US Politics- Stay Gold, Pony Boy

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, butterbumps! said:

So you prefer Trump to have unfettered power to pursue his policies, because you see yourself benefitting from them.   We should all get in line behind the president to empower him without challenge, because you believe it serves you personally.   

At least in terms of guns, conservative Supreme Court appointments and immigration.   Yet you've stated that he wasn't your preferred candidate.    Doesn't that mean he has positions and policies you don't agree with that you'd prefer he isn't empowered to fully pursue?   You don't think empowering him to the fullest extent might backfire?

i guess, why is this all or nothing for you?  

I don't think Trump gives two shits about "nominating someone in the Scalia mold".  I think he cares about personal loyalty that will be what his nominations play on.

[Mexal]

44 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!11111111111!!!!!!!!!1

In the golden era of lobbying, where every US politician earns huge sums on de facto legalized bribery, are you seriously proposing that public service (at the top level in US at least) is about making sacrifices? 

The median net worth of a member of Congress was $1.03 million in 2013

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/01/12/making-it-rain-members-of-congress-are-mostly-millionaires/

These people are rich before they enter office, not because of the office. I'm sure there is some bribery going on in terms of airplane rides, greens fees, etc, but there has never been a situation in history where a President owns a multi-billion dollar country and can easily receive bribes from foreign countries. Comparing a net worth of 1 million dollars with clear conflict of interest and anti-bribery laws to a net worth of 5 billion with no conflict of interest laws seems like a bit of a stretch doesn't it? The laws exist to avoid kleptocracy. It's clear that Trump cares more about making money then he does about the Presidency and that should worry you. He'll sell you down the river for a $5 bill.

[butterbumps!]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't think Trump gives two shits about "nominating someone in the Scalia mold".  I think he cares about personal loyalty that will be what his nominations play on.

Well that was my suspicion before the election too, though he's been going very republican in all but a few appointments so maybe a standard issue justice is coming.    

But I've always been curious what those wanting a conservative justice hope to gain from it.    other than abortion and gay marriage reversals (and I know those aren't issues to everyone wanting a conservative anyway), what does "I'm voting for the conservative appointment" mean?    

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Mr Fixit said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!11111111111!!!!!!!!!1

In the golden era of lobbying, where every US politician earns huge sums on de facto legalized bribery, are you seriously proposing that public service (at the top level in US at least) is about making sacrifices? 

The median net worth of a member of Congress was $1.03 million in 2013

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/01/12/making-it-rain-members-of-congress-are-mostly-millionaires/

Yes, these things happen. And when they happen, we don't regard it as a good example of public service. We regard it as a problem, a failure to live up to the ethos of public service. Trump's conflicts qualify as such too, but to a greater degree and in a more brazen way.

[Ice Queen]

4 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Now we're touting Dick Cheney as a model for ethical behaviour? The mind boggles.

LOL Agree. Rex Tillerson is a much better model for how you handle this, as much as it pains me to say it. 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure why this angle is necessary.

But in any case, I believe people are divided into interest groups, yes. Interest groups who in many cases (not all, but many) are battling each other in a zero sum game. Meaning what one gains, the other loses. My views are constantly evolving, by the way. I take in a lot of new information, and yes, my views get shaped by it on an ongoing basis.

In any case, let's refer to conservatives and liberals as two such interest groups, for the sake of trying to answer your question. Two "tribes", if you will.

It's sad that the polarization of politics has come to this because in actuality, liberals and conservatives are not two very different interest groups. They have opposite values and principles on a number of issues, but it doesn't change the fact that most people have the same economic interests.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So, for the sake of a conservative supreme court justice, 2nd amendment protections, immigration control, etc. (basically, a lot of important issues to conservatives), I guess I am obviously willing to be less critical of him than if he opposed these positions.

It's hard for me to read this without getting riled up and I'm not even American. I just genuinely don't get it.
Why is it so important to have guns? Or rather, since the 2nd amendment itself is hardly in any kind of danger, why is it so important to fight any regulations that might have a chance of bringing the violence down? It boggles the mind. And deep down, this is just an illusion of liberty.
Seen from the outside gun culture is some kind of primitive expression of masculinity coupled with some vague political principles which the right to bear arms actually only pays lip service to. But having guns doesn't give one anything save the illusion of empowerment, which has only become so important in recent decades because most Americans have in fact lost any meaningful power, whether political or economic.
And a conservative Supreme Court? What it will do is mostly give more rights to big business. Controversial issues like abortion, gay rights or affirmative action are just a smokescreen to change the law where it really matters, i.e. for wealth to be even more all-powerful. It's probably too bad such issues aren't solved through federalism.

