Trump Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Even if cheap, you'd literally give Trump your money, more money... :no:

---

Cheap would be second hand, it would go to person I bought it from.

Why does Trump seems to appoint the worst possible people into government? Such as recently appointing David Kautter, an expert in helping the rich avoid tax, to head the IRS. No, he is not there to reveal his secrets which keep him rich to crack down on it.

I would be delighted if Mueller were to give this speech before the joint Congress:

Quote:

---

If my quality as [Special Counsel] must prevent me from explaining myself with entire independence on what has happened, then I must abdicate it this instant. And after having separated myself from my colleagues, who I esteem and honor (and it’s well-known that I am not prodigal in the sentiment) I will tell my country the necessary truths. The truth is the only weapon that remains in the hands of the intrepid defenders of freedom in order to bring down the perfidious agents of [treason]. He who seeks to debase, to divide, to paralyze the [investigation] is an enemy of the fatherland, whether he sits in this hall or is a foreigner (applause). Whether he acts by stupidity or perversity he is of the party of the tyrants who make war upon us. But this project of debasement exists in the very places where patriotism should reign, in the clubs that claim to be more than patriotic. War is made on the [investigation] in the persons of all the defenders of freedom. And what is most deplorable is that this cowardly system has partisans here.

For a long time the [Special Counsel] has put up with a war made on it by several members who are more envious than just. While it is busy day and night with the great interests of the Fatherland, written denunciations, presented with guile, are brought here...

---

*pounding hammer smiley*

@Beskar

Where's the pounding hammer smiley?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

*pounding hammer smiley*

@Beskar

Where's the pounding hammer smiley?

---

:smash:

The Donald simply OOOOZES 'class' in everything he does.

Referencing Pocahantas to a group of Native Americans (The famous Marine Code Talkers of ww2 and Korea)? Wrong tribe and wrong attitude...but of course it was just supposed to be humorous.

But doing the whole ceremony under a picture of that most famous of 'Pro' Native American Presidents Andrew Jackson?!?! 'Class' does not begin to cover it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia on Andrew Jackson (excerpts)

Land speculation and founding of Memphis
Further information: History of Memphis, Tennessee
In 1794, Jackson formed a business with fellow lawyer and planter John Overton, overtly buying and selling land which had been reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw.[25] Theirs was a frank avowal; they, like many of their contemporaries, would deal with lands within Indian territory. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened to claim by North Carolinians all of the Indian lands in that state's transmontane west. He was one of the three original investors who founded Memphis, Tennessee, in 1819.
....
Creek Campaign & Treaty
...The campaign ended three weeks later with Red Eagle's surrender, although some Red Sticks such as McQueen fled to East Florida.[73] On June 8, Jackson accepted a commission as brigadier general in the United States Army, and 10 days later became a major general, in command of the Seventh Military Division.[74] Subsequently, Jackson, with Madison's approval, imposed the Treaty of Fort Jackson. The treaty required the Muscogee, including those who had not joined the Red Sticks, to surrender 23 million acres of land to the United States.[73] Though in ill-health from dysentery, Jackson turned his attention to defeating Spanish and British forces. Jackson accused the Spanish of arming the Red Sticks and of violating the terms of their neutrality by allowing British soldiers into the Floridas.[75] The first charge was true,[76] while the second ignored the fact that it was Jackson's threats to invade Florida which had caused them to seek British protection.[77] In the November 7 Battle of Pensacola, Jackson defeated British and Spanish forces in a short skirmish. The Spanish surrendered and the British fled. Weeks later, he learned that the British were planning an attack on New Orleans, which sat on the mouth of the Mississippi River and held immense strategic and commercial value. Jackson abandoned Pensacola to the Spanish
...
First Seminole War
Following the war[of 1812], Jackson remained in command of Army forces on the southern border of the U.S. He conducted official business from The Hermitage.[94] He signed treaties with the Cherokee and Chickasaw which gained for the United States large parts of Tennessee and Kentucky.[95] The treaty with the Chickasaw, finally agreed to later in the year, is commonly known as the Jackson Purchase.[26]
Several Native American tribes, which became known as the Seminole, straddled the border between the U.S. and Florida. The Seminole, in alliance with escaped slaves, frequently raided Georgia settlements before retreating back into Florida. These skirmishes continually escalated, and the conflict is now known as the First Seminole War.[96] In 1816, Jackson led a detachment into Florida which destroyed the Negro Fort, a community of escaped slaves and their descendants.[97] Jackson was ordered by President James Monroe in December 1817 to lead a campaign in Georgia against the Seminole and Creek Indians. Jackson was also charged with preventing Spanish Florida from becoming a refuge for runaway slaves, after Spain promised freedom to fugitive slaves. Critics later alleged that Jackson exceeded orders in his Florida actions. His orders from President Monroe were to "terminate the conflict."[98] Jackson believed the best way to do this was to seize Florida from Spain once and for all. Before departing, Jackson wrote to Monroe, "Let it be signified to me through any channel ... that the possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty days it will be accomplished."[99]
Jackson invaded Florida on March 15, 1818, capturing Pensacola. He crushed Seminole and Spanish resistance in the region and captured two British agents, Robert Ambrister and Alexander Arbuthnot. After a brief trial, Jackson executed both British agents, causing a diplomatic incident with the British. Jackson's actions polarized Monroe's cabinet, some of whom argued that Jackson had gone against Monroe's orders and violated the Constitution, since the United States had not declared war upon Spain. Yet Jackson was defended by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Adams thought that Jackson's conquest of Florida would force Spain to finally sell the province, and Spain did indeed sell Florida to the United States in the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819. A congressional investigation exonerated Jackson, but Jackson was deeply angered by the criticism he received, particularly from Speaker of the House Henry Clay.
...
Indian Removal Policy (as President)
Throughout his eight years in office, Jackson made about 70 treaties with Native American tribes both in the South and the Northwest.[131] Jackson's presidency marked a new era in Indian-Anglo American relations initiating a policy of Indian removal.[129] Jackson himself sometimes participated in the treaty negotiating process with various Indian tribes, though other times he left the negotiations to his subordinates. The southern tribes included the Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, Seminole and the Cherokee. The northwest tribes include the Chippewa, Ottawa, and the Potawatomi.[132]
Relations between Indians and Americans increasingly grew tense and sometimes violent as a result of territorial conflicts.[129] Previous presidents had at times supported removal or attempts to "civilize" the Indians,[133] but generally let the problem play itself out with minimal intervention. There had developed a growing popular and political movement to deal with the issue, and out of this policy to relocate certain Indian populations. Jackson, never known for timidity, became an advocate for this relocation policy in what many historians consider the most controversial aspect of his presidency.[129]
In his First Annual Message to Congress, Jackson advocated land west of the Mississippi River be set aside for Indian tribes. On May 26, 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which Jackson signed into law two days later. The Act authorized the President to negotiate treaties to buy tribal lands in the east in exchange for lands farther west, outside of existing state borders.[131] The act specifically pertained to the Five Civilized Tribes in the South, the conditions being that they could either move west or stay and obey state law.[134]
Jackson, Eaton, and General Coffee negotiated with the Chickasaw, who quickly agreed to move.[135] Jackson put Eaton and Coffee in charge of negotiating with the Choctaw. Lacking Jackson's skills at negotiation, they frequently bribed to the chiefs in order to gain their submission. The tactics worked, and the chiefs agreed to move. The removal of the Choctaw took place in the winter of 1831 and 1832, and was wrought with misery and suffering.[136] The Seminole, despite the signing of the Treaty of Payne's Landing in 1832,[137] refused to move. In December 1835, this dispute began the Second Seminole War. The war lasted over six years, finally ending in 1842.[132] Members of the Creek Nation had signed the Treaty of Cusseta in 1832, agreeing to move their tribe.[138] However, the Creeks later resisted, leading to a second Creek War.[139] A common complaint was that the men who had signed the treaties did not represent the whole tribe.
The state of Georgia became involved in a contentious dispute with the Cherokee, culminating in the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia. In that decision, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the court, ruled that Georgia could not forbid whites from entering tribal lands, as it had attempted to do with two missionaries supposedly stirring up resistance amongst the tribespeople.[140] Jackson is frequently attributed the following response: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The quote, apparently indicating Jackson's dismissive view of the courts, was attributed to Jackson by Horace Greeley, who cited as his source Representative George N. Briggs. Remini argues that Jackson did not say it because, while it "certainly sounds like Jackson...[t]here was nothing for him to enforce." This is because a writ of habeas corpus had never been issued for the missionaries.[141] The Court also did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[142]
A group of Cherokees led by John Ridge negotiated the Treaty of New Echota. Ridge was not a widely recognized leader of the Cherokee, and this document was rejected by some as illegitimate.[143] Another faction, led by John Ross, unsuccessfully petitioned to protest the proposed removal.[144] The treaty was enforced by Jackson's successor, President Martin Van Buren, who sent 7,000 troops to carry out the relocation policy. Due to the infighting between political factions, many Cherokees thought their appeals were still being considered when the relocation began.[145] Subsequently, as many as 4,000 Cherokees died on the "Trail of Tears" in 1838.[146] More than 45,000 American Indians were relocated to the West during Jackson's administration, though a few Cherokees walked back afterwards or migrated to the high Smoky Mountains.[147] The Black Hawk War took place during Jackson's presidency in 1832 after a group of Indians crossed into U.S. territory.

