Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

cphite
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:13 pm UTC

emceng wrote:I fail to see his accomplishments. There seem to be three. 1) pushing through a tax bill to benefit the wealthy. 2) pack the judicial branch with right wingers, and 3) Damage the bureaucracy by appointing terrible cabinet members.

All accomplishments if you have an anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, or ultra libertarian. Even mainstream conservatives should not consider these good things.

What other things has he gotten done? I don't consider train wrecks like his foreign policy to be getting things done.


He has managed to do a lot of things that he promised to do; and a lot of the others are in progress. Whether or not those are good things, or bad things, or utterly moronic things, is another matter entirely. The point was simply that he's getting them done.

A lot of people - and I include myself - figured that he would have a harder time getting things done. Or maybe it was just hoping he would have a harder time?

Mutex
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:25 pm UTC

There's also plenty of things he promised, and then did the exact opposite. E.g. every American having medical cover, and then doing his best to kill the ACA.

cphite
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:32 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:There's also plenty of things he promised, and then did the exact opposite. E.g. every American having medical cover, and then doing his best to kill the ACA.


I fully expected (or maybe hoped) that he'd be so mired in controversy and would have pissed so many off so early that he'd basically get nothing moved through. But so far, despite being even more offensive than I expected him to be, that hasn't been the case.

But again - the word "done" does not imply good, smart, or anything of the sort; it simply means done.

Chen
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:56 pm UTC

emceng wrote:I fail to see his accomplishments. There seem to be three. 1) pushing through a tax bill to benefit the wealthy. 2) pack the judicial branch with right wingers, and 3) Damage the bureaucracy by appointing terrible cabinet members.


Uh number 2 is a HUGE accomplishment for the Republicans. Honestly if I were a Republican having conservative judge appointments with one supreme court justice along with possible others (Kennedy and Ginsberg I'd say are risks), is the only solace I'd take from the Trump presidency. The Supreme court impact is huge. I could see more utilitarian Republicans voting for Trump for this reason alone, regardless of how bad the rest is.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10215
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:18 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
emceng wrote:I fail to see his accomplishments. There seem to be three. 1) pushing through a tax bill to benefit the wealthy. 2) pack the judicial branch with right wingers, and 3) Damage the bureaucracy by appointing terrible cabinet members.


Uh number 2 is a HUGE accomplishment for the Republicans. Honestly if I were a Republican having conservative judge appointments with one supreme court justice along with possible others (Kennedy and Ginsberg I'd say are risks), is the only solace I'd take from the Trump presidency. The Supreme court impact is huge. I could see more utilitarian Republicans voting for Trump for this reason alone, regardless of how bad the rest is.


But the Repubs would've had that regardless of which Republican got in. I mean, unless you think Trump is intentionally killing off justices...

Chen
Posts: 5481
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:28 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But the Repubs would've had that regardless of which Republican got in. I mean, unless you think Trump is intentionally killing off justices...


Well I wasn't talking about choices during the Primary but more the choices between Hillary, Trump or some other third party (or abstention). Even if you completely abhor almost everything Trump stood for, the ability to get a Justice, maybe more, on the Supreme Court is a huge deal. Enough to perhaps have you vote for Trump anyways. A lot of the damage he can do via executive order or even legislation can be reversed. If he manages to put 3 Justices on the Supreme court you've got the court leaning right for decades, possibly the rest of your life depending on how old you are. And there's not really much the next guy can do about that.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6543
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:58 pm UTC

Chen wrote:If he manages to put 3 Justices on the Supreme court you've got the court leaning right for decades, possibly the rest of your life depending on how old you are. And there's not really much the next guy can do about that.
You can pass explicitly left-leaning laws.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10215
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:04 pm UTC

And then the justices turn around and declare them unconstitutional.

If SCOTUS rules that fetuses (feti?) are alive and thus abortion is murder, there's no law short of legalizing murder that would make abortions legal again. You'd have to add an amendment to the constitution to get around that.

