today.
We shall see...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 09, 2017, 08:58:06 AM
Easy response.  Most business people have had some failures, and when you are as big in business as Trump they can be "big, newsworthy" failures.
But I'm still betting he has; employed a whole lot more people, made a lot more payrolls, made more people wealthy, paid a lot more taxes, spent a whole lot more money in his communities, etc. than any of us posting on this thread.

Trump has relied on banrupcy of his own company (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.dc901af03f85) as a reliable strategy to make money.  I do not think of him as a great businessman, nor the kind of person who will reform government in a way that benefits others.  I think he is enjoying making a million here and a million there for himself, and is very good at parcelling out favors to his supporters.

Quote
Trump’s companies have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which means a company can remain in business while wiping away many of its debts. The bankruptcy court ultimately approves a corporate budget and a plan to repay remaining debts; often shareholders lose much of their equity.

Trump’s Taj Mahal opened in April 1990 in Atlantic City, but six months later, “defaulted on interest payments to bondholders as his finances went into a tailspin,” The Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow found. In July 1991, Trump’s Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. He could not keep up with debts on two other Atlantic City casinos, and those two properties declared bankruptcy in 1992. A fourth property, the Plaza Hotel in New York, declared bankruptcy in 1992 after amassing debt.

PolitiFact uncovered two more bankruptcies filed after 1992, totaling six. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004, after accruing about $1.8 billion in debt. Trump Entertainment Resorts also declared bankruptcy in 2009, after being hit hard during the 2008 recession.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: farmecologist on February 09, 2017, 09:19:31 AM
Easy response.  Most business people have had some failures, and when you are as big in business as Trump they can be "big, newsworthy" failures.
But I'm still betting he has; employed a whole lot more people, made a lot more payrolls, made more people wealthy, paid a lot more taxes, spent a whole lot more money in his communities, etc. than any of us posting on this thread.

Trump has relied on banrupcy of his own company (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.dc901af03f85) as a reliable strategy to make money.  I do not think of him as a great businessman, nor the kind of person who will reform government in a way that benefits others.  I think he is enjoying making a million here and a million there for himself, and is very good at parcelling out favors to his supporters.

Quote
Trump’s companies have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which means a company can remain in business while wiping away many of its debts. The bankruptcy court ultimately approves a corporate budget and a plan to repay remaining debts; often shareholders lose much of their equity.

Trump’s Taj Mahal opened in April 1990 in Atlantic City, but six months later, “defaulted on interest payments to bondholders as his finances went into a tailspin,” The Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow found. In July 1991, Trump’s Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. He could not keep up with debts on two other Atlantic City casinos, and those two properties declared bankruptcy in 1992. A fourth property, the Plaza Hotel in New York, declared bankruptcy in 1992 after amassing debt.

PolitiFact uncovered two more bankruptcies filed after 1992, totaling six. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004, after accruing about $1.8 billion in debt. Trump Entertainment Resorts also declared bankruptcy in 2009, after being hit hard during the 2008 recession.

I though this is relevant regarding the discussion of how good of a 'businessman' he is :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/samantha-bee-scotland-donald-trump_us_589c2063e4b04061313bafb7

It goes over Trumps 'golf course' fiasco in Scotland...sorry but what a freaking tool...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 09, 2017, 09:36:23 AM
Back to the original thread question ..... What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?

My hopes have always been that since he is a lifelong businessman he will try to influence government spending from a businessman's point of view and do things like; eliminate departments that don't make sense, reduce staff where not needed, require departments to hit reasonable budgets, free up burdens and restrictions on private business, reduce taxes on the tax payers, etc.   I think a lot of the exec orders, etc. that he has made recently have this stuff in mind as the end goal, but the libs and media are fighting it all tooth and nail.

Would also hope that sometime in the next four years someone has the guts to try to push for term limits and eliminate the "paid for life" programs our elected officials currently enjoy.

This is probably all too much to ask for, but I'm still hopeful that since he is not a DC insider / career politician personally affected financially by these decisions, we might see a little progress in these areas.

His so-called success as a businessman can be attributed to two things (1) he started off with a shit ton of money and connections the rest of us did not have and (2) we don't know how successful he really is because he won't prove it, but he says it often and loudly making people believe it. 

Also we already have term limits, they are called elections.  Unfortunately, Citizens United has made things worse by burying the system in money and the GOP seems to be happy with that. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 09, 2017, 01:21:13 PM
I slowly came to this realization today:

Donald Trump views congress and the judiciary as his employees

For obvious reasons this concerns the hell out of me - checks and balances and all.

As recent examples, he down-dressed a Senator who spoke about comments made by Gorsuch; he went on the attack against McCain for his comments about the Yemen raid, he's took to shaming the judges who have stayed the travel ban... and that's just in the last three days.

All presidents have bickered with the other branches, but I feel like DJT actually feels like he should be in control. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on February 09, 2017, 02:02:03 PM
What are the realistic impacts of Cersei Lannister on the Iron Throne?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 09, 2017, 03:27:05 PM
I suppose it would be unrealistic to expect the people who kept saying "corrupt Hillary" to now say "corrupt Trump" instead.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 09, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
What are the realistic impacts of Cersei Lannister on the Iron Throne?

Wildfire.  Wildfire everywhere
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 09, 2017, 03:49:30 PM
I suppose it would be unrealistic to expect the people who kept saying "corrupt Hillary" to now say "corrupt Trump" instead.

Afraid not, they are too far down the rabbit hole. The best we'll get out of them is persistent claims that he is no worse than she is. My eyes are about ready to roll out of my head.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 09, 2017, 04:44:27 PM
I suppose it would be unrealistic to expect the people who kept saying "corrupt Hillary" to now say "corrupt Trump" instead.

Afraid not, they are too far down the rabbit hole. The best we'll get out of them is persistent claims that he is no worse than she is. My eyes are about ready to roll out of my head.

I have in-laws that were in the very vocal "lock-her-up" chanting crowd.  In one of my lesser moments I sarcastically asked when this imminent indictment (or at the very least an appointed special prosecutor) would come.  I just got glared at.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on February 09, 2017, 05:59:43 PM
Worth a read:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

This is the case that just came out of the 9th circuit of appeals. Pretty damning of the administration.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 09, 2017, 06:18:41 PM
Worth a read:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

This is the case that just came out of the 9th circuit of appeals. Pretty damning of the administration.

Yeah, the WH's arguments were pretty weak.

Quote
Instead,  the  Government  has  taken  the  position  that  the  President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when    motivated    by    national   security concerns,  are  unreviewable,  even  if  those  actions  potentially  contravene  constitutional  rights  and  protections.
[...]
There    is    no    precedent    to    support    this    claimed  unreviewability,  which  runs  contrary  to  the  fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.
[...]
To  the  contrary,  the  Supreme  Court  has  repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches  have  unreviewable  authority  over  immigration

Ouch. It's like the WH lawyers didn't even try. Or maybe they were trying to create more executive power by throwing shit at the wall.



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 09, 2017, 06:29:58 PM
The Muslim ban was always going to be unconstitutional.  We all knew that when he started saying it during the campaign.  He did it anyway, and now every single court has told him it's unconstitutional.  Every level, unanimously, has returned the same verdict.  He'll appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court, and they'll tell him the same thing. 

And it still won't matter.  He'll claim that he's right and the courts are all wrong all the way through to the end, just like he has always done.  He can't admit he made a mistake, because he thinks that's a sign of weakness, so he's going to continue to insist that he is right and the constitution is wrong.  I predict he'll start using words like "activist judges" or maybe "dishonest liberal courts" or something even dumber, to get his point across.  Just like lyin' Ted and crooked Hillary, he'll give them a little nickname that his supporters will latch on to.

He won't really mind losing this one, though.  It's all political theater.  When the next terrorist attack or mass shooting inevitably comes, this buys him political cover.  He'll say he tried to stop it, but the liberal courts interfered because they hate America and love terrorists.  It won't matter if the attack is actually perpetrated by immigrants or Muslims or whatever.  All Presidents fear a terrorist attack on their watch, and now he doesn't have to fear that anymore.  He has built an excuse to blame his political opponents.  If there is an attack, it helps him win re-election.  If there's not, he hasn't really lost anything by being forced to adhere to the Constitutional balance of powers that he was always going to be bound by anyway.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 09, 2017, 06:30:44 PM
Ouch. It's like the WH lawyers didn't even try. Or maybe they were trying to create more executive power by throwing shit at the wall.

You throw enough shit, and eventually something will stick.

Just as I think I've heard the stupidest thing, they go above and beyond to outdo themselves.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 09, 2017, 06:32:31 PM
once again I'm left wondering what Trump's end game is here (assuming he has one).

Antagonizing the judicial branch won't likely win him favorable opinions down the road, and the WH can't remove or reassign already appointed federal judges.  If Gorsuch's comments are any indication, even those hand-picked by the administration won't necessarily do whatever he asks (which is, of course, as it should be in a fuctional democracy with separation of powers).

I'm left with either
i) DJT simply attacks whomever he disagrees with, regardless of the consequences of
ii) there's a deeper plan to undermine all other forms of government to bolster the executive branch

ETA: I fear Sol's analysis might hold water - Trump just bought himself political cover for if/when the next terrorist attack happens.  "I was right!" he'll say, and fear will grow, and so (might) his power.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 09, 2017, 06:34:57 PM
He won't really mind losing this one, though.  It's all political theater.  When the next terrorist attack or mass shooting inevitably comes, this buys him political cover.  He'll say he tried to stop it, but the liberal courts interfered because they hate America and love terrorists.  It won't matter if the attack is actually perpetrated by immigrants or Muslims or whatever.  All Presidents fear a terrorist attack on their watch, and now he doesn't have to fear that anymore.  He has built an excuse to blame his political opponents.  If there is an attack, it helps him win re-election.  If there's not, he hasn't really lost anything by being forced to adhere to the Constitutional balance of powers that he was always going to be bound by anyway.

Exactly what I was thinking
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 09, 2017, 06:38:41 PM
once again I'm left wondering what Trump's end game is here (assuming he has one).

Antagonizing the judicial branch won't likely win him favorable opinions down the road, and the WH can't remove or reassign already appointed federal judges.  If Gorsuch's comments are any indication, even those hand-picked by the administration won't necessarily do whatever he asks (which is, of course, as it should be in a fuctional democracy with separation of powers).

I'm left with either
i) DJT simply attacks whomever he disagrees with, regardless of the consequences of
ii) there's a deeper plan to undermine all other forms of government to bolster the executive branch

Reading what Sol wrote, ii) is probably Trump's Bannon's plan. If/when a major attack occurs, he'll gain immediate political capital. That can be spent in many ways, including buying a lot more executive power.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 09, 2017, 06:43:15 PM
once again I'm left wondering what Trump's end game is here (assuming he has one).

Antagonizing the judicial branch won't likely win him favorable opinions down the road, and the WH can't remove or reassign already appointed federal judges.  If Gorsuch's comments are any indication, even those hand-picked by the administration won't necessarily do whatever he asks (which is, of course, as it should be in a fuctional democracy with separation of powers).

I'm left with either
i) DJT simply attacks whomever he disagrees with, regardless of the consequences of
ii) there's a deeper plan to undermine all other forms of government to bolster the executive branch

Reading what Sol wrote, ii) is probably Trump's Bannon's plan. If/when a major attack occurs, he'll gain immediate political capital. That can be spent in many ways, including buying a lot more executive power.


Yes. I think the title of the thread should be changed to "What are the realistic impacts of a Bannon presidency." What a maroon.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Rufus.T.Firefly on February 09, 2017, 06:44:28 PM
The Muslim ban was always going to be unconstitutional.  We all knew that when he started saying it during the campaign.  He did it anyway, and now every single court has told him it's unconstitutional.  Every level, unanimously, has returned the same verdict.  He'll appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court, and they'll tell him the same thing. 

And it still won't matter.  He'll claim that he's right and the courts are all wrong all the way through to the end, just like he has always done.  He can't admit he made a mistake, because he thinks that's a sign of weakness, so he's going to continue to insist that he is right and the constitution is wrong.  I predict he'll start using words like "activist judges" or maybe "dishonest liberal courts" or something even dumber, to get his point across.  Just like lyin' Ted and crooked Hillary, he'll give them a little nickname that his supporters will latch on to.

He won't really mind losing this one, though.  It's all political theater.  When the next terrorist attack or mass shooting inevitably comes, this buys him political cover.  He'll say he tried to stop it, but the liberal courts interfered because they hate America and love terrorists.  It won't matter if the attack is actually perpetrated by immigrants or Muslims or whatever.  All Presidents fear a terrorist attack on their watch, and now he doesn't have to fear that anymore. He has built an excuse to blame his political opponents.  If there is an attack, it helps him win re-election.  If there's not, he hasn't really lost anything by being forced to adhere to the Constitutional balance of powers that he was always going to be bound by anyway.

I can't stand Trump, but this is exactly right. And it's a stroke of genius. Trump always is looking for ways he can get a no-lose situation.

Either there are no terrorist attacks ("I'm a great President! America is safer than ever!") or there is a terrorist attack ("Blame the courts! I did everything I could!").

You would think he'll lose everyone's respect, but half of the country will live with it because he nominated Gorsuch. ("Trump doesn't hate the constitution, he nominated an originalist")
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 09, 2017, 06:49:00 PM
I can't stand Trump, but this is exactly right. And it's a stroke of genius. Trump always is looking for ways he can get a no-lose situation.

Either there are no terrorist attacks ("I'm a great President! America is safer than ever!") or there is a terrorist attack ("Blame the courts! I did everything I could!").

You would think he'll lose everyone's respect, but half of the country will live with it because he nominated Gorsuch. ("Trump doesn't hate the constitution, he nominated an originalist")

The really sad part is that, even if the attackers are from France*, half the country will still support a ban on the 7 countries.

*http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/opinions/white-house-terrorism-list-undermines-the-case-for-travel-ban-bergen/index.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 09, 2017, 06:59:03 PM
If the courts strike down Trump's executive order as unconstitutional and all of the appeals to the contrary are exhausted, does Sally Yates get her job back?

She was fired for failing to enforce/defend a legal order. But if the order is found to be illegal... then she was right and she shouldn't have tried to enforce/defend it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 09, 2017, 07:20:47 PM
If the courts strike down Trump's executive order as unconstitutional and all of the appeals to the contrary are exhausted, does Sally Yates get her job back?

She was fired for failing to enforce/defend a legal order. But if the order is found to be illegal... then she was right and she shouldn't have tried to enforce/defend it.

The more immediate impact is that all of the lawsuits from green-card and visa holders will move ahead.  I bet the US Gov't becomes a cash pinata for emotional and job-related damages, lawyers are going to have a field day and an interesting precedent will be set on being able to directly challenge Executive Orders.  Who knew that Making America Great Again would start with making immigrants and lawyers rich and powerful?  Talk about unintended consequences!   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 09, 2017, 07:23:27 PM
If the courts strike down Trump's executive order as unconstitutional and all of the appeals to the contrary are exhausted, does Sally Yates get her job back?

Sally Yates was a political appointee, not a career civil servant.  She never had any job protections.  She could have been dismissed at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.

Of course, Trump is trying to strip all of the current job protections for career civil servants, too.  He apparently pines for the olden days before merit reviews, when  government employment was a reward for party loyalists and nepotism and corruption were Business As Usual.

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm betting Sally Yates is pretty happy with how this played out.  As epic FU stories (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/epic-fu-money-stories/) go, hers was pretty amazing.  Not many of us get to go out in a blaze of glory for defending the US Constitution.  She fell on her sword for this one, and that's a story you can tell your grandkids.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on February 09, 2017, 07:50:06 PM
...Of course, Trump is trying to strip all of the current job protections for career civil servants, too.  He apparently pines for the olden days before merit reviews, when  government employment was a reward for party loyalists and nepotism and corruption were Business As Usual.

I received a government job offer (non politically appointed, civil service engineering job) immediately after the election, and this definitely weighed in my decision to decline the offer. I'm not convinced he'll be able to strip all the protections, but I'm sure government employment will change greatly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 09, 2017, 08:33:27 PM
If the courts strike down Trump's executive order as unconstitutional and all of the appeals to the contrary are exhausted, does Sally Yates get her job back?

She was fired for failing to enforce/defend a legal order. But if the order is found to be illegal... then she was right and she shouldn't have tried to enforce/defend it.

The more immediate impact is that all of the lawsuits from green-card and visa holders will move ahead.  I bet the US Gov't becomes a cash pinata for emotional and job-related damages, lawyers are going to have a field day and an interesting precedent will be set on being able to directly challenge Executive Orders.  Who knew that Making America Great Again would start with making immigrants and lawyers rich and powerful?  Talk about unintended consequences!

Even if sovereign immunity can be argued to be inapplicable for those cases, I'm pretty sure punitive damages could not be claimed. At worst, the cost would be some re-booked plane tickets, a couple days in wages, and a few nights in a hotel per case.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 09, 2017, 09:17:51 PM
If the courts strike down Trump's executive order as unconstitutional and all of the appeals to the contrary are exhausted, does Sally Yates get her job back?

She was fired for failing to enforce/defend a legal order. But if the order is found to be illegal... then she was right and she shouldn't have tried to enforce/defend it.

The more immediate impact is that all of the lawsuits from green-card and visa holders will move ahead.  I bet the US Gov't becomes a cash pinata for emotional and job-related damages, lawyers are going to have a field day and an interesting precedent will be set on being able to directly challenge Executive Orders.  Who knew that Making America Great Again would start with making immigrants and lawyers rich and powerful?  Talk about unintended consequences!

Even if sovereign immunity can be argued to be inapplicable for those cases, I'm pretty sure punitive damages could not be claimed. At worst, the cost would be some re-booked plane tickets, a couple days in wages, and a few nights in a hotel per case.

I'd love to have a real lawyer weigh in, because this could be new territory.  What I argue is that the EO was so poorly written as to be indefensible.  Legally protected immigrants (you know, that have been in the system forever and are not terrorists) were turned away at the airport trying to get back to their homes and families.  They can obviously sue for undue hardship, if the Executive Order is ruled unconstitutional (which seems to be where Trump is headed with this).  This guy is so inept that the best thing you can do is take advantage of it as soon as possible. 

In 4 years, if Trump is up for re-election, there is going to be some crazy Russian Fancy Bear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear) action.   And yes, our electorate is not sophisticated enough to not be manipulated.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 09, 2017, 09:48:10 PM
If the courts strike down Trump's executive order as unconstitutional and all of the appeals to the contrary are exhausted, does Sally Yates get her job back?

She was fired for failing to enforce/defend a legal order. But if the order is found to be illegal... then she was right and she shouldn't have tried to enforce/defend it.

The more immediate impact is that all of the lawsuits from green-card and visa holders will move ahead.  I bet the US Gov't becomes a cash pinata for emotional and job-related damages, lawyers are going to have a field day and an interesting precedent will be set on being able to directly challenge Executive Orders.  Who knew that Making America Great Again would start with making immigrants and lawyers rich and powerful?  Talk about unintended consequences!

Even if sovereign immunity can be argued to be inapplicable for those cases, I'm pretty sure punitive damages could not be claimed. At worst, the cost would be some re-booked plane tickets, a couple days in wages, and a few nights in a hotel per case.

I'd love to have a real lawyer weigh in, because this could be new territory.  What I argue is that the EO was so poorly written as to be indefensible.  Legally protected immigrants (you know, that have been in the system forever and are not terrorists) were turned away at the airport trying to get back to their homes and families.  They can obviously sue for undue hardship, if the Executive Order is ruled unconstitutional (which seems to be where Trump is headed with this).  This guy is so inept that the best thing you can do is take advantage of it as soon as possible. 

In 4 years, if Trump is up for re-election, there is going to be some crazy Russian Fancy Bear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear) action.   And yes, our electorate is not sophisticated enough to not be manipulated.
Russia thinks it's the Third Rome but really it's the Second Mongol Empire. Seems fitting they replaced the actual horses with Trojan ones. I do wish beyond all hope that the alleged Kompromat on Trump actually exists and this time next year, while Donbass is falling to Ninja Turtles, we are watching a pyramid of honeypots performing a golden shower at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton on LiveLeak.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 10, 2017, 02:19:12 AM
If the courts strike down Trump's executive order as unconstitutional and all of the appeals to the contrary are exhausted, does Sally Yates get her job back?

She was fired for failing to enforce/defend a legal order. But if the order is found to be illegal... then she was right and she shouldn't have tried to enforce/defend it.

The more immediate impact is that all of the lawsuits from green-card and visa holders will move ahead.  I bet the US Gov't becomes a cash pinata for emotional and job-related damages, lawyers are going to have a field day and an interesting precedent will be set on being able to directly challenge Executive Orders.  Who knew that Making America Great Again would start with making immigrants and lawyers rich and powerful?  Talk about unintended consequences!

Even if sovereign immunity can be argued to be inapplicable for those cases, I'm pretty sure punitive damages could not be claimed. At worst, the cost would be some re-booked plane tickets, a couple days in wages, and a few nights in a hotel per case.

I'd love to have a real lawyer weigh in, because this could be new territory.  What I argue is that the EO was so poorly written as to be indefensible.  Legally protected immigrants (you know, that have been in the system forever and are not terrorists) were turned away at the airport trying to get back to their homes and families.  They can obviously sue for undue hardship, if the Executive Order is ruled unconstitutional (which seems to be where Trump is headed with this).  This guy is so inept that the best thing you can do is take advantage of it as soon as possible. 

In 4 years, if Trump is up for re-election, there is going to be some crazy Russian Fancy Bear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear) action.   And yes, our electorate is not sophisticated enough to not be manipulated.
I would be trying to make the argument that the Executive Order was not just unconstitutional but obviously and deliberately unconstitutional with no legal defence, and therefore that Trump was acting outside the powers of the office of President when he signed it and is personally liable for damages.

ETA: I think the Executive Order probably meets the standard for Malfeasance in Public Office.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 10, 2017, 07:20:22 AM
It's almost funny to see this play out.  I see stuff like this in my job, when a 'businessman' comes in on the $4 Billion engineering project and suggest that we meet schedule by skipping a step or two (to save maybe a few million).  The company would get sued for sure, when things go to hell (and they might even make a movie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_(film)) about it).  But I must admit, I've never had the prospect of that great businessman boss Tweet publicly that we are 'A BUNCH OF MORONS killing American Greatness!  Sad!' :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 10, 2017, 07:26:21 AM
Quote
He won't really mind losing this one, though.  It's all political theater.  When the next terrorist attack or mass shooting inevitably comes, this buys him political cover.  He'll say he tried to stop it, but the liberal courts interfered because they hate America and love terrorists.  It won't matter if the attack is actually perpetrated by immigrants or Muslims or whatever.  All Presidents fear a terrorist attack on their watch, and now he doesn't have to fear that anymore.  He has built an excuse to blame his political opponents.  If there is an attack, it helps him win re-election.  If there's not, he hasn't really lost anything by being forced to adhere to the Constitutional balance of powers that he was always going to be bound by anyway.

Bingo. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 10, 2017, 08:56:07 AM
Quote
He won't really mind losing this one, though.  It's all political theater.  When the next terrorist attack or mass shooting inevitably comes, this buys him political cover.  He'll say he tried to stop it, but the liberal courts interfered because they hate America and love terrorists.  It won't matter if the attack is actually perpetrated by immigrants or Muslims or whatever.  All Presidents fear a terrorist attack on their watch, and now he doesn't have to fear that anymore.  He has built an excuse to blame his political opponents.  If there is an attack, it helps him win re-election.  If there's not, he hasn't really lost anything by being forced to adhere to the Constitutional balance of powers that he was always going to be bound by anyway.

Bingo.

Agree, and truly hate the thought if it. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 10, 2017, 09:47:07 AM
You always have to approach what Trump says with this idea in mind:  He uses language and words not to communicate ideas to people, but as a useful instrument to further his own agenda.  Truth means nothing to him and not to his supporters either.  Everything that comes out of his mouth is to evoke an emotion in either his supporters or his enemies.  This is why he seems so alien to a lot of people, including myself.  And it isn't some 3D chess voodoo either.  I think it's completely instinctual on his part.   

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on February 10, 2017, 09:50:38 AM
In 4 years, if Trump is up for re-election, there is going to be some crazy Russian Fancy Bear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear) action.   And yes, our electorate is not sophisticated enough to not be manipulated.

They already have been, already are being manipulated (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump). (There is this rebuttal (http://littleatoms.com/news-science/donald-trump-didnt-win-election-through-facebook) to that article, but frankly it seems like more of a "nuh-uh!" knee-jerk reaction to the very idea that people are so easily manipulated. They seem to be taking it at face value that the only data the company would have collected was from Facebook, but there are so many other sources of Big Data that they could tap into. And that's just my first problem with their analysis, for an example.)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 10, 2017, 04:25:06 PM
He won't really mind losing this one, though.  It's all political theater.  When the next terrorist attack or mass shooting inevitably comes, this buys him political cover.  He'll say he tried to stop it, but the liberal courts interfered because they hate America and love terrorists.  It won't matter if the attack is actually perpetrated by immigrants or Muslims or whatever.  All Presidents fear a terrorist attack on their watch, and now he doesn't have to fear that anymore.  He has built an excuse to blame his political opponents.  If there is an attack, it helps him win re-election.  If there's not, he hasn't really lost anything by being forced to adhere to the Constitutional balance of powers that he was always going to be bound by anyway.

I disagree with this. I agree with you that Trump can't stand to lose, and that he'll TRY to argue that it's the court's fault if there's another terrorist attack, but I do not agree that he'll get away with it. There are lots of rubes in this country that believe stupid sh*t, but I'll say that most of Trump's bald-faced lies have been called out and people don't fall for it. It won't be hard to distinguish that if there's another terror attack that comes from someone not among those 7 banned countries, then it's not the court's fault and instead lies at Trump's feet for failing to stop it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on February 10, 2017, 04:31:40 PM
Hmmm, looks like parts of the Dossier have been confirmed. Particularly some of the communications. No one seems to want to comment except Spicer who simply chided CNN for more fake news. LMAO!!!! Time to get the boots on. Shits getting deep.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 10, 2017, 04:42:17 PM
I disagree with this. I agree with you that Trump can't stand to lose, and that he'll TRY to argue that it's the court's fault if there's another terrorist attack, but I do not agree that he'll get away with it. There are lots of rubes in this country that believe stupid sh*t, but I'll say that most of Trump's bald-faced lies have been called out and people don't fall for it. It won't be hard to distinguish that if there's another terror attack that comes from someone not among those 7 banned countries, then it's not the court's fault and instead lies at Trump's feet for failing to stop it.

I wish I could agree, but read this today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-bowling-green-massacre_us_589df750e4b0ab2d2b14cb22?7d38q1v176n4gqfr& (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-bowling-green-massacre_us_589df750e4b0ab2d2b14cb22?7d38q1v176n4gqfr&)

There's so much distraction, bait and switch and lies that regular people who don't have time to read or watch news don't know what's going on. Trump said today that he would have won NH if it wasn't for voter fraud... to distract from the rest of the shitty shit that is going on. And the media buys it, and the cycle continues.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 10, 2017, 04:58:43 PM
^Coupled with his wife suing a paper.....this is quite the first family. I'm amazed. Our conservatives.....please dig Jeb or Cruz out of the dustbin and dust him off as a threat come 2020. This is horrible. Making Bush look like an effing statesman here.
Do you really think the Meliana lawsuit was as frivolous as a tweet by Donald? I for one find any publication that would publish derogatory, unfounded allegations that a woman was an escort to be despicable.  I don't see how defending oneself from slander is equatable to the off-the wall comments DJT makes on a daily basis.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 10, 2017, 05:02:48 PM
I disagree with this. I agree with you that Trump can't stand to lose, and that he'll TRY to argue that it's the court's fault if there's another terrorist attack, but I do not agree that he'll get away with it. There are lots of rubes in this country that believe stupid sh*t, but I'll say that most of Trump's bald-faced lies have been called out and people don't fall for it. It won't be hard to distinguish that if there's another terror attack that comes from someone not among those 7 banned countries, then it's not the court's fault and instead lies at Trump's feet for failing to stop it.

I wish I could agree, but read this today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-bowling-green-massacre_us_589df750e4b0ab2d2b14cb22?7d38q1v176n4gqfr& (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-bowling-green-massacre_us_589df750e4b0ab2d2b14cb22?7d38q1v176n4gqfr&)

There's so much distraction, bait and switch and lies that regular people who don't have time to read or watch news don't know what's going on. Trump said today that he would have won NH if it wasn't for voter fraud... to distract from the rest of the shitty shit that is going on. And the media buys it, and the cycle continues.
To the extent the first few weeks of POTUS Trump can be construed to have a strategy, it appears to be to shorten the OODA loop at the expense of all other considerations so as to choke the media and political adversaries with too many issues to effectively combat. It's actually a good strategy because even with the several big missteps so far, subsequent maneuvers have redirected and distracted the headlines away from previous blunders. There is a natural limit to this, however, since much of the noise has been generated by EOs and confirmation hearings. Once that cycle winds down and the system settles into its normal legislative intransigence, history will catch up with Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 10, 2017, 05:13:50 PM
Quote
He won't really mind losing this one, though.  It's all political theater.  When the next terrorist attack or mass shooting inevitably comes, this buys him political cover.  He'll say he tried to stop it, but the liberal courts interfered because they hate America and love terrorists.  It won't matter if the attack is actually perpetrated by immigrants or Muslims or whatever.  All Presidents fear a terrorist attack on their watch, and now he doesn't have to fear that anymore.  He has built an excuse to blame his political opponents.  If there is an attack, it helps him win re-election.  If there's not, he hasn't really lost anything by being forced to adhere to the Constitutional balance of powers that he was always going to be bound by anyway.

Bingo.

Agree, and truly hate the thought if it.
While I'm glad the checks and balances of our system work, sometimes it is still sadly amazing that Trump can keep winning, even with literally everyone against him. It's like some kind of dark magic.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 10, 2017, 05:22:05 PM
He won't really mind losing this one, though.  It's all political theater.  When the next terrorist attack or mass shooting inevitably comes, this buys him political cover.  He'll say he tried to stop it, but the liberal courts interfered because they hate America and love terrorists.  It won't matter if the attack is actually perpetrated by immigrants or Muslims or whatever.  All Presidents fear a terrorist attack on their watch, and now he doesn't have to fear that anymore.  He has built an excuse to blame his political opponents.  If there is an attack, it helps him win re-election.  If there's not, he hasn't really lost anything by being forced to adhere to the Constitutional balance of powers that he was always going to be bound by anyway.

I disagree with this. I agree with you that Trump can't stand to lose, and that he'll TRY to argue that it's the court's fault if there's another terrorist attack, but I do not agree that he'll get away with it. There are lots of rubes in this country that believe stupid sh*t, but I'll say that most of Trump's bald-faced lies have been called out and people don't fall for it. It won't be hard to distinguish that if there's another terror attack that comes from someone not among those 7 banned countries, then it's not the court's fault and instead lies at Trump's feet for failing to stop it.
I don't know. Has there ever been a terrorist attack on American soil from non-citizens radicalized in these countries that this ban would have stopped? Some of the European ones, perhaps, but any of the attacks on American soil? I don't think that these facts are obvious enough to most people, and there are enough people that support strengthening the vetting process anyway, that these actions may not seem to be as ineffectual as they are.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 10, 2017, 05:35:59 PM
Has there ever been a terrorist attack on American soil from non-citizens radicalized in these countries that this ban would have stopped?

I think our odds of having one in the next four years just went WAAAAY up, as a result of the Muslim ban.  We've spent 15 years trying to convince the global Muslim population that America is not their enemy, but Don has undone all of that work in a matter of days.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 10, 2017, 05:36:35 PM
I disagree with this. I agree with you that Trump can't stand to lose, and that he'll TRY to argue that it's the court's fault if there's another terrorist attack, but I do not agree that he'll get away with it. There are lots of rubes in this country that believe stupid sh*t, but I'll say that most of Trump's bald-faced lies have been called out and people don't fall for it. It won't be hard to distinguish that if there's another terror attack that comes from someone not among those 7 banned countries, then it's not the court's fault and instead lies at Trump's feet for failing to stop it.

I wish I could agree, but read this today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-bowling-green-massacre_us_589df750e4b0ab2d2b14cb22?7d38q1v176n4gqfr& (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-bowling-green-massacre_us_589df750e4b0ab2d2b14cb22?7d38q1v176n4gqfr&)

There's so much distraction, bait and switch and lies that regular people who don't have time to read or watch news don't know what's going on. Trump said today that he would have won NH if it wasn't for voter fraud... to distract from the rest of the shitty shit that is going on. And the media buys it, and the cycle continues.

But that article doesn't support the idea that everyone's bamboozled by Trump's lies and bullshit. It actually suggests the opposite...

Quote
"That makes a splashy headline, and it’s catnip for liberals who want to laugh at how stupid they think Trump supporters are. But it’s not good polling practice and should not be reported without substantial caveats about how the question was written and likely perceived by respondents. "
...
"In that frame of mind, how many Americans have probably heard of the Bowling Green Massacre, or know it’s a fake thing Kellyanne Conway made up last week? We don’t know. The poll didn’t ask that question. The question wasn’t even about whether people believed the fictional massacre happened"

At any rate, there will always be a good portion of people who support Trump despite all his bullshit. But I do not think he'd get away with claiming a terrorist attack by someone outside those countries in his executive order is the court's fault. I'm actually getting heartened by the dramatic response (i.e., outrage) to Trump in just 3 weeks. I think this could be the shortest presidency ever (short of assassinations in the past), and/or the Republicans will suffer a dramatic backlash the next election.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 10, 2017, 06:27:39 PM
Has there ever been a terrorist attack on American soil from non-citizens radicalized in these countries that this ban would have stopped?

I think our odds of having one in the next four years just went WAAAAY up, as a result of the Muslim ban.  We've spent 15 years trying to convince the global Muslim population that America is not their enemy, but Don has undone all of that work in a matter of days.
I'm sure bombing their hospitals, droning their funerals, burning their country down and occupying their land for a decade and a half was just about to make them our friends. Darn.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 10, 2017, 06:39:39 PM
Has there ever been a terrorist attack on American soil from non-citizens radicalized in these countries that this ban would have stopped?

I think our odds of having one in the next four years just went WAAAAY up, as a result of the Muslim ban.  We've spent 15 years trying to convince the global Muslim population that America is not their enemy, but Don has undone all of that work in a matter of days.
I'm sure bombing their hospitals, droning their funerals, burning their country down and occupying their land for a decade and a half was just about to make them our friends. Darn.
I'm not convinced that matters. The people actually doing the killing from the Middle East are crazy and irrational (their leaders might be more rational and calculating though!). The US could be carpet bombing with gourmet chocolate eclairs instead of bombs and almost all of these people would still be insane killers. There is a fundamental tension between the cultures in that region and the cultures of the West. ME Islamic culture would be just fine as a stagnant culture if not for the comparatively open and technologically progressive culture of the West laying bare the sickness and deficiencies of the ME (recall some countries in the ME did not even ban slavery until the 1960s-70s). There is nowhere to hide your crazy ideologies and punitive subjugation of women in the YouTube/Facebook/twitter era.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 10, 2017, 07:00:14 PM
Has there ever been a terrorist attack on American soil from non-citizens radicalized in these countries that this ban would have stopped?

I think our odds of having one in the next four years just went WAAAAY up, as a result of the Muslim ban.  We've spent 15 years trying to convince the global Muslim population that America is not their enemy, but Don has undone all of that work in a matter of days.
I'm sure bombing their hospitals, droning their funerals, burning their country down and occupying their land for a decade and a half was just about to make them our friends. Darn.
I'm not convinced that matters. The people actually doing the killing from the Middle East are crazy and irrational (their leaders might be more rational and calculating though!). The US could be carpet bombing with gourmet chocolate eclairs instead of bombs and almost all of these people would still be insane killers. There is a fundamental tension between the cultures in that region and the cultures of the West. ME Islamic culture would be just fine as a stagnant culture if not for the comparatively open and technologically progressive culture of the West laying bare the sickness and deficiencies of the ME (recall some countries in the ME did not even ban slavery until the 1960s-70s). There is nowhere to hide your crazy ideologies and punitive subjugation of women in the YouTube/Facebook/twitter era.
Sol may have a point though; there have been fewer attacks, and fewer terrorist casualties in the United States than there have been in Europe over the past few years. Could it be that we were actually doing something right?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 10, 2017, 07:20:53 PM
I disagree with this. I agree with you that Trump can't stand to lose, and that he'll TRY to argue that it's the court's fault if there's another terrorist attack, but I do not agree that he'll get away with it. There are lots of rubes in this country that believe stupid sh*t, but I'll say that most of Trump's bald-faced lies have been called out and people don't fall for it. It won't be hard to distinguish that if there's another terror attack that comes from someone not among those 7 banned countries, then it's not the court's fault and instead lies at Trump's feet for failing to stop it.

I wish I could agree, but read this today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-bowling-green-massacre_us_589df750e4b0ab2d2b14cb22?7d38q1v176n4gqfr& (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-bowling-green-massacre_us_589df750e4b0ab2d2b14cb22?7d38q1v176n4gqfr&)

There's so much distraction, bait and switch and lies that regular people who don't have time to read or watch news don't know what's going on. Trump said today that he would have won NH if it wasn't for voter fraud... to distract from the rest of the shitty shit that is going on. And the media buys it, and the cycle continues.

But that article doesn't support the idea that everyone's bamboozled by Trump's lies and bullshit. It actually suggests the opposite...

Quote
"That makes a splashy headline, and it’s catnip for liberals who want to laugh at how stupid they think Trump supporters are. But it’s not good polling practice and should not be reported without substantial caveats about how the question was written and likely perceived by respondents. "
...
"In that frame of mind, how many Americans have probably heard of the Bowling Green Massacre, or know it’s a fake thing Kellyanne Conway made up last week? We don’t know. The poll didn’t ask that question. The question wasn’t even about whether people believed the fictional massacre happened"

At any rate, there will always be a good portion of people who support Trump despite all his bullshit. But I do not think he'd get away with claiming a terrorist attack by someone outside those countries in his executive order is the court's fault. I'm actually getting heartened by the dramatic response (i.e., outrage) to Trump in just 3 weeks. I think this could be the shortest presidency ever (short of assassinations in the past), and/or the Republicans will suffer a dramatic backlash the next election.

My point was that regular people don't even have time to figure out what's bullshit or not. They'll fall for it and can't call it out because they don't know it's fake, just like some of the news during the election.

Quote
The average American doesn’t spend hours of their day glued to Twitter and cable networks watching all the latest developments in Washington, D.C. Most are busy living their lives, caring for families, working non-political jobs or all of the above.

Those who will support Trump no matter what will absolutely believe it's the courts fault if (when?) something happens. They're thinking about a new ban instead of pursuing it in the courts.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2017, 09:34:03 AM
The door to door raids have begun. This is absolutely horrifying.

"“I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state,” Castro said in a statement Friday night.

Hiba Ghalib, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta, said the ICE detentions were causing “mass confusion” in the immigrant community. She said she had heard reports of ICE agents going door-to-door in one largely Hispanic neighborhood, asking people to present their papers."

The worst part is that there will still be people who think these actions are A-ok, and will defend Trump no matter what.

I think Godwin's Law is going to have to be suspended for the duration of the Trump administration. If you are not outraged, you are certainly not paying attention. At this point, we should ALL be out in the streets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-agents-conduct-sweeping-immigration-enforcement-raids-in-at-least-6-states/2017/02/10/4b9f443a-efc8-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.f81a4bccce4d


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 11, 2017, 10:26:51 AM
The door to door raids have begun. This is absolutely horrifying.

"“I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state,” Castro said in a statement Friday night.

Hiba Ghalib, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta, said the ICE detentions were causing “mass confusion” in the immigrant community. She said she had heard reports of ICE agents going door-to-door in one largely Hispanic neighborhood, asking people to present their papers."

The worst part is that there will still be people who think these actions are A-ok, and will defend Trump no matter what.

I think Godwin's Law is going to have to be suspended for the duration of the Trump administration. If you are not outraged, you are certainly not paying attention. At this point, we should ALL be out in the streets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-agents-conduct-sweeping-immigration-enforcement-raids-in-at-least-6-states/2017/02/10/4b9f443a-efc8-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.f81a4bccce4d

While I'm all for Trump bashing, his numbers are kinda low for the first few weeks. Also an immigration lawyer probably isn't the best source of information regarding how the ICE folks are operating. Finally, if you're an illegal alien it is obviously a risk you take to stay in the US that you may be deported.

Obama deported over 1.5 million people in his first term. That's about 7 thousand a week, that's not including people who were turned back at the border or self deported. In Obama's first term there was also no prioritization of who to go after so families and mothers and everything were sent away.

In his second term the deportations actually went up with a record setting 400 thousand in 2012. The Washington post actually references this in the same article you linked:

Quote
The Obama administration conducted a spate of raids and also pursued a more aggressive deportation policy than any previous president, sending more than 400,000 people back to their birth countries at the height of his deportations in 2012. The public outcry over the lengthy detentions and deportations of women, children and people with minor offenses led President Obama in his second term to prioritize convicted criminals for deportation.

So, if you're going to suspend Godwin's law, then Obama, at least for now, is more Hitleresque in his deportations than Trump (and any other president).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 11, 2017, 10:53:19 AM
The door to door raids have begun. This is absolutely horrifying.

"“I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state,” Castro said in a statement Friday night.

Hiba Ghalib, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta, said the ICE detentions were causing “mass confusion” in the immigrant community. She said she had heard reports of ICE agents going door-to-door in one largely Hispanic neighborhood, asking people to present their papers."

The worst part is that there will still be people who think these actions are A-ok, and will defend Trump no matter what.

I think Godwin's Law is going to have to be suspended for the duration of the Trump administration. If you are not outraged, you are certainly not paying attention. At this point, we should ALL be out in the streets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-agents-conduct-sweeping-immigration-enforcement-raids-in-at-least-6-states/2017/02/10/4b9f443a-efc8-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.f81a4bccce4d

While I'm all for Trump bashing, his numbers are kinda low for the first few weeks. Also an immigration lawyer probably isn't the best source of information regarding how the ICE folks are operating. Finally, if you're an illegal alien it is obviously a risk you take to stay in the US that you may be deported.

Obama deported over 1.5 million people in his first term. That's about 7 thousand a week, that's not including people who were turned back at the border or self deported. In Obama's first term there was also no prioritization of who to go after so families and mothers and everything were sent away.

In his second term the deportations actually went up with a record setting 400 thousand in 2012. The Washington post actually references this in the same article you linked:

Quote
The Obama administration conducted a spate of raids and also pursued a more aggressive deportation policy than any previous president, sending more than 400,000 people back to their birth countries at the height of his deportations in 2012. The public outcry over the lengthy detentions and deportations of women, children and people with minor offenses led President Obama in his second term to prioritize convicted criminals for deportation.

So, if you're going to suspend Godwin's law, then Obama, at least for now, is more Hitleresque in his deportations than Trump (and any other president).
I think you missed the part about demanding papers from anyone of a certain look.  My daughter is Hispanic and was born in the US to two US citizens.  What right does anyone have to come to my door and tell her to prove herself?  In the US, none.  But that is what is being done.  And I do have serious issue with Obama and immigration but that does not change what is going on here.  It is not about deportation but requiring papers for legal citizens.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 11, 2017, 11:10:35 AM
The door to door raids have begun. This is absolutely horrifying.

"“I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state,” Castro said in a statement Friday night.

Hiba Ghalib, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta, said the ICE detentions were causing “mass confusion” in the immigrant community. She said she had heard reports of ICE agents going door-to-door in one largely Hispanic neighborhood, asking people to present their papers."

The worst part is that there will still be people who think these actions are A-ok, and will defend Trump no matter what.

I think Godwin's Law is going to have to be suspended for the duration of the Trump administration. If you are not outraged, you are certainly not paying attention. At this point, we should ALL be out in the streets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-agents-conduct-sweeping-immigration-enforcement-raids-in-at-least-6-states/2017/02/10/4b9f443a-efc8-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.f81a4bccce4d

While I'm all for Trump bashing, his numbers are kinda low for the first few weeks. Also an immigration lawyer probably isn't the best source of information regarding how the ICE folks are operating. Finally, if you're an illegal alien it is obviously a risk you take to stay in the US that you may be deported.

Obama deported over 1.5 million people in his first term. That's about 7 thousand a week, that's not including people who were turned back at the border or self deported. In Obama's first term there was also no prioritization of who to go after so families and mothers and everything were sent away.

In his second term the deportations actually went up with a record setting 400 thousand in 2012. The Washington post actually references this in the same article you linked:

Quote
The Obama administration conducted a spate of raids and also pursued a more aggressive deportation policy than any previous president, sending more than 400,000 people back to their birth countries at the height of his deportations in 2012. The public outcry over the lengthy detentions and deportations of women, children and people with minor offenses led President Obama in his second term to prioritize convicted criminals for deportation.

So, if you're going to suspend Godwin's law, then Obama, at least for now, is more Hitleresque in his deportations than Trump (and any other president).
I think you missed the part about demanding papers from anyone of a certain look.  My daughter is Hispanic and was born in the US to two US citizens.  What right does anyone have to come to my door and tell her to prove herself?  In the US, none.  But that is what is being done.  And I do have serious issue with Obama and immigration but that does not change what is going on here.  It is not about deportation but requiring papers for legal citizens.

Are you referring to this quote by Hiba Ghalib?  "She said she had heard reports of ICE agents going door-to-door in one largely Hispanic neighborhood, asking people to present their papers."

Disregarding whether it's desirable or legal, I'd be surprised if ICE has the resources to do what she suggests she has "heard" is happening.  You indicate that is what is being done, do you have a source other than that quote? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 11, 2017, 11:23:32 AM
I think you missed the part about demanding papers from anyone of a certain look.  My daughter is Hispanic and was born in the US to two US citizens.  What right does anyone have to come to my door and tell her to prove herself?  In the US, none.  But that is what is being done.  And I do have serious issue with Obama and immigration but that does not change what is going on here.  It is not about deportation but requiring papers for legal citizens.

I didn't miss that part. I said:

Quote
Also an immigration lawyer probably isn't the best source of information regarding how the ICE folks are operating.

And even if this is happening (which I doubt), the police are allowed to ask for anything, you need to know your rights and decline requests.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 11, 2017, 11:36:33 AM
The door to door raids have begun. This is absolutely horrifying.

"“I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state,” Castro said in a statement Friday night.

Hiba Ghalib, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta, said the ICE detentions were causing “mass confusion” in the immigrant community. She said she had heard reports of ICE agents going door-to-door in one largely Hispanic neighborhood, asking people to present their papers."

The worst part is that there will still be people who think these actions are A-ok, and will defend Trump no matter what.

I think Godwin's Law is going to have to be suspended for the duration of the Trump administration. If you are not outraged, you are certainly not paying attention. At this point, we should ALL be out in the streets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-agents-conduct-sweeping-immigration-enforcement-raids-in-at-least-6-states/2017/02/10/4b9f443a-efc8-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.f81a4bccce4d

While I'm all for Trump bashing, his numbers are kinda low for the first few weeks. Also an immigration lawyer probably isn't the best source of information regarding how the ICE folks are operating. Finally, if you're an illegal alien it is obviously a risk you take to stay in the US that you may be deported.

Obama deported over 1.5 million people in his first term. That's about 7 thousand a week, that's not including people who were turned back at the border or self deported. In Obama's first term there was also no prioritization of who to go after so families and mothers and everything were sent away.

In his second term the deportations actually went up with a record setting 400 thousand in 2012. The Washington post actually references this in the same article you linked:

Quote
The Obama administration conducted a spate of raids and also pursued a more aggressive deportation policy than any previous president, sending more than 400,000 people back to their birth countries at the height of his deportations in 2012. The public outcry over the lengthy detentions and deportations of women, children and people with minor offenses led President Obama in his second term to prioritize convicted criminals for deportation.

So, if you're going to suspend Godwin's law, then Obama, at least for now, is more Hitleresque in his deportations than Trump (and any other president).
You would think that after ICE clearly, repeatedly stated that this was routine, and the planning stages were begun under the Obama administration, that people would have a hard time pinning this on Trump. I guess we are post fact.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 11, 2017, 11:38:41 AM
I think you missed the part about demanding papers from anyone of a certain look.  My daughter is Hispanic and was born in the US to two US citizens.  What right does anyone have to come to my door and tell her to prove herself?  In the US, none.  But that is what is being done.  And I do have serious issue with Obama and immigration but that does not change what is going on here.  It is not about deportation but requiring papers for legal citizens.

I didn't miss that part. I said:

Quote
Also an immigration lawyer probably isn't the best source of information regarding how the ICE folks are operating.

And even if this is happening (which I doubt), the police are allowed to ask for anything, you need to know your rights and decline requests.
Given I know a person who was "detained" in Arizona for being Hispanics after the GOP passed their law there and not having a way to prove he is a citizen and was only released after his wife (a white American citizen) found an immigration lawyer, yes I do believe that is how ICE is acting.  I also think immigration lawyers are one of the best resources for what is happening because they are there and have little reason to lie. 
I also know of multiple cases where people were detained and had to prove citizenship as well as a few cases where Americans were deported illegally.   Our rights are being trampled, and it is getting worse.  In the Arizona case I could appeal the Feds, I know can't.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 11, 2017, 11:42:36 AM
The door to door raids have begun. This is absolutely horrifying.

"“I am asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state,” Castro said in a statement Friday night.

Hiba Ghalib, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta, said the ICE detentions were causing “mass confusion” in the immigrant community. She said she had heard reports of ICE agents going door-to-door in one largely Hispanic neighborhood, asking people to present their papers."

The worst part is that there will still be people who think these actions are A-ok, and will defend Trump no matter what.

I think Godwin's Law is going to have to be suspended for the duration of the Trump administration. If you are not outraged, you are certainly not paying attention. At this point, we should ALL be out in the streets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-agents-conduct-sweeping-immigration-enforcement-raids-in-at-least-6-states/2017/02/10/4b9f443a-efc8-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.f81a4bccce4d

While I'm all for Trump bashing, his numbers are kinda low for the first few weeks. Also an immigration lawyer probably isn't the best source of information regarding how the ICE folks are operating. Finally, if you're an illegal alien it is obviously a risk you take to stay in the US that you may be deported.

Obama deported over 1.5 million people in his first term. That's about 7 thousand a week, that's not including people who were turned back at the border or self deported. In Obama's first term there was also no prioritization of who to go after so families and mothers and everything were sent away.

In his second term the deportations actually went up with a record setting 400 thousand in 2012. The Washington post actually references this in the same article you linked:

Quote
The Obama administration conducted a spate of raids and also pursued a more aggressive deportation policy than any previous president, sending more than 400,000 people back to their birth countries at the height of his deportations in 2012. The public outcry over the lengthy detentions and deportations of women, children and people with minor offenses led President Obama in his second term to prioritize convicted criminals for deportation.

So, if you're going to suspend Godwin's law, then Obama, at least for now, is more Hitleresque in his deportations than Trump (and any other president).
You would think that after ICE clearly, repeatedly stated that this was routine, and the planning stages were begun under the Obama administration, that people would have a hard time pinning this on Trump. I guess we are post fact.

Calling anybody Hitler is silly at this moment.

It's a valid point that Obama was pretty heavy handed with his deportations (particularly at their highest point in the eight years he was in charge).  That's certainly on him, and he should be held accountable for it.  Given Trump's rhetoric, it's understandable that people have serious concerns about the actions that will be implemented during his presidency.  Hopefully he'll be held accountable for his actions as well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 11, 2017, 11:45:47 AM
You would think that after ICE clearly, repeatedly stated that this was routine, and the planning stages were begun under the Obama administration, that people would have a hard time pinning this on Trump. I guess we are post fact.

As a political tool, I think the Democrats (and other folks) are doing the right thing pining it on Trump. They should blame everything on Trump.

But... we're in the MMM forums, I don't want to just write things for political reasons here, it doesn't make sense when trying to actually discuss issues.

Yes GuitarStv, fair Hitler comparisons are a long, long, way off.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 11, 2017, 11:55:13 AM
You would think that after ICE clearly, repeatedly stated that this was routine, and the planning stages were begun under the Obama administration, that people would have a hard time pinning this on Trump. I guess we are post fact.

I don't think this is in any way a sign of being "post-fact" in the way that Conway and Spicer are "post-fact" but I do agree that Trump is going to get less leeway on some of these things than Obama got.

Obama seriously considered the Keystone pipeline, for example, and stalled on a verdict for over a year.  If he had approved it, most of America would begrudgingly accepted that he's a very smart man who made a careful decision and decided the negative consequences of the pipeline were outweighed by the benefits.  When Trump makes that decision, it will come off as flippant and deliberately inflammatory, like he'll say tweet "Drill baby drill!  Fuck the earth and all of the liberals on it!"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 11, 2017, 12:03:11 PM

Calling anybody Hitler is silly at this moment.

It's a valid point that Obama was pretty heavy handed with his deportations (particularly at their highest point in the eight years he was in charge).  That's certainly on him, and he should be held accountable for it.  Given Trump's rhetoric, it's understandable that people have serious concerns about the actions that will be implemented during his presidency.  Hopefully he'll be held accountable for his actions as well.

It's infuriating. Obama was a real hawk on deportations - but to hear the Trump supporters in my family talk, you'd think he swung the borders wide open. My family fails to baseline their opinions with the facts. (Not just on immigration) ... So Obama gets shit from some people for being too harsh deporting so many illegal immigrants, but gets zero credit among people who want to clamp down on illegal immigration. This, even though he deported 2.5M people during his tenure .... 25% more than Bush over the same amount of time.

I'm not personally invested in this issue. I figure if people are in the US illegally, they probably shouldn't be there. But I also understand that there's a whole underground economy that relies on them. I also know that many of them contribute to our social security system (paying into the system between $7B and 12B in 2010 for example (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/10/hillary-clinton/undocumented-immigrants-social-security-contributi/)) without themselves benefiting from it.

The thing that annoys me is this willingness to spew opinions without so much as inquiring as to the underlying facts. You can't argue policy unless you first agree on your premises. It's nuts.

So on this issue especially - I just stand back and stay out of it. Well - except here. But y'all are solid conversationalists.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 11, 2017, 12:21:20 PM

Calling anybody Hitler is silly at this moment.

It's a valid point that Obama was pretty heavy handed with his deportations (particularly at their highest point in the eight years he was in charge).  That's certainly on him, and he should be held accountable for it.  Given Trump's rhetoric, it's understandable that people have serious concerns about the actions that will be implemented during his presidency.  Hopefully he'll be held accountable for his actions as well.

It's infuriating. Obama was a real hawk on deportations - but to hear the Trump supporters in my family talk, you'd think he swung the borders wide open. My family fails to baseline their opinions with the facts. (Not just on immigration) ... So Obama gets shit from some people for being too harsh deporting so many illegal immigrants, but gets zero credit among people who want to clamp down on illegal immigration. This, even though he deported 2.5M people during his tenure .... 25% more than Bush over the same amount of time.


It is weird how far perception is from reality on this topic. One of Obama's planks was immigration reform, and it was one area where what he promised wound up being so far from what he delivered.  As noted, deportions were quite high throughout his presidency.
Despite this, one of DJT's planks was far more extreme, and he accused the Obama administration of virtually open boarders. His supporters point to this as reason why we need "extreme vetting" and a complete shutdown in some cases.
Almost as a knee-jerk reaction many democrats are talking about the Obama policies as the immigration ideal, as if things were peachy for non-citizens during the previous 8 years.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 11, 2017, 12:25:25 PM
I think you missed the part about demanding papers from anyone of a certain look.  My daughter is Hispanic and was born in the US to two US citizens.  What right does anyone have to come to my door and tell her to prove herself?  In the US, none.  But that is what is being done.  And I do have serious issue with Obama and immigration but that does not change what is going on here.  It is not about deportation but requiring papers for legal citizens.

I didn't miss that part. I said:

Quote
Also an immigration lawyer probably isn't the best source of information regarding how the ICE folks are operating.

And even if this is happening (which I doubt), the police are allowed to ask for anything, you need to know your rights and decline requests.
Given I know a person who was "detained" in Arizona for being Hispanics after the GOP passed their law there and not having a way to prove he is a citizen and was only released after his wife (a white American citizen) found an immigration lawyer, yes I do believe that is how ICE is acting. 

I would be interested in hearing more about this incident.  Please note, enforcement actions pre-date Trump.

I also think immigration lawyers are one of the best resources for what is happening because they are there and have little reason to lie. 

I would say the majority of immigration lawyers have an anti-enforcement bias on the topic of immigration laws.  In addition, immigration lawyers have a financial incentive to motivate those in need of their services.  Given these prejudices, I find the quote from the attorney to be suspect.  On top of that, the attorney wasn't given a first hand account, just something they had heard.


I also know of multiple cases where people were detained and had to prove citizenship as well as a few cases where Americans were deported illegally.   Our rights are being trampled, and it is getting worse.  In the Arizona case I could appeal the Feds, I know can't.

Do you have any sources or articles?  If American citizens are being harassed or deported, I would hope that would be front page news.

What I have seen thus far from many sources is a lot of hyperbole.  As many other have stated, we have been deporting for quite some time.  I haven't, thus far, seen a dramatic increase under Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2017, 12:40:10 PM
Here is a post by a person named Haisan Elsharkawi that was just posted on Facebook.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POST DO NOT IGNORE: Tonight I was about to board my flight, and as I was about to step on to the plane, an officer came up to me and started asking me questions like "where are you going" and "why". As I was answering the questions, he motioned for me to get out of the line and walk over to a table. At the table there were 5 other officers waiting. They began asking me numerous questions very roughly. After they continued to ask questions without explaining their reason, I said "Do I need my lawyer?" They got really angry and threw my belongings out of my bag, searched them and took my phone. Then they demanded that I tell them what my password was in order to unlock my phone and search it. I said No. They accused me of hiding something suspicious because I asked for my rights (lawyer). Then they told me to place my hands on the table and demanded again that I unlock my phone for them to search. Again I said no. I told them I am not comfortable with their treatment and asked again for a lawyer. They kept threatening me saying "you will see what's going to happen to you. We will make you miss your flight, and we will make this really bad for you." After saying again that I refuse to unlock my phone, they told me to place my hands on my head, then they handcuffed me and began taking me away. At this point, I feared for my safety and I announced "I am being detained and they are not allowing me to have my lawyer. I am being detained and they are not allowing me to have my lawyer." After saying that, the officer twisted my arm and forced my body down. Then they said "we are going to take him downstairs". After they brought me to a downstairs, they put me in a jail cell. They interrogated me about HOW I became a citizen, where I work, where my wife works, why I was traveling, and again told me to unlock my phone. Again I refused and told them it was my right to have a lawyer, and again they said if I need a lawyer, then I must be guilty of something. They sent in numerous people to the room I was being interrogated in and finally a HOMELAND SECURITY agent came into the interrogation room saying that they are trying to protect the country and that if I didn't unlock my phone for them to search, then they would take it from me, send it to headquarters and give it back in 1 month. After 4 hours of being interrogated, I unlocked my phone. They searched through my facebook, my messages, my emails, my pictures and began asking me questions about what they found in my phone, like my business, where I work, where I buy my merchandise from and on. After hours of being interrogated and missing my flight, they released me. I immediately called my lawyer and will continue a process of filing a lawsuit. For those of you who say "the issue in America is no problem, it will be fine" you need to WAKE UP.
PLEASE SHARE
#CNN #LAX #MUSLIM_BAN #ANDERSON_COOPER #CAIR #VAN_JONES #ACLU #LA_TIMES
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 11, 2017, 01:30:33 PM
Here is a post by a person named Haisan Elsharkawi that was just posted on Facebook.
...

I'm not sure what this anecdote adds to the conversation. Is this an impact of Trump? Perhaps. Have law enforcement officials generally targeted arabs/muslims since 2001? Probably.

There are entire websites dedicated to "TSA Horror Stories" that list out in detail all sorts of apparently illegal actions taken by the TSA since the Department of Homeland Security was created. I don't think we can blame that on Trump. There are plenty of stories of when Obama was in office too, and Bush.

Again, as a political tool, sure, blame Trump. For having a discussion I would need facts to come to the conclusion that government interactions are materially worse for American citizens of arab/muslim descent because Trump is in office.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2017, 01:35:02 PM
Here is a post by a person named Haisan Elsharkawi that was just posted on Facebook.
...

I'm not sure what this anecdote adds to the conversation. Is this an impact of Trump? Perhaps. Have law enforcement officials generally targeted arabs/muslims since 2001? Probably.

There are entire websites dedicated to "TSA Horror Stories" that list out in detail all sorts of apparently illegal actions taken by the TSA since the Department of Homeland Security was created. I don't think we can blame that on Trump. There are plenty of stories of when Obama was in office too, and Bush.

Again, as a political tool, sure, blame Trump. For having a discussion I would need facts to come to the conclusion that government interactions are materially worse for American citizens of arab/muslim descent because Trump is in office.

How about, "These things should not be happening under any administration, Republican, Democrat, or other, so let's stand up to it"?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 11, 2017, 01:49:39 PM
My understanding is that a high proportion of the Obama deportations were people caught coming across the border who were returned almost immediately and that his deportation figures were higher because previously those people hadn't been included in the figures.  Is that right?  If so, then an increased emphasis on deporting those who have been established in the USA for a period of time could be down to the new Trump Executive Order and the new atmosphere on immigration created from the top.  A change of policy along those lines would be far more personally disruptive to far more people with settled connections within the USA.  Whether or not the overall figures for deportation will be higher is probably unknown so far: the change in policy may prove to be less effective overall if it has displaced personnel from operations targeted on new arrivals over the border.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 11, 2017, 02:49:59 PM
I think you missed the part about demanding papers from anyone of a certain look.  My daughter is Hispanic and was born in the US to two US citizens.  What right does anyone have to come to my door and tell her to prove herself?  In the US, none.  But that is what is being done.  And I do have serious issue with Obama and immigration but that does not change what is going on here.  It is not about deportation but requiring papers for legal citizens.

I didn't miss that part. I said:

Quote
Also an immigration lawyer probably isn't the best source of information regarding how the ICE folks are operating.

And even if this is happening (which I doubt), the police are allowed to ask for anything, you need to know your rights and decline requests.
Given I know a person who was "detained" in Arizona for being Hispanics after the GOP passed their law there and not having a way to prove he is a citizen and was only released after his wife (a white American citizen) found an immigration lawyer, yes I do believe that is how ICE is acting. 

I would be interested in hearing more about this incident.  Please note, enforcement actions pre-date Trump.

I also think immigration lawyers are one of the best resources for what is happening because they are there and have little reason to lie. 

I would say the majority of immigration lawyers have an anti-enforcement bias on the topic of immigration laws.  In addition, immigration lawyers have a financial incentive to motivate those in need of their services.  Given these prejudices, I find the quote from the attorney to be suspect.  On top of that, the attorney wasn't given a first hand account, just something they had heard.


I also know of multiple cases where people were detained and had to prove citizenship as well as a few cases where Americans were deported illegally.   Our rights are being trampled, and it is getting worse.  In the Arizona case I could appeal the Feds, I know can't.

Do you have any sources or articles?  If American citizens are being harassed or deported, I would hope that would be front page news.

What I have seen thus far from many sources is a lot of hyperbole.  As many other have stated, we have been deporting for quite some time.  I haven't, thus far, seen a dramatic increase under Trump.
Here is the google results: https://www.google.com/#q=american+citizen+accidentally+deported
And, yes I agree there have long been issues, I just trust the older administrations (Bushs included) to deal with the issue more properly if it was brought up.  I'm not saying any of them did it perfectly just that it is getting worse.
And what more would you like to know about the incident? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 11, 2017, 02:52:58 PM
My understanding is that a high proportion of the Obama deportations were people caught coming across the border who were returned almost immediately and that his deportation figures were higher because previously those people hadn't been included in the figures.  Is that right?  If so, then an increased emphasis on deporting those who have been established in the USA for a period of time could be down to the new Trump Executive Order and the new atmosphere on immigration created from the top.  A change of policy along those lines would be far more personally disruptive to far more people with settled connections within the USA.  Whether or not the overall figures for deportation will be higher is probably unknown so far: the change in policy may prove to be less effective overall if it has displaced personnel from operations targeted on new arrivals over the border.

I would think a policy of enforcing the law against those caught here illegally (both at the border and otherwise) and those employing them, would be more effective at preventing such behavior than a policy of enforcing the law only at the border.  Once free of the border, the vast majority of those in are never sent back. 

If you know you have little chance of getting sent back once here and little punishment if caught trying to get in illegally, why not keep trying until you get in? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 11, 2017, 04:30:08 PM
Here is a post by a person named Haisan Elsharkawi that was just posted on Facebook.
...

I'm not sure what this anecdote adds to the conversation. Is this an impact of Trump? Perhaps. Have law enforcement officials generally targeted arabs/muslims since 2001? Probably.

There are entire websites dedicated to "TSA Horror Stories" that list out in detail all sorts of apparently illegal actions taken by the TSA since the Department of Homeland Security was created. I don't think we can blame that on Trump. There are plenty of stories of when Obama was in office too, and Bush.

Again, as a political tool, sure, blame Trump. For having a discussion I would need facts to come to the conclusion that government interactions are materially worse for American citizens of arab/muslim descent because Trump is in office.

How about, "These things should not be happening under any administration, Republican, Democrat, or other, so let's stand up to it"?
While true, it is off topic for this thread.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 11, 2017, 04:55:12 PM
My understanding is that a high proportion of the Obama deportations were people caught coming across the border who were returned almost immediately and that his deportation figures were higher because previously those people hadn't been included in the figures.  Is that right?  If so, then an increased emphasis on deporting those who have been established in the USA for a period of time could be down to the new Trump Executive Order and the new atmosphere on immigration created from the top.  A change of policy along those lines would be far more personally disruptive to far more people with settled connections within the USA.  Whether or not the overall figures for deportation will be higher is probably unknown so far: the change in policy may prove to be less effective overall if it has displaced personnel from operations targeted on new arrivals over the border.
This would be worthy of noting.  However, the LA raids were clearly a hold over from the Obama immigration policies. This leaves much room for improvement. Trump has been focused on border security, which would be basically continuing Obama's "deport them at the border" policies. Not as disruptive as the Raids conducted recently. And if, as ICE claims, the vast majority of those caught in the raids were criminals, many with violent crime convictions, and most of the rest already had deportation orders against them, I'm not sure that this specific instance is a bad thing, overall.

You would think that after ICE clearly, repeatedly stated that this was routine, and the planning stages were begun under the Obama administration, that people would have a hard time pinning this on Trump. I guess we are post fact.

I don't think this is in any way a sign of being "post-fact" in the way that Conway and Spicer are "post-fact" but I do agree that Trump is going to get less leeway on some of these things than Obama got.

Obama seriously considered the Keystone pipeline, for example, and stalled on a verdict for over a year.  If he had approved it, most of America would begrudgingly accepted that he's a very smart man who made a careful decision and decided the negative consequences of the pipeline were outweighed by the benefits.  When Trump makes that decision, it will come off as flippant and deliberately inflammatory, like he'll say tweet "Drill baby drill!  Fuck the earth and all of the liberals on it!"
I agree that Trump will get less leeway and receive more flack for actions that would be considered normal under different administrations. I agree that this is largely a reaction to the way he acts and the silly things he spews from Twitter. I don't agree that this should be a reason to dismiss or condone his policies; they should be debated on their own merits. I understand that this will be difficult for some to separate, but i hold hope that rational discussion will prevail over reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole. Perhaps this is naive, but i think focusing on debate and discussion will be worth the effort and combat a bit of the negatives of Trump's inflammatory style.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 11, 2017, 05:06:56 PM
Here is a post by a person named Haisan Elsharkawi that was just posted on Facebook.
...

I'm not sure what this anecdote adds to the conversation. Is this an impact of Trump? Perhaps. Have law enforcement officials generally targeted arabs/muslims since 2001? Probably.

There are entire websites dedicated to "TSA Horror Stories" that list out in detail all sorts of apparently illegal actions taken by the TSA since the Department of Homeland Security was created. I don't think we can blame that on Trump. There are plenty of stories of when Obama was in office too, and Bush.

Again, as a political tool, sure, blame Trump. For having a discussion I would need facts to come to the conclusion that government interactions are materially worse for American citizens of arab/muslim descent because Trump is in office.

How about, "These things should not be happening under any administration, Republican, Democrat, or other, so let's stand up to it"?
While true, it is off topic for this thread.

Okay, I'll reframe it so it's on topic:

Realistic impacts of a Trump presidency? This shit is going to get exponentially worse, and the tendency toward complacency of many people will allow it to go on for far too long.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 11, 2017, 05:27:50 PM
I don't agree that this should be a reason to dismiss or condone his policies; they should be debated on their own merits. I understand that this will be difficult for some to separate, but i hold hope that rational discussion will prevail over reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.

Seriously?  Trump LIVES on reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.  That's his bread and butter.  How are you criticizing liberals for this?

This was the pattern of Trump's entire campaign, but that doesn't mean you should follow suit.  Trump has spent the past year turning his own negatives into attacks on his opposition.  Clinton lacks stamina because Trump is a 70 year old man with a poor diet and a history of venereal disease.  Lyin' Ted Cruz is dishonest because Trump can't tell the truth even when it would benefit him.  Obama was a Kenyan Muslim because Trump is an atheist.  Immigrants are evil and have to be stopped, because Trump employs illegal immigrants at his resorts and also married an illegal immigrant.  Planned parenthood is immoral and has to go, because Trump has publicly bragged about cheating on all three of his wives.  Fiorina was a bad CEO because Trump's companies have declared bankruptcy six times.  Clinton's vast political experience was horrible, because Trump had no political experience at all.  Clinton's foundation was corrupt, because Trump's foundation was actually fined for illegal practices.  I could go on, but so can everyone else in the country.

It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America. 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 11, 2017, 06:39:59 PM
It's time we all got serious about this. 

I think that time was actually early November. Now we have to hope that he'll obey the courts and if he doesn't congress will remove him.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 11, 2017, 06:51:30 PM
I don't agree that this should be a reason to dismiss or condone his policies; they should be debated on their own merits. I understand that this will be difficult for some to separate, but i hold hope that rational discussion will prevail over reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.

Seriously?  Trump LIVES on reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.  That's his bread and butter.  How are you criticizing liberals for this?

This was the pattern of Trump's entire campaign, but that doesn't mean you should follow suit.  Trump has spent the past year turning his own negatives into attacks on his opposition.  Clinton lacks stamina because Trump is a 70 year old man with a poor diet and a history of venereal disease.  Lyin' Ted Cruz is dishonest because Trump can't tell the truth even when it would benefit him.  Obama was a Kenyan Muslim because Trump is an atheist.  Immigrants are evil and have to be stopped, because Trump employs illegal immigrants at his resorts and also married an illegal immigrant.  Planned parenthood is immoral and has to go, because Trump has publicly bragged about cheating on all three of his wives.  Fiorina was a bad CEO because Trump's companies have declared bankruptcy six times.  Clinton's vast political experience was horrible, because Trump had no political experience at all.  Clinton's foundation was corrupt, because Trump's foundation was actually fined for illegal practices.  I could go on, but so can everyone else in the country.

It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America.

In what I'm seeing on social media lately, the arm-flailing is coming from barely articulate Trump supporters spewing victorious rage.  My liberal friends are far more coherent and rational.

People claiming that liberals are being reactionary is laughable.  It's nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion with the vast majority of Trump supporters.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 11, 2017, 08:10:07 PM
I don't agree that this should be a reason to dismiss or condone his policies; they should be debated on their own merits. I understand that this will be difficult for some to separate, but i hold hope that rational discussion will prevail over reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.

Seriously?  Trump LIVES on reactionary arm flailing and hyperbole.  That's his bread and butter.  How are you criticizing liberals for this?

This was the pattern of Trump's entire campaign, but that doesn't mean you should follow suit.  Trump has spent the past year turning his own negatives into attacks on his opposition.  Clinton lacks stamina because Trump is a 70 year old man with a poor diet and a history of venereal disease.  Lyin' Ted Cruz is dishonest because Trump can't tell the truth even when it would benefit him.  Obama was a Kenyan Muslim because Trump is an atheist.  Immigrants are evil and have to be stopped, because Trump employs illegal immigrants at his resorts and also married an illegal immigrant.  Planned parenthood is immoral and has to go, because Trump has publicly bragged about cheating on all three of his wives.  Fiorina was a bad CEO because Trump's companies have declared bankruptcy six times.  Clinton's vast political experience was horrible, because Trump had no political experience at all.  Clinton's foundation was corrupt, because Trump's foundation was actually fined for illegal practices.  I could go on, but so can everyone else in the country.

It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America.
Tu quoque? Again? Of course Trump lives to inflame, bully and shut down discussion. Does that mean that everyone should engage in such tactics?  No. No one should. Trump is getting attacked from every angle for his actions. If the other side engages in the same practices, they deserve the same reprimands. I made no mention of 'liberals' in my post - I think anyone who engages in hyperbolic arm flailing needs to cool down and come back to reasonable discussion. We can probably agree that it is unlikely that Trump will do this, but I think that only makes it more important to engage with other citizens to discuss issues, and it is exactly the wrong thing to try to rise to Trump's level of incendiary half-true rhetoric.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 11, 2017, 08:12:35 PM
It's time we all got serious about this. 

I think that time was actually early November. Now we have to hope that he'll obey the courts and if he doesn't congress will remove him.
I was very proud of the checks and balances system displayed by the courts last week. Over the past several years they've done a fair job of preventing some of the worst examples of executive branch over-reach. I hope they continue to do so.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 11, 2017, 10:39:30 PM
Tu quoque? Again?

No, not at all.  YOU are the one criticizing Trump's detractors for this behavior, instead of criticizing Trump.  I'm not suggesting that everyone else should be as shitty as Trump, I'm suggesting that you are giving Trump way too much deference by only criticizing his detractors for the exact behavior that Trump has pioneered and weaponized.

Don't attack me for the logical inconsistencies that you yourself are displaying.  That was the whole point of my post, that this is exactly what Trump has done so well.  You only prove my point by repeating the attack.  Next time, consider following up with "SAD!"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 11, 2017, 11:14:18 PM
It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America.
I am glad I am not the only one who sees it.  How is anyone taken in by this con artist?  Amazing. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 11, 2017, 11:24:50 PM
It's time we all got serious about this.  Trump is a world class con man and lots of Americans fell for it.  He doesn't actually care about anything he promised during the campaign (lock her up, drain the swamp, build the wall), and he's only in the white house to make money for himself and his family.  He doesn't care about Americans or America.
I am glad I am not the only one who sees it.  How is anyone taken in by this con artist?  Amazing.

Yeah, sorry MM but totally on this side of the fence. It really doesn't matter if this policy or that policy from Trump's desk is consistent with the past, when there is so, so much evidence of actions that are well beyond the pale and that in any previous administration almost certainly would have resulted in congressional investigation at a bare minimum. And this is happening daily. And we're still in the first month of his presidency. I think Pence would also be an awful president but I at least have some faith he would respect the dignity and gravity of the office and make some effort to consider the constitution, even if his interpretations would differ widely from my own. At a minimum, he would actually read the daily briefings and know what the Geneva Conventions (that he very well might still violate) actually mean.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 12, 2017, 01:41:03 AM
Tu quoque? Again?

No, not at all.  YOU are the one criticizing Trump's detractors for this behavior, instead of criticizing Trump.  I'm not suggesting that everyone else should be as shitty as Trump, I'm suggesting that you are giving Trump way too much deference by only criticizing his detractors for the exact behavior that Trump has pioneered and weaponized.

Don't attack me for the logical inconsistencies that you yourself are displaying.  That was the whole point of my post, that this is exactly what Trump has done so well.  You only prove my point by repeating the attack.  Next time, consider following up with "SAD!"
I've been nothing but critical of Trump. He's a pretty terrible person. How many times do I have to say this? No one is arguing he is not a sleazy con man. You can add your strawman to the pile. I will be equally critical to all persons who engage in the same actions as Trump, hold the same views or use the same tactics to attack their opponents while deflecting from the issues. If both sides are engaged in arm flailing about tweets or hand sizes or inauguration suits instead of debating and discussing policies and actions, I will be critical of both sides. The fact that Trump's policies are often awful does not absolve previous administrations of their awful policies. They can both be awful, and have been, and it is perfectly reasonable to be disgusted by both. And when the polices of one awful administration are blamed on another, or held up as models of what should be done instead of the awful things a different administration is doing, I will be critical of those views as well. Criticizing the actions of one side by the other, when they are engaged in the same ineffective, hyperbolic fear-mongering and misinformation is hypocritical. Both sides should be called out for it whenever they engage in such silly behavior. I see no conflict in reason to consistently dislike an action, regardless of who is performing it.

Yeah, sorry MM but totally on this side of the fence. It really doesn't matter if this policy or that policy from Trump's desk is consistent with the past, when there is so, so much evidence of actions that are well beyond the pale and that in any previous administration almost certainly would have resulted in congressional investigation at a bare minimum. And this is happening daily. And we're still in the first month of his presidency.

I will politely disagree, for a couple of reasons. A: I trust that our system of checks and balances, though not perfect, will work. I trust when Trump steps over the line, he will be slapped back. The courts have done this. They have done this with previous administrations. I trust they will continue to do so. If Trump, or any other official, truly performs an action which would disqualify him from holding office I fully expect him to be impeached. It's not as if no president has ever been impeached or been subject to a congressional investigation, so I see little reason this will not happen if it is fully warranted.

B: I would hold each policy presented upon its own merits. I can very strongly dislike Trump, his style, his words, his business practices, his personality and his governing style and still find the good in a policy he has enacted. (I can't think of an example at the moment, except for perhaps the EO regarding crimes against law enforcement officers). What I don't understand is the cognitive dissonance of persons who are only now concerned about issues that have been occurring for years. I guess I am now beginning to understand what it must have been like to be an Obama supporter, and feel that people are blinded by their dislike of a person so much that they will pretend to be bothered by issues or actions that were fine when someone else was performing them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 12, 2017, 08:09:07 AM

I will politely disagree, for a couple of reasons. A: I trust that our system of checks and balances, though not perfect, will work. I trust when Trump steps over the line, he will be slapped back. The courts have done this. They have done this with previous administrations. I trust they will continue to do so. If Trump, or any other official, truly performs an action which would disqualify him from holding office I fully expect him to be impeached. It's not as if no president has ever been impeached or been subject to a congressional investigation, so I see little reason this will not happen if it is fully warranted.

B: I would hold each policy presented upon its own merits. I can very strongly dislike Trump, his style, his words, his business practices, his personality and his governing style and still find the good in a policy he has enacted. (I can't think of an example at the moment, except for perhaps the EO regarding crimes against law enforcement officers). What I don't understand is the cognitive dissonance of persons who are only now concerned about issues that have been occurring for years. I guess I am now beginning to understand what it must have been like to be an Obama supporter, and feel that people are blinded by their dislike of a person so much that they will pretend to be bothered by issues or actions that were fine when someone else was performing them.

Regarding A: Currently it seems that only the judiciary is acting as a check on the executive branch.  That is good, insofar as it goes, but congress, currently controlled by the GOP, seems to be completely unwilling to assert their authority against DJT, because (ironically) DJT shows that he will be hostile to anyone who tries to challenge him (see McCain, Blumenthal for latest examples). The GOP in general is motivated by a desire to tear down most of the Dem's policies of the last 8 years.  Right now they seem little more than a rubber stamp.

Regarding B: I, too, will try to view each policy on its merits.  So far I haven't found much to like and a lot I disagree with, but to be fair we haven't even hit any long-lasting changes yet.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 12, 2017, 08:54:03 AM

Do you have any sources or articles?  If American citizens are being harassed or deported, I would hope that would be front page news.

What I have seen thus far from many sources is a lot of hyperbole.  As many other have stated, we have been deporting for quite some time.  I haven't, thus far, seen a dramatic increase under Trump.
Here is the google results: https://www.google.com/#q=american+citizen+accidentally+deported
And, yes I agree there have long been issues, I just trust the older administrations (Bushs included) to deal with the issue more properly if it was brought up.  I'm not saying any of them did it perfectly just that it is getting worse.
And what more would you like to know about the incident?

I stand corrected, apparently American citizens are occasionally deported.  I glanced through you link and found the this article from NPR - http://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141500145/in-the-rush-to-deport-expelling-u-s-citizens 

First of all, deporting American citizens is unacceptable.  Having said that, those described in the article often had difficulties the normal person would not have (mental illness or a complicated birth history).  In addition, those articles happened under the previous administration. 

To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845

I'm all for reining in unconstitutional practices of law enforcement including DHS, Trumps actions thus far on the topic seem to follow the trend of constitutional over reach that was continued under President Obama.  If you would like to criticize Trump, there are plenty of options.  I just don't believe this is one of them yet.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 12, 2017, 09:09:23 AM
To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845


I suppose the relevant metric would be whether ICE has or will detain a greater propotion of latinos relative to the total number of illegal immigrants, and whether those individuals are deported more often than non-documented people from other regions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 12, 2017, 10:12:17 AM
To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845


I suppose the relevant metric would be whether ICE has or will detain a greater propotion of latinos relative to the total number of illegal immigrants, and whether those individuals are deported more often than non-documented people from other regions.

That would be one metric.  Another might be why they were deported, how they were targeted, etc.    From the article I attached, 75% of the population in question is from Mexico and Latin America with almost 60% being from Mexico. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 12, 2017, 10:57:29 AM
To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845


I suppose the relevant metric would be whether ICE has or will detain a greater propotion of latinos relative to the total number of illegal immigrants, and whether those individuals are deported more often than non-documented people from other regions.

That would be one metric.  Another might be why they were deported, how they were targeted, etc.    From the article I attached, 75% of the population in question is from Mexico and Latin America with almost 60% being from Mexico.
IF we are looking for whether or not there is an enforcement bias among groups, why they are deported matters less than whether >75% of all deportees are latino.

Actually what struck me about that graphic was how few of the population in question are from countries in the middle east.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 12, 2017, 11:06:32 AM

I will politely disagree, for a couple of reasons. A: I trust that our system of checks and balances, though not perfect, will work. I trust when Trump steps over the line, he will be slapped back. The courts have done this. They have done this with previous administrations. I trust they will continue to do so. If Trump, or any other official, truly performs an action which would disqualify him from holding office I fully expect him to be impeached. It's not as if no president has ever been impeached or been subject to a congressional investigation, so I see little reason this will not happen if it is fully warranted.

B: I would hold each policy presented upon its own merits. I can very strongly dislike Trump, his style, his words, his business practices, his personality and his governing style and still find the good in a policy he has enacted. (I can't think of an example at the moment, except for perhaps the EO regarding crimes against law enforcement officers). What I don't understand is the cognitive dissonance of persons who are only now concerned about issues that have been occurring for years. I guess I am now beginning to understand what it must have been like to be an Obama supporter, and feel that people are blinded by their dislike of a person so much that they will pretend to be bothered by issues or actions that were fine when someone else was performing them.

Regarding A: Currently it seems that only the judiciary is acting as a check on the executive branch.  That is good, insofar as it goes, but congress, currently controlled by the GOP, seems to be completely unwilling to assert their authority against DJT, because (ironically) DJT shows that he will be hostile to anyone who tries to challenge him (see McCain, Blumenthal for latest examples). The GOP in general is motivated by a desire to tear down most of the Dem's policies of the last 8 years.  Right now they seem little more than a rubber stamp.

Regarding B: I, too, will try to view each policy on its merits.  So far I haven't found much to like and a lot I disagree with, but to be fair we haven't even hit any long-lasting changes yet.

Also regarding A, I repeat that the previous presidents that were impeached/investigated were done so for reasons that appear trivial compared to some of what has happened thus far. I don't think it's a problem to point this out, it's just me objectively assessing historical examples vis a vis the present, just as you say you are trying to do with specific policies.

Also regarding B, I have no problem arguing the merits of specific policies and have done so on many occasions, sometimes aligning against Democrats, as you very well know. No cognitive dissonance here, and yet I still (politely) disagree with a number of your thoughts. You seem to be setting up your own strawman of using the fact that some are blaming Trump for Obama's policies as evidence that maybe we should all give Trump more latitude (i.e. "Trust the system of checks and balances") than we do. Implication being what? Protests don't help? We should just wait and have faith that the government that is backing literally every move of Trump thus far (absent a couple minor court decisions) , laying groundwork to blame any and all failures on the opposition is going to objectively address the concerns of the constituents they so far appear to be ignoring? That's not how our government works and never has been. Sitting back and waiting to see if the system will do its job assumes the system is run by people who want it to do its job. In reality, the only way for the system to work is to hold their feet to the fire.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 12, 2017, 11:11:49 AM

I will politely disagree, for a couple of reasons. A: I trust that our system of checks and balances, though not perfect, will work. I trust when Trump steps over the line, he will be slapped back. The courts have done this. They have done this with previous administrations. I trust they will continue to do so. If Trump, or any other official, truly performs an action which would disqualify him from holding office I fully expect him to be impeached. It's not as if no president has ever been impeached or been subject to a congressional investigation, so I see little reason this will not happen if it is fully warranted.

B: I would hold each policy presented upon its own merits. I can very strongly dislike Trump, his style, his words, his business practices, his personality and his governing style and still find the good in a policy he has enacted. (I can't think of an example at the moment, except for perhaps the EO regarding crimes against law enforcement officers). What I don't understand is the cognitive dissonance of persons who are only now concerned about issues that have been occurring for years. I guess I am now beginning to understand what it must have been like to be an Obama supporter, and feel that people are blinded by their dislike of a person so much that they will pretend to be bothered by issues or actions that were fine when someone else was performing them.

Regarding A: Currently it seems that only the judiciary is acting as a check on the executive branch.  That is good, insofar as it goes, but congress, currently controlled by the GOP, seems to be completely unwilling to assert their authority against DJT, because (ironically) DJT shows that he will be hostile to anyone who tries to challenge him (see McCain, Blumenthal for latest examples). The GOP in general is motivated by a desire to tear down most of the Dem's policies of the last 8 years.  Right now they seem little more than a rubber stamp.

Regarding B: I, too, will try to view each policy on its merits.  So far I haven't found much to like and a lot I disagree with, but to be fair we haven't even hit any long-lasting changes yet.

Also regarding A, I repeat that the previous presidents that were impeached/investigated were done so for reasons that appear trivial compared to some of what has happened thus far. I don't think it's a problem to point this out, it's just me objectively assessing historical examples vis a vis the present, just as you say you are trying to do with specific policies.

Also regarding B, I have no problem arguing the merits of specific policies and have done so on many occasions, sometimes aligning against Democrats, as you very well know. No cognitive dissonance here, and yet I still (politely) disagree with a number of your thoughts. You seem to be setting up your own strawman of using the fact that some are blaming Trump for Obama's policies as evidence that maybe we should all give Trump more latitude (i.e. "Trust the system of checks and balances" than we do). Implication being what? Protests don't help? We should just wait and have faith that the government that (absent a couple minor court decisions) is backing literally every move of Trump thus far, avoiding constituents and laying groundwork to blame any and all failures on the opposition? That's not how our government works and never has been. Sitting back and waiting to see if the system will do its job assumes the system is run by people who want it to do its job. In reality, the only way for the system to work is to hold their feet to the fire.

(not in response to anyone in particular, just somewhat tangent)

The sentiment of "just let the system do its job" is somewhat ironic, given that the citizens of the country are supposed to be what drive the system in the first place.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 12, 2017, 11:25:54 AM
(not in response to anyone in particular, just somewhat tangent)

The sentiment of "just let the system do its job" is somewhat ironic, given that the citizens of the country are supposed to be what drive the system in the first place.

Agreed. Although we are now back at the point where someone will chime in to say "we put up with 8 years of Obama without throwing hissy fits over it." And that, my friends, is what cognitive dissonance actually looks like.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 12, 2017, 02:10:49 PM
To your point, I have seen no evidence thus far of ICE going door to door or targeting Hispanics based on their look.  Are more hispanics being picked up in immigration raids?  I would assume so since Hispanics represent the largest demographic in this country with immigration status issues - http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845


I suppose the relevant metric would be whether ICE has or will detain a greater proportion of latinos relative to the total number of illegal immigrants, and whether those individuals are deported more often than non-documented people from other regions.

That would be one metric.  Another might be why they were deported, how they were targeted, etc.    From the article I attached, 75% of the population in question is from Mexico and Latin America with almost 60% being from Mexico.
IF we are looking for whether or not there is an enforcement bias among groups, why they are deported matters less than whether >75% of all deportees are latino.

Actually what struck me about that graphic was how few of the population in question are from countries in the middle east.

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.

If we were to look at deportations excluding those caught very soon after entry (ie typically the Southern border), I don't know what the numbers would look like as far as racial profile.  If we are focusing on law breakers and one ethnic group is over represented in that group, it is possible that a racial group could be over represented due to factors other than racial profiling.

Incidentally, I'm not saying some hispanic's haven't been profiled.  I'm simply saying the fact that a large proportion of those here illegally are hispanic and it stands to reason they would represent a large portion of deportations due to that. 

In addition, there was an assertion that ICE is going door to door in hispanic immigrant neighborhoods asking for papers.  Frankly if ICE did that (and I'm not advocating they do), I suspect they wouldn't be deporting in the low numbers they do.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on February 12, 2017, 04:02:17 PM

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 12, 2017, 04:17:08 PM

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on February 12, 2017, 05:25:56 PM

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.

I am unable to find evidence to your claim that >75% of all undocumented immigrants come from our south border. I am seeing evidence that as many as 40% have come from the air, as many as 50% are here on expired visa's, and that southern border crossings have already been reduced by over 90% in the past decade. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

It appears to be true that for 10 states, 75% of the undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. It does not say how they arrived here. The threshold of 75% is not met for the other 40 states. Fact #5 here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

I do understand that safety and illegal immigration are 2 separate issues. I took your comments regarding the Mexican Government to mean that the safety of the United States was one of the reasons for the wall. That is why I mentioned that in regard to SAFETY, a northern wall makes more sense than a southern one. In my opinion, both ideas are ridiculous.

Enjoy your evening.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 12, 2017, 07:19:27 PM
So, I haven't kept up with being trolled by the usual crowd here, but went to a real life camp-out in Louisiana with an ex-military guy from Texas for BoyScouts.  Wow what an eye-opener!  I don't necessarily disagree with how the ex-military guy feels, that Hillary wasnt expected to support the military vs. the proactive way Trump promised not to repeat the mistakes of the past.  We listened to Fox News on his Sirius Satellite Radio which was slightly grating, but even he turned it off when people openly yelled at each other (disagreeing about the ridiculous KKK guy demonstrating in Berkely, CA).  Basically, he is worried that the US has become fat and lazy which lead to the military not being ready for the Iraq Invasion which is why it has gone so poorly ever since.  The proliferation of terrorism is directly a result of drawing down our military after successful campaigns.

And as we drove though small-town Texas and Louisiana, there are so many disaffected people on the outskirts, living in trailers and small hollowed-out towns.  There are a lot of Americans barely hanging on.  Of course they are going to vote for the guy that promises he will bring back the better days before modern life made obsolete.  Having a big family and high school education should not be a liability. 

It made me quite sad, to think that Trump has no idea of what he steps on to enjoy his first world, five star, first class lifestyle on the backs of these dupes.  This guy should be sweating though his bedsheets with the responsibility and pressure, but I don't get the impression he cares about much other than winning shallow daily opinion polls. 

 I only wish Democrats had a better, more inclusive message - that they would burnish the military in a respectful, inclusive, proactive way.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 12, 2017, 07:57:42 PM
A relevant presentation that I came across today - it is worth the time to watch:  https://www.ted.com/talks/robb_willer_how_to_have_better_political_conversations
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 12, 2017, 07:58:44 PM
Frankly, I'm over it.  I think we should stop pandering to the military.

I have huge respect for what the US military has done in about 75% of engagements in the past century, and some of the other 25% isn't even their fault.  But the world is changing, and we no longer need to devote a third of our GDP to supporting 1.5 million soldiers.  The US military is grossly oversized for modern warfare and should probably shrink by 5%/yr for the next decade.

Our current service members deserve to cash in on the luxurious promise that have been made.  Veterans deserve better than they have gotten.  But that does not mean that from this day forward every D student from backwoods Kentucky deserves a free college education and a lifetime of government welfare checks just because he signs up to cook powered eggs for a carrier group.   The military needs to evolve, and Trump's promises of increase spending are not the way to do it.

You can honor our servicemembers and our great military traditions without making asinine promise about saving rural America with expanded military recruiting/spending.  Those poor folks you saw are being lied to by a con man who does not care about them or their plight as he ransacks our country for his personal profit.  The military should be disgusted that a draft dodging failed businessman without an ounce of public service in his whole body is now commander in chief.  He disgraces everything our military stands for, and yet they love him because he panders to their own perceived self interest.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 12, 2017, 08:20:50 PM
I guess I would just like to quickly state that pandering to the military will get you far.  We are idiot civilians for the most part here if we pretend that vets and current military think like us (which is one of the significant roots of society).  For better or worse, most of humanity is defined by physical conflict, not academic conflict.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 12, 2017, 08:47:39 PM

Also regarding B, I have no problem arguing the merits of specific policies and have done so on many occasions, sometimes aligning against Democrats, as you very well know. No cognitive dissonance here, and yet I still (politely) disagree with a number of your thoughts. You seem to be setting up your own strawman of using the fact that some are blaming Trump for Obama's policies as evidence that maybe we should all give Trump more latitude (i.e. "Trust the system of checks and balances") than we do. Implication being what? Protests don't help? We should just wait and have faith that the government that is backing literally every move of Trump thus far (absent a couple minor court decisions) , laying groundwork to blame any and all failures on the opposition is going to objectively address the concerns of the constituents they so far appear to be ignoring? That's not how our government works and never has been. Sitting back and waiting to see if the system will do its job assumes the system is run by people who want it to do its job. In reality, the only way for the system to work is to hold their feet to the fire.
I was not arguing for 'giving Trump more latitude." I absolutely agree he should be held accountable for all of his actions. Unfortunately, he was elected to the POTUS and his pattern of behavior is pretty well set and quite open to view. He has massive authority, but not unlimited power. Right now not enough congressional representatives are opposing him, and indeed both sides seem to be more content to simply sit back and blame the other side for everything rather than work together productively, so I will have to settle for the court stopping the actions that are in line with their authority. Peaceful protest could help. Motivating one's congressional representatives to support bills more in line with one's beliefs could help. I don't think railing against Trump for his many personal faults is going to be an effective way to combat his leadership direction. Debating and informing oneself on the issues and policies is the first step - how else can one choose a direction if one is uninformed? Blaming Trump for Obama policies or actions is not the mark of an informed person and not an effective use of one's resources, nor logically consistent, if one feels that Trump is the problem. Instead of protesting and waving signs with Trump puns on them because Obama deported more people and broke up more immigrant families than any other administration, one should be calling on their congressperson to push for immigration reform under the current administration. It's about time for it. 


Holding congress's feet to the fire I think is a great way to effect change, imo. I don't feel trying to 'hold feet to the fire' will be productive with Trump - I personally feel a person with his personality style may be much more responsive to positive action proposals than negative reinforcement i.e. "Mr. President, in your reformation of immigration laws, I would like to see you use your power to accomplish X" rather than "Mr. President, your action X is disgraceful to our nation and nobody likes it. It's the worst. Please stop doing X." I feel he feeds on conflict and uses it as a distraction. Removing the conflict and focusing on actions Trump could perform, rather than telling him what he shouldn't do, may be the way to motivate him to more appropriate actions. Probably I'm misreading him. Probably am. But overall I feel the POTUS is so difficult to reach that for an average person such as myself I feel I have a much higher chance of effecting the change I wish to see by contacting my congresspersons and working through them. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 12, 2017, 10:16:23 PM
Well I definitely agree anyone who wants to effect change in the government is much better served focusing on congress than the president.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 12, 2017, 10:55:43 PM
Well I definitely agree anyone who wants to effect change in the government is much better served focusing on congress than the president.
How did we venture so far away from the OP?  Oh yeah, Trump :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 12, 2017, 10:56:56 PM
Well I definitely agree anyone who wants to effect change in the government is much better served focusing on congress than the president.
How did we venture so far away from the OP?  Oh yeah, Trump :)

Thanks Trump!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 12, 2017, 11:43:25 PM
Frankly, I'm over it.  I think we should stop pandering to the military.

I have huge respect for what the US military has done in about 75% of engagements in the past century, and some of the other 25% isn't even their fault.  But the world is changing, and we no longer need to devote a third of our GDP to supporting 1.5 million soldiers.  The US military is grossly oversized for modern warfare and should probably shrink by 5%/yr for the next decade.

Our current service members deserve to cash in on the luxurious promise that have been made.  Veterans deserve better than they have gotten.  But that does not mean that from this day forward every D student from backwoods Kentucky deserves a free college education and a lifetime of government welfare checks just because he signs up to cook powered eggs for a carrier group.   The military needs to evolve, and Trump's promises of increase spending are not the way to do it.

You can honor our servicemembers and our great military traditions without making asinine promise about saving rural America with expanded military recruiting/spending.  Those poor folks you saw are being lied to by a con man who does not care about them or their plight as he ransacks our country for his personal profit.  The military should be disgusted that a draft dodging failed businessman without an ounce of public service in his whole body is now commander in chief.  He disgraces everything our military stands for, and yet they love him because he panders to their own perceived self interest.
Have you served in the military? You seem to think you know how other people should feel.  If the military members support someone, shouldn't that be up to them to decide? And certainly pandering to the military has gotten him further than pandering to other groups.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 12, 2017, 11:50:45 PM
Frankly, I'm over it.  I think we should stop pandering to the military.

I have huge respect for what the US military has done in about 75% of engagements in the past century, and some of the other 25% isn't even their fault.  But the world is changing, and we no longer need to devote a third of our GDP to supporting 1.5 million soldiers.  The US military is grossly oversized for modern warfare and should probably shrink by 5%/yr for the next decade.

Our current service members deserve to cash in on the luxurious promise that have been made.  Veterans deserve better than they have gotten.  But that does not mean that from this day forward every D student from backwoods Kentucky deserves a free college education and a lifetime of government welfare checks just because he signs up to cook powered eggs for a carrier group.   The military needs to evolve, and Trump's promises of increase spending are not the way to do it.

You can honor our servicemembers and our great military traditions without making asinine promise about saving rural America with expanded military recruiting/spending.  Those poor folks you saw are being lied to by a con man who does not care about them or their plight as he ransacks our country for his personal profit.  The military should be disgusted that a draft dodging failed businessman without an ounce of public service in his whole body is now commander in chief.  He disgraces everything our military stands for, and yet they love him because he panders to their own perceived self interest.
Have you served in the military? You seem to think you know how other people should feel.  If the military members support someone, shouldn't that be up to them to decide? And certainly pandering to the military has gotten him further than pandering to other groups.

I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 13, 2017, 12:02:18 AM
I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Only in the context that it allows one the more power and a much stronger position from which to enact their other policies. If a bit of pandering to the military is the worst one has to do to gain a position to do a lot of good, I would be willing to accept such a trade off. Whether military members actually support Trump, I can not say. Sol would be better to argue that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 13, 2017, 06:37:44 AM
I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Only in the context that it allows one the more power and a much stronger position from which to enact their other policies. If a bit of pandering to the military is the worst one has to do to gain a position to do a lot of good, I would be willing to accept such a trade off. Whether military members actually support Trump, I can not say. Sol would be better to argue that.

Anecdotally: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/armored-humvee-convoy-flying-trump-flag-belonged-to-nav-1791801822

I'm starting to get more concerned about our special forces, honestly. We've been using them for a lot more than we had in the past, and putting them in pretty horrible situations.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/moron-seal-team-6-operatives-based-mutilations-off-of-f-1791069958

It appears to be taking a toll. I hesitate to call it extremist, but I don't really have a good word for it. Combine those sorts of actions with loyalty to a person instead of a country, and it's bad news.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 13, 2017, 07:14:45 AM

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.

I am unable to find evidence to your claim that >75% of all undocumented immigrants come from our south border. I am seeing evidence that as many as 40% have come from the air, as many as 50% are here on expired visa's, and that southern border crossings have already been reduced by over 90% in the past decade. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

It appears to be true that for 10 states, 75% of the undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. It does not say how they arrived here. The threshold of 75% is not met for the other 40 states. Fact #5 here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

I do understand that safety and illegal immigration are 2 separate issues. I took your comments regarding the Mexican Government to mean that the safety of the United States was one of the reasons for the wall. That is why I mentioned that in regard to SAFETY, a northern wall makes more sense than a southern one. In my opinion, both ideas are ridiculous.

Enjoy your evening.

Here is the source of my 75%.  I have no idea how these persons got to to the US, but over 75% are from Mexico, Latin America  and South America.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845

Regarding the article on Canada, I'm not sure how that proves the northern border is dangerous.  For example, the article indicates there were 538 encounters with terrorists or suspects and only 68 were at land borders.  A good portion were at airports which I assume already have fairly robust procedures.

In addition, Canada's only international border is with the US.  If someone is in Canada, they have presumably been screened by the competent Canadian authorities or are a resident.  Mexico, on the other hand, has a land border with South American and a distinct lack of control as compared to Canada or the US.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 13, 2017, 07:33:47 AM
I mean, all of the friends/family members in the military that I know personally are not Trump supporters, but then none of us really think that particular metric is particularly important, do we?
Only in the context that it allows one the more power and a much stronger position from which to enact their other policies. If a bit of pandering to the military is the worst one has to do to gain a position to do a lot of good, I would be willing to accept such a trade off. Whether military members actually support Trump, I can not say. Sol would be better to argue that.

Anecdotally: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/armored-humvee-convoy-flying-trump-flag-belonged-to-nav-1791801822

I'm starting to get more concerned about our special forces, honestly. We've been using them for a lot more than we had in the past, and putting them in pretty horrible situations.
...
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on February 13, 2017, 10:04:19 AM

The enforcement policy has been focused on the southern border and criminals.  The focus on the southern border will show a clear bias towards hispanics because of the population in Mexico and South American.  That's not racist, we are just plugging the biggest hole first.  If Canadians were streaming across the border, I suspect we would do the same with the northern border.


If the purpose is keeping America safe, clearly we are not.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-docs-trump-fixated-on-wrong-border/ar-AAmGG2B?li=BBnb7Kz

Where is my Canadian border wall?

At least three quarters of those here illegally came from southern border.  My comment was in reference to that, not terrorism.  On the of those in this country illegally, Canada doesn't even make the top 10. Lastly, Canada has a stable govt and low level of violence.  Many areas of Mexico are in turmoil and the govt has lost control.  Given that set of facts, the southern border seems more relevant.

I am unable to find evidence to your claim that >75% of all undocumented immigrants come from our south border. I am seeing evidence that as many as 40% have come from the air, as many as 50% are here on expired visa's, and that southern border crossings have already been reduced by over 90% in the past decade. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2016/10/09/how-many-mexicans-actually-cross-border-illegally/91280026/

It appears to be true that for 10 states, 75% of the undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. It does not say how they arrived here. The threshold of 75% is not met for the other 40 states. Fact #5 here:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

I do understand that safety and illegal immigration are 2 separate issues. I took your comments regarding the Mexican Government to mean that the safety of the United States was one of the reasons for the wall. That is why I mentioned that in regard to SAFETY, a northern wall makes more sense than a southern one. In my opinion, both ideas are ridiculous.

Enjoy your evening.

Here is the source of my 75%.  I have no idea how these persons got to to the US, but over 75% are from Mexico, Latin America  and South America.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845

Regarding the article on Canada, I'm not sure how that proves the northern border is dangerous.  For example, the article indicates there were 538 encounters with terrorists or suspects and only 68 were at land borders.  A good portion were at airports which I assume already have fairly robust procedures.

In addition, Canada's only international border is with the US.  If someone is in Canada, they have presumably been screened by the competent Canadian authorities or are a resident.  Mexico, on the other hand, has a land border with South American and a distinct lack of control as compared to Canada or the US.

Thank you for your article link and the dialog. I do not dispute any of the data on the site. It provides a wealth of information that I do find very useful.

Where I completely disagree with you is that the southern border needs a wall due to the data on the site you linked. It does not at all try to conclude HOW these undocumented immigrants are entering this country. You must look elsewhere for that information, and all the data I have found is that fewer and fewer people are crossing the southern border, more and more are originally here legally and then allow there visa's to expire, and air entry seems to be increasing. None of these would allow me to conclude that a multi-billion dollar wall would be anything other than a complete waste of time, money and resources. This does not even take into account those with a ladder or shovel.

I still contend that walls are much better at keeping people in rather that keeping people out. The Berlin wall was great for that, since there were probably very few that tried to cross West to East, and those that were caught trying the other way met with a most unfortunate end. While I am certain there are those who want our undocumented southern border crossers to meet the same fate (some of them are relatives of mine who say it outright), I can not think of a worse endpoint for the country I still truly love.

I think we are in agreement that a northern border wall would not provide a benefit worth the cost.


Do you have other sources that show that a southern wall would actually decrease the number of undocumented immigrants that enter the US to any degree that would justify the cost? All of my research is showing 2005 would have been a better time to build it. 2017 does not show it to be worth the time in my opinion.

I still say a harsher penalty for hiring undocumented immigrants would completely solve the problem. KNOW ONE would hire an undocumented worker if the punishment was harsh enough. The result would eventually be that know one undocumented would want to stay.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 13, 2017, 10:16:19 AM
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

See, I would argue that we need more special forces and fewer general admin troops.  The future of US military conflict looks more like quasi-legal bin Laden raids and less like colonizing chains of Pacific islands with air support bases.  We probably need more stealth helicopters and fewer carpenters and cooks.  More strategy, less manpower. 

We've already been through the same process for munitions, after the advent of nuclear weapons.  America's global presence is exerted by a handful of tactical submarines and missile silos, not by a huge standing army of young men with hand to hand combat training.  We don't buy many swords and pistols anymore, because the nature of war has changed.  I think it's about time our military HR department changed with it.

But I'm just some random dude on the internet.  I don't get to make any decisions, and I'm not privy to all of the relevant information.  You are each free to disagree with me, and concerns that nereo raised are a valid reason to do that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 13, 2017, 10:31:07 AM

Thank you for your article link and the dialog. I do not dispute any of the data on the site. It provides a wealth of information that I do find very useful.

Where I completely disagree with you is that the southern border needs a wall due to the data on the site you linked. It does not at all try to conclude HOW these undocumented immigrants are entering this country. You must look elsewhere for that information, and all the data I have found is that fewer and fewer people are crossing the southern border, more and more are originally here legally and then allow there visa's to expire, and air entry seems to be increasing. None of these would allow me to conclude that a multi-billion dollar wall would be anything other than a complete waste of time, money and resources. This does not even take into account those with a ladder or shovel.

I still contend that walls are much better at keeping people in rather that keeping people out. The Berlin wall was great for that, since there were probably very few that tried to cross West to East, and those that were caught trying the other way met with a most unfortunate end. While I am certain there are those who want our undocumented southern border crossers to meet the same fate (some of them are relatives of mine who say it outright), I can not think of a worse endpoint for the country I still truly love.

I think we are in agreement that a northern border wall would not provide a benefit worth the cost.

Do you have other sources that show that a southern wall would actually decrease the number of undocumented immigrants that enter the US to any degree that would justify the cost? All of my research is showing 2005 would have been a better time to build it. 2017 does not show it to be worth the time in my opinion.

I still say a harsher penalty for hiring undocumented immigrants would completely solve the problem. KNOW ONE would hire an undocumented worker if the punishment was harsh enough. The result would eventually be that know one undocumented would want to stay.

Radram - I'm not arguing for or against a southern wall.  My comments were in response to the recent raids.  I will say even your sources indicate the incursions on the Southern border are still in the hundreds of thousands a year.  That's  a problem. 

In addition, the southern border is a significant source of drugs into this country (legalizing MJ would fix at least part of that problem w/o a wall) but it's still a very porous border with a country with significant issues.

I agree with you that stricter enforcement of employment laws would have a meaningful benefit.  What we have now, however, is selective enforcement of those laws.  In addition, when they are enforced, there is an outcry. 

Let's have laws we can enforce and enforce them.  If we did that, people would quit coming to the US illegally on the hope we might let them stay.  12M people are assuming they will get to stay because that's what happened in the past.  If we grant the majority legal standing w/o changing our practices, this cycle will continue.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 13, 2017, 11:05:49 AM
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

See, I would argue that we need more special forces and fewer general admin troops.  The future of US military conflict looks more like quasi-legal bin Laden raids and less like colonizing chains of Pacific islands with air support bases.  We probably need more stealth helicopters and fewer carpenters and cooks.  More strategy, less manpower. 
...

I actually agree with you on this point.  Despite our increasing reliance on drones and special forces, we are still very much investing in a military designed to fight a more conventional war and deter large military states.  The F-35 and the Zumwalt-class of missile destroyers are two examples of this.  DJT's instance for increasing our nuclear strike capabilities (Submarines, bombers and ICBMs) is another.
If our military encounters continue to be these close quarters, small-strike engagements we've been involved with for the past decade+ we'll need more stealth helicopters and tactical strike teams, and fewer M1A2 tanks and basic combat units.

My comment was more about how, when you select for, use and rely on special forces they don't necessarily interact with the world the way a normal civilian would.  We wouldn't want them to.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 13, 2017, 11:34:40 AM
Special forces have always taken the brunt of our military policy, and in our modern world where we fight insurgencies rather than defined military states it has only intensified.  Among the broader pool of soldiers, special forces are even more loyal, have more bravado and are asked to undertake missions that are often in the grey region of international legality (e.g. the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan).
It's sad but not really surprising that this reliance comes with a lot of longer-term problems.

See, I would argue that we need more special forces and fewer general admin troops.  The future of US military conflict looks more like quasi-legal bin Laden raids and less like colonizing chains of Pacific islands with air support bases.  We probably need more stealth helicopters and fewer carpenters and cooks.  More strategy, less manpower. 
...

I actually agree with you on this point.  Despite our increasing reliance on drones and special forces, we are still very much investing in a military designed to fight a more conventional war and deter large military states.  The F-35 and the Zumwalt-class of missile destroyers are two examples of this.  DJT's instance for increasing our nuclear strike capabilities (Submarines, bombers and ICBMs) is another.
If our military encounters continue to be these close quarters, small-strike engagements we've been involved with for the past decade+ we'll need more stealth helicopters and tactical strike teams, and fewer M1A2 tanks and basic combat units.

My comment was more about how, when you select for, use and rely on special forces they don't necessarily interact with the world the way a normal civilian would.  We wouldn't want them to.
While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 13, 2017, 11:38:52 AM
My comment was more about how, when you select for, use and rely on special forces they don't necessarily interact with the world the way a normal civilian would.  We wouldn't want them to.

At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?

When they're blatantly ignoring clearly stated rules/objectives, I'd say that's a problem.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 13, 2017, 11:58:52 AM

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 13, 2017, 12:06:51 PM
When they're blatantly ignoring clearly stated rules/objectives, I'd say that's a problem.

Disregard of rules demonstrably underpins the routine behaviour of the US army.  The US military has been torturing prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay for a decade and a half now.  (This includes sexual torture, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, electric shock, mock execution, forced medication, temperature extremes, beatings, etc.)  That's against clearly stated rules and objectives.

How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 13, 2017, 01:10:52 PM
How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

The flag flying is just sort of generally obnoxious to me, it's the shooting Bin Laden in the face when they were specifically ordered not to shoot him in the face bit that I'm really referring to.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 13, 2017, 01:28:32 PM
How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

The flag flying is just sort of generally obnoxious to me, it's the shooting Bin Laden in the face when they were specifically ordered not to shoot him in the face bit that I'm really referring to.

I've wondered for a while why this wasn't a bigger deal in the US.  Certainly it would have been better to have captured Bin Laden alive and put him on trial.  By all the accounts I have read they just sprayed him with bullets after securing the rest of the compound when the immediate threat was relatively low. Most accounts say he wasn't even armed when he was shot.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 13, 2017, 01:45:48 PM
When they're blatantly ignoring clearly stated rules/objectives, I'd say that's a problem.

Disregard of rules demonstrably underpins the routine behaviour of the US army.  The US military has been torturing prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay for a decade and a half now.  (This includes sexual torture, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, electric shock, mock execution, forced medication, temperature extremes, beatings, etc.)  That's against clearly stated rules and objectives.

How many in the military have been held accountable for their crimes?  (Hint: the number rhymes with 'hero'.)  If accountability has been completely ignored for something as serious as torture, why do you think that flying a flag is going to be a concern?

Clearly off topic, but if one who went to Gitmo wasn't a terrorist when they went it, they sure as hell would be now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 13, 2017, 02:17:01 PM

Clearly off topic, but if one who went to Gitmo wasn't a terrorist when they went it, they sure as hell would be now.
...kind of like "the best way to turn a juvenile offender into a career criminal is to send him away to prison"

We aren't really into reform or rehabilitation in this country.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 13, 2017, 02:25:21 PM

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
To be fair, a large portion of the  budget goes towards securing our allies and protecting free trade. This helps stabilize the wirld and is one of the primary reasons for increased world peace over the past 70 years. Why this all falls on America's shoulders instead of their allies could be debated.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 13, 2017, 02:42:08 PM

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
To be fair, a large portion of the  budget goes towards securing our allies and protecting free trade. This helps stabilize the wirld and is one of the primary reasons for increased world peace over the past 70 years. Why this all falls on America's shoulders instead of their allies could be debated.

Yeah, I get that a lot of our military's duties are spent protecting our allies and protecting free trade, and that its important for stabilizing the world.
Where I question our sanity is when people say we need 11 (or more) carrier strike groups, and how we need to spend a lot more money on the nuclear arsenal we've already sworn not to use.

Our approach since the cold war has been overwhelming force at an overwhelming cost. We could get similar results with considerably less, IMO.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 13, 2017, 03:02:36 PM

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
To be fair, a large portion of the  budget goes towards securing our allies and protecting free trade. This helps stabilize the wirld and is one of the primary reasons for increased world peace over the past 70 years. Why this all falls on America's shoulders instead of their allies could be debated.

Yeah, I get that a lot of our military's duties are spent protecting our allies and protecting free trade, and that its important for stabilizing the world.
Where I question our sanity is when people say we need 11 (or more) carrier strike groups, and how we need to spend a lot more money on the nuclear arsenal we've already sworn not to use.

Our approach since the cold war has been overwhelming force at an overwhelming cost. We could get similar results with considerably less, IMO.

I'm not a military strategist, but the carrier strike groups do allow us to project power around the world.  That sort of power is unique to the US.  Do we have too much and/or are these the most militarily effective?   I don't know.

One thing Trump has done right* is call out certain members of NATO for relying on the US to defend them.  If other countries were to meet their obligation, maybe the US budget could be cut more easily. 

http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2015/06/nato-members-defense-spending-two-charts/116008/

* I didn't agree with the tone, but did agree with the sentiment.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 13, 2017, 03:22:00 PM
This discussion about NATO and military spending feels a bit like those discussions about the spouse that doesn't "help enough" with the cleaning and housekeeping. Who has decided which standard we are aiming for, and why isn't my (much lower) standard good enough? Why do these decision makers think we need 2% for tearing things down (military), and only 1% for building them back up (charity)?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 13, 2017, 03:31:09 PM
This discussion about NATO and military spending feels a bit like those discussions about the spouse that doesn't "help enough" with the cleaning and housekeeping. Who has decided which standard we are aiming for, and why isn't my (much lower) standard good enough? Why do these decision makers think we need 2% for tearing things down (military), and only 1% for building them back up (charity)?

It's more like the friend who always let's you pick up the check.  At some point, you quit going out to dinner with them.  If the US decides not to prop up NATO's European defenses, certain countries will be hurt more than the US.  Especially Eastern Europe.

Europe needs defense, especially with Russia making noise.  NATO set the goal at 2%.  I presume that was a joint decision.  I thought this was a pretty good article on the situation -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/us-to-spend-more-on-europ_b_9219754.html

Note, the article predates Trump and is written is in the Huffington post.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 13, 2017, 05:22:43 PM
This discussion about NATO and military spending feels a bit like those discussions about the spouse that doesn't "help enough" with the cleaning and housekeeping. Who has decided which standard we are aiming for, and why isn't my (much lower) standard good enough? Why do these decision makers think we need 2% for tearing things down (military), and only 1% for building them back up (charity)?

They did agree to the treaty ...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 13, 2017, 06:23:39 PM
Since we're on the topic of military spending, I'd like to go back to the idea of auditing the DOD. There is a shit ton of waste. Some of it you can't help. It's the military-not a business. But there is a lot that could be improved upon. There are the F-35 programs that cost millions, but there are also the nickel and dime wastefulness all around.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 13, 2017, 06:35:09 PM

While i may concede that small scale assaults will continue to be a component of the military actions needed in the future, I'm not certain that we should base our entire military strategy on only combating the threats of the past decade and significantly reduce our ability to deter and combat conventional threats. It would seem to be forgetting the history of the past 200 years and only focusing on the present.