---

They couldn't have brought in a picture of TR or Ike, just for an hour?

Amateurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The Donald simply OOOOZES 'class' in everything he does.

Referencing Pocahantas to a group of Native Americans (The famous Marine Code Talkers of ww2 and Korea)? Wrong tribe and wrong attitude...but of course it was just supposed to be humorous.

But doing the whole ceremony under a picture of that most famous of 'Pro' Native American Presidents Andrew Jackson?!?! 'Class' does not begin to cover it.




They couldn't have brought in a picture of TR or Ike, just for an hour?

Amateurs.

---

Ethnic slurs are funniest when the ethnics ain't around. Maybe they didn't look Indian to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cZ4vFZ8A_Y

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/ilT0XBH.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Ethnic slurs are funniest when the ethnics ain't around. Maybe they didn't look Indian to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cZ4vFZ8A_Y

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/ilT0XBH.png

---

Cute video. But if you saw these blokes at the ceremony, you could have argued they were Native Americans straight out of "central casting."

Tillerson might be out soon.

If the initial report is right, he will be replaced by CIA director Mike Pompeo, who is very hawkish. And then its said that the very hawkish Senator Tom Cotton would become head of the CIA.

So if this all plays out as they are saying it will, US foreign policy is about to become even more hawkish, especially towards Iran.

Here's a very interesting article on Cotton and his opposition to the Iran deal from October:

Quote:

---

If one reads the speech closely, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Cotton’s actual goal is not attaining a better nuclear deal, but rather confronting Iran militarily and achieving regime change. Several passages in the speech clearly telegraph this objective, as do Cotton’s prior statements. The senator also so grossly misrepresents the JCPOA that one has to question whether he is more interested in improving the agreement or destroying it. Finally, Cotton’s own arguments contradict the notion that he seeks a better deal and instead imply that military force or regime change are the only viable options. Put simply: Cotton’s advocacy for a better nuclear agreement is a smokescreen for his true objective, which is putting the United States and Iran back on a path towards war.

---

John Kelly was Secretary of Homeland Security, transferred to White House Chief of Staff in replacement of Scaramucci/Priebus. No confirmed replacement for the Cabinet position yet.

If Tillerson resigns or is fired, the proposal is that CIA director Mike Pompeo (whose prior career is mostly defined by three terms as a Tea Party House Representative) replace him. The proposal includes as replacement for Pompeo in the CIA Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman Senator (formerly freshman Representative) from Arkansas and hard-right stalwart. Cotton worked closely with the Trump campaign during the transition and suggested Kelly as a candidate for Secretary of Homeland Security, being himself considered for Secretary of Defense.

My sense is that Trump wants to surround himself with a very limited pool of persons, regardless of context or qualifications.

Innuendo springs readily to mind.


And what the hell is going on in Whitefish?

Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior, is from this Montana town of ~7000.
The better part of federal contracts for Puerto Rico reconstruction were arbitrarily awarded to what is apparently a shell company based here.
Vagabond and wannabe-privateer Erik Prince (founder of the company formerly known as Blackwater, and brother to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos) seems to be backing efforts there to establish a privatized spook agency.
Neo-fascist Richard Spencer has maintained a residence there for some years.

