Trump outrage of the day

[dandarc]

We had one race on the November ballot though - a seat on the soil and water board - where neither candidate so much as created a Facebook page for their campaign. Went with "not a real estate developer" on that one.

Maybe they just didn't want their voters personal data sold all over the US?

Ah, I know that is wrong, but would be nice if it were actually true.

I'm saying these 2 candidates ran for office you did nothing but get their names on the ballot. Didn't throw up a $5 website, no social media, no flyers. Haven't seen any kind of interviews from either one. Nothing. So you're left with "ask around - someone you know knows one of these candidates" and what little generic information you might find on the internet.

[former player]

Jared and Ivanka have threatened to sue for libel over two billboards in Times Square.  The reply to their threats has a lovely ending, essentially saying that their reputations are now so tarnished they have no defence and using the case of a notorious New York mob boss as evidence.  Nice one.

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1320150701947846656/photo/1

[OtherJen]

Jared and Ivanka have threatened to sue for libel over two billboards in Times Square.  The reply to their threats has a lovely ending, essentially saying that their reputations are now so tarnished they have no defence and using the case of a notorious New York mob boss as evidence.  Nice one.

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1320150701947846656/photo/1

That response is a thing of beauty. I would love to see those smug, spoiled children face consequences for their actions for once in their lives.

[MasterStache]

Jared and Ivanka have threatened to sue for libel over two billboards in Times Square.  The reply to their threats has a lovely ending, essentially saying that their reputations are now so tarnished they have no defence and using the case of a notorious New York mob boss as evidence.  Nice one.

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1320150701947846656/photo/1

That response is a thing of beauty. I would love to see those smug, spoiled children face consequences for their actions for once in their lives.

Ahh yes "Nuts!" A reply made famous when the Germans asked for American surrender at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. Have to appreciate the irony. 

[OzzieandHarriet]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

[partgypsy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

[OtherJen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

[partgypsy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

[OtherJen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

I’m sure it’s part of his “drain the swamp” bullshit. I hope it blows up in his face.

[Travis]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

I’m sure it’s part of his “drain the swamp” bullshit. I hope it blows up in his face.

It is. His position since day 1 has been to vilify the entire civil servant class. The advisor mentioned in the article was hired a couple years ago and has been instituting political loyalty tests as part of the hiring process in certain positions, going right around those cabinet secretaries and making their hiring decisions for them.

[Kyle Schuant]

There's a reason that Trump buys his wives from Eastern Europe - it's so he can exert more control over them.

That's impressively racist and misogynist.

As for Drumpf's outrage of the day - he's helped Israel get peace with a third country now, Sudan, joining UAE and Bahrain. UAE is now building a synagogue, along with a mosque and a church.

Note: this isn't a cold peace of tolerance like that between Israel and Egypt, it's full diplomatic relations, trade and tourism, etc.

He's also the first President since Carter to not start a war with another country. I guess he still has a couple of months and could do it, but he'd have to work hard.

He's been a complete disaster with covid, and his incompetence may ultimately cost half a million American lives. But for the rest of the world, an American President who organises peace between Israel and her neighbours, and who doesn't start a war - that's fucking awesome.

[Travis]

Note: this isn't a cold peace of tolerance like that between Israel and Egypt, it's full diplomatic relations, trade and tourism, etc.

He's also the first President since Carter to not start a war with another country. I guess he still has a couple of months and could do it, but he'd have to work hard.

He's been a complete disaster with covid, and his incompetence may ultimately cost half a million American lives. But for the rest of the world, an American President who organises peace between Israel and her neighbours, and who doesn't start a war - that's fucking awesome.

Assassinating a senior officer in the Iranian government doesn't count?

[JLee]

There's a reason that Trump buys his wives from Eastern Europe - it's so he can exert more control over them.

That's impressively racist and misogynist.

As for Drumpf's outrage of the day - he's helped Israel get peace with a third country now, Sudan, joining UAE and Bahrain. UAE is now building a synagogue, along with a mosque and a church.

