Trump Thread

[HopAlongBunny]

The best way to drain the swamp is to protect the swamp critters:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ethics-waivers-kellyanne-conway-steve-bannon-lobbyists-2017-6

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/05/31/white_house_reluctantly_discloses_ethics_waivers_granted_secretly_to_trump.html

At least someone is looking after the inhabitants :pop2:

[Gilrandir]

As for loyalties, you did see what he did to Putin's pet syrian, correct?


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: If you mean something serious you don't warn those who are at the receiving end of your ire a day in advance.

[HopAlongBunny]

Get ready to rock!
Freedom is about to be spewed all over America!!!
In a double header Congress seeks to repeal much of Dodd-Frank and sideline the consumer protection bureau:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/house-republicans-are-trying-to-pass-the-most-dangerous-wall-street-deregulation-bill-ever/

Of course the Comey testimony tomorrow will be the major story, and likely a good reason to drink; so Cheers!!! for that :barrel:

[Vuk]

19695
Mr. Trump is gracing the first product my new start-up is offering. We should have them in hand Friday.
You can buy one ($10 plus shipping) by sending me a message on my Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/BeBrazenBeMighty/

[Gilrandir]

Didn't know Comey was a weather master (aka cloud lifter):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/james-comey-statement-testimony.html

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He's not. This cloud will lift when this presidency ends and a proper liberal is returned to office. Until then, the media emasculation of the office will continue.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67-iTpIqZrU

[Gilrandir]

He's not. This cloud will lift when this presidency ends and a proper liberal is returned to office. Until then, the media emasculation of the office will continue.

Ends untimely?

[Greyblades]

Has there ever been a time when the position of president wasnt under one cloud or another?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Has there ever been a time when the position of president wasnt under one cloud or another?

NONE of them are without their detractors to be sure. However, the kind of slow-motion feeding frenzy we are currently witnessing was NOT a hurdle faced by the Obama administration, nor by the Clinton administration except during the impeachment debacle. Bush 41 was treated reasonably well by the media.

[HopAlongBunny]

Transcript from politico:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295?lo=ap_b2

It's all true Katie!:gossip:

[a completely inoffensive name]

No difference as neither are impeachable.

As Comey stated, 'Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome priest?'

[HopAlongBunny]

Nothing much seems to have changed from where we were before the testimony.
Comey deferred most of the zingers to the special prosecutor. So when, and if that is finished and sees the light of day, all will be revealed :on_cheer:
Right now it comes down to the fact the President is untouchable w/o the political will to act; that barrier is insurmountable with or w/o cause.

PS. please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

[HopAlongBunny]

Team Trump open with a predictable gambit:
deny, deflect, defame.

It seems to be an instinctive reaction from Trump. He says he will tell his story under oath (I won't hold my breath waiting for that)
In a test of relative credibility there is no choice.

[Montmorency]

Interesting. All the legislation signed into law by the sitting administration (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation)?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting. All the legislation signed into law by the sitting administration (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation)?

My earlier comments in this thread that the real goal of the constant drumbeat to impeach Trump was a tool for emasculating his administration is reflected in your cite. THAT has always been the prime goal (though they'd love to dump him if the could). Kill Trump's effort to make change and his followers will fade away and Washington can get back to the usual.

[Montmorency]

My earlier comments in this thread that the real goal of the constant drumbeat to impeach Trump was a tool for emasculating his administration is reflected in your cite. THAT has always been the prime goal (though they'd love to dump him if the could). Kill Trump's effort to make change and his followers will fade away and Washington can get back to the usual.

Not quite what I was getting at; I should larify that I'm not talking about Trump. The number of bills is comparable to equivalent periods in other administrations, and for the most part isn't related to President Trump anyway: minor (i.e. trivial) changes in the verbiage of prior legislation, various special considerations for specific individuals or groups, namings of federal buildings...

The fact that most bills aren't related or relevant to the Presidency is why this struck me, that the absolute number of bills is so few. It turns out that Congress rarely sends up more than a few hundred bills per session for executive authorization in modern times, regardless of who is President. I had been under the impression that this sort of routine, low-impact work, generally voted upon unanimously and with little debate, created a much higher volume of bills actually signed into law, on the order of dozens per week. So I was wrong about that. Congress in fact does much less than I realized!


As for the substance of your comment, I suspect the reason the Trump administration and the Republican Congresspeople don't put up all the momentous things they routinely herald for the near future, rather than any Democratic or media opposition, is because they have none. There is no policy, no legislation, only the shell game toward the next election. Once they've reconciled their pillaging of government infrastructure with funding their pork commitments, they'll put up their budgets and their proposals to either privatize or eliminate entirely some civic institution or endowment, but that's about it. I have to believe that the GOP isn't much interested in governing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have to believe that the GOP isn't much interested in governing.

Just figuring that out?

[Sarmatian]

My earlier comments in this thread that the real goal of the constant drumbeat to impeach Trump was a tool for emasculating his administration is reflected in your cite. THAT has always been the prime goal (though they'd love to dump him if the could). Kill Trump's effort to make change and his followers will fade away and Washington can get back to the usual.

I have to ask you, do you really think Trump's goal is to make changes? Serious changes, that is. Fighting for the common man, draining the swamp, that sort of thing. He's the perfect representative of big business, something Republicans have always supported. Congress is heavily influenced by corporations already and has been for quite some time. It feels like business as usual.

I understand and agree that Democrats want to emasculate his administration, but the way you said Washington, it felt like you meant the entire political establishment was against him.

[HopAlongBunny]

Thank god someone is seeking to help the rich!
After making tons of money (but less than they could've made) under the cumbersome Dodd-Frank socialist regime, Republicans are banding together "For Freedom!"
Blowing away regulations and the nanny-state overseer that was the Consumer Protection office will make America's banks safe (to fail again)

https://wonkette.com/618405/house-votes-to-kill-dodd-frank-enjoy-the-next-financial-collapse

The only thing better than financial collapse averted at at taxpayer expense, is to set the table to do it twice :)

Other things the fearless GOP has been doing while Trump takes the headlines:

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/06/09/five-policy-changes-trump-this-week-000455

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have to ask you, do you really think Trump's goal is to make changes? Serious changes, that is. Fighting for the common man, draining the swamp, that sort of thing. He's the perfect representative of big business, something Republicans have always supported. Congress is heavily influenced by corporations already and has been for quite some time. It feels like business as usual.

I understand and agree that Democrats want to emasculate his administration, but the way you said Washington, it felt like you meant the entire political establishment was against him.

I was thoroughly convinced that he went there to make changes. I would fully concur that -- as with so many before him -- what the voters THOUGHT he was promising and the specifics of his ACTUAL efforts towards change would NOT correspond 1:1.

And yes I DO mean that significant components of the Washington establishment on the GOP side would like to see him out of office and to ensure that he accomplishes only limited objectives. The establishment GOP wants a tougher Southern Border....but nothing resembling a metaphorical wall. The establishment GOP doesn't want Obamacare but they don't want to pay the political cost of repealing it either...they want a GOP version that changes it a little at the edges but keeps all the popular provisions. The establishment GOP wants to campaign on small government...but don't want it too small or they lose that beautiful campaign issue....

How BADLY does Trump really want such changes? I am not sure....but I don't think the current game-smiths in D.C. will let us find out anyway.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hope impeachment charges move forward under a Dem congress under entirely political pretenses. And that it becomes precedent.

If this Republic is going to have another dramatic institutional shift along the lines of 1820, 1865, and the 1930s I would wish for a more active Congress, with a dramatically weakened president.
Enough of this imperial presidency concentrating the 'will of the people' into practice.

[Pannonian]

I hope impeachment charges move forward under a Dem congress under entirely political pretenses. And that it becomes precedent.

If this Republic is going to have another dramatic institutional shift along the lines of 1820, 1865, and the 1930s I would wish for a more active Congress, with a dramatically weakened president.
Enough of this imperial presidency concentrating the 'will of the people' into practice.

Isn't that Parliamentary government?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Isn't that Parliamentary government?

No, it would be closer to the U.S. as it practiced politics from 1820s-1860s. Although, with the amount of baseline responsibility POTUS has as a world leader with nukes and whatnot, it would be a different beast entirely.

[Pannonian]

No, it would be closer to the U.S. as it practiced politics from 1820s-1860s. Although, with the amount of baseline responsibility POTUS has as a world leader with nukes and whatnot, it would be a different beast entirely.

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

[Montmorency]

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

That would be Polk. Or Jackson. Or Jefferson. Definitely Adams?

Uh.....

[a completely inoffensive name]

That would be Polk. Or Jackson. Or Jefferson. Definitely Adams?

Uh.....
Almost all presidents increased power, but they did not increase power to the same degree. Jackson, Lincoln, teddy, FDR really shifted the perception of what the president is/ can be

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

His was the largest single change aside from FDR. However, ACIN is correct that a majority tried to enhance federal power and that Lincoln was certainly not the first.

Washington -- the least power acquisitive of them -- used a recess appointment to pick the CJ of the SCOTUS
Jefferson began a war with the Barbary pirates without Congressional approval, made the Louisiana purchase without prior approval, and allowed support for the slave rebellion in Haiti while minimizing support for the French there.
Monroe allowed General Jackson to conquer Florida as a "oopsie" while conducting a punitive campaign against the Seminole.

...and that is just the first 5. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, emanicipation proclamation, and --arguably -- his refusal to see participation in the Union under the Constitution as voluntary, were merely the biggest growth in executive power during our Republic's first century. He was certainly not alone.

[Montmorency]

Personally, we might give the days of the imperial executive, independent of Congress (and first among equals in the party) another shot.

Post-1974 has been executive by committee, corporate boardroom style, or maybe like 1990s Chinese CP. I don't see that you can bundle a weak executive, weak central party control, and a strong Congress in itself, let alone that it would be desirable.

In other news, Puerto Rico votes for statehood again (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/americas/puerto-rico-statehood-referendum/index.html).

The 2012 referendum had a good turnout at 3/4, so while this plebiscite had a much bigger proportion voting for statehood, 97% to 61%*, the turnout at 1/4 is embarrassing.

Unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to the matter.

*This figure not counting the 500,000 blank answers (out of 1.9 million ballots) to the 2012 question on desired status, which altogether suggests most Puerto Ricans don't have much concern about formal status one way or another.

[Sarmatian]

Or simply let POTUS be divided into president and prime minister. Problem solved

[a completely inoffensive name]

Personally, we might give the days of the imperial executive, independent of Congress (and first among equals in the party) another shot.

Post-1974 has been executive by committee, corporate boardroom style, or maybe like 1990s Chinese CP. I don't see that you can bundle a weak executive, weak central party control, and a strong Congress in itself, let alone ...

The imperial executive is unstable in the long term, even in the medium term. We had a future president (nixon) direct his team to commit treason in order to undermine the re-election of the sitting president.

I don't see that you can invoke Roman notions of princepe civitates without any awareness of how quickly augustian/trajan rule devolves into nero/commodus.

[Montmorency]

The imperial executive is unstable in the long term, even in the medium term.

That's not a weakness while cyclical factors remain at play in our life. There are no long-term stable power-sharing structures, "mature democracy" or no. The contemporary executive looks the way it does in the context of a federal government (and counterparts in Europe and Asia) preoccupied with security and maintenance rather than with expansion. If we could say it were possible to take a particular direction in the future, I would prefer the old example over the trend toward endless compartmentalization of governance. That doesn't mean that a modern strong executive would act like a 20th-century executive, that the world would look or run like a 20th-century world, or that the state would bend toward the narrow social democracy many on the left pine for as the unfulfilled promise of those days - but I would like to see how such a thing would play out in its new ways, and what kind of world could produce it.


I don't see that you can invoke Roman notions of princepe civitates without any awareness of how quickly augustian/trajan rule devolves into nero/commodus.

I was just talking with respect to party leadership; it's not necessary to think in this kind of analogy. Nixon was not like Nero or Commodus vis-a-vis an FDR Hadrian (or what have you).

[HopAlongBunny]

Apparently two Attorney's General (Maryland and D.C.) have decided to test the emoluments clause applicability to Trump's situation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-emoluments-clause-what-does-it-mean-president-n771081

This looks complicated :) Is a transaction to a related organization/corporation directly tied to an office holder, within the scope of the clause?
Is "just business" even a defence?
Weren't these issues raised at Trump's inauguration? (yes) and solved? (sort of-questionable att if the measures were sufficient; clear that the measures were implemented haphazardly)

[Pannonian]

That's not a weakness while cyclical factors remain at play in our life. There are no long-term stable power-sharing structures, "mature democracy" or no. The contemporary executive looks the way it does in the context of a federal government (and counterparts in Europe and Asia) preoccupied with security and maintenance rather than with expansion. If we could say it were possible to take a particular direction in the future, I would prefer the old example over the trend toward endless compartmentalization of governance. That doesn't mean that a modern strong executive would act like a 20th-century executive, that the world would look or run like a 20th-century world, or that the state would bend toward the narrow social democracy many on the left pine for as the unfulfilled promise of those days - but I would like to see how such a thing would play out in its new ways, and what kind of world could produce it.

I was just talking with respect to party leadership; it's not necessary to think in this kind of analogy. Nixon was not like Nero or Commodus vis-a-vis an FDR Hadrian (or what have you).

Do you have an equivalent of an independent unelected civil service?

[Strike For The South]

So apparently someone has floated a ballon that Trump will fire Mueller.

be still, my heart.

[HopAlongBunny]

This balloon is bigger, HUUUGER! than the Hindenburg baby!
It appears Mueller is just another partisan hack intent on dimming the bright light that is Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/12/trump-special-counsel-robert-mueller-surrogates-239447

Of course it might be a continuation of deny, deflect and defame any critic of the administration,

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pence resigns. Trump appoints B Sanders VEEP. Senate Confirms. Trump resigns. Media switches to "at last all will be as it should" mode.

[HopAlongBunny]

Jeff Sessions is a Law and Order kinda guy.
He seems to be preparing for a new "war on drugs"
Those ppl you know who are treating pain, PTSD, depression, nausea, insomnia...etc. with medical marijuana might just be criminals!
If Sessions has his way, it seems they will be treated as such:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-behind-the-dea-s-long-war-on-marijuana/

No point in letting a reason to jail people go to waste

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4xKwGf965U

[Griffin Robert Faulkner]

sigh trump

[HopAlongBunny]

The world gets a little crazier
Trump likely under investigation for obstruction now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html

Mueller won't comment, so this relies on the veracity of the ever present unnamed source.
The Trump team seems to pretty much shrug and say "He brought it on himself":

http://www.thedailybeast.com/even-trumps-aides-blame-him-for-obstruction-probe-president-did-this-to-himself

It would make a cool movie if the premise was a bit more believable...

[HopAlongBunny]

A good summary of where we are with Trump investigation and how we got here:

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532985377/report-trump-under-investigation-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice

[Montmorency]

Putin offers Comey asylum (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/15/putin-james-comey-asylum-239589)

Too clever by far.

[Gilrandir]

Putin offers Comey asylum (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/15/putin-james-comey-asylum-239589)

Too clever by far.

He will have to share a room with Snowden?

[Greyblades]

I would kill to be a fly on that wall.

[drone]

Putin offers Comey asylum (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/15/putin-james-comey-asylum-239589)

Too clever by far.

See Donald, this is how you troll people. :yes:

[Husar]

Now he wants to reestablish the Cuban ban. Saw a bit iof his speech and two things made me laugh:

1. "Stop jailing innocent people!": How about he begins in his own country? He chose an attourney general who wants to jail a lot more people and for longer if they get caught smoking a joint. The largest prison population in the world (including larger countries), but telling other not to jail so many people...

2. "Stop jailing people for political dissidence!": Hilarious, who just bragged about a 110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia? And how many political dissidents did he see or meet there?

The selective morals, double standard and catering to political groups are dripping out of this speech like BBQ sauce out of a burger...

[HopAlongBunny]

Mission Accomplished!

Putin got real value for his investment in Trump; China has done well also.
Its nice to see a two-for in foreign policy:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/11/putin-mission-already-accomplished-despite-syria-strike-jill-lawrence-column/100295454/

[Gilrandir]

1. "Stop jailing innocent people!": How about he begins in his own country?

And it would be good if he pays attention to jailing the guilty ones.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Now I gotta go on ancestry.com and pray that there is someone from cuba in my family tree so I can claim I need to go there for rum "family".

[Husar]

Now I gotta go on ancestry.com and pray that there is someone from cuba in my family tree so I can claim I need to go there for rum "family".

Or you could go to a sane country, where Cuban rum can be bought in every supermarket and liquor store.

[Montmorency]

Or you could go to a sane country, where Cuban rum can be bought in every supermarket and liquor store.

In a high-school history class on the subject of the Cuban embargo:

Me: But it doesn't exist in other countries, so couldn't you just like go to Canada and fly to Cuba?
Teacher: YOU COULD ALSO MURDER SOMEONE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD
Me: ~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:

And she wasn't Cuban or (visibly) conservative or anything.