If SCOTUS rules that background checks and waiting periods are a violation of the second amendment, POTUS and congress can only change the second amendment to fix that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6527
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:20 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And then the justices turn around and declare them unconstitutional.

If SCOTUS rules that fetuses (feti?) are alive and thus abortion is murder, there's no law short of legalizing murder that would make abortions legal again. You'd have to add an amendment to the constitution to get around that.

If SCOTUS rules that background checks and waiting periods are a violation of the second amendment, POTUS and congress can only change the second amendment to fix that.

There are limits to how much SCOTUS, especially with Roberts at the helm, would push things, with an unfriendly Congress AND President. There's a reason he only went after part of the ACA. A lot of the power of SCOTUS right now depends on Congress being unable to muster 50+1 votes, not because Congress can't get an amendment through. There's still a lot of damage that conservative judges can deal, and getting a majority in both Houses consistently, is hard, but don't think it requires a 2/3rds majority.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:11 pm UTC

Trump appealing ruling that bars blocking of Twitter critics:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireS ... s-55663387
ABC news wrote:Government lawyers representing Trump and White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino filed paperwork Monday to appeal a federal judge's ruling last month that said blocking people from the @realDonaldTrump account violates the First Amendment.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:32 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:Trump appealing ruling that bars blocking of Twitter critics:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireS ... s-55663387
ABC news wrote:Government lawyers representing Trump and White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino filed paperwork Monday to appeal a federal judge's ruling last month that said blocking people from the @realDonaldTrump account violates the First Amendment.
I think EveryOne should Un-Follow Trump.
His juvenal behavior is rewarded.

Stop rewarding him.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6527
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:50 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:Trump appealing ruling that bars blocking of Twitter critics:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireS ... s-55663387
ABC news wrote:Government lawyers representing Trump and White House Social Media Director Dan Scavino filed paperwork Monday to appeal a federal judge's ruling last month that said blocking people from the @realDonaldTrump account violates the First Amendment.

Andrew Jackson would have told the judge to enforce it in person. This is just odd because Trump is trying to get the benefits of social media, but is too thinskinned to handle the response. Unless Twitter's handles chats weirdly. What happens if someone you hate responds to your tweets? Do all your followers get the same message? Is that why? It might 'poison' his followers with alternate messages?

elasto
Posts: 3563
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:25 pm UTC

My understanding is that when you block someone they can't even see your tweets to reply to them. That's why the judge said muting was constitutional but blocking wasn't.

gd1
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:46 am UTC

Chen wrote:
gd1 wrote:Yes, and in that way he is basically taunting people by saying "we control your only methods of recourse because we control the legislative branch". The "impeached the next day" hardly even matters to him because of his follow-up statement. Hiding behind plausible deniability with taunts and insults that can be understood to be offensive, but are defensible on their face. These people are certainly the best people... at the worst things.

Even when Trump supporters defend this sort of behavior for vindictive reasons or otherwise, I still do regret what may happen to them in the long run. Maybe there will be enough resources to help them too.


I dont know what to tell you. What he is saying isn’t anything new or novel. This is the justice department’s position since Nixon. Hell its even formalized in their archives:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/f ... 0222_0.pdf


Interestingly though, whether or not it's okay to snub the law seems to be inconsistent with the person in question (Giuliani): https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/05/10/rudy-giuliani-contradicts-self-president-testimony.cnn

This ability to change positions is what makes it a taunt in a way. But its fine, I've written off the likelyhood of this turning around. I'll let the chips fall where they may and take the precautions I can take for the outcomes I can prepare for (maybe look into the Germany idea).

Of course, the worst case scenario for me is this:
"When the power or authority comes in the hands of unfit persons, then wait for the Hour."

That would be the last hour.

