|
Post by celawson on Mar 16, 2017 13:08:27 GMT -5
Some yuuuuge problems in no particular order:
1) North Korea - crazy dictator, launching missiles and threatening enemies, improving nukes 2) Iran - flaunting the "deal", sponsoring terrorism, clearly wanting nuclear capability and certainly doing all they can despite the "deal" to obtain it. 3) The Middle East in general (Syria in particular with Afghanistan close behind and worrisome trends in Turkey and Egypt) 4) radical Islamic terrorism 5) Our national debt which blossomed under Obama to 20 trillion 6) racial tensions, especially with police 7) healthcare in the U.S.and the failure of ObamaCare 8) our weakened military while staring at numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and in the midst of number 5 9) activist judges like the one in Hawaii who try to control our President's executive orders using purely political rather than lawful decisions 10) I'm surprised you don't consider the breakdown of the Democratic party as a yuuuuge problem. It's seriously imploding. And the solution to this is not to try to destroy Trump with hysteria and exaggerations and illegal leaks and political judges and trying to force a scandal.
Anyway, IMO the above issues are more important than Kelly Conway's sitting posture or Donald Trump's tax returns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 13:22:50 GMT -5
In my opinion, 1-4 will in no way be helped by Trump, and will likely be worsened. 5, he may or may not improve -- he'll cut a lot of stuff I care about, thus saving money, but spend a fortune on shit like the wall that I think a yuuuge waste of money. 6, he will certainly make worse. are you kidding me? I'll let nighttimer tell you about that one. 7, he will make worse. I do not think Obamacare is perfect, but I think it was better than what we had, and miles better than the current Republican proposal, which I think catastrophic. I don't think we have a weak military, so I can't concur on 8. I disagree with you completely on 9 being a problem. Excuse me while I roll my eyes. ( Even if it were a problem, I do not see how Trump is the answer.) Actually, he may help 10, since I think his idiocies will unite the left and a heap of moderates. ETA: Perhaps if he spent less time tweeting ridiculous shit, getting outraged by every perceived piece of criticism, and campaigning for 2020, he might find time to fill the hundreds of empty appointed spots and focus on the details of his proposed policies. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 16, 2017 13:36:31 GMT -5
A legal requirement? No. Something every president has done, something that is a demonstration of clean hands, nothing-to-hide transparency, something the American have come to expect? Yes. And then there were his ridiculous games and lies about why he hadn't released them. Again, it's a simple political calculation. Did Trump make an error there? How? If he had released his returns, would he have gotten more votes or fewer? That's all that matters. As to transparency, I'll note that Teresa Heinz-Kerry released part of one year of her tax returns. Whatever John Kerry released was meaningless, given what could be in her returns. There are reasons they made that decision, imo: 1) because they knew her returns were like those of Trump and Romney, complicated and full of big numbers that would make her--and therefore her husband--look bad in some respects, and 2) they knew they could spin a little, since the two file separate returns. But there's zero transparency there. Obviously, if John Kerry was taking bribes and the like or making insider trades, he could just hide the income in his wife's assets. And frankly, nobody gave a shit then. So don't feed me this fantasy about the returns proving jack, because they do no such thing. And I'll note something else: long term politicians operate differently than typical people. Well, the successful ones do, at any rate. They do thinks like filing tax returns with an eye to covering their asses as a matter of course. If they're doing something nefarious, they'll have their bases covered in this regard. Even if they're not up to no good, they'll try to make sure no one even thinks that could be the case. As an elected official, Trump is a neophyte. He hasn't spent the last decade+ learning to file taxes that make him look squeaky clean, he's spent it filing taxes that a) minimize his bill and b) don't get him in trouble with the IRS. I know Trump sucks. I hate it that I have to refer to him as the President of the United States, but we've got some screwed up processes, imo. And they're part of the reason why our politicians as a whole are so damn shitty. We favor the wrong kinds of success as a matter of course.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 16, 2017 13:39:35 GMT -5
As to big problems, I remember Obama's rhetoric when he ran after Bush. And Bush's when he ran after Clinton. And so on.
Our infrastructure STILL sucks, btw. How long have pols been harping on that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 13:42:58 GMT -5
I actually agree with most of that, Rob, and in particular your last paragraph.