[Greyblades]

Navy jet shoots down Syrian warplane that attacked US-backed rebels (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/18/us-led-coalition-shoots-down-pro-assad-fighter-jets-after-attack-on-partner-forces.html)



Published June 18, 2017
Fox News

A U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) in the Mediterranean Sea June 28, 2016.

A U.S. Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) in the Mediterranean Sea June 28, 2016. (U.S. Navy/Reuters)

A U.S. Navy fighter jet shot down a Syrian government warplane after it attacked Washington-backed fighters near ISIS' de facto capital of Raqqa, the U.S.-led coalition said Sunday.

In a statement, the coalition headquarters in Iraq said that a F/A-18E Super Hornet shot down a Syrian Su-22 that had dropped bombs near positions held by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The statement said coalition aircraft had "conducted a show of force" to turn back an attack by Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's forces on the SDF in the town of Ja'Din, south of Tabqah.

The coalition said the shootdown took place "in accordance with rules of engagement and in collective self-defense of Coalition partnered forces."

The statement said "a number of SDF fighters" were wounded in the regime's attack, but did not specify further. The coalition also said that Russian officers had been contacted on a special "de-confliction" hotline in an effort to halt the assault.

"The Coalition's mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria," its statement said. "The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend Coalition or partner forces from any threat."

[Montmorency]

Navy jet shoots down Syrian warplane that attacked US-backed rebels (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/18/us-led-coalition-shoots-down-pro-assad-fighter-jets-after-attack-on-partner-forces.html)

The article mentions US planes bombed Syrian troops within a govt zone a few weeks ago after downing a hostile drone.

I can't find anything mentioning a bombing immediately prior to the downing of the drone (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/us-led-coalition-syria-strike-at-tanf/index.html), but there was one around the same area of An(Al? At?)-Tanf (near one of the largest de-confliction zones (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/syria-de-escalation-zones-explained-170506050208636.html) in Syria) back in mid-May (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-air-strike-bombing-assad-forces-trump-attack-us-white-house-latest-news-updates-a7743641.html).

[Husar]

Russia to attack US coalition planes over Syria from now on (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-shoot-down-all-flying-objects-in-syria-us-regime-warplane-isis-terror-a7797101.html)


Russia has said it will treat US warplanes operating in parts of Syria where its air forces are also present as "targets" amid a diplomatic row caused by the downing of a Syrian jet.

The country's defence ministry said it would track US-led coalition aircraft with missile systems and military aircraft, but stopped short of saying it would shoot them down.

A hotline set up between Russia and the US to prevent mid-air collisions will also be suspended.

[Shaka_Khan]

That wouldn't be the first time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZJsMLcCRV8

It could happen again.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Democrats lose another special election.

At this point, just let them have a super majority and burn down the welfare state. If you can't find fault in a candidate unafraid to say that you don't deserve a living wage...then I say we give them what they want. Poverty and wage slavery

[Strike For The South]

Democrats need to learn how to downplay how much outside money and influence pour into these elections. Republicans have practically made that an art form. Hell, they managed to convince everyone George Bush was a cowboy.

I don't think it is a total loss. The election before the run off way overly inflated expectations. I mean, you can tell people how badly the R vote split but all some see is 11 points to 51%. The Georiga 6th is a massively red district and Ossoff made up something like 19 points. Granted, that includes the fact he had a massive war chest. However I feel like that is more about the limitations of money than anything else.

[Hooahguy]

I live right next to the Georgia 6th. Handel is a moron, and considering how deep red the 6th is, Im not surprised at all that she won. But attack ads work and considering the radio ads and flyers here (even in other districts) were a constant thing for both sides. Some of Handel's were pretty bad, like insinuating terror connections with Ossoff. But like in 2016, Republicans go to the polls, and thats why she won. Read about some Berniebros who were celebrating Ossoff's loss since he wasnt left wing enough. Thats why Democrats lose.

Funny thing is, that seat is up for election in 2018. More of a morale victory than anything else since she will have to defend the seat again soon anyways. Assuming the Democrats put someone forward. Lesson is, bring someone forward who is squeaky clean, lessen the outside money, and someone who has lived in the 6th for most of their lives. That seemed to be the biggest hitting points for the GOP in this race.

[Strike For The South]

Democrats need to let go of purity tests.

[drone]

Democrats need to let go of purity tests.

They also need to get rid of Pelosi. She has led the House Dems incompetently for almost 15 years, and is an easy talking point against Democratic congressional candidates. "Vote for me, or Pelosi will be in charge again!"

Parnell did pretty well in the South Carolina 5th election, lost by ~3 points. Not bad overall, considering how red both districts were.

[Hooahguy]

The entire Democratic party needs to take a step back and re-evaluate whats going wrong. For one thing, the loss of the blue-dog Dems led to the GOP taking over most of the state legislatures. And then the Berniecrats came along and brought the purity tests to a new level. You can't run a Bernie-level progressive in red districts and expect to win much. Campaigning on raising the minimum wage will not have any impact on the wealthy voters who make up a large chunk of the 6th. Also, just campaigning on "fight Trump" doesnt seem to be working, just like "vote against Trump" didnt work last November.

And while I do think Pelosi needs to step back, they dont need to get rid of her. Because if its not Pelosi they will find someone else as their scarecrow. I mean I saw flyers out here which tried to scare voters away from Ossoff because of John Lewis, and hes a hero of the Civil Rights era.

[HopAlongBunny]

The draft of the Senate bill to replace the ACA has been released.
It is everything you would expect:
-attempts to effectively defund Planned Parenthood
-reduces and then eliminates the Medicaid expansion
-premium support seems to be coming in the form of credits which are less generous
-includes a waiver which allows states to offer plans that do not cover essential services (as enumerated in the ACA); allows them to offer cheaper plans with high deductibles
and much more; it is everything the GOP promised, including a rather beautiful tax reduction for the wealthy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-healthcare-bill-trumpcare-ahca-details-2017-6

It is a draft, so it can change before going to a vote. McConnell wishes for a short time frame for debate/amendment/passage so changes could be limited.
It has been attacked for not going far enough (hawks think it does not go far enough) and going to far (moderates in GOP feel it is cruel)
It will be a balancing act to ensure the votes needed to get passage, and that's only if they can keep the bill under the no filibuster reconciliation method; the defunding of Planned Parenthood may have to be separated.

If you or someone you know is receiving assistance in battling substance abuse, it was nice while it lasted

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/heres-how-the-senate-health-bill-will-make-the-opioid-crisis-even-more-devastating/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/09/gop-health-care-bill-would-drop-mental-health-coverage-mandate-covering-1-3-million-americans/

[Montmorency]

'Who the heck is George Will', but the line


Today, conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives whose irritable gestures lack mental ingredients.

is fantastic trash talk.

[Montmorency]

Not Trump, but an article (http://amp.slate.com/articles/life/history/2017/06/james_mcgill_buchanan_s_terrifying_vision_of_society_is_the_intellectual.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark) about a certain brand of libertarian ideology and the efforts of an oligarchic fifth column to enlist white supremacy in ensuring the supremacy and domination of capital over labor.

[HopAlongBunny]

Summary of the CBO's findings with a link on the page to the text:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752

[Montmorency]

Summary of the CBO's findings with a link on the page to the text:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52752

I was confused; it turns out this was for the House Version.

The Senate version is here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/cbo-report-on-the-senate-health-care-bill/2224/).

[HopAlongBunny]

I was confused; it turns out this was for the House Version.

The Senate version is here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/cbo-report-on-the-senate-health-care-bill/2224/).

ooops! sorry :blush:
thank you for the correct link :)

[a completely inoffensive name]

It will pass. I have never seen McConnell unable to control his party

[Husar]

It will pass. I have never seen McConnell unable to control his party

Turtle power! :cthulhu:

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-9kXCnu3JE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYL6VGvw5zU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7elPQ_TA0pc

[HopAlongBunny]

Slave colony on Mars!
NASA has a top secret project kidnapping children to work a slave colony on Mars!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/30/alex_jones_trump_endorsed_infowars_site_exposes_nasa_s_martian_slave_colony.html

Remember when science fiction used to be a niche category of literature? Now its mainstream baby, and Whoa! if true...:laugh4:


https://youtu.be/l3Boz0O1SqM

[Husar]

Could've just said that it's InfoWars, "Trump-endorsed media outlet" sounds very much like a vain attempt at attacking Trump by rabid leftists.

The last paragraph is just more needless drama because hardly anybody gives a shit about what InfoWars say. Although it would be hilarious if Trump said he will look into it.

[CrossLOPER]

Could've just said that it's InfoWars, "Trump-endorsed media outlet" sounds very much like a vain attempt at attacking Trump by rabid leftists.
You can thank Ted Turner for this turn of events.

[HopAlongBunny]

So North Korea apparently has an ICBM capable of hitting Alaska;

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40502031

What effective response does the U.S. actually have?

Sanctions? The hermit kingdom has endured those and will likely continue to persevere.
War? Well there goes the neighbourhood; even without nuclear arms there are enough missiles on both sides of the border to flatten both countries.
China? Really? If China was interested in doing something it would have acted by now; the "deal maker" will get a chance to show his chops finding a way to leverage the Chinese into doing anything.

[Greyblades]

Time to reunite the peninsular before they make a nuke small enough to fit that ICBM. Get china to look the other way, evacuate the border of civillians and pour so much airpower into the korean theatre the south korean army wont even need to bring any helmets.

[Beskar]

North Korea is an oversized bunker with human shields. Which makes it very difficult. Though there is the argument that a regime change would bring about desired results.

[spmetla]

The terrain itself negates a lot of our military 'force multipliers.'

It's one of those terrible situations where only a war could undo it but a is a war worth that cost? There's no way we'd be able to do limited strikes on anything in N. Korea without it escalating into a general peninsular war too.

Greyblades, I don't think there's a way we could get China to look the other way. They have too much old political capital invested in keeping N. Korea as a crazy deterrent/distraction. Even now it is their bargaining chip in trying to get us to ignore their artificial islands. Additionally they don't want to deal with the refugee crisis that would undoubtedly happen or having a strong unified independent pro-US Korea on it's border giving us access to even more of the Yellow Sea for military drills and a military threat to its Manchurian industrial centers in the event of a US/Korea/Japan vs PRC scenario.

As for Trump specific, I just hope he doesn't say anything crazy this trip though that's probably asking too much. Please re-affirm NATO again, don't undermine EU, France, and Germany, and stand by the little allies of ours in the Baltic. Would be nice if the trip to Poland is used to reassert our commitment to our East European allies.

[Hooahguy]

Greyblades, I don't think there's a way we could get China to look the other way. They have too much old political capital invested in keeping N. Korea as a crazy deterrent/distraction. Even now it is their bargaining chip in trying to get us to ignore their artificial islands. Additionally they don't want to deal with the refugee crisis that would undoubtedly happen or having a strong unified independent pro-US Korea on it's border giving us access to even more of the Yellow Sea for military drills and a military threat to its Manchurian industrial centers in the event of a US/Korea/Japan vs PRC scenario.

Exactly, nobody wants to deal with the huge ramifications that liberating NK would bring. Good luck re-educating millions of people. As others have said, nothing is going to happen without China's approval, so nothing is going to happen. Unless NK shoots first. Or Trump says something colossally stupid.

[Greyblades]

Based upon the signs of increased lack of chinese influence over Kim that have been exhibited over the last year; I do not share your convictions on China's continued unconditional support. North korea is becoming a liability greater than a unified korea would present.

Thier millitary is increasingly outdated but thier nuclear capacity is likely to rise over the next decade; I see now as the last window to deal with this problem before retaliation becomes a magnitude more damaging, for all sides. As much as China will drag it's feet I do not think they are short sighted enough to let that window pass.

[spmetla]

I agree that China doesn't have as much support for North Korea as they did in the past, however their being as a liability isn't clear yet. The increased tensions haven't hurt China and instead have been used as a bargaining chip instead. They share a goal of wanting US-ROK wargames to cease as well as the US to depart the peninsula, a nuclear armed DPRK at least provides bargaining chips toward achieving that goal. The continuance of the status quo or any escalation of tension short of war only increases China's role as chief mediator and lynch pin for any peaceful solution for which untold concessions will be given. I don't see what liability DPRK actually provides to China short of getting into a real war.

Their military is increasingly outdated but this is mitigated largely by terrain. Unlike the Iraqis fighting in the desert the USAF can't bomb them to impotence, it would take a lot of close fighting at ranges dictated by terrain as well which negate the range advantage of many of our weapons systems. It would be a meatgrinder of a war at the start and would have massive ROK causalities followed by relatively heavy (by our standard) US causalities as our forces piecemeal into theater due to the lack of large nearby formations.

I will agree that this is the last window for the US to deal with it without nuclear missiles raining down on the US and territories (my state of Hawaii is supposedly in range as well). The best window was of course during the mid-90s but Clinton would never have started a war with the DPRK even for the legitimate humanitarian reasons that could have been created and the post-Tiananmen PRC would never have stood by and watched their ally destroyed.
If military force is the only option left then the time is very close indeed. The situation is like a light version of the cuban missile crisis (not quite to M.A.D. level yet). I don't have confidence however that our president could do the diplomatic work needed to put us in the right light in view of Russia, PRC, ROK, and Japan if were to embark on military strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. I hope that McMaster and Mattis force the type of foresight and planning required but it doesn't look like their advice is heeded by the POTUS very much.

I fear greatly that we might blunder our way into a war instead of actually preparing for one and using that state of preparedness to negotiate from a position of strength (the US Army is not prepared for war in Korea right now). Remember that Saddam thought that George W. was just playing hardball and wouldn't invade without explicit okay from the UNSC. Having more US forces in Korea would also force China to actually take us seriously. The danger that they think we're bluffing is very real given that in the past we've been the restraining influence to ROK's wanted revenge for all sorts of outright acts of war by the north.

[Montmorency]

I agree that China doesn't have as much support for North Korea as they did in the past, however their being as a liability isn't clear yet. The increased tensions haven't hurt China and instead have been used as a bargaining chip instead. They share a goal of wanting US-ROK wargames to cease as well as the US to depart the peninsula, a nuclear armed DPRK at least provides bargaining chips toward achieving that goal. The continuance of the status quo or any escalation of tension short of war only increases China's role as chief mediator and lynch pin for any peaceful solution for which untold concessions will be given. I don't see what liability DPRK actually provides to China short of getting into a real war.

Their military is increasingly outdated but this is mitigated largely by terrain. Unlike the Iraqis fighting in the desert the USAF can't bomb them to impotence, it would take a lot of close fighting at ranges dictated by terrain as well which negate the range advantage of many of our weapons systems. It would be a meatgrinder of a war at the start and would have massive ROK causalities followed by relatively heavy (by our standard) US causalities as our forces piecemeal into theater due to the lack of large nearby formations.

I will agree that this is the last window for the US to deal with it without nuclear missiles raining down on the US and territories (my state of Hawaii is supposedly in range as well). The best window was of course during the mid-90s but Clinton would never have started a war with the DPRK even for the legitimate humanitarian reasons that could have been created and the post-Tiananmen PRC would never have stood by and watched their ally destroyed.
If military force is the only option left then the time is very close indeed. The situation is like a light version of the cuban missile crisis (not quite to M.A.D. level yet). I don't have confidence however that our president could do the diplomatic work needed to put us in the right light in view of Russia, PRC, ROK, and Japan if were to embark on military strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. I hope that McMaster and Mattis force the type of foresight and planning required but it doesn't look like their advice is heeded by the POTUS very much.

I fear greatly that we might blunder our way into a war instead of actually preparing for one and using that state of preparedness to negotiate from a position of strength (the US Army is not prepared for war in Korea right now). Remember that Saddam thought that George W. was just playing hardball and wouldn't invade without explicit okay from the UNSC. Having more US forces in Korea would also force China to actually take us seriously. The danger that they think we're bluffing is very real given that in the past we've been the restraining influence to ROK's wanted revenge for all sorts of outright acts of war by the north.

As I mentioned in the other thread, the terrain works in US favor too, partly vis-a-vis simultaneous Chinese incursions, and partly with the understanding that forcing through the DPRK field armies to control of the coasts and the cities allows Coalition forces to confine the enemy to hillside bunkers, from which projection will not be possible for long.

From there, in other words, it's a matter of waiting for the final surrender without needless and risky offensive action to wipe out every last formation. The first week of conflict, or even the first 24 hours, is where the largest loss of life will occur for all parties.

But different scenarios do emerge depending on how pre-emptively Kim Jong Un acts against assembling forces, and how much of the total force the Americans can field in the earliest stages.

The Chinese would be in the best position if they could Trojan Horse an expeditionary force into occupying the country before the full outbreak of hostilities, under the guise of deterring/contributing against the US. That would be pretty anticlimactic, and contrary to US interests, but I suppose it would mean the least loss of life (other than the political executions among the DPRK elites).

[Gilrandir]

North Korea is an oversized bunker with human shields. Which makes it very difficult.
In August 1945 it didn't make Japan very difficult. For the US bombs.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In August 1945 it didn't make Japan very difficult. For the US bombs.