A few more things of interest:
+A while ago when I was studying economics I had to read a book (I think by Friedman) who basically said our nationalistic fervor was going to lead us down the road of Nazi Germany. I don't think I gave it anywhere near the weight I should have.
+I initially said "if it's a choice between Hillary and Trump I'll pick Trump unless someone better comes along" ... "Trump isn't in it for the money like most politicians, he's got money already." I didn't know Trump's record and I might have made excuses (I sort of did with "99% of Trumps business ventures have been successful"). So I know the bubble of charisma that the Trump supporters were in somewhat having been in it. Right until Bernie came along and clearly got his money from the people rather than the PACs. Trumps charisma is a powerful force if you don't know what kind of a person he is. You'll find yourself making excuses for just about anything he does. I know from experience.
Feels a bit like mass effect 1:
"Thoughts echo strangely within Sovereign. Indoctrination. The longer you stay on board, the more Saren’s will seems correct. You sit at his feet and smile as his words pour into you."
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:03 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:If SCOTUS rules that fetuses (feti?) are alive and thus abortion is murder, there's no law short of legalizing murder that would make abortions legal again. You'd have to add an amendment to the constitution to get around that.

If killing anything that's alive counts as murder, we'll all starve to death.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6527
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:09 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If SCOTUS rules that fetuses (feti?) are alive and thus abortion is murder, there's no law short of legalizing murder that would make abortions legal again. You'd have to add an amendment to the constitution to get around that.

If killing anything that's alive counts as murder, we'll all starve to death.

That inconveniences conservatives. Like if abortions lowered taxes, the abortion lobby would wither.

In seriousness, Democrats are in a tight spot, since they really depend on Trump* acting out in really really bad ways to get a big win.

*Gaining some seats isn't enough, cuz rural areas get more electoral bang for each vote = GOP advantage. This also assumes that the high variance in polling is averaged out to x points across all elections in November. This is not guaranteed.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10215
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:37 am UTC

sardia wrote:That inconveniences conservatives. Like if abortions lowered taxes, the abortion lobby would wither.


But abortions do lower taxes...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6271
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:45 am UTC

Nope, that's the legislature. Who typically doesn't set taxes based on spending.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3643
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:12 am UTC

gd1 wrote:+I initially said "if it's a choice between Hillary and Trump I'll pick Trump unless someone better comes along" ... "Trump isn't in it for the money like most politicians, he's got money already." I didn't know Trump's record and I might have made excuses (I sort of did with "99% of Trumps business ventures have been successful").

As long as you are now aware how utterly about-face you likely were, though.

Trump has clearly only ever been in it (everything he does) for the money. That said, evidence suggests he's not very good at keeping it/investing it well, just keeps on appropriating more of others' money¹ to keep topping up the shortfall. Not that we can say for sure. However clever you might think the Clintons are at hiding their devious money-manipulations (if that's you belief), Trump has just straight stonewalled, probably because the whole premise of being rich enough to trust that your money is safe in his hands falls down when you see that he's actually worth nothing at all once you unravel his finances.


So, the Clintons may not be as clean as Sanders, and its unlikely that Sanders has an entirely clear conscience either, 'cos it's hard to be purely philanthropic all your life and get to be a high-rolling philanthope rather than merely a bare-foot saint amongst the fellow down-trodden. But I'm amazed at how some people still hold onto Trump as a paradigm of paladinic parsimoniousness. If it's not self-delusion, it's a wish to maintain the message that keeps others deluded.


(They say he's nothing like George Soros, and I agree. It seems Soros is using his accumulated wealth to effect worldwide political changes, that you may or may not agree according to political polarity and whose propaganda you believe, but Trump is now using world politics to gain money without any consistent ideology except "gotta keep the money-ball rolling" and would easily turn on a dime for the next promised dime.)