I guess I think this division of American society between liberals and conservatives only obscures the real issues of inequality and corruption. And it's absolutely heartbreaking to see someone saying that they care more about abstract values and principles than very real issues of corruption and conflicts of interests.

[Gertrude]

32 minutes ago, Mexal said:

It's clear that Trump cares more about making money then he does about the Presidency and that should worry you. He'll sell you down the river for a $5 bill.

This is the main problem I have with how he's handling his business. He's got clear priorities, and it ain't us. OK, so what he's doing is legal. Fantastic. How much time and resources did he divert to covering his ass to do exactly what he wanted to do rather than preparing himself for the challenges of the office he is about to take? We've got at least 4 years to look forward to Trump finding the loopholes and hidey holes in the rules and regs concerning the Executive Branch. He's gonna use them for his benefit, and not ours.

[LongRider]

I've been reading the headlines and short snippets on this an find it worrying.  At anyrate, here goes;

Quote

Sen. Sessions Says Secular Attorneys May Not Having an Equal Claim to Truth During an exchange with Sheldon Whitehouse, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's nominee for Attorney General, appeared to say that atheists and secular people didn't have an "equal claim" to knowing the truth.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4643936/sen-sessions-says-secular-attorneys-may-equal-claim-truth

As a secular person I find this troubling.  An Attorney General needs to be fair to all people and try to avoid bias.  Also, what about his potential boss?  I don't remember any but the weakest attempts by Trump to bring in some religious cred to the campaign.  Besides, believer or secular, Trump is one hell of a liar.  So Mr. Sessions, what about your boss and his lies?

[all swedes are racist]

What the fuck is the matter with dems in the senate? While getting 12 republicans on board with an amendment to allow the import of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, 13 democrats voted it down. 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00020

do these spineless weasels hate their jobs  so much?

 

[Mexal]

Now Trump is using his twitter to advertise for businesses of people who talk well about him on Fox News. Fun times.

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What is the supposed to do? I don't think it is reasonable to expect him to sell off his life's work before he can be president. Short of letting go of his shares in his businesses, I'd say he has done about as much as he can to create a "Chinese Wall" between himself and his business interests.

Yes I actually expect for Trump to separate himself in a manner the people that deal with ethics will be satisfy.

I expect for he wanted to be President of the United States.  

All this is a another moment where things change for Trump instead of him.

Ethics are not only about legalities.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Can anyone state the difference from the dossier Buzzfeed release and sites like Infowars? I took the M.O of these sites was to release unverifiable information that get presented through a ideological and sensationalist lens.  Also when people clamor for all info from intelligence does it not include also unverifiable information?

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Can anyone state the difference from the dossier Buzzfeed release and sites like Infowars? I took the M.O of these sites was to release unverifiable information that get presented through a ideological and sensationalist lens.  Also when people clamor for all info from intelligence does it not include also unverifiable information?

Buzzfeed did not claim that what they were releasing was true, and indicated that it might not be.  Infowars claims that what it releases is true.

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 minute ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Buzzfeed did not claim that what they were releasing was true, and indicated that it might not be.  Infowars claims that what it releases is true.

 

1 minute ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Buzzfeed did not claim that what they were releasing was true, and indicated that it might not be.  Infowars claims that what it releases is true.

So Buzzfeed is getting sh*t over informing their readers and being honest.

Typical in so many ways.

[Mexal]

22 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

So Buzzfeed is getting sh*t over informing their readers and being honest.

Typical in so many ways.

Well, they're getting shit for releasing unverified intelligence that no one else wanted to release. But yes, they were honest that it was unverified, could be wrong and should not be taken as truth.

[Werthead]

Essentially it's PigGate+, except that PigGate didn't have national security implications.

[Ice Queen]

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Well, they're getting shit for releasing unverified intelligence that no one else wanted to release. But yes, they were honest that it was unverified, could be wrong and should not be taken as truth.

But it's just fine when WikiLeaks does it...their info is gold no matter what!

[Mexal]

Just now, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

But it's just fine when WikiLeaks does it...their info is gold no matter what!

Well that's the hypocrisy around all this. 

[Ice Queen]

Just now, Mexal said:

Well that's the hypocrisy around all this. 

I know. It's getting to be too much and I can't stop myself from overstating the obvious.  

[mormont]

It's far from the only hypocrisy, of course. So many people, Trump included, who have spent years denigrating their opponents by innuendo and rumour, but are now suffering a fit of the vapours over how people could possibly give any time to an allegation without independently verifiable sources.

Let's put it this way: next time Trump uses the phrase 'I hear' or 'people say' on his Twitter feed, I expect to see Republicans demanding that he name his source.