That's 100% incorrect.

[Husar]

We need North Korea's yin as the natural opposite to the USA's yang.
Destroying North Korea now would upset the balance and make us lose our moral compass. We might forget how yang Trump actually is.

[Idaho]

In August 1945 it didn't make Japan very difficult. For the US bombs.

So the way to deal with this crazy country who are developing a nuclear deterrent is to nuke them?

I wonder why they are developing this deterrent...

[Gilrandir]

That's 100% incorrect.


So the way to deal with this crazy country who are developing a nuclear deterrent is to nuke them?


My remark is to show that in 1945 the Allies brushed aside bunker/human shield considerations about Berlin and Hiroshima. Was it correct? Has anything changed since then?

[Pannonian]

My remark is to show that in 1945 the Allies brushed aside bunker/human shield considerations about Berlin and Hiroshima. Was it correct? Has anything changed since then?

Brushed aside? This is Total War you're talking about. Considerations only generally came on a reciprocal basis, else the victims were lucky to get anything. Germany and Japan would happily have used nuclear weapons on the Allies. Missiles were raining on SE England on a daily basis with zero regard for targeting, except for where the biggest concentrations of people are. Japan were even more indiscriminate.

[Greyblades]

I agree that China doesn't have as much support for North Korea as they did in the past, however their being as a liability isn't clear yet. The increased tensions haven't hurt China and instead have been used as a bargaining chip instead. They share a goal of wanting US-ROK wargames to cease as well as the US to depart the peninsula, a nuclear armed DPRK at least provides bargaining chips toward achieving that goal. The continuance of the status quo or any escalation of tension short of war only increases China's role as chief mediator and lynch pin for any peaceful solution for which untold concessions will be given. I don't see what liability DPRK actually provides to China short of getting into a real war.

Their military is increasingly outdated but this is mitigated largely by terrain. Unlike the Iraqis fighting in the desert the USAF can't bomb them to impotence, it would take a lot of close fighting at ranges dictated by terrain as well which negate the range advantage of many of our weapons systems. It would be a meatgrinder of a war at the start and would have massive ROK causalities followed by relatively heavy (by our standard) US causalities as our forces piecemeal into theater due to the lack of large nearby formations.

I will agree that this is the last window for the US to deal with it without nuclear missiles raining down on the US and territories (my state of Hawaii is supposedly in range as well). The best window was of course during the mid-90s but Clinton would never have started a war with the DPRK even for the legitimate humanitarian reasons that could have been created and the post-Tiananmen PRC would never have stood by and watched their ally destroyed.
If military force is the only option left then the time is very close indeed. The situation is like a light version of the cuban missile crisis (not quite to M.A.D. level yet). I don't have confidence however that our president could do the diplomatic work needed to put us in the right light in view of Russia, PRC, ROK, and Japan if were to embark on military strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. I hope that McMaster and Mattis force the type of foresight and planning required but it doesn't look like their advice is heeded by the POTUS very much.

I fear greatly that we might blunder our way into a war instead of actually preparing for one and using that state of preparedness to negotiate from a position of strength (the US Army is not prepared for war in Korea right now). Remember that Saddam thought that George W. was just playing hardball and wouldn't invade without explicit okay from the UNSC. Having more US forces in Korea would also force China to actually take us seriously. The danger that they think we're bluffing is very real given that in the past we've been the restraining influence to ROK's wanted revenge for all sorts of outright acts of war by the north.

I have suspected the desire to dispell ideas of american bluffing has been the main motivation behind trump's actions on syria.

I believe North Korea is a liability to china for one simple reason: kim jong-un is not cooperating.

While under Jong-il North Korea barked but heeled, it was a satistfactorial political tool, now the certainty that China can keep the mad dog under control is in doubt it's political value is diminished. Even now China hesitates to crack the whip, lest the whip fails and the political tool fails with it.

The way I see it, as amature as I admit my analysis may be, the key will be getting the south korean army to do the majority of the wetwork. American troops on the front line, or god forbid japanese, will only cement the individual north koreans reluctance to surrender. Any chance of a north korean rout will wither on the vine of it is the "hated white devils" chasing them.

Yes simply bombing the north into submission is out of the question but ensuring that the RoK cannot so much as take a step out of cover without being turned into red mist will give an undeniable advantage to the South.

America should secure the airspace, kill the navy, bomb what can be bombed and help the south do what it's ostensibly been preparing to do for 65 years.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Our media barely mentions the test and its implications. All of the focus is on Putin and Trump mano a mano.

[Gilrandir]

Brushed aside? This is Total War you're talking about. Considerations only generally came on a reciprocal basis, else the victims were lucky to get anything.
So the consideration was reciprocity, not human shields. If it comes to North Korea bombing others, human shields will be forgotten. Hence there is no use of talking about human shields.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So the consideration was reciprocity, not human shields. If it comes to North Korea bombing others, human shields will be forgotten. Hence there is no use of talking about human shields.

The logic of 'total war' does not admit of the existence of "human shields." There are only targets of varying strategic and tactical value.

[Greyblades]

The logic of 'total war' does not admit of the existence of "human shields."
You've obviously never used ashigaru correctly.

Get gud scrub

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You've obviously never used ashigaru correctly.

Get gud scrub

Not human shields. Simply expendable tactical assets.

[Kralizec]

http://www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2017/07/05

[Montmorency]

Donald Trump Jr. posts documents (https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789418455953413) pertaining to interactions with Russian-government agents.

:inquisitive:

But really

:inquisitive:

[Husar]

Donald Trump Jr. posts documents (https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789418455953413) pertaining to interactions with Russian-government agents.

:inquisitive:

But really

:inquisitive:

So his defense is he tried to collude but failed?

[HopAlongBunny]

Donald Trump Jr. posts documents (https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789418455953413) pertaining to interactions with Russian-government agents.

:inquisitive:

But really

:inquisitive:

I am surprised how long it took for the "But Hillary!..." line to appear :)

[drone]

So his defense is he tried to collude but failed?

Basically. Apparently the whole family is dumber than a sack of hammers.

[Greyblades]

Actually the defense is: it's not illegal to seek out evidence of a presidential candidate's illegal action.

It's cant even be counted as collusion because Jr wasnt working for the campaign nor is he in official office.

Edit: only laws I could find (on a 5 minute google search) that illegalises forms of collusion is surrounding actual crimes like fixing elections, illegal campaign contributions and public corruption. (https://68.media.tumblr.com/81c7d8f62843a8381c37f3b1a06c8769/tumblr_osx1cggvVN1rn7bzro1_1280.jpg)

None of these is what Trump Jr did or would have committed if the source was legit.

[Montmorency]

Actually the defense is: it's not illegal to seek out evidence of a presidential candidate's illegal action.

It's cant even be counted as collusion because Jr wasnt working for the campaign nor is he in official office.

1. Yes it is (https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal), when the transfer of information is managed by a foreign national, certainly when it is an agent of a foreign government.
2. Donald Trump Jr. worked with and on his father's campaign, as did Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner.

[Husar]

Actually the defense is: it's not illegal to seek out evidence of a presidential candidate's illegal action.

It's cant even be counted as collusion because Jr wasnt working for the campaign nor is he in official office.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740


Hard to see how there is not a serious case here of solicitation. Trump Jr. appears to have knowledge of the foreign source and is asking to see it. As I explained earlier, such information can be considered a “thing of value” for purposes of the campaign finance law. (Update: More on the meaning of “thing of value” here and here.)

It is also possible other laws were broken, such as the laws against coordinating with a foreign entity on an expenditure. There could also be related obstruction, racketeering, or conspiracy charges, but these are really outside my area of specialization and I cannot say.

Who to believe? A law professor (http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/) or Greyblades?

Tough decision, I guess it's undecided.

[Kralizec]

Actually the defense is: it's not illegal to seek out evidence of a presidential candidate's illegal action.

It's cant even be counted as collusion because Jr wasnt working for the campaign nor is he in official office.

The last part of your post might disculpate Trump himself, if he can argue that he wasn't in on the loop on what his son was doing. Without accidentily blurting out something self-incriminating, which wouldn't surprise me.

Beyond that: of course I don't know the relevant criminal statutes, but if what he did is not outright illegal I would be highly suprised. The email exchange establishes that:

- Rob Goldstone tried to set up a meeting between little Donald and a Russian government lawyer (that's the wording of the email)
- for the purpose of sharing incriminating information about Hillary Clinton (also explicitly stated in the exchange)
- for the benefit of his father's campaign (again, it says so literally in the exchange)
- little Donald acted so excited that I can only assume the exchange gave him a boner

As for the first part...he has defended himself by claiming this isn't any different from the opposition research that all politicians do on their opponents, a claim that has since then been contradicted by former campaign bosses from both the Democratic and Republican party. The general gist being: if somebody with ties to a foreign government offers to help you in a national election, you stay the hell away from it and in fact should call the FBI.

[Greyblades]

1. Yes it is (https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal), when the transfer of information is managed by a foreign national, certainly when it is an agent of a foreign government.
2. Donald Trump Jr. worked with and on his father's campaign, as did Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner.

1. No it isnt; "A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election." Reading this in context with the rest of the law which at no point refers to information (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20) it can safely be said that the law only bans exchanges of monetary value in any form, which this in no way was.

As an aside I would advise against using vox as a source of news, their track record is as reliable as brietbart.

2. I meant in terms of official capacity. Admittedly I cannot find any information either way on this issue; was he employed by the campaign or did he just tag along? The latter divests the president of responsibility for Jr's actions but the search engines are clogged with stories about this so I cannot find any definitive proof either way.

As for Jared Kushner and Paul Manfort, perhaps, can you determine they were there on Sr's knowledge or working independantly?

[Montmorency]

Reading this in context with the rest of the law which at no point refers to information it can safely be said that the law only bans exchanges of monetary value in any form, which this in no way was.

The clause "any other thing of value", which you bolded, is designed exactly to cover non-pecuniary items. If only raw funds were covered by law in these types of scenarios, we would be nearly powerless against organized crime.


I meant in terms of official capacity. Admittedly I cannot find any information either way on this issue; was he employed by the campaign or did he just tag along? The latter divests the president of responsibility for Jr's actions but the search engines are clogged with stories about this so I cannot find any definitive proof either way.

He actively advised his father during the campaign, strategized with other members of the campaign, spoke on the campaign with authority to news media and the public, and gave a speech (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwip84bWnILVAhULez4KHQ7iCxsQtwIIJDAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7-7WlIZwePc&usg=AFQjCNEiofoEtdK6uWxAlQZO9IsB2zQ61g)supporting his father at the RNC.


As an aside I would advise against using vox as a source of news, their track record is as reliable as brietbart.

How's that?


As for Jared Kushner and Paul Manfort, perhaps, can you determine they were there on Sr's knowledge or working independantly?

That's the question. I'm sure, in the end, it's possible that President Trump has been the sock puppet for basically everyone around him.

[Kralizec]

Suppose that it goes to trial, and that little Donald gets convicted. What would be the reaction of the American public if President Trump pardons him?

It's obvious what the reaction of Democratic leaning people would be. The reaction of the Republican part seems less obvious nowadays.

[Greyblades]

Who to believe? A law professor (http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/) or Greyblades?

Tough decision, I guess it's undecided.
His argument is predicated on the definition of contribution being able to contain information. The problem here is that the law does not define contribution nor refer to an outside definition.

However the law says Solicit a contribution. This is important because the definition of Solicit as defined by 11 CFR 300.2 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/300.2) is such:


(m)To solicit. For the purposes of part 300, to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation.

(1) The following types of communications constitute solicitations:

(i) A communication that provides a method of making a contribution or donation, regardless of the communication. This includes, but is not limited to, providing a separate card, envelope, or reply device that contains an address to which funds may be sent and allows contributors or donors to indicate the dollar amount of their contribution or donation to the candidate, political committee, or other organization.

(ii) A communication that provides instructions on how or where to send contributions or donations, including providing a phone number specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of contributions or donations. However, a communication does not, in and of itself, satisfy the definition of “to solicit” merely because it includes a mailing address or phone number that is not specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of contributions or donations.

(iii) A communication that identifies a Web address where the Web page displayed is specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of a contribution or donation, or automatically redirects the Internet user to such a page, or exclusively displays a link to such a page. However, a communication does not, in and of itself, satisfy the definition of “to solicit” merely because it includes the address of a Web page that is not specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of a contribution or donation.

The focus in this one being on money as well as the language in the law in my last post contributes to the impression that contribution must reffering to something of monetary value to make sense.

This impression is further entrenched by Wex's legal dictionary that defines contribution as: (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contribution)


In business and partnership law, contribution may refer to a capital contribution, which is an amount of money or assets given to a business or partnership by one of the owners or partners. The capital contribution increases the owner or partner's equity interest in the entity. Capital contributions are not considered business income unless given in the form of a loan.

Contribution may also refer to a charitable contribution, which is an amount of money or assets given to a corporation organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes. Charitable contributions are tax deductible for up to one half of an individual's adjusted gross income, and up to ten percent of a corporation's taxable income.

With this I can conclude with extreme confidence that contribution refers to a money transfer, and with the law banning "a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value" I can easily say that, no this does not in any way include the transfer of information.

Next time dont base your entire argument on an appeal to authority here; the american legal system like many is filled with partisan hacks who will say anything for money or political gain and they cannot be trusted just on position.

[Montmorency]

With this I can conclude with extreme confidence that contribution refers to a money transfer, and with the law banning "a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value" I can easily say that, no this does not in any way include the transfer of information.


It is so bizarre that you insist on not taking into account the plain meaning of the words which you quote, which address a subset of contribution that is distinguished from "money".

[Greyblades]

This is US law, there is no "plain meaning". Donation of money means money with no strings attached, contribution expects interest.

Case in point on no plain meaning: Thing of value. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/)

Property, not info.

[Montmorency]

This is US law, there is no "plain meaning".

Case in point: Thing of value. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/)

Property, not info.


n. any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary significance of which is economic gain.

"Any" means any. This is straightforward. The language "any" is used to cover as many cases as possible.

If they (who framed the law) meant property or money solely, they would say "property or money solely".

"Plain meaning" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule) is a fundamental standard for interpreting law. Not what you want the law to do, but what the text of the law actually says.

[Greyblades]

"Any" means any. This is straightforward. The language "any" is used to cover as many cases as possible.

If they meant property or money solely, they would say "property or money solely".

"Plain meaning" is a fundamental standard for interpreting law. Not what you want the law to do, but what the text of the law actually says.

I addressed the plain meaning issue of your previous post in my edit. And they largely did say "property or money soley":


any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary significance of which is economic gain.

"Pecuniary": relating to or consisting of money. Doesnt apply.

"primary significance of which is economic gain." Highly difficult to make stick as you have to determine Jr's greater motivation for wanting it is money over say political or personal reasons.

"Compensatory": (of a payment) intended to recompense someone who has experienced loss, suffering, or injury.
Or.
Reducing or offsetting the unpleasant or unwelcome effects of something.

This is only definition in that which could apply to information and both versions requires a loss this would be compensating, which doesnt really apply to Jr.

[Greyblades]

I dont know whether you will get this if I edit it in, at the rate of reply I would say not, so I am risking a double post.


"Any" means any. This is straightforward. The language "any" is used to cover as many cases as possible.

If they (who framed the law) meant property or money solely, they would say "property or money solely".

"Plain meaning" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule) is a fundamental standard for interpreting law. Not what you want the law to do, but what the text of the law actually says.

While you bring up the plain meaning rule, or the literal rule as it is know in Britain, I note that there is another rule that can be applied here: the mischeif rule. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule)

This rule when applied expects the court to take in consideration what act the law intended to prevent when interpreting. Based on the title and content of the Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals the intent is rather clear: prevent foriegn nationals from giving US politicians and lawmakers items of value, be they currency or property, in an attempt to prevent corruption. Not prevent foreign nationals from giving US law makers information.

The letter of the law strongly supports this and the spirit of the law is outright states it: this cannot be applied to information such as Trump Jr was offered.

[Montmorency]

The letter of the law strongly supports this and the spirit of the law is outright states it: this cannot be applied to information such as Trump Jr was offered.

What is not omitted, is admitted. The law does not specifically omit "information", so it will be considered under the literal meaning of "thing of value".

That's the entirety of the matter.

Here's a treatment from 2010 (https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/february-2010-foreign-concept.cfm):


Anything of Value. The term anything of value is not defined in the FECA-BRCA or the regulations. It should be construed according to its common meaning and consistent with the purpose of the FECA-BRCA.

Is the intent of the law to avert or mitigate foreign interference with election campaigns? Yes.

Is receiving opposition research from a foreign national associated with their government an example of foreign interference with a election campaign? Yes.

Is information pursuant to a campaign literally a "thing of value" to the opposing campaign? Yes.

[Strike For The South]

Like anything in life

It's fact specific.

[Husar]

it can safely be said that the law only bans exchanges of monetary value in any form


His argument is predicated on the definition of contribution being able to contain information. The problem here is that the law does not define contribution nor refer to an outside definition.