Hopefully the authority of the United States of America still reaches those parts.

So Flynn has pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about meetings with the Russian ambassador during the election.

This bit is pretty interesting too:

Quote:

---

“A very senior member of the Presidential transition team directed Flynn to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution,” sad a written statement of facts signed by Flynn and prosecutors.

---

I wonder who will be going down next.

And obstruction.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MHusGl9BeM

Flynn has plead guilty to false statements and is cooperating with Mueller's investigation.
Whether this actually leads to anything against Trump is an open question, but it does indicate that those close to the president are beginning to look to self preservation:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42192080

For giggles I Googled "Flynn Framed"; yes the denial machine is in full operation :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I wonder who will be going down next.

---

The "very senior member" is reportedly Jared Kushner...

I was hoping it would be Trump himself, but perhaps Kushner will turn on his father in law. All this makes the passage of the dumpster fire of a tax bill a bit better.

And hey, Trump might have just admitted to obstruction of justice.

Quote:

---

Trump’s Saturday tweet seems to indicate that he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he made his comments to Comey. That could play into a case of obstruction of justice against him, as many were quick to point out.

---

The more I see the demonstrated political skills of this administration and its campaign team...some now officially criminal...the more I think the ONLY Hillary could have managed a defeat against this crew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The more I see the demonstrated political skills of this administration and its campaign team...some now officially criminal...the more I think the ONLY Hillary could have managed a defeat against this crew.

---

That and the political immaturity of the left. The reason Republicans win is because their supporters fall in line no matter what because of the R by the name of the candidate.

Beyond the presidential race, there's something to be said of ideological clarity and consistency.

The Democratic Party offers wishy-washy incrementalism that coddles moneyed interests.

The Republican Party offers a truly RADICAL platform.

Revolution, no matter its contents or injustices, is inherently sexier than incrementalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Beyond the presidential race, there's something to be said of ideological clarity and consistency.

The Democratic Party offers wishy-washy incrementalism that coddles moneyed interests.

The Republican Party offers a truly RADICAL platform.

Revolution, no matter its contents or injustices, is inherently sexier than incrementalism.

---

With the electorate's mood over the last decade or so, I have to agree with you completely. I was sorta stunned by how many Trump supporters second choice, when polled, was Sanders. Business as usual was not their...pardon me...cup of tea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

That and the political immaturity of the left. The reason Republicans win is because their supporters fall in line no matter what because of the R by the name of the candidate.

---

The terms Left and Right are so muddied to be nonsensical.

It is however true many people would rather vote for a Republican who is a 30-something man who screwed a 14 year old than contemplate voting for a Democrat.

It is not "immature" to engage one's brain when voting - it is one facet that democracy pre-supposes.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The terms Left and Right are so muddied to be nonsensical.

It is however true many people would rather vote for a Republican who is a 30-something man who screwed a 14 year old than contemplate voting for a Democrat.

It is not "immature" to engage one's brain when voting - it is one facet that democracy pre-supposes.

~:smoking:

---

True, the terms left and right are very generalized but as a whole the left shows much more of a "I'm going to take my ball and go home" mentality if they don't like everything about the candidate, even if the opposing candidate would be much worse. I heard so many people who identify as liberal/left railing about how they wouldnt vote for Hillary since she was so horrible. And yet now are complaining about the changes Trump is making. She might not have been the preferred candidate for many, but after seeing everything done over the past year I would be shocked if most of those wouldnt prefer Hillary elected over Trump. Engage your brain all you want when you vote, but if your vote isnt advancing your agenda in some way, did you really engage your brain at all?

The election between Roy Moore and Doug Jones in Alabama is a perfect example of this. Alabama is one of the most pro-life states in the country. Doug Jones, the Democrat, is pro-choice. I would be shocked if he won, as I have heard people are going to hold their nose and vote for Moore just because he is pro-life. But Jones couldnt be pro-life, as that would put him at odds with the Democrats as a whole. If Democrats want to start winning locally again they need to drop the purity tests and run candidates who would win in their area depending on their values, not the ones who would win in already heavily blue areas.

Quote:

---

Engage your brain all you want when you vote, but if your vote isnt advancing your agenda in some way, did you really engage your brain at all?

---

This is important. Voting is not a civic duty - civic participation is a civic duty. There should be no such thing as a "symbolic" vote.

Robert Mueller has given a subpoena Deutsche Bank for Trump's financial records.
Link

Quote:

---

The new revelation makes it clear that Mueller and his team are investigating the president’s financial transactions. It is not clear whether Mueller is interested in the bank accounts because they are connected to the Russia probe or if he is investigating another matter.

---

Considering that the bank has already been fined for a Russian money laundering scheme earlier this year, I am intrigued

Wonder what Donny is going to say about this. Didnt he say something a while back how looking into his finances was a red line or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Wonder what Donny is going to say about this.

---

"Fake news."

Erik Prince, Oliver North, and the private security/intelligence operations thing again.

Quote:

---

“Pompeo can’t trust the CIA bureaucracy, so we need to create this thing that reports just directly to him,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official with firsthand knowledge of the proposals, in describing White House discussions. “It is a direct-action arm, totally off the books,” this person said, meaning the intelligence collected would not be shared with the rest of the CIA or the larger intelligence community. “The whole point is this is supposed to report to the president and Pompeo directly.”

---

Quote:

---

According to two former senior intelligence officials, Pompeo has embraced the plan and has lobbied the White House to approve the contract. Asked for comment, a CIA spokesperson said, “You have been provided wildly inaccurate information by people peddling an agenda.”

---

Quote:

---

Michael Barry, who was recently named the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, worked closely with Erik Prince on a CIA assassination program during the Bush administration.
[...]
According to two people who have worked extensively with Prince in recent years, Prince has been contacting former Blackwater personnel who worked on a post-9/11 era CIA assassination program targeting Al Qaeda operatives. That program, which the Bush White House prohibited the CIA from disclosing to congressional intelligence committees, was revealed to Congress in 2009 by CIA Director Leon Panetta. The CIA says the program did not result in any assassinations.