This is a good point - it's probably not a good idea to totally give up our ability to repell (or invade) a hostile nation. 
Counterpoint - we're spending more than the next 8 countries combined (which are: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, India, France, Japan and Germany) - many of whom are close allies. My take is that we're up against a law of diminishing returns.  To gain/maintain superiority costs an order of magnitude more than simply matching their threat capabilities.


Quote
At what point does this become a negative though? Would increasing the number of special forces units decrease the individual demands on each one, making them less of a liability?
Not sure, though I hope reducing individual demands could lessen the negatives. Constant redeployment is a pretty well studied factor regarding broader integration into civilian society.
To be fair, a large portion of the  budget goes towards securing our allies and protecting free trade. This helps stabilize the wirld and is one of the primary reasons for increased world peace over the past 70 years. Why this all falls on America's shoulders instead of their allies could be debated.

Yeah, I get that a lot of our military's duties are spent protecting our allies and protecting free trade, and that its important for stabilizing the world.
Where I question our sanity is when people say we need 11 (or more) carrier strike groups, and how we need to spend a lot more money on the nuclear arsenal we've already sworn not to use.

Our approach since the cold war has been overwhelming force at an overwhelming cost. We could get similar results with considerably less, IMO.
You need three CSGs for every one you want deployed and fully operational at any given time, so part of the rationale for having 11 is to guarantee the availability of 3-4 minimum that would be capable of engaging in two simultaneous major operations.

The whole point of spending money on maintaining a nuclear arsenal is so you don't have to use it.

The final point is this is not a place where a large margin of error is acceptable. It's important to note liberal Western values and institutions are exceptions in the history of humanity and hang in the balance. There is no credible backstop in the world for the US military should it fail.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 13, 2017, 06:44:23 PM
This discussion about NATO and military spending feels a bit like those discussions about the spouse that doesn't "help enough" with the cleaning and housekeeping. Who has decided which standard we are aiming for, and why isn't my (much lower) standard good enough? Why do these decision makers think we need 2% for tearing things down (military), and only 1% for building them back up (charity)?

They did agree to the treaty ...
Maybe the USA should file for divorce and just pick up a few cool roommates for awhile.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 14, 2017, 06:58:13 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 14, 2017, 07:10:57 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cliffhanger on February 14, 2017, 07:40:14 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 14, 2017, 07:43:50 AM
Quote
Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

I'll stop criticizing him when he meets the low bar for incompetence as a president by properly addressing disasters and not discussing national security issues openly at his hotel.  OKay, no I won't, but I might ease off a bit. 

Are you ever going to admit that he is a righteous tool that shouldn't be within 1000 ft of the White house?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2017, 07:44:45 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

Will it make any difference to you that the only reason he would relent and approve the funds would be if his advisors finally convinced him that it was a majorly bad political move not to? Based on past behavior, I cannot for an instant imagine he would do it on his own. His main reasons for doing anything seems to be vindictiveness or reward for someone kissing his ass. He is literally stalling on this because he's mad at Jerry Brown.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on February 14, 2017, 07:48:18 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

A demand that a correction is made after a possibly proven wrong statement? You have GOT to be joking. Best joke of the day. Thanks for the levity.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Inaya on February 14, 2017, 07:53:34 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/ (http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/)

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??
Did he ever get around to sending help for Mississippi's tornadoes last month (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/officials-beg-trump-send-help-after-storms-kill-20-across-n711071)?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cliffhanger on February 14, 2017, 07:58:26 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

Will it make any difference to you that the only reason he would relent and approve the funds would be if his advisors finally convinced him that it was a majorly bad political move not to? Based on past behavior, I cannot for an instant imagine he would do it on his own. His main reasons for doing anything seems to be vindictiveness or reward for someone kissing his ass. He is literally stalling on this because he's mad at Jerry Brown.

Check out the FEMA Disaster page (https://www.fema.gov/disasters) There's anywhere between 0-6 weeks delay on disaster declaration. The Occupy Democrats article is insinuating that Trump will withhold funding because there was no response after 2 days...

There are plenty of examples there of him and President Obama "stalling" as you say. It doesn't appear there's any pattern of stalling because of a state being red/blue. There are probably many factors that go into this process.

Do you have any examples of him withholding requested funds? This would be a very serious issue that affects many people.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cliffhanger on February 14, 2017, 08:00:41 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/ (http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/)

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??
Did he ever get around to sending help for Mississippi's tornadoes last month (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/officials-beg-trump-send-help-after-storms-kill-20-across-n711071)?

Yes (https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4295)

So far about $2.5 million has been approved.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2017, 08:02:28 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

Will it make any difference to you that the only reason he would relent and approve the funds would be if his advisors finally convinced him that it was a majorly bad political move not to? Based on past behavior, I cannot for an instant imagine he would do it on his own. His main reasons for doing anything seems to be vindictiveness or reward for someone kissing his ass. He is literally stalling on this because he's mad at Jerry Brown.

Check out the FEMA Disaster page (https://www.fema.gov/disasters) There's anywhere between 0-6 weeks delay on disaster declaration. The Occupy Democrats article is insinuating that Trump will withhold funding because there was no response after 2 days...

There are plenty of examples there of him and President Obama "stalling" as you say. It doesn't appear there's any pattern of stalling because of a state being red/blue. There are probably many factors that go into this process.

Do you have any examples of him withholding requested funds? This would be a very serious issue that affects many people.

Why are you talking about Trump as though he is a regular president?

You do know that he literally promised to "defund California" if they didn't do what he wanted them to?  And that he has also implied he'll give more attention to states that voted for him in the election? Do you have any examples of other presidents doing such things?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 14, 2017, 08:06:19 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

Supposedly the GOP rep is in contact with the White House, I'm sure they will be pressured eventually to cave.  I thought he took about two to three days to respond to the Louisiana tornadoes and Alabama & Georgia tornadoes, but with the turmoil over Flynn who knows if it will be longer than that.  The Alabama and Georgia governors had to beg for help on the media.  It might take three days to get through to him that the residents of those counties in CA vote Republican. 

I was really worried about Trump and Bannon trying to seize more power at some point but with all the national security missteps (leaving a key in a classified bag, holding a national security meeting over N Korea in an unsecured location, etc.) and now the Flynn stuff, I am starting to feel like they couldn't pull off a power grab even if one presented itself.  I have a hard time believing that the ham handed statements by Miller "The President's power will not be questioned" sat well with the GOP.  They need to get a spine and this crap with Flynn might be what is needed.  Watergate took two years, two years mired in Russia scandal would put us at the 2018 mid-terms. 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on February 14, 2017, 08:23:24 AM
Well now we have ignore the needs of our citizens because they live in california. http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/13/california-asked-trump-federal-disaster-aid-response-shocking/

How could you make America great again without ignoring Americans?

Trump will declare this a Major Disaster and federal funds will be available to the state. You can quote me on this and hold me accountable to my words. However, by the time this is declared and funds are approved, the next several outrages will have passed and this premature outrage will be forgotten. Are you two going to rescind your statements once you're proven wrong??

Will it make any difference to you that the only reason he would relent and approve the funds would be if his advisors finally convinced him that it was a majorly bad political move not to? Based on past behavior, I cannot for an instant imagine he would do it on his own. His main reasons for doing anything seems to be vindictiveness or reward for someone kissing his ass. He is literally stalling on this because he's mad at Jerry Brown.

Check out the FEMA Disaster page (https://www.fema.gov/disasters) There's anywhere between 0-6 weeks delay on disaster declaration. The Occupy Democrats article is insinuating that Trump will withhold funding because there was no response after 2 days...

There are plenty of examples there of him and President Obama "stalling" as you say. It doesn't appear there's any pattern of stalling because of a state being red/blue. There are probably many factors that go into this process.

Do you have any examples of him withholding requested funds? This would be a very serious issue that affects many people.

Actually Obama ensured that FEMA was absolutely competent. Every single one of the over 900 disasters during Obama's tenure was considered handled competently and timely. He held annual meetings with them. Confidence in FEMA rose from 35 percent after the Bush-Katrina disaster to 75 percent after Super storm Sandy in 2012.  At times, even before request were made, there were boots on the ground. There were over 400 people mobilized and on-site before Sandy even hit.

Obama made FEMA great again.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 14, 2017, 09:29:39 AM

I was really worried about Trump and Bannon trying to seize more power at some point but with all the national security missteps (leaving a key in a classified bag, holding a national security meeting over N Korea in an unsecured location, etc.) and now the Flynn stuff, I am starting to feel like they couldn't pull off a power grab even if one presented itself.  I have a hard time believing that the ham handed statements by Miller "The President's power will not be questioned" sat well with the GOP.  They need to get a spine and this crap with Flynn might be what is needed.  Watergate took two years, two years mired in Russia scandal would put us at the 2018 mid-terms.

Ham handed?  Miller went full-on Dictator (watch some clips here (https://youtu.be/lHusZDjesr4)).  Kinda invalidates all of your other conjectures.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cliffhanger on February 14, 2017, 09:42:40 AM

Why are you talking about Trump as though he is a regular president?

You do know that he literally promised to "defund California" if they didn't do what he wanted them to?  And that he has also implied he'll give more attention to states that voted for him in the election? Do you have any examples of other presidents doing such things?

I'm not asserting that Trump is a regular president. He spent his campaign making hyperbolic statements and lying. Why should I believe a tweet about defunding California?

I am asserting that FEMA will assist the people affected by flooding in CA based off of past actions in Trump's short presidency. You can still be a bad president and do this. How about let's wait and see what he does, then judge his actions?


Actually Obama ensured that FEMA was absolutely competent. Every single one of the over 900 disasters during Obama's tenure was considered handled competently and timely. He held annual meetings with them. Confidence in FEMA rose from 35 percent after the Bush-Katrina disaster to 75 percent after Super storm Sandy in 2012.  At times, even before request were made, there were boots on the ground. There were over 400 people mobilized and on-site before Sandy even hit.

Obama made FEMA great again.

I would be part of that statistic that went from disapprove to approve. Obama ensuring a competent FEMA is good for everybody.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2017, 09:51:57 AM

Why are you talking about Trump as though he is a regular president?

You do know that he literally promised to "defund California" if they didn't do what he wanted them to?  And that he has also implied he'll give more attention to states that voted for him in the election? Do you have any examples of other presidents doing such things?

I'm not asserting that Trump is a regular president. He spent his campaign making hyperbolic statements and lying. Why should I believe a tweet about defunding California?

I am asserting that FEMA will assist the people affected by flooding in CA based off of past actions in Trump's short presidency. You can still be a bad president and do this. How about let's wait and see what he does, then judge his actions?



Could you cite the past actions that tell you this?

And again, I stated above that I think eventually he will do this, but only after his advisors manage to convince him to not be a vindictive piece of sh*t.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cliffhanger on February 14, 2017, 10:27:30 AM
First off, let's use FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process (https://www.fema.gov/disaster-declaration-process) as a reference. It appears that a Major Disaster Declaration is appropriate for any event that "has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond."

Now, according to California Governor Brown's request (http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/northstate/gov-brown-requests-presidential-major-disaster-declaration/326144202), the "storm system is of such severity and magnitude that continued effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and supplemental federal assistance is necessary." Which appears to meet the requirements for a Major Disaster Declaration.

In theory, President Trump should approve Governor Brown's request. So far in his presidency, Trump has approved 97 Major Disaster Declarations according to FEMA's disaster site, including strong winter storms and flooding in Oregon last month (https://www.oregon.gov/newsroom/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?newsid=1534). Based off of his previous declarations for appropriate disasters, I believe he will approve Governor Brown's request.

Is your evidence that he won't approve it based off of Trump's twitter account?

Edit: corrected number, forgot you said he would eventually approve
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on February 14, 2017, 10:36:12 AM
Quote
And again, I stated above that I think eventually he will do this, but only after his advisors manage to convince him to not be a vindictive piece of sh*t.

I don't really see that point of arguing about what Trump's motivations for potential actions might or might not be. Neither of you have relevant information so you're both just projecting your own feelings about the president.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2017, 10:39:09 AM
First off, let's use FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process (https://www.fema.gov/disaster-declaration-process) as a reference. It appears that a Major Disaster Declaration is appropriate for any event that "has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond."

Now, according to California Governor Brown's request (http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/northstate/gov-brown-requests-presidential-major-disaster-declaration/326144202), the "storm system is of such severity and magnitude that continued effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and supplemental federal assistance is necessary." Which appears to meet the requirements for a Major Disaster Declaration.

In theory, President Trump should approve Governor Brown's request. So far in his presidency, Trump has approved 9 Major Disaster Declarations according to FEMA's disaster site, including strong winter storms and flooding in Oregon last month (https://www.oregon.gov/newsroom/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?newsid=1534). Based off of his previous declarations for appropriate disasters, I believe he will approve Governor Brown's request.

Is your evidence that he won't approve it based off of Trump's twitter account?

So, Oregon is the only state in the list that didn't vote for him, yes? And that disaster happened before he took office.

I would certainly expect him to approve FEMA funding for any state that voted for him, yes. So the others are no surprise.

And as far as Trump's Twitter account -- you say that as though his Twitter account isn't his main way of communicating with the American people. And no, actually, I'm primarily basing it on a Fox News interview he did with Bill O'Reilly that aired right before the Superbowl.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2017, 10:40:20 AM
Quote
And again, I stated above that I think eventually he will do this, but only after his advisors manage to convince him to not be a vindictive piece of sh*t.

I don't really see that point of arguing about what Trump's motivations for potential actions might or might not be. Neither of you have relevant information so you're both just projecting your own feelings about the president.

Quite true. Though I do think there are a fair number of indications of what motivates the president to act.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on February 14, 2017, 10:44:04 AM

Why are you talking about Trump as though he is a regular president?

You do know that he literally promised to "defund California" if they didn't do what he wanted them to?  And that he has also implied he'll give more attention to states that voted for him in the election? Do you have any examples of other presidents doing such things?

I'm not asserting that Trump is a regular president. He spent his campaign making hyperbolic statements and lying. Why should I believe a tweet about defunding California?

I am asserting that FEMA will assist the people affected by flooding in CA based off of past actions in Trump's short presidency. You can still be a bad president and do this. How about let's wait and see what he does, then judge his actions?


Actually Obama ensured that FEMA was absolutely competent. Every single one of the over 900 disasters during Obama's tenure was considered handled competently and timely. He held annual meetings with them. Confidence in FEMA rose from 35 percent after the Bush-Katrina disaster to 75 percent after Super storm Sandy in 2012.  At times, even before request were made, there were boots on the ground. There were over 400 people mobilized and on-site before Sandy even hit.

Obama made FEMA great again.

I would be part of that statistic that went from disapprove to approve. Obama ensuring a competent FEMA is good for everybody.

Yep, let's hope Trump picks up where he left off. I would suggest he pick a competent and dedicated person to head up FEMA. So far he hasn't picked anyone.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cliffhanger on February 14, 2017, 10:53:58 AM
First off, let's use FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process (https://www.fema.gov/disaster-declaration-process) as a reference. It appears that a Major Disaster Declaration is appropriate for any event that "has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond."

Now, according to California Governor Brown's request (http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/northstate/gov-brown-requests-presidential-major-disaster-declaration/326144202), the "storm system is of such severity and magnitude that continued effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and supplemental federal assistance is necessary." Which appears to meet the requirements for a Major Disaster Declaration.

In theory, President Trump should approve Governor Brown's request. So far in his presidency, Trump has approved 9 Major Disaster Declarations according to FEMA's disaster site, including strong winter storms and flooding in Oregon last month (https://www.oregon.gov/newsroom/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?newsid=1534). Based off of his previous declarations for appropriate disasters, I believe he will approve Governor Brown's request.

Is your evidence that he won't approve it based off of Trump's twitter account?

So, Oregon is the only state in the list that didn't vote for him, yes? And that disaster happened before he took office.

I would certainly expect him to approve FEMA funding for any state that voted for him, yes. So the others are no surprise.

And as far as Trump's Twitter account -- you say that as though his Twitter account isn't his main way of communicating with the American people. And no, actually, I'm primarily basing it on a Fox News interview he did with Bill O'Reilly that aired right before the Superbowl.

I picked Oregon because it was the most similar of that list to what's happening in California. Unless you can provide evidence of a Major Disaster Declaration that has been denied, I don't think it's prudent to argue this point. Weather is the driving factor here and the south has had more damaging storms recently.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2017, 10:57:00 AM
First off, let's use FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process (https://www.fema.gov/disaster-declaration-process) as a reference. It appears that a Major Disaster Declaration is appropriate for any event that "has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond."

Now, according to California Governor Brown's request (http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/northstate/gov-brown-requests-presidential-major-disaster-declaration/326144202), the "storm system is of such severity and magnitude that continued effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and supplemental federal assistance is necessary." Which appears to meet the requirements for a Major Disaster Declaration.

In theory, President Trump should approve Governor Brown's request. So far in his presidency, Trump has approved 9 Major Disaster Declarations according to FEMA's disaster site, including strong winter storms and flooding in Oregon last month (https://www.oregon.gov/newsroom/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?newsid=1534). Based off of his previous declarations for appropriate disasters, I believe he will approve Governor Brown's request.

Is your evidence that he won't approve it based off of Trump's twitter account?

So, Oregon is the only state in the list that didn't vote for him, yes? And that disaster happened before he took office.

I would certainly expect him to approve FEMA funding for any state that voted for him, yes. So the others are no surprise.

And as far as Trump's Twitter account -- you say that as though his Twitter account isn't his main way of communicating with the American people. And no, actually, I'm primarily basing it on a Fox News interview he did with Bill O'Reilly that aired right before the Superbowl.

I picked Oregon because it was the most similar of that list to what's happening in California. Unless you can provide evidence of a Major Disaster Declaration that has been denied, I don't think it's prudent to argue this point. Weather is the driving factor here and the south has had more damaging storms recently.

No. I can't provide evidence of a declaration that has been denied. But I also can't provide any examples of other states that have filed for disaster relief where a sitting president has recently verbally threatened to "defund" the state for not doing what he wants.

And again, I do think he will eventually be convinced to provide disaster relief to CA by his staff. But I don't think he'll do it happily.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 14, 2017, 12:30:30 PM

I was really worried about Trump and Bannon trying to seize more power at some point but with all the national security missteps (leaving a key in a classified bag, holding a national security meeting over N Korea in an unsecured location, etc.) and now the Flynn stuff, I am starting to feel like they couldn't pull off a power grab even if one presented itself.  I have a hard time believing that the ham handed statements by Miller "The President's power will not be questioned" sat well with the GOP.  They need to get a spine and this crap with Flynn might be what is needed.  Watergate took two years, two years mired in Russia scandal would put us at the 2018 mid-terms.

Ham handed?  Miller went full-on Dictator (watch some clips here (https://youtu.be/lHusZDjesr4)).  Kinda invalidates all of your other conjectures.

I agree that Miller went full on Dictator, but in such a amateurish, clumsy way that is why I called it ham handed.  When I watched it I was actually laughing at him.  Can anyone see any way for the Flynn swirl to end well for the administration?  Seems very Watergate-ish, as in the action was bad enough, but the cover up is worse.  The White House knew about this since sometime in January and were warned, but ignored it.  GOP Senators have joined the call for an investigation.  Roy Blunt was just elected to a 6 year term - wish my gutless GOP Senator that was just elected will join in, but of course he says he has no comment right now. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 14, 2017, 12:49:03 PM
Yep, let's hope Trump picks up where he left off. I would suggest he pick a competent and dedicated person to head up FEMA. So far he hasn't picked anyone.

Trumps track record thus far unfortunately points to appointing unqualified and incompetent. But hopefully not worse than Brown and Chertoff.

It's pretty strange that we're having the conversation that we're not sure if a sitting president is or is not going to help a state with disaster funding.

As far as timeline, it's been four days since Brown requested the funds (Feb 10th). It took two days from Mississippi's governor asking (Jan 23 to approval Jan 25), to the request approval (requested Feb 10th). One day for Louisiana (requested Feb 10, approved Feb 11), seven days for Oklahoma (Feb 3 request to Feb 10 approval). In case you're wondering, it was a pain in the ass to look that up.

How long it will take the administration to approve CA? My bet is 14 days...enough for the administration to build that tension and drama. (If you want to bet too, we're using Price is Right rules- if you go over, you lose).

Anyone know the formula for deciding the amount of funds given, or is it an arbitrary number? You know, right off the top of your head?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 14, 2017, 01:23:54 PM
Yep, let's hope Trump picks up where he left off. I would suggest he pick a competent and dedicated person to head up FEMA. So far he hasn't picked anyone.

Trumps track record thus far unfortunately points to appointing unqualified and incompetent. But hopefully not worse than Brown and Chertoff.

It's pretty strange that we're having the conversation that we're not sure if a sitting president is or is not going to help a state with disaster funding.

As far as timeline, it's been four days since Brown requested the funds (Feb 10th). It took two days from Mississippi's governor asking (Jan 23 to approval Jan 25), to the request approval (requested Feb 10th). One day for Louisiana (requested Feb 10, approved Feb 11), seven days for Oklahoma (Feb 3 request to Feb 10 approval). In case you're wondering, it was a pain in the ass to look that up.

Any particular reason you think Brown is unqualified and incompetent?

... oh wait, are you talking about Gov. Jerry Brown or former FEMA Michael Brown in this context?  You reference Jerry earlier.  Confused.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cliffhanger on February 14, 2017, 01:36:52 PM
accolay, this thread has got me interested in this process as well, so I'll give it a shot.

In a previous post, I had found the Disaster Declaration Process (https://www.fema.gov/disaster-declaration-process), which lays it out pretty well. It appears that a Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) will take place. FEMA will assign an impact indicator and compare it to the thresholds that have been declared here (https://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-indicator-and-project-thresholds). If the per capita impact determined by the PDA is higher than the per capita impact indicator, I think FEMA would recommend the President to declare disaster assistance.

We are talking about Trump here, so anything can happen. I'll take an objective approach to this and see what the data from the PDA is before trashing/supporting Trump on this. If Gov. Brown's estimate of $162+ million turns out to be accurate, I don't see this getting rejected.

I'll also join the betting game! I going to say 25 days! It'll be a wait and see approach as the rain continues this week, then damage needs to be assessed.

Kris, this might interest you. I found the Preliminary Damage Assessment reports (https://www.fema.gov/preliminary-damage-assessment-reports), which has a few denials. Unfortunately, this hasn't been updated with any of Trump's declaration. Take the FY2017 Delaware request, for instance. It appears it was denied because the assessed impact was below the impact indicator.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 14, 2017, 01:49:43 PM
...
I'll also join the betting game! I going to say 25 days! It'll be a wait and see approach as the rain continues this week, then damage needs to be assessed.


oh why not.... I'll say 14 days.  I think Trump has a poor hand here; California has the economy to stomach a $162MM hit, and Trump would loose more than he gains by withholding funding; CA has 14 GOP members, including one (McClintock-R) from the district where the Lake Oroville dam is. Imagine how pissed he'd be if Trump withheld relief money over a perceived grudge.

So he'd likely loose some support from his own party in congress while not gaining much leverage. That's my read anyhow.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2017, 04:11:42 PM
...
I'll also join the betting game! I going to say 25 days! It'll be a wait and see approach as the rain continues this week, then damage needs to be assessed.


oh why not.... I'll say 14 days.  I think Trump has a poor hand here; California has the economy to stomach a $162MM hit, and Trump would loose more than he gains by withholding funding; CA has 14 GOP members, including one (McClintock-R) from the district where the Lake Oroville dam is. Imagine how pissed he'd be if Trump withheld relief money over a perceived grudge.

So he'd likely loose some support from his own party in congress while not gaining much leverage. That's my read anyhow.


I'll say 20 days, just to enter the game.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 14, 2017, 04:35:23 PM
What do you think is the over/under on the number of Trump senior advisers/cabinet secretaries that will be forced to resign or be impeached and removed?

If the current trend (1/month) continues, it'll be 48 in the first Trump term.

I think this Russia thing has legs only because many high ranking GOP senators are against warmer ties with Russia.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 14, 2017, 04:58:08 PM
What do you think is the over/under on the number of Trump senior advisers/cabinet secretaries that will be forced to resign or be impeached and removed?

If the current trend (1/month) continues, it'll be 48 in the first Trump term.

I think this Russia thing has legs only because many high ranking GOP senators are against warmer ties with Russia.
There's enough GOP hawks in congress who's hatred of Russia is far stronger than their allegiance to Trump.  I still wouldn't be surprised if the Kremlin 'leaks' some  kompromat on DJT or Tillerman (or both) in the next 6 months.

Assuming they have some komrpomat (which I suspect they do) - the reason they haven't released it yet is because the Trump administration has been doing such a bang-up job of shooting itself in the foot over nad over.  Putin will wait until DJT gets his feet under him and when it finally seems like they've finally bandaged over their self-inflicted wounds.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 14, 2017, 05:17:40 PM
What do you think is the over/under on the number of Trump senior advisers/cabinet secretaries that will be forced to resign or be impeached and removed?

If the current trend (1/month) continues, it'll be 48 in the first Trump term.

I think this Russia thing has legs only because many high ranking GOP senators are against warmer ties with Russia.
There's enough GOP hawks in congress who's hatred of Russia is far stronger than their allegiance to Trump.  I still wouldn't be surprised if the Kremlin 'leaks' some  kompromat on DJT or Tillerman (or both) in the next 6 months.

Assuming they have some komrpomat (which I suspect they do) - the reason they haven't released it yet is because the Trump administration has been doing such a bang-up job of shooting itself in the foot over nad over.  Putin will wait until DJT gets his feet under him and when it finally seems like they've finally bandaged over their self-inflicted wounds.
Nah, Putin will want Trump to stay in power as long as possible, he'll want his money's worth for that 19% of Rosneft.  It'll be bad luck for him if the US Constitution and the rule of law come good and Trump is ousted.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 14, 2017, 05:22:56 PM
What do you think is the over/under on the number of Trump senior advisers/cabinet secretaries that will be forced to resign or be impeached and removed?

If the current trend (1/month) continues, it'll be 48 in the first Trump term.

I think this Russia thing has legs only because many high ranking GOP senators are against warmer ties with Russia.
There's enough GOP hawks in congress who's hatred of Russia is far stronger than their allegiance to Trump.  I still wouldn't be surprised if the Kremlin 'leaks' some  kompromat on DJT or Tillerman (or both) in the next 6 months.

Assuming they have some komrpomat (which I suspect they do) - the reason they haven't released it yet is because the Trump administration has been doing such a bang-up job of shooting itself in the foot over nad over.  Putin will wait until DJT gets his feet under him and when it finally seems like they've finally bandaged over their self-inflicted wounds.
Nah, Putin will want Trump to stay in power as long as possible, he'll want his money's worth for that 19% of Rosneft.  It'll be bad luck for him if the US Constitution and the rule of law come good and Trump is ousted.
Putin knows the likelihood of a GOP house bringing articles of impeachment on DJT are about as likely as Poland invading Russia.  He'll want Trump roiling in domestic controversy for as long as possible, letting him continue his crusade to re-annex the old bloc states.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2017, 05:28:34 PM
I agree with Nereo that I am far from convinced the Republicans will impeach Trump.

It seems incredible. But I think they are so gutless and so complacent in their power that they are rather likely to succumb to inertia.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 14, 2017, 07:58:04 PM
The NY Times is reporting that numerous Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence. Yeah, that's not just impeachment material, that will get you prison too. Nixon was caught spying on the Democrats. But a Presidential candidate colluding with a hostile, foreign intelligence service that was manipulating our election???

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-campaign-aides-had-repeated-contacts-with-russian-intelligence/ar-AAmWODE?li=BBnbcA1

Quote
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time that they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 14, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
The NY Times is reporting that numerous Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence. Yeah, that's not just impeachment material, that will get you prison too. Nixon was caught spying on the Democrats. But a Presidential candidate colluding with a hostile, foreign intelligence service that was manipulating our election???

So the big story tomorrow (or late today) is that Russia has deployed a new missile that violates the 1987 proliferation treaty.  I fear that the US is now stuck depending on Trump to stand up to the same people that compromised his Presidency from the get-go.  I mean, WTF is going on with giving Putin a pass on former (ongoing) transgressions and even somewhat favorable treatment? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html?_r=0

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-missiles-idUSKBN15T2CS

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/russia-cruise-missile-spy-ship/index.html

This is seriously scary stuff.  Just as I realized, not long ago when DeVos was appointed, just how fragile democracy was, I now realize just how fragile our US way of life is, having it so concentrated in NYC.  One significant unstoppable medium range attack (now made possible) and instead of significant, but ultimately symbolic twin towers falling, we are talking about our heart being ripped out.

I wouldn't blame it all on Trump, he has only been President for a few weeks, but I also don't expect him to take the necessary actions to prevent the threat from growing.  Sadly, every day we are stuck in this neutral position of incompetence, is one more day that we are projecting power in the Middle East and getting further compromised by a real master strategist, Putin.  I've come to admire just how sharp he seems to be, when I listen to the WH faces of Spicer, Miller, Conway, Ivanka ... and don't even get me started on Trump's Tweets.  We are so screwed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 14, 2017, 09:33:34 PM
Any new president might be tested in such a manner, but Trump's obliviousness make him a prime candidate for a blitzkrieg of Kremlin bullshit. There is also the renewed meddling in Ukraine going on right now. One theory is Trump is positioning for a grand bargain with Russia, though a more realistic reading suggests he doesn't know what to do because he's retarded. As Garry Kasparov (who I met last year--I'd thought I'd casually point out to increase my status) tweeted: "Winter is here."

But Putin does not want to kill Americans because Putin is rational. The point of putting missiles here, or taking over Ukrainian towns there is to build up bargaining chips for various concessions the US and Europe could make. The Economist's briefing (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21716612-vladimir-putin-could-do-very-well-out-donald-trump-what-america-might-want-russia) was excellent at pointing out many of the dynamics at play.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 14, 2017, 09:41:26 PM
As Garry Kasparov (who I met last year--I'd thought I'd casually point out to increase my status) tweeted: "Winter is here."

But Putin does not want to kill Americans because Putin is rational. The point of putting missiles here, or taking over Ukrainian towns there is to build up bargaining chips for various concessions the US and Europe could make. The Economist's briefing (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21716612-vladimir-putin-could-do-very-well-out-donald-trump-what-america-might-want-russia) was excellent at pointing out many of the dynamics at play.

But what would any chess player do when confronted with a vast inferior?  Get bored with the game.  The least us Americans can do is show that we are worthy adversaries.  So what does it take to get a real President installed?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 14, 2017, 09:48:57 PM
As Garry Kasparov (who I met last year--I'd thought I'd casually point out to increase my status) tweeted: "Winter is here."

But Putin does not want to kill Americans because Putin is rational. The point of putting missiles here, or taking over Ukrainian towns there is to build up bargaining chips for various concessions the US and Europe could make. The Economist's briefing (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21716612-vladimir-putin-could-do-very-well-out-donald-trump-what-america-might-want-russia) was excellent at pointing out many of the dynamics at play.

But what would any chess player do when confronted with a vast inferior?  Get bored with the game.  The least us Americans can do is show that we are worthy adversaries.  So what does it take to get a real President installed?
Apparently Magnus Carlsen would begin to analyze surrounding games when bored in a tournament (by analogy to Russia, Estonia? China?). The US#1 is(?) Nakamura (though how good is Wesley So these days?)  but Nakamura is relatively good at speed chess rather than classical time controls (another good analogy?).

The US does have an asset, ironically, in Trump himself. He is unpredictable enough so that he might credibly turn the board over if the game is not going well. It's hard to fully play the Mad-Man Trump card when surrounded by Goldman Sachs executives that have a vested interests in their business dealings over Trump's vanity, but ultimately, Trump controls the nukes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 14, 2017, 09:57:29 PM
As Garry Kasparov (who I met last year--I'd thought I'd casually point out to increase my status) tweeted: "Winter is here."

But Putin does not want to kill Americans because Putin is rational. The point of putting missiles here, or taking over Ukrainian towns there is to build up bargaining chips for various concessions the US and Europe could make. The Economist's briefing (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21716612-vladimir-putin-could-do-very-well-out-donald-trump-what-america-might-want-russia) was excellent at pointing out many of the dynamics at play.

But what would any chess player do when confronted with a vast inferior?  Get bored with the game.  The least us Americans can do is show that we are worthy adversaries.  So what does it take to get a real President installed?
Apparently Magnus Carlsen would begin to analyze surrounding games when bored in a tournament (by analogy to Russia, Estonia? China?). The US#1 is(?) Nakamura (though how good is Wesley So these days?)  but Nakamura is relatively good at speed chess rather than classical time controls (another good analogy?).

The US does have an asset, ironically, in Trump himself. He is unpredictable enough so that he might credibly turn the board over if the game is not going well. It's hard to fully play the Mad-Man Trump card when surrounded by Goldman Sachs executives that have a vested interests in their business dealings over Trump's vanity, but ultimately, Trump controls the nukes.

I don't say this everyday... but today I'll take a break from being calm - HOLY SHIT YOU ARE FUCKING NUTS.  'Flip the board over', by which you tacitly mean launch nukes?  Well, I thought it was nice to read your posts, but you have nothing to add.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 14, 2017, 10:01:46 PM
As Garry Kasparov (who I met last year--I'd thought I'd casually point out to increase my status) tweeted: "Winter is here."

But Putin does not want to kill Americans because Putin is rational. The point of putting missiles here, or taking over Ukrainian towns there is to build up bargaining chips for various concessions the US and Europe could make. The Economist's briefing (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21716612-vladimir-putin-could-do-very-well-out-donald-trump-what-america-might-want-russia) was excellent at pointing out many of the dynamics at play.

But what would any chess player do when confronted with a vast inferior?  Get bored with the game.  The least us Americans can do is show that we are worthy adversaries.  So what does it take to get a real President installed?
Apparently Magnus Carlsen would begin to analyze surrounding games when bored in a tournament (by analogy to Russia, Estonia? China?). The US#1 is(?) Nakamura (though how good is Wesley So these days?)  but Nakamura is relatively good at speed chess rather than classical time controls (another good analogy?).

The US does have an asset, ironically, in Trump himself. He is unpredictable enough so that he might credibly turn the board over if the game is not going well. It's hard to fully play the Mad-Man Trump card when surrounded by Goldman Sachs executives that have a vested interests in their business dealings over Trump's vanity, but ultimately, Trump controls the nukes.

I don't say this everyday... but today I'll take a break from being calm - HOLY SHIT YOU ARE FUCKING NUTS.  'Flip the board over', by which you tacitly mean launch nukes?  Well, I thought it was nice to read your posts, but you have nothing to add.
Well, wasn't that Nixon's strategy in Vietnam? It's nothing new to use your own (perceived or real) insanity against your opponents. Note my reading of Putin's maneuvers were assuming he was rational. But if you drop that assumption, the world does suddenly become a scarier place. "Turning the board over" could mean nukes in the extreme case, but even barring that, the Commander in Chief  holds considerable unilateral military power at lower levels as well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 14, 2017, 10:08:15 PM
To add to the point: if Putin thinks Trump has any inclination to resort to insane measures (recall Trump's repeated queries regarding our nuclear capabilities), then Putin has to calculate the possibility Trump is insane into any negotiation. That way, regardless if Trump is actually insane or not, Trump's reputation of possibly being insane has impacted the dynamics. I don't actually think anyone is nuking anyone here. But the uncertainty of motivations and intentions matters.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 14, 2017, 10:08:31 PM
The first item on my to-do list most days is this:

Quote
Dismantle the privately funded two party system.

The privately funded two party system gave us Trump, McConnell, DeVos, Tillerson, etc.

Trump and his team are a symptom of our flawed system that's been corrupted over 100+ years of courts deciding that more and more constitutional rights belong to corporations. This corporate personhood took its final form in 2010 with Citizens United. Trump just happened to tap into the base that had been cultivated by the GOP noise machine, and co-opted it.

If you want to help - find out how you can take action in this thread.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/house-res-48-stop-corp-personhood-trump's-a-symptom-let's-fix-the-system/
 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/house-res-48-stop-corp-personhood-trump's-a-symptom-let's-fix-the-system/)
Or read this article (http://www.lauramariereese.com/issues-that-unite-us-the-constitution-should-apply-to-people-not-corporations/).

The following reps sit on the House Judiciary Committee. If you agree with HJR48(115th) and are represented by any of these people, please call them. They're the ones who can make this resolution go through. (It's introduced every year and every year it dies. 2017 can be the year it's adopted).

Currently on the House Judiciary Committee:
Steve King (Iowa-4th)  zip codes staring with 50___
Steve Cohen (TN-9th)
Jerry Nadler(NY-10th)
Ron Desantis (FL-6th) Jacksonville area
Trent Franks (AZ-8th) Peoria, AZ
Louis Gohmert (TX-1st)
Jamie Raskin(MD-8th)
Trey Gowdy(SC-4th)


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 14, 2017, 10:25:54 PM
Regarding Flynn -

The chatter on r/conservative can very telling - when it seems shit's hitting the fan over there, when they're losing their minds then I know we might see some changes. Unfortunately - that's rare. Even with the daily Trump stuff.

Scrolling through the subreddit headlines - jeez - the sheer number of 'intolerant liberal / I'm so persecuted for my conservative views' posts is pretty vomit-inducing. I'm as sick of this as I am of hearing 'nazi' from 'the other side'.  The persecution complex on r/conservative is like watching a William F. Buckley video or reading his rant against Yale. I mean holy shit - you've got the house, the senate and the executive. The persecution complex is just absurd - and it stops discussion of issues. Actually the two party system stops discussion of actual issues. But I've already discussed my take on that. 

Anyhoo - here's the post I'm talking about:

This is the leading post on the Flynn matter right now (https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/5u47y0/defense_secretary_james_mattis_reacts_to_flynn/)

For the lazy:

Headline: "Defense Secretary James Mattis Reacts to Flynn Resignation: ‘Frankly, This Has No Impact’"

Chatter:
 SmallsMT_02 [score hidden] 4 hours ago
For those wondering, Flynn is not part of the Pentagon. He is a White House staffer that never worked under Mattis at any point.
 
Simi510 [score hidden] 4 hours ago
That's not the narrative I hear on CNN about a man who was blackmailed by the Russians into being a Spy informant to undermine our democracy. xD
 
SmallsMT_02 [score hidden] 4 hours ago
He still does get classified intel, however. He's just not part of the Pentagon.

Simi510 [score hidden] 4 hours ago
But cnn keeps showing pictures of flynn eating dinner with putin... HE HAS TO BE A SPY
All the spies eat dinner with putin, didnt you know that?
/s

SmallsMT_02 [score hidden] 4 hours ago
What does this have to do with Mattis' comments. Flynn doesn't deserve to be in any part of government anymore. AFAIC, these actions are worse than Emailgate.

JAKPiano3412 [score hidden] 3 hours ago
He's joking man.

SmallsMT_02 [score hidden] 3 hours ago
I know, but his joking implies that he thinks Flynn isn't involved with Russia.
 
[–]JAKPiano3412 [score hidden] 1 hour ago
He probably thinks Trump has nothing to do with Russia, idk about Flynn. I thought it was funny
 
zwiebelsaft [score hidden] 1 hour ago
I think CNN reported that James Bond had dinner with Putin last week.

CarolinaPunkEsse Quam Videri [score hidden] 3 hours ago
Flynn though he could fight Mattis and Pence at the same time.
Whoops.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 14, 2017, 10:28:53 PM
Trump and his team are a symptom of our flawed system that's been corrupted over 100+ years of courts deciding that more and more constitutional rights belong to corporations. This corporate personhood took its final form in 2010 with Citizens United. Trump just happened to tap into the base that had been cultivated by the GOP noise machine, and co-opted it.

We are absolutely at a Paul Revere type moment in modern history.  If we allow our country to complacently stay the course for 4 years, adversaries like Russia will be looking to check our independence.  We can wait and hope that we aren't too far behind (after Trump makes all his deals and steals off into the night with whatever amount of money makes a guy like that happy) or we can start to demand transparency.  Democracy only works when the voters can make a clear choice.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 14, 2017, 10:31:51 PM
Trump and his team are a symptom of our flawed system that's been corrupted over 100+ years of courts deciding that more and more constitutional rights belong to corporations. This corporate personhood took its final form in 2010 with Citizens United. Trump just happened to tap into the base that had been cultivated by the GOP noise machine, and co-opted it.

We are absolutely at a Paul Revere type moment in modern history.  If we allow our country to complacently stay the course for 4 years, adversaries like Russia will be looking to check our independence.  We can wait and hope that we aren't too far behind (after Trump makes all his deals and steals off into the night with whatever amount of money makes a guy like that happy) or we can start to demand transparency.  Democracy only works when the voters can make a clear choice.

Yep. We'd better get some decent options to choose from in 2018 and then in 2020. unfortunately our system is set up to produce shitty options. Corporate shill A from team red, Corporate shill B from team red, or once in a while - dude with NPD who was born with platinum spoon in his mouth and is willing to tell people what they want to hear to gratify his own ego and 24% of the voting population falls for his lies either fell for his lies or were comfortable with his behavior despite seeing it for what it was.

Yeah - we need to fix the system to claw back boring old competent governance.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 15, 2017, 07:29:01 AM
Would somebody please help put the Michael Flynn/Russia scandal into context for me?

I understand that Flynn illegally spoke to Russia about sanctions approved by the Obama administration before DJT had been sworn in and before he had any authority to do so.  I understand that was very bad, possibly illegal and undermined the administration in power (Obama) at the time.

Where I am having trouble is weighing how bad this actually is for the various people involved (Not just Flynn, but also DJT, Pence, Senior WH staff, etc). I've seen phrases ranging from Treason and Impeachment to simply inappropriate or 'bone-headed'. I'm also unclear how much of the fallout is from the meeting itself vs Flynn allegedly lying about what was discussed (which was worse - the conversation(s) or the subsequent lies?  Had Flynn said outright in December that he spoke about future sanctions with Russia as the incoming NSA chief, would this be as big a deal?)

On a corruption scale of 1-10, where do the various components fit?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 15, 2017, 07:38:09 AM
We don't know yet what was said in the Flynn meetings with the Russian diplomat.

But there are more components to this story:

Trump knew the extent (and possibly content) of those conversations weeks ago.

Trump knew Flynn lied to the VP

Flynn+Russian Ambassador weren't the only conversations. There were many other conversations between Trump's election staff and Russian (agents/diplomats) -  and many other convos between Trump's close acquaintances and Russians (agents/diplomats).

Taken all together, it looks bad for Trump.  But hell - I've thought it's looked bad for Trump ever since he goofed on Fiorina's face.  Remember back then? Ah - simpler times.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 15, 2017, 07:42:50 AM
Cripes...has it been 4 years yet? This last month seems like forever.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 15, 2017, 08:28:52 AM
On occasion I head over to Fox news to check out their take.

To them it's seems this Flynn affair is little more than bumps in a new administration.

Bill O'Reilly wrote it off in his spin zone as nothing more than a lack of organization. He sternly advised that they do better.

The lead headline on Fox news: "Flynn was probed by FBI over calls with Russian ambassador, official says (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/15/flynn-was-probed-by-fbi-over-calls-with-russian-ambassador-official-says.html)"

Really? The lead story is that an interview happened? And then the story focuses on how dangerous it is to have leaks coming out - replete with experts clutching their pearls at the notion that someone would leak classified info from an intelligence agency! Didn't these geezers live through watergate?

No discussion of the fact that POTUS knew all about this for weeks. Little discussion of the content of the leaks - or the breadth of people involved in conversations with Russia.

And OTHER media is bias? This is straight up PROJECTION. The bias and projection are so blatant. But my mom and dad continue to tune in to Fox.  It kills me that they do.  I'm trying to keep my view at the 30k foot level - focusing on how we can dismantle this toxic privately funded two party system. A quick check-in with Fox freaking turns my stomach.

At least my dad agreed to call his rep to ask him to co-sponsor HR48(115th).  Love that guy. (my dad - not his rep).

(Sorry - I know the ranting about Fox is off-topic from the OP - but I just had to share).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 15, 2017, 08:37:47 AM
I check Fox occasionally too.

Their lead is now, "'VERY UN-AMERICAN': Trump blasts US intel community over 'illegal' leaks." When officials starts talking about the leaks instead of the huge fucking crime, it's almost a capitulation.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 15, 2017, 08:51:59 AM
I check Fox occasionally too.

Their lead is now, "'VERY UN-AMERICAN': Trump blasts US intel community over 'illegal' leaks." When officials starts talking about the leaks instead of the huge fucking crime, it's almost a capitulation.

I think our utter inability to keep secrets is the underpinning of our democracy.
Don't get me wrong, I"m all for laws and practices calling for more transparency, but when it comes down to it Americans are just piss-poor at not gossiping.  And that's a really GOOD thing for our country, because eventually we learn stuff like this, and people wind up being held accountable.

Now if only we could keep our collective focus for more than a few.... oh look, something shiny!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 15, 2017, 10:00:32 AM
...
I'll also join the betting game! I going to say 25 days! It'll be a wait and see approach as the rain continues this week, then damage needs to be assessed.


oh why not.... I'll say 14 days.  I think Trump has a poor hand here; California has the economy to stomach a $162MM hit, and Trump would loose more than he gains by withholding funding; CA has 14 GOP members, including one (McClintock-R) from the district where the Lake Oroville dam is. Imagine how pissed he'd be if Trump withheld relief money over a perceived grudge.

So he'd likely loose some support from his own party in congress while not gaining much leverage. That's my read anyhow.


I'll say 20 days, just to enter the game.

Sounds like Trump approved yesterday.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article132767814.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 15, 2017, 10:02:42 AM
Would somebody please help put the Michael Flynn/Russia scandal into context for me?

I understand that Flynn illegally spoke to Russia about sanctions approved by the Obama administration before DJT had been sworn in and before he had any authority to do so.  I understand that was very bad, possibly illegal and undermined the administration in power (Obama) at the time.

Where I am having trouble is weighing how bad this actually is for the various people involved (Not just Flynn, but also DJT, Pence, Senior WH staff, etc). I've seen phrases ranging from Treason and Impeachment to simply inappropriate or 'bone-headed'. I'm also unclear how much of the fallout is from the meeting itself vs Flynn allegedly lying about what was discussed (which was worse - the conversation(s) or the subsequent lies?  Had Flynn said outright in December that he spoke about future sanctions with Russia as the incoming NSA chief, would this be as big a deal?)

On a corruption scale of 1-10, where do the various components fit?

Since we don't know what was discussed, we can speculate.  Juxtaposed against news of Russia's violation of weapons proliferation (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/14/russia-has-secretly-deployed-a-cruise-missile-that-violates-an-arms-treaty-nyt-report.html), let's just assume that our country's incoming National Security Advisor said something like - "we are really sorry about all of the sanctions Obama put on you because of that unfounded, alleged election tampering.  We don't want to look fishy by repealing all of the sanctions right away, but maybe you could tell us if any of them are causing any undo hardship.  We've really appreciated your support and want to continue good relations."

Russia, knowing full well that they are about to add some weapons that they aren't supposed to be building says, 'well, just look the other way when you get in to office while we import a few innocuous things (you know, just some fuel and electronics).  We were struggling to get them in to our country under Obama, but since you show such good faith in discussing this with us'....

I could probably come up with even more damning conspiracy theories, but it's not like we're getting any transcripts or recordings of these National Security discussions with our oldest and most dangerous adversay.  Instead, we are told to keep looking the other way until Trump's administration can stop the truth from getting out.  The fact that Trump has to deny Russia conspiracy theories (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/15/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia/97936050/) makes it all that much more credible.  I mean, why would he even waste the time mentioning it if it were completely unfounded?   

Edit to add - Even as an armchair conspiracy theorist, this new infomation about Trump being in communication with Russia helps to explain the very odd Trump Tweet last December (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-tweets-apparent-call-more-us-nuclear-weapons-n699221) about needing to restart the Nuclear Arms race.

Quote
The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2016
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 15, 2017, 10:03:05 AM
...
I'll also join the betting game! I going to say 25 days! It'll be a wait and see approach as the rain continues this week, then damage needs to be assessed.


oh why not.... I'll say 14 days.  I think Trump has a poor hand here; California has the economy to stomach a $162MM hit, and Trump would loose more than he gains by withholding funding; CA has 14 GOP members, including one (McClintock-R) from the district where the Lake Oroville dam is. Imagine how pissed he'd be if Trump withheld relief money over a perceived grudge.

So he'd likely loose some support from his own party in congress while not gaining much leverage. That's my read anyhow.


I'll say 20 days, just to enter the game.

Sounds like Trump approved yesterday.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article132767814.html
well that's nice... sometimes I don't mind losing :-)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lemanfan on February 15, 2017, 10:17:07 AM

It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 


The combination of the travel ban rethoric and the invasive border control makes a lot of my friends here in Scandinavia to not even consider visiting the US right now:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/)

I know that I feel sort of the same way, even though I've visited once a year since 2008... I really do love travelling within the USA, and I get great treatment.  But...

I've read that US travel bookings from my corner of the world has declined between 25 and 50% the last few weeks.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 15, 2017, 10:21:53 AM
Their lead is now, "'VERY UN-AMERICAN': Trump blasts US intel community over 'illegal' leaks."

Does anyone else remember when trump was so enthusiastic about "illegal leaks" that he literally asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails last July?  He publicly commended wikileaks for publishing stolen DNC documents. 

The man built his whole campaign on the very thing he is now calling "UnAmerican".  I don't think you can get much more hypocritical than that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 10:31:30 AM

It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 


The combination of the travel ban rethoric and the invasive border control makes a lot of my friends here in Scandinavia to not even consider visiting the US right now:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/)

I know that I feel sort of the same way, even though I've visited once a year since 2008... I really do love travelling within the USA, and I get great treatment.  But...

I've read that US travel bookings from my corner of the world has declined between 25 and 50% the last few weeks.

Speaking of which, you might want to consider leaving your cell phone at home when traveling internationally. Sadly, the US (and we are not alone in this) has recently started detaining people without cause (or maybe just stepping up this behavior to its own citizens) and forcing them to give up their phone passwords before letting them into the country.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/us/citizen-nasa-engineer-detained-at-border-trnd/

Technically, it appears this was legal and the implications are quite chilling:

https://medium.freecodecamp.com/ill-never-bring-my-phone-on-an-international-flight-again-neither-should-you-e9289cde0e5f#.6hbj08do0
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 15, 2017, 10:36:33 AM

It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 


The combination of the travel ban rethoric and the invasive border control makes a lot of my friends here in Scandinavia to not even consider visiting the US right now:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/)

I know that I feel sort of the same way, even though I've visited once a year since 2008... I really do love travelling within the USA, and I get great treatment.  But...

I've read that US travel bookings from my corner of the world has declined between 25 and 50% the last few weeks.

Speaking of which, you might want to consider leaving your cell phone at home when traveling internationally. Sadly, the US (and we are not alone in this) has recently started detaining people without cause (or maybe just stepping up this behavior to its own citizens) and forcing them to give up their phone passwords before letting them into the country.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/us/citizen-nasa-engineer-detained-at-border-trnd/

Technically, it appears this was legal and the implications are quite chilling:

https://medium.freecodecamp.com/ill-never-bring-my-phone-on-an-international-flight-again-neither-should-you-e9289cde0e5f#.6hbj08do0

The request is legal, but there is no obligation to comply.  Refusal to unlock a phone can't (legally) result in denial of entry to a US citizen or to someone with an established/appropriate visa.

Source: Customs & Border Protection buddy of mine - we had this discussion a couple of days ago.  He advised that, given probable cause, they could seize the device and apply for a search warrant.  Absent that, he said just lock the phone before you get to the actual crossing and if you're asked to unlock it, just say no.

Side note, "Customs and Border Patrol" is not a government agency.  So many articles are mentioning it..but..it's not a thing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 15, 2017, 10:40:17 AM

It will be interesting to see how much this administration affects the U.S. travel industry.  Just did a quick search and it looks like there are many articles out there about it.  The theory is that the travel ban rhetoric,etc... may make foreigners statistically less likely to visit the U.S.. 


The combination of the travel ban rethoric and the invasive border control makes a lot of my friends here in Scandinavia to not even consider visiting the US right now:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/a-nasa-engineer-is-required-to-unlock-his-phone-at-the-border/516489/)

I know that I feel sort of the same way, even though I've visited once a year since 2008... I really do love travelling within the USA, and I get great treatment.  But...

I've read that US travel bookings from my corner of the world has declined between 25 and 50% the last few weeks.

Speaking of which, you might want to consider leaving your cell phone at home when traveling internationally. Sadly, the US (and we are not alone in this) has recently started detaining people without cause (or maybe just stepping up this behavior to its own citizens) and forcing them to give up their phone passwords before letting them into the country.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/us/citizen-nasa-engineer-detained-at-border-trnd/

Technically, it appears this was legal and the implications are quite chilling:

https://medium.freecodecamp.com/ill-never-bring-my-phone-on-an-international-flight-again-neither-should-you-e9289cde0e5f#.6hbj08do0

The request is legal, but there is no obligation to comply.  Refusal to unlock a phone can't (legally) result in denial of entry to a US citizen or to someone with an established/appropriate visa.

Source: Customs & Border Protection buddy of mine - we had this discussion a couple of days ago.  He advised that, given probable cause, they could seize the device and apply for a search warrant.  Absent that, he said just lock the phone before you get to the actual crossing and if you're asked to unlock it, just say no.

Side note, "Customs and Border Patrol" is not a government agency.  So many articles are mentioning it..but..it's not a thing.

Has any of this changed under Trump?  Constitutional rights have been under assault for quite some time (predating Obama).  If one of the 2 main parties had a candidate that cared about this stuff, they might have won.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 10:43:22 AM
The request is legal, but there is no obligation to comply.  Refusal to unlock a phone can't (legally) result in denial of entry to a US citizen or to someone with an established/appropriate visa.

Source: Customs & Border Protection buddy of mine - we had this discussion a couple of days ago.  He advised that, given probable cause, they could seize the device and apply for a search warrant.  Absent that, he said just lock the phone before you get to the actual crossing and if you're asked to unlock it, just say no.

Side note, "Customs and Border Patrol" is not a government agency.  So many articles are mentioning it..but..it's not a thing.

Right, but they theoretically could detain you indefinitely at the border until you capitulate. I mean, the NASA guy could have held out longer sure, but who knows what that would have led to?

Per the ACLU:

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. Thus, although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution free," the U.S. government frequently acts like it is.

Depending on how the current administration chooses to view the ongoing/expanded operations of CBP/DHS, this could easily become more of a problem than it already is. @Midwest, not saying that Trump has noticeably worsened this, yet, although his rhetoric about immigration and the border begs that question for obvious reasons. And other countries are already doing this with intention (see the blog post above). I certainly hope we don't go down that path, but protecting your privacy is still generally a good idea.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 10:46:33 AM
...
I'll also join the betting game! I going to say 25 days! It'll be a wait and see approach as the rain continues this week, then damage needs to be assessed.


oh why not.... I'll say 14 days.  I think Trump has a poor hand here; California has the economy to stomach a $162MM hit, and Trump would loose more than he gains by withholding funding; CA has 14 GOP members, including one (McClintock-R) from the district where the Lake Oroville dam is. Imagine how pissed he'd be if Trump withheld relief money over a perceived grudge.

So he'd likely loose some support from his own party in congress while not gaining much leverage. That's my read anyhow.


I'll say 20 days, just to enter the game.

Sounds like Trump approved yesterday.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article132767814.html

Hallelujah.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 15, 2017, 10:47:46 AM
The request is legal, but there is no obligation to comply.  Refusal to unlock a phone can't (legally) result in denial of entry to a US citizen or to someone with an established/appropriate visa.

Source: Customs & Border Protection buddy of mine - we had this discussion a couple of days ago.  He advised that, given probable cause, they could seize the device and apply for a search warrant.  Absent that, he said just lock the phone before you get to the actual crossing and if you're asked to unlock it, just say no.

Side note, "Customs and Border Patrol" is not a government agency.  So many articles are mentioning it..but..it's not a thing.

Right, but they theoretically could detain you indefinitely at the border until you capitulate. I mean, the NASA guy could have held out longer sure, but who knows what that would have led to?

Per the ACLU:

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. Thus, although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution free," the U.S. government frequently acts like it is.

Depending on how the current administration chooses to view the ongoing/expanded operations of CBP/DHS, this could easily become more of a problem than it already is. @Midwest, not saying that Trump has noticeably worsened this, yet, although his rhetoric about immigration and the border begs that question for obvious reasons. And other countries are already doing this with intention (see the blog post above). I certainly hope we don't go down that path, but protecting your privacy is still generally a good idea.

Lagom - I'm not defending the situation.  We have too many laws and many of the constitutional checks and balances have been circumvented.  If either party would use this as an issue, the populace might vote for them.  In 2016, it appeared both candidates agreed that the current state of affairs was ok.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lemanfan on February 15, 2017, 10:50:49 AM
Speaking of which, you might want to consider leaving your cell phone at home when traveling internationally. Sadly, the US (and we are not alone in this) has recently started detaining people without cause (or maybe just stepping up this behavior to its own citizens) and forcing them to give up their phone passwords before letting them into the country.


The ETSA form for us persons from the Visa Waiver countryes now asks for your social media profiles.  Still voluntary to fill out, though.

Info used to be in the devices, now even the border guards know it's all in the cloud. 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 10:58:16 AM
Lagom - I'm not defending the situation.  We have too many laws and many of the constitutional checks and balances have been circumvented.  If either party would use this as an issue, the populace might vote for them.  In 2016, it appeared both candidates agreed that the current state of affairs was ok.

No disagreement on my end.

The ETSA form for us persons from the Visa Waiver countryes now asks for your social media profiles.  Still voluntary to fill out, though.

Info used to be in the devices, now even the border guards know it's all in the cloud.

True, though your cell phone (assuming you have a smart phone) basically is the key to your entire life when unlocked, if you don't take precautions. They also can't know what social media services you use, so that gets trickier than just confiscating a phone. I know this sounds conspiracy theorish, but this is the slippery slope big brother stuff that can easily slide us into dystopia without the general populous even noticing. After all, if you've done nothing wrong what do you have to hide, amirite?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lemanfan on February 15, 2017, 11:04:45 AM
I know this sounds conspiracy theorish, but this is the slippery slope big brother stuff that can easily slide us into dystopia without the general populous even noticing. After all, if you've done nothing wrong what do you have to hide, amirite?

I am paranoid and have started using cash again when I can. Which is actually getting harder here in Sweden.  And to live like I preach, I should stop using US-based e-mail, but I still have not given up my gmail. If you're not paranoid, you don't just know enough...  ;)

Given your forum name, I assume that you have your roots in my corner of the world?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 11:20:36 AM
I know this sounds conspiracy theorish, but this is the slippery slope big brother stuff that can easily slide us into dystopia without the general populous even noticing. After all, if you've done nothing wrong what do you have to hide, amirite?

I am paranoid and have started using cash again when I can. Which is actually getting harder here in Sweden.  And to live like I preach, I should stop using US-based e-mail, but I still have not given up my gmail. If you're not paranoid, you don't just know enough...  ;)

Given your forum name, I assume that you have your roots in my corner of the world?

Yeah I have been way too lax with my own privacy, tbh, but I am finally starting to take it more seriously. Google security is pretty good, but I hear ya. At a minimum everyone should enable two factor authentication for their email. At the moment I trust Google not to give me up to the government, perhaps naively? :)

Indeed, my mother's parents were both from Sweden, so I have a large extended family there. Swedes in general always struck me as unusually mustachian by default, and I love the implications of the word "lagom," which is why I used it as my forum name. I haven't been back in years, but really need to start planning another trip! Might leave my cell at home though ;)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 15, 2017, 11:27:50 AM
At the moment I trust Google not to give me up to the government, perhaps naively? :)

VERY naively.  The government monitors all traffic at internet backbones.  It doesn't have to hack your account, it already reads everything with the cooperation of all of the major infrastructure partners, and this is a widely known practice.  If it's not well encrypted end to end, Uncle Sam can read it.  They're automatically filtering for specific keywords and phrases, so it's not like there is some poor civil servant who has to personally read all of your emails.

Two factor authentication protects third parties from taking control of your account by resetting the password without your consent.  It doesn't do anything at all to protect your privacy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 15, 2017, 11:43:09 AM
At the moment I trust Google not to give me up to the government, perhaps naively? :)

VERY naively.  The government monitors all traffic at internet backbones.  It doesn't have to hack your account, it already reads everything with the cooperation of all of the major infrastructure partners, and this is a widely known practice. If it's not well encrypted end to end, Uncle Sam can read it.  They're automatically filtering for specific keywords and phrases, so it's not like there is some poor civil servant who has to personally read all of your emails.

Two factor authentication protects third parties from taking control of your account by resetting the password without your consent.  It doesn't do anything at all to protect your privacy.

This is true. I worked planning devices that snooped and forwarded packets to gov't servers. I had no formal security clearances so this stuff is a pretty wide-open secret. 

Yes - encrypt end to end.

If I don't post tomorrow, you'll know they've found me. Tell my family I love them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 15, 2017, 11:43:48 AM
At the moment I trust Google not to give me up to the government, perhaps naively? :)

VERY naively.  The government monitors all traffic at internet backbones.  It doesn't have to hack your account, it already reads everything with the cooperation of all of the major infrastructure partners, and this is a widely known practice.  If it's not well encrypted end to end, Uncle Sam can read it.  They're automatically filtering for specific keywords and phrases, so it's not like there is some poor civil servant who has to personally read all of your emails.

Two factor authentication protects third parties from taking control of your account by resetting the password without your consent.  It doesn't do anything at all to protect your privacy.

Gmail has been using HTTPS since 2010: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/21/gmail_will_now_encrypt_all_of_the_traffic_between_google_servers_to_make.html

Of course, that doesn't help if the email server you're sending to is using HTTP.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 15, 2017, 11:44:27 AM
At the moment I trust Google not to give me up to the government, perhaps naively? :)

VERY naively.  The government monitors all traffic at internet backbones.  It doesn't have to hack your account, it already reads everything with the cooperation of all of the major infrastructure partners, and this is a widely known practice.  If it's not well encrypted end to end, Uncle Sam can read it.  They're automatically filtering for specific keywords and phrases, so it's not like there is some poor civil servant who has to personally read all of your emails.

Two factor authentication protects third parties from taking control of your account by resetting the password without your consent.  It doesn't do anything at all to protect your privacy.

There's nothing we can do about that, though, short of having any private conversations over encrypted lines (which I mostly do, and treat my email as possibly public).  But if you give them access to your phone data, they could then read those encrypted conversations directly if you have a copy or possibly get the keys after the fact.  I'd much rather make that impossible.  Even though I have "nothing to hide," I don't want to give anybody any excuses to hold me at the border.

The legal justification for this has been in place for a long time, but it seems that there is renewed vigor in using it.  I'd be interested in the stats on electronics searches in the Trump administration vs. Obama.  If I had to guess, I'd say that Obama sure did it a lot, but likely targeted suspects with existing suspicions from other agencies.  It seems now they are just targeting darkies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 15, 2017, 11:45:26 AM
At the moment I trust Google not to give me up to the government, perhaps naively? :)

VERY naively.  The government monitors all traffic at internet backbones.  It doesn't have to hack your account, it already reads everything with the cooperation of all of the major infrastructure partners, and this is a widely known practice.  If it's not well encrypted end to end, Uncle Sam can read it.  They're automatically filtering for specific keywords and phrases, so it's not like there is some poor civil servant who has to personally read all of your emails.

Two factor authentication protects third parties from taking control of your account by resetting the password without your consent.  It doesn't do anything at all to protect your privacy.

Gmail has been using HTTPS since 2010: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/21/gmail_will_now_encrypt_all_of_the_traffic_between_google_servers_to_make.html

Of course, that doesn't help if the email server you're sending to is using HTTP.

It doesn't help if there's a NSA server co-located with Google's servers.  As far as I know, mail servers also do not perform end-to-end encryption during transmission (but please let me know if the state of art has changed... wikipedia says each hop is typically encrypted, but if the middle hop is NSA, that again doesn't help.  There are also likely millions of older servers using plaintext SMTP)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 15, 2017, 11:46:45 AM

There's nothing we can do about that, though, short of having any private conversations over encrypted lines (which I mostly do, and treat my email as possibly public).  But if you give them access to your phone data, they could then read those encrypted conversations directly if you have a copy or possibly get the keys after the fact.  I'd much rather make that impossible.  Even though I have "nothing to hide," I don't want to give anybody any excuses to hold me at the border.

The legal justification for this has been in place for a long time, but it seems that there is renewed vigor in using it.  I'd be interested in the stats on electronics searches in the Trump administration vs. Obama.  If I had to guess, I'd say that Obama sure did it a lot, but likely targeted suspects with existing suspicions from other agencies.  It seems now they are just targeting darkies.



Yeah - it's why I'm not too worried. /s
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 11:56:25 AM
At the moment I trust Google not to give me up to the government, perhaps naively? :)

VERY naively.  The government monitors all traffic at internet backbones.  It doesn't have to hack your account, it already reads everything with the cooperation of all of the major infrastructure partners, and this is a widely known practice.  If it's not well encrypted end to end, Uncle Sam can read it.  They're automatically filtering for specific keywords and phrases, so it's not like there is some poor civil servant who has to personally read all of your emails.

Two factor authentication protects third parties from taking control of your account by resetting the password without your consent.  It doesn't do anything at all to protect your privacy.

There's nothing we can do about that, though, short of having any private conversations over encrypted lines (which I mostly do, and treat my email as possibly public).  But if you give them access to your phone data, they could then read those encrypted conversations directly if you have a copy or possibly get the keys after the fact.  I'd much rather make that impossible.  Even though I have "nothing to hide," I don't want to give anybody any excuses to hold me at the border.

The legal justification for this has been in place for a long time, but it seems that there is renewed vigor in using it.  I'd be interested in the stats on electronics searches in the Trump administration vs. Obama.  If I had to guess, I'd say that Obama sure did it a lot, but likely targeted suspects with existing suspicions from other agencies.  It seems now they are just targeting darkies.

Yes this is my point. I'm not saying my gmail account is impossible to penetrate (I am aware two-factor won't protect me from the NSA, but it's still a good idea). Frankly its already too late to do anything to stop a truly determined party from finding out everything they want about any of us with relative ease, but that doesn't mean I have to open the door and invite them in, nor does it appear Google is doing so, so far as I can tell.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 15, 2017, 11:58:33 AM
Their lead is now, "'VERY UN-AMERICAN': Trump blasts US intel community over 'illegal' leaks."

Does anyone else remember when trump was so enthusiastic about "illegal leaks" that he literally asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails last July?  He publicly commended wikileaks for publishing stolen DNC documents. 

The man built his whole campaign on the very thing he is now calling "UnAmerican".  I don't think you can get much more hypocritical than that.

...you can't get much more hypocritical than that... are you sure?

WHat about Trump railing against HRC's ties to Wall Street, only to have him appoint four former executives from Goldman Sachs into his administration and start rollback of Dodd-Frank?

What about his attacks on the Clinton Foundation as an institution connecting donors to positions of power, only to appoint the biggest donor ever to the Trump Foundation (Linda McMahon) to lead his Small Business Administration, and GOP meda-donor Besty DeVos to be Sec of Ed.?

What about berating HRC's use of a private server as blatantly disregarding national security only to hold an impromptu strategy session in front of dozens of other diners with staffers shining their phones over everything? (ok, that's really similar)

What about DJT's promises of protecting SSI and medicare, only to appoint longtime critic of SSI Tom Price to lead the HHS?

are those hypocricies less than him railing on leaks being "unAmerican" after encouraging Russia to hack the DNC?  ....because I honestly have no idea which is the most hypocritical.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on February 15, 2017, 12:07:59 PM
Their lead is now, "'VERY UN-AMERICAN': Trump blasts US intel community over 'illegal' leaks."

Does anyone else remember when trump was so enthusiastic about "illegal leaks" that he literally asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails last July?  He publicly commended wikileaks for publishing stolen DNC documents. 

The man built his whole campaign on the very thing he is now calling "UnAmerican".  I don't think you can get much more hypocritical than that.

To which Trump responds, "Oh yeah? Then watch this."

I think calling it hypocritical is technically correct usage in the context of what was said, but misses the point. Saying it is hypocritical implies that the original statement was either believed or had substance as something to turn from. His words are water and smoke, so it is unclear if there is enough there to really be truly hypocritical instead of simply lacking in substance.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 15, 2017, 12:29:50 PM
His words are water and smoke, so it is unclear if there is enough there to really be truly hypocritical instead of simply lacking in substance.

I understand your point, but I think you don't give trump enough credit.

I think he accused Clinton of being too cozy with wall street because of his ties to wall street.  He promoted hatred of illegal immigrants because his resorts employ illegal immigrants.  He challenged Clinton's stamina and health because he's a frail 70  year old fat man with a poor diet and a history of venereal disease. He promised to drain the swamp because he has spent his entire life living in the swamp.  He spoke up on behalf of regular working class Americans because he's an elitist who was born with a silver spoon.  He tried to be tough on crime because be has a long history of working with organized crime in the NYC construction industry.  He pilloried the Clinton foundation, despite its squeaky clean books, because his own foundation was perpetually being fined for illegal practices.  He's fawning over the military because he was a five time draft dodger.  He disparaged the Clinton's marriage because he cheats on all of his wives before divorcing them.

These actions are more than just hypocrisy, they're deliberate distractions.  He uses his own faults and weaknesses as a candidate and as a person as attacks against his opponents.  He's all offense, so he never has to play defense.  By creating these concerns about his enemies, he shields himself from valid criticisms about his own checkered past.  This is such a consistent pattern with him that it can't be a bumbling accident or nebulous hand waving.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 15, 2017, 12:55:05 PM
He said many of those things because Cambridge analytics said he should

the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine (https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b)

Quote
Based on users’ response to these posts, Cambridge Analytica was able to identify which of Trump’s messages were resonating and where. That information was also used to shape Trump’s campaign travel schedule. If 73 percent of targeted voters in Kent County, Mich. clicked on one of three articles about bringing back jobs? Schedule a Trump rally in Grand Rapids that focuses on economic recovery.

Quote
Dark posts were also used to depress voter turnout among key groups of democratic voters. “In this election, dark posts were used to try to suppress the African-American vote,” wrote journalist and Open Society fellow McKenzie Funk in a New York Times editorial. “According to Bloomberg, the Trump campaign sent ads reminding certain selected black voters of Hillary Clinton’s infamous ‘super predator’ line. It targeted Miami’s Little Haiti neighborhood with messages about the Clinton Foundation’s troubles in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake.’”

Quote
Because dark posts are only visible to the targeted users, there’s no way for anyone outside of Analytica or the Trump campaign to track the content of these ads. In this case, there was no SEC oversight, no public scrutiny of Trump’s attack ads. Just the rapid-eye-movement of millions of individual users scanning their Facebook feeds.

I remember reading a few weeks ago that trump paid $100k around sept and ramped to $5million the next month. Paid off.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 15, 2017, 12:58:47 PM
This is beyond embarrassing, I just watched a clip from the press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu.  In it, an reporter (maybe Israeli, not sure) asked what Trump would say to those in the Jewish community who “believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.”

Trump replied - “Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had: 306 Electoral College votes,” Trump said. “We were not supposed to crack 220. You know that, right? There was no way to 221, but then they said there’s no way to 270.”  I'm hoping that the clip was tampered with in some way and it really didn't happen because otherwise, WTF!!!!

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cliffhanger on February 15, 2017, 01:22:18 PM
This is beyond embarrassing, I just watched a clip from the press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu.  In it, an reporter (maybe Israeli, not sure) asked what Trump would say to those in the Jewish community who “believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.”

Trump replied - “Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had: 306 Electoral College votes,” Trump said. “We were not supposed to crack 220. You know that, right? There was no way to 221, but then they said there’s no way to 270.”  I'm hoping that the clip was tampered with in some way and it really didn't happen because otherwise, WTF!!!!


At least use his whole answer (bold emphasis mine). We get it, Trump has a huge ego, but he does address the question.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/15/514986341/watch-live-trump-netanyahu-hold-joint-press-conference-at-white-house (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/15/514986341/watch-live-trump-netanyahu-hold-joint-press-conference-at-white-house)

Quote
Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had -- 306 electoral college votes. We were not supposed to crack 220. You know that, right? There was no way to 221, but then they said there's no way to 270. And there's tremendous enthusiasm out there.

I will say that we are going to have peace in this country. We are going to stop crime in this country. We are going to do everything within our power to stop long simmering racism and every other thing that's going on. There's a lot of bad things that have been taking place over a long period of time.

I think one of the reasons I won the election is we have a very, very divided nation, very divided. And hopefully, I'll be able to do something about that. And I, you know, it was something that was very important to me.


As far as people, Jewish people, so many friends; a daughter who happens to be here right now; a son-in-law, and three beautiful grandchildren. I think that you're going to see a lot different United States of America over the next three, four or eight years. I think a lot of good things are happening.

And you're going to see a lot of love. You're going to see a lot of love.

OK? Thank you.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 01:31:16 PM
He said many of those things because Cambridge analytics said he should

the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine (https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b)

Yikes, what an article. Today's challenge to those who still support Trump: read the above and share your thoughts. I am genuinely interested. Not so much in whether you agree about how this process helped Trump win (doubt you'll go there), but more on the overall implications of this use of personal data.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 15, 2017, 01:41:47 PM
He said many of those things because Cambridge analytics said he should

the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine (https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b)

Yikes, what an article. Today's challenge to those who still support Trump: read the above and share your thoughts. I am genuinely interested. Not so much in whether you agree about how this process helped Trump win (doubt you'll go there), but more on the overall implications of this use of personal data.

Other than the fact that Google is much more powerful, how is that materially different than this -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-google-hillary-clinton_us_5633acc9e4b0631799123a7d
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on February 15, 2017, 01:43:33 PM
His words are water and smoke, so it is unclear if there is enough there to really be truly hypocritical instead of simply lacking in substance.

I understand your point, but I think you don't give trump enough credit.

I think he accused Clinton of being too cozy with wall street because of his ties to wall street.  He promoted hatred of illegal immigrants because his resorts employ illegal immigrants.  He challenged Clinton's stamina and health because he's a frail 70  year old fat man with a poor diet and a history of venereal disease. He promised to drain the swamp because he has spent his entire life living in the swamp.  He spoke up on behalf of regular working class Americans because he's an elitist who was born with a silver spoon.  He tried to be tough on crime because be has a long history of working with organized crime in the NYC construction industry.  He pilloried the Clinton foundation, despite its squeaky clean books, because his own foundation was perpetually being fined for illegal practices.  He's fawning over the military because he was a five time draft dodger.  He disparaged the Clinton's marriage because he cheats on all of his wives before divorcing them.

These actions are more than just hypocrisy, they're deliberate distractions.  He uses his own faults and weaknesses as a candidate and as a person as attacks against his opponents.  He's all offense, so he never has to play defense.  By creating these concerns about his enemies, he shields himself from valid criticisms about his own checkered past.  This is such a consistent pattern with him that it can't be a bumbling accident or nebulous hand waving.

Yes, we agree completely. This is different than hypocrisy because he doesn't actually mean what he says. His words are simply a means to an end. He is a bullshitter.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 15, 2017, 01:50:37 PM
This is beyond embarrassing, I just watched a clip from the press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu.  In it, an reporter (maybe Israeli, not sure) asked what Trump would say to those in the Jewish community who “believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.”

Trump replied - “Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had: 306 Electoral College votes,” Trump said. “We were not supposed to crack 220. You know that, right? There was no way to 221, but then they said there’s no way to 270.”  I'm hoping that the clip was tampered with in some way and it really didn't happen because otherwise, WTF!!!!

It was much the same when they took 4 questions when DJT met Canada's PM Trudeau.  One reporter asked whether Trump's rhetoric about the southern border extended to the Canadian boarder, and whether he was proposing small or large changes to boarder policies with Canada.  Trudeau's answer (in both languages) was basically that the US/Canada are strong allies, and while Canada might not always agree 100% with its ally on every issue, in the end both are stronger nad have created millions of jobs together by ensuring that goods and people can flow across the boarder in a free and safe manner.
Trump's responded about his electoral college win, about how Mexico was ripping us off, and then he listed eight different companies that (according to him) were shifting jobs back to the US since he took office.  He effectively ignored any mention of Canada in his response about the Canadian border at a conference with Canadian Journalists with Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau.
WTF.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 15, 2017, 02:00:21 PM
This is beyond embarrassing, I just watched a clip from the press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu.  In it, an reporter (maybe Israeli, not sure) asked what Trump would say to those in the Jewish community who “believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.”

Trump replied - “Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had: 306 Electoral College votes,” Trump said. “We were not supposed to crack 220. You know that, right? There was no way to 221, but then they said there’s no way to 270.”  I'm hoping that the clip was tampered with in some way and it really didn't happen because otherwise, WTF!!!!


At least use his whole answer (bold emphasis mine). We get it, Trump has a huge ego, but he does address the question.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/15/514986341/watch-live-trump-netanyahu-hold-joint-press-conference-at-white-house (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/15/514986341/watch-live-trump-netanyahu-hold-joint-press-conference-at-white-house)

Quote
Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had -- 306 electoral college votes. We were not supposed to crack 220. You know that, right? There was no way to 221, but then they said there's no way to 270. And there's tremendous enthusiasm out there.

I will say that we are going to have peace in this country. We are going to stop crime in this country. We are going to do everything within our power to stop long simmering racism and every other thing that's going on. There's a lot of bad things that have been taking place over a long period of time.

I think one of the reasons I won the election is we have a very, very divided nation, very divided. And hopefully, I'll be able to do something about that. And I, you know, it was something that was very important to me.


As far as people, Jewish people, so many friends; a daughter who happens to be here right now; a son-in-law, and three beautiful grandchildren. I think that you're going to see a lot different United States of America over the next three, four or eight years. I think a lot of good things are happening.

And you're going to see a lot of love. You're going to see a lot of love.

OK? Thank you.

Respectfully, I do not see how that answers the question by repeating a bunch of talking points that sound idiotic.  "We are going to do everything within our power to stop long simmering racism and every other thing that's going on."  WTF is every other thing?   Because his daughter is Jewish is an answer?  It's embarrassing, he has no clue how to answer a question other than to talk about himself and spout rambling incoherent nonsense. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 02:04:18 PM
He said many of those things because Cambridge analytics said he should

the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine (https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b)

Yikes, what an article. Today's challenge to those who still support Trump: read the above and share your thoughts. I am genuinely interested. Not so much in whether you agree about how this process helped Trump win (doubt you'll go there), but more on the overall implications of this use of personal data.

Other than the fact that Google is much more powerful, how is that materially different than this -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-google-hillary-clinton_us_5633acc9e4b0631799123a7d

1) That link explicitly states that "To date, however, there’s no evidence that any engineers or executives currently working for Google or Alphabet, Google’s parent company, are doing anything to support Clinton’s campaign."

2) I would need to read more about what The Groundwork is doing specifically in comparison to Cambridge Analtytica before agreeing that they are the same, a conclusion you are taking as a matter of course.

3) This quote from the article I linked (which is unclear you read in its entirety or at all): "Political analysts in the Clinton campaign, who were basing their tactics on traditional polling methods, laughed when Trump scheduled campaign events in the so-called blue wall — a group of states that includes Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and has traditionally fallen to Democrats. But Cambridge Analytica saw they had an opening based on measured engagement with their Facebook posts. It was the small margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that won Trump the election."

3a) And this one: "Dark posts were also used to depress voter turnout among key groups of democratic voters," which is a whole nother level beyond standard political ads being sent to targeted audiences...

3b) And implies that even if they are trying to do the same thing and The Groundwork was working for Clinton (which your link implies they were not), The Groundwork clearly has worse algorithms and/or potentially is not as insidiously invasive of privacy and/or is not as unethical in their use. Not that I would condone them anyway because...

4) Even if I'm wrong and they are the same (yet to be proven) I find them equally objectionable, and so should you.

5) ETA - And then there is this quote: "Research by Woolley and his Oxford-based team in the lead-up to the 2016 election found that pro-Trump political messaging relied heavily on bots to spread fake news and discredit Hillary Clinton. By election day, Trump’s bots outnumbered hers, 5:1."

So there you go, she used them too, but at a far lower level which implies quite a lot about how she perceived them and what exactly her bots were doing. Still questionable though, depending on those exact details, to be sure.

ETA#2 - "Cambridge Analytica may be slated to secure more federal contracts (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cambridge-analytica-steve-bannon-robert-rebekah-mercer-donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-white-a7435536.html) and is likely about to begin managing White House digital communications for the rest of the Trump Administration. What new predictive-personality targeting becomes possible with potential access to data on U.S. voters from the IRS, Department of Homeland Security, or the NSA?"

I suspect you did not read the whole article at all (I'll admit I was only about halfway through when I first posted).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 15, 2017, 02:07:58 PM
He effectively ignored any mention of Canada in his response about the Canadian border at a conference with Canadian Journalists with Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau.
WTF.

Canadians don't vote.

Until the Canadian press starts to have some pull with American audiences, trump will openly and completely ignore Canada. 

Everything he says or tweets is designed to elicit a response from his supporters and enrage his enemies.  He doesn't seem to care about measuring the political impacts of his statements.  And he certainly doesn't care if any of it is true.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 15, 2017, 04:09:28 PM
What do you think is the over/under on the number of Trump senior advisers/cabinet secretaries that will be forced to resign or be impeached and removed?

If the current trend (1/month) continues, it'll be 48 in the first Trump term.

I think this Russia thing has legs only because many high ranking GOP senators are against warmer ties with Russia.
There's enough GOP hawks in congress who's hatred of Russia is far stronger than their allegiance to Trump.  I still wouldn't be surprised if the Kremlin 'leaks' some  kompromat on DJT or Tillerman (or both) in the next 6 months.

Assuming they have some komrpomat (which I suspect they do) - the reason they haven't released it yet is because the Trump administration has been doing such a bang-up job of shooting itself in the foot over nad over.  Putin will wait until DJT gets his feet under him and when it finally seems like they've finally bandaged over their self-inflicted wounds.

Well, two down in the first month (though Puzder wasn't confirmed so I guess he technically doesn't count). Nothing to do with Russia either.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2017, 07:07:41 PM
EJ Dionne today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/admit-it-trump-is-unfit-to-serve/2017/02/15/467d0bbe-f3be-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?utm_term=.e02ed32821ac
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 15, 2017, 08:51:31 PM
He said many of those things because Cambridge analytics said he should

the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine (https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b)

Yikes, what an article. Today's challenge to those who still support Trump: read the above and share your thoughts. I am genuinely interested. Not so much in whether you agree about how this process helped Trump win (doubt you'll go there), but more on the overall implications of this use of personal data.

Other than the fact that Google is much more powerful, how is that materially different than this -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-google-hillary-clinton_us_5633acc9e4b0631799123a7d

1) That link explicitly states that "To date, however, there’s no evidence that any engineers or executives currently working for Google or Alphabet, Google’s parent company, are doing anything to support Clinton’s campaign."

2) I would need to read more about what The Groundwork is doing specifically in comparison to Cambridge Analtytica before agreeing that they are the same, a conclusion you are taking as a matter of course.

3) This quote from the article I linked (which is unclear you read in its entirety or at all): "Political analysts in the Clinton campaign, who were basing their tactics on traditional polling methods, laughed when Trump scheduled campaign events in the so-called blue wall — a group of states that includes Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and has traditionally fallen to Democrats. But Cambridge Analytica saw they had an opening based on measured engagement with their Facebook posts. It was the small margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that won Trump the election."

3a) And this one: "Dark posts were also used to depress voter turnout among key groups of democratic voters," which is a whole nother level beyond standard political ads being sent to targeted audiences...

3b) And implies that even if they are trying to do the same thing and The Groundwork was working for Clinton (which your link implies they were not), The Groundwork clearly has worse algorithms and/or potentially is not as insidiously invasive of privacy and/or is not as unethical in their use. Not that I would condone them anyway because...

4) Even if I'm wrong and they are the same (yet to be proven) I find them equally objectionable, and so should you.

5) ETA - And then there is this quote: "Research by Woolley and his Oxford-based team in the lead-up to the 2016 election found that pro-Trump political messaging relied heavily on bots to spread fake news and discredit Hillary Clinton. By election day, Trump’s bots outnumbered hers, 5:1."

So there you go, she used them too, but at a far lower level which implies quite a lot about how she perceived them and what exactly her bots were doing. Still questionable though, depending on those exact details, to be sure.

ETA#2 - "Cambridge Analytica may be slated to secure more federal contracts (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cambridge-analytica-steve-bannon-robert-rebekah-mercer-donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-white-a7435536.html) and is likely about to begin managing White House digital communications for the rest of the Trump Administration. What new predictive-personality targeting becomes possible with potential access to data on U.S. voters from the IRS, Department of Homeland Security, or the NSA?"

I suspect you did not read the whole article at all (I'll admit I was only about halfway through when I first posted).

Take all of what you just wrote, all of what you read in that article, and combine it with the fact that in 2013 the US repealed the propaganda ban (http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/) that keeps the US from broadcasting propaganda domestically.

Quote
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."

keep in mind that

Quote
the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January. ....  In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the "R" bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)

POTUS - a man who paid Cambridge Analytics $15 Million to enrage and/or suppress voters with fake news (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#2016_presidential_election) - is no longer restricted from projecting propaganda on our population. And who is heading up State now? Oh yeah, Rex Tillerson, a guy who harbored zero ethical qualms about bankrolling global warming denial campaigns.

I'm such a mix of negative emotions right now I don't even know where to begin on how this makes me feel.

And the worst part is that the vast majority of the voting population is unaware  or I imagine would be highly dismissive of these revelations - esp if they voted for Trump based on a series of clicks through paid advertising via facebook.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 08:57:52 PM
EJ Dionne today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/admit-it-trump-is-unfit-to-serve/2017/02/15/467d0bbe-f3be-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?utm_term=.e02ed32821ac

It is going to be SO HARD to lay off the "I told you sos." Although I still hesitate to dream we'll have the opportunity. Of course there is also still the stark possibility that Pence is the real Manchurian candidate here. But as long as he keeps us out of war and doesn't completely torpedo our standing in the world I'll take the inevitable repressive social laws since those can just be rolled back in a couple years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 15, 2017, 08:59:09 PM
And the worst part is that the vast majority of the voting population is unaware  or I imagine would be highly dismissive of these revelations - esp if they voted for Trump based on a series of clicks through paid advertising via facebook.

No one wants to admit they were duped. I knew this sort of stuff was going on but I was honestly unaware of just how huge the scope was. There is so much cool stuff Big Data can do for the world, but damn its dark side is troubling.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 15, 2017, 09:07:12 PM
He effectively ignored any mention of Canada in his response about the Canadian border at a conference with Canadian Journalists with Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau.
WTF.

Canadians don't vote.

Until the Canadian press starts to have some pull with American audiences, trump will openly and completely ignore Canada. 

Everything he says or tweets is designed to elicit a response from his supporters and enrage his enemies.  He doesn't seem to care about measuring the political impacts of his statements.  And he certainly doesn't care if any of it is true.
Well, he did approve Keystone XL.... so there's that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 16, 2017, 05:16:38 AM
He effectively ignored any mention of Canada in his response about the Canadian border at a conference with Canadian Journalists with Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau.
WTF.

Canadians don't vote.

Until the Canadian press starts to have some pull with American audiences, trump will openly and completely ignore Canada. 

Everything he says or tweets is designed to elicit a response from his supporters and enrage his enemies.  He doesn't seem to care about measuring the political impacts of his statements.  And he certainly doesn't care if any of it is true.
Well, he did approve Keystone XL.... so there's that.
To Sol's cheeky "Canadian's don't vote" - that skirted my point.  When Trump was asked about the Canadian border he ignored the question entirely and just listed a bunch of companies he supposedly had forced into 'great' deals.  But he (Sol) has a point that until US citizens care he can get away with it.  Why should Americans (including his base) care?  Because Canada is the US's biggest trading partner... not Mexico or China. If his base really gives a damn about refugees streaming across the boarder they ought to care that Canada has been letting in tens of thousands Syrian refugees, and unlike the rather armored and patrolled Mexican border the Canadian border is pretty darn porous and a hell of a lot longer.
Frankly, I"m amazed that DJT can keep the focus on Mexico, especially when Trudeau stood in the White House and renewed its commitment to bring in more Syrians and argued that the US Canada border must remain open to both jobs and people.

RE the Keystone XL - meh.  That oil was being shipped inefficiently by rail until prices cratered (and it will again soon) so the global environmental change of the pipeline will change very little.  The people who really loose here are the state and local governments. They take on all the risk of the pipeline with little long term benefit. Once again the GOP proves it no longer stands for states rights and limited federal government.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 16, 2017, 08:06:23 AM
Once again the GOP proves it no longer stands for states rights and limited federal government.

I think you misinterpret the GOP wanting to limit the federal government and enhance states rights.... they only want that when the Democrats are in charge.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 16, 2017, 08:57:46 AM
Once again the GOP proves it no longer stands for states rights and limited federal government.

I think you misinterpret the GOP wanting to limit the federal government and enhance states rights.... they only want that when the Democrats are in charge.

I disagree that it's me misinterpreting the GOP's stance on government - the GOP pays a lot of lip service about being the party of limited government.  These are taken directly from the GOP's 2016 platform:

Quote
We believe our constitutional system - limited government, seperation of powers, federalism, and the rights of people - must be preserved uncompromised for generations

And this means returning to the people and the states the control that belongs to them. It is the control and the power to make their own decisions about what’s best for themselves and their families and communities.

Our most urgent task as a Party is to restore the American people’s faith in their government by electing a president who will enforce duly enacted laws, honor constitutional limits on executive authority, and return credibility to the Oval Office. We need a Republican president who will end abuses of power by departments and agencies, like the IRS and the EPA, and by the White House itself. Safeguarding our liberties requires a president who will respect the Constitution’s separation of powers, including the authority of Congress to write legislation and define agency authority.

We further affirm that courts should interpret laws as written by Congress rather than allowing executive agencies to rewrite those laws to suit administration priorities.

our national government derives its power from the governed and that all powers not delegated to the government are retained by the people. We call upon legislators to give full force to this fundamental principle. We welcome to our ranks all citizens who are determined to reclaim the rights of the people that have been ignored or usurped by the federal and intrusive state governments.

Federalism is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans. Hence the promise of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution gives the federal government very few powers, and they are specifically enumerated

...and on and on.  Literally their 66 page platform dwells extensively on how the federal government must be smaller, powers should be returned to the states, and congress should assert more of its powers back from the executive branch.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: I'm a red panda on February 16, 2017, 09:31:34 AM
And the worst part is that the vast majority of the voting population is unaware  or I imagine would be highly dismissive of these revelations - esp if they voted for Trump based on a series of clicks through paid advertising via facebook.

No one wants to admit they were duped. I knew this sort of stuff was going on but I was honestly unaware of just how huge the scope was. There is so much cool stuff Big Data can do for the world, but damn its dark side is troubling.

Many of the people I know who voted for Trump still support him. As far as I can tell they do so solely on an anti-immigrant stance and don't care about the rest.  A few of them daily post on facebook about how hard it is to be a white man.

I know one woman who is somewhat upset with Trump, but only about DeVos, since she's a public school teacher. But again, she thinks everything else he is doing is right on track.

I'm baffled.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 16, 2017, 09:36:32 AM
And the worst part is that the vast majority of the voting population is unaware  or I imagine would be highly dismissive of these revelations - esp if they voted for Trump based on a series of clicks through paid advertising via facebook.

No one wants to admit they were duped. I knew this sort of stuff was going on but I was honestly unaware of just how huge the scope was. There is so much cool stuff Big Data can do for the world, but damn its dark side is troubling.

Many of the people I know who voted for Trump still support him. As far as I can tell they do so solely on an anti-immigrant stance and don't care about the rest.  A few of them daily post on facebook about how hard it is to be a white man.

I know one woman who is somewhat upset with Trump, but only about DeVos, since she's a public school teacher. But again, she thinks everything else he is doing is right on track.

I'm baffled.

It's much less baffling when you realize they live in a completely alternate universe of "alternative facts" that's been created and fostered by people like Steve Bannon. They aren't upset by what's happening because they literally don't know what's happening. They only know what Breitbart et al tell them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 16, 2017, 09:46:04 AM
I have one relative who is still passing along the same BS that we heard all during the election. The topics have shifted from HRC to Trump's bullet points but the quality of the information passed along is still just as poor. 

Sad thing is that they were once active Republicans that seemed to "get it" and while their opinions did not always match mine their opinion was mostly based on legit facts.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 16, 2017, 09:50:57 AM
I disagree that it's me misinterpreting the GOP's stance on government - the GOP pays a lot of lip service about being the party of limited government.

I don't think it's you misinterpreting, I think it is them deliberately deceiving.

I agree that their party platform pays much lip service to the ideals of smaller government, but their actions over the past 30 years betray the lie.  Divedendman was just pointing out the disconnect between what they say and what they do.

Don't be taken in by the advertising brochure.  Look at the actual product.  Republicanism has a long track record, and it has nothing to do with smaller government.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 16, 2017, 10:01:58 AM
He said many of those things because Cambridge analytics said he should

the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine (https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b)

Yikes, what an article. Today's challenge to those who still support Trump: read the above and share your thoughts. I am genuinely interested. Not so much in whether you agree about how this process helped Trump win (doubt you'll go there), but more on the overall implications of this use of personal data.

Other than the fact that Google is much more powerful, how is that materially different than this -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-google-hillary-clinton_us_5633acc9e4b0631799123a7d

1) That link explicitly states that "To date, however, there’s no evidence that any engineers or executives currently working for Google or Alphabet, Google’s parent company, are doing anything to support Clinton’s campaign."

That comment refers to manipulating search results.  I haven't seen any evidence from a credible site of search results being manipulated by google.  However, google personnel and many in the tech industry were active supporters of Clinton.   

My point is that, if anything, she had a huge technological advantage.


3) This quote from the article I linked (which is unclear you read in its entirety or at all): "Political analysts in the Clinton campaign, who were basing their tactics on traditional polling methods, laughed when Trump scheduled campaign events in the so-called blue wall — a group of states that includes Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and has traditionally fallen to Democrats. But Cambridge Analytica saw they had an opening based on measured engagement with their Facebook posts. It was the small margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that won Trump the election."

More than bad data was in play in Clinton losing those states.  Her campaign and the media were overconfident. 

Polling methods have been problematic for quite some some time.  In the past, Democrats have found an advantage in this area.  In 2016, it appears the Republicans found and exploited an advantage.


3a) And this one: "Dark posts were also used to depress voter turnout among key groups of democratic voters," which is a whole nother level beyond standard political ads being sent to targeted audiences...

3b) And implies that even if they are trying to do the same thing and The Groundwork was working for Clinton (which your link implies they were not), The Groundwork clearly has worse algorithms and/or potentially is not as insidiously invasive of privacy and/or is not as unethical in their use. Not that I would condone them anyway because...

4) Even if I'm wrong and they are the same (yet to be proven) I find them equally objectionable, and so should you.

5) ETA - And then there is this quote: "Research by Woolley and his Oxford-based team in the lead-up to the 2016 election found that pro-Trump political messaging relied heavily on bots to spread fake news and discredit Hillary Clinton. By election day, Trump’s bots outnumbered hers, 5:1."

So there you go, she used them too, but at a far lower level which implies quite a lot about how she perceived them and what exactly her bots were doing. Still questionable though, depending on those exact details, to be sure.

If I interpret you and the article correctly, both sides were using bots and trolls.   Trump used more and his were more effective?

I think bots, trolls and fake news are objectionable.  Both sides used them.  Based on your comments, it appears Clinton used them less although it still sounds like she used them a lot.  Using something that is wrong less, doesn't vindicate her campaign.

ETA#2 - "Cambridge Analytica may be slated to secure more federal contracts (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cambridge-analytica-steve-bannon-robert-rebekah-mercer-donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-white-a7435536.html) and is likely about to begin managing White House digital communications for the rest of the Trump Administration. What new predictive-personality targeting becomes possible with potential access to data on U.S. voters from the IRS, Department of Homeland Security, or the NSA?"

I would hope NSA and Homeland security data is firewalled.  This kind of discussion is why that data shouldn't exist absent a warrant to begin with.  Both parties have had ample opportunity to do something about it.  Neither have.

I suspect you did not read the whole article at all (I'll admit I was only about halfway through when I first posted).

When I first commented, I hadn't read the entire article and was posting a question.  I have now read the article and looked at the site.  In my opinion, it's a slanted site and that's a slanted article.  It doesn't mean it's entirely false, but I think there is a lot of opinion in there.

Slant isn't unique to the left, it exists on the right as well so when I read an article such as that, I consider the source. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 16, 2017, 10:05:30 AM
Don't be taken in by the advertising brochure.  Look at the actual product.  Republicanism has a long track record, and it has nothing to do with smaller government.

Oh, I agree.  I just read each party's platform and then look at what they ultiamtely do (which are often diametrically opposed).

At the same time I have family members which are dyed-in-the-wool Republican voters who rail against the Democrats and "their big spending, big government" evils.

I think the GOP would loose many of their core supporters if only people would question whether their talk about state's rights and limited government were backed up (instead of opposed by) actions supporting these positions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 16, 2017, 10:32:45 AM
By the way, if you want a quick sense of how "the right" is casting this (with a typical "tu quoque" bullshit argument, of course):
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on February 16, 2017, 10:40:57 AM
Quote
By the way, if you want a quick sense of how "the right" is casting this

Hillary's just too good a villain to ever let die.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 16, 2017, 10:43:35 AM
By the way, if you want a quick sense of how "the right" is casting this (with a typical "tu quoque" bullshit argument, of course):

I've just found my new retirement hobby.  I'm going to manufacture political memes to counteract this kind of BS with leftist imitations.  I read the news, I'm good with Photoshop, and I have a penchant for oversimplification in the pursuit of obfuscation.

I'll report back after I go viral. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cchrissyy on February 16, 2017, 10:47:39 AM
ah, of course, "the national security of the nation"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 16, 2017, 10:51:05 AM
By the way, if you want a quick sense of how "the right" is casting this (with a typical "tu quoque" bullshit argument, of course):

I've just found my new retirement hobby.  I'm going to manufacture political memes to counteract this kind of BS with leftist imitations.  I read the news, I'm good with Photoshop, and I have a penchant for oversimplification in the pursuit of obfuscation.

I'll report back after I go viral.

SUBSCRIBE!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 16, 2017, 11:14:19 AM
Their lead is now, "'VERY UN-AMERICAN': Trump blasts US intel community over 'illegal' leaks."

Does anyone else remember when trump was so enthusiastic about "illegal leaks" that he literally asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails last July?  He publicly commended wikileaks for publishing stolen DNC documents. 

The man built his whole campaign on the very thing he is now calling "UnAmerican".  I don't think you can get much more hypocritical than that.

Yup, it's about as ridiculous as everything else Trump says/does. Plus you have Republicans in Congress with the attitude of "Nothing to see here" (vis a vis Jason Chaffetz) or others like David Nunes (R) who completely ignore the threat to national security of collusion with Russian intelligence agents by high level Trump administration officials, and instead focus on the "leaks". Nunes said the real crime was that U.S. intelligence services were listening in on a phone call with a U.S. citizen, i.e., Michael Flynn!! Yeah, how dare the FBI and CIA listen in on Russian diplomats and intelligence agents. They should definitely stop spying when a hostile foreign agent is on a call with a U.S. citizen, particularly the next National Security Advisor, discussing illegal things before he's even in office.

I'll say, the great thing out of all this is that there are moles in the White House leaking this info in the first place. All bets seem to be on Reince Preibus as at least one of them, but whoever it is, it's a great thing for democracy. I'm against any leaks of classified info, but the leaks out of the White House about the incompetency and illegal shenanigans is much needed and appreciated.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 16, 2017, 11:59:20 AM
Right-wing-pundit-who-finally-developed-a-conscious Charles Sykes, on why it doesn't matter to conservatives that Trump is lying.

Spoiler alert: because the right wing media conditioned them long ago to stop believing in facts. And the more mainstream media tries to counter the lies with actual information and facts, the less conservatives will believe any of it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/opinion/sunday/why-nobody-cares-the-president-is-lying.html?smid=fb-share
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on February 16, 2017, 12:31:32 PM
By the way, if you want a quick sense of how "the right" is casting this (with a typical "tu quoque" bullshit argument, of course):

The right wouldn't know what "tu quoque" was if it bit them in the pantsuit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 16, 2017, 12:37:46 PM
Today Trump very forcefully and frequently evoked 'strategy #1: Blame your predecessor'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/16/trump-says-he-inherited-a-mess-blasts-media-and-detractors-for-treatment-of-his-administration/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_trumpmedia-pp-220pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c54b24b5cc60 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/16/trump-says-he-inherited-a-mess-blasts-media-and-detractors-for-treatment-of-his-administration/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_trumpmedia-pp-220pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c54b24b5cc60)

Yeah, things sure are a mess...5% unemployment, low inflation, ... nothing at all llike Obama, who got to inherent rainbows and sunshine - /sarcasm.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 16, 2017, 01:16:26 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 16, 2017, 01:26:32 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/

I bet there are quite a few attorneys out there who would love to take a case for someone criminally charged for refusing to unlock their phone.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 16, 2017, 02:23:26 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/

I bet there are quite a few attorneys out there who would love to take a case for someone criminally charged for refusing to unlock their phone.
You'd need to have access to one.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on February 16, 2017, 02:28:25 PM
So now Trump is going on a witch hunt to pull the Obama loyalists out of any department leaking to the press. I find this pretty sad. It shows a lack of dignity and careful long term thinking. It is like a paranoid lover keeping track of his mates contacts for fear of cheating rather than simply being a good mate. I wouldn't doubt if half the leakers were BUSH loyalists wanting an actual conservative (Pence) in charge...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 16, 2017, 02:30:09 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/

I bet there are quite a few attorneys out there who would love to take a case for someone criminally charged for refusing to unlock their phone.
You'd need to have access to one.
I can't imagine a situation where you would end up in a courtroom facing a criminal charge without having access to an attorney.  That's blatantly unconstitutional.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 16, 2017, 02:47:14 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/

I bet there are quite a few attorneys out there who would love to take a case for someone criminally charged for refusing to unlock their phone.
You'd need to have access to one.
I can't imagine a situation where you would end up in a courtroom facing a criminal charge without having access to an attorney.  That's blatantly unconstitutional.
How many incidences would you like me to list? 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 16, 2017, 03:01:19 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/

I bet there are quite a few attorneys out there who would love to take a case for someone criminally charged for refusing to unlock their phone.
You'd need to have access to one.
I can't imagine a situation where you would end up in a courtroom facing a criminal charge without having access to an attorney.  That's blatantly unconstitutional.
How many incidences would you like me to list? 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

If you have an example of a US citizen being federally charged with a crime and facing a court while being denied access to counsel, I would love to see it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malloy on February 16, 2017, 03:12:59 PM
Here's a 100% true and realistic impact of this presidency: I will never look at my fellow countrymen the same way since they elected this fucking lunatic. 

This.is.our.president.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/16/a_selection_of_verbatim_quotes_from_trump_s_first_solo_press_conference.html

On relations with Russia in general: “I have been briefed. I and I can tell you, one thing about a briefing that we're allowed to say, because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other.”


Jesus fucking Christ. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: t5inside on February 16, 2017, 03:25:31 PM
Oopsie:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/flynn-in-fbi-interview-denied-discussing-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador/2017/02/16/e3e1e16a-f3d5-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html

I'm curious their source, but it doesn't surprise me. Nice that Trump was out defending him in his press conference just an hour ago.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 16, 2017, 03:45:04 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/
A US citizen has no obligation to answer any questions by law enforcement.  They have no case. 
They can ask all they want.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 16, 2017, 05:52:35 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/
A US citizen has no obligation to answer any questions by law enforcement.  They have no case. 
They can ask all they want.

Yep.  If I'm asked and they keep pressing past my initial "no," I will refer them to my employer's legal team (I use my phone for work). We'll see how that plays out.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 06:40:02 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/
A US citizen has no obligation to answer any questions by law enforcement.  They have no case. 
They can ask all they want.

Yep.  If I'm asked and they keep pressing past my initial "no," I will refer them to my employer's legal team (I use my phone for work). We'll see how that plays out.
CNN Lays out a pretty good comparison of the ramifications for refusal between citizens, foreign nationals and permanent resident visa holders. Link (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/us/border-legal-rights-faq-trnd/index.htm)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 06:42:27 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/

I bet there are quite a few attorneys out there who would love to take a case for someone criminally charged for refusing to unlock their phone.
You'd need to have access to one.
I can't imagine a situation where you would end up in a courtroom facing a criminal charge without having access to an attorney.  That's blatantly unconstitutional.
How many incidences would you like me to list? 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
I would love to see a list of these incidents, with supporting documentation. The most relevant would be post 2001 border security incidents, of course.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 16, 2017, 06:57:49 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/

I bet there are quite a few attorneys out there who would love to take a case for someone criminally charged for refusing to unlock their phone.

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/01/decrypt.pdf

Summary: The courts can order you to reveal a password for an encrypted device (in this case, a laptop). Of course, there were other charges and it was believed that the laptop held evidence.

I think it's more likely that DHS would hold you for a few days and just not return the phone/laptop, forcing you to hire counsel to sue for the return of your own device.

It makes me think a dual boot phone could be useful here. Just boot into "clean" mode and give them that password.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 07:04:37 PM

It makes me think a dual boot phone could be useful here. Just boot into "clean" mode and give them that password.

This has been covered. It is considered ill advisable, as when you boot up your sanitized device the agents will likely view this as suspicious.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 16, 2017, 07:12:54 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/

I bet there are quite a few attorneys out there who would love to take a case for someone criminally charged for refusing to unlock their phone.

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/01/decrypt.pdf

Summary: The courts can order you to reveal a password for an encrypted device (in this case, a laptop). Of course, there were other charges and it was believed that the laptop held evidence.

I think it's more likely that DHS would hold you for a few days and just not return the phone/laptop, forcing you to hire counsel to sue for the return of your own device.

It makes me think a dual boot phone could be useful here. Just boot into "clean" mode and give them that password.
After reading that pdf some interesting notes.  They granted the defendant immunity so she is not in danger and therefore has no 5th amendment rights to assert.  They didn't demand the password, they demanded the hard drive be produced in an unencrypted form.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 16, 2017, 07:14:08 PM
More on what might happen if you refuse to give up your phone password. Looks like this hasn't ever been truly tested in court:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/what-could-happen-if-you-refuse-to-unlock-your-phone-at-the-us-border/

I bet there are quite a few attorneys out there who would love to take a case for someone criminally charged for refusing to unlock their phone.

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/01/decrypt.pdf

Summary: The courts can order you to reveal a password for an encrypted device (in this case, a laptop). Of course, there were other charges and it was believed that the laptop held evidence.

I think it's more likely that DHS would hold you for a few days and just not return the phone/laptop, forcing you to hire counsel to sue for the return of your own device.

It makes me think a dual boot phone could be useful here. Just boot into "clean" mode and give them that password.

A court order is a lot different than a CBP official's demand.  If DHS held a citizen for a few days (i.e. denying entry to the country) the ACLU would have an absolute field day.  It'd probably be worth it for the nearly guaranteed legal settlement afterwards.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 16, 2017, 07:21:04 PM
A non-US citizen who refused would probably not be allowed to enter the country.

This whole thing is easily avoidable with placing your encrypted data into the cloud.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 16, 2017, 07:42:09 PM
A non-US citizen who refused would probably not be allowed to enter the country.

This whole thing is easily avoidable with placing your encrypted data into the cloud.

You would have to plan ahead and sign out of all attached accounts on your device - most people have Dropbox, Google, etc. permanently logged in on their phones.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 07:43:45 PM
A non-US citizen who refused would probably not be allowed to enter the country.

This whole thing is easily avoidable with placing your encrypted data into the cloud.
Genius. Then the government can look at it at their leisure. :D
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 16, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
A non-US citizen who refused would probably not be allowed to enter the country.

This whole thing is easily avoidable with placing your encrypted data into the cloud.
Genius. Then the government can look at it at their leisure. :D
They can look, but random looking bytes don't help them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 16, 2017, 08:01:07 PM

It makes me think a dual boot phone could be useful here. Just boot into "clean" mode and give them that password.

This has been covered. It is considered ill advisable, as when you boot up your sanitized device the agents will likely view this as suspicious.

I think I missed it -- covered where?  I'm leaving the country soon and am considering wiping my phone before re-entering (I don't have anything incriminating, but my phone has access to decades of emails that they can go through)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 16, 2017, 08:05:14 PM

It makes me think a dual boot phone could be useful here. Just boot into "clean" mode and give them that password.

This has been covered. It is considered ill advisable, as when you boot up your sanitized device the agents will likely view this as suspicious.

I think I missed it -- covered where?  I'm leaving the country soon and am considering wiping my phone before re-entering (I don't have anything incriminating, but my phone has access to decades of emails that they can go through)

If you log out of all cloud-connected accounts, I think that would render everything inaccessible.  I may have to test that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 08:09:39 PM

It makes me think a dual boot phone could be useful here. Just boot into "clean" mode and give them that password.

This has been covered. It is considered ill advisable, as when you boot up your sanitized device the agents will likely view this as suspicious.

I think I missed it -- covered where?  I'm leaving the country soon and am considering wiping my phone before re-entering (I don't have anything incriminating, but my phone has access to decades of emails that they can go through)

 Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU:
Quote
Wessler's advice is similar: "The best advice may be to be really careful on how many devices and what kind of data you're carrying with you," he says. "In terms of devices, government can't search what you don't have."

People who are concerned should leave their primary phone or laptop at home and travel with another device, he says.

Or, you could back up your data to a secure server, wipe it from your phone and then restore the data after you pass through customs, Wessler says. But this also could raise suspicions at the border.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 16, 2017, 08:24:06 PM

It makes me think a dual boot phone could be useful here. Just boot into "clean" mode and give them that password.

This has been covered. It is considered ill advisable, as when you boot up your sanitized device the agents will likely view this as suspicious.

I think I missed it -- covered where?  I'm leaving the country soon and am considering wiping my phone before re-entering (I don't have anything incriminating, but my phone has access to decades of emails that they can go through)

 Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU:
Quote
Wessler's advice is similar: "The best advice may be to be really careful on how many devices and what kind of data you're carrying with you," he says. "In terms of devices, government can't search what you don't have."

People who are concerned should leave their primary phone or laptop at home and travel with another device, he says.

Or, you could back up your data to a secure server, wipe it from your phone and then restore the data after you pass through customs, Wessler says. But this also could raise suspicions at the border.

That doesn't say it's ill advisable, and carrying a non-primary phone is likely just as suspicious (since it will look like a wiped phone)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 08:30:52 PM
That doesn't say it's ill advisable, and carrying a non-primary phone is likely just as suspicious (since it will look like a wiped phone)
Ok. I guess we have different understanding of whether looking suspicious at the boarder is ill-advisable or not. No problem.

If, worse case scenario, a back-up phone is just as suspicious, I guess I would prefer to let the CBP keep my back-up phone for several months while they dig through it, as opposed to my primary phone.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 16, 2017, 08:38:00 PM
Did anyone see the news conference today?  DJT looks like a flailing guy about to go under. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 16, 2017, 09:16:15 PM
Did anyone see the news conference today?  DJT looks like a flailing guy about to go under.

LOL, yes...I caught a bit this afternoon. He was quite displeased about "BAD questions" from reporters.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 16, 2017, 09:44:05 PM
Let us not forget the more run of the mill greed and fiscal irresponsibility the Trump family is indulging in weekly at taxpayer expense (total coincidence that Trump's businesses are benefitting from the expense, of course):

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-family%E2%80%99s-elaborate-lifestyle-is-a-%E2%80%98logistical-nightmare%E2%80%99-%E2%80%94-at-taxpayer-expense/ar-AAn1H4A?li=BBnb7Kz
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 16, 2017, 10:01:33 PM
Did anyone see the news conference today?  DJT looks like a flailing guy about to go under.

LOL, yes...I caught a bit this afternoon. He was quite displeased about "BAD questions" from reporters.

It was seriously pathetic to see the President of the United States worry about getting 'difficult questions'.  And he does such a lame job on answering questions anyways.  But the low point for me was when the Jewish reporter (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donald-trump-news-conference-anti-semitism/) (not stereotyping, he was very culturally Jewish) got the go ahead and then got shut up and dressed down. 

I suppose I could be understanding if there were an obvious, prolonged, unfounded hatchet job against Trump, but I honestly feel like reporters are doing a reasonable job trying to shed light on what they hope aren't too troubling of issues.  No-one really wants to hear that Trump has made some deals with Russia, but we do want to put all of the swirling inconsistency and troubling leaks of partial truth behind us.

This level of incompetence is dangerous in the fact that it demoralizes while giving enthusiasm to those that wish to do us harm.  If the US was perceived as a bully in the past, we are also becoming an ally that seems compromised.  In other words, every time Trump speaks publicly, he is turning up the boil on global politics, probably inadvertently, and also making it hard to unify behind him.

Has it really only been 4 weeks?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 11:19:38 PM
Let us not forget the more run of the mill greed and fiscal irresponsibility the Trump family is indulging in weekly at taxpayer expense (total coincidence that Trump's businesses are benefitting from the expense, of course):

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-family%E2%80%99s-elaborate-lifestyle-is-a-%E2%80%98logistical-nightmare%E2%80%99-%E2%80%94-at-taxpayer-expense/ar-AAn1H4A?li=BBnb7Kz
While I can see the greed, I don't see the fiscal irresponsibility. I mean, even if he quadruples the expense of protecting a president to 200 million over his 4 year term, that's not even a rounding error in terms of the U.S. budget.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 16, 2017, 11:27:00 PM
Let us not forget the more run of the mill greed and fiscal irresponsibility the Trump family is indulging in weekly at taxpayer expense (total coincidence that Trump's businesses are benefitting from the expense, of course):

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-family%E2%80%99s-elaborate-lifestyle-is-a-%E2%80%98logistical-nightmare%E2%80%99-%E2%80%94-at-taxpayer-expense/ar-AAn1H4A?li=BBnb7Kz
While I can see the greed, I don't see the fiscal irresponsibility. I mean, even if he quadruples the expense of protecting a president to 200 million over his 4 year term, that's not even a rounding error in terms of the U.S. budget.

Please.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 11:32:25 PM
Let us not forget the more run of the mill greed and fiscal irresponsibility the Trump family is indulging in weekly at taxpayer expense (total coincidence that Trump's businesses are benefitting from the expense, of course):

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-family%E2%80%99s-elaborate-lifestyle-is-a-%E2%80%98logistical-nightmare%E2%80%99-%E2%80%94-at-taxpayer-expense/ar-AAn1H4A?li=BBnb7Kz
While I can see the greed, I don't see the fiscal irresponsibility. I mean, even if he quadruples the expense of protecting a president to 200 million over his 4 year term, that's not even a rounding error in terms of the U.S. budget.

Please.
Color me unimpressed with outrage over .0001 percent of the federal budget.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 16, 2017, 11:51:43 PM
Let us not forget the more run of the mill greed and fiscal irresponsibility the Trump family is indulging in weekly at taxpayer expense (total coincidence that Trump's businesses are benefitting from the expense, of course):

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-family%E2%80%99s-elaborate-lifestyle-is-a-%E2%80%98logistical-nightmare%E2%80%99-%E2%80%94-at-taxpayer-expense/ar-AAn1H4A?li=BBnb7Kz
While I can see the greed, I don't see the fiscal irresponsibility. I mean, even if he quadruples the expense of protecting a president to 200 million over his 4 year term, that's not even a rounding error in terms of the U.S. budget.

Please.
Color me unimpressed with outrage over .0001 percent of the federal budget.

Not comparable situations and you know it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 16, 2017, 11:55:49 PM
That doesn't say it's ill advisable, and carrying a non-primary phone is likely just as suspicious (since it will look like a wiped phone)
Ok. I guess we have different understanding of whether looking suspicious at the boarder is ill-advisable or not. No problem.

If, worse case scenario, a back-up phone is just as suspicious, I guess I would prefer to let the CBP keep my back-up phone for several months while they dig through it, as opposed to my primary phone.

It's advisable to do whichever creates the least trouble.  If you bring your regular phone and they spend 12 hours reading all your emails vs. a "suspicious" wiped phone but they release you after 2 hours because there's nothing to search, which is advisable?  If they take your phone for a few weeks that changes the equation.  I don't think we have enough info to "advise" on the best course of action
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 16, 2017, 11:58:33 PM
Not comparable situations and you know it.
Would you care to elaborate? I see money as fungible and don't hold one dollar as particularly more valuable than another.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 17, 2017, 12:06:53 AM
Not comparable situations and you know it.
Would you care to elaborate? I see money as fungible and don't hold one dollar as particularly more valuable than another.

I find it hard to believe you don't see my point, but fine. Let us consider that I work in a job in which I have a certain level of discretionary funds I can spend. For example, if I take someone out on a business dinner, while there is a cap on my allowed spending, it is comfortably high enough for me to pay for fancy meals with copious libations. Nevertheless, I never come close to that cap because I know it would be irresponsible of me to do so when the necessary ends can be achieved for far less. If I ignore this, I would be taking advantage of my position to fulfill personal whims, and if I did it often, I would be fired and justifiably so, most especially if it came to light that all of those dinners were being held at my family's restaurant.

