US Politics: Kill (the) Bill

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Please explain how the rollback of Obamacare, coupled with tax cuts for the rich and taking a chainsaw to Medicare, constitutes the "end of functional democracy?"

Why would I? I didn't say that. Talk to someone else about it.

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 Would I have been avidly against it and thought it was a huge blow for progressivism, as well as the social safety net in general?  Of course and fuck yes.  But you guys seem to equate your side losing with "the end of democracy."

No, I equate having a POTUS that is completely immune from prosecution of any crime that he might commit while his party is actively aiding his actions combined with a fairly quick erosion of fundamental rights the 'end of democracy'. You should be terrified that there exists  basically no check and balance that would stop a competent POTUS and majority party from passing basically any law they choose, especially once Gorsuch gets in. The AHCA is not really the point, and in a lot of ways it's the worst example because people hate losing healthcare and entitlements. Do something else - say, like a very broad anti-immigrant bill, or a very broad muslim roundup, and you'll see much less negative support in the community for it. (as an example, both muslim bans had positive support, compared to the 17% for the AHCA).

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 I said right when Trump was elected he was going to have a very hard time getting much done due to the intransigent factions within the GOP and his own incompetence.  Now that's coming to fruition, and the sky is still falling.  It's becoming very difficult to take seriously.

Legislatively that's possibly true for a while, though again - him being a smidgen more competent and his party being a smidgen more willing to deal would have solved that. But that's the thing I've been pointing out - he has a LOT of power outside of the ability to sign legislation, and congress being unable to do anything doesn't slow down a great many things that he wants to do or has done. 

This will change somewhat when conservatives start working on policies that are broadly more popular. Tax reform is a lot more on their principles. Cutting huge swaths of government is as well. Privatization of education, environmental concerns, security, NASA - these are all a lot easier sells. 

Anyway,  here's the tl;dr basis: the US is at a point where a majority party holding POTUS can do almost anything they choose to, and provided it doesn't take away certain things it almost certainly will have no issue getting through. Furthermore, because of the way the parties are right now, that POTUS can be taking bribes from foreign governments, openly lining their pockets, openly be uncaring of ethics considerations and can essentially be selling the US to whoever pays them the most, and the party in power almost certainly won't even think about investigating him, much less charging him. We've still got most of that in play right now; all we missed out on is some really bad legislation being killed that no one really cared that much about. It doesn't get any better from here.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Please explain how the rollback of Obamacare, coupled with tax cuts for the rich and taking a chainsaw to Medicare, constitutes the "end of functional democracy?"  Would I have been avidly against it and thought it was a huge blow for progressivism, as well as the social safety net in general?  Of course and fuck yes.  But you guys seem to equate your side losing with "the end of democracy."  I said right when Trump was elected he was going to have a very hard time getting much done due to the intransigent factions within the GOP and his own incompetence.  Now that's coming to fruition, and the sky is still falling.  It's becoming very difficult to take seriously.

Agree with you regarding this particular bill, but what happens when we get a 9/12? That's going to be the real nightmare. I have to guess that much of this fear is generated by the specter of that sort of event occurring under this current administration. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Agree with you regarding this particular bill, but what happens when we get a 9/12? That's going to be the real nightmare. I have to guess that much of this fear is generated by the specter of that sort of event occurring under this current administration. 

I agree on that front and always have.  Trump in the situation room under such an event scares the absolute shit out of me.

[Kalbear]

Again, this specific bill is not really the issue at all, and never was. The issue for me is simply how obviously simple it is for their power to massively erode the democracy, and how demonstrably there was no check against it save their own personal incompetence.

Take that incompetence away, and there's nothing else to stop it. And that should absolutely scare you.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, this specific bill is not really the issue at all, and never was. The issue for me is simply how obviously simple it is for their power to massively erode the democracy, and how demonstrably there was no check against it save their own personal incompetence.

Take that incompetence away, and there's nothing else to stop it. And that should absolutely scare you.

The irony of course being that Republicans believe that only Democrats can be guilty of unconstitutional executive overreach. Republican executive overreach is always constitutional and always necessary for national security / protection of FREEDOM!!.