To note, I gave a shit about Kerry, and spent time criticising him way back then (though I submit Trump is much worse). I tend to dislike sneaky shenanigans regardless of who is committing them. Complete purity we'll never get, I know, but I like a certain floor.
I'll agree, though, that most people do care more about dishonesty on the "other" side. I submit we should all care, whoever's side it is. I think we need to hold our own parties accountable and demand a high standard.
ETA:
I'll also agree wholeheartedly our infrastructure is something I'd like to see addressed. Fuck the wall -- fix our fucking roads and bridges. I'll give him points if he does that.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 16, 2017 13:55:33 GMT -5
Obama opened his term with a half-trillion dollar "stimulus" package that didn't stimulate jack. Maybe 20% of that spending was infrastructure-related (some for projects that never went anywhere). Imagine if all of that package had been for repairs to existing infrastructure, alone. It still wouldn't have stimulated the economy, but it would have been a helluva lot better use of those monies than pissing 80% plus away.
I'm willing to give Trump some rope, probably just so he can hang himself. But he's the President, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 16, 2017 14:15:52 GMT -5
In my opinion, 1-4 will in no way be helped by Trump, and will likely be worsened. 5, he may or may not improve -- he'll cut a lot of stuff I care about, thus saving money, but spend a fortune on shit like the wall that I think a yuuuge waste of money. 6, he will certainly make worse. are you kidding me? I'll let nighttimer tell you about that one. 7, he will make worse. I do not think Obamacare is perfect, but I think it was better than what we had, and miles better than the current Republican proposal, which I think catastrophic. I don't think we have a weak military, so I can't concur on 8. I disagree with you completely on 9 being a problem. Excuse me while I roll my eyes. ( Even if it were a problem, I do not see how Trump is the answer.) Actually, he may help 10, since I think his idiocies will unite the left and a heap of moderates. ETA: Perhaps if he spent less time tweeting ridiculous shit, getting outraged by every perceived piece of criticism, and campaigning for 2020, he might find time to fill the hundreds of empty appointed spots and focus on the details of his proposed policies. Just a thought. I find it really interesting how almost every single one of my posts is read by some on this board as pro-Trump or defending Trump or a Republican. I in no way said Trump will make any of the above better (though I hope he does and I think with the help of his team, can). And by the way, I think he's actually done a lot in his short time in office. What I was saying is while Rachel Maddow and the Dems take time crowing about stuff like Trump's tax returns and his peeing on people in Russia and how much they hate Kelly Ann Conway, maybe they should spend more time examining more important issues and how actual policy, and compromise, and strategy, and mobilizing their base with good ideas, can improve some of these issues which were not made better by Obama and in most cases clearly worsened under Obama (who seems like a great guy but really not a great POTUS at all). Don't they see one of the reasons Hillary lost was because she was more of the same? I just don't think this constant ad hominem at Trump is the best strategy here when your party has been decimated. He's actually kind of teflon, and he's been so since the early parts of the campaign. And part of that has to be that the bigger picture is very problematic and people in great numbers were dissatisfied with the status quo. In the meantime, our economy is doing better (S&P up more than 100 points since the election and increase of 235,000 jobs), and Trump's poll numbers aren't really that bad considering these constant attacks and his poor behavior. According to the following, they're actually improving. morningconsult.com/2017/03/15/poll-trump-approval-voter-optimism-rise/
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 16, 2017 15:03:08 GMT -5
I mostly struggle to call myself a journalist because I've been out of the business for so long, plying my trade as a copy-writer. I've been on the wrong side of the ethical fence for so long. But the reason I struggle to call myself a journalist is because there are a few I admire, and I don't want to compare myself with them. Then I realise why journalists are often down there with bankers and politicians in public perception, and it's because of stunts like this. This was literally click-bait in video form. I'm sure MSNBC was happy about the eye-balls seeing their ads, but it does no good for the company. And it does no good for Maddow. I think very highly of Rachel Maddow, savvy, super-smart and funny, but she totally face-planted on this one. As far as her being a "journalist" I know that in these days of traditional media dissolving like an Alka-Seltzer and the gatekeepers falling by the wayside, anyone can call themselves a