Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Do you have any links to the basis of your observation bolded above? In the polls on major issues, background checks for gun ownership, protection for dreamers, the border wall, etc. that I have seen the majority, a significant majority align with Democrat positions?

Other than the fact that the Republicans generally keep winning? Here's the map of the State legislatures, note the color of the various swing states. https://images.dailykos.com/images/327489/original/State_Legislative_Trifectas.png?1479139455

It's a matter of degree. For example, yes, most of us approve of better background checks for gun ownership. But people viewing the polls seem to view it as "Why, then did they vote against the background check law after Newton" without looking into the details. There were a couple of proposals put forward on how to implement universal background checks. The one voted upon (Manchin-Toomey), and shot down, did more than just say "Use background checks" . So we get the superficial result of: "Oh my God, the American people want sensible gun control laws, but their politicians voted against"

Wheras, had, say, the Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposal been voted upon, I think it would have been more likely to have passed. The Coburn proposal was basically "If you're selling a gun under the auspices of a private party transaction, use the same NICS system the current licensed dealers use." That was it. Simple. No third party involvement. No extra costs. No records. Just mandating that all sales have a background check and a method to allow the seller to conduct it. Would the democrat-controlled Senate vote on a pure-R proposal?

This is one way you can get the apparent dichotomy between what the 'people' want, and what happens in congress. It also shows that just because people don't support the Democrat way of doing things, that Republicans can't also try to get a similar result with a different method.

Same with protection for dreamers. I'm confident that the Republican party will allow, as a group, a path to citizenship for dreamers. There are a few hard-cases who are utterly opposed, but a deal can be struck. The difference is over the rest of the concept of illegal immigration. You can be "For protection of dreamers and against the wall", or "for protection of dreamers and for the wall". The point of difference is not the dreamers, it's the wall (Or whatever border security method to put the dollars towards).

But this is exactly the problem. They refuse to do anything, until the pressure gets too much, and then they bring forward a sensible (to the rest of the world) but far too draconian (for US voters) knowing that it will never get the votes and everyone can claim they tried.

What the US needs is a leader to actually do what is right, forget the fleeting approval ratings, a look for a legacy.

Won't happen, but that is what is required.

Manic Moran

Although I am inclined to agree with you, bear in mind that what a president can do is very limited compared to what congress can do. And congressmen don’t have term limits, so they pay great attention to the approval ratings, as does party leadership.

The US is a huge and polarized country. It needs to go back to being predominantly run by the States, in regions small enough that local compromises can be reached; the federal government represents people from waaaaay too diverse backgrounds and opinions to effectively work at the level at which folks are tying to make it work.

Leroy42

So the united states is no longer appropriate?

Of course it can be done, the thing that Trump has shown is that a leader can pretty much do what they want if they are skilled enough. His Obamacare repeal failed, in large part, because he didn't really have a position on it past repeal and replace, he left congress to come up with the details.

They played the tax plan much better.

Look at what Trump is allowed away with, 5 years ago there is no way the majority of GOP would have stood for this carry on. So Trump, if he was inclined, could push through a gun legislation. He would have most of the DNC on his side and just undertake the usual demonising of any objectors to those standing against him.

This is not unsolvable, it is a political problem, and thus can be solved. If certain states refuse then so be it, but you then place any deaths at the door of the state senators/governors.

aloyisious

F***'s sake. Robert Jeffries, senior pastor, 1st Dallas Baptist church [on a Fox News video] saying the bible gives Don Trump the moral authority to use whatever force necessary, assassination or war, to take out Kim Jong-Un.... I can't find a link, via google, to the Fox News video which was posted on facebook by Groopspeak and can't find the F/B link.

Leroy42

One hope from Trump POTUS, is that the twisting and hypocrisy of the religious right will be shown for what it is and that people will finally realise that the only morals they really believe in is power

Noel82

Awesome footage here, pretty unknown. Shows ya how grueling the campaign trail can be

rossie1977

aloyisious wrote: »

F***'s sake. Robert Jeffries, senior pastor, 1st Dallas Baptist church [on a Fox News video] saying the bible gives Don Trump the moral authority to use whatever force necessary, assassination or war, to take out Kim Jong-Un.... I can't find a link, via google, to the Fox News video which was posted on facebook by Groopspeak and can't find the F/B link.

Same guy back in 2014 said obama was paving the way for the anti-christ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/pastor-obama-is-paving-the-way-for-the-antichrist/2014/01/09/5dd1034c-7955-11e3-a647-a19deaf575b3_story.html

Don't think you will find people in the states more partisan than southern white evangelicals.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the united states is no longer appropriate?

I didn't say that. The Federal Government has been expanding its role in the US from what it used to be. This accelerated in the 1930s by use of the Commerce Clause, and has been going on pretty much ever since, until the first brake started being put on the commerce clause in 1995. People look to Washington, not Albany, Sacramento or Baton Rouge, to solve problems, when there are perfectly capable State governments to do that sort of thing. Oregon's problems are not necessarily Florida's or Nebraska's, much as you would not expect to try to apply many of the same solutions to problems in Ireland as you would in Italy through Brussels.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US is a huge and polarized country. It needs to go back to being predominantly run by the States, in regions small enough that local compromises can be reached; the federal government represents people from waaaaay too diverse backgrounds and opinions to effectively work at the level at which folks are tying to make it work.