Note: this isn't a cold peace of tolerance like that between Israel and Egypt, it's full diplomatic relations, trade and tourism, etc.

He's also the first President since Carter to not start a war with another country. I guess he still has a couple of months and could do it, but he'd have to work hard.

He's been a complete disaster with covid, and his incompetence may ultimately cost half a million American lives. But for the rest of the world, an American President who organises peace between Israel and her neighbours, and who doesn't start a war - that's fucking awesome.

Clinton didn't have any wars in his first term either.

[Kris]

I’m not sure bringing us to the brink of war that didn’t happen because the other side was less crazy and incompetent than Trump really counts...

[former player]

There's a reason that Trump buys his wives from Eastern Europe - it's so he can exert more control over them.

That's impressively racist and misogynist.

As for Drumpf's outrage of the day - he's helped Israel get peace with a third country now, Sudan, joining UAE and Bahrain. UAE is now building a synagogue, along with a mosque and a church.

Note: this isn't a cold peace of tolerance like that between Israel and Egypt, it's full diplomatic relations, trade and tourism, etc.

He's also the first President since Carter to not start a war with another country. I guess he still has a couple of months and could do it, but he'd have to work hard.

He's been a complete disaster with covid, and his incompetence may ultimately cost half a million American lives. But for the rest of the world, an American President who organises peace between Israel and her neighbours, and who doesn't start a war - that's fucking awesome.

Can I just point out that UAE, Bahrain and Sudan have never been to actual war with Israel?  Which means that this is not "bringing peace".  It's just bringing "diplomatic relations".  Which is OK, but not doing anything to solve the main issue which is the poor bloody Palestinians, who are either refugees or living in Israel's apartheid bantustans.

[gaja]

I’m not sure bringing us to the brink of war that didn’t happen because the other side was less crazy and incompetent than Trump really counts...

It is an innovative solution for diplomacy: be so crazy that the other side has to be the sober one.

[LennStar]

There's a reason that Trump buys his wives from Eastern Europe - it's so he can exert more control over them.

That's impressively racist and misogynist.

As for Drumpf's outrage of the day - he's helped Israel get peace with a third country now, Sudan, joining UAE and Bahrain. UAE is now building a synagogue, along with a mosque and a church.

Note: this isn't a cold peace of tolerance like that between Israel and Egypt, it's full diplomatic relations, trade and tourism, etc.

He's also the first President since Carter to not start a war with another country. I guess he still has a couple of months and could do it, but he'd have to work hard.

He's been a complete disaster with covid, and his incompetence may ultimately cost half a million American lives. But for the rest of the world, an American President who organises peace between Israel and her neighbours, and who doesn't start a war - that's fucking awesome.

Can I just point out that UAE, Bahrain and Sudan have never been to actual war with Israel?  Which means that this is not "bringing peace".  It's just bringing "diplomatic relations".  Which is OK, but not doing anything to solve the main issue which is the poor bloody Palestinians, who are either refugees or living in Israel's apartheid bantustans.

Actually Sudan and Israel were officially at war. But afaik no one ever shot. That was likely just a pressure declaration towards the military who indeed couped.

Anyway, the point I admit is that Trump is not blinded by the usual politics. He has his own blinders and stereotypes, but he would never say "We don't talk to Sudan, they helped Osama bin Baden 15 years ago!" just because some military or CIA guy says it. 

It is an innovative solution for diplomacy: be so crazy that the other side has to be the sober one.

Nah, that's old stuff. Remember Stalin's "hit shoe on the table" thing?
That was planned crazyness. Worked quite well.

[MasterStache]

He's also the first President since Carter to not start a war with another country. I guess he still has a couple of months and could do it, but he'd have to work hard.