journalist, despite her years on Air America and MSNBC, Maddow's education does not include journalism. One of the few trained, professional journalists hosting a cable show in the evening is actually Bill O'Reilly. Hate him or love him, you can't take that away from Bill-O. If Rachel Maddow had spent some time in classes above Journalism 101, she would have known one of the cardinal sins she committed Tuesday night.In other words, as one song goes, "Don't bore us. Get to the chorus." Maddow served up plenty of foreplay, but it was sadly anticlimactic. I know Trump sucks. I hate it that I have to refer to him as the President of the United States... Then don't. Works great for me! As to big problems, I remember Obama's rhetoric when he ran after Bush. And Bush's when he ran after Clinton. And so on. Our infrastructure STILL sucks, btw. How long have pols been harping on that? Oh, only about as long as pols have been blocking attempts to fix our sucky infrastructure.Obama and Trump can offer up any grand plan to fix America's infrastructure they want, but if the Congresscritters don't give them a dime to pay for it, a plan is all they can provide. From their marked indifference, you'd think the Republicans have a way of getting around that doesn't require highways, bridges or railroad tracks.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 17, 2017 15:22:04 GMT -5
Some yuuuuge problems in no particular order: 1) North Korea - crazy dictator, launching missiles and threatening enemies, improving nukes 2) Iran - flaunting the "deal", sponsoring terrorism, clearly wanting nuclear capability and certainly doing all they can despite the "deal" to obtain it. 3) The Middle East in general (Syria in particular with Afghanistan close behind and worrisome trends in Turkey and Egypt) 4) radical Islamic terrorism 5) Our national debt which blossomed under Obama to 20 trillion 6) racial tensions, especially with police 7) healthcare in the U.S.and the failure of ObamaCare 8) our weakened military while staring at numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and in the midst of number 5 9) activist judges like the one in Hawaii who try to control our President's executive orders using purely political rather than lawful decisions 10) I'm surprised you don't consider the breakdown of the Democratic party as a yuuuuge problem. It's seriously imploding. And the solution to this is not to try to destroy Trump with hysteria and exaggerations and illegal leaks and political judges and trying to force a scandal. Anyway, IMO the above issues are more important than Kelly Conway's sitting posture or Donald Trump's tax returns. 1. Crazy dictator? Sending off a SEAL to die in a botched raid that killed an 8-year old girl? Threatening allies? Submitting a budget that guts government agencies and hurts Trump voters and plows another $54 billion in defense spending for a U.S. military that already spends more money on defense than the next seven nations combined? Sounds like Donald Trump. 2 -4. Trump is not going to make the situations in the Middle East any better. What's the plan? Send in the Marines to Syria? Which side are they going to be fighting on? Afghanistan? Well, we've only been there since 2001, so if 16 years isn't long enough to get the job done, what's another two or three? Iran? Let's go in there like we went into Iraq. I'm sure things will go so much better this time. Conservatives always seem to think there's nothing wrong with the world that can't be made right by invading another country, stealing their oil and dropping bombs on them. 5. It's easy to bang on Obama about the national debt, but what does Trump's budget to reduce it? Not much. Drumpf says he's not going to raise the national debt in his plan to swell defense spending on finding new ways to kill people in large numbers, but he's going to gut programs and initiatives that will hurt Trump voters who aren't rich and well-connected as much as the non-Trump voters. The poor saps. 6. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What makes you think anyone who would hire a White Nationalist scumbag like Steve Bannon as a counselor gives a shit about racial tensions? What makes you think anyone who refused to speak to the NAACP gives a shit about racial tensions? What makes you think someone who shouts and points, "Look at my African-American!" and says all Blacks live in horrible war zones gives a shit about racial tensions. What makes you think someone who hires a racist like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions who has nothing but hostility toward voting rights and federal oversight of rogue police departments, gives a shit about racial tensions? What makes you think someone who was the ugly face of White Birthers who wanted to de-legitimize the first Black president gives a shit about racial tensions? What makes you think someone who mocks, scorns, demeans and hates entire groups of Americans who aren't White gives a shit about racial tensions? What makes you think someone who spearheaded a "Whitelash" against eight years of a Black president gives a shit about racial tensions? What makes you think Trump wasn't elected BECAUSE the only shit he has ever gave about racial tensions was inflaming them?7-10. After the utter ridiculousness and abject absurdity of Number 6 I can't go on.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 22, 2017 13:49:33 GMT -5