This is what you stated. Sounds very like you are saying that the US should go back to separate states, hence the "united states is no longer appropriate" to call it.

It is a sad realisation, but I agree with you that the states are moving further apart rather than closer together. If the polarisation continues, which I cannot see any reason why not, then the logical conclusion is that the likes of California and Texas can't have a Washington DC can't represent both and one (I am using these are examples only) or both will look for better system to represent their views.

The exact happens with every breakup of former nations.

I think Trump, through the distillation of the feelings, have accelerated that process.

Corkblowin

Leroy42 wrote: »

logical conclusion is that the likes of California and Texas can't have a Washington DC can't represent both and one (I am using these are examples only) or both will look for better system to represent their views.

The exact happens with every breakup of former nations.

I think Trump, through the distillation of the feelings, have accelerated that process.

There is a very good book by Juan Enriquez, (and a ted talk I can't find a link to) call the 'Untied States of America' (not a typo).

The basic premise is that in history, states that coalesce to form a larger political entity generally break-up, and that the united states is the only one to ever get larger after formation than smaller. He shows a 1900 photo of the British cabinet and wonders where they would have thought the empire to be in 2000 - certainly not where it ended up he suspects!

Same with Spain - formed 500 years with a common religion, language, and little migrant influx, and still you have Catalonia and the Basques seeking to break away.

He asks how may states will be in the US on its 250th anniversary....50? 51? (Puerto Rico joining), but why not, for example, 45?

The demographics of the US is changing, and the coastal states are moving further from the central and southern states each year and people residing in one don't see the others as part of their country. He wonders if in the year 2100 will we have a United States of Canada comprising the east and west coasts and Canada, and a country he calls 'Jesusland' in the remainder. (Thought the dig at the end was a bit unnecessary, but I see why he did it).

found a link:
https://vimeo.com/18064101

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US is a huge and polarized country. It needs to go back to being predominantly run by the States, in regions small enough that local compromises can be reached; the federal government represents people from waaaaay too diverse backgrounds and opinions to effectively work at the level at which folks are tying to make it work.

This is what you stated. Sounds very like you are saying that the US should go back to separate states, hence the "united states is no longer appropriate" to call it.

On the contrary, there is no reason for the States to break away from the Union. No need for a full CalExit, for example. (Besides, they can’t without a Constitutional change, That was settled in the 1860s)

The meaning of “United States” has changed over time. Before the Civil War, there was no question that the “United States” was a “them”, not an “it”. Between the 1860s and the 1930s, the US was more like the EU is today. An “it”, but most of the running of the nation, creation of most of the laws, was conducted by the States independently. The federal government handed foreign relations, war, and that was abo it. It wasn’t until the Commerce Clause started being utilized in the 1930s to increase Congressional power that folks started looking to D.C. to take more control of how the US operated. A series of court cases expanded Congress’ authority over time, with the first reversal happening in ‘95 (US v Lopez). The Tenth Amendment has become, instead of a founding principle on how the country is supposed to run, more of a trivia question.

Give the Tenth it’s teeth back. Stop looking for Congress to control all the aspects of US life. Let California look after its citizens needs, North Dakota the same, and so on. It’s still the US. Just the old US.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

I didn't say that. The Federal Government has been expanding its role in the US from what it used to be. This accelerated in the 1930s by use of the Commerce Clause . . .

The 1930s? Pshaw, sir! The federal government has been expanding its power pretty much since the get-go. The adoption of the Constitution in 1788 was pretty much a power-grab because the Articles of Confederation didn't create enough central power, and that started a pattern which has continued without interruption since..

The think is, all governments have been expanding their power throughout the modern era. As societies become more interconnected through developments in transport, communications, education, etc, and as the capacity each of us has to affect our neighbours is expanded by technology and by increasing economic interdependence, new problems arise that require governments to solve them, and we give our governments power to do so, since not giving them power would produce a worse outcome.

And for a country like the US this is true nationally as well as locally. It's a far, far more closely connected and integrated place than it was in 1776, or even in 1930, and this gives rise to issues that the national government has to address.

This is not a clock that can be turned back.

Igotadose

The usual stuff from medium.com/@Amy_Siskind this week, mostly about parades, shutdowns, Trump blustering and lying. I found this article, though, pretty interesting as it shows the 'acceptability' of censorship and attacks on the media, by the USG, in this case banning a reporter due to reporting on a resignation in the Medicare office. Seems like it should be a small thing, but the degree of hostility and pettiness is pervasive.

Oh, and the tGOP operative behind this, was also involved with the "Vote Leave" group. Funny how this lot is seemingly everywhere today.

https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2018/02/cms-threatens-to-bar-modern-healthcare-from-press-calls-after-reporter-refuses-to-alter-story/

eire4

rossie1977 wrote: »

Same guy back in 2014 said obama was paving the way for the anti-christ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/pastor-obama-is-paving-the-way-for-the-antichrist/2014/01/09/5dd1034c-7955-11e3-a647-a19deaf575b3_story.html

Don't think you will find people in the states more partisan than southern white evangelicals.