Technically only Congress can authorize war with another country and that hasn't happened since WWII. Yes I know Presidents tend to subvert that process these days. But what exactly do you consider war? Under Trump the US has dropped over 20,000 bombs on Afghanistan his first 3 years in office. Roughly 15,000 more than Obama in his last 3 years. 14,000 more troops were deployed to the Middle East including to a new base in Saudia Arabia. He ordered the assassination of an Iranian military commander, backed a coup in Libya and backed several failed ones (Venezuela ring a bell). Then of course there was Trump boasting about wanting to kill every man, woman and child linked to ISIS. Yep entire families. He gave the green light and they did exactly that in Mosul.

....an American President who organises peace between Israel and her neighbours, and who doesn't start a war - that's fucking awesome.

I assume you are speaking for yourself and not actual other countries. Trump has not advanced our standing in the world on foreign policy one single bit. He has continued inflicting mass casualties, murdered people, and threatened other countries at will. Dictators are not seen as beacons of hope. He can't even take care of his own people. But hey if you think "he's fucking awesome" well that's your opinion dude.     

[partgypsy]

As for the rest of the world, we have abandoned our allies, such as walking away from the paris accord, which is just as much as a threat as any war if you speak about human toll  and cost, and in more plain fashion (Kurds in Syria). And like I mentioned in another thread, Obama has gotten a lot of (possibly deserved) flack for drone strikes. Trump has drastically increased drone strikes (has had done close to double what Obama did in 8 years) plus has struck down ruling that civilian deaths from drones must be reported. I guess another one if those annoying unnecessary bureacratic rules to him. I'm glad that we are not in a war. But I don't see his foreign policy/approach/whim as a "win". Not for the US. Not for our allies.

[Roadrunner53]

OMG!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-shares-2024-065658583.html

[bbqbonelesswing]

There's a reason that Trump buys his wives from Eastern Europe - it's so he can exert more control over them.

That's impressively racist and misogynist.

As for Drumpf's outrage of the day - he's helped Israel get peace with a third country now, Sudan, joining UAE and Bahrain. UAE is now building a synagogue, along with a mosque and a church.

Note: this isn't a cold peace of tolerance like that between Israel and Egypt, it's full diplomatic relations, trade and tourism, etc.

He's also the first President since Carter to not start a war with another country. I guess he still has a couple of months and could do it, but he'd have to work hard.

He's been a complete disaster with covid, and his incompetence may ultimately cost half a million American lives. But for the rest of the world, an American President who organises peace between Israel and her neighbours, and who doesn't start a war - that's fucking awesome.

Have you looked into the details of the proposed (and I say proposed because it isn't final, despite what Trump says) deal with Sudan? Or the UAE deal? Not exactly impressive or ideal terms. Give me a call when Trump signs an Israel/Iran deal, and I'll be wowed.

[Travis]

It is an innovative solution for diplomacy: be so crazy that the other side has to be the sober one.

Nah, that's old stuff. Remember Stalin's "hit shoe on the table" thing?
That was planned crazyness. Worked quite well.

That was Khrushchev.

[talltexan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

I’m sure it’s part of his “drain the swamp” bullshit. I hope it blows up in his face.

I mistrust Trump enough that I started this thread, and--working in economics--I know that my friends who work for the CBO or the President's CEA would be hurt by this.

But I imagine there's a legitimate libertarian argument that this is a good thing. Basically that creating a class of non-partisan civil servants makes it impossible for a conservative administration to undo the growth of the administrative state that seems to happen over time. Is someone on this site able to flesh this out?

[OtherJen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

I’m sure it’s part of his “drain the swamp” bullshit. I hope it blows up in his face.

I mistrust Trump enough that I started this thread, and--working in economics--I know that my friends who work for the CBO or the President's CEA would be hurt by this.

But I imagine there's a legitimate libertarian argument that this is a good thing. Basically that creating a class of non-partisan civil servants makes it impossible for a conservative administration to undo the growth of the administrative state that seems to happen over time. Is someone on this site able to flesh this out?