This is a "rounding error" of a part of the budget that is 100% in control of the President and his family, and they are using it like a never-ending piggy bank (that conveniently returns some of the money back to their personal ban accounts) in a way that is grossly unprecedented. Do you mean to tell me you believe that is nevertheless no different than overspending on any other line in the federal budget? Or maybe it is all OK as long as a similar level of money is cut from somewhere else? PBS maybe?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 17, 2017, 12:13:58 AM
Not comparable situations and you know it.
Would you care to elaborate? I see money as fungible and don't hold one dollar as particularly more valuable than another.

I find it hard to believe you don't see my point, but fine. Let us consider that I work in a job in which I have a certain level of discretionary funds I can spend. For example, if I take someone out on a business dinner, while there is a cap on my allowed spending, it is comfortably high enough for me to pay for fancy meals with copious libations. Nevertheless, I never come close to that cap because I know it would be irresponsible of me to do so when the necessary ends can be achieved for far less. If I ignore this, I would be taking advantage of my position to fulfill personal whims, and if I did it often, I would be fired and justifiably so, most especially if it came to light that all of those dinners were being held at my family's restaurant.

This is a "rounding error" of a part of the budget that is 100% in control of the President and his family, and they are using it like a never-ending piggy bank (that conveniently returns some of the money back to their personal ban accounts) in a way that is grossly unprecedented. Do you mean to tell me you believe that is nevertheless no different than overspending on any other line in the federal budget? Or maybe it is all OK as long as a similar level of money is cut from somewhere else? PBS maybe?
Maybe we could save that much money on something really silly, like a military program that is already far over budget?

I guess I see it as such a small number that it's hardly newsworthy. To put it in perspective, the allowed spending cap on said fancy meals would be $200 out of the $1,000,000 budget. The person uses $100. Sure they could have  went to mcdonalds for all of their meetings and spent $50, but when working through the budget on the project I find it hard to believe they're going to fire anyone for spending such a small percentage more when it is so clearly within in the bounds of the cap.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 17, 2017, 12:19:00 AM
You seriously don't see how unethical this is? If I take one measly dollar from a $10,000 charity drive I was in charge of to buy myself a coffee, I have still committed a serious breach of ethics, regardless of how tiny my impact was on the bottom line.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 17, 2017, 12:22:27 AM
You seriously don't see how unethical this is? If I take one measly dollar from a $10,000 charity drive I was in charge of to buy myself a coffee, I have still committed a serious breach of ethics, regardless of how tiny my impact was on the bottom line.
The article was focused on the increase in cost to protect Trump and his family due to their 'jet-setting lifestyle'. Are you arguing something else? Because then we would not be discussing the same things.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 17, 2017, 12:28:05 AM
You seriously don't see how unethical this is? If I take one measly dollar from a $10,000 charity drive I was in charge of to buy myself a coffee, I have still committed a serious breach of ethics, regardless of how tiny my impact was on the bottom line.
The article was focused on the increase in cost to protect Trump and his family due to their 'jet-setting lifestyle'. Are you arguing something else? Because then we would not be discussing the same things.

So you are saying you are fine with our president and his family adopting a jet-setting lifestyle the likes of which the office has never seen just because it doesn't represent a meaningful % of a $4 trillion budget? We shouldn't hold our president to any standards whatsoever of being personally responsible for his discretionary use of taxpayer funds for entirely personal gains? It doesn't matter that in addition to getting tons of free vacations that come with mega expensive private security, he is simultaneously profiting from both? And I suppose you would be cool with him stealing from the church collection plate while he's at it? Jesus man.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 17, 2017, 12:37:50 AM
You seriously don't see how unethical this is? If I take one measly dollar from a $10,000 charity drive I was in charge of to buy myself a coffee, I have still committed a serious breach of ethics, regardless of how tiny my impact was on the bottom line.
The article was focused on the increase in cost to protect Trump and his family due to their 'jet-setting lifestyle'. Are you arguing something else? Because then we would not be discussing the same things.

So you are saying you are fine with our president and his family adopting a jet-setting lifestyle the likes of which the office has never seen just because it doesn't represent a meaningful % of a $4 trillion budget? We shouldn't hold our president to any standards whatsoever of being personally responsible for his discretionary use of taxpayer funds for entirely personal gains? It doesn't matter that in addition to getting tons of free vacations that come with mega expensive private security, he is simultaneously profiting from both? And I suppose you would be cool with him stealing from the church collection plate while he's at it? Jesus man.
Meh. This is several different arguments wrapped up in one. I'm fine with some of them, such as the 'jet setting lifestyle.' This has been his lifestyle literally his entire life. I don't expect him to change significantly because he is the president - that I think would be unfair. I didn't expect Bush to not spend time in Texas or Obama to not go golfing in Hawaii, even though it would have not doubt been cheaper if they had stayed in Washington watching TV on the weekends.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 17, 2017, 01:40:48 AM
You seriously don't see how unethical this is? If I take one measly dollar from a $10,000 charity drive I was in charge of to buy myself a coffee, I have still committed a serious breach of ethics, regardless of how tiny my impact was on the bottom line.
The article was focused on the increase in cost to protect Trump and his family due to their 'jet-setting lifestyle'. Are you arguing something else? Because then we would not be discussing the same things.

So you are saying you are fine with our president and his family adopting a jet-setting lifestyle the likes of which the office has never seen just because it doesn't represent a meaningful % of a $4 trillion budget? We shouldn't hold our president to any standards whatsoever of being personally responsible for his discretionary use of taxpayer funds for entirely personal gains? It doesn't matter that in addition to getting tons of free vacations that come with mega expensive private security, he is simultaneously profiting from both? And I suppose you would be cool with him stealing from the church collection plate while he's at it? Jesus man.
Meh. This is several different arguments wrapped up in one. I'm fine with some of them, such as the 'jet setting lifestyle.' This has been his lifestyle literally his entire life. I don't expect him to change significantly because he is the president - that I think would be unfair. I didn't expect Bush to not spend time in Texas or Obama to not go golfing in Hawaii, even though it would have not doubt been cheaper if they had stayed in Washington watching TV on the weekends.

Wow Mouse, you are getting to be just about as good at this as POTUS :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 17, 2017, 01:46:27 AM
You seriously don't see how unethical this is? If I take one measly dollar from a $10,000 charity drive I was in charge of to buy myself a coffee, I have still committed a serious breach of ethics, regardless of how tiny my impact was on the bottom line.
The article was focused on the increase in cost to protect Trump and his family due to their 'jet-setting lifestyle'. Are you arguing something else? Because then we would not be discussing the same things.

So you are saying you are fine with our president and his family adopting a jet-setting lifestyle the likes of which the office has never seen just because it doesn't represent a meaningful % of a $4 trillion budget? We shouldn't hold our president to any standards whatsoever of being personally responsible for his discretionary use of taxpayer funds for entirely personal gains? It doesn't matter that in addition to getting tons of free vacations that come with mega expensive private security, he is simultaneously profiting from both? And I suppose you would be cool with him stealing from the church collection plate while he's at it? Jesus man.
Meh. This is several different arguments wrapped up in one. I'm fine with some of them, such as the 'jet setting lifestyle.' This has been his lifestyle literally his entire life. I don't expect him to change significantly because he is the president - that I think would be unfair. I didn't expect Bush to not spend time in Texas or Obama to not go golfing in Hawaii, even though it would have not doubt been cheaper if they had stayed in Washington watching TV on the weekends.

Wow Mouse, you are getting to be just about as good at this as POTUS :)
Well if one wishes to discuss greed and graft and stealing from the government, that is fine, but this was not how the question was phrased, nor the main point of the article covered. I don't find paying for protection of the POTUS to be a great burden upon the country.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 17, 2017, 01:58:15 AM
Just my own personal comment on this (extravagant expenditure of a President).  For a guy that 'represents the middle class', Trump sure seems to play lots of golf on his own properties and enjoy luxuries most middle class will never, ever know.  As a Mustachian, we all know that when you're exposed to a spigot of wealth, there is either a choice to live a mindful life and control your own destiny, or shower oneself in wealth and deal with the obligations tied to the income.  I get the impression Trump continues to want it all, more income and not having to work for it.  Only now, he also can re-write the rules.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 17, 2017, 02:03:22 AM
And I'm also not afraid to add that I'm not happy about my taxes (money taken out of my paycheck) going toward 'protecting' Tiffany Trump and Eric Trump 'gallivanting freely as socialities', as opposed to paying for my own son and daughter's needs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 17, 2017, 02:15:06 AM

It makes me think a dual boot phone could be useful here. Just boot into "clean" mode and give them that password.

This has been covered. It is considered ill advisable, as when you boot up your sanitized device the agents will likely view this as suspicious.

I think I missed it -- covered where?  I'm leaving the country soon and am considering wiping my phone before re-entering (I don't have anything incriminating, but my phone has access to decades of emails that they can go through)

 Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the ACLU:
Quote
Wessler's advice is similar: "The best advice may be to be really careful on how many devices and what kind of data you're carrying with you," he says. "In terms of devices, government can't search what you don't have."

People who are concerned should leave their primary phone or laptop at home and travel with another device, he says.

Or, you could back up your data to a secure server, wipe it from your phone and then restore the data after you pass through customs, Wessler says. But this also could raise suspicions at the border.

That doesn't say it's ill advisable, and carrying a non-primary phone is likely just as suspicious (since it will look like a wiped phone)

Ditch the "smart" phone for a dumb one. Problem solved.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 17, 2017, 02:22:59 AM
Sheesh, this thread is getting so 'Trumped' by distractionary comments with all the nesting and whatnot.  It's no wonder modern democracy is sliding down to being barely on par with or less effective than socialism.

Sincerely, democracy means that my comments would be heard just as loudly as yours.  But socialism means that you include a wall of nested text that probably means most people won't see what I posted earlier.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 17, 2017, 02:26:26 AM
Not picking on you Accolay, but you could've been more efficient in your reply, by targeting or paraphrasing what you were replying to.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 17, 2017, 02:48:54 AM
Not picking on you Accolay, but you could've been more efficient in your reply, by targeting or paraphrasing what you were replying to.

No offense taken. However, I'm not bothered with the inefficiency of my reply. Thought the sentiment was pretty easy to figure out though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on February 17, 2017, 03:06:51 AM
Doesn't bother me much, but it is expected "netiquite" to not "double post" or multi-post in a row.

The annoyance of scrolling through multiple nested quotes saying the same thing over and over and over again has me erasing all but the actual post I want to quote when I reply to a quote.

Just chiming in, because I'm sure others feel the same way and simply stop reading when scrolling through redundancy becomes a hassle.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 17, 2017, 06:52:36 AM
From the press conference:

Quote
Obamacare is a disaster, folks. It it's disaster. I know you can say, oh, Obamacare.I mean, they fill up our alleys with people that you wonder how they get there, but they are not the Republican people that our representatives are representing.

The fuck does that mean???

I'm thinking it's something along the lines of  this: "only lazy liberal indigents are using the ACA, and when done with their freebie medical care, the low-lifes head back out to the alley - where they live. Upstanding, self-reliant, self-righteous registered republicans who might use ACA - I'm not complaining about you."

Why am I even attempting to translate that?  IDK - because it and so many other statements are baffling beyond belief.

Jeez - on almost everything - ACA, DACA, Immigrants etc.  - all he sees is good guys and bad guys. He's such a fucking simpleton. This constant parsing of people into good/ bad buckets is exhausting.

Quote
"I do get good ratings you have to admit this."

He's POTUS. Has he no shame? ...  and these are only tiny snippets from that train-wreck of a press conference. There's so much more. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/16/donald-trumps-grievance-filled-press-conference-annotated)

Sorry this is a rant - but we are living the impacts of the Trump Presidency. This is reality now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 17, 2017, 07:10:55 AM
Elected representatives are there to represent everyone in their constituency.  Not just the people who voted for them.  Has anyone ever tried to tell Trump that?  That he is doing his job for everyone in the US, not just the ones who voted for him?

Gah.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 17, 2017, 07:14:25 AM
Elected representatives are there to represent everyone in their constituency.  Not just the people who voted for them.  Has anyone ever tried to tell Trump that?  That he is doing his job for everyone in the US, not just the ones who voted for him?

Gah.

To me, it's on par with all of the people in Congress constantly making statements about the "outsiders" coming into their district/state to cause trouble. The Rep from NY24 did it yesterday, it was this whole big thing about how people from NY Indivisible were just interlopers trying to get between him and his constituents. A bunch of people did it during the DeVos hearings, "Oh, people from out of state are jamming up my phone lines." Bullshit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 17, 2017, 07:24:20 AM
These 'outsiders' are the constituents who've been woken up from their apolitical slumber.

I hate the two party system - but if the progressives don't start getting out the right messaging and framing NOW to attract all the middle-of-the-road Trump supporters, I don't see how they'll ever be able to get those people back.

Progressive values:

The government's job is to protect the constitutional rights of all American citizens, to empower people to become healthy, prosperous, and to pursue their own happiness. Basic healthcare, world class education. Cooperation.

If they keep speaking in GOP-ese this shit show will just result in another republican taking the helm.

It's those sleeping constituents who need to speak up and make a difference. It's like what the guy from Venezuela advised - you have to go have a beer with the people who've identified with the other team. Explain - using your own language - why your values make sense. Stop with this Ayn Rand supply-side Jesus speak and discuss what it is to be fucking human.

Again - it's a rant - but I'm one of those sleeping constituents. And I'm wide awake. I've been writing blog posts on 'Issues That Unite Us' and reaching out to the Trumpsters in my family to get common ground on some issues.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 17, 2017, 08:34:59 AM
By the way, if you want a quick sense of how "the right" is casting this (with a typical "tu quoque" bullshit argument, of course):

I should be receiving this by email from various family and friends any day now... -eye roller-

What if you check your phone in your luggage? Or ditch the iPhone / Samsung S-series for a $10-ish phone for the trip? Still have the web, still have GPS, still have texting. I carry a phone like this all the time. If I wanted to travel out of the country all I'd have to do is remove the microSD card and leave it at home. Not much else on the phone after that. I'd carry a separate camera anyhow as I don't do social media for reasons of privacy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on February 17, 2017, 09:46:05 AM
Let us not forget the more run of the mill greed and fiscal irresponsibility the Trump family is indulging in weekly at taxpayer expense (total coincidence that Trump's businesses are benefitting from the expense, of course):

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-family%E2%80%99s-elaborate-lifestyle-is-a-%E2%80%98logistical-nightmare%E2%80%99-%E2%80%94-at-taxpayer-expense/ar-AAn1H4A?li=BBnb7Kz
While I can see the greed, I don't see the fiscal irresponsibility. I mean, even if he quadruples the expense of protecting a president to 200 million over his 4 year term, that's not even a rounding error in terms of the U.S. budget.

Please.
Color me unimpressed with outrage over .0001 percent of the federal budget.

0.0001% of the 2015 federal budget is $3.8 million.  Are you using alternative math?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 17, 2017, 11:31:42 AM
These 'outsiders' are the constituents who've been woken up from their apolitical slumber.

I hate the two party system - but if the progressives don't start getting out the right messaging and framing NOW to attract all the middle-of-the-road Trump supporters, I don't see how they'll ever be able to get those people back.

I agree with your rant...but none of it matters unless the sleepy outsiders get fired up enough to vote. People can march in the streets, have their rants, yell at the television and radio, if the Left can't win elections (which Republicans do well with their machine, Federal, state and local elections, which has built us up to where we are today) then we're never going to hear the end of this ridiculous bullshit. We wont be able to have an effective government of reasonable people, with reasonable compromise.

Pathetic really since the nation's memory and attention span is so short. Midterms are less than two years away, but we'll see if that's long enough for forgetfulness complacency.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 17, 2017, 11:45:29 AM
By the way, if you want a quick sense of how "the right" is casting this (with a typical "tu quoque" bullshit argument, of course):

I should be receiving this by email from various family and friends any day now... -eye roller-

What if you check your phone in your luggage? Or ditch the iPhone / Samsung S-series for a $10-ish phone for the trip? Still have the web, still have GPS, still have texting. I carry a phone like this all the time. If I wanted to travel out of the country all I'd have to do is remove the microSD card and leave it at home. Not much else on the phone after that. I'd carry a separate camera anyhow as I don't do social media for reasons of privacy.

They can still search your luggage (and probably will if you reach this point).  I could buy a dumb phone but I don't really see the point in spending more money... I don't make phone calls so there's really no point.  How suspicious is it to travel without a phone?  More directly, what does it matter if you are suspicious?  Has anyone been detained for traveling with a wiped phone or no phone and how lon was that detention compared to someone traveling with full contacts (but no wrongdoing)?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 17, 2017, 12:21:22 PM
Just mail the phone to yourself. That way when the package gets to customs, they won't have anyone to interrogate even if they do want access.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 17, 2017, 04:11:00 PM
You seriously don't see how unethical this is? If I take one measly dollar from a $10,000 charity drive I was in charge of to buy myself a coffee, I have still committed a serious breach of ethics, regardless of how tiny my impact was on the bottom line.
The article was focused on the increase in cost to protect Trump and his family due to their 'jet-setting lifestyle'. Are you arguing something else? Because then we would not be discussing the same things.

So you are saying you are fine with our president and his family adopting a jet-setting lifestyle the likes of which the office has never seen just because it doesn't represent a meaningful % of a $4 trillion budget? We shouldn't hold our president to any standards whatsoever of being personally responsible for his discretionary use of taxpayer funds for entirely personal gains? It doesn't matter that in addition to getting tons of free vacations that come with mega expensive private security, he is simultaneously profiting from both? And I suppose you would be cool with him stealing from the church collection plate while he's at it? Jesus man.
Meh. This is several different arguments wrapped up in one. I'm fine with some of them, such as the 'jet setting lifestyle.' This has been his lifestyle literally his entire life. I don't expect him to change significantly because he is the president - that I think would be unfair. I didn't expect Bush to not spend time in Texas or Obama to not go golfing in Hawaii, even though it would have not doubt been cheaper if they had stayed in Washington watching TV on the weekends.

Wow Mouse, you are getting to be just about as good at this as POTUS :)
Well if one wishes to discuss greed and graft and stealing from the government, that is fine, but this was not how the question was phrased, nor the main point of the article covered. I don't find paying for protection of the POTUS to be a great burden upon the country.

The sad truth of the matter is that Trump has a much larger family than our previous two presidents and they all have ample reason to travel. He also is in the unique position of having a young son attending better schools at he would likely get for him as president and probably having a wife who isn't too into the political scene and enjoys some space from him....

And at the end of the day they are not prisoners and we cover security. There is pretty much no getting around it costs a hell of a lot more to pay for security of the Trump family because they can afford to travel a whole hell of a lot and are generally going to expensive areas surrounded by people.

I would be pissed if it came out that he is using tax payer money to pay for huge portions of travel totally unrelated to security and were purely for personal business or entertainment. But it would be more of a general your a piece of shit feeling but there are much more important grievances to worry about.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 17, 2017, 04:33:32 PM

The sad truth of the matter is that Trump has a much larger family than our previous two presidents and they all have ample reason to travel. He also is in the unique position of having a young son attending better schools at he would likely get for him as president and probably having a wife who isn't too into the political scene and enjoys some space from him....

And at the end of the day they are not prisoners and we cover security. There is pretty much no getting around it costs a hell of a lot more to pay for security of the Trump family because they can afford to travel a whole hell of a lot and are generally going to expensive areas surrounded by people.

I would be pissed if it came out that he is using tax payer money to pay for huge portions of travel totally unrelated to security and were purely for personal business or entertainment. But it would be more of a general your a piece of shit feeling but there are much more important grievances to worry about.

Interesting article in WaPo in case you haven't seen it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-familys-elaborate-lifestyle-a-logistical-nightmare--at-taxpayer-expense/2017/02/16/763cce8e-f2ce-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumptravel-530pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.22f3962f7de2 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-familys-elaborate-lifestyle-a-logistical-nightmare--at-taxpayer-expense/2017/02/16/763cce8e-f2ce-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumptravel-530pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.22f3962f7de2)

I get the reasons why protecting Trump will cost 8-15x more to protect Trump and his family more than it cost to protect Obama.* 
what irritates the hell out of me is that Trump *is* profiting from this.  He owns most of the businesses where he travels, and the added personnel rent rooms at whatever rate he charges them (and he just increased fees at Maralargo).
Just another conflict of interest that's becoming so routine these days.

*estimates put Obama's security detail at ~$97MM over all eight years.  NYC is spending $183MM alone to secure Trump Tower each year.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 17, 2017, 04:39:19 PM
The sad truth of the matter is that Trump has a much larger family than our previous two presidents and they all have ample reason to travel. He also is in the unique position of having a young son attending better schools at he would likely get for him as president and probably having a wife who isn't too into the political scene and enjoys some space from him....

And at the end of the day they are not prisoners and we cover security. There is pretty much no getting around it costs a hell of a lot more to pay for security of the Trump family because they can afford to travel a whole hell of a lot and are generally going to expensive areas surrounded by people.

I would be pissed if it came out that he is using tax payer money to pay for huge portions of travel totally unrelated to security and were purely for personal business or entertainment. But it would be more of a general your a piece of shit feeling but there are much more important grievances to worry about.

Meh. I don't even really disagree. It's not like I was claiming THIS, of all things, is the reason to impeach or whatever. I do object to them personally profiting from these forays, however, and related things like having the DOD rent out space in Trump tower, etc. Also, he has gone on three vacations in three weeks, which is intrinsically excessive and hypocritical, given his past comments on Obama. I don't think any of the above is necessarily illegal, just highly unethical.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 17, 2017, 04:47:41 PM
The sad truth of the matter is that Trump has a much larger family than our previous two presidents and they all have ample reason to travel. He also is in the unique position of having a young son attending better schools at he would likely get for him as president and probably having a wife who isn't too into the political scene and enjoys some space from him....

And at the end of the day they are not prisoners and we cover security. There is pretty much no getting around it costs a hell of a lot more to pay for security of the Trump family because they can afford to travel a whole hell of a lot and are generally going to expensive areas surrounded by people.

I would be pissed if it came out that he is using tax payer money to pay for huge portions of travel totally unrelated to security and were purely for personal business or entertainment. But it would be more of a general your a piece of shit feeling but there are much more important grievances to worry about.

Meh. I don't even really disagree. It's not like I was claiming THIS, of all things, is the reason to impeach or whatever. I do object to them personally profiting from these forays, however, and related things like having the DOD rent out space in Trump tower, etc. Also, he has gone on three vacations in three weeks, which is intrinsically excessive and hypocritical, given his past comments on Obama. I don't think any of the above is necessarily illegal, just highly unethical.

I agree.

Unfortunately, these are such small issues next to the MASSIVE issues in his presidency that this is just an infuriating irritant, much like a family of rich, entitled mosquitoes buzzing around our ears.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on February 17, 2017, 09:23:45 PM
I'm sure some of you are familiar with the story of the Vox reporter who went to Kentucky and found many people who rely on Obamacare and voted for Trump. I was listening to a short podcast about it today. Here's an exact quote from one of these people:

"All Obamacare was, was, everybody's giving Obama our money, our hard-earned money, just so that way he can take a five-million-dollar vacation to the Bahamas instead of giving our military the weapons and the stuff they needed."

This is why someone invented the phrase "I don't know where to start."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 17, 2017, 09:25:30 PM

The sad truth of the matter is that Trump has a much larger family than our previous two presidents and they all have ample reason to travel. He also is in the unique position of having a young son attending better schools at he would likely get for him as president and probably having a wife who isn't too into the political scene and enjoys some space from him....

And at the end of the day they are not prisoners and we cover security. There is pretty much no getting around it costs a hell of a lot more to pay for security of the Trump family because they can afford to travel a whole hell of a lot and are generally going to expensive areas surrounded by people.

I would be pissed if it came out that he is using tax payer money to pay for huge portions of travel totally unrelated to security and were purely for personal business or entertainment. But it would be more of a general your a piece of shit feeling but there are much more
right?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 17, 2017, 09:31:56 PM
I'm sure some of you are familiar with the story of the Vox reporter who went to Kentucky and found many people who rely on Obamacare and voted for Trump. I was listening to a short podcast about it today. Here's an exact quote from one of these people:

"All Obamacare was, was, everybody's giving Obama our money, our hard-earned money, just so that way he can take a five-million-dollar vacation to the Bahamas instead of giving our military the weapons and the stuff they needed."

This is why someone invented the phrase "I don't know where to start."
Also, the phrase "Not even wrong", as popularized by (I think) Wolfgang Pauli
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: calimom on February 17, 2017, 10:29:08 PM
You seriously don't see how unethical this is? If I take one measly dollar from a $10,000 charity drive I was in charge of to buy myself a coffee, I have still committed a serious breach of ethics, regardless of how tiny my impact was on the bottom line.
The article was focused on the increase in cost to protect Trump and his family due to their 'jet-setting lifestyle'. Are you arguing something else? Because then we would not be discussing the same things.

So you are saying you are fine with our president and his family adopting a jet-setting lifestyle the likes of which the office has never seen just because it doesn't represent a meaningful % of a $4 trillion budget? We shouldn't hold our president to any standards whatsoever of being personally responsible for his discretionary use of taxpayer funds for entirely personal gains? It doesn't matter that in addition to getting tons of free vacations that come with mega expensive private security, he is simultaneously profiting from both? And I suppose you would be cool with him stealing from the church collection plate while he's at it? Jesus man.
Meh. This is several different arguments wrapped up in one. I'm fine with some of them, such as the 'jet setting lifestyle.' This has been his lifestyle literally his entire life. I don't expect him to change significantly because he is the president - that I think would be unfair. I didn't expect Bush to not spend time in Texas or Obama to not go golfing in Hawaii, even though it would have not doubt been cheaper if they had stayed in Washington watching TV on the weekends.

Wow Mouse, you are getting to be just about as good at this as POTUS :)
Well if one wishes to discuss greed and graft and stealing from the government, that is fine, but this was not how the question was phrased, nor the main point of the article covered. I don't find paying for protection of the POTUS to be a great burden upon the country.

The sad truth of the matter is that Trump has a much larger family than our previous two presidents and they all have ample reason to travel. He also is in the unique position of having a young son attending better schools at he would likely get for him as president and probably having a wife who isn't too into the political scene and enjoys some space from him....

And at the end of the day they are not prisoners and we cover security. There is pretty much no getting around it costs a hell of a lot more to pay for security of the Trump family because they can afford to travel a whole hell of a lot and are generally going to expensive areas surrounded by people.

I would be pissed if it came out that he is using tax payer money to pay for huge portions of travel totally unrelated to security and were purely for personal business or entertainment. But it would be more of a general your a piece of shit feeling but there are much more important grievances to worry about.

Does anyone remember the uproar that Michelle Obama's trip created in 2010? When Republican "taxpayers" fainted over the less then $500,000 cost of travel and security? When they felt it would bankrupt the country? When she and her family were received as goodwill ambassadors?

Conversely, does anyone remember the interview DJT had with Leslie Stahl of "60 Minutes" a week or so after the election? When said DJT claimed to only take a dollar per year as salary because of you, fiscal responsibility and all.

So, we (as taxpayers) pay enormous amounts to fly around and protect the Trump purse-selleing and hotel-promoting brand about the planet, and this is perfectly acceptable, yes/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on February 18, 2017, 06:33:42 AM
It's normal that each side complains about the other sides vacations and travel.  This has been going on for decades.  Republicans will say that Obama spent a hell of a lot of time playing golf in Hawaii, and Democrats will complain about the Trump family's travel.   There's nothing new here. 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 18, 2017, 07:02:08 AM
Meanwhile, in Holland: http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=32625
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on February 18, 2017, 07:54:26 AM
In other news, Trump claims that the media are the enemy of the people.    Echos of communism!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39015559 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39015559)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 18, 2017, 08:35:16 AM
It's normal that each side complains about the other sides vacations and travel.  This has been going on for decades.  Republicans will say that Obama spent a hell of a lot of time playing golf in Hawaii, and Democrats will complain about the Trump family's travel.   There's nothing new here.

Yeah, remember when Obama criticized the amount of vacation Bush took and then proceeded to take more?  That was fantastically hypocritically.  Literally, as in fantasy.

Trump, on the other hand...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 18, 2017, 09:52:25 AM
So... republicans have the Congress and the Presidency... shouldn't one impact of this be some fuckin' tax cuts? Where are my tax cuts. They always talk about tax cuts. Can we have some tax cuts?

I'm fine with corporate tax cuts too.

And no, Trump saying he is going to do something "great" on taxes doesn't count. Legislation proposed and passed counts though. Hopefully retroactive to to this year.

If the republicans were smart they'd make the tax cuts retroactive to this year so everyone gets a nice rebate cheque next year in time for the mid-terms.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 18, 2017, 11:50:43 AM
It's normal that each side complains about the other sides vacations and travel.  This has been going on for decades.  Republicans will say that Obama spent a hell of a lot of time playing golf in Hawaii, and Democrats will complain about the Trump family's travel.   There's nothing new here.

Yeah, remember when Obama criticized the amount of vacation Bush took and then proceeded to take more?  That was fantastically hypocritically.  Literally, as in fantasy.

Trump, on the other hand...

See now this is my problem with those who support Trump, and also a good example of the (apparent) fact that you have to lie to yourself to find it acceptable to continue that support. I get it, this is far from the biggest scandal ever (even within his own month-old administration!), but the linked article clearly shows that his level of spending (relative only to the movements of himself and his family) is massively unprecedented, as is the fact that his family is personally profiting to the tune of millions of dollars off of that spending.

An honest supporter would say something like "yeah, I don't like that he does that, it's pretty shady, probably unethical, and admittedly worse than even Obama was acting with his vacations, but it's also not that important in the grand scheme of all of the good he's doing." I mean, I obviously disagree with that statement as well, but at least it shows some willingness to accept that the Orange one has some flaws that his predecessors did not. Instead we just get more "bla bla bla Obama/Hillary were just as bad, bla bla bla." This, Trump supporters, is why the rest of us have a hard time taking you seriously.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 18, 2017, 12:53:06 PM
So... republicans have the Congress and the Presidency... shouldn't one impact of this be some fuckin' tax cuts? Where are my tax cuts. They always talk about tax cuts. Can we have some tax cuts?

I'm fine with corporate tax cuts too.

And no, Trump saying he is going to do something "great" on taxes doesn't count. Legislation proposed and passed counts though. Hopefully retroactive to to this year.

If the republicans were smart they'd make the tax cuts retroactive to this year so everyone gets a nice rebate cheque next year in time for the mid-terms.
It will be interesting to see what the GOP proposes with their first budget under DJT. He's obviously pushing hard for a combination of massive tax cuts with a huge infrastructure bill, but there are enough fiscal hawks within the party that this could become a giant intraparty poo-fight.

Personally I expect to see both tax cuts and a big jump in infrastructure and military spending. My big question is how long the party will be able to hold these massive deficits up without fracturing the party.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on February 18, 2017, 02:03:59 PM
It seems the game plan is:
Step 1: yuuge tax cuts
Step 2: increase defense spending to defeat ISIS, ICE funding to defeat illegal immigrants
Step 3: blame sad democrats (and lying media) for deficits that libertarians point out
Step 4: defund government agencies that regulate stuff
Step 5: win mid-terms because now we are safe
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 18, 2017, 02:19:27 PM
It seems the game plan is:
Step 1: yuuge tax cuts
Step 2: increase defense spending to defeat ISIS, ICE funding to defeat illegal immigrants
Step 3: blame sad democrats (and lying media) for deficits that libertarians point out
Step 4: defund government agencies that regulate stuff
Step 5: win mid-terms because now we are safe
Probably not far off, but you forgot:
Step 6: suffer countless strings of environmental disasters because no one was regulating
Step 7: economy tanks when super-bubble pops from financial sector taking ridiculous risks while no one was watching
Step 8: enter new quagmire because super-beefed up military needs to be used, right?
Step 9: corruption on a new scale for America result from undisclosed conflict of interests.

Actually, i'm not sure the exact order of 6, 7, 8, & 9 but I"m pretty sure all will come to pass in one form or another over the next 4 years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 18, 2017, 02:40:41 PM
It's normal that each side complains about the other sides vacations and travel.  This has been going on for decades.  Republicans will say that Obama spent a hell of a lot of time playing golf in Hawaii, and Democrats will complain about the Trump family's travel.   There's nothing new here.

Yeah, remember when Obama criticized the amount of vacation Bush took and then proceeded to take more?  That was fantastically hypocritically.  Literally, as in fantasy.

Trump, on the other hand...

See now this is my problem with those who support Trump, and also a good example of the (apparent) fact that you have to lie to yourself to find it acceptable to continue that support. I get it, this is far from the biggest scandal ever (even within his own month-old administration!), but the linked article clearly shows that his level of spending (relative only to the movements of himself and his family) is massively unprecedented, as is the fact that his family is personally profiting to the tune of millions of dollars off of that spending.

An honest supporter would say something like "yeah, I don't like that he does that, it's pretty shady, probably unethical, and admittedly worse than even Obama was acting with his vacations, but it's also not that important in the grand scheme of all of the good he's doing." I mean, I obviously disagree with that statement as well, but at least it shows some willingness to accept that the Orange one has some flaws that his predecessors did not. Instead we just get more "bla bla bla Obama/Hillary were just as bad, bla bla bla." This, Trump supporters, is why the rest of us have a hard time taking you seriously.
Has anybody on this thread said "blah blah blah, Obama was worse?" Because I literally have not seen anyone making that argument about this spending. Straw man? Again?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 18, 2017, 02:43:40 PM
It seems the game plan is:
Step 1: yuuge tax cuts
Step 2: increase defense spending to defeat ISIS, ICE funding to defeat illegal immigrants
Step 3: blame sad democrats (and lying media) for deficits that libertarians point out
Step 4: defund government agencies that regulate stuff
Step 5: win mid-terms because now we are safe
Probably not far off, but you forgot:
Step 6: suffer countless strings of environmental disasters because no one was regulating
Step 7: economy tanks when super-bubble pops from financial sector taking ridiculous risks while no one was watching
Step 8: enter new quagmire because super-beefed up military needs to be used, right?
Step 9: corruption on a new scale for America result from undisclosed conflict of interests.

Actually, i'm not sure the exact order of 6, 7, 8, & 9 but I"m pretty sure all will come to pass in one form or another over the next 4 years.
I'd take a few bucks on that bet. I honestly don't see them all happening for only the reasons you propose in the next four years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 18, 2017, 02:50:52 PM
It seems the game plan is:
Step 1: yuuge tax cuts
Step 2: increase defense spending to defeat ISIS, ICE funding to defeat illegal immigrants
Step 3: blame sad democrats (and lying media) for deficits that libertarians point out
Step 4: defund government agencies that regulate stuff
Step 5: win mid-terms because now we are safe
Probably not far off, but you forgot:
Step 6: suffer countless strings of environmental disasters because no one was regulating
Step 7: economy tanks when super-bubble pops from financial sector taking ridiculous risks while no one was watching
Step 8: enter new quagmire because super-beefed up military needs to be used, right?
Step 9: corruption on a new scale for America result from undisclosed conflict of interests.

Actually, i'm not sure the exact order of 6, 7, 8, & 9 but I"m pretty sure all will come to pass in one form or another over the next 4 years.
I'd take a few bucks on that bet. I honestly don't see them all happening for only the reasons you propose in the next four years.

I honestly don't evne know how one would judge that bet.  Causes in this case would be particularly difficult to determine - for example if there's some large environmental disaster one could suggest (but never prove) that it would have been avoided had regulation been in place.  or: if no major corruption comes out, is it because there was none, or because there's a complete and utter lack of transparency to allow for discovery?
I was also speaking a bit hyperbolicaly.  I still think at least 2 of the 4 will occur over the next 4 years.
::shrug::  I hope it doesn't, but I suspect it will.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 18, 2017, 03:01:39 PM
Has anybody on this thread said "blah blah blah, Obama was worse?" Because I literally have not seen anyone making that argument about this spending. Straw man? Again?

Not even I said that. I said others are calling him "just as bad," of which there are many many examples, including (by inference) the very post I quoted ("nothing new here"). Not sure why you're picking these nits so aggressively with me lately but again you're off base. No straw man here. Just a clearly stated observation that is easily verifiable.

You claim to be objective and dislike things about Trump, but not even you will concede this extremely minor and pretty much irrefutable point about his fiscal irresponsibility (or at a minimum hypocrisy). Strange, really.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 18, 2017, 03:07:58 PM

I honestly don't evne know how one would judge that bet.  Causes in this case would be particularly difficult to determine - for example if there's some large environmental disaster one could suggest (but never prove) that it would have been avoided had regulation been in place.  or: if no major corruption comes out, is it because there was none, or because there's a complete and utter lack of transparency to allow for discovery?
I was also speaking a bit hyperbolicaly.  I still think at least 2 of the 4 will occur over the next 4 years.
::shrug::  I hope it doesn't, but I suspect it will.
That was why I felt fairly safe taking this bet. :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 18, 2017, 03:18:48 PM
Has anybody on this thread said "blah blah blah, Obama was worse?" Because I literally have not seen anyone making that argument about this spending. Straw man? Again?

Not even I said that. I said others are calling him "just as bad," of which there are many many examples, including (by inference) the very post I quoted ("nothing new here"). Not sure why you're picking these nits so aggressively with me lately but again you're off base. No straw man here. Just a clearly stated observation that is easily verifiable.

You claim to be objective and dislike things about Trump, but not even you will concede this extremely minor and pretty much irrefutable point about his fiscal irresponsibility (or at a minimum hypocrisy). Strange, really.
If course he is fiscally irresponsible in many areas. I've never denied this. He has fucking gold plated fixtures on his fucking  private air craft. I'm not sure how many more straw men you are going to set up or how many more words you are going to put in my mouth. I do not intend to pick on you, and am sorry if you feel that way, it is just that you happen to be making the most logical fallacies in your arguments over the past few pages. They are the easiest to dismiss; I do not refute many of the great points many other posters have brought up. Yes Trump's security will cost more. No it will not bankrupt the country, and will harldy even be a blip in the annual budget. Anyone claiming otherwise is incorrect. If one wishes to argue that Trump should drastically change his lifestyle to save the country a few million dollars a year in protection, that would be a matter of opinion. Since I have seen no other president engage in this behavior, I would not argue it should be so for this president. Many would no doubt disagree, but I feel this is inconsistent and unfair to the buffoon currently in charge.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 18, 2017, 03:33:00 PM
Has anybody on this thread said "blah blah blah, Obama was worse?" Because I literally have not seen anyone making that argument about this spending. Straw man? Again?

Not even I said that. I said others are calling him "just as bad," of which there are many many examples, including (by inference) the very post I quoted ("nothing new here"). Not sure why you're picking these nits so aggressively with me lately but again you're off base. No straw man here. Just a clearly stated observation that is easily verifiable.

You claim to be objective and dislike things about Trump, but not even you will concede this extremely minor and pretty much irrefutable point about his fiscal irresponsibility (or at a minimum hypocrisy). Strange, really.
If course he is fiscally irresponsible in many areas. I've never denied this. He has fucking gold plated fixtures on his fucking  private air craft. I'm not sure how many more straw men you are going to set up or how many more words you are going to put in my mouth. I do not intend to pick on you, and am sorry if you feel that way, it is just that you happen to be making the most logical fallacies in your arguments over the past few pages. They are the easiest to dismiss; I do not refute many of the great points many other posters have brought up. Yes Trump's security will cost more. No it will not bankrupt the country, and will harldy even be a blip in the annual budget. Anyone claiming otherwise is incorrect. If one wishes to argue that Trump should drastically change his lifestyle to save the country a few million dollars a year in protection, that would be a matter of opinion. Since I have seen no other president engage in this behavior, I would not argue it should be so for this president. Many would no doubt disagree, but I feel this is inconsistent and unfair to the buffoon currently in charge.

What logical fallacies have I made? Perhaps the toneless internet is to blame but you have appeared weirdly upset about this and are at least as guilty at putting words in my mouth as you claim I have been with you. I made a very small, minor, simple point that started with just posting a link and you seemingly took great offense at the implications you read into that post. I never said it would bankrupt the country. I never said it was even a blip in the annual budget. I never even said he should be expected to drastically change his lifestyle. Those are all your words, not mine.

All I said is he is spending tax payer money on this stuff at a dramatically higher rate than any previous president (true). That his family is personally profiting from these expenses (true). And that he is undeniably a hypocrite given his past comments about Obama (true). Finally, I noted that Trump supporters repeatedly brush even the most minor of criticisms (which I admit this is) by saying things like "he's no worse than Obama" (also true--that they make this statement, that is).

The only debatable thing I said was that he's behaving unethically, which still is not a strawman because I in no way leveraged that argument to make a more sweeping claim.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 18, 2017, 03:59:24 PM
This is good. We can agree his security will cost more. We can agree it is not a problem for the country. When brought up, this particular factoid can be dismissed as unimportant. My issue with the article ( i have no issue with you!) is that it does not point out how insignificant the increase in spending in this area is. It was a hit piece largely deviod of substance, and easily dismissed for its bias and lack of context.

 As was pointed out above, since Trump supporters and Obama supporters and Bush supporters ignore or dismiss when their candidate of choice is hypocritical, calling out nebulous Trump supporters, none of whom are in this thread apparently, for this behavior is hardly helpful to the discussion.

I am sorry if you feel I have been attacking you. I do not mean to come across that way. I have attacked your arguements where I felt they were weak or could be more refined. I value your opinions and diverse views on many tpoics, and apologize if my words have ever made you feel atttacked personally.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 18, 2017, 04:08:10 PM
Yeah, it's time to stop bothering whining about minor Trump corruption or idiotic Trump verbiage/malapropisms.

Those things just make you look petty. Everyone is well aware that Trump is venal and self-serving and can't stop himself from making long-winded idiotic word salad when asked simple questions at this point who cares to know. Those who don't see him that way will only dismiss this kind of criticism, or worse, think even more highly of him.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 18, 2017, 04:20:29 PM
This is good. We can agree his security will cost more. We can agree it is not a problem for the country. When brought up, this particular factoid can be dismissed as unimportant. My issue with the article ( i have no issue with you!) is that it does not point out how insignificant the increase in spending in this area is. It was a hit piece largely deviod of substance, and easily dismissed for its bias and lack of context.

 As was pointed out above, since Trump supporters and Obama supporters and Bush supporters ignore or dismiss when their candidate of choice is hypocritical, calling out nebulous Trump supporters, none of whom are in this thread apparently, for this behavior is hardly helpful to the discussion.

I am sorry if you feel I have been attacking you. I do not mean to come across that way. I have attacked your arguements where I felt they were weak or could be more refined. I value your opinions and diverse views on many tpoics, and apologize if my words have ever made you feel atttacked personally.

You were attacking arguments I wasn't making =P

Also, there are a number of Trump supporters in this thread who have used exactly that line of reasoning repeatedly, including in the very post I quoted (KBecks), making my statement relevant and topical on that front.

The piece I posted was a bit fluffy, I'll grant, but still based in objective fact. I additionally think it is very relevant to bring up that those who continue to support Trump whole-heartedly do so with an intense mindset of ignoring/dismissing any and all criticism (outside some handwaving at how "crass" he is), no matter how minor, which has been evidenced repeatedly throughout this and other threads. If you haven't noticed, you haven't been reading very closely.

Nevertheless, this is a very long thread and has meandered all over the place. My linking of the article was never intended to be anything other than what I explicitly stated: a minor but undeniable example of greed, hypocrisy, and a lack of ethics. An example that is demonstrably worse than anything Obama ever did along similar lines (and by a large margin). I personally find the fact that no one who likes Trump will even admit such an admittedly minor and petty thing is rather disturbing but YMMV.

I suppose Walt is right that despite me not even being a Democrat or a HRC supporter, being opposed to Trump is enough to stigmatize me in the eyes of his supporters that such minor fluff will only serve to reinforce the persecution complex.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chad on February 18, 2017, 04:43:31 PM
Do any of you think that some of Trump's executive actions have been clearly unconstitutional? If so, I'm curious which ones. I've thought that some of them are borderline, but that none are just obviously an overreach. But I'm not sure I've looked carefully at them all. This is one of the main areas that concerned me about Trump since the campaign, during which he said he'd violate the constitution in this way if necessary.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 18, 2017, 04:57:01 PM
... This is one of the main areas that concerned me about Trump since the campaign, during which he said he'd violate the constitution in this way if necessary.

When did Trump say he would violate the constitution if necessary?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chad on February 18, 2017, 05:11:48 PM
Whether he said such a thing is going to be controversial depending on your view of what Obama did. Here's what I had in mind:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265371-trump-obama-led-the-way-on-executive-orders

If (like me) you think that Obama's use of executive action was unconstitutional, then this sounds like Trump is saying he will use executive action in a way that is unconstitutional.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 18, 2017, 05:12:30 PM
Yeah, it's time to stop bothering whining about minor Trump corruption or idiotic Trump verbiage/malapropisms.
Yes, and for the record, we should be more frightened of Trump's malapriapisms!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 18, 2017, 05:14:06 PM
It's sad to be relieved that Trump is back to harmless campaigning and not trying to do anything Presidential like talking to foreign leaders.  Maybe he'll stay out of Washington all week and the people who do real work and have real jobs can not be distracted, defeated, and disappointed by Trump's terrifying news conferences and meetings.  He's not a politician, but now that the novelty has worn off, that's turning out to be a real problem.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 18, 2017, 05:28:09 PM
Do any of you think that some of Trump's executive actions have been clearly unconstitutional? If so, I'm curious which ones. I've thought that some of them are borderline, but that none are just obviously an overreach. But I'm not sure I've looked carefully at them all. This is one of the main areas that concerned me about Trump since the campaign, during which he said he'd violate the constitution in this way if necessary.

Are you kidding?  Have you been paying attention to recent court rulings?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chad on February 18, 2017, 05:29:53 PM
So the immigration order. Didn't seem like an obvious overreach to me (not to say it was a smart policy). Maybe you disagree. Like I said, I'm just curious what you all think. Any of the other ones?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 18, 2017, 05:42:10 PM
So the immigration order. Didn't seem like an obvious overreach to me (not to say it was a smart policy). Maybe you disagree. Like I said, I'm just curious what you all think. Any of the other ones?
Well the courts are the ones who determine unconstitutionality, and so far they have stayed the immigration policy (not ruled it unconstitutional).  Time will tell whether it will be ruled as such or not (assuming the administration pushes the case, which I tend to think it won't).
Besides that, the administration really hasn't done a whole lot other than sign a bunch of executive orders which, smart policy or not, are all probably above bar. 
Has anything happened we don't know about?  Possibly - but its a pretty short time frame.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chad on February 18, 2017, 05:53:46 PM
Quote
the courts are the ones who determine unconstitutionality

That doesn't seem right to me if you mean that they're by definition right on constitutional matters. They make judgments, of course, and their judgments have legal authority. But it isn't as if they can't get it wrong. Precedent is sometimes rightly overturned, and that's only possible because they sometimes issue a judgment that gets the constitution wrong. It's coherent to disagree with the court on a matter of constitutional interpretation.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 18, 2017, 06:02:17 PM
Quote
the courts are the ones who determine unconstitutionality

That doesn't seem right to me if you mean that they're by definition right on constitutional matters. They make judgments, of course, and their judgments have legal authority. But it isn't as if they can't get it wrong. Precedent is sometimes rightly overturned, and that's only possible because they sometimes issue a judgment that gets the constitution wrong. It's coherent to disagree with the court on a matter of constitutional interpretation.

The courts are by definition right on constitutional matters. And the Supreme court is always right, by definition.

There's a neat quote about the Supreme Court (I think some Chief Justice said it):

The Supreme Court isn't final because it's infallible. It's infallible because it's final.

i.e. The Supreme Court (and lower courts if not challenged) are right because they're the decider on what's right.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 18, 2017, 06:03:47 PM
So the immigration order. Didn't seem like an obvious overreach to me (not to say it was a smart policy). Maybe you disagree. Like I said, I'm just curious what you all think. Any of the other ones?
Well the courts are the ones who determine unconstitutionality, and so far they have stayed the immigration policy (not ruled it unconstitutional).  Time will tell whether it will be ruled as such or not (assuming the administration pushes the case, which I tend to think it won't).
Besides that, the administration really hasn't done a whole lot other than sign a bunch of executive orders which, smart policy or not, are all probably above bar. 
Has anything happened we don't know about?  Possibly - but its a pretty short time frame.

A number of courts stayed the order based on likelihood of unconstitutionality.  Plus basically everyone with legal knowledge expected that outcome.  If trump had actually consulted state or anyone else with abrain, they would have told him the same thing
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 18, 2017, 06:06:30 PM
Quote
the courts are the ones who determine unconstitutionality

That doesn't seem right to me if you mean that they're by definition right on constitutional matters. They make judgments, of course, and their judgments have legal authority. But it isn't as if they can't get it wrong. Precedent is sometimes rightly overturned, and that's only possible because they sometimes issue a judgment that gets the constitution wrong. It's coherent to disagree with the court on a matter of constitutional interpretation.
well then there's the question of legal precedent which is the underpinning of our entire rule of law. If the courts determine something to be constitutional, all future questions can reference that decision.

Also, your point is... what exactly?  that because the courts can be faliable, we cannot trust them with regards to what is and is not constitutional?  If so, how exactly is that determined?  By a bunch of armchair internet judges?

Quote
A number of courts stayed the order based on likelihood of unconstitutionality.  Plus basically everyone with legal knowledge expected that outcome.  If trump had actually consulted state or anyone else with abrain, they would have told him the same thing
oh, I believe, based on initial rulings, that the EO will be struck down should it ever go before the supreme court.  I'm just pointing out that's not the only option here. A much more likely scenario (IMO) is that the EO gets reworked and it never goes to the supreme court because it's effectively toast.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chad on February 18, 2017, 06:11:31 PM
Quote
The courts are by definition right on constitutional matters.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'right'. If by 'right' you mean that they have the legal authority to settle these matters, then of course that's true.

But how could a dissenting opinion even make sense if the majority is, by definition, correct about the constitution? A dissenting opinion says, in effect, "the majority is wrongly interpreting the constitution". It would be absurd to suggest that this is by definition impossible!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 18, 2017, 06:13:15 PM
Quote
the courts are the ones who determine unconstitutionality

That doesn't seem right to me if you mean that they're by definition right on constitutional matters. They make judgments, of course, and their judgments have legal authority. But it isn't as if they can't get it wrong. Precedent is sometimes rightly overturned, and that's only possible because they sometimes issue a judgment that gets the constitution wrong. It's coherent to disagree with the court on a matter of constitutional interpretation.

Without weighing in on the executive order on immigration (or any other) directly, I'll point out that the constitution is a very opaque document, written in somewhat archaic language. There isn't really a "right" or "wrong" in many modern cases, so you have to start saying "what would the folks who wrote the constitution have thought about this?" and just let that ride.

That interpretation can and should change over time, and it has.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chad on February 18, 2017, 06:22:29 PM
Quote
Also, your point is... what exactly?  that because the courts can be faliable, we cannot trust them with regards to what is and is not constitutional?  If so, how exactly is that determined?  By a bunch of armchair internet judges?

I'm not sure how to answer this. If you agree that they are fallible, then you agree with me that the court is not by definition correct on these issues. That was the whole point. Dragoncar could be right that the immigration order is unconstitutional, even though the courts haven't issued a final ruling yet.

Quote
There isn't really a "right" or "wrong" in many modern cases

I agree that some cases don't have a clear right or wrong, and maybe that in some cases there literally isn't a right and wrong independent of what the court says. But that's not always the case. The constitution has to place some constraint on what the judges rule. Of course it's a matter of great controversy exactly how that works. But for example most of us will agree that, if congress were to pass a law stating that everyone must attend church each Sunday, that would be objectively contrary to the first amendment. So there are clear cases, there are hard cases, and maybe there are cases in which there's literally no correct answer. But my question was: are there any exectuive actions so far that look like easy calls on being unconstitutional?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: marty998 on February 18, 2017, 06:32:22 PM
It seems the game plan is:
Step 1: yuuge tax cuts
Step 2: increase defense spending to defeat ISIS, ICE funding to defeat illegal immigrants
Step 3: blame sad democrats (and lying media) for deficits that libertarians point out
Step 4: defund government agencies that regulate stuff
Step 5: win mid-terms because now we are safe
Probably not far off, but you forgot:
Step 6: suffer countless strings of environmental disasters because no one was regulating
Step 7: economy tanks when super-bubble pops from financial sector taking ridiculous risks while no one was watching
Step 8: enter new quagmire because super-beefed up military needs to be used, right?
Step 9: corruption on a new scale for America result from undisclosed conflict of interests.

Actually, i'm not sure the exact order of 6, 7, 8, & 9 but I"m pretty sure all will come to pass in one form or another over the next 4 years.


#3 and #4 are already happening, no?


#6 will happen regardless of regulations... Exxon Valdez, BP etc... these happen because people make inherently stupid decisions, or decisions based on maximising greed / profit and are willing to take the risk. Regulation doesn't stop people from crossing lines, otherwise there'd be no need for police & courts.


#7 will play out during Trump's second term or after he leaves office. Remember the GFC played out over the course of 2 years from August 2007 to mid 2009... and even then when sharemarkets recovered there was talk of a double dip for a few years afterwards until 2012.


#8... well yeah... you guys do seem to love being in wars perpetually... Nam, Korea, Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq to name only the most well known ones. We tag along on it all too.


Trump has put out a number of conflicting remarks... wants to destroy ISIS but doesn't want to act as world policeman anymore, other countries taking advantage of your military etc. Honestly no one really knows what he will do when faced with an actual decision to make. He might just decide to sue them all instead :D
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 18, 2017, 07:07:21 PM

oh, I believe, based on initial rulings, that the EO will be struck down should it ever go before the supreme court.  I'm just pointing out that's not the only option here. A much more likely scenario (IMO) is that the EO gets reworked and it never goes to the supreme court because it's effectively toast.

Sure, in fact Trump said he wouldn't pursue the EO and would rework it.  That's just more evidence on the side that the original EO was unconstitutional. 

Dragoncar could be right that the immigration order is unconstitutional, even though the courts haven't issued a final ruling yet.

Yeah, and climate change isn't certain until we're underwater.  If your position is that we can't know whether anything is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court makes a final ruling (and we wait another 1000 years just to make sure that ruling is never overturned) then yeah I guess Trump's never done anything unconstitutional and nobody else has either because it's unknowable.  But for the purposes of rational and practical discussion, his Muslim Ban EO was unconstitutional.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chad on February 18, 2017, 07:15:14 PM
Quote
If your position is that we can't know whether anything is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court makes a final ruling

I think you may be misunderstanding me. This is not my position, it's (apprently?) nereo's, and I've been arguing that it's not true that we have to wait.

You and I just disagree about whether the immigration order is obviously unconstitutional. I think it is not obviously unconstitutional, and you think it is.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 18, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
Quote
If your position is that we can't know whether anything is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court makes a final ruling

I think you may be misunderstanding me. This is not my position, it's (apprently?) nereo's, and I've been arguing that it's not true that we have to wait.

You and I just disagree about whether the immigration order is obviously unconstitutional. I think it is not obviously unconstitutional, and you think it is.

Chad, I don't get what you're saying either. Is there any example of something that's been done that's "obviously" unconstitutional? You can put the word "obviously" in there and it will mean something different to everyone.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 18, 2017, 07:27:49 PM
Let me give you an example, Chad.

The 2nd amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, leaving aside the militia part, how do you define "arms"? Most people would, today, say that anything from a knife to an ICBM ("arms" control treaties?) constitutes an "arm".

But you can't own, say, a .50 cal machine gun, or a mortar, or that ICBM legally. How so? The constitution clearly says you can!

The supreme court has ruled on this many times, and if you read between the lines, they did this: they said,  "ok, in the day of the founders, "arms" meant low rate of fire slug-throwers. That's what's allowed."

You can accurately say that the supreme court (relatively uncontroversially, nobody wants the neighborhood n'er do well testing out their new mortar) *defied the literal interpretation of the constitution* in this case.

And it happens all the time. And it should. A quarter-millennium old document can't anticipate modern technology or mores or society.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: chad on February 18, 2017, 07:44:12 PM
I think to myself "there are a lot of people critical of Trump on this thread, and I bet they have intelligent, interesting opinions about which of his executive actions are unconstitutional". I ask my question. Then I'm told incredulously (Dragoncar) that the immigration order is unconstitutional as if that's just supposed to be obvious. After that, Nereo says that nothing is unconstitutional until the court issues a final decision. That's absurd, but whatever, I agrue that Nereo is wrong about this. So then I'm told (waltworks) that no constitutional issue is ever clear, because the whole constitution is as hard to interpret as the second amendment. Finally, dividend man suggests that my question is somehow unclear.

Dudes, nevermind, I withdraw the question.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 18, 2017, 08:07:06 PM
Dudes, nevermind, I withdraw the question.

Chad: 0
Internets: 1
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 18, 2017, 08:38:02 PM
Yeah, bluntly, Chad, your whole idea is dumb. We have a whole legal apparatus full of professional nerds interpreting laws (and, if you really want to get geeky about it, have since the days of Moses) that aren't totally clear and have to be applied to weird and novel situations they weren't written for.

That's hard, and it's complex, and it's not easy to figure out over a beer. Sorry.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 18, 2017, 10:06:02 PM
I think to myself "there are a lot of people critical of Trump on this thread, and I bet they have intelligent, interesting opinions about which of his executive actions are unconstitutional". I ask my question. Then I'm told incredulously (Dragoncar) that the immigration order is unconstitutional as if that's just supposed to be obvious. After that, Nereo says that nothing is unconstitutional until the court issues a final decision. That's absurd, but whatever, I agrue that Nereo is wrong about this. So then I'm told (waltworks) that no constitutional issue is ever clear, because the whole constitution is as hard to interpret as the second amendment. Finally, dividend man suggests that my question is somehow unclear.

Dudes, nevermind, I withdraw the question.

Well that de-escalated quickly...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: calimom on February 18, 2017, 10:11:16 PM
Chad had me at "dudes". That was super-serious!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: disconneked on February 18, 2017, 10:19:32 PM
I think to myself "there are a lot of people critical of Trump on this thread, and I bet they have intelligent, interesting opinions about which of his executive actions are unconstitutional". I ask my question. Then I'm told incredulously (Dragoncar) that the immigration order is unconstitutional as if that's just supposed to be obvious. After that, Nereo says that nothing is unconstitutional until the court issues a final decision. That's absurd, but whatever, I agrue that Nereo is wrong about this. So then I'm told (waltworks) that no constitutional issue is ever clear, because the whole constitution is as hard to interpret as the second amendment. Finally, dividend man suggests that my question is somehow unclear.

Dudes, nevermind, I withdraw the question.

Mr. Dude,
This forum is very opinionated and mostly polarized left. Understand this man, and you will find peace.

The President did have the authority for the travel ban. (like one judge in Washington should shutdown a nationwide order because of what will effect Washington, and all for "rights" of non-citizens.) National security is being politicized and turned into a clown show. The fact is we are a deeply divided country. Not too far from civil war but not there yet either. You see the video footage of that guy that pulled out an AR15 to take a Trump flag off of someones truck-- yeah like thats okay. I don't advertise my Trumpness in public but I'm ready to shoot. I'm team red.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: disconneked on February 18, 2017, 10:46:29 PM
See it right here: https://youtu.be/OzeTZSEesXY?t=7s

Its all fun and game till AR-15s get involved. This is not an isolated incident either.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 18, 2017, 11:10:31 PM
It's sad to be relieved that Trump is back to harmless campaigning and not trying to do anything Presidential like talking to foreign leaders.  Maybe he'll stay out of Washington all week and the people who do real work and have real jobs can not be distracted, defeated, and disappointed by Trump's terrifying news conferences and meetings.  He's not a politician, but now that the novelty has worn off, that's turning out to be a real problem.

Going back to my original point before all of the weirdness, the country did want an outsider, but also expects some return on investment.  Why can't Trump channel some of his non-politician, outside businessman freedom to crowdsource his next initiative.  Most successful CEOs are amazing people that take a little time and then come back with great ideas.  How cool would it be if there were some 'help me with a good answer to xx policy (border security, dealing with terror, Wall Street reform) online / social media interaction.  Americans would feel represented if it didn't come down to electing one person, and then having all of the BS of faux-representing the majority thrown in our face (and bizarrely, dishonestly, then repeatedly lying about it).  Trump should leverage his team and willing help, not 'enjoy' confronting the world in some bombastic media event, which he then bizarrely denounces as being fake.

Trump is increasingly the party of the 0.1%.  How did we get to this point, maybe some misguided hope and optimism?  But why are we stuck here?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 18, 2017, 11:13:23 PM
I think to myself "there are a lot of people critical of Trump on this thread, and I bet they have intelligent, interesting opinions about which of his executive actions are unconstitutional". I ask my question. Then I'm told incredulously (Dragoncar) that the immigration order is unconstitutional as if that's just supposed to be obvious. After that, Nereo says that nothing is unconstitutional until the court issues a final decision. That's absurd, but whatever, I agrue that Nereo is wrong about this. So then I'm told (waltworks) that no constitutional issue is ever clear, because the whole constitution is as hard to interpret as the second amendment. Finally, dividend man suggests that my question is somehow unclear.

Dudes, nevermind, I withdraw the question.

Mr. Dude,
This forum is very opinionated and mostly polarized left. Understand this man, and you will find peace.

The President did have the authority for the travel ban. (like one judge in Washington should shutdown a nationwide order because of what will effect Washington, and all for "rights" of non-citizens.) National security is being politicized and turned into a clown show. The fact is we are a deeply divided country. Not too far from civil war but not there yet either. You see the video footage of that guy that pulled out an AR15 to take a Trump flag off of someones truck-- yeah like thats okay. I don't advertise my Trumpness in public but I'm ready to shoot. I'm team red.

Hai troll! <waves>
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 18, 2017, 11:28:04 PM
Hai troll! <waves>

I'd like to believe that not every poster who comes here praising Donald Trump is a troll.  But so far, those folks have offered very little substance to any debate about Trump, and lots of lots of silly lies and faux anger. 

Are there any Trump supporters here would like to offer a reasoned defense of the current administration?  Because thus far, all I see is a long series of fuck-ups.

Millions of people voted for Trump because they thought he would bring back their jobs.  Unemployment was already down to 5% when he took office and may even continue to improve slowly, but Trump can't really bring back small town manufacturing jobs.  He blamed Mexicans for our economy, which is actually pretty strong right now, without recognizing the vital role that immigration plays in keeping our economy growing (since Americans don't breed fast enough to grow their population own their own).  He openly insults our allies abroad while signalling he wants to upset standing alliances.  He claims to want law and order, but then signs blatantly unconstitutional executive orders.  He keeps telling us about he has "the best people" but his staff keeps getting fired and his appointees keep getting rejected for lacking basic qualifications.  I just don't see how he's delivered on any of his campaign promises that minority of the country that actually voted for him.  Quite the contrary, it looks like he's sticking his finger in their eye even more forcefully than he's trying to stick it to liberals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 18, 2017, 11:48:43 PM
Hai troll! <waves>

I'd like to believe that not every poster who comes here praising Donald Trump is a troll.  But so far, those folks have offered very little substance to any debate about Trump, and lots of lots of silly lies and faux anger. 

Are there any Trump supporters here would like to offer a reasoned defense of the current administration?  Because thus far, all I see is a long series of fuck-ups.

Millions of people voted for Trump because they thought he would bring back their jobs.  Unemployment was already down to 5% when he took office and may even continue to improve slowly, but Trump can't really bring back small town manufacturing jobs.  He blamed Mexicans for our economy, which is actually pretty strong right now, without recognizing the vital role that immigration plays in keeping our economy growing (since Americans don't breed fast enough to grow their population own their own).  He openly insults our allies abroad while signalling he wants to upset standing alliances.  He claims to want law and order, but then signs blatantly unconstitutional executive orders.  He keeps telling us about he has "the best people" but his staff keeps getting fired and his appointees keep getting rejected for lacking basic qualifications.  I just don't see how he's delivered on any of his campaign promises that minority of the country that actually voted for him.  Quite the contrary, it looks like he's sticking his finger in their eye even more forcefully than he's trying to stick it to liberals.

Trust me Sol, Trump support has distilled down to the dregs.  We are at the point where even Trump has to call out 'dishonest media' in light of the fact they are just reporting video footage of his own statements and inability to craft real, consistent, coherent policy.  I'm not really sure where it goes from here, but you really don't want to hear from the remaining Trump blind support crowd.  Beating your head against a wall might actually result in more satisfying progress.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 19, 2017, 12:12:14 AM
I think to myself "there are a lot of people critical of Trump on this thread, and I bet they have intelligent, interesting opinions about which of his executive actions are unconstitutional". I ask my question. Then I'm told incredulously (Dragoncar) that the immigration order is unconstitutional as if that's just supposed to be obvious. After that, Nereo says that nothing is unconstitutional until the court issues a final decision. That's absurd, but whatever, I agrue that Nereo is wrong about this. So then I'm told (waltworks) that no constitutional issue is ever clear, because the whole constitution is as hard to interpret as the second amendment. Finally, dividend man suggests that my question is somehow unclear.

Dudes, nevermind, I withdraw the question.

Well I answered your question and if you are curious about the reasoning you can read the Actual court opinions.  Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you but is that not enough to satisfy your curiosity?

Edit: here's one, enjoy http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 19, 2017, 12:19:57 AM
Hai troll! <waves>

I'd like to believe that not every poster who comes here praising Donald Trump is a troll.  But so far, those folks have offered very little substance to any debate about Trump, and lots of lots of silly lies and faux anger. 

Are there any Trump supporters here would like to offer a reasoned defense of the current administration?  Because thus far, all I see is a long series of fuck-ups.

Millions of people voted for Trump because they thought he would bring back their jobs.  Unemployment was already down to 5% when he took office and may even continue to improve slowly, but Trump can't really bring back small town manufacturing jobs.  He blamed Mexicans for our economy, which is actually pretty strong right now, without recognizing the vital role that immigration plays in keeping our economy growing (since Americans don't breed fast enough to grow their population own their own).  He openly insults our allies abroad while signalling he wants to upset standing alliances.  He claims to want law and order, but then signs blatantly unconstitutional executive orders.  He keeps telling us about he has "the best people" but his staff keeps getting fired and his appointees keep getting rejected for lacking basic qualifications.  I just don't see how he's delivered on any of his campaign promises that minority of the country that actually voted for him.  Quite the contrary, it looks like he's sticking his finger in their eye even more forcefully than he's trying to stick it to liberals.

I don't think they all are. I think most aren't, actually, but the non trolls take so much offense at being associated with such that they tend to dig in, or more commonly, shove their heads further into the sand. It is one of my own flaws that I can't help but condescendingly and sarcastically remark on their troll-like associations, most likely making it less likely they will change their views. Not my finest quality, I fully admit. I just hope they at least take some small consolation in the fact that I have just as much frustration and disdain for the liberals out there who think the DNC will save us all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 19, 2017, 02:02:01 AM
See it right here: https://youtu.be/OzeTZSEesXY?t=7s

Its all fun and game till AR-15s get involved. This is not an isolated incident either.
The gentleman in that video is exercising his constitutional rights of free speech and to bear arms.  Why should exercising those rights be isolated incidents?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 19, 2017, 03:52:28 AM
...

All I said is he is spending tax payer money on this stuff at a dramatically higher rate than any previous president (true). That his family is personally profiting from these expenses (true). And that he is undeniably a hypocrite given his past comments about Obama (true). Finally, I noted that Trump supporters repeatedly brush even the most minor of criticisms (which I admit this is) by saying things like "he's no worse than Obama" (also true--that they make this statement, that is).

The only debatable thing I said was that he's behaving unethically, which still is not a strawman because I in no way leveraged that argument to make a more sweeping claim.

His family personally profiting from POTUS travel expenses is glaringly BAD, UNETHICAL and UNACCEPTABLE.  I cannot believe his ostensibly conservative, fiscally hawkish supporters are brushing off this behavior as if it's no big deal.

All I can figure is that we are so divided, that they've come to believe that the 'other side' plays dirty tricks/acts unethically, so that justifies unethical behavior from people on their own team.

Fuck these teams. They are dehumanizing. They are turning us into uncritical, unthinking idiots.
 
Take my dad, for example. Previously a rational person, his brain is that of a political zombie. He doesn't see anything wrong with Trump Corp profiting off of the US taxpayer, nor the 10x expenditures in comparison to Obama. OMG if Obama owned a hotel, and profited personally from the travel of secret service members in his hotel - my dad would go apeshit crazy over it. I remember him getting angry about Obama spending his money on a round of golf. But somehow Trump profiting off of his tax dollars is okay. 

The fact that people give this behavior a pass is baffling and infuriating. We should hold ourselves, and our elected officials to a higher standard. I still blame the privately funded two party system. Until we fix that, we will either continue to elect these ass hats, or see the end of our great country in our own lifetimes.

 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 19, 2017, 04:37:42 AM
I think to myself "there are a lot of people critical of Trump on this thread, and I bet they have intelligent, interesting opinions about which of his executive actions are unconstitutional". I ask my question. Then I'm told incredulously (Dragoncar) that the immigration order is unconstitutional as if that's just supposed to be obvious. After that, Nereo says that nothing is unconstitutional until the court issues a final decision. That's absurd, but whatever, I agrue that Nereo is wrong about this. So then I'm told (waltworks) that no constitutional issue is ever clear, because the whole constitution is as hard to interpret as the second amendment. Finally, dividend man suggests that my question is somehow unclear.


I'll speak just for myself on this - I never said (or even inferred) that the constitutionality of a law, order, etc is not decided until the courts make a decision. That's absurd - most laws are mundane little tweaks that never get put in front of the court because people overwhelmingly believe they are constitutional.

My point - which I think you misinterpreted - is that the courts get to have the final say about whether a law is constitutional. If an action is ruled unconstitutional, that's it... up until and if a ruling from a higher court (or a different supreme court) rules otherwise, OR until the constitution is amended.

NONE of this is to suggest that an unconstitutional law is somehow constitutional until the courts make their ruling.  Should a court strike down a law it was never constitutional to begin with.  I think that is what you are getting at here - what has DJT and his administration done that is obviously unconstitutional and that will eventually be reversed in the courts or die simply because its reversed and no longer in play.  IMO the EO ban is in this category. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 19, 2017, 04:46:45 AM
See it right here: https://youtu.be/OzeTZSEesXY?t=7s

Its all fun and game till AR-15s get involved. This is not an isolated incident either.
The gentleman in that video is exercising his constitutional rights of free speech and to bear arms.  Why should exercising those rights be isolated incidents?

I can only hope and guess that you are being sarcastic here former player.  The video is a textbook case for robbery.  Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.

In the video the gentleman clearly i) took the property of another without permission ii) with the intent to permanently deprive iii) by force (he was holding a firearm are and kept repeating "what are you going to do about it... nothing".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 19, 2017, 04:57:53 AM
#SwedenIncident

Really wish it were ABBA or IKEA...but no...

#TrumpDiplomacy
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 19, 2017, 05:05:04 AM
It seems the game plan is:
Step 1: yuuge tax cuts
Step 2: increase defense spending to defeat ISIS, ICE funding to defeat illegal immigrants
Step 3: blame sad democrats (and lying media) for deficits that libertarians point out
Step 4: defund government agencies that regulate stuff
Step 5: win mid-terms because now we are safe
Probably not far off, but you forgot:
Step 6: suffer countless strings of environmental disasters because no one was regulating
Step 7: economy tanks when super-bubble pops from financial sector taking ridiculous risks while no one was watching
Step 8: enter new quagmire because super-beefed up military needs to be used, right?
Step 9: corruption on a new scale for America result from undisclosed conflict of interests.

Actually, i'm not sure the exact order of 6, 7, 8, & 9 but I"m pretty sure all will come to pass in one form or another over the next 4 years.
#3 and #4 are already happening, no?

#6 will happen regardless of regulations... Exxon Valdez, BP etc... these happen because people make inherently stupid decisions, or decisions based on maximising greed / profit and are willing to take the risk. Regulation doesn't stop people from crossing lines, otherwise there'd be no need for police & courts.

#7 will play out during Trump's second term or after he leaves office. Remember the GFC played out over the course of 2 years from August 2007 to mid 2009... and even then when sharemarkets recovered there was talk of a double dip for a few years afterwards until 2012.

#8... well yeah... you guys do seem to love being in wars perpetually... Nam, Korea, Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq to name only the most well known ones. We tag along on it all too.
re #4: nothing has been defunded as of yet.  New hires have been frozen, but that's not unique to this administration (Carter and Reagan did similar blanket freezes, both of which are considered a fiscal bust in retrospect). DJT has also ordered the focus of certain agencies to be realigned, but again that is nothing new.  Only Congress can defund - and that will be a raucous debate I'm sure.

Re #6: NO! the whole point of regulations is to deter an individual or corporation from doing something we see as "bad". In most cases corporations follow regulations, especially if there's a fiscal penalty to be paid for not doing so. Are they followed 100%? of course not.  But I firmly believe easing up on regulations will lead to companies taking on more risk, and as is the case with risk sometimes those turn south.

Re #7: it's been 8 long years since we exited the last (great!) recession, which is already longer than the median time between recessions of ~7 years.  It will be historic if we somehow go 4 more years with no recession.  Will the next one be triggered by the popping of an economic bubble?  maybe yes, maybe no - but several of our most recent recessions have gone this route.  Will DJT actually be to blame?  well that's one we can't ever prove and people will argue with for eons. As usual the caveat applies that a president gets too much credit when the economy improves and too much blame when it tanks, unless it's Obama

Re #8:  see you there!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on February 19, 2017, 06:06:34 AM
So... republicans have the Congress and the Presidency... shouldn't one impact of this be some fuckin' tax cuts? Where are my tax cuts. They always talk about tax cuts. Can we have some tax cuts?

It's only been a few weeks. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 19, 2017, 06:08:32 AM
See it right here: https://youtu.be/OzeTZSEesXY?t=7s

Its all fun and game till AR-15s get involved. This is not an isolated incident either.
The gentleman in that video is exercising his constitutional rights of free speech and to bear arms.  Why should exercising those rights be isolated incidents?

I can only hope and guess that you are being sarcastic here former player.  The video is a textbook case for robbery.  Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.

In the video the gentleman clearly i) took the property of another without permission ii) with the intent to permanently deprive iii) by force (he was holding a firearm are and kept repeating "what are you going to do about it... nothing".
I didn't see any robbery or intent to permanently deprive.  I would probably agree to criminal damage, based on the tearing sound.
There is no proof that the driver was still in earshot when the gun came out, and the gun was not pointed at anyone but held safely pointing down, so I can't agree to the "force" argument.

Was I being sarcastic?  The video referenced is the logical consequence of the constitutional rights so passionately defended by many in the US: people, including people you may not like, can have the right to carry guns in the street and have the right to shout whatever they like that is not a criminal threat.  If you defend those rights, you also have to defend the exercise of them as demonstrated in that video.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on February 19, 2017, 06:12:31 AM
#SwedenIncident

Really wish it were ABBA or IKEA...but no...

#TrumpDiplomacy

We are all combing through the newspapers trying to understand what happened in Sweden on Friday. So far, the best theories are:
-He misheard Sehwan (in Pakistan) for Sweden. http://indianexpress.com/article/world/pakistan-sehwan-attack-dead-islamic-state-injured-in-terrorist-attack-shrine-4529321/
-He heard about the moose raping a wooden statue, and thought it was a muslim that did it (photo #6): http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Vn17J/in-english-this-happened-in-sweden-friday-night-mr-president
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on February 19, 2017, 06:34:58 AM
See it right here: https://youtu.be/OzeTZSEesXY?t=7s

Its all fun and game till AR-15s get involved. This is not an isolated incident either.
The gentleman in that video is exercising his constitutional rights of free speech and to bear arms.  Why should exercising those rights be isolated incidents?

I can only hope and guess that you are being sarcastic here former player.  The video is a textbook case for robbery.  Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.

In the video the gentleman clearly i) took the property of another without permission ii) with the intent to permanently deprive iii) by force (he was holding a firearm are and kept repeating "what are you going to do about it... nothing".
I didn't see any robbery or intent to permanently deprive.  I would probably agree to criminal damage, based on the tearing sound.
There is no proof that the driver was still in earshot when the gun came out, and the gun was not pointed at anyone but held safely pointing down, so I can't agree to the "force" argument.

Was I being sarcastic?  The video referenced is the logical consequence of the constitutional rights so passionately defended by many in the US: people, including people you may not like, can have the right to carry guns in the street and have the right to shout whatever they like that is not a criminal threat.  If you defend those rights, you also have to defend the exercise of them as demonstrated in that video.

Watched the video and I don't know the gun laws in that location, so no comment on the weapon.  But I do not see theft and I do not see intent to kill the man. 

So yes, he is just being angry in this video.  If he moved towards another person with that gun and yelling threats, that is another story altogether.

Hopefully this kind of thing is uncommon, because it is dangerous, it is dangerous especially for the man holding the weapon, because his actions and intent could be easily misunderstood.

I stopped putting political bumper stickers on my vehicles years ago, and I will never do so again in my life, exactly because of this kind of situation.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on February 19, 2017, 07:54:23 AM
Do any of you think that some of Trump's executive actions have been clearly unconstitutional? If so, I'm curious which ones. I've thought that some of them are borderline, but that none are just obviously an overreach. But I'm not sure I've looked carefully at them all. This is one of the main areas that concerned me about Trump since the campaign, during which he said he'd violate the constitution in this way if necessary.
I didnt vote for Trump, but that doesnt mean I dislike all of his actions.

The executive order stopping immigration is likely unclear mstitutinal for those with legal status that allows them to live here (green fatds etc.) But when it comes to these constitutional questions, I am no legal scholar. And neither is anyone  (well, most) here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 19, 2017, 08:13:54 AM
So... republicans have the Congress and the Presidency... shouldn't one impact of this be some fuckin' tax cuts? Where are my tax cuts. They always talk about tax cuts. Can we have some tax cuts?

It's only been a few weeks.

Yeah, but Trump has spent days talking about and signing orders on all sorts of other issues. I'd like a few days spend on him signing useless orders to instruct his staff to present a tax plan by the end of feb to congress.

I want to see that corp rate down to 15%!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 19, 2017, 08:40:39 AM
Will a Republican congress go along with massive tax cuts and huge new spending programs (infrastructure, wall)? 
If they do they are all talk and no action on fiscal responsibility.  Republicans always do one thing, balloon the deficit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 19, 2017, 09:08:40 AM
This is long, and could use an edit, but it explains some things about Trump's supporters and how we got here that I haven't seen explained anywhere else.

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-the-skeleton-key-to-the-rise-of-trump-624e7cb798cb#.mrh2wqub2
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 19, 2017, 09:28:49 AM
Will a Republican congress go along with massive tax cuts and huge new spending programs (infrastructure, wall)? 

Does a bear shit in the woods?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 19, 2017, 09:55:38 AM
Will a Republican congress go along with massive tax cuts and huge new spending programs (infrastructure, wall)? 
If they do they are all talk and no action on fiscal responsibility.  Republicans always do one thing, balloon the deficit.
If there is one thing politicians have gotten away with over the last decade and a half, it's justifying deficit spending.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 19, 2017, 11:58:49 AM
This is long, and could use an edit, but it explains some things about Trump's supporters and how we got here that I haven't seen explained anywhere else.

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-the-skeleton-key-to-the-rise-of-trump-624e7cb798cb#.mrh2wqub2

That's a fascinating read.  Short version:  we're all being trolled.

Basically, he argues that in addition to the two primary Trump demographics (people nostalgic for the 50s and the corporatist onepercenters who recognize he's a fraud but still want short term profits) there is a third and larger group of supporters, consisting of disaffected young men who have embraced their own loserdom pepe-the-frog style and now celebrate the fact that the whole system is rigged.  He says this group of people thrives on misogyny (gamergate) and their epic fail status (mom's basement) and supports Trump as the embodiment of their hopeless condition, a symbol of all that is wrong with the world and a giant middle finger to the liberal ideals that might otherwise have saved them if they didn't feel so trapped.

I'm not sure he offers much in the way of solutions, but it's a perspective that certainly does explain a lot of different things in recent cultural history, all tied together neatly in a way that probably makes a lot of sense to you, if you (like me) spend too much time on the internet.

There's a little diversion toward the end about feminism.  These basement-dwelling self-proclaimed losers feel trapped, because they don't fit into the 1950s style ideal of masculinity (wealth brings a family and stability) or the 1960s/70s ideal of masculinity (wealth brings a playboy pad and lots of sex) or even the counterculture Dharma bum ideal of masculinity (you don't need wealth to be happy and have lots of sex).  They have completely failed with women IRL, and so now must blame women as the source of their problems.  This is why they attack "social justice warriors" and other perceived proponents of liberalism, which has attempted to deconstruct the ideal of masculinity and offer people validity regardless of their gender-binary choices.  Except to the pepe-the-frog crowd, this is just telling them that their problems don't exist.  They're so trapped in their own gender-norms that they can't see a way out, and now lash out blindly at everything including the very movements that are trying to help them (e.g Bernie Sanders).

There are a few other interesting ideas in that article, for anyone who wants to dig into them.  I'm still thinking about the proposed transition away from left/right politics to insider/outsider politics, which the alt-right seems to be winning right now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 19, 2017, 12:22:08 PM
#SwedenIncident

Really wish it were ABBA or IKEA...but no...

#TrumpDiplomacy

We are all combing through the newspapers trying to understand what happened in Sweden on Friday. So far, the best theories are:
-He misheard Sehwan (in Pakistan) for Sweden. http://indianexpress.com/article/world/pakistan-sehwan-attack-dead-islamic-state-injured-in-terrorist-attack-shrine-4529321/
-He heard about the moose raping a wooden statue, and thought it was a muslim that did it (photo #6): http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Vn17J/in-english-this-happened-in-sweden-friday-night-mr-president
One thing I love about this story is that the Swedish government circulates its Twitter account @Sweden around its citizens, so a Swedish school librarian was on twitter duty when the story broke and was able to reassure the world that the biggest thing happening in Sweden on Friday was selecting their song for Eurovision -  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39020962

Swedes 1 Turnip 0.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 19, 2017, 01:46:16 PM
That's a fascinating read.  Short version:  we're all being trolled.

Basically, he argues that in addition to the two primary Trump demographics (people nostalgic for the 50s and the corporatist onepercenters who recognize he's a fraud but still want short term profits) there is a third and larger group of supporters, consisting of disaffected young men who have embraced their own loserdom pepe-the-frog style and now celebrate the fact that the whole system is rigged.  He says this group of people thrives on misogyny (gamergate) and their epic fail status (mom's basement) and supports Trump as the embodiment of their hopeless condition, a symbol of all that is wrong with the world and a giant middle finger to the liberal ideals that might otherwise have saved them if they didn't feel so trapped.

Is the entire living-in-a-basement meme also a troll, though? I've worked with 4chan regulars in IT. Some do it for the lulz and some are full-on anime-loving, libertarian, angry young men, but one thing they aren't is losers, at least in the traditional sense. They have good salaries and nice cars and, like any good Millennial, eat out for every meal with their friends. They do feel the entire system is rigged, however.

The article feels a bit simplistic.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 19, 2017, 02:58:55 PM
That's a fascinating read.  Short version:  we're all being trolled.

Basically, he argues that in addition to the two primary Trump demographics (people nostalgic for the 50s and the corporatist onepercenters who recognize he's a fraud but still want short term profits) there is a third and larger group of supporters, consisting of disaffected young men who have embraced their own loserdom pepe-the-frog style and now celebrate the fact that the whole system is rigged.  He says this group of people thrives on misogyny (gamergate) and their epic fail status (mom's basement) and supports Trump as the embodiment of their hopeless condition, a symbol of all that is wrong with the world and a giant middle finger to the liberal ideals that might otherwise have saved them if they didn't feel so trapped.

Is the entire living-in-a-basement meme also a troll, though? I've worked with 4chan regulars in IT. Some do it for the lulz and some are full-on anime-loving, libertarian, angry young men, but one thing they aren't is losers, at least in the traditional sense. They have good salaries and nice cars and, like any good Millennial, eat out for every meal with their friends. They do feel the entire system is rigged, however.

The article feels a bit simplistic.

The article made it seem to me like a cloche with a heavy kernel of truth.

Being a loser is in some cases a state of mind... or a sort of propison, as the author suggests.

I think it would be quite interesting if you were to ask your 4chan regular friends whether they support Trump.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 19, 2017, 03:05:04 PM
I think it would be quite interesting if you were to ask your 4chan regular friends whether they support Trump.

And if so, why? 

We're talking about a big group of people here, so it's likely there are some people who live on 4chan who genuinely love Trump's racism and bigotry and who fly the confederate flag proudly because they like to frighten and intimidate black people.  And some people who have genuinely bought Trump's lie that he will bring blue collar manufacturing jobs back to America.  And some who, like this article suggests, recognize that he is a fraud and a liar and a turnip, and think that's really funny because like them he is always actively trying to piss people off "for the lulz."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on February 19, 2017, 03:33:57 PM
This is long, and could use an edit, but it explains some things about Trump's supporters and how we got here that I haven't seen explained anywhere else.

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-the-skeleton-key-to-the-rise-of-trump-624e7cb798cb#.mrh2wqub2

Reminds me of a post I read, was a fascinating read a few weeks before the election:

https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com

Found this off of Ran Prieur's website, that guy posts some off the wall stuff.

So many theories on the how and who of Trump's election. With regards to the 4-chan guys, I have a hard time envisioning this group of people going through the effort to actually vote for Trump. It simply doesn't provide the instant satisfaction that posting memes or communal reinforcement that the majority of their posts entail (SJW hate, etc.) Could be totally off here, I haven't visited in a while....

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Burghardt on February 19, 2017, 04:03:46 PM
This is long, and could use an edit, but it explains some things about Trump's supporters and how we got here that I haven't seen explained anywhere else.

https://medium.com/@DaleBeran/4chan-the-skeleton-key-to-the-rise-of-trump-624e7cb798cb#.mrh2wqub2

Reminds me of a post I read, was a fascinating read a few weeks before the election:

https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com

Found this off of Ran Prieur's website, that guy posts some off the wall stuff.

So many theories on the how and who of Trump's election. With regards to the 4-chan guys, I have a hard time envisioning this group of people going through the effort to actually vote for Trump. It simply doesn't provide the instant satisfaction that posting memes or communal reinforcement that the majority of their posts entail (SJW hate, etc.) Could be totally off here, I haven't visited in a while....
The anonymous system omits just how many people actually frequent the site.
There are the ascribed regulars who spend all day on the site, yes, but the vast majority is living a perfectly normal life.
Some of the trolls go out into the open, too - but obviously this goes against the entire point of anonymity http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/074/700/27e.jpg
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 19, 2017, 04:10:09 PM
I think it would be quite interesting if you were to ask your 4chan regular friends whether they support Trump.

And if so, why? 

We're talking about a big group of people here, so it's likely there are some people who live on 4chan who genuinely love Trump's racism and bigotry and who fly the confederate flag proudly because they like to frighten and intimidate black people.  And some people who have genuinely bought Trump's lie that he will bring blue collar manufacturing jobs back to America.  And some who, like this article suggests, recognize that he is a fraud and a liar and a turnip, and think that's really funny because like them he is always actively trying to piss people off "for the lulz."

Yes, exactly.

Because Bacchi is perplexed since he sees his 4chan friends as being successful. And I'm wondering if they are just as prey to the persecution myth the article seems to point out.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 19, 2017, 04:28:28 PM
Will a Republican congress go along with massive tax cuts and huge new spending programs (infrastructure, wall)? 
If they do they are all talk and no action on fiscal responsibility.  Republicans always do one thing, balloon the deficit.
I found this article (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/paul-ryans-dream-of-tax-cuts-for-rich-will-not-be-denied.html) to be a good summary of the hurdles Republicans face for passing either non-expiring tax reform or a 10 year cut while avoiding a Democratic filibuster.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 19, 2017, 09:11:56 PM
I found this article (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/paul-ryans-dream-of-tax-cuts-for-rich-will-not-be-denied.html) to be a good summary of the hurdles Republicans face for passing either non-expiring tax reform or a 10 year cut while avoiding a Democratic filibuster.

Short version for people who can't be bothered to read:  Republicans desperately want to cut taxes on the rich, and are struggling to find a way to make those tax cuts permanent.

The argument is basically that the Republican party doesn't care about any of its constituents except the one percenters, and has been actively trying to screw over the 99% since Bill Clinton.  When they last had full control of government they passed massive tax cuts for the rich that avoided the filibuster by expiring after 10 years (since the procedural rules allow you to bypass the filibuster for rules that don't increase deficits beyond 10 years out). 

Republicans thought Clinton's tax rate hikes on the rich wouldn't generate any net revenue (they did, Clinton left a huge budget surplus) and they thought that Bush's tax cuts wouldn't lose revenue (they did, Bush crashed the budget after Clinton) and now they're doubling down by suggesting that Trump's tax cuts for the rich will not only not lose revenue, but will actually stimulate revenue by spurring economic growth.  So far, this near religious-like belief in the stimulative effect of tax cuts has never played but they're just SURE it will work this time.

Then there's an added detail about how the repeal of Obamacare fits into this, because Paul Ryan wants to take the 1.2 trillion dollars that Obamacare taxes would gather over the next decade, and instead of spending it on Obamacare they're just going to repeal the ACA and then give that money to rich people as a tax cut.  This allows them to utilize the "doesn't increase deficits" rule that allows them to bypass the filibuster, because the net effect on the budget is zero if you just divert that 1.2 trillion from one cost (Obamacare) to another cost (tax cuts for the rich).  The rule doesn't care how many people get healthcare, it only cares about total government revenues.  This is apparently why they HAVE to repeal Obamacare before they can pass their fantasy tax reform package.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 19, 2017, 09:22:13 PM
Because Bacchi is perplexed since he sees his 4chan friends as being successful. And I'm wondering if they are just as prey to the persecution myth the article seems to point out.

I think they can fall prey to the same persecution complex. One co-worker, in particular, is angry about student loans and the federal reserve (did I mentioned that he was a libertarian?) and "the establishment." Ok, not surprising -- I agree that The Man* needs to be taken down a notch too. But he's willing to throw a firebomb into the theater to stop the play instead of, you know, getting a different play scheduled.

So, yeah, he's a Trump supporter. He doesn't like Trump, particularly, but Trump "will shake things up." I don't know my coworker enough to know why, exactly, he feels it's bad enough to elect someone like Trump.




*Side issue: In another thread, I mentioned Trump doing the inverse of draining the swamp when he hired billionaires and centimillionaires for his cabinet. The reply from a Trump supporter was, "I thought "the man" was the ones oppressing those tycoons." I never realized that there were different definitions of The Man and that, somehow, a billionaire wasn't part of the establishment. It must be related to Ayn Randian worship.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on February 19, 2017, 10:27:34 PM
^I read an article yesterday where an official was discussing one of the reasons the EPA faces criticism-it has worked so well, too well in fact, that people take it for granted that "everything is fine" and don't stop and consider why before deeming the agency unnecessary. Sure the FDA, EPA, and other regulatory agencies put forth rules that can feel onerous, but in the grand scheme of things most regulations have a reason for being. I don't want to go back to a time where my air, water, food, and medicine could be poisonous.

To bring my point to your post-our present situation is a direct result of "the system" working as well as it has. Your friend no doubt probably has any or all of these luxuries:

New Car
Smart phone
Internet
Endless entertainment (cable, etc.)
Easy ass job

I fail to see how "the system" is failing. What I see is a whole lot of irresponsible choices made and people needing to blame an external force for personal mistakes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 20, 2017, 06:45:34 AM
^ for those that are pining for the 1950s/60s/70s, I doubt they would be content with earning less, sharing a car and living in a much smaller home.
We've lost all perspective - people have become so jealous over the gains of the 1% that they've completely ignored the more modest gains for all the rest.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Burghardt on February 20, 2017, 07:56:57 AM
*Side issue: In another thread, I mentioned Trump doing the inverse of draining the swamp when he hired billionaires and centimillionaires for his cabinet. The reply from a Trump supporter was, "I thought "the man" was the ones oppressing those tycoons." I never realized that there were different definitions of The Man and that, somehow, a billionaire wasn't part of the establishment. It must be related to Ayn Randian worship.
you are referring to the meaning of "drain the swamp" as branded by the media. They insist it meant removing money in general from politics, regardless of who holds it.
The original implication was to remove politicians who follow neither their own nor their constituents will, but the will of the highest bidder from the circle of lobbyists and special interest groups for personal, not the country's, gain.
This is "the swamp".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 20, 2017, 08:03:32 AM
*Side issue: In another thread, I mentioned Trump doing the inverse of draining the swamp when he hired billionaires and centimillionaires for his cabinet. The reply from a Trump supporter was, "I thought "the man" was the ones oppressing those tycoons." I never realized that there were different definitions of The Man and that, somehow, a billionaire wasn't part of the establishment. It must be related to Ayn Randian worship.
you are referring to the meaning of "drain the swamp" as branded by the media. They insist it meant removing money in general from politics, regardless of who holds it.
The original implication was to remove politicians who follow neither their own nor their constituents will, but the will of the highest bidder from the circle of lobbyists and special interest groups for personal, not the country's, gain.
This is "the swamp".


Source?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 20, 2017, 08:23:24 AM
*Side issue: In another thread, I mentioned Trump doing the inverse of draining the swamp when he hired billionaires and centimillionaires for his cabinet. The reply from a Trump supporter was, "I thought "the man" was the ones oppressing those tycoons." I never realized that there were different definitions of The Man and that, somehow, a billionaire wasn't part of the establishment. It must be related to Ayn Randian worship.
you are referring to the meaning of "drain the swamp" as branded by the media. They insist it meant removing money in general from politics, regardless of who holds it.
The original implication was to remove politicians who follow neither their own nor their constituents will, but the will of the highest bidder from the circle of lobbyists and special interest groups for personal, not the country's, gain.
This is "the swamp".


Source?

Also, doesn't one follow the other? The highest bidder is only possible because there's huge money in politics. That money comes from corporate interests and billionaires and, generally, the .1%.

Getting rid of an entrenched Congressling who listens to money from lobbyists is a good thing but it doesn't really help if the buyer behind the lobbyist replaces him/her.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 20, 2017, 08:44:54 AM
they thought that Bush's tax cuts wouldn't lose revenue (they did, Bush crashed the budget after Clinton) and now they're doubling down by suggesting that Trump's tax cuts for the rich will not only not lose revenue, but will actually stimulate revenue by spurring economic growth.  So far, this near religious-like belief in the stimulative effect of tax cuts has never played but they're just SURE it will work this time.

Didn't you hear? Those people who will get tax cuts aren't the "rich", they're the "job creators" LOL.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on February 20, 2017, 11:19:23 AM
This thread is fascinating.

The thoughtful comments are making my head spin - all good.

A question about making money off of Trump's policies:

Since immigrants are being deported and they are coming in lower numbers... will food prices go up a lot?  They pick a lot of the food in this part of the country.

I can plant a victory garden to save money and maybe sell produce.  What do you all think?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 20, 2017, 11:21:15 AM
This thread is fascinating.

the thoughtful comments are making my head spin.  A question about making money off of Trump's policies.

Since immigrants are being deported and they are coming in lower numbers... will food prices go up a lot?  I can plant a victory garden to save money and maybe sell stuff.  What do you all think?
Yes, they will.  It could crash California's economy which on top of doubling or tripling food prices will cause a crash on stock market.  I'd definitely plant a victory garden if you could.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 20, 2017, 11:25:23 AM
This thread is fascinating.

the thoughtful comments are making my head spin.  A question about making money off of Trump's policies.

Since immigrants are being deported and they are coming in lower numbers... will food prices go up a lot?  I can plant a victory garden to save money and maybe sell stuff.  What do you all think?
Yes, they will.  It could crash California's economy which on top of doubling or tripling food prices will cause a crash on stock market.  I'd definitely plant a victory garden if you could.

Construction costs will go up, too, which will increase existing housing prices, which will increase rents. It's a good time to be a landlord.

This would affect Trump and his hotels but he just stiffs his subs when he declares bankruptcy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 20, 2017, 11:29:45 AM
Guest worker program incoming.

I could picture the republicans passing a program for *legal* guest workers from Mexico/other places that aren't bound by the minimum wage. I think everyone would support having this nice underclass to continue to exploit, even the anti-immigrant zealots.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on February 20, 2017, 11:48:59 AM
RE: California's economy
That would really suck, since we know Trump has it out for California.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on February 20, 2017, 11:51:07 AM
Guest worker program incoming.

Hmm exploitation of the hardworking people, eh?  Republicans want to cut welfare - right?  Shouldn't those jobs go to soon-to-be-former welfare recipients?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 20, 2017, 12:01:10 PM
This thread is fascinating.

the thoughtful comments are making my head spin.  A question about making money off of Trump's policies.

Since immigrants are being deported and they are coming in lower numbers... will food prices go up a lot?  I can plant a victory garden to save money and maybe sell stuff.  What do you all think?
Yes, they will.  It could crash California's economy which on top of doubling or tripling food prices will cause a crash on stock market.  I'd definitely plant a victory garden if you could.

If recent history is any guide, when farm labor is in short supply food prices go up. Both California and Florida depend heavily on migrant labor for food production, and this could have an interesting effect in the months to come.

It's very hard to make money from your own garden given how efficient large-scale ag is.  however, there are other benefits which make home-gardening definitely worth it (fresher produce, fewer/no chemicals, different options than the grocery, because it can be fun, etc.)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 20, 2017, 01:31:03 PM
Guest worker program incoming.

Hmm exploitation of the hardworking people, eh?  Republicans want to cut welfare - right?  Shouldn't those jobs go to soon-to-be-former welfare recipients?

Yes, if one thing is clear it's that the republicans are experts at exploiting human capital to the benefit of people who have accumulated other forms of capital.

Your argument assumes anyone on welfare would ever do that job. It's a hard job. They could go right now to any farm and do the job, but they won't.

I also disagree that costs would rise that much. Just like in fast food and manufacturing, you'd see robotics get more involved if labor costs increased significantly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 20, 2017, 01:51:29 PM
Guest worker program incoming.

Hmm exploitation of the hardworking people, eh?  Republicans want to cut welfare - right?  Shouldn't those jobs go to soon-to-be-former welfare recipients?

Yes, if one thing is clear it's that the republicans are experts at exploiting human capital to the benefit of people who have accumulated other forms of capital.

Your argument assumes anyone on welfare would ever do that job. It's a hard job. They could go right now to any farm and do the job, but they won't.

I also disagree that costs would rise that much. Just like in fast food and manufacturing, you'd see robotics get more involved if labor costs increased significantly.
Mechanized harvesting is the holy-grail of most farming technology, but for most fruit crops it has yet to be realized.  I'm sure someday it will, but not in the months-to-a-year timeframe we're talking about here. I expect in 5-10 years though a lot more of our harvesting will be mechanized.

I concur that literally any able-bodied person can get a job picking fruit, or as a day-laborer or dish washer, etc. I ran an aquaculture farm and we constantly hired people to help with harvesting and processing. A few native-born people applied but they never stayed long. Those who were born elsewhere worked harder and stuck around, and most would work harvesting crops when our work was slow. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 20, 2017, 03:27:17 PM
What little I have heard about the crack down on illegals does seem to carry a tinge of racism. Either that our they are only conveniently talking about Mexican illegal immigrants. Otherwise I would think we would hear something about a crack down on overstayed visa's from a multitude of countries from which we probably have illegals.

I also wonder if this will have any impact on the cost of manual labor across the board. I wonder how many gardening, landscaping and budget construction outfits are employing illegals at low wages.

I don't condone hiring illegals to do work, or be exploited, but it is probably a real cost that many of take advantage of without knowing it even. I don't know who my HOA employees to keep our condo grounds but I know none of the workers are white...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 21, 2017, 05:53:06 AM
A British schoolteacher was denied entry to the US while taking his students on a trip.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/british-muslim-teacher-denied-entry-to-us-on-school-trip?CMP=fb_gu

This administration is a cancer.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on February 21, 2017, 06:13:59 AM
A question about this point: "Your argument assumes anyone on welfare would ever do that job. It's a hard job. They could go right now to any farm and do the job, but they won't."

But IF welfare is cut won't able bodied folks need to work - if they want to eat?

"I also disagree that costs would rise that much. Just like in fast food and manufacturing, you'd see robotics get more involved if labor costs increased significantly."

and this quote:

"Mechanized harvesting is the holy-grail of most farming technology, but for most fruit crops it has yet to be realized.  I'm sure someday it will, but not in the months-to-a-year timeframe we're talking about here. I expect in 5-10 years though a lot more of our harvesting will be mechanized."

But that takes a long time to get up and running. I heard, a while back, a news story about trying to mechanize broccoli picking but it was unable to determine when the veg was ready to be picked.  It seems it is going to be a long way off... but no doubt it is being worked on now.  Maybe the five to ten years estimate is accurate?


So what kind of societal upset will the world have with all these people who use to work and now there is zero work for them?  Do we have a few more wars to reduce the population? MAyeb climate change or the pandemic Bill gates is warning us about will reset the worlds population? Marshall Brain's book comes to mind - is it called Mana?

"I ran an aquaculture farm and we constantly hired people to help with harvesting and processing. A few native-born people applied but they never stayed long. Those who were born elsewhere worked harder and stuck around, and most would work harvesting crops when our work was slow. "

I always wondered if this notion that Americans don't want to work as hard as immigrants was a myth or real.  While I appreciate your experience, and I have a similar perception, has anyone actually seen research that is more conclusive?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 21, 2017, 06:25:25 AM
THe long-term effects of mechanization is a good thing to consider, but I think we tend to be short-sighted and prone to thinking 'this time is different!'.  This is a subject that has garnered fear for over two centuries.  Textile mills used to employ thousands each. Transport ships used to have crews of hundreds. Automobile factories used to have dozens working on each car.  Now those jobs are done by just a few and the output is orders of magnitude more.  YEt here we are, with a greater percentage of families living above poverty than ever before.

Even when we 'loose' jobs to mechanization and productivity gains, those profits wind up being shifted somewhere else. The service industry is one place that's had spectacular growth, in part because people outsource more and more tasks.  EVentually those jobs may go to, but I'll bet people will just shift into something else.

then there's the whole 'universal income' idea.  Not entirely sold on it yet, but it could make a lot of sense.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 21, 2017, 06:43:28 AM
A question about this point: "Your argument assumes anyone on welfare would ever do that job. It's a hard job. They could go right now to any farm and do the job, but they won't."

But IF welfare is cut won't able bodied folks need to work - if they want to eat?

"I also disagree that costs would rise that much. Just like in fast food and manufacturing, you'd see robotics get more involved if labor costs increased significantly."

and this quote:

"Mechanized harvesting is the holy-grail of most farming technology, but for most fruit crops it has yet to be realized.  I'm sure someday it will, but not in the months-to-a-year timeframe we're talking about here. I expect in 5-10 years though a lot more of our harvesting will be mechanized."

But that takes a long time to get up and running. I heard, a while back, a news story about trying to mechanize broccoli picking but it was unable to determine when the veg was ready to be picked.  It seems it is going to be a long way off... but no doubt it is being worked on now.  Maybe the five to ten years estimate is accurate?


So what kind of societal upset will the world have with all these people who use to work and now there is zero work for them?  Do we have a few more wars to reduce the population? MAyeb climate change or the pandemic Bill gates is warning us about will reset the worlds population? Marshall Brain's book comes to mind - is it called Mana?

"I ran an aquaculture farm and we constantly hired people to help with harvesting and processing. A few native-born people applied but they never stayed long. Those who were born elsewhere worked harder and stuck around, and most would work harvesting crops when our work was slow. "

I always wondered if this notion that Americans don't want to work as hard as immigrants was a myth or real.  While I appreciate your experience, and I have a similar perception, has anyone actually seen research that is more conclusive?
I think it is self-selection. Those who are willing to take the risks to come here are more likely to work damn hard once they get here.  There are the same people here and we can select for them but we are comparing a specific group to a whole population.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 21, 2017, 06:56:19 AM
...
I always wondered if this notion that Americans don't want to work as hard as immigrants was a myth or real.  While I appreciate your experience, and I have a similar perception, has anyone actually seen research that is more conclusive?
I think it is self-selection. Those who are willing to take the risks to come here are more likely to work damn hard once they get here.  There are the same people here and we can select for them but we are comparing a specific group to a whole population.
I think there may be some truth to this; people who were born in this country and who are very motivated most likely have already found gainful employment.  Those who are new here are often very motivated, but they're competing with people who, for whatever reason, have already been 'selected out' of the normal economy.  So we've got motivated immigrants competing against the least successful native-borns.  It isn't surprising (to me) which wind up being the better employees.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: anotherAlias on February 21, 2017, 07:14:50 AM

I always wondered if this notion that Americans don't want to work as hard as immigrants was a myth or real.  While I appreciate your experience, and I have a similar perception, has anyone actually seen research that is more conclusive?

There was an investigative show, I think it was Vice, that looked into the impact that the illegal immigrant crack down in one southern state (i forget which one) had on the farming industry.  The farmers really struggled to find workers that would show up and put in the effort.  One farmer they interviewed even tried working with the prison system to use convicts to harvest but they were not nearly as productive as he needed workers to be.  It was really an enlightening show.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 21, 2017, 07:50:56 AM
Here's another realistic impact of the Trump presidency: the international scientific community will no longer want to travel or come to the US.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-20/scientists-skip-international-meeting-due-fear-us-travel
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 21, 2017, 08:03:50 AM
Here's another realistic impact of the Trump presidency: the international scientific community will no longer want to travel or come to the US.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-20/scientists-skip-international-meeting-due-fear-us-travel
As a scientist working in Canada right now, I can attest that this is a very big deal right now in the scientific community. No one wants to exclude their colleagues from a meeting, and it's causing some logistical problems when scheduling conferences, which are the main way that we get feedback and build partnerships with other programs.

It might not have a huge economic impact beyond the immediate vicinity of conference centers in downtown areas, but the US scientific community certainly looses
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Burghardt on February 21, 2017, 08:20:05 AM
*Side issue: In another thread, I mentioned Trump doing the inverse of draining the swamp when he hired billionaires and centimillionaires for his cabinet. The reply from a Trump supporter was, "I thought "the man" was the ones oppressing those tycoons." I never realized that there were different definitions of The Man and that, somehow, a billionaire wasn't part of the establishment. It must be related to Ayn Randian worship.
you are referring to the meaning of "drain the swamp" as branded by the media. They insist it meant removing money in general from politics, regardless of who holds it.
The original implication was to remove politicians who follow neither their own nor their constituents will, but the will of the highest bidder from the circle of lobbyists and special interest groups for personal, not the country's, gain.
This is "the swamp".

Source?
Ethics reform plans and listening to Trump talk. It's not like he ever made a secret out of being rich or that he was going to appoint ludicrously successful / rich people.

Also, doesn't one follow the other? The highest bidder is only possible because there's huge money in politics. That money comes from corporate interests and billionaires and, generally, the .1%.

Getting rid of an entrenched Congressling who listens to money from lobbyists is a good thing but it doesn't really help if the buyer behind the lobbyist replaces him/her.
The implication is that you get exactly what you were voting for - and that their wealth makes them disproportionately harder to buy, allowing for independent decisions. One of the core things Trump campaigned on, really. The obvious danger is setting a fox to keep the geese, if that's the right way to put it in English.
However - to say this isn't perfectly in line with what he said on the campaign trail is false.

In my opinion, Miller and Bannon are far greater cause for concern. I see both of them as ideologues who won't hesitate to abandon reasonable judgment in favor of personal agenda.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 21, 2017, 08:53:01 AM
*Side issue: In another thread, I mentioned Trump doing the inverse of draining the swamp when he hired billionaires and centimillionaires for his cabinet. The reply from a Trump supporter was, "I thought "the man" was the ones oppressing those tycoons." I never realized that there were different definitions of The Man and that, somehow, a billionaire wasn't part of the establishment. It must be related to Ayn Randian worship.
you are referring to the meaning of "drain the swamp" as branded by the media. They insist it meant removing money in general from politics, regardless of who holds it.
The original implication was to remove politicians who follow neither their own nor their constituents will, but the will of the highest bidder from the circle of lobbyists and special interest groups for personal, not the country's, gain.
This is "the swamp".

Source?
Ethics reform plans and listening to Trump talk. It's not like he ever made a secret out of being rich or that he was going to appoint ludicrously successful / rich people.

Also, doesn't one follow the other? The highest bidder is only possible because there's huge money in politics. That money comes from corporate interests and billionaires and, generally, the .1%.

Getting rid of an entrenched Congressling who listens to money from lobbyists is a good thing but it doesn't really help if the buyer behind the lobbyist replaces him/her.
The implication is that you get exactly what you were voting for - and that their wealth makes them disproportionately harder to buy, allowing for independent decisions. One of the core things Trump campaigned on, really. The obvious danger is setting a fox to keep the geese, if that's the right way to put it in English.
However - to say this isn't perfectly in line with what he said on the campaign trail is false.

see - that line of thinking might actually hold some water if Trump hadn't specifically and routinely attacked HRC for being "too cozy with Wall Street".  Hiring billionaires doesn't equate with people who will act in the best interests of the country because they don't need the wealth.  In most cases greed and ambition is what drives these ultra-rich individuals, and money is their measuring stick. Despite not actually needing any more money they see regulation and taxes as the enemy to increasing their profits, and will move to reduce and remove these even at the expense of 'the little people.'
Furthermore, DJT has appointed several of the RNC's largest donors, including Linda McMahon and Betsy DeVos, despite neither having any clear experience or aptitude for their respective positions.  This runs counter to your argument that they he has "drained the swamp" by eliminating the influence of 'the highest bidder.'
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 21, 2017, 09:02:24 AM
Another realistic impact: According to a former National Security Council member, we are much less safe and ready for a possible terrorist attack now that Trump is in the White House.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/20/1635992/-National-Security-Council-veteran-warns-that-our-terrorism-readiness-is-dangerously-low?Detail=facebook
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 21, 2017, 09:14:30 AM
A question about this point: "Your argument assumes anyone on welfare would ever do that job. It's a hard job. They could go right now to any farm and do the job, but they won't."

But IF welfare is cut won't able bodied folks need to work - if they want to eat?

Yes, if this actually happened I think they would work - or maybe the suicide rate/homelessness/etc. would go even higher for these folks since they think they're entitled to more. I don't think it'll happen.

The reality is that the US has always had an exploitable underclass that's really lifted the rest of the population in terms of standard of living and the overall economy. Slaves, indentured servants, various waves of legal and illegal immigrants. No great American feat from settling the massive continent to building railroads and other infrastructure to winning the civil and various other wars could have been accomplished without this underclass.

It's indisputable, if facts are to be considered, that immigration (including illegal immigration) is so good for the legal/native born population that even if they do turn it down for a bit it'll come back.

I wrote a long post about why this is so here: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/anti-immigrant-republicans-please-help-me-understand/msg1301415/#msg1301415 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/anti-immigrant-republicans-please-help-me-understand/msg1301415/#msg1301415)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 21, 2017, 09:29:57 AM
Yes, if this actually happened I think they would work - or maybe the suicide rate/homelessness/etc. would go even higher for these folks since they think they're entitled to more. I don't think it'll happen.

Crime will go up. I lived overseas in a country with alot of unemployment. Lots of young men who could not find work. They turned to organized crime, petty theft, blackmarkets, unregulated businesses working "off the grid" i.e. renting a small shop to make or fix stuff. This led to a bustling underground economy where you could buy things or get things fixed very affordably for cash but no recourse if they did shabby work or disappeared with your item that you left for repair. It also led to alot of tax evasion. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sockigal on February 21, 2017, 12:01:23 PM
A question about this point: "Your argument assumes anyone on welfare would ever do that job. It's a hard job. They could go right now to any farm and do the job, but they won't."

But IF welfare is cut won't able bodied folks need to work - if they want to eat?

"I also disagree that costs would rise that much. Just like in fast food and manufacturing, you'd see robotics get more involved if labor costs increased significantly."

and this quote:

"Mechanized harvesting is the holy-grail of most farming technology, but for most fruit crops it has yet to be realized.  I'm sure someday it will, but not in the months-to-a-year timeframe we're talking about here. I expect in 5-10 years though a lot more of our harvesting will be mechanized."

But that takes a long time to get up and running. I heard, a while back, a news story about trying to mechanize broccoli picking but it was unable to determine when the veg was ready to be picked.  It seems it is going to be a long way off... but no doubt it is being worked on now.  Maybe the five to ten years estimate is accurate?


So what kind of societal upset will the world have with all these people who use to work and now there is zero work for them?  Do we have a few more wars to reduce the population? MAyeb climate change or the pandemic Bill gates is warning us about will reset the worlds population? Marshall Brain's book comes to mind - is it called Mana?

"I ran an aquaculture farm and we constantly hired people to help with harvesting and processing. A few native-born people applied but they never stayed long. Those who were born elsewhere worked harder and stuck around, and most would work harvesting crops when our work was slow. "

I always wondered if this notion that Americans don't want to work as hard as immigrants was a myth or real.  While I appreciate your experience, and I have a similar perception, has anyone actually seen research that is more conclusive?
It's a fallacy that people on welfare or those who obtain government assistance don't already work full time jobs. Most of those on welfare already work, the government subsidizes their earned income. I have worked various jobs the last couple of years in the grocery industry. Many of my co-workers worked full time at (very fancy grocery stores) and also received government assistance. Some of these workers put in 15 to 20 years with the company and still were earning only $15-20 a hour. Then those jobs were eliminated. These folks were asked to step into lower positions with even less pay, but do the same duties as their previous job titles.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on February 21, 2017, 12:46:52 PM
It's a fallacy that people on welfare or those who obtain government assistance don't already work full time jobs. Most of those on welfare already work, the government subsidizes their earned income. I have worked various jobs the last couple of years in the grocery industry. Many of my co-workers worked full time at (very fancy grocery stores) and also received government assistance. Some of these workers put in 15 to 20 years with the company and still were earning only $15-20 a hour. Then those jobs were eliminated. These folks were asked to step into lower positions with even less pay, but do the same duties as their previous job titles.

It also assumes that the majority of people on welfare or getting benefits live where they could get out in the fields and work or that they could easily get out to the countryside to do these jobs. Since people on benefits or that are homeless live mostly in cities, just like the rest of the US population, both of those assumptions are rather silly. Add in the fact that farm work isn't much better than slave labor in many cases (long hours, very little pay, no breaks) and the whole poisoning aspect (quite a few people around the world are sickened or die due to pesticides, mostly insecticides, every single year--even here in the US (http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/3/07-041814/en/)) and yes, it's a thoroughly unappealing job.

But sure, get all those poor people out there and make them fucking grateful for it! I mean, shouldn't they be happy they've got a job at all?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on February 21, 2017, 01:10:14 PM
A question about this point: "Your argument assumes anyone on welfare would ever do that job. It's a hard job. They could go right now to any farm and do the job, but they won't."

But IF welfare is cut won't able bodied folks need to work - if they want to eat?

"I also disagree that costs would rise that much. Just like in fast food and manufacturing, you'd see robotics get more involved if labor costs increased significantly."

and this quote:

"Mechanized harvesting is the holy-grail of most farming technology, but for most fruit crops it has yet to be realized.  I'm sure someday it will, but not in the months-to-a-year timeframe we're talking about here. I expect in 5-10 years though a lot more of our harvesting will be mechanized."

But that takes a long time to get up and running. I heard, a while back, a news story about trying to mechanize broccoli picking but it was unable to determine when the veg was ready to be picked.  It seems it is going to be a long way off... but no doubt it is being worked on now.  Maybe the five to ten years estimate is accurate?


So what kind of societal upset will the world have with all these people who use to work and now there is zero work for them?  Do we have a few more wars to reduce the population? MAyeb climate change or the pandemic Bill gates is warning us about will reset the worlds population? Marshall Brain's book comes to mind - is it called Mana?

"I ran an aquaculture farm and we constantly hired people to help with harvesting and processing. A few native-born people applied but they never stayed long. Those who were born elsewhere worked harder and stuck around, and most would work harvesting crops when our work was slow. "

I always wondered if this notion that Americans don't want to work as hard as immigrants was a myth or real.  While I appreciate your experience, and I have a similar perception, has anyone actually seen research that is more conclusive?
It's a fallacy that people on welfare or those who obtain government assistance don't already work full time jobs. Most of those on welfare already work, the government subsidizes their earned income. I have worked various jobs the last couple of years in the grocery industry. Many of my co-workers worked full time at (very fancy grocery stores) and also received government assistance. Some of these workers put in 15 to 20 years with the company and still were earning only $15-20 a hour. Then those jobs were eliminated. These folks were asked to step into lower positions with even less pay, but do the same duties as their previous job titles.

SAD
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 21, 2017, 04:12:05 PM
4Chan didn't put Trump in office though parts of that demographic being drawn to him is no real surprise. Working class people in the rust belt elected Trump, that's what the number show. Most other people voted along party lines which is not real surprise given the polarizing nature of the candidates.