¹ Family loans, inheritence, bank loans (defaulted), payments for services ill-rendered, refusing to pay for services well-rendered, leeching from businesses that he's then allowed to fail at others' expense and currently 'earning' from the fees paid by the government to station his close-protection team on his own properties, letting the GOP pay for his personal publicity machine and asking his supporters for more money to run his future campaigns (which I'm betting is getting skimmed off through some slight of hand, whether or not events let him actually run for the second term). And that's not even counting the alleged foreign government monies, if insufficiently caged in obfuscating tit-for-tat deals.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10215
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:44 pm UTC

Except at some point, increased spending is going to cause increased taxes, or conservatives are going to be extremely inconvenienced when there's no police to protect them from the angry and second-amendment enthusiastic mobs.

Abortion does lower government spending and crime. It's less than a coincidence that the crime rate began plummeting in 1991, exactly 18 years after 1973's Roe v Wade. It's also not a coincidence that the religiosity of the country has decreased; all religions (and especially Christianity; read the history pre-Constantine) grow more rapidly when people are desperate, which is the real reason why the religious right that dominates the Republicans want so many to be poor.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6527
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:46 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Except at some point, increased spending is going to cause increased taxes, or conservatives are going to be extremely inconvenienced when there's no police to protect them from the angry and second-amendment enthusiastic mobs.

Abortion does lower government spending and crime. It's less than a coincidence that the crime rate began plummeting in 1991, exactly 18 years after 1973's Roe v Wade. It's also not a coincidence that the religiosity of the country has decreased; all religions (and especially Christianity; read the history pre-Constantine) grow more rapidly when people are desperate, which is the real reason why the religious right that dominates the Republicans want so many to be poor.

By the time the country falls into that, these politicians will have long since retired, and the money saved via tax cuts can't be taken back. Only future money will be taxed.
Do you have any studies that back you up?

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3652
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Trump presidency

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:59 pm UTC

I don't believe Trump is, or has ever been, 'in it' for the money, none of his decisions are really in line with that motive.
It seems clear to me that Trump has always been in it for fame and recognition.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:13 pm UTC

emceng wrote:to his base.


Your list isn't accomplishments though. Let's break them down.
1) lifetime ban on white house officials lobbying for foreign governments
--- what about the ones that are currently in there, and lobbying for foreign governments? Kushner and his ties to the middle east, the pretty obvious ZTE bribe handled by a Trump campaign staffer(admittedly not a White Houes person, but still). It's an accomplishment in the same way I have resolved to eat healthier, and not have any cake. Sure i had some yesterday, and tomorrow I might as well. But I can definitely say right at this moment, I'm not eating cake. Unless I am, behind closed doors, because this administration is as corrupt as they come.[/quote]

He made an executive order on the topic, if memory serves. So, more than just a promise, though I agree it doesn't address a great deal of other things.

2) dropping out of the Paris accords
--- I think this is a bad thing, but I guess his base will applaud it.


Oh, they definitely do. His base sees this as a great thing, though of course it's seen as negative by the opposition. Definitely noteworthy, if controversial. Most of the "rolling back environmental regulations" falls into this category, really.

3) got North Korea to release prisoners
--- Yep, something most administrations have done. Obama got at least two people out of North Korea.


Sure, and it's good when they do it as well.

4) executive order that for every new regulation added, two be repealed
--- This is completely idiotic. It barely would trick a 5 year old. Hey honey, you're not allowed to have 2 candy bars, but I don't care if you put six into a bowl of ice cream!


I mean, I agree that regulations are not something for which quantity is a meaningful thing. Laws are not all equal. Not by a long shot. But it's a big step towards deregulation, at least from his base's perspective. We might think it's stupid, but it's an accomplishment that does affect the way regulations are made.

Mutex wrote:There's also plenty of things he promised, and then did the exact opposite. E.g. every American having medical cover, and then doing his best to kill the ACA.


In fairness, his base wanted the ACA dead. There are few things Republicans have clamored for more. Now, it's also fair to note that no good replacement has really emerged, but in that, he was doing exactly what those who voted for him wanted.

CorruptUser wrote:And then the justices turn around and declare them unconstitutional.