Well, it's only two US experts on US law against some British wise guy who has the superior interpretation of the US law of course: https://www.justsecurity.org/42956/open-door-moscow-facts-potential-criminal-case-trump-campaign-coordination-russia/


The President stated publicly that he would like to have the Russians locate the stolen emails. Mr. Smith, indicating in various ways association with General Flynn, launches an initiative focused on finding these communications. A Russian national with government connections is able to schedule a meeting with the most senior circle of the campaign by pledging that she had negative information about Mrs. Clinton. In various ways, public and private, the campaign is making its interest clear, and, at a minimum, it is “assenting” to Russian plans to unearth information that constitutes a clear “thing of value” from a foreign source to influence an election.

http://www.businessinsider.de/donald-trump-jr-emails-illegal-campaign-2017-7?r=US&IR=T


Brendan Fischer, Federal Election Commission reform program director at the Campaign Legal Center, told Business Insider that the FEC has in past opinions interpreted the definition of "other thing of value" to include non-monetary contributions in relation to the foreign national ban.

"So getting opposition research or dirt on Hillary Clinton, or however they tried to portray it, would constitute a contribution both on the definition of a contribution and on the foreign national contribution ban," he said. "And then solicitation: Did Trump Jr. solicit the contribution? I think there the answer is also yes."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/donald-trump-jr-s-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-what-to-know.html


Foreign nationals are prohibited from providing "anything of value" to campaigns, and that same law also bars solicitation of such assistance. The law typically applies to monetary campaign contributions, but courts could consider information such as opposition research to be something of value.

Bradley A. Smith, a former Bill Clinton-appointed Republican Federal Election Commission member, said that based on what's known about the meeting, Trump Jr.'s actions are unlikely to be considered illegal solicitation.

"It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer," Smith said.

But Larry Noble, a former general counsel at the FEC, said the situation "raises all sorts of red flags."

There, even FoxNews aren't sure whether they can jump onto your bandwagon.
I guess it all depends on the FEC now or whoever is meant to decide about it.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/q-a-legal-questions-swirl-about-trump-jr-s-russia/article_e9fc62d0-a82d-54e6-a560-bd0a383baa1d.html

This one has a few opinions from legal experts, some of whom agree with you and some of whom don't. It's probably not as clear cut as you make it out to be either way.

[Montmorency]

"It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer," Smith said.

Crucially, this email chain has a past and a future. How did it come to Rob Goldstone finding this Russian woman, how did he come into contact with her, how did he learn that she was affiliated with the Russian government, what was Rob Goldstone's relationship to Trump Jr, and the campaign in general... Basically, how did it come to this chain and this proposed meeting. The future, what did Manafort and Kushner have to say, what happened at the meeting, then afterward between the aforementioned individuals, largely reprising the questions. Normally this context is where the suspect would look or point to for relief.

But it's hard to imagine what information could put the situation in a better light, since what is revealed hints that certain notions about Russian activity may have already been accepted as a matter of course by highest levels of the campaign, and is already far beyond mere political shop talk. What do you expect a certain someone may or may not have to offer, and why do you expect it?

E.g. "Mr. Trump Jr. I recommend you meet this Russian woman, she has some good ideas on campaign strategies and avenues of attack on Clinton" vs. "Mr. Trump Jr. I recommend you meet this Russian woman peddling an intelligence package on Clinton with the alleged approval of the Putin regime.' Followed by recognition of the proposal and enthusiastic engagement.There are several analogies here, including corrupt money: advice on how to make money against direct discussion of pecuniary blandishments; and murder: talking about wanting to kill someone against taking premeditated action with the end of killing someone.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I dont know whether you will get this if I edit it in, at the rate of reply I would say not, so I am risking a double post.



While you bring up the plain meaning rule, or the literal rule as it is know in Britain, I note that there is another rule that can be applied here: the mischeif rule. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule)

This rule when applied expects the court to take in consideration what act the law intended to prevent when interpreting. Based on the title and content of the Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals the intent is rather clear: prevent foriegn nationals from giving US politicians and lawmakers items of value, be they currency or property, in an attempt to prevent corruption. Not prevent foreign nationals from giving US law makers information.

The letter of the law strongly supports this and the spirit of the law is outright states it: this cannot be applied to information such as Trump Jr was offered.
Trump Jr went there because the info would directly save them expenses related to opposition research which is labor intensive.

There is a direct monetary benefit to receiving the info, even if you want to claim the info itself is not money.

[Sarmatian]

What is not omitted, is admitted. The law does not specifically omit "information", so it will be considered under the literal meaning of "thing of value".

Is the intent of the law to avert or mitigate foreign interference with election campaigns? Yes.

Is receiving opposition research from a foreign national associated with their government an example of foreign interference with a election campaign? Yes.

Is information pursuant to a campaign literally a "thing of value" to the opposing campaign? Yes.

It is not really that simple. Any foreign news organization would be guilty of breaking that law if they publish something negative about a candidate, because it could help the other candidate. And lot of news organizations receive money from their government in some way, shape or form.

Under your interpretation, that law was broken thousands of times during this campaign. Anyone foreign who published anything bad about Trump could be prosecuted.

[Montmorency]

It is not really that simple. Any foreign news organization would be guilty of breaking that law if they publish something negative about a candidate, because it could help the other candidate. And lot of news organizations receive money from their government in some way, shape or form.

Under your interpretation, that law was broken thousands of times during this campaign. Anyone foreign who published anything bad about Trump could be prosecuted.

Foreign news coverage is not normally something a campaign can control. It is not something to be accepted or rejected between principals. In itself it cannot be exchanged as a thing of value, and it is publicly available, and static once promulgated. Conspiracy to fix positive coverage between a campaign and foreign media, maybe it is covered by other election law, but under this one you would probably need adjacent factors.

The mere existence of coverage is clearly not prosecutable under this regulation.

[Strike For The South]

At some point I fully expect Trump to call a press conference, lean into the mic, and scream "THE ARISTOCRATS".

[Husar]

At some point I fully expect Trump to call a press conference, lean into the mic, and scream "THE ARISTOCRATS".

That was a humorous post, you're a high quality humanoid.

[Kralizec]

This is US law, there is no "plain meaning". Donation of money means money with no strings attached, contribution expects interest.

Case in point on no plain meaning: Thing of value. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/)

Property, not info.


Almost at the entirely at the beginning of that article:
"The following is an example of a state law on anything of value:"

And so far, all people here have been talking about is the campaign finance angle.


You don't see something intrinsicly bad about accepting help from a foreign government in a domestic election?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You don't see something intrinsicly bad about accepting help from a foreign government in a domestic election?

Probably it was never presented as coming from a foreign government. And they were primed to assume that there was international "dirt" to be had on Hillary Clinton via the Clinton Foundation.


Of course, even if you DO accept that argument, it doesn't say much for their level of naivety or their competence does it?

[Sarmatian]

Foreign news coverage is not normally something a campaign can control. It is not something to be accepted or rejected between principals. In itself it cannot be exchanged as a thing of value, and it is publicly available, and static once promulgated. Conspiracy to fix positive coverage between a campaign and foreign media, maybe it is covered by other election law, but under this one you would probably need adjacent factors.

The mere existence of coverage is clearly not prosecutable under this regulation.

What is not omitted is admitted (I do find that concept interesting, as it is the other way around in European law, and I presumed it was similar in common law). Your definition of "anything of value" is too broad legally. A pep talk, a morale boost could be "of value".

[Gilrandir]

Trump, aka Gollum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64mWOoj68qo

[Sarmatian]

I just read the emails Donald Jr released and laughed out loud. I'm certain he sent money to Nigeria at least once in his life. I mean, "Russian Crown Prosecutor"?

Daddy doesn't think I'm smart. He favours Ivanka all the time. I'll show them when I end up owning half of all oil in Nigeria...

[drone]

I just read the emails Donald Jr released and laughed out loud. I'm certain he sent money to Nigeria at least once in his life. I mean, "Russian Crown Prosecutor"?

Daddy doesn't think I'm smart. He favours Ivanka all the time. I'll show them when I end up owning half of all oil in Nigeria...
Behind his back, apparently the administration staff calls him Fredo. Not kidding.

[Montmorency]

Probably it was never presented as coming from a foreign government. And they were primed to assume that there was international "dirt" to be had on Hillary Clinton via the Clinton Foundation.


Of course, even if you DO accept that argument, it doesn't say much for their level of naivety or their competence does it?

In the emails, Rob Goldstone, claimed the information was part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

Shockingly on the nose.


What is not omitted is admitted (I do find that concept interesting, as it is the other way around in European law, and I presumed it was similar in common law). Your definition of "anything of value" is too broad legally. A pep talk, a morale boost could be "of value".

Didn't we have threads here on the differences between common and Continental law?

The definition is supposed to be broad. On the other hand, the existence of foreign people outside the US could in itself somehow be of benefit to a campaign. That doesn't make it prosecutable the way a discrete transfer of items would be. As I said, the difference between off-the-cuff moneymaking advice and actually transferring currency.

[Sarmatian]

In the emails, Rob Goldstone, claimed the information was part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

Shockingly on the nose.

Well, to have a collusion with Russia, you actually have to collude with Russia. Russian crown prosecutor doesn't really cover that :D.

I'm not certain any laws were broken here. Kind of like talking about snatching someone's purse and not doing it. This is something you pay political consequences for, not legal.




Didn't we have threads here on the differences between common and Continental law?

The definition is supposed to be broad. On the other hand, the existence of foreign people outside the US could in itself somehow be of benefit to a campaign. That doesn't make it prosecutable the way a discrete transfer of items would be. As I said, the difference between off-the-cuff moneymaking advice and actually transferring currency.


I'll take your word for it, as my understanding of common law is much worse than my knowledge of continental law, which is pretty limited
itself.

It's just that it doesn't make sense logically. Anything can be "of value", it's such a subjective criterion. Let's say Trump got some information from a foreign national - how do you decide if it was of value, meaning how do you decide if it had influence in Trump winning the election?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Of course it is subjective. That's what gives it flexibility, if the argument made is successful to a judge or jury, then it is illegal. Otherwise, it isn't.

The only other option when writing the law is a never ending list of codes that try to cover every last nuance and variance of real world situations. Oh, did this particular instance not exactly fit any of the definitions? Let him go, and in the near future we better add another definition in there.

[Montmorency]

Well, to have a collusion with Russia, you actually have to collude with Russia. Russian crown prosecutor doesn't really cover that :D.

I'm not certain any laws were broken here. Kind of like talking about snatching someone's purse and not doing it. This is something you pay political consequences for, not legal.





I'll take your word for it, as my understanding of common law is much worse than my knowledge of continental law, which is pretty limited
itself.

It's just that it doesn't make sense logically. Anything can be "of value", it's such a subjective criterion. Let's say Trump got some information from a foreign national - how do you decide if it was of value, meaning how do you decide if it had influence in Trump winning the election?

Sorry Samaritan, the phone are my post, so I'm just going to refer you to the application of the "golden rule" against absurdity in statutory interpretation.

Example to consider on common law, recently the New Hampshire legislature passed law to allow killing a fetus to be criminally prosecutable. To exempt abortion, they used language exempting pregnant women's "any act" from consideration as murder, manslaughter, etc. they quickly corrected the language, but if it had been used in trial the golden rule would not actually be seen to grant pregnant women immunity in crimes.

Sorry about that

[Kralizec]

Trump's healthcare overhaul is essentially dead.

I read that his next idea is to simply repeal the ACA with a two year delay, giving congress time to work on a replacement which would take effect after the 2018 midterms elections. I don't think that idea is going to fly, because there's no reason to believe that moderate Republicans, who opposed the bill because it would lead to millions of uninsured, will have any confidence there will ever be a GOP-only effort that they can get behind.

If we look broader than the GOP, it's doubtful that even a single Democrat lawmaker will cooperate because:
1. Nobody asked for their input before
2. The whole enterprise is an en excercise in Damnatio Memoriae. They will not cooperate with anything that is sold as a replacement, rather than an improvement of Obamacare.
3. Health care is a continuing embarassment for the GOP. The Republicans passed multiple repeal bills during Obama's presidency, knowing that he'd veto it anyway. Trump promised that a seamless repeal & replace would take place in the first month of his term. He also promised it would deliver better healthcare, for more people and at lower prices- a promise that flatly contradicts basic Republican ideas and was which was never going to happen by relying 100% on the GOP members of congress.

[Montmorency]

Meanwhile, some research (http://www.loc.gov/loc/kluge/news/pdf/CongressHistory-NonPartyGovernment_CurryLee.pdf) on the fundamental supra-partisanship of democratic legislating:


To what extent has centralization of power in Congress enabled majority party leaders to shepherd their programmatic platforms into law? To address this question,
we examine congressional votes on all enacted laws from 1973-2014, as well on the subset of landmark laws identified by Mayhew (2005). In addition, we analyze the efforts
of congressional majority parties to enact their legislative agendas between 1993 and 2017. We find that legislating in recent congresses is nearly as bipartisan as it was
in the 1970s. Most laws, including landmark enactments, continue to garner substantial bipartisan support, and laws are rarely enacted over the opposition of a majority
of the minority party. Furthermore, there is no evidence that majority parties have gotten better at enacting their legislative programs. In fact, contemporary
congressional majorities fail in enacting their agenda items at rates that are equivalent to (and often inferior to) benchmarks set in less party-polarized congresses.
When majority parties succeed in legislating on their agenda priorities, they usually do so with support from a majority of the opposing party in at least one chamber
of Congress and with the endorsement of one or more of the opposing party’s top leaders.

The majority is not enough (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcZrn5dqZw), people.

[Husar]

It makes perfect sense given that both parties are in the pockets of big business.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4?IR=T


The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

So it's really nice to know that stomping poor people and the middle class further into the ground gets bipartisan support in the US. :stare::creep:

[Montmorency]

It makes perfect sense given that both parties are in the pockets of big business.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4?IR=T



So it's really nice to know that stomping poor people and the middle class further into the ground gets bipartisan support in the US. :stare::creep:

We discussed this very paper in 2014, so I'm more interested in hearing how the findings have been expanded and corroborated since then.

But we're talking about slightly different things, how agendas are constructed (and the 2014 study points out it's lobbying groups in general, not just big business) and how agendas are legislated in the chambers of Congress between parties.

[Husar]

We discussed this very paper in 2014, so I'm more interested in hearing how the findings have been expanded and corroborated since then.

Yes we did, that's how I knew about it. And that was exactly my point, that the findings of your linked research don't do us much good if they are not cross-checked with the findings of the old paper to see which kind of legislation exactly gets the bipartisan support. Bipartisan support is not inherently a good thing after all. If killing five million people got bipartisan support you surely wouldn't celebrate that as a victory of democracy or whatever exactly you were insinuating.


But we're talking about slightly different things, how agendas are constructed (and the 2014 study points out it's lobbying groups in general, not just big business) and how agendas are legislated in the chambers of Congress between parties.

Eh, no, not according to this direct quote:

"When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

Of course you have to factor in that people who work 3 factory jobs to feed their family have a much harder time organizing politically than those who call their wealth manager twice a day to hear how their money multiplies itself. Of course the latter will also tell you how they work 80 hours a week....in lobbying groups to get more legislation that makes their money multiply faster... ~;)

The point that we are talking about slightly different things seems a bit desperate since I was obviously aware of that. I wasn't saying your research is wrong, I was saying it is pointless in terms of achieving the goal of a better democracy if you ignore the other factors and parts of the legislative process. Which brings us right back to the point that your study should have done the corroboration work you asked for and checked what kind of legislation gets the bipartisan support and who benefits from it.

[Montmorency]

Yes we did, that's how I knew about it. And that was exactly my point, that the findings of your linked research don't do us much good if they are not cross-checked with the findings of the old paper to see which kind of legislation exactly gets the bipartisan support. Bipartisan support is not inherently a good thing after all. If killing five million people got bipartisan support you surely wouldn't celebrate that as a victory of democracy or whatever exactly you were insinuating.



Eh, no, not according to this direct quote:


Of course you have to factor in that people who work 3 factory jobs to feed their family have a much harder time organizing politically than those who call their wealth manager twice a day to hear how their money multiplies itself. Of course the latter will also tell you how they work 80 hours a week....in lobbying groups to get more legislation that makes their money multiply faster... ~;)

The point that we are talking about slightly different things seems a bit desperate since I was obviously aware of that. I wasn't saying your research is wrong, I was saying it is pointless in terms of achieving the goal of a better democracy if you ignore the other factors and parts of the legislative process. Which brings us right back to the point that your study should have done the corroboration work you asked for and checked what kind of legislation gets the bipartisan support and who benefits from it.

You have to recognize the different scope? Research doesn't have to be about what's good or bad in life or the dialectic of What Is and What Should Be, it can just dig up patterns on how things work in practice, and about different aspects of the whole.

The specific study I posted is relevant now as applied in the context of Republican struggles to get much done while controlling the government, and isn't designed to consider why parties do the things they do or how representative of their constituents they are. Those are different subjects that need separate research.