Agreed. I have often said that it seems to be from my own experience that the more "religious" and or "moral" a person claims to be very often the nastier and more hate filled they actually are in reality and the southern evangelicals in the US certainly seem to fit that.

Quin_Dub

The Evangelicals support for Trump is closely tied to the Prosperity Gospel.

Basically - The more you love God , the more you are rewarded with Success, Wealth and Health.

Therefore all rich people are super "Godly" and anyone poor or sick is clearly just not praying hard enough...

it explains their ability to ignore all the things he does - If God was unhappy with him , he wouldn't have lavished Wealth and success on him.

And who are they to challenge the will of God...

Noel82

Looks like a scare tactic more than anything..

https://twitter.com/AP/status/963119809201344518

Overheal

Probably mailed it to themselves. Predictably, it was reportedly an inert substance. I doubt there will be another genuine anthrax scare after the 2001 attacks, the guilty party killed himself and it was all sourced from the same facility.

Watch this spur some kneejerk reaction from the WH.

Leroy42

Whether it was inert or not is not really the issue, imagine the fear that woman felt when she opened that package.

Overheal

Yeah, I wish Trump's people had thought of it before they false flagged her

RGS

Why was the trump mail not subject to security checks. Surely the mail of the presidents family is checked by the security services.

Christy42

Lets not jump to conclusions on either side about this. However I imagine the President's mail will be checked closer and policies need to be looked at. This should not have been possible (obviously these policies have nothing to do with Trump's policies).

mcmoustache

I hope the perp(s) get(s) put away for a long time. Inert or not, that kind of thing's not on

circadian

In other news Trump has proposed cutting funding for public broadcasting.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/373434-trump-proposes-eliminating-federal-funding-for-pbs-npr

This would hit middle America the hardest since the coastal cities would find it easier to secure the required funding. In rural areas these services provide essential broadcasts of local weather, news, road conditions etc. It will hit Trump's supporters the hardest.

PopePalpatine

Gods forbid there's an obstacle to his gaslighting.

Itssoeasy

RGS wrote: »

Why was the trump mail not subject to security checks. Surely the mail of the presidents family is checked by the security services.

You'd think so wouldn't you. That's what I found odd when I heard about the letter and the white powder. This is the daughter in law of the president of the United States so how the hell does any powder inert or otherwise get past the secret service ?

Samaris

circadian wrote: »

In other news Trump has proposed cutting funding for public broadcasting.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/373434-trump-proposes-eliminating-federal-funding-for-pbs-npr

This would hit middle America the hardest since the coastal cities would find it easier to secure the required funding. In rural areas these services provide essential broadcasts of local weather, news, road conditions etc. It will hit Trump's supporters the hardest.

Sinclair Broadcasting will be licking their lips at this.

Overheal

circadian wrote: »

In other news Trump has proposed cutting funding for public broadcasting.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/373434-trump-proposes-eliminating-federal-funding-for-pbs-npr

This would hit middle America the hardest since the coastal cities would find it easier to secure the required funding. In rural areas these services provide essential broadcasts of local weather, news, road conditions etc. It will hit Trump's supporters the hardest.

Republicans still trying to kill Big Bird I see

Peregrinus

Itssoeasy wrote: »

You'd think so wouldn't you. That's what I found odd when I heard about the letter and the white powder. This is the daughter in law of the president of the United States so how the hell does any powder inert or otherwise get past the secret service ?

SFAIK the President's adult children do not normally get Secret Service protection - only those who are under 21 or who live with the President.

Manic Moran

USDA has put forward a proposal to replace part of the food stamp program with food.

The idea is that food stamp aid (actually, a debit card) is cut in half, and instead, food packages consisting of US-produced food is distributed. The government would purchase the food at wholesale, and deliver to the States. The States would figure out the distribution from there.

Assuming that the food is reasonably well purchased and selected to be reasonably healthy, it seems like a good idea. There is opposition from the quarters which believe that distribution/packaging costs would negate any savings, and the supermarkets/grocery stores dislike it as it means less is being purchased through them, and some who believe it destroys dignity and brings back images of the soup kitchen lines from the Depression era.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

USDA has put forward a proposal to replace part of the food stamp program with food.

The idea is that food stamp aid (actually, a debit card) is cut in half, and instead, food packages consisting of US-produced food is distributed. The government would purchase the food at wholesale, and deliver to the States. The States would figure out the distribution from there.

Assuming that the food is reasonably well purchased and selected to be reasonably healthy, it seems like a good idea. There is opposition from the quarters which believe that distribution/packaging costs would negate any savings, and the supermarkets/grocery stores dislike it as it means less is being purchased through them, and some who believe it destroys dignity and brings back images of the soup kitchen lines from the Depression era.

What advantages are supposed to accrue, and to whom, from making this change?