A reading of the article suggests that it’s intended a political loyalty test. As a patriot and decidedly not a libertarian (at least not in the modern US sense of the term), I find this concerning because it suggests that we could lose a lot of good, experienced workers who are loyal to country over party.

[former player]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

I’m sure it’s part of his “drain the swamp” bullshit. I hope it blows up in his face.

I mistrust Trump enough that I started this thread, and--working in economics--I know that my friends who work for the CBO or the President's CEA would be hurt by this.

But I imagine there's a legitimate libertarian argument that this is a good thing. Basically that creating a class of non-partisan civil servants makes it impossible for a conservative administration to undo the growth of the administrative state that seems to happen over time. Is someone on this site able to flesh this out?

Here's an article about the size of the civil service in the UK over time, demonstrating it can go down

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/19/how-the-uk-civil-service-has-changed-in-10-charts

Here's one relating to more recent times.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/civil-service-staff-numbers

[Travis]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

I’m sure it’s part of his “drain the swamp” bullshit. I hope it blows up in his face.

I mistrust Trump enough that I started this thread, and--working in economics--I know that my friends who work for the CBO or the President's CEA would be hurt by this.

But I imagine there's a legitimate libertarian argument that this is a good thing. Basically that creating a class of non-partisan civil servants makes it impossible for a conservative administration to undo the growth of the administrative state that seems to happen over time. Is someone on this site able to flesh this out?

A reading of the article suggests that it’s intended a political loyalty test. As a patriot and decidedly not a libertarian (at least not in the modern US sense of the term), I find this concerning because it suggests that we could lose a lot of good, experienced workers who are loyal to country over party.

Trump's administration has broken records for turnover from all levels of the federal workforce.  Good experienced workers have been leaving since day 1.

And the loyalty tests have been going on for months.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/15/trump-appointees-loyalty-interviews-364616

https://www.axios.com/john-mcentee-white-house-trump-a799d519-aa2f-4e3d-b081-601f8193d75d.html

Be sure to read to the bottom of the Axios article. The pre-interview questionnaire asks a series of questions that could be boiled down to "How much do you love Trump, and have you been properly indoctrinated?"

[nessness]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

I’m sure it’s part of his “drain the swamp” bullshit. I hope it blows up in his face.

I mistrust Trump enough that I started this thread, and--working in economics--I know that my friends who work for the CBO or the President's CEA would be hurt by this.

But I imagine there's a legitimate libertarian argument that this is a good thing. Basically that creating a class of non-partisan civil servants makes it impossible for a conservative administration to undo the growth of the administrative state that seems to happen over time. Is someone on this site able to flesh this out?

Well, first you'd have to demonstrate that the administrative state really is growing with time. Looking at the OPM statistics, the number of Federal civilian employees (excluding DOD civilians, whose number fluctuates heavily based on whether we're at war) has increased from 1.2 million in 1978 to 1.3 million in 2020, so a much much slower rate than population growth. And it's not a straight upward trajectory - there have been some decreases in there.

ETA: here's the link:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/executive-branch-civilian-employment-since-1940/

[nereo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

I’m sure it’s part of his “drain the swamp” bullshit. I hope it blows up in his face.

I mistrust Trump enough that I started this thread, and--working in economics--I know that my friends who work for the CBO or the President's CEA would be hurt by this.

But I imagine there's a legitimate libertarian argument that this is a good thing. Basically that creating a class of non-partisan civil servants makes it impossible for a conservative administration to undo the growth of the administrative state that seems to happen over time. Is someone on this site able to flesh this out?

Well, first you'd have to demonstrate that the administrative state really is growing with time. Looking at the OPM statistics, the number of Federal civilian employees (excluding DOD civilians, whose number fluctuates heavily based on whether we're at war) has increased from 1.2 million in 1978 to 1.3 million in 2020, so a much much slower rate than population growth. And it's not a straight upward trajectory - there have been some decreases in there.

ETA: here's the link:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/executive-branch-civilian-employment-since-1940/

Shh... don't let facts ruin a perfectly good political platform.