---

Quote:

---

In some ways, these plans mirror operations Prince led during the Bush-Cheney administration. When Prince was running Blackwater, he and a former CIA paramilitary officer, Enrique Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their “deniability” as a “big plus” for potential Blackwater customers, according to internal company communications obtained by The Intercept.

---

Quote:

---

Prince has long admired Oliver North and viewed his role in Iran-Contra as heroic, said the Prince associate. In 2007, Prince testified defiantly before Congress following the Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, in which Blackwater operatives gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians, including women and children. Shortly after his testimony, Prince’s longtime friend, the conservative California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, praised the Blackwater chief. “Prince,” Rohrabacher said, “is on his way to being an American hero just like Ollie North was.”

[Rohrabacher? Mark that.]

North, a Marine lieutenant colonel on the Reagan National Security Council, oversaw a scheme to divert proceeds from illicit arms sales to Iran to Contra death squads in Nicaragua. The resulting scandal became known as the Iran-Contra affair, and North was convicted of three felonies, though these convictions were later thrown out.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

On November 30, Prince testified behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee about his January trip to the Seychelles to meet with Mohammad bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, and a Russian fund manager close to Vladimir Putin. According to the Washington Post, Prince presented himself as an unofficial envoy of President-elect Trump. The Intercept reported last week that the fund manager was Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Prince repeatedly said that he did not remember the identity of the Russian, but on Thursday, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Prince admitted that he did in fact meet with Dmitriev.

---

Come the :daisy: on, this should never even be up for discussion.

The aspiring dictator always seeks to subsume the instruments of state, and finally replace them as instruments of the party (or the household). Slap it down.

I feel like there must be some Roman aphorism applicable here.

I had no idea about this development, thanks for posting.

It really is a scary thing to discuss, and the even more terrifying thing is that a good portion of the country will be totally okay with it because its Trump.

Quote:

---

I feel like there must be some Roman aphorism applicable here.

---

Does this suffice?

Nam si violandum est jus, regnandi gratia violandum est: aliis rebus pietatem colas
"If you must break the law, do it only to seize power: in all other cases observe it" - Julius Caesar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

With the electorate's mood over the last decade or so, I have to agree with you completely. I was sorta stunned by how many Trump supporters second choice, when polled, was Sanders. Business as usual was not their...pardon me...cup of tea.

---

It's baffling how those people look to Trump as a champion of the downtrodden, and keep doing so. Trump blasted the ACA, praised the healthcare system of Australia and possibly others, yet he has only supported initiatives that would be a huge step back from that perspective.

Republican congressmen may think of him as a burden, but my guess is that the 'swamp' is actually pleased with him. He could dismantle ACA, demolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, pass sweeping tax cuts that largely benefit the rich and scores of other things that the Republican establishment likes. Meanwhile, his base keeps supporting him because they can always be distracted by tweets about black athletes or Crooked Hillary :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

It's baffling how those people look to Trump as a champion of the downtrodden, and keep doing so. Trump blasted the ACA, praised the healthcare system of Australia and possibly others, yet he has only supported initiatives that would be a huge step back from that perspective.

Republican congressmen may think of him as a burden, but my guess is that the 'swamp' is actually pleased with him. He could dismantle ACA, demolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, pass sweeping tax cuts that largely benefit the rich and scores of other things that the Republican establishment likes. Meanwhile, his base keeps supporting him because they can always be distracted by tweets about black athletes or Crooked Hillary :rolleyes:

---

The GOP base, most of whom are NOT rich but advocate/adhere to "country mouse" values were staunchly against the ACA. The Tax Reform bill is likely to be popular as well, at least among the GOP base.

The GOP establishment Pols have trouble with Trump because of his asshat behaviors. They are deeply worried that, while picking up points with Trump base for supporting some of the policies on immigration and the like, Trump will undercut all their support with an asinine tweet just before the vote is taken -- Trump loves inflammatory messages and none of the GOP establishment want to pay the price for Trump's outrage de jour.

And what an amateur hour this administration is with Trump as tweeter in chief.

After a numbing list of "didn't quite get it done" legislative efforts, Trump's administration finally gets a success on a piece of legislation that was part of Trump's stated agenda, following which the Stock Market stays above 24k for the first time in history and revised growth figures top 3% for the third straight quarter and unemployment drops another tenth of a point....

Does the administration make a concerted effort to show off this economic success? To let the GOP enjoy the achievement and reinforce that things are getting better under their leadership?

Not at all. Instead they bury their own success in a furor over acknowledging the Israeli capital is Jerusalem.

AMATEUR HOUR in DC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

And what an amateur hour this administration is with Trump as tweeter in chief.

After a numbing list of "didn't quite get it done" legislative efforts, Trump's administration finally gets a success on a piece of legislation that was part of Trump's stated agenda, following which the Stock Market stays above 24k for the first time in history and revised growth figures top 3% for the third straight quarter and unemployment drops another tenth of a point....

Does the administration make a concerted effort to show off this economic success? To let the GOP enjoy the achievement and reinforce that things are getting better under their leadership?

Not at all. Instead they bury their own success in a furor over acknowledging the Israeli capital is Jerusalem.

AMATEUR HOUR in DC

---

The Tax Bill isn't done yet.

Quote:

---

This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate.

---

I'd prefer to discuss it once it either fails or is signed into law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The GOP base, most of whom are NOT rich but advocate/adhere to "country mouse" values were staunchly against the ACA. The Tax Reform bill is likely to be popular as well, at least among the GOP base.

The GOP establishment Pols have trouble with Trump because of his asshat behaviors. They are deeply worried that, while picking up points with Trump base for supporting some of the policies on immigration and the like, Trump will undercut all their support with an asinine tweet just before the vote is taken -- Trump loves inflammatory messages and none of the GOP establishment want to pay the price for Trump's outrage de jour.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by 'country mouse'. No argument on the popularity of tax cuts, although personally the one currently proposed seems like a terrible idea and not fiscally conservative by any stretch of definition. Repealing the individual mandate while keeping the protection against prior conditions is just a recipe for disaster and might just cause the implosion of Obamacare that some conservatives have been rooting for.

