Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 349955 times)

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #950 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. 


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10698
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #951 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.

bananarama

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #952 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.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6603
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #953 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?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #954 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.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #955 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.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

bananarama

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #956 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

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6603
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #957 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.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2914
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #958 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.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #959 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.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #960 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. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #961 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.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2106
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #962 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.)

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #963 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"?
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2914
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #964 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.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #965 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.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3151
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #966 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.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #967 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.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #968 on: January 13, 2017, 03:34:06 PM »

It makes Trump into a fucking dictator.

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

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #969 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
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #970 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.




Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #971 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

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

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #972 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.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #973 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

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.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #974 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.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #975 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

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

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2668
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #976 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

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #977 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?
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6603
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #978 on: January 13, 2017, 04:34:44 PM »
Acts like Silvio Berlusconi + talks like Hugo Chavez?

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

-W

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

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

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2668
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #979 on: January 13, 2017, 04:39:18 PM »
It's ok, I do think most people are pretty stupid.

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

-W

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #980 on: January 13, 2017, 04:39:49 PM »
Acts like Silvio Berlusconi + talks like Hugo Chavez?

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

-W

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

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

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

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

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #981 on: January 13, 2017, 04:40:33 PM »
It's ok, I do think most people are pretty stupid.

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

-W

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

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2668
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #982 on: January 13, 2017, 04:47:39 PM »


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

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

-W

Close enough for a moron, apparently.

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

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

-W

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #983 on: January 13, 2017, 05:17:15 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7705
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #984 on: January 13, 2017, 05:26:58 PM »
THe concern here is less about "at will" employees, but FTE. That's been stated over and over again.
Regarding the independent federal agencies - these agencies were all created by acts of congress and signed by the President.  Each was created specifically to be independent, in no small part because COngress did want the executive branch to completely control (for example) the EPA.
While the president appoints the head of these organizations, each is governed by a board - appointments are intentionally staggered so that no one president can appoint all of the members of the board. Protection from termination has been granted to federal workers precisely to prevent the kind of political meddling this would allow.

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

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

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #985 on: January 13, 2017, 05:38:47 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #986 on: January 13, 2017, 06:25:56 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5307
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #987 on: January 13, 2017, 07:05:02 PM »
I also don't see him picking people just to fuck with the left either, that is the kind of thing someone with a truly right wing agenda would do. Trump clearly doesn't spend much time thinking in those terms, he doesn't appear to have any strong ideological ground with regard to most political issues.

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

MustacheMathTM

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #988 on: January 13, 2017, 09:30:42 PM »
I also don't see him picking people just to fuck with the left either, that is the kind of thing someone with a truly right wing agenda would do. Trump clearly doesn't spend much time thinking in those terms, he doesn't appear to have any strong ideological ground with regard to most political issues.

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

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

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5307
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #989 on: January 13, 2017, 09:39:43 PM »
I also don't see him picking people just to fuck with the left either, that is the kind of thing someone with a truly right wing agenda would do. Trump clearly doesn't spend much time thinking in those terms, he doesn't appear to have any strong ideological ground with regard to most political issues.

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

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

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

MustacheMathTM

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #990 on: January 13, 2017, 10:55:29 PM »

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

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

Quote

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

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

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2106
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #991 on: January 14, 2017, 10:37:09 PM »
THe concern here is less about "at will" employees, but FTE. That's been stated over and over again.
Regarding the independent federal agencies - these agencies were all created by acts of congress and signed by the President.  Each was created specifically to be independent, in no small part because COngress did want the executive branch to completely control (for example) the EPA.
While the president appoints the head of these organizations, each is governed by a board - appointments are intentionally staggered so that no one president can appoint all of the members of the board. Protection from termination has been granted to federal workers precisely to prevent the kind of political meddling this would allow.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #992 on: January 14, 2017, 11:28:12 PM »
I find it amusing how many worm around and squeal because he is going into office. The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia. Seriously? We are in every country in the Middle East and now are screwing with Israel and threatened Russia for exposing the truth. And the media wants to print unverified stories about paying a hooker to piss in a bed. <---- Thats what you all think are important? Pissing in a bed, and its not verified. Pray for our country.

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

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #993 on: January 14, 2017, 11:37:03 PM »
I find it amusing how many worm around and squeal because he is going into office. The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia. Seriously? We are in every country in the Middle East and now are screwing with Israel and threatened Russia for exposing the truth. And the media wants to print unverified stories about paying a hooker to piss in a bed. <---- Thats what you all think are important? Pissing in a bed, and its not verified. Pray for our country.

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

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

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #994 on: January 14, 2017, 11:49:02 PM »
I find it amusing how many worm around and squeal because he is going into office. The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia. Seriously? We are in every country in the Middle East and now are screwing with Israel and threatened Russia for exposing the truth. And the media wants to print unverified stories about paying a hooker to piss in a bed. <---- Thats what you all think are important? Pissing in a bed, and its not verified. Pray for our country.

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

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

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

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2106
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #995 on: January 15, 2017, 12:03:10 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

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

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

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5307
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #996 on: January 15, 2017, 12:06:20 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

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

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

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

MustacheMathTM

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #997 on: January 15, 2017, 12:46:30 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

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

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

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

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

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

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #998 on: January 15, 2017, 05:06:39 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

realDonaldTrump

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #999 on: January 15, 2017, 05:40:23 AM »
Widening gap between rich and poor. Trump voters will get what they asked for :)