[Husar]

You have to recognize the different scope? Research doesn't have to be about what's good or bad in life or the dialectic of What Is and What Should Be, it can just dig up patterns on how things work in practice, and about different aspects of the whole.

The specific study I posted is relevant now as applied in the context of Republican struggles to get much done while controlling the government, and isn't designed to consider why parties do the things they do or how representative of their constituents they are. Those are different subjects that need separate research.

Yes, absolutely, it might just be that your post gave me the wrong idea about what you wanted to say. To me it looked a lot like "see, bipartisanship isn't dead since politicians get a lot done in a bipartisan way". And my response was meant to be that it may be a useless or incomplete study if the things that do get done in a particular way are the "wrong" things or the things that are not of particular public interest. Because then the important big issues may not fall into the relevant category of things that can (only) get done in a bipartisan way. That's why the nature of the legislation that makes up this bipartisan majority of legislature might also be important. Perhaps the reason they don't get anything done is exactly the nature of what they're trying to get done.
I also didn't post the other study to say why parties do what they do, but to show what kind of issues do get done (tendentially of course).

Take the ACA for example: https://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/roll-call-votes/h165-111.2010

Your study says that most bills only get through with both a government and opposition majority, but for the ACA for example that doesn't seem to have been true, in fact I can't find a single Republican under the Yes votes. So a lot may simply depend on how devisive the issue is. On issues like health care and aimmigration, the two parties are more or less polar opposites whereas on other issues like corporate tax cuts they may actually agree (or did agree until recently).

Therefore the issue of the bill may be just as important in whether the findings of the study apply to it or not. Of course when the majority is not very large, a few stray voters can ruin the vote for the majority like we see now, but even that may simply be due to the nature of the issue at hand. When lives are at stake, an individual congressman may be more likely to stray from the party line than when the vote is about whether the bluebird will become the next animal of the month or whether the tax rate for the coal industry will be cut from 22% to 21.5%.

So just to make things more clear, how do you interprete the study and what can the GOP learn from it or how can they use it to their advantage?

[Montmorency]

The implication to take from the study was just that it isn't (only) Republican incompetence that explains why they couldn't figure out how to "Repeal and Replace" most of Obama's signature legislation by now.


Your study says that most bills only get through with both a government and opposition majority, but for the ACA for example that doesn't seem to have been true, in fact I can't find a single Republican under the Yes votes. So a lot may simply depend on how devisive the issue is.

Here (https://niskanencenter.org/blog/gops-suicidal-attempt-govern-without-democrats/) is a good summary of the findings. Between 1972-2012, the study found that there were 10 landmark bills passed in both chambers of Congress that involved the majority "rolling" the minority, and that most attempts by the majority to roll the minority in passing "landmark" laws failed over this period, and that controlling both chambers over just one did not improve this much, and that there isn't much difference in roll successes or failures between landmark and non-landmark legislation, and that the vast majority of landmark laws passed in both chambers involved strong bipartisan support. The 10 exceptional bills:


Those ten successes include the Family & Medical Leave Act, the Motor Voter Law, and the omnibus crime bill passed by the Democrats in the 103rd Congress; Medicare Part D and the second round of the Bush tax cuts passed by the Republicans in the 108th Congress; the Class Action Fairness Act passed by the Republicans in the 109th Congress; the PAYGO rules passed by the Democrats in the 110th Congress; and the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and SCHIP reauthorization passed by the Democrats in the 111th Congress.

I don't know about the earlier ones, but under Obama the famous ones like Dodd-Frank and Obamacare involved the use of uncommon procedural rules and heavy campaigning and solidarity that consumed the 111th Congress/early Obama administration.

For your pleasure on "why"s, here's (http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ahertel/files/koch_network_paper_ts-ahf.pdf) something on how "Koch network" funding (as opposed to mere grassroots polarization) must explain some of the shift of the Republican Party to the radical right.

[Beskar]

The biggest problem is the name. Trumpcare is an oxymoron.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Your study says that most bills only get through with both a government and opposition majority, but for the ACA for example that doesn't seem to have been true, in fact I can't find a single Republican under the Yes votes.

Arlen specter switched from Republican affiliation to Democrat after some 30 odd years, I think less than a year before Obama care vote.

Also senator Bunning did not show up to the vote to potentially prevent closure. Because of that the RNC cut off all funding to him and primaried him as if he caused obamacare. Funny enough, he endorsed an outsider named rand Paul who beat the establishment candidate. Rand Paul was on of the four senators who ended up blocking the GOP efforts to kill obamacare....

[Montmorency]

Donald Jr. is not Fredo because Fredo was passive, tragic, and isolated from the events unfolding around him (https://theringer.com/donald-trump-jr-fredo-godfather-a7eb639711b6)

Makes sense to me.

I've never seen these films.

[Strike For The South]

They insist upon themselves.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Happened to see that not only does Larry King have an online political show, but that he recently interviewed Ron Paul.

I remember in 2012 when he seemed so refreshing for speaking about the shady :daisy: the government does. Now it just seems like a severe case of 'Whataboutism'.

I miss 2012.

[Strike For The South]

The "shady :daisy:" that the government does is generally derided by those who have never had to make an actual decision in their lives. Ron Paul is a hack who was never above giving pork to his district.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump is certainly showing a weakness of the American system.
If their is no "political will" to stop possible corrupt practices, misinformation and illegal activity; the President is essentially untouchable.
Can he preemptively pardon individuals? Apparently yes. Ford did it, Bush did it and I see nothing stopping Trump from doing it.
Good luck to America in this developing Constitutional crisis.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The "shady shit" that the government does is generally derided by those who have never had to make an actual decision in their lives. Ron Paul is a hack who was never above giving pork to his district.
Yes, but at the time it seemed he was the only one who even acknowledged the history. I remember listening to the boos during the debates when he was the only candidate advocating for less foreign intervention.

And of course he was consistent. There's a great video from 1988 where he tells a fat person to lose weight and stop asking taxpayers to pay for his fatness.

Basically, I'm just saying its important to remember the outsiders who came before Trump. The Paulites were just as loyal as the Trumpists are today.

[Hooahguy]

Trump is certainly showing a weakness of the American system.
If their is no "political will" to stop possible corrupt practices, misinformation and illegal activity; the President is essentially untouchable.
Can he preemptively pardon individuals? Apparently yes. Ford did it, Bush did it and I see nothing stopping Trump from doing it.
Good luck to America in this developing Constitutional crisis.
He is essentially untouchable because the ruling party doesnt have the political guts to do anything about it. The political hellstorm that will arrive if the GOP ever decided to impeach Trump is worse than just letting him do his thing.

[rory_20_uk]

He is essentially untouchable because the ruling party doesnt have the political guts to do anything about it. The political hellstorm that will arrive if the GOP ever decided to impeach Trump is worse than just letting him do his thing.

I wonder whether they are calculating - almost hoping - that in the mid-terms the democrats will win enough seats to have the majority and then they can be the ones to impeach. They've a pretty good chance of winning the House at least and they only need 51 seats to progress impeachment to the Senate. If that were to occur he'd be so busy fighting investigations and impeachment along with the compulsory business that nothing else would get done.

Then assuming (a big assumption) that there are insufficient flat earther / anti-immunisation / mouth-breathing hicks to give him another 4 years we can all draw a line under the four years where the entire Trump cabal clasp their Presidential Pardons for all that happened in the four years.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

Yes, but at the time it seemed he was the only one who even acknowledged the history. I remember listening to the boos during the debates when he was the only candidate advocating for less foreign intervention.

And of course he was consistent. There's a great video from 1988 where he tells a fat person to lose weight and stop asking taxpayers to pay for his fatness.

Basically, I'm just saying its important to remember the outsiders who came before Trump. The Paulites were just as loyal as the Trumpists are today.

I mean consistent in the fact he punches down. I would argue that the Trumpites are more loyal than the Paulites. Nationalism is much more powerful than taxition.

[Montmorency]

Another look into a Trumpish community (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40686613?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark)


For people here, it's confirmation that their new president is delivering on his campaign promise to generate 25 million jobs and become, in his own words, "the greatest jobs producer that God ever created".

I think for Democrats it's impossible to reach people like this without targeted messaging. Start with a specially-tailored and simplified platform for the demographic, determine what media the demographic has access to and primarily consumes, and pump that message through those media. But don't try addressing them directly, couch the message impersonally and hope they get a whiff of something they like on its own terms (i.e. divorced from anti-Democrat identity).

It wouldn't work as well as local supporters on the ground canvassing and advocating, but as a strategy that doesn't have much force without the half-farcical step of colonization (which if possible would tend to revitalize economies anyway).

[Strike For The South]

These people need food, healthcare, and jobs. It is no wonder they voted for the "outsider" populist.

Also, it would be a mistake to waste time an inordinate time on these people.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump's victory, at its core, was payback to the dems for more or less abandoning their status as the party of the "working man." Too many dems play the Wall Street Shuffle (ask Bernie, he'll tell you!) or get lost in a mosaic of little interest groups. There is political power in the aggregate of those smaller interest groups, and they do trend left -- but the working class used to be a real core element for the Dems. Not so anymore.

[Montmorency]

These people need food, healthcare, and jobs. It is no wonder they voted for the "outsider" populist.

Also, it would be a mistake to waste time an inordinate time on these people.


Trump's victory, at its core, was payback to the dems for more or less abandoning their status as the party of the "working man." Too many dems play the Wall Street Shuffle (ask Bernie, he'll tell you!) or get lost in a mosaic of little interest groups. There is political power in the aggregate of those smaller interest groups, and they do trend left -- but the working class used to be a real core element for the Dems. Not so anymore.

When I make my comment, I don't mean adjusting Democratic policies along the lines of "The Politics of Evasion (http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Politics_of_Evasion.pdf)" - that has arguably been devastating to the long-term health of the party. I'm pointing out that these people are generally isolated from the media and interpersonal channels the Democrats use to spread their message, and so become a kind of second-hand legend rather than something to be perceived and judged. My suggestion entails what you might call 'counter-propaganda', to saturate the channels of knowing and learning common to the localities and their people, not just as campaigning messages, but at all times over the long-term in the living environment. The effect should be for Democratic ideas and thinking to take root into their consciousness and affect their belief systems, in a way that can't be accomplished by a direct or discrete "message".

It's satisfying to think of these people as apathetic simpletons who can't change and can't be persuaded to think critically, but to the extent that democratic principles are favored they can't just be shed or repressed. To some extent their engagement and incorporation is what guarantees the viability of left-wing policy or ideals.

[spmetla]

It would help if the Democrats weren't the party of the social-justice crusader stereotype too. Being the party of everyone that is not the majority is a good way to pat yourself on the back and feel self righteous but it won't win elections. The economic solutions from both parties aren't too different but when you talk with joe-schmoe he generally doesn't even know the details of either parties economic policies but will know and have an opinion on gender-neutral bathrooms etc...

Bear in mind that enough people that rely on the ACA want Obama-Care repealed due to their not knowing it's one and the same due to very effective propaganda by one side and a failure to address it on the other.

[Montmorency]

It would help if the Democrats weren't the party of the social-justice crusader stereotype too. Being the party of everyone that is not the majority is a good way to pat yourself on the back and feel self righteous but it won't win elections. The economic solutions from both parties aren't too different but when you talk with joe-schmoe he generally doesn't even know the details of either parties economic policies but will know and have an opinion on gender-neutral bathrooms etc...


That's a culture-war question, not one of party policy. The Democrats can't hope to win over white voters by silencing minority voices; so it would be doing the hypocritical thing, for no profit. The smart money with social transformations is staying the course until the aggrieved can no longer "remember why I was even angry". The real policy challenge is digesting the hard core of atavists who disagree with every post-Civil War policy other than Jim Crow.

[spmetla]

Staying the course for the long term is the correct policy for them but they seem to try and make the changes far quicker than people in "fly over country" care to accommodate. They are right on LGBT but to paint it in the same light and nobility as the womens suffrage movement or civil rights movement is foolish. Look at today's military transgender policy announcement by Trump, it accomplished it's goal because that's topic number one right now on MSNBC instead of the health care bill which is far more important.

They don't need to silence minority voices but that doesn't need to be their primary platform which runs strong in Universities and the coastal states.

You are right one point two, there are no shortage of folks in the South that see Jim Crow laws as correct and see all the woes of the black community as self inflicted.

If they marketed themselves more as the party that'll protect them from corporate greed and from having to compete with sweat shop workers they'd probably win more votes. Look at the fall out from the 2008 crash, it gave Obama and the Democrats the momentum he needed to make major reforms. They however couldn't secure a win because the Republicans drowned out their successes by doing the culture war propaganda which is not answered in kind.

The repeal of don't ask don't tell and the trans-gender integration while both justify were implemented in such a way that the right is able to market it as the Democrats sacrificing military readiness for the sake of social experimentation. I had to brief my platoon and then company of infantrymen on the implementation of each of these (as well as women being allowed into combat arms) which were by and large badly taken of course. Neither resulted in any loss of readiness but today my facebook feed is inundated by my happy fellow servicemen celebrating the end of a policy that had literally no effect on them besides sitting in a briefing on it's implementation.

The Democrats may have policies that are beneficial to most Americans but the ability of the Republicans to paint them as social experimenting war on Christian values socialists they will not get those white male working class people that reliably vote to vote for them. There's no need to abandon those policies just don't make them the forefront while painting all those that oppose them as back woods ignorant rednecks bigots (even if true).

[Montmorency]

Staying the course for the long term is the correct policy for them but they seem to try and make the changes far quicker than people in "fly over country" care to accommodate. They are right on LGBT but to paint it in the same light and nobility as the womens suffrage movement or civil rights movement is foolish. Look at today's military transgender policy announcement by Trump, it accomplished it's goal because that's topic number one right now on MSNBC instead of the health care bill which is far more important.

They don't need to silence minority voices but that doesn't need to be their primary platform which runs strong in Universities and the coastal states.

You are right one point two, there are no shortage of folks in the South that see Jim Crow laws as correct and see all the woes of the black community as self inflicted.

If they marketed themselves more as the party that'll protect them from corporate greed and from having to compete with sweat shop workers they'd probably win more votes. Look at the fall out from the 2008 crash, it gave Obama and the Democrats the momentum he needed to make major reforms. They however couldn't secure a win because the Republicans drowned out their successes by doing the culture war propaganda which is not answered in kind.

The repeal of don't ask don't tell and the trans-gender integration while both justify were implemented in such a way that the right is able to market it as the Democrats sacrificing military readiness for the sake of social experimentation. I had to brief my platoon and then company of infantrymen on the implementation of each of these (as well as women being allowed into combat arms) which were by and large badly taken of course. Neither resulted in any loss of readiness but today my facebook feed is inundated by my happy fellow servicemen celebrating the end of a policy that had literally no effect on them besides sitting in a briefing on it's implementation.

The Democrats may have policies that are beneficial to most Americans but the ability of the Republicans to paint them as social experimenting war on Christian values socialists they will not get those white male working class people that reliably vote to vote for them. There's no need to abandon those policies just don't make them the forefront while painting all those that oppose them as back woods ignorant rednecks bigots (even if true).

But it's still a function of channels of information dissemination. These channels have a funneling property that creates an inflated impression of a given policy's value and importance to the originators of that policy, leaving consumers to adopt the monomania they come to believe the government applies to its more matter-of-course activities. It's not about how much Democrats care, but how much Republicans think Democrats care. After all, transgender toilet rules are not a single-issue motivator like abortion or gun control retrenchment are. Counter-propaganda would correct the effect, but the question is how to do it. Without grassroots activists to condition the learning, the necessary level of persistent funding simply doesn't exist.

[HopAlongBunny]

I think Trumps' victory proves beyond a shadow of doubt: marketing means more than facts; at least as far as politics is concerned.

The Dem's lost for a variety of reasons; their policy was sound but was lost in the "noise" of the campaign.
Trump dominated most media by saying and doing outrageous stuff; the media ate that stuff up, and policy became lost to public discourse.
What Hillary needed was the "fire brand" approach of the Bernie campaign: "Mad!? You bet we're mad! We are going to make this $%%^^& work for YOU!"
That message might have got through, but as Monty points out, you need the medium to convey it to the audience.
The promise of "Revolution" might have been able to turn the klieg lights from Trump to policy.

[Fragony]

I think Trump didn't really win, Hillary just lost. It's imppossible to like her, everybody with a bit of a radar can see that it's a ruthless woman who will do anything House of Cards. Trump isn't nearly that well-oiled fake. I kinda like it that what she took for granted didn't happen. From what I have seen so far Trump isn't doing so badly.

Why is your millanial crying

[Beskar]

From what I have seen so far Trump isn't doing so badly.

I got to strongly disagree here, he is absolutely terrible. It makes me miss George Bush Jr and I thought he was bad.

[HopAlongBunny]

Dear Leader may be coming to realize the limitations of his office.
The "Trans-ban" tweet has resulted in a lot of confusion.
The "Chief of Everything!" said, "blah blah blah"; but the regulations and policy we have don't allow it => cannot be done until we get clear guidelines and written policy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/07/27/joint_chiefs_chairman_won_t_implement_trump_s_trans_ban.html

For now, process trumps Trump.