[Kalbear]

Also, to be really, really clear - this is a problem on either side, and was a problem with Obama. I understood why he chose to do it - especially in his second term - and in his hands I largely trusted him - but that's a real problem no matter what. In that respect if you believe that Clinton would have been as likely to abuse power as some of her detractors said she was, Trump was something of a better choice - in that Clinton would have been far more competent in abusing power. I don't think that is who she is, mind you, but that'd be the argument.

It's made it really clear that we need a rebalancing in many places or it's just a matter of time until things fall apart.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why would I? I didn't say that. Talk to someone else about it.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but that was clearly the implication of what I quoted from your post.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, I equate having a POTUS that is completely immune from prosecution of any crime that he might commit while his party is actively aiding his actions combined with a fairly quick erosion of fundamental rights the 'end of democracy'. You should be terrified that there exists  basically no check and balance that would stop a competent POTUS and majority party from passing basically any law they choose, especially once Gorsuch gets in.

How is he "completely immune" from prosecution?  Nunes' actions may have been unprecedented and despicable, but that does not preclude the FBI from continuing their investigation, nor the Senate Intelligence Committee, from continuing investigations.  As for the "fairly quick erosion of fundamental rights," I assume you're referring to the Muslim ban - which has been checked by the courts not once but twice now.  I am not terrified precisely because those checks and balances are being employed.  

Further, please describe this "more competent" GOP POTUS that could put together the Freedom Caucus with the Tuesday Group.  That's exactly why they went on their knees to get Ryan to expect the Speakership - they thought he was that guy.  Clearly, that hasn't worked out.  And WTF does Gorsuch have to do with it?  How does a SCOTUS with him erode your rights any more than the previous SCOTUS with Scalia?

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Do something else - say, like a very broad anti-immigrant bill, or a very broad muslim roundup, and you'll see much less negative support in the community for it.

I anxiously await Trump's broad anti-immigration bill and attempting to get that through Congress after GWB and McCain failed.  As for a "broad muslim roundup," I suppose that is possible after a 9/12 event, but certainly not before.

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But that's the thing I've been pointing out - he has a LOT of power outside of the ability to sign legislation, and congress being unable to do anything doesn't slow down a great many things that he wants to do or has done. 

It has been empirically demonstrated by many including myself that presidents are less constrained in unilateral action under unified as opposed to divided government.  That in and of itself should actually be reassuring - it suggests when Congress has divergent preferences with the president, he is more limited in scope on EOs and the like.  As for Trump's use of EOs, again, it has not been outside the norm beyond the aforementioned travel ban.

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Tax reform is a lot more on their principles. Cutting huge swaths of government is as well. Privatization of education, environmental concerns, security, NASA - these are all a lot easier sells. 

Tax cuts are certainly easy sells.  The bolded hardly is.

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

the US is at a point where a majority party holding POTUS can do almost anything they choose to, and provided it doesn't take away certain things it almost certainly will have no issue getting through.

What are these things they'll have no issue getting through?  If they can't pass HCR, what hope do they have beyond tax cuts which of course are always popular.  You've provided no reasoning for your premise.

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but that was clearly the implication of what I quoted from your post.

Well, I didn't mean to imply that. Sorry.

Just now, dmc515 said:

How is he "completely immune" from prosecution?  Nunes' actions may have been unprecedented and despicable, but that does not preclude the FBI from continuing their investigation, nor the Senate Intelligence Committee, from continuing investigations.  As for the "fairly quick erosion of fundamental rights," I assume you're referring to the Muslim ban - which has been checked by the courts not once but twice now.  I am not terrified precisely because those checks and balances are being employed.  

The FBI can investigate all they want, but the justice department cannot bring charges against POTUS by law. Nor can the FBI. The SIC can also continue investigations - if they choose to, mind you, and only if their Republican chair chooses to. 

I'm not just referring to the Muslim ban, which is likely to be upheld legally at this point. I'm also talking about deportations of DACA people, immigration raids on people who had been checking in on a regular basis, on escalation of war that resulted in massive civilian casualties without the slightest bit of congressional approval, of removing overwatch on state and local police, of stopping suits against environmental issues, of having massive anticompetitive acts against businesses competing against Trump. That's what, day 65? Not so bad.