My only experience with 4Chan has been reading former users opinions of it. When people refer to 4Chan regulars as losers, I think they are more focused on them being socially repressed or awkward. It doesn't mean they are all jobless pot smokers. Even many of its own former users admit that being deeply involved in 4Chan, like poring hours daily into it, is generally unhealthy. It is a sign of extreme boredom, a general disillusion and anger with regular society. Some former users have some pretty strong opinions on much of it being a cyclone of negativity dragging everyone involved down with it and that they were happy to eventually escape. Or they could just be looking at walls of cat memes all day.

Overall I have not heard any heavy user describe it as place where happy well adjusted people go regularly to hold interesting discussions. It is kind of the opposite thing. 4Chan and pepe's ties to the Trump election are fun and interesting in a ridiculous way. But the populist right wing movement that Trump jumped in on with the help of Steve Bannon is a phenomenon well beyond the bounds of a handful of 4Chan dissidents.

It is a real reaction based in a festering undercurrent of right wing racism and nationalism in the face of a Muslim refugee crises with new bolder Muslim terrorism, a long held animosity towards Mexican immigrants, mixed with a very healthy serving of economic distress in the middle class as globalization continues to rip away high paying skilled labor jobs. That has been happening for at least the past 30 years. The same sentiments are manifesting in populist movements all over Europe, sometimes with right wing people worse than Trump, other times with left wing populists like Bernie Sanders. The left wingers prefer to rail on the 0.01% that are profiteering off globalization and single them out, leaving immigrants out of the circle of hate. But much of the core reaction is the same.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 21, 2017, 04:25:03 PM
In other news, riots immigrants riot in Sweden today.  http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europe/sweden-stockholm-riots/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europe/sweden-stockholm-riots/index.html)

I can just imagine how Trump will play this one.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 22, 2017, 01:25:09 PM
Here's another realistic impact of the Trump presidency: the international scientific community will no longer want to travel or come to the US.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-20/scientists-skip-international-meeting-due-fear-us-travel
I know this has been covered either in this thread or another similar, but beyond being afraid of traveling to the US, why would scientists want to come to US when we are just not going to put as much money into the research? The rest of the world is going to leave the US in the dust.



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 22, 2017, 01:36:00 PM
Here's another realistic impact of the Trump presidency: the international scientific community will no longer want to travel or come to the US.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-20/scientists-skip-international-meeting-due-fear-us-travel
I know this has been covered either in this thread or another similar, but beyond being afraid of traveling to the US, why would scientists want to come to US when we are just not going to put as much money into the research? The rest of the world is going to leave the US in the dust.

I think this is one of the things we stand to loose the most.  At present the US has more research institutions in the top 100 than any other country, plus (until very recently) a pretty enticing set of conditions (stable, high-paying jobs, expensive scientific infrastructure etc) to lure smart people here from other nations. We risk loosing that edge, and once lost it will be incredibly hard to regain.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 22, 2017, 02:01:59 PM
Another random piece of the puzzle the Trump administration can't figure out how to fit to complete the big picture.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 22, 2017, 02:35:25 PM
Another random piece of the puzzle the Trump administration can't figure out how to fit to complete the big picture.

What's the big picture, exactly?  I'm not even sure there is one.

So far, Trump had spent more time in office playing golf with celebrities (25 hours) than he has on foreign relations (21), and more time on Twitter (18 hours) than in intelligence briefings (6).  Looks to me like he doesn't really care about any big pictures, unless they are large and illegally purchased paintings of himself that resulted in tax fraud charges.

His approval rating, which started out the lowest in history for an incoming president, is plummeting.  He's filled his cabinet with billiinaire donors to his campaign.   His spokespeople routinely contradict each other.  His Muslim ban was a failure.  He's routinely upending decades of established US foreign policy with no apparent plan for what to replace it with. And every day it looks more and more like the contents of the Steele dossier are true, as additional pieces continue to get confirmed, in which case it's only a matter of time before the trump piss tape hits pornhub.  The whole administration is a hot mess right now, and even though I think Trump is a con man I still want him to get his shit together so we can have a functional government.

Big picture?  I think he's still desperately trying to find his footing, and not thinking about the future at all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 22, 2017, 03:08:57 PM
Another random piece of the puzzle the Trump administration can't figure out how to fit to complete the big picture.

What's the big picture, exactly?  I'm not even sure there is one.

For him, there is no big picture. But for the rest of us, you know, effective government. Equality for everyone. Fairness. Shit like that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 22, 2017, 04:53:23 PM
Another random piece of the puzzle the Trump administration can't figure out how to fit to complete the big picture.

What's the big picture, exactly?  I'm not even sure there is one.

For him, there is no big picture. But for the rest of us, you know, effective government. Equality for everyone. Fairness. Shit like that.

The fact that Trump doesn't have a clue of what to do shouldn't surprise anyone, especially his supporters, who apparently elected him because he doesn't know how to govern.

The worrisome part here is that the supposed leaders in Congress aren't doing anything either. They seem to be flailing about as much as Trump. Come on Ryan, McConnell, you guys passed SO MANY BILLS to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes (remember Paul Ryan's budget), etc. Now that you have the majorities and the Presidency, simply pass them again.... oh wait, those bills were ridiculous and you actually have no clue on what to do... got it.

The republicans in congress should get some balls and just pass all the stupid crap they passed when they had no chance of becoming laws due to the Obama veto and then see what happens.

What's hilarious is that the electorate that voted Congress in want to do exactly that, but Congress won't, because even they think passing the things they proposed earlier will be so detrimental that they'll have no chance of being re-elected. It's quite funny.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 22, 2017, 06:02:04 PM
While some Democrats have Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Republicans have become so accustomed to behaving like the opposition party they have no idea what to do now that they have more power.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 22, 2017, 06:19:13 PM
While some Democrats have Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Republicans have become so accustomed to behaving like the opposition party they have no idea what to do now that they have more power.
I think that's hard to say a month into them having power. Certainly this seems to be true with the ACA repeal, and perhaps other action items, but its not as if nothing on their docket had been accomplished.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 22, 2017, 06:33:16 PM
While some Democrats have Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Republicans have become so accustomed to behaving like the opposition party they have no idea what to do now that they have more power.
I think that's hard to say a month into them having power. Certainly this seems to be true with the ACA repeal, and perhaps other action items, but its not as if nothing on their docket had been accomplished.

The Congress has been in power for more than almost two months (January 3rd for the 115th Congress). They also knew they were going to be in power since Nov. 2016.
Finally, they have also had power over the House for 6 years where they have passed many bills on all sorts of topics only to have them die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President. So, it's not like they have to craft a bunch of legislation from scratch. Simply pull up those bills and start passing them. This can be done in the House very easily, why haven't they done so? The House isn't doing any confirmation hearings.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on February 22, 2017, 06:39:07 PM
Regarding ACA: it has been the Worst Thing Ever for many years now yet I've only heard confusion come from the ranks of the Republicans on what will be done with it. But maybe I'm under-informed on what's actually going on and the process for legislative prioritization.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 22, 2017, 08:25:15 PM
While some Democrats have Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Republicans have become so accustomed to behaving like the opposition party they have no idea what to do now that they have more power.
I think that's hard to say a month into them having power. Certainly this seems to be true with the ACA repeal, and perhaps other action items, but its not as if nothing on their docket had been accomplished.

The Congress has been in power for more than almost two months (January 3rd for the 115th Congress). They also knew they were going to be in power since Nov. 2016.
Finally, they have also had power over the House for 6 years where they have passed many bills on all sorts of topics only to have them die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President. So, it's not like they have to craft a bunch of legislation from scratch. Simply pull up those bills and start passing them. This can be done in the House very easily, why haven't they done so? The House isn't doing any confirmation hearings.
This is a good point.  It's not like Trump is going to veto anything, so there should be a flurry of pent-up activity by now.

My theory is that the government has become almost 100% dysfunctional.  Trump, like a bag of sand, has managed to pit every member of every branch against each other and the gears are grinding.  How does a duly elected politician please one's constituents when the President does things that have never been done before but is (self professedly) granting the wishes of the populace?  Do you stand behind him, knowing he's full of 'alternative facts' or do you stand up to him and risk being on the wrong side of (at least short run) history?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 22, 2017, 08:50:54 PM
do you stand up to him and risk being on the wrong side of (at least short run) history?

I don't think anyone who stands up to Trump has to worry about ending up on the wrong side of history.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 22, 2017, 09:30:48 PM
do you stand up to him and risk being on the wrong side of (at least short run) history?

I don't think anyone who stands up to Trump has to worry about ending up on the wrong side of history.

But I also wonder if Mattis, McMaster, Brennan (http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/12/23/506707255/transcript-nprs-interview-with-cia-director-john-brennan), and many others 'in the know' are freaking out about how to end up 'on the right side' of history.  Government was designed in a time when being terribly complicated and slow moving was an asset.  Nowadays, 4 years could mean the rise of entirely new technologies (game changers in artificial intelligence, war, communications, genetics, longevity, renewable energy, 'incurable' diseases, human physical or mental enhancement...).

So maybe Trump was a mistake, but he may be the last mistake because he has unleashed an unstoppable force (increased benefits to achieve our own interests, reduced politics, or the perception of no manufactured hindrance) against an immovable object (America's status quo).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on February 23, 2017, 05:53:30 AM
I think that's hard to say a month into them having power. Certainly this seems to be true with the ACA repeal, and perhaps other action items, but its not as if nothing on their docket had been accomplished.

Their job is to pass laws to get to the other chamber to also pass for the signature or veto of the president. To my knowledge, neither chamber has passed a single bill. Isn't that the very definition of nothing being accomplished?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 23, 2017, 06:08:39 AM
I think that's hard to say a month into them having power. Certainly this seems to be true with the ACA repeal, and perhaps other action items, but its not as if nothing on their docket had been accomplished.

Their job is to pass laws to get to the other chamber to also pass for the signature or veto of the president. To my knowledge, neither chamber has passed a single bill. Isn't that the very definition of nothing being accomplished?

Executive orders are easy, actually working with congress is the hard part.  Will be fun to watch.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on February 23, 2017, 08:17:34 AM
Anyone come to the conclusion that the immigration deal is simply the wedge issue of the moment to keep the press occupied? I just can't believe Trump came back with a WORSE proposal. It's a win-win-win for him. Promise fulfilled, press hammers futility, supporters happy/detractors angry and distracted. He gets to look good and look like he's trying even if he fails. It's probably even better if he fails! He doesn't have to deal with the repercussions of his bans or mass deportations. When his administration goes to shit, his excuse is lined up.

I want to see more of the Russian connection!
Figure out ACA alternative!
Where the fawk are his tax returns? He is hiding something!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 23, 2017, 08:21:50 AM
Quote
Do you stand behind him, knowing he's full of 'alternative facts' or do you stand up to him and risk being on the wrong side of (at least short run) history?

It's a bit more complicated than that probably.  Do you quit and preserve your own reputation, or do you stay and try to minimize the harm that he could do?  If everyone who is competent quits, it leaves a skeleton crew of toadies who will just bow to his every whim. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 23, 2017, 08:30:25 AM
Anyone come to the conclusion that the immigration deal is simply the wedge issue of the moment to keep the press occupied?

Trump is a compulsive (pathological?) liar (sociopath?) and fabricates these distraction daily. Cause that's what liars do. And a lot of people fall for it.

There must be something pretty damning in those taxes...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 23, 2017, 08:44:04 AM
There must be something pretty damning in those taxes...

I think that depends on what you call damning.  We already know he doesn't pay any income taxes.  That was shown by the one page that was leaked, and he confirmed it during the debates.  He's been using paper losses from his mismanaged real estate developments to offset income since the 1990s.  He said this makes him "smart".

We also know he doesn't make any charitable donations.  He admitted as much during the debate, and his foundation's books show what he hasn't made any personal contributions since 2005 or something.

And we already know that he's not really a multi-billionaire.  He's admitted as much on television.  His business income mostly comes from licensing his name to other companies, for a fee, and he has used today's low bond rates to convert his annual licensing payments into an assumed equivalent fortune.  Bond rates are extremely low, so a few million per year in licensing fees is "worth" billions of dollars, in the eyes of his accountant.  He doesn't actually own anything of value other than his name that is worth that much.

But those aren't even the real reason people want to see to see his taxes.  We already know that US banks stopped lending him money after his third bankruptcy, and that his corporate empire has been financed by foreign (mostly Russian) banks since then.  But his taxes returns would give some indication of exactly how much money he's been given, and thus how much leverage foreign (maybe state-owned) banks have over his personal fortunes.  That's the real reason I think his tax returns will come out eventually, as part of the investigation into Russian influence over the US political system.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 23, 2017, 08:50:04 AM
I think that's hard to say a month into them having power. Certainly this seems to be true with the ACA repeal, and perhaps other action items, but its not as if nothing on their docket had been accomplished.

Their job is to pass laws to get to the other chamber to also pass for the signature or veto of the president. To my knowledge, neither chamber has passed a single bill. Isn't that the very definition of nothing being accomplished?

Executive orders are easy, actually working with congress is the hard part.  Will be fun to watch.
We have had this for the past 6 years. I don't find it fun anymore.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 23, 2017, 08:56:34 AM
There must be something pretty damning in those taxes...

But his taxes returns would give some indication of exactly how much money he's been given, and thus how much leverage foreign (maybe state-owned) banks have over his personal fortunes.  That's the real reason I think his tax returns will come out eventually, as part of the investigation into Russian influence over the US political system.

It is quite likely the majority of his business is held in partnerships or corporations.  Assuming that is the case and assuming they are pass-through entities, his personal return will have very limited information on his dealings with these entities. 

In order to truly understand the dealings you mention, you would need access to the tax returns and/or financial statements of the entities involved.  Has any president or candidate ever released records from those entities?  I realize there would be calls for him to release that next, but I'm not aware of a precedent for a release like that. 

I personally believe his personal returns show large losses which are embarrassing to Trump the businessman.  Although he has now acknowledged those losses, seeing them brings even more attention.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 23, 2017, 09:00:11 AM
There must be something pretty damning in those taxes...
But those aren't even the real reason people want to see to see his taxes.  We already know that US banks stopped lending him money after his third bankruptcy, and that his corporate empire has been financed by foreign (mostly Russian) banks since then.  But his taxes returns would give some indication of exactly how much money he's been given, and thus how much leverage foreign (maybe state-owned) banks have over his personal fortunes.  That's the real reason I think his tax returns will come out eventually, as part of the investigation into Russian influence over the US political system.

That's pretty much it, Sol. That would bar any US citizen from passing a background check for security clearance. Why does that guy get to know the secrets?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2017, 09:09:37 AM
There must be something pretty damning in those taxes...
But those aren't even the real reason people want to see to see his taxes.  We already know that US banks stopped lending him money after his third bankruptcy, and that his corporate empire has been financed by foreign (mostly Russian) banks since then.  But his taxes returns would give some indication of exactly how much money he's been given, and thus how much leverage foreign (maybe state-owned) banks have over his personal fortunes.  That's the real reason I think his tax returns will come out eventually, as part of the investigation into Russian influence over the US political system.

That's pretty much it, Sol. That would bar any US citizen from passing a background check for security clearance. Why does that guy get to know the secrets?

Same reason Congresscritters do: they were elected.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with this aspect of it. I want my elected people to have the information, even if I don't like them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 23, 2017, 09:43:03 AM
In order to truly understand the dealings you mention, you would need access to the tax returns and/or financial statements of the entities involved.  Has any president or candidate ever released records from those entities?  I realize there would be calls for him to release that next, but I'm not aware of a precedent for a release like that. 

Looks like the Senate is already floating the possibility of issuing a subpoena for his tax records in the Russia probe:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-subpoena-of-trump-tax-records-possible-in-russia-probe/ar-AAneDJ9?li=BBnbcA1

I'd be extremely surprised if there is not already a large scale FBI investigation underway into Trump's dealings. We already know his inner circle including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn are under FBI investigation, and I imagine it is fairly broad and looking into the allegations of the "dossier" as well. I expect criminal indictments will eventually come out. My only question is to what extent will they be able to get Trump's (figurative) fingerprints in the whole affair? Will they be able to prove enough to indict Trump himself (assuming the smoke actually leads to fire)?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2017, 09:47:57 AM
I expect criminal indictments will eventually come out. My only question is to what extent will they be able to get Trump's (figurative) fingerprints in the whole affair? Will they be able to prove enough to indict Trump himself (assuming the smoke actually leads to fire)?

I don't even care if he gets indicted, just pushing him and his cronies out is good enough.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 23, 2017, 09:54:27 AM
I expect criminal indictments will eventually come out. My only question is to what extent will they be able to get Trump's (figurative) fingerprints in the whole affair? Will they be able to prove enough to indict Trump himself (assuming the smoke actually leads to fire)?

I don't even care if he gets indicted, just pushing him and his cronies out is good enough.

I thought that too at first... but for some reason I think Pence would be worse.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on February 23, 2017, 09:56:37 AM

That's pretty much it, Sol. That would bar any US citizen from passing a background check for security clearance. Why does that guy get to know the secrets?

Same reason Congresscritters do: they were elected.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with this aspect of it. I want my elected people to have the information, even if I don't like them.

It's not about liking a politician, it's about judgement. Being deep in debt and who you are in debt has an impact on decision-making. Having loans to cover and tryin to avoid embarrassment have people doing strange things, often risky things.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 23, 2017, 10:13:59 AM
In order to truly understand the dealings you mention, you would need access to the tax returns and/or financial statements of the entities involved.  Has any president or candidate ever released records from those entities?  I realize there would be calls for him to release that next, but I'm not aware of a precedent for a release like that. 

Looks like the Senate is already floating the possibility of issuing a subpoena for his tax records in the Russia probe:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-subpoena-of-trump-tax-records-possible-in-russia-probe/ar-AAneDJ9?li=BBnbcA1

I'd be extremely surprised if there is not already a large scale FBI investigation underway into Trump's dealings.

There have been calls for quite some time now for Trump to release his personal taxes.  My comment was regarding the limited information into his personal taxes.

If tax records are obtained via a subpoena or some legal mechanism, I suspect they would it be broad enough to cover some the of entities he has been involved in.  If entity records are obtained they would certainly shed some light on the situation.  That's a completely different animal, however, from the calls to release his personal taxes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2017, 10:14:50 AM

That's pretty much it, Sol. That would bar any US citizen from passing a background check for security clearance. Why does that guy get to know the secrets?

Same reason Congresscritters do: they were elected.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with this aspect of it. I want my elected people to have the information, even if I don't like them.

It's not about liking a politician, it's about judgement. Being deep in debt and who you are in debt has an impact on decision-making. Having loans to cover and tryin to avoid embarrassment have people doing strange things, often risky things.

Absolutely, I was making a more general point about elected officials. Basically, even if I don't like/trust someone in office, I still want them to know the secrets because they were elected, and represent their constituents (theoretically).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 23, 2017, 10:35:30 AM
In order to truly understand the dealings you mention, you would need access to the tax returns and/or financial statements of the entities involved.  Has any president or candidate ever released records from those entities?  I realize there would be calls for him to release that next, but I'm not aware of a precedent for a release like that. 

Looks like the Senate is already floating the possibility of issuing a subpoena for his tax records in the Russia probe:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-subpoena-of-trump-tax-records-possible-in-russia-probe/ar-AAneDJ9?li=BBnbcA1

I'd be extremely surprised if there is not already a large scale FBI investigation underway into Trump's dealings. We already know his inner circle including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn are under FBI investigation, and I imagine it is fairly broad and looking into the allegations of the "dossier" as well. I expect criminal indictments will eventually come out. My only question is to what extent will they be able to get Trump's (figurative) fingerprints in the whole affair? Will they be able to prove enough to indict Trump himself (assuming the smoke actually leads to fire)?

Wasn't there a large faction in the FBI that was accused of showing inappropriate favoritism towards Trump with the whole HRC email fiasco? Whatever happened with that anyway? Just a conspiracy theory over the actions of Comey/a few malcontents, or was there substance there?

I've read a few op-eds proposing that the main "dirt" Russia has on Trump are his tax/financial records. This may be assigning a little too much importance to the fragility of Trump's ego, but the lengths to which he has gone to hide that information suggests that he reeeaaally doesn't want us to know it. I wonder if the reveal will live up to the hype.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 23, 2017, 11:15:00 AM
In order to truly understand the dealings you mention, you would need access to the tax returns and/or financial statements of the entities involved.  Has any president or candidate ever released records from those entities?  I realize there would be calls for him to release that next, but I'm not aware of a precedent for a release like that. 

Looks like the Senate is already floating the possibility of issuing a subpoena for his tax records in the Russia probe:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-subpoena-of-trump-tax-records-possible-in-russia-probe/ar-AAneDJ9?li=BBnbcA1

I'd be extremely surprised if there is not already a large scale FBI investigation underway into Trump's dealings. We already know his inner circle including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn are under FBI investigation, and I imagine it is fairly broad and looking into the allegations of the "dossier" as well. I expect criminal indictments will eventually come out. My only question is to what extent will they be able to get Trump's (figurative) fingerprints in the whole affair? Will they be able to prove enough to indict Trump himself (assuming the smoke actually leads to fire)?
I doubt that there will be clear enough evidence to indict him. The best I would hope for is that there is enough dirt that the republicans decide to remove him from office, settling for another Republican at the helm. I can't really imagine this would be hard to figure out, eother ; how hard is it to call up the IRS and say "Does Trump take money from Russia? Ok, how much? Thanks." I mean, the Irs should know, he must be audited regulalrly with the size and complexity of his income.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on February 23, 2017, 12:00:27 PM
In order to truly understand the dealings you mention, you would need access to the tax returns and/or financial statements of the entities involved.  Has any president or candidate ever released records from those entities?  I realize there would be calls for him to release that next, but I'm not aware of a precedent for a release like that. 

Looks like the Senate is already floating the possibility of issuing a subpoena for his tax records in the Russia probe:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-subpoena-of-trump-tax-records-possible-in-russia-probe/ar-AAneDJ9?li=BBnbcA1

I'd be extremely surprised if there is not already a large scale FBI investigation underway into Trump's dealings. We already know his inner circle including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn are under FBI investigation, and I imagine it is fairly broad and looking into the allegations of the "dossier" as well. I expect criminal indictments will eventually come out. My only question is to what extent will they be able to get Trump's (figurative) fingerprints in the whole affair? Will they be able to prove enough to indict Trump himself (assuming the smoke actually leads to fire)?
I doubt that there will be clear enough evidence to indict him. The best I would hope for is that there is enough dirt that the republicans decide to remove him from office, settling for another Republican at the helm. I can't really imagine this would be hard to figure out, eother ; how hard is it to call up the IRS and say "Does Trump take money from Russia? Ok, how much? Thanks." I mean, the Irs should know, he must be audited regulalrly with the size and complexity of his income.

You may very well be right. And, even if he were indicted or even convicted, I'd say the odds are extremely high that a then-President Pence would pardon him, as unforgivable as that kind of treason*/foreign collusion should be seen. But I'd settle for Trump being removed, indicted, and disgraced.

* As much as I'd like to call it treason, I just read an op-ed this weekend that described the actually narrow definition for treason. Even though working with a hostile foreign power to sway an election in one's favor in exchange for billions in monetary compensation and going easy on said foreign power sounds like treason, technically it isn't. It's only treason if we are in an actual, declared war with the foreign power. But of course that didn't stop all the "Lock Her Up" crowd from calling HRC's use of a private server treason, so that word is thrown around pretty casually these days, it seems.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 23, 2017, 01:51:51 PM
Absolutely, I was making a more general point about elected officials. Basically, even if I don't like/trust someone in office, I still want them to know the secrets because they were elected, and represent their constituents (theoretically).

Theoretically, conflicts of interest like that should be the test. If failed they shouldn't be serving in that capacity. It happens in the military and intelligence communities so I don't understand why it should be different for public servants, elected or not.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 23, 2017, 02:24:08 PM
Absolutely, I was making a more general point about elected officials. Basically, even if I don't like/trust someone in office, I still want them to know the secrets because they were elected, and represent their constituents (theoretically).

Theoretically, conflicts of interest like that should be the test. If failed they shouldn't be serving in that capacity. It happens in the military and intelligence communities so I don't understand why it should be different for public servants, elected or not.
While I see your point, there is a difference: there are procedures for removing elected officials. Removing people from appointed positions can be more problematic, especially if their interest conflicts benefit those appointing them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 23, 2017, 02:37:12 PM
Theoretically, conflicts of interest like that should be the test. If failed they shouldn't be serving in that capacity. It happens in the military and intelligence communities so I don't understand why it should be different for public servants, elected or not.
While I see your point, there is a difference: there are procedures for removing elected officials. Removing people from appointed positions can be more problematic, especially if their interest conflicts benefit those appointing them.
Let me make it clearer:
Quote
Theoretically, conflicts of interest like that should be the test. If failed they shouldn't be serving or be elected or appointed to that capacity in the first place. It happens in the military and intelligence communities so I don't understand why it should be different for public servants, elected or not.
That's why we're supposed to have this vetting process of cabinet members. That's another reason why candidates release their tax returns. Military and civilian intelligence jobs require you to be able to pass the background check first. If you can't, you don't get the job (secrets). These guys should be able to pass the background check prior to being able to run for office- before being a viable candidate. Otherwise they're more vulnerable to influence.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 23, 2017, 03:00:21 PM
Absolutely, I was making a more general point about elected officials. Basically, even if I don't like/trust someone in office, I still want them to know the secrets because they were elected, and represent their constituents (theoretically).

Theoretically, conflicts of interest like that should be the test. If failed they shouldn't be serving in that capacity. It happens in the military and intelligence communities so I don't understand why it should be different for public servants, elected or not.
While I see your point, there is a difference: there are procedures for removing elected officials. Removing people from appointed positions can be more problematic, especially if their interest conflicts benefit those appointing them.

Bwah? Removing people from appointed positions is the same as elected officials for federal office. Per the constitution: "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Emphasis is mine. So, you can impeach any officer, which basically means any senate confirmable person, including members of the Cabinet. You can't impeach employees of the United States, so I think Chief of Staff and crap like that isn't impeachable.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 23, 2017, 03:12:35 PM
In order to truly understand the dealings you mention, you would need access to the tax returns and/or financial statements of the entities involved.  Has any president or candidate ever released records from those entities?  I realize there would be calls for him to release that next, but I'm not aware of a precedent for a release like that. 

Looks like the Senate is already floating the possibility of issuing a subpoena for his tax records in the Russia probe:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-subpoena-of-trump-tax-records-possible-in-russia-probe/ar-AAneDJ9?li=BBnbcA1

I'd be extremely surprised if there is not already a large scale FBI investigation underway into Trump's dealings. We already know his inner circle including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn are under FBI investigation, and I imagine it is fairly broad and looking into the allegations of the "dossier" as well. I expect criminal indictments will eventually come out. My only question is to what extent will they be able to get Trump's (figurative) fingerprints in the whole affair? Will they be able to prove enough to indict Trump himself (assuming the smoke actually leads to fire)?
I doubt that there will be clear enough evidence to indict him. The best I would hope for is that there is enough dirt that the republicans decide to remove him from office, settling for another Republican at the helm. I can't really imagine this would be hard to figure out, eother ; how hard is it to call up the IRS and say "Does Trump take money from Russia? Ok, how much? Thanks." I mean, the Irs should know, he must be audited regulalrly with the size and complexity of his income.

You may very well be right. And, even if he were indicted or even convicted, I'd say the odds are extremely high that a then-President Pence would pardon him, as unforgivable as that kind of treason*/foreign collusion should be seen. But I'd settle for Trump being removed, indicted, and disgraced.

* As much as I'd like to call it treason, I just read an op-ed this weekend that described the actually narrow definition for treason. Even though working with a hostile foreign power to sway an election in one's favor in exchange for billions in monetary compensation and going easy on said foreign power sounds like treason, technically it isn't. It's only treason if we are in an actual, declared war with the foreign power. But of course that didn't stop all the "Lock Her Up" crowd from calling HRC's use of a private server treason, so that word is thrown around pretty casually these days, it seems.

Of course any president convicted of fiscal type crimes like this would get pardoned.  Nixon did... The only way you are going to see a president go to jail is probably 1st degree murder or child rape or something so disgusting and damning that everyone wants their head on a pike.

Presidents and higher ups don't go to jail for self enrichment. I am not sure about acts that could be considered treason, but probably not unless it lead to some real tangible harm being done to the US.

I don't personally give a fuck about seeing someone like Trump in jail. I just want to see him fade away from public and not hold any position of power. Like Milo... Every time these assholes open their mouths they make us all dumber and are doing real public harm. They simply need to be marginalized and ignored.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 24, 2017, 06:45:11 AM
In order to truly understand the dealings you mention, you would need access to the tax returns and/or financial statements of the entities involved.  Has any president or candidate ever released records from those entities?  I realize there would be calls for him to release that next, but I'm not aware of a precedent for a release like that. 

Looks like the Senate is already floating the possibility of issuing a subpoena for his tax records in the Russia probe:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/susan-collins-subpoena-of-trump-tax-records-possible-in-russia-probe/ar-AAneDJ9?li=BBnbcA1

I'd be extremely surprised if there is not already a large scale FBI investigation underway into Trump's dealings. We already know his inner circle including Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn are under FBI investigation, and I imagine it is fairly broad and looking into the allegations of the "dossier" as well. I expect criminal indictments will eventually come out. My only question is to what extent will they be able to get Trump's (figurative) fingerprints in the whole affair? Will they be able to prove enough to indict Trump himself (assuming the smoke actually leads to fire)?

White House asked the FBI to state that Trump campaign officials did not have regular contacts with Russian intelligence officials before the election (Didn't 45 complain about Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch???) and FBI declined.  So he has another twitter tirade.  This is embarrassing.  Doesn't he realize that with every revelation/tirade more and more people are saying there must be something there? 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/320954-trump-fbi-totally-unable-to-stop-leaks

I'm not sure whether to be shocked at this one or not, but a Fox News Poll (5th one down) How would you rate President Trump’s first month in office? shows Poor at 73% and Great at 20%.  Even Texas shows 84% Poor.  Although I'm amused at the secondary connotations at using the word Poor, I'm kind of sad Dumpster Fire wasn't an option.   

http://nation.foxnews.com/poll/index.html

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 24, 2017, 07:49:57 AM
If the Republicans continue to flounder and we see a reining in of the safety net (millions lose health insurance), then expect the mid-term elections to favor Democrats or at least be neutral
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 24, 2017, 08:04:27 AM

White House asked the FBI to state that Trump campaign officials did not have regular contacts with Russian intelligence officials before the election (Didn't 45 complain about Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch???) and FBI declined.  So he has another twitter tirade.  This is embarrassing.  Doesn't he realize that with every revelation/tirade more and more people are saying there must be something there? 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/fbi/320954-trump-fbi-totally-unable-to-stop-leaks
And apparently Reince Priebus asking the FBI to make that statement constitutes an interference with a judicial investigation contrary to rules put in place after Nixon to prevent the White House from obstructing or impeding the administration of justice -

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qft97GKiF4
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 24, 2017, 10:57:17 AM
If the Republicans continue to flounder and we see a reining in of the safety net (millions lose health insurance), then expect the mid-term elections to favor Democrats or at least be neutral
The republicans are in control; historically this has lead to the midterms flopping congressinal seats to the party out of power.  This would not be new; what will be interesting is if the republicans take a shellacking as bad as the democrats did in 2010.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: farmecologist on February 24, 2017, 12:01:24 PM
If the Republicans continue to flounder and we see a reining in of the safety net (millions lose health insurance), then expect the mid-term elections to favor Democrats or at least be neutral
The republicans are in control; historically this has lead to the midterms flopping congressinal seats to the party out of power.  This would not be new; what will be interesting is if the republicans take a shellacking as bad as the democrats did in 2010.

I was hearing that due to the seats up for re-election, midterms are going to be very,very difficult for Democrats.  However, who knows...

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 24, 2017, 12:08:47 PM
If the Republicans continue to flounder and we see a reining in of the safety net (millions lose health insurance), then expect the mid-term elections to favor Democrats or at least be neutral
The republicans are in control; historically this has lead to the midterms flopping congressinal seats to the party out of power.  This would not be new; what will be interesting is if the republicans take a shellacking as bad as the democrats did in 2010.

I was hearing that due to the seats up for re-election, midterms are going to be very,very difficult for Democrats.  However, who knows...
Will be an important election, no doubt. If the republicans can pick up a few seats, they can have their suoer majority for two years like the Democrats did in 08. Be interesting to see what gets passed at that point. Not sure that will happen, but my track record for these things is closing in on 90% wrong...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 24, 2017, 12:24:17 PM
Back to his taxes: would that reveal offshore accounts that Russia could be padding? And it wouldn't reveal any deals that benefited his children and thus him by extension.

I think something involving Russia is there but its probably so complicated that we the public will never know the full accounting of it nor do I really expect him to be prosecuted for it b/c of the bad rep it gives the larger party and party politics are so important to the two main parties. Don't want to hand anything to the Dems like an impeachment.

And I'm likely wrong too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 24, 2017, 12:39:16 PM
If the Republicans continue to flounder and we see a reining in of the safety net (millions lose health insurance), then expect the mid-term elections to favor Democrats or at least be neutral
The republicans are in control; historically this has lead to the midterms flopping congressinal seats to the party out of power.  This would not be new; what will be interesting is if the republicans take a shellacking as bad as the democrats did in 2010.

I was hearing that due to the seats up for re-election, midterms are going to be very,very difficult for Democrats.  However, who knows...

If the GOP implements what is in this article, I'd be surprised if there was not a shellacking. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/house-republicans-obamacare-repeal-package-235343
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 24, 2017, 01:13:47 PM
Back to his taxes: would that reveal offshore accounts that Russia could be padding? And it wouldn't reveal any deals that benefited his children and thus him by extension.

No. The entire point of an offshore account is that the IRS doesn't know about it. Thus, it wouldn't appear on any tax documents.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 24, 2017, 01:19:15 PM
If the GOP implements what is in this article, I'd be surprised if there was not a shellacking. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/house-republicans-obamacare-repeal-package-235343

tl;dr:

1) The much-maligned Cadillac Tax is back in some fashion for employer plans.
2) The new penalty is a 30% premium increase for lapsed coverage. Doesn't seem like much of a penalty (4 months w/o coverage and re-enrolling is better than maintaining insurance all along).
3) Bring back health pools for those with pre-existing conditions. Good idea -- those worked SO well pre-ACA.

#1 won't fly unless they can mask it as a tax cut.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 24, 2017, 01:22:07 PM
Back to his taxes: would that reveal offshore accounts that Russia could be padding? And it wouldn't reveal any deals that benefited his children and thus him by extension.

No. The entire point of an offshore account is that the IRS doesn't know about it. Thus, it wouldn't appear on any tax documents.

It's more likely that some of his cash flow is from/to specific loans, which would raise a RED flag, ifyaknowhatimean.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 24, 2017, 01:45:03 PM
Realistic impact:  Banning the NYT, Politico and CNN from a presidential press conference.  This seems really bad.  Like something a dictator does.

What do you do when the president violates the first amendment so flagrantly? 


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sockigal on February 24, 2017, 01:46:01 PM
White House blocks news organizations from press briefing.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-house-gaggle/index.html

Blocking major news organizations that the President does not "like" from news briefings is a direct violation of the US Constitution. Freedom of the press is a major component of a free country. With Bannon's comments yesterday about deconstruction of the government and this event today at the White House, I'm afraid that the very fabric of our country is being torn apart. I am wondering if the news organizations can take this incident and sue the President, not just for breaking constitutional laws, but also for these news organizations losing money due to not being able to cover the briefing. In fact, I wonder if any company or person that Trump slanders on Twitter or during a speech can sue him for defamation and loss of income.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 24, 2017, 01:54:11 PM
What do you do when the president violates the first amendment so flagrantly?

It's a dick move, but I don't think it's unconstitutional.

If he were to shut down CNN, that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.  Refusing them access to the white house is not the same as shuttering the company or suppressing their reporting.  A judge might disagree with me, though.

The request to the FBI to dispute the (true) stories on CNN is more illegal, in my opinion.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on February 24, 2017, 02:29:39 PM
What do you do when the president violates the first amendment so flagrantly?

It's a dick move, but I don't think it's unconstitutional.

If he were to shut down CNN, that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. Refusing them access to the white house is not the same as shuttering the company or suppressing their reporting.  A judge might disagree with me, though.

The request to the FBI to dispute the (true) stories on CNN is more illegal, in my opinion.
I doubt it.  One of the first Ladies used to only allow female reporters in to report on her and no one saw a problem with that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on February 24, 2017, 02:43:19 PM
If the GOP implements what is in this article, I'd be surprised if there was not a shellacking. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/house-republicans-obamacare-repeal-package-235343

tl;dr:

1) The much-maligned Cadillac Tax is back in some fashion for employer plans.
2) The new penalty is a 30% premium increase for lapsed coverage. Doesn't seem like much of a penalty (4 months w/o coverage and re-enrolling is better than maintaining insurance all along).
3) Bring back health pools for those with pre-existing conditions. Good idea -- those worked SO well pre-ACA.

#1 won't fly unless they can mask it as a tax cut.

They are still trying to figure out what will fly and what won't. It's hilarious how "everybody hates Obamacare" now turns into, "it's hard to get rid of Obamacare because people like so many parts of it."

The 30% penalty is an interesting work around to the hated mandate. The only problem I see there is, it incentives people who've lapsed to keep going without coverage. If they provide a very cheap catastrophic insurance plan to hold people over, might work.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 24, 2017, 03:40:46 PM
I doubt it.  One of the first Ladies used to only allow female reporters in to report on her and no one saw a problem with that.

The First Lady isn't the most powerful elected official of the free world.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 24, 2017, 06:58:04 PM
I doubt it.  One of the first Ladies used to only allow female reporters in to report on her and no one saw a problem with that.

The First Lady isn't the most powerful elected official of the free world.
True, but the POTUS is held to many of the same laws. I mostly agree with Sol - while a dick move, it's hardly a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. I would be much more concerned if all reporters were blocked out of press conferences, or if only 1 or 2 specific sources become the only sources of news from the White House. Though this may be the direction we are heading.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on February 24, 2017, 06:58:23 PM
So now it seems that States should be able to discriminate against transgendered people as much as they want without federal meddling but potentially can't be trusted with marijuana policy? Nope, no forcing of religious morals happening here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Retire-Canada on February 24, 2017, 07:29:59 PM
Whatever happens or does not happen it's now Trumpcare. Please use the correct terminology. ;)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 24, 2017, 07:50:54 PM
I think there's a much better case for unconstitutionality because, as usual, the trump administration is not particularly discreet about showing that it's a retributive act.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 24, 2017, 10:20:51 PM
So now it seems that States should be able to discriminate against transgendered people as much as they want without federal meddling but potentially can't be trusted with marijuana policy? Nope, no forcing of religious morals happening here.

No surprise there. Trump didn't seem to care but Pence thinks that Reefer Madness is a documentary.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 24, 2017, 10:23:27 PM
I think there's a much better case for unconstitutionality because, as usual, the trump administration is not particularly discreet about showing that it's a retributive act.
Does intent matter for denying constitutional rights? "I really thought it would be better for the country if these people didn't vote." Is not a defense to deny people their constitutional right to vote, for instance.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 24, 2017, 11:43:43 PM
I think there's a much better case for unconstitutionality because, as usual, the trump administration is not particularly discreet about showing that it's a retributive act.
Does intent matter for denying constitutional rights? "I really thought it would be better for the country if these people didn't vote." Is not a defense to deny people their constitutional right to vote, for instance.
That seems to be Trump's strategy - wrap himself tighter in the US Flag whenever given 'questioning' feedback to his Orders.  It's not necessarily like the branches of government don't like the idea of protecting the country from terrorists or silencing misinformation (or riding on the coat-tails of a popular charismatic President), they just don't understand how he can possibly stand for blatant religious profiling and silencing journalists (while being much less popular than he believes).

As history has shown, GW Bush wasn't impeached or curtailed in any way although no weapons of mass destruction were found, so I'm less surprised now, ever though we are struggling through historical downfall, that there is little imposition on Trump's overreach.  If we truly were a nation of high moral standing, this would have been enough a week ago.  Alas, we are apparently a nation of putting ourselves first, and Trump is riding that trope as long as it will have him.  So far this stance has been nothing but beneficial.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see if season 2 (well, only month 2 in this case) is any better than season 1 :)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 25, 2017, 12:00:46 AM
I think there's a much better case for unconstitutionality because, as usual, the trump administration is not particularly discreet about showing that it's a retributive act.
Does intent matter for denying constitutional rights? "I really thought it would be better for the country if these people didn't vote." Is not a defense to deny people their constitutional right to vote, for instance.
That seems to be Trump's strategy - wrap himself tighter in the US Flag whenever given 'questioning' feedback to his Orders.  It's not necessarily like the branches of government don't like the idea of protecting the country from terrorists or silencing misinformation (or riding on the coat-tails of a popular charismatic President), they just don't understand how he can possibly stand for blatant religious profiling and silencing journalists (while being much less popular than he believes).

As history has shown, GW Bush wasn't impeached or curtailed in any way although no weapons of mass destruction were found, so I'm less surprised now, ever though we are struggling through historical downfall, that there is little imposition on Trump's overreach.  If we truly were a nation of high moral standing, this would have been enough a week ago.  Alas, we are apparently a nation of putting ourselves first, and Trump is riding that trope as long as it will have him.  So far this stance has been nothing but beneficial.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see if season 2 (well, only month 2 in this case) is any better than season 1 :)
I guess I still have faith in our checks and balances. The courts slapped Obama's hands repeatedly when he overstepped. They have done the same to Trump. It's not perfect, but it's not as if everyone is running around unchecked completely.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 25, 2017, 12:19:45 AM
I guess I still have faith in our checks and balances. The courts slapped Obama's hands repeatedly when he overstepped. They have done the same to Trump. It's not perfect, but it's not as if everyone is running around unchecked completely.

As soon as I hear anything like 'Obama was x' or 'Hillary' whatever nonsensical fictional distraction at this point, I feel pretty vindicated that I made a stronger, more logical argument.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 25, 2017, 12:23:35 AM
I guess I still have faith in our checks and balances. The courts slapped Obama's hands repeatedly when he overstepped. They have done the same to Trump. It's not perfect, but it's not as if everyone is running around unchecked completely.

As soon as I hear anything like 'Obama was x' or 'Hillary' whatever nonsensical fictional distraction at this point, I feel pretty vindicated that I made a stronger, more logical argument.
Your argument was predicated upon "Bush did X"....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 25, 2017, 07:29:58 AM
I guess I still have faith in our checks and balances. The courts slapped Obama's hands repeatedly when he overstepped. They have done the same to Trump. It's not perfect, but it's not as if everyone is running around unchecked completely.

As soon as I hear anything like 'Obama was x' or 'Hillary' whatever nonsensical fictional distraction at this point, I feel pretty vindicated that I made a stronger, more logical argument.
Your argument was predicated upon "Bush did X"....
Are you totally tone def to my point?  I guess, to spell it out, Bush invading Iraq is common knowledge.  This whole 'but Obama got his hands slapped by the courts so he's just as bad as Trump' is opinion, and not really pertinent to the discussion.  It's a fun game Trump supporters like to play.  Sometimes they play it well like, 'Obama also stopped refugees from coming to the US (which required a little bit of research (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.2b66b72fefb6) to understand why they were comparing apples to oranges).  But it's gotten worn out, since Trump became President and is now demonstrably incompetent and damaging.  He has certainly not shown a respect for the checks and balances imposed on his branch of government.  So let's focus on today for a while and not some selective memory of the past, since talking about Obama being just as bad as Trump has repeatedly proven to be 'alternative facts'.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on February 25, 2017, 07:50:13 AM
Whatever happens or does not happen it's now Trumpcare. Please use the correct terminology. ;)

Come on over to BreitWhitebart and post:

Still waiting for repeal of Obamacare.  When we getting Trumpcare?

Let's educate the Trumpeteers!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on February 25, 2017, 07:57:27 AM
Some news outlets are posting that the deportation of illegals is going to have a large negative impact on our economy, however the numbers are over ten years.

Does anyone understand how it will play out in the short term, say the next year or two?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 25, 2017, 09:15:27 AM
Does anyone understand how it will play out in the short term, say the next year or two?

Well, if they successfully deport that many illegals, some farmers are saying their crops will rot in the fields. Some farmers are buying equipment for automation.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/05/trumps-deportation-vow-spurs-california-farmers-into-action.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/05/trumps-deportation-vow-spurs-california-farmers-into-action.html)
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/california-farmers-surprised-trump-anti-immigrant (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/california-farmers-surprised-trump-anti-immigrant)
The construction and restaurant industries will have problems too. Prices will go up- they will have to pay an actual wage for the work if Americans will need to do the work.

Oh the irony of farmers voting for Trump thinking that his positions were just talk, now concerned that he's actually going to deport illegals.

But don't worry-
Quote
I’m confident that he can grasp the magnitude and the anxiety of what’s happening now
Trump's a business man who will understand the problem. I can't even say that with a straight face.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 25, 2017, 09:25:46 AM
Border patrol can set up stop points within 100 miles of the border and ask about your citizenship.  They can ask but no one has an obligation to answer.  They are hoping people are ignorant of their rights.  I am wondering how they will catch the millions of people they want to deport.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on February 25, 2017, 09:34:46 AM
I am wondering how they will catch the millions of people they want to deport.

Easy- you round up enough Mexican looking people and some of them are bound to be illegals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 25, 2017, 09:51:34 AM
*If* mass deportation happened, there are some obvious effects:
-Construction costs increase dramatically almost everywhere in the US.
-Housing values/rents at the low end collapse in many areas as lots of people move out.
-Food prices rise dramatically, especially for prepared foods.
-Lots of domestically grown produce (and some meat like chicken that requires manual processing) becomes extremely expensive/uncompetitive with Mexican/Central American/Chilean imports.
-Jobs at the very low end pay a lot more, prices for services like housekeeping, landscaping, etc rise dramatically.

I guess the obvious immediate effect would be a lot of inflation (for basic goods and services), combined with total collapse of housing markets (both purchase and rental prices) at the low end in some places. The obvious winners would be low-skill unemployed people who can keep their act together enough to hold down a job/work hard - they'd make more money and also have cheaper housing available. Everyone else probably loses in one way or another.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 25, 2017, 10:07:51 AM
The obvious winners would be low-skill unemployed people who can keep their act together enough to hold down a job/work hard - they'd make more money and also have cheaper housing available. Everyone else probably loses in one way or another.

This is exactly why I don't think it will happen.  Republicans won't pass anything that doesn't disproportionately help rich people.

All of Trump's rhetoric about saving jobs is just smokescreen designed to scoop up working class votes.  He doesn't actually care about working class people. He's a billionaire lifestyle brand business mogul, he couldn't care less about poor people.  He has spent his entire career stealing from workers, not helping them.

The administration's focus on immigration is just a distraction from tax cuts for the wealthy and taking away health insurance.  Watch carefully what bills actually get passed, despite all of the noise.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 25, 2017, 11:29:16 AM
I think there's a much better case for unconstitutionality because, as usual, the trump administration is not particularly discreet about showing that it's a retributive act.
Does intent matter for denying constitutional rights? "I really thought it would be better for the country if these people didn't vote." Is not a defense to deny people their constitutional right to vote, for instance.

Yes, compare: "I arrested these people for yelling 'trump sucks'" vs. "I arrested these people for yelling 'fire' in a crowded building"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 25, 2017, 11:50:18 AM
I think there's a much better case for unconstitutionality because, as usual, the trump administration is not particularly discreet about showing that it's a retributive act.
Does intent matter for denying constitutional rights? "I really thought it would be better for the country if these people didn't vote." Is not a defense to deny people their constitutional right to vote, for instance.

Yes, compare: "I arrested these people for yelling 'trump sucks'" vs. "I arrested these people for yelling 'fire' in a crowded building"
But those are separate actions. I see your point, but that distinction in intent in your example is on the person committing the action, not on the person denying them their right.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 25, 2017, 12:00:13 PM
Are you totally tone def to my point?  I guess, to spell it out, Bush invading Iraq is common knowledge.  This whole 'but Obama got his hands slapped by the courts so he's just as bad as Trump' is opinion, and not really pertinent to the discussion.  It's a fun game Trump supporters like to play.  Sometimes they play it well like, 'Obama also stopped refugees from coming to the US (which required a little bit of research (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.2b66b72fefb6) to understand why they were comparing apples to oranges).  But it's gotten worn out, since Trump became President and is now demonstrably incompetent and damaging.  He has certainly not shown a respect for the checks and balances imposed on his branch of government.  So let's focus on today for a while and not some selective memory of the past, since talking about Obama being just as bad as Trump has repeatedly proven to be 'alternative facts'.
I guess I am deaf to your point . Perhaps you could be more clear? I have no idea why Bush was brought into the discussion; it was a throwaway that partisan attackers without a balanced view will use. The system of checks and balances that will curtail Trumps oversteps is the same system that curtailed Obama's oversteps. This is common knowledge. Checks and balances demonstrably works in our government. This was my point- it has worked in previous administrations who have attempted to side step the other branches of government, and as this is a recent example, I  see no argument this will change. In fact, it has already worked against the current administration.

I am clearly not a Trump supporter. I have never said Obama was worse than Trump. They are both terrible presidents, overall, for similar reasons, and differing reasons.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: oldtoyota on February 25, 2017, 01:05:12 PM
*If* mass deportation happened, there are some obvious effects:
-Construction costs increase dramatically almost everywhere in the US.
-Housing values/rents at the low end collapse in many areas as lots of people move out.
-Food prices rise dramatically, especially for prepared foods.
-Lots of domestically grown produce (and some meat like chicken that requires manual processing) becomes extremely expensive/uncompetitive with Mexican/Central American/Chilean imports.
-Jobs at the very low end pay a lot more, prices for services like housekeeping, landscaping, etc rise dramatically.

I guess the obvious immediate effect would be a lot of inflation (for basic goods and services), combined with total collapse of housing markets (both purchase and rental prices) at the low end in some places. The obvious winners would be low-skill unemployed people who can keep their act together enough to hold down a job/work hard - they'd make more money and also have cheaper housing available. Everyone else probably loses in one way or another.

-W

I think this is what they want. President Bannon wants to destroy the state. He said that, and he's working to do it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 25, 2017, 01:19:36 PM
The obvious winners would be low-skill unemployed people who can keep their act together enough to hold down a job/work hard - they'd make more money and also have cheaper housing available. Everyone else probably loses in one way or another.

This is exactly why I don't think it will happen.  Republicans won't pass anything that doesn't disproportionately help rich people.

All of Trump's rhetoric about saving jobs is just smokescreen designed to scoop up working class votes.  He doesn't actually care about working class people. He's a billionaire lifestyle brand business mogul, he couldn't care less about poor people.  He has spent his entire career stealing from workers, not helping them.

The administration's focus on immigration is just a distraction from tax cuts for the wealthy and taking away health insurance.  Watch carefully what bills actually get passed, despite all of the noise.
I would personally support everyone paying more for everything if it meant the poorest people get a raise. I don't see rich people losing as a terribly bad thing, if it helps lower income people make more money. Also, as the raise the minimum wage studies show, I am not sure this would be the case anyway.

I don't see the democrats agreeing to such a plan because it would cut the profits of many of their corporate interests would not accept the cut in profits it would take to pay workers more. While both sides are paying lip service to the idea, neither actually wants it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 25, 2017, 03:03:42 PM
I don't see the democrats agreeing to such a plan because it would cut the profits of many of their corporate interests would not accept the cut in profits it would take to pay workers more.

What an illogical statement. It's Republicans and not the Democrats who try to protect corporate profits regardless of who is harmed in the process. You have it exactly backwards.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 25, 2017, 03:44:55 PM
I think there's a much better case for unconstitutionality because, as usual, the trump administration is not particularly discreet about showing that it's a retributive act.
Does intent matter for denying constitutional rights? "I really thought it would be better for the country if these people didn't vote." Is not a defense to deny people their constitutional right to vote, for instance.

Yes, compare: "I arrested these people for yelling 'trump sucks'" vs. "I arrested these people for yelling 'fire' in a crowded building"
But those are separate actions. I see your point, but that distinction in intent in your example is on the person committing the action, not on the person denying them their right.

No, the difference in constitutionality between those two examples is whether there was a compelling state interest in violating their rights. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 25, 2017, 04:14:38 PM
I don't see the democrats agreeing to such a plan because it would cut the profits of many of their corporate interests would not accept the cut in profits it would take to pay workers more.

What an illogical statement. It's Republicans and not the Democrats who try to protect corporate profits regardless of who is harmed in the process. You have it exactly backwards.
I think this was covered in the ACA thread; the reason we don't have single payer is that Democrats are beholden to their corporate interests, who would not wish to see their profits drop. It was not because the ACA was a better plan than single payer for the American people.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 25, 2017, 04:17:33 PM
I think there's a much better case for unconstitutionality because, as usual, the trump administration is not particularly discreet about showing that it's a retributive act.
Does intent matter for denying constitutional rights? "I really thought it would be better for the country if these people didn't vote." Is not a defense to deny people their constitutional right to vote, for instance.

Yes, compare: "I arrested these people for yelling 'trump sucks'" vs. "I arrested these people for yelling 'fire' in a crowded building"
But those are separate actions. I see your point, but that distinction in intent in your example is on the person committing the action, not on the person denying them their right.

No, the difference in constitutionality between those two examples is whether there was a compelling state interest in violating their rights.
Whereas a retrubitive act, as mentioned above, does not show compelling state interest. I now understand your arguement. Thank you for clarifying.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 25, 2017, 08:21:44 PM
I don't see the democrats agreeing to such a plan because it would cut the profits of many of their corporate interests would not accept the cut in profits it would take to pay workers more.

What an illogical statement. It's Republicans and not the Democrats who try to protect corporate profits regardless of who is harmed in the process. You have it exactly backwards.
I think this was covered in the ACA thread; the reason we don't have single payer is that Democrats are beholden to their corporate interests, who would not wish to see their profits drop. It was not because the ACA was a better plan than single payer for the American people.

That's backwards thinking, every Republican Senator in the 2009 vote was against any kind of health care for all people. ACA was a compromise effort to extend healthcare to as many as possible, and overcome the filibuster efforts of the Republican Senators. There were at most 2 or 3 Senate Democrats/Independents that stood in the way of the public option within ACA.  All 40 Republican Senators back in 2009 stood in the way of anything happening at all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 25, 2017, 09:11:44 PM
Revisionist history, ftw. No Republicans voted for the ACA*. The dems had super majority, and could have passed anything they wanted, without worrying about filibusters, and they did. They wanted to give their corporate interests in the insurance lobby a huge government handout, and did so.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on February 25, 2017, 11:29:39 PM
Revisionist history, ftw. No Republicans voted for the ACA*. The dems had super majority, and could have passed anything they wanted, without worrying about filibusters, and they did. They wanted to give their corporate interests in the insurance lobby a huge government handout, and did so.

That's not accurate. They couldn't pass a public option because Ben Nelson refused to vote for one.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 25, 2017, 11:32:44 PM
Revisionist history, ftw. No Republicans voted for the ACA*. The dems had super majority, and could have passed anything they wanted, without worrying about filibusters, and they did. They wanted to give their corporate interests in the insurance lobby a huge government handout, and did so.

Where are you getting this version of history from?  Because that's not what happened.

You may recall that Democrats TRIED to pass single payer health care, back in the 90s, with Hillary Clinton.  Republicans tore it apart.  It has always been Republicans who opposed health care reform of any kind.  It has always been Republicans who solely support their corporate interests at the expense of the working class. 

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of you blaming Democrats for everything.  This is classic Donald Trump behavior, and you should know better.  Are you a 70 year old fat man with a poor diet?  Attack your opponents health and stamina!  Were you born in to a wealthy family?  Campaign on behalf of blue collar workers!  Are you a five time draft dodger?  "No one is better on the military than me!"  Do you hate the American health care system?  Blame the Democrats!

It's disgusting and disingenuous and deceitful and dishonest and it discredits everything else you have to say.  Just stop it.

Democrats have been trying to fix health care since forever.  They passed medicare and medicaid.  They tried to pass single payer.  Due to Republican opposition, they had to settle for a neutered version of the ACA.  You're blaming the wrong party, plain and simple, and you do it SO consistently and SO blatantly dishonestly that I'm struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt (ignorance) instead of taking you at face value (malice).

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 26, 2017, 01:57:20 AM
Since the wannabe great dictator is missing the White House Correspondents' Dinner, anyone else wanting to see Alec Baldwin and Melissa McCarthy reprise their roles? That or a stand-in orange dummy.

I suppose Trumpie couldn't ban more than half of the guests at the dinner so might as well miss it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 26, 2017, 03:30:24 AM
Since the wannabe great dictator is missing the White House Correspondents' Dinner, anyone else wanting to see Alec Baldwin and Melissa McCarthy reprise their roles? That or a stand-in orange dummy.

I suppose Trumpie couldn't ban more than half of the guests at the dinner so might as well miss it.
Trump is a coward. But I think that's been known for a long time, right?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 26, 2017, 03:37:09 AM
Revisionist history, ftw. No Republicans voted for the ACA*. The dems had super majority, and could have passed anything they wanted, without worrying about filibusters, and they did. They wanted to give their corporate interests in the insurance lobby a huge government handout, and did so.

Where are you getting this version of history from?  Because that's not what happened.

You may recall that Democrats TRIED to pass single payer health care, back in the 90s, with Hillary Clinton.  Republicans tore it apart.  It has always been Republicans who opposed health care reform of any kind.  It has always been Republicans who solely support their corporate interests at the expense of the working class. 

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of you blaming Democrats for everything.  This is classic Donald Trump behavior, and you should know better.  Are you a 70 year old fat man with a poor diet?  Attack your opponents health and stamina!  Were you born in to a wealthy family?  Campaign on behalf of blue collar workers!  Are you a five time draft dodger?  "No one is better on the military than me!"  Do you hate the American health care system?  Blame the Democrats!

It's disgusting and disingenuous and deceitful and dishonest and it discredits everything else you have to say.  Just stop it.

Democrats have been trying to fix health care since forever.  They passed medicare and medicaid.  They tried to pass single payer.  Due to Republican opposition, they had to settle for a neutered version of the ACA.  You're blaming the wrong party, plain and simple, and you do it SO consistently and SO blatantly dishonestly that I'm struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt (ignorance) instead of taking you at face value (malice).
Calm down. No need for personal attacks because if a disagreement.

 Of course republicans refused health care reform. That's exactly the point, Democrats had all the votes for anything they could dream up, without any need for Republicans to support it. I'm sorry you're tired of me blaming democrats, when they stop screwing up as bad as the Republicans, I will dance in the street and be happy to give them credit. The fact that Republicans are terrible doesn't let Democrats off the hook for the mess we got instead.  Or are you suggesting the Republicans are to thank for the ACA, sinces it was originally their plan and they wouldn't have allowed anything else to go through? You can't say that Democrats passed the ACA against all Republican opposition, but were somehow stymied by those blasted Republicans when it came to single payer.  It is untrue, and completely partisian.

Now to say why would be a matter of debate.  In the ACA thread you clearly claimed the dems didn't pass single payer because of the insurance lobby. Now you say it was republicans, who all voted against the bill but still couldn't stop it, are still to blame?

Democrats may have been trying to fix health care forever. I'm sick and tired of them fucking it up and failing so god damned always. It's fine if you wish to blame the other party for their failings, but they had a super majority in congress and a progressive president and had their chance to truly improve health care in this country, despite any Republican disagreement . Instead they gave the insurance lobby huge subsidies, the people double digit premium increases and little improvement in Healthcare  outcomes for their trouble. Forgive me that I'm not cutting the corrupt bastards any slack.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on February 26, 2017, 03:56:37 AM
Since the wannabe great dictator is missing the White House Correspondents' Dinner, anyone else wanting to see Alec Baldwin and Melissa McCarthy reprise their roles? That or a stand-in orange dummy.

I suppose Trumpie couldn't ban more than half of the guests at the dinner so might as well miss it.
Trump is a coward. But I think that's been known for a long time, right?

Yes, he has many minions to act/cover/interpret for him...but WHO will turn up to the dinner as guest of (dis)honour?

Enquiring minds want to know :-)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 26, 2017, 05:01:01 AM
Democrats may have been trying to fix health care forever. I'm sick and tired of them fucking it up and failing so god damned always. It's fine if you wish to blame the other party for their failings, but they had a super majority in congress and a progressive president and had their chance to truly improve health care in this country, despite any Republican disagreement . Instead they gave the insurance lobby huge subsidies, the people double digit premium increases and little improvement in Healthcare  outcomes for their trouble. Forgive me that I'm not cutting the corrupt bastards any slack.
BIB: this is no doubt true for some but it is not true for all.  Can it be acknowledged that the ACA has disbenefits for some (usually those who already had good health, good health care and the money to pay for it) and benefits for others (usually those without good health, good health care or the money to pay for it)?  Saying that something is all bad just because it's not all good, or because it's not good for your particular demographic, doesn't take the discussion anywhere.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 26, 2017, 07:04:39 AM
Since the wannabe great dictator is missing the White House Correspondents' Dinner, anyone else wanting to see Alec Baldwin and Melissa McCarthy reprise their roles? That or a stand-in orange dummy.

I suppose Trumpie couldn't ban more than half of the guests at the dinner so might as well miss it.
Trump is a coward. But I think that's been known for a long time, right?

Yes, he has many minions to act/cover/interpret for him...but WHO will turn up to the dinner as guest of (dis)honour?

Enquiring minds want to know :-)

I'm hoping they set up an empty chair and roast that, a la Clint Eastwood.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on February 26, 2017, 07:16:34 AM
Revisionist history, ftw. No Republicans voted for the ACA*. The dems had super majority, and could have passed anything they wanted, without worrying about filibusters, and they did. They wanted to give their corporate interests in the insurance lobby a huge government handout, and did so.

Where are you getting this version of history from?  Because that's not what happened.

You may recall that Democrats TRIED to pass single payer health care, back in the 90s, with Hillary Clinton.  Republicans tore it apart.  It has always been Republicans who opposed health care reform of any kind.  It has always been Republicans who solely support their corporate interests at the expense of the working class. 

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of you blaming Democrats for everything.  This is classic Donald Trump behavior, and you should know better.  Are you a 70 year old fat man with a poor diet?  Attack your opponents health and stamina!  Were you born in to a wealthy family?  Campaign on behalf of blue collar workers!  Are you a five time draft dodger?  "No one is better on the military than me!"  Do you hate the American health care system?  Blame the Democrats!

It's disgusting and disingenuous and deceitful and dishonest and it discredits everything else you have to say.  Just stop it.

Democrats have been trying to fix health care since forever.  They passed medicare and medicaid.  They tried to pass single payer.  Due to Republican opposition, they had to settle for a neutered version of the ACA.  You're blaming the wrong party, plain and simple, and you do it SO consistently and SO blatantly dishonestly that I'm struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt (ignorance) instead of taking you at face value (malice).
Calm down. No need for personal attacks because if a disagreement.

 Of course republicans refused health care reform. That's exactly the point, Democrats had all the votes for anything they could dream up, without any need for Republicans to support it. I'm sorry you're tired of me blaming democrats, when they stop screwing up as bad as the Republicans, I will dance in the street and be happy to give them credit. The fact that Republicans are terrible doesn't let Democrats off the hook for the mess we got instead.  Or are you suggesting the Republicans are to thank for the ACA, sinces it was originally their plan and they wouldn't have allowed anything else to go through? You can't say that Democrats passed the ACA against all Republican opposition, but were somehow stymied by those blasted Republicans when it came to single payer.  It is untrue, and completely partisian.

Now to say why would be a matter of debate.  In the ACA thread you clearly claimed the dems didn't pass single payer because of the insurance lobby. Now you say it was republicans, who all voted against the bill but still couldn't stop it, are still to blame?

Democrats may have been trying to fix health care forever. I'm sick and tired of them fucking it up and failing so god damned always. It's fine if you wish to blame the other party for their failings, but they had a super majority in congress and a progressive president and had their chance to truly improve health care in this country, despite any Republican disagreement . Instead they gave the insurance lobby huge subsidies, the people double digit premium increases and little improvement in Healthcare  outcomes for their trouble. Forgive me that I'm not cutting the corrupt bastards any slack.

I'm going to quote Obama, who said don't let perfection be the enemy of good. You are stating that because everything isn't exactly perfect with ACA, it must be bad. I disagree and your thinking is really EXTREME, it's either a perfect health care solution or it's evil incarnate. Millions of people now have health insurance than before as a result of ACA. Yes a small portion of wealthier/healthier people who don't qualify for subsidies are worse off financially as a result, but the vast majority of people under ACA got subsidized care.

The solution is to expand those subsidies so there isn't such an extreme ending of subsidies at a certain MAGI point. GoCurryCracker has an excellent blog post on this subsidy / income comparison.
And the solution for Mustachians was to lower that MAGI if possible through 401K/tIRA/HSA to garner subsidies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 26, 2017, 07:32:59 AM

I'm going to quote Obama, who said don't let perfection be the enemy of good. ...

Just chiming in here to say that quote isn't attributable to Obama (though I believe he did use the phrase on several occasions).  Versions of it go back at least to the 17th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good), and probably earlier. Citations matter.

FWIW, I still view the ACA overall as a sizable improvement over the system that existed circa 2007. Dems made some mistakes and Republicans slipped some poisoned pills into the bill.  Mostly it suffers from a now decade long attack campaign that has highlighted its faults, exaggerated (and sometimes completely lied about) its shortcomings, and has rarely been compared to what came before (i.e. practically never do we hear a discussion about 'this is where we are better of, nad this is where we have fallen short').\

It could either be tweaked periodically to be improved (though that's politically difficult for obvious reasons), or it could be used as a trail-run for a completely new and improved bill.  Unfortunatly we seem to be going down road #3... blow the whole damn thing up and learn nothing from it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on February 26, 2017, 07:47:59 AM
Sadly my views are changing.  I am starting to see the DNC/RNC as similar shades of brown.

Jimmy Dore's Show on youtube is pretty enlightening.  He commented that when Americans are riled up to pick on people that are less fortunate/advantaged than them, such as immigrants or refugees; the idea is to distract them from the theft of tax payer dollars, policies that mess with us etc...

One example, that shocked me, was that it cost the US military just shy of $4mln to keep an American solider in Afghanistan for a year.  Here's the info from TIME: "the CRS report says the cost of keeping a single American soldier there this year is an eye-watering $3.9 million."  We are spending huge sums.  And now...
Trump's general in Afghanistan needs a few thousand more troops to break the stalemate with the Taliban.  So this has been going on a long time, ... a few a more troops is going to change things? They really know how stupid we really are, with thoroughly lame logic as that. Read for yourselves here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/us-afghanistan-troops.html

So irrespective of party in power we are going to pour more money into a country, that we totally messed up in the 1980s, when we could have done things at least a little better.

Sigh...such a tremendously sad state of our country.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 26, 2017, 12:06:21 PM

One example, that shocked me, was that it cost the US military just shy of $4mln to keep an American solider in Afghanistan for a year.  Here's the info from TIME: "the CRS report says the cost of keeping a single American soldier there this year is an eye-watering $3.9 million."  We are spending huge sums.  And now...

I hate "facts" like these. They have a kernel of truth, but lack context and are designed to get people riled up one way or another.  As I understand this particular metric, you take the total amount the military spends in one area and divide by the total number of combat soldiers and ... voila, $4MM/soldier.  It's both shocking and not particularly helpful.  It ignores all the infrastructure, contractors, and military support (lots of aircraft), and it doesn't scale particularly well - i.e. if you double the number of combat soldiers you don't double the cost (because much of the 'support' is already there).

Yes, we are spending an almost ludicrous sum on our armed forces during a time when our country is, historically speaking, pretty safe from external threats. We spend more than any other coutnry, and more than the next 8 countries combined (most of which are our allies).

Quote
So irrespective of party in power we are going to pour more money info a country that we totally messed up in the 1980s, when we could have done things at least a little better.
[/quote]
To be fair the soviets kinda leveled Afghanistan - we just supported the counter-insurgency.  Part of the "American DNA" seems to be a steadfast belief that the world can be a better place, and we ought to be the ones actively making that change. It's not a bad instinct and much good has come from it, but it also gets us into military quagmires when we think that our intervention will suddenly create new strong democracies.

...and now Trump is so convinced of his own brilliance that he thinks he will usher in peace in the middle east after several millenia of ethnic wars. That's literally been the belief of the last 8+ administrations.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 26, 2017, 01:53:55 PM
Sadly my views are changing.  I am starting to see the DNC/RNC as similar shades of brown.

Jimmy Dore's Show on youtube is pretty enlightening.  He commented that when Americans are riled up to pick on people that are less fortunate/advantaged than them, such as immigrants or refugees; the idea is to distract them from the theft of tax payer dollars, policies that mess with us etc...

One example, that shocked me, was that it cost the US military just shy of $4mln to keep an American solider in Afghanistan for a year.  Here's the info from TIME: "the CRS report says the cost of keeping a single American soldier there this year is an eye-watering $3.9 million."  We are spending huge sums.  And now...
Trump's general in Afghanistan needs a few thousand more troops to break the stalemate with the Taliban.  So this has been going on a long time a few a more troops is going to change things? They really know how stupid we really are, with thoroughly lame logic as that! Read for yourselves here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/us-afghanistan-troops.html

So irrespective of party in power we are going to pour more money info a country that we totally messed up in the 1980s, when we could have done things at least a little better.

Sigh...such a tremendously sad state of our country.

This is not sad news. I'm encouraged by your revelation.

I'm personally livid at our privately funded two party system - and I have been for a long while now. Hardly anyone seems to get what I'm talking about. It's the privately funded two party system that gave us HRC and DJT to choose from. It's the privately funded two party system that has developed extensive propaganda arms to keep us distracted with wedge issues even as laws are passed that allow corporate profiteering of our government - a prime example being WAR.

So welcome to the club. Spread the word. The DNC and RNC are awful organizations and their existence is an affront to what's supposed to be a democratic system. IMO one is worse than the other, but that hardly matters. This system will continue to give us shit candidates and bullshit issues as a handful of wealthy people + corporations take over everything.

They're taking over prisons, police, schools, public works. And there's little accountability. Cops can take your assets withoug ever charging you with a crime (Civil Asset Forfeiture). IF you're any type of minority, you can be sold off into a private prison for years on petty drug charges. This isn't governance, this is profiteering. Anyone who tells you differently is either stupid or is taking a share in the profits.

Our constitutional rights have been coopted by corporations and money. And here everyone is doing just what the people in control want us doing: bickering over who can use what bathrooms.

So, yes - your revelation is GOOD NEWS. SPREAD THE WORD.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on February 26, 2017, 03:17:13 PM
Sorry there were a few typos / ambiguous pronouns in that comment above, but for some reason I'm unable to modify / edit right now. Don't strain an eye muscle reading it!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 26, 2017, 03:49:29 PM
It will be interesting to see DJT address Congress this week.  On one hand, it is Republican-owned so he should be able to swagger in and say whatever he thinks people want to hear.  More of the same would be fine.  But then again, he is inconsistent and prefers going extreme to just delivering on his message.  Probably can't resist the chance to antagonize the Democrats, but might also be willing to alienate Republicans.  Maybe give them hell for not cutting taxes, imploding ACA, approving funds for a wall, and not lining up behind him unilaterally.  I'm expecting a low-water mark for America.  But hey, there's always the chance he comes out well-spoken, respectful of history and his place as leader of the free world, and begins to repair the divisive atmosphere he has cultivated...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on February 26, 2017, 03:59:34 PM
Trump is skipping the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  Snowflake might get upset.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 26, 2017, 04:46:28 PM
Democrats may have been trying to fix health care forever. I'm sick and tired of them fucking it up and failing so god damned always. It's fine if you wish to blame the other party for their failings, but they had a super majority in congress and a progressive president and had their chance to truly improve health care in this country, despite any Republican disagreement . Instead they gave the insurance lobby huge subsidies, the people double digit premium increases and little improvement in Healthcare  outcomes for their trouble. Forgive me that I'm not cutting the corrupt bastards any slack.
BIB: this is no doubt true for some but it is not true for all.  Can it be acknowledged that the ACA has disbenefits for some (usually those who already had good health, good health care and the money to pay for it) and benefits for others (usually those without good health, good health care or the money to pay for it)?  Saying that something is all bad just because it's not all good, or because it's not good for your particular demographic, doesn't take the discussion anywhere.
Yes, clearly some people are better off now. Some people are worse off. Which implies that some people were better off before, while some were worse off. I have no problem with large parts of the ACA.  I am not arguing going back to the old system. What frustrates me is the people who say "some people are better off now, so changing things must be wrong." I think there is so much room for improvement to make everyone better off, or at least more people better off and fewer people worse off, that to not push for those changes because it is a Republican plan or a Democrat plan is terrible for those people who are worse offf. Finger pointing and blame laying from both sides just keeps positive changes from being discussed, and shutting down any conversation because republicans in the 90s didnt vote for single payer or some other silly reason is completely leaving people who are not helped by the current situation out to dry.

I appreciate all of the positive discussion, loads of diverse viewpoints and massive amounts of information in this, and other, threads, especially when I disagree with it. Discussion and information sharing are the best ways to help figure out how to progress and improve the system. So thank you everyone, for this.  The occasional personal attacks are not a particularly positive addition, but hardly worth side tracking on.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 26, 2017, 05:04:14 PM
Trump is skipping the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  Snowflake might get upset.
snowflake?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on February 26, 2017, 05:15:03 PM
Trump is skipping the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  Snowflake might get upset.
snowflake?
now in new orange flavour.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 26, 2017, 05:27:41 PM
Trump is skipping the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  Snowflake might get upset.
snowflake?
now in new orange flavour.
I'm undecided if his skipping more things would be better or worse...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 26, 2017, 06:16:22 PM
Trump is skipping the White House Correspondents' Dinner.  Snowflake might get upset.
snowflake?
now in new orange flavour.
I'm undecided if his skipping more things would be better or worse...
sorry to be so dense, but here DJT is the snowflake?  um... why, exactly? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on February 26, 2017, 07:00:36 PM
I'm guessing it's because special snowflakes hate criticism.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 26, 2017, 07:10:06 PM
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 26, 2017, 08:53:25 PM
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

It's also used ironically because traditionally conservatives called more extreme liberals snowflakes with respect to social issues and political correctness (e.g., I'm sorry I assumed your gender, you special snowflake, do you need a safe space to discuss your preferred pronouns?).  But recently it's been shown that Trump needs just as much, if not more, coddling than a sophomore women's studies major.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on February 27, 2017, 06:11:11 AM
Revisionist history, ftw. No Republicans voted for the ACA*. The dems had super majority, and could have passed anything they wanted, without worrying about filibusters, and they did. They wanted to give their corporate interests in the insurance lobby a huge government handout, and did so.

Where are you getting this version of history from?  Because that's not what happened.

You may recall that Democrats TRIED to pass single payer health care, back in the 90s, with Hillary Clinton.  Republicans tore it apart.  It has always been Republicans who opposed health care reform of any kind.  It has always been Republicans who solely support their corporate interests at the expense of the working class. 

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of you blaming Democrats for everything.  This is classic Donald Trump behavior, and you should know better.  Are you a 70 year old fat man with a poor diet?  Attack your opponents health and stamina!  Were you born in to a wealthy family?  Campaign on behalf of blue collar workers!  Are you a five time draft dodger?  "No one is better on the military than me!"  Do you hate the American health care system?  Blame the Democrats!

It's disgusting and disingenuous and deceitful and dishonest and it discredits everything else you have to say.  Just stop it.

Democrats have been trying to fix health care since forever.  They passed medicare and medicaid.  They tried to pass single payer.  Due to Republican opposition, they had to settle for a neutered version of the ACA.  You're blaming the wrong party, plain and simple, and you do it SO consistently and SO blatantly dishonestly that I'm struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt (ignorance) instead of taking you at face value (malice).
the people double digit premium increases and little improvement in Healthcare  outcomes for their trouble. Forgive me that I'm not cutting the corrupt bastards any slack.

Some people saw increases. Some people saw little/no increases (like myself). On a personal level it benefitted some folks I know immensely. My mother was able to get healthcare after not being able to afford it for 10+ years (while working 60-90 hours/wk). A staunch Republican I used to work with who retired earlier than normal saved  a shit ton of money by utilizing the ACA over COBRA. He has admitted as much.

Is it a wonderful cure-all? Absolutely not. Is it as bad as you and others I have run across claim? Absolutely not. Your blanket statement should be reworded to reflect reality though.   

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2017, 06:12:04 AM
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

It's also used ironically because traditionally conservatives called more extreme liberals snowflakes with respect to social issues and political correctness (e.g., I'm sorry I assumed your gender, you special snowflake, do you need a safe space to discuss your preferred pronouns?).  But recently it's been shown that Trump needs just as much, if not more, coddling than a sophomore women's studies major.
Ok, thanks for the explanations.  I had only heard the term "snowflake' used in a derogatory way against people, usually black, who try to act as "white" as possible.  As in: "that suburb-livin' snowflake thinks the B.E.T. is a stock symbol"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2017, 09:14:02 AM
Another impact:  Trump is proposing to increase military spending by $54B, while cutting virtually all other federal agencies by the same amount.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2017, 09:46:09 AM
As usual, it's a virtual Rorschach test when interpreting Trump's remarks and motives.  He certainly campaigned on cutting the federal government while also restoring our "depleted"* military, but as pointed out above he has also been critical of our military involvement and has said he'd have preferred to spend the money another way. 


*'depleted' is in the eye of the beholder.  As a % of our GDP our military spending is roughly in line with the 50 year average.  OTOH we spend more than the next 8 countries combined on our military, at ~$600B/year. We've got a lot of aging aircraft, ships and vehicles because (in part) we have so many of them to begin with.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 27, 2017, 10:01:22 AM

*'depleted' is in the eye of the beholder.  As a % of our GDP our military spending is roughly in line with the 50 year average.  OTOH we spend more than the next 8 countries combined on our military, at ~$600B/year. We've got a lot of aging aircraft, ships and vehicles because (in part) we have so many of them to begin with.

They're also in rough shape from near constant deployments and deferred maintenance.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on February 27, 2017, 10:14:05 AM
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

It's also used ironically because traditionally conservatives called more extreme liberals snowflakes with respect to social issues and political correctness (e.g., I'm sorry I assumed your gender, you special snowflake, do you need a safe space to discuss your preferred pronouns?).  But recently it's been shown that Trump needs just as much, if not more, coddling than a sophomore women's studies major.
Ok, thanks for the explanations.  I had only heard the term "snowflake' used in a derogatory way against people, usually black, who try to act as "white" as possible.  As in: "that suburb-livin' snowflake thinks the B.E.T. is a stock symbol"

It might be a regional/generational thing.  Growing up around here, millenials were typically told unironically that they were "special snowflakes" (meaning unique) and implicitly taught that the world should revolve around their individual needs, leading to them being perceived as entitled

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2017, 10:17:18 AM

*'depleted' is in the eye of the beholder.  As a % of our GDP our military spending is roughly in line with the 50 year average.  OTOH we spend more than the next 8 countries combined on our military, at ~$600B/year. We've got a lot of aging aircraft, ships and vehicles because (in part) we have so many of them to begin with.

They're also in rough shape from near constant deployments and deferred maintenance.

Yeah...as I said everything can be interpreted through the lens of the beholder.  Being under deployment for 15 years certainly has worn things down, an that's the driving reason why many hawks argue that we need to increase the size of our military - so that we can sustain this level of deployment without everything going to pot.  Doves might argue that whatever the size of the military we wind up using it, so a more sensible strategy is to scale back the size of everything, and then we could replace things on a much more frequent basis.

What's odd to me is DJT's dual-insistence that we need to rehabilitate our military while signaling that we won't be as involved with foreign conflicts. To me this is the essence of "we need more money so we can do less with it".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 27, 2017, 12:48:05 PM
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

Snowflakes aren't (visually) unique. Unless you mean unique just like everything is composed of it's own atoms and molecules, but then everything is unique and unique means nothing.

You an put two snowflakes under a microscope and come up with two that look the same pretty easily.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FIRE me on February 27, 2017, 01:31:29 PM
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: zoltani on February 27, 2017, 01:50:47 PM
Because he is so special and unique and wonderful. I.e., a special little snowflake. It's generally a derogatory term for people who feel they are special or different.

Snowflakes aren't (visually) unique. Unless you mean unique just like everything is composed of it's own atoms and molecules, but then everything is unique and unique means nothing.

You an put two snowflakes under a microscope and come up with two that look the same pretty easily.

But please tell us how dense they are.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on February 27, 2017, 02:01:38 PM
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2017, 02:18:01 PM
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source. (https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Retire-Canada on February 27, 2017, 02:26:42 PM
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source. (https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png)

So if we cut both of those there is no spending increase! That's Bigly League thinking!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 27, 2017, 03:03:21 PM
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source. (https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png)

I don't know where that pie chart comes from but I am pretty sure it is either straight out wrong or misleading. We spend a lot on Military but if you include social security and medicare spending it puts things more in perspective. I think some charts leave this out because medicare and social are our two largest expenditures and are supposed to be self sustaining through specific taxes beyond our federal income tax.

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016 (http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016)

I think this is the better picture to look at because when we talk about paying for something really big like expanding Medicare to create a single payer system, you should be aware medicare spending already outpaces military spending. And our largest expenditure by the fed is for social security.

Obama never quite gave the Military as much money as they requested to facilitate fleet expansion and maintenance they projected would be necessary for future defense I believe with regards to maintaining the balance of power especially naval as threats from China increase.

Trump obviously loves placing himself among strong military leaders and early on promised to basically give them the funds they have been requesting so they can expand our fleet and so on. This I would think is pretty typical of a Republican administration who generally chose to fund defense more heavily.

Also seeing these other pieces of the pie should help remind you that when Republicans chose to attempt to cut spending on medicare or social security and they don't decrease the commensurate taxes for all of us they are essentially pocketing that money for other government spending.... or at least defending a continued raiding of funds that should be dedicated to specific spending.

Another review of the misleading chart:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 27, 2017, 03:12:19 PM
All that being increasing military funding given the growing threats to our naval dominance and increase in posturing from Russia is probably advisable for all Western nations. However given that we do spend quite a bit much of our spending could probably be derived by putting pressure on the military to clean up some of its spending to focus on expansion and maintenance and become more efficient in general.

It is completely unclear to me if anyone in the new administration did this kind of analysis before coming up with their proposed funding increase or if they to a degree just said fuck it and are giving them what they asked for base on internal projections alone. I suspect the later, in which case we are probably wasting more money than is necessary.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on February 27, 2017, 03:24:28 PM
The US government is a giant healthcare/annuity company with a big-ass military. Everything else is basically peanuts.

The basic breakdown is:
25% - healthcare
24% - social security
16% - defense department (some stuff that most people would consider "defense" like nukes isn't included here)
13% - other mandatory programs (mostly noncontroversial stuff)
6% - interest on debt

Leaving 16% for non-defense discretionary spending. Want to fix roads and bridges? Want to spend more on education, or research, or border patrol, or whatever? That's your whole pot of money to work with unless you want to tackle SS/Medicare/Medicaid or military spending first.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2017, 03:26:24 PM
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source. (https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png)

I don't know where that pie chart comes from but I am pretty sure it is either straight out wrong or misleading. We spend a lot on Military but if you include social security and medicare spending it puts things more in perspective. I think some charts leave this out because medicare and social are our two largest expenditures and are supposed to be self sustaining through specific taxes beyond our federal income tax.

SSI and Medicare/Medicaid are mandatory spending.  The chart (and the website behind it) are referring to discretionary spending, as referenced in the chart title.
This is the whole issue with federal budgets; it cannot touch mandatory spending, which makes up >64% of the total federal revenue.  About 6% annually goes towawrd paying interest on the debt, which leaves just 30% of the $3.8T up for alteration year to year (plus, of course, deficit spending).  But even within the discretionary category that are promised benefits (like VA spending).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 27, 2017, 03:29:37 PM
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source. (https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png)

I don't know where that pie chart comes from but I am pretty sure it is either straight out wrong or misleading. We spend a lot on Military but if you include social security and medicare spending it puts things more in perspective. I think some charts leave this out because medicare and social are our two largest expenditures and are supposed to be self sustaining through specific taxes beyond our federal income tax.

SSI and Medicare/Medicaid are mandatory spending.  The chart (and the website behind it) are referring to discretionary spending, as referenced in the chart title.
This is the whole issue with federal budgets; it cannot touch mandatory spending, which makes up >64% of the total federal revenue.  About 6% annually goes towawrd paying interest on the debt, which leaves just 30% of the $3.8T up for alteration year to year (plus, of course, deficit spending).  But even within the discretionary category that are promised benefits (like VA spending).

The politifacts check cleared that up for me again. But even excluding mandatory spending that chart is a bit off from the meme.

Also who's to say if we did say expand health care that it wouldn't all become specially taxed mandatory spending. In which case it is beyond the scope of the more limited comparison. If we are talking about what we spend in total on public programs versus what we spend on defense I think we have to include "mandatory" spending to keep things in perspective. Who's to say what wont be mandatory social spending tomorrow.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on February 27, 2017, 03:41:20 PM
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

In some regards, the ACA worked as designed. By creating a plan -- any plan -- the Democrats made it very difficult to go back. Now, TrumpCare is forced to include some of the non-controversial aspects of ACA.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 27, 2017, 03:43:55 PM
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source. (https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png)

I don't know where that pie chart comes from but I am pretty sure it is either straight out wrong or misleading. We spend a lot on Military but if you include social security and medicare spending it puts things more in perspective. I think some charts leave this out because medicare and social are our two largest expenditures and are supposed to be self sustaining through specific taxes beyond our federal income tax.

SSI and Medicare/Medicaid are mandatory spending.  The chart (and the website behind it) are referring to discretionary spending, as referenced in the chart title.
This is the whole issue with federal budgets; it cannot touch mandatory spending, which makes up >64% of the total federal revenue.  About 6% annually goes towawrd paying interest on the debt, which leaves just 30% of the $3.8T up for alteration year to year (plus, of course, deficit spending).  But even within the discretionary category that are promised benefits (like VA spending).

The politifacts check cleared that up for me again. But even excluding mandatory spending that chart is a bit off from the meme.

Also who's to say if we did say expand health care that it wouldn't all become specially taxed mandatory spending. In which case it is beyond the scope of the more limited comparison. If we are talking about what we spend in total on public programs versus what we spend on defense I think we have to include "mandatory" spending to keep things in perspective. Who's to say what wont be mandatory social spending tomorrow.

Well the chart politifacts reviewed was misleading from the start in part because it lacked a title (i.e. did not say discretionary spending).

Discretionary spending is what can be influenced on an annual basis by the passing of the federal budget.  Mandatory is required by existing law, and cannot be changed except with the passage of a NEW law. I agree that it's important to keep things in perspective, and worth noting that SSI and Medicare both cost more than the military.  But since the topic was DJT's changes in the military budget it only makes sense to consider discretionary spending, since this is the only spending he and the GOP will be dealing with in their budget proposals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on February 27, 2017, 05:08:46 PM
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Nobody = him.  Everyone else knew damn well that health care is complicated.  Where is his plan that he touted during the campaign?  Oh right, it's complicated. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2017, 06:33:42 PM
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

Nobody = him.  Everyone else knew damn well that health care is complicated.  Where is his plan that he touted during the campaign?  Oh right, it's complicated.

No, not complicated.  Lies are pretty straight forward.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 27, 2017, 07:29:44 PM
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
I choked on my bourbon when I read this...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 27, 2017, 07:43:02 PM
54 billion in military spending with no major conflicts.  I guess deficits don't matter again?
worth noting: the proposed increase in military spending is about what we spend annually on science and transportation combined.
Source. (https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png)

So if we cut both of those there is no spending increase! That's Bigly League thinking!
Genius!

But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades. This doesn't mean that more is better, but it's not as if ensuring free trade for every country on the planet and worldwide energy access is worthless. People take it for granted, but this was not always so.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Retire-Canada on February 27, 2017, 07:52:18 PM
People take it for granted, but this was not always so.

There are lots of people on the planet that would label the US as an aggressor nation and not get behind your statement. Just depends on what side of the various geopolitical conflicts you sympathize with.

The Spanish and the British would have said the same thing at one point in time. Not everyone was sad to see their empires fade.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on February 27, 2017, 08:04:05 PM
Official budget office chart:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/52xxx/52408-Land-Budget_Overall.png

2/3 of spending is SS, Medicare, Medicaid grants, veterans benefits in order of most to least cost.
Small amount is interest on our debts.
Slightly less than half of the remainder is defense (0.5 trillion) and slightly more than half is the rest of the federal government.

If he keeps budget neutral then shift of 58 billion from rest of government to defense. Total shifted amount of $58 billion is 1.3% of total budget, 4.8% of discretionary spending and 9% of non-defense discretionary budget. Hardly earth-shattering.


On a side note, I was surprised by how much revenue comes from payroll taxes compared to federal income tax, since the former is such a small fraction of my family's total taxes
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 27, 2017, 08:10:29 PM
I will just have to disagree with you that Bretton Woods is equal to the colonization by Europeans. Certainly it hasn't helped everyone, and the system is far from perfect, but global u.s. navy guaranteed free trade has raised the standard of living for far more people than it has hurt.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on February 27, 2017, 08:15:57 PM
I agree with MM that US naval presence is a major factor in trade stability, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The USSR would clearly have had an advantage in that region if the US didn't have a big navy presence after WW2, potentially severely curtailing the economic advancement of east Asia. Keep in mind this may have also inhibited China's trade development, which has been the single biggest factor in the decrease in poverty in the world over the last 30 years. All of this is speculation to some extent, but a convincing argument can be made. There's fewer episodes of US as an aggressor nation with the conventional Navy (excluding marines and SEALs) in particular.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 27, 2017, 10:44:57 PM
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades. This doesn't mean that more is better, but it's not as if ensuring free trade for every country on the planet and worldwide energy access is worthless. People take it for granted, but this was not always so.

And here I thought Economics had something to do with the fact that nations engaged in free trade would act in their own best interests, which includes treating their trading partners like customers. 

This thread has seriously gone off the rails with some people making valid, documentable points and others regurgitating fake news and crackpot theories.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 27, 2017, 10:55:22 PM
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.
And here I thought Economics had something to do with the fact that nations engaged in free trade would act in their own best interests, which includes treating their trading partners like customers. 

Let's put a finer point on it, instead of dancing around the issue.  The United States Navy is the reason international cargo ships, and oil tankers in particular, are the lowest cost global shipping option by tonnage.  Globalization as an economic model absolutely depends on those cargo ships, which depend on the US Navy.  Piracy and naval blockades used to be a real force in the rise and fall of nations. 

The US protects global shipping lanes, particularly around oil-rich regions, for the benefit of the global economy.  American citizens pay for most of that protection, that everyone else enjoys.

Trump can't make up his mind.  One day he says he wants to "renegotiate" all of these deals so that other countries "pay their fair share" and the very next day he says wants to charge American taxpayers billions more dollars so that the US military can do even more on behalf of other countries.  He doesn't seem to have any coherent policy position, any centerline view of the world that guides his decisions, other than "what will make me personally the most money."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 27, 2017, 11:51:14 PM
That at least makes sense Sol.  But as a businessman, one would think Trump would want to pull up some data on just how much naval force is really required to maintain free trade.  I would argue that it is less than we currently have, but then again I'm not President so I can't pull in the experts and form an educated opinion.  Sure, there was piracy in Somalia, but market forces adjusted such that transport found alternate routes or built in a wider berth.  There were relatively cheap options to counter as opposed to sending naval fleets.  And we're not in pre-globalization times where our competitors threaten blockades.  It would get pretty ugly if Russia sank a Chinese container ship headed for the US or formed a blockade, and what would they gain?  Threatening to militaristically interfere in global trade would make just about every country their enemy.

I guess I'm in the camp with others as to why defense spending has just now become our nation's highest priority.  Especially since we seem to have no idea if we just lost a cyber war last year.  Maybe redirecting current spending to plug some existing holes would make more sense.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on February 28, 2017, 01:38:53 AM
I think Trump's thinking is "I need a big win to look awesome, ISIS is on their rear foot, maybe I just throw some more money at that war and Bam! Mission Accomplished Redux!"

This would go along with his amazing lack of understanding of global affairs, and his behavior that everyone and everything is a commodity, including soldiers. The smartest possible use of the extra money would probably be training more special operators and developing human intelligence resources in the mid-East. Neither of those are particularly lucrative for defense contractors in the US though. Plus you won't ever get anything named after you (U.S.S Trump, anyone?). And, most importantly, those things don't just happen overnight. Let's see if he remembers about them and his grand plan against ISIS by the time the build-up is done. Hopefully Mr McMaster can educate some sense into him.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 28, 2017, 05:38:00 AM
Fun fact!  Of our military spending, the Navy gets the most of the 6 branches, with $380B (43%).  The Army is next at $245B.
As others have said the US Navy has served an incredibly useful service in allowing for international commerce to flow relatively safely throughout the world. 

My issue with increasing spending is that we're not doing it because international shipping is suddenly becoming anarchy. It's about maintaining global superiority by a large margin regardless of the fact that we're already outspending everyone else by an almost comical margin (e.g. more than 2x China's military budget, 4x Russia).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 28, 2017, 06:32:11 AM
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 28, 2017, 10:16:04 AM
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades. This doesn't mean that more is better, but it's not as if ensuring free trade for every country on the planet and worldwide energy access is worthless. People take it for granted, but this was not always so.

And here I thought Economics had something to do with the fact that nations engaged in free trade would act in their own best interests, which includes treating their trading partners like customers. 
How did that work out throughout history? You are clearly viewing things through a modern lens and missing the broader trends in history. Several other posters have pointed this out. Not all military spending is justified, and a huge increase likely has greatly diminished returns, but saying things like "market forces would ensure free trade" is a baseless claim that clearly contradicts all historical fact and the view of modern study on this subject.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 28, 2017, 12:57:32 PM
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 28, 2017, 01:15:41 PM
There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent.

I don't think intent matters much to the Pakistani farmer who watches his wife and all of his children bleed to death after an invisible robot explodes his house.  He legitimately hates us regardless of our intent.

You may think the drone war is justified, but it is just as effective at terrorizing and radicalizing people as are beheadings.  From their point of view, each bloody knife decapitation murder streamed live on Facebook is just a tiny bit of pushback against the impersonal industrialized mass murder from the skies that they live with every day.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on February 28, 2017, 01:18:52 PM
I very much doubt we'll see anything close to a $54B increase over BCA spending levels. This number is just Trump's 'big ask' which he expects will be negotiated downward. Then, he can claim that he 'tried to fix' the military but, was blocked by Democrats and Tea Party Republicans while still placating the services with some budget increase.


Quote
Threatening to militaristically interfere in global trade would make just about every country their enemy.
You would think that this would be true and that no one would be willing to get involved in major wars due to the economic disruption that would ensue.

Yet, people were saying the same things in June 1914 and it turns out they were very wrong. Maybe, it's more true now than it was then. We won't know until the crisis point occurs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on February 28, 2017, 01:32:52 PM
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

That's certainly what the people doing the illegal executions have been telling you.  While I'd like to believe that the people in the US Air Force aren't intentionally targeting innocent Muslims for death and to send a message, I would seriously challenge you to prove it.

This is a program without much transparency, theoretically overseen by congress but run by many of the same people who were exposed for lying to congress about torture programs they previously oversaw (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/ (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/)).  Much of the decision making surrounding these murders also resides in the hands of the president . . . and the current president of America has advocated murdering innocent people to send a message:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FIRE me on February 28, 2017, 01:50:44 PM
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."

In some regards, the ACA worked as designed. By creating a plan -- any plan -- the Democrats made it very difficult to go back. Now, TrumpCare is forced to include some of the non-controversial aspects of ACA.

Based on the news today, little if any of Obamacare is considered uncontroversial by all. The headline I saw said that some Republicans are not supporting the Trump's repeal of Obamacare. Reading the item, it turned out that they don't want to keep elements of Obamacare. They are saying that Trump's repeal isn't going nearly far enough.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OthalaFehu on February 28, 2017, 01:53:32 PM
Personally, I expect the Great Lakes to burst into flames any day now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on February 28, 2017, 02:20:28 PM
For the record:

Donald Trump is a pig. He is a filthy, disgusting, immoral, shameless pig.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-suggests-jewish-community-spreading-anti-semitic-threats-article-1.2984866

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on February 28, 2017, 02:48:01 PM
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

That's certainly what the people doing the illegal executions have been telling you.  While I'd like to believe that the people in the US Air Force aren't intentionally targeting innocent Muslims for death and to send a message, I would seriously challenge you to prove it.

This is a program without much transparency, theoretically overseen by congress but run by many of the same people who were exposed for lying to congress about torture programs they previously oversaw (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/ (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/)).  Much of the decision making surrounding these murders also resides in the hands of the president . . . and the current president of America has advocated murdering innocent people to send a message:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families".

Trump is a special kind of idiot who does uncharacteristically support torture and acts of retribution against innocent people. This is not a quote I would attribute to any other recent President....

The burden of proof goes both ways. Show me declassified reports where we intentionally are targeting innocent family members for execution to send a message. Show me instances were we intentionally go after entirely non-military targets to scare a countries people into submission.

How far does calling our military strikes terrorism go? We dropped nukes on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. Are those terrorist attacks? If we are a state of perpetual conflict with countries who can't control terrorist activities then what level of retaliation is okay to not be considers terrorists ourselves?

Should we attempt to kill known terrorists with bombs or should we send in a band of middle American 19 year old boys trained as killers to hunt them down and bring them in alive to stand trial risking all their lives? What level of decorum is fitting for people who would behead civilians on live broadcast and send young men into a crowded location wearing suicide vests?

These are not easy questions to answer and there is certainly grey area, but if you can't or chose not distinguish, between a country using its military to go after individuals we feel are mortal threats to our people and extremists who's only goal is to maim and kill civilians to send a message then I think you are making a false equivalence between our actions and the actions of terrorists.

I think you have a stronger argument if you want to consider whether excessive collateral damage is breading the next wave of terrorism. But it is still collateral damage as long as we are not intentionally seeking to kill civilians and actively trying to avoid doing so.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on February 28, 2017, 03:18:55 PM
We dropped nukes on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. Are those terrorist attacks?

I think that's an unqualified yes, by any definition.  I've never even heard anyone try to argue otherwise.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 28, 2017, 03:22:54 PM
How far does calling our military strikes terrorism go? We dropped nukes on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. Are those terrorist attacks?

Those were definitely terrorist attacks. The entire point of nuking those two cities wasn't to cripple the Japanese military, but to terrorize their leaders (and populace) with such destruction of innocent lives that they had no choice but to capitulate. This is the definition of terrorism (from google): "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on February 28, 2017, 03:24:13 PM
Damn you Sol, how did you get that comment in before mine.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 28, 2017, 03:26:14 PM
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
I choked on my bourbon when I read this...

Who knew being president would be so complicated...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 28, 2017, 03:28:12 PM
And today, on February 27, 2017, the President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump said:
"Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
I choked on my bourbon when I read this...

Who knew being president would be so complicated...
...or be this much work?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on February 28, 2017, 03:34:09 PM
I wish Trump would pull a Sarah Palin and just suddenly quit. By the way - Palin got quiet... Maybe the news doesn't have enough room for two politicians to spout out goofy shit about random things.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on February 28, 2017, 03:36:12 PM
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on February 28, 2017, 03:39:19 PM
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on February 28, 2017, 03:44:30 PM
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?
Retroactively it would violate the fourth Geneva convention ratified in 1949.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention)

Before 1949 there was precious-little to protect civilians during declared wars (though there were protections for wounding, sick and shipwrecked soldiers & sailors, as well as protection for aid groups and POWs).  So if we blew up any POWs, aid groups or wounded, and knew that we were doing so when we dropped the bomb it could qualify.  Then again I'm just armchairing here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on February 28, 2017, 04:14:44 PM
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?
Retroactively it would violate the fourth Geneva convention ratified in 1949.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention)

Before 1949 there was precious-little to protect civilians during declared wars (though there were protections for wounding, sick and shipwrecked soldiers & sailors, as well as protection for aid groups and POWs).  So if we blew up any POWs, aid groups or wounded, and knew that we were doing so when we dropped the bomb it could qualify.  Then again I'm just armchairing here.

It was certainly unprecedented.

I do believe, however, the US using one of those bombs, when nobody else could retaliate with a similar weapon, is the only reason humanity still exists. Had an enemy of the US had one at that time, or any significant stockpile of them been created before one was used, the retaliatory attacks may have wiped out our planet before we had a chance to really see the consequences.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Poundwise on March 01, 2017, 05:21:02 AM
Husband came home very depressed yesterday. His double grant renewal from the NIH, which got a very good score that would have been a shoo-in for funding last year, has been downgraded to "probably not."  He had to give up the chance for a single renewal last year in order to apply for the double. Now he has two weeks to finish another single renewal application under a harsher funding climate. If he doesn't get it, he will have to write grants all year instead of doing research, and likely lay off some lab members in December.

Thanks, Trump and the GOP!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 01, 2017, 05:39:03 AM
I think you have a stronger argument if you want to consider whether excessive collateral damage is breading the next wave of terrorism. But it is still collateral damage as long as we are not intentionally seeking to kill civilians and actively trying to avoid doing so.

I understand your argument, but the recent raid is a good example of what our leaders determine a "success." A Navy Seal killed, 3 wounded and a number of women and children killed. The administration doesn't count success/failure in lives lost but in information gained. To me that kind of rhetoric sets a precedent that killing innocent civilians is not only acceptable but is just the nature of successful missions. It's a complete breakdown in human decency.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on March 01, 2017, 06:18:50 AM
Last night confirmed for me that talk is cheap. Trump is the same messed up person he was during the campaign but he gave a good speech written by someone else utilizing the right words. His words are still worth less than two cents each. All last night proved was that he can agree to read a teleprompter and stay on message.

I know other presidents read their speeches and these speeches were prepared by a professional speech writer. At least there was a chance they believe in their own message.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on March 01, 2017, 06:55:20 AM
I guess paid FMLA is a realistic impact of the Trump Presidency.

Cant see how that is friendly to business. Take away the ACA mandate, but slap them with payment ng for FMLA?
What fun this Democrat is having in The White House.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on March 01, 2017, 07:01:17 AM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-groan-as-trump-promotes-new-immigration-crime-office/ar-AAnEES7?li=BBnb7Kz

I don't like the sound of this.  Perhaps if we also focused on crimes committed against immigrants , like Srinivas in Kansas...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 01, 2017, 07:15:09 AM
I guess paid FMLA is arwalistic impact of the Trump Presidency.

Cant see how that is friendly to business. Take away the ACA mandate, but slap them with payment ng for FMLA?
What fun this Democrat is having in The White House.

Wait, what? Source?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SomedayStache on March 01, 2017, 07:20:40 AM
Maybe she refers to this comment from the speech:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/
In Trump's first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, the president said: "My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest in women's health."


I find Iris Lily's comments (here and on numerous other posts) regarding employees taking leave and her scorn for paid leave extremely interesting.  It's a viewpoint that I don't understand but I appreciate getting a glimpse into a different perspective.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2017, 07:27:34 AM
But seriously, the US military, the us navy particularly, has brought unprecedented levels of world peace to the planet over the past 7 decades.

I agree with you on the US navy.  Generally speaking, they've been a powerful force for good in the world over the past seventy years.  Trade tends to benefit peace, as Sol pointed out.

It's very hard to agree with you regarding the US Air Force and the US Army.  The US Air Force is regularly engaged in acts of terror (the only real difference between be-headings and drone strikes is that one side openly televises their cruelty, the other side hides it out of shame - they both kill a lot of innocent people, they both operate outside of any real legal system).  The US Army openly operates kidnapping and torture facilities that are completely outside of the rule of law and in contravention of international law.

Neither of these actions are responsible for world peace (and a fair amount of evidence points to them being a cause of destabilization and radicalization in the world).

There is another difference between our drone strikes and terrorist attacks and that is simple intent. The US military and our policy in general has very different mind set and intent behind it than terrorist attacks. You may not agree with our use of force outside the bounds of or country to attempt stabilize or reshape foreign power balance but the innocents we kill as collateral are a far cry different than intentionally targeting innocent people for execution to send a message.

If you don't acknowledge that difference you are doing a great disservice to those who are trying to keep us safe and make the world safer in general even if it means we chose to take human lives to achieve that goal.

That's certainly what the people doing the illegal executions have been telling you.  While I'd like to believe that the people in the US Air Force aren't intentionally targeting innocent Muslims for death and to send a message, I would seriously challenge you to prove it.

This is a program without much transparency, theoretically overseen by congress but run by many of the same people who were exposed for lying to congress about torture programs they previously oversaw (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/ (http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/cia-drone-killings-get-scant-congressional-oversight/)).  Much of the decision making surrounding these murders also resides in the hands of the president . . . and the current president of America has advocated murdering innocent people to send a message:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families".

Trump is a special kind of idiot who does uncharacteristically support torture and acts of retribution against innocent people. This is not a quote I would attribute to any other recent President....

I did not attribute that quote to any other recent President.  Just the current commander in chief of your military.


The burden of proof goes both ways. Show me declassified reports where we intentionally are targeting innocent family members for execution to send a message. Show me instances were we intentionally go after entirely non-military targets to scare a countries people into submission.

The US Air Force is currently executing foreign civilians on a regular basis without trial and with secret evidence - we are at least agreed on this.  I will agree that I can't prove the intent of the US military.  I've never argued that I could, you did.

The only information available about these murders comes from the United States military, who are the perpetrators of these acts.  It is not possible for me (or you) to prove anything about intent because access to information is not available.  In light of that, it's not valid for you to claim that they have a different intent than any other terrorist organization . . . because you simply don't know.


How far does calling our military strikes terrorism go? We dropped nukes on two Japanese cities filled with innocent people. Are those terrorist attacks?

Yes.  The purpose of the nuclear bombings were not to damage military targets but to terrify the Japanese populace.  They were very successful terrorist attacks, but I don't see how you could argue they were anything but acts of terror.


If we are a state of perpetual conflict with countries who can't control terrorist activities then what level of retaliation is okay to not be considers terrorists ourselves?

Should we attempt to kill known terrorists with bombs or should we send in a band of middle American 19 year old boys trained as killers to hunt them down and bring them in alive to stand trial risking all their lives? What level of decorum is fitting for people who would behead civilians on live broadcast and send young men into a crowded location wearing suicide vests?

I think that the golden rule is a good way of approaching this question.

Let's say a person lived in the United States and planned and executed a terror attack with several friends on a large office building in North Korea because he didn't believe that the rule of Kim Jong Un.  There's little to no communication or sharing of military and security information between North Korea and the United States, so North Korea does several things:

- They bribe people in the US with a 100,000$ reward to report on any neighbour who might harbour ill-will towards North Korea.  Then special North Korean forces infiltrate the country and kidnap many of the reported people.  They are taken to a North Korean held military base and tortured / held indefinitely.

- North Korea uses information that they receive from unknown sources to bomb what they claim are terrorists living in US cities with drones.  Many civilians (and plenty of children) are killed, but North Korea assures the US that they are doing everything they can to minimize casualties.  Nearly everyone you know has lost someone to a drone strike . . . and you don't believe that any of them were terrorists.

Now, for you to answer:
1.  Do you think that this behaviour by North Korea is OK?
2.  Are you comfortable with unknown death from above based on decisions that you know nothing about, on information that may or may not be faulty, and with no oversight that you're aware of?
3.  Do you believe that North Korea is acting fairly with the abducted prisoners they're torturing and holding without trial?

Doing the right thing is often hard.  It's sometimes dangerous.  Is fear and laziness an acceptable excuse for doing the wrong thing?


if you can't or chose not distinguish, between a country using its military to go after individuals we feel are mortal threats to our people and extremists who's only goal is to maim and kill civilians to send a message then I think you are making a false equivalence between our actions and the actions of terrorists.

You are yet again claiming to know the intent of the US military without any basis for your belief other than propaganda.


I think you have a stronger argument if you want to consider whether excessive collateral damage is breading the next wave of terrorism. But it is still collateral damage as long as we are not intentionally seeking to kill civilians and actively trying to avoid doing so.

Again, you are claiming to know the intent of the US military without any basis for your belief other than propaganda.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on March 01, 2017, 07:47:08 AM
I guess paid FMLA is arwalistic impact of the Trump Presidency.

Cant see how that is friendly to business. Take away the ACA mandate, but slap them with payment ng for FMLA?
What fun this Democrat is having in The White House.

Wait, what? Source?
Dude, are you unable to google? I dont ask that you watch the entire speech, I didnt.

But to help you out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-paid-family-leave-child-care_us_58b630dee4b0a8a9b7871b12
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on March 01, 2017, 07:49:33 AM
Maybe she refers to this comment from the speech:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/
In Trump's first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, the president said: "My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest in women's health."


I find Iris Lily's comments (here and on numerous other postsd) regarding employees taking leave and her scorn for paid leave extremely interesting.  It's a viewpoint that I don't understand but I appreciate getting a glimpse into a different perspective.
You are nice. Paid leave is a benefit. It costs somethIng, thats all. Every increment of government mandated benefits costs something.  To pretend it does not is to live in a world I
 Dont understand.

that doesnt mean benefits should never  be afforded employees. But it is nice when a business itself decides to grant benefits that are above and beynd a government standard.  Let  the business decide the value of its employees.

One year I had 1/3 of my employees on the federally mandated FMLA. That was The Year From
Hell.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Blueskies123 on March 01, 2017, 08:04:45 AM
I guess we just have to disagree but I do not consider dropping the Atomic bomb a terrorist act.  It is an act of War.  If any of you recall we were losing the war for a while.  Using your definition of a terrorist act you could label almost anything in a time of war as terrorist act.  How would you describe what the Japanese did to Koreans and Chinese in the war?  How would you describe how our prisoners were treated or how the Philippines were treated?  How you describe what they did in Pearl Harbor?  we did not start any of these wars but we had to end them.

As for what our Air force is going today, I have one question.  If they do not defeat the Extremists what will be the likely outcome to Israel, to Europe, and then America?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on March 01, 2017, 08:09:47 AM
Quote
You are nice. Paid leave is a benefit. It costs somethIng, thats all. Every increment of government mandated benefits costs something.  To pretend it does not is to live in a world I
 Dont understand.

that doesnt mean benefits should never  be afforded employees. But it is nice when a business itself decides to grant benefits that are above and beynd a government standard.  Let  the business decide the value of its employees.

One year I had 1/3 of my employees on the federally mandated FMLA. That was The Year From
Hell.

I am sure it was the year from hell from some of those employees too, especially knowing that their employer would have rather had them working sick or neglecting family. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on March 01, 2017, 08:15:41 AM
Maybe she refers to this comment from the speech:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/
In Trump's first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, the president said: "My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest in women's health."


I find Iris Lily's comments (here and on numerous other postsd) regarding employees taking leave and her scorn for paid leave extremely interesting.  It's a viewpoint that I don't understand but I appreciate getting a glimpse into a different perspective.
You are nice. Paid leave is a benefit. It costs somethIng, thats all. Every increment of government mandated benefits costs something.  To pretend it does not is to live in a world I
 Dont understand.

that doesnt mean benefits should never  be afforded employees. But it is nice when a business itself decides to grant benefits that are above and beynd a government standard.  Let  the business decide the value of its employees.

One year I had 1/3 of my employees on the federally mandated FMLA. That was The Year From
Hell.

Government minimum standards exist because generally speaking, businesses will happily screw over employees for profit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 01, 2017, 08:17:22 AM
I guess we just have to disagree but I do not consider dropping the Atomic bomb a terrorist act.  It is an act of War.  If any of you recall we were losing the war for a while.  Using your definition of a terrorist act you could label almost anything in a time of war as terrorist act.  How would you describe what the Japanese did to Koreans and Chinese in the war?  How would you describe how our prisoners were treated or how the Philippines were treated?  How you describe what they did in Pearl Harbor?  we did not start any of these wars but we had to end them.

As for what our Air force is going today, I have one question.  If they do not defeat the Extremists what will be the likely outcome to Israel, to Europe, and then America?
Is executing civilians, bombing hopitals and assassinating u.s. citizens without trial really the only way defeat extremism?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 01, 2017, 08:19:35 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/01/investing/dow-21000-trump-speech/index.html?category=investing (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/01/investing/dow-21000-trump-speech/index.html?category=investing)

On the bright side, even though many things are worse, Trump's speech has lead to record stock market highs, which come close on the heels of other rcord stock market highs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 01, 2017, 08:20:04 AM

that doesnt mean benefits should never  be afforded employees. But it is nice when a business itself decides to grant benefits that are above and beynd a government standard.  Let  the business decide the value of its employees.

One year I had 1/3 of my employees on the federally mandated FMLA. That was The Year From
Hell.

Speaking as an employee, I greatly resent this sort of employer attitude, and it definitely affects output. Giving people family time makes your employees not hate you, so they're more productive when they come back. Clearly, most employers either don't realize this, or don't care.

Why do my reproductive decisions have to be based on winning the employer lottery? The whole thing is stupid. Businesses don't decide the value of their employees, they pay people as little as possible, and try to maximize profit. That's their whole function, and that's fine. As a society, we've (sort of) decided that we need to balance that with an individual's quality of life, so we tweak the rules a little bit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: HPstache on March 01, 2017, 08:57:32 AM
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 01, 2017, 09:02:41 AM
I guess we just have to disagree but I do not consider dropping the Atomic bomb a terrorist act.  It is an act of War.  If any of you recall we were losing the war for a while.  Using your definition of a terrorist act you could label almost anything in a time of war as terrorist act.  How would you describe what the Japanese did to Koreans and Chinese in the war?  How would you describe how our prisoners were treated or how the Philippines were treated?  How you describe what they did in Pearl Harbor?  we did not start any of these wars but we had to end them.

As for what our Air force is going today, I have one question.  If they do not defeat the Extremists what will be the likely outcome to Israel, to Europe, and then America?

No, you can't label anything in wartime a terrorist act.

The Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was definitely not a terrorist act. It was clear that they were going after the military target of the pacific fleet. They didn't go and bomb cities on Hawaii but the warships in the port.

The Japanese treatment of prisoners was also not a terrorist act. It was a war crime. Just like slaughtering Jews and others in Europe wasn't terrorism, it was a war crime. They weren't mass executing prisoners/Jews/others to terrify the general populace or government to achieve a political outcome.

The atomic bombs were meant, with a clear political purpose, to indiscriminately kill civilians to terrorize the Japanese government and people into capitulating. This is, as referenced above, the definition of terrorism.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on March 01, 2017, 09:03:45 AM
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.

Would be nicer if absolutely any of his actions actually backed up his words. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on March 01, 2017, 09:04:19 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/01/investing/dow-21000-trump-speech/index.html?category=investing (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/01/investing/dow-21000-trump-speech/index.html?category=investing)

On the bright side, even though many things are worse, Trump's speech has lead to record stock market highs, which come close on the heels of other rcord stock market highs.
This website doesnt like to celebrate that. Stop it!

Haha.

Feeling rich, I will be staying in a 5 star hotel next summer when we go to Prague. Well, it IS Prague, so it is cheap. We are not normally 5 star  hotel people.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: HPstache on March 01, 2017, 09:22:55 AM
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.

Would be nicer if absolutely any of his actions actually backed up his words.

What is the most important thing to you that he could do (action) that would make you feel as if he is backing up his words?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on March 01, 2017, 09:24:59 AM
Trump is a master BS artist.  A lot of talk but no details.  Let's see the details and ignore the talk.  Don't be conned!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 01, 2017, 09:25:33 AM
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.

Would be nicer if absolutely any of his actions actually backed up his words.

What is the most important thing to you that he could do (action) that would make you feel as if he is backing up his words?

He could provide any tiny little inkling of a sketch of his awesome healthcare plan that's going to cover more people for less money with better care.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on March 01, 2017, 09:29:12 AM
The bar is so low that even a hint of competence is enough to make people feel relieved.  Don't worry, he will return to form soon enough. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on March 01, 2017, 09:33:10 AM
Wow, he was able to read from a teleprompter for an hour with words he didn't write.  Not impressed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2017, 09:36:54 AM
I guess we just have to disagree but I do not consider dropping the Atomic bomb a terrorist act.  It is an act of War.  If any of you recall we were losing the war for a while.  Using your definition of a terrorist act you could label almost anything in a time of war as terrorist act.

Al-Qaeda declared a holy war against the United States before the 9/11 attacks.  Since they were at war with the US when the attacks took place, under your definition 9/11 was an act of war, not a terrorist attack.  They were targeting civilians as an act of war, a war that they were losing.


How would you describe what the Japanese did to Koreans and Chinese in the war?  How would you describe how our prisoners were treated or how the Philippines were treated?  How you describe what they did in Pearl Harbor? 

I'd describe the actions of the Japanese to military prisoners during the war as war crimes, and their actions towards civilians as terror.  The attack on Pearl Harbor was a military action targeting the military of a foreign nation.  Is your argument that two wrongs make a right?


we did not start any of these wars but we had to end them.

In World War II, it's true that the US did not start the war.  US policies have certainly been responsible for wars and conflict in Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan though.