[Feivel2000]

Interesting, I put this data into a graph.

[talltexan]

How strange that the relentless increase of the state slowed so spectacularly during the era of Reagan, Gingrich, and McConnel?!?

[nereo]

How strange that the relentless increase of the state slowed so spectacularly during the era of Reagan, Gingrich, and McConnel?!?

From the graph and data above, it's hard for me to see any slowdown during Reagan, Gingrich or McConnell.  In fact, at first glance it appears that the size of the civil service has been more-or-less the same relative to the overall population since WWII.

[LennStar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-federal-civil-service/2020/10/23/02fbf05c-1549-11eb-ba42-ec6a580836ed_story.html

that is, not good. As if all the appointees he gets through the executive office are not enough, he wants to control who is hired and fired in sensitive positions such as CIA, FBI, DOJ.

Well, we know that Dr. Fauci will be on the short list for firing.

I'm actually glad he announced this before election day. Hopefully all federal employees will realize that career federal positions should not be a gift (or punishment/threat of firing) due to political affiliation, and vote him out en mass.

I’m sure it’s part of his “drain the swamp” bullshit. I hope it blows up in his face.

I mistrust Trump enough that I started this thread, and--working in economics--I know that my friends who work for the CBO or the President's CEA would be hurt by this.

But I imagine there's a legitimate libertarian argument that this is a good thing. Basically that creating a class of non-partisan civil servants makes it impossible for a conservative administration to undo the growth of the administrative state that seems to happen over time. Is someone on this site able to flesh this out?

Well, first you'd have to demonstrate that the administrative state really is growing with time. Looking at the OPM statistics, the number of Federal civilian employees (excluding DOD civilians, whose number fluctuates heavily based on whether we're at war) has increased from 1.2 million in 1978 to 1.3 million in 2020, so a much much slower rate than population growth. And it's not a straight upward trajectory - there have been some decreases in there.

ETA: here's the link:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/executive-branch-civilian-employment-since-1940/

Not to mention the growth of administrative staff in the private sector, which was bigger.

[nessness]

Interesting, I put this data into a graph.

Cool! But the log scale makes the trends hard to see. I would recommend showing just the Federal workforce total and percentage of the population, with a linear scale and separate y axes.

[sherr]

Interesting, I put this data into a graph.

Cool! But the log scale makes the trends hard to see. I would recommend showing just the Federal workforce total and percentage of the population, with a linear scale and separate y axes.

This seems exactly backwards. When dealing with things that grow exponentially (like population, and therefore presumably the Federal workforce), log scale is the correct scale to use to make trends easy to see.

The percentage however should be displayed on a linear scale, yes, even if it is overlayed on the same graph.

[Feivel2000]

Here you go, have fun.

[nessness]

Interesting, I put this data into a graph.

Cool! But the log scale makes the trends hard to see. I would recommend showing just the Federal workforce total and percentage of the population, with a linear scale and separate y axes.

This seems exactly backwards. When dealing with things that grow exponentially (like population, and therefore presumably the Federal workforce), log scale is the correct scale to use to make trends easy to see.

The percentage however should be displayed on a linear scale, yes, even if it is overlayed on the same graph.

I think you could go either way on log vs linear for Federal workforce population - it really depends on what information you're trying to portray. For example, a linear scale would make it easier to identify the time periods where the Federal workforce decreased.

[Feivel2000]

Here: No log scale, but population in millions.
I am done :)

[nessness]

Here: No log scale, but population in millions.
I am done :)

Thanks :)

[LaineyAZ]

The big loophole on discussion of federal civilian employees is how contractors have been included - or not - in those numbers?

The federal government, like the private sector, has embraced the idea of sub-contracting work to keep their full-time employee headcount low.  It's deceiving.  I think the entire federal budget annual amount is the important number to watch.

[LennStar]

The big loophole on discussion of federal civilian employees is how contractors have been included - or not - in those numbers?