Just now, dmc515 said:

Further, please describe this "more competent" GOP POTUS that could put together the Freedom Caucus with the Tuesday Group.  That's exactly why they went on their knees to get Ryan to expect the Speakership - they thought he was that guy.  Clearly, that hasn't worked out.  And WTF does Gorsuch have to do with it?  How does a SCOTUS with him erode your rights any more than the previous SCOTUS with Scalia?

The easiest one to do is a quickie tax reform. The HFC and the Tuesday folks will both likely be on board with it. A more competent POTUS would have gone for infrastructure first to gain some political capital, then gone for tax reform, and then dealt with healthcare later. Again, this isn't about healthcare. This is about how an exceptionally shitty piece of legislation failed not because of any check, but because of a weak POTUS and a bad collection of people who didn't care about it. 

Gorsuch helps shitty legislation because unlike Scalia, he has a much broader record of voting for corporate and government overreach and voting against the little guy. Plus Scalia was a product of the old way - where you had specific views on law, not specific views on ideology. Do you really believe Gorsuch would have been picked if he wasn't a conservative in the vein of, say, Thomas or Alito?

Also, if you haven't noticed, SCOTUS rulings have been getting pretty bad as far as a lot of these rights - like that whole citizen's united thing, or allowing corporations to be able to restrict what healthcare they provide on religious grounds. Gorsuch will make that worse.

Just now, dmc515 said:

I anxiously await Trump's broad anti-immigration bill and attempting to get that through Congress after GWB and McCain failed.  As for a "broad muslim roundup," I suppose that is possible after a 9/12 event, but certainly not before.

Different times, different man, and definitely different congresses. Also, it's not just bills, mind you - it's EOs and the like. Having Gorsuch on the SC and being able to nominate 200+ judges across the board and basically have 25% of all higher-court appointees be Trump appointees is going to shape things.

Just now, dmc515 said:

It has been empirically demonstrated by many including myself that presidents are less constrained in unilateral action under unified as opposed to divided government.  That in and of itself should actually be reassuring - it suggests when Congress has divergent preferences with the president, he is more limited in scope on EOs and the like.  As for Trump's use of EOs, again, it has not been outside the norm beyond the aforementioned travel ban.

Given that congress is largely in line with him on most things I don't see how this is assuring.

And again, it's not just EOs. His organizations setting policy is just as effective. 

Just now, dmc515 said:

Tax cuts are certainly easy sells.  The bolded hardly is.

None of the bolded require congressional approval. 

Just now, dmc515 said:

What are these things they'll have no issue getting through?  If they can't pass HCR, what hope do they have beyond tax cuts which of course are always popular.  You've provided no reasoning for your premise.

I'll take this up in the next post.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

26 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

How is he "completely immune" from prosecution?  Nunes' actions may have been unprecedented and despicable, but that does not preclude the FBI from continuing their investigation, nor the Senate Intelligence Committee, from continuing investigations.

 The fact that Nunes hasn't been kicked off this investigation (or that he was ever even part of it after being a Trump shill) certainly suggests that he is fairly unassailable at this point though, doncha think? 

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

What are these things they'll have no issue getting through?  If they can't pass HCR, what hope do they have beyond tax cuts which of course are always popular.  You've provided no reasoning for your premise.

Okay, I get that I'm using too much shorthand here. Here are the various premises I'm operating on:

• The majority party controls the legislative and executive branches.
• They also have significant power to affect the judicial branches.

My statement is that the PARTY can get what they want done within these constraints, without much in the way of checks being done. Here are some of the things that they can do or have done already:

• Radically change environmental policy by essentially not enforcing most of the laws in place or not monitoring things. This is what they've already started doing. It requires no EO, no money, and no legislation. (they can even basically kill the EPA in this way).
• Radically change educational policy by doing similar things to the first point. Privatization, no enforcement of IDEA laws, all of these are easy.
• Radically change NASA goals. Again, no EO required. No budget unless they want more of something. No legislation.
• Pass quite a lot of tax related stuff. This requires legislation, but only 50%. For Republicans this should be very easy, and should be a no-brainer for them to vote for even with the divergent views, because (unlike healthcare reform) this is something Republicans actually do care about.
• Punishing states/local areas in various ways. Want to end pot legalization? You can do that trivially by simply raiding every single shop and farmer that is selling/making it. There's 20% of the population that loses that. Want to punish sanctuary cities? Raid hospitals, churches, and marketplaces.
• Pass federal voting restrictions. Again, wouldn't be hard for a party to get some version of this.
• Immigration bans aren't that hard, and even the threat of them is already bearing fruit. You'll likely see more of these in the future.
• Crackdowns in religious communities is also not that hard, and you'll likely see more of this as policy - but not as law. You won't see muslim registration, but you'll see a lot more anti-Muslim rhetoric, you'll see a lot more denying of specific visas from Muslims (individuals aren't protected), you'll see a lot more pressure against H1-B votes, etc. Again, zero legislation. 
• Escalation of war. We're already at the point where civilian casualties are shooting up as the US goes into indiscriminate bombing mode. No legislation required.

Now, a good question here is what any of this has to do with Republicans - couldn't Democrats do this too if they were in the same situation? and the answer is YES, they could have. The only thing that stopped them was societal norms and political norms, as well as their personal policy goals. And that's what I'm afraid of - that there is nothing that stops POTUS from committing a war crime right now, and there is a reasonable case to be made that even if he did, congress would not vote at all to impeach/indict. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The FBI can investigate all they want, but the justice department cannot bring charges against POTUS by law. Nor can the FBI. The SIC can also continue investigations - if they choose to, mind you, and only if their Republican chair chooses to. 

If you think the investigation is going to go away simply because Trump enjoys unified government, that's fairly naive.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm also talking about deportations of DACA people, immigration raids on people who had been checking in on a regular basis, on escalation of war that resulted in massive civilian casualties without the slightest bit of congressional approval, of removing overwatch on state and local police, of stopping suits against environmental issues, of having massive anticompetitive acts against businesses competing against Trump.

There's a lot there.  I agree with the first two - deportation of DACA and increased raids.  The rest is your penchant for hyperbole - escalation of war resulting in MASSIVE civilian casualties?  Please cite.  State and local police have been emboldened, not limited.  I may be guilty of handwaving some of this stuff because most of it was expected when ANY GOP president took office, but you seem like you're auditioning to replace Olbermann.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gorsuch helps shitty legislation because unlike Scalia, he has a much broader record of voting for corporate and government overreach and voting against the little guy. Plus Scalia was a product of the old way - where you had specific views on law, not specific views on ideology. Do you really believe Gorsuch would have been picked if he wasn't a conservative in the vein of, say, Thomas or Alito?

No to the last question but you are seriously fooling yourself on Scalia.  Scalia wasn't some "purist" on the Court in any way.  He was the most hardcore ideological conservative there was, and a very effective writer and advocate to boot - apparently he fooled you.

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

A more competent POTUS would have gone for infrastructure first to gain some political capital, then gone for tax reform, and then dealt with healthcare later.

Like I said, I agree tax "reform," at least IRT tax cuts, are obviously going to unite the GOP.  As for infrastructure - I'm not sure what exactly he has in mind, but it's either going to encounter widespread opposition for at least one of the factions or actually be palatable to Dems and, frankly, myself.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

if you haven't noticed, SCOTUS rulings have been getting pretty bad as far as a lot of these rights - like that whole citizen's united thing, or allowing corporations to be able to restrict what healthcare they provide on religious grounds.

If you've noticed, SCOTUS is not quite as simple as that - such as incorporating SSM as a federal right and upholding Obamacare since Citizen's United.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Different times, different man, and definitely different congresses.

Right - this GOP Congress is much more difficult to unite and much more inexperienced in governance and consensus building.  The latter goes for the president too.

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, it's not just bills, mind you - it's EOs and the like. Having Gorsuch on the SC and being able to nominate 200+ judges across the board and basically have 25% of all higher-court appointees be Trump appointees is going to shape things.

I've addressed the EOs previously.  As for Trumps ability to nominate judges - dems the breaks.  That's what happens when the other side wins the presidency.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Given that congress is largely in line with him on most things I don't see how this is assuring.