As for what our Air force is going today, I have one question.  If they do not defeat the Extremists what will be the likely outcome to Israel, to Europe, and then America?

US drone strikes have been going on since 2004.  That's thirteen years, no defeat in sight yet.  When exactly do you anticipate that extremists will be defeated by these strikes?

People become radicalized and extreme in their viewpoints as a reaction to something.  That something might be poor living conditions in their country, it might be in reaction to an injustice perpetrated by another, it might be due to fear.  Bombing the hell out of another country will never address these problems.  You might be able to kill a few extremists, but I don't think you will ever be able to defeat extremism.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 01, 2017, 09:56:51 AM
If everyone is going to give credit to Trump for the stock market rising, just remember to blame him when there is a downturn.  I personally don't think anything he has done has increased the overall fundamental value of the companies within the stock market.

So much this.

To be fair though, I generally view the market as divorced from reality on a short- to medium-term basis.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: HPstache on March 01, 2017, 09:58:53 AM
I thought his speech was well done last night... nice to see the markets react this morning.

I watched the speech for 5 minutes and he was in his canned reading a teleprompter voice, similar to when he explained the tasks that each team need to do on an episode of the Apprentice, while the republicans overcheered him every 20 seconds, and the democrats looked disgusted, and the women democrats resembled a Miami Heat white-out playoff game.  I realized this was a complete waste of time and turned it off.

If everyone is going to give credit to Trump for the stock market rising, just remember to blame him when there is a downturn.  I personally don't think anything he has done has increased the overall fundamental value of the companies within the stock market.

No... you get to blame Obama for the downturn.  That's how it goes, right?  That's at least what I've heard we do.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on March 01, 2017, 10:02:43 AM
If everyone is going to give credit to Trump for the stock market rising, just remember to blame him when there is a downturn.  I personally don't think anything he has done has increased the overall fundamental value of the companies within the stock market.

So much this.

To be fair though, I generally view the market as divorced from reality on a short- to medium-term basis.

Hmmm, show me where I said the Trump Bump on Wall Street is rational. You wont find my words saying that.

And sure, the market will go down. i dont even like it being this ridiculously high,other than for a little temporary giddiness. It feels like 2005 when every week when our friends met for coffee we talked about how much our houses were going up in value, or how much one of them pulled out  of their equity. Fun times that crashed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 01, 2017, 10:15:22 AM
Hmmm, show me where I said the Trump Bump on Wall Street is rational. You wont find my words saying that.


What the hell?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 01, 2017, 10:19:20 AM
I totally struck out last night with my trump speech bingo card.  I started out with the "he's orange" free square in the middle and then felt good about my chances when I hit "lies about crime stats" and "mentions the bible" and "promises to take away health-care from millions of Americans", but I needed "insults Rosie O'Donnell", "mocks the disabled" or "pussy" to win it, and he never delivered.

Maybe next week?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Roland of Gilead on March 01, 2017, 11:01:41 AM
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?

I think pretty much everyone was being unlawful in WWII, not that that makes it right.

Japan was using Chinese girls to pleasure its troops, which has to violate some sort of convention

Germany was just gassing civilians by the millions

USA used atomic bombs on civilians

It was a fucked up time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on March 01, 2017, 11:04:24 AM
"Who knew being president would be so complicated..."
This is hilarious! 



Just want to know how it will impact little people like me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Roland of Gilead on March 01, 2017, 11:05:44 AM
There were other acts of terrorism in WWII also.   I think we used flaming bats to set fire indiscriminately to Japanese homes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Working Mama on March 01, 2017, 11:08:50 AM
Ya, think Sheldon Adelson will re-consider his support for Trump?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 01, 2017, 12:42:23 PM
I've never heard the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings described as being unlawful before.   Anyone have a reference?

I think pretty much everyone was being unlawful in WWII, not that that makes it right.

Japan was using Chinese girls to pleasure its troops, which has to violate some sort of convention

Germany was just gassing civilians by the millions

USA used atomic bombs on civilians

It was a fucked up time.
Can I ask what alternative strategy you had for ending the war with Japan?

Perhaps the Allies should have just let the USSR invade and occupy instead?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 01, 2017, 12:52:56 PM
If everyone is going to give credit to Trump for the stock market rising, just remember to blame him when there is a downturn.  I personally don't think anything he has done has increased the overall fundamental value of the companies within the stock market.

So much this.

To be fair though, I generally view the market as divorced from reality on a short- to medium-term basis.
Of course he hasn't improved fundamentals; doesn't mean that the market reaction isn't attributable to him.

My favorite part is that he can act crazy, get the market to rise, and when he finally acts normal for a moment, its even better for the markets. Will be fascinating to see how long this trend continues and what, if anything, will reverse it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on March 01, 2017, 12:53:49 PM
This is my reaction to the speech:

Last week, Srinivas Khuchibhotla was murdered by a man who told him to "get out of my country". 

Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Over the course of my life, I have known, worked with, lived with, and loved many people who also happen to be immigrants.  They deserve better than this from us.  May more of us be like Ian Grillot than like Adam Purinton and those who incite people like him to commit crimes against our immigrant neighbors, co-workers, family, and loved ones.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: HPstache on March 01, 2017, 12:59:40 PM
Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Where did he say that?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on March 01, 2017, 01:08:38 PM
Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Where did he say that?



http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-voice-victim-reporting/index.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on March 01, 2017, 01:15:06 PM
Are you tired of winning yet?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: HPstache on March 01, 2017, 01:23:19 PM
Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Where did he say that?



http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-voice-victim-reporting/index.html

Exactly... but do you notice the important word left out?  Undocumented,  undocumented, undocmented.  Trump is not going after legal immigrants.  Maybe some day people will catch on to that.  But until they do...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on March 01, 2017, 01:32:28 PM
Last night, Trump promoted his plan to create a new homeland security office focused on immigrants committing crimes.  He also wants DHS to publish a weekly list of immigrants who have committed crimes, despite statistics showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, and in fact are disproportionately responsible for starting many of our small businesses in this country.

Where did he say that?



http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-voice-victim-reporting/index.html

Exactly... but do you notice the important word left out?  Undocumented,  undocumented, undocmented.  Trump is not going after legal immigrants.  Maybe some day people will catch on to that.  But until they do...
Except that he already has. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on March 01, 2017, 01:35:39 PM
Trump may say he's differentiating, but he's stirring up hate.  The immigrant who was killed in Kansas was here legally. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 01, 2017, 01:43:10 PM
Trump may say he's differentiating, but he's stirring up hate.  The immigrant who was killed in Kansas was here legally.

I don't think Trump or any other sane person is defending that despicable murder.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 01, 2017, 01:48:26 PM
Stuff about how the US military is supposedly engaged in terrorism, such as:

"Al-Qaeda declared a holy war against the United States before the 9/11 attacks.  Since they were at war with the US when the attacks took place, under your definition 9/11 was an act of war, not a terrorist attack.  They were targeting civilians as an act of war, a war that they were losing."


Over the years I've rolled my eyes many times at stuff you've said about all the alleged illegal actions the US is engaged in (according to you), but drawing a moral equivalency between Al Qaeda and the US military as terrorists pretty much takes the cake. It defies credibility. I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 01, 2017, 01:51:26 PM
For the several stock market related comments: I actually think it is rational for stocks to go up thanks to Trump and the Republican congress. If they can actually slash the corporate rate big league/bigly that will have a material impact on earnings, especially for the S&P 500.

Think about the rate going from 35% to 15%. Or having a tax repatriation holiday.... that could be a 20% profit gain for a lot of companies.

Yes, I know the effective rate for a lot of big corporations are low, but even still I think it'll be big.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on March 01, 2017, 01:53:34 PM
Trump may say he's differentiating, but he's stirring up hate.  The immigrant who was killed in Kansas was here legally.

I don't think Trump or any other sane person is defending that despicable murder.

But in the light of these events, do we really think it's a great time to specifically highlight all the immigrants who are committing crimes?  As opposed to, say, white men committing crimes?  This is the same reason I have a problem with churches preaching entire sermons against homosexuality when meanwhile, people are killing gay people for being gay.  It just gives people an excuse.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 01, 2017, 01:58:03 PM
Stuff about how the US military is supposedly engaged in terrorism, such as:

"Al-Qaeda declared a holy war against the United States before the 9/11 attacks.  Since they were at war with the US when the attacks took place, under your definition 9/11 was an act of war, not a terrorist attack.  They were targeting civilians as an act of war, a war that they were losing."


Over the years I've rolled my eyes many times at stuff you've said about all the alleged illegal actions the US is engaged in (according to you), but drawing a moral equivalency between Al Qaeda and the US military as terrorists pretty much takes the cake. It defies credibility. I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

I think your cognitive dissonance pretty huge here. Just because you are a state actor (i.e. have uniforms and are in military planes) doesn't make your actions somehow different. Indiscriminate bombing is indiscriminate bombing, is it not? Indiscriminate bombing to accomplish a political objective is by definition terrorism.

With your argument, if ISIS declared a country (which they did) and declared war on the US (which they did) and then have a guy dressed in a uniform blowing up a bus full of schoolchildren to remove the infidels from the holyland, that's not terrorism. But if it was just some dude without a uniform or state sponsorship it is terrorism? What?

If anything the nuclear weapons deployed against the Japanese were much worse than 9/11 or anything the muslim terrorists have done because their actions were temporal and the nuclear fallout affected generations.

Note that nobody as made a claim that there were any easier ways to end the war, or that the nuclear bombing didn't save lives in the long run. None of that matters. The fact is you had a two cities full of people, who had little if anything to do with the war, who were killed, en masse, so the population and government would be so scared they would quit. That's terrorism whether you're in a US military uniform or not.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on March 01, 2017, 02:09:34 PM

Again, you are claiming to know the intent of the US military without any basis for your belief other than propaganda.

You have to consider that their is a chain of command leading up to the president and we generally do have well defined mission goals when we move to bomb a target where we identify potential collateral damage and weigh it against the desire to take out hostile targets. There are certainly many things fucked up about the nature of the targets we are willing to go after depending on where they happen to be located. But just because our methods may be messed up doesn't make them terrorist acts necessarily.

Its true we don't always or even often have full access to all mission reports. But there is some oversight by elected officials for tactical decisions made by our military and we do get access to many reports after the fact. I would admit that our goals probably aren't always purely noble and economic interests and back room deals can cause us to take less than necessary actions.

I have yet to see military reports with express mission goals of executing civilians as a means to demoralize enemy combatants. On the face of it that doesn't even sound like a good tactic, because even if our killings are truly collateral damage and not terrorist acts meant to kill civilians to punish our enemies, as you not the perspective of the side on the receiving end may very well be the same. So intentionally and often going after civilian targets is likely to generate more terrorism not less.

I am not willing to dig up specifics, so its entirely possible there is a flaw in my logic, but I think just based on broad media coverage and our history there is reasonable evidence to suggest that our military and government leaders normally make a good effort to avoid excessive collateral damage and the vast majority of missions have a military target, even if they were botched and resulted in upsetting civilian causalities.

Were as terrorist attacks always state clear goals to harm civilians as retribution or to make a point. I agree the perception for those on the receiving end often wont care to make this distinction. I certainly wouldn't care to understand a countries reasons if there bombs regularly killed kids from my neighborhood. Thats a sad reality of the reaction you will get to collateral damage from those on the receiving end. And we need to take that into consideration when we pursue sustained strikes against targets living among civilian populations. It is much harder to simply excuse when we are not fighting a traditional war.

I kind of had the atomic bombs jump into my mind randomly when I was trying to think of known missions that appeared to have an express goal of killing civilians to demoralize an enemy. That is the only one I could think of but I admit I have a pretty limited historical repository of knowledge. It would be interesting to go back and read why they chose this method as opposed to seeking a military target. I would think it would send a similar message with a slightly less fucked up result. There is no doubt in retrospect that the use of those bombs spared us from a truly brutal ground invasion but its really hard to entirely see it that way when you consider we annihilated two civilian cities in a truly horrific manner.

I would wager that we could put together a coherent argument that a major purpose of those bombings was to protect American soldiers and end a long bloody war succinctly which I believe should be sufficient to distinguish it from terrorism and categorize it as one of many horrible decisions that often are made in war. But taking that position is a privilege of not being on the receiving end of the act. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 01, 2017, 02:11:57 PM

If anything the nuclear weapons deployed against the Japanese were much worse than 9/11 or anything the muslim terrorists have done because their actions were temporal and the nuclear fallout affected generations.

Do you have evidence for the generational effect?  I thought that the children of survivors are showing no effects, and the two cities bombed are certainly now thriving.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on March 01, 2017, 02:14:23 PM

If anything the nuclear weapons deployed against the Japanese were much worse than 9/11 or anything the muslim terrorists have done because their actions were temporal and the nuclear fallout affected generations.

Do you have evidence for the generational effect?  I thought that the children of survivors are showing no effects, and the two cities bombed are certainly now thriving.
"Seventy thousand new-borns were examined in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Nagasaki, 500-800 babies were examined in their homes. No evidence of genetic injuries were detected at that time. But today, in 2008, new studies done on survivors and their offspring are revealing conclusive DNA genetic changes and malformations. These studies utilize newer modalities to detect DNA injuries. The children of survivors, now adults, are concerned how genetic damage from the bomb may be transmitted to their children through generations."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: shenlong55 on March 01, 2017, 02:15:52 PM
I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

Not saying that the nuclear strikes were the wrong choice, but can you explain how the two actions were different without referencing legality or retribution?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 01, 2017, 02:42:42 PM
Trump may say he's differentiating, but he's stirring up hate.  The immigrant who was killed in Kansas was here legally.

I don't think Trump or any other sane person is defending that despicable murder.

But in the light of these events, do we really think it's a great time to specifically highlight all the immigrants who are committing crimes?  As opposed to, say, white men committing crimes?  This is the same reason I have a problem with churches preaching entire sermons against homosexuality when meanwhile, people are killing gay people for being gay.  It just gives people an excuse.

Is he highlighting the crimes of legal immigrants or just those here illegally?  Those are very different things.  My understanding was the focus was to be on this in the country illegally.

I'm not sure it's necessary, because the data I've seen indicates that those in this country illegally aren't causing a disproportionate amount of crime (or at least violent crime).  Given that data, I don't see the need for another government department.

As it relates to responsibility, the open borders crowd has made a calculated move to ignore the distinction between those here legally and illegally.   I suspect immigrants here legally have vastly more positive economic impact than those in the country illegally.  Ignoring that distinct and obvious difference has, unfortunately, inflamed tensions in this country as well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on March 01, 2017, 02:53:07 PM
Also in discussions about how we gather information about the US government, I think accusing most thoughtful people of offering only propaganda, when presenting a somewhat vague opinion based on the general news circulating around our country, is probably overkill.

All governments certainly produce propaganda to argue their reasoning and in that regard the US is no different form any other country. Fortunately in the US we still have generally strong freedom of the press, competing political parties, and freedom to criticize our government without retribution. So I think on average we still can generally cut through pure propaganda and put together at least some semblance of the truth about the the behavior of our government.

Do they obscure inconvenient truths about the actions we take abroad. Almost certainly. Are we as biased as any self interest nations, of course. But to label all of or even most of our drone strikes against terrorist targets as acts of terrorism on par with say 9/11 I think requires the general perception of our governments motives to completely and utterly false, given that all of our combined sources of news on our government put together a narrative that does not carry all the same tones of our leadership acting as a terrorist organization does.

In a country like China or Russia where freedom of the press and political decent is far more suppressed, I think the net effect of propaganda is more potent and obviously dangerously misleading. On that scale a state like North Korea would be an example of pure propaganda to the point of brainwashing its populace.

Western governments like the US rank at least among the group of countries where we are about as good as it gets for being able to be critical of our government. We certainly aren't free from bias by any stretch and can be mislead for certain but generally the information and alternative views are readily available to give you a chance of navigating the bullshit.

Its still possible to spew pure propaganda here especially given the self reinforcing echo chambers that have grown with the help of internet algorithms and general human bias. But generally agree more with the logic  of better informed thinkers than myself like Sam Harris, and I think others like Noam Chomsky are stretching wean the lean towards labeling our actions abroad as terrorism.

I understand I haven't really gathered any formal evidence to back my assertions thus far but I am really just sharing more for the sake of discussion than for a formal debate. Just so there is some context on why I am currently adverse to the notion that our government is regularly engaging in acts of terror.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 01, 2017, 03:04:57 PM
Trump's new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

He did the same thing when the media questioned the nomination of a 70 year old fat man photographed eating fried chicken, he promptly attacked Clinton's health and stamina.

He did the same thing when we learned he was a five time draft dodger, he promptly called for massive new military spending.

He did the same thing when we learned he built his casinos and hotels with Chinese steel, he immediately claimed all US companies should only use US steel.

He did the same thing when we learned his resorts employed a bunch of illegal immigrants, he started in with "build the wall".

He did the same thing when his foundation was fined for tax fraud, he called the Clinton foundation a criminal enterprise.

His marital infidelity, his criminal convictions, his business failures, his silver spoon, every single weakness becomes an attack line for use against his opponents.

Wake up, folks.  This is classic "freedom is slavery" spin from a master con man.  I predict that within the year, he will balloon the deficit and promptly blame democrats for their fiscal irresponsibility.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 01, 2017, 03:09:18 PM
Trump.s new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

He did the same thing when the media questioned the nomination of a 70 year old fat man photographed eating fried chicken, he promptly attacked Clinton's health and stamina.

He did the same thing when we learned be was a five time draft dodger, he promptly called for massive new military spending.

He did the same thing when we learned be built his casinos and hotels with Chinese steel, he immediately claimed all US companies should only use US steel.

He did the same thing when we learned his resorts employed a bunch of illegal immigrants, he started in with "build the wall".

He did the same thing when his foundation was fined for tax fraud, he called the Clinton foundation a criminal enterprise.

His marital infidelity, his criminal convictions, his business failures, his silver spoon, every single weakness becomes an attack line for use against his opponents.

Wake up, folks.  This is classic "freedom is slavery" spin from a master con man.  I predict that within the year, he will balloon the deficit and promptly blame democrats for their fiscal irresponsibility.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

 See also: "gaslighting"
And yes, it is disgusting. All of it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 01, 2017, 03:43:52 PM

If anything the nuclear weapons deployed against the Japanese were much worse than 9/11 or anything the muslim terrorists have done because their actions were temporal and the nuclear fallout affected generations.

Do you have evidence for the generational effect?  I thought that the children of survivors are showing no effects, and the two cities bombed are certainly now thriving.
"Seventy thousand new-borns were examined in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Nagasaki, 500-800 babies were examined in their homes. No evidence of genetic injuries were detected at that time. But today, in 2008, new studies done on survivors and their offspring are revealing conclusive DNA genetic changes and malformations. These studies utilize newer modalities to detect DNA injuries. The children of survivors, now adults, are concerned how genetic damage from the bomb may be transmitted to their children through generations."
reference?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 01, 2017, 04:21:10 PM
Trump's new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

Couldn't the motivation for the new VOICE's program just as easily be in support of Trump's immigration policy (which is  unrelated to the Kansas racist)?  Also, while I don't see a necessarily see a need for the program, it targets crimes by illegal/undocumented immigrants, not legal immigrants.

Finally, is there more than on murder or murderer in Kansas that you are referring to?  My understanding this crime committed against the Garmin employees was perpetrated by a singular drunken racist.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 01, 2017, 07:40:50 PM
Trump's new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

Couldn't the motivation for the new VOICE's program just as easily be in support of Trump's immigration policy (which is  unrelated to the Kansas racist)?  Also, while I don't see a necessarily see a need for the program, it targets crimes by illegal/undocumented immigrants, not legal immigrants.

Finally, is there more than on murder or murderer in Kansas that you are referring to?  My understanding this crime committed against the Garmin employees was perpetrated by a singular drunken racist.
Yes. Just like the guy who murdered Katie Stienle was an illegal immigrant with 5 prior felony convictions who was released by a sanctuary city police force - there are issues on all sides that need to be addressed, and most rational people can say that addressing one side does not mean that the other isn't also still a problem.

Some people will generalize from one incident to attack broad groups of people, but hopefully more reasonable voices will prevail over time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on March 01, 2017, 10:31:09 PM
Trump's new attacks on immigrants who commit crimes (VOICES) is just more of the same classic trump playbook, taking his own weaknesses and using them to attack his opponents.

It is precisely BECAUSE racist white Americans are murdering brown people in Kansas that trump decided to highlight in his speech the crimes committed by brown people against Americans.  Rather than admit he is stoking racist violence, he claims the targets of his violence are the problem.

Using the murder of an immigrant to call for investigations into crimes committed by immigrants is disgusting, but no longer surprising.

Couldn't the motivation for the new VOICE's program just as easily be in support of Trump's immigration policy (which is  unrelated to the Kansas racist)?  Also, while I don't see a necessarily see a need for the program, it targets crimes by illegal/undocumented immigrants, not legal immigrants.

Finally, is there more than on murder or murderer in Kansas that you are referring to?  My understanding this crime committed against the Garmin employees was perpetrated by a singular drunken racist.
Yes. Just like the guy who murdered Katie Stienle was an illegal immigrant with 5 prior felony convictions who was released by a sanctuary city police force - there are issues on all sides that need to be addressed, and most rational people can say that addressing one side does not mean that the other isn't also still a problem.

Some people will generalize from one incident to attack broad groups of people, but hopefully more reasonable voices will prevail over time.

I took the 'successful' parts of his address as curated anecdotes that are typically worthless on the internet.  Maybe they still have some value  in a focused Presidential address (the one girl saved by a modern miracle cure, the one soldier that made the difference, etc.), but to me it only brought the power of the internet vs. powerlessness of individuals into clearer contrast.  We don't live in the 50's anymore, fact checking and generalized truth eventually matters more than citing some select  incident to prove your point. 

But kudos to Trump for not doing more of the same and smacking his face in to real politicians that aren't going to mindlessly chant 'USA' and 'Build the Wall'.  It was refreshing to see him pivot to a new toolkit of empty tactics that, unfortunately, still works in this day and age.  I'm still wondering where the administration goes from here, now that it has shown that it can read from a script and has been burned by the sunlight of reality.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 02, 2017, 06:16:27 AM
I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

Not saying that the nuclear strikes were the wrong choice, but can you explain how the two actions were different without referencing legality or retribution?

Yes I can, and it's all about context. Now, there's a helluva lot of context regarding WWII and terrorist attacks by ISIL, so I'll use an analogy instead:

Scenario 1: Man walks up to another man, puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, killing him instantly
Scenario 2: Man walks up to another man, puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, killing him instantly

These two statements are identical, and so someone might naively (and disingenuously) say, "See, these two things are the same, one is no better than the other. They were both designed to blow the guy's head off in a violent way." They could name all kinds of things like has been done above comparing the two acts to try to make them appear morally equivalent, but it's still disingenuous ("they're both designed to create terror," "both claimed they were in a war", "both involved innocent casualties", "both used violent weapons", etc.).

But here are three different contexts as examples:

Case 1: Habitual criminal with multiple prior violent felony crime convictions walks up to a father of four at a restaurant with his family, and shoots him in the head indiscriminately, or because he's a Muslim, or a Christian, or because he has a family which the criminal resents. Almost all people would describe this homicide as completely unjustified and evil.

Case 2: A counterterrorism agent shoots an ISIL person in the head who is one second or less away from pulling the trigger on a detonator that, when activated, will blow up a dirty bomb that will kill or maim thousands of civilians in a children's amusement park. Almost all would describe this homicide as completely justified and necessary, and some might even describe it as "good" since it saved thousands of innocent lives.

Case 3: A man in the throes of grief/temporary insanity shoots in the head another man who has just minutes prior murdered his family and raped his small children and burned their house down with the bodies in it, but who has surrendered himself and no longer poses an imminent threat to anyone. This case is in a grey area that makes lots of us uncomfortable. Plenty would describe it as unjustified, plenty would say it's justified. Some would say it's unjustified but understandable/forgivable, and lots of other variations.

I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2017, 06:43:24 AM
Stuff about how the US military is supposedly engaged in terrorism, such as:

"Al-Qaeda declared a holy war against the United States before the 9/11 attacks.  Since they were at war with the US when the attacks took place, under your definition 9/11 was an act of war, not a terrorist attack.  They were targeting civilians as an act of war, a war that they were losing."


Over the years I've rolled my eyes many times at stuff you've said about all the alleged illegal actions the US is engaged in (according to you), but drawing a moral equivalency between Al Qaeda and the US military as terrorists pretty much takes the cake. It defies credibility. I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

Declaring a war does not give you carte blanche to attack civilians.  I don't think that it applies to ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and I don't think that it applies to any country.  My comment was in response to someone who said that he believes that declaring a war makes acts of terror acceptable.

I define acts as terrorism.  When you target civilians to try to terrorize a group of people into doing what you want, you're acting like a terrorist.  How you manage to kill the civilians to cause the terror doesn't really matter (pipe bomb, guerrilla attack, direct attack, carpet bombing, drone strike).  The clothes that the people doing the killing are wearing don't really matter (a perahan tunban, black balaclava, or starched US military uniform).  Whatever justification or excuse the people doing the killing have told themselves to make it feel better doesn't really matter (Jihad, We got attacked first, They might attack us in the future).  The act is still an act of terror, and it shouldn't be condoned.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2017, 06:50:27 AM
I don't know what to say about conflating non-uniformed men who are not associated with any state or government, high-jacking civilian airliners and flying them into skyscrapers with civilians, with uniformed men during a declared war flying military planes to drop bombs on an enemy city. A war in which we were attacked, unprovoked, I might add, and which had dragged on for years at the cost of tens of thousands of American lives. Dropping bombs on a city during war was hardly novel. The only "novelty" was the payload/destructive power of the atomic weapons.

I get how reasonable people can come down on one side or the other as to whether dropping atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifiable, but calling it "terrorism" the same as ISIS or Al Qaeda or North Korea is really just beyond the fringe.

Not saying that the nuclear strikes were the wrong choice, but can you explain how the two actions were different without referencing legality or retribution?

Yes I can, and it's all about context. Now, there's a helluva lot of context regarding WWII and terrorist attacks by ISIL, so I'll use an analogy instead:

Scenario 1: Man walks up to another man, puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, killing him instantly
Scenario 2: Man walks up to another man, puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, killing him instantly

These two statements are identical, and so someone might naively (and disingenuously) say, "See, these two things are the same, one is no better than the other. They were both designed to blow the guy's head off in a violent way." They could name all kinds of things like has been done above comparing the two acts to try to make them appear morally equivalent, but it's still disingenuous ("they're both designed to create terror," "both claimed they were in a war", "both involved innocent casualties", "both used violent weapons", etc.).

But here are three different contexts as examples:

Case 1: Habitual criminal with multiple prior violent felony crime convictions walks up to a father of four at a restaurant with his family, and shoots him in the head indiscriminately, or because he's a Muslim, or a Christian, or because he has a family which the criminal resents. Almost all people would describe this homicide as completely unjustified and evil.

Case 2: A counterterrorism agent shoots an ISIL person in the head who is one second or less away from pulling the trigger on a detonator that, when activated, will blow up a dirty bomb that will kill or maim thousands of civilians in a children's amusement park. Almost all would describe this homicide as completely justified and necessary, and some might even describe it as "good" since it saved thousands of innocent lives.

Case 3: A man in the throes of grief/temporary insanity shoots in the head another man who has just minutes prior murdered his family and raped his small children and burned their house down with the bodies in it, but who has surrendered himself and no longer poses an imminent threat to anyone. This case is in a grey area that makes lots of us uncomfortable. Plenty would describe it as unjustified, plenty would say it's justified. Some would say it's unjustified but understandable/forgivable, and lots of other variations.

I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

You would have an argument if the people bombed were soldiers.

The civilians of Japan were not about to pull a trigger on a detonator.  They were eating supper, working at their jobs, sitting in school, cleaning the house, etc.

I'd suggest it was a lot more like:

Case 4:
A police officer is chasing a person who has just committed murder.  The suspect enters his house and the officer follows.  Once inside the house, the officer shoots the first person he sees.  Then he shoots the next person he sees.  Then he says "I'm going to keep shooting until my murder suspect gives himself up."  The murderer then sees the death of his family members and gives himself up.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 07:59:17 AM
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on March 02, 2017, 08:16:15 AM
It's interesting to see how young Americans view history.  Some oldsters would probably call this discussion 'armchair commentary'.  However, just like the present is for us today, I believe the powers that be made the best decisions they could given their circumstances, and I honor the fact that it was a reluctant and difficult choice agreed upon by consensus.  As far as anyone knew, the emperor of Japan was willing to fight until utter obliteration because of their culture (which was very much foreign and undecipherable to the West at that time).  Was a  nuclear attack warranted to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of solidiers on both sides?  We'll never know for sure, which is another quirk of revisiting history.

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 08:17:03 AM
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 02, 2017, 08:35:07 AM
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2017, 08:40:34 AM
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.

There's certainly an argument to be made that the nuclear bombing of civilians in Japan saved net lives.  I don't disagree that this is possible but we don't know.  Maybe Japan would have realized that their navy was completely crippled at this point, their manufacturing was screwed due to the loss of nearly all sources of raw materials, and their forces were completely ineffective and surrendered.  Maybe they would have fought on to the last man (Japan fully embraced war in a cultural way).  There are legitimate arguments to support both sides that can be made.

None of this changes the fact that it was an act of terrorism.

Modern drone strikes are perpetrated against a group of people that the military thinks (using demonstrably unreliable intelligence) might be terrorists, who might (or might not) plan to attack the US in the future.  The US executes these people and sizable numbers of civilians who live in the surrounding area.  This is an act of terror.

What it boils down to is that both of these acts of terror are implemented based upon the argument that the ends justify the means.  Are you really OK with that reasoning?  Because it can be used to justify anything.  It's certainly the argument suicide bombers the world over use to justify their actions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on March 02, 2017, 08:41:13 AM
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.

I would also argue that the use of two relatively small atomic weapons prevented the use of much larger and more advanced weapons later.  In Korea and Vietnam the use of nuclear weapons was raised but after we saw what the effect of the weapons were, both uses wee discarded.  If we had a weapon like that and never used it before, there would likely be a greater willingness to "try it out".  Better to try it out with a bomb in the low kilotons then one in the megaton range.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 02, 2017, 08:53:10 AM
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.

You don't really believe this.  If you did, you would support ISIS beheading tourists.  What's one life, if it helps end the war?  All those crazy knife-wielding dudes in black masks ascribe to this philosophy, because they are deranged murderers.  They tell themselves their horrible acts are for the greater good.

And let's be honest about this, the decision to nuke Japan's civilian population centers wasn't about minimizing the loss of life on all sides, it was about minimizing the loss of American lives by maximizing the loss of Japanese lives. 

Even more specifically, it was about saving American soldiers by murdering Japanese civilians. 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 08:53:57 AM
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.


There is no moral equivalency between a child attending class, a mother cooking dinner, etc. and a soldier that has volunteered to fight in a war. Purposefully killing scores of non-combatants in order to justify "saving" the lives of combatants is not justifiable in any manner.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 09:04:55 AM
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.


There is no moral equivalency between a child attending class, a mother cooking dinner, etc. and a soldier that has volunteered to fight in a war. Purposefully killing scores of non-combatants in order to justify "saving" the lives of combatants is not justifiable in any manner.

Volunteering?  Both sides were drafting.  Japan was conscripting at that point. 

If we had invaded Japan and/or continued the war for any length of time, there is a very strong possibility that more than 200,000 Japanese civilians would have died in the process. 

Look at Okinawa - Japan was putting 14 to 17 year old boys on the front lines and there were 140,000 civilians killed on Okinawa.  The Japanese mainland would have been much worse in terms of civilian deaths.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 02, 2017, 09:10:29 AM
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.

There's certainly an argument to be made that the nuclear bombing of civilians in Japan saved net lives.  I don't disagree that this is possible but we don't know.  Maybe Japan would have realized that their navy was completely crippled at this point, their manufacturing was screwed due to the loss of nearly all sources of raw materials, and their forces were completely ineffective and surrendered.  Maybe they would have fought on to the last man (Japan fully embraced war in a cultural way).  There are legitimate arguments to support both sides that can be made.

None of this changes the fact that it was an act of terrorism.

Modern drone strikes are perpetrated against a group of people that the military thinks (using demonstrably unreliable intelligence) might be terrorists, who might (or might not) plan to attack the US in the future.  The US executes these people and sizable numbers of civilians who live in the surrounding area.  This is an act of terror.

What it boils down to is that both of these acts of terror are implemented based upon the argument that the ends justify the means.  Are you really OK with that reasoning?  Because it can be used to justify anything.  It's certainly the argument suicide bombers the world over use to justify their actions.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were significant to the Japanese war effort.   It is also significant that the first bombing was not sufficient to end the war: it took a second bombing before the Japanese surrendered.  That does suggest that the bombings, however dreadful their effects, were in fact proportionate to the aim of ending the war without further Allied casualties.

I will put in here that I have a personal view on this.  One of my ancestors, having been conscripted into WWII and having already been in action for 4 years, was in July 1945 under orders to the far east to go into action against the Japanese.  Because of those two bombs, he was instead safe at home and a civilian again before the end of August 1945 - although by all accounts he had lifelong (undiagnosed at the time, of course) PTSD as a result of his harrowing experiences.  Without the bombs, he and tens of thousands of others could have been put in harms way for years to come and many would not have survived.

I also think that it is easy, at this remove, to forget that WWII was for much of its course a "damned close run thing": while the US was still in decent condition the rest of the Allies had pretty much exhausted themselves and their resources in the fight.  We also hear a lot about German atrocities, particularly the holocaust, and rather less about the Japanese ones.  Japan was not an innocent victim of WWII.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 02, 2017, 09:15:24 AM
Note that nobody as made a claim that there were any easier ways to end the war, or that the nuclear bombing didn't save lives in the long run. None of that matters. The fact is you had a two cities full of people, who had little if anything to do with the war, who were killed, en masse, so the population and government would be so scared they would quit. That's terrorism whether you're in a US military uniform or not.

I'm quoting myself above because I think many people have now said this (and I'm awesome). The REASON for the terrorism may have been the best reason in the world. Jesus or Gandhi may have made the same decision. That doesn't make it not terrorism.

It is pretty funny that some Americans think Americans can blow up entire cities full of civilians and that's not terrorism. But killing 5 US soldiers in Iraq with a roadside bomb is.... sigh, that people can hold those two ideas in their head at the same time confounds me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 09:23:43 AM
Note that nobody as made a claim that there were any easier ways to end the war, or that the nuclear bombing didn't save lives in the long run. None of that matters. The fact is you had a two cities full of people, who had little if anything to do with the war, who were killed, en masse, so the population and government would be so scared they would quit. That's terrorism whether you're in a US military uniform or not.

I'm quoting myself above because I think many people have now said this (and I'm awesome). The REASON for the terrorism may have been the best reason in the world. Jesus or Gandhi may have made the same decision. That doesn't make it not terrorism.

It is pretty funny that some Americans think Americans can blow up entire cities full of civilians and that's not terrorism. But killing 5 US soldiers in Iraq with a roadside bomb is.... sigh, that people can hold those two ideas in their head at the same time confounds me.

I don't know many Americans who think killing US soldiers in that situation is terrorism.  It's unfortunate and we should try to prevent it, but it's not terrorism.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 02, 2017, 09:39:20 AM
I don't know many Americans who think killing US soldiers in that situation is terrorism.  It's unfortunate and we should try to prevent it, but it's not terrorism.

Our president clearly thinks it is terrorism, or at least wants you to think it is. 

This is the nature of the debate over the use of the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism".  The republicans want you to believe that any act of violence against America is the fault of Islamic terrorists.  Trump has championed this phrasing, even using it on his speech this week.  It doesn't matter that were not fighting terrorists and we're not fighting Islam, that phrase tests well with the focus groups of his most ardent supporters, so he's going to continue misusing it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 09:40:07 AM
Volunteering?  Both sides were drafting.  Japan was conscripting at that point. 

There is no moral equivalency between a child attending class, a mother cooking dinner, etc. and a soldier that has volunteered to fighting in a war. Purposefully killing scores of non-combatants in order to justify "saving" the lives of combatants is not justifiable in any manner.

Is that better for you? Does it change the morality of the argument?

If we had invaded Japan and/or continued the war for any length of time, there is a very strong possibility that more than 200,000 Japanese civilians would have died in the process.

So since they "might" have died we went ahead and killed them anyways? I'm not even sure what you are arguing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2017, 09:47:17 AM
I suggest the atomic bombings during WWII were a lot like Case 2 (justifiable) with a fair amount of Case 3 thrown in (some murky, grey areas). ISIL and Al Qaeda attacks are 100% Case 1.

There really is no murky or grey area. Over 200,000 CIVILIANS were killed instantly when the atomic bombs were dropped. And untold amounts died later. Those civilians did not have their finger on any bombs ready to detonate. It's not like case 2 at all in any scope, no matter how you spin it. There is no plausible scenario where murdering this many civilians going about their day, as you and I are today, is justifiable.

It was terrorism, point blank. Stop trying to justify it as something else.

If you believe those bombs were necessary to end the war, then it is quite plausible they saved untold lives (both US and Japanese).  Whether you support the decision or not, killing 200,000 people is an awful thing.  Killing millions (US and Japanese) is even worse.

There's certainly an argument to be made that the nuclear bombing of civilians in Japan saved net lives.  I don't disagree that this is possible but we don't know.  Maybe Japan would have realized that their navy was completely crippled at this point, their manufacturing was screwed due to the loss of nearly all sources of raw materials, and their forces were completely ineffective and surrendered.  Maybe they would have fought on to the last man (Japan fully embraced war in a cultural way).  There are legitimate arguments to support both sides that can be made.

None of this changes the fact that it was an act of terrorism.

Modern drone strikes are perpetrated against a group of people that the military thinks (using demonstrably unreliable intelligence) might be terrorists, who might (or might not) plan to attack the US in the future.  The US executes these people and sizable numbers of civilians who live in the surrounding area.  This is an act of terror.

What it boils down to is that both of these acts of terror are implemented based upon the argument that the ends justify the means.  Are you really OK with that reasoning?  Because it can be used to justify anything.  It's certainly the argument suicide bombers the world over use to justify their actions.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were significant to the Japanese war effort.   It is also significant that the first bombing was not sufficient to end the war: it took a second bombing before the Japanese surrendered.  That does suggest that the bombings, however dreadful their effects, were in fact proportionate to the aim of ending the war without further Allied casualties.

Do you not see where this line of reasoning gets you?

By this logic, 9/11 was significant because it was simply not a big enough attack on the American people to end what Bin Laden saw as America's transgressions around the world.  They clearly need to keep up their terrorist attacks . . . they are in fact, proportionate to Al Qaeda's aim of ending the war with minimal casualties for their troops.


I will put in here that I have a personal view on this.  One of my ancestors, having been conscripted into WWII and having already been in action for 4 years, was in July 1945 under orders to the far east to go into action against the Japanese.  Because of those two bombs, he was instead safe at home and a civilian again before the end of August 1945 - although by all accounts he had lifelong (undiagnosed at the time, of course) PTSD as a result of his harrowing experiences.  Without the bombs, he and tens of thousands of others could have been put in harms way for years to come and many would not have survived.

Why do you believe that the life of your ancestor in the military life should be held in higher regard than that of the Japanese children vaporized in the atomic blasts?  Because that's what you're asking me to accept with the reasoning here.


I also think that it is easy, at this remove, to forget that WWII was for much of its course a "damned close run thing": while the US was still in decent condition the rest of the Allies had pretty much exhausted themselves and their resources in the fight.  We also hear a lot about German atrocities, particularly the holocaust, and rather less about the Japanese ones.  Japan was not an innocent victim of WWII.

Nobody has said that Japan was an innocent victim of WWII.

By the end of the second world war, Japan was rapidly becoming a combative non-factor.  Their navy was a shambles (heck, even since the Battle of Midway two years before the Japanese fleet had been badly and permanently weakened).  Their ability to manufacture stuff was negligible because there just wasn't enough raw material (which is why Japan tried to expand so quickly at the start of the war - they lacked natural resources).  They had very few trained pilots left in their air-force (hence the kamikaze attacks).  Japan had just lost over 600,000 soldiers to the Soviets in Manchuria and the Soviets were already landing troops in the (nearly undefended) north of Japan.  When the nuclear weapons were used, it was not a 'damned close run thing'.  There was no doubt at that point that Japan would be conquered, it was simply a matter of time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 02, 2017, 10:01:24 AM
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.

You don't really believe this.  If you did, you would support ISIS beheading tourists.  What's one life, if it helps end the war?  All those crazy knife-wielding dudes in black masks ascribe to this philosophy, because they are deranged murderers.  They tell themselves their horrible acts are for the greater good.

And let's be honest about this, the decision to nuke Japan's civilian population centers wasn't about minimizing the loss of life on all sides, it was about minimizing the loss of American lives by maximizing the loss of Japanese lives. 

Even more specifically, it was about saving American soldiers by murdering Japanese civilians.
Only if it works. The bombs did. Beheadings have not. As was pointed out, Japan was more than willing to arm its civilians with sticks and rush them into the machine gun fire of US forces landing on beaches. It's not as if all Japanese civilians would have been hunky dorry. Doesn't justify an act of terror to me, but obviously some people disagree. Look at the psychos who fly planes into buildings or blow up car bimbs in markets or shoot up magazines for publishing stuff they don't like; lots of bad decisions out there.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 02, 2017, 10:08:45 AM
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were significant to the Japanese war effort.   It is also significant that the first bombing was not sufficient to end the war: it took a second bombing before the Japanese surrendered.  That does suggest that the bombings, however dreadful their effects, were in fact proportionate to the aim of ending the war without further Allied casualties.

Do you not see where this line of reasoning gets you?

By this logic, 9/11 was significant because it was simply not a big enough attack on the American people to end what Bin Laden saw as America's transgressions around the world.  They clearly need to keep up their terrorist attacks . . . they are in fact, proportionate to Al Qaeda's aim of ending the war with minimal casualties for their troops.
Different cases.  1.  The bombs on Japan were about ending a war which was (unjustifiably and unlawfully) begun by the other party.  2.  The cities bombed were military as well as civilian targets.

I do agree with you that the logic of any violent action is that it needs to be sufficiently violent to meet its aims.  The bombing of Hiroshima was not sufficiently violent to meet its aims, the addition of the bombing of Nagasaki was.  And don't assume that the aim of 9/11 was to end US transgressions through violence.  It is much more likely that it's aim was to provoke the US into levels of violence which would then precipitate the achievement of its aim through the reactions to that US violence.  Something which notably did not happen in the case of Japan.



I will put in here that I have a personal view on this.  One of my ancestors, having been conscripted into WWII and having already been in action for 4 years, was in July 1945 under orders to the far east to go into action against the Japanese.  Because of those two bombs, he was instead safe at home and a civilian again before the end of August 1945 - although by all accounts he had lifelong (undiagnosed at the time, of course) PTSD as a result of his harrowing experiences.  Without the bombs, he and tens of thousands of others could have been put in harms way for years to come and many would not have survived.

Why do you believe that the life of your ancestor in the military life should be held in higher regard than that of the Japanese children vaporized in the atomic blasts?  Because that's what you're asking me to accept with the reasoning here.
  I hold my ancestor's life in higher regard because without it I would not be here.  I'm not asking you to believe it.  I put it in as a personal anecdote which you are free to use to consider me biased.  As to the Japanese children that died, there are now about 7 billion people on this planet, millions of whom die every day and while I am happy to wish them all well in a generalised sense, and even give 10% of my net FIREd income to charitable causes supporting humans in need around the globe, please don't ask me to weep for the deaths of individuals I did not personally know who died 70 years ago: it's a level of sentimentality I couldn't manage.


I also think that it is easy, at this remove, to forget that WWII was for much of its course a "damned close run thing": while the US was still in decent condition the rest of the Allies had pretty much exhausted themselves and their resources in the fight.  We also hear a lot about German atrocities, particularly the holocaust, and rather less about the Japanese ones.  Japan was not an innocent victim of WWII.

Nobody has said that Japan was an innocent victim of WWII.

By the end of the second world war, Japan was rapidly becoming a combative non-factor.  Their navy was a shambles (heck, even since the Battle of Midway two years before the Japanese fleet had been badly and permanently weakened).  Their ability to manufacture stuff was negligible because there just wasn't enough raw material (which is why Japan tried to expand so quickly at the start of the war - they lacked natural resources).  They had very few trained pilots left in their air-force (hence the kamikaze attacks).  Japan had just lost over 600,000 soldiers to the Soviets in Manchuria and the Soviets were already landing troops in the (nearly undefended) north of Japan.  When the nuclear weapons were used, it was not a 'damned close run thing'.  There was no doubt at that point that Japan would be conquered, it was simply a matter of time.
I did say "for much of its course".  And sadly the Japanese government's determination not to surrender but to carry on fighting had little to do with its capabilities, and fighting a conventional war with invasion island by island, which would have been the alternative, would have been costly to the Allies in all ways.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2017, 10:23:09 AM
Great point. While the bombings were terrible, it was considered that they would save lives (both soliders and civilians) on both sides of the conflict overall. A great evil to prevent a greater evil.

You don't really believe this.  If you did, you would support ISIS beheading tourists.  What's one life, if it helps end the war?  All those crazy knife-wielding dudes in black masks ascribe to this philosophy, because they are deranged murderers.  They tell themselves their horrible acts are for the greater good.

And let's be honest about this, the decision to nuke Japan's civilian population centers wasn't about minimizing the loss of life on all sides, it was about minimizing the loss of American lives by maximizing the loss of Japanese lives. 

Even more specifically, it was about saving American soldiers by murdering Japanese civilians.
Only if it works. The bombs did. Beheadings have not.

The first nuclear bomb didn't work.  So, the logic you're spouting would follow that you just have to keep trying.


As was pointed out, Japan was more than willing to arm its civilians with sticks and rush them into the machine gun fire of US forces landing on beaches. It's not as if all Japanese civilians would have been hunky dorry.

If this was really true, why do you believe that Japan surrendered at all?  Sending civilians to die by machine gun fire is no different than letting them die by nuclear blast.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 02, 2017, 10:30:36 AM
It is also significant that the first bombing was not sufficient to end the war: it took a second bombing before the Japanese surrendered.

You might want to check your history on this one.  The US built exactly two bombs, and scheduled exactly two bombings, without regard to what happened in between.

An entire city was vaporized, in an era before mass communications, in a country ravaged by war.  The emperor of Japan barely had time to figure out what the hell had happened before the second bomb was dropped three days later.

If we had wanted a surrender after one, we could have waited a week and asked for one.  We dropped two bombs on purpose, to convince them this was something we could do every three days for years to come.  They are some fascinating books written by the military leaders of the day discussing this reasoning.

So you can stop repeating the lie that one atomic bomb was insufficiently destructive.   They never had a chance to avoid the second bomb.  We leveled a second city purely because we wanted to.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 02, 2017, 10:41:10 AM
If this was really true, why do you believe that Japan surrendered at all?  Sending civilians to die by machine gun fire is no different than letting them die by nuclear blast.

You should both read The Chrysanthemum and the Sword for some perspective on this issue.  It is short and enlightening.

Basically there was much deliberation within the US military about how Japan's honor-based culture would respond to catastrophic military losses that normally resulted in surrender in all European conflicts for the preceding millennia. They feared the costs of having to literally fight to the last man.  But it turned out that despite popular perception of the Japanese as strange and weird aliens, they are just like every other human culture and responded in the same way that every other country has, surrendering at around 30% losses.

The book goes into more detail about the difference between American and Japanese culture and how it influenced their military, i.e. guilt vs shame as a negative motivator, but the abbreviated version is that a lot of lives could have been saved if we had been a little less racist.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 10:55:46 AM
If this was really true, why do you believe that Japan surrendered at all?  Sending civilians to die by machine gun fire is no different than letting them die by nuclear blast.

You should both read The Chrysanthemum and the Sword for some perspective on this issue.  It is short and enlightening.

Basically there was much deliberation within the US military about how Japan's honor-based culture would respond to catastrophic military losses that normally resulted in surrender in all European conflicts for the preceding millennia. They feared the costs of having to literally fight to the last man.  But it turned out that despite popular perception of the Japanese as strange and weird aliens, they are just like every other human culture and responded in the same way that every other country has, surrendering at around 30% losses.

The book goes into more detail about the difference between American and Japanese culture and how it influenced their military, i.e. guilt vs shame as a negative motivator, but the abbreviated version is that a lot of lives could have been saved if we had been a little less racist.

I read some excerpts from "Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman and the Surrender of Japan.”

It's interesting and discusses some of the same concepts you are describing. Essentially the US has convinced generations now that the nuclear bombs were necessary in order to end the war and prevent hundreds of thousands more casualties. Meanwhile in Japan the sentiment was that they already knew they had lost. The shock wasn't the nuclear bombs. It wasn't the firebombing of Tokyo. "The greatest shock" was the Soviet Union’s entry into the war, and the realization that Japanese forces would have to fight the Soviets in the north and the U.S. in the south.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 02, 2017, 11:01:20 AM
Also, the Errol Morris documentary "The Fog of War", which discusses the firebombing campaign against Japan prior to the atomic bombs being dropped is worth watching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Firebombing_attacks

the loss of life from the firebombing campaign far outpaced Nagasaki and Hiroshima (~500,000 dead). Any sober view of that fire bombing campaign would consider it a war crime. MacNamara was support staff for LeMay, who organized the firebombing (and later the carpet bombing of Cambodia). In MacNamara's words regarding the firebombing, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." "And I think he's right," says McNamara. "He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals." . . . "

The atomic bomb dropping may also have had a secondary (or primary, some have argued) objective of sending a geopolitcal statement to the Soviets to watch out as a warm up round for the cold war. 

WWII was absolutely terrible. Wrong was done all around in vary degrees, methods and contexts. We, as Americans, are not some special breed of human that intrinsically is better or worse than other countries. We should bear that in mind and work to prevent these things from happening in the future. Nobody really "won" WWII, we mostly just all got back to a starting point somewhat worse off than before hostilities started.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: brooklynguy on March 02, 2017, 11:44:11 AM
Some oldsters would probably call this discussion 'armchair commentary'.

To directly tie this side discussion back to the original thread topic, what's most disconcerting is that the "oldster" currently serving as our commander-in-chief has made an assortment of confusing and self-contradictory public statements concerning the use of nuclear weapons that reveals an alarming ignorance of nuclear policy considerations at best and a truly terrifying willingness to actually use nuclear weapons outside the extremely limited set of arguably-justifiable circumstances for their use at worst.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 11:44:55 AM
I don't know many Americans who think killing US soldiers in that situation is terrorism.  It's unfortunate and we should try to prevent it, but it's not terrorism.

Our president clearly thinks it is terrorism, or at least wants you to think it is. 

This is the nature of the debate over the use of the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism".  The republicans want you to believe that any act of violence against America is the fault of Islamic terrorists.  Trump has championed this phrasing, even using it on his speech this week.  It doesn't matter that were not fighting terrorists and we're not fighting Islam, that phrase tests well with the focus groups of his most ardent supporters, so he's going to continue misusing it.

Disagree.  I realize all Republicans are evil, but that phrase refers to attacks on non-military targets and/or civilians by Muslim extremists.  Obviously not all terrorist actions are by Muslims and the majority of Muslims aren't extremists, but some a few are.

We could debate the Fort Hood attack since it was a military target, I would argue it was a military attack and the perpetrator should have been executed for treason.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 11:57:04 AM
Volunteering?  Both sides were drafting.  Japan was conscripting at that point. 

There is no moral equivalency between a child attending class, a mother cooking dinner, etc. and a soldier that has volunteered to fighting in a war. Purposefully killing scores of non-combatants in order to justify "saving" the lives of combatants is not justifiable in any manner.

Is that better for you? Does it change the morality of the argument?

My belief is the civilian death toll was lowered by using the bombs.  I don't think the dead care whether they were purposely killed or accidentally killed.  The end result is that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a far higher death toll than dropping the bombs.

If we had invaded Japan and/or continued the war for any length of time, there is a very strong possibility that more than 200,000 Japanese civilians would have died in the process.

So since they "might" many would have died we went ahead and killed them anyways? I'm not even sure what you are arguing.

Do you believe Japan was on the verge of surrendering?  Unless Japan had surrendered, we would have continued to bomb them and eventually invaded.  It is very likely more than 200,000 civilians would have died in those actions. 

70 years after the fact with better information, it's easy to second guess the decision made.  Truman was faced with a populace that wanted the war done and an enemy that seemed willing to continue.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 02, 2017, 01:02:33 PM
On to more recent events... what's the likelihood that Sessions resigns? It will keep up the 2 cabinet level officials per month trend they're on.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2017, 01:06:18 PM
My belief is the civilian death toll was lowered by using the bombs.  I don't think the dead care whether they were purposely killed or accidentally killed.  The end result is that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a far higher death toll than dropping the bombs.

I get your argument, and there's some merit to it.  It's not possible to know what would have happened in an alternate past timeline, so we'll never be sure what the best decision to make in that scenario was.  The result of purposely dropping the atomic bombs on large civilian centers was that Japan surrendered.

The problem in calling terrorism just action is that it legitimizes use of the same types of arguments today:

- It's OK to bomb civilians if they're from the same country as the guys we're fighting
- It's OK to target and execute civilians if they're family to the guys we're fighting
- It's OK to kill civilians as long as it reduces risk to our troops

Those arguments are the reason that drone strikes exist.  You've indicated that you think that they're acceptable in a WWII scenario . . . so I have to ask you, do you believe that current US acts of terror (drone strikes, abduction/torture) are going to result in a higher or lower long term death toll?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 01:10:07 PM
My belief is the civilian death toll was lowered by using the bombs.

Based on what evidence?

Do you believe Japan was on the verge of surrendering?  Unless Japan had surrendered, we would have continued to bomb them and eventually invaded.  In it is very likely, more than 200,000 civilians would have died in those actions. 

70 years after the fact with better information, it's easy to second guess the decision made.  Truman was faced with a populace that wanted the war done and an enemy that seemed willing to continue.

The bombs killed far more than 200K people. The initial blast killed more than that alone.

Japan had already offered to surrender. In fact they made 3 attempts in April and May of 1945 through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. The issues is Japan wanted the emperor to remain. So it would have been a conditional surrender. The US insisted on an unconditional surrender so it ignored the request. Japan even tried to negotiate through Russia. They knew the war was lost.

The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.

One could convincingly argue the bombs were completely unnecessary had they just accepted the original surrender by Japan. How many lives could have been spared then?



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on March 02, 2017, 01:22:10 PM
On to more recent events... what's the likelihood that Sessions resigns? It will keep up the 2 cabinet level officials per month trend they're on.

Vodka shot per resignation from the Ruski Trump cabinet.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 01:22:38 PM
Also feel free to reference:
- US Strategic Bombing Survey Verdict
- "In Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict" - a 1986 study, historian and journalist Edwin P.
- "The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb" (Praeger, 1996)

General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 01:32:29 PM
On to more recent events... what's the likelihood that Sessions resigns? It will keep up the 2 cabinet level officials per month trend they're on.

If he does, trump will just blame it on the media.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on March 02, 2017, 01:41:56 PM
On to more recent events... what's the likelihood that Sessions resigns? It will keep up the 2 cabinet level officials per month trend they're on.

If he does, trump will just blame it on the media.

I don't care who he blames, as long as sessions is gone.  I think it somewhat unlikely that he'll resign but likely that he'll have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 02:55:05 PM
My belief is the civilian death toll was lowered by using the bombs.  I don't think the dead care whether they were purposely killed or accidentally killed.  The end result is that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a far higher death toll than dropping the bombs.

I get your argument, and there's some merit to it.  It's not possible to know what would have happened in an alternate past timeline, so we'll never be sure what the best decision to make in that scenario was.  The result of purposely dropping the atomic bombs on large civilian centers was that Japan surrendered.

I agree we will never know for sure.  Given what we saw on the islands and in Okinawa, I think its more likely than not that it saved more lives than it took.


Those arguments are the reason that drone strikes exist.  You've indicated that you think that they're acceptable in a WWII scenario . . . so I have to ask you, do you believe that current US acts of terror (drone strikes, abduction/torture) are going to result in a higher or lower long term death toll?

WW2 was a completely different war than what we face today.  We had definable enemies who needed to be defeated to end the war. 

The current conflicts are largely against non-state/non-conventional forces.  Some of those actors may need to be defeated, some could probably be left alone.

I don't think the use of the atomic bomb in ww2 is terribly relevant to the current policies you reference.

On the topic of US intervention - It depends.  Do I support all US tactics and interventions?  No.  In my opinion the atomic bomb saved lives.  I'm not sure that all US actions in the middle east will ultimately save lives.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Blueskies123 on March 02, 2017, 03:11:50 PM

My belief is the civilian death toll was lowered by using the bombs.  I don't think the dead care whether they were purposely killed or accidentally killed.  The end result is that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a far higher death toll than dropping the bombs.[/quote]  I'm not sure that all US actions in the middle east will ultimately save lives.   
[/quote]

It definitely saved American, Chinese, Korean, and Philippine lives.  Every day we  demonstrated the use by using them out to sea another 5000 Americans died and a lot more Japanese, Chinese, and more from the Philippines would have died.  Say we did a demonstration out to sea and Japan mulled it over for a month; how many American and Japanese lives would have been lost.  What if they evacuated the cities and became defiant thinking we were too cowardly to actually use them.
The bomb saved lives on both sides.  One last question "What do you think would have happened if Germany or Japan developed the bomb first?"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 03:26:55 PM
My belief is the civilian death toll was lowered by using the bombs.

Based on what evidence?


The population of both cities pre-blast was 450k.  Casualties estimated around 200k.   http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp10.asp 

Casualty estimates for an invasion of mainland Japan vary widely.  But everything indicates deaths in the millions. 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/

Okinawa is instructive, there were 240k casualties on Okinawa.  150k of those were civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa


Do you believe Japan was on the verge of surrendering?  Unless Japan had surrendered, we would have continued to bomb them and eventually invaded.  In it is very likely, more than 200,000 civilians would have died in those actions. 

70 years after the fact with better information, it's easy to second guess the decision made.  Truman was faced with a populace that wanted the war done and an enemy that seemed willing to continue.

The bombs killed far more than 200K people. The initial blast killed more than that alone.

Japan had already offered to surrender. In fact they made 3 attempts in April and May of 1945 through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. The issues is Japan wanted the emperor to remain. So it would have been a conditional surrender. The US insisted on an unconditional surrender so it ignored the request. Japan even tried to negotiate through Russia. They knew the war was lost.

The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.

One could convincingly argue the bombs were completely unnecessary had they just accepted the original surrender by Japan. How many lives could have been spared then?

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions?  Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 03:49:57 PM

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

I don't doubt the Japanese soldiers testimony. After all, can you imagine Japanese commanders telling the troops they were trying to surrender? That's standard military rhetoric. You don't destroy your soldiers morale. Their testimony has no bearing on what was going on behind the scenes or what would have actually happened.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 04:08:06 PM

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

Their only ambition was to end the war?  Then they should have surrendered.

Japan wanted a truce, not a surrender.

In addition to keeping the emperor,  the peace being offered up by Japan involved no occupation and they wanted to keep some of their conquests.  That was unacceptable after Japanese aggression and war crimes.

If Japan's only ambition was to end the war, they should have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped.  The offer was on the table, but they wanted better terms.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2017, 04:25:56 PM
Okinawa is instructive, there were 240k casualties on Okinawa.  150k of those were civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

The Okinawan people were not Japanese in the eyes of the soldiers.  For various cultural reasons, the Japanese army treated conquered civilians incredibly poorly throughout WWII, but none of this behavior (Korean and Chinese 'comfort women', human experimentation, mass killings, etc.) carried over to home.

It doesn't follow at all that the Japanese military would have treated the families of their comrades in the same manner.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 04:37:03 PM

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

Their only ambition was to end the war?  Then they should have surrendered.

Japan wanted a truce, not a surrender.

In addition to keeping the emperor,  the peace being offered up by Japan involved no occupation and they wanted to keep some of their conquests.  That was unacceptable after Japanese aggression and war crimes.

If Japan's only ambition was to end the war, they should have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped.  The offer was on the table, but they wanted better terms.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm

Full quote for context:

"These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia"

Bold added for emphasis.

Try this since it doesn't use the word "probably"
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html)
https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth (https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth)

Also the references I gave earlier which include actual books. And quotes form military leaders of that time.

Not going to keep beating a dead horse here. Good luck in your search.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 04:37:50 PM
Okinawa is instructive, there were 240k casualties on Okinawa.  150k of those were civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

The Okinawan people were not Japanese in the eyes of the soldiers.  For various cultural reasons, the Japanese army treated conquered civilians incredibly poorly throughout WWII, but none of this behavior (Korean and Chinese 'comfort women', human experimentation, mass killings, etc.) carried over to home.

It doesn't follow at all that the Japanese military would have treated the families of their comrades in the same manner.

Do you disagree that casualties of invading Japan would have be in the millions?  I've seen no casualty estimate that refutes that point and many agree that it would have been necessary to invade Japan to ensure surrender. 

I concede the casualty estimates are all over the place for an invasion, but even the low side numbers far exceed the bomb's death toll.

PS - and yes the Japanese were horrible to certain populations during the war. 

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2017, 05:08:28 PM

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

Their only ambition was to end the war?  Then they should have surrendered.

Japan wanted a truce, not a surrender.

In addition to keeping the emperor,  the peace being offered up by Japan involved no occupation and they wanted to keep some of their conquests.  That was unacceptable after Japanese aggression and war crimes.

If Japan's only ambition was to end the war, they should have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped.  The offer was on the table, but they wanted better terms.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm

Full quote for context:

"These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia"

Bold added for emphasis.

Try this since it doesn't use the word "probably"
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html)
https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth (https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth)

Also the references I gave earlier which include actual books. And quotes form military leaders of that time.

Not going to keep beating a dead horse here. Good luck in your search.

Are you familiar with the 2 organizations you quoted?  If these are the organizations, neither seems particularly credible. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2017, 05:58:37 PM
Okinawa is instructive, there were 240k casualties on Okinawa.  150k of those were civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

The Okinawan people were not Japanese in the eyes of the soldiers.  For various cultural reasons, the Japanese army treated conquered civilians incredibly poorly throughout WWII, but none of this behavior (Korean and Chinese 'comfort women', human experimentation, mass killings, etc.) carried over to home.

It doesn't follow at all that the Japanese military would have treated the families of their comrades in the same manner.

Do you disagree that casualties of invading Japan would have be in the millions?  I've seen no casualty estimate that refutes that point and many agree that it would have been necessary to invade Japan to ensure surrender.

No idea.

Invading Japan may have brought about significant casualties.  It may have been unnecessary if negotiations had been entered.  As mentioned previously, my ability to foresee alternate timelines isn't great.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on March 02, 2017, 06:34:23 PM
Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 02, 2017, 07:13:51 PM
On to more recent events... what's the likelihood that Sessions resigns? It will keep up the 2 cabinet level officials per month trend they're on.

If he does, trump will just blame it on the media.

I don't care who he blames, as long as sessions is gone.  I think it somewhat unlikely that he'll resign but likely that he'll have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
Looks like you win the cookie for "Good guess of the Day"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 02, 2017, 07:34:48 PM

Accepted a conditional surrender so Japan could continue it's ambitions? Japan's government needed to be stopped.  We did so.  You might read this article on what both the atomic blasts and views of the Japanese populace at the time from someone who was there.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/


The outcome of the actual surrender was EXACTLY what Japan offered up earlier in the year. What, did the US just want to make sure they were serious by killing a bunch of civilians? You're not making sense.

Their only ambition was to end the war. They had literally nothing left. That's why they changed out their government in early April. That's why they offered to surrender several times, quite desperately, through multiple channels. You can even find online the intercepted messages the US has from Japan during this time. They knew they were done.

Their only ambition was to end the war?  Then they should have surrendered.

Japan wanted a truce, not a surrender.

In addition to keeping the emperor,  the peace being offered up by Japan involved no occupation and they wanted to keep some of their conquests.  That was unacceptable after Japanese aggression and war crimes.

If Japan's only ambition was to end the war, they should have surrendered prior to the bomb being dropped.  The offer was on the table, but they wanted better terms.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm

Full quote for context:

"These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia"

Bold added for emphasis.

Try this since it doesn't use the word "probably"
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html)
https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth (https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth)

Also the references I gave earlier which include actual books. And quotes form military leaders of that time.

Not going to keep beating a dead horse here. Good luck in your search.

Are you familiar with the 2 organizations you quoted?  If these are the organizations, neither seems particularly credible. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute

I quoted books, commanders, research papers as well. Feel free to debunk those as you see fit. Stars and Stripes also has a great article explaining the same thing regardless of the sources you find questionable. And even references the book I posted about earlier.

I would suggest as well researching a bit about the stance of various US commanders/officials. A lot of this is covered in the book " Racing the Enemy: Truman, Stalin, and the Surrender of Japan." - Tsuyoshi Hasegawa

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 02, 2017, 07:43:33 PM
Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".
I dont know how to feel about that. Did previous AGs really address these issues? I seem to remember some investigations into certain police departments, but did anything meaningful come of them? I didn't see a huge improvement in this area over the last decade, so I  can't  say there is much to "walk back." Maybe someone more informed in this matter will weigh in.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on March 02, 2017, 11:08:00 PM
Now, Jared Kushner. Is this because they were/are looking after Trump's Russian business interests? What is good for Trump is good for America?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 02, 2017, 11:44:34 PM
Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".

Sessions has said as much. He and the prez don't seem to understand that civil asset forfeiture - as practiced today - violates constitutional rights spelled out in the 4th 5th and 14th amendments. I wrote this article to 'splain  (http://www.lauramariereese.com/issues-that-can-unite-the-govt-looting-your-stuff/)-esp to my Republican family members (aka/all of my family older than me). For a while I was writing about 'issues that unite us' to bring my family back from their propaganda news feed addictions. But I'm so disheartened I've given up for a while. The stuff they believe it just hurts my heart to even engage. But ... my dad did call his rep to ask him to co-sponsor a HJR48(115th) based on this other article (http://www.lauramariereese.com/issues-that-unite-us-the-constitution-should-apply-to-people-not-corporations/), so I guess I should see the progress and be happy. But then Rick Perry - murderer of Cameron Todd Willingham / doofus who couldn't recall the name of the Dept of Energy - just got appointed to head up, that's right: the Dept of Energy. It's all just too too much.

On WWII - I found this video interesting: "the fallen of WWII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU&feature=youtu.be) to put the death toll in context - it includes the effects of the nuclear bombs. I live in Europe now, and sometimes I wonder how different it would be here had WWII not happened. I know that people often refer to it as a war that was worth fighting, but I think back to the stupid origins of WW1, General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket (https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARacket/WarIsARacket_djvu.txt), how the peace treaty tilled the soil for WW2, how corporations profit so handsomely from war,  and it all seems so callous and unnecessary to me. But the messaging I get from discourse in the US is that I'm some sort of naive hippie for thinking of war through this perspective, and I'm dishonoring the fallen for questioning our part in these wars. Never mind that I lost an uncle in one of the dumbest wars of all: Vietnam. I'm apparently some sort of idealistic/cynical  peace / love / happiness kind of fool, and I'll never be happy til I conform to a worldview where humans are units of production in a capitalistic machine - of which - war is a necessary tool to fight those who would take from us the profits of our own hard work. And how dare I express the opinion that patriotism is just a first step toward nationalism and they're both just excuses to hate people we don't know, and take credit for accomplishments we had no part in.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4)

As per the usual y'all inspired a bit of a rant. I'll stop now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 02, 2017, 11:57:32 PM

Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".
I dont know how to feel about that. Did previous AGs really address these issues? I seem to remember some investigations into certain police departments, but did anything meaningful come of them? I didn't see a huge improvement in this area over the last decade, so I  can't  say there is much to "walk back." Maybe someone more informed in this matter will weigh in.

Previous AG - Eric Holder - attempted to adjust the way in which the fed government set up their equitable sharing so that the feds at least reduced the incentives for police depts to loot people's stuff. The wiki says it was due to budget cuts but I remember reading it had to do with reducing incentives. In practice, the changes didn't do much to change anything.

Quote
Program limited in 2015[edit]
In January 2015 U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder halted some of the equitable sharing program.[6][7] In December 2015 the Department of Justice suspended some more of equitable sharing due to budget cuts.[8] Loopholes have allowed states to continue to use federal equitable sharing.[9]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_sharing

Edit: a quick google search gives this WaPol article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/31/holder-announces-new-limits-on-civil-asset-forfeitures (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/31/holder-announces-new-limits-on-civil-asset-forfeitures). While it shows that the AG is aware of the abuses - he doesn't actually go so far as to say it should be outlawed. The current administration, otoh, doesn't even to seem to be aware of the inherent conflict of interest in CAF. They seem like children to me in their unwilingness to study issues. No - they seem like cult members, actually.

The WaPo article regarding Eric H  is behind a metered paywall, so here:

Quote
Attorney General Eric H. Holder announced new curbs Tuesday on the government’s use of civil asset forfeiture laws, saying that federal authorities will only seize bank accounts when serious illegal transactions have been documented.

The new policy amplifies an announcement in October by the Internal Revenue Service, which said its agents would use seizure authorities primarily in cases when accounts owners are clearly using the banking system for crimes.

“With this new policy, the Department of Justice is taking action to ensure that we are allocating our resources to address the most serious offenses,” Holder said in a statement. “Appropriate use of asset forfeiture law allows the Justice Department to safeguard the integrity, security and stability of our nation’s financial system while protecting the civil liberties of all Americans.”

The new limits underscore a major shift in the federal government’s use of civil asset forfeiture laws, which have allowed local, state and federal authorities to take billions from individuals over the past decade without proving that crimes have occurred.

In January, Holder barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash and other property without warrants or criminal charges, unless federal authorities were directly involved in the case.

Those changes followed a Washington Post investigation last year that found that police nationwide have seized $2.5 billion in cash from almost 62,000 people since 2001 — without warrants or indictments. The money was forfeited through Justice’s Equitable Sharing Program. Thousands of people had to fight long legal battles to get some or all of their money back.

The policy guidance issued Tuesday focuses on IRS and Justice agents who made seizures relating to cases involving alleged “structuring,” the practice of intentionally limiting the size of bank transactions to avoid taxes or to hide ill-gotten funds. It is a felony offense to structure financial transactions.

Studies have found that enforcement efforts involving the seizure of bank accounts have often swept up criminals and innocent alike — including small-business owners who sometimes make multiple cash deposits for convenience and security rather than for illegal reasons.

A study by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning civil liberties group, found that from 2005 to 2012, the IRS used federal asset forfeiture law to take almost a quarter-billion dollars in more than 2,500 cases. In one-third of the cases the group examined, there was no allegation of any other criminal activity besides the allegation that someone had made transactions of less than $10,000, allegedly to evade federal reporting requirements.

In a statement, IJ lawyer Scott Bullock praised Holder’s move but said it does not go far enough because it “still leaves significant discretion to federal officials.”

“How effective the policy will be really depends on how it is applied in practice,” he said. “The ultimate solution must come from Congress to both ensure that innocent small-business owners do not have their lawfully-obtained funds taken and that these policy changes are made permanent through statute.”

Under the new policy, federal prosecutors must develop clear evidence of probable cause that a crime, other than simply structuring, has occurred. And before an account can be seized, a supervisor must approve the action.

A prosecutor may also ask a judge to issue a seizure warrant but only with the approval of a U.S. attorney or the chief of the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section.

The change comes as part of an ongoing review of the federal asset forfeiture program. It “is intended to ensure that our investigative resources are appropriately and effectively allocated to address the most serious structuring offenses,” the policy directive said.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 03, 2017, 08:13:55 AM
re the Japan bombings -- Japan was asked to surrender in July.  Answer: No.

Hiroshima bombed August 6 --  Japan asked to surrender.  Answer: No.
Nagasaki bombed August 9 -- Surrender -- Yes.

Japan had a significant role in what happened, too.



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: deadlymonkey on March 03, 2017, 08:30:49 AM
while I think the atomic bomb stuff has gotten way off topic.  I would like to add the Kyūjō incident.  Even after all the above stuff happened, atomic bomb, Russian entering the war etc....There was a coup attempt by members of the military to depose the emperor and continue on fighting.  The coup was obviously stopped, but there was a significant portion of the military that wanted to fight on to the last.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 03, 2017, 08:38:51 AM
re the Japan bombings -- Japan was asked to surrender in July.  Answer: No.

Hiroshima bombed August 6 --  Japan asked to surrender.  Answer: No.
Nagasaki bombed August 9 -- Surrender -- Yes.

Japan had a significant role in what happened, too.

I agree that's what happened. I also agree that it might have been the quickest way to end the war.

If ISIS acquired nuclear capabilities and nuked NYC tomorrow and asked the US to get out of the Arab world, the US said no, and then ISIS continued to nuke US cities, would that be ok?

In the ISIS view, it would save ISIS lives to get the US to capitulate by incinerating US population centers.

If your answer is no, it's not OK, then your views are inconsistent.

If your answer is yes, it's OK since it's a war, then your views are consistent but we're not in the same moral universe and there's not point talking about it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 03, 2017, 08:55:37 AM
while I think the atomic bomb stuff has gotten way off topic.  I would like to add the Kyūjō incident.  Even after all the above stuff happened, atomic bomb, Russian entering the war etc....There was a coup attempt by members of the military to depose the emperor and continue on fighting.  The coup was obviously stopped, but there was a significant portion of the military that wanted to fight on to the last.

Yep. There was also a contingent that was set on trying to find peace. Their government was even replaced early in the year in an attempt to find a resolution because they were getting hammered and knew they were going to lose.

The US was experiencing just as much internal conflict behind the scenes as well.
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm (http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm)

 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 03, 2017, 09:07:23 AM
re the Japan bombings -- Japan was asked to surrender in July.  Answer: No.

Hiroshima bombed August 6 --  Japan asked to surrender.  Answer: No.
Nagasaki bombed August 9 -- Surrender -- Yes.

Japan had a significant role in what happened, too.

I agree that's what happened. I also agree that it might have been the quickest way to end the war.

If ISIS acquired nuclear capabilities and nuked NYC tomorrow and asked the US to get out of the Arab world, the US said no, and then ISIS continued to nuke US cities, would that be ok?

In the ISIS view, it would save ISIS lives to get the US to capitulate by incinerating US population centers.

If your answer is no, it's not OK, then your views are inconsistent.

If your answer is yes, it's OK since it's a war, then your views are consistent but we're not in the same moral universe and there's not point talking about it.
We all of us live with inconsistencies all the time.  The people who try to bend the human world into something without inconsistencies are usually the fanatics who make everything worse.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SisterX on March 03, 2017, 09:22:55 AM
Any thoughts on Attorney General Session's impact? I think that position is one of the few that has a direct influence on people's lives in the US for better or worse. My concern is he will be more willing to turn a blind eye to abuse by police departments (confiscating property, profiling, etc) than prior AGs of either party had been while hiding this under the guise of being "tough on crime".

Sessions has said as much. He and the prez don't seem to understand that civil asset forfeiture - as practiced today - violates constitutional rights spelled out in the 4th 5th and 14th amendments. I wrote this article to 'splain  (http://www.lauramariereese.com/issues-that-can-unite-the-govt-looting-your-stuff/)-esp to my Republican family members (aka/all of my family older than me). For a while I was writing about 'issues that unite us' to bring my family back from their propaganda news feed addictions. But I'm so disheartened I've given up for a while. The stuff they believe it just hurts my heart to even engage. But ... my dad did call his rep to ask him to co-sponsor a HJR48(115th) based on this other article (http://www.lauramariereese.com/issues-that-unite-us-the-constitution-should-apply-to-people-not-corporations/), so I guess I should see the progress and be happy. But then Rick Perry - murderer of Cameron Todd Willingham / doofus who couldn't recall the name of the Dept of Energy - just got appointed to head up, that's right: the Dept of Energy. It's all just too too much.

On WWII - I found this video interesting: "the fallen of WWII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU&feature=youtu.be) to put the death toll in context - it includes the effects of the nuclear bombs. I live in Europe now, and sometimes I wonder how different it would be here had WWII not happened. I know that people often refer to it as a war that was worth fighting, but I think back to the stupid origins of WW1, General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket (https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARacket/WarIsARacket_djvu.txt), how the peace treaty tilled the soil for WW2, how corporations profit so handsomely from war,  and it all seems so callous and unnecessary to me. But the messaging I get from discourse in the US is that I'm some sort of naive hippie for thinking of war through this perspective, and I'm dishonoring the fallen for questioning our part in these wars. Never mind that I lost an uncle in one of the dumbest wars of all: Vietnam. I'm apparently some sort of idealistic/cynical  peace / love / happiness kind of fool, and I'll never be happy til I conform to a worldview where humans are units of production in a capitalistic machine - of which - war is a necessary tool to fight those who would take from us the profits of our own hard work. And how dare I express the opinion that patriotism is just a first step toward nationalism and they're both just excuses to hate people we don't know, and take credit for accomplishments we had no part in.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4)

As per the usual y'all inspired a bit of a rant. I'll stop now.

"An army is a strange composite masterpiece, in which strength results from an enormous sum total of utter weaknesses. Thus only can we explain a war waged by humanity for humanity in spite of humanity." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if we just declared radical peace on the world and turned all of our military spending toward things like building up other countries and providing healthcare to the world instead. It's a lot harder to hate someone who's building you a road or vaccinating your kids so they don't die. And yes, we do some of that...but what if that's all we did with our military budget?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 03, 2017, 10:26:24 AM
while I think the atomic bomb stuff has gotten way off topic.  I would like to add the Kyūjō incident.  Even after all the above stuff happened, atomic bomb, Russian entering the war etc....There was a coup attempt by members of the military to depose the emperor and continue on fighting.  The coup was obviously stopped, but there was a significant portion of the military that wanted to fight on to the last.

And the US had manufactured 4 bombs to potentially use against Japan.  Thank goodness they were not all needed.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 03, 2017, 10:30:19 AM
I agree that's what happened.

That's good because I stated facts. 


I also agree that it might have been the quickest way to end the war.


I don't know the answer.  I know that's what happened, and now we live with that history.  I never said that bombing Japan was the right thing.  War is terrible and the bombing was terrible.  I see no point go get into the what ifs, because your assumption that I think the  Japan bombings were OK is wrong.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 03, 2017, 11:35:18 AM
"An army is a strange composite masterpiece, in which strength results from an enormous sum total of utter weaknesses. Thus only can we explain a war waged by humanity for humanity in spite of humanity." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if we just declared radical peace on the world and turned all of our military spending toward things like building up other countries and providing healthcare to the world instead. It's a lot harder to hate someone who's building you a road or vaccinating your kids so they don't die. And yes, we do some of that...but what if that's all we did with our military budget?

War is awful and should be avoided as much as possible.  If the citizens will not agree to fight, it's hard to have a war.

You cannot buy love or peace with money.  It's never, ever that easy.  Bite the hand that feeds you?  Doesn't that happen all the time?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 03, 2017, 11:59:41 AM
"An army is a strange composite masterpiece, in which strength results from an enormous sum total of utter weaknesses. Thus only can we explain a war waged by humanity for humanity in spite of humanity." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if we just declared radical peace on the world and turned all of our military spending toward things like building up other countries and providing healthcare to the world instead. It's a lot harder to hate someone who's building you a road or vaccinating your kids so they don't die. And yes, we do some of that...but what if that's all we did with our military budget?

War is awful and should be avoided as much as possible.  If the citizens will not agree to fight, it's hard to have a war.

You cannot buy love or peace with money.  It's never, ever that easy.  Bite the hand that feeds you?  Doesn't that happen all the time?

War will be necessary as long as there are people willing to use force to get their way. It is better to be fighting against those people than with them, for it would be much worst to live in a world entirely dominated by force.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 03, 2017, 12:03:09 PM
War will be necessary as long as there are people willing to use force to get their way. It is better to be fighting against those people than with them, for it would be much worst to live in a world entirely dominated by force.

Isn't that impossible by definition?

You're advocating using force to ensure that nobody gets their way by using force? 

Ghandi would be appalled.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 03, 2017, 12:09:36 PM
War will be necessary as long as there are people willing to use force to get their way. It is better to be fighting against those people than with them, for it would be much worst to live in a world entirely dominated by force.

Isn't that impossible by definition?

You're advocating using force to ensure that nobody gets their way by using force? 

Ghandi would be appalled.

TL:DR - stand up for yourself but don't be a dick.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 03, 2017, 01:53:36 PM
I sometimes wonder what would happen if we just declared radical peace on the world and turned all of our military spending toward things like building up other countries and providing healthcare to the world instead. It's a lot harder to hate someone who's building you a road or vaccinating your kids so they don't die. And yes, we do some of that...but what if that's all we did with our military budget?

I was hoping that when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 we were going to have a "peace dividend".  During the political campaign Clinton said military spending would be diverted toward improving the country and paying down the federal deficit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 03, 2017, 02:05:18 PM
Clinton said military spending would be diverted toward improving the country and paying down the federal deficit.

And he delivered on both of those promises, but I think it had more to do with the soaring (peaceful) economy than with his reductions in military spending.

George W, by contrast, did the exact opposite.  He cut taxes on the wealthy, which hurt the budget, and he started massive new war spending, which hurt the budget.  Unsurprisingly these were both bad for the economy, which hurt the budget.

But hey, republicans are all about fiscal responsibility right?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on March 03, 2017, 03:05:02 PM
Everyone's fiscally responsible with their own money. Other people's, not so much.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 03, 2017, 04:39:06 PM
TL:DR - stand up for yourself but don't be a dick.

Yeah, that seems like the reasonable way to go.  It's why running torture facilities, kidnapping people, denying people due process, and executing civilians bothers me so much.  That's not standing up for yourself, it's being a dick.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 03, 2017, 11:28:13 PM
re the Japan bombings -- Japan was asked to surrender in July.  Answer: No.

Hiroshima bombed August 6 --  Japan asked to surrender.  Answer: No.
Nagasaki bombed August 9 -- Surrender -- Yes.

Japan had a significant role in what happened, too.

I agree that's what happened. I also agree that it might have been the quickest way to end the war.

If ISIS acquired nuclear capabilities and nuked NYC tomorrow and asked the US to get out of the Arab world, the US said no, and then ISIS continued to nuke US cities, would that be ok?

In the ISIS view, it would save ISIS lives to get the US to capitulate by incinerating US population centers.

If your answer is no, it's not OK, then your views are inconsistent.

If your answer is yes, it's OK since it's a war, then your views are consistent but we're not in the same moral universe and there's not point talking about it.
Comparing ISIS to the US in WW2 like that is not fair. The US using nukes is not as bad as the hypothetical ISIS attack because of the starkly different moral intentions of the respective actors.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on March 04, 2017, 01:32:12 AM
Comparing ISIS to the US in WW2 like that is not fair. The US using nukes is not as bad as the hypothetical ISIS attack because of the starkly different moral intentions of the respective actors.

For the sake of argument, that's only true from the point of view regarding our morals and beliefs. ISIS believes what they're doing is good and right and true.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 04, 2017, 11:10:26 AM
Comparing ISIS to the US in WW2 like that is not fair. The US using nukes is not as bad as the hypothetical ISIS attack because of the starkly different moral intentions of the respective actors.

For the sake of argument, that's only true from the point of view regarding our morals and beliefs. ISIS believes what they're doing is good and right and true.

So as long as a group believes what they're doing is good, it's okay? Again, that that kind of moral equivalency is just ridiculous. Let's take a look at what ISIS believes is good and right and true:

1. Torturing and beheading non-believers and other "infidels" and broadcasting these vile acts as propaganda
2. Raping young children and forcing them into lives as sex slaves for soldiers of ISIS
3. Setting people on fire to burn them alive inside a metal cage
4. Establishing a "caliphate" where all would live under Sharia
5. Mass executions of civilians and anyone else refusing the caliphate
6. Mohammad is the Prophet, the Koran is gospel truth, and if you don't believe it, you will be executed

@lost_in_the_endless_aisle said it very well:  "... the starkly different moral intentions of the respective actors" makes all the difference. Using force (including dropping bombs -- oh my!) to defend against such vicious brutality is completely legitimate and different from being a hostile aggressor who is trying to subjugate an entire section of humanity. Trying to equate that use of force with that of a brutal aggressor is just beyond the fringe of most people's belief systems. Perhaps we should give ISIS a stern talking-to instead? Maybe that would have worked with Japan too after they bombed Pearl Harbor intentionally to draw us into the war.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 04, 2017, 11:23:51 AM
Trying to equate that use of force with that of a brutal aggressor

This line of argument would carry more weight if they had invaded our country, instead of us invading theirs.

It's a pretty twisted sort of logic that can claim to be the virtuous defender of freedoms while simultaneously invading and occupying an enemy state. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 04, 2017, 11:41:06 AM
Trying to equate that use of force with that of a brutal aggressor

This line of argument would carry more weight if they had invaded our country, instead of us invading theirs.

It's a pretty twisted sort of logic that can claim to be the virtuous defender of freedoms while simultaneously invading and occupying an enemy state.
Israel seems to have managed it for the last 40 years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2017, 12:16:23 PM
Let's take a look at what ISIS believes is good and right and true:
1. Torturing and beheading non-believers and other "infidels" and broadcasting these vile acts as propaganda
2. Raping young children and forcing them into lives as sex slaves for soldiers of ISIS
3. Setting people on fire to burn them alive inside a metal cage
4. Establishing a "caliphate" where all would live under Sharia
5. Mass executions of civilians and anyone else refusing the caliphate
6. Mohammad is the Prophet, the Koran is gospel truth, and if you don't believe it, you will be executed

If you don't like comparing to WWII, can we compare the modern ISIS phenomenon with modern day US actions then?

Let's take a look at what the United States believes is good and right and true today:
1. Torturing and killing (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guantanamo-bay-sergeant-claims-cia-tortured-3-men-death-article-1.2082610 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guantanamo-bay-sergeant-claims-cia-tortured-3-men-death-article-1.2082610)) people suspected of being terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
2. Supporting child rapists and helping them to maintain power in Afghanistan (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)).
3. Sexually assaulting (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/cia-sexual-abuse-torture-majid-khan-guantanamo-bay (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/cia-sexual-abuse-torture-majid-khan-guantanamo-bay)) innocent (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550)) people after kidnapping them from their countries.
4. Banning people from entering the country because of their religion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/03/03/in-leaked-document-the-case-for-trumps-muslim-ban-takes-another-huge-hit/?utm_term=.0d672b977307 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/03/03/in-leaked-document-the-case-for-trumps-muslim-ban-takes-another-huge-hit/?utm_term=.0d672b977307)).
5. Execution of civilians without any form of due process or culpability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes))
6. The highest military commander in the country voicing support for murder (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/).


ISIS is responsible for some really horrible stuff.  But the thing is, they exist because of the US invasion of Iraq.  Actions have consequences . . . and I'm not seeing any real interest by Americans to correct or stop the truly terrible things that are being done under the stars and stripes around the world today.  This just sets up more problems (like the current ISIS one) in the future for the rest of the world.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on March 04, 2017, 01:28:10 PM
The Trump Presidency has made me finally accept that the Clinton years are dead and gone and will never return again. With that in mind, I am going to have to live in a Dog Eat Dog world, because that's what Trump's supporters want, so I am going to completely devour every "dog" in sight. Sounds harsh, I guess, but that's simply how life is going to be in the USA for the foreseeable future. Disappointing, but c'est la vie. Wish things could be different.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on March 04, 2017, 02:28:30 PM
WRT ISIS and the USA, to compare them seams like a useless exercise. What is the point in saying the USA is as bad as ISIS? What is trying to be proven? They are not comparable, each "side" has acted in ways that are on their own merits terrible. WRT to torture and our own misdeeds, we have courts, legislators, the American people, and journalists ready to pounce and make it right. The USA is a country that fosters this. THAT says something. We strive to be a better nation. Not perfect, but can anyone truly say the world would be a better place without the US?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2017, 02:31:05 PM
Let's take a look at what ISIS believes is good and right and true:
1. Torturing and beheading non-believers and other "infidels" and broadcasting these vile acts as propaganda
2. Raping young children and forcing them into lives as sex slaves for soldiers of ISIS
3. Setting people on fire to burn them alive inside a metal cage
4. Establishing a "caliphate" where all would live under Sharia
5. Mass executions of civilians and anyone else refusing the caliphate
6. Mohammad is the Prophet, the Koran is gospel truth, and if you don't believe it, you will be executed

If you don't like comparing to WWII, can we compare the modern ISIS phenomenon with modern day US actions then?

Let's take a look at what the United States believes is good and right and true today:
1. Torturing and killing (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guantanamo-bay-sergeant-claims-cia-tortured-3-men-death-article-1.2082610 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guantanamo-bay-sergeant-claims-cia-tortured-3-men-death-article-1.2082610)) people suspected of being terrorists in Guantanamo Bay.
2. Supporting child rapists and helping them to maintain power in Afghanistan (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=0)).
3. Sexually assaulting (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/cia-sexual-abuse-torture-majid-khan-guantanamo-bay (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/cia-sexual-abuse-torture-majid-khan-guantanamo-bay)) innocent (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550)) people after kidnapping them from their countries.
4. Banning people from entering the country because of their religion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/03/03/in-leaked-document-the-case-for-trumps-muslim-ban-takes-another-huge-hit/?utm_term=.0d672b977307 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/03/03/in-leaked-document-the-case-for-trumps-muslim-ban-takes-another-huge-hit/?utm_term=.0d672b977307)).
5. Execution of civilians without any form of due process or culpability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes))
6. The highest military commander in the country voicing support for murder (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/).


ISIS is responsible for some really horrible stuff.  But the thing is, they exist because of the US invasion of Iraq.  Actions have consequences . . . and I'm not seeing any real interest by Americans to correct or stop the truly terrible things that are being done under the stars and stripes around the world today.  This just sets up more problems (like the current ISIS one) in the future for the rest of the world.
This. It's actually very similar what ISIS believes they are doing to what the US believed it was doing; stopping an agressive government from expanding vastly outside of its commonly accepted borders.

I will disagree on #4 - I can't imagine that a country stoppjng people from see enteringit is worth fighting a war over, or a good excuse for acts of violence. The others are more clearly despicable acts; securing borders through non violent means hardly rises to the level of torture  and murder of innocents, even if it is not ideal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 04, 2017, 08:41:22 PM
I understand to some extent how and why ISIS rationalizes terrorist attacks. I also agree the US has not made perfect geopolitical maneuvers over the last 20 years and that adhering to a realist foreign policy stance does sweep aside the occasional liberal democratic ideal. While arguably those considerations close the moral gap between ISIS and the US by an atomic distance, the reality is the remaining difference is about as big of a chasm as exists in the modern world.

Secondly, while ISIS did emerge in the power vacuum left behind due to the US invasion of Iraq and the Arab Spring in Syria, many of the ideological foundations of ISIS have existed in the Wahhabist school of Islamic thought for quite some time. The US did not invent this anti-rational, violent, immoral system of beliefs and the US invasion is merely a post hoc justification (and a useful source for recruiting propaganda) for committing atrocities both domestic and foreign for this group. ISIS or those clinging to its ideological dregs were not allies of the neo-Ba'athist governments of Iraq and Syria and were presumably not unhappy to see those more moderate administrations crumble. And of course, terrorist acts in Iraq only increased the duration that it was necessary for the US to have a military presence there (not to mention how sectarian and dysfunctional post-Saddam Iraq is).

This is the one thing Bannon might be right about in a limited sense: the basis of ISIS's violence is more in the long-term untenability of extremist Islamic Wahhabism in the face of liberal, progressive, Western influence, and the extremists know this. There is some truth to the clash of civilizations view in this matter, whether we like it or not. I'm not buying simplistic morality tales about how one country should not be occupying the other; the real world has a lot more color than that and the picture it paints is relatively good for the US and liberal western democracy and rather bad for ISIS and associated ideologies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 04, 2017, 11:11:19 PM
The Trump Presidency has made me finally accept that the Clinton years are dead and gone and will never return again. With that in mind, I am going to have to live in a Dog Eat Dog world, because that's what Trump's supporters want, so I am going to completely devour every "dog" in sight. Sounds harsh, I guess, but that's simply how life is going to be in the USA for the foreseeable future. Disappointing, but c'est la vie. Wish things could be different.

This is the view I'm coming around to accepting too. This world view denies our shared humanity, but it is becoming the reality. You get what you wish for, huh? Anyway, what am I going to do? Keep upsetting my mom by posting truthful well-thought out posts on facebook that point out where we're headed and what's gone wrong? The alt-(insert big $ sponsor) media has people believing that the world is a scary scary place and that everyone who needs a little assistance is a money grubbing welfare queen. Once those ideas are in peoples heads, it's very hard to argue against them.

What Guitar Stv wrote - I agree. I liked Obama - and he didn't start the war in Iraq - but some of the policies he continued and / or turned a blind eye to are exactly the kinds of things people hate us for. Of course I realize it's a big job - and when congress does nothing but obstruct every effort you make, it's easy to lean toward expediency vs right action.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 05, 2017, 07:49:02 AM
WRT ISIS and the USA, to compare them seams like a useless exercise. What is the point in saying the USA is as bad as ISIS? What is trying to be proven? They are not comparable, each "side" has acted in ways that are on their own merits terrible. WRT to torture and our own misdeeds, we have courts, legislators, the American people, and journalists ready to pounce and make it right. The USA is a country that fosters this. THAT says something. We strive to be a better nation. Not perfect, but can anyone truly say the world would be a better place without the US?

The point of discussing ongoing acts of terror by the United States is to generate enough interest and understanding of what is being done in the name of the American people that they take it seriously.  The government and military of the US work for the people.  If the behaviour of these organizations becomes unpopular enough, then the people can force a change.  Stopping the US from regularly implementing immoral policy would be beneficial to the whole world.  ISIS is a terrible group of people, I desperately want the US to have moral high ground.

It has been more than a decade and a half since the US started kidnapping, torturing, sexually assaulting, and holding hundreds of innocent people without trial.  Zero people in the military have been held accountable.  At this point I'd be shocked to ever see anyone in the military ever held accountable for their crimes.  The plethora of journalists and news stories about these crimes han't prevented many Americans (including quite a few on these forums) from remaining unaware of what's happening.  Obviously the things you're claiming are fostered in the US, aren't working as well as you claim.

The US is generally a pretty good country, filled with many people who are trying to do things to better the world.  The US is also a powerful country.  History has shown dozens of times where that power has been abused, and currently it is being abused.  There will always be extremism in the world, but let's not create conditions for it to flourish.  It's unrealistic to expect a country to be perfect . . . but perfection has nothing to do with kidnapping, torture, sexual assault, and murder.  It has nothing to do with invading a country based on lies, and then running away from that country when rebuilding becomes difficult.  If you aren't admitting to and fixing your mistakes, I don't believe that you can claim to be striving to be a better nation.  Nobody is being held accountable right now, and that means nothing in the US approach to things will get fixed.  That's why we need to shine a spotlight on these mistakes as often and brightly as possible.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on March 05, 2017, 10:38:41 AM
Also, the majority of poor Trump supporters welcoming a dog-eat-dog world will be the ones eaten. They think right now that they're on top for once, but that is an illusion. This is all just accelerating my desire to accumulate wealth, accumulate defensive weaponry, retire early and bounce.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dragoncar on March 05, 2017, 06:14:09 PM
Also, the majority of poor Trump supporters welcoming a dog-eat-dog world will be the ones eaten. They think right now that they're on top for once, but that is an illusion. This is all just accelerating my desire to accumulate wealth, accumulate defensive weaponry, retire early and bounce.

It's called Republican Exceptionalism.  It's a known fact that republicans are more successful, better looking, and exceptionally virile.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on March 06, 2017, 05:57:58 AM
Looking at the docket and future bills - there are some truly scary ones in there.  Most are still in committee, but, any of these would be signed by Trump, except maybe the last one.  He will not want to sign a bill that gives him less power, so that one is an unknown  Based on this administration I'm just not sure whether I want it to pass.  Not in any order of importance and not including the multiple bills to repeal the ACA since those are well known.   

H.R. 861: To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
One sentence long and cosponsored by Republican members of Congress from fossil fuel-producing states. Currently awaiting action in the subcommittee on environment.

2. H.R. 610: Tax dollars for private schools
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced this bill in January, which would redistribute funding earmarked for public schools in the form of vouchers for parents to send children to private schools. There is no protection for special needs kids, AP programs, disabled kids, etc.  Awaiting action in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

3. H.R. 899: To terminate the Department of Education
Introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), would cause the U.S. Department of Education to terminate by the end of 2018. Currently in committee.

4. H.J.R. 69: To repeal a rule protecting wildlife
Introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), this repeals a rule that prohibits “non-subsistence” hunting in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The resolution passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate.  Wildlife in ANWR are already under stress from rising temps.  Without action on climate change, scientists predict we could lose wild polar bears by 2100.  Two-thirds could be gone by 2050, this bill would hasten their demise. 

5.  H.R. 172: To restore the Free Speech and First Amendment rights of churches and exempt organizations by repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment
This one is sponsored by Rep Walter Jones (R-NC).  He confuses me, sometimes he actually votes logically and then he does something crazy like propose this bill. 

6. H.R. 1031: To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Sponsored by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). 

7. H.R. 198 & H.R. 631 & H.R. 451: Permanently Repeal the Estate Tax Act of 2017
HR 198 is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), HR 451 by Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH) and HR 631 by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD).  One of these is probably a done deal. 

8.  H.R. 354: To defund Planned Parenthood
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tennessee) introduced this bill which would prevent any federal grants from going to Planned Parenthood for a year unless they swore to not perform abortions. Only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood resources go toward abortions and ZERO federal dollars.  The vast majority of funding is used to help low-income women get STD tests, contraceptive care, and breast cancer screenings.  In committee.

9. H.R. 785: National Right-to-Work legislation
Again, the lovely Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is looking out for the country.  In committee.

10.  H.R. 147: To criminalize abortion
Sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona) the bill would prosecute pregnant women seeking abortions, along with abortion providers, by making abortion a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Currently awaiting action in the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

11.  S. 21: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017
The REINS Act passed the House already and is in the Senate.  Sponsored by Rand Paul (R-Ky).  It requires that any future major regulation adopted by an Executive Agency must be approved by a specific resolution in each House of Congress within 70 days to take effect.  While I think this would be a good thing for the Trump Administration, if it had been in effect under the Obama Administration, regulations that were passed including food safety regulations, the Clean Power Plan regulating pollution from electrical generating facilities, net neutrality rules protecting the internet from monopoly, restrictions on predatory lending and energy efficiency standards for appliances would never have passed.   


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 06, 2017, 06:31:55 AM
WRT ISIS and the USA, to compare them seams like a useless exercise. What is the point in saying the USA is as bad as ISIS? What is trying to be proven? They are not comparable, each "side" has acted in ways that are on their own merits terrible. WRT to torture and our own misdeeds, we have courts, legislators, the American people, and journalists ready to pounce and make it right. The USA is a country that fosters this. THAT says something. We strive to be a better nation. Not perfect, but can anyone truly say the world would be a better place without the US?

The point of discussing ongoing acts of terror by the United States is to generate enough interest and understanding of what is being done in the name of the American people that they take it seriously.  The government and military of the US work for the people.  If the behaviour of these organizations becomes unpopular enough, then the people can force a change.  Stopping the US from regularly implementing immoral policy would be beneficial to the whole world.  ISIS is a terrible group of people, I desperately want the US to have moral high ground.

It has been more than a decade and a half since the US started kidnapping, torturing, sexually assaulting, and holding hundreds of innocent people without trial.  Zero people in the military have been held accountable.  At this point I'd be shocked to ever see anyone in the military ever held accountable for their crimes.  The plethora of journalists and news stories about these crimes han't prevented many Americans (including quite a few on these forums) from remaining unaware of what's happening.  Obviously the things you're claiming are fostered in the US, aren't working as well as you claim.

The US is generally a pretty good country, filled with many people who are trying to do things to better the world.  The US is also a powerful country.  History has shown dozens of times where that power has been abused, and currently it is being abused.  There will always be extremism in the world, but let's not create conditions for it to flourish.  It's unrealistic to expect a country to be perfect . . . but perfection has nothing to do with kidnapping, torture, sexual assault, and murder.  It has nothing to do with invading a country based on lies, and then running away from that country when rebuilding becomes difficult.  If you aren't admitting to and fixing your mistakes, I don't believe that you can claim to be striving to be a better nation.  Nobody is being held accountable right now, and that means nothing in the US approach to things will get fixed.  That's why we need to shine a spotlight on these mistakes as often and brightly as possible.

This. Attention will hopefully lead to change. Personally, I don't even care as much for people being held accountable if these actions stop and steps are taken to ensure they are less likely to happen in the future.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on March 06, 2017, 07:12:05 AM
Looking at the docket and future bills - there are some truly scary ones in there.  Most are still in committee, but, any of these would be signed by Trump, except maybe the last one.  He will not want to sign a bill that gives him less power, so that one is an unknown  Based on this administration I'm just not sure whether I want it to pass.  Not in any order of importance and not including the multiple bills to repeal the ACA since those are well known.   

H.R. 861: To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
One sentence long and cosponsored by Republican members of Congress from fossil fuel-producing states. Currently awaiting action in the subcommittee on environment.

2. H.R. 610: Tax dollars for private schools
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced this bill in January, which would redistribute funding earmarked for public schools in the form of vouchers for parents to send children to private schools. There is no protection for special needs kids, AP programs, disabled kids, etc.  Awaiting action in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

3. H.R. 899: To terminate the Department of Education
Introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), would cause the U.S. Department of Education to terminate by the end of 2018. Currently in committee.

4. H.J.R. 69: To repeal a rule protecting wildlife
Introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), this repeals a rule that prohibits “non-subsistence” hunting in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The resolution passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate.  Wildlife in ANWR are already under stress from rising temps.  Without action on climate change, scientists predict we could lose wild polar bears by 2100.  Two-thirds could be gone by 2050, this bill would hasten their demise. 

5.  H.R. 172: To restore the Free Speech and First Amendment rights of churches and exempt organizations by repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment
This one is sponsored by Rep Walter Jones (R-NC).  He confuses me, sometimes he actually votes logically and then he does something crazy like propose this bill. 

6. H.R. 1031: To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Sponsored by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). 

7. H.R. 198 & H.R. 631 & H.R. 451: Permanently Repeal the Estate Tax Act of 2017
HR 198 is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), HR 451 by Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH) and HR 631 by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD).  One of these is probably a done deal. 

8.  H.R. 354: To defund Planned Parenthood
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tennessee) introduced this bill which would prevent any federal grants from going to Planned Parenthood for a year unless they swore to not perform abortions. Only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood resources go toward abortions and ZERO federal dollars.  The vast majority of funding is used to help low-income women get STD tests, contraceptive care, and breast cancer screenings.  In committee.

9. H.R. 785: National Right-to-Work legislation
Again, the lovely Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is looking out for the country.  In committee.

10.  H.R. 147: To criminalize abortion
Sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona) the bill would prosecute pregnant women seeking abortions, along with abortion providers, by making abortion a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Currently awaiting action in the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

11.  S. 21: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017
The REINS Act passed the House already and is in the Senate.  Sponsored by Rand Paul (R-Ky).  It requires that any future major regulation adopted by an Executive Agency must be approved by a specific resolution in each House of Congress within 70 days to take effect.  While I think this would be a good thing for the Trump Administration, if it had been in effect under the Obama Administration, regulations that were passed including food safety regulations, the Clean Power Plan regulating pollution from electrical generating facilities, net neutrality rules protecting the internet from monopoly, restrictions on predatory lending and energy efficiency standards for appliances would never have passed.

Sweet Jesus, we are all so fucked.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 06, 2017, 07:31:16 AM
Looking at the docket and future bills - there are some truly scary ones in there.  Most are still in committee, but, any of these would be signed by Trump, except maybe the last one.  He will not want to sign a bill that gives him less power, so that one is an unknown  Based on this administration I'm just not sure whether I want it to pass.  Not in any order of importance and not including the multiple bills to repeal the ACA since those are well known.   

H.R. 861: To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
One sentence long and cosponsored by Republican members of Congress from fossil fuel-producing states. Currently awaiting action in the subcommittee on environment.

2. H.R. 610: Tax dollars for private schools
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced this bill in January, which would redistribute funding earmarked for public schools in the form of vouchers for parents to send children to private schools. There is no protection for special needs kids, AP programs, disabled kids, etc.  Awaiting action in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

3. H.R. 899: To terminate the Department of Education
Introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), would cause the U.S. Department of Education to terminate by the end of 2018. Currently in committee.

4. H.J.R. 69: To repeal a rule protecting wildlife
Introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), this repeals a rule that prohibits “non-subsistence” hunting in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The resolution passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate.  Wildlife in ANWR are already under stress from rising temps.  Without action on climate change, scientists predict we could lose wild polar bears by 2100.  Two-thirds could be gone by 2050, this bill would hasten their demise. 

5.  H.R. 172: To restore the Free Speech and First Amendment rights of churches and exempt organizations by repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment
This one is sponsored by Rep Walter Jones (R-NC).  He confuses me, sometimes he actually votes logically and then he does something crazy like propose this bill. 

6. H.R. 1031: To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.
Sponsored by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). 

7. H.R. 198 & H.R. 631 & H.R. 451: Permanently Repeal the Estate Tax Act of 2017
HR 198 is sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), HR 451 by Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH) and HR 631 by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD).  One of these is probably a done deal. 

8.  H.R. 354: To defund Planned Parenthood
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tennessee) introduced this bill which would prevent any federal grants from going to Planned Parenthood for a year unless they swore to not perform abortions. Only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood resources go toward abortions and ZERO federal dollars.  The vast majority of funding is used to help low-income women get STD tests, contraceptive care, and breast cancer screenings.  In committee.

9. H.R. 785: National Right-to-Work legislation
Again, the lovely Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is looking out for the country.  In committee.

10.  H.R. 147: To criminalize abortion
Sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona) the bill would prosecute pregnant women seeking abortions, along with abortion providers, by making abortion a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Currently awaiting action in the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

11.  S. 21: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017
The REINS Act passed the House already and is in the Senate.  Sponsored by Rand Paul (R-Ky).  It requires that any future major regulation adopted by an Executive Agency must be approved by a specific resolution in each House of Congress within 70 days to take effect.  While I think this would be a good thing for the Trump Administration, if it had been in effect under the Obama Administration, regulations that were passed including food safety regulations, the Clean Power Plan regulating pollution from electrical generating facilities, net neutrality rules protecting the internet from monopoly, restrictions on predatory lending and energy efficiency standards for appliances would never have passed.

Sweet Jesus, we are all so fucked.
Wow.. Hyperbole, much?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 06, 2017, 07:40:39 AM
The Trump Presidency has made me finally accept that the Clinton years are dead and gone and will never return again. With that in mind, I am going to have to live in a Dog Eat Dog world, because that's what Trump's supporters want, so I am going to completely devour every "dog" in sight. Sounds harsh, I guess, but that's simply how life is going to be in the USA for the foreseeable future. Disappointing, but c'est la vie. Wish things could be different.

What exactly do you mean? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on March 06, 2017, 07:45:32 AM
4 and 9 have my support. I'll have to think about 11 but off the cuff I think it has merit.

4: Issuing tags, collecting revenue, and using it to manage those populations has been beneficial to every area its been done before. If you love wildlife, you would support hunting.

9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on March 06, 2017, 06:56:06 PM
I realized tonight that I want very much to see Donald Trump drug tested. So many Americans have to be drug tested for their jobs - why not Donald???

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 06, 2017, 07:01:05 PM
I realized tonight that I want very much to see Donald Trump drug tested. So many Americans have to be drug tested for their jobs - why not Donald???
I honestly think that it may be better if he were prescribed some drugs...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on March 06, 2017, 07:29:48 PM

11.  S. 21: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017
The REINS Act passed the House already and is in the Senate.  Sponsored by Rand Paul (R-Ky).  It requires that any future major regulation adopted by an Executive Agency must be approved by a specific resolution in each House of Congress within 70 days to take effect.  While I think this would be a good thing for the Trump Administration, if it had been in effect under the Obama Administration, regulations that were passed including food safety regulations, the Clean Power Plan regulating pollution from electrical generating facilities, net neutrality rules protecting the internet from monopoly, restrictions on predatory lending and energy efficiency standards for appliances would never have passed.

You can't have it both ways. Either you take away the power or you accept that as soon as someone you don't agree with gets it, they will use it against you. The urge to contain executive overreach is understandable but in the current climate you would probably just be ensuring that nothing will ever get done unless you have a majority in the house, congress and control the white house.

I suspect I would have to study a lot of our parties governing histories as well as well as better understand where we are now to even take a wild guess as to how a change like that would impact the fed...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sydneystache on March 06, 2017, 07:49:31 PM
Quote
"Since his election a scant six weeks ago, Trump has defamed a great newspaper, a federal judge, and a former president. He has attacked whole institutions, pillars of American democracy. He appears willing to hold a great constitutional order hostage to his narcissism and political insecurities. One wishes to echo the words of Joseph Welch who famously asked of Joe McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/president-donald-trump-most-powerful-cornered-animal-world
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on March 06, 2017, 09:08:51 PM
Quote
"Since his election a scant six weeks ago, Trump has defamed a great newspaper, a federal judge, and a former president. He has attacked whole institutions, pillars of American democracy. He appears willing to hold a great constitutional order hostage to his narcissism and political insecurities. One wishes to echo the words of Joseph Welch who famously asked of Joe McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/president-donald-trump-most-powerful-cornered-animal-world

Given the recent accusation from Trump claiming, despite an utter void of evidence, that Obama wiretapped his phones...it seems Obama could easily sue for libel, no?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rosaz on March 06, 2017, 09:17:52 PM
Given the recent accusation from Trump claiming, despite an utter void of evidence, that Obama wiretapped his phones...it seems Obama could easily sue for libel, no?

Anyone else find the timing of this accusation baffling, even by Trump standards?

Intelligence community: It appears that many of Trump's campaign team had contact with the Russians.

Trump: They must have bugged my phone!

Not the most convincing of rebuttals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 06, 2017, 10:01:14 PM
The early reports on the wire tapping accusations suggested that it wasn't that Obama had tapped his phones, it was that the FBI cybercrimes division had identified a computer server in Trump tower being operated by a Russian bank, and had obtained a warrant to search the server.  And then it turned out it was just a banking server, not a communications hub, and Trump had it in Trump tower because he does a lot of business with Russian banks, so they closed the file and moved on.

Which is why I was kind of surprised to see Trump drawing so much attention to the story.  "Hey everyone, look!  I'm in bed with the Russians!" is not usually the best way to distract people from news stories about your campaign's ties to Russia.

But is anyone really surprised? 
Trump falsely claims that Obama faked his birth certificate. 
Trump falsely claimed that thousands of muslims in New York celebrated 9/11.   
Trump falsely claimed that Ted Cruz's father handled Lee Harvey Oswald. 
Trump falsely claimed his inauguration crowd was the largest ever, period. 
Trump falsely claimed that Justic Scalia was murdered.
Trump falsely claimed that vaccines caused autism.
Trump falsely claimed that he won the popular vote except for voter fraud.

Now Trump falsely claims that Obama tapped his phones, and everyone is suddenly like "hey man, that's just crazy"?  Where was that response six years ago when he started in with the whole birther thing?  The man doesn't appear to have any grounding in reality whatsoever.

This is what America has come to.  Congratulations, my fellow Americans.  You've elected a serial liar to represent you as your leader. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: marty998 on March 07, 2017, 01:21:26 AM

Snip!


Sweet Jesus, we are all so fucked.
Wow.. Hyperbole, much?

No... not hyperbole. I reckon if you are going to eliminate your Department of Eduction and the body charged with protecting your environment from the worst excesses of the market system then it really shows what you (don't) value.

Can't think of a more bone headed idea than stating to your population that "we don't think it's important that there is an oversight body which looks at setting appropriate education standards for your children. Or giving the green light to every oil company out there to frack for oil in your farmlands and tell them "not to worry, there's no consequence because we neutered the people who will prosecute you for poisoning the water table".

What's going to happen? Will Trump be writing the education curriculum and will children be taught alternative facts? How will you know if your air is safe to breathe and your water is safe to drink? Who will monitor that in the absence of the EPA? Please do not say the corporations will self-regulate.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 01:46:26 AM

Snip!


Sweet Jesus, we are all so fucked.
Wow.. Hyperbole, much?

No... not hyperbole. I reckon if you are going to eliminate your Department of Eduction and the body charged with protecting your environment from the worst excesses of the market system then it really shows what you (don't) value.

Can't think of a more bone headed idea than stating to your population that "we don't think it's important that there is an oversight body which looks at setting appropriate education standards for your children. Or giving the green light to every oil company out there to frack for oil in your farmlands and tell them "not to worry, there's no consequence because we neutered the people who will prosecute you for poisoning the water table".

What's going to happen? Will Trump be writing the education curriculum and will children be taught alternative facts? How will you know if your air is safe to breathe and your water is safe to drink? Who will monitor that in the absence of the EPA? Please do not say the corporations will self-regulate.
Like I said; hysterical claims. None of the above are particularly great ideas, but turning control of education to the states is not going automatically to fuck everyone and instantly throw the country back into the dark ages. These bills are still in committee and without Democrat support wont make it past a fillibuster, so the forestated hyperbolic fucking is even more ridiculous to cry about, at this time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 07, 2017, 04:44:10 AM
Apparently in 2014 42% of Americans believed that God created humans in the last 10,000 years and 19% considered that humans had evolved without God's "guiding hand".  That 42% are pretty much the definition of dark ages thinking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 04:59:35 AM
Apparently in 2014 42% of Americans believed that God created humans in the last 10,000 years and 19% considered that humans had evolved without God's "guiding hand".  That 42% are pretty much the definition of dark ages thinking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
People believe all sorts of crazy things. Many people on the planet believe that they'll go to a firey pit for all eternity if they draw a picture of the bearded profit of their sky fairy. I guess mondern society still has a lot of progressing to do.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 07, 2017, 05:29:02 AM
Apparently in 2014 42% of Americans believed that God created humans in the last 10,000 years and 19% considered that humans had evolved without God's "guiding hand".  That 42% are pretty much the definition of dark ages thinking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
People believe all sorts of crazy things. Many people on the planet believe that they'll go to a firey pit for all eternity if they draw a picture of the bearded profit of their sky fairy. I guess mondern society still has a lot of progressing to do.

Roughly 12 million folks believe our country is run by alien shape shifting reptilians. 22 million still think the moon landings were faked.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on March 07, 2017, 05:43:14 AM

Snip!


Sweet Jesus, we are all so fucked.
Wow.. Hyperbole, much?

No... not hyperbole. I reckon if you are going to eliminate your Department of Eduction and the body charged with protecting your environment from the worst excesses of the market system then it really shows what you (don't) value.

Can't think of a more bone headed idea than stating to your population that "we don't think it's important that there is an oversight body which looks at setting appropriate education standards for your children. Or giving the green light to every oil company out there to frack for oil in your farmlands and tell them "not to worry, there's no consequence because we neutered the people who will prosecute you for poisoning the water table".

What's going to happen? Will Trump be writing the education curriculum and will children be taught alternative facts? How will you know if your air is safe to breathe and your water is safe to drink? Who will monitor that in the absence of the EPA? Please do not say the corporations will self-regulate.
Like I said; hysterical claims. None of the above are particularly great ideas, but turning control of education to the states is not going automatically to fuck everyone and instantly throw the country back into the dark ages. These bills are still in committee and without Democrat support wont make it past a fillibuster, so the forestated hyperbolic fucking is even more ridiculous to cry about, at this time.

Although turning control of education to the states will not throw the country into the dark ages, it will be hugely damaging.  I just heard from my Rep's aide that he believes that states should control educational standards, my reply to her was that while it sounds like a great idea in theory, in practice it is horrible.  I have a teenager that has attended schools in three states.  Each time she was either ahead or behind and could have missed crucial topics in math as well as perhaps not so crucial areas in science if we had not been paying attention.  I can't even imagine how bad it would be without the Dept of Ed.  Across the board educational standards are a good thing, our kids are already behind many other countries, why take steps to make them less competitive?