The federal government, like the private sector, has embraced the idea of sub-contracting work to keep their full-time employee headcount low.  It's deceiving.  I think the entire federal budget annual amount is the important number to watch.

Even budgets are decieving. What about necessary work isn't done because of the "no new debt!" bullshit?
The bridges are still there, but they get worse every year, to take a classical example.

And there is expense hiding, the amor of Public Private Partnerships.
In the end the government pays more, but alas! that is in some future budget and you don't even need to put it into "road construction". It's simply "contract payments, to which the detail are business secret and as such you taxpayer, who pays for it, cannot hold anyone accountable".

[talltexan]

So Amy Comey Barrett is confirmed by the Senate (first justice since 1870 to receive 0 votes from the minority party), and this is the same day that the eight legacy Justices vote 5-3 to block voting accommodations to Wisconsin.

Despite her lifetime appointment, Barrett allows Trump to immediately use her as a campaign prop (a "pawn" if you will) from the WH balcony.

Kavanaugh--in a footnote--acknowledges Rehnquist's reasoning from Bush v. Gore. It seems that Republicans are excited to use their shiny new Supreme Court Justice to decide a Presidential election if they really need to.

[GuitarStv]

There's a reason that Trump buys his wives from Eastern Europe - it's so he can exert more control over them.

That's impressively racist and misogynist.

Agreed, but he still does it.

[Just Joe]

And here I thought it was so they couldn't call him out on his BS until they learned English... ;)

What a weird guy Trump is... I so hope he fades away starting Nov 3rd.

Was talking to a friend. Is all this far right GOP BS a reaction to a falling population of supporters? What is their strategy as American becomes a little more liberal each election cycle?

Eventually, once they've caused all manner of stress for the US, will they suddenly relent and b/c more moderate to woo back voters?

[LaineyAZ]

…..
Was talking to a friend. Is all this far right GOP BS a reaction to a falling population of supporters? What is their strategy as American becomes a little more liberal each election cycle?

Eventually, once they've caused all manner of stress for the US, will they suddenly relent and b/c more moderate to woo back voters?

That's funny because that's the accusation against the Dems in the last 40 years:  That Dems needed to move further right to attract those right-wing voters, despite the fact that they were never far left in the first place.  So the Dem party has been pulled rightward, but will the Republicans feel the need to go more centrist, or even leftward, after the 2020 election? 
I'm thinking not.  They have control of the federal court system, many state legislatures, and the huge megaphone of Fox news.  Their base is loud and angry and sure that they are the true patriotic Americans.  Even if their party strategists think there needs to be a change, I just don't see it happening.

[sherr]

And here I thought it was so they couldn't call him out on his BS until they learned English... ;)

What a weird guy Trump is... I so hope he fades away starting Nov 3rd.

Was talking to a friend. Is all this far right GOP BS a reaction to a falling population of supporters? What is their strategy as American becomes a little more liberal each election cycle?

Eventually, once they've caused all manner of stress for the US, will they suddenly relent and b/c more moderate to woo back voters?

You are assuming that the Republican party (or any party for that matter) is a monolithic organization that has "plans" and "strategies" and a person "steering the rudder" to bring them about. It's not. The "establishment" very much did not want Trump to win the nomination for example. They "had" a 2013 autopsy report recommending that they moderate to pull in more minority and millennial voters, and then they completely ignored it and doubled down on white grievance politics. And now Trump has remade the party in his own image, and Republican voters adore him absolutely, and Republican politicians kowtow to him because they know that they will get primaried by a Trumper if they don't.

Instead parties are like a flock of birds flying together. When they take off, when they land, the random direction changes in mid-air, none of it is planned and there is no logic behind it, merely averages of fairly random individual behavior. Sometimes a bird randomly decides to go "this way". Sometimes others follow it, sometimes they don't, sometimes the flock splits.

The Republican party might moderate after Trump. Or they might not, and they might double-down even harder. Doubling down even harder might work for them, or it might lead to the death of the party for a decade until some other party rises up to fill the "not Democrats" position. No one knows.

