Page 202 of 218

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:21 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
What do you call 11 nazi sympathizers in a room with a Nazi?

12 Nazis.

Or the Trump Cabinet, take your pick.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:39 am UTC
by Link

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:22 pm UTC
by Zohar

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:28 pm UTC
by MartianInvader
Yeah, there's been a gradual change of tone coming from both the Republicans themselves and Fox News ever since the midterms. I think they're finally starting to see him as a losing bet. I'm guessing we'll see this criticism ratcheting up over the next few months. I doubt we'll see impeachment, but we might see some veto-proof legislation.

At some point, we'll see Trump lash out at Fox news. That's when we'll know it's all over for him.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:48 pm UTC
by Link
Zohar wrote:
I suspect we'll see more of these the more the GOP primaries heat up.

Fingers crossed!

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:24 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Has a sitting president ever lost his own primary? I know we've had a sitting president come in third place, but that's only because of Teddy Roosevelt deciding to run a third time.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:26 pm UTC
by Zohar
CorruptUser wrote:Has a sitting president ever lost his own primary? I know we've had a sitting president come in third place, but that's only because of Teddy Roosevelt deciding to run a third time.

If there's one thing Trump is good at it's surprising people in how abnormal he is.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:48 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
If Trump wins the primary, the Republicans will likely lose 2020. If Trump loses the primary, he will come in as a third candidate and the Republicans will definitely lose 2020. And everyone knows it.

If only there was Ranked Choice Voting to prevent this very problem...

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:21 pm UTC
by cphite
Dauric wrote:Then a few months down the line anti-abortion activists decide that "baby murder is equivalent to Nazism", so they add an amendment to the law justifying the gas-chambering of Nazis to include anyone who's pro-abortion, who performs abortions, and forcibly imprisons anyone who's had an abortion for Nazi sympathies. Then the Gun Control lobby decides anyone who owns a gun is a murdering Nazi, and the Gun Rights side counters that Gun Control proponents are Authoritarian Fascists, just like Nazis...


I don't remember who it was but someone once said that a key thing to remember in a democracy is that any power you give to yourself, you're eventually giving to your opponents. Or something along those lines.

Anyway... it could happen incrementally like you're saying... or it could come suddenly when the political pendulum swings in the other direction. Which leads to the very real possibility of someone like Trump or worse getting to decide which political stances are undesirable and need to be purged; with the laws allowing them to do so already on the books.

CorruptUser wrote:If Trump wins the primary, the Republicans will likely lose 2020. If Trump loses the primary, he will come in as a third candidate and the Republicans will definitely lose 2020. And everyone knows it.


I think that if Trump wins the primary the democrats should win, but it might be close... because the only way that happens is if Trump has been cleared in his legal troubles - and that could actually give him a pretty sizable boost. If that is the case, the democrats had better have a candidate who can rally their entire base. If they pick a progressive who's too extreme for the centrists - or a centrist who's seen as too establishment by the progressives - it could spell trouble.

I seriously doubt that Trump would run as a third candidate. For Trump it's all about winning, and the odds of winning as a third candidate are too slim. If his numbers are bad enough, I wouldn't be surprised if he very publicly decides not to run in the primary, just to avoid taking the loss.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:07 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
CorruptUser wrote:Has a sitting president ever lost his own primary? I know we've had a sitting president come in third place, but that's only because of Teddy Roosevelt deciding to run a third time.


According to NPR, Franklin Pierce lost the primary to Buchanan.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:33 pm UTC
by Angua

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:27 pm UTC
by Dauric


The irony of course is for all the "we need the money for border security", the border patrol is one of the departments that's unfunded through this shutdown.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:45 pm UTC
by gd1

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:30 am UTC
by ijuin
Honor is nice, but the landlord won’t accept it as payment on the lease.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:16 am UTC
by gd1
ijuin wrote:Honor is nice, but the landlord won’t accept it as payment on the lease.