And again, it's not just EOs. His organizations setting policy is just as effective. 

Quote

Congress is most certainly NOT in line with him on infrastructure, most of his immigration views, and trade.  Those encapsulate his policy agenda beyond tax cuts.  Bureaucratic rulemaking, presidential proclamations, signing statements, etc. are part and parcel of unilateral executive action.  Is it a growing concern?  Sure, that's why I've been studying it for the better part of a decade.  Again, I've yet to see how Trump has done anything outside the norm in this regard beyond the travel ban.  If you have specifics, please direct me.

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

None of the bolded require congressional approval.

That entirely depends on the scale.  If you're talking entirely, they most certainly do.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 The fact that Nunes hasn't been kicked off this investigation (or that he was ever even part of it after being a Trump shill) certainly suggests that he is fairly unassailable at this point though, doncha think? 

I think he's in part benefited from all the other shit that went on last week.  If he continues to get a pass, sure.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Here are the various premises I'm operating on:

• The majority party controls the legislative and executive branches.
• They also have significant power to affect the judicial branches.

I was referring to your premise that Trump (or any GOP president) can easily unite the intraparty factions in order to enact major legislation on virtually any policy priority beyond tax cuts.  You have yet to provide reasoning on how he will do so.

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Radically change environmental policy by essentially not enforcing most of the laws in place or not monitoring things. This is what they've already started doing. It requires no EO, no money, and no legislation. (they can even basically kill the EPA in this way).

Just as Reagan and Dubya attempted to in the past, this will happen for the time being.  Meanwhile, the careerist civil servants will continue to do their jobs in spite of orders from the political appointee leadership and eventually the attempts to kill the EPA will fail.  It's happened before and it will happen again.

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Radically change educational policy by doing similar things to the first point. Privatization, no enforcement of IDEA laws, all of these are easy.

First, Devos' ability to do much of anything has already been gravely damaged by her horrific congressional testimony.  Second, I doubt Trump will back her if she tries anything that would encounter opposition from the very powerful teachers union because he doesn't really GAF about this.

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Radically change NASA goals. Again, no EO required. No budget unless they want more of something. No legislation.

Huh.  Liberals used to actually be against NASA.  Anyway, this is totally out of left field, please cite any efforts to radically change NASA's goals - I'm honestly interested.

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Pass quite a lot of tax related stuff.

Agreed.

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Punishing states/local areas in various ways. Want to end pot legalization? You can do that trivially by simply raiding every single shop and farmer that is selling/making it. There's 20% of the population that loses that. Want to punish sanctuary cities? Raid hospitals, churches, and marketplaces.

This is a great way to incur a lot of political cost without much benefit - which means it's very unlikely.  How would Trump using the DEA to fuck with legalized states aid his political agenda in any way?  As far as punishing sanctuary cities, sure, I'm sure Trump would be down with that.  You've yet to outline precisely how that would be undertaken.

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Pass federal voting restrictions. Again, wouldn't be hard for a party to get some version of this.

Yes, it would in fact be very hard.  Voting laws at the federal level are incredibly difficult to change.  You would need a supermajority in Congress and/or an amendment.  Good luck.

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Immigration bans aren't that hard, and even the threat of them is already bearing fruit. You'll likely see more of these in the future.

Fair enough, but they're more encountering obstinance from the courts than bearing fruit right now, no?

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Crackdowns in religious communities is also not that hard, and you'll likely see more of this as policy - but not as law. You won't see muslim registration, but you'll see a lot more anti-Muslim rhetoric, you'll see a lot more denying of specific visas from Muslims (individuals aren't protected), you'll see a lot more pressure against H1-B votes, etc. Again, zero legislation. 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  In terms of anti-Muslim rhetoric and denying visas to non-citizens, sure.  In terms of any actual stated policy "cracking down" on religious communities, of course that's not going to fly.

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Escalation of war. We're already at the point where civilian casualties are shooting up as the US goes into indiscriminate bombing mode. No legislation required.

Obviously, the president has unmitigated war powers.  I'm still curious where you're seeing this massive increase of civilian casualties and bombing campaigns as compared to the Obama administration.