In other developments, how goes the fight to banish the "Great Society" to the dustbin of history?
Not so good it seems.
While the GOP seems intent to turn Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security into funnels for savings/tax cuts; the electorate are not so delighted.
It might be possible for the GOP to get what they want, but the short-term political cost is very high. How many career politicians are actually willing to put their head on the block?:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/07/obamacare-repeal-is-the-first-step-in-scaling-back-entitlements.html

[Xiahou]

Well, the new Communications Director seems like he's going to fit right in.....


Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon)

He started by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. It escalated from there.

“They’ll all be fired by me,” he said. “I fired one guy the other day. I have three to four people I’ll fire tomorrow. I’ll get to the person who leaked that to you. Reince Priebus—if you want to leak something—he’ll be asked to resign very shortly.” The issue, he said, was that he believed Priebus had been worried about the dinner because he hadn’t been invited. “Reince is a :daisy:ing paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci said.

The whole article is worth a look. The guy sounds like mini-Trump.

[Montmorency]

Well, the new Communications Director seems like he's going to fit right in.....


Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon)



The whole article is worth a look. The guy sounds like mini-Trump.

Cocaine, eh? Here's an article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/anthony-scaramucci-mooch-donald-trump.html) by a friend expressing concern for the sudden personality shift in Scaramucci.


Say what you want about President Trump, he succeeds wildly at diminishing those who come in direct contact with him. It’s a phenomenon that was articulated beautifully by Thomas Ricks, the Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, in a June appearance on MSNBC when he said that Mr. Trump is “very good at borrowing other people’s credibility.” Specifically, he worried that the president had “strip-mined” the credibility of his friend, H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser.

I share Mr. Ricks’s concern for my friend Anthony Scaramucci, a good man who is rapidly being tarnished by his proximity to Mr. Trump.

[spmetla]

Interesting article Xiahou posted from the New Yorker. Pretty much confirms everything I thought about him during his first interview which painted him in my eyes as a boasting New York show boater with mafia style loyalty to his 'Don', he will undoubtedly go far with his new boss.

Trumps ability as president to ruin all he touches is rather astonishing.

Even the Boy Scouts are needing to apologize:
http://scoutingwire.org/chief-perspective-presidential-visit/

I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree. That was never our intent. The invitation for the sitting U.S. President to visit the National Jamboree is a long-standing tradition that has been extended to the leader of our nation that has had a Jamboree during his term since 1937. It is in no way an endorsement of any person, party or policies. For years, people have called upon us to take a position on political issues, and we have steadfastly remained non-partisan and refused to comment on political matters. We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program.
My dad and uncle were both Eagle Scouts and were certainly shocked that the President would give that type of speech to an audience of children. He just can't turn off his reality TV personality even for a moment.

[Beskar]

He just can't turn off his reality TV personality even for a moment.

What if.. it is not a persona in the slightest?

[spmetla]

What if.. it is not a persona in the slightest?

Then we're all doomed...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, the new Communications Director seems like he's going to fit right in.....


Anthony Scaramucci Called Me to Unload About White House Leakers, Reince Priebus, and Steve Bannon (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon)



The whole article is worth a look. The guy sounds like mini-Trump.

Trump's leadership style demands key subordinates who will take this role. Mind you, it won't work for running the country, but at least the Don will have the cadre he needs around him to function as is his wont.

[Montmorency]

There have been many pieces and first-hand accounts written on the extent and firmness of LGBT integration in the contemporary US military - you may find some easily enough - but here I'll post an account (https://memory.loc.gov/diglib/vhp-stories/loc.natlib.afc2001001.12523/transcript?ID=mv0001) from the days of the original desegregation (technically earlier, in WW2).

I would caution you not to get too caught up in this passage's "feel-good", picturesque qualities; with that mental preparation, it serves as a reflection on the military's potential as a vehicle of social change.


Kathleen M. Scott:
You enrolled and said, "I will only come in as a commissioned officer."

Martha Putney:
And I had them put it down on my 201 file. So when I finished basic training, the first class that opened up, okay? That's how it was done. That's why I went to administration school.

Kathleen M. Scott:
Oh, okay.

Martha Putney:
The first class that opened up, I was called.

Kathleen M. Scott:
Okay, sorry about that. You were housed in a hotel in Des Moines.

Martha Putney:
Yeah, and they had shuttles back and forth, and we always came back and forth to do the various things we wanted to do.

Kathleen M. Scott:
Did you have any trouble in the community in Des Moines?

Martha Putney:
No, the black community -- churches invited us in, and there weren't too many blacks in the Midwest. And, of course, so far as socialization was concerned there were very few males; they were all in the Army. And, so, it was a lonely life for most of us -- a lonely life for most of us. Incidentally, by order of the commanding officer at Ft. Des Moines, none of the places of amusement -- entertainment, were to be segregated. None. So, legally, we could eat anyplace we wanted to. Iowa did not have a segregation law. We had -- I didn't have it, but while I was there, there was a problem with one restaurant owner who didn't want to serve blacks, who made them wait, and the Colonel put him off [laughs] put him off duty. No blacks could enter that place. None of us. And he found out what was happening, he opened up, and we can go there now. There were frequent shuttles back and forth to the post so that we went back and forth to movie, to the PX, you know, things like that.

I was lucky again, I escaped KP at administration school. In fact, I never did KP but a lot of people around me in basic training did it, and they complained. Everyone complained. They didn't complain too much about the other chores, like mopping, putting lye on the floors, picking up trash, cleaning latrines -- they didn't complain too much about that, but they complained about KP. And especially those who worked in the kitchen, that cleaned those great big vats, you could hear them come home, come back to the barracks, crying about what they did. And so I was lucky I didn't do KP in the Army. [laughs]

Let's go back to OCS, I got there in the middle of the day. Time for me to unpack my things, put it in my footlocker, get everything straightened out, and then, of course, eat the meals that we were supposed to eat -- we went, but the first day we went on our own to the mess hall. There were about five of us in the class -- 100 or so. Got to bed early because I knew OCS was going to be more hectic than basic training. I knew that, so I got to bed early. People came in from all the parts of the country, staggered. My roommate came, my bunkmate, upper bunkmate, came in the middle of the night. The Charge of Quarters, that's the non-commissioned officer in charge of each barracks, I brought her down by flashlight and showed her where she's supposed to sleep.



She grumbled about being assigned an upper bunk. Then at daybreak she woke up, greeted the person to her left, the person to her right, in a southern drawl and looked down, I imagine, intending to greet me. When she saw me I got everything distasteful, rude, disrespectful that any person shouldn't have gotten. The N-word was used three or four times, "Get out of here," was used five or six times. "Damn" used before the N-word. The whole barracks on the first floor was listening to it. Nobody said anything, just listening to it. And the CQ came out, gave the order, "At ease." "At ease" in the Army -- you say nothing, get quiet. Well she got quiet.

She got down off her bunk and gave me a mean look. If the look she gave me could kill me I would have been dead. And she went on into the shower -- took a shower. I waited until she got out and I went in, and came out, and lined up for mess, went to march to mess -- we happened to be in the same platoon because we're in the same barracks. It was alphabetically integrated. Her name, incidentally, was --last name was S -- started with S, and my last name started with S, so we were -- okay? I couldn't eat. I knew I had to go through the line, so I went through the line, came on back, walked around the huge parade ground. The parade ground was the circumference on which Officer's Rowand OCS like this -- Officer's Row on this side; OCS on that side. I finally decided I had to get back to get ready for my first day.

I went back in, the other people in the first floor of the barracks came up to me and said how sorry they were -- not every one of them was sorry. I knew there were southern among those in the barracks, but they didn't even come out and tell her anything. They didn't tell her to shut up or stop; they didn't do anything. Her harangue was maybe 8 minutes before that CQ came out there because we were asleep, you know. I guess it was about 4 o'clock in the morning that she woke up.

[...]

I knew if I had said anything I would have been the one. I knew that, so I said nothing, absolutely nothing. She -- same thing happened when noon mess -- she still gave me nasty looks. When we got finished mess in the evening I felt like I didn't want to go back in that barracks until she was out of the way. I don't know how she was going to be out of the way -- I felt like that. But it was a whole different atmosphere, that they had talked to her, and they had told her she goes -- she straightens up or she goes. And told her to apologize to me, and do it in public since she yelled at me in public. So here she was sitting on her bunk -- sitting on her footlocker, waiting to make an apology. That's what she was doing. And used the word, "You kids," because she found out there were other blacks in there. "I didn't know they let you kids in here with us." This is an apology. And then she ended with the phrase something like this: "If my mother knew that I was sleeping with you people," that's what she said, "She'd want me to come home." All of this was supposed to be an apology. [laughs] So I looked at her. Incidentally, other people in the barracks were hearing her make this apology, and they didn't think it was an apology either. So I looked at her, and told -- in a voice that only she could hear, "I suggest that you do what your mother would want you to do to feel comfortable." She looked at me, said nothing, got out of bed.

The next morning I went to mess; she went to mess too, and I indicated, I wasn't in a hurry to get back to my bunk. I got back just in time to get ready. So I came back in, my bed was made, my shoes were in line, my pajamas were hung, everything was straight. I assumed she was doing it, but I didn't know. The same thing happened the next morning, and when Saturday morning came, I came back in, she's coming down the hall with a bucket and a mop, and I stood aside and let her mop the whole area, clean it, and I said to her, "Your mother should see you now!" [laughs] That's the first time she smiled. That's the first time she smiled, when I told her -- see her working for me, you see. [laughter] That's right. That's what I told her.

[...]

Commissioning Day, she left on my bunk two sets of bars, and a note. And I got the thing -- got the notation at home now, "To a fine gal," gal, "From a reconstructed southerner." I never met her again, but some of the people in the barracks said that she really has changed because she gave me -- she threw everything at me she could throw at me except for fists, but she learned that she couldn't do it, and that one incident gave me to understand that the Army could have done a lot if it just wanted to. Because those officers told her she goes if she didn't apologize -- didn't straighten up. But we know, we should know, at that time, I don't know about now, the Army was bred to southern traditions, and it wasn't about to change during that period, but it could have done a lot and lived up to the reasons why we were fighting that war. We were supposed to be the arsenal of democracy; we put out those four freedoms, and they were supposed to be our goals, and it could have lived up to that if it wanted to, if it broke with the southern traditions. And no one is asking anyone to love us, you know, just accept us as fellow human beings.

[Husar]

Trump's leadership style demands key subordinates who will take this role. Mind you, it won't work for running the country, but at least the Don will have the cadre he needs around him to function as is his wont.

"Leadership style" sounds way too sophisticated for his bumbling along. How about we call it his boss style?

[drone]

Well, the new Communications Director seems like he's going to fit right in.....
He is selling his company (Skybridge Capital) to HNA Group, a Chinese conglomerate, and it has to pass regulatory review before the sale goes final. Until it the sale is done, he doesn't/can't actually work for the White House. He's going to kiss as much :daisy: as he needs to get Trump to OK the deal (POTUS can override the CFIUS committee's ruling). Speculation is that the price may be inflated to curry favor with a future senior White House official. So business as usual.

As a side amusement, HNA is the largest shareholder in Deutsche Bank. Trump launders a lot of Russian money through Deutsche Bank...

[Xiahou]

Trump's leadership style demands key subordinates who will take this role. Mind you, it won't work for running the country, but at least the Don will have the cadre he needs around him to function as is his wont.So long as you don't steal any of Trump's spotlight. Bannon never had the same influence after he got on the cover of Time (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328993-trump-annoyed-by-time-cover-with-bannon-report).

It's kind of a bizarre catch22 really. If you're not aggressive (and obsequious) enough in your defense of Trump, he'll marginalize you. But, if you draw too much attention to yourself, he'll marginalize you.

[Xiahou]

And just like that, Reince Priebus is out (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/891038014314598400). I think everyone knew he was on the outs, but I was expecting Sessions would be pushed out first.... :sweatdrop:

He's named retired Marine general and current Homeland Security Secretary, John Kelly as his new Chief of Staff. This seems like an odd choice to me. Especially considering that now he has to push a new Homeland Security nominee thru the senate.

[Hooahguy]

I wonder if congressional Republicans are going to push back on the DHS nominee, since Priebus was supposedly made chief of staff to placate the mainstream GOP.

Also it seems like Trump purposely put a military guy into the position, since he wants unwavering loyalty ("dont question the Commander in Chief" type of thinking), a yes-man essentially. Priebus probably wouldnt be that, so he was ditched.

[Montmorency]

And just like that, Reince Priebus is out (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/891038014314598400). I think everyone knew he was on the outs, but I was expecting Sessions would be pushed out first.... :sweatdrop:

He's named retired Marine general and current Homeland Security Secretary, John Kelly as his new Chief of Staff. This seems like an odd choice to me. Especially considering that now he has to push a new Homeland Security nominee thru the senate.

I guess our tabloids do have some value.

https://i.imgur.com/rZA2IZH.jpg

[spmetla]

The line at the bottom of the cover is gold!

[drone]

I wonder if congressional Republicans are going to push back on the DHS nominee, since Priebus was supposedly made chief of staff to placate the mainstream GOP.
As I stated in the Sessions thread, this might be the wakeup call to the GOP Congress, Trump is not a Republican and doesn't care for the party any farther than it will protect him. They have already stated that they will not be confirming a new AG, the Senate at the least is getting fed up with him.

Also it seems like Trump purposely put a military guy into the position, since he wants unwavering loyalty ("dont question the Commander in Chief" type of thinking), a yes-man essentially. Priebus probably wouldnt be that, so he was ditched.
Priebus :daisy:-blocked Scaramucci from taking the role at the start of the administration (straight from his mouth), so it's no surprise Reince got the boot as soon as Mooch got Trump's favor.

[Husar]

I'm sure everybody was waiting for this from our favourite performance artist.

You can thank me later...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pdDVreAXbw

[HopAlongBunny]

Skinny repeal dies from lack of support; possibly saves millions of lives!
Most successful health-care bill ever?

https://wonkette.com/620891/lets-enjoy-bitter-tears-of-republicans-who-couldnt-kill-obamacare-poor-people

[CrossLOPER]

I'm sure everybody was waiting for this from our favourite performance artist.

You can thank me later...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pdDVreAXbw
At first I thought this was a joke, but then I finally noticed infowars banner.

Husar, what did I say about giving warnings? I don't want videos from delusional nutjobs on my recommendations list. It is very finely tailored for my specific tastes, which includes moe videos of anime girls, and grown men doing let's plays. Don't screw up my only joy in my sad pathetic life.

[Husar]

At first I thought this was a joke, but then I finally noticed infowars banner.

Husar, what did I say about giving warnings? I don't want videos from delusional nutjobs on my recommendations list. It is very finely tailored for my specific tastes, which includes moe videos of anime girls, and grown men doing let's plays. Don't screw up my only joy in my sad pathetic life.

I thought that "you can thank me later..." was a generally accepted warning in the English language. My apologies to the anime girls who depend on your watching the ads before their videos if that does not apply. :bow:

[Sarmatian]

Nerds.

"It will ruin my recommendation list"...

I don't care about recommendation list on Youtube. Some other tubes, though...

[Xiahou]

And just as quickly as he arrived.... Scaramucci is fired (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/us/politics/anthony-scaramucci-white-house.html).

Best twitter response (https://twitter.com/jonathanchait/status/892092271923007488/photo/1) I've seen: :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I guess he would not do the Fandango, so this Bohemian Rhapsody failed.

[Pannonian]

And just as quickly as he arrived.... Scaramucci is fired (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/us/politics/anthony-scaramucci-white-house.html).

Best twitter response (https://twitter.com/jonathanchait/status/892092271923007488/photo/1) I've seen: :laugh4:

I liked the Daily Show's tribute.

"RIP Anthony Scaramucci, late July 2017 - slightly later July 2017".

[CrossLOPER]

I thought that "you can thank me later..." was a generally accepted warning in the English language. My apologies to the anime girls who depend on your watching the ads before their videos if that does not apply. :bow:

How else is this fine young lady going to finance her lifestyle?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIVmv4WPZ6Y

[Strike For The South]

I thought that "you can thank me later..." was a generally accepted warning in the English language. My apologies to the anime girls who depend on your watching the ads before their videos if that does not apply. :bow:

Under rated joke IMO.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/01/trump-aides-stunning-cry-for-help-admitting-the-president-misled-the-american-people/?utm_term=.4ba699a49d8e

This man is going to walk himself right into a crime.

This is fantastic.

[Husar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/01/trump-aides-stunning-cry-for-help-admitting-the-president-misled-the-american-people/?utm_term=.4ba699a49d8e

This man is going to walk himself right into a crime.

This is fantastic.


Trump, advisers say, is increasingly acting as his own lawyer, strategist and publicist, often disregarding the recommendations of the professionals he has hired.

"I know the best people! ...they're all in my mirror every morning!"