Doesn't it get categorized under goodwill on the financial statements?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:27 am UTC
by CorruptUser
ijuin wrote:Honor is nice, but the landlord won’t accept it as payment on the lease.


Some might...

She offered her honor
He honored her offer
And all night long
It was honor and offer

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:46 pm UTC
by Yablo

As a (state) government employee who has experienced furlough of indeterminate length due to government shutdown on more than one occasion, I can sympathize, but at the same time, it's a risk every government employee knows is there. The risk is probably greater for federal employees than state employees, but I still make sure I have enough in savings to cover at least a month without pay. I realize saving up a month's pay isn't exactly easy, but it's possible (and even necessary for some), and it's responsible.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:43 pm UTC
by Zohar
Since 1976, federal government employees have been furloughed for a total of 80 days. It's been about 15,000 days since 1976, or about 11,000 federal work days. That is, on average, less than 1% of downtime. Not a super high-priority emergency, and your determination that it's these people's fault for not being more fiscally responsible or not finding another job, is shitty.

BTW, the government has been shut down (with employees furloughed) for 20 days (so far, cumulative) under Trump, who's been in office for 717 days, or about 520 work days. That's five times the average shutdown rate since 1976. So no, this isn't normal, and Trump is what's making it this way.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:10 pm UTC
by idonno
Yablo wrote:As a (state) government employee who has experienced furlough of indeterminate length due to government shutdown on more than one occasion, I can sympathize, but at the same time, it's a risk every government employee knows is there. The risk is probably greater for federal employees than state employees, but I still make sure I have enough in savings to cover at least a month without pay. I realize saving up a month's pay isn't exactly easy, but it's possible (and even necessary for some), and it's responsible.

You are right that it is responsible to have some savings to help in difficult times but even people who had a month of savings like you are proposing would be getting close running out of money soon and just because they should be able to afford something doesn't mean that it is right to do it to them. If someone gets robbed without insurance, the fact that they should have been better prepared doesn't make the thief any less culpable.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:25 pm UTC
by Yablo
Zohar wrote:Since 1976, federal government employees have been furloughed for a total of 80 days. It's been about 15,000 days since 1976, or about 11,000 federal work days. That is, on average, less than 1% of downtime. Not a super high-priority emergency, and your determination that it's these people's fault for not being more fiscally responsible or not finding another job, is shitty.

I didn't say it was their fault for not being more responsible, though the more fiscally responsible they were (ignoring the effects of chance and good or bad fortune), the less of a pinch they'd feel now.

BTW, the government has been shut down (with employees furloughed) for 20 days (so far, cumulative) under Trump, who's been in office for 717 days, or about 520 work days. That's five times the average shutdown rate since 1976. So no, this isn't normal, and Trump is what's making it this way.

No, it's not normal, but it's also not just Trump who is making it this way. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi aren't helping the situation in the least. Both sides are throwing tantrums and blaming the other.

idonno wrote:You are right that it is responsible to have some savings to help in difficult times but even people who had a month of savings like you are proposing would be getting close running out of money soon and just because they should be able to afford something doesn't mean that it is right to do it to them. If someone gets robbed without insurance, the fact that they should have been better prepared doesn't make the thief any less culpable.

I completely agree, and I've been in a position more than once where I've seen my family's carefully saved reserves slowly dwindle without even knowing if there was a light at the end of the tunnel, much less how far away it was. It's not a pleasant thing, and like I said, I can definitely sympathize. If anything, I'm stronger and more responsible with my planning because of it. It's not right that they should have to deal with this, even though they knew it was a risk, but it's not just one side to blame for it. Trump was elected largely on his promise to build a border wall to secure the southern border, and he's confident the rest of the country wants security. Schumer and Pelosi don't care whether the border is secure or not as long as they can make Trump look bad.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:34 pm UTC
by Zohar
Yablo wrote:I didn't say it was their fault for not being more responsible, though the more fiscally responsible they were (ignoring the effects of chance and good or bad fortune), the less of a pinch they'd feel now.
They could have been born rich, as well, that certainly would have helped! The point is this is an extremely unusual situation and expecting people to have these extra savings is a bit over the top.