The GOP told their voters that Obamacare sucked for years, and then Trump came along with the promise of replacing it with something entirely better. 'Better' is subjective, but he clarified repeatedly that he would deliver tremendous quality and excellent coverage. Every proposal he has backed so far would have led to lesser coverage.

Point being, Trump has promised things that no conventional Republican would have. You noted that there are a good amount of people who would have backed Bernie instead of Trump if given the chance. But in my impression he's governing in a pretty mainstream Republican way, his populist rants and doubtful competence notwithstanding. Hence, the rants and the tweets serve as a useful distraction for people who'd gladly have supported someone like Bernie on issues of policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I'm not sure what you mean by 'country mouse'. No argument on the popularity of tax cuts, although personally the one currently proposed seems like a terrible idea and not fiscally conservative by any stretch of definition. Repealing the individual mandate while keeping the protection against prior conditions is just a recipe for disaster and might just cause the implosion of Obamacare that some conservatives have been rooting for.

The GOP told their voters that Obamacare sucked for years, and then Trump came along with the promise of replacing it with something entirely better. 'Better' is subjective, but he clarified repeatedly that he would deliver tremendous quality and excellent coverage. Every proposal he has backed so far would have led to lesser coverage.

Point being, Trump has promised things that no conventional Republican would have. You noted that there are a good amount of people who would have backed Bernie instead of Trump if given the chance. But in my impression he's governing in a pretty mainstream Republican way, his populist rants and doubtful competence notwithstanding. Hence, the rants and the tweets serve as a useful distraction for people who'd gladly have supported someone like Bernie on issues of policy.

---

Well, the rants certainly get the political left in the USA up in arms about him. All the nattering about impeachment and using the 25th amendment is a waste of breath unless Muller develops clear evidence of Trump being naughty, so the more the lefties rant about such the less they are doing substantively. Perhaps that is the goal, assuming Trump is actually planning anything in the first place.

"County mouse" is a reference to the old city mouse/country mouse story. As is true with many polities, the USA is readily characterized by whether they live in an urban area (solidly big govt. liberal/social dem) or semirural/rural areas (which trend strongly toward social and economic conservatism and traditional values). The urbanites sneer at the backwards, undereducated bucolic hicks who are clearly out of touch with social justice and anything that really matters, while the ruralists deride the urbanites as over-educated drones who do not understand real work and want everyone suckling the big teat of government rather than standing on their own merit (yes, I am stereotyping a bit here).

England follows this pattern as well, esp. if you look at the Brexit vote in England itself.

Quote:

---

All the nattering about impeachment and using the 25th amendment is a waste of breath unless Muller develops clear evidence of Trump being naughty, so the more the lefties rant about such the less they are doing substantively.

---

The fear is that evidence is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The fear is that evidence is irrelevant.

---

I think Nixon demonstrates that clear evidence of first person involvement in a cover-up or the like, however difficult to get, would get the job done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I think Nixon demonstrates that clear evidence of first person involvement in a cover-up or the like, however difficult to get, would get the job done.

---

Does it though?

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...t-record-high/

Quote:

---

Attempts by Trump world, Fox News, and other affiliated interests to try to turn the Russia news back onto Hillary Clinton have had some effect. A month ago we found that among Trump voters 41% thought Russia wanted Clinton to win the election last year, to 29% who thought it wanted Trump to win. Now that’s up to 56% who think Russia wanted Clinton to win and just 18% who grant that it wanted Trump to win.

That’s part of a general pattern when it comes to Trump voters and the Russia story. Only 7% believe that members of Trump’s campaign team worked in association with Russia to help him win the election, to 83% who don’t think that happened. And even if collusion is proven they don’t care- just 11% think Trump should resign if that’s the case to 79% who believe he should remain in office. 75% dismiss the entire Russia story as ‘fake news,’ to 13% who disagree with that assessment. This poll was conducted mostly after the news that indictments were coming was out, but before the actual indictments were released.

---

Even if Republican Congress-people went along with impeachment, the Republican base would reject it.

Now - and there are just so many differences between the Trump case and the Nixon case, between Trump's America and Nixon's America - I'll just mention that Nixon by the end had the approval of only about ~50% of Republicans. Trump has held strong in the 80s since inauguration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Does it though?

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...t-record-high/



Even if Republican Congress-people went along with impeachment, the Republican base would reject it.

Now - and there are just so many differences between the Trump case and the Nixon case, between Trump's America and Nixon's America - I'll just mention that Nixon by the end had the approval of only about ~50% of Republicans. Trump has held strong in the 80s since inauguration.

---

That is because the Trump base is not gonna buy into pretty much any of the media coverage about Trump being worthy of impeachment. We have no Butterfield revealing that it was all taped...and it takes that level of hard evidence to successfully remove a President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I think Nixon demonstrates that clear evidence of first person involvement in a cover-up or the like, however difficult to get, would get the job done.

---

Even with the evidence, Nixon's party was absurdly loyal to him.
The Republican committee votes on articles of impeachment were as follows:

64% (11/17) voted he did not obstruct justice.
59% (10/17) voted he did not abuse his power.
88% (15/17) voted he did not hold Congress in contempt.
100% (17/17) voted he did not falsify records regarding bombing of Cambodia. (Didn't the Pentagon Papers show this???)
100% (17/17) voted he did not fail to pay taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Even with the evidence, Nixon's party was absurdly loyal to him.
The Republican committee votes on articles of impeachment were as follows:

64% (11/17) voted he did not obstruct justice.
59% (10/17) voted he did not abuse his power.
88% (15/17) voted he did not hold Congress in contempt.
100% (17/17) voted he did not falsify records regarding bombing of Cambodia. (Didn't the Pentagon Papers show this???)
100% (17/17) voted he did not fail to pay taxes.

---

Certainly he had his supporters right up to the end, and political parties always engender/reward loyalty to party, sometimes even when unwarranted (one of the reasons GW loathed them). There were even people genuinely sobbing during his "farewell" speech. But your numbers also indicate that, where evidence was clear, even a third of his own party would not vote in his favor in the committee, knowing full well that their vote would make it a bipartisan vote for impeachment.