If SCOTUS rules that fetuses (feti?) are alive and thus abortion is murder, there's no law short of legalizing murder that would make abortions legal again. You'd have to add an amendment to the constitution to get around that.

If SCOTUS rules that background checks and waiting periods are a violation of the second amendment, POTUS and congress can only change the second amendment to fix that.


While that is technically true, and the Supreme Court does have a great deal of sway, they are generally not quite so activist, and times when they have been, the results have been controversial. It seems likely that the current court won't try to declare all abortion unconstitutional. The SC is still super important, but they've been content to rule on more limited grounds of late. This is probably for the best overall.

sardia wrote:In seriousness, Democrats are in a tight spot, since they really depend on Trump* acting out in really really bad ways to get a big win.

*Gaining some seats isn't enough, cuz rural areas get more electoral bang for each vote = GOP advantage. This also assumes that the high variance in polling is averaged out to x points across all elections in November. This is not guaranteed.


Yeah. It's definitely doable, but by no means a sure thing. And people have been continuously over-estimating the backlash to Trump's actions. 2018 is very much up in the air still, and watching it develop is gonna be fascinating.

CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:That inconveniences conservatives. Like if abortions lowered taxes, the abortion lobby would wither.


But abortions do lower taxes...


According to Freakonomics, they do indeed, mostly by reducing dependence on those social programs right-wing folks hate. Abortions are cheap in comparison to childcare.

The right generally prioritizes moralizing over economy, though. Not really a surprise. The right does really good at charitable giving if you count churches. They really, really enjoy moralizing. It'd probably be different if libertarians run the party, but that's pretty unlikely anytime soon.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3643
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:46 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:I don't believe Trump is, or has ever been, 'in it' for the money, none of his decisions are really in line with that motive.
It seems clear to me that Trump has always been in it for fame and recognition.

I'd say that's worse. Fame-seeking without a laudable aim or skill to work with often leads to acts of notoriety. Sure, some people that become "famous for being famous", and maybe even rich for a significant amount of that time, aren't any worse than just plain useless. If his aim is ultimately fame then I think he strays into "Famous for being rich" territory, at least for being superficially so (hence the stonewalling and desperate flailing to keep his increasingly sodden hairdo above water), and he's already chosen one route to the fame (richness) that he is practically inept in, discovered he's better at faking it and decided to apply that to politics. Or got lumbered with, because his latest scam to gain column-inches went further than he thought it would.

Again, he is practically inept at politics. This is not to say that he is failing at it, as he's tapped into the 'polis' side of the politics (bread and circuses, or at least promises of them where they are yet to be forthcoming and still anticipated), but the part of politics that is government and wise decision-making and understanding the complexities involved is at best like an amateur-hour plate-spinner. As long as he puts up enough new plates, the others that he lets crash to the stage are (successfully spun or fumbled from the start) conveniently forgotten by the audience that is staring at the top of the sticks he's currently focussing his attention on just because they're still somehow up there. Juggling one ball is not a show. Having one plate spinning, as you studiously ignore the many shards beneath your feet is still 'entertainment'.


There are some things that Trump might do (if worth his while, and not messed up along the way) that could be good for people. That's not why he's attempting them. So called "career politicians" mostly see an aim and if they get rich along the way it is usually as a means to the end of greater influence, so long as they can stay untempted by the revealed trappings of power and money.

If you want to make money, note that the many political aspirants necessarily get whittled down to very few apex-politicians, between losing out to others (party selection vs similarly minded types, election vs diametrically opposed types and even after all that you'll be fairly lucky to be in the ruling party at the right time in any sysyem with more than one party, and trading that hurdle away by working in a multi-party coallition heaven of opportunity leaves you in the hell of short-termism and high make-and-break-and-remake potential that leaves you with even less security of tenure). For money, try running a casino. You generally can't go wrong with a casino, if you have the basic aptitude for it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:29 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:There are some things that Trump might do (if worth his while, and not messed up along the way) that could be good for people. That's not why he's attempting them. So called "career politicians" mostly see an aim and if they get rich along the way it is usually as a means to the end of greater influence, so long as they can stay untempted by the revealed trappings of power and money.