[GuitarStv]

And here I thought it was so they couldn't call him out on his BS until they learned English... ;)

What a weird guy Trump is... I so hope he fades away starting Nov 3rd.

Was talking to a friend. Is all this far right GOP BS a reaction to a falling population of supporters? What is their strategy as American becomes a little more liberal each election cycle?

Eventually, once they've caused all manner of stress for the US, will they suddenly relent and b/c more moderate to woo back voters?

You are assuming that the Republican party (or any party for that matter) is a monolithic organization that has "plans" and "strategies" and a person "steering the rudder" to bring them about. It's not. The "establishment" very much did not want Trump to win the nomination for example. They "had" a 2013 autopsy report recommending that they moderate to pull in more minority and millennial voters, and then they completely ignored it and doubled down on white grievance politics. And now Trump has remade the party in his own image, and Republican voters adore him absolutely, and Republican politicians kowtow to him because they know that they will get primaried by a Trumper if they don't.

Instead parties are like a flock of birds flying together. When they take off, when they land, the random direction changes in mid-air, none of it is planned and there is no logic behind it, merely averages of fairly random individual behavior. Sometimes a bird randomly decides to go "this way". Sometimes others follow it, sometimes they don't, sometimes the flock splits.

The Republican party might moderate after Trump. Or they might not, and they might double-down even harder. Doubling down even harder might work for them, or it might lead to the death of the party for a decade until some other party rises up to fill the "not Democrats" position. No one knows.

I think that a big problem establishment republicans had (and why they lost control of the party) is that they severely underestimated how much the people they support want to own the libs, ignore science, force their religious views on others, and be openly racist.  Trump didn't re-make the party . . . as much as he gave Republicans voters what they overwhelmingly wanted.

Voters didn't want to moderate or make deals.  Voters didn't want to be fiscally conservative.  Voters didn't want to make a more inclusive party.  They got exactly what they wanted in Trump . . . that's why they're such huge fans of him.

[talltexan]

Counterpoint: mainstream Republicans always knew their voters wanted this, but they also had people writing the checks who wanted:

• Tax Reform
• Neo-conservative Foreign Policy
• Social policy implemented in a way that slanted toward Evangelical Christianity
• Selling weapons and equipment to private citizens

[LaineyAZ]

In other words, the Koch brothers and their friends who finance the Republican party got, and continue to get, exactly what they paid for.
(the book Dark Money is a great source for the details on this.)  They're not about to give that up.

[John Galt incarnate!]

So Amy Comey Barrett is confirmed by the Senate (first justice since 1870 to receive 0 votes from the minority party), and this is the same day that the eight legacy Justices vote 5-3 to block voting accommodations to Wisconsin.

Every state  legislature ought to have language in their relevant election statute such  as: "In the event of an exigency an extension of the period for the counting of votes is permissible."

Despite her lifetime appointment, Barrett allows Trump to immediately use her as a campaign prop (a "pawn" if you will) from the WH balcony.

Kavanaugh--in a footnote--acknowledges Rehnquist's reasoning from Bush v. Gore. It seems that Republicans are excited to use their shiny new Supreme Court Justice to decide a Presidential election if they really need to.

In her  fiery dissent in Bush v. Gore  RBG criticized the majority for lending  "credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land."

I imagine that C.J. Roberts' concern for the *Court's institutional  reputation is already causing him nightmares about Bush v. Gore redux.

*Avoidance of the taint of a politicized Court was among the reasons Roberts delivered the opinion that upheld the ACA.

[GuitarStv]

In other words, the Koch brothers and their friends who finance the Republican party got, and continue to get, exactly what they paid for.
(the book Dark Money is a great source for the details on this.)  They're not about to give that up.

I don't buy this.  If they Koch brothers were forcing Republicans to do something they didn't want, I don't think support of Trump would be in the high 90s among the voters.