No, it's not normal, but it's also not just Trump who is making it this way. Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi aren't helping the situation in the least. Both sides are throwing tantrums and blaming the other.

First, it's been going on for almost three weeks now, Nancy Pelosi has been speaker for four days.
Second, the bill she offered to the senate was the exact bill the senate previously approved, so you should equally condemn McConnell.
Third, Trump has repeatedly boasted about how proud he is to shut down the government.

Schumer and Pelosi don't care whether the border is secure or not as long as they can make Trump look bad.

There has been a decline in immigrants over the past 20 years. The people trying to come through are families seeking asylum.The administration is claiming (without proof) that these are gang members, violent criminals, and terrorists. There is no crisis, there is no proof that the border is less secure, or that a wall will make it more so. Yes, definitely the democrats want to make the president look bad, but they're not the ones who want to throw over five billion dollars at a non-existent threat just to impress a bunch of racists.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:48 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Of course they are criminals and so forth, thats why crime has been increasing since they arrived, except for the last 30 years when crime rates plummeted to their lowest in history, but we all know that facts are lies!

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:08 am UTC
by gd1
CorruptUser wrote:Of course they are criminals and so forth, thats why crime has been increasing since they arrived, except for the last 30 years when crime rates plummeted to their lowest in history, but we all know that facts are lies!


The problem with bad information is like pirating software. You're never quite sure without an antivirus if you're going to get malware from it. True, you can go to reputable sources for information, but for some people it's like everywhere is disreputable so they believe only what they want or the people they trust. Unfortunately, this means that the people actually responsible for the malware that they get aren't held responsible by them. Other people take the blame.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:56 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Border walls are not about serious security. Hadrian's Wall and the Great Wall of China were never meant to stop invading armies. Rather, they were meant to stop smugglers and cattle thieves and other petty criminals. In those regards, they were extremely successful. As far as stopping illegal immigration and drugs, the border wall will do some of that, but probably not as much as, say, the cost of the wall being spent on foreign aid to Guatemala would.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:03 am UTC
by iamspen
CorruptUser wrote:Border walls are not about serious security. Hadrian's Wall and the Great Wall of China were never meant to stop invading armies. Rather, they were meant to stop smugglers and cattle thieves and other petty criminals. In those regards, they were extremely successful. As far as stopping illegal immigration and drugs, the border wall will do some of that, but probably not as much as, say, the cost of the wall being spent on foreign aid to Guatemala would.


The most astounding part about all this information is that none of it is, in fact, true.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:42 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Wikipedia on Hadrians Wall

Notable quote

The limites of Rome were never expected to stop tribes from migrating or armies from invading, and while a frontier protected by a palisade or stone wall would help curb cattle-raiders and the incursions of other small groups, the economic viability of constructing and keeping guarded a wall 72 miles (116 km) long along a sparsely populated border to stop small-scale raiding is dubious.

Another possible explanation for the wall is the degree of control it would have provided over immigration, smuggling and customs


So less about defense, more about immigration and smuggling and tax collection.



In terms of stopping smuggling and immigration, the border wall would do that, but nowhere near as much as trump claims and probably only a negligible amount. Keep in mind that we already do have border walls with Mexico, yet people still take the long way around through the desert (and hundreds die as a result) rather than dig tunnels or jump over. A high wall with razor wire and such is going to stop children and unathletic people, or at least stop them for a while in a concentrated area and thus increasing the number of people caught. It can't easily be snuck across at night without flashlights and such that'll make it easy for patrols to spot. But while it would reduce the amount of people sneaking across the border, most people and drugs dont cross the border that way in the first place anyway.