If you want to make money, note that the many political aspirants necessarily get whittled down to very few apex-politicians, between losing out to others (party selection vs similarly minded types, election vs diametrically opposed types and even after all that you'll be fairly lucky to be in the ruling party at the right time in any sysyem with more than one party, and trading that hurdle away by working in a multi-party coallition heaven of opportunity leaves you in the hell of short-termism and high make-and-break-and-remake potential that leaves you with even less security of tenure). For money, try running a casino. You generally can't go wrong with a casino, if you have the basic aptitude for it.


While I agree with your initial assessment, the fact that Trump ends up being an "apex politician" probably ought to be viewed with concern. While democracy might be one of the least awful forms of government tried, one sort of hopes that we could come up with a better representative, yeah?

I mean, there's a lot of people running at the low levels of politics, so maybe the filters on the path to political success are just not selecting candidates well?

froghero
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:09 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby froghero » Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:57 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Abortion does lower government spending and crime. It's less than a coincidence that the crime rate began plummeting in 1991, exactly 18 years after 1973's Roe v Wade.

Another important change is the EPA requiring unleaded gasoline in 1973, with higher lead consumption causing increased violent tendencies. I'm not saying that Roe v. Wade isn't a factor, but the national crime rate is a complicated issue that probably can't be explained by a single change.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby emceng » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
emceng wrote:
4) executive order that for every new regulation added, two be repealed
--- This is completely idiotic. It barely would trick a 5 year old. Hey honey, you're not allowed to have 2 candy bars, but I don't care if you put six into a bowl of ice cream!


I mean, I agree that regulations are not something for which quantity is a meaningful thing. Laws are not all equal. Not by a long shot. But it's a big step towards deregulation, at least from his base's perspective. We might think it's stupid, but it's an accomplishment that does affect the way regulations are made.



How is this a step towards anything at all? Anyone can see that if you make this idiotic order, all you need to do is take one regulation, mash it together with two others, then re-issue it. Take 500 pages of new, plus 500 pages of old #1, and 500 pages of old #2. Mash it together into a new regulation of 1500 pages.

How the fuck is that progress towards any fucking thing? It's a minor bureaucratic hurdle that will cost the government time and money, and is completely pointless. It's like mandating all regulations be printed in green ink. Hooray, the government gets to spend more money on printer ink, and time and effort re-issuing things. And for no fucking reason.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10215
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:32 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Except at some point, increased spending is going to cause increased taxes, or conservatives are going to be extremely inconvenienced when there's no police to protect them from the angry and second-amendment enthusiastic mobs.

Abortion does lower government spending and crime. It's less than a coincidence that the crime rate began plummeting in 1991, exactly 18 years after 1973's Roe v Wade. It's also not a coincidence that the religiosity of the country has decreased; all religions (and especially Christianity; read the history pre-Constantine) grow more rapidly when people are desperate, which is the real reason why the religious right that dominates the Republicans want so many to be poor.

By the time the country falls into that, these politicians will have long since retired, and the money saved via tax cuts can't be taken back. Only future money will be taxed.
Do you have any studies that back you up?


As Tyndymr already noted, Freakanomics...

froghero wrote:Another important change is the EPA requiring unleaded gasoline in 1973, with higher lead consumption causing increased violent tendencies. I'm not saying that Roe v. Wade isn't a factor, but the national crime rate is a complicated issue that probably can't be explained by a single change.


There's probably hundreds of factors involved, and the hypotheses that lead causes crime and abortion reduces crime are not mutually exclusive. Interestingly, the lead-crime hypothesis relies in part on the idea that people that are less intelligent are more likely to commit crimes...
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:42 pm UTC

emceng wrote:How is this a step towards anything at all? Anyone can see that if you make this idiotic order, all you need to do is take one regulation, mash it together with two others, then re-issue it. Take 500 pages of new, plus 500 pages of old #1, and 500 pages of old #2. Mash it together into a new regulation of 1500 pages.