And while I agree that the actual elimination of these departments will not happen, the crippling of them is very, very real and already happening. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 07, 2017, 05:48:26 AM
Apparently in 2014 42% of Americans believed that God created humans in the last 10,000 years and 19% considered that humans had evolved without God's "guiding hand".  That 42% are pretty much the definition of dark ages thinking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
People believe all sorts of crazy things. Many people on the planet believe that they'll go to a firey pit for all eternity if they draw a picture of the bearded profit of their sky fairy. I guess mondern society still has a lot of progressing to do.
I'd quite like it if the US education system didn't set out to indoctrinate kids in any of those beliefs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 05:51:56 AM
Apparently in 2014 42% of Americans believed that God created humans in the last 10,000 years and 19% considered that humans had evolved without God's "guiding hand".  That 42% are pretty much the definition of dark ages thinking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
People believe all sorts of crazy things. Many people on the planet believe that they'll go to a firey pit for all eternity if they draw a picture of the bearded profit of their sky fairy. I guess mondern society still has a lot of progressing to do.
I'd quite like it if the US education system didn't set out to indoctrinate kids in any of those beliefs.
I don't think that there is much danger of indoctrination of those beliefs being set as an educational standard in the U.S. in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on March 07, 2017, 06:01:12 AM
Apparently in 2014 42% of Americans believed that God created humans in the last 10,000 years and 19% considered that humans had evolved without God's "guiding hand".  That 42% are pretty much the definition of dark ages thinking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
People believe all sorts of crazy things. Many people on the planet believe that they'll go to a firey pit for all eternity if they draw a picture of the bearded profit of their sky fairy. I guess mondern society still has a lot of progressing to do.
I'd quite like it if the US education system didn't set out to indoctrinate kids in any of those beliefs.
I don't think that there is much danger of indoctrination of those beliefs being set as an educational standard in the U.S. in the foreseeable future.
You don't need to set it as an educational standard when enough schools/states already have it as a standard. 
As an example: http://www.nea.org/home/39060.htm
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 06:07:54 AM
Apparently in 2014 42% of Americans believed that God created humans in the last 10,000 years and 19% considered that humans had evolved without God's "guiding hand".  That 42% are pretty much the definition of dark ages thinking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
People believe all sorts of crazy things. Many people on the planet believe that they'll go to a firey pit for all eternity if they draw a picture of the bearded profit of their sky fairy. I guess mondern society still has a lot of progressing to do.
I'd quite like it if the US education system didn't set out to indoctrinate kids in any of those beliefs.
I don't think that there is much danger of indoctrination of those beliefs being set as an educational standard in the U.S. in the foreseeable future.
You don't need to set it as an educational standard when enough schools/states already have it as a standard. 
As an example: http://www.nea.org/home/39060.htm
It would them seem that the Dept. Of Education hasn't been a very effective way to prevent this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 07, 2017, 07:38:44 AM
Apparently in 2014 42% of Americans believed that God created humans in the last 10,000 years and 19% considered that humans had evolved without God's "guiding hand".  That 42% are pretty much the definition of dark ages thinking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
People believe all sorts of crazy things. Many people on the planet believe that they'll go to a firey pit for all eternity if they draw a picture of the bearded profit of their sky fairy. I guess mondern society still has a lot of progressing to do.
I'd quite like it if the US education system didn't set out to indoctrinate kids in any of those beliefs.
I don't think that there is much danger of indoctrination of those beliefs being set as an educational standard in the U.S. in the foreseeable future.
You don't need to set it as an educational standard when enough schools/states already have it as a standard. 
As an example: http://www.nea.org/home/39060.htm
It would them seem that the Dept. Of Education hasn't been a very effective way to prevent this.

Umm, no. You don't understand the role of the Dept. of Ed.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html (https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 07, 2017, 08:09:19 AM


 It would them seem that the Dept. Of Education hasn't been a very effective way to prevent this.
Umm, no. You don't understand the role of the Dept. of Ed.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html (https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html)

From the Dept of Ed webpage.  Essentially, what's being cut is the emergency response system for those who are not being served by the states. In other words: for the children 'left behind':

Quote
Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 08:14:00 AM


 It would them seem that the Dept. Of Education hasn't been a very effective way to prevent this.
Umm, no. You don't understand the role of the Dept. of Ed.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html (https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html)

From the Dept of Ed webpage.  Essentially, what's being cut is the emergency response system for those who are not being served by the states. In other words: for the children 'left behind':

Quote
Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.
My point eaxctly. So we can agree , as I stated, that if the Dept. Of Ed. Were gutted, it would not throw the USA into the dark ages of sharia law/creationist education.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 07, 2017, 08:18:37 AM


 It would them seem that the Dept. Of Education hasn't been a very effective way to prevent this.
Umm, no. You don't understand the role of the Dept. of Ed.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html (https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html)

From the Dept of Ed webpage.  Essentially, what's being cut is the emergency response system for those who are not being served by the states. In other words: for the children 'left behind':

Quote
Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.
My point eaxctly. So we can agree , as I stated, that if the Dept. Of Ed. Were gutted, it would not throw the USA into the dark ages of sharia law/creationist education.
The United States is already in those dark ages as respects creationism.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 07, 2017, 08:22:51 AM
So you are sayo


 It would them seem that the Dept. Of Education hasn't been a very effective way to prevent this.
Umm, no. You don't understand the role of the Dept. of Ed.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html (https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html)

From the Dept of Ed webpage.  Essentially, what's being cut is the emergency response system for those who are not being served by the states. In other words: for the children 'left behind':

Quote
Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.
My point eaxctly. So we can agree , as I stated, that if the Dept. Of Ed. Were gutted, it would not throw the USA into the dark ages of sharia law/creationist education.

So you are saying who cares about the marginalized kids the dept of ed is focused on...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 08:29:37 AM
I specifically said this was a bad idea.  If you had read my comments, you would know this. I merely pointed out that there was much hyperbolic arm flailing about how fucked we are, and that the issues people stated they were most concerned about were not addressed by the dept. Of ed. Anyway....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on March 07, 2017, 08:38:02 AM

Snip!


Sweet Jesus, we are all so fucked.
Wow.. Hyperbole, much?

No... not hyperbole. I reckon if you are going to eliminate your Department of Eduction and the body charged with protecting your environment from the worst excesses of the market system then it really shows what you (don't) value.

Can't think of a more bone headed idea than stating to your population that "we don't think it's important that there is an oversight body which looks at setting appropriate education standards for your children. Or giving the green light to every oil company out there to frack for oil in your farmlands and tell them "not to worry, there's no consequence because we neutered the people who will prosecute you for poisoning the water table".

What's going to happen? Will Trump be writing the education curriculum and will children be taught alternative facts? How will you know if your air is safe to breathe and your water is safe to drink? Who will monitor that in the absence of the EPA? Please do not say the corporations will self-regulate.
Like I said; hysterical claims. None of the above are particularly great ideas, but turning control of education to the states is not going automatically to fuck everyone and instantly throw the country back into the dark ages. These bills are still in committee and without Democrat support wont make it past a fillibuster, so the forestated hyperbolic fucking is even more ridiculous to cry about, at this time.

...you're calling 'hysterical claims' because you don't think the bills will get past committee?  Are we only supposed to get worried about political movements once they're past the point of no return?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 07, 2017, 08:42:25 AM
...you're calling 'hysterical claims' because you don't think the bills will get past committee?  Are we only supposed to get worried about political movements once they're past the point of no return?

This was a key Republican talking point all through campaign season.  It goes like this:  "Donald Trump is clearly insane, but don't worry about making him the President because other people in the government will keep him from doing anything crazy."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 07, 2017, 08:42:35 AM
I specifically said this was a bad idea.  If you had read my comments, you would know this. I merely pointed out that there was much hyperbolic arm flailing about how fucked we are, and that the issues people stated they were most concerned about were not addressed by the dept. Of ed. Anyway....

No we are not ALL fucked. But some are. Doing away with the Dept. of Ed. is not going to help anyone, but it will hurt some. Namely poor people. But hey maybe they can move to Texas and learn about the history of the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 07, 2017, 08:50:17 AM
I think it's about time that all progressive/liberal folks take the conservative view and just put everything on the states (education, health care, taxes etc).

The conservative states receive more in federal funding than the progressive ones. The dumb states get fucked, seems fair to me.

If you happen to live in a dumb state the progressive stance can be to utilize your mobility rights and move to a smart state.

Yeah, I know poor people can't move that easily but I think in the long run it will be better for the republic.

It's too hard to convince people that their policies aren't good. So let them have as close to full autonomy as possible and let's see the results. Here is a list of states by the % of budget they receive from the feds. Let's take it away and see what happens.

•Mississippi, 42.9% federal aid as percentage of general revenue.
•Louisiana, 41.9%
•Tennessee, 39.5%
•South Dakota, 39.0%
•Missouri, 38.2%
•Montana, 37.4%
•Georgia, 37.3%
•New Mexico, 36.6%
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 08:54:56 AM
Quote

...you're calling 'hysterical claims' because you don't think the bills will get past committee?  Are we only supposed to get worried about political movements once they're past the point of no return?
While I think worry is a strong word, I  would not suggest one not be concerned about proposed bills. I  have not suggested such a thing, to be sure.

What I  did suggest is that one should not resort to hysterical appeal to hyperbole; it does not help the people who would be hurt by this proposed legislation and it does not help propose better legislation. It is merely a cheap dopamine spike for the people who write these things.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 07, 2017, 08:59:21 AM
I think it's about time that all progressive/liberal folks take the conservative view and just put everything on the states (education, health care, taxes etc).

The conservative states receive more in federal funding than the progressive ones. The dumb states get fucked, seems fair to me.

If you happen to live in a dumb state the progressive stance can be to utilize your mobility rights and move to a smart state.

Yeah, I know poor people can't move that easily but I think in the long run it will be better for the republic.

It's too hard to convince people that their policies aren't good. So let them have as close to full autonomy as possible and let's see the results. Here is a list of states by the % of budget they receive from the feds. Let's take it away and see what happens.

•Mississippi, 42.9% federal aid as percentage of general revenue.
•Louisiana, 41.9%
•Tennessee, 39.5%
•South Dakota, 39.0%
•Missouri, 38.2%
•Montana, 37.4%
•Georgia, 37.3%
•New Mexico, 36.6%
I think that helping poor people is worth the spending, in a general sense, and the republic is stronger for it. Just because poor people win elections occasionally is no reason to let massive portions of the population, with the fewest means to take care of themselves, wither and die.

Of course, I'm a pretty liberal person that way.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 07, 2017, 10:00:51 AM
I specifically said this was a bad idea.  If you had read my comments, you would know this. I merely pointed out that there was much hyperbolic arm flailing about how fucked we are, and that the issues people stated they were most concerned about were not addressed by the dept. Of ed. Anyway....

No we are not ALL fucked. But some are. Doing away with the Dept. of Ed. is not going to help anyone, but it will hurt some. Namely poor people. But hey maybe they can move to Texas and learn about the history of the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky.

Listen, the poor schools are already sucking under Federal oversight.  Some of these schools seriously can hardly get any worse.  Why not give people a chance locally to see if they can do better?   It's the local parents who give a damn about their kids achievement.   Let them have a voucher and have some freaking options rather than a city school that is practically training for a future in jail.

If the schools were working, I might support Federal involvement, but they're a miserable failure.  There's no reason NOT to change.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on March 07, 2017, 10:47:25 AM
Listen, the poor schools are already sucking under Federal oversight.  Some of these schools seriously can hardly get any worse.  Why not give people a chance locally to see if they can do better?   It's the local parents who give a damn about their kids achievement.   Let them have a voucher and have some freaking options rather than a city school that is practically training for a future in jail.

If the schools were working, I might support Federal involvement, but they're a miserable failure.  There's no reason NOT to change.

The evidence (which is just beginning to trickle in, as voucher programs haven't been around all that long and only exist in a few places) seems to indicate that they harm students, rather than help them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/upshot/dismal-results-from-vouchers-surprise-researchers-as-devos-era-begins.html

Obviously there's plenty of room for more research, but I'd hardly say there's a compelling case for anything more than continuing to watch the results from existing programs. Expanding voucher programs without solid evidence that they actually help would be foolish.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 07, 2017, 10:47:53 AM
I specifically said this was a bad idea.  If you had read my comments, you would know this. I merely pointed out that there was much hyperbolic arm flailing about how fucked we are, and that the issues people stated they were most concerned about were not addressed by the dept. Of ed. Anyway....

No we are not ALL fucked. But some are. Doing away with the Dept. of Ed. is not going to help anyone, but it will hurt some. Namely poor people. But hey maybe they can move to Texas and learn about the history of the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky.

Listen, the poor schools are already sucking under Federal oversight.  Some of these schools seriously can hardly get any worse.  Why not give people a chance locally to see if they can do better?   It's the local parents who give a damn about their kids achievement.   Let them have a voucher and have some freaking options rather than a city school that is practically training for a future in jail.

If the schools were working, I might support Federal involvement, but they're a miserable failure.  There's no reason NOT to change.

If vouchers work, they would've worked in Indiana or Louisiana or Ohio. They didn't. The voucher programs in those states are failures.

Vouchers are not a panacea.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 07, 2017, 11:19:03 AM
Maybe those states can pick up some best practices from Milwaukee
http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/vouchers-charters-outscore-public-schools-in-latest-data-b99688846z1-372279021.html

Some vouchers fail, but at least there's a chance of doing good.  If the Feds monopolize education, it's hopeless. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 07, 2017, 11:39:03 AM
Maybe those states can pick up some best practices from Milwaukee
http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/vouchers-charters-outscore-public-schools-in-latest-data-b99688846z1-372279021.html

Some vouchers fail, but at least there's a chance of doing good. [/b] If the Feds monopolize education, it's hopeless.

And a chance of failing. So what's the net gain? It's a fucking crap shoot. That isn't a solution. Schools can't just pick up best practices. Stanford has written quite a bit of research on the difficulties of trying to replicate the better charter schools and why underperforming charter schools still exist and will continue to exist.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on March 07, 2017, 11:56:21 AM
Maybe those states can pick up some best practices from Milwaukee
http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/vouchers-charters-outscore-public-schools-in-latest-data-b99688846z1-372279021.html

Some vouchers fail, but at least there's a chance of doing good.  If the Feds monopolize education, it's hopeless.

The point isn't that some of them can work. That's just like some stock-pickers can beat the market just by chance.

Overall, the numbers are mixed to negative. That's not to say it can't work, but it does seem that the Feds (NCLB and other similar standards stuff isn't popular but it probably works to an extent) are winning right now.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 07, 2017, 12:10:10 PM
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on March 07, 2017, 12:21:24 PM
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

That ("there will always be some bad schools") is not relevant to the discussion, though. What we care about is the overall effect of various ways of running things, and for that we can use data.

The data currently shows charters to do *worse* or at best the same, overall, as public schools.

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on March 07, 2017, 12:41:53 PM
There are a lot of problems with charter schools. I found this article, although a little dated, interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/28/separating-fact-from-fiction-in-21-claims-about-charter-schools/?utm_term=.65a223c031fa (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/28/separating-fact-from-fiction-in-21-claims-about-charter-schools/?utm_term=.65a223c031fa)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 07, 2017, 01:06:59 PM
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

Neither is providing some with a choice to move on to something that likely will be worse. Scrap the stupid voucher program and let's start focusing on arguably the most important determining factor for success in school. Improving home life and neighborhoods. More specifically poverty and racial/ethnic inequality. The current administration isn't exactly a champion for those folks. So vouchers it is. We'll just blame it on public schools and the teachers. Vicious cycle isn't it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on March 07, 2017, 01:48:14 PM
Doesn't pertain to the schools topic but I'll just leave this here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-republicans-see-a-%E2%80%98deep-state%E2%80%99-foe-barack-obama/ar-AAnXZdW

Real life turns into a bad reality TV show...

We NEED to get past the knit-picking over the tiny details that divide us. SO much we need to be working on together to get rid of this guy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on March 07, 2017, 01:53:40 PM
Doesn't pertain to the schools topic but I'll just leave this here.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-republicans-see-a-%E2%80%98deep-state%E2%80%99-foe-barack-obama/ar-AAnXZdW
Real life turns into a bad reality TV show...
We NEED to get past the knit-picking over the tiny details that divide us. SO much we need to be working on together to get rid of this guy.

Sure. Call your representatives.

I think the picture of Obama in that article needs the cartoon balloon in response to Trumpy that says "I don't give a fuuuck!"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malloy on March 07, 2017, 01:57:00 PM
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

As I understand it, there is no legal structure stopping anyone from attending a private school if they are admitted. Children can be home schooled.  There is already choice in the market.  It's just not subsidized by tax payers. However, the question is whether tax dollars should go to private or charter schools.  People have offered evidence that charter schools are worse than the schools you indicate are failing.  If so, what's the justification for funneling money to them?  At least with public schools, there is oversight in the elected school board.  Charter schools operate with a far lower oversight bar.

Compare and contrast with the conservative view of covering birth control via insurance.  Women are told to suck it up and pay for it themselves. "Why should my money go to your sex life?"  However, at least with birth control, it actually fulfills its medical function and there is overwhelming evidence that it works and provides a substantial public good.  Charter schools haven't met that burden, but suddenly conservatives are all about choice and having our tax dollars go to subsidize their pet religious causes.  I'd rather subsidize someone's birth control, frankly.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 08, 2017, 06:11:20 AM
4 and 9 have my support. I'll have to think about 11 but off the cuff I think it has merit.

4: Issuing tags, collecting revenue, and using it to manage those populations has been beneficial to every area its been done before. If you love wildlife, you would support hunting.

9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

11 does not have any merit. It requires ANY new regulation to pass the full Congress. It's just a way to have no new regulations at all ever.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on March 08, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
4 and 9 have my support. I'll have to think about 11 but off the cuff I think it has merit.

4: Issuing tags, collecting revenue, and using it to manage those populations has been beneficial to every area its been done before. If you love wildlife, you would support hunting.

9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

11 does not have any merit. It requires ANY new regulation to pass the full Congress. It's just a way to have no new regulations at all ever.

As written, perhaps. There ought to be some checks on what unelected bureaucracies, etc can do. Maybe a "2/3 majority can block new regulations within 120 days" type thing would do it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on March 08, 2017, 08:22:26 AM
9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

Said from someone probably not part of a union. Sure, there are the lazy that somehow stick around- just like private industry. I'll keep my union over being totally fucked by management.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 08, 2017, 08:48:51 AM
Let's just call it what it really is. A big fat "fuck you" to the poor and hello yuge tax breaks for the rich. Republicans doing what they do best.

Hmmm, let's see.  The Republican health care bill cuts taxes on the rich, slashes benefits for the poor, and massively restricts abortion access. 

Yep, sounds like a Republican plan all right.  The same plan I've been hearing about for my entire life.

Summary of proposed AHCA provisions:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/msg1463790/#msg1463790

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 08, 2017, 09:04:29 AM
4 and 9 have my support. I'll have to think about 11 but off the cuff I think it has merit.

4: Issuing tags, collecting revenue, and using it to manage those populations has been beneficial to every area its been done before. If you love wildlife, you would support hunting.

9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

11 does not have any merit. It requires ANY new regulation to pass the full Congress. It's just a way to have no new regulations at all ever.

As written, perhaps. There ought to be some checks on what unelected bureaucracies, etc can do. Maybe a "2/3 majority can block new regulations within 120 days" type thing would do it.

We're talking about agencies writing rules that fill in details for legislation passed by Congress. Having Congress micro-manage this stuff is a terrible idea. If they really have a problem with the way an agency writes a rule, they can pass legislation to change it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on March 08, 2017, 09:58:14 AM
9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

Said from someone probably not part of a union. Sure, there are the lazy that somehow stick around- just like private industry. I'll keep my union over being totally fucked by management.

We will never agree on this. I've been a member of two unions, and deal with them all the time. One did OK. They realized they are in partnership with the company who pays the wages of those they represent. They were a trade union, which I somewhat support since they do offer quite a bit for their $$$$$/hr employees. (Ie, I don't have to train them, deal with their benefits administration, vacation, etc.) Companys can hire union or non union workers, so there's some market feedback to be reasonable.

The other would do anything it could to obstruct, even when it caused no harm to employees. Cost the company about 5 million on one incident I was involved in, and kept about 15 people from working for two weeks. I got fucked over more by union management than I ever did by corporate management. That was a union representing employees in a manufacturing plant, so there was NO feedback to make the union do the right thing.

That's why I support right to work. Want to collect dues from me? offer something worth paying for. Cost me money being assholes? I'd rather donate my dues to charity. Donate money to a state politician who directly supported shutting my industry down? No thanks.

I don't want a full on ban on private industry unions. I want to incentivize them to do the right things. That's RTW.

Public employee unions are another thing. That is such a incestuous web of conflicting interests, lack of market feedback, etc that I do support a straight ban on public employee unions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 08, 2017, 10:46:05 AM
Let's just call it what it really is. A big fat "fuck you" to the poor and hello yuge tax breaks for the rich. Republicans doing what they do best.

Hmmm, let's see.  The Republican health care bill cuts taxes on the rich, slashes benefits for the poor, and massively restricts abortion access. 

Yep, sounds like a Republican plan all right.  The same plan I've been hearing about for my entire life.

Summary of proposed AHCA provisions:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/msg1463790/#msg1463790

Yep!!

Edit: I erased my original comment because I saw the discussion on ACA thread.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 08, 2017, 12:35:53 PM
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

As I understand it, there is no legal structure stopping anyone from attending a private school if they are admitted. Children can be home schooled.  There is already choice in the market.  It's just not subsidized by tax payers. However, the question is whether tax dollars should go to private or charter schools.  People have offered evidence that charter schools are worse than the schools you indicate are failing.  If so, what's the justification for funneling money to them?  At least with public schools, there is oversight in the elected school board.  Charter schools operate with a far lower oversight bar.

Compare and contrast with the conservative view of covering birth control via insurance.  Women are told to suck it up and pay for it themselves. "Why should my money go to your sex life?"  However, at least with birth control, it actually fulfills its medical function and there is overwhelming evidence that it works and provides a substantial public good.  Charter schools haven't met that burden, but suddenly conservatives are all about choice and having our tax dollars go to subsidize their pet religious causes.  I'd rather subsidize someone's birth control, frankly.


School choice is to give some alternative options to  families who do not have resources to afford private school or home school.  Duh.  The families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 08, 2017, 12:39:36 PM
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

As I understand it, there is no legal structure stopping anyone from attending a private school if they are admitted. Children can be home schooled.  There is already choice in the market.  It's just not subsidized by tax payers. However, the question is whether tax dollars should go to private or charter schools.  People have offered evidence that charter schools are worse than the schools you indicate are failing.  If so, what's the justification for funneling money to them?  At least with public schools, there is oversight in the elected school board.  Charter schools operate with a far lower oversight bar.

Compare and contrast with the conservative view of covering birth control via insurance.  Women are told to suck it up and pay for it themselves. "Why should my money go to your sex life?"  However, at least with birth control, it actually fulfills its medical function and there is overwhelming evidence that it works and provides a substantial public good.  Charter schools haven't met that burden, but suddenly conservatives are all about choice and having our tax dollars go to subsidize their pet religious causes.  I'd rather subsidize someone's birth control, frankly.


School choice is to give some alternative options to  families who do not have resources to afford private school or home school.  Duh.  The families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.

Awesome. So they get to choose between a crappy public school or a shitty charter school. Well at least they have choices now.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: waltworks on March 08, 2017, 01:03:00 PM
School choice is to give some alternative options to  families who do not have resources to afford private school or home school.  Duh.  The families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.

If that's the goal, it would be much easier and cheaper to just give all children below the poverty line (or similar cutoff) $10k a year for any educational purpose their parents want. Hell, you could not even tie it to education and you'd probably still see massive improvements - a lot of those kids could use just things like decent food and a stable place to live.

But that sounds like welfare...

-W
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 08, 2017, 01:09:04 PM
But that sounds like welfare...

School voucher programs aren't interesting to republicans because they improve the welfare of children, they're interesting to republicans because they are a way to funnel federal tax dollars to churches.

I can't believe I even have to say that out loud.  Doesn't everyone already know this?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on March 08, 2017, 01:26:18 PM
But that sounds like welfare...

School voucher programs aren't interesting to republicans because they improve the welfare of children, they're interesting to republicans because they are a way to funnel federal tax dollars to churches.

I can't believe I even have to say that out loud.  Doesn't everyone already know this?

They're also a way to provide yet another tax break to the wealthy while increasing segregation between the rich/poor, yet with the PR advantage of being able to claim they are increasing education access for all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 08, 2017, 01:57:18 PM
Also, if conservatives were actually interested in metric-based programs that improve outcomes, they would continue funding school lunch programs fully. Hungry kids don't learn well.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malloy on March 08, 2017, 02:16:48 PM
But that sounds like welfare...

School voucher programs aren't interesting to republicans because they improve the welfare of children, they're interesting to republicans because they are a way to funnel federal tax dollars to churches.

I can't believe I even have to say that out loud.  Doesn't everyone already know this?

They're also a way to provide yet another tax break to the wealthy while increasing segregation between the rich/poor, yet with the PR advantage of being able to claim they are increasing education access for all.

Yup. Public education has a pile of money republicans are itching to get their hands on.  The true beneficiaries of voucher programs are the suburban middle class who can almost afford tuition at The Gospel Christian Academy for Future Homemakers and Providers private school, but then they couldn't go to Disney.  Now, with vouchers, they can undereducate their children, funnel money away from godless liberal teachers and towards people like the DeVos family, and still have money left over not to feel any lifestyle pinch. Meanwhile, 5k/year doesn't begin to cover expenses at a private school for a truly poor family. 

Again, as sol noted, Republicans don't actually have a problem with taking tax money as long as it goes to their coreligionists.  At least liberals are honest about how they want to use taxes.  And once again, Republicans don't give a crap about choice or people making their own decisions when it comes to, say, wanting a health insurance plan to not cover birth control for women they've never met.  Then it's all about how they shouldn't have to subsidize blah blah blah.  Guess what?  I don't want to subsidize a school that teaches Adam riding dinosaurs.  And subsidizing birth control provides way better outcomes than subsidizing failing charter schools and crappy private schools.  In fact, subsidizing birth control and ending the cycle of teen pregnancy and poverty is probably the single best thing we can do to improve our schools in the future.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on March 08, 2017, 04:48:19 PM
I think it's a joke to assume exactly how Republicans think and feel, especially when no one seems to understand why people voted for Trump.

It seems that you are pushing your own "it's all about money and control" attitude onto the other party. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 08, 2017, 05:22:16 PM
I think it's a joke to assume exactly how Republicans think and feel, especially when no one seems to understand why people voted for Trump.

It seems that you are pushing your own "it's all about money and control" attitude onto the other party.
Republicans tend not to be backwards in coming forward with their views, and usually seem to attach to them a short form of their reasoning which boils down to "don't take our money, give us as much of other people's money as you can, and don't control what we do".  More nuanced and sophisticated explanations might lead to more productive discussions, so please by all means feel free to provide them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 08, 2017, 05:28:31 PM
I think it's a joke to assume exactly how Republicans think and feel, especially when no one seems to understand why people voted for Trump.

It seems that you are pushing your own "it's all about money and control" attitude onto the other party.
I think there may be a disconnect between voters who identify as R and  those in office actually working with legislation. It would be unfair to lump all R voters together. However, the actual legislation that is either passed, supported, or receiving serious consideration by the GOP has a pretty clear slant that is largely described pretty well by the comments above. There are some pretty notable exceptions from places like Maine and Alaska (see Murkowski on inclusion of Planned Parenthood defunding into the ACA repeal http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/320764-gop-sen-wont-vote-to-defund-planned-parenthood-casts-doubt-on-repealing).

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 09, 2017, 06:57:00 AM
I think there may be a disconnect between voters who identify as R and  those in office actually working with legislation. It would be unfair to lump all R voters together. However, the actual legislation that is either passed, supported, or receiving serious consideration by the GOP has a pretty clear slant that is largely described pretty well by the comments above. There are some pretty notable exceptions from places like Maine and Alaska (see Murkowski on inclusion of Planned Parenthood defunding into the ACA repeal http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/320764-gop-sen-wont-vote-to-defund-planned-parenthood-casts-doubt-on-repealing).

I think this is way larger in scope than the Republican party. At this point, there isn't much "voter representation" going on in elected government, full stop. I think the Democrats are a little bit better at saying the right words to their voters on policy issues, while the Republicans are better at the empty emotional appeals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on March 09, 2017, 07:35:32 AM
Yes, there will always be some bad schools.  Just like there will always be poor people.  That is life.   How can we give most kids the best chance to succeed?   Limiting them is not the way.

As I understand it, there is no legal structure stopping anyone from attending a private school if they are admitted. Children can be home schooled.  There is already choice in the market.  It's just not subsidized by tax payers. However, the question is whether tax dollars should go to private or charter schools.  People have offered evidence that charter schools are worse than the schools you indicate are failing.  If so, what's the justification for funneling money to them?  At least with public schools, there is oversight in the elected school board.  Charter schools operate with a far lower oversight bar.

Compare and contrast with the conservative view of covering birth control via insurance.  Women are told to suck it up and pay for it themselves. "Why should my money go to your sex life?"  However, at least with birth control, it actually fulfills its medical function and there is overwhelming evidence that it works and provides a substantial public good.  Charter schools haven't met that burden, but suddenly conservatives are all about choice and having our tax dollars go to subsidize their pet religious causes.  I'd rather subsidize someone's birth control, frankly.


School choice is to give some alternative options to  families who do not have resources to afford private school or home school.  Duh.  The families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.

Of course families can decide for themselves what schooling is best for their child.  They just don't get tax dollars to fund whatever choice they make.  And as many studies have shown, the vouchers do not cover what the schools actually cost so they end up being a big giveaway to those that CAN afford it.  It's been a big fat failure here in NC.  Calling it School Choice is a huge misdirection, so that people can think what you wrote above.  And not pay attention to Jerry Falwell Jr. being appointed by Trump to lead a committee tasked with finding ways to deregulate education.  That and Betsy Devos crazy religious ideas make my blood run cold. 

As background - I've sent my child to private, charter and public schools across three states, the private being Catholic.  In no way would I expect federal dollars to pay for my child's education there which included mandatory mass and religious instruction.

And then I read further down in the thread - Lagom, Sol, Wexler and Glenstache stated things very well!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: accolay on March 09, 2017, 08:10:13 AM
We will never agree on this.

Meh.

I hear the same about unions from an occasional complaining coworker. Then you ask them if they ever went to a meeting, voted in their union rep elections or had any union activity. Response is always the same: 100% no.

I feel it's about the same as those who complain about "Big Government" but somehow don't realize they're the ones who continue to vote in representatives who go against their best interests.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 09, 2017, 10:31:05 AM
I'm just going to leave this here ...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C59NdRsVMAEEQVO.jpg)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 10:54:00 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/donald-trump-compromise-poll/index.html

New effect of Trump presidency: more people are talking politics regularly with friends and family. And 70% of those polled wish that Democrats would compromise with the Trump administration to pass bills (aligning with similar numbers of respondents hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation. )
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 09, 2017, 11:00:15 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/donald-trump-compromise-poll/index.html

New effect of Trump presidency: more people are talking politics regularly with friends and family. And 70% of those polled wish that Democrats would compromise with the Trump administration to pass bills (aligning with similar numbers of respondents hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation. )

Funny that you failed to mention that poll says that more people want trunp to compromise with democrats than want democrats to compromise with trump.  Your post suggests you do not think that these are the same thing.

You also cited "more people are talking" as if it was a good thing, despite the article highlighting that most people find this increased discussion stressful and are actively trying to find ways to cut back.

I swear MM, it's like every time you post you are deliberately trying to twist the truth.  At first i thought you were just a die hard partisan hack with a distorted world view, but now I'm leaning towards mischievous troll who is actively trying to degrade the forums by clouding our honest discussions with deliberately false information.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on March 09, 2017, 11:02:57 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/donald-trump-compromise-poll/index.html

New effect of Trump presidency: more people are talking politics regularly with friends and family. And 70% of those polled wish that Democrats would compromise with the Trump administration to pass bills (aligning with similar numbers of respondents hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation. )

It's worth noting that more people surveyed indicated that they want Trump to compromise than wanting Democrats to compromise.

Rounding one number up, the other down, and changing "they'd like President Donald Trump to attempt to reach bipartisan compromise on bills" to a generic "hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation" is misleading at best.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 12:00:17 PM
Almost as misleading as asserting that numbers that are well within the margin of error are importantly different...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on March 09, 2017, 12:30:16 PM
Almost as misleading as asserting that numbers that are well within the margin of error are importantly different...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Also straw-man, since nobody has claimed that the numbers were "importantly different" - we just pointed out that you're posting misleading information.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on March 09, 2017, 01:13:40 PM
9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

Said from someone probably not part of a union. Sure, there are the lazy that somehow stick around- just like private industry. I'll keep my union over being totally fucked by management.

We will never agree on this. I've been a member of two unions, and deal with them all the time. One did OK. They realized they are in partnership with the company who pays the wages of those they represent. They were a trade union, which I somewhat support since they do offer quite a bit for their $$$$$/hr employees. (Ie, I don't have to train them, deal with their benefits administration, vacation, etc.) Companys can hire union or non union workers, so there's some market feedback to be reasonable.

The other would do anything it could to obstruct, even when it caused no harm to employees. Cost the company about 5 million on one incident I was involved in, and kept about 15 people from working for two weeks. I got fucked over more by union management than I ever did by corporate management. That was a union representing employees in a manufacturing plant, so there was NO feedback to make the union do the right thing.

That's why I support right to work. Want to collect dues from me? offer something worth paying for. Cost me money being assholes? I'd rather donate my dues to charity. Donate money to a state politician who directly supported shutting my industry down? No thanks.

I don't want a full on ban on private industry unions. I want to incentivize them to do the right things. That's RTW.

Public employee unions are another thing. That is such a incestuous web of conflicting interests, lack of market feedback, etc that I do support a straight ban on public employee unions.

According to Amnesty:
Quote
Under international law, all workers have a human right to organize and to bargain collectively. These rights are an essential foundation to the realization of other rights, and are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, as well as conventions adopted by the International Labor Organization.

My union has negotiated very good insurance rates for me*, and offers very good seminars and workshops with interesting topics. They also take care of the salary negotiations for me, a process I dislike intensely and am happy to pay someone else to do. The one time I had something that looked like it could become a conflict, I got free legal advice (telling me to just let it go).  I work in the public sector, and I think there are 3-4 large ones, and a dozen or so smaller unions to choose between. I don't agree with 100% of the politics of my union, but the last time I looked at the alternatives they scored among the top three on all my criteria, and were best on value for money. My union has not been part of a strike. Ever. That is one of the reasons I chose them over the next best alternative.

I learned about banned unions in school; those were horror stories from Germany in the 1930s and 40s. But hey, what do I know, maybe unions in the US are completely different from what I'm used to. In Norway, more than 50 % of the working population is member of a union (80 % of the public employees). The numbers in Denmark and Sweden are even higher, since paid sick leave is connected to union membership. Of course you can choose to not be a member, you will still have all the same rights and the same pay (if you are a good negotiator). But should the fan become full of shit, you don't have the insurance that the union represents.


*They even managed to negotiate it retroactively; we had diability insurance that paid a lump sum if you got permanent disability. For a higher cost, we could have gotten the better one, which startet to pay out monthly when you have been too sick to work for 12 months, but we decided to save that money. When DH had been sick for 18 months, we got a letter in the mail from the union that they had renegotiated the terms, and everyone was upgraded to the better version free of cost. If someone filled the terms, they would start getting money transfers as soon as the new terms were approved. One month later, we had the first payment in the bank.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on March 09, 2017, 02:12:46 PM
We will never agree on this.

Meh.

I hear the same about unions from an occasional complaining coworker. Then you ask them if they ever went to a meeting, voted in their union rep elections or had any union activity. Response is always the same: 100% no.

I feel it's about the same as those who complain about "Big Government" but somehow don't realize they're the ones who continue to vote in representatives who go against their best interests.

Can't say it's '100% no' anymore. I attended meetings, or at least the ones where they didn't change the location at the last minute and only tell their pets where. I voted in every election.

If you want to be in your union, go for it. I want a choice.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on March 09, 2017, 02:26:14 PM
We will never agree on this.

Meh.

I hear the same about unions from an occasional complaining coworker. Then you ask them if they ever went to a meeting, voted in their union rep elections or had any union activity. Response is always the same: 100% no.

I feel it's about the same as those who complain about "Big Government" but somehow don't realize they're the ones who continue to vote in representatives who go against their best interests.

Can't say it's '100% no' anymore. I attended meetings, or at least the ones where they didn't change the location at the last minute and only tell their pets where. I voted in every election.

If you want to be in your union, go for it. I want a choice.

Where is the logic in saying you want a choice, but you want to deny me my choice (ban unions for public employees)?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on March 09, 2017, 02:30:03 PM
9: Unions these days are about protecting the lazy and parasitically killing their host industry. The only think I'd change is to add an explicit ban on public employee unions.

Said from someone probably not part of a union. Sure, there are the lazy that somehow stick around- just like private industry. I'll keep my union over being totally fucked by management.

We will never agree on this. I've been a member of two unions, and deal with them all the time. One did OK. They realized they are in partnership with the company who pays the wages of those they represent. They were a trade union, which I somewhat support since they do offer quite a bit for their $$$$$/hr employees. (Ie, I don't have to train them, deal with their benefits administration, vacation, etc.) Companys can hire union or non union workers, so there's some market feedback to be reasonable.

The other would do anything it could to obstruct, even when it caused no harm to employees. Cost the company about 5 million on one incident I was involved in, and kept about 15 people from working for two weeks. I got fucked over more by union management than I ever did by corporate management. That was a union representing employees in a manufacturing plant, so there was NO feedback to make the union do the right thing.

That's why I support right to work. Want to collect dues from me? offer something worth paying for. Cost me money being assholes? I'd rather donate my dues to charity. Donate money to a state politician who directly supported shutting my industry down? No thanks.

I don't want a full on ban on private industry unions. I want to incentivize them to do the right things. That's RTW.

Public employee unions are another thing. That is such a incestuous web of conflicting interests, lack of market feedback, etc that I do support a straight ban on public employee unions.

According to Amnesty:
Quote
Under international law, all workers have a human right to organize and to bargain collectively. These rights are an essential foundation to the realization of other rights, and are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, as well as conventions adopted by the International Labor Organization.

My union has negotiated very good insurance rates for me*, and offers very good seminars and workshops with interesting topics. They also take care of the salary negotiations for me, a process I dislike intensely and am happy to pay someone else to do. The one time I had something that looked like it could become a conflict, I got free legal advice (telling me to just let it go).  I work in the public sector, and I think there are 3-4 large ones, and a dozen or so smaller unions to choose between. I don't agree with 100% of the politics of my union, but the last time I looked at the alternatives they scored among the top three on all my criteria, and were best on value for money. My union has not been part of a strike. Ever. That is one of the reasons I chose them over the next best alternative.

I learned about banned unions in school; those were horror stories from Germany in the 1930s and 40s. But hey, what do I know, maybe unions in the US are completely different from what I'm used to. In Norway, more than 50 % of the working population is member of a union (80 % of the public employees). The numbers in Denmark and Sweden are even higher, since paid sick leave is connected to union membership. Of course you can choose to not be a member, you will still have all the same rights and the same pay (if you are a good negotiator). But should the fan become full of shit, you don't have the insurance that the union represents.


*They even managed to negotiate it retroactively; we had diability insurance that paid a lump sum if you got permanent disability. For a higher cost, we could have gotten the better one, which startet to pay out monthly when you have been too sick to work for 12 months, but we decided to save that money. When DH had been sick for 18 months, we got a letter in the mail from the union that they had renegotiated the terms, and everyone was upgraded to the better version free of cost. If someone filled the terms, they would start getting money transfers as soon as the new terms were approved. One month later, we had the first payment in the bank.

This will be my last reply on this topic so I don't derail the thread.

If we're going to trade anecdotes, I can tell you about how the unions I deal with now try to trade favorable outcomes on grievances for their favorites for unfavorable ones for the people who the shop steward doesn't like.  I can tell you how, when I was a member, there was a short-term spike in the price of the engineering wood product we made... it was temporary, not going to last. Management asked the union, can we switch this crew from this manufacturing line (similar product, but the line can't do both. different size panels, etc) over to the un-used line that makes the high margin stuff. We were going to be furloughed for 2 weeks because the run for the stuff we made was done. Would they allow it without putting it out to bid? NOPE. I didn't get paid for two weeks, the company missed ~4.8 million in sales... for no real reason.


I think you hit on the fundamental difference between US unions and yours - choice!  You can shop for your union. We can't. If you work at boeing? You're in the IAM. No choice.


Quote
Where is the logic in saying you want a choice, but you want to deny me my choice (ban unions for public employees)?


FDR says it best.  but basically, the government is not the same thing as a private employer. FDR didn't support banning them outright, and I'm sure they won't ever be. But I sure want to see what PEU's have become get reformed. Those jackals have looted my states treasury, and despite Oregon's revenue/capita being in the top 5 or 6 in the nation, while incomes are in the bottom 25... all our governor wants to do is talk about raising taxes.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 09, 2017, 02:57:15 PM
From the President who won the biggest electoral win since Reagan, and also won the popular vote, and also has evidence that Obama wiretapped his phones but won't give anyone said evidence, we now have his EPA head claiming that the primary cause of global warming is definitely not CO2. He found 3 scientists and 19 oil and gas executives to back him up.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/scott-pruitt-global-warming-human/index.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 03:28:21 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/donald-trump-compromise-poll/index.html

New effect of Trump presidency: more people are talking politics regularly with friends and family. And 70% of those polled wish that Democrats would compromise with the Trump administration to pass bills (aligning with similar numbers of respondents hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation. )

It's worth noting that more people surveyed indicated that they want Trump to compromise than wanting Democrats to compromise.

Rounding one number up, the other down, and changing "they'd like President Donald Trump to attempt to reach bipartisan compromise on bills" to a generic "hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation" is misleading at best.
The numbers are well within the margin of error. One can't accurately say that "More people" want one option or the other; one can say that the overwhelming majority of wish for compromise and not party-line obstruction of the POTUS. Which is what I found intersting considering many of his current proposals.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 09, 2017, 03:45:54 PM
The numbers are well within the margin of error. One can't accurately say that "More people" want one option or the other; one can say that the overwhelming majority of wish for compromise and not party-line obstruction of the POTUS. Which is what I found intersting considering many of his current proposals.

Wrong. The overwhelming majority wish for compromise and for Trump to make bipartisan deals with the Democrats.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 03:56:26 PM
The numbers are well within the margin of error. One can't accurately say that "More people" want one option or the other; one can say that the overwhelming majority of wish for compromise and not party-line obstruction of the POTUS. Which is what I found intersting considering many of his current proposals.

Wrong. The overwhelming majority wish for compromise and for Trump to make bipartisan deals with the Democrats.


Yes; for Democrats to compromise with Trump, and for  "Trump to attempt to reach bipartisan compromise on bills he tries to get through Congress."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 09, 2017, 04:00:48 PM
The numbers are well within the margin of error. One can't accurately say that "More people" want one option or the other; one can say that the overwhelming majority of wish for compromise and not party-line obstruction of the POTUS. Which is what I found intersting considering many of his current proposals.

Wrong. The overwhelming majority wish for compromise and for Trump to make bipartisan deals with the Democrats.


Yes; for Democrats to compromise with Trump, and for  "Trump to attempt to reach bipartisan compromise on bills he tries to get through Congress."

Exactly. Now why didn't you write that in the first place?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 09, 2017, 04:05:14 PM
The numbers are well within the margin of error. One can't accurately say that "More people" want one option or the other; one can say that the overwhelming majority of wish for compromise and not party-line obstruction of the POTUS. Which is what I found intersting considering many of his current proposals.

Wrong. The overwhelming majority wish for compromise and for Trump to make bipartisan deals with the Democrats.


Yes; for Democrats to compromise with Trump, and for  "Trump to attempt to reach bipartisan compromise on bills he tries to get through Congress."

Exactly. Now why didn't you write that in the first place?

So, where is the room to compromise on things like:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/899

Meeting in the middle on this is still beyond the pale.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 04:05:51 PM
They are substantially the same thing. I'm sorry if you didnt like the wording of "bi partisan support of legislation" versus " reach bipartisan compromise on bills he tries to get through Congress."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: PDXTabs on March 09, 2017, 04:11:44 PM
Short term we are seeing a stronger US dollar. Medium term if we get a border adjustment tax and infrastructure spending we will see an even stronger dollar.

Long term it may or may not be a mess (immigration, tax cuts, nepotism, oligarchy, etc).

I'm taking my dollars and buying stocks, Euros, and Pounds. Since I eventually want to relocate to Europe it may actually work out for me.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 04:11:49 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/donald-trump-compromise-poll/index.html

New effect of Trump presidency: more people are talking politics regularly with friends and family. And 70% of those polled wish that Democrats would compromise with the Trump administration to pass bills (aligning with similar numbers of respondents hoping for bi-partisan support of legislation. )

Funny that you failed to mention that poll says that more people want trunp to compromise with democrats than want democrats to compromise with trump.  Your post suggests you do not think that these are the same thing.

You also cited "more people are talking" as if it was a good thing, despite the article highlighting that most people find this increased discussion stressful and are actively trying to find ways to cut back.

I swear MM, it's like every time you post you are deliberately trying to twist the truth.  At first i thought you were just a die hard partisan hack with a distorted world view, but now I'm leaning towards mischievous troll who is actively trying to degrade the forums by clouding our honest discussions with deliberately false information.
What the hell are you trolling about? I posted a link to a cnn poll; I made no value judgements on political discourse.  If you colored that part of my post, that is your own bias, and a clear reaction to differing views from your own which you seem to imagine is some sort of attack on the forum.

If you think CNN polls are false news, then please argue that; most rational people feel they are a legitimate news source, if not perfectly bias free. As such, I  doubt many people would agree with your assertion this is "false information."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 09, 2017, 04:14:26 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/donald-trump-compromise-poll/index.html

New effect of Trump presidency: more people are talking politics regularly with friends and family. And 73% of those polled wish that Trump would get bipartisan support to pass bills (aligning with similar numbers of respondents hoping for compromise with new legislation.)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 09, 2017, 04:17:24 PM
Yes; for Democrats to compromise with Trump, and for  "Trump to attempt to reach bipartisan compromise on bills he tries to get through Congress."

Exactly. Now why didn't you write that in the first place?

So, where is the room to compromise on things like:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/899

Meeting in the middle on this is still beyond the pale.

Well, the poll stated that 69% wanted the Democrats to try to compromise with the President. Obviously, that won't happen a lot, especially in extreme cases.

That said, there are always crazy bills filed each session. It's time to worry when the committee takes them seriously.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 04:17:34 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/index.html

Cnn reports that illegal southwest border crossings fell 40% last month, a steep drop compared to seasonal averages that normally see a 10% - 20% uptick in illegal crossing numbers.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 09, 2017, 04:19:24 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/index.html

Cnn reports that illegal southwest border crossings fell 40% last month, a steep drop compared to seasonal averages that normally see a 10% - 20% uptick in illegal crossing numbers.

Does this mean an actual, physical, wall isn't needed?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 04:29:17 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/index.html

Cnn reports that illegal southwest border crossings fell 40% last month, a steep drop compared to seasonal averages that normally see a 10% - 20% uptick in illegal crossing numbers.

Does this mean an actual, physical, wall isn't needed?
Sigh.... nothing less trollish or more substantive to add than this? The need for a wall was not addressed in this article nor by the report from the CBP office the article references.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 09, 2017, 04:33:39 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/index.html

Cnn reports that illegal southwest border crossings fell 40% last month, a steep drop compared to seasonal averages that normally see a 10% - 20% uptick in illegal crossing numbers.

Does this mean an actual, physical, wall isn't needed?
Sigh.... nothing less trollish or more substantive to add than this? The need for a wall was not addressed in this article nor by the report from the CBP office the article references.

Dude, relax. It was a joke.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 04:51:30 PM
Quote
Dude, relax. It was a joke.
That's like, your opinion man.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 09, 2017, 05:00:39 PM
Quote
Dude, relax. It was a joke.
That's like, your opinion man.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/7a/48/c9/7a48c9bbc6e817ed8e3dd44c3efd5c00.jpg)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Cressida on March 09, 2017, 05:57:34 PM
I'm fascinated by all the bloggers and talking heads who notice that many Republicans have been critical of the AHCA, and then draw the conclusion that the AHCA won't pass. People: does your memory not stretch back less than a year ago, when you all said exactly the same thing about Trump being elected? I mean, getting Trump wrong was somewhat defensible. But after that result, I can't understand why anyone now thinks the Republicans won't fall in line on this.

Terrible health plan, here we come.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 09, 2017, 06:04:15 PM
Quote
Dude, relax. It was a joke.
That's like, your opinion man.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/7a/48/c9/7a48c9bbc6e817ed8e3dd44c3efd5c00.jpg)
:D much better than mine.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on March 09, 2017, 09:09:26 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/index.html

Cnn reports that illegal southwest border crossings fell 40% last month, a steep drop compared to seasonal averages that normally see a 10% - 20% uptick in illegal crossing numbers.

Does this mean an actual, physical, wall isn't needed?

The article specifies that those numbers were people "presenting at the border," not illegal crossings outside of designated areas (which would be awfully difficult to track).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 10, 2017, 02:16:14 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/index.html

Cnn reports that illegal southwest border crossings fell 40% last month, a steep drop compared to seasonal averages that normally see a 10% - 20% uptick in illegal crossing numbers.

Does this mean an actual, physical, wall isn't needed?

The article specifies that those numbers were people "presenting at the border," not illegal crossings outside of designated areas (which would be awfully difficult to track).
Yes, apprehensions at the border are down. This could mean that more people are sneaking in other ways, or the CBP is getting lazy and allowing more people through or that fewer people are crossing (very specifically families and unescorted children, according to the article.) Take your pick of reasons, but the drastic drop, far outside of seasonal norms over the last 17 years, and changes in demographics of the illegal immigrants who are caught suggest the last option much more strongly than the others.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 11, 2017, 05:17:58 AM
One of the realistic impacts of a Trump Presidency is apparently that you appoint a foreign agent as National Security Adviser.  Either knowingly (which must be treasonous) or unknowingly (which demonstates staggering incompetence).

How much longer before both Trump and Pence are ushered out of the White House and into prison?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 11, 2017, 05:20:12 AM
One of the realistic impacts of a Trump Presidency is apparently that you appoint a foreign agent as National Security Adviser.  Either knowingly (which must be treasonous) or unknowingly (which demonstates staggering incompetence).

How much longer before both Trump and Pence are ushered out of the White House and into prison?
Does that mean Ryan becomes president?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 11, 2017, 06:12:19 AM
One of the realistic impacts of a Trump Presidency is apparently that you appoint a foreign agent as National Security Adviser.  Either knowingly (which must be treasonous) or unknowingly (which demonstates staggering incompetence).

How much longer before both Trump and Pence are ushered out of the White House and into prison?
Does that mean Ryan becomes president?
I'm not sure how, if at all, the USA's much-vaunted constitution is going to come into play here.  Trump has just sacked 46 Federal prosecutors without having replacements even nominated to take their places.  Including sacking the chief New York prosecutor whose jurisdiction includes the Trump organisation, despite having previously specifically asked him to stay on.

In any other country (Russia, Turkey) I would say all this looked like the start of a coup.  I'm no longer certain that a coup is not happening in the USA.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 11, 2017, 06:50:06 AM
One of the realistic impacts of a Trump Presidency is apparently that you appoint a foreign agent as National Security Adviser.  Either knowingly (which must be treasonous) or unknowingly (which demonstates staggering incompetence).

How much longer before both Trump and Pence are ushered out of the White House and into prison?
Does that mean Ryan becomes president?
I'm not sure how, if at all, the USA's much-vaunted constitution is going to come into play here.  Trump has just sacked 46 Federal prosecutors without having replacements even nominated to take their places.  Including sacking the chief New York prosecutor whose jurisdiction includes the Trump organisation, despite having previously specifically asked him to stay on.

In any other country (Russia, Turkey) I would say all this looked like the start of a coup.  I'm no longer certain that a coup is not happening in the USA.
You did read that this is a common occurance; most of these positions are replaced with every new administration.  This is not really a shocking development, and to informed persons, hardly any more of sign of a coup (can the party that was voted into power even perform a coup?) Than when Obama or Bush or Clinton replaced the same positions.

Of course it was handled with all the trademark delicacy of a bull on bath salts marching through a glass factory, but the actual removal of these people is not unprecedented in anyway.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 11, 2017, 07:17:01 AM
You did read that this is a common occurance; most of these positions are replaced with every new administration.  This is not really a shocking development, and to informed persons, hardly any more of sign of a coup (can the party that was voted into power even perform a coup?) Than when Obama or Bush or Clinton replaced the same positions.

Of course it was handled with all the trademark delicacy of a bull on bath salts marching through a glass factory, but the actual removal of these people is not unprecedented in anyway.
It's the way it was handled that's the problem.  If I were suspicious (and frankly I'm suspicious of everything being done in the White House at the moment) I would say that the instant sacking of so many, without replacements nominated, was to cover the otherwise inexplicable sacking of the New York prosecutor who just a couple of months ago was personally asked to stay on by Trump and Sessions.  Why would Trump be afraid of a judicial investigation into his activities?  Why wouldn't he, with what is going on?  Now he can put his own placeman in the role and stop there being a judicial investigation into the Trump organisation and the Trump campaign.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 11, 2017, 07:26:30 AM
Meh. I try to avoid suspicions of machinations when simple incompetence will explain.

I don't know much about Preet Bharara; what exactly would Trump stand to gain by sacking him in a "covered" manner as opposed to publicly? Seems since Trump kept the acting deputy attorney general and the man below him, so the leadership is still there more or less.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 11, 2017, 07:30:36 AM
Meh. I try to avoid suspicions of machinations when simple incompetence will explain.

I don't know much about Preet Bharara; what exactly would Trump stand to gain by sacking him in a "covered" manner as opposed to publicly? Seems since Trump kept the acting deputy attorney general and the man below him, so the leadership is still there more or less.
The problem Trump is trying to cover up is his complete 180 in such a short period of time.  And whoever is appointed to the position, the people in the jobs underneath them will either have to obey orders or resign/be sacked, right?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 11, 2017, 07:37:33 AM
Meh. I try to avoid suspicions of machinations when simple incompetence will explain.

I don't know much about Preet Bharara; what exactly would Trump stand to gain by sacking him in a "covered" manner as opposed to publicly? Seems since Trump kept the acting deputy attorney general and the man below him, so the leadership is still there more or less.
The problem Trump is trying to cover up is his complete 180 in such a short period of time.  And whoever is appointed to the position, the people in the jobs underneath them will either have to obey orders or resign/be sacked, right?
Yeah, that's kinda how the government works at that level, I guess. Seems to have been the expectations in every other administration of the past few decades.

Just so I  understand, you are suggesting that Trump decided to sack Bharara, after allegedly telling Bharara that he wouldn't, and to cover it up, and for no other reason, he sacked a few dozen other people in the same department, merely to disguise the fact that he fired Bhahara?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 11, 2017, 07:41:20 AM
Meh. I try to avoid suspicions of machinations when simple incompetence will explain.

I don't know much about Preet Bharara; what exactly would Trump stand to gain by sacking him in a "covered" manner as opposed to publicly? Seems since Trump kept the acting deputy attorney general and the man below him, so the leadership is still there more or less.
The problem Trump is trying to cover up is his complete 180 in such a short period of time.  And whoever is appointed to the position, the people in the jobs underneath them will either have to obey orders or resign/be sacked, right?
Yeah, that's kinda how the government works at that level, I guess. Seems to have been the expectations in every other administration of the past few decades.

Just so I  understand, you are suggesting that Trump decided to sack Bharara, after allegedly telling Bharara that he wouldn't, and to cover it up, and for no other reason, he sacked a few dozen other people in the same department, merely to disguise the fact that he fired Bhahara?
Yes.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 11, 2017, 07:53:22 AM
Meh. I try to avoid suspicions of machinations when simple incompetence will explain.

I don't know much about Preet Bharara; what exactly would Trump stand to gain by sacking him in a "covered" manner as opposed to publicly? Seems since Trump kept the acting deputy attorney general and the man below him, so the leadership is still there more or less.
The problem Trump is trying to cover up is his complete 180 in such a short period of time.  And whoever is appointed to the position, the people in the jobs underneath them will either have to obey orders or resign/be sacked, right?
Yeah, that's kinda how the government works at that level, I guess. Seems to have been the expectations in every other administration of the past few decades.

Just so I  understand, you are suggesting that Trump decided to sack Bharara, after allegedly telling Bharara that he wouldn't, and to cover it up, and for no other reason, he sacked a few dozen other people in the same department, merely to disguise the fact that he fired Bhahara?
Yes.
Thank you for clarification.  This is an interesting theory.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: vern on March 11, 2017, 03:29:16 PM
Bill Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys when he took office.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/24/us/attorney-general-seeks-resignations-from-prosecutors.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 12, 2017, 03:41:47 AM
Yes, but none of them were the Preet Bharara
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on March 12, 2017, 08:20:04 AM
Funny thing that I hadn't considered, I'm in China and typed in Donald Trump just to see what material would come up.  Here is the result
(https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17264252_10158466100055492_1553454431029434989_n.jpg?oh=eda76cb4f45bee41056db442b58c0b32&oe=59274DBF)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on March 13, 2017, 12:55:42 AM
Trump and email:
"His idea of efficiency is I would send him emails, his assistant would print it, he would write on it, and he would scan it," Cuban said. "He doesn't know how to use email."

LOL. 
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/12/mark-cuban-on-donald-trump-hes-the-zoolander-president.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 15, 2017, 05:16:12 PM
It looks like another two impacts of the Trump presidency are:

1) the number of unconstitutional executive actions he's going to take... travel ban #2 struck down
2) Dutch election populist guy did worse than expected... could it be that people are seeing Trump and don't want right-wing pseudo populists running their country?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 16, 2017, 06:25:23 AM
It looks like another two impacts of the Trump presidency are:

1) the number of unconstitutional executive actions he's going to take... travel ban #2 struck down
2) Dutch election populist guy did worse than expected... could it be that people are seeing Trump and don't want right-wing pseudo populists running their country?

Travel Ban 2.0 has only been suspended pending formal litigation. It isn't a ruling on the constitutionality.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Spruit on March 16, 2017, 03:15:13 PM
It looks like another two impacts of the Trump presidency are:

1) the number of unconstitutional executive actions he's going to take... travel ban #2 struck down
2) Dutch election populist guy did worse than expected... could it be that people are seeing Trump and don't want right-wing pseudo populists running their country?

About 2: it has something to do with seeing Trump and Brexit, sure. It also has something (if not more) to do with a certain Turkish president that is behaving quite rude lately, causing some upheaval because he wasn't allowed to do propaganda activities in the NL for his Turkish referendum. Which in turn gave the prime minister a chance to act to that, and thus gain some popularity for "standing up to Turkey" just days prior to the elections. Prime minister still lost votes, but not as many as was feared. Populist-guy won, but not as much as predicted. However it is (and was, even prior to this Turkey business) certain that the Populist (that is, Wilders) would and will not be part of the government, as none of the other parties is willing to work with him.
I did my best; I voted for the Greens. Who might be in government... we'll know in about 6 months :-P
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on March 16, 2017, 04:17:01 PM
The Onion could run this again as new news (with a few name changes)
http://www.theonion.com/article/nations-liberals-suffering-from-outrage-fatigue-1190
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on March 16, 2017, 04:34:53 PM
The Onion could run this again as new news (with a few name changes)
http://www.theonion.com/article/nations-liberals-suffering-from-outrage-fatigue-1190

I like how conservatives focus on the outrage, rather than on the outrageous.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 16, 2017, 04:38:39 PM
The Onion could run this again as new news (with a few name changes)
http://www.theonion.com/article/nations-liberals-suffering-from-outrage-fatigue-1190

I like how conservatives focus on the outrage, rather than on the outrageous.
I can't believe how few conservatives are outraged by most of what Trump is doing. He's no true conservative, and is clearly following through on Bannon's vision of deconstructing the administrative state.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on March 16, 2017, 05:43:06 PM
The Onion could run this again as new news (with a few name changes)
http://www.theonion.com/article/nations-liberals-suffering-from-outrage-fatigue-1190

I like how conservatives focus on the outrage, rather than on the outrageous.
I can't believe how few conservatives are outraged by most of what Trump is doing. He's no true conservative, and is clearly following through on Bannon's vision of deconstructing the administrative state.

Some well versed conservatives are probably happy to go along with him still simply because he is mostly doing things they want. Putting forth a mandate to slash fed spending, returning more power to states. Cutting taxes in the ACA and in general. Doubling down against immigration, especially of unfavorable minorities. The budget is statement is basically through and through Republican. Cut every federal program and increase defense spending. Goes right in line with those who think the only major function of the fed should be defense. Leave the rest to the states...

Its reasonably clear from polling and just talking to an average person who doesn't think much about politics that people are so entrenched that they will view anything their chosen candidate does in a favorable light and discount all detractors.

I get that a lot of conservatives think we are crazy for putting too much stock in man made climate change, but I am curious what some more thoughtful conservatives think about the gutting of the EPA, and what they would thing about its complete elimination.

It seems from a cursory analysis that we already know what the US looks like with no EPA and it we ditch we will likely have to crawl back to a similar program in a few decades after a handful of states go all out and render their industrial regions unlivable and the while draining jobs from reasonably regulated states.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: boy_bye on March 16, 2017, 06:11:32 PM
It seems from a cursory analysis that we already know what the US looks like with no EPA and it we ditch we will likely have to crawl back to a similar program in a few decades after a handful of states go all out and render their industrial regions unlivable and the while draining jobs from reasonably regulated states.

That's what really gets me about all these changes -- it's *completely predictable* what will happen without regulatory agencies. We know what the consequences are -- that's why we created the agencies! And yet so many people and animals and ecosystems will suffer and die because of it. It's so fucking dumb.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 16, 2017, 07:12:31 PM
And yet so many people and animals and ecosystems will suffer and die because of it. It's so fucking dumb.

Yes but think of the profits!

The republican party doesn't care about animals or ecosystems, just like it doesn't care about healthcare or poor people.  It only cares about corporate profits.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 17, 2017, 05:13:17 AM
And yet so many people and animals and ecosystems will suffer and die because of it. It's so fucking dumb.

Yes but think of the profits!

The republican party doesn't care about animals or ecosystems, just like it doesn't care about healthcare or poor people.  It only cares about corporate profits.

And the free markets. You know to buy gas mask and all.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: gaja on March 17, 2017, 05:39:19 AM
And yet so many people and animals and ecosystems will suffer and die because of it. It's so fucking dumb.

Yes but think of the profits!

The republican party doesn't care about animals or ecosystems, just like it doesn't care about healthcare or poor people.  It only cares about corporate profits.
I thougth the invisible hand and free market was going to take care of all that? If we just get people to use their purchase power to choose to buy from corporations who treat the animals nicely, all the bad and greedy corporations will go bankrupt, and only the nice ones will remain. It is the governments regulations that are causing pollution, with all the paper forms,  and horrible regulations that prevent the corporations from choosing the really environmental friendly solutions. Like cars that run on H20, fusion reactors, etc.

/sarcasm
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on March 17, 2017, 07:59:33 AM
And yet so many people and animals and ecosystems will suffer and die because of it. It's so fucking dumb.

Yes but think of the profits!

The republican party doesn't care about animals or ecosystems, just like it doesn't care about healthcare or poor people.  It only cares about corporate profits.

They used to have the facade of compassionate conservatism.  Now we have Mulvaney explaining how it is compassionate to cut Meals on Wheels.   
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 17, 2017, 08:15:37 AM
According to Spicer, apparently President Obama didn't want to ask any of his own 17 security agencies to spy on Trump so he asked the Brits to do it instead.

I'm trying to work out his channels for doing this.  Did he call up the British Ambassador in Washington to relay the request?  That would have been a breach of protocol: he should have asked the Secretary of State to make the call.  Or did Obama find out the telephone number for GCHQ (you can look it up on line) and call direct?  "Hello, President Obama of the USA here, can you wiretap Donald Trump in Trump Tower and send me the transcripts?"

No, I'm at a loss.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Inaya on March 17, 2017, 09:13:48 AM
So the Trump administration is literally getting its "intelligence" from Fox and Breitbart now, while shunning actual intelligence. I can't even...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on March 17, 2017, 09:30:42 AM
So what will Trump do in case of a very real emergency? He throws fictional allegations around left and right. What happens in a real crisis defined by real facts offered by intelligence agencies he rejects?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 17, 2017, 09:48:03 AM
So what will Trump do in case of a very real emergency? He throws fictional allegations around left and right. What happens in a real crisis defined by real facts offered by intelligence agencies he rejects?

They're getting into a "boy who cries wolf" situation. Why even bothering going to the press room? Spicer is going to lie about it anyway.

After this is all said and done, how long will it take for Spicer to realize that he left his integrity at the WH door?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on March 17, 2017, 09:51:02 AM
Trump seriously needs to be removed.  He is going to get us all killed.  I never thought I would be glad to see Pence as President.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on March 17, 2017, 09:55:28 AM
Trump seriously needs to be removed.  He is going to get us all killed.  I never thought I would be glad to see Pence as President.
And this is why the GOP is supporting Trump.  It makes them and Pence look reasonable.  Yet, all Trump is doing is what the GOP wants.  I would reconsider your gladness.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 17, 2017, 10:01:57 AM
Trump seriously needs to be removed.  He is going to get us all killed.  I never thought I would be glad to see Pence as President.

Maybe that's the long game here.  To teach America to be thankful and appreciative of a condescending and paternalistic white male conservative who will quietly work to undermine American values, because that's so clearly preferable to the brazenly offensive and paternalistic white male conservative who tears down American values with childlike giddiness just because be wants to watch the country burn.

I agree, Pence would make a better president.  I would be offended but not ashamed.

But maybe that's a good thing?  If America instead learns the lesson that paternalistic white male conservatives are just anti-American, and trump continues to flounder for four years, maybe the nation can emerge in 2020 with clearer eyes and start repairing some of the damage republicans have wrought.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on March 17, 2017, 10:16:00 AM
Meals on wheels is on the chopping block now.  Frail old people can go F themselves.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cerat0n1a on March 17, 2017, 10:21:15 AM
Some well versed conservatives are probably happy to go along with him still simply because he is mostly doing things they want. Putting forth a mandate to slash fed spending, returning more power to states.

Didn't he propose to increase spending in the budget that was published yesterday?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 17, 2017, 10:43:06 AM
Didn't he propose to increase spending in the budget that was published yesterday?

Yes he's increasing spending, but only because Mexico is refusing to pay for the wall so your taxes will have to do it instead.

Except he's also cutting taxes, so really it's just more deficit spending.  But hey at least we'll be ready for that upcoming war with iran!  Fiscal responsibility is a campaign issue only, it seems, freely discarded when it comes time to govern.

The emails I've been getting at work have been hilarious.  They say all kinds of encouraging things about this budget strengthening our programs, improving our security, protecting our resources, and directly supporting our mission, and oh btw it's a huge budget cut and were going to have to fire a bunch of you because there's not enough funding in it to keep the lights on.  Such a joke.

I'll be watching for the analogous messaging if they pass the AHCA.  I expect they'll claim they are "strengthening and protecting" Medicaid by cutting $880 billion from its budget.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 17, 2017, 11:07:19 AM
But maybe that's a good thing?  If America instead learns the lesson that paternalistic white male conservatives are just anti-American, and trump continues to flounder for four years, maybe the nation can emerge in 2020 with clearer eyes and start repairing some of the damage republicans have wrought.

This is very optimistic in that you assume that Americans will learn and revise their beliefs instead of doubling down and blaming someone else.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on March 17, 2017, 11:09:23 AM
War with North Korea in 3, 2, 1 . . .
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 17, 2017, 11:12:29 AM
So the Trump administration is literally getting its "intelligence" from Fox and Breitbart now, while shunning actual intelligence. I can't even...

Where have you been?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Inaya on March 17, 2017, 11:26:54 AM
So the Trump administration is literally getting its "intelligence" from Fox and Breitbart now, while shunning actual intelligence. I can't even...

Where have you been?

Mostly hoping it wasn't true (i.e., in denial). Can't deny it anymore...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Scandium on March 17, 2017, 01:07:56 PM
Trump and email:
"His idea of efficiency is I would send him emails, his assistant would print it, he would write on it, and he would scan it," Cuban said. "He doesn't know how to use email."

LOL. 
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/12/mark-cuban-on-donald-trump-hes-the-zoolander-president.html

Wow. Favorite part:

Quote
Overall, however, Cuban wants Trump's presidency to be successful.

"First of all he's our president," he said. "I don't care how he does personally, but I want the country to do well."

Oh, I'm sure he'll at least do well personally! Funneling public money to the Trump organization will be the only consistent thing about his presidency.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 17, 2017, 05:57:58 PM
Meals on wheels is on the chopping block now.  Frail old people can go F themselves.

I've volunteered for Meals on Wheels and I can't believe anyone in good conscience would cut this program.  Frail elderly people with very limited income receive prepared meals that would be hard for them to make on their own. This program also becomes a way to look in on these elderly people and make sure they are ok. I imagine some of these elderly are somewhat isolated because of their limited physical abilities.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on March 18, 2017, 07:39:00 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if we should start a thread on what Trump will tweet each weekend.

This week, he's claiming that Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO and the U.S.

So, whaddaya think?    Are the Trump Tweets  (Treets?   Twumps?)   

a.   Stream of consciousness from someone with no self control?

b.   Part of an organized political strategy to float ideas and divert attention away from other controversies?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 19, 2017, 07:38:58 AM
Trump couldn't find the word "strategy" in a dictionary, let alone implement one, and at his current rate of pissing off world leaders he will be a complete Nobby No-mates at the forthcoming G7 and G20.

Is there anyone other than his media staff and a few Republican congress members who has a good word to say about the man now?  His former defenders on this forum have gone very quiet, and even Fox has disowned his statements about UK wiretapping.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: farmecologist on March 19, 2017, 08:58:38 AM
Meals on wheels is on the chopping block now.  Frail old people can go F themselves.

I've volunteered for Meals on Wheels and I can't believe anyone in good conscience would cut this program.  Frail elderly people with very limited income receive prepared meals that would be hard for them to make on their own. This program also becomes a way to look in on these elderly people and make sure they are ok. I imagine some of these elderly are somewhat isolated because of their limited physical abilities.

Totally agree.  As you said, the food is only one aspect of the program.  Also remember that the deliveries provide what is sometimes the only human contact these people get during their week. 

 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on March 19, 2017, 09:27:57 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if we should start a thread on what Trump will tweet each weekend.

This week, he's claiming that Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO and the U.S.

So, whaddaya think?    Are the Trump Tweets  (Treets?   Twumps?)   

a.   Stream of consciousness from someone with no self control?

b.   Part of an organized political strategy to float ideas and divert attention away from other controversies?

I would vote no way on Treets.  I really like Twumps. I think it could get some legs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on March 19, 2017, 10:51:28 AM
Quote
Trump couldn't find the word "strategy" in a dictionary, let alone implement one

I know, I know, but every weekend he has some new tweet (twump) to spark outrage and exasperation.   Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is intentional...    Maybe that Bannon guy is behind it.

Or maybe Trump just gets bored on the weekends and has nothing else to do.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on March 19, 2017, 11:02:42 AM
Twitler
A fascist twit who overuses their Twitter, and uses it for attention and to indoctrinate the foolish. Synomous with The Orange Snowflake, a.k.a Orange Mussolini, a.ka. Orange Faced Shit-gibbon, a.k.a Donald J. Trump.    -Urban dictionary
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 19, 2017, 12:38:42 PM
Quote
Trump couldn't find the word "strategy" in a dictionary, let alone implement one

I know, I know, but every weekend he has some new tweet (twump) to spark outrage and exasperation.   Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is intentional...    Maybe that Bannon guy is behind it.

Or maybe Trump just gets bored on the weekends and has nothing else to do.
The suggestion I saw is that neither Ivanka nor Jared is available to babysit from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown because Sabbath.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 19, 2017, 04:49:28 PM
FWIW it appears what Trump proposes cutting isn't Meals on Wheels, except to the extent some states happen to use some of the money to fund that program in the block grants that are the actual targets. Making this about MoW ignores the actual conversation that should be happening.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 19, 2017, 07:08:27 PM
FWIW it appears what Trump proposes cutting isn't Meals on Wheels, except to the extent some states happen to use some of the money to fund that program in the block grants that are the actual targets. Making this about MoW ignores the actual conversation that should be happening.

I disagree I think the conversation is about what the actual programs are that are getting cut and how they are going to hurt various people. If the money comes from a block grant, it's the president's responsibility to know that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 19, 2017, 09:31:44 PM
FWIW it appears what Trump proposes cutting isn't Meals on Wheels, except to the extent some states happen to use some of the money to fund that program in the block grants that are the actual targets. Making this about MoW ignores the actual conversation that should be happening.

I disagree I think the conversation is about what the actual programs are that are getting cut and how they are going to hurt various people. If the money comes from a block grant, it's the president's responsibility to know that.
Actually, the basis for eliminating the Community Development Block Grants is ostensibly based on an evaluation of the functions those grants serve and a claimed lack of efficacy in the program overall; from the WH budget summary:

The Federal Government has spent over $150 billion on this block grant since its inception in 1974, but the program is not well-targeted to the poorest populations and has not demonstrated results.

Regarding the actual people this will impact, it's relevant that just 3% of MoW funding is derived from the targeted grants (i.e. it is collateral damage). The real discussion is on the grants in general, how effective they are, and where the scope of federal spending should end and state spending begin, but instead the result is the (re?)affirmed conclusion "Trump hates poor old people!" Maybe he does hate poor old people but that's not terribly relevant to the contents and argument behind the budget proposal.

I bring to you, The Future of Political Discourse:

1. Trump does a thing
2. The mainstream media reports on the thing from a variety of angles (generally in good faith but perhaps from a moderately biased perspective and often not impeccably researched--they have deadlines after all!)
3. Anyone who thinks Trump is an X latch on to variations in reporting that suggest Trump is an X
4. Variations of the story that "indicate" Trump is an X propagate in those wishing confirmation of further evidence Trump is an X
5. People are further polarized, ignoring the actual issues, and even more predisposed to believe Trump is an X next time
6. Repeat for four to eight years

The cycle, of course, is greatly amplified for those who follow fake news sources.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: HPstache on March 20, 2017, 12:19:37 AM
  His former defenders on this forum have gone very quiet, and even Fox has disowned his statements about UK wiretapping.

I am not a defender of trump but I am neutral to him at this point.  The reason no one defends him here is because no one here wants to hear any opinion on him other than how terrible he is.  If you take a step back and take a look at it... it's getting pretty pathetic around here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 20, 2017, 02:20:04 AM
  His former defenders on this forum have gone very quiet, and even Fox has disowned his statements about UK wiretapping.

I am not a defender of trump but I am neutral to him at this point.  The reason no one defends him here is because no one here wants to hear any opinion on him other than how terrible he is.  If you take a step back and take a look at it... it's getting pretty pathetic around here.
If there is evidence of the good things Trump has done in his first few weeks in the Presidency I'd be interested to see it.  I'm skeptical it exists: Trump himself would never stop talking about it for one.  There's plenty being said about what he's got wrong.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 20, 2017, 03:41:33 AM
If there is evidence of the good things Trump has done in his first few weeks in the Presidency I'd be interested to see it.  I'm skeptical it exists: Trump himself would never stop talking about it for one.  There's plenty being said about what he's got wrong.
I thought we went over this: A few thousand jobs across a few different industries, budget cuts to a specific bloated military program, a drastic and unprecedented drop in illegal border crossings at the southern border, a huge stock market run up and fantastic job numbers. 

Now, none of these are great, and they in no way void anything else he or his team have done, but it's not ALL bad.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 20, 2017, 03:44:40 AM
The suggestion I saw is that neither Ivanka nor Jared is available to babysit from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown because Sabbath.

(http://oddculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/shabbos1.jpg)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on March 20, 2017, 06:15:35 AM
If there is evidence of the good things Trump has done in his first few weeks in the Presidency I'd be interested to see it.  I'm skeptical it exists: Trump himself would never stop talking about it for one.  There's plenty being said about what he's got wrong.
I thought we went over this: A few thousand jobs across a few different industries, budget cuts to a specific bloated military program, a drastic and unprecedented drop in illegal border crossings at the southern border, a huge stock market run up and fantastic job numbers. 

Now, none of these are great, and they in no way void anything else he or his team have done, but it's not ALL bad.

Are any of those directly in response to policies that Trump enacted, or things that were likely to have happened anyway?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 20, 2017, 06:22:47 AM
If there is evidence of the good things Trump has done in his first few weeks in the Presidency I'd be interested to see it.  I'm skeptical it exists: Trump himself would never stop talking about it for one.  There's plenty being said about what he's got wrong.
I thought we went over this: A few thousand jobs across a few different industries, budget cuts to a specific bloated military program, a drastic and unprecedented drop in illegal border crossings at the southern border, a huge stock market run up and fantastic job numbers. 

Now, none of these are great, and they in no way void anything else he or his team have done, but it's not ALL bad.

Are any of those directly in response to policies that Trump enacted, or things that were likely to have happened anyway?
I think this was covered above - most people will slant the evidence to fit their own viewpoint. But it seems strongly suggested by the actual parties involved in the actual deals that Trump was a non-trivial factor in these things coming to pass. So while its possible that some would have occurred (much like any event), there seems to be indication that the Trump-effect is real for most of the scenarios listed, though of course there is no single factor that ensured they played out the way they did.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 20, 2017, 06:51:36 AM
I think this was covered above - most people will slant the evidence to fit their own viewpoint. But it seems strongly suggested by the actual parties involved in the actual deals that Trump was a non-trivial factor in these things coming to pass. So while its possible that some would have occurred (much like any event), there seems to be indication that the Trump-effect is real for most of the scenarios listed, though of course there is no single factor that ensured they played out the way they did.

You can argue bias and slat all you want, but here's a fun fact for one of them:
Lockheed committed to a reduced budget in December, prior to anyone from Trump's team meeting with them.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-35-a-great-plane-now-thanks-to-president-trump-1791824958
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 20, 2017, 07:04:21 AM
I think this was covered above - most people will slant the evidence to fit their own viewpoint. But it seems strongly suggested by the actual parties involved in the actual deals that Trump was a non-trivial factor in these things coming to pass. So while its possible that some would have occurred (much like any event), there seems to be indication that the Trump-effect is real for most of the scenarios listed, though of course there is no single factor that ensured they played out the way they did.

You can argue bias and slat all you want, but here's a fun fact for one of them:
Lockheed committed to a reduced budget in December, prior to anyone from Trump's team meeting with them.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-35-a-great-plane-now-thanks-to-president-trump-1791824958
I actually think this is a great example of 'slant.'

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html

CNN reports that it was over 8% savings, so higher than the original estimate offered by your source, as well as Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson crediting President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price." Two sides of the story, it would seem.

Did Trump single handedly save $700 million dollars from this program? No. Is Lockheed Martin stating that he was a factor in how much was saved? Yes. Are these facts spun towards different conclusions by different reporting sites? Yes, apparently.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 20, 2017, 07:39:40 AM

I actually think this is a great example of 'slant.'

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html

CNN reports that it was over 8% savings, so higher than the original estimate offered by your source, as well as Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson crediting President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price." Two sides of the story, it would seem.

Did Trump single handedly save $700 million dollars from this program? No. Is Lockheed Martin stating that he was a factor in how much was saved? Yes. Are these facts spun towards different conclusions by different reporting sites? Yes, apparently.

Bullshit. They committed to a reduction around what Trump was crowing about BEFORE his people ever met with them. Just because the CEO gave him a public reacharound doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 20, 2017, 07:48:48 AM

I actually think this is a great example of 'slant.'

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html

CNN reports that it was over 8% savings, so higher than the original estimate offered by your source, as well as Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson crediting President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price." Two sides of the story, it would seem.

Did Trump single handedly save $700 million dollars from this program? No. Is Lockheed Martin stating that he was a factor in how much was saved? Yes. Are these facts spun towards different conclusions by different reporting sites? Yes, apparently.

Bullshit. They committed to a reduction around what Trump was crowing about BEFORE his people ever met with them. Just because the CEO gave him a public reacharound doesn't make it true.
Clearly it doesn't make it true, but listing greater than expected expense reductions while giving credit to the POTUS could be indication said POTUS had an effect. Claiming that Trump had zero effect because some expense reduction was expected does not make it true, either. Easy to slant from either side, no doubt.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 20, 2017, 07:56:14 AM

I actually think this is a great example of 'slant.'

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/index.html

CNN reports that it was over 8% savings, so higher than the original estimate offered by your source, as well as Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson crediting President Donald Trump for helping to "accelerate negotiations" and "drive down the price." Two sides of the story, it would seem.

Did Trump single handedly save $700 million dollars from this program? No. Is Lockheed Martin stating that he was a factor in how much was saved? Yes. Are these facts spun towards different conclusions by different reporting sites? Yes, apparently.

Bullshit. They committed to a reduction around what Trump was crowing about BEFORE his people ever met with them. Just because the CEO gave him a public reacharound doesn't make it true.
There's a clear pattern in all the wins currently claimed on behalf of Trump: 1) they are things which are hangovers from Obama's term (Lockheed, employment figures) or 2) they are things which have arisen from people reacting to Trump (reported reduction in illegal border crossings) rather than something Trump has directly done.  The problem with the latter is that the negative reactions to Trump statements need to be offset against the positive (reported reduction in business and academic travel), and never are, and also that the benefits claimed are rarely unalloyed (I personally am against illegal immigration, but if crossing a border illegally saves that person's life, because they are an innocent bystander who otherwise would be killed by the cartels, is that a bad thing overall?).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 20, 2017, 08:25:23 AM
If there is evidence of the good things Trump has done in his first few weeks in the Presidency I'd be interested to see it.  I'm skeptical it exists: Trump himself would never stop talking about it for one.  There's plenty being said about what he's got wrong.
I thought we went over this: A few thousand jobs across a few different industries, budget cuts to a specific bloated military program, a drastic and unprecedented drop in illegal border crossings at the southern border, a huge stock market run up and fantastic job numbers. 

Now, none of these are great, and they in no way void anything else he or his team have done, but it's not ALL bad.

Are any of those directly in response to policies that Trump enacted, or things that were likely to have happened anyway?

No. It's a pretty well known fact that policies (particularly economic based) from the previous administration extend into the next Presidential term for quite some time. That time varies of course depending on the policy. And current administration policies (again, particularly economic based) take time to show any affect.

Of course we are currently living in a largely post-fact era and this type of rational thinking clearly gets in the way.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 20, 2017, 11:22:14 AM
So the Trump administration is literally getting its "intelligence" from Fox and Breitbart now, while shunning actual intelligence. I can't even...

Where have you been?

Mostly hoping it wasn't true (i.e., in denial). Can't deny it anymore...

Ha, it would be nice if we could wake up and realize the Trump campaign and presidency were just a horrible dream all along. Here's what Donald Trump said about how he gets his military intelligence/advice, when asked in an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, during the campaign:

Quote
Todd: Who do you talk to for military advice right now?

Trump: Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great — you know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows, and you have the generals.

So eloquently stated, I might add. The answer is frightening enough, but when coupled with the inability to form a coherent sentence at even the 5th grade level, it's all the more disturbing. And I'll give everyone one whole guess which "shows" Trump is referring to.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on March 20, 2017, 01:38:16 PM
Who's he going to talk to as a candidate? I get he's a bumbling moron, but come-on now he's running a campaign-not invading countries-yet anyway. He later went on to name Bolton and Jacobs as contacts.

I really wish people would stick to the crap that matters. Every time a weak argument or a throw away quote is used, the opposition just digs in that much deeper.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 20, 2017, 04:27:50 PM
Who's he going to talk to as a candidate? I get he's a bumbling moron, but come-on now he's running a campaign-not invading countries-yet anyway. He later went on to name Bolton and Jacobs as contacts.

I really wish people would stick to the crap that matters. Every time a weak argument or a throw away quote is used, the opposition just digs in that much deeper.

I get what you're saying, and if it was an isolated incident, I might give your argument more weight. However, with Trump it's a long-standing pattern, not an aberration. He continues to get his information from shows. Watch the continuing correlation between what is aired on "Fox and Friends" and Trump's tweeting now as President, it's a direct cause-and-effect and undeniable. And, there were plenty of experts he could have been talking to as a candidate, like other well-informed (both Democrat and Republican) candidates did. Getting your information from TV shows (i.e., Fox and Friends) is, in the words of Trump, "SAD!"

Finally, I'll say I did not interpret Trump to say he had Bolton and Jacobs as "contacts" at all -- he did not claim them as contacts or advisers, just that he likes them.  I got more of the impression that these were some people he saw on the shows and liked what they had to say. Plus, he claimed he got an award, yay! Here's the full conversation on the matter for those interested:

Quote
CHUCK TODD: 
Who do you talk to for military advice right now?

DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I watch the shows.  I mean, I really see a lot of great— you know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals and—

CHUCK TODD:
So you do the—

DONALD TRUMP:
And you have certain people that you like—

CHUCK TODD:
But is there a go-to for you?  You know—

DONALD TRUMP:
Probably there are—

CHUCK TODD:
—every presidential—

DONALD TRUMP:
—two or three—

CHUCK TODD:
—candidate has a go-to—

DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, probably there are two or three.  I mean, I like Bolton.  I think he’s, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he’s talking about.  Jacobs is a good guy—

CHUCK TODD:
Do you mean Ambassador John Bolton—

DONALD TRUMP:
Yes.  I think he’s terrific—

CHUCK TODD:
You mean Colonel Jack Jacobs?

DONALD TRUMP:
Colonel Jack Jacobs is a good guy.  And I see him on occasion.  I actually had dinner— I was given a very high award by the Marines at the Waldorf Astoria a couple of months ago.  And your new head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the head Marine, was a very impressive guy.  He just got appointed.  I think—

CHUCK TODD:
You hear good things— 

DONALD TRUMP:
—that he will do—

(OVERTALK) 

DONALD TRUMP:
—a terrific job.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on March 20, 2017, 04:59:52 PM
If there is evidence of the good things Trump has done in his first few weeks in the Presidency I'd be interested to see it.  I'm skeptical it exists: Trump himself would never stop talking about it for one.  There's plenty being said about what he's got wrong.
I thought we went over this: A few thousand jobs across a few different industries, budget cuts to a specific bloated military program, a drastic and unprecedented drop in illegal border crossings at the southern border, a huge stock market run up and fantastic job numbers. 

Now, none of these are great, and they in no way void anything else he or his team have done, but it's not ALL bad.

Just as a general overview. It is easy to see why for now a Trump supporter would be happy. He has more or less attempted to quickly follow through on every major campaign point.

Keeping Jobs in the US. He made some headlines quick by publicly stepping out and lambasting anyone who was sending jobs outside the US. The most covered was probably the UTC decision to keep a plant open after discussing with Trump and his team. There are valid criticisms and questions surrounding how he got them to keep a portion of the jobs here but I think it is fair to celebrate that for his voters. Other instances with Ford, Trump and team spin Ford's decision as facilitated by their request to keep jobs in US. Ford claims it was just a business decision that would have happened either way. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. His efforts here are laudable even if his methods end up being misguided or insufficient to achieve a major success story. The current results could be seen as positive and hopeful.

Overall so far, he backed out of the TPP so you can mark the jobs and trade issue as job well done so far, though maybe slightly overstated in his true effect beyond trade policy.

I wont go to far into immigration policy but by one metric yes the statement you made is true. Though it clearly isn't due to any major presidential policy as really no new policies have come into effect. It could be due to fear of the administration and impending changes or it could come down to other factors. It needs more analysis. But again if this is a major concern for you, you can chalk that up to a current win.

The current state of the stock market, jobs and the recent deficit reduction to Trump is bordering line ridiculous. Every president tries to take credit for good numbers and spin bad ones. This is no different. Job numbers were rosy for years under Obama while Trump and conservative outlets tore them apart and looked for the downsides. Now suddenly these numbers are a reflection of his solid leadership, *cough*bullshit*cough*. Jobs numbers have simply continued on their current trend for now. Better job numbers in the Obama years were scrutinized harshly by the right...

The only credit he could take for the deficit reduction is he hasn't managed to setup up any major spending in 2 months otherwise the current spending is simply a continuation of what was in place before him. Generally the first year of a new presidencies government spending is really the spending of the previous years congressional and executive branch's agreed budget...

Giving credit to Trump for the bull market is definitely spin. The only thing you can say about the market that is slightly in his favor is that the business outlook is optimistic, especially given Republican tax reform is imminent which generally makes corps happy since tax cuts are always welcome. But I suppose you can give Trump a big old pat on the back for not scaring investors shirtless into a selling frenzy.

I think in general it is reasonable for his supporters to celebrate that he has remained more in touch with his base than previous Republican presidents who would normally be running 100% defense for the House and Senate at this point.

I personally think this is a bad thing, why? Ask yourself how much you would enjoy a hyper liberal president who was taking all his advice from CNN and doing everything the far left thought would make this country better.... maybe that's how people felt under Obama, its hard for me to say. Then rolled out a paper budget that was going to double the size of every welfare program and agency and slash military spending by 10%. Would you prefer rather that he was more bipartisan and cautious about major changes?

Keeping in mind that Trumps tweeting and attitude are every bit as shitty and as infuriating as it was on the campaign trial. And that most people left leaning see this tiresome tirade against immigration as baseless and dangerous as the liberal tirade on gun control. One could crack down on illegal immigration without stirring up so much baseless anger among the base. Playing too much into public passions against certain groups is unhealthy. The same goes for finding ways to reduce Muslim immigration.

Overall my current evaluation of Trump is that you have to turn a blind eye to ignore is failings as a leader and the potential trouble he can get us into. You also have to be pretty partisan to suggest his bold face lies aren't a notch above either of our past two presidents. We can all agree Presidents lie and spin the shit out of policies to sell them to the public. But making press conference statements acknowledging wire tapping by Obama through the British government because some jerk off on Fox news made a baseless assertion... come on, we are getting deep into crazy town.

That being said he is making clear efforts to appease his base. And the every action he has taken, if you look at it from a purely legal perspective, and throw out the rhetoric, are defensible and more or at least in line with Republican politics.

Take a step back an ignore the overheated elements of the left out protesting every other thing. I think a summarized quote from David Frum, a conservative political commentator and speech writer for Bush, here on a recent podcast with Sam Harris is applicable. "Trump the man is indefensible." Mainly noting that there is a stark difference in ability to defend his policies and him as a person who is well suited to hold the office of the Presidency.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on March 20, 2017, 05:00:13 PM
I interpreted "sees him on occasion" and the fact that he had dinner with him as having Jacobs as a contact-I forget though that "dinners" are something different in the eh...."elite" crowd.

I went and looked up that specific exchange before you posted, and the fact that it's a pattern doesn't really matter. To his base he is "a normal guy like us!" To everyone else, this is infuriating. How does this help? I wish people would have hammered the guy on his actual values and actions. It's too late for that now, now all Trump has to do is not get into any trouble and skate by without a controversy or scandal.... I'm just looking at this from the lens of a guy who saw W elected a second time after such a contentious election the first time. No lessons have been learned at all. Everyone laughs about it watching SNL, or gnashes their teeth on forums and comment pages. Trump will be elected second go around if it keeps going the way it is.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on March 20, 2017, 06:39:55 PM
Trump has 24 hr access to the greatest intelligence mechanism in the history of mankind and he rejects it in favor of FoxNews, InfoWars and other sources with dubious credibility? That says alot about the man and his organization to me. It does not bode well for the nation in case of real crisis.

I'm hoping that the experts ignores this guy and goes about their duties.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 20, 2017, 07:49:10 PM
Everyone laughs about it watching SNL, or gnashes their teeth on forums and comment pages. Trump will be elected second go around if it keeps going the way it is.

Of course 6 months ago I would have said you're crazy, now I say you could be right!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: backyardfeast on March 20, 2017, 08:27:01 PM
Quote
Take a step back an ignore the overheated elements of the left out protesting every other thing. I think a summarized quote from David Frum, a conservative political commentator and speech writer for Bush, here on a recent podcast with Sam Harris is applicable. "Trump the man is indefensible." Mainly noting that there is a stark difference in ability to defend his policies and him as a person who is well suited to hold the office of the Presidency.
 

Your last point may be true, but Frum has been actively on a campaign to warn Republicans about Trump's policies too--he's not separating his personal qualities from his politics the way you suggest is possible:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 03:53:43 AM
If there is evidence of the good things Trump has done in his first few weeks in the Presidency I'd be interested to see it.  I'm skeptical it exists: Trump himself would never stop talking about it for one.  There's plenty being said about what he's got wrong.
I thought we went over this: A few thousand jobs across a few different industries, budget cuts to a specific bloated military program, a drastic and unprecedented drop in illegal border crossings at the southern border, a huge stock market run up and fantastic job numbers. 

Now, none of these are great, and they in no way void anything else he or his team have done, but it's not ALL bad.

Are any of those directly in response to policies that Trump enacted, or things that were likely to have happened anyway?

No. It's a pretty well known fact that policies (particularly economic based) from the previous administration extend into the next Presidential term for quite some time. That time varies of course depending on the policy. And current administration policies (again, particularly economic based) take time to show any affect.
Are you suggesting then that Trump can't be held accountable for anything that has happened since his inauguration, as all events (other than the teeth gnashing at his early morning tweets) are simply fallout from previous administrations? I think that is a pretty weak argument. Every analysis I have ever seen makes it pretty clear the amazing stock-market run up is a response to market expectations that he will loosen business regulations, and the sharp and unexpected drop in illegal border crossings is a direct result of his stance on immigration.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you are giving Trump 100% of the credit for positive economic news, I will expect you to give him 100% of the blame for poor economic news.  I want to see you blaming Trump when the stock market goes down 10%, when Lockheed Martin has a poor earnings report, when employment figures suck, or when the F-35 program goes over-budget (again).
I'm not sure anyone is giving Trump 100% credit for anything, they are simply arguing he has some effect upon certain events that have been positive. I wouldn't give him credit for the stock market tumbling if tomorrow it were revealed that BOA and Wells Fargo employees had siphoned off billions of dollars from accounts and fled the country, for example. Not really within his power, or the power of a previous administration to avoid that particular event. I would actually question the logic and consistency of anyone who suggested a President be blamed for such a thing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 04:34:51 AM
Just as a general overview. It is easy to see why for now a Trump supporter would be happy. He has more or less attempted to quickly follow through on every major campaign point.

Keeping Jobs in the US. He made some headlines quick by publicly stepping out and lambasting anyone who was sending jobs outside the US. The most covered was probably the UTC decision to keep a plant open after discussing with Trump and his team. There are valid criticisms and questions surrounding how he got them to keep a portion of the jobs here but I think it is fair to celebrate that for his voters. Other instances with Ford, Trump and team spin Ford's decision as facilitated by their request to keep jobs in US. Ford claims it was just a business decision that would have happened either way. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. His efforts here are laudable even if his methods end up being misguided or insufficient to achieve a major success story. The current results could be seen as positive and hopeful.

Overall so far, he backed out of the TPP so you can mark the jobs and trade issue as job well done so far, though maybe slightly overstated in his true effect beyond trade policy.

I wont go to far into immigration policy but by one metric yes the statement you made is true. Though it clearly isn't due to any major presidential policy as really no new policies have come into effect. It could be due to fear of the administration and impending changes or it could come down to other factors. It needs more analysis. But again if this is a major concern for you, you can chalk that up to a current win.

The current state of the stock market, jobs and the recent deficit reduction to Trump is bordering line ridiculous. Every president tries to take credit for good numbers and spin bad ones. This is no different. Job numbers were rosy for years under Obama while Trump and conservative outlets tore them apart and looked for the downsides. Now suddenly these numbers are a reflection of his solid leadership, *cough*bullshit*cough*. Jobs numbers have simply continued on their current trend for now. Better job numbers in the Obama years were scrutinized harshly by the right...

The only credit he could take for the deficit reduction is he hasn't managed to setup up any major spending in 2 months otherwise the current spending is simply a continuation of what was in place before him. Generally the first year of a new presidencies government spending is really the spending of the previous years congressional and executive branch's agreed budget...

Giving credit to Trump for the bull market is definitely spin. The only thing you can say about the market that is slightly in his favor is that the business outlook is optimistic, especially given Republican tax reform is imminent which generally makes corps happy since tax cuts are always welcome. But I suppose you can give Trump a big old pat on the back for not scaring investors shirtless into a selling frenzy.

I think in general it is reasonable for his supporters to celebrate that he has remained more in touch with his base than previous Republican presidents who would normally be running 100% defense for the House and Senate at this point.
I would suppose Trump supporters would be happy; their guy won, and is following through on many of his campaign promises within the first two months in office. I haven't really talked to enough Trump supporters to get a feel of how they are thinking as a group or to be able to generalize their thoughts or speak for them, but the ones I am aware of do seem to be happy.

But as you pointed out, even if Trumps methods are brash and crass and even giggle-inducing, there have been positive reactions and positive outcomes from some of his actions. That was the point; to say that NOTHING positive has come out of his first two months in office is untrue, unless one holds that increasing markets, decreased illegal immigration and fewer American jobs moved out of the country are bad things? I'm sure there are probably other 'positives' that a Trump supporter would cite, but as I, and possibly others, would disagree they are positive, I don't know that they would be effective arguments for a Trump supporter to make.

I personally think this is a bad thing, why? Ask yourself how much you would enjoy a hyper liberal president who was taking all his advice from CNN and doing everything the far left thought would make this country better.... maybe that's how people felt under Obama, its hard for me to say. Then rolled out a paper budget that was going to double the size of every welfare program and agency and slash military spending by 10%. Would you prefer rather that he was more bipartisan and cautious about major changes?

Keeping in mind that Trumps tweeting and attitude are every bit as shitty and as infuriating as it was on the campaign trial. And that most people left leaning see this tiresome tirade against immigration as baseless and dangerous as the liberal tirade on gun control. One could crack down on illegal immigration without stirring up so much baseless anger among the base. Playing too much into public passions against certain groups is unhealthy. The same goes for finding ways to reduce Muslim immigration.

Overall my current evaluation of Trump is that you have to turn a blind eye to ignore is failings as a leader and the potential trouble he can get us into. You also have to be pretty partisan to suggest his bold face lies aren't a notch above either of our past two presidents. We can all agree Presidents lie and spin the shit out of policies to sell them to the public. But making press conference statements acknowledging wire tapping by Obama through the British government because some jerk off on Fox news made a baseless assertion... come on, we are getting deep into crazy town.

That being said he is making clear efforts to appease his base. And the every action he has taken, if you look at it from a purely legal perspective, and throw out the rhetoric, are defensible and more or at least in line with Republican politics.

Take a step back an ignore the overheated elements of the left out protesting every other thing. I think a summarized quote from David Frum, a conservative political commentator and speech writer for Bush, here on a recent podcast with Sam Harris is applicable. "Trump the man is indefensible." Mainly noting that there is a stark difference in ability to defend his policies and him as a person who is well suited to hold the office of the Presidency.
Meh. I haven't been very impressed by any president in the past decade I have been eligible to vote, and it seems like they all have been hyper partisian and agenda-focused. I would have preferred they all be more bi-partisian and work with both sides of congress much more closely. Sadly that seems to be the opposite of the trend in my life-time. I've no idea how a Trump supporter would feel, I guess.  I wouldn't waste my breath supporting any POTUS against all attacks; they have all had their failings in my view, though some positives have come out of their tenures. Since the mini discussion is simply about the search for a non-zero number of positives of Trump's short tenure and not about Trump as a person or his large number of poor policies, I don't think getting bogged down in how I wish he would act is helpful.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 21, 2017, 05:45:04 AM
If there is evidence of the good things Trump has done in his first few weeks in the Presidency I'd be interested to see it.  I'm skeptical it exists: Trump himself would never stop talking about it for one.  There's plenty being said about what he's got wrong.
I thought we went over this: A few thousand jobs across a few different industries, budget cuts to a specific bloated military program, a drastic and unprecedented drop in illegal border crossings at the southern border, a huge stock market run up and fantastic job numbers. 

Now, none of these are great, and they in no way void anything else he or his team have done, but it's not ALL bad.

Are any of those directly in response to policies that Trump enacted, or things that were likely to have happened anyway?

No. It's a pretty well known fact that policies (particularly economic based) from the previous administration extend into the next Presidential term for quite some time. That time varies of course depending on the policy. And current administration policies (again, particularly economic based) take time to show any affect.
Are you suggesting then that Trump can't be held accountable for anything that has happened since his inauguration, as all events (other than the teeth gnashing at his early morning tweets) are simply fallout from previous administrations? I think that is a pretty weak argument. Every analysis I have ever seen makes it pretty clear the amazing stock-market run up is a response to market expectations that he will loosen business regulations, and the sharp and unexpected drop in illegal border crossings is a direct result of his stance on immigration.

No! I bolded your confusion. If you are still confused I can underline it as well.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 21, 2017, 05:55:01 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you are giving Trump 100% of the credit for positive economic news, I will expect you to give him 100% of the blame for poor economic news.  I want to see you blaming Trump when the stock market goes down 10%, when Lockheed Martin has a poor earnings report, when employment figures suck, or when the F-35 program goes over-budget (again).
I'm not sure anyone is giving Trump 100% credit for anything, they are simply arguing he has some effect upon certain events that have been positive. I wouldn't give him credit for the stock market tumbling if tomorrow it were revealed that BOA and Wells Fargo employees had siphoned off billions of dollars from accounts and fled the country, for example. Not really within his power, or the power of a previous administration to avoid that particular event. I would actually question the logic and consistency of anyone who suggested a President be blamed for such a thing.

And if we have another big downturn a year from now because the same assholes who tanked the economy last time around were let off their leashes again? Who's fault will that be? We've gone from "Too Big to Fail" to "Even Too Bigger to Fail," and still don't have any separation between retail and investment banking. Is the current government going to let the banks fail when it's full of alumni? Or will it be a result of "secular market forces" and "the business cycle?"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 06:34:13 AM
No! I bolded your confusion. If you are still confused I can underline it as well.
Ahh. I guess it could be argued these are not reactions to policy; sorry for the confusion. These do seem to be more positive reactions to the powerful personality and dynamic efforts of Trump himself, and not specific policies he has enacted.

And if we have another big downturn a year from now because the same assholes who tanked the economy last time around were let off their leashes again? Who's fault will that be? We've gone from "Too Big to Fail" to "Even Too Bigger to Fail," and still don't have any separation between retail and investment banking. Is the current government going to let the banks fail when it's full of alumni? Or will it be a result of "secular market forces" and "the business cycle?"
I guess in the scenario you described, where previous administration's policies have led to bigger problems than the last 'tanking of the economy', it won't be great for America. I can't predict how a Trump administration would react to such an event, and I'm hardly enough of an expert to argue whether it would be better to once again bail out the banks as was done before or to let them fail.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 21, 2017, 07:23:18 AM
No! I bolded your confusion. If you are still confused I can underline it as well.
Ahh. I guess it could be argued these are not reactions to policy; sorry for the confusion. These do seem to be more positive reactions to the powerful personality and dynamic efforts of Trump himself, and not specific policies he has enacted.

Yes, one could certainly argue some the reactions are a result of essentially Trump's rhetoric. Not based on actual enacted policies though. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 21, 2017, 08:28:11 AM
That was the point; to say that NOTHING positive has come out of his first two months in office is untrue, ... fewer American jobs moved out of the country are bad things?

This is not accurate. For one thing manufacturing jobs are in decline mainly due to automation in factories. CEO's of companies like Ford announce jobs created at American factories and Trump makes claims that he persuaded these companies to do this, rather than move the factories to Mexico or China. These companies were planning these factory jobs months ago and have nothing to do with Trump.

Moreover, the decline in international travelers to the United States is taking away jobs that cater to tourism. Why the decline in travel here?  Largely it is the result of Trump's travel bans that create a negative impression of the US as being a difficult and unwelcoming place to come to.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on March 21, 2017, 08:41:24 AM
That was the point; to say that NOTHING positive has come out of his first two months in office is untrue, ... fewer American jobs moved out of the country are bad things?

This is not accurate. For one thing manufacturing jobs are in decline mainly due to automation in factories. CEO's of companies like Ford announce jobs created at American factories and Trump makes claims that he persuaded these companies to do this, rather than move the factories to Mexico or China. These companies were planning these factory jobs months ago and have nothing to do with Trump.

Moreover, the decline in international travelers to the United States is taking away jobs that cater to tourism. Why the decline in travel here?  Largely it is the result of Trump's travel bans that create a negative impression of the US as being a difficult and unwelcoming place to come to.

Can't really contribute job retention to Trump either. Could very well be an extension from Obama era policies.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZovaDsUEAQDHtWxShrLtQhSAv2A3rz2OawoCfgzVi6AkR--ePqTxwvm6DoNKtVLZ9nYKSDFtidw3_j_s4bCekOgsNdRsi51j0Isl8n6Z0x_6jKi3LYGKmt8TCz4NU-vZNmILWFKx (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZovaDsUEAQDHtWxShrLtQhSAv2A3rz2OawoCfgzVi6AkR--ePqTxwvm6DoNKtVLZ9nYKSDFtidw3_j_s4bCekOgsNdRsi51j0Isl8n6Z0x_6jKi3LYGKmt8TCz4NU-vZNmILWFKx)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 10:16:28 AM
That was the point; to say that NOTHING positive has come out of his first two months in office is untrue, ... fewer American jobs moved out of the country are bad things?

This is not accurate. For one thing manufacturing jobs are in decline mainly due to automation in factories. CEO's of companies like Ford announce jobs created at American factories and Trump makes claims that he persuaded these companies to do this, rather than move the factories to Mexico or China. These companies were planning these factory jobs months ago and have nothing to do with Trump.
This is an inaccurate assessment of the situation, according to Ford. Yes they moved some jobs. Some jobs were to stay - the clearly have reported that they saved an extra several hundred jobs by moving a plant within the borders of the USA that would have been moved to Mexico.

Quote
Moreover, the decline in international travelers to the United States is taking away jobs that cater to tourism. Why the decline in travel here?  Largely it is the result of Trump's travel bans that create a negative impression of the US as being a difficult and unwelcoming place to come to.
Are you purposefully conflating illegal border crossing numbers with international tourist travel, or did you not see the above link on the CPB report and are confused? Or are you bringing up an unrelated issue?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 10:20:38 AM
Can't really contribute job retention to Trump either. Could very well be an extension from Obama era policies.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZovaDsUEAQDHtWxShrLtQhSAv2A3rz2OawoCfgzVi6AkR--ePqTxwvm6DoNKtVLZ9nYKSDFtidw3_j_s4bCekOgsNdRsi51j0Isl8n6Z0x_6jKi3LYGKmt8TCz4NU-vZNmILWFKx (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZovaDsUEAQDHtWxShrLtQhSAv2A3rz2OawoCfgzVi6AkR--ePqTxwvm6DoNKtVLZ9nYKSDFtidw3_j_s4bCekOgsNdRsi51j0Isl8n6Z0x_6jKi3LYGKmt8TCz4NU-vZNmILWFKx)

O, that one was a softball. :D Last month's higher than expected job numbers are very likely neither Obama nor Trump; it's much more likely unseasonably warm weather allowing seasonal industries to staff up sooner, a resurgence of oilfield drilling in parts of the country, and several other factors.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on March 21, 2017, 10:28:30 AM
That was the point; to say that NOTHING positive has come out of his first two months in office is untrue, ... fewer American jobs moved out of the country are bad things?

This is not accurate. For one thing manufacturing jobs are in decline mainly due to automation in factories. CEO's of companies like Ford announce jobs created at American factories and Trump makes claims that he persuaded these companies to do this, rather than move the factories to Mexico or China. These companies were planning these factory jobs months ago and have nothing to do with Trump.
This is an inaccurate assessment of the situation, according to Ford. Yes they moved some jobs. Some jobs were to stay - the clearly have reported that they saved an extra several hundred jobs by moving a plant within the borders of the USA that would have been moved to Mexico.

Quote
Moreover, the decline in international travelers to the United States is taking away jobs that cater to tourism. Why the decline in travel here?  Largely it is the result of Trump's travel bans that create a negative impression of the US as being a difficult and unwelcoming place to come to.
Are you purposefully conflating illegal border crossing numbers with international tourist travel, or did you not see the above link on the CPB report and are confused? Or are you bringing up an unrelated issue?

It's absolutely related.  Are you oblivious to what's going on?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/travel/2017/02/14/trump-ban-causes-tourism-drop-and-industry-fears-lasting-effect/yzMAVzeLvqywP8gEekoFsL/story.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rocketpj on March 21, 2017, 10:52:05 AM
Realistic impacts (speaking from the outside here as a Canadian who has many friends in the US, including some Cdns with Green cards etc).

1.  I have friends who are currently living and working in the US legally (green cards) who are now actively looking at options to leave.  Not because Canadians (or Germans, in one case) are being targeted, but because an unpredictable and volatile executive can and has been making re-entry a non-certainty.  If you might lose access to your home and work every time you visited your family, you would likely look for other options before the worst happens.  (These people include a few software types and one recent Oscar/Annie winner).

2.  Globally Trump is seen, fairly, as a dangerous and unpredictable lunatic with control of the most effective military in the world.  Everyone is waiting for the him to start a war.  Given the history of egotistical authoritarian 'only I can fix things types' around the world, we can expect a war of some kind immediately following the next economic downturn.  The only question is whether it is a smallish Iraq or Vietnam level debacle, or some kind of suicidal global conflict.  Either way everyone loses but Trump (until he gets hung from a lamppost).

3.  Even if those things don't happen, once you have a leader who can 'get away with' flagrant criminality, you will get more.  If the leadership is immune - already a problem in most countries - then it will become even more of an attractor for criminals. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 21, 2017, 11:01:23 AM
Today's prediction:  Ivanka 2028.  Maybe 2032.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on March 21, 2017, 01:16:27 PM
I have said for awhile that Ivanka Trump will be the first female president. 

And yeah, the brain drain from the Trump presidency is likely to be the longest lasting effect.  I know foreign students now who were planning on staying here and are going to return to their native countries.  Even for people not specifically targeted, America just has a less welcoming spirit than it used to.  Shame. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 21, 2017, 01:38:43 PM
I guess one impact of the Trump presidency will be that at least some people will remember that elections and whom you vote for actually matters.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on March 21, 2017, 01:54:59 PM
I guess one impact of the Trump presidency will be that at least some people will remember that elections and whom you vote for actually matters.

You would think so. Then again, I thought that would happen with George W. Bush. Alas, as H.L. Mencken said, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on March 21, 2017, 02:10:56 PM
1+% drop in the markets today. By the logic of some this is clearly Trump's fault, amirite? Good thing he'll do something or other and the market will eventually go back up again tomorrow, or the day after, or years from now. Thanks Trump!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 21, 2017, 04:20:43 PM
If we're looking for positives that Trump has actually set via policy I think one is the lobbying ban he forced many of his staff to sign (5 years for domestic lobbying after leaving the administration and lifetime ban from lobbying for foreign governments).

Now whether any of that is enforceable is a different question...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 21, 2017, 04:28:25 PM
If we're looking for positives that Trump has actually set via policy I think one is the lobbying ban he forced many of his staff to sign (5 years for domestic lobbying after leaving the administration and lifetime ban from lobbying for foreign governments).

Now whether any of that is enforceable is a different question...

Former trump advisors are ALREADY lobbying for foreign governments.  Don't make me laugh.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 21, 2017, 04:51:50 PM
If we're looking for positives that Trump has actually set via policy I think one is the lobbying ban he forced many of his staff to sign (5 years for domestic lobbying after leaving the administration and lifetime ban from lobbying for foreign governments).

Now whether any of that is enforceable is a different question...

Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, is in negotiations with a Chinese company for a $400 million dollar stock in his real estate concern.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/nyregion/kushner-companies-anbang-insurance-group.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 21, 2017, 07:09:31 PM
If we're looking for positives that Trump has actually set via policy I think one is the lobbying ban he forced many of his staff to sign (5 years for domestic lobbying after leaving the administration and lifetime ban from lobbying for foreign governments).

Now whether any of that is enforceable is a different question...

Former trump advisors are ALREADY lobbying for foreign governments.  Don't make me laugh.

Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 22, 2017, 10:58:15 AM
Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.

Are you saying that you like it when trump lies?

This is just another case of "insurance for everybody" where trump says something he thinks will be popular, then turns around and does the exact opposite.  "Drain the swamp" turned out to mean "staff my cabinet with billionaires and hire foreign agents to run national security" and "insurance for everybody" turned out to mean "24 million fewer people will have insurance" and "Mexico will pay for it" turned out to mean "American taxpayers will pay for it".  Shall I go on?

Trump is a con man.  He will say anything to get his way and enrich himself and his family.  We shouldn't be celebrating his lies just because they sound good, when we know damned well be doesn't mean a word of it.  He is not in control of his own administration, so the things he says are meaningless.

Next you'll be telling is how great it is that Hillary is finally in jail for all of those non-existent crimes.  What a great policy!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 22, 2017, 11:46:51 AM
I just skimmed a few responses but I really just needed a place to post my thoughts.

I don't even know what to think anymore. He's been in office, what, 60 days or so and I can't keep track of the blunders, potential ethical violations, and short-sighted policy decisions. I pride myself on being a reasonable, thoughtful person, and I don't engage in hyperbole or troll folks on social media or call people names, but...this is f*cking crazy.

It's like (many) Republicans are willing to totally ignore the Russia issues because....well I guess because they don't like the "liberal media?" I mean, I honestly don't understand. What sort of thoughtful person says, "Nah I don't care about knowing more about all the Russia connections. Whatever they are all saying now can't possibly be true." You have the intelligence community getting involved front and center now. I mean, what, is EVERYONE lying BUT Trump?? He's the sole honest person? Seriously?

The whole "no evidence that feeding kids helps kids perform better" thing? WTF? I taught in public schools (for a short time) and I have many family members who work in schools. Kids come to school HUNGRY! They do!  How about you go to work hungry every day and see how well you perform??

And I'll close with this. I have voted for Republican presidents before, as recently as 2008 (yes I voted for McCain). I'm not some extreme person. But this administration has collected the absolutely WORST people  they could gather. EPA, Education, State, I could go on and on. It's gotten to the point where I don't think I could even be a friend to someone who says, "Oh yeah this is all great! MAGA!!" I mean, we would have no shared values. What's the point?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on March 22, 2017, 12:48:40 PM
Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.

Are you saying that you like it when trump lies?

This is just another case of "insurance for everybody" where trump says something he thinks will be popular, then turns around and does the exact opposite.  "Drain the swamp" turned out to mean "staff my cabinet with billionaires and hire foreign agents to run national security" and "insurance for everybody" turned out to mean "24 million fewer people will have insurance" and "Mexico will pay for it" turned out to mean "American taxpayers will pay for it".  Shall I go on?

Trump is a con man.  He will say anything to get his way and enrich himself and his family.  We shouldn't be celebrating his lies just because they sound good, when we know damned well be doesn't mean a word of it.  He is not in control of his own administration, so the things he says are meaningless.

Next you'll be telling is how great it is that Hillary is finally in jail for all of those non-existent crimes.  What a great policy!

We need an anti-Trump who will say exactly this, in exactly this tone. Has to be a business man, success optional. Too bad Ross Perot is too old. Mark Cuban? Framing this bullshit as bullshit needs to happen. By someone of stature. Is there anyone not compromised that can stand and rebuke this administration-with authority?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on March 22, 2017, 12:57:42 PM
If we're looking for positives that Trump has actually set via policy I think one is the lobbying ban he forced many of his staff to sign (5 years for domestic lobbying after leaving the administration and lifetime ban from lobbying for foreign governments).

Now whether any of that is enforceable is a different question...

Former trump advisors are ALREADY lobbying for foreign governments.  Don't make me laugh.

Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.

Depending on how you think about it yeah it kind of does make it a bad policy. If you write a bunch of laws you can't enforce you are adding time, money and complication to a problem without helping at all. That would be part of the main conservative argument against over regulation.

The only reason to keep a broadly unenforceable policy on the books is to give you legal standing if you ever decide to selectively go after people in violation of that policy. That ends up becoming more a of a political tool then if it can't be enforced fairly across the board and that could be a very bad thing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on March 22, 2017, 01:02:58 PM
Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.

Are you saying that you like it when trump lies?

This is just another case of "insurance for everybody" where trump says something he thinks will be popular, then turns around and does the exact opposite.  "Drain the swamp" turned out to mean "staff my cabinet with billionaires and hire foreign agents to run national security" and "insurance for everybody" turned out to mean "24 million fewer people will have insurance" and "Mexico will pay for it" turned out to mean "American taxpayers will pay for it".  Shall I go on?

Trump is a con man.  He will say anything to get his way and enrich himself and his family.  We shouldn't be celebrating his lies just because they sound good, when we know damned well be doesn't mean a word of it.  He is not in control of his own administration, so the things he says are meaningless.

Next you'll be telling is how great it is that Hillary is finally in jail for all of those non-existent crimes.  What a great policy!

We need an anti-Trump who will say exactly this, in exactly this tone. Has to be a business man, success optional. Too bad Ross Perot is too old. Mark Cuban? Framing this bullshit as bullshit needs to happen. By someone of stature. Is there anyone not compromised that can stand and rebuke this administration-with authority?

We have plenty of them but the Republican base has tuned it all out. Trump has what, 80%+ support with registered Republicans. Maybe 50/50 with independents.