In terms of cost effectiveness, trumps plan is claimed at 15 billion, but given government estimates you multiply by 3 and get 45 billion for the wall. I'm quite sure that is more than enough money to shore up Guatemala's crumbling instutions and so forth, which would result in fewer Guatemalans trying to immigrate in the first place. Ergo, per dollar, foreign aide is better at reducing immigration than the wall would be.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:56 pm UTC
by idonno
Yablo wrote:Trump was elected largely on his promise to build a border wall to secure the southern border, and he's confident the rest of the country wants security. Schumer and Pelosi don't care whether the border is secure or not as long as they can make Trump look bad.

You would have a lot stronger case blaming the democrats if they had been in the majority when the funding was originally refused or if Trump hadn't waited nearly 2 years to get funding and make a political issue of it.

Not funding something now is fundamentally a different strength of a stance to take requiring less proof of support than funding something now because a funded project underway is much less reversible than not funding it which could literally be reversed in a day. The country just elected a bunch of anti wall representative which makes any claim of there being strong enough demand to justify a border wall dubious at best. If Trump is so confident of this desire in spite of the midterm results, he should be willing to ride it to victory next election rather than closing down all the other stuff the country wants.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:57 pm UTC
by sardia
Yablo wrote:[Trump was elected largely on his promise to build a border wall to secure the southern border, and he's confident the rest of the country wants security. Schumer and Pelosi don't care whether the border is secure or not as long as they can make Trump look bad..

Where are you getting information on Democrats position on the shutdown? You didn't like the deal that the two parties agreed upon before Trump changed his mind (after criticism from Fox news)?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:00 pm UTC
by Angua
Also, Trump ran on the position that Mexico would pay for the wall.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:40 pm UTC
by freezeblade
Angua wrote:Also, Trump ran on the position that Mexico would pay for the wall.


Haven't you heard? The new Trump-sanctioned Faux news talking point response to this (obvious) flaw in reasoning is that the re-negotiation of NAFTA resulted in favorable trade situations for the US, which resulted in savings to be used for the Wall..because that's how the economy and global trade work, right?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:06 pm UTC
by Thesh
Is there any evidence to back that up? No, of course not. Racists just need excuses, not facts. There is nothing about this that involves actual facts or problem solving; it's just that Republicans are a party of people who are united around one thing and one thing only: white male identity politics.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:32 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
To be fair, I'm not sure how else making Mexico pay for the wall was ever supposed to be interpreted? Obviously we couldn't just sent them an invoice, so I always figured that "make Mexico pay for it" bit was intended to mean that the US would somehow treat Mexico disfavorably in order to make up for the cost of the wall. There's obviously a lot of complications to actually doing that, but that's what I always took the claim to mean.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:39 pm UTC
by Thesh
It should be noted that he just said that on the spot without thinking about it, and then the apologists scrambled to find a way to turn it into policy. So it's still a post-hoc excuse, but it's an old one.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:11 pm UTC
by Mutex
I'm pretty sure he literally meant the US would send Mexico an invoice.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:12 pm UTC
by Yablo
idonno wrote:You would have a lot stronger case blaming the democrats if they had been in the majority when the funding was originally refused or if Trump hadn't waited nearly 2 years to get funding and make a political issue of it.

You say this like he hasn't been pushing for it all along. It was just under a year ago that he offered Democrats amnesty for almost triple the number of actual DACA recipients in exchange for support for the wall.

sardia wrote:Where are you getting information on Democrats position on the shutdown? You didn't like the deal that the two parties agreed upon before Trump changed his mind (after criticism from Fox news)?

Admittedly, my assertion that Schumer and Pelosi don’t care about border security as long as Trump looks bad is based on my own perception. I know Democrats have proposed a bill to fund Homeland Security at current levels, and it’s Trump who is pushing against it. I also believe that bill, being a temporary measure, is a good one and should be passed, and the wall fight should be saved for later.