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And that's what I'm afraid of - that there is nothing that stops POTUS from committing a war crime right now, and there is a reasonable case to be made that even if he did, congress would not vote at all to impeach/indict. 

Well, one person's war crime is another's SOP.  "All wars are crimes."  Lotsa people say Bush committed war crimes.  Even more say Nixon did.  On the other side, both Clinton and Obama did technically commit war crimes depending on your reading of the Geneva Conventions.  None were impeached/indicted - at least because of that.

[Kalbear]

Here's the Mosul bombing that killed over 200 civilians.

Potentially 300 more civilians killed.

Some nice charts on the scale of the bombing increases.

[Kalbear]

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I was referring to your premise that Trump (or any GOP president) can easily unite the intraparty factions in order to enact major legislation on virtually any policy priority beyond tax cuts.  You have yet to provide reasoning on how he will do so.

I didn't say he could. Again, that was your premise, not mine. 

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Just as Reagan and Dubya attempted to in the past, this will happen for the time being.  Meanwhile, the careerist civil servants will continue to do their jobs in spite of orders from the political appointee leadership and eventually the attempts to kill the EPA will fail.  It's happened before and it will happen again.

I'm fairly certain that at no time was anyone appointed to the EPA that was as hostile as Pruitt. It's already happening, mind you - to the point where they're having firing parties there as they find the 'loyal' people to Trump.

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

First, Devos' ability to do much of anything has already been gravely damaged by her horrific congressional testimony.  Second, I doubt Trump will back her if she tries anything that would encounter opposition from the very powerful teachers union because he doesn't really GAF about this.

He doesn't care about that sort of thing. He never has.

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Huh.  Liberals used to actually be against NASA.  Anyway, this is totally out of left field, please cite any efforts to radically change NASA's goals - I'm honestly interested.

Per my friends, NASA's mission is entirely being focused away from earth sciences and towards travel, while cutting any contractors that they have. They work at NASA. 

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

This is a great way to incur a lot of political cost without much benefit - which means it's very unlikely.  How would Trump using the DEA to fuck with legalized states aid his political agenda in any way?  As far as punishing sanctuary cities, sure, I'm sure Trump would be down with that.  You've yet to outline precisely how that would be undertaken.

Sessions has said he wants to do it, Trump has said it's fine, it's a bunch of liberal states that he isn't going to win, and it fires up his base and shows he's the law and order guy. You are also assuming that there is such a calculus like 'political cost'. Given what you've seen in the last 60 days - where he spends capital on the muslim ban, continually insults Schumer and Pelosi, calls for wire tap investigations on Obama - what makes you think he'll behave in some sort of political calculus? What makes you think it matters?

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yes, it would in fact be very hard.  Voting laws at the federal level are incredibly difficult to change.  You would need a supermajority in Congress and/or an amendment.  Good luck.

Amusingly, there's good evidence it could be done via reconciliation. I didn't know that until recently, either.

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Fair enough, but they're more encountering obstinance from the courts than bearing fruit right now, no?

Not really. Only on the muslim ban. The rest of it hasn't been challenged much. 

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  In terms of anti-Muslim rhetoric and denying visas to non-citizens, sure.  In terms of any actual stated policy "cracking down" on religious communities, of course that's not going to fly.

Says who? Who, precisely, is going to enforce that? The DoJ?

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Obviously, the president has unmitigated war powers.  I'm still curious where you're seeing this massive increase of civilian casualties and bombing campaigns as compared to the Obama administration.

See before.

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well, one person's war crime is another's SOP.  "All wars are crimes."  Lotsa people say Bush committed war crimes.  Even more say Nixon did.  On the other side, both Clinton and Obama did technically commit war crimes depending on your reading of the Geneva Conventions.  None were impeached/indicted - at least because of that.

I'm not talking about incidental stuff that is horrifying but SOP. I'm talking about, say, a nuclear attack on Raqqa. Execution of prisoners en masse. That sort of thing. Or, say, Trump knowingly colluding with a foreign government to steal documents and publish them during a campaign. I see zero evidence that anything Trump does would be impeachable. Again, he can't be tried by courts, he can't even have charges pressed against him. 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Here's the Mosul bombing that killed over 200 civilians.

Potentially 300 more civilians killed.