How the fuck is that progress towards any fucking thing? It's a minor bureaucratic hurdle that will cost the government time and money, and is completely pointless. It's like mandating all regulations be printed in green ink. Hooray, the government gets to spend more money on printer ink, and time and effort re-issuing things. And for no fucking reason.


Republicans also, at some points, advocate anti-omnibus bills, and presumably feel similarly about regulations. At least, they talk a good anti-regulation game. If, like me, you're cynical, you might observe that they are a great deal more accepting of tacking bullshit onto bills when it's their bullshit.

I agree that the intent of this limitation is fairly easily circumventable, but using the above strategy will probably be troublesome in practice. For instance, documentation referencing either of the two old regulations used will now be incorrect, and need to be changed. So, in a sense, it uses bureaucracy against itself. For another, if an unpopular agency, like say, the EPA, attempts to do this, and attention is drawn to it for doing so, the results will probably not be super pretty for the EPA. The ridiculous circumvention is obviously such to everyone, and makes the agency look bad, and makes it a target for further deregulation.

It's a kludge by any standards, but it's not utterly without meaning.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3643
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:While I agree with your initial assessment, the fact that Trump ends up being an "apex politician" probably ought to be viewed with concern.
Yes. And demonstrates clearly the number of 'standard' rivals who, despite their variously dedicated, ambitious and studious rises towards the top of the heap, get stymied by someone who was probably as surprised as they were.

Politics is a fool's game, and I think that's been proven several times recently if you look at who has 'won'.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6271
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:29 am UTC

Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3643
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:42 pm UTC

I assume (read the URL, but haven't yet broached the Post's Freemium-Wall) that this is different from his rigorous historical analysis.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10215
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:12 pm UTC

Well, it was the British forces stationed in The Canadas that burnt Washington, only to be chased off by the most American of weather; a tornado.

Mutex
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:14 pm UTC

It's like the end of War of the Worlds.

"In the end they were defeated by the simplest of God's creatures... the tornado."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10215
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:32 pm UTC

Fun tidbit, War of the Worlds was meant to be an allegory of British conquest of Africa/Asia. The natives were utterly outmatched in terms of technology, and malaria and so forth was the only thing preventing their complete annihilation at the hands of the British. The British typically had the view that it was the duty of the strong to dominate the weak, so HG Wells asked the simple question of what if something out there was stronger than the British...
Last edited by CorruptUser on Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Mutex
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:33 pm UTC

Cheers, didn't know that. Makes sense.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:09 pm UTC

I always hated the ending of War of the Worlds. It was far too sudden and realistic. It's a great story, but it's definitely one of his weaker ones.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:16 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Trump is the greatest at meetings:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... edirect=on
This sort of behavior makes it obvious, Orange is Not doing the strategic thinking.
Putin's Military Intelligence Is doing the thinking!

We need to get Money out of how we elect our representatives.
First we need to get the Putin's Puppets out of power.
(we are Screwed....)

Sit back, eat two chick-filet and take a nap.
Intellectual battle is not our strong suite.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10215
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:45 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:I always hated the ending of War of the Worlds. It was far too sudden and realistic. It's a great story, but it's definitely one of his weaker ones.


The only way it could've ended was with either the narrator becoming enslaved and hiding his memoirs from his captors, or a deus ex machina. But again, as an allegory of the British conquest of the world, disease slowed down the British more than the natives could.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:48 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:I always hated the ending of War of the Worlds. It was far too sudden and realistic. It's a great story, but it's definitely one of his weaker ones.


It's kind of a deus ex machina, yeah. I mean, it's absolutely realistic that invaders could fail for oversight entirely unrelated to the defender's actions, but it's narratively really unsatisfying.

Kind of an intractable conflict, but definitely a memorable choice all the same.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi and 14 guests