Its going to be up to our elected officials to take a stand against the bullshit. The public simply don't have the time, energy or ability to make fair informed decisions about all of the Trump administrations possible missteps. On top of that it is a conflict of interest for his base to turn against him over allegations of corruption or deceit. Because many still hope to gain from his Presidency, in the form of jobs, reducing immigration and cutting government programs.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 22, 2017, 01:16:28 PM
The public simply don't have the time, energy or ability to make fair informed decisions about all of the Trump administrations possible missteps. On top of that it is a conflict of interest for his base to turn against him over allegations of corruption or deceit. Because many still hope to gain from his Presidency, in the form of jobs, reducing immigration and cutting government programs.
Also, no-one likes to admit that they've been conned by Trump and fallen for Russian propaganda on social media.  There's a lot of inertia right there.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on March 22, 2017, 01:42:58 PM
Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.

Are you saying that you like it when trump lies?

This is just another case of "insurance for everybody" where trump says something he thinks will be popular, then turns around and does the exact opposite.  "Drain the swamp" turned out to mean "staff my cabinet with billionaires and hire foreign agents to run national security" and "insurance for everybody" turned out to mean "24 million fewer people will have insurance" and "Mexico will pay for it" turned out to mean "American taxpayers will pay for it".  Shall I go on?

Trump is a con man.  He will say anything to get his way and enrich himself and his family.  We shouldn't be celebrating his lies just because they sound good, when we know damned well be doesn't mean a word of it.  He is not in control of his own administration, so the things he says are meaningless.

Next you'll be telling is how great it is that Hillary is finally in jail for all of those non-existent crimes.  What a great policy!

We need an anti-Trump who will say exactly this, in exactly this tone. Has to be a business man, success optional. Too bad Ross Perot is too old. Mark Cuban? Framing this bullshit as bullshit needs to happen. By someone of stature. Is there anyone not compromised that can stand and rebuke this administration-with authority?

We have plenty of them but the Republican base has tuned it all out. Trump has what, 80%+ support with registered Republicans. Maybe 50/50 with independents.

Its going to be up to our elected officials to take a stand against the bullshit. The public simply don't have the time, energy or ability to make fair informed decisions about all of the Trump administrations possible missteps. On top of that it is a conflict of interest for his base to turn against him over allegations of corruption or deceit. Because many still hope to gain from his Presidency, in the form of jobs, reducing immigration and cutting government programs.
I can't find that anywhere, do you which poll that came from?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on March 22, 2017, 02:51:53 PM
From Cosmo, of all places:
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a9161907/ivanka-trump-white-house-office-insult/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on March 22, 2017, 04:40:16 PM
Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.

Are you saying that you like it when trump lies?

This is just another case of "insurance for everybody" where trump says something he thinks will be popular, then turns around and does the exact opposite.  "Drain the swamp" turned out to mean "staff my cabinet with billionaires and hire foreign agents to run national security" and "insurance for everybody" turned out to mean "24 million fewer people will have insurance" and "Mexico will pay for it" turned out to mean "American taxpayers will pay for it".  Shall I go on?

Trump is a con man.  He will say anything to get his way and enrich himself and his family.  We shouldn't be celebrating his lies just because they sound good, when we know damned well be doesn't mean a word of it.  He is not in control of his own administration, so the things he says are meaningless.

Next you'll be telling is how great it is that Hillary is finally in jail for all of those non-existent crimes.  What a great policy!

We need an anti-Trump who will say exactly this, in exactly this tone. Has to be a business man, success optional. Too bad Ross Perot is too old. Mark Cuban? Framing this bullshit as bullshit needs to happen. By someone of stature. Is there anyone not compromised that can stand and rebuke this administration-with authority?

We have plenty of them but the Republican base has tuned it all out. Trump has what, 80%+ support with registered Republicans. Maybe 50/50 with independents.

Its going to be up to our elected officials to take a stand against the bullshit. The public simply don't have the time, energy or ability to make fair informed decisions about all of the Trump administrations possible missteps. On top of that it is a conflict of interest for his base to turn against him over allegations of corruption or deceit. Because many still hope to gain from his Presidency, in the form of jobs, reducing immigration and cutting government programs.
I can't find that anywhere, do you which poll that came from?

I'm not sure about this month, but last month Pew had their GOP/lean GOP approval for Trump at 84%.  This is why impeachment won't happen even if criminal activity were to be demonstrated. The GOP Congress would have to lead the effort, and as long as their voters support Trump in these kind of numbers, they won't make a move against him.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 22, 2017, 05:22:22 PM
***IF*** the FBI charged Trump and/or his senior aides with colluding with the Russians to throw the election, or turned up sufficient evidence that it happened even though they decide not to prosecute, the Republicans in Congress would definitely move to impeach Trump. They'd be thrilled to have the cover for throwing his ass out and installing Pence as President. It's win/win for them: Look tough on Russia and treason, get the guy they'd actually prefer to have as president, and get rid of the ridiculous loud-mouth who is full of distractions to their agenda.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on March 22, 2017, 05:34:18 PM
***IF*** the FBI charged Trump and/or his senior aides with colluding with the Russians to throw the election, or turned up sufficient evidence that it happened even though they decide not to prosecute, the Republicans in Congress would definitely move to impeach Trump. They'd be thrilled to have the cover for throwing his ass out and installing Pence as President. It's win/win for them: Look tough on Russia and treason, get the guy they'd actually prefer to have as president, and get rid of the ridiculous loud-mouth who is full of distractions to their agenda.

I agree it would be great for their agenda, but they would risk losing power in the following election if Trump's voters turned against them.  And Trump would do everything in his power to make sure his voters DID retaliate against the GOP in that instance.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 22, 2017, 06:33:51 PM
Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.

Are you saying that you like it when trump lies?

This is just another case of "insurance for everybody" where trump says something he thinks will be popular, then turns around and does the exact opposite.  "Drain the swamp" turned out to mean "staff my cabinet with billionaires and hire foreign agents to run national security" and "insurance for everybody" turned out to mean "24 million fewer people will have insurance" and "Mexico will pay for it" turned out to mean "American taxpayers will pay for it".  Shall I go on?

Trump is a con man.  He will say anything to get his way and enrich himself and his family.  We shouldn't be celebrating his lies just because they sound good, when we know damned well be doesn't mean a word of it.  He is not in control of his own administration, so the things he says are meaningless.

Next you'll be telling is how great it is that Hillary is finally in jail for all of those non-existent crimes.  What a great policy!

He obviously lies and he's obviously a con man. He is also a rapist/sexual assaulter and an overall bad piece of shit. All of that being said, he does say some things, lies though they may be, that I agree with. Infrastructure investments, corporate tax cuts and the policy of no lobbying. Maybe he never wants to do any of these things, that doesn't make the policies themselves bad.

Then you can say, so what if he says anything good if he's a piece of shit liar? Yeah, that's a good point. But my impression was he actually got everyone to sign those no lobbying pledges. Again, if there is no consequence then it's bullshit.

Finally, one clear positive impact of Trump is to other countries. The best and brightest of many other countries are leaving the States or not coming at all, China is going to set up a TPP like deal to increase their influence, and other countries are realizing they were using America as a crutch for too many of their exports (e.g Mexico and corn) and will look to other markets.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on March 22, 2017, 07:19:42 PM
***IF*** the FBI charged Trump and/or his senior aides with colluding with the Russians to throw the election, or turned up sufficient evidence that it happened even though they decide not to prosecute, the Republicans in Congress would definitely move to impeach Trump. They'd be thrilled to have the cover for throwing his ass out and installing Pence as President. It's win/win for them: Look tough on Russia and treason, get the guy they'd actually prefer to have as president, and get rid of the ridiculous loud-mouth who is full of distractions to their agenda.

I agree it would be great for their agenda, but they would risk losing power in the following election if Trump's voters turned against them.  And Trump would do everything in his power to make sure his voters DID retaliate against the GOP in that instance.
.


This. Plus, the longer Trump is in office, the more of his outrageous behavior gets normalized. Meaning that subsequent Republicans will be able to get away with a sh*tload more. The next Republican administration will look a lot more like the Trump administration in terms of bending the rules, graft, and cronyism, though done less blatantly and more carefully. And people won't freak out nearly as much as they should, because by comparison to Trump it will look practically Boy Scout-like. Why would they want to stop Trump for layong the groundwork for them?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rocketpj on March 22, 2017, 08:46:43 PM
So, now it's coming out that the FBI has evidence (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html) members of Trump's team coordinated with Russian intelligence (timing the Wikileaks dump).

When your president wins an election by colluding with a foreign power, what does that mean for your country?  If the dominant narrative from the governing party is that the leaks are the issue, rather than what is being leaked...

You guys are fucked unless you can figure out a way to save your constitution from these people.  Lots of countries have meaningless constitutions.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 22, 2017, 09:07:06 PM
So, now it's coming out that the FBI has evidence (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html) members of Trump's team coordinated with Russian intelligence (timing the Wikileaks dump).

When your president wins an election by colluding with a foreign power, what does that mean for your country?  If the dominant narrative from the governing party is that the leaks are the issue, rather than what is being leaked...

You guys are fucked unless you can figure out a way to save your constitution from these people.  Lots of countries have meaningless constitutions.
That would be shocking if concrete evidence emerges and I think it would be the end for the administration. Ryan and the Republicans would be quite happy with Pence (assuming Pence can get out of it unscathed). OTOH I will be happy that all the people who voted for Trump that I assumed to be idiots are proven to be idiots at the end of this ordeal.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 22, 2017, 09:33:04 PM
That would be shocking if concrete evidence emerges and I think it would be the end for the administration.

Not a chance. We already knew trump staffers coordinated with the Russians.  Nobody (republican) cares.  They'll shrug it off.

Trump can do no wrong, with his base.  Nothing will matter.  Trump could admit sexual assault on national tv and they wouldn't care.  Wait, did he already do that?  That's my point.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 22, 2017, 09:52:56 PM
That would be shocking if concrete evidence emerges and I think it would be the end for the administration.

Not a chance. We already knew trump staffers coordinated with the Russians.  Nobody (republican) cares.  They'll shrug it off.

Trump can do no wrong, with his base.  Nothing will matter.  Trump could admit sexual assault on national tv and they wouldn't care.  Wait, did he already do that?  That's my point.
AFAIK his staffers and future nominees had some one-off conversations with Kislyak because they were stupid. Stupidity is a complete defense, but coordinating leaks with a foreign government is totally different. I'm not prone to violence or protest but if actual collusion (rather than confusion) is corroborated and no action is undertaken by Congress, it might be Molotov cocktail time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Johnez on March 22, 2017, 10:42:40 PM
Wow. This sounds like it might actually catch. Would this much info be released if there was nothing behind the investigation?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 23, 2017, 04:04:15 AM
I just skimmed a few responses but I really just needed a place to post my thoughts.

I don't even know what to think anymore. He's been in office, what, 60 days or so and I can't keep track of the blunders, potential ethical violations, and short-sighted policy decisions. I pride myself on being a reasonable, thoughtful person, and I don't engage in hyperbole or troll folks on social media or call people names, but...this is f*cking crazy.

It's like (many) Republicans are willing to totally ignore the Russia issues because....well I guess because they don't like the "liberal media?" I mean, I honestly don't understand. What sort of thoughtful person says, "Nah I don't care about knowing more about all the Russia connections. Whatever they are all saying now can't possibly be true." You have the intelligence community getting involved front and center now. I mean, what, is EVERYONE lying BUT Trump?? He's the sole honest person? Seriously?

The whole "no evidence that feeding kids helps kids perform better" thing? WTF? I taught in public schools (for a short time) and I have many family members who work in schools. Kids come to school HUNGRY! They do!  How about you go to work hungry every day and see how well you perform??

And I'll close with this. I have voted for Republican presidents before, as recently as 2008 (yes I voted for McCain). I'm not some extreme person. But this administration has collected the absolutely WORST people  they could gather. EPA, Education, State, I could go on and onu. It's gotten to the point where I don't think I could even be a friend to someone who says, "Oh yeah this is all great! MAGA!!" I mean, we would have no shared values. What's the point?

Try being in my shoes - where you've described my dad, mom, MIL, BIL, SIL, other BIL and somewhat my brother. Every day I read the news. And no - I don't get outraged at the outrage pieces - I get outraged watching congressional hearings on CSPAN and outraged watching POTUS live tweet incoherent bullshit. I don't need pundits to spin me into anger. Reality is sufficient.

When I check in with the GOP members of my family, they've nothing but total approval for this administration. Why? Cuz liberals would bring bureaucracy and that's the ultimate evil. As if we're living in the 70s.

The GOP cult members in my family are unwilling to acknowledge how effective the GOP has been at cowing government agencies into streamlined efficiency. From SS admin to IRS, modern day agencies do a pretty good job. It's not the 1970s anymore. But that's what their news feeds tell them so it must be so and I'm naive for believing scientists and peer reviewed studies.

It's a daily struggle to keep from outright hating my family. Their support of this anit-science, anti-constitution, anti-democratic bullshit could be sowing the seeds of our country's - and perhaps our species - destruction.

Like you, Nick_Miller, I pride myself on being a rational, somewhat dispassionate thinker.  And yet look at what I just wrote in the paragraph above. If you'd shown that to me a year ago I wouldn't believe I wrote that. But it's what I've come to accept.

And I blame it all on the privately funded two party system and the rise of corporate personhood. The GOP is a cult,  but the DNC ain't so great either. Combine their skewed incentives with today's surgical propaganda tools and  the defunding of public education,  and I feel like representative liberal democracy is fucked. Hello authoritarian kleptocracy.

I usually stop myself saying this stuff because I sound like a crackpot. But when my dad emails me saying civil asset forfeiture is totally cool and that trumps doing a fine job and that he's optimistic this congress is going to get some great things done ... well I think I'm seeing things quite clearly.

edit: typos.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on March 23, 2017, 06:25:25 AM
Quote
Not a chance. We already knew trump staffers coordinated with the Russians.  Nobody (republican) cares.  They'll shrug it off.

Trump can do no wrong, with his base.  Nothing will matter.  Trump could admit sexual assault on national tv and they wouldn't care.  Wait, did he already do that?  That's my point.

Yep.  I have given up on the Republicans ever doing anything about Trump.  Honestly, I think we just need to accept that we are no better than the average Banana Republic at this point.  But we are actually way worse, because we are the dominant military power on the planet with enough nukes to destroy every civilization on the planet with plenty left over. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 23, 2017, 08:34:50 AM
Wow. This sounds like it might actually catch. Would this much info be released if there was nothing behind the investigation?

Manafort is the lynchpin. They're looking at his Cyprus money transfers now.

https://www.apnews.com/d43ef4166da6400ab45140978854bbbb

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 23, 2017, 09:14:55 AM
Wow. This sounds like it might actually catch. Would this much info be released if there was nothing behind the investigation?

Manafort is the lynchpin. They're looking at his Cyprus money transfers now.

https://www.apnews.com/d43ef4166da6400ab45140978854bbbb

I still don't understand why any of this is news again.  We already knew that multiple people from the trump campaign worked for the Russians before, during, and after their time with trump.  This was not secret, or even disputed.  The payments were documented.  Their influence on Russian policy was obvious.  They bragged about it on television.  Clinton called him a puppet during the debates and he objected like a kindergartener who was just caught eating boogers.

Maybe the FBI just wants to remind everyone that this shady stuff is kind of shady?  He's a shady president and folks voted for him anyway, I don't think they care.

Even this forum discussed these issues, months ago, and generally concluded that nations (including the US) routinely meddle in foreign elections, without it rising to the level of international armed conflict.  Everyone here seemed to say, "ya, the Russians swayed the election but so what?"

Why are we suddenly aggrieved again?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 23, 2017, 09:22:56 AM
I think some of you are giving way too much credibility towards Trump's so-called "supporters" and how they wouldn't impeach him for fear of some type of backlash. Trump's supporters are largely poor, working-class white people in rural America. They are not establishment Republicans in Congress. Trump has almost no supporters in Congress. He did not win with establishment Republican support, he won in spite of it. Congressional Republicans (with maybe the exception of Nunes) hold their nose and close their eyes and try to pretend Trump didn't say the things he said, or that they don't matter. Look at what McConnell and Ryan say (or more accurately, don't say) every time they're asked about the most recent, daily outrageousness that emanates from the White House. They don't back him, they only tolerate him because he's President and favorable to their agenda. They would be way more favorable to Pence.

Most voters who voted for Trump didn't think he was some awesome dude. They only thought he was better than Hillary, aka The Devil. They would not deliver some kind of backlash at the polls the next time around if Trump was impeached. The only backlash would be the one that would come anyhow, because Trump has proven to be a reckless disaster. Adding treasonous dealings with Russia would not enamor Trump to those voters the next time around. They'd happily accept a Pence presidency, because Pence is not Hillary.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on March 23, 2017, 10:11:47 AM
I think some of you are giving way too much credibility towards Trump's so-called "supporters" and how they wouldn't impeach him for fear of some type of backlash. Trump's supporters are largely poor, working-class white people in rural America. They are not establishment Republicans in Congress. Trump has almost no supporters in Congress. He did not win with establishment Republican support, he won in spite of it. Congressional Republicans (with maybe the exception of Nunes) hold their nose and close their eyes and try to pretend Trump didn't say the things he said, or that they don't matter. Look at what McConnell and Ryan say (or more accurately, don't say) every time they're asked about the most recent, daily outrageousness that emanates from the White House. They don't back him, they only tolerate him because he's President and favorable to their agenda. They would be way more favorable to Pence.

Most voters who voted for Trump didn't think he was some awesome dude. They only thought he was better than Hillary, aka The Devil. They would not deliver some kind of backlash at the polls the next time around if Trump was impeached. The only backlash would be the one that would come anyhow, because Trump has proven to be a reckless disaster. Adding treasonous dealings with Russia would not enamor Trump to those voters the next time around. They'd happily accept a Pence presidency, because Pence is not Hillary.

I sincerely hope we get to find out who is correct on this point.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 23, 2017, 10:41:59 AM
I sincerely hope we get to find out who is correct on this point.

I have never so desperately wanted to be totally wrong.

But I think recent history backs me up on this.  The president of the United States literally said "they let you do it, you can do anything, grab 'em by the pussy" and people still voted for him.  I'm pretty sure he could lead tomorrow's news cycle with "Russia is the greatest country on earth and America sucks balls" and the red states wouldn't even flinch.  He's untouchable, even for treason, and he knows it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Retire-Canada on March 23, 2017, 10:49:34 AM
He's untouchable, even for treason, and he knows it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-not-lose-votes-video

and murder...:(
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on March 23, 2017, 10:58:45 AM
Wow. This sounds like it might actually catch. Would this much info be released if there was nothing behind the investigation?

Manafort is the lynchpin. They're looking at his Cyprus money transfers now.

https://www.apnews.com/d43ef4166da6400ab45140978854bbbb

I still don't understand why any of this is news again.  We already knew that multiple people from the trump campaign worked for the Russians before, during, and after their time with trump.  This was not secret, or even disputed.  The payments were documented.  Their influence on Russian policy was obvious.  They bragged about it on television.  Clinton called him a puppet during the debates and he objected like a kindergartener who was just caught eating boogers.

Maybe the FBI just wants to remind everyone that this shady stuff is kind of shady?  He's a shady president and folks voted for him anyway, I don't think they care.

Even this forum discussed these issues, months ago, and generally concluded that nations (including the US) routinely meddle in foreign elections, without it rising to the level of international armed conflict.  Everyone here seemed to say, "ya, the Russians swayed the election but so what?"

Why are we suddenly aggrieved again?

We knew that Manafort was under contract with the Ukraine; we didn't know that he was receiving additional payments from a friend of Putin through a bank in Cyprus, known as a money laundering country.

To answer your question, it's news again and the more that piles on, the more it sways opinions.

You're also way too pessimistic. Eventually even Trumpers will have to admit that he's a con man and a Russian stooge. There will always be that 25% that support him, just like 25% think Nixon wasn't a crook, but his approval rate is 39% and dropping. Given the near 50-50 split, Republicans are starting to look askance at him as well.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on March 23, 2017, 11:18:48 AM
I just skimmed a few responses but I really just needed a place to post my thoughts.

I don't even know what to think anymore. He's been in office, what, 60 days or so and I can't keep track of the blunders, potential ethical violations, and short-sighted policy decisions. I pride myself on being a reasonable, thoughtful person, and I don't engage in hyperbole or troll folks on social media or call people names, but...this is f*cking crazy.

It's like (many) Republicans are willing to totally ignore the Russia issues because....well I guess because they don't like the "liberal media?" I mean, I honestly don't understand. What sort of thoughtful person says, "Nah I don't care about knowing more about all the Russia connections. Whatever they are all saying now can't possibly be true." You have the intelligence community getting involved front and center now. I mean, what, is EVERYONE lying BUT Trump?? He's the sole honest person? Seriously?

The whole "no evidence that feeding kids helps kids perform better" thing? WTF? I taught in public schools (for a short time) and I have many family members who work in schools. Kids come to school HUNGRY! They do!  How about you go to work hungry every day and see how well you perform??

And I'll close with this. I have voted for Republican presidents before, as recently as 2008 (yes I voted for McCain). I'm not some extreme person. But this administration has collected the absolutely WORST people  they could gather. EPA, Education, State, I could go on and onu. It's gotten to the point where I don't think I could even be a friend to someone who says, "Oh yeah this is all great! MAGA!!" I mean, we would have no shared values. What's the point?

Try being in my shoes - where you've described my dad, mom, MIL, BIL, SIL, other BIL and somewhat my brother. Every day I read the news. And no - I don't get outraged at the outrage pieces - I get outraged watching congressional hearings on CSPAN and outraged watching POTUS live tweet incoherent bullshit. I don't need pundits to spin me into anger. Reality is sufficient.

When I check in with the GOP members of my family, they've nothing but total approval for this administration. Why? Cuz liberals would bring bureaucracy and that's the ultimate evil. As if we're living in the 70s.

The GOP cult members in my family are unwilling to acknowledge how effective the GOP has been at cowing government agencies into streamlined efficiency. From SS admin to IRS, modern day agencies do a pretty good job. It's not the 1970s anymore. But that's what their news feeds tell them so it must be so and I'm naive for believing scientists and peer reviewed studies.

It's a daily struggle to keep from outright hating my family. Their support of this anit-science, anti-constitution, anti-democratic bullshit could be sowing the seeds of our country's - and perhaps our species - destruction.

Like you, Nick_Miller, I pride myself on being a rational, somewhat dispassionate thinker.  And yet look at what I just wrote in the paragraph above. If you'd shown that to me a year ago I wouldn't believe I wrote that. But it's what I've come to accept.

And I blame it all on the privately funded two party system and the rise of corporate personhood. The GOP is a cult,  but the DNC ain't so great either. Combine their skewed incentives with today's surgical propaganda tools and  the defunding of public education,  and I feel like representative liberal democracy is fucked. Hello authoritarian kleptocracy.

I usually stop myself saying this stuff because I sound like a crackpot. But when my dad emails me saying civil asset forfeiture is totally cool and that trumps doing a fine job and that he's optimistic this congress is going to get some great things done ... well I think I'm seeing things quite clearly.

edit: typos.
And this kind of attitude is why Trump one. Yes, we have uneducated within the GOP who blindly follow Trump and the GOP leadership who will say anything to stay in power even if means giving power to Trump and Russia but we also have people who are saying that the dems are almost as bad which is not even close to reality. I doubt any person saying that has ever worked with the DNC.  I have and have found willingness to teach a want for grassroot input.  What I have also seen is people who have no idea how politics works (or hell, how our government works) who want to walk in and solve the problem without compromise or baby steps and expect it to work.  They also expect to be taken seriously without any knowledge base or willingness to learn.  These are people who would never do this within their own field and would be insulted in anyone tried it with them.  This attitude of, I spent 2hrs on the internet so I know as much as an expert in field is a problem.  And just a side note, who is trying to defund public education and who is trying to fund it, that is a great way to figure out a major difference between the two parties.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 23, 2017, 12:35:22 PM
And this kind of attitude is why Trump one. Yes, we have uneducated within the GOP who blindly follow Trump and the GOP leadership who will say anything to stay in power even if means giving power to Trump and Russia but we also have people who are saying that the dems are almost as bad which is not even close to reality. I doubt any person saying that has ever worked with the DNC.  I have and have found willingness to teach a want for grassroot input.  What I have also seen is people who have no idea how politics works (or hell, how our government works) who want to walk in and solve the problem without compromise or baby steps and expect it to work.  They also expect to be taken seriously without any knowledge base or willingness to learn.  These are people who would never do this within their own field and would be insulted in anyone tried it with them.  This attitude of, I spent 2hrs on the internet so I know as much as an expert in field is a problem.  And just a side note, who is trying to defund public education and who is trying to fund it, that is a great way to figure out a major difference between the two parties.

I don't read false equivalency into that post. You can abhor the current Republican officials while still being disenchanted with the Democrats. I think there are a lot of people who fall into this camp. There's a feeling of "there's no place for me in either party." At the end of the day, the Democrats generally side with big money, which isn't great.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on March 23, 2017, 12:39:39 PM
And this kind of attitude is why Trump one. Yes, we have uneducated within the GOP who blindly follow Trump and the GOP leadership who will say anything to stay in power even if means giving power to Trump and Russia but we also have people who are saying that the dems are almost as bad which is not even close to reality. I doubt any person saying that has ever worked with the DNC.  I have and have found willingness to teach a want for grassroot input.  What I have also seen is people who have no idea how politics works (or hell, how our government works) who want to walk in and solve the problem without compromise or baby steps and expect it to work.  They also expect to be taken seriously without any knowledge base or willingness to learn.  These are people who would never do this within their own field and would be insulted in anyone tried it with them.  This attitude of, I spent 2hrs on the internet so I know as much as an expert in field is a problem.  And just a side note, who is trying to defund public education and who is trying to fund it, that is a great way to figure out a major difference between the two parties.

I don't read false equivalency into that post. You can abhor the current Republican officials while still being disenchanted with the Democrats. I think there are a lot of people who fall into this camp. There's a feeling of "there's no place for me in either party." At the end of the day, the Democrats generally side with big money, which isn't great.
They really don't side with big money.  Otherwise we would not have unions.  They need money and therefore they do need to compromise to get elected and get anything done.  And it is the same attitude, if you don't think you have a place, use the dems to learn how it works and make your local area your place.  Yes it means you can't jump to senator or president right off the bat, but that is not a bad thing.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 23, 2017, 12:41:51 PM


And I blame it all on the privately funded two party system and the rise of corporate personhood. The GOP is a cult,  but the DNC ain't so great either. Combine their skewed incentives with today's surgical propaganda tools and  the defunding of public education,  and I feel like representative liberal democracy is fucked. Hello authoritarian kleptocracy.

I usually stop myself saying this stuff because I sound like a crackpot. But when my dad emails me saying civil asset forfeiture is totally cool and that trumps doing a fine job and that he's optimistic this congress is going to get some great things done ... well I think I'm seeing things quite clearly.

edit: typos.
And this kind of attitude is why Trump one. Yes, we have uneducated within the GOP who blindly follow Trump and the GOP leadership who will say anything to stay in power even if means giving power to Trump and Russia but we also have people who are saying that the dems are almost as bad which is not even close to reality. I doubt any person saying that has ever worked with the DNC.  I have and have found willingness to teach a want for grassroot input.  What I have also seen is people who have no idea how politics works (or hell, how our government works) who want to walk in and solve the problem without compromise or baby steps and expect it to work.  They also expect to be taken seriously without any knowledge base or willingness to learn.  These are people who would never do this within their own field and would be insulted in anyone tried it with them.  This attitude of, I spent 2hrs on the internet so I know as much as an expert in field is a problem.  And just a side note, who is trying to defund public education and who is trying to fund it, that is a great way to figure out a major difference between the two parties.

I disagree - this attitude of mine is not why Trump won. Believe me, I voted for HRC and rallied as many people as I could to vote for her. I agree that there's a massive difference between the two parties and that's why I've voted dem recently.

From my perspective, the DNC/HRC failed at many turns, and Trump capitalized on the Republican Noise Machine that's been in development for 3+ decades, not to mention pivotal help from Cambridge Analytica in the final months that pushed his numbers up in targeted states like Wisconsin and PA. The DNC lost, not because people like me recognize that private funding of elections is bad, but because of tone-deaf mistakes in their campaign, and they lost because the GOP machine is organized and efficient.

The saying that dems need to fall in love with their candidate, while GOPs fall in line behind any yahoo who bubbles up for the nomination is truer now than ever. And THAT's what the DNC is working against. And they're failing. And part of the problem is that they are trying to appease both their big $ donors and their progressive base. If there were no big $ donors, they'd be progressive. Instead, they've been pulled right (for many reasons that could be a whole other topic thread) and have split their constituents. HRC was a terrible candidate to put forward. I personally have nothing against her. But I'm all too aware of the anti HRC campaign that's played out numerous times in my parents home and in all their friends homes and among the regular GOP base for decades. But, incredibly, GOP-sters like my sister and her boyfriend would have voted for Bernie Sanders. But not HRC.

I'm agreeing that the DNC is way better than the GOP from a policy and human perspective. And your experience working with democrats sounds about what I'd imagine it to be. In fact they are so disorganized that only 12% of registered voters in LA county voted in the latest special election. 12. And they were voting for city council members, mayors, etc.  I would think that post-Trump, any and every registered democrat would vow to vote in every election. Nope. From my FB feed - where my college crew mostly lives in LA - people didn't even know there was an election. Shame on the DNC for not getting that message out. Don't they know about ALEC and Grover Norquist and the incredible coordinating activities of the GOP? The GOP holds 32 state legislatures. They need just ONE more and they can pass whatever constitutional amendments they want. I'm terrified of that. The only thing I REALLY care about is global warming / pollution. They could pass an amendment saying that he government is not allowed to regulate emissions from any business activity. Seriously.

I'm an 'unaffiliated' voter now, but it seems to me that the DNC attracts people who believe in science informed policy making. They want competent governance. And they want government to step in and help people with difficult problems. So, I de-registered as a republican last year, and spent 50 euros making sure my primary ballot arrived on time to get Bernie Sanders elected. Then I spent another 50 euros making sure my Nov ballot arrived on time to vote for HRC.

HRC failed to campaign in regions where Rush Limbaugh has been playing for decades. She said something like lots of coal jobs were going to be lost and gave the haters more fuel to burn her with. She was an awful candidate, even if the most qualified person to run for office last year.

My point is that all of this bullshit is the result of our privately funded two party system. Recognizing the systemic problem didn't put Trump in power. Brainwashed GOP cult members voted for him, and democrats who weren't in love with HRC and were bummed their guy got the shaft stayed home. Simple as that. This was the DNC's election to lose and it's all on them.  So they're disorganized. They'd better get organized. I'm doing all I can. I send info to friends in Kansas, Virginia, Ohio and West Virginia nudging them to vote when it's time. I write articles. And I try to point out the big picture once in a while. Which is that a privately funded two party system will lead us to ever worse governance.

Sorry, this turned into another rant. This is why I usually stop myself from posting. Once I start it's difficult to stop short.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 23, 2017, 12:43:09 PM
And this kind of attitude is why Trump one. Yes, we have uneducated within the GOP who blindly follow Trump and the GOP leadership who will say anything to stay in power even if means giving power to Trump and Russia but we also have people who are saying that the dems are almost as bad which is not even close to reality. I doubt any person saying that has ever worked with the DNC.  I have and have found willingness to teach a want for grassroot input.  What I have also seen is people who have no idea how politics works (or hell, how our government works) who want to walk in and solve the problem without compromise or baby steps and expect it to work.  They also expect to be taken seriously without any knowledge base or willingness to learn.  These are people who would never do this within their own field and would be insulted in anyone tried it with them.  This attitude of, I spent 2hrs on the internet so I know as much as an expert in field is a problem.  And just a side note, who is trying to defund public education and who is trying to fund it, that is a great way to figure out a major difference between the two parties.

I don't read false equivalency into that post. You can abhor the current Republican officials while still being disenchanted with the Democrats. I think there are a lot of people who fall into this camp. There's a feeling of "there's no place for me in either party." At the end of the day, the Democrats generally side with big money, which isn't great.
They really don't side with big money.  Otherwise we would not have unions.  They need money and therefore they do need to compromise to get elected and get anything done.  And it is the same attitude, if you don't think you have a place, use the dems to learn how it works and make your local area your place.  Yes it means you can't jump to senator or president right off the bat, but that is not a bad thing.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Not all the time, but enough. Investment banks and pharmaceutical companies come to mind (and I say this having had my childhood funded by pharmaceutical companies).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 23, 2017, 12:46:04 PM
And this kind of attitude is why Trump one. Yes, we have uneducated within the GOP who blindly follow Trump and the GOP leadership who will say anything to stay in power even if means giving power to Trump and Russia but we also have people who are saying that the dems are almost as bad which is not even close to reality. I doubt any person saying that has ever worked with the DNC.  I have and have found willingness to teach a want for grassroot input.  What I have also seen is people who have no idea how politics works (or hell, how our government works) who want to walk in and solve the problem without compromise or baby steps and expect it to work.  They also expect to be taken seriously without any knowledge base or willingness to learn.  These are people who would never do this within their own field and would be insulted in anyone tried it with them.  This attitude of, I spent 2hrs on the internet so I know as much as an expert in field is a problem.  And just a side note, who is trying to defund public education and who is trying to fund it, that is a great way to figure out a major difference between the two parties.

I don't read false equivalency into that post. You can abhor the current Republican officials while still being disenchanted with the Democrats. I think there are a lot of people who fall into this camp. There's a feeling of "there's no place for me in either party." At the end of the day, the Democrats generally side with big money, which isn't great.

Thanks, you summed it up more succinctly than I did, NoStacheOhio.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on March 23, 2017, 12:46:24 PM
Quote
Not a chance. We already knew trump staffers coordinated with the Russians.  Nobody (republican) cares.  They'll shrug it off.

Trump can do no wrong, with his base.  Nothing will matter.  Trump could admit sexual assault on national tv and they wouldn't care.  Wait, did he already do that?  That's my point.

Yep.  I have given up on the Republicans ever doing anything about Trump.  Honestly, I think we just need to accept that we are no better than the average Banana Republic at this point.  But we are actually way worse, because we are the dominant military power on the planet with enough nukes to destroy every civilization on the planet with plenty left over.

I am not giving up on this.  His approval ratings are starting to tank, and eventually republicans in congress will abandon ship if they get low enough.  We're starting to see people turning against him because of his reckless tweeting and because of Trumpcare.  I am going to keep spreading the word and calling, faxing, and emailing my legislators to tell them that Trumpcare stinks, his "budget" stinks, and I haven't forgotten that Russia helped him steal this presidency.  It's only been 2 months.  Have patience and persist.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 23, 2017, 01:10:48 PM


And I blame it all on the privately funded two party system and the rise of corporate personhood. The GOP is a cult,  but the DNC ain't so great either. Combine their skewed incentives with today's surgical propaganda tools and  the defunding of public education,  and I feel like representative liberal democracy is fucked. Hello authoritarian kleptocracy.

I usually stop myself saying this stuff because I sound like a crackpot. But when my dad emails me saying civil asset forfeiture is totally cool and that trumps doing a fine job and that he's optimistic this congress is going to get some great things done ... well I think I'm seeing things quite clearly.

edit: typos.
And this kind of attitude is why Trump one. Yes, we have uneducated within the GOP who blindly follow Trump and the GOP leadership who will say anything to stay in power even if means giving power to Trump and Russia but we also have people who are saying that the dems are almost as bad which is not even close to reality. I doubt any person saying that has ever worked with the DNC.  I have and have found willingness to teach a want for grassroot input.  What I have also seen is people who have no idea how politics works (or hell, how our government works) who want to walk in and solve the problem without compromise or baby steps and expect it to work.  They also expect to be taken seriously without any knowledge base or willingness to learn.  These are people who would never do this within their own field and would be insulted in anyone tried it with them.  This attitude of, I spent 2hrs on the internet so I know as much as an expert in field is a problem.  And just a side note, who is trying to defund public education and who is trying to fund it, that is a great way to figure out a major difference between the two parties.

I disagree - this attitude of mine is not why Trump won. Believe me, I voted for HRC and rallied as many people as I could to vote for her. I agree that there's a massive difference between the two parties and that's why I've voted dem recently.

From my perspective, the DNC/HRC failed at many turns, and Trump capitalized on the Republican Noise Machine that's been in development for 3+ decades, not to mention pivotal help from Cambridge Analytica in the final months that pushed his numbers up in targeted states like Wisconsin and PA. The DNC lost, not because people like me recognize that private funding of elections is bad, but because of tone-deaf mistakes in their campaign, and they lost because the GOP machine is organized and efficient.

The saying that dems need to fall in love with their candidate, while GOPs fall in line behind any yahoo who bubbles up for the nomination is truer now than ever. And THAT's what the DNC is working against. And they're failing. And part of the problem is that they are trying to appease both their big $ donors and their progressive base. If there were no big $ donors, they'd be progressive. Instead, they've been pulled right (for many reasons that could be a whole other topic thread) and have split their constituents. HRC was a terrible candidate to put forward. I personally have nothing against her. But I'm all too aware of the anti HRC campaign that's played out numerous times in my parents home and in all their friends homes and among the regular GOP base for decades. But, incredibly, GOP-sters like my sister and her boyfriend would have voted for Bernie Sanders. But not HRC.

I'm agreeing that the DNC is way better than the GOP from a policy and human perspective. And your experience working with democrats sounds about what I'd imagine it to be. In fact they are so disorganized that only 12% of registered voters in LA county voted in the latest special election. 12. And they were voting for city council members, mayors, etc.  I would think that post-Trump, any and every registered democrat would vow to vote in every election. Nope. From my FB feed - where my college crew mostly lives in LA - people didn't even know there was an election. Shame on the DNC for not getting that message out. Don't they know about ALEC and Grover Norquist and the incredible coordinating activities of the GOP? The GOP holds 32 state legislatures. They need just ONE more and they can pass whatever constitutional amendments they want. I'm terrified of that. The only thing I REALLY care about is global warming / pollution. They could pass an amendment saying that he government is not allowed to regulate emissions from any business activity. Seriously.

I'm an 'unaffiliated' voter now, but it seems to me that the DNC attracts people who believe in science informed policy making. They want competent governance. And they want government to step in and help people with difficult problems. So, I de-registered as a republican last year, and spent 50 euros making sure my primary ballot arrived on time to get Bernie Sanders elected. Then I spent another 50 euros making sure my Nov ballot arrived on time to vote for HRC.

HRC failed to campaign in regions where Rush Limbaugh has been playing for decades. She said something like lots of coal jobs were going to be lost and gave the haters more fuel to burn her with. She was an awful candidate, even if the most qualified person to run for office last year.

My point is that all of this bullshit is the result of our privately funded two party system. Recognizing the systemic problem didn't put Trump in power. Brainwashed GOP cult members voted for him, and democrats who weren't in love with HRC and were bummed their guy got the shaft stayed home. Simple as that. This was the DNC's election to lose and it's all on them.  So they're disorganized. They'd better get organized. I'm doing all I can. I send info to friends in Kansas, Virginia, Ohio and West Virginia nudging them to vote when it's time. I write articles. And I try to point out the big picture once in a while. Which is that a privately funded two party system will lead us to ever worse governance.

Sorry, this turned into another rant. This is why I usually stop myself from posting. Once I start it's difficult to stop short.
There is a lot of truth in this.  But it ignores the elephant in the room: the concerted efforts by Russia to influence the election through the leaking of emails and the torrent of disinformation ("fake news") from Russian bots on Facebook and Twitter which drowned out the normal social media content and replaced it with Hilary hatespeech targeted at Republicans and Bernie supporters.

Hilary was not a "terrible" candidate.  She had her flaws, as do all candidates, but she was a better candidate than Trump.  The fact that even someone sympathetic can describe her as terrible without a thought just indicates how all-pervasive the Russian disinformation campaign became.

I mean, "lock her up"?  And "we couldn't possibly have a Presidential candidate who is under FBI investigation"?  Tell me now, who was really the terrible candidate?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 23, 2017, 01:38:42 PM

There is a lot of truth in this.  But it ignores the elephant in the room: the concerted efforts by Russia to influence the election through the leaking of emails and the torrent of disinformation ("fake news") from Russian bots on Facebook and Twitter which drowned out the normal social media content and replaced it with Hilary hatespeech targeted at Republicans and Bernie supporters.

Hilary was not a "terrible" candidate.  She had her flaws, as do all candidates, but she was a better candidate than Trump.  The fact that even someone sympathetic can describe her as terrible without a thought just indicates how all-pervasive the Russian disinformation campaign became.

I mean, "lock her up"?  And "we couldn't possibly have a Presidential candidate who is under FBI investigation"?  Tell me now, who was really the terrible candidate?

I would have mentioned Russia too, but my post was already getting very long. Also I'm kind of waiting to see what comes from the investigations. I agree - it's clear that Russian trolls (Internet Research Agency types) were all over reddit, for example, pushing anti-HRC stuff and pro Trump BS. My sense is that Russian involvement went way beyond just chatting with /paying off Manafort and others. Hopefully the investigations to come will clarify just what went down in those deals. The Rosnef sale looks bad, along with much else. Adam Schiff summed it up well in his testimony.

I'm saying she was strategically a "terrible" candidate - not because I bought into the propaganda against her, but because I personally knew so many who had. Sure, I didn't like some of her work as Sec of State, but I think she would have been a fine president. Obviously she was a better candidate than Trump. Hell, she was a better candidate than all of the ~17 GOP candidates. I would have voted for her over all of them.

When I wrote "terrible" I meant she was "possibly unelectable."  And you don't run a possibly-unelectable candidate against a monster like Trump. I mean, early on, they actually tried to push for Trump as their pied piper candidate. Gah.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last paragraph.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on March 23, 2017, 03:23:21 PM
If this Russian debacle took down Trump, could it take down Pence as well for knowing about Trump and associates' interactions with the Russians?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on March 23, 2017, 04:31:09 PM
If this Russian debacle took down Trump, could it take down Pence as well for knowing about Trump and associates' interactions with the Russians?

Then we get President Paul Ryan. From a policy standpoint he's probably the one most likely to push through many of the terrible ideas that have received so much push-back because the "ultimate closer" in chief actually sucks donkey balls at closing deals and spinning things in a way that will appeal to anyone but his diehards. Trumpcare might as well be called Ryancare, after all, but Ryan would have a much easier time lining up his ducks in the RNC and most likely be hailed as a breath of fresh air, returning the presidency to some semblance of "dignity" and "normalcy."

He also would probably orchestrate a better PR campaign to brainwash everyone into thinking Ryancare is in fact the magical ACA solution we've so desperately "needed" all this time, no matter how many people lose their insurance/see further spiraling premiums. He might even be able to salvage the midterms with a little luck and cranking the spin up to 11. I suppose at least he would (hopefully) stop this wall nonsense and (maybe?) the absurd attempts to ban Muslims from the U.S.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 23, 2017, 04:32:47 PM
Who comes after Ryan?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on March 23, 2017, 04:35:35 PM
Who comes after Ryan?

Orrin Hatch, but really it's turtles all the way down.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 23, 2017, 06:22:40 PM
Hilary was not a "terrible" candidate.  She had her flaws, as do all candidates, but she was a better candidate than Trump.  The fact that even someone sympathetic can describe her as terrible without a thought just indicates how all-pervasive the Russian disinformation campaign became.
I disagree, Hilary was a terrible candidate. It wasn't so much her non-scandal scandals (pay to play, that fucking email server...) but her inability to cohere any sort of grand narrative that sufficiently motivated her base and more marginal swing voters. It was clear when a park bench socialist like Sanders--America's answer to the UK's Jeremy Corbyn (who is seemingly determined to make Labour a permanent opposition party)--that she was far from a potent candidate. But to Sanders' credit, at least he had a narrative that could positively motivate his supporters in such a way that, had he won, we might not be facing a blaze-orange Trumpster fire these days.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on March 23, 2017, 06:59:20 PM
Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.

Are you saying that you like it when trump lies?

This is just another case of "insurance for everybody" where trump says something he thinks will be popular, then turns around and does the exact opposite.  "Drain the swamp" turned out to mean "staff my cabinet with billionaires and hire foreign agents to run national security" and "insurance for everybody" turned out to mean "24 million fewer people will have insurance" and "Mexico will pay for it" turned out to mean "American taxpayers will pay for it".  Shall I go on?

Trump is a con man.  He will say anything to get his way and enrich himself and his family.  We shouldn't be celebrating his lies just because they sound good, when we know damned well be doesn't mean a word of it.  He is not in control of his own administration, so the things he says are meaningless.

Next you'll be telling is how great it is that Hillary is finally in jail for all of those non-existent crimes.  What a great policy!

We need an anti-Trump who will say exactly this, in exactly this tone. Has to be a business man, success optional. Too bad Ross Perot is too old. Mark Cuban? Framing this bullshit as bullshit needs to happen. By someone of stature. Is there anyone not compromised that can stand and rebuke this administration-with authority?

We have plenty of them but the Republican base has tuned it all out. Trump has what, 80%+ support with registered Republicans. Maybe 50/50 with independents.

Its going to be up to our elected officials to take a stand against the bullshit. The public simply don't have the time, energy or ability to make fair informed decisions about all of the Trump administrations possible missteps. On top of that it is a conflict of interest for his base to turn against him over allegations of corruption or deceit. Because many still hope to gain from his Presidency, in the form of jobs, reducing immigration and cutting government programs.
I can't find that anywhere, do you which poll that came from?

Gallup polls show some of Trumps lowest approval ratings overall. But look at their data along party lines near the bottom:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx)

Republicans are close to 90% approval. This is to some degree to be expected. Part of his overall low rating is that he is extremely polarizing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: RangerOne on March 23, 2017, 07:06:24 PM
If the evidence became strong enough against Trump and his aids in the investigation to where he was advised he could be impeached and then criminally prosecuted following a successful impeachment, one would assume he would bow out like Nixon and take a presidential pardon.

However Trump is not Nixon and all evidence points to the fact that if their is a shit storm he wants to be they eye in the center flinging poo at his enemies.

So I don't think he is untouchable but I don't think he will go quietly if he thinks he has popular public support on his side.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on March 23, 2017, 07:39:41 PM
Yeah, the fact that they're violating the policy doesn't make it a bad policy.

Are you saying that you like it when trump lies?

This is just another case of "insurance for everybody" where trump says something he thinks will be popular, then turns around and does the exact opposite.  "Drain the swamp" turned out to mean "staff my cabinet with billionaires and hire foreign agents to run national security" and "insurance for everybody" turned out to mean "24 million fewer people will have insurance" and "Mexico will pay for it" turned out to mean "American taxpayers will pay for it".  Shall I go on?

Trump is a con man.  He will say anything to get his way and enrich himself and his family.  We shouldn't be celebrating his lies just because they sound good, when we know damned well be doesn't mean a word of it.  He is not in control of his own administration, so the things he says are meaningless.

Next you'll be telling is how great it is that Hillary is finally in jail for all of those non-existent crimes.  What a great policy!

We need an anti-Trump who will say exactly this, in exactly this tone. Has to be a business man, success optional. Too bad Ross Perot is too old. Mark Cuban? Framing this bullshit as bullshit needs to happen. By someone of stature. Is there anyone not compromised that can stand and rebuke this administration-with authority?

We have plenty of them but the Republican base has tuned it all out. Trump has what, 80%+ support with registered Republicans. Maybe 50/50 with independents.

Its going to be up to our elected officials to take a stand against the bullshit. The public simply don't have the time, energy or ability to make fair informed decisions about all of the Trump administrations possible missteps. On top of that it is a conflict of interest for his base to turn against him over allegations of corruption or deceit. Because many still hope to gain from his Presidency, in the form of jobs, reducing immigration and cutting government programs.
I can't find that anywhere, do you which poll that came from?

Gallup polls show some of Trumps lowest approval ratings overall. But look at their data along party lines near the bottom:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx)

Republicans are close to 90% approval. This is to some degree to be expected. Part of his overall low rating is that he is extremely polarizing.

Yup.  A fairly reliable long term pollster in WI just showed his support among GOP voters/likely voters has increased since the election.

This kind of split in polling has the potential to force GOP senators away from Trump and GOP House members closer to Trump. Should be entertaining to watch, in a car-crash kind of way.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on March 24, 2017, 02:44:53 AM

There is a lot of truth in this.  But it ignores the elephant in the room: the concerted efforts by Russia to influence the election through the leaking of emails and the torrent of disinformation ("fake news") from Russian bots on Facebook and Twitter which drowned out the normal social media content and replaced it with Hilary hatespeech targeted at Republicans and Bernie supporters.

Hilary was not a "terrible" candidate.  She had her flaws, as do all candidates, but she was a better candidate than Trump.  The fact that even someone sympathetic can describe her as terrible without a thought just indicates how all-pervasive the Russian disinformation campaign became.

I mean, "lock her up"?  And "we couldn't possibly have a Presidential candidate who is under FBI investigation"?  Tell me now, who was really the terrible candidate?

I would have mentioned Russia too, but my post was already getting very long. Also I'm kind of waiting to see what comes from the investigations. I agree - it's clear that Russian trolls (Internet Research Agency types) were all over reddit, for example, pushing anti-HRC stuff and pro Trump BS. My sense is that Russian involvement went way beyond just chatting with /paying off Manafort and others. Hopefully the investigations to come will clarify just what went down in those deals. The Rosnef sale looks bad, along with much else. Adam Schiff summed it up well in his testimony.

I'm saying she was strategically a "terrible" candidate - not because I bought into the propaganda against her, but because I personally knew so many who had. Sure, I didn't like some of her work as Sec of State, but I think she would have been a fine president. Obviously she was a better candidate than Trump. Hell, she was a better candidate than all of the ~17 GOP candidates. I would have voted for her over all of them.

When I wrote "terrible" I meant she was "possibly unelectable."  And you don't run a possibly-unelectable candidate against a monster like Trump. I mean, early on, they actually tried to push for Trump as their pied piper candidate. Gah.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last paragraph.
The last paragraph was things said about Hillary during the campaign which are considerably more true of Trump in office than they ever were of Hillary as a candidate.

Hillary was not "possibly unelectable" until the Russians got after her with their insidious propaganda.  They are a lot smarter about their propaganda than they used to be - a lot of it is subtle and clever as well as some of it being obvious and crude.

I think Hillary's problem was that she tried to power through the campaign on her own terms without realising (how could she) just how significant the Russian propaganda campaign against her would be.  That meant that she took the high moral ground against Trump, rather than getting down in the muck with him.  I'm not sure whether any other approach would have done better, and until Comey fell for the Russian dirty tricks over the Weiner emails two weeks before election date it was working well enough.

Edited to add: it didn't help the Hillary was a woman and that apparently sexism is even more deeply ingrained in the USA than in most developed societies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Nick_Miller on March 24, 2017, 06:09:06 PM
I just skimmed a few responses but I really just needed a place to post my thoughts.

I don't even know what to think anymore. He's been in office, what, 60 days or so and I can't keep track of the blunders, potential ethical violations, and short-sighted policy decisions. I pride myself on being a reasonable, thoughtful person, and I don't engage in hyperbole or troll folks on social media or call people names, but...this is f*cking crazy.

It's like (many) Republicans are willing to totally ignore the Russia issues because....well I guess because they don't like the "liberal media?" I mean, I honestly don't understand. What sort of thoughtful person says, "Nah I don't care about knowing more about all the Russia connections. Whatever they are all saying now can't possibly be true." You have the intelligence community getting involved front and center now. I mean, what, is EVERYONE lying BUT Trump?? He's the sole honest person? Seriously?

The whole "no evidence that feeding kids helps kids perform better" thing? WTF? I taught in public schools (for a short time) and I have many family members who work in schools. Kids come to school HUNGRY! They do!  How about you go to work hungry every day and see how well you perform??

And I'll close with this. I have voted for Republican presidents before, as recently as 2008 (yes I voted for McCain). I'm not some extreme person. But this administration has collected the absolutely WORST people  they could gather. EPA, Education, State, I could go on and onu. It's gotten to the point where I don't think I could even be a friend to someone who says, "Oh yeah this is all great! MAGA!!" I mean, we would have no shared values. What's the point?

Try being in my shoes - where you've described my dad, mom, MIL, BIL, SIL, other BIL and somewhat my brother. Every day I read the news. And no - I don't get outraged at the outrage pieces - I get outraged watching congressional hearings on CSPAN and outraged watching POTUS live tweet incoherent bullshit. I don't need pundits to spin me into anger. Reality is sufficient.

When I check in with the GOP members of my family, they've nothing but total approval for this administration. Why? Cuz liberals would bring bureaucracy and that's the ultimate evil. As if we're living in the 70s.

The GOP cult members in my family are unwilling to acknowledge how effective the GOP has been at cowing government agencies into streamlined efficiency. From SS admin to IRS, modern day agencies do a pretty good job. It's not the 1970s anymore. But that's what their news feeds tell them so it must be so and I'm naive for believing scientists and peer reviewed studies.

It's a daily struggle to keep from outright hating my family. Their support of this anit-science, anti-constitution, anti-democratic bullshit could be sowing the seeds of our country's - and perhaps our species - destruction.

Like you, Nick_Miller, I pride myself on being a rational, somewhat dispassionate thinker.  And yet look at what I just wrote in the paragraph above. If you'd shown that to me a year ago I wouldn't believe I wrote that. But it's what I've come to accept.

And I blame it all on the privately funded two party system and the rise of corporate personhood. The GOP is a cult,  but the DNC ain't so great either. Combine their skewed incentives with today's surgical propaganda tools and  the defunding of public education,  and I feel like representative liberal democracy is fucked. Hello authoritarian kleptocracy.

I usually stop myself saying this stuff because I sound like a crackpot. But when my dad emails me saying civil asset forfeiture is totally cool and that trumps doing a fine job and that he's optimistic this congress is going to get some great things done ... well I think I'm seeing things quite clearly.

edit: typos.

I hope it helps (a little) to know there are others like you out there in similar situations. Misery and company, and all that jazz. I do have a sane brother, so I guess I can brag about that a little.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on March 24, 2017, 06:46:39 PM
Here's an impact: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/24/deportation-drama-enters-pro-trump-household-in-northern-indiana.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/24/deportation-drama-enters-pro-trump-household-in-northern-indiana.html)

TL;DR - pro Trump woman is upset because her undocumented (illegal) immigrant husband is getting deported. She says Trump said the "good people" would not be deported.

Another gem quote from this wife of an illegal:

Quote
"We were very happy he became the president. Whatever he says, he is right.

Man, I should read Fox News more often for gems like this.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on March 24, 2017, 06:53:55 PM
Here's an impact: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/24/deportation-drama-enters-pro-trump-household-in-northern-indiana.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/24/deportation-drama-enters-pro-trump-household-in-northern-indiana.html)

TL;DR - pro Trump woman is upset because her undocumented (illegal) immigrant husband is getting deported. She says Trump said the "good people" would not be deported.

Another gem quote from this wife of an illegal:

Quote
"We were very happy he became the president. Whatever he says, he is right.

Man, I should read Fox News more often for gems like this.

Every once in a while I am reminded: There is just no cure for stupid.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: teen persuasion on March 24, 2017, 09:26:02 PM
Here's an impact: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/24/deportation-drama-enters-pro-trump-household-in-northern-indiana.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/24/deportation-drama-enters-pro-trump-household-in-northern-indiana.html)

TL;DR - pro Trump woman is upset because her undocumented (illegal) immigrant husband is getting deported. She says Trump said the "good people" would not be deported.

Another gem quote from this wife of an illegal:

Quote
"We were very happy he became the president. Whatever he says, he is right.

Man, I should read Fox News more often for gems like this.

Quote
during a family trip to Niagara Falls, he inadvertently crossed the border into Canada.   

How do you inadvertently cross the border at NF?  You'd have to cross one of the three bridges on the Niagara river.  There are giant signs everywhere, and you go thru customs.  You don't just wander over the border there.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on March 25, 2017, 09:23:29 AM
You don't just wander over the border there.

(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/76260273/one-does-not-simply-one-does-not-simply-wander-over-the-bor-dor.jpg)

Sorry, couldn't resist!

ETA: Just wanted to add I know how to spell; our buddy Boromir famously says in the movie, "One does not simply walk into Mordor." Get it? Mordor? Bor-dor? And if you have to explain a joke, it usually means it really sucks...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on March 25, 2017, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: teen persuasion link=topic=64129.msg1488943#msg1488943
How do you inadvertently cross the border at NF?  You'd have to cross one of the three bridges on the Niagara river.  There are giant signs everywhere, and you go thru customs.  You don't just wander over the border there.

Barrel. Over falls.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rosaz on March 27, 2017, 11:04:39 AM
Quote from: teen persuasion link=topic=64129.msg1488943#msg1488943
How do you inadvertently cross the border at NF?  You'd have to cross one of the three bridges on the Niagara river.  There are giant signs everywhere, and you go thru customs.  You don't just wander over the border there.

Barrel. Over falls.

I hate it when I do that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on March 29, 2017, 03:30:59 PM
The New York times has observed that many of Trump's policies are actually not making America great again but are in effect making America less significant.

The push back to fossil fuels and away from green energy sources will tend to push the US away from leading edge energy technologies and back to the days of coal dust and smog.

Abandoning the TPP puts China in a position where they can continue as the dominant economic player in the south Pacific.

Rescinding internet privacy regulations will tend to drive Americans away from the Internet and reduce innovation in this space.

We're already starting to see targeted ethnic groups avoiding the US.   The people who would have come to the states are the most amibitious, least complacent people in their native countries.    Even Canadian schools are cancelling US field trips.

Repealing the ACA would have reduced health care to almost 10% of the American population.

Making friends with Vladimir Putin will give Russia more influence and power in former soviet bloc countries.

Anyone have more examples?   

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/opinion/trump-is-a-chinese-agent.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/opinion/trump-is-a-chinese-agent.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 29, 2017, 03:51:49 PM


Making friends with Vladimir Putin will give Russia more influence and power in former soviet bloc countries.


He's not even making Russia great again!

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-whole-donald-trump-thing-isnt-working-out-for-russ-1793688035
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on March 31, 2017, 08:39:04 AM
fewer American jobs moved out of the country are bad things?

"So much winning you'll get sick of winning. Seriously, trade policy by Tweet was never going to work."   Krugman

American Jobs Are Headed to Mexico Once Again  March 31st article:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-31/jobs-departing-u-s-for-mexico-again-as-trump-s-threats-ignored
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on April 03, 2017, 06:54:19 PM
People are saying Trump has some cognitive problems happening now.  He went in to sign some EOs and he forgot to sign them, said a few words, and walked out of the room.  Then they took the EOs to the other room.  They all looked like WTF.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 04, 2017, 05:58:58 AM
Yeah it's a train wreck that we're all witnessing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 04, 2017, 06:04:17 AM
People are saying Trump has some cognitive problems happening now.  He went in to sign some EOs and he forgot to sign them, said a few words, and walked out of the room.  Then they took the EOs to the other room.  They all looked like WTF.

Did he forget? I thought a reporter asked a question about Flynn and he got mad?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Retire-Canada on April 04, 2017, 07:00:36 AM
Did he forget? I thought a reporter asked a question about Flynn and he got mad?

This ^^. Although I think the 24/7 scrutiny of the presidency is wearing him down.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jim555 on April 04, 2017, 07:54:12 AM
Did he forget? I thought a reporter asked a question about Flynn and he got mad?

This ^^. Although I think the 24/7 scrutiny of the presidency is wearing him down.
The whole point of the meeting is to sign the EO.  So how does he (get flustered/forget) why he is even there?  Something is not right with him.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Inaya on April 04, 2017, 07:57:11 AM
He's a child. He didn't forget--he threw a tantrum. So he took his ball and went home.

What bothers me is now he has a precedent of signing them in secret. So he will probably do so at every offered opportunity, since he's allergic to transparency.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Retire-Canada on April 04, 2017, 08:10:24 AM
The whole point of the meeting is to sign the EO.  So how does he (get flustered/forget) why he is even there?  Something is not right with him.

I don't think there is much "right" with Trump, but getting flustered by the press isn't a new thing for politicians.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 04, 2017, 02:34:08 PM
ISIS thinks the US is being run by an idiot.

Who could possibly have predicted this?

/sarcasm

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-islamic-state-idUSKBN17625H?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cerat0n1a on April 05, 2017, 04:16:51 AM
I think the 24/7 scrutiny of the presidency is wearing him down.

I'd say that in Britain, we've had two recent prime ministers for whom the pressure/scrutiny has led to mental health issues while in office. I don't think anyone would say that happened to Obama or Bush, but it does take a special kind of person I imagine. I'd kind of expected that Trump, being largely oblivious to the consequences of his decisions, was not going to be plagued by self-doubts or be affected by pressure.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on April 05, 2017, 05:50:32 AM
ISIS thinks the US is being run by an idiot.

Who could possibly have predicted this?

/sarcasm

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-islamic-state-idUSKBN17625H?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social

Since when do we give a shit about what ISIS thinks of us?   They want us all under Sharia law or dead.    Oooh, ISIS doesn't respect us!!  No fucking kidding. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on April 05, 2017, 06:34:35 AM
I think the 24/7 scrutiny of the presidency is wearing him down.

I'd say that in Britain, we've had two recent prime ministers for whom the pressure/scrutiny has led to mental health issues while in office. I don't think anyone would say that happened to Obama or Bush, but it does take a special kind of person I imagine. I'd kind of expected that Trump, being largely oblivious to the consequences of his decisions, was not going to be plagued by self-doubts or be affected by pressure.
I just googled "Trump Alzheimer's" and got 10,400,000 results.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 05, 2017, 06:58:07 AM
ISIS thinks the US is being run by an idiot.

Who could possibly have predicted this?

/sarcasm

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-islamic-state-idUSKBN17625H?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social

Since when do we give a shit about what ISIS thinks of us?   They want us all under Sharia law or dead.    Oooh, ISIS doesn't respect us!!  No fucking kidding.

Um, you do realize that the weakening of the US is an excellent recruitment tool, right?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Retire-Canada on April 05, 2017, 07:03:13 AM
Um, you do realize that the weakening of the US is an excellent recruitment tool, right?

And the muslim travel ban.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 05, 2017, 08:22:08 AM
Um, you do realize that the weakening of the US is an excellent recruitment tool, right?

And the muslim travel ban.

And the botched raid in Yemen.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on April 05, 2017, 08:57:37 AM
So, did Susan Rice do spy on the on the Trump campaign? Trying to maintain my low information diet here, but I am guessing this has something to do with the Michael Flynn thing.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on April 05, 2017, 09:15:49 AM
So, did Susan Rice do spy on the on the Trump campaign? Trying to maintain my low information diet here, but I am guessing this has something to do with the Michael Flynn thing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/us/politics/susan-rice-obama-trump-leak.html?_r=0
No it has to do with Trump's lie that he was wiretapped by Obama.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on April 05, 2017, 09:25:28 AM
New spin on anime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyxSZhushjU&feature=youtu.be
Great time to be alive.

More seriously:
The reclusive Matt Drudge makes an interesting point Trump 'Saved the Media'
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/31/matt_drudge_on_savage_hillary_looks_like_shes_running_again_trump_should_disappear_for_a_while.html

Mainstream Media is actually less trusted/approved than the man they love to hate.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Trump literally threw them a lifeline by turning American politics into the worlds biggest reality TV show.

While the 'Russian Hacker' fiasco fizzles...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/31/the-russia-hacking-fiasco-no-evidence-required/

...it's morphing into Spygate
http://nypost.com/2017/04/05/susan-rices-track-record-damages-her-credibility/

Great times.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 05, 2017, 09:57:13 AM
So, did Susan Rice do spy on the on the Trump campaign? Trying to maintain my low information diet here, but I am guessing this has something to do with the Michael Flynn thing.

Susan Rice emphatically says she did not, and I'd add that there is also no evidence provided that she did. I'd say there are two possibilities here, and the one that has the most probability of being true is pretty obvious, like 99.99 to 0.001:

1. Susan Rice purposely and wittingly revealed names of Trump allies who were involved with Russians
2. Trump enablers (i.e., Drudge and Breitbart) threw out another shiny object saying, "Look over there!!" to deflect attention away from the constant drip-drip of more evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. They've never done that before... (sarcasm)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on April 05, 2017, 09:58:20 AM
How about his actions strengthen the opinions of those world wide that think we are incompetent fools.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bannon-removed-from-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup/ar-BBzrrR7

"Reorganize" after less than 60 days?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 05, 2017, 10:02:51 AM
How about his actions strengthen the opinions of those world wide that think we are incompetent fools.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bannon-removed-from-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup/ar-BBzrrR7

"Reorganize" after less than 60 days?

Yup.

But maybe his supporters actually believe that there's no reason to care that the rest of the world thinks our president and his administration is weak, in totally disarray, and generally incompetent?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 05, 2017, 06:11:36 PM
ISIS thinks the US is being run by an idiot.

Donald Trump . . . making ISIS seem reasonable.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 05, 2017, 07:30:53 PM
How about his actions strengthen the opinions of those world wide that think we are incompetent fools.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bannon-removed-from-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup/ar-BBzrrR7

"Reorganize" after less than 60 days?

Yup.

But maybe his supporters actually believe that there's no reason to care that the rest of the world thinks our president and his administration is weak, in totally disarray, and generally incompetent?
I'm guessing McMaster has Trump's ear now on these matters and had Bannon bumped? It's a good outcome anyway.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 06, 2017, 06:14:54 AM
Well, the first major foreign crises of Trump's presidency are beginning. And we are stuck with a president that has no idea what he's doing. Strap in, folks.

A good piece by Charles Blow:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/opinion/creeping-toward-crisis.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on April 06, 2017, 06:49:29 AM
Well, the first major foreign crises of Trump's presidency are beginning. And we are stuck with a president that has no idea what he's doing. Strap in, folks.

A good piece by Charles Blow:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/opinion/creeping-toward-crisis.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Yep! "I don't show my hand" = "I don't have a fucking clue"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on April 06, 2017, 11:31:10 AM
Well, I had a glimmer of hope that Trump would be less hawkish than the rest of the republican field (except Paul) and was a dove compared to Clinton... but it looks like bombs away (at least) in Syria soon. yay.

The only thing that is working in favor of not going to war with Syria is that Putin owns Trump and probably won't let him do it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 06, 2017, 06:38:35 PM
Well, the first major foreign crises of Trump's presidency are beginning. And we are stuck with a president that has no idea what he's doing. Strap in, folks.

A good piece by Charles Blow:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/opinion/creeping-toward-crisis.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Perhaps a little overwritten (Trump's words and actions don't need some of Blow's editorial accoutrements to land a punch) but the part about Trump's response to the Hezbollah question is hysterical: You will see. They will have a message. You will see what the message will be, O.K..

Also of interest are these thoughts on China (http://You will see. They will have a message. You will see what the message will be, O.K.). Similar to Syria, the foreign policy of the US has become a drifting set of vague notions that are based on mostly misunderstood or wholly fabricated "facts," the communication of which is furthered muddled through twitter tirades in the wee hours.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on April 06, 2017, 07:15:24 PM
Our foreign policy has become "we don't give a damn. Oh wait...they like us? Ok, that's great. Still don't care but I'll give them a call some time!"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on April 06, 2017, 11:07:53 PM
I just wanted to be the first to go on record suggesting that today's impact of a Trump Presidency is unilateral military action against a UN member state, without the approval of the UN security council, leading to world war 3.  Hooray!

Well, it could have been worse.  He could have sent in nukes, like he suggested during the campaign he would. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on April 07, 2017, 01:05:05 AM
I just wanted to be the first to go on record suggesting that today's impact of a Trump Presidency is unilateral military action against a UN member state, without the approval of the UN security council, leading to world war 3.  Hooray!

Well, it could have been worse.  He could have sent in nukes, like he suggested during the campaign he would.
I'm looking for bright spots.  At least Putin isn't getting what he paid for.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on April 07, 2017, 02:51:26 AM
This. The people in power now are true believers of the bullshit machine that hurled them into power.

http://fusion.net/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blowing-up-in-t-1793944216 (http://fusion.net/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blowing-up-in-t-1793944216)

The targeted suckers described in this article are my parents and most of their friends. I have witnessed this all first hand.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ShoulderThingThatGoesUp on April 07, 2017, 04:49:27 AM
I just wanted to be the first to go on record suggesting that today's impact of a Trump Presidency is unilateral military action against a UN member state, without the approval of the UN security council, leading to world war 3.  Hooray!

Well, it could have been worse.  He could have sent in nukes, like he suggested during the campaign he would.

Unfortunately Obama set the precedent that the President can go to war unilaterally. He should have been impeached for Libya and Trump should be for this, but Congress doesn't have the guts.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on April 07, 2017, 05:36:42 AM
Lying, son of a bitch.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on April 07, 2017, 06:02:55 AM

There is a lot of truth in this.  But it ignores the elephant in the room: the concerted efforts by Russia to influence the election through the leaking of emails and the torrent of disinformation ("fake news") from Russian bots on Facebook and Twitter which drowned out the normal social media content and replaced it with Hilary hatespeech targeted at Republicans and Bernie supporters.

Hilary was not a "terrible" candidate.  She had her flaws, as do all candidates, but she was a better candidate than Trump.  The fact that even someone sympathetic can describe her as terrible without a thought just indicates how all-pervasive the Russian disinformation campaign became.

I mean, "lock her up"?  And "we couldn't possibly have a Presidential candidate who is under FBI investigation"?  Tell me now, who was really the terrible candidate?

I would have mentioned Russia too, but my post was already getting very long. Also I'm kind of waiting to see what comes from the investigations. I agree - it's clear that Russian trolls (Internet Research Agency types) were all over reddit, for example, pushing anti-HRC stuff and pro Trump BS. My sense is that Russian involvement went way beyond just chatting with /paying off Manafort and others. Hopefully the investigations to come will clarify just what went down in those deals. The Rosnef sale looks bad, along with much else. Adam Schiff summed it up well in his testimony.

I'm saying she was strategically a "terrible" candidate - not because I bought into the propaganda against her, but because I personally knew so many who had. Sure, I didn't like some of her work as Sec of State, but I think she would have been a fine president. Obviously she was a better candidate than Trump. Hell, she was a better candidate than all of the ~17 GOP candidates. I would have voted for her over all of them.

When I wrote "terrible" I meant she was "possibly unelectable."  And you don't run a possibly-unelectable candidate against a monster like Trump. I mean, early on, they actually tried to push for Trump as their pied piper candidate. Gah.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last paragraph.
The last paragraph was things said about Hillary during the campaign which are considerably more true of Trump in office than they ever were of Hillary as a candidate.

Hillary was not "possibly unelectable" until the Russians got after her with their insidious propaganda.  They are a lot smarter about their propaganda than they used to be - a lot of it is subtle and clever as well as some of it being obvious and crude.

I think Hillary's problem was that she tried to power through the campaign on her own terms without realising (how could she) just how significant the Russian propaganda campaign against her would be.  That meant that she took the high moral ground against Trump, rather than getting down in the muck with him.  I'm not sure whether any other approach would have done better, and until Comey fell for the Russian dirty tricks over the Weiner emails two weeks before election date it was working well enough.

Edited to add: it didn't help the Hillary was a woman and that apparently sexism is even more deeply ingrained in the USA than in most developed societies.

This concept that Russia is the reason Hillary is hated is total bullshit.  Hillary fucked up her campaign in the rust belt and took a lot of votes for granted, while Trump hustled in those states to get more votes and win.   It's very convenient for Hillary to say it was Russia's fault rather than look at her own failures.  All of this is posturing so she can be viable for some other government position or to run again  Play the victim Hillary.  It's so weak.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: jrhampt on April 07, 2017, 06:07:33 AM
^^^. She didn't come up with this on her own...this is what our own intelligence agencies say.  Do you think they are making up shit too?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on April 07, 2017, 06:12:19 AM
Post some links to the evidence, then.  The whole thing is a clown show.  Hillary is getting two more minutes of "fame" here and there off of it and she's using it to try to re-build her political capital.   She's going to milk "Russian hacking" for as long as she can to keep her face in front of the cameras, whether there is any real evidence or not.   

Also, I was on Facebook before the election and nearly everything I saw was pro-liberal.  I didn't experience anything that smelled like fake news getting pumped into my feed to manipulate me -- *as if* I base my votes on fucking Facebook.

And you cannot deny her weak campaigning in the Rust belt.  That's all on her.



Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 07, 2017, 06:23:14 AM
I just wanted to be the first to go on record suggesting that today's impact of a Trump Presidency is unilateral military action against a UN member state, without the approval of the UN security council, leading to world war 3.  Hooray!

Well, it could have been worse.  He could have sent in nukes, like he suggested during the campaign he would.

Unfortunately Obama set the precedent that the President can go to war unilaterally. He should have been impeached for Libya and Trump should be for this, but Congress doesn't have the guts.

That precedent existed at least as far back as Bush I.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on April 07, 2017, 06:36:36 AM
^^^. She didn't come up with this on her own...this is what our own intelligence agencies say.  Do you think they are making up shit too?
Yes. Next they will say that Syria's Assad is using nerve gas on his own people so our military has an excuse to go to war there.

 Wait...what?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ShoulderThingThatGoesUp on April 07, 2017, 06:53:50 AM
Hillary Clinton lost, and she will never be President. Can we shut up about her now?

(She would have attacked Syria illegally, too.)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on April 07, 2017, 08:08:23 AM
Realistic impacts of Trump's presidency? Well as of this morning, 59 tomahawk missiles...

I wonder what Xi thought of this attack while being hosted in FL.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on April 07, 2017, 08:36:00 AM
Realistic impacts of Trump's presidency? Well as of this morning, 59 tomahawk missiles...

Like I said yesterday, I'm somewhat heartened that Trump didn't just send a nuclear ICBM.  I take that as a sign that he's finally found some security council advisors who have half a clue.  That's progress!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on April 07, 2017, 08:44:42 AM
They've hidden the real launch codes between two books in the Pentagon... Trump only has the Powerball numbers from last year.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: tarheeldan on April 07, 2017, 08:54:08 AM
They've hidden the real launch codes between two books in the Pentagon... Trump only has the Powerball numbers from last year.

LOL! Thank you for that.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on April 07, 2017, 09:35:40 AM
Quote
Next they will say that Syria's Assad is using nerve gas on his own people so our military has an excuse to go to war there.

You know this conspiracy has to be already making the rounds. Putin told Assad to use a gas attack and then told Trump to respond with force as a prelude to a major US invasion which will distract from the hacking scandal which threatens to reveal that Putin and Trump are blood brother members of the NWO Satanist government. After that it's all chemtrails, Rothchilds, False flag, weed cures cancer, Flat earth, clonus the part horror, etc.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: tarheeldan on April 07, 2017, 09:45:00 AM
Don't forget the Illuminati, Free Masons, robots, and aliens!!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 07, 2017, 09:49:07 AM
Don't forget the Illuminati, Free Masons, robots, and aliens!!
And the shadow government! Can't forget the shadow government!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: iris lily on April 07, 2017, 09:49:45 AM
They've hidden the real launch codes between two books in the Pentagon... Trump only has the Powerball numbers from last year.

LOL! Thank you for that.

Why do you think Ivanka has moved into the White House? She is tasked with keeping good old Dad away from the red button.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 07, 2017, 09:57:49 AM
We should also not forget that Neil Gorsuch was confirmed today after the Senate changed the rules for nomination.

From a procedural standpoint, it strikes me as strange that it takes fewer votes to change a rule than a rule that requires a number of votes requires. In other words, if there is a procedural rule requires a 2/3 majority (or whatever), then it should also require that number of votes to change that rule. But, such are the rules of the Senate. Hurrah!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 07, 2017, 10:20:07 AM
They've hidden the real launch codes between two books in the Pentagon... Trump only has the Powerball numbers from last year.

LOL! Thank you for that.

Why do you think Ivanka has moved into the White House? She is tasked with keeping good old Dad away from the red button.

Except on the Sabbath.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on April 07, 2017, 10:22:49 AM
They've hidden the real launch codes between two books in the Pentagon... Trump only has the Powerball numbers from last year.

LOL! Thank you for that.

Why do you think Ivanka has moved into the White House? She is tasked with keeping good old Dad away from the red button.

Except on the Sabbath.
? her sabbath is tomorrow.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on April 07, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
Quote
Next they will say that Syria's Assad is using nerve gas on his own people so our military has an excuse to go to war there.

You know this conspiracy has to be already making the rounds. Putin told Assad to use a gas attack and then told Trump to respond with force as a prelude to a major US invasion which will distract from the hacking scandal which threatens to reveal that Putin and Trump are blood brother members of the NWO Satanist government. After that it's all chemtrails, Rothchilds, False flag, weed cures cancer, Flat earth, clonus the part horror, etc.

A lot of ways that could have happened. I really doubt anyone at our bases is altering satellite data or something.

Could be pretty easy for the rebels to fake this. They know Assad is beginning to attack a town. They have a way to know when a plane takes off and when bombs will be dropped. they know the approximate targets. They have nerve gas. They blow it up when the plane drops the bombs....

We get into another quagmire.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 07, 2017, 10:40:54 AM
They've hidden the real launch codes between two books in the Pentagon... Trump only has the Powerball numbers from last year.

LOL! Thank you for that.

Why do you think Ivanka has moved into the White House? She is tasked with keeping good old Dad away from the red button.

Except on the Sabbath.
? her sabbath is tomorrow.

Yeah, so if he does something nutso tomorrow, there's your answer.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 07, 2017, 10:41:34 AM
Quote
Next they will say that Syria's Assad is using nerve gas on his own people so our military has an excuse to go to war there.

You know this conspiracy has to be already making the rounds. Putin told Assad to use a gas attack and then told Trump to respond with force as a prelude to a major US invasion which will distract from the hacking scandal which threatens to reveal that Putin and Trump are blood brother members of the NWO Satanist government. After that it's all chemtrails, Rothchilds, False flag, weed cures cancer, Flat earth, clonus the part horror, etc.

A lot of ways that could have happened. I really doubt anyone at our bases is altering satellite data or something.

Could be pretty easy for the rebels to fake this. They know Assad is beginning to attack a town. They have a way to know when a plane takes off and when bombs will be dropped. they know the approximate targets. They have nerve gas. They blow it up when the plane drops the bombs....

We get into another quagmire.

... or maybe it is consistent with decades of the Assad family style of rule. Here's an example from Assad's father in 1981: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre

Assad's well-documented use of torture at a scale that is a bit tough to comprehend:
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-prisons-torture-20160817-snap-story.html
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/16/if-dead-could-speak/mass-deaths-and-torture-syrias-detention-facilities

That Assad has used chemcial weapons on his own people just a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

... and that it is highly unlikely that the removal of chemical weapons from Syria in 2014 was complete. Russia has been a long-standing ally of Syria for economic and military interests for a long time and has an obvious motivation (and long track record in many instances) of spreading disinformation, such as that the rebels procured sarin and used it as a false flag op.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on April 07, 2017, 10:55:47 AM
They've hidden the real launch codes between two books in the Pentagon... Trump only has the Powerball numbers from last year.

LOL! Thank you for that.

Why do you think Ivanka has moved into the White House? She is tasked with keeping good old Dad away from the red button.

Except on the Sabbath.
? her sabbath is tomorrow.

Yeah, so if he does something nutso tomorrow, there's your answer.
ok. I thought you were implying since the missiles were launched this morning it must have been because she was not there to stop him. Miscommunication.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on April 07, 2017, 11:03:42 AM
Quote
Next they will say that Syria's Assad is using nerve gas on his own people so our military has an excuse to go to war there.

You know this conspiracy has to be already making the rounds. Putin told Assad to use a gas attack and then told Trump to respond with force as a prelude to a major US invasion which will distract from the hacking scandal which threatens to reveal that Putin and Trump are blood brother members of the NWO Satanist government. After that it's all chemtrails, Rothchilds, False flag, weed cures cancer, Flat earth, clonus the part horror, etc.

A lot of ways that could have happened. I really doubt anyone at our bases is altering satellite data or something.

Could be pretty easy for the rebels to fake this. They know Assad is beginning to attack a town. They have a way to know when a plane takes off and when bombs will be dropped. they know the approximate targets. They have nerve gas. They blow it up when the plane drops the bombs....

We get into another quagmire.

... or maybe it is consistent with decades of the Assad family style of rule. Here's an example from Assad's father in 1981: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre

That was his dad. He knows chem/bio weapons are off the table if he wants to keep is position. Granted he is a dictator but just seems dumb, and even in the short term military analysis, dumb

Assad's well-documented use of torture at a scale that is a bit tough to comprehend:
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-prisons-torture-20160817-snap-story.html
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/16/if-dead-could-speak/mass-deaths-and-torture-syrias-detention-facilities

Yes, he is a dictator. that is why they call them dictators.

That Assad has used chemcial weapons on his own people just a few years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

... and that it is highly unlikely that the removal of chemical weapons from Syria in 2014 was complete. Russia has been a long-standing ally of Syria for economic and military interests for a long time and has an obvious motivation (and long track record in many instances) of spreading disinformation, such as that the rebels procured sarin and used it as a false flag op.

my points are bolded; i hate to overly quote-post.

Either way the cui bono here is for the rebels to have planted this, see; 59 tomahawk missiles.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 07, 2017, 11:57:07 AM

my points are bolded; i hate to overly quote-post.

Either way the cui bono here is for the rebels to have planted this, see; 59 tomahawk missiles.

But, that the rebels planted this is not actually proven, and appears to be promoted only by Assad, Russia, and some fringe news sources. It is far more probable that Assad assumed that he could get away with it because of Trump's proclaimed realpolitik approach in which he said that we had to just accept that Assad was probably going to remain in power.

Why would Assad do it? For the same reason he (and his father before him) have generally adopted a scorched earth policy: destroy the hope of any who may oppose the regime. A gas attack is terrible and if he assumed that Trump would do nothing, would further the psychological aspects of the war campaign. This is why they bomb aid convoys just as they are arriving, etc, etc, etc.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 07, 2017, 12:43:30 PM
They were for sure dropping barrel bombs from helicopters at altitude in an urban environment. There's no reason to think they wouldn't use sarin. I haven't spent a ton of time digging through the various claims on the most recent attack, but nothing about it is in any way surprising.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 07, 2017, 01:48:36 PM
Plus, isn't the burden of evidence on the "alternate" (to be generous) or conspiratorial theory over the more obvious, simple explanation? Occam's Razor applies. The obvious explanation is the Assad regime used chemical weapons on the populace, with plenty of evidence to support that. I've seen ZERO evidence supporting the alternate claim it was engineered by "the rebels."

Using the "cui bono" ("who benefits" -- I had to look it up) standard might be interesting for us internet sleuths, but it is hardly convincing. That is the exact standard floated by 9/11 conspirators claiming the Israelis or military industrial complex engineered the attacks on New York and D.C. (also with no evidence). This alternate-facts explanation floated by, who guessed it, Russia and Syria, that the Syrian chemical attack was engineered by the regime opposition, smells just like the 9/11 and other ridiculous like-minded conspiracies to me (no horrible pun intended).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 07, 2017, 04:16:01 PM
In other news, the airbase is already operational. Because of course it is.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on April 07, 2017, 04:20:35 PM
In other news, the airbase is already operational. Because of course it is.

Wait, you mean we spent a hundred million dollars in cruise missiles to deactivate an airstrip for 14 hours?  That doesn't seem very cost effective...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 07, 2017, 04:58:56 PM
In other news, the airbase is already operational. Because of course it is.

Wait, you mean we spent a hundred million dollars in cruise missiles to deactivate an airstrip for 14 hours?  That doesn't seem very cost effective...
Jeez. I wonder if maybe the Russians tipped the Syrians off seeing as how we alerted the Russians an hour before the strikes?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 07, 2017, 05:26:29 PM
NBC News reports 24 Syrian aircraft were destroyed, plus significant damage to structures. So while the air base may or may not be operational (depending on who we are to believe), destroying 24 aircraft is at least not trivial.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on April 07, 2017, 06:14:52 PM
destroying 24 aircraft is at least not trivial.

I hope those 24 aircraft were worth at least four million US dollars each, or else they got the better end of this trade.  Cruise missiles are expensive.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 07, 2017, 06:29:20 PM
The attack, though mostly symbolic, was a modestly good move by Trump since it backs him out of the non-interventionist corner he painted himself into. He will now be more credible when speaking of red lines. The issues regarding the War Resolution Act of 1973 are irrelevant given the historical precedent of ignoring the letter (if not the spirit) of that legislation.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Abe on April 07, 2017, 09:09:51 PM
In other news, the airbase is already operational. Because of course it is.

Wait, you mean we spent a hundred million dollars in cruise missiles to deactivate an airstrip for 14 hours?  That doesn't seem very cost effective...

Trump always secures great deals because he speaks his mind and is a successful businessman, etc etc

In college, a history professor of mine who was an officer in the US Air Force was in charge of targeting VC assets. He said to us "We used to ask...if a $80k bomb hits a bamboo bridge, did the bomb destroy the bridge, or did the bridge destroy the bomb?"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: KBecks on April 08, 2017, 06:34:05 AM
They've hidden the real launch codes between two books in the Pentagon... Trump only has the Powerball numbers from last year.

LOL! Thank you for that.

Why do you think Ivanka has moved into the White House? She is tasked with keeping good old Dad away from the red button.

Except on the Sabbath.

Anti-Semitic much, or what's your point, then?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 08, 2017, 07:12:45 AM
The attack, though mostly symbolic, was a modestly good move by Trump since it backs him out of the non-interventionist corner he painted himself into. He will now be more credible when speaking of red lines. The issues regarding the War Resolution Act of 1973 are irrelevant given the historical precedent of ignoring the letter (if not the spirit) of that legislation.

No, it was a terrible move because it put us in a less secure position in the region. All of the agreements about not shooting down each others' aircraft are out the window. The deescalation hotline is dead. The Russians are putting in more advanced SAM batteries. We didn't even hit the building where they kept the sarin. We didn't disable the runway. It was worse than useless. It was actively bad for American interests in the region. Going forward, we're going to be dealing with a major area-denial situation that previously didn't exist. Good luck trying to keep all those 5th gen stealth fighters on station when the tankers can't get close enough.

It was a fucking stupid move. Although, I can sort of understand it from the DoD's perspective. The "wait for the right opportunity" option was probably off the table per Trump. A Tomahawk strike was probably the least bad option, and looks good on TV.


Except on the Sabbath.

Anti-Semitic much, or what's your point, then?

No, not being anti-Semitic at all. My point was that a lot of the crazier shit he Tweeted during the campaign happened when his daughter was observing the Sabbath. Presumably, she hasn't really been around to manage any of that since the inauguration. Maybe it'll improve now that she's in the White House, except on the Sabbath.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: wenchsenior on April 08, 2017, 07:30:58 AM
NBC News reports 24 Syrian aircraft were destroyed, plus significant damage to structures. So while the air base may or may not be operational (depending on who we are to believe), destroying 24 aircraft is at least not trivial.

Unless it was like the Davis-Monthan 'bone yard'.  That would be kind of funny, though.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 08, 2017, 07:33:27 AM
destroying 24 aircraft is at least not trivial.

I hope those 24 aircraft were worth at least four million US dollars each, or else they got the better end of this trade.  Cruise missiles are expensive.

Eh.  The US military has never been concerned about cost effectiveness.  Look at the money spent bombing tents and caves in Afghanistan.  You don't get use a 600 billion dollar a year budget and worry about pinching pennies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 08, 2017, 07:34:19 AM

No, it was a terrible move because it put us in a less secure position in the region. All of the agreements about not shooting down each others' aircraft are out the window. The deescalation hotline is dead. The Russians are putting in more advanced SAM batteries. We didn't even hit the building where they kept the sarin. We didn't disable the runway. It was worse than useless. It was actively bad for American interests in the region. Going forward, we're going to be dealing with a major area-denial situation that previously didn't exist. Good luck trying to keep all those 5th gen stealth fighters on station when the tankers can't get close enough.

It was a fucking stupid move. Although, I can sort of understand it from the DoD's perspective. The "wait for the right opportunity" option was probably off the table per Trump. A Tomahawk strike was probably the least bad option, and looks good on TV.


So what is the red line for taking action ? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 08, 2017, 09:18:24 AM

No, it was a terrible move because it put us in a less secure position in the region. All of the agreements about not shooting down each others' aircraft are out the window. The deescalation hotline is dead. The Russians are putting in more advanced SAM batteries. We didn't even hit the building where they kept the sarin. We didn't disable the runway. It was worse than useless. It was actively bad for American interests in the region. Going forward, we're going to be dealing with a major area-denial situation that previously didn't exist. Good luck trying to keep all those 5th gen stealth fighters on station when the tankers can't get close enough.

It was a fucking stupid move. Although, I can sort of understand it from the DoD's perspective. The "wait for the right opportunity" option was probably off the table per Trump. A Tomahawk strike was probably the least bad option, and looks good on TV.


So what is the red line for taking action ?

Apparently, it's not use of chemical weapons. Assad did it again yesterday, one day after the bomb strike. Trump is apparently not going to act this time.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/04/07/assad-just-responded-trumps-strike-gassing-innocent-civilians/
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 08, 2017, 11:10:34 AM

No, it was a terrible move because it put us in a less secure position in the region. All of the agreements about not shooting down each others' aircraft are out the window. The deescalation hotline is dead. The Russians are putting in more advanced SAM batteries. We didn't even hit the building where they kept the sarin. We didn't disable the runway. It was worse than useless. It was actively bad for American interests in the region. Going forward, we're going to be dealing with a major area-denial situation that previously didn't exist. Good luck trying to keep all those 5th gen stealth fighters on station when the tankers can't get close enough.

It was a fucking stupid move. Although, I can sort of understand it from the DoD's perspective. The "wait for the right opportunity" option was probably off the table per Trump. A Tomahawk strike was probably the least bad option, and looks good on TV.


So what is the red line for taking action ?

It's not even about the red lines. Using chemical weapons is horrible and inhumane, but maybe biding our time and waiting for an opportunity for a decisive strike was the better option.

Lobbing Tomahawks was pointless and did nothing but hurt us. If we were going to say "fuck it," and torpedo the tenuous arrangement we had in the region, then at least make it a clean job. A flight of B2s dropping JDAMs would be a better choice for targeting an airfield. They didn't even bother to pretend to hit the runway. If anything, our response makes us look even weaker, and encourages more bad behavior. Now, Assad (and whoever else) can basically work under the assumption that heinous war crimes will be met with token fireworks and plenty of advance notice.

It's fucking amateur hour at the top here. God only knows what the mid-level military folks were thinking when the orders came through. It couldn't have been pleasant.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 08, 2017, 11:39:20 AM
The attack, though mostly symbolic, was a modestly good move by Trump since it backs him out of the non-interventionist corner he painted himself into. He will now be more credible when speaking of red lines. The issues regarding the War Resolution Act of 1973 are irrelevant given the historical precedent of ignoring the letter (if not the spirit) of that legislation.

No, it was a terrible move because it put us in a less secure position in the region. All of the agreements about not shooting down each others' aircraft are out the window. The deescalation hotline is dead. The Russians are putting in more advanced SAM batteries. We didn't even hit the building where they kept the sarin. We didn't disable the runway. It was worse than useless. It was actively bad for American interests in the region. Going forward, we're going to be dealing with a major area-denial situation that previously didn't exist. Good luck trying to keep all those 5th gen stealth fighters on station when the tankers can't get close enough.

It was a fucking stupid move. Although, I can sort of understand it from the DoD's perspective. The "wait for the right opportunity" option was probably off the table per Trump. A Tomahawk strike was probably the least bad option, and looks good on TV.
The Russians were given advance notice of the attack and Putin embraces realpolitik wholeheartedly so that he knows to ignore this operation (and because we know this about Putin [and he knows that we know], the attack likely calculated all of this in the background; Trump might be a moron but Mattis and McMaster are not).

My point wasn't arguing about the US's (vaguely defined) interests in the area nor was it about the efficacy of this attack; rather, the critical point was to redefine Trump's dovish foreign policy tilt in favor of one where military action is credible. I suspect had Hilary won, al-Assad would not have used chemical weapons (assuming the motivation was to test Trump's resolve rather than an unauthorized use not centrally coordinated by al-Assad) because of Hillary's more hawkish stance.

Secondly, Trump practically had to do something like this after talking about red lines. It may have been a sloppy thoughtless mistake to brashly speak the way he did about the situation in Syria, but once he did, not following through with some action would make Trump appear extremely weak to the detriment of US foreign policy in general.

Which brings me to the last point: one can't take this Syria mission a la carte while ignoring its impact on other US objectives around the world. This attack gives the US more sabre-rattling credibility in "negotiating" other hot-spots, like North Korea.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 08, 2017, 12:11:56 PM
Putin didn't ignore it, and our forces are now less safe than they were last week.

https://news.usni.org/2017/04/07/russia-suspends-air-space-deconfliction-agreement-with-u-s-navy-osd-pushing-for-continued-safety-related-dialogue

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-07/russia-upgrade-syria-air-defenses-halts-air-safety-agreement-us

https://www.rt.com/news/383942-russia-missile-protection-syria/

And the strike was a fucking joke. It gives us less credibility throughout the world.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 08, 2017, 12:25:26 PM
Of course Russia has to say things like that to save face but if you actually read the USNI article with the misleading headline, the US officials all claim the deconfliction network is still in place (further proof of this is that Zero Hedge [lol] picked up the story).

The RT article is about military hardware deployed years ago (does Putin have a DeLorean?).

Perhaps of interest, a NYTimes take (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/us/politics/trump-doctrine-foreign-policy.html?_r=0) on the strike.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 08, 2017, 02:49:08 PM
Of course Russia has to say things like that to save face but if you actually read the USNI article with the misleading headline, the US officials all claim the deconfliction network is still in place (further proof of this is that Zero Hedge [lol] picked up the story).

The RT article is about military hardware deployed years ago (does Putin have a DeLorean?).

Perhaps of interest, a NYTimes take (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/us/politics/trump-doctrine-foreign-policy.html?_r=0) on the strike.

That article does nothing to make Trump look more credible.

The point remains: the strike was a joke.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 08, 2017, 05:59:37 PM
Of course Russia has to say things like that to save face but if you actually read the USNI article with the misleading headline, the US officials all claim the deconfliction network is still in place (further proof of this is that Zero Hedge [lol] picked up the story).

The RT article is about military hardware deployed years ago (does Putin have a DeLorean?).

Perhaps of interest, a NYTimes take (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/us/politics/trump-doctrine-foreign-policy.html?_r=0) on the strike.

That article does nothing to make Trump look more credible.

The point remains: the strike was a joke.
79 senators disagree (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-clear-majority-of-senators-support-trumps-syria-airstrike/), including 30 Democrats so this is Trump's first action to find bipartisan support outside of a couple of his administrative nominees.

And the view from Europe as quoted in the NYTimes article:

After the missile strike, Israeli news outlets were filled with headlines like “The Americans Are Back,” and European leaders expressed relief both that he had taken action and that he had not gone too far.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: rocketpj on April 08, 2017, 07:47:36 PM
I am deeply disturbed by how hard so many politicians and media types are trying to act like this is finally a sign that he is going be a real president.  For a non-complex thinker like Trump, who has an infantile need for approval, that just means he will throw more bombs into hotspots around the world to get another approval fix.

A bunch of bought and paid for senators approving bombing somewhere sounds, to a non-American, like just another weekday in the US. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 08, 2017, 10:44:01 PM
I am deeply disturbed by how hard so many politicians and media types are trying to act like this is finally a sign that he is going be a real president.  For a non-complex thinker like Trump, who has an infantile need for approval, that just means he will throw more bombs into hotspots around the world to get another approval fix.

A bunch of bought and paid for senators approving bombing somewhere sounds, to a non-American, like just another weekday in the US.

I wouldn't say this is a sign he is going to be "real" (whatever that means) but rather one that indicates the less-crazy members (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/white-house-kushner-bannon-military-strike.html) in his entourage are winning the battle of influence over Trump's woefully inadequate attention span.

Who "bought and paid for" the senators in a way that's relevant to their opinion on Syria?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 09, 2017, 11:49:30 AM
79 senators disagree (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-clear-majority-of-senators-support-trumps-syria-airstrike/), including 30 Democrats so this is Trump's first action to find bipartisan support outside of a couple of his administrative nominees.

And the view from Europe as quoted in the NYTimes article:

After the missile strike, Israeli news outlets were filled with headlines like “The Americans Are Back,” and European leaders expressed relief both that he had taken action and that he had not gone too far.

Show me some kind of evidence, or even someone putting forth an argument, that dropping missiles on that airbase accomplished any kind of military goal. Scoring political points by making stuff go boom is fucking stupid.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 09, 2017, 01:01:37 PM
China's mocking us for the missile strike now, too.

Trump is "a weakened politician who needed to flex his muscles."

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/china-mocks-trump-missile-strike-after-xi-leaves-us-a-weakened-politician-who-needed-to-flex-his-muscles/

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 09, 2017, 01:34:34 PM
Long after my mom left (escaped?) the USSR she would read Pravda newspaper because she wanted to remind herself why she left. I'm not sure anyone actually took Pravda seriously (let alone literally!) and Xinhua is probably no different. None of this talk about Syria is about the Syrian actions anyway: China has close to zero strategic interest there. It's about maneuvering for credible leverage in east Asia (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/09/us-navy-strike-group-north-korea-peninsula-syria-missile-strike).

Show me some kind of evidence, or even someone putting forth an argument, that dropping missiles on that airbase accomplished any kind of military goal. Scoring political points by making stuff go boom is fucking stupid.
As stated before, there was not a military goal involved in the operation. This was a signal that redefined US foreign policy commitments far beyond Syria. It's ridiculous in a way, yes, but compared to tomahawk missiles, talk is cheap (especially if the talk consists of gold-plated shit, i.e. Trump tweets).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 09, 2017, 02:24:11 PM
Long after my mom left (escaped?) the USSR she would read Pravda newspaper because she wanted to remind herself why she left. I'm not sure anyone actually took Pravda seriously (let alone literally!) and Xinhua is probably no different. None of this talk about Syria is about the Syrian actions anyway: China has close to zero strategic interest there. It's about maneuvering for credible leverage in east Asia (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/09/us-navy-strike-group-north-korea-peninsula-syria-missile-strike).

Show me some kind of evidence, or even someone putting forth an argument, that dropping missiles on that airbase accomplished any kind of military goal. Scoring political points by making stuff go boom is fucking stupid.
As stated before, there was not a military goal involved in the operation. This was a signal that redefined US foreign policy commitments far beyond Syria. It's ridiculous in a way, yes, but compared to tomahawk missiles, talk is cheap (especially if the talk consists of gold-plated shit, i.e. Trump tweets).

So, you see nothing at all significant in the fact that the state-run news agency of China made a point of saying something so contemptuous and mocking of the US president literally hours after China's leader was here for an official visit?

Personally, I'm damn sick of our leader being a goddamn international embarrassment. He makes us look like fools. And I wouldn't mind so much, except that what the Chinese news agency published is absolutely true.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 09, 2017, 07:31:56 PM
Long after my mom left (escaped?) the USSR she would read Pravda newspaper because she wanted to remind herself why she left. I'm not sure anyone actually took Pravda seriously (let alone literally!) and Xinhua is probably no different. None of this talk about Syria is about the Syrian actions anyway: China has close to zero strategic interest there. It's about maneuvering for credible leverage in east Asia (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/09/us-navy-strike-group-north-korea-peninsula-syria-missile-strike).

Show me some kind of evidence, or even someone putting forth an argument, that dropping missiles on that airbase accomplished any kind of military goal. Scoring political points by making stuff go boom is fucking stupid.
As stated before, there was not a military goal involved in the operation. This was a signal that redefined US foreign policy commitments far beyond Syria. It's ridiculous in a way, yes, but compared to tomahawk missiles, talk is cheap (especially if the talk consists of gold-plated shit, i.e. Trump tweets).

So, you see nothing at all significant in the fact that the state-run news agency of China made a point of saying something so contemptuous and mocking of the US president literally hours after China's leader was here for an official visit?

Personally, I'm damn sick of our leader being a goddamn international embarrassment. He makes us look like fools. And I wouldn't mind so much, except that what the Chinese news agency published is absolutely true.
I don't believe that foreign policy should be guided by how it will be described within a Chinese propaganda rag. Does Xi Jinping worry about how he is portrayed in Rush Limbaugh rants?

One has to distinguish between Trump looking the fool and US policy being in error. Trump demonstrates his inadequacy every time he hammers out 140 characters with his tiny hands, but fortunately for us, he hasn't drained the swamp and is up to his double-chin in deep state informing and shaping his actions.

And if your criticism of Trump is to any extent informed by your participation in a rival political tribe, the Syrian intervention is a bit of a victory since it is a drastic departure from a core element of his platform: "America-First" non-interventionism. If you listen very carefully, you can already hear the Claremonsters (http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Academic-Home-of-Trumpism/239495) and other pseudo-intellectual bottom feeders crying out to the gods in confusion (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/trumps-disillusioned-supporters/522336/). If the world is going to burn, at least we can enjoy it with a side of schadenfreude?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 10, 2017, 07:22:17 AM
Long after my mom left (escaped?) the USSR she would read Pravda newspaper because she wanted to remind herself why she left. I'm not sure anyone actually took Pravda seriously (let alone literally!) and Xinhua is probably no different. None of this talk about Syria is about the Syrian actions anyway: China has close to zero strategic interest there. It's about maneuvering for credible leverage in east Asia (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/09/us-navy-strike-group-north-korea-peninsula-syria-missile-strike).

Show me some kind of evidence, or even someone putting forth an argument, that dropping missiles on that airbase accomplished any kind of military goal. Scoring political points by making stuff go boom is fucking stupid.
As stated before, there was not a military goal involved in the operation. This was a signal that redefined US foreign policy commitments far beyond Syria. It's ridiculous in a way, yes, but compared to tomahawk missiles, talk is cheap (especially if the talk consists of gold-plated shit, i.e. Trump tweets).

So, you see nothing at all significant in the fact that the state-run news agency of China made a point of saying something so contemptuous and mocking of the US president literally hours after China's leader was here for an official visit?

Personally, I'm damn sick of our leader being a goddamn international embarrassment. He makes us look like fools. And I wouldn't mind so much, except that what the Chinese news agency published is absolutely true.
I don't believe that foreign policy should be guided by how it will be described within a Chinese propaganda rag. Does Xi Jinping worry about how he is portrayed in Rush Limbaugh rants?

One has to distinguish between Trump looking the fool and US policy being in error. Trump demonstrates his inadequacy every time he hammers out 140 characters with his tiny hands, but fortunately for us, he hasn't drained the swamp and is up to his double-chin in deep state informing and shaping his actions.

And if your criticism of Trump is to any extent informed by your participation in a rival political tribe, the Syrian intervention is a bit of a victory since it is a drastic departure from a core element of his platform: "America-First" non-interventionism. If you listen very carefully, you can already hear the Claremonsters (http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Academic-Home-of-Trumpism/239495) and other pseudo-intellectual bottom feeders crying out to the gods in confusion (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/trumps-disillusioned-supporters/522336/). If the world is going to burn, at least we can enjoy it with a side of schadenfreude?

Psh. It was a publicity stunt. It's wildly exaggerating to call this anything like a "departure" from anything. If you're enjoying this merely because people who piss you off are pissed off by it, then that's your prerogative, I guess.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on April 10, 2017, 08:56:45 AM
Quote
Scoring political points by making stuff go boom is fucking stupid.

This may offend your keen sense of warrior honor yet, it has been a useful mainstay of political action literally since the day the first sword was forged.

Quote
So, you see nothing at all significant in the fact that the state-run news agency of China made a point of saying something so contemptuous and mocking of the US president literally hours after China's leader was here for an official visit?

Kris, no. It's not significant at all. Sure, Trump is a dangerous embarrassment and mocking him is like shooting fish in a barrel. BUT, Chinese state outlets would be trumpeting this meeting as a victory for Xi no matter who was in the White House. China has significant domestic problems and significant international ambitions which only partly overlap with any US interests. State outlets have a vested duty to help prop up the regime - Jesus Christ could be President and Chinese propaganda outlets would still be barking about how God's Son is spineless coward who can't stand up to a real man like Xi.

The US wields a disproportionate influence in global politics but, not *everything* that other countries do is:
A) related to that country's relationship with the US
B) an accurate reflection of any international relationship

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on April 10, 2017, 09:15:31 AM
Quote
Scoring political points by making stuff go boom is fucking stupid.

This may offend your keen sense of warrior honor yet, it has been a useful mainstay of political action literally since the day the first sword was forged.

Quote
So, you see nothing at all significant in the fact that the state-run news agency of China made a point of saying something so contemptuous and mocking of the US president literally hours after China's leader was here for an official visit?

Kris, no. It's not significant at all. Sure, Trump is a dangerous embarrassment and mocking him is like shooting fish in a barrel. BUT, Chinese state outlets would be trumpeting this meeting as a victory for Xi no matter who was in the White House. China has significant domestic problems and significant international ambitions which only partly overlap with any US interests. State outlets have a vested duty to help prop up the regime - Jesus Christ could be President and Chinese propaganda outlets would still be barking about how God's Son is spineless coward who can't stand up to a real man like Xi.

The US wields a disproportionate influence in global politics but, not *everything* that other countries do is:
A) related to that country's relationship with the US
B) an accurate reflection of any international relationship
I think we've all had a recent demonstration that propaganda works: it changes people's attitudes and actions.  It matters.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 10, 2017, 09:35:41 AM

The US wields a disproportionate influence in global politics but, not *everything* that other countries do is:
A) related to that country's relationship with the US
B) an accurate reflection of any international relationship

This is true. And I wasn't arguing the contrary, either in general or in this particular case.

I would guess that you would also say the ways other countries talk in their official statements about this particular American president aren't really important. And in that, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on April 10, 2017, 10:18:11 AM
Now I might not even get my lousy tax cut:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_TAXES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-09-08-36-18
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gondolin on April 10, 2017, 10:18:53 AM
Quote
I think we've all had a recent demonstration that propaganda works: it changes people's attitudes and actions.  It matters.

I wasn't arguing about the efficacy of propaganda. Your statement is quite correct. Rather, the question was, should we care about the effect of foreign propaganda on foreign populations as a barometer for the likely policy stances of the government producing that propaganda.

Quote
I would guess that you would also say the ways other countries talk in their official statements about this particular American president aren't really important.

I would argue that when it comes to "other country's talk", not all countries are created equally. To my mind, the German election of Steinmeier, Tusk's comments, and various criticisms from the French, German, UK, Austrian (et. al.) governments are far more 'significant' (mostly because they were honest off-the-cuff commentary) than highly censored press clippings coming from a Beijing government with obvious reasons to denigrate the US regardless of who is in the White House. If you don't think that piece was written, vetted, and ready to print before Xi ever got on the plane...

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 10, 2017, 12:35:37 PM
Quote
I think we've all had a recent demonstration that propaganda works: it changes people's attitudes and actions.  It matters.

I wasn't arguing about the efficacy of propaganda. Your statement is quite correct. Rather, the question was, should we care about the effect of foreign propaganda on foreign populations as a barometer for the likely policy stances of the government producing that propaganda.

Quote
I would guess that you would also say the ways other countries talk in their official statements about this particular American president aren't really important.

I would argue that when it comes to "other country's talk", not all countries are created equally. To my mind, the German election of Steinmeier, Tusk's comments, and various criticisms from the French, German, UK, Austrian (et. al.) governments are far more 'significant' (mostly because they were honest off-the-cuff commentary) than highly censored press clippings coming from a Beijing government with obvious reasons to denigrate the US regardless of who is in the White House. If you don't think that piece was written, vetted, and ready to print before Xi ever got on the plane...

Of course it was.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 10, 2017, 02:36:41 PM
Quote
I think we've all had a recent demonstration that propaganda works: it changes people's attitudes and actions.  It matters.

I wasn't arguing about the efficacy of propaganda. Your statement is quite correct. Rather, the question was, should we care about the effect of foreign propaganda on foreign populations as a barometer for the likely policy stances of the government producing that propaganda.

Quote
I would guess that you would also say the ways other countries talk in their official statements about this particular American president aren't really important.

I would argue that when it comes to "other country's talk", not all countries are created equally. To my mind, the German election of Steinmeier, Tusk's comments, and various criticisms from the French, German, UK, Austrian (et. al.) governments are far more 'significant' (mostly because they were honest off-the-cuff commentary) than highly censored press clippings coming from a Beijing government with obvious reasons to denigrate the US regardless of who is in the White House. If you don't think that piece was written, vetted, and ready to print before Xi ever got on the plane...

Of course it was.

I hear they even wrote the part about the Syria air strikes before it happened!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on April 11, 2017, 06:30:56 AM
So what's the over/under on Chump going to war with NK? Gawd I don't miss having Republicans in charge.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on April 11, 2017, 12:32:28 PM
Besides the obvious hypocrisy over things like golfing, here is an interesting article illustrating what appears to be much more consistent ideology from Dems vs. consistent partisanship from Repubs, at least when it comes to military action in Syria:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/04/11/daily-202-reflexive-partisanship-drives-polling-lurch-on-syria-strikes/58ec27d4e9b69b3a72331e6e/?utm_term=.7412cbec5a24&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1'

From the article:

"In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.

A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason.

...

For context, 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on April 11, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
So what's the over/under on Chump going to war with NK? Gawd I don't miss having Republicans in charge.

I'd say the odds depend heavily on if Ivanka sees a picture of a starving North Korean child or not.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/ivanka-trump-syria-strike-influence-telegraph/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/ivanka-trump-syria-strike-influence-telegraph/index.html)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 12, 2017, 05:59:49 PM
I'll play the NK prediction game: I will throw out a 10% chance of a conflict within the next year.

The situation is becoming critical as NK has apparently gone all-in on a strategy of defense predicated on increasing its nuclear launch capabilities. NK suspects it can pose a credible regional nuclear threat sooner than international pressure can address the situation, and that the US would not risk a preemptive strike. Obama was apparently ready to declare diplomatic solutions without Chinese support to be futile and although the left-of-launch sabotage efforts by the US have drastically slowed missile development progress in NK for some time, that effort alone will not contain NK's capabilities for much longer.

China, for its part, has no good options either: its intervention could precipitate a disorderly collapse of NK and cooperation with the US would signal some degree of subordination of their own interests to those of the US. And following reunification, a united Korea would be a massive inconvenience for China. Hence, such measures would be risky and have high prestige costs for China's leadership.

So what the US could do is build up a very credible image that a preemptive strike is imminent. If successful, that would raise the cost of inaction for China such that they might go down the path of strong-arming NK, despite the risks and lost face from doing so.

Foreign Affairs magazine early this year suggested a renewed policy of engagement and security-assurances for NK as the best approach, but given how close NK seems to think it is to its nuclear goals, I don't see how that would succeed at this late stage.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on April 13, 2017, 06:28:11 AM
Though I still don't like the Syria strikes on principle it seems like it may have been a smart move; geopolitically. Trump/USA doesn't tolerate Sarin gas so of course anything that smells of nuclear is going to get hit. Russia gets to keep Syria as a puppet state if it plays ball in NK. China is clearly dis aligning itself with NK; see return of coal imports.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Sockigal on April 13, 2017, 11:37:20 AM
What the heck is going on? Why is the US military suddenly so interested in dropping bombs? The first attack in Syria seemed to do very little damage for 50 bombs. I was a little confused why we would do minor damage, but was thinking it was Trumps plan to distance himself from the Russia story. The dialogue from Team Trump over the days following the Syria bombing seem to support that theory. Yesterday he said relations with Russia are at an all time low. Unless you have rose colored glasses and have drunk the cool aid, I think most of us see right through this spinning of truth and games.

But what's with the current bombing? I know some of the voices online suggested after Trump couldn't get many of his executive orders & bills through congress passed he would turn to wartime efforts. Urgh..... I'm not against using force in the world to conquer evil, but I definitely think diplomacy and unity with our allies is the way to go for most problems. Trump doesn't seem to have a foreign policy plan right now. His team constantly sends out conflicting and confusing messages. Right now it feels like the Trump is using war toys for distraction from the Russia issue. Will it work?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/afghanistan-isis-moab-bomb/index.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 13, 2017, 11:49:52 AM
"The strike on Tuesday was the third time in a month that American-led airstrikes may have killed civilians or allies. The military called the episode 'tragic.'"

Trump's engagement in Syria is making Obama's policies look more and more prescient.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 13, 2017, 01:00:39 PM
What the heck is going on? Why is the US military suddenly so interested in dropping bombs? The first attack in Syria seemed to do very little damage for 50 bombs. I was a little confused why we would do minor damage, but was thinking it was Trumps plan to distance himself from the Russia story. The dialogue from Team Trump over the days following the Syria bombing seem to support that theory. Yesterday he said relations with Russia are at an all time low. Unless you have rose colored glasses and have drunk the cool aid, I think most of us see right through this spinning of truth and games.

But what's with the current bombing? I know some of the voices online suggested after Trump couldn't get many of his executive orders & bills through congress passed he would turn to wartime efforts. Urgh..... I'm not against using force in the world to conquer evil, but I definitely think diplomacy and unity with our allies is the way to go for most problems. Trump doesn't seem to have a foreign policy plan right now. His team constantly sends out conflicting and confusing messages. Right now it feels like the Trump is using war toys for distraction from the Russia issue. Will it work?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/afghanistan-isis-moab-bomb/index.html

He's coming up on 100 days with a crapload of nothing to show for it and wants to look forceful and like he's accomplishing things.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on April 13, 2017, 01:10:12 PM
What the heck is going on? Why is the US military suddenly so interested in dropping bombs? The first attack in Syria seemed to do very little damage for 50 bombs. I was a little confused why we would do minor damage, but was thinking it was Trumps plan to distance himself from the Russia story. The dialogue from Team Trump over the days following the Syria bombing seem to support that theory. Yesterday he said relations with Russia are at an all time low. Unless you have rose colored glasses and have drunk the cool aid, I think most of us see right through this spinning of truth and games.

But what's with the current bombing? I know some of the voices online suggested after Trump couldn't get many of his executive orders & bills through congress passed he would turn to wartime efforts. Urgh..... I'm not against using force in the world to conquer evil, but I definitely think diplomacy and unity with our allies is the way to go for most problems. Trump doesn't seem to have a foreign policy plan right now. His team constantly sends out conflicting and confusing messages. Right now it feels like the Trump is using war toys for distraction from the Russia issue. Will it work?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/afghanistan-isis-moab-bomb/index.html

He's coming up on 100 days with a crapload of nothing to show for it and wants to look forceful and like he's accomplishing things.

Sadly, bombing brown people remains as popular as ever here in the good old USA.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Retire-Canada on April 13, 2017, 01:14:08 PM
Sadly, bombing brown people remains as popular as ever here in the good old USA.

Indeed. You can only shoot so many in the US before it becomes a problem at least temporarily. OTOH bombing the crap out of them on the other side of the world doesn't cause as many problems.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 13, 2017, 06:10:30 PM
Well, the Syria bombing being viewed as a break-up letter to Putin is charming but I suspect it's still more about swiping left on NK. This article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/04/13/china-is-suddenly-leaning-on-north-korea-and-it-might-be-thanks-to-trump/) is too kind to Trump (Hillary likely would have led us to the same place we're at now) so I think Trump has merely passed from aimlessness to adequacy:

Something interesting is happening in China and perhaps President Trump deserves some credit.

For the first time, the Chinese government appears to have laid down a bottom-line with North Korea and is threatening Pyongyang with a response of “unprecedented ferocity” if the government of Kim Jong Un goes ahead with a test of either an intercontinental ballistic missile or a nuclear device. North Korea will celebrate the 105th anniversary of the birth of its founder, Kim Il Sung, on Saturday, and some type of military show of force is expected.

In an editorial in the semi-official Global Times on April 12, Pyongyang was put on notice that it must reign in its nuclear ambitions, or else China’s oil shipments to North Korea could be “severely limited.” It is extraordinary for China to make this kind of threat. For more than a decade, as part of its strategy to prop up one of its only allies, China refused to allow the U.N. Security Council to even consider cutting oil shipments to the north. Beijing’s calculus was that the maintenance of the North Korean regime took precedence over everything. Now Beijing seems to be reconsidering its position.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on April 14, 2017, 09:21:40 PM
It's actually more terrifying hearing other countries have to tell Trump that nuclear war is dumb (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/14/china-warns-us-north-korea-curb-heated-exchanges/100473262/) than the cold war was.  At least back then there was some acknowledgement that the two best countries on the planet were going to reduce their land to toxic swamps.  People are just more distracted nowadays (and apparently ignorant to the significance of things) and so nuclear war is starting to become more of a real threat than it ever was in the 80's. 

So that, currently, is the most significant impact of Trump - that the US has a giant target on its back and the rest of the world  thinks they're better off with a little less America...  But you know, Trump is a great deal maker.  I'm sure we'll be fine.  Especially if there is an attack, I'm sure we will experience a measured, considerate response - nothing like the ongoing quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: SingleMomDebt on April 14, 2017, 09:52:04 PM
But you know, Trump is a great deal maker.  I'm sure we'll be fine. 

I hope your right cuz I'm a little bit terrified right now...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on April 14, 2017, 10:15:24 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if 'great responsibility' actually was a pre-requisite for great power?  Instead, Americans live in a world where school shootings don't change anything.  Occasionally there are discussions on the second amendment, that get perverted into referendums on  hunting and freedom - when the actual discussion started (and should've ended) on how Columbine and Sandy Hook shooters were overly-well armed.  Obviously there is something wrong when kids can murder tens or hundreds of helpless classmates.