I find it really interesting how almost every single one of my posts is read by some on this board as pro-Trump or defending Trump or a Republican. Well, you always are. Or you're saying "But the Democrats!" Which amounts to the same thing. Also, your numbered list is canned GOP talking points. Seriously, "activist judges like the one in Hawaii who try to control our President's executive orders using purely political rather than lawful decisions"? Walk me through this, celaw. Explain to me, in detail, exactly how Judge Watson's decision was unlawful (as opposed to "Trump doesn't like it")?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 23, 2017 11:38:33 GMT -5
How about before I post "in detail", you read up on a few things like: - plenary power - reviewing our Constitution for any rights on non-citizens to visit or immigrate. I haven't found anything. - the phrase "provide for the common defense" - The Immigration and Nationality Act specifically section 212: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182This is an existing statute and gives the POTUS broad authority. Come on, Amadan - you don't think this judge was playing politics? Hawaii is really going to suffer with their tourism? And Hawaii's families will suffer for lack of relatives visiting? For 90 - 120 days? Excuse me while I grab my tiny violin. And do you think it's right for a judge to speculate on Trump's words during his campaign, rather than the words in the actual EO?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 11:52:46 GMT -5
I'm curious about whether you read the decision to see what the court had to say on those points.
ETA:
I can assure you, if the 9th circuit and/or Supreme Court thinks they exceeded their authority, we'll be hearing about it.
I really do not think activist, partisan courts are a big danger at the moment. To the contrary, I think courts and the media are our best and only real checks on Trump's power. And to the extent they overreach, they'll be checked themselves. They know it. At least, they have to write lengthy, detailed opinions justifying what they do, not just spit out an executive order while watching Fox and Friends.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 23, 2017 12:09:03 GMT -5
I've read it and I think it's a painfully weak attempt to justify granting a TRO. I get the Washington State Ruling, I get the Ninth Circuit's affirmation of the same. I don't think that either truly makes the case for standing, though, but at least there's a legitimate argument there, imo.
Not so for the one put of Hawaii. The finding of standing there is just awful, imo.
I think Trump's EO is bad, is a poorly thought out action that does nothing that is necessary or will be effective. All it does is make the US look like a bunch of assholes.
But just because it's bad, it doesn't mean it crosses any lines. It is--imo--wholly consistent with the power afforded the Presidency by the Constitution and other laws. Don't like it? Change the laws and/or vote Trump out of office. That's the only legitimate fix. The judge in Hawaii is acting like a jackwagon, no different from Trump, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 23, 2017 13:27:27 GMT -5
How about before I post "in detail", you read up on a few things like: - plenary power - reviewing our Constitution for any rights on non-citizens to visit or immigrate. I haven't found anything. - the phrase "provide for the common defense" - The Immigration and Nationality Act specifically section 212: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182This is an existing statute and gives the POTUS broad authority. Come on, Amadan - you don't think this judge was playing politics? Hawaii is really going to suffer with their tourism? And Hawaii's families will suffer for lack of relatives visiting? For 90 - 120 days? Excuse me while I grab my tiny violin. And do you think it's right for a judge to speculate on Trump's words during his campaign, rather than the words in the actual EO? All of which is beside the point and which only convinces me that your research tool is 10 seconds with Google. The TRO may or may not be bad, weak, or partisan, but you have made no case that it is unlawful, only that you don't like it. Pop quiz (again, no cheating with Google): (T/F) Judge Watson ruled that Trump's EO is unconstitutional. (T/F) Judge Watson ruled that non-citizens have a right to visit or immigrate.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 23, 2017 13:40:52 GMT -5
Beside the point? 10 seconds of Google? Okaaay.
I don't know why you can't argue without being insulting. Not worth it to me. I will save my canned Republican talking points for someone who appreciates them. Right now I have to do a consultation on a patient with an inoperable malignant brain tumor. That puts the energy I spend arguing with you in perspective.
|
|