Some nice charts on the scale of the bombing increases.

Thanks - I particularly appreciated the last link with the charts.  How much of this has to do with Trump and how much has to do with the current (escalating) objectives in Mosul and the surrounding areas that have little to do with him?  Based on the links you provided CENTCOM itself seems to be reevaluating their strategy.

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

Thanks - I particularly appreciated the last link with the charts.  How much of this has to do with Trump and how much has to do with the current (escalating) objectives in Mosul and the surrounding areas that have little to do with him?  Based on the links you provided CENTCOM itself seems to be reevaluating their strategy.

CENTCOM was specifically told to have more free reign by POTUS. I think there's a better article out there, but here's the one I could find.

Quote

 

Already, President Donald Trump has granted a Pentagon request to declare parts of three provinces of Yemen to be an “area of active hostilities” where looser battlefield rules apply. That opened the door to a Special Operations raid in late January in which several civilians were killed, as well as to the largest-ever series of U.S. airstrikes targeting Yemen-based Qaida extremists, starting nearly two weeks ago, the officials said.

Trump is also expected to sign off soon on a similar Pentagon proposal to designate parts of Somalia to be another such battlefield-style zone for 180 days, removing constraints on airstrikes and raids targeting people suspected of being extremists with the al-Qaida-linked group Al Shabab, they said.

Inside the White House, the temporary suspension of the limits for parts of Yemen and Somalia is seen as a test run while the government considers whether to more broadly rescind or relax the Obama-era rules, said the officials, who described the internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity.

 

 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm fairly certain that at no time was anyone appointed to the EPA that was as hostile as Pruitt. It's already happening, mind you - to the point where they're having firing parties there as they find the 'loyal' people to Trump.

Clearly, you're not acquainted with Neil Gorsuch's mother.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He doesn't care about that sort of thing. He never has.

And my point was he also doesn't really care about education reform.  No point in bothering if he's going to have to drive throw a bunch of bitchy teachers.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Per my friends, NASA's mission is entirely being focused away from earth sciences and towards travel, while cutting any contractors that they have. They work at NASA. 

That's interesting.  I have a friend who started work at NASA a few years ago myself.  Will have to regain touch.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sessions has said he wants to do it, Trump has said it's fine, it's a bunch of liberal states that he isn't going to win, and it fires up his base and shows he's the law and order guy. You are also assuming that there is such a calculus like 'political cost'. Given what you've seen in the last 60 days - where he spends capital on the muslim ban, continually insults Schumer and Pelosi, calls for wire tap investigations on Obama - what makes you think he'll behave in some sort of political calculus? What makes you think it matters?

Colorado is much more than a "liberal" state.  And Trump most certainly does have such a calculus like political cost - arguably that's his only calculus.  If he didn't, why didn't he hold true on his ultimatum and let the House vote on the AHCA bill on Friday?

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Amusingly, there's good evidence it could be done via reconciliation. I didn't know that until recently, either.

I await such evidence.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really. Only on the muslim ban. The rest of it hasn't been challenged much. 

Um, the muslim ban was what I was referring to.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Says who? Who, precisely, is going to enforce that? The DoJ?

You mean if there's stated policy cracking down on specifically on religious communities?  The courts will undoubtedly enforce against such actions, after the ACLU brings forth a plethora of lawsuits and there's a shitstorm in the media.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I didn't say he could. Again, that was your premise, not mine. 

Also, so if you're conceding that premise doesn't that mean Trump - or any other president for that matter - must work towards consensus building in order enact major policy change beyond warmaking and immigration rules?  Which in turn means there are still competing factions working in their own interest that constrain presidential powers even under unified government?  Which means this is hardly the "end of functional democracy" but rather the extension of the Madisonian paradigm.

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I see zero evidence that anything Trump does would be impeachable. Again, he can't be tried by courts, he can't even have charges pressed against him. 

There's a huge difference between the unresolved issue of how to prosecute a sitting president for crimes and the ability to investigate and pursue impeachment towards a president that has demonstrated misconduct.  The latter has clearly been settled over the past forty years - your concern has little basis beyond freaking out over the cult of personality way in which Trump was elected.  The GOP thought the same thing about Obama.