Yeah, America is terrifying.  I have no idea how long it will remain a world leader, but choosing the successor correctly will make or break your future.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 15, 2017, 01:42:55 AM
It's actually more terrifying hearing other countries have to tell Trump that nuclear war is dumb (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/14/china-warns-us-north-korea-curb-heated-exchanges/100473262/) than the cold war was.  At least back then there was some acknowledgement that the two best countries on the planet were going to reduce their land to toxic swamps.  People are just more distracted nowadays (and apparently ignorant to the significance of things) and so nuclear war is starting to become more of a real threat than it ever was in the 80's. 

So that, currently, is the most significant impact of Trump - that the US has a giant target on its back and the rest of the world  thinks they're better off with a little less America...  But you know, Trump is a great deal maker.  I'm sure we'll be fine.  Especially if there is an attack, I'm sure we will experience a measured, considerate response - nothing like the ongoing quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Russia/USSR was never remotely close to being "one of the two best countries." Also there was this incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident) in the 80s and this incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident) in the 90s, though both were the result of Russia/USSR being a really shitty country.

Apparently, the general strategy of the Trump administration on NK (https://www.apnews.com/86626d21ea2b45c79457a873a747c452) was leaked recently:

The Trump administration has settled on its North Korea strategy after a two-month review: "Maximum pressure and engagement."

U.S. officials said Friday the president's advisers weighed a range of ideas for how to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, including military options and trying to overthrow the isolated communist dictatorship's leadership. At the other end of the spectrum, they looked at the notion of accepting North Korea as a nuclear state.

In the end, however, they settled on a policy that appears to represent continuity.

The administration's emphasis, the officials said, will be on increasing pressure on Pyongyang with the help of China, North Korea's dominant trade partner. The officials weren't authorized to speak publicly on the results of the policy review and requested anonymity....
But a U.S. military official, who requested anonymity to discuss planning, said the U.S. doesn't intend to use military force against North Korea in response to either a nuclear test or a missile launch. The official said plans could change in the unlikely event a North Korean missile targets South Korea, Japan or U.S. territory.



China and the US have now both warned NK to refrain from resuming missile or nuclear testing. The NYTimes has an interesting set of satellite imagery (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/12/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test.html?_r=0) showing the extensive earth-works undertaken to prepare for what is presumed to be NK's imminent nuclear test, possibly of a much stronger boosted warhead. It will be interesting to see if the expensive preparation for this test is a bluff, or if not, if NK will proceed with it desptie the added pressure. A lack of a test soon out of NK would suggest progress, possibly brought about by US brinksmanship and increased Chinese diplomatic cooperation (if China wants to post funny pictures of Trump (https://twitter.com/tepingchen/status/852357160776290304) in exchange for cooperation, that's not a bad trade).


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 15, 2017, 07:52:18 PM
Bad news (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/n-korea-didnt-test-a-nuclear-weapon-but-its-display-of-military-hardware-wasnt-exactly-good-news/2017/04/15/49944da8-221c-11e7-bcd6-6d1286bc177d_story.html?utm_term=.3fa96173a59a) that NK attempted a launch but good news it failed. Now China and/or the US will have to respond somehow for ignoring the warnings against ongoing tests. If China doesn't step up, the US will either need to move more military assets into the area until China folds or apply secondary sanctions to Chinese companies doing business with NK, up to and including freezing Chinese banks engaged in business with NK out of the dollar exchange system. Both parties could ignore the attempted launch but that would look far too weak in light of the vigorous warnings, despite the test's failure.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on April 16, 2017, 10:52:16 AM
As long as nobody accidentally blows an American warship out of the water everything will be ok.

I'm trying to imagine the American reaction if China sent a task force into the Caribbean as a show of force.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 16, 2017, 01:00:25 PM
^I'm not sure if that's some impossibly contorted effort to suggest an unfair disparity in moral equivalence between China and the US in pursuit of geopolitical aims. That would be a fair comparison...if only Cuba and the Dominican Republic were China's allies and Haiti had nuclear bombs and was threatening to use them on Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Shanghai.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on April 16, 2017, 07:26:06 PM
I don't think US has the moral high ground these days.  China's geopolitical aims are no more obnoxious than America's.

The similarities to the Cuban missile crisis in the 60's are interesting though.    The US had stationed ballistic missiles in Turkey and Italy, close to the USSR.   In response, the USSR stationed missiles in Cuba.   The US escalated further with a blockade of Cuba.   In the end both the USSR and the US agreed to dismantle their 'strategic' weapons in these locations.   source  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis)

Today we have the US retaliating to North Korean threats by moving military forces into the sea of Japan.   How would you respond if you were the Chinese government?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on April 16, 2017, 08:45:54 PM
Russia/USSR was never remotely close to being "one of the two best countries." Also there was this incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident) in the 80s and this incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident) in the 90s, though both were the result of Russia/USSR being a really shitty country.

Apparently, the general strategy of the Trump administration on NK (https://www.apnews.com/86626d21ea2b45c79457a873a747c452) was leaked recently (snip)

Thanks for the interesting links LostITEA.  Is it a bad thing I'm on edge going in to another week where literally anything geo-politically is possible?  Maybe Trump sends a Tweet that finally pushes the Far East over the edge and they just decide it's best to cut their losses and instead work together against an unpredictable, unaccommodating, and generally bullying West.  Maybe it was better not knowing when the world was balanced on a knife edge at one point?  But then again, past that one point I had assumed that at least there were professionals making life or death decisions for the general populace, but that is out the window.  Trump spends way too much time at Mar-a-Lago (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/trump-family-held-private-easter-egg-hunt-at-mar-a-lago/) for anyone to think he is taking his job or the future of America seriously.  And apparently we are complacent that wars get started by people that have no concept of history or compromise.  Bombing places that he isn't even conversationally aware of their location or significance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eSz8GM5hvM) - terrifying. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on April 17, 2017, 12:11:19 AM
^^ Indeed, I will be glad if Trump's terrifying unpredictability somehow leads to increased peace and security, but from what we know now, it's pretty clear such an outcome will be mostly a result of blind luck, especially since he is already giddily warmongering as much as any of his predecessors regarding the Middle East.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 17, 2017, 06:08:25 AM
^I'm not sure if that's some impossibly contorted effort to suggest an unfair disparity in moral equivalence between China and the US in pursuit of geopolitical aims. That would be a fair comparison...if only Cuba and the Dominican Republic were China's allies and Haiti had nuclear bombs and was threatening to use them on Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Shanghai.

Could you list all the immoral stuff you think that the government of China commits that hasn't also been committed by the United States in the past 30 years?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Just Joe on April 17, 2017, 09:57:02 AM
As long as nobody accidentally blows an American warship out of the water everything will be ok.

I'm trying to imagine the American reaction if China sent a task force into the Caribbean as a show of force.

This is what I keep thinking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Let's tease the crazy dictator of NK until he does something? Is that really a good idea?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on April 17, 2017, 11:13:11 AM
John Oliver did a piece on Nuclear Weapons in 2014 -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g.  Interesting history on America almost nuking itself in 1961 (the Goldsboro Incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash)),  He'd probably be a little embarassed to see the final comment hoping that the US intentionally deploys a nuke as opposed to humanity's final word being 'oops'.  Really hope Trump doesn't see this episode on re-run...
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MDM on April 17, 2017, 05:03:35 PM
Could you list all the immoral stuff you think that the government of China commits that hasn't also been committed by the United States in the past 30 years?

Perhaps China's One-child policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy)?  E.g.,
Quote
As part of the policy, women were required to have a contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) surgically installed after having a first child, and to be sterilized by tubal ligation after having a second child. From 1980 to 2014, 324 million Chinese women were fitted with IUDs in this way and 107 million were sterilized. Women who refused these procedures – which many resented – could lose their government employment and their children could lose access to education or health services. The IUDs installed in this way were modified such that they could not be removed manually, but only through surgery.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on April 17, 2017, 06:19:53 PM
^^ Indeed, I will be glad if Trump's terrifying unpredictability somehow leads to increased peace and security, but from what we know now, it's pretty clear such an outcome will be mostly a result of blind luck, especially since he is already giddily warmongering as much as any of his predecessors regarding the Middle East.

I wonder how excited he was to use the biggest bomb ever.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 17, 2017, 06:44:09 PM
Russia/USSR was never remotely close to being "one of the two best countries." Also there was this incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident) in the 80s and this incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident) in the 90s, though both were the result of Russia/USSR being a really shitty country.

Apparently, the general strategy of the Trump administration on NK (https://www.apnews.com/86626d21ea2b45c79457a873a747c452) was leaked recently (snip)

Thanks for the interesting links LostITEA.  Is it a bad thing I'm on edge going in to another week where literally anything geo-politically is possible?  Maybe Trump sends a Tweet that finally pushes the Far East over the edge and they just decide it's best to cut their losses and instead work together against an unpredictable, unaccommodating, and generally bullying West.  Maybe it was better not knowing when the world was balanced on a knife edge at one point?  But then again, past that one point I had assumed that at least there were professionals making life or death decisions for the general populace, but that is out the window.  Trump spends way too much time at Mar-a-Lago (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/trump-family-held-private-easter-egg-hunt-at-mar-a-lago/) for anyone to think he is taking his job or the future of America seriously.  And apparently we are complacent that wars get started by people that have no concept of history or compromise.  Bombing places that he isn't even conversationally aware of their location or significance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eSz8GM5hvM) - terrifying.
Recent events have reassured me rather than terrified me. Assuming the story on the administration's leaked NK policy is true, it is the result of 2 months of deliberation over a wide range of available options. Rather than live up to his reputation for impulsiveness, such a review process suggests the emergence of a carefully considered policy from Trump's administration (yes, it's bad that Trump is so daft but fortunately he has some good people advising him). As mentioned before, even Obama was running out of hope for strategic patience, with the current facts on the ground constraining plausible courses of action on NK such that they transcend standard ideological divides.

^I'm not sure if that's some impossibly contorted effort to suggest an unfair disparity in moral equivalence between China and the US in pursuit of geopolitical aims. That would be a fair comparison...if only Cuba and the Dominican Republic were China's allies and Haiti had nuclear bombs and was threatening to use them on Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Shanghai.

Could you list all the immoral stuff you think that the government of China commits that hasn't also been committed by the United States in the past 30 years?
My point was the scenario described by scottish was not a fair comparison because none of the salient conditions that exist in northeast Asia exist in the Caribbean. Even if we assume moral equivalence between China and the US (which I don't think is true, but I'm being generous to China), the analogy fails on the basis of the difference between the present and historical differences between those two regions.


Hey, what happened to the Trump supporters that used to post on this thread--did y'all chase them out? It would be interesting to get a different perspective on Trump's foreign policy pivot towards one that is diametrically opposed to his campaign promises. Meanwhile, the reactions of some on the left (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-have-to-avoid-trump-derangement-syndrome/2017/04/13/81ff4a7a-2083-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.html) exhibit a fair amount cognitive dissonance (adherence to ideological purity shaves at least 20 IQ points off of a person).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 17, 2017, 07:36:33 PM
Could you list all the immoral stuff you think that the government of China commits that hasn't also been committed by the United States in the past 30 years?

Perhaps China's One-child policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy)?  E.g.,
Quote
As part of the policy, women were required to have a contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) surgically installed after having a first child, and to be sterilized by tubal ligation after having a second child. From 1980 to 2014, 324 million Chinese women were fitted with IUDs in this way and 107 million were sterilized. Women who refused these procedures – which many resented – could lose their government employment and their children could lose access to education or health services. The IUDs installed in this way were modified such that they could not be removed manually, but only through surgery.

The Chinese government doesn't follow the one child policy any more.

That said, it doesn't sound significantly worse than the United States program of coerced sterilization that went on in the 50's in Puerto Rico.  Or the routine sterilizations of poor black women that went on in the late 60's.  Or the forced sterilization of native women in the 1970s (http://muse.jhu.edu/article/200 (http://muse.jhu.edu/article/200)).

Remember how influential American ideas and enactment of eugenics policies were to the Nazis?  (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php))
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on April 17, 2017, 07:39:47 PM
The US seems to be slowly deteriorating as a progressive society whilst China is slowly improving.    I still prefer the US, but the gap seems to get smaller every year.

Could you list all the immoral stuff you think that the government of China commits that hasn't also been committed by the United States in the past 30 years?

Perhaps China's One-child policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy)?  E.g.,
Quote
As part of the policy, women were required to have a contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) surgically installed after having a first child, and to be sterilized by tubal ligation after having a second child. From 1980 to 2014, 324 million Chinese women were fitted with IUDs in this way and 107 million were sterilized. Women who refused these procedures – which many resented – could lose their government employment and their children could lose access to education or health services. The IUDs installed in this way were modified such that they could not be removed manually, but only through surgery.

While China was pursuing a one child policy, certain states seem to be pursuing a multiple child policy by restricting access to family planning and abortion.     I think we see a little bit of this in the maritimes in Canada as well.    I find the contrasts stark.

And Canada also had forced sterilization programs after WW2.   It was not just the US.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MDM on April 17, 2017, 08:41:34 PM
The Chinese government doesn't follow the one child policy any more.
So that makes it all better, eh?  Just say "we're sorry" and everything is all better?

Quote
That said, it doesn't sound significantly worse than the United States program of coerced sterilization that went on in the 50's in Puerto Rico.  Or the routine sterilizations of poor black women that went on in the late 60's.  Or the forced sterilization of native women in the 1970s (http://muse.jhu.edu/article/200 (http://muse.jhu.edu/article/200)).
So A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/)?  Just my opinion, but hundreds of millions women affected seems pretty tragic.

Quote
Remember how influential American ideas and enactment of eugenics policies were to the Nazis?  (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php))
Appreciate your opinion that a few Americans were so influential, but I suspect Hitler and his merry men would have done their deeds regardless.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 18, 2017, 07:32:55 AM
The one child policy helped to lift China out of exploding population growth and enable hundreds of millions of Chinese to be lifted up out of poverty.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MDM on April 18, 2017, 08:30:41 AM
The one child policy helped to lift China out of exploding population growth and enable hundreds of millions of Chinese to be lifted up out of poverty.
Would you support Trump if he were to propose a similar policy here?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 18, 2017, 09:04:42 AM
The one child policy helped to lift China out of exploding population growth and enable hundreds of millions of Chinese to be lifted up out of poverty.
Would you support Trump if he were to propose a similar policy here?
The One Child policy obviously had major problems. But, I would support it if the GOP, say, didn't actively work against sex education and family planning services so that Americans can make informed decisions about when and how many children they have. The level of understanding on this in many populations in our country is pretty scary and leads to a lot of unwanted/unplanned/extra pregnancies. IMO the sweet spot on this is in the middle. It is not a false choice as you have framed it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on April 18, 2017, 02:11:52 PM
My staunchly republican grandfather pointed this out over Easter:

Right now Trump and Kim Jong-un are locked in some high stakes political theatre.  Of the two, Jong-un has several times more military and political experience. That's frightening.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on April 18, 2017, 09:53:37 PM
The one child policy helped to lift China out of exploding population growth and enable hundreds of millions of Chinese to be lifted up out of poverty.
Would you support Trump if he were to propose a similar policy here?
The One Child policy obviously had major problems. But, I would support it if the GOP, say, didn't actively work against sex education and family planning services so that Americans can make informed decisions about when and how many children they have. The level of understanding on this in many populations in our country is pretty scary and leads to a lot of unwanted/unplanned/extra pregnancies. IMO the sweet spot on this is in the middle. It is not a false choice as you have framed it.

Like Colorado: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on April 18, 2017, 11:24:18 PM
In a way, the Trump family (Donald Jr, Eric, Ivanka, and Melania) are very much like a parody on the fabled Kennedy family.  Kinda' like how Duck Dynasty became a thing.  The majority is in the minority, and pumping them full of optimism in the middle class rising again, well it's been a formula for success so far....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GuitarStv on April 19, 2017, 05:59:38 AM
The Chinese government doesn't follow the one child policy any more.
So that makes it all better, eh?  Just say "we're sorry" and everything is all better?

No, it doesn't make it better.  I didn't say that it did.  It does demonstrate my point, which is that the US and China have disturbing similarities (they both decided to enforce large scale breeding programs in the past).  China did it in hopes of controlling population, the US did it for racial superiority reasons.

Quote
That said, it doesn't sound significantly worse than the United States program of coerced sterilization that went on in the 50's in Puerto Rico.  Or the routine sterilizations of poor black women that went on in the late 60's.  Or the forced sterilization of native women in the 1970s (http://muse.jhu.edu/article/200 (http://muse.jhu.edu/article/200)).
So A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/)?  Just my opinion, but hundreds of millions women affected seems pretty tragic.

Any women affected are pretty tragic.  I'm not apologizing for China, I'm demonstrating for the apparently ignorant Americans in this thread that the country they are claiming has moral superiority has a history of doing the things they're condemning China for.

Quote
Remember how influential American ideas and enactment of eugenics policies were to the Nazis?  (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php))
Appreciate your opinion that a few Americans were so influential, but I suspect Hitler and his merry men would have done their deeds regardless.
[/quote]

Yeah, Hitler probably would have.  But again, it doesn't change the fact that Hitler's ideas were quite popular in the United States prior to WWII.


As has been mentioned, Canada has a history of doing bad stuff in the name of eugenics too.  I'm trying to point out that the (apparently commonly held by Americans) belief in the moral superiority of the United States comes more from jingoism than reality.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 19, 2017, 07:21:06 AM
As a Trump supporter, I definitely disagree with his recent bombings. With that said, I think he gets far too much criticism than he deserves. I mean, c'mon, people were calling for his impeachment before he even took office. A little ridiculous.

As Sean Spicer (who I think is awesome) said, "if the president puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that's a Russian connection."

And the thing that the left doesn't seem to get is that the CONSTANT barrage of pretty ridiculous, petty claims about anyone right of Elizabeth Warren is the reason Trump was elected. Not racism, not misogyny, not white privilege. It's because people are sick of being told that they're racist, homophobes, xenophobes, misogynistic, and that they owe the world because they're not a minority.

Instead of realizing the reality of the situation, people (particularly antifa) are starting to get violent towards conservatives. It will only recruit more people to the right, and further make this a Republican nation. The same people who think they're fighting against Trump are the reason he was elected.

I wanted Rand Paul, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: tralfamadorian on April 19, 2017, 08:09:46 AM
Sean Spicer (who I think is awesome)

I am truly speechless.  I think you may be the only person in America who thinks that man is "awesome".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ9vt1Kbrp4
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: sol on April 19, 2017, 08:20:32 AM
Instead of realizing the reality of the situation, people (particularly antifa) are starting to get violent towards conservatives.

Can you please explain the term "antifa" to me, as you understand it?

Because to me, that word means "anti-fascists" and is basically synonymous with "good people who believe in equality and thus oppose the type of fascism that was so popular during WWII".  Fascists hate democracy.  Fascists thought WWI was awesome, and wanted a repeat performance.  Fascists used violence against their fellow citizens to coerce support for their authoritarian dictators.  Fascists suck.  Being anti-fascist is awesome.  By this definition, we should ALL be anti-fascists.

And yet some folks, like you apparently, use the term "antifa" in a derogatory manner to belittle and demean people who oppose fascism.  So that means you support fascism?  Usually, I hear that word from people like Richard Spencer, who makes a living going on television and saying outrageous things about what a great guy Hitler was.  I find it almost shocking to hear that word in any other context outside of blatantly inflammatory bigotry designed to offend people.  Is that your intent here, too?

I won't even address the rest of your post until this issue is cleared up first, because if you're just here to troll people (as your use of the word "antifa" suggests) then there's little point in arguing with your content.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 19, 2017, 08:22:41 AM
The one child policy helped to lift China out of exploding population growth and enable hundreds of millions of Chinese to be lifted up out of poverty.
Would you support Trump if he were to propose a similar policy here?
The One Child policy obviously had major problems. But, I would support it if the GOP, say, didn't actively work against sex education and family planning services so that Americans can make informed decisions about when and how many children they have. The level of understanding on this in many populations in our country is pretty scary and leads to a lot of unwanted/unplanned/extra pregnancies. IMO the sweet spot on this is in the middle. It is not a false choice as you have framed it.

Like Colorado: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html

Wow excellent article !!   This statistic jumped out at me, "half of the 6.6 million pregnancies a year in the United States are unintended"

Overall implants and IUD's helped to lift women out of poverty.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 19, 2017, 08:24:30 AM
Sean Spicer (who I think is awesome)

I am truly speechless.  I think you may be the only person in America who thinks that man is "awesome".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ9vt1Kbrp4
He misspoke. He said Hitler was despicable. Stating that he's endorsing Hitler or denying the Holocaust is ridiculous. Just a not-well-thought-out comment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I like him because he's not afraid to tel the truth. He's not afraid to confront the media when they tell lies and make up controversies. Instead of being a lifeless drone, he tries to be as transparent as possible, and say what him and Trump's voters truly believe in.

But instead of listening to the right, people on the left just want to make mountains out of every little mole hill they see, only pushing more people away from their cause.

Rather than learning from this election (which was a big f u from the working class in this country), people are becoming more ridiculous and more violent.

I mean, Spicer really started getting attacked when he made the comment about the crowd size at Trump's inauguration. Then CNN and all these other media outlets started calling him a liar, and turning people against him. I don't quite remember the exact time, but the photos taken as "proof" the crowds were small was taken at something like 6am. Well before masses started showing up. That's fake news. And Spicer is the bad guy for calling them out?

But, I'm sure that you'll just brush it off, and not listen to me in saying why it is that I, and many other Trump supporters, like guys like Spicer. And because of that, not seeing it from our perspective, you, like many others, will fall into the same trap again. And Trump will be reelected. The 2018 elections will be a blowout in favor of the right.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 19, 2017, 08:26:51 AM
It's because people are sick of being told that they're racist, homophobes, xenophobes, misogynistic, and that they owe the world because they're not a minority.

It's because they want a good story, and to feel good about themselves. It's the one thing Trump might be good at. His narrative unified enough people in the right places to win the Electoral College, but no more than that.

It doesn't matter that the things he says aren't true, or that he's advocating policies harmful to people outside his tribe. At least not to him and his tribe.

It's literally the worst of human nature exploited to consolidate political power.

Sean Spicer (who I think is awesome)

I am truly speechless.  I think you may be the only person in America who thinks that man is "awesome".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ9vt1Kbrp4
He misspoke. He said Hitler was despicable. Stating that he's endorsing Hitler or denying the Holocaust is ridiculous. Just a not-well-thought-out comment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I like him because he's not afraid to tel the truth. He's not afraid to confront the media when they tell lies and make up controversies. Instead of being a lifeless drone, he tries to be as transparent as possible, and say what him and Trump's voters truly believe in.

See above. Spicer isn't being particularly truthful in the objective sense. He's being true to the narrative.

Someone who was objectively truthful would've simply apologized for misspeaking and left it at that. Spicer floundered for at least 60 seconds trying to justify what he said. It was painful to watch.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 19, 2017, 08:28:14 AM
Instead of realizing the reality of the situation, people (particularly antifa) are starting to get violent towards conservatives.

Can you please explain the term "antifa" to me, as you understand it?

Because to me, that word means "anti-fascists" and is basically synonymous with "good people who believe in equality and thus oppose the type of fascism that was so popular during WWII".  Fascists hate democracy.  Fascists thought WWI was awesome, and wanted a repeat performance.  Fascists used violence against their fellow citizens to coerce support for their authoritarian dictators.  Fascists suck.  Being anti-fascist is awesome.  By this definition, we should ALL be anti-fascists.

And yet some folks, like you apparently, use the term "antifa" in a derogatory manner to belittle and demean people who oppose fascism.  So that means you support fascism?  Usually, I hear that word from people like Richard Spencer, who makes a living going on television and saying outrageous things about what a great guy Hitler was.  I find it almost shocking to hear that word in any other context outside of blatantly inflammatory bigotry designed to offend people.  Is that your intent here, too?

I won't even address the rest of your post until this issue is cleared up first, because if you're just here to troll people (as your use of the word "antifa" suggests) then there's little point in arguing with your content.
Sorry, I forgot to capitalize. I meant Antifa, the group. The ones that are destroying Berkley, and any other place a conservative dare step into to speak.

But I'm sure you'll tell me that throwing M-80's at people, hitting them with bats, breaking windows, and burning down cars and even businesses is "peaceful", or that it's fake news. It's not. The videos don't lie.

Don't even get me started on their political ideology. They're not against fascists, they're against anyone that doesn't subscribe to every little tenant of their beliefs. There is absolutely nothing about the Trump administration that screams fascist any more than any other President we've had over the last 200 years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 19, 2017, 08:31:54 AM
Sean Spicer (who I think is awesome)

I am truly speechless.  I think you may be the only person in America who thinks that man is "awesome".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ9vt1Kbrp4
He misspoke. He said Hitler was despicable. Stating that he's endorsing Hitler or denying the Holocaust is ridiculous. Just a not-well-thought-out comment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I like him because he's not afraid to tel the truth. He's not afraid to confront the media when they tell lies and make up controversies. Instead of being a lifeless drone, he tries to be as transparent as possible, and say what him and Trump's voters truly believe in.

But instead of listening to the right, people on the left just want to make mountains out of every little mole hill they see, only pushing more people away from their cause.

Rather than learning from this election (which was a big f u from the working class in this country), people are becoming more ridiculous and more violent.

I mean, Spicer really started getting attacked when he made the comment about the crowd size at Trump's inauguration. Then CNN and all these other media outlets started calling him a liar, and turning people against him. I don't quite remember the exact time, but the photos taken as "proof" the crowds were small was taken at something like 6am. Well before masses started showing up. That's fake news. And Spicer is the bad guy for calling them out?

But, I'm sure that you'll just brush it off, and not listen to me in saying why it is that I, and many other Trump supporters, like guys like Spicer. And because of that, not seeing it from our perspective, you, like many others, will fall into the same trap again. And Trump will be reelected. The 2018 elections will be a blowout in favor of the right.

Oh, man. This is just so sad.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 19, 2017, 08:34:35 AM

It's because they want a good story, and to feel good about themselves. It's the one thing Trump might be good at. His narrative unified enough people in the right places to win the Electoral College, but no more than that.

It doesn't matter that the things he says aren't true, or that he's advocating policies harmful to people outside his tribe. At least not to him and his tribe.

It's literally the worst of human nature exploited to consolidate political power.

And that's what the left believes. They think the right is full of uneducated sheep that are always so susceptible to being exploited and lied to.

But the left fails to realize that that kind of insulting rhetoric is exactly why Trump was elected. The left would rather shame and name-call than discuss the issues. They'd rather shut down rallies than respectfully disagree. Whether it's Trump, Milo, Shapiro, or any number of people, the left chooses to silence and be violent, and then they wonder why people voted against them.

All I'm saying is that, until people genuinely understand why conservatives truly elected Trump, the right will continue to become bigger and bigger every day.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 19, 2017, 08:40:09 AM
Sean Spicer (who I think is awesome)

I am truly speechless.  I think you may be the only person in America who thinks that man is "awesome".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ9vt1Kbrp4
He misspoke. He said Hitler was despicable. Stating that he's endorsing Hitler or denying the Holocaust is ridiculous. Just a not-well-thought-out comment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I like him because he's not afraid to tel the truth. He's not afraid to confront the media when they tell lies and make up controversies. Instead of being a lifeless drone, he tries to be as transparent as possible, and say what him and Trump's voters truly believe in.

But instead of listening to the right, people on the left just want to make mountains out of every little mole hill they see, only pushing more people away from their cause.

Rather than learning from this election (which was a big f u from the working class in this country), people are becoming more ridiculous and more violent.

I mean, Spicer really started getting attacked when he made the comment about the crowd size at Trump's inauguration. Then CNN and all these other media outlets started calling him a liar, and turning people against him. I don't quite remember the exact time, but the photos taken as "proof" the crowds were small was taken at something like 6am. Well before masses started showing up. That's fake news. And Spicer is the bad guy for calling them out?

But, I'm sure that you'll just brush it off, and not listen to me in saying why it is that I, and many other Trump supporters, like guys like Spicer. And because of that, not seeing it from our perspective, you, like many others, will fall into the same trap again. And Trump will be reelected. The 2018 elections will be a blowout in favor of the right.

Oh, man. This is just so sad.
Why is that? People always wonder just how Trump got elected, and why people voted for him. I'm trying to explain why I did, but I'm just met with people either not addressing my points, or calling me names almost every time I do.

But then people wonder why Trump won. It's precisely because conservatives were thrown to the curb to be discarded. Only to be picked up and cleaned off by Trump. It's why he won the rust belt. Why his message resonated so greatly with the trade-heavy liberal states.

Trump didn't win because of conservatives, he won because liberals pushed conservatives too far. Rather than understand that, people are just becoming more and more ridiculous. How do liberals expect conservatives to see the light of their ideology if all we see if women pouring period blood on themselves, masked thugs smashing windows, and people calling us names?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 19, 2017, 08:44:23 AM


All I'm saying is that, until people genuinely understand why conservatives truly elected Trump, the right will continue to become bigger and bigger every day.

We already know why conservatives truly elected Trump, because they are anti-abortion, want the freedom to discriminate against minorities, and prevent gay people from gaining the right to employment non-discrimination.

A lot of people who voted for Trump are not conservative, they have been misled by populist rhetoric, and when they realize they have been conned, like when they lose health insurance, or grasp that the manufacturing jobs aren't coming back for them, they won't be voting for him in 2020.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 19, 2017, 08:49:42 AM

It's because they want a good story, and to feel good about themselves. It's the one thing Trump might be good at. His narrative unified enough people in the right places to win the Electoral College, but no more than that.

It doesn't matter that the things he says aren't true, or that he's advocating policies harmful to people outside his tribe. At least not to him and his tribe.

It's literally the worst of human nature exploited to consolidate political power.

And that's what the left believes. They think the right is full of uneducated sheep that are always so susceptible to being exploited and lied to.

But the left fails to realize that that kind of insulting rhetoric is exactly why Trump was elected. The left would rather shame and name-call than discuss the issues. They'd rather shut down rallies than respectfully disagree. Whether it's Trump, Milo, Shapiro, or any number of people, the left chooses to silence and be violent, and then they wonder why people voted against them.

All I'm saying is that, until people genuinely understand why conservatives truly elected Trump, the right will continue to become bigger and bigger every day.

Are you misinterpreting what I said on purpose? Or is it unintentional?

I never said anything about the people who voted for him being uneducated sheep. You did.

The fact remains, the Trump narrative is carefully crafted and chooses its facts.

The inauguration crowd count is a perfect microcosm of the narrative in action. You're even doing it here, "the right will continue to become bigger and bigger" presumes that there are more people in "the right" than there were before, and that it's growing. It doesn't matter if it's true, keep shouting it to rally the troops. It's myth in the traditional sense (think Rome).
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on April 19, 2017, 08:58:45 AM
Sean Spicer (who I think is awesome)

I am truly speechless.  I think you may be the only person in America who thinks that man is "awesome".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ9vt1Kbrp4
He misspoke. He said Hitler was despicable. Stating that he's endorsing Hitler or denying the Holocaust is ridiculous. Just a not-well-thought-out comment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I like him because he's not afraid to tel the truth. He's not afraid to confront the media when they tell lies and make up controversies. Instead of being a lifeless drone, he tries to be as transparent as possible, and say what him and Trump's voters truly believe in.

There are two things here that I stronlgy disagree with: 1) that Sean Spicer tells the truth and that 2) he offers a greater level of transparency than other WH press secretaries.

There are numerous instances when Spicer has pushed a narrative that directly contradicts easily obtainable facts.  A few instances include his insistence that DJT's inaugeration was the most attended in history, that he received the most electoral votes of any candidate since Reagan and that Paul Manafort played a very limited role in the campaign.  All of those statements are demonstrably false, yet he stood by each (and other claims) even after others brought up evidence contradicting him.
In regards to transparency, in his role as WH press secretary he's prohibited many of the largest media organizations from attending certain functions (nicknamed "gaggles") and has most recently denied requests for white house visitor logs - something his predecessors have provided.

I don't doubt that Spicer has been told to push these positions by his boss, but that doesn't make what he says truthful or transparent.

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 19, 2017, 09:03:38 AM
Sean Spicer (who I think is awesome)

I am truly speechless.  I think you may be the only person in America who thinks that man is "awesome".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ9vt1Kbrp4
He misspoke. He said Hitler was despicable. Stating that he's endorsing Hitler or denying the Holocaust is ridiculous. Just a not-well-thought-out comment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I like him because he's not afraid to tel the truth. He's not afraid to confront the media when they tell lies and make up controversies. Instead of being a lifeless drone, he tries to be as transparent as possible, and say what him and Trump's voters truly believe in.

There are two things here that I stronlgy disagree with: 1) that Sean Spicer tells the truth and that 2) he offers a greater level of transparency than other WH press secretaries.

There are numerous instances when Spicer has pushed a narrative that directly contradicts easily obtainable facts.  A few instances include his insistence that DJT's inaugeration was the most attended in history, that he received the most electoral votes of any candidate since Reagan and that Paul Manafort played a very limited role in the campaign.  All of those statements are demonstrably false, yet he stood by each (and other claims) even after others brought up evidence contradicting him.
In regards to transparency, in his role as WH press secretary he's prohibited many of the largest media organizations from attending certain functions (nicknamed "gaggles") and has most recently denied requests for white house visitor logs - something his predecessors have provided.

I don't doubt that Spicer has been told to push these positions by his boss, but that doesn't make what he says truthful or transparent.

Calling their own actions "truthful" and "transparent" is also part of the narrative.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 19, 2017, 09:15:31 AM


All I'm saying is that, until people genuinely understand why conservatives truly elected Trump, the right will continue to become bigger and bigger every day.

We already know why conservatives truly elected Trump, because they are anti-abortion, want the freedom to discriminate against minorities, and prevent gay people from gaining the right to employment non-discrimination.

A lot of people who voted for Trump are not conservative, they have been misled by populist rhetoric, and when they realize they have been conned, like when they lose health insurance, or grasp that the manufacturing jobs aren't coming back for them, they won't be voting for him in 2020.
But what you don't realize is that by insulting conservatives and boiling down many of their well-thought-out reasons to what YOU incorrectly identify as the actual ones, you're only turning them away.

I always think it's funny when people (not saying you) try to tell me why I voted for Trump. They'll say stuff like, "you homophobic Christian", not realizing that I'm both pro-gay marriage, and also an atheist. But even after I say that, they'll just find other names to call me.

Nothing will change unless people stop slandering each other. Neither people on the left or the right are big, bad boogeymen. Maybe, just maybe, people voted for Trump because they believe in his policies.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 19, 2017, 09:29:17 AM

Nothing will change unless people stop slandering each other. Neither people on the left or the right are big, bad boogeymen. Maybe, just maybe, people voted for Trump because they believe in his policies.

Does that extend to not saying things like?

He's not afraid to confront the media when they tell lies and make up controversies.

And this? There were numerous photos taken from a variety of vantage points throughout the day, all telling the same story.

I mean, Spicer really started getting attacked when he made the comment about the crowd size at Trump's inauguration. Then CNN and all these other media outlets started calling him a liar, and turning people against him. I don't quite remember the exact time, but the photos taken as "proof" the crowds were small was taken at something like 6am. Well before masses started showing up. That's fake news. And Spicer is the bad guy for calling them out?

Or does it only apply to people who disagree with (thus "slandering") the tribe?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 19, 2017, 09:38:57 AM

And this? There were numerous photos taken from a variety of vantage points throughout the day, all telling the same story.


No, the ones taken later in the day, while obviously not showing the biggest attendance in history, shows the media's attempt to suggest that he's so unpopular that only a few people came is simply not true. Or what about the rape allegations. Or people claiming that Trump's list (not his list) purposely didn't include countries he does business with. Or the Russian hacking allegations. Or the claim that he said that immigrants are rapists. Or the claim that he broke tax laws. Or that he's a sexual predator. All lies or unsubstantiated claims. All perpetuated by the left.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on April 19, 2017, 09:39:47 AM


All I'm saying is that, until people genuinely understand why conservatives truly elected Trump, the right will continue to become bigger and bigger every day.

We already know why conservatives truly elected Trump, because they are anti-abortion, want the freedom to discriminate against minorities, and prevent gay people from gaining the right to employment non-discrimination.

A lot of people who voted for Trump are not conservative, they have been misled by populist rhetoric, and when they realize they have been conned, like when they lose health insurance, or grasp that the manufacturing jobs aren't coming back for them, they won't be voting for him in 2020.
But what you don't realize is that by insulting conservatives and boiling down many of their well-thought-out reasons to what YOU incorrectly identify as the actual ones, you're only turning them away.

I always think it's funny when people (not saying you) try to tell me why I voted for Trump. They'll say stuff like, "you homophobic Christian", not realizing that I'm both pro-gay marriage, and also an atheist. But even after I say that, they'll just find other names to call me.

Nothing will change unless people stop slandering each other. Neither people on the left or the right are big, bad boogeymen. Maybe, just maybe, people voted for Trump because they believe in his policies.

What policies?  Jobs, bringing manufacturing back?  Deporting illegals so that Americans can have the jobs picking crops?  Just because you voted for him for a certain reason does not mean everyone did for the same reasons you did.  Many people voted because they believed his lies. I know one person that voted for him because they assumed he would be impeached and didn't want the Clintons back in the White House.  But assuming that everyone voted for him for the same reason you did just proves the right wing echo chamber theory.  Both the left and the right have their share of hypocrites, but unfortunately the GOP has a much higher percentage.  Someone else posted earlier about partisan support of Obama action on Syria and Trump action on Syria and the Dem support was about the same for both.  GOP, not so much. 

I do think it is interesting to hear Trump supporters continually claim that the conservative right is getting bigger and bigger and 2018 will result in more GOP wins in the House and Senate.  This is only anecdotal, but I've spoken with many people since the election and many Independents voted for Republican House and Senate candidates since they thought Hilary was going to win and they are horrified at Trump. 

Spicer truthful and transparent?  That does not even deserve a response.  My Independent self and my Republican husband had a bet going right now whether Trump will be forced out by impeachment or RICO.  I find it incredibly hard to believe that due to his greed, vengeful nature and disrespect for the rule of law that he will even finish his term, much less a second term. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 19, 2017, 09:40:36 AM
Maybe, just maybe, people voted for Trump because they believe in his policies.

Trump is not a policy driven person, he's driven by his narcissistic need for adulation and praise. Trump doesn't understand policy, his policy thoughts are self-contradictory. Trump understands publicity, press coverage, ratings, and the art of the con. Trump likes gilded rooms, authoritarian leaders, showing off wealth, and obeisance from those around him. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Retire-Canada on April 19, 2017, 09:41:42 AM
Trump is not a policy driven person, he's driven by his narcissistic need for adulation and praise. Trump doesn't understand policy, his policy thoughts are self-contradictory. Trump understands publicity, press coverage, ratings, and the art of the con. Trump likes gilded rooms, authoritarian leaders, showing off wealth, and obeisance from those around him.

Policy documents tend to be more than 1 page long so there is no way Trump could ever be a policy person. ;)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on April 19, 2017, 09:43:01 AM

And this? There were numerous photos taken from a variety of vantage points throughout the day, all telling the same story.


No, the ones taken later in the day, while obviously not showing the biggest attendance in history, shows the media's attempt to suggest that he's so unpopular that only a few people came is simply not true. Or what about the rape allegations. Or people claiming that Trump's list (not his list) purposely didn't include countries he does business with. Or the Russian hacking allegations. Or the claim that he said that immigrants are rapists. Or the claim that he broke tax laws. Or that he's a sexual predator. All lies or unsubstantiated claims. All perpetuated by the left.

Are you so sure these are all lies or unsubstantiated claims?  But of course Obama wiretapped, Susan Rice committed a felony, Bill Clinton should have gone to jail for rape, etc, etc.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 19, 2017, 09:43:26 AM

I do think it is interesting to hear Trump supporters continually claim that the conservative right is getting bigger and bigger and 2018 will result in more GOP wins in the House and Senate.  This is only anecdotal, but I've spoken with many people since the election and many Independents voted for Republican House and Senate candidates since they thought Hilary was going to win and they are horrified at Trump. 


Well, I don't think any here on opposite sides of the spectrum will agree, so I'll leave with this: the same people that think Republicans will lose in '18 and '20 are the same ones that were absolutely certain that Clinton and the Democrats were going to demolish the elections. But they forget about the leaners. The people that lean in and whisper that they're voting for Trump, but won't say it in fear of backlash. But that fear goes away in the privacy of polling booths. And it showed on election night all across the country. It wasn't just Trump, it was every election that was held. Lots of closet conservatives.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on April 19, 2017, 09:50:50 AM

I do think it is interesting to hear Trump supporters continually claim that the conservative right is getting bigger and bigger and 2018 will result in more GOP wins in the House and Senate.  This is only anecdotal, but I've spoken with many people since the election and many Independents voted for Republican House and Senate candidates since they thought Hilary was going to win and they are horrified at Trump. 


Well, I don't think any here on opposite sides of the spectrum will agree, so I'll leave with this: the same people that think Republicans will lose in '18 and '20 are the same ones that were absolutely certain that Clinton and the Democrats were going to demolish the elections. But they forget about the leaners. The people that lean in and whisper that they're voting for Trump, but won't say it in fear of backlash. But that fear goes away in the privacy of polling booths. And it showed on election night all across the country. It wasn't just Trump, it was every election that was held. Lots of closet conservatives.

Maybe, but many conservatives have forgotten about 2006.  And that the pendulum always swings back.  Always. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 19, 2017, 09:54:50 AM

And this? There were numerous photos taken from a variety of vantage points throughout the day, all telling the same story.


No, the ones taken later in the day, while obviously not showing the biggest attendance in history, shows the media's attempt to suggest that he's so unpopular that only a few people came is simply not true. Or what about the rape allegations. Or people claiming that Trump's list (not his list) purposely didn't include countries he does business with. Or the Russian hacking allegations. Or the claim that he said that immigrants are rapists. Or the claim that he broke tax laws. Or that he's a sexual predator. All lies or unsubstantiated claims. All perpetuated by the left.

This is rhetorical whack-a-mole. You're just throwing up a laundry list of crap that may or may not hold water, and then attributing it to a leftist conspiracy while being utterly un-critical of the administration's story.

I haven't seen anyone claim he broke tax law. I've seen plenty of claims that he's exploited tax law in bad faith and treats his vendors poorly.

Personally, I don't discount rape allegations out of hand, and I understand the reasons why it's so hard to get a conviction. Just going to lump this in with "sexual predator."

I've seen full clip of the rapists/immigrants thing, and I understand the nuance of what he said. I still think it's a deceptive statement.

I can't really make heads or tails of your "lists" comment.

The Russian hacking allegations are serious, and have been made by serious people with bona fides. I think we should look at them apolitically, which hasn't happened.

Well, I don't think any here on opposite sides of the spectrum will agree, so I'll leave with this: the same people that think Republicans will lose in '18 and '20 are the same ones that were absolutely certain that Clinton and the Democrats were going to demolish the elections. But they forget about the leaners. The people that lean in and whisper that they're voting for Trump, but won't say it in fear of backlash. But that fear goes away in the privacy of polling booths. And it showed on election night all across the country. It wasn't just Trump, it was every election that was held. Lots of closet conservatives.

FiveThirtyEight had a whole series dissecting the 2016 election results versus polls, and the number of closeted Trump supporters was pretty insignificant compared to other factors.

If there were so many closet conservatives, then why did so many increased minimum wage laws pass? Marijuana legalization?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: BuffaloStache on April 19, 2017, 10:05:40 AM
Interjection with a lighthearted take on a serious issue. This website is awesome:

https://istrumpatmaralago.org (https://istrumpatmaralago.org)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on April 19, 2017, 10:57:02 AM

And this? There were numerous photos taken from a variety of vantage points throughout the day, all telling the same story.

No, the ones taken later in the day, while obviously not showing the biggest attendance in history, shows the media's attempt to suggest that he's so unpopular that only a few people came is simply not true. Or what about the rape allegations. Or people claiming that Trump's list (not his list) purposely didn't include countries he does business with. Or the Russian hacking allegations. Or the claim that he said that immigrants are rapists. Or the claim that he broke tax laws. Or that he's a sexual predator. All lies or unsubstantiated claims. All perpetuated by the left.
Color me baffled why you would consider many of your examples "lies or unsubstantiated claims" that are "all perpetuated by the left".
There are three FBI probes into Russian hacking, and both the CIA and FBI have said publicly that Russia attempted to interfere with the election (source (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0))

I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.

Like NoStacheOhio said I haven't it said that he's cheated on his taxes, but his utter lack of transparency doesn't help things.  A bigger concern to me is potential conflicts of interest, which he also won't disclose.

I share your frustration that some left-leaning individuals label republicans as being racist bigots and how that can be counterproductive, but it certainly isn't everyone, or even a majority (unless you'd like to provide a source showing how I"m wrong).

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Malaysia41 on April 19, 2017, 11:33:24 AM


I share your frustration that some left-leaning individuals label republicans as being racist bigots and how that can be counterproductive, but it certainly isn't everyone, or even a majority (unless you'd like to provide a source showing how I"m wrong).

I don't understand why so many Republicans all of a sudden need the approval/acceptance of the 'left'  - approval from the very people they've demonized for decades. If you've been calling me 'bleeding heart' /  Chairman Mao / evil liberal elite / idiot leftist for 20 years, I'm not exactly going to embrace you when you gleefully support a lecherous egotist of such low character as Trump.

Why am I expected to shrug that name-calling off, but a Republican can't take being called racist? (Not that I've personally called anyone racist - but IMO if you don't understand the legacy of the post-reconstruction prison-lease system you have no standing to have any sort of a claim that the US is 'post racial' or color blind or that somehow racism isn't endemic in our justice system).

Why would a Republican need my acceptance after calling me so many derisive names for so long? Not that I identify as any particular label. I was registered GOP for 20 years for goodness sakes. But I'll take science and humanity over plutocracy and darwinianism every time, so I if I had to pick a label I'd currently identify as progressive liberal. I'm a big fan of government protecting all of our rights, unlike Trump's AG Jeff Sessions who not only supports Civil Asset Forfeiture ( a clear violation of 4th and 5th amendments), but also supports the war on drugs - a clear violation of my personal liberties as well. But those laws won't apply to the elite classes of wealth so Sessions and Trump don't see what the hullabaloo's about.

Anyone who supports the GOP at this point clearly craves plutocracy and darwinian winner-takes-all society.  And guess what - you've got it. You won. You don't get hugs and loves and acceptance from me too.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 19, 2017, 11:57:11 AM


I share your frustration that some left-leaning individuals label republicans as being racist bigots and how that can be counterproductive, but it certainly isn't everyone, or even a majority (unless you'd like to provide a source showing how I"m wrong).

I don't understand why so many Republicans all of a sudden need the approval/acceptance of the 'left'  - approval from the very people they've demonized for decades. If you've been calling me 'bleeding heart' /  Chairman Mao / evil liberal elite / idiot leftist for 20 years, I'm not exactly going to embrace you when you gleefully support a lecherous egotist of such low character as Trump.

Why am I expected to shrug that name-calling off, but a Republican can't take being called racist? (Not that I've personally called anyone racist - but IMO if you don't understand the legacy of the post-reconstruction prison-lease system you have no standing to have any sort of a claim that the US is 'post racial' or color blind or that somehow racism isn't endemic in our justice system).

Why would a Republican need my acceptance after calling me so many derisive names for so long? Not that I identify as any particular label. I was registered GOP for 20 years for goodness sakes. But I'll take science and humanity over plutocracy and darwinianism every time, so I if I had to pick a label I'd currently identify as progressive liberal. I'm a big fan of government protecting all of our rights, unlike Trump's AG Jeff Sessions who not only supports Civil Asset Forfeiture ( a clear violation of 4th and 5th amendments), but also supports the war on drugs - a clear violation of my personal liberties as well. But those laws won't apply to the elite classes of wealth so Sessions and Trump don't see what the hullabaloo's about.

Anyone who supports the GOP at this point clearly craves plutocracy and darwinian winner-takes-all society.  And guess what - you've got it. You won. You don't get hugs and loves and acceptance from me too.

On a related note, I find it interesting and kind of infuriating when people say that the Democratic Party lost because their policies don't help the working class that voted Trump. As though the GOP, or any of the policies that Trump will enact, will actually end up helping them. Trump won because he exploited the fears and frustrations of his base for his own political gain and financial gain. End of story. Any non-billionaire supporter of his will get nothing in exchange for their support. In fact, it’s reasonable to assume Trump supporters as a whole will be worse off at the end of his presidency, as a direct result of the things he does. And they will likely still be crowing about how he won, like it was some sort of personal victory for them, instead of just a money-making opportunity for him. They’ve been duped, and they think they’ve actually won something more than just a hollow victory to throw in the face of their hated “libtard” bogeymen. And that is very, very sad.

On an also-related note, I think maybe Trae Crowder should be appointed to take over leadership of the DNC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CnayKa3EKs
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DoubleDown on April 19, 2017, 12:50:43 PM
Klaus Von Klausowitz, Bavarian pipe fitter from Germany's Rust Belt, supporter of Adolf Hitler, one of the "forgotten Germans," speaking on Hitler's recent election victory in 1932:

"What the left doesn't get is that Adolf Hitler won because he tells it like it is, and for his policies. He's making Germany Great Again. German working people were getting tired of being vilified by the left, and the country being mistreated after The Great War to End All Wars. If you disagree with the liberals here, your chocolate shop or pretzel factory gets burned down by liberal anarchists. We're tired of getting yelled at just because of our conservative views. That's why Mr. Hitler won 99.9% of the popular vote and has such large turnouts at his rallies (Joseph Goebells has verified those figures).

Adolf Hitler is going to bring back jobs to Germany. There will be so many manufacturing jobs. And he's strong on the military -- I like that. Liberals keep screaming about how Hitler is a fascist, and saying all his supporters are fascists and racists. The European press keeps putting out "fake news" about how Hitler wants to get rid of Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and invade Poland. They don't even give him a chance. They don't realize how many of us like what Hitler says, we just don't go around saying it out loud, otherwise we get attacked for our views. Keep it up, and you'll all be surprised when he's re-elected in '36 and '40 and '44 and '48 and '52..."

<satire>
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on April 19, 2017, 12:54:16 PM
In fact, it’s reasonable to assume Trump supporters as a whole will be worse off at the end of his presidency, as a direct result of the things he does. And they will likely still be crowing about how he won, like it was some sort of personal victory for them, instead of just a money-making opportunity for him. They’ve been duped, and they think they’ve actually won something more than just a hollow victory to throw in the face of their hated “libtard” bogeymen. And that is very, very sad.

I think some are realizing that they've been duped, given the recent Kansas and Georgia elections in strongly conservative districts. Ossof almost won outright (it's now a runoff) in a district that went 62% in 2016 for Tom Price. There's a shift happening and it's not looking good for the GOP.

Quote from: 538
The Republican +2 aggregate margin in Georgia 6 implies a national environment in which Democrats are competitive in a bunch of GOP-held House seats in 2018.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/5-takeaways-from-the-georgia-6-special-election-results/

Quote from: 538
The Georgia 6 Democrats outperformed the weighted average by 7.5 percentage points. In Kansas 4, Democrat James Thompson beat it by 22 points.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 19, 2017, 01:07:11 PM
In fact, it’s reasonable to assume Trump supporters as a whole will be worse off at the end of his presidency, as a direct result of the things he does. And they will likely still be crowing about how he won, like it was some sort of personal victory for them, instead of just a money-making opportunity for him. They’ve been duped, and they think they’ve actually won something more than just a hollow victory to throw in the face of their hated “libtard” bogeymen. And that is very, very sad.

I think some are realizing that they've been duped, given the recent Kansas and Georgia elections in strongly conservative districts. Ossof almost won outright (it's now a runoff) in a district that went 62% in 2016 for Tom Price. There's a shift happening and it's not looking good for the GOP.

Quote from: 538
The Republican +2 aggregate margin in Georgia 6 implies a national environment in which Democrats are competitive in a bunch of GOP-held House seats in 2018.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/5-takeaways-from-the-georgia-6-special-election-results/

Quote from: 538
The Georgia 6 Democrats outperformed the weighted average by 7.5 percentage points. In Kansas 4, Democrat James Thompson beat it by 22 points.

There will be some who figure it out. How many, we'll have to see.

But there will be a good number of them who will never see it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on April 19, 2017, 01:13:50 PM
There will be some who figure it out. How many, we'll have to see.

But there will be a good number of them who will never see it.

True enough. Hey, almost 25% think Nixon didn't do anything wrong. Can't help those people.

In more good news, Bill O'Reilly was cut from Fox News. The settlement costs must be mounting. Also, Alex Jones might be on the list of has-beens depending on his custody trial. Tough decision for him -- act like an ass, keep his show but (probably) lose his children; act like a rational adult, keep his children but (probably) lose serious viewer numbers.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 19, 2017, 01:16:11 PM

In more good news, Bill O'Reilly was cut from Fox News. The settlement costs must be mounting. Also, Alex Jones might be on the list of has-beens depending on his custody trial. Tough decision for him -- act like an ass, keep his show but (probably) lose his children; act like a rational adult, keep his children but (probably) lose serious viewer numbers.

If he were mustachian, he could choose #2 and call it "retirement."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MDM on April 19, 2017, 02:01:36 PM
As has been mentioned, Canada has a history of doing bad stuff in the name of eugenics too.  I'm trying to point out that the (apparently commonly held by Americans) belief in the moral superiority of the United States comes more from jingoism than reality.
All countries have skeletons in their closets, some worse than others - no disagreement there. 

Here in the US, you can get ~50% of the population to agree we are on a morally bankrupt highway to hell every time we switch presidents.  Of course, it's a different 50% depending on who won. 

Short of murder (and the all too high number of that example: Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.), the forced sterilization of ~100 million women is at least in contention for the absolute worst governmental action, and I would hope all agree that it was "a very bad thing" without the need to lessen that fact by saying "but _____ did [something bad] also."

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on April 19, 2017, 03:02:26 PM
So far I think he's doing fine.

Good stuff:
- Small business confidence WAY up. This is a big deal; growth and innovation come from small businesses, not the SP500 group-think gorillas.
http://www.nfib.com/surveys/small-business-economic-trends/
- N Korea recast as a China problem. Total negotiating badassity shown here.
- Strong message to world's minor dictatorships with Syria and MOAB strikes.
- Stopped some of the most egregious regulatory attacks on business; specifically energy
- Gorsuch. GORSUUUCH!!
- Defunded some federal abortion subsidies
- Law and Order. Trying to enforce immigration law. Illegal immigration way down.
- Badass heads for VA, Dept of Education, State Dept. Current VA is a disgrace; our education system maybe worse.
- Leading from the Front, domestically and internationally, torpedoes be damned
- Calling out Mainstream media. Great entertainment. Forcing the 4th estate into desperate hysterics. Media approval rating at all time lows.
- EO in support of 2nd Amendment
- Federal hiring freeze
- General panic and unrest in the Swamp. Excellent. He sure has the right enemies.
- Fast learner. He's never been a politician before. He's a quick study.
- Tax reform. we know it's coming, just not when or how much.

Concerning:
- Flips on foreign policy. This could be good: showing adaptability. He has more information now as Commander in Chief than as a private citizen. Or this could be bad: Converted by the military industrial complex?
- 'rushed' O-care vote. May be good: quickly identified the 'lay of the land' in the House. 'Know thy enemies' and all that. May be bad: too willing to compromise? Overall, I think the vote, pass or fail was a political win for Trump.

Bad
- Pettiness. Grow up. Then again, he warned us....

By the way, the Russian thing:
https://spectator.org/confirmed-john-brennan-colluded-with-foreign-spies-to-defeat-trump/
"One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s."
MSM pays this no mind. This kind of shennanigans is why we have a Trump in the WH, not a Cruz, or another Bush, or another Clinton....
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on April 19, 2017, 05:26:09 PM
Hey Acroy, what do you mean by this?

Quote
N Korea recast as a China problem. Total negotiating badassity shown here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 19, 2017, 06:17:25 PM
A medium length essay worth a read to the end.
http://www.stonekettle.com/2017/04/the-hubris-of-ignorance.html
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: bacchi on April 19, 2017, 06:32:40 PM
- 'rushed' O-care vote. May be good: quickly identified the 'lay of the land' in the House. 'Know thy enemies' and all that. May be bad: too willing to compromise? Overall, I think the vote, pass or fail was a political win for Trump.

You do realize that Day 1 has come and gone, right? The objective was to Repeal and Replace. That actually hasn't happened.

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2017/03/24/fact-check-trump-promise-repeal-replace-obamacare-day-one-video/

I think your statement above belongs in the "OP is the only one who doesn't see it" thread.

Quote from: Trump
"Nobody knew health care could be this complicated."
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: dividendman on April 19, 2017, 07:52:44 PM
- Tax reform. we know it's coming, just not when or how much.

Not sure how something that hasn't happened can fall in the "good stuff so far" bucket.

But anyway, this is what it all comes down to. Republicans are in charge of EVERYTHING. If they can't get a significant tax reform package done then they are just a useless party. Do nothing in opposition, do nothing in government. Republicans have been crying about high taxes for as long as I can remember, way longer than repealing the ACA.

Hopefully they simplify the tax code and get rid of all of these deductions and loopholes.  Especially the big ones like the mortgage deduction, the deductions for kids, etc. Then they can lower the rates for everyone.

I can hope, but I don't think they'll be able to agree on anything just like health care. They don't like the current system sure, but can't agree on a different one, so the status quo will prevail.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on April 19, 2017, 08:17:38 PM
Hey, I like the stonekettle website.   I just read this article, and I'm going to give it a try.   http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/unreasonable-people.html (http://www.stonekettle.com/2012/09/unreasonable-people.html)   Time to cut back on Canadian politeness and accomodation!

Republicans are like the Canadian conservative party.   They tell a good story about fiscal responsibility, and self determination and so on.   But when it comes to actions, they seem fundamentally incapable of follow-through.   Like that fellow who told his constituents they don't have to use the internet if they don't like the lack of privacy.   Or the other fellow who told his constituents they should spend their money on health care instead of iPhones.   Who do those f***kers think they work for anyway?

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on April 19, 2017, 09:57:06 PM
A medium length essay worth a read to the end.
http://www.stonekettle.com/2017/04/the-hubris-of-ignorance.html
It's funny to me that the above essay proclaims "The world is a dangerous and complicated place" and yet is framed by a Bobcat Goldthwait quote where the comedian is declaring the boneheaded simplicity of air accident investigations: Reagan fired air traffic controllers in 1981 so naturally inexperienced replacement air traffic controllers are the cause of subsequent accidents (which isn't true (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft), and the only example within 6 years of 1981 which was only partially attributed to air traffic guidance problems in the US was mostly pilot error (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Cerritos_mid-air_collision) where two private craft simultaneously breached the terminal control area without permission).

It's obvious to the author of the essay that Trump needs expert judgement in his administration, but it's apparently not obvious that we should consult the NTSB judgements rather than comedians when trying to make a rhetorical point (because, you know, reality has this habit of being complicated, much to the annoyance of all political creeds).

I agree with much of the essay otherwise, though I hate how it is written.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 20, 2017, 05:54:40 AM
Who do those f***kers think they work for anyway?

In the U.S., the answer is generally Lockheed-Martin or Pfizer.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: nereo on April 20, 2017, 06:01:15 AM
A medium length essay worth a read to the end.
http://www.stonekettle.com/2017/04/the-hubris-of-ignorance.html

A thought exercise...
Ask yourself -
Under what conditions would you expect management to be ineffective?  (1)
What conditions would make corruption/theft/embezzlement most likely? (2)
When would catastrophic failures be most likely? (3)

(my incomplete answers)*
1: lack of experience, poor communication, no clear vision or concise plan, no agreed upon quantitative measurements for success
2: lack of transparency, financial conflicts of interest, positions awarded based on loyalty and kinship and not productivity or experience, no accountability
3: poor or no oversight, no clearly defined management plan, short term goals prioritized over long term viability.

* I pulled these from a book on effective management I've been reading.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Davnasty on April 20, 2017, 09:56:31 AM
A medium length essay worth a read to the end.
http://www.stonekettle.com/2017/04/the-hubris-of-ignorance.html
It's funny to me that the above essay proclaims "The world is a dangerous and complicated place" and yet is framed by a Bobcat Goldthwait quote where the comedian is declaring the boneheaded simplicity of air accident investigations: Reagan fired air traffic controllers in 1981 so naturally inexperienced replacement air traffic controllers are the cause of subsequent accidents (which isn't true (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft), and the only example within 6 years of 1981 which was only partially attributed to air traffic guidance problems in the US was mostly pilot error (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Cerritos_mid-air_collision) where two private craft simultaneously breached the terminal control area without permission).

It's obvious to the author of the essay that Trump needs expert judgement in his administration, but it's apparently not obvious that we should consult the NTSB judgements rather than comedians when trying to make a rhetorical point (because, you know, reality has this habit of being complicated, much to the annoyance of all political creeds).

I agree with much of the essay otherwise, though I hate how it is written.

I can't speak for the author but I'm pretty confident Goldthwait's comments on the simplicity of the situation was not why he used this quote. The point was to use the last line for comedic effect - "I dunno, maybe Walt the janitor isn’t qualified to land a Boeing 707!” - and he used the entire quote to give it context.

It's just a bit of a coincidence that the first part contradicts the idea that things are often more complicated than they seem. But I'd also venture a guess that not even Goldthwait believes it's that simple... he's a comedian, they're generally not being too serious.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 04:25:27 PM

Color me baffled why you would consider many of your examples "lies or unsubstantiated claims" that are "all perpetuated by the left".
Because none of these claims have been PROVEN, except some that have been proven to be FALSE.

Quote
There are three FBI probes into Russian hacking, and both the CIA and FBI have said publicly that Russia attempted to interfere with the election (source (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0))
And that ties Trump to it, how?

Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.

Quote
Like NoStacheOhio said I haven't it said that he's cheated on his taxes, but his utter lack of transparency doesn't help things.  A bigger concern to me is potential conflicts of interest, which he also won't disclose.
POTENTIAL conflicts. So nothing is proven, meaning it's pointless to bring up and hold it against him.

Quote
I share your frustration that some left-leaning individuals label republicans as being racist bigots and how that can be counterproductive, but it certainly isn't everyone, or even a majority (unless you'd like to provide a source showing how I"m wrong).
I won't say it's the majority of people, but certainly the majority of the mainstream media. Trump could say, "hi, how are you doing", and people would find some way to link that to Hitler.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: scottish on April 20, 2017, 07:27:30 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 07:30:16 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 20, 2017, 07:53:01 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 07:58:08 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on April 20, 2017, 08:05:48 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. In short, it means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on the defense to prove innocence.

You have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 08:09:33 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on April 20, 2017, 08:12:54 PM
It's not just the accusations by several women, it's also his own words of how he will just sexually assault a woman when he feels like it, because he can get away with it.  So Trump's message: if you can get away with it, go for it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on April 20, 2017, 08:14:00 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 08:14:56 PM
It's not just the accusations by several women, it's also his own words of how he will just sexually assault a woman when he feels like it, because he can get away with it.  So Trump's message: if you can get away with it, go for it.
That's not what he said at all, and you know it. He wasn't saying he sexually assaults anyone, he was saying that gold digging women let rich guys do anything they want. And they do. They LET them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 08:16:09 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
So as long as multiple people accuse you, it suddenly means it's somehow more valid?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lagom on April 20, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
It's not just the accusations by several women, it's also his own words of how he will just sexually assault a woman when he feels like it, because he can get away with it.  So Trump's message: if you can get away with it, go for it.
That's not what he said at all, and you know it. He wasn't saying he sexually assaults anyone, he was saying that gold digging women let rich guys do anything they want. And they do. They LET them.

Wow. Just wow. Let me guess, you're a MRA?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 08:19:52 PM
It's not just the accusations by several women, it's also his own words of how he will just sexually assault a woman when he feels like it, because he can get away with it.  So Trump's message: if you can get away with it, go for it.
That's not what he said at all, and you know it. He wasn't saying he sexually assaults anyone, he was saying that gold digging women let rich guys do anything they want. And they do. They LET them.
Or...I simply listened to what he said. If you think he was saying that he'd touch women against their will, we listened to two very different tapes. What specifically did he say that makes you think he did so without consent?

Wow. Just wow. Let me guess, you're a MRA?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on April 20, 2017, 08:21:36 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
So as long as multiple people accuse you, it suddenly means it's somehow more valid?

Are you claiming that there has been a pattern of people working together for the last 28 years in an attempt to falsely discredit Donald Trump?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 08:25:04 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
So as long as multiple people accuse you, it suddenly means it's somehow more valid?

Are you claiming that there has been a pattern of people working together for the last 28 years in an attempt to falsely discredit Donald Trump?
No, I'm saying that regardless of how many accusers there are, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. So holding it over his head is ridiculous at best.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on April 20, 2017, 08:26:01 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
So as long as multiple people accuse you, it suddenly means it's somehow more valid?

Are you claiming that there has been a pattern of people working together for the last 28 years in an attempt to falsely discredit Donald Trump?
No, I'm saying that regardless of how many accusers there are, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. So holding it over his head is ridiculous at best.

He hasn't been criminally charged, so it's impossible for him to have been found guilty OR INNOCENT.

Wrap your head around that one.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 08:28:30 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
So as long as multiple people accuse you, it suddenly means it's somehow more valid?

Are you claiming that there has been a pattern of people working together for the last 28 years in an attempt to falsely discredit Donald Trump?
No, I'm saying that regardless of how many accusers there are, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. So holding it over his head is ridiculous at best.

He hasn't been criminally charged, so it's impossible for him to have been found guilty OR INNOCENT.

Wrap your head around that one.
I'm not even sure what to say about that. Are you kidding me? Again, innocent until proven guilty. You sexually assaulted me. You haven't been found innocent yet, therefore you're guilty.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on April 20, 2017, 08:31:44 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
So as long as multiple people accuse you, it suddenly means it's somehow more valid?

Are you claiming that there has been a pattern of people working together for the last 28 years in an attempt to falsely discredit Donald Trump?
No, I'm saying that regardless of how many accusers there are, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. So holding it over his head is ridiculous at best.

He hasn't been criminally charged, so it's impossible for him to have been found guilty OR INNOCENT.

Wrap your head around that one.
I'm not even sure what to say about that. Are you kidding me? Again, innocent until proven guilty. You sexually assaulted me. You haven't been found innocent yet, therefore you're guilty.

I already explained how the presumption of innocence works in a criminal trial.  This does not mean that someone IS innocent.  Look it up.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 08:35:11 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
So as long as multiple people accuse you, it suddenly means it's somehow more valid?

Are you claiming that there has been a pattern of people working together for the last 28 years in an attempt to falsely discredit Donald Trump?
No, I'm saying that regardless of how many accusers there are, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. So holding it over his head is ridiculous at best.

He hasn't been criminally charged, so it's impossible for him to have been found guilty OR INNOCENT.

Wrap your head around that one.
I'm not even sure what to say about that. Are you kidding me? Again, innocent until proven guilty. You sexually assaulted me. You haven't been found innocent yet, therefore you're guilty.

I already explained how the presumption of innocence works in a criminal trial.  This does not mean that someone IS innocent.  Look it up.
Well duh. No one said it was proven he was innocent. But holding against him unsubstantiated claims is stupid. Much like how it's stupid to bring up the Clinton accusations.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on April 20, 2017, 08:38:41 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
So as long as multiple people accuse you, it suddenly means it's somehow more valid?

Are you claiming that there has been a pattern of people working together for the last 28 years in an attempt to falsely discredit Donald Trump?
No, I'm saying that regardless of how many accusers there are, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. So holding it over his head is ridiculous at best.

He hasn't been criminally charged, so it's impossible for him to have been found guilty OR INNOCENT.

Wrap your head around that one.
I'm not even sure what to say about that. Are you kidding me? Again, innocent until proven guilty. You sexually assaulted me. You haven't been found innocent yet, therefore you're guilty.

I already explained how the presumption of innocence works in a criminal trial.  This does not mean that someone IS innocent.  Look it up.
Well duh. No one said it was proven he was innocent. But holding against him unsubstantiated claims is stupid. Much like how it's stupid to bring up the Clinton accusations.
...
Quote from: MrMonkeyMoustache
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 08:44:54 PM


Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to call Trump a rapist, but his sexual improprieties have been extensively documented, not just by the lewd comments on the 'hot-mic' Hollywood Access video (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_Billy_Bush_recording), but on air with Howard Stern, covered in the tabloids during his last two divorces, and on the set of The Apprentice.
So why dispute the point if you're not calling him a rapist? Many ARE calling him a rapist and predator, when he's not.


The point is that he's setting a terrible role model.   Now everyone sees that it's ok to sexually harass women because you can do this and still be the POTUS.
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone. He made a comment about golddiggers.

Oh that's a relief that you know that, I thought all these women claimed he harassed them.
Anyone can make a claim. Where's the evident? Guess that whole innocent until proven guilty thing doesn't apply to Trump?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to public opinion. You yourself have specifically claimed that "Trump didn't sexually harass anyone."  That is highly suspect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct
Again, accusations don't mean anything at all. Obviously courts don't deal with public opinion, but saying or even implying someone is a sexual predator with ZERO evidence is ridiculous.

What if I and four others accuse you of sexual harassment right now? Would it be okay for all of America to then  hold that over your head?

It's just pretty ridiculous to use accusations as a point against Trump. Accusations are not proof.

It is equally ridiculous to dismiss a pattern of accusations because the alleged offender denies them. Are you aware that Trump has had multiple lawsuits claiming assault and/or sexual harassment beginning more than 20 years ago?
So as long as multiple people accuse you, it suddenly means it's somehow more valid?

Are you claiming that there has been a pattern of people working together for the last 28 years in an attempt to falsely discredit Donald Trump?
No, I'm saying that regardless of how many accusers there are, he hasn't been found guilty of anything. So holding it over his head is ridiculous at best.

He hasn't been criminally charged, so it's impossible for him to have been found guilty OR INNOCENT.

Wrap your head around that one.
I'm not even sure what to say about that. Are you kidding me? Again, innocent until proven guilty. You sexually assaulted me. You haven't been found innocent yet, therefore you're guilty.

I already explained how the presumption of innocence works in a criminal trial.  This does not mean that someone IS innocent.  Look it up.
Well duh. No one said it was proven he was innocent. But holding against him unsubstantiated claims is stupid. Much like how it's stupid to bring up the Clinton accusations.
...
Quote from: MrMonkeyMoustache
Trump didn't sexually harass anyone.
[bquote] I never said it was proven that he was innocent, but generally, people are considered innocent until proven otherwise. So as of now, he should be considered innocent. Obviously not proven, but it doesn't need to be.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: JLee on April 20, 2017, 08:45:51 PM
You're claiming that your words mean something other than what they specifically say.

This explains a lot - thanks for the clarification!
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 20, 2017, 08:59:19 PM
You're claiming that your words mean something other than what they specifically say.

This explains a lot - thanks for the clarification!
Or, I realize that it's literally impossible to prove a negative. You know that, right?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on April 21, 2017, 01:33:41 AM
You're claiming that your words mean something other than what they specifically say.

This explains a lot - thanks for the clarification!
Or, I realize that it's literally impossible to prove a negative. You know that, right?
Oh please, scientists and courts of law prove negatives all the time.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on April 21, 2017, 05:33:09 AM
You're claiming that your words mean something other than what they specifically say.

This explains a lot - thanks for the clarification!
Or, I realize that it's literally impossible to prove a negative. You know that, right?

Of course it's not impossible. You sentence itself is a negative and thus, by your own logic, not provable.

You are doing a fantastic job trolling. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Unique User on April 21, 2017, 05:51:01 AM
You're claiming that your words mean something other than what they specifically say.

This explains a lot - thanks for the clarification!
Or, I realize that it's literally impossible to prove a negative. You know that, right?

Of course it's not impossible. You sentence itself is a negative and thus, by your own logic, not provable.

You are doing a fantastic job trolling.

Troll, or could be he actually believes the nonsense.  Trump has settled sexual harassment lawsuits, fraud lawsuits and discrimination lawsuits, but of course he isn't guilty of anything, it's a liberal hit job.  He's associated with mobsters, took dirty money in Azerbaijan, Tampa, NY, etc, but of course he is squeaky clean because he denies any wrongdoing.  He lied on his FEC filings, but of course he is transparent and as for his tax returns, nothing to see here people, just move on.  It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to defend the indefensible.  I can't wait to see how the Trumpsters will spin Exxon asking for a sanctions waiver to work with Rosneft. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: cerat0n1a on April 21, 2017, 06:45:24 AM
Good to see that the US has finally seen the error of its ways and opted for a royal family. The "first daughter" will make an "official" visit to Germany.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 06:48:23 AM
You're claiming that your words mean something other than what they specifically say.

This explains a lot - thanks for the clarification!
Or, I realize that it's literally impossible to prove a negative. You know that, right?

Of course it's not impossible. You sentence itself is a negative and thus, by your own logic, not provable.

You are doing a fantastic job trolling.

Troll, or could be he actually believes the nonsense.  Trump has settled sexual harassment lawsuits, fraud lawsuits and discrimination lawsuits, but of course he isn't guilty of anything, it's a liberal hit job.  He's associated with mobsters, took dirty money in Azerbaijan, Tampa, NY, etc, but of course he is squeaky clean because he denies any wrongdoing.  He lied on his FEC filings, but of course he is transparent and as for his tax returns, nothing to see here people, just move on.  It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to defend the indefensible.  I can't wait to see how the Trumpsters will spin Exxon asking for a sanctions waiver to work with Rosneft.
Oh, after the tax return comment, I see what's going on here now. Even when there's not a single shred of evidence of any wrongdoing, you still hold it against Trump. What about his tax returns?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: GilbertB on April 21, 2017, 06:49:55 AM
Good to see that the US has finally seen the error of its ways and opted for a royal family. The "first daughter" will make an "official" visit to Germany.
A Royal Family of German stock, as in any proper Royal Familly.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MasterStache on April 21, 2017, 06:54:42 AM
You're claiming that your words mean something other than what they specifically say.

This explains a lot - thanks for the clarification!
Or, I realize that it's literally impossible to prove a negative. You know that, right?

Of course it's not impossible. You sentence itself is a negative and thus, by your own logic, not provable.

You are doing a fantastic job trolling.

Troll, or could be he actually believes the nonsense.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive ( :
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FrugalToque on April 21, 2017, 07:16:37 AM
Well, this is all pretty irritating.  You guys going at it like this and I get the moderation requests.

Look
a) It is possible to prove a negative:
You: "I accuse you of punching me in the face on May 25, 1965."
Me:  "Here's my birth certificate.  I was born in 1976."

b) Courts of law do not prove negatives.  They only find you "not guilty".  In some countries, there are also verdicts like "not proven"
"Actual innocence" is a different thing you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.

Now, if the bunch of you aren't going to stop all this trolling, name-calling and assorted bullshit, I'm going to can the whole lot of you.

Toque.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 07:22:51 AM
Well, this is all pretty irritating.  You guys going at it like this and I get the moderation requests.

Look
a) It is possible to prove a negative:
You: "I accuse you of punching me in the face on May 25, 1965."
Me:  "Here's my birth certificate.  I was born in 1976."

b) Courts of law do not prove negatives.  They only find you "not guilty".  In some countries, there are also verdicts like "not proven"
"Actual innocence" is a different thing you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.

Now, if the bunch of you aren't going to stop all this trolling, name-calling and assorted bullshit, I'm going to can the whole lot of you.

Toque.
I'm not trolling. For what it's worth, despite many being spewed towards me, I have yet to name call a single time on this website.

Anyways, his comments didn't describe sexual assault, it described women LETTING him do it. He literally said, "they let you do it." A far-cry from sexual assault, and clearly implying consent.

With that being said, I think everyone here, myself included, would at least appreciate if people would cut down the quotes on quotes on quotes. Getting hard to track, and makes the page longer.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FrugalToque on April 21, 2017, 07:45:08 AM
Well, this is all pretty irritating.  You guys going at it like this and I get the moderation requests.

Look
a) It is possible to prove a negative:
You: "I accuse you of punching me in the face on May 25, 1965."
Me:  "Here's my birth certificate.  I was born in 1976."

b) Courts of law do not prove negatives.  They only find you "not guilty".  In some countries, there are also verdicts like "not proven"
"Actual innocence" is a different thing you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.

Now, if the bunch of you aren't going to stop all this trolling, name-calling and assorted bullshit, I'm going to can the whole lot of you.

Toque.
I'm not trolling. For what it's worth, despite many being spewed towards me, I have yet to name call a single time on this website.

Anyways, his comments didn't describe sexual assault, it described women LETTING him do it. He literally said, "they let you do it." A far-cry from sexual assault, and clearly implying consent.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. 
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

This does not describe a consensual situation.  At best, it's consent obtained after the fact, which is not a thing.  It's just sexual assault - but with the victim too scared to do anything about it.  If someone goes through his life behaving this way, he's an asshole and he belongs in jail.

You won't do well defending such a person.

Toque.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 07:51:35 AM
Well, this is all pretty irritating.  You guys going at it like this and I get the moderation requests.

Look
a) It is possible to prove a negative:
You: "I accuse you of punching me in the face on May 25, 1965."
Me:  "Here's my birth certificate.  I was born in 1976."

b) Courts of law do not prove negatives.  They only find you "not guilty".  In some countries, there are also verdicts like "not proven"
"Actual innocence" is a different thing you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.

Now, if the bunch of you aren't going to stop all this trolling, name-calling and assorted bullshit, I'm going to can the whole lot of you.

Toque.
I'm not trolling. For what it's worth, despite many being spewed towards me, I have yet to name call a single time on this website.

Anyways, his comments didn't describe sexual assault, it described women LETTING him do it. He literally said, "they let you do it." A far-cry from sexual assault, and clearly implying consent.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. 
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

This does not describe a consensual situation.  At best, it's consent obtained after the fact, which is not a thing.  It's just sexual assault - but with the victim too scared to do anything about it.  If someone goes through his life behaving this way, he's an asshole and he belongs in jail.

You won't do well defending such a person.

Toque.

Well, to be completely honest, with things like these, we see his words very differently. If we can't agree on what was even said, we'll never be able to agree on premises drawn from that.

Regarding not asking, plenty of people don't ask. When I have sex with my girlfriend, I don't ask, I just do it. Trump is saying that women are letting him, not because they're scared, but because he's rich. He's essentially saying that some women are gold diggers, which I think is pretty accurate.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FrugalToque on April 21, 2017, 07:58:37 AM

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.
Anyways, his comments didn't describe sexual assault, it described women LETTING him do it. He literally said, "they let you do it." A far-cry from sexual assault, and clearly implying consent.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. 
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

This does not describe a consensual situation.  At best, it's consent obtained after the fact, which is not a thing.  It's just sexual assault - but with the victim too scared to do anything about it.  If someone goes through his life behaving this way, he's an asshole and he belongs in jail.

You won't do well defending such a person.

Toque.

Well, to be completely honest, with things like these, we see his words very differently. If we can't agree on what was even said, we'll never be able to agree on premises drawn from that.

Regarding not asking, plenty of people don't ask. When I have sex with my girlfriend, I don't ask, I just do it. Trump is saying that women are letting him, not because they're scared, but because he's rich. He's essentially saying that some women are gold diggers, which I think is pretty accurate.

We don't see his words differently.  I see the words he's using, and you're pretending he said something else.
He is describing kissing and groping women he does not know, on a regular basis, without permission, or any other indications that his touch might be welcome or invited.
At best, it's sexual assault with permission after the fact.
At worst, he's saying he can get away with what he knows is wrong because he's famous and powerful.

There's nothing else there.  He said he gropes strange women and believes that either "they" (the women) or "they" (courts) will let him get away with it.

Don't bother trying to defend sexual assault any further.

Toque.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 08:01:29 AM

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.
Anyways, his comments didn't describe sexual assault, it described women LETTING him do it. He literally said, "they let you do it." A far-cry from sexual assault, and clearly implying consent.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. 
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

This does not describe a consensual situation.  At best, it's consent obtained after the fact, which is not a thing.  It's just sexual assault - but with the victim too scared to do anything about it.  If someone goes through his life behaving this way, he's an asshole and he belongs in jail.

You won't do well defending such a person.

Toque.

Well, to be completely honest, with things like these, we see his words very differently. If we can't agree on what was even said, we'll never be able to agree on premises drawn from that.

Regarding not asking, plenty of people don't ask. When I have sex with my girlfriend, I don't ask, I just do it. Trump is saying that women are letting him, not because they're scared, but because he's rich. He's essentially saying that some women are gold diggers, which I think is pretty accurate.

We don't see his words differently.  I see the words he's using, and you're pretending he said something else.
He is describing kissing and groping women he does not know, on a regular basis, without permission, or any other indications that his touch might be welcome or invited.
At best, it's sexual assault with permission after the fact.
At worst, he's saying he can get away with what he knows is wrong because he's famous and powerful.

There's nothing else there.  He said he gropes strange women and believes that either "they" (the women) or "they" (courts) will let him get away with it.

Don't bother trying to defend sexual assault any further.

Toque.
When did he say he touches women without permission? If I go in for a kiss, and a woman happily let's me, I didn't ask for permission, but I certainly received it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on April 21, 2017, 08:04:58 AM

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.
Anyways, his comments didn't describe sexual assault, it described women LETTING him do it. He literally said, "they let you do it." A far-cry from sexual assault, and clearly implying consent.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. 
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

This does not describe a consensual situation.  At best, it's consent obtained after the fact, which is not a thing.  It's just sexual assault - but with the victim too scared to do anything about it.  If someone goes through his life behaving this way, he's an asshole and he belongs in jail.

You won't do well defending such a person.

Toque.

Well, to be completely honest, with things like these, we see his words very differently. If we can't agree on what was even said, we'll never be able to agree on premises drawn from that.

Regarding not asking, plenty of people don't ask. When I have sex with my girlfriend, I don't ask, I just do it. Trump is saying that women are letting him, not because they're scared, but because he's rich. He's essentially saying that some women are gold diggers, which I think is pretty accurate.

We don't see his words differently.  I see the words he's using, and you're pretending he said something else.
He is describing kissing and groping women he does not know, on a regular basis, without permission, or any other indications that his touch might be welcome or invited.
At best, it's sexual assault with permission after the fact.
At worst, he's saying he can get away with what he knows is wrong because he's famous and powerful.

There's nothing else there.  He said he gropes strange women and believes that either "they" (the women) or "they" (courts) will let him get away with it.

Don't bother trying to defend sexual assault any further.

Toque.
When did he say he touches women without permission? If I go in for a kiss, and a woman happily let's me, I didn't ask for permission, but I certainly received it.
You are adding in a word he did not.  Happily.  And women (and men for that matter) have been known to freeze when assaulted.  Letting because you did not stop them, is not consent. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 08:09:11 AM

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.
Anyways, his comments didn't describe sexual assault, it described women LETTING him do it. He literally said, "they let you do it." A far-cry from sexual assault, and clearly implying consent.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. 
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

This does not describe a consensual situation.  At best, it's consent obtained after the fact, which is not a thing.  It's just sexual assault - but with the victim too scared to do anything about it.  If someone goes through his life behaving this way, he's an asshole and he belongs in jail.

You won't do well defending such a person.

Toque.

Well, to be completely honest, with things like these, we see his words very differently. If we can't agree on what was even said, we'll never be able to agree on premises drawn from that.

Regarding not asking, plenty of people don't ask. When I have sex with my girlfriend, I don't ask, I just do it. Trump is saying that women are letting him, not because they're scared, but because he's rich. He's essentially saying that some women are gold diggers, which I think is pretty accurate.

We don't see his words differently.  I see the words he's using, and you're pretending he said something else.
He is describing kissing and groping women he does not know, on a regular basis, without permission, or any other indications that his touch might be welcome or invited.
At best, it's sexual assault with permission after the fact.
At worst, he's saying he can get away with what he knows is wrong because he's famous and powerful.

There's nothing else there.  He said he gropes strange women and believes that either "they" (the women) or "they" (courts) will let him get away with it.

Don't bother trying to defend sexual assault any further.

Toque.
When did he say he touches women without permission? If I go in for a kiss, and a woman happily let's me, I didn't ask for permission, but I certainly received it.
You are adding in a word he did not.  Happily.  And women (and men for that matter) have been known to freeze when assaulted.  Letting because you did not stop them, is not consent.
I wasn't directly quoting him, I was using my own example where permission wasn't verbally given, but clearly consent was there.

And are you not doing the same, by saying that these women were not consenting? How can you say that? Especially when he's not even talking about any specific situation.

People are getting on his case as well about the pussy grabbing comments. But which actual women did he do that to? And when did he ever suggest that it was meant to be taken as against their consent?

Sure, there's no way right now for me to prove he didn't mean without consent. But the opposite is also true.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 21, 2017, 08:11:53 AM

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.
Anyways, his comments didn't describe sexual assault, it described women LETTING him do it. He literally said, "they let you do it." A far-cry from sexual assault, and clearly implying consent.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. 
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

This does not describe a consensual situation.  At best, it's consent obtained after the fact, which is not a thing.  It's just sexual assault - but with the victim too scared to do anything about it.  If someone goes through his life behaving this way, he's an asshole and he belongs in jail.

You won't do well defending such a person.

Toque.

Well, to be completely honest, with things like these, we see his words very differently. If we can't agree on what was even said, we'll never be able to agree on premises drawn from that.

Regarding not asking, plenty of people don't ask. When I have sex with my girlfriend, I don't ask, I just do it. Trump is saying that women are letting him, not because they're scared, but because he's rich. He's essentially saying that some women are gold diggers, which I think is pretty accurate.

We don't see his words differently.  I see the words he's using, and you're pretending he said something else.
He is describing kissing and groping women he does not know, on a regular basis, without permission, or any other indications that his touch might be welcome or invited.
At best, it's sexual assault with permission after the fact.
At worst, he's saying he can get away with what he knows is wrong because he's famous and powerful.

There's nothing else there.  He said he gropes strange women and believes that either "they" (the women) or "they" (courts) will let him get away with it.

Don't bother trying to defend sexual assault any further.

Toque.
When did he say he touches women without permission? If I go in for a kiss, and a woman happily let's me, I didn't ask for permission, but I certainly received it.
You are adding in a word he did not.  Happily.  And women (and men for that matter) have been known to freeze when assaulted.  Letting because you did not stop them, is not consent.

Agreed. I have been accosted before by a man who has pulled me in and kissed me before I had time to react. Or in Trump's terms, they "just kiss. They don't even wait."

I can assure you, I did NOT give my consent. And frankly, they deserved a good kick in the balls, which I was too shocked to give, unfortunately.

I imagine Trump (probably correctly) assumes the women he assaults will not kick him in the balls because he's rich and they're too afraid to give him what he deserves. That seems to be his vision of "consent" -- or, in his terms, "letting him." Not because they want him to. But in his own words, because he's a star. He knows he can do what he wants because he has power.

He's a pig. And let's not forget he was saying he does this while he was already married to Melania.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 08:15:21 AM


Agreed. I have been accosted before by a man who has pulled me in and kissed me before I had time to react. Or in Trump's terms, they "just kiss. They don't even wait."

I can assure you, I did NOT give my consent. And frankly, they deserved a good kick in the balls, which I was too shocked to give, unfortunately.

I imagine Trump (probably correctly) assumes the women he assaults will not kick him in the balls because he's rich and they're too afraid to give him what he deserves. That seems to be his vision of "consent" -- or, in his terms, "letting him." Not because they want him to. But in his own words, because he's a star. He knows he can do what he wants because he has power.

He's a pig. And let's not forget he was saying he does this while he was already married to Melania.
Those guys are definitely in the wrong. But what did Trump say that suggested he does that, knowing that they won't tell because they fear him?

At best, people are reaching. At worst, they're defaming him by accusing him of being a sexual predator.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Kris on April 21, 2017, 08:18:48 AM


Agreed. I have been accosted before by a man who has pulled me in and kissed me before I had time to react. Or in Trump's terms, they "just kiss. They don't even wait."

I can assure you, I did NOT give my consent. And frankly, they deserved a good kick in the balls, which I was too shocked to give, unfortunately.

I imagine Trump (probably correctly) assumes the women he assaults will not kick him in the balls because he's rich and they're too afraid to give him what he deserves. That seems to be his vision of "consent" -- or, in his terms, "letting him." Not because they want him to. But in his own words, because he's a star. He knows he can do what he wants because he has power.

He's a pig. And let's not forget he was saying he does this while he was already married to Melania.
Those guys are definitely in the wrong. But what did Trump say that suggested he does that, knowing that they won't tell because they fear him?

At best, people are reaching. At worst, they're defaming him by accusing him of being a sexual predator.

He said: "I don't wait" (for consent). "They let me." Not "They want me to." They LET him.

It's about what he can get away with, MrMonkeyMoustache. Not what the women want. He does not care about that. This is explicit in his words.

I'd say I can't believe you don't see this. But I think instead you're trying really, really hard not to see it.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Miskatonic on April 21, 2017, 08:19:06 AM
Well, to be completely honest, with things like these, we see his words very differently. If we can't agree on what was even said, we'll never be able to agree on premises drawn from that.

Regarding not asking, plenty of people don't ask. When I have sex with my girlfriend, I don't ask, I just do it. Trump is saying that women are letting him, not because they're scared, but because he's rich. He's essentially saying that some women are gold diggers, which I think is pretty accurate.

Ho-ly shit.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 08:22:39 AM


Agreed. I have been accosted before by a man who has pulled me in and kissed me before I had time to react. Or in Trump's terms, they "just kiss. They don't even wait."

I can assure you, I did NOT give my consent. And frankly, they deserved a good kick in the balls, which I was too shocked to give, unfortunately.

I imagine Trump (probably correctly) assumes the women he assaults will not kick him in the balls because he's rich and they're too afraid to give him what he deserves. That seems to be his vision of "consent" -- or, in his terms, "letting him." Not because they want him to. But in his own words, because he's a star. He knows he can do what he wants because he has power.

He's a pig. And let's not forget he was saying he does this while he was already married to Melania.
Those guys are definitely in the wrong. But what did Trump say that suggested he does that, knowing that they won't tell because they fear him?

At best, people are reaching. At worst, they're defaming him by accusing him of being a sexual predator.

He said: "I don't wait" (for consent). "They let me." Not "They want me to." They LET him.

It's about what he can get away with, MrMonkeyMoustache. Not what the women want. He does not care about that. This is explicit in his words.

I'd say I can't believe you don't see this. But I think instead you're trying really, really hard not to see it.
But you just added in "for consent". He didn't say that. Adding that in implies that he purposely ignores lack of consent, and knowingly does these things against their will. At best, you can say that he may have done it against a woman's consent without intention. What women, we have no idea, since this was just a general statement. That's all that can be certain. Anything else is pure speculation.

I just think it was a poor choice of words. Nothing he said in that indicates to me that he knowingly sexually assaults women. I think saying that is a huge reach.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Gin1984 on April 21, 2017, 08:26:13 AM

Donald Trump is a special case, not just because he's president, but because he literally bragged about his ability to sexual assault women and get away with it, then declared that he'd never really done that ... and then women came forward to say, "Yeah, that's basically exactly what he did to me."  It's like having a confession, but one not specific to each individual criminal accusation.
Anyways, his comments didn't describe sexual assault, it described women LETTING him do it. He literally said, "they let you do it." A far-cry from sexual assault, and clearly implying consent.

"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. 
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

This does not describe a consensual situation.  At best, it's consent obtained after the fact, which is not a thing.  It's just sexual assault - but with the victim too scared to do anything about it.  If someone goes through his life behaving this way, he's an asshole and he belongs in jail.

You won't do well defending such a person.

Toque.

Well, to be completely honest, with things like these, we see his words very differently. If we can't agree on what was even said, we'll never be able to agree on premises drawn from that.

Regarding not asking, plenty of people don't ask. When I have sex with my girlfriend, I don't ask, I just do it. Trump is saying that women are letting him, not because they're scared, but because he's rich. He's essentially saying that some women are gold diggers, which I think is pretty accurate.

We don't see his words differently.  I see the words he's using, and you're pretending he said something else.
He is describing kissing and groping women he does not know, on a regular basis, without permission, or any other indications that his touch might be welcome or invited.
At best, it's sexual assault with permission after the fact.
At worst, he's saying he can get away with what he knows is wrong because he's famous and powerful.

There's nothing else there.  He said he gropes strange women and believes that either "they" (the women) or "they" (courts) will let him get away with it.

Don't bother trying to defend sexual assault any further.

Toque.
When did he say he touches women without permission? If I go in for a kiss, and a woman happily let's me, I didn't ask for permission, but I certainly received it.
You are adding in a word he did not.  Happily.  And women (and men for that matter) have been known to freeze when assaulted.  Letting because you did not stop them, is not consent.
I wasn't directly quoting him, I was using my own example where permission wasn't verbally given, but clearly consent was there.

And are you not doing the same, by saying that these women were not consenting? How can you say that? Especially when he's not even talking about any specific situation.

People are getting on his case as well about the pussy grabbing comments. But which actual women did he do that to? And when did he ever suggest that it was meant to be taken as against their consent?

Sure, there's no way right now for me to prove he didn't mean without consent. But the opposite is also true.
Given that multiple women have come out to say he assumed them, no I am not.  Nor would I be otherwise because "letting" does not imply consent. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Miskatonic on April 21, 2017, 08:27:02 AM


Agreed. I have been accosted before by a man who has pulled me in and kissed me before I had time to react. Or in Trump's terms, they "just kiss. They don't even wait."

I can assure you, I did NOT give my consent. And frankly, they deserved a good kick in the balls, which I was too shocked to give, unfortunately.

I imagine Trump (probably correctly) assumes the women he assaults will not kick him in the balls because he's rich and they're too afraid to give him what he deserves. That seems to be his vision of "consent" -- or, in his terms, "letting him." Not because they want him to. But in his own words, because he's a star. He knows he can do what he wants because he has power.

He's a pig. And let's not forget he was saying he does this while he was already married to Melania.
Those guys are definitely in the wrong. But what did Trump say that suggested he does that, knowing that they won't tell because they fear him?

At best, people are reaching. At worst, they're defaming him by accusing him of being a sexual predator.

He said: "I don't wait" (for consent). "They let me." Not "They want me to." They LET him.

It's about what he can get away with, MrMonkeyMoustache. Not what the women want. He does not care about that. This is explicit in his words.

I'd say I can't believe you don't see this. But I think instead you're trying really, really hard not to see it.
But you just added in "for consent". He didn't say that. Adding that in implies that he purposely ignores lack of consent, and knowingly does these things against their will. At best, you can say that he may have done it against a woman's consent without intention. What women, we have no idea, since this was just a general statement. That's all that can be certain. Anything else is pure speculation.

I just think it was a poor choice of words. Nothing he said in that indicates to me that he knowingly sexually assaults women. I think saying that is a huge reach.

If you don't wait, there can be no consent. Therefore, he does it without consent, regardless of whether or not they give consent "after the fact" (which is technically impossible). It doesn't matter that you think it was a poor choice of words - his words, taken at face value, clearly say that he does things against the woman's consent. You do the same, apparently.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: caracarn on April 21, 2017, 08:31:17 AM
WOW.  Not seen this thread until now.  Just reading the exchange between The Monkey and others I now further understand how this goof got elected.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 08:32:08 AM


Agreed. I have been accosted before by a man who has pulled me in and kissed me before I had time to react. Or in Trump's terms, they "just kiss. They don't even wait."

I can assure you, I did NOT give my consent. And frankly, they deserved a good kick in the balls, which I was too shocked to give, unfortunately.

I imagine Trump (probably correctly) assumes the women he assaults will not kick him in the balls because he's rich and they're too afraid to give him what he deserves. That seems to be his vision of "consent" -- or, in his terms, "letting him." Not because they want him to. But in his own words, because he's a star. He knows he can do what he wants because he has power.

He's a pig. And let's not forget he was saying he does this while he was already married to Melania.
Those guys are definitely in the wrong. But what did Trump say that suggested he does that, knowing that they won't tell because they fear him?

At best, people are reaching. At worst, they're defaming him by accusing him of being a sexual predator.

He said: "I don't wait" (for consent). "They let me." Not "They want me to." They LET him.

It's about what he can get away with, MrMonkeyMoustache. Not what the women want. He does not care about that. This is explicit in his words.

I'd say I can't believe you don't see this. But I think instead you're trying really, really hard not to see it.
But you just added in "for consent". He didn't say that. Adding that in implies that he purposely ignores lack of consent, and knowingly does these things against their will. At best, you can say that he may have done it against a woman's consent without intention. What women, we have no idea, since this was just a general statement. That's all that can be certain. Anything else is pure speculation.

I just think it was a poor choice of words. Nothing he said in that indicates to me that he knowingly sexually assaults women. I think saying that is a huge reach.

If you don't wait, there can be no consent. Therefore, he does it without consent, regardless of whether or not they give consent "after the fact" (which is technically impossible). It doesn't matter that you think it was a poor choice of words - his words, taken at face value, clearly say that he does things against the woman's consent. You do the same, apparently.

So does that mean you believe you have to give verbal consent for it to exist? If I have sex with my GF, but she didn't verbally say yes, can she then come back and say I raped her? Just curious, not assuming you believe that.

@Gin Being accused of something doesn't make it any more or less real than it actually is. Maybe those claims are right. Maybe they're not. But there's absolutely zero evidence, so stating for a fact that he IS a predator is reactionary and ridiculous.

Now, I'm not saying it's the case, but do you think it's even possible that a few women jumped on an opportunity for a pay day when those comments came out? Do you think it's possible that those rape claims the night before the election were timed to prevent him from being elected?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on April 21, 2017, 08:36:58 AM
Are you asking a legal or a moral question? 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Miskatonic on April 21, 2017, 08:41:54 AM

So does that mean you believe you have to give verbal consent for it to exist? If I have sex with my GF, but she didn't verbally say yes, can she then come back and say I raped her? Just curious, not assuming you believe that.

@Gin Being accused of something doesn't make it any more or less real than it actually is. Maybe those claims are right. Maybe they're not. But there's absolutely zero evidence, so stating for a fact that he IS a predator is reactionary and ridiculous.

Now, I'm not saying it's the case, but do you think it's even possible that a few women jumped on an opportunity for a pay day when those comments came out? Do you think it's possible that those rape claims the night before the election were timed to prevent him from being elected?

1. Yes.
2. Yes, that's a possibility.
2a. I'm not saying you need a notarized letter giving consent, but a verbal acknowledgement of what is happening and that it is indeed wanted from both parties is totally natural.
3. You don't know for a fact that there's zero evidence. He's made plenty of settlements.
4. Yes, that's a possibility, but sexual assault is extremely serious and we must take such claims extremely seriously.
5. Do you really want to go down the "dubious claims made right before the election" rabbit hole?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: caracarn on April 21, 2017, 08:42:51 AM


Agreed. I have been accosted before by a man who has pulled me in and kissed me before I had time to react. Or in Trump's terms, they "just kiss. They don't even wait."

I can assure you, I did NOT give my consent. And frankly, they deserved a good kick in the balls, which I was too shocked to give, unfortunately.

I imagine Trump (probably correctly) assumes the women he assaults will not kick him in the balls because he's rich and they're too afraid to give him what he deserves. That seems to be his vision of "consent" -- or, in his terms, "letting him." Not because they want him to. But in his own words, because he's a star. He knows he can do what he wants because he has power.

He's a pig. And let's not forget he was saying he does this while he was already married to Melania.
Those guys are definitely in the wrong. But what did Trump say that suggested he does that, knowing that they won't tell because they fear him?

At best, people are reaching. At worst, they're defaming him by accusing him of being a sexual predator.

He said: "I don't wait" (for consent). "They let me." Not "They want me to." They LET him.

It's about what he can get away with, MrMonkeyMoustache. Not what the women want. He does not care about that. This is explicit in his words.

I'd say I can't believe you don't see this. But I think instead you're trying really, really hard not to see it.
But you just added in "for consent". He didn't say that. Adding that in implies that he purposely ignores lack of consent, and knowingly does these things against their will. At best, you can say that he may have done it against a woman's consent without intention. What women, we have no idea, since this was just a general statement. That's all that can be certain. Anything else is pure speculation.

I just think it was a poor choice of words. Nothing he said in that indicates to me that he knowingly sexually assaults women. I think saying that is a huge reach.

If you don't wait, there can be no consent. Therefore, he does it without consent, regardless of whether or not they give consent "after the fact" (which is technically impossible). It doesn't matter that you think it was a poor choice of words - his words, taken at face value, clearly say that he does things against the woman's consent. You do the same, apparently.

So does that mean you believe you have to give verbal consent for it to exist? If I have sex with my GF, but she didn't verbally say yes, can she then come back and say I raped her? Just curious, not assuming you believe that.


I'm just trying to understand, do you just grab her and start going at it without any conversation?  You may not mean to come across as such an aggressive person, but man these posts sure seem to point to the fact that because she is your GF you just think it's open season whenever you are ready to go.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 08:44:49 AM
Okay, that's all I needed to hear. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on April 21, 2017, 08:45:38 AM
Did anyone watch the tape, and think it was anything but Trump buffooning around, blowing smoke up the young guy's ass? C'mon.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Miskatonic on April 21, 2017, 08:47:25 AM
Okay, that's all I needed to hear. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.

I knew this probably wasn't going anywhere the moment you said you have sex with your girlfriend without asking, but I hoped some sense could be talked into you. Good luck.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: caracarn on April 21, 2017, 08:48:16 AM
Did anyone watch the tape, and think it was anything but Trump buffooning around, blowing smoke up the young guy's ass? C'mon.
I "buffoon around" all the time with guys, but never in my wildest reality would I ever consider those types of comments appropriate.  So yes, I watched that tape and saw a very clear portrayal of his character and what and how he considers appropriate things to discuss with anyone.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: acroy on April 21, 2017, 08:51:08 AM
Did anyone watch the tape, and think it was anything but Trump buffooning around, blowing smoke up the young guy's ass? C'mon.
I "buffoon around" all the time with guys, but never in my wildest reality would I ever consider those types of comments appropriate.  So yes, I watched that tape and saw a very clear portrayal of his character and what and how he considers appropriate things to discuss with anyone.
So, it was inappropriate. Well said.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: radram on April 21, 2017, 08:52:46 AM
Nothing he said in that indicates to me that he knowingly sexually assaults women. I think saying that is a huge reach.

In this comment I am reminded of Adrian Peterson and his child abuse case. He did to his child what was done to him. I believe that he truly believed he did nothing wrong. Society disagrees with him, and charged him with a crime. He pleaded no contest to a lesser charge. There are no reports of doing the same action.

It is possible Trump believed he did nothing wrong. It is also possible he was wrong and he committed a crime. My opinion is that he knew what he was saying was not a societal norm and not for everyone's ears.

I don't wait. They let me.

Those 6 words turning into an action, in my opinion, should be a crime. Some parts of society agree with me. In California, those 6 words followed by a grab are clearly a crime with the yes means yes law.


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 08:54:07 AM
Okay, that's all I needed to hear. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.

I knew this probably wasn't going anywhere the moment you said you have sex with your girlfriend without asking, but I hoped some sense could be talked into you. Good luck.
I do not rape my girlfriend, if that's what you are implying. Saying that you need verbal consent is absolutely ridiculous and not at all sexy. If my girlfriend gives me a sexy look, and then runs upstairs and lays on the bed naked, do you suggest that it could be rape unless I say, "wait a minute, sweetie, are you sure you want to do this"?

C'mon, that's not reality. And it more than a bit ridiculous.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 08:59:14 AM


It is possible Trump believed he did nothing wrong. It is also possible he was wrong and he committed a crime.
Okay, it's possible, but there's no evidence we've seen that says a crime was committed.

Quote
My opinion is that he knew what he was saying was not a societal norm and not for everyone's ears.
Okay, and he didn't say it for everybody to hear. He said it in private. Besides, it's not a crime to not follow norms.

Quote
I don't wait. They let me.

Those 6 words turning into an action, in my opinion, should be a crime. Some parts of society agree with me. In California, those 6 words followed by a grab are clearly a crime with the yes means yes law.
Well, what action those 6 words would turn into is ambiguous at best.

As for the law, I don't agree with it, for the very premise that "ongoing consent" is also very ambiguous. Unless you suggest that every 30 seconds or so you need to say, "STOP! Girlfriend, is it okay if we continue to have sex?"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Miskatonic on April 21, 2017, 09:01:52 AM
Okay, that's all I needed to hear. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.

I knew this probably wasn't going anywhere the moment you said you have sex with your girlfriend without asking, but I hoped some sense could be talked into you. Good luck.
I do not rape my girlfriend, if that's what you are implying. Saying that you need verbal consent is absolutely ridiculous and not at all sexy. If my girlfriend gives me a sexy look, and then runs upstairs and lays on the bed naked, do you suggest that it could be rape unless I say, "wait a minute, sweetie, are you sure you want to do this"?

C'mon, that's not reality. And it more than a bit ridiculous.

Not ridiculous at all, and if the only way you can imagine getting consent is by asking like an awkward weirdo, well....I can't improve your social skills for you.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: MrMonkeyMoustache on April 21, 2017, 09:05:34 AM
Okay, that's all I needed to hear. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.

I knew this probably wasn't going anywhere the moment you said you have sex with your girlfriend without asking, but I hoped some sense could be talked into you. Good luck.
I do not rape my girlfriend, if that's what you are implying. Saying that you need verbal consent is absolutely ridiculous and not at all sexy. If my girlfriend gives me a sexy look, and then runs upstairs and lays on the bed naked, do you suggest that it could be rape unless I say, "wait a minute, sweetie, are you sure you want to do this"?

C'mon, that's not reality. And it more than a bit ridiculous.

Not ridiculous at all, and if the only way you can imagine getting consent is by asking like an awkward weirdo, well....I can't improve your social skills for you.
But that's exactly what you're suggesting. Like it or not, consent CAN be given non-verbally.

If my girlfriend gives me a sexy look, tells me she has a present for me, rips her clothes off, runs upstairs, and lays naked on my bed, is that consent in your eyes? If not, I think your social skills need to be worked on far more than mine do. But, with your logic, that's not consent, and could be considered rape if she says so.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: OurTown on April 21, 2017, 09:10:42 AM
Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ.  Try to look at it from the other side.  Imagine you have a sister, or a daughter, and her boyfriend thinks he is the hottest shit in the history of mankind. You would not want that creep jumping her bones every chance he gets without her consent, would you?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Davnasty on April 21, 2017, 09:14:57 AM
I would agree that there is such a thing as non-verbal consent.

But that's not really the issue so let's stop arguing about irrelevant things. The issue is that he said he doesn't wait, and by that he is clearly implying that there is no time for consent, verbal or non-verbal. If not, why would he have followed that with "when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything"
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Miskatonic on April 21, 2017, 09:16:27 AM
Okay, that's all I needed to hear. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.

I knew this probably wasn't going anywhere the moment you said you have sex with your girlfriend without asking, but I hoped some sense could be talked into you. Good luck.
I do not rape my girlfriend, if that's what you are implying. Saying that you need verbal consent is absolutely ridiculous and not at all sexy. If my girlfriend gives me a sexy look, and then runs upstairs and lays on the bed naked, do you suggest that it could be rape unless I say, "wait a minute, sweetie, are you sure you want to do this"?

C'mon, that's not reality. And it more than a bit ridiculous.

Not ridiculous at all, and if the only way you can imagine getting consent is by asking like an awkward weirdo, well....I can't improve your social skills for you.
But that's exactly what you're suggesting. Like it or not, consent CAN be given non-verbally.

If my girlfriend gives me a sexy look, tells me she has a present for me, rips her clothes off, runs upstairs, and lays naked on my bed, is that consent in your eyes? If not, I think your social skills need to be worked on far more than mine do. But, with your logic, that's not consent, and could be considered rape if she says so.

You're presenting this increasingly elaborate little scenario to defend the incredibly stupid statement you made upthread. It's the very definition of moving the goalposts. Instead of delving into your fantasy role play, I'll just reiterate that consent is paramount.

But let's bring this back to Trump. Your little scenario seems to imply that you don't need consent because you have an established relationship with your girlfriend. Trump said he "just kisses" women that he doesn't have an established relationship with. What gives?
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: golden1 on April 21, 2017, 09:18:12 AM
This is fascinating, and a somewhat horrifying view into the perils of ingroup identity and how powerful it is.  It is astonishing that people can hear the same conversation and take completely different things out of it so that they stay within the peer group that they identify with.  When someone really buys into a person, they are able to discount any information that may be troubling. 

Quote
Did anyone watch the tape, and think it was anything but Trump buffooning around, blowing smoke up the young guy's ass? C'mon.

That is one interpretation.  It isn't the interpretation I have.  When I heard him say it, my thoughts were that he was trying to impress Billy Bush by talking about how women were throwing himself at him, and how he could get away with a certain type of behavior because he was a wealthy celebrity.  That whole conversation curdled my stomach because it was plainly obvious that to him, women are decorations, status symbols to be flaunted so that other men would see how awesome he is for attracting a woman who looks like that.  It disgusted me.   I am a sexual assault survivor, and this is the type of thinking that allows men to take advantage of women.  He also implied that consent is irrelevant when one is rich and powerful and BRAGGED about it.  Honestly, everytime I see his face, those words run through my head.  He is a loathsome gargoyle, and I really have a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea of someone who listened to that tape and still checked the box next to his name.  Especially if they have wives and daughters. 

Serious question:  Picture Barack Obama saying the EXACT SAME words.  If you can honestly tell me that you would interpret what he said in the same way, I think you are lying.  You give Trump the benefit of the doubt because your ego requires it. 
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Davnasty on April 21, 2017, 09:26:45 AM
(http://www.whatsonshenzhen.com/news_images/b0383e7edeb953081c0c0016_orangutan.jpg)
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: FrugalToque on April 21, 2017, 09:36:20 AM
Quote
Did anyone watch the tape, and think it was anything but Trump buffooning around, blowing smoke up the young guy's ass? C'mon.

That is one interpretation.  It isn't the interpretation I have.  When I heard him say it, my thoughts were that he was trying to impress Billy Bush by talking about how women were throwing himself at him, and how he could get away with a certain type of behavior because he was a wealthy celebrity.

I would amend this in only one way:  He was trying to impress Billy Bush with how much his power let him get away with.  There was not any suggestion on his part that women threw themselves at him, just that they couldn't throw themselves out of the way fast enough and that was too bad for them.

Toque.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 21, 2017, 09:50:40 AM
Let's not forget that the behavior extends to underage girls, as well.
Quote
His position as the pageant's owner entitled him to that kind of access, Trump explained, seemingly aware that what he was doing made the women uncomfortable. "You know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant. And therefore I'm inspecting it... Is everyone OK? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that," he said.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/timeline-of-trumps-creepiness-while-he-owned-miss-universe-w444634

Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: CheapScholar on April 21, 2017, 09:50:46 AM
You guys still on the Billy Bush tape?

I'm so proud of my President.  The impact of this presidency will be American jobs, manufacturing, infrastructure, and a strong economy.*  For too long we've been taken advantage of.

American exceptionalism is not a thing of the past.  We have a President who is going to make us Great Again.  And if anyone laughs when they read this, ask yourself:  did you laugh and say Trump would never (1) run (2) file his papers (3) win the nomination and (4) beat Hillary?

The guy does what he says.  I'm SO proud to be an American. 

* We are also going to knock the shit out of our enemies.  Plenty more Mother Of All Bombs will be dropped during the next 8 years.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Glenstache on April 21, 2017, 09:57:13 AM
You guys still on the Billy Bush tape?

I'm so proud of my President.  The impact of this presidency will be American jobs, manufacturing, infrastructure, and a strong economy.*  For too long we've been taken advantage of.

American exceptionalism is not a thing of the past.  We have a President who is going to make us Great Again.  And if anyone laughs when they read this, ask yourself:  did you laugh and say Trump would never (1) run (2) file his papers (3) win the nomination and (4) beat Hillary?

The guy does what he says.
I'm SO proud to be an American. 

* We are also going to knock the shit out of our enemies.  Plenty more Mother Of All Bombs will be dropped during the next 8 years.

Kind of. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/13/us/politics/trump-policy-reversals-quotes.html?_r=0

The things he is following through on, like defunding the EPA and science funding more generally will have a generational negative impact. His lack of acumen on world affairs would be amusing if it didn't actually affect people in our country and abroad.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: former player on April 21, 2017, 11:15:04 AM
One more point on the Billy Bush tape that hasn't been made in this thread yet: Trump was talking in the context of women who were at work, in roles subordinate or subsidiary to Trump's.  He wasn't talking about using his money as an attractor, he was talking about using his "star power", his position of power over them.  That makes it an abuse of power as well as sexual assault.

Now Trump's in the White House, is anyone taking bets against him abusing his power there too?  Financially, to benefit him and his family, if nothing else.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: ncornilsen on April 21, 2017, 11:43:15 AM
Quote
He hasn't been criminally charged, so it's impossible for him to have been found guilty OR INNOCENT.

Wrap your head around that one.

Shrodengers groper?


Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Davnasty on April 21, 2017, 12:00:21 PM
One more point on the Billy Bush tape that hasn't been made in this thread yet: Trump was talking in the context of women who were at work, in roles subordinate or subsidiary to Trump's.  He wasn't talking about using his money as an attractor, he was talking about using his "star power", his position of power over them.  That makes it an abuse of power as well as sexual assault.

Now Trump's in the White House, is anyone taking bets against him abusing his power there too?  Financially, to benefit him and his family, if nothing else.

AND if somehow you still don't believe that tape is enough proof, how about the article posted by Glenstache above? Trump explained on the Howard Stern Show:

"His position as the pageant's owner entitled him to that kind of access, Trump explained, seemingly aware that what he was doing made the women uncomfortable. "You know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant. And therefore I'm inspecting it... Is everyone OK? You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that," he said."

Yes. Trump said. I get away with [sexual harassment].
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Fish Sweet on April 21, 2017, 12:01:16 PM
One more point on the Billy Bush tape that hasn't been made in this thread yet: Trump was talking in the context of women who were at work, in roles subordinate or subsidiary to Trump's.  He wasn't talking about using his money as an attractor, he was talking about using his "star power", his position of power over them.  That makes it an abuse of power as well as sexual assault.

Now Trump's in the White House, is anyone taking bets against him abusing his power there too?  Financially, to benefit him and his family, if nothing else.

I mean, no bets need to be taken.  He's already had white house endorsements of his daughter's business, despite the fact that it is SUPER DUPER ILLEGAL.

Honestly, I can't believe anyone can ignore or "get off" the Billy Bush tape.  Maybe some people are unaware, but "grabbing women by the pussy" is sexual assault.  So either our president has ENGAGED IN AND BRAGS ABOUT sexually assaulting women, or thinks that LYING AND BRAGGING about sexual assault is something to be proud of.

And people voted for him.

Hilariously enough (""""hilariously""""), at my alma mater there was in fact a man who went around for a week or two assaulting women by grabbing them by the crotch as they walked by.  To literally nobody's surprise, he was arrested, charged, and hopefully was put behind bars for some period of time as a result.  Of course, he wasn't white and he wasn't rich, so maybe that's the difference between ye standard olde pussy grabber and President Pussy Grabber here.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: Lis on April 21, 2017, 02:54:18 PM
Hilariously enough (""""hilariously""""), at my alma mater there was in fact a man who went around for a week or two assaulting women by grabbing them by the crotch as they walked by.  To literally nobody's surprise, he was arrested, charged, and hopefully was put behind bars for some period of time as a result.  Of course, he wasn't white and he wasn't rich, so maybe that's the difference between ye standard olde pussy grabber and President Pussy Grabber here.

Ding ding ding.

And just because it hasn't been explicitly said yet - the absence of no does not mean yes.

Let me repeat that one more time.
THE ABSENCE OF NO DOES NOT MEAN YES

Sure, you and a regular partner can have a super secret handshake that means "yes sex now please," but just get the fucking yes.

There was a male politician in CT recently who pinched a woman in his office on the crotch - literally grabbed her pussy - and said that he was thrilled Trump was president because he didn't have to be politically correct anymore. She called the police, and he said it was just a joke that got blown out of proportion. (If I remember I'll try to find the article later - "pussy grabbing" is not really something I want to search on my work computer.) Here's the thing - when you're in a position of power and people are doing bad things in your name, or because they believe you think it's okay, the appropriate thing to do is condemn them.
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 21, 2017, 02:55:22 PM
One more point on the Billy Bush tape that hasn't been made in this thread yet: Trump was talking in the context of women who were at work, in roles subordinate or subsidiary to Trump's.  He wasn't talking about using his money as an attractor, he was talking about using his "star power", his position of power over them.  That makes it an abuse of power as well as sexual assault.

Now Trump's in the White House, is anyone taking bets against him abusing his power there too?  Financially, to benefit him and his family, if nothing else.

I really just want to know how many interns he's fucked so far
Title: Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
Post by: swick on April 21, 2017, 05:54:10 PM
Mod Note: After many reports, much moderation, and discussion by the Mods, we feel this thread has run it's course and continues to do more damage to out community.