[Kralizec]

The boy scout's speech is small beer compared to the shitstorm that is his presidency so far, but it particulary interests me because I used to be a scouts volunteer. I liked how uncomfortable Rick Perry was looking every now and then.

I woudn't know, but I always imagined that American boy scouts were more serious about their values than the scouts in my country, that that they enjoyed far more respect. Well, the latter has proven to be untrue. The man is a simpleton who can't help himself from acting the way he does, so I'm not moved or surprised by anything he does. Only by the fact that GOP aligned people keep tacitly (and sometimes explictly) condoning this kind of behaviour.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump is absolutely correct that the media has been on a witch hunt to harm and embarrass him from BEFORE he was sworn in. They, and the establishment, loathe him.

I think, if the media would just leave it all be, that Trump would himself provide ample reason for his not being re-elected as he shows us what he can do as a leader. This Nixon-esque tar-and-feathering by media process is just a means to stymie him.

Of course, the establishment wants him doing exactly nothing of note -- they do not even trust him to fail on his own. I, on the other hand, do.

[spmetla]

He's done this media frenzy to himself. The WH's first press briefing was combative toward all the major news networks, claimed the inauguration crowd was larger than it was and contested the results of an election he had won. All because he couldn't believe that he didn't win the popular vote. That's without even discussing Sean Spicer's demeanor as the spokesperson.

Before he was sworn in he was undermining the sitting President by tweeting complaints about Obama's diplomacy, executive orders and all the mean time failing to find people to fill in the many roles that the government requires.
Out of the 188 Ambassador's positions the State department has we still have 52 vacancies with no nominations, including for major allies like Germany. That's after he fired 80 ambassadors all at once without thought for replacements.

After he won the election he apparently had no plan on transferring control of his business, if the media hadn't made the stink necessary it's possible that he'd be attempting to run his business and the country at the same time.

Not to mention that throughout his whole transition period he continued denying that Russia was behind anything in the election, undermined intel reports that said otherwise etc..

In summary he's brought the media attention constantly on himself through his ignorant and wrong tweeting before and after the election and inauguration. He's brought the Russia issue to the fore because he continues to downplay any involvement of the Russia thereby highlighting their involvement.

I'll agree that the establishment loathe him as well the the media but what has he done or even attempted to do to correct that? Calling everything that's uncomfortable to talk about or negative about you fake news certainly won't get you support from them. Undermining your spokes-people by tweeting thoughts contrary to the spin that they just did to put him in a better light he counter productive too.

Leaving him to fail on his own is the wrong method, we don't need him blundering and bullying his way for 3 and half more years. If he truly wants to do good then perhaps he needs to listen to his advisers, lawyers, and the leaders of the establishment that conducting the business of President requires. When he screws up, makes false statements, undermines his staff, and denies the blatant involvement of Russia it is the duty of the media to call him out and not let up.

George W. Bush and Obama endured no shortage of criticism. Bush had to deal with his legitimacy actually being contested due to the Florida recount issues and butterfly ballots. Remember that TV Show "That's My Bush!" which straight up mocked him for months in a manner far worse than the SNL skits. Obama had to deal with the ire of the Hillary supporters that think he stole her turn to be president as well as the economic collapse that had happened just before the elections. Not to mention the 'birthers' (including Trump) that outright deny that he was even eligible to be President.

The establishment probably wants him to do something of note but he's making no effort to lead the way on any legislation or agenda. He's completely hands off anything that can't be done with an Executive Order. He couldn't even sign the sanctions on Russia today without whining about it, despite it being a bi-partisan success story.

[Montmorency]

I think, if the media would just leave it all be

That's a bit hard to swallow. Why shouldn't the news pay a lot of attention to what the President does? Does She need a honeymoon period? If anything the coverage is insufficient in scope and always fixated on "breaking" news of the moment.

Another more likely problem in the content the media can create are their basic assumptions of America's place and role in the world are, which I'll start a thread on by-the-by.


Of course, the establishment wants him doing exactly nothing of note -- they do not even trust him to fail on his own. I, on the other hand, do.

What's the distinction? Have the President's or his party's failures not been their own because Trump always feels himself needing to engage with media coverage and narratives, which he consumes directly from the White House TV screens?

To expand from the previous chunk, Trump is hampered by no one other than himself. The media doesn't proactively create controversies - "breaking" news, remember - when every day the Establishment is tossing morsels right in their faces. If they really wanted to stymie him, they could set their attention to his administration's changes to policy in Justice and Environment, but I suspect televised news doesn't have the time for it as a rule.


Customarily presidents set legislative agendas and provide technical support and guidance for Congress to put the legislation together. Trump could get a hit of positive attention for even attempting to produce a napkin-sketch of an outline of a law on healthcare or taxes, but it seems his underlings prefer the opportunity to manage their executive departments sub-rosa while the boss takes the flack.

[CrossLOPER]

https://aeon.co/essays/why-religious-identities-are-not-immune-to-robust-criticism

Let's just all be thankful that the neu right, although in control, is absolutely incompetent.

[Husar]

Trump is absolutely correct that the media has been on a witch hunt to harm and embarrass him from BEFORE he was sworn in. They, and the establishment, loathe him.

Trump is himself part of the establishment, has been for years and has basically used this position quite a lot himself.
So when he complains about it this much, it does indeed sound like he never expected to win or to be forced to deliver on his promises.
The first thing he should do to drain the swamp is step down, everything else is just hypocrisy and crocodile tears.

Not to forget that Bannon is basically a media mogul himself and Trump filled his entire cabinet with people from the establishment and then claimed he prefers them because they're, well....established....

As for the media not talking about him, cry me a river and welcome to capitalism, the best system in the world! They HAVE to cover him to stay in business, they have zero (monetary) incentive not to.

[Gilrandir]

Now it's official. Will the EU balk?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-bill/index.html

[Fragony]

Trump is himself part of the establishment, has been for years and has basically used this position quite a lot himself.
So when he complains about it this much, it does indeed sound like he never expected to win or to be forced to deliver on his promises.
The first thing he should do to drain the swamp is step down, everything else is just hypocrisy and crocodile tears.

Not to forget that Bannon is basically a media mogul himself and Trump filled his entire cabinet with people from the establishment and then claimed he prefers them because they're, well....established....

As for the media not talking about him, cry me a river and welcome to capitalism, the best system in the world! They HAVE to cover him to stay in business, they have zero (monetary) incentive not to.

Everybody knows that he's a joke, it's just that he isn't Hillary, that princess with a percieved birthright. I kinda like it how Trump jusn't gives a hoot.

[Sarmatian]

Now it's official. Will the EU balk?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-bill/index.html

In what way?

[Gilrandir]

In what way?

Well, I don't know and I would like people here to speculate on it. The EU has voiced its displeasure with the sanctions since they would harm European businesses, first of all those that coopertate with Russia on Nordstream 2. The EU might want exceptions or overhauling sanctions to make them a joint statement from both the EU and the US and while overhauling try to force compomises into them.

[Sarmatian]

Well, since the law specifically mentions selling more American LNG to Europe as one of its purposes, Europeans are naturally wary.

I've read somewhere yesterday (BBC I believe) that EU got assurances that their businesses won't be unfairly targeted. The commission is placated for now, although Junker said they reserve the right to answer accordingly if the situation changes. So, for the time being, Nordstream 2 and other projects are continuing. I'll try to find the article.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump is himself part of the establishment, has been for years and has basically used this position quite a lot himself.
So when he complains about it this much, it does indeed sound like he never expected to win or to be forced to deliver on his promises.
The first thing he should do to drain the swamp is step down, everything else is just hypocrisy and crocodile tears.

Not to forget that Bannon is basically a media mogul himself and Trump filled his entire cabinet with people from the establishment and then claimed he prefers them because they're, well....established....

As for the media not talking about him, cry me a river and welcome to capitalism, the best system in the world! They HAVE to cover him to stay in business, they have zero (monetary) incentive not to.

He is NOT, or at least until election was not, part of the political establishment. Our politicos love to take corporate money, but NOT to have corporate types taking their perquisites. Trump was supposed to keep making money, donate to their campaigns, get a few favorable votes paid for, and then let the princ-lings of the Potomac continue as usual.

Trump's establishment administration team is fraying and falling away. Bannon remains, but Priebus is gone. GOP senators are declaring Trump anathema alongside Dems.

And yes, Trump encourages the media circus at the same time he decries it -- so we CAN add hypocrisy to his list of traits.

I have to agree on his promises. The GOP did not expect him to win and even his own transition team did yack-all to play to execute on some of his campaign promises (even the ones the traditional base loved). Oddly enough, the only person executing policy efforts that attempt to fulfill a Trump campaign promise is Sessions with his measures to enforce existing immigration law -- and Trump has been lambasting him anyway.

I am just sick of the endless media drumbeat attempting to make a "Russian connection" that renders articles of impeachment. The smug glee in each announcer's studied tones when hinting that things could be getting worse.

Trump will run his own presidency into the dirt without assistance, thank you very much, so I wish we could get the "shark frenzy" tone to just go away.

[Gilrandir]

He is NOT, or at least until election was not, part of the political establishment.
If he ran like Ross Perot did, then you you be right. But he ran as a Republican thus representing one of the two greatest political establishments of the US.

[rory_20_uk]

He will run it into the ground. But how much damage in the meantime? He's looking into whether he can pardon himself along with all the hangers on, he's trying to erode most other departments of their independence and is now casting his eyes on undermining the freedom of the press. A "good" President (and there's not been one for quite a while) would try to get Congress to work together in a bipartisan way. Obama tried initially but apparently it wasn't his natural style and he initially had the votes to force things through. I suppose Trump is so universally vilified he might help unify them all against him.

Internationally, China is gleefully moving into the vacuum that is left be that a new world bank, a free trade area in Asia. Whilst Trump tries to make everything into a simple zero-sum game. These are long term trends, but they are accelerating. And it's only been 6 months!

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He will run it into the ground. But how much damage in the meantime? He's looking into whether he can pardon himself along with all the hangers on, he's trying to erode most other departments of their independence and is now casting his eyes on undermining the freedom of the press. A "good" President (and there's not been one for quite a while) would try to get Congress to work together in a bipartisan way. Obama tried initially but apparently it wasn't his natural style and he initially had the votes to force things through. I suppose Trump is so universally vilified he might help unify them all against him.

Internationally, China is gleefully moving into the vacuum that is left be that a new world bank, a free trade area in Asia. Whilst Trump tries to make everything into a simple zero-sum game. These are long term trends, but they are accelerating. And it's only been 6 months!

~:smoking:

It feels worse that it really has been because of the hype. The lives of most Americans are about the same as they were a year or 18 months back. Our economy still grows slower than we want, but grows. We pay our taxes. We mostly get to do what we want health and money permitting etc. We've had gridlock in Washington many times in the past, and will again. We have had less than stellar Presidents several times (Grant, Harding, Carter, Buchannan...) and we survive those stretches too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If he ran like Ross Perot did, then you you be right. But he ran as a Republican thus representing one of the two greatest political establishments of the US.

He got the nomination in good part from open primaries with new voters tapping him. He talked about growing the party. The establishment was aghast at the whole thing. Except the Dems, they were thrilled because they knew they could win against Trump.

[Montmorency]

It feels worse that it really has been because of the hype. The lives of most Americans are about the same as they were a year or 18 months back. Our economy still grows slower than we want, but grows. We pay our taxes. We mostly get to do what we want health and money permitting etc. We've had gridlock in Washington many times in the past, and will again. We have had less than stellar Presidents several times (Grant, Harding, Carter, Buchannan...) and we survive those stretches too.

I think many Democrats are less upset about the President himself than his empowered officials (https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/535458/), and the people who voted him into office.

Hey, up to a third of the country (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/the-american-publics-attitudes-about-nixon-post-watergate/) has steadfastly stood by the Nixon administration for two generations. Even the Pentagon (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358) is beginning to admit the American Empire is in terminal decline and the post-war order along with it. Trump's presidency is part-and-parcel of decline and degeneration, not something to be handily swept away as the dropped crockery of a youthful and careless Nation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think many Democrats are less upset about the President himself than his empowered officials (https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/535458/), and the people who voted him into office.

Hey, up to a third of the country (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/the-american-publics-attitudes-about-nixon-post-watergate/) has steadfastly stood by the Nixon administration for two generations. Even the Pentagon (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358) is beginning to admit the American Empire is in terminal decline and the post-war order along with it. Trump's presidency is part-and-parcel of decline and degeneration, not something to be handily swept away as the dropped crockery of a youthful and careless Nation.

Fair points. But if you are correct, Trump is more symptom than problem. And this too shall pass.

[Montmorency]

Fair points. But if you are correct, Trump is more symptom than problem. And this too shall pass.

We too shall pass. :shrug:

Given that the dedication to the Statue of Liberty is outdated, we should replace it with a new slogan for the country: "Great, but not exceptional".


Anyway, a tidbit about the Reconciliation process used in the final stages of the health insurance reform event (and previously (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)#From_2000s_to_present) in passing the ACA/Obamacare and the Bush tax cuts): I understood that the process can be deployed once per fiscal year, and that it counts once each on the separate topics of spending, revenue (taxes), and the debt ceiling. What I didn't know (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-know-the-gop-is-serious-about-tax-reform/) was that the AHCA/BCRA technically took up both the spending slot and the revenue slot. In other words, no possible Reconciliation on tax reform this year.

Unless they pass a new budget and reset the Reconciliation meter.

This may explain why the Republicans don't seem to be prepared to tackle tax reform in the near-term, and why some in the White House have still been pushing to necro health insurance reform.

[Gilrandir]

He got the nomination in good part from open primaries with new voters tapping him. He talked about growing the party. The establishment was aghast at the whole thing. Except the Dems, they were thrilled because they knew they could win against Trump.

Whatever his nomination history may have been, it is the (Republican) establishment that accepted him.

As for being outside the establishment as a bonus to change it - it is an extremely naive supposition on the part of his voters. It is like hoping that you may enter the game of poker being a bridge player and impose the rules of bridge on poker players.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Whatever his nomination history may have been, it is the (Republican) establishment that accepted him.

Not at all. "Forced by the system's outcome to put up with him somewhat," would be nearer the mark.


As for being outside the establishment as a bonus to change it - it is an extremely naive supposition on the part of his voters. It is like hoping that you may enter the game of poker being a bridge player and impose the rules of bridge on poker players.

Not a bad analogy (though it would be nearer the emotional mark with the games reversed). And what you are witnessing is a host of poker players shouting down, belittling, and threatening the bridge player.

[Gilrandir]

Not at all. "Forced by the system's outcome to put up with him somewhat," would be nearer the mark.

Whatever reasons (or unreasons) lay behind the nomination the net result is: Trump was nominated by the Republicans. Period. After that any talk about him being out of establishment is ridiculous.



Not a bad analogy (though it would be nearer the emotional mark with the games reversed). And what you are witnessing is a host of poker players shouting down, belittling, and threatening the bridge player.

You may be right on reversing the roles (being no player of either of the games I can't make grounded conlusions on the style of playing them), but I was talking not about the relations between the players, but about the on-lookers hoping for any agreement between them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Whatever reasons (or unreasons) lay behind the nomination the net result is: Trump was nominated by the Republicans. Period. After that any talk about him being out of establishment is ridiculous.
Any official connection to the current establishment makes you a full part of the establishment? So anything less and Raul, Fidel, and Ernesto up in the hills is playing the establishment game? I wasn't being that much of a purist. Of course Trump is establishment, he was never at the barricades. Let me say instead that the current "old boy" (and it is still mostly swinging Richards) network loathe him, were not happy he got the nom, and would like to see him out of office nearly as much as the Dems.


You may be right on reversing the roles (being no player of either of the games I can't make grounded conlusions on the style of playing them), but I was talking not about the relations between the players, but about the on-lookers hoping for any agreement between them. Poker is associated with bluffing and is a solo effort by the players against the others. Bridge is a partnership bidding to signal to one another the best chance for a win with any given hand. Poker is considered the more "emotional" of the two games...though you can argue the point.

[Beskar]

What if the 'Establishment' is a collective grouping of multiple 'Establishment Cliques' which can hold contrary positions to eachother?

[Gilrandir]

Any official connection to the current establishment makes you a full part of the establishment?
In case of Trump it was not just a connection, but being picked by the establishment. Do you see the difference?

[Husar]

How is a TV celebrity and real estate mogul not part of the establishment?

What is the establishment?


a group in a society exercising power and influence over matters of policy, opinion, or taste, and seen as resisting change.
"he scandalized the Establishment of his day"
synonyms: the powers that be, the authorities, the system, the ruling class, the regime, bureaucracy, officialdom; the status quo, the prevailing political/social order; informalBig Brother; archaicthe regimen
"an irreverent comedy series that dared to poke fun at the Establishment"
an influential group within a specified profession or area of activity.
"rumblings of discontent among the medical establishment"

Don't Republicans often throw Hollywood actors and other celebrities in with the establishment?
Plus his Twitter rants about Obama made him quite famous in political circles as well. He was not as much part of the political establishment, but the Republicans themselves always blame the Hollywood, the Media and political left establishment of colluding to the point of being more or less the same "leftist establishment". See here for example: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/the_imploding_leftist_establishment.html

In the same sense, Trump is part of the rightist establishment.