The Pentagon Papers were all material Ellsberg had access to prior to 1968 prior to the Nixon administration entirely. There was no indication that Nixon's folks falsified anything about bombings outside of Vietnam. In fact, Nixon had made public declarations that such would occur. On Kissinger's advice, Nixon DID seek to discredit Ellsberg so as to preserve the "secrecy" tools of the Presidency as a whole. Nixon's tactics in this, however, were covered under obstruction of justice and abuse of power (which they were).

Nixon's resignation was the only valid choice for him. The full HoR would have voted to impeach on the first three articles had it gone to a vote and it was already clear that the Senate would've convicted on at least the first two.

Fun side note. Having more-or-less endorsed Roy Moore despite the allegations from Moore's past, Trump can now revel in the fact that he isn't the only one supporting Moore.

Link We now have Steve Bannon appearing with Judge Moore in his Alabama campaign.

I swear, if I submitted the last two years of Trump's life and the people and events swirling around him as a plot for a novel it would have been rejected as too implausible to be sold to anyone not already wearing tinfoil hats and stocking unhybridized seeds.

I'm tempted to say something, but instead let's have a humor-break:

Quote:

---

An unnamed Indian diplomat told Bobby Ghosh, the editor-in-chief of the Hindustan Times: "We regard Ivanka Trump the way we do half-wit Saudi princes. It's in our national interest to flatter them.”

He later added: “Yes, it is a shame that the US should be compared to a kingdom. But that is America's shame, not Modi's, or India's.”

---

Good enough for an Indian reboot of Yes, Minister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Certainly he had his supporters right up to the end, and political parties always engender/reward loyalty to party, sometimes even when unwarranted (one of the reasons GW loathed them). There were even people genuinely sobbing during his "farewell" speech. But your numbers also indicate that, where evidence was clear, even a third of his own party would not vote in his favor in the committee, knowing full well that their vote would make it a bipartisan vote for impeachment.

The Pentagon Papers were all material Ellsberg had access to prior to 1968 prior to the Nixon administration entirely. There was no indication that Nixon's folks falsified anything about bombings outside of Vietnam. In fact, Nixon had made public declarations that such would occur. On Kissinger's advice, Nixon DID seek to discredit Ellsberg so as to preserve the "secrecy" tools of the Presidency as a whole. Nixon's tactics in this, however, were covered under obstruction of justice and abuse of power (which they were).

Nixon's resignation was the only valid choice for him. The full HoR would have voted to impeach on the first three articles had it gone to a vote and it was already clear that the Senate would've convicted on at least the first two.

---

My concern is that the Republican Party of today is more entrenched in party loyalty than those of Nixon's era. Today we can only rely on a handful of Senators being at best 'maybe no' for these rushed, pork laden bills that are being pushed through.

I must have been mixing up my dates for the Pentagon Papers, that's my mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

My concern is that the Republican Party of today is more entrenched in party loyalty than those of Nixon's era. Today we can only rely on a handful of Senators being at best 'maybe no' for these rushed, pork laden bills that are being pushed through.

I must have been mixing up my dates for the Pentagon Papers, that's my mistake.

---

It is easily done. The Pentagon papers DID come to light during Nixon's first term and he did authorize/encourage illegal activities to discredit Ellsberg. For all his many faults though, it was not Nixon who distorted evidence to encourage our huge ramp up of effort in Vietnam or lie about most of the cross border activities.

Flynn flipped? NVM, that just proves the FBI is not only corrupt but just like the KGB.
Fox is going full bat-poop on this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...Mueller/218781

Mueller shouldn't be fired, he should be locked up!
Because that just makes sense :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Flynn flipped? NVM, that just proves the FBI is not only corrupt but just like the KGB.
Fox is going full bat-poop on this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...Mueller/218781

Mueller shouldn't be fired, he should be locked up!
Because that just makes sense :dizzy2:

---

Just remember that mediamatters has their own axes to grind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Just remember that mediamatters has their own axes to grind.

---

Yup.
I used it because it gave a nice compact overview of the rage machine in motion.
Fox really is losing it's mind on this; corruption? comparable to the KGB?; is trying to actively subvert confidence in law and order!?:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Yup.
I used it because it gave a nice compact overview of the rage machine in motion.
Fox really is losing it's mind on this; corruption? comparable to the KGB?; is trying to actively subvert confidence in law and order!?:laugh4:

---

Radical Republicans always project.

In their mindset, if someone is punished, then they are bad and guilty of wrongdoing. If someone suffers no consequences for the same acts, then they must be good and innocent of all charges. They accuse others of their own crimes in order to absolve themselves.

Pretty sick.

Roy Moore is quite a character. Even if you discard the sexual allegations, I can't fathom why anybody raised in a western society would vote for the guy.

“You could say that about America, couldn’t you? We promote a lot of bad things.” he said, about Reagan's comments on the USSR being an evil empire.

Sounds like a fairly unpatriotic thing to say in my opinion, but I never understood US republicans that well anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Roy Moore is quite a character. Even if you discard the sexual allegations, I can't fathom why anybody raised in a western society would vote for the guy.

“You could say that about America, couldn’t you? We promote a lot of bad things.” he said, about Reagan's comments on the USSR being an evil empire.

Sounds like a fairly unpatriotic thing to say in my opinion, but I never understood US republicans that well anyway.

---

Roll Tide!

Quote:

---

Roy Moore is quite a character. Even if you discard the sexual allegations, I can't fathom why anybody raised in a western society would vote for the guy.

---

Because the democratic party could fall into a barrel of tits and come out sucking their thumb.

It is unfathomable to me that the DNC somehow still does not understand that outside money, outside support, and leading from the national level hurts them in these races. The republicans figured out long ago that the national HQ funnels money into a "canidate X for state Y" fund.

The Georgia 6 was a great example of this. John Osoff was exactly the kind of Bougie, antiseptic transplant that local people have been "Warned" about for years. He ended up not being able to win a district filled with antiseptic transplants.

The democrats can't be afraid to attack either. I have never seen a bigger group of pearl clutching Marys in my entire life. Roy Moore is an unfit candidate with a perchant for young girls, bang that drum until it breaks.

The Jones campaign has also done a pretty freaking terrible job of reaching out to black people by running some hilariously tone deaf ads.

Also being Jewish has come back in a big way but that is a whole nother thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Because the democratic party could fall into a barrel of tits and come out sucking their thumb.