But I also believe the Democrats are doing the same thing to Trump now that he did to them with his amnesty offer; make a reasonable offer the other side will never accept, not because it’s really what you want to achieve, but because it makes the other side look like tantrum-throwing children.

Thesh wrote:… it's just that Republicans are a party of people who are united around one thing and one thing only: white male identity politics.

This is an offensive, bullshit generalization.

Pfhorrest wrote:To be fair, I'm not sure how else making Mexico pay for the wall was ever supposed to be interpreted? Obviously we couldn't just sent them an invoice, so I always figured that "make Mexico pay for it" bit was intended to mean that the US would somehow treat Mexico disfavorably in order to make up for the cost of the wall. There's obviously a lot of complications to actually doing that, but that's what I always took the claim to mean.

This is how I always took it as well, though, I read “treating Mexico disfavorably,” more like, “using tough negotiation to find a middle ground which favors the United States much more than the current deal without unduly harming Mexico.”

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:24 pm UTC
by sardia
That reminded me of Trump's definition of a border wall with Mexico. The supporters would try to rationalize it, 'he means virtual wall, with tools and drones' or talk about how it's a negotiation tactic. And then Trump talks more, and you realize the Trump really expects a wall made of rocks along the whole border. Trump is definitely not a , not sure if I details oriented is the right term, but he's not realistic. Like he so easily danced around the 'make Mexico pay' into NAFTA 2.0 counts. Why is wall his hill to die on? He could easily spin the 1.2 billion dollars extra that he extracted from the Democrats as a wall win. (Democrats call it fencing plus guards, Trump calls it a wall win win.)

Maybe it's out of weakness or desperation. Pundits on Fox, called him out as weak, so he has to act tough. if he takes it too far, then there's much much less room to compromise on either side. Or worse, if one side is seen as compromising too much, they won't compromise at all next time. There's always a next time, never think that it's a one time deal governments are only funded a year at a time.

PS Yablo I dunno how you got from here to there with that reasoning, but your worldview is warping your thinking.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:32 pm UTC
by Zamfir
Obviously we couldn't just sent them an invoice,

Of course you can. Or more typically, you could seize Mexican assets abroad, and Mexico will not be able to stop this.

For example, the US has decided that Iran should pay 2.7 billion dollar in damages to the families of US soldiers who were killed in Beirut, and the US has then seized bank the bank accounts of a Luxembourgian firm that they claim is acting for the Iranian government.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:34 pm UTC
by sardia
Zamfir wrote:
Obviously we couldn't just sent them an invoice,

Of course you can. Or more typically, you could seize Mexican assets abroad, and Mexico will not be able to stop this.

For example, the US has decided that Iran should pay 2.7 billion dollar in damages to the families of US soldiers who were killed in Beirut, and the US has then seized bank the bank accounts of a Luxembourgian firm that they claim is acting for the Iranian government.

Shhh, you'll start giving Trump ideas. In all seriousness, There's reasons why he can't do this though. Probably lawsuits. Or He might need Congressional approval at some point to issue sanctions like that but I'm not sure.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:40 pm UTC
by Thesh
Yablo wrote:This is an offensive, bullshit generalization.


No, literally the Republican party cannot pass any legislation that is not in the interest of white male identity politics; their main platform is about advancing the interests of white men and opposing the interests of those who are not white men. Nothing Republicans have done in my lifetime has advanced the agenda of people who aren't white men, or not advanced the agenda of white men. Whether every single Republican care about white male identity politics doesn't matter, what does matter is that they do not agree on anything else and so they are incapable of doing anything else, and Republican voters will stop voting for them if they stop being a party dedicated primarily to the advancement of white male identity politics. Whether that's the issue you, in particular, care about (and it seems to be the only thing you come here to argue about, so I'm going to assume it is), when you vote for Republicans you do so knowing that they will do nothing else and you are okay with that.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:50 pm UTC
by gd1
I wouldn't call it white male identity politics. It's probably more like "the way things used to be".