Or take establishment as elites in the wider sense, like here: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/remain-the-left-has-lined-up-with-the-establishment-eu-brexit/18483


REMAIN: THE LEFT HAS LINED UP WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT

Leftists now put bankers and bureaucrats before the people.

Brexit is a fake revolt’, writes Paul Mason in the Guardian this week: ‘Working-class culture is being hijacked to help the elite.’ A withering article in Vice agrees. ‘Brexit is the upper classes in revolt’, writes Sam Kriss.

Surely someone who brags about how many billions he has is part of the rich social elite aka establishment, no?

[Montmorency]

Gilrandir is correct. "The Establishment" is not a hive mind.

[HopAlongBunny]

A 50% cut in legal immigration?
But I thought this was the Growth President!:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-kashkari-idUSKBN1AN269

[Gilrandir]

How is a TV celebrity and real estate mogul not part of the establishment?

What is the establishment?


I believe his voters consider establishment to consist of top politicians of the two parties who follow each other at the steering wheel. From their perspective Trump was outside of it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://youtu.be/u1w4IxCXIxU

I was amused.

[Montmorency]

heresy

[Greyblades]

Ask yourself though, could Trump have beat Obama? Would Trump have won the nomination if he was facing Obama as opposed to Sanders/Clinton? The point is not that it "results in bad Presidents" but that the enforced change of candidate often results in a less-impressive offering by the sitting party when the current President is so impressive.

I think by posing the question you are overestimating the popularity of Obama within his own country.

Obama was a domestic failure; the deciding states were the ones that stagnated under his administration and only flipped red because Clinton was actively promising more of the same. 2008 Obama would have run rings around Trump, true enough, but with two terms of general dissapoinment behind him all he would have over trump was eloquence, and that didnt help clinton or the other republican hopefuls in the slightest.

Ultimately Sanders had a better chance of victory than Obama for the same reason as Trump's victory: he was a clear break from the previous status quo.

[Kralizec]

Trump won with thin margins in a handful of states that handed him a clear majority in the Electoral college, while losing the overall popular vote by almost 3 million. If Hillary Clinton had been a little more popular, or had put more effort in states like Wisconsin, she would have ben president.

Obama had a reasonably high approval rating as an outgoing president. It's just an educated guess, but I think Obama would have beaten Trump in any year, and probably with better margins than he beat McCain or Romney.

"Domestic failure" is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't live in the country myself. All I know is that public approval of the Affordable Care Act has been going up ever since the Republican party has been in a position to actually undo it.

[HopAlongBunny]

It turns out leaving many posts vacant does have drawbacks.
Team Trump has left many top level gov't posts empty. Defense contractors are left wondering who to talk to about on-going and proposed undertakings:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-results-idUSKBN1AR2DT

Otoh maybe Trump is using this strategy to downsize government?

[Gilrandir]

Team Trump has left many top level gov't posts empty.

Do you think he is aware of it?

[Greyblades]

Trump won with thin margins in a handful of states that handed him a clear majority in the Electoral college, while losing the overall popular vote by almost 3 million. If Hillary Clinton had been a little more popular, or had put more effort in states like Wisconsin, she would have ben president.

Obama had a reasonably high approval rating as an outgoing president. It's just an educated guess, but I think Obama would have beaten Trump in any year, and probably with better margins than he beat McCain or Romney.I do not, for the simple reason that the rust belt would have rejected him, as the cause of thier decline, harder than they rejected clinton, as the promised continuation. I could see him scraping michigen but without the rest of the rust belt it would require the flipping of florida and north carolina, a feat I dont think would be possible as he only got them by the skin of his teeth when he was in his prime in 2008.


"Domestic failure" is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't live in the country myself. All I know is that public approval of the Affordable Care Act has been going up ever since the Republican party has been in a position to actually undo it.

The approval upswing is based not on the merits of the system but with the context of the obvious failures of the proposed ryan and mcconnell-care.

Obamacare is designed to fail (https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2017/01/12/social-welfare-on-the-cheap-why-obamacare-was-built-to-fail/#27daa8ea718b) in such a way that makes singlepayer a more desireable choice, with a republican domination of every field this outcome has become impossible, making obamacare little more than a ticking timebomb.

[Montmorency]

I do not, for the simple reason that the rust belt would have rejected him, as the cause of thier decline, harder than they rejected clinton, as the promised continuation. I could see him scraping michigen but without the rest of the rust belt it would require the flipping of florida and north carolina, a feat I dont think would be possible as he only got them by the skin of his teeth when he was in his prime in 2008.



The approval upswing is based not on the merits of the system but with the context of the obvious failures of the proposed ryan and mcconnell-care.

Obamacare is designed to fail (https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2017/01/12/social-welfare-on-the-cheap-why-obamacare-was-built-to-fail/#27daa8ea718b) in such a way that makes singlepayer a more desireable choice, with a republican domination of every field this outcome has become impossible, making obamacare little more than a ticking timebomb.

The article makes the point that the ACA as put together with myriad components lacks the political durability to be a long-term policy; the strategic implication is then that something better has to be imposed sooner or later.

However, don't forget to separate the strategic element from the policy element to some extent. The law can become moribund if its opponents go far (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-baker-obamacare-red-state-20170713-story.html) in refusing to implement it - an area where the Trump administration (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/19/us/what-trump-can-do-to-let-obamacare-fail.html) is leading the way (http://www.thedailybeast.com/team-trump-used-obamacare-money-to-run-ads-against-it) - but those states that have with determination used many of the tools the law offers them have seen the greatest outcomes. So while it is an easy law for its opponents to sabotage, from the ideal perspective in governance we like to think that laws aren't going to be sabotaged...

It's a useful step, although, and in particular served the Medicaid-eligible population (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/02/09/514105341/what-worked-for-obamacare-and-what-didnt-lessons-from-5-states) very well (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/31/upshot/up-uninsured-2016.html). Unfortunately, the ideological opponents of Obamacare don't find sympathy for this demographic. The bottom line is that the overall effectiveness of Obamacare contributes to the difficulty of cleanly repealing it.


More to the point, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated last week that partial repeal would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 23 million (other estimates are even higher). If you think blowback to the ACA's enactment was bad for Democrats, just wait for the anti-GOP firestorm that follows that sort of disruption.

Prescient.


When the Democrats get their next bite at the apple -- and they will, despite all the hand-wringing on the left and back-patting on the right -- they will have a chance to avoid past mistakes as they try to build a better healthcare system.

Let's say the more right-wing Democrats would be comfortable staying along the outlines of Obamacare (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/31/16068130/problem-solver-house-proposal), the mainline Pelosi/Schumer wing would prefer (at least compared to a single-payer plan) universal coverage with a public option (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/08/06/in-trumpcares-demise-public-option-emerges-ahead-of-2018-elections/#8fc820f32a5b) balanced by extensive private insurer participation, and as always the Sanders wing wants Medicare-for-all (with a bill pending release in the near future (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/11/542676994/bernie-sanders-knows-his-medicare-for-all-bill-wont-pass-thats-not-the-point)).


It may seem ironic, but Americans have traditionally preferred really big government that doesn't play favorites when compared with somewhat smaller government that does.

Sadly so.


FDR understood that welfare programs work best when they are biggest.

Roosevelt also demonstrated that the best way to ensure the long-term viability of those programs is to ask people to actually pay for them. For Social Security, that meant a payroll tax.

I see the author even includes the man's famous words:


Payroll taxes “were never a problem of economics,” Roosevelt explained to one skeptical adviser:

They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.




On a third term for Obama, while he was more popular towards the end than Greyblades makes out, it's hard to see us breaking the 2-term tradition for Obama's sake. Then of course you realize that you would need an overwhelming movement for a Constitutional amendment or repeal (of the 22nd amendment) to even have the opportunity to elect someone to a third term, so in a circular sense if Obama had somehow managed to convince the country and Congress to take that course, and with time to spare for ratification by 2016, he would have been popular enough to run for a third term.

[Greyblades]

On a third term for Obama, while he was more popular towards the end than Greyblades makes out, it's hard to see us breaking the 2-term tradition for Obama's sake. Then of course you realize that you would need an overwhelming movement for a Constitutional amendment or repeal (of the 22nd amendment) to even have the opportunity to elect someone to a third term, so in a circular sense if Obama had somehow managed to convince the country and Congress to take that course, and with time to spare for ratification by 2016, he would have been popular enough to run for a third term.

To run, but not win.

Despite assertations of a scandal free presidency the man had accumilated legitimate baggage, even putting aside obamacare and the benghazi incident (of which a legitimate criticism was pounded into the dust by overzealous republicans); Operation Fast and Furious was continued and intensified under his watch, his IRS targeted conservative non profits during 2012, he engaged in the politics as usual he promised to end with his role in the government shutdown, he was responsible for the the drone killing of americans without trial, he turned lybia into a second somalia, tried to do the same to syria, he traded 5 taliban leaders just to secure the return of a US deserter, he sued the state of arizona for following an anti immigration law it's people had voted for, his intrusion of privacy grew to the point it inspired defections in the NSA and the leaks damaged US diplomacy worse than even trump has achieved, he increased the debt to 20 trillion and pushed it past the national GDP, oversaw a period of less economic growth than that of every other president in the last half century.

This is not considering the callouts he set himself up for: "I'll close guantanamo bay", "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, "We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs", "I Have Always Been Against Iraq", "Nearly one in five women in america have been a victim of rape or attempted rape"; the man was no less a liar than the best of capitol hill and trump would have had about as much material on Obama to work with as clinton, if not more.

I point to the gallup polls of presidential approval (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx); throughout the entirety of 2015 it was a steady mid 40 and only began to climb in 2016, when the lacklustre of the candidates started to become truly apparant.

I contend that such approval would not have manifested if it was him who got down in the mud instead of clinton, his shining record now is only due to being allowed to retreat behind the bluster.


White Nationalism is now in vogue with Trump in office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-protest-white-nationalist.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Well if we take that metric we can say black nationalism was downright chic even before Obama took his.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/155653/

As the popularization of communists bolsters fascists; black identitarianism has bolstered white.

To denounce one and ignore or excuse the other is to encourage both, the best course of action is to let both extremes feel the truncheon with equal enthusiasm.

[Gilrandir]

The Trump problem has a simple solution:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/me-we/201708/petition-declaring-trump-mentally-ill-pushes-signers

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump is an ass. His incoherence is making Obama's smooth banality look incredibly classy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is August 14th, 2017. Trump is still an ass and Putin is still a fascist.

[HopAlongBunny]

The Mooch is gone but not forgotten.
Colbert runs him through a few hoops and the Mooch take it all in stride:


https://youtu.be/qPVvVaTmM7M

Scaramucci doesn't bother me; he was hired to do a job (flak for Trump) and he did it very well.
He was just another shiny object waved at the media to focus on instead of really digging down into policy reversals like:
voting rights
environmental regulation rollback
the budding shiny new conservative court (appearing soon in a courthouse near you)
etc...

[Gilrandir]

It is August 14th, 2017. Trump is still an ass and Putin is still a fascist.

The labeling list has a tendency to expand? Who's the next candidate? Kim? Maduro? Merkel (if Fragony pleases)?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The labeling list has a tendency to expand? Who's the next candidate? Kim? Maduro? Merkel (if Fragony pleases)?

I will define the numbers, labels, and salience of those I choose to list. You, Frags, X-man, et al. are free to list whomsoever you wish.

[Xiahou]

I took the liberty of splitting the Charlottesville/alt-right discussion off in its own thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152878-Violence-in-Charlottesville). I think it probably deserves one.

[Xiahou]

I will define the numbers, labels, and salience of those I choose to list. You, Frags, X-man, et al. are free to list whomsoever you wish.

Political Label Generator (http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=pollabyn)
I'm a minarchist neo-libertarian!. :dizzy2:

(Your post inspired me to Google for 'political label maker' on a lark. That site was my first result. ) ~D

[Gilrandir]

I will define the numbers, labels, and salience of those I choose to list. You, Frags, X-man, et al. are free to list whomsoever you wish.

Even this small community of Orgahs can't come up with a universal labeling list? How can the world hope to get a unity on any of the issues?

[Husar]

If I read any more stupid deflections on Facebook about "But the Antifa / alt-left!" I'll become Antifa myself and punch these idiots in the face!

It can't be a coincidence that these stupid, evil statements deflecting blame from the people who literally worship Hitler come from the side that thinks education should be an expensive, optional choice or just delivered by your inbred parents... :wall:

[Montmorency]

If I read any more stupid deflections on Facebook about "But the Antifa / alt-left!" I'll become Antifa myself and punch these idiots in the face!

It can't be a coincidence that these stupid, evil statements deflecting blame from the people who literally worship Hitler come from the side that thinks education should be an expensive, optional choice or just delivered by your inbred parents... :wall:

You married an American?

[Husar]

You married an American?

:laugh4:
No!?

I just follow senator Sanders and sometimes check the comments. He/his tewam posted something about Trump not denouncing the Neo Nazis sufficiently and people began to comment about how Sanders should denounce the alt-left etc. The alt-left didn't kill anyone in Charlottesville and wouldn't have been there in the first place if it hadn't been for the racist protest. It's nothing but attempts to shift the focus away from the terrible deeds and behavior of right wing racists in Charlottesville.

[Beskar]

The Alt-Left doesn't exist.

There is no equal-movement in existence which currently matches the Alt-Right. Maybe in the future it could become a thing, but presently, it doesn't. No one identifies as alt-left and there are no known alt-left organisations.

It is a label used exclusively by people on the 'alt-right' to try to shame left-leaning groupings trying to play on the negatively they caused upon themselves in a kind of "You know how us, the alt-right are bad? those alt-left are just the same!". This is in contrast with the Alt-right which was coined by the Alt-Right in order to try to get extreme right views within the mainstream.

[Greyblades]

Someone better tell antifa that they dont exist.

[Montmorency]

Antifa are anarchists. They call themselves anarchists. Anarchists have been around longer than fascists in this world.

Antifa is of the Left. There is no alt-left.

[Beskar]

Someone better tell antifa that they dont exist.

Antifa are older than the alt-right movement and don't identify with "alt-left" label. They are anarchists and don't claim otherwise. Pretty much what Montmorency.

Put down your Tiki Torch.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Antifa are anarchists. They call themselves anarchists. Anarchists have been around longer than fascists in this world.

Antifa is of the Left. There is no alt-left.

You do know that Trump was trying to be witty and coin a phrase when he said "alt left," do you not? He doesn't clear any such statements with anyone for substance, just starts talking. The phrase had his usual deft humorous touch, which is to say none.

[Strike For The South]

So The president just tweeted a debunked chain e-mail. May the good Lord have mercy on us all.

[Xiahou]

You do know that Trump was trying to be witty and coin a phrase when he said "alt left," do you not? He doesn't clear any such statements with anyone for substance, just starts talking. The phrase had his usual deft humorous touch, which is to say none.
Right up there with Lyin' Ted and Crooked Hillary. He had some early success by attaching labels to his electoral opponents.... so why not come up with some "catchy" names for the hard left? :rolleyes:

I think just calling them "antifa" is adequate.

[Montmorency]

Personally, I believe this to be a less-likely scenario as of now, but since it looms over everything we might as well explore: are any of you here familiar with Philip Roth's The Plot Against America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plot_Against_America)?

Basically, Charles Lindbergh runs against Roosevelt in 1940, wins, buddies up to Hitler, and an east-coast Jewish boy watches the unfolding of Nazi-lite in America. In the end, it turns out that Lindbergh only ran at the bidding of Hitler, who in fact was responsible for kidnapping Lindbergh's son a decade previously (now in the Hitler Youth), and the son's safety depended on Lindbergh's willingness to carry out Nazi-dictated policy.

I always thought that was a dumb plot twist, but, uh...

...

I just remembered the book, is all.

[Husar]

So you're saying Trump has a secret son (Donald J. Trump Junior II.) who has been kidnapped by Putin and is now serving in the VDV and that's why things are the way they are?

[Strike For The South]

Bannon has been ousted. Some good news in this week of misery and despair.

[Hooahguy]

Also heard something about how now Breitbart is going to turn on him for this or something. Eager to see how this turns out.

[spmetla]

Also heard something about how now Breitbart is going to turn on him for this or something. Eager to see how this turns out.

Means just another source of 'fake news' that dislikes the president.

Edit: Just checked Breitbart and see that Bannon is "Going to War for Trump" so I guess we'll just a more extreme polarization of Trump's base via Breitbart. Guess the narrative is going to be that Trump is being controlled by the deep state, globalists, and democrats instead of admitting that Trump is incompenent and not capable of carrying out any policies no matter if Democrat, Republican, neo-nationalist, etc...
What this I think means in the long run is a push to characterize Trumps inevitable future failures as not the responsibility of the Republicans in order to save them during the mid-term elections.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/18/steve-bannon-speaks-after-white-house-departure-im-going-to-war-for-trump/