It is unfathomable to me that the DNC somehow still does not understand that outside money, outside support, and leading from the national level hurts them in these races. The republicans figured out long ago that the national HQ funnels money into a "canidate X for state Y" fund.

The Georgia 6 was a great example of this. John Osoff was exactly the kind of Bougie, antiseptic transplant that local people have been "Warned" about for years. He ended up not being able to win a district filled with antiseptic transplants.

The democrats can't be afraid to attack either. I have never seen a bigger group of pearl clutching Marys in my entire life. Roy Moore is an unfit candidate with a perchant for young girls, bang that drum until it breaks.

The Jones campaign has also done a pretty freaking terrible job of reaching out to black people by running some hilariously tone deaf ads.

Also being Jewish has come back in a big way but that is a whole nother thread.

---

Fair enough I suppose. There were quite a few republican candidates in the Alabama primary though, yet they settled for an extremist who was kicked off the Alabama supreme court twice for deliberately ignoring the law. You can't explain that by saying the democrats are useless :shrug:

Strike is certainly on point when it comes to Alabama. The state has been staunchly GOP for quite some time now. Moore handed them their best hope of a win in who knows how long, and they really need to plunge that one in to the hilt.

I am not as sure that the Dems are quite as out of touch as he suggests, VA this time around had a lot more "grass roots" level stuff by the Dems and less national level focus and they held onto everything they already had and made some gains.

On the whole though, keeping it local is what works in most US elections.

Reports of potential voter suppression in Alabama:

Quote:

---

Dechauna Jiles was excited to cast a ballot on Tuesday for Democratic Senate candidate Doug Jones. She said her parents grew up two blocks from the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, which was bombed by the KKK during the civil rights movement, and it would be a dishonor to her family to not vote in this election.

But when she arrived at her polling place, the First Assembly of God Church, on Tuesday morning, Jiles was told that she was “inactive” on the rolls and would have to cast a provisional ballot — a ballot that will not be counted unless she is able to verify her voter information.


“That makes no sense,” she told ThinkProgress, explaining that the poll workers told her she’d have to drive to another precinct to update her information, even though she voted here last November.


“It’s not that we’re not showing up to vote — we’re being suppressed,” Jiles said. “[Roy Moore, the Republican nominee] is going to win, not because our people didn’t speak, but because our vote was suppressed.”


Jiles said she witnessed at least six other voters also being forced to vote provisional, and reports on Twitter indicate the issue is more widespread than just this one polling location.


“I wasn’t the only person that got turned away,” she said.

---

History may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Reports of potential voter suppression in Alabama:

History may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.

---

A recurrent problem. Mostly it is a person who has "always" gone to the polls there whose polling place has been changed and since they only vote infrequently they didn't pay attention. Sometimes, people are taken off the list for various reasons, and sometimes those taken off are done so by party officials who are trying to suppress some perceived voter group.

Our system is not perfect. But at least most states are preserving your right not to have a voter card or need to present ID to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Reports of potential voter suppression in Alabama:



History may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.

---

Kiddy-fiddler lost.

Oh thank the gods. Alabama for once in my life did not let everyone down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Oh thank the gods. Alabama for once in my life did not let everyone down.

---

Thank you Black America.

https://i.imgur.com/K5fo3Vm.png

Roy Moore may seek recount. Inconveniently, the conservative Alabama Supreme Court at the last minute stayed an injunction to retain electronic ballots for recount. ha ha?

Roll Tide.

Good news for the Dems: they took an election in a deep red state that hasn't elected a Democrat in 25 years!
Bad news: Not every Dem will be facing trainwreck like Roy Moore in the mid-terms.

Well, a win is a win is a win; sure, but the narrow margin shows that a lot of work remains to be done.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/roy-moo...sult-1.4445530

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trump

The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!

---

Trump initially endorsed Luther Strange,
Luther Strange lost and so Trump deleted his tweets in his support.

Trump endorsed Roy Moore,
Roy Moore lost and so Trump wants credit for supporting Strange in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Trump initially endorsed Luther Strange,
Luther Strange lost and so Trump deleted his tweets in his support.

Trump endorsed Roy Moore,
Roy Moore lost and so Trump wants credit for supporting Strange in the first place.

---

And you find this behavior in a politician strange why? Seems to be more of the usual "have/eat cake" efforts I am familiar with from most pols.

Granted, this is a rather mundane and harmless example.

Most politicians will tell a lie or bend the truth every now and then. Trump does it a lot more than average, in a much more obvious manner and shows no embarassment when confronted with the truth.

I have no idea why I'm telling you this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Granted, this is a rather mundane and harmless example.

Most politicians will tell a lie or bend the truth every now and then. Trump does it a lot more than average, in a much more obvious manner and shows no embarassment when confronted with the truth.

I have no idea why I'm telling you this.

---

I do not know if his "spinning" efforts are more frequent than others in his line of work. I must agree that he is about as subtle as a bull in a Venetian glass gallery.

I think one lady summed up the best advice for both R's and D's
"Nominate people we can vote for"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A recurrent problem. Mostly it is a person who has "always" gone to the polls there whose polling place has been changed and since they only vote infrequently they didn't pay attention. Sometimes, people are taken off the list for various reasons, and sometimes those taken off are done so by party officials who are trying to suppress some perceived voter group.

Our system is not perfect. But at least most states are preserving your right not to have a voter card or need to present ID to vote.

---

My government send me a card or letter that I take to the polling station. Usually no ID is required but I have one on me anyway. The card or letter contains both the information about where I have to vote and how to ask for a ballot that I can mail in.

It is really not a complicated thing, but somehow the USA always seem to make it far more complicated than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

My government send me a card or letter that I take to the polling station. Usually no ID is required but I have one on me anyway. The card or letter contains both the information about where I have to vote and how to ask for a ballot that I can mail in.

It is really not a complicated thing, but somehow the USA always seem to make it far more complicated than that.

---

You're not free enough to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

My government send me a card or letter that I take to the polling station. Usually no ID is required but I have one on me anyway. The card or letter contains both the information about where I have to vote and how to ask for a ballot that I can mail in.

It is really not a complicated thing, but somehow the USA always seem to make it far more complicated than that.

---

We were a country that required you to go to your courthouse to register to vote and turned out 40% or more of the electorate on a rainy polling day in November to exercise the franchise for an "off year" election.

We now have voting months labeled "early voting," voter registration at the department of motor vehicles or even online, judges holding polling places open 2-3 hours after their official closing time on election day itself, and an endless litany of "They're trying to suppress our vote" diatribes.

Galling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

We were a country that required you to go to your courthouse to register to vote and turned out 40% or more of the electorate on a rainy polling day in November to exercise the franchise for an "off year" election.

We now have voting months labeled "early voting," voter registration at the department of motor vehicles or even online, judges holding polling places open 2-3 hours after their official closing time on election day itself, and an endless litany of "They're trying to suppress our vote" diatribes.

Galling.

---

Who was the electorate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Who was the electorate?

---

Americans presumably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

We were a country that required you to go to your courthouse to register to vote and turned out 40% or more of the electorate on a rainy polling day in November to exercise the franchise for an "off year" election.

We now have voting months labeled "early voting," voter registration at the department of motor vehicles or even online, judges holding polling places open 2-3 hours after their official closing time on election day itself, and an endless litany of "They're trying to suppress our vote" diatribes.

Galling.

---

Well, this may be the case in some states, it only takes a cursory look at Wikipedia to see how they do not apply in others. :dizzy2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_...of_DMV_offices

I didn't read the entire article, but I remember from somewhere that the registration places in some states or counties are open only 1 or 2 times a month during the time most peopple are at work and so on. Additionally they have few of them so people can't just hop over during lunch break because they have to wait in line and so on.

Your dismissal might be a bit over the top and no "making it easier" beats automatic registration anyway.

Voting should be mandatory. There is no such thing as refusing to participate. Politics is life in a democratic society. Refusing to vote is the same as voting for the winner. Blah, blah, blah but I believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Voting should be mandatory. There is no such thing as refusing to participate. Politics is life in a democratic society. Refusing to vote is the same as voting for the winner. Blah, blah, blah but I believe it.

---

Maybe, but you shouldn't lionize voting per se. It's just one more tool.

Civic participation in general is the key thing. Otherwise, whoever manages to vote in the highest number of local, state, and federal elections for which they are eligible would be considered a paragon. Yet, by voting and then getting back to private affairs one probably would tend to accomplish less than someone who is an activist in their community and country yet never votes.

Three rules for voting:

1. Track how close the race is.
2. Evaluate the importance of the position in the context of the issues that matter.
3. If you're expecting to write in a symbolic vote, just stay away.

Voting should be mandatory but there should also be mandatory options of "abstain" "none of the above" "vote against candidate XXX" for each individual contest and ballot issue that way someone can participate without having to blindly casting votes. It's always horrified me when some of my friends have voted and they only know about the top tier candidates (President, Governor, Senators) but haven't got a clue about any of the many other lower positions or ballot issues and as such having to vote by either selecting party or whether the name "sounds good."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Voting should be mandatory but there should also be mandatory options of "abstain" "none of the above" "vote against candidate XXX" for each individual contest and ballot issue that way someone can participate without having to blindly casting votes. It's always horrified me when some of my friends have voted and they only know about the top tier candidates (President, Governor, Senators) but haven't got a clue about any of the many other lower positions or ballot issues and as such having to vote by either selecting party or whether the name "sounds good."

---

Ranked voting is always nice.

That'd be nice too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

It's always horrified me when some of my friends have voted and they only know about the top tier candidates (President, Governor, Senators) but haven't got a clue about any of the many other lower positions or ballot issues and as such having to vote by either selecting party or whether the name "sounds good."

---

Me too, usually when I'm the one voting though. I tend to have no or little idea about the individual ideas of local MPs and when I tried to find some of them online, the local parties barely seemed to have a web presence. Driving to their office or whatever to talk to them is not something that time allows. :shrug:

This might also explain why I'm not the biggest fan of all too localized politics, as it tends to make keeping track of politics on 3 or 4 levels a rather time-consuming task.

Then again I'm not even aware of anything I'd want changed locally but quite a few things I'd want changed (inter-)nationally. :sweatdrop:
Plus where I live right now, most people have appear to have preferences very much unlike my own, so I tend to vote for a party that gets nowhere anyway.

It's an interesting issue though and I won't claim I'm handling it perfectly.

A nice overview of Trumpisms election, arc and consequences.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...074012028.html

America will survive Trump, but what will it look like afterward?
Will America have to refight the battles that gave effective regulation, labor standards, environmental protection...etc?
Still need to see whether Trump's America embraces competition or the move to ever greater monopoly :creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

A nice overview of Trumpisms election, arc and consequences.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...074012028.html

America will survive Trump, but what will it look like afterward?
Will America have to refight the battles that gave effective regulation, labor standards, environmental protection...etc?
Still need to see whether Trump's America embraces competition or the move to ever greater monopoly :creep:

---

We go through a alternating process of adding and reducing regulations. The general trend is "more" over time. This is simply a prune back period as with Regan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

This might also explain why I'm not the biggest fan of all too localized politics, as it tends to make keeping track of politics on 3 or 4 levels a rather time-consuming task.

---

IMO there shouldn't be localized politics altogether. Local authorities should deal with the local roads, schools, hospitals etc. When they try to drag politics into what street should be repaired first and the representative of what party should run all parks of the city - streets and parks stay neglected waiting for the authorities to finish their brawl.

Rumor is Trump will fire Mueller in the coming week or so.

Quote:

---

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said Friday that "rumors" on Capitol Hill suggest President Trump could fire special counsel Robert Mueller before Christmas, after Congress leaves Washington for the winter recess.

“The rumor on the Hill when I left yesterday was that the president was going to make a significant speech at the end of next week. And on Dec. 22, when we are out of D.C., he was going to fire Robert Mueller," Speier told California's KQED News.

Speier, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that Trump was trying to shut down the committee's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, pointing to the lack of interviews scheduled for the new year.

---

If the rumor is true, I would expect a furor from the left about obstruction of justice on the part of Trump. Republicans will probably make excuses for it, or feign outrage and then do nothing. There are massive protests already being planned though by activists. I would expect a full blown crisis from this event, should it occur.

De-legitimizing the present is necessary to set the future.
The rule of law; its already a tiered system, why not make it official?