U.S. Politics: Moscow on the Potomac

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's just a testament to my technological ineptitude. That said, I think I'll leave it up until Cheeto Benito gets run out of town on the rails. I kind of feel like it's a good luck charm at this point.

I disagree. Let's check off what's happened in the last year.

Trump wins the primary

Trump becomes President

Trump destroys the office of the Presidency

The Warriors choke like dogs in the NBA Finals.

And if you don't take that hat off, inept Maester of Memes, they'll choke again to President LeBron James!

 

[OldGimletEye]

Now you may not care for the Republican Party because of its pandering to white nationalism, attitude towards women, and it's anti-science hysteria and superstition.

But, the reason, why you hold your nose and pull the lever for the Rs is cause it’s the party of growth. The party of business . It’s got this stuff down pat.

And it makes sense for the Party O’ Bidness to nominate a bidness guy to manage this awesome growth. You know, the type of guy that's got a steely eyed sense of reality that's been honed because of his awesome bidness experience. The type of guy that doesn't need your stinkin models or empirical evidence. Kind of like Bernie Marcus. He knows things, you peasants will never understand. Don't bother with your Vector Auto Regressions, peasants, Bernie knows tax cuts for people like himself will produce awesomey awesome bestus ever growth. And Trump knows things too.

Amirite? I'm bettin I am.

Okay, well maybe I'm slightly off here.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/in-forthcoming-trump-budget-rosy-forecasts-of-economic-growth-likely-to

Quote

President Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget is due to be released this month.  If it reflects the very rosy assumptions of economic growth for the coming decade that he and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have been speaking about, its projections of federal revenues and deficits under Trump policies will be highly unrealistic, with serious implications for coming debates over tax reform, spending priorities, and deficit reduction.  Secretary Mnuchin claimed recently that the Trump economic plan — including its large tax cuts — “will pay for itself with growth.”[1]  But that claim rings hollow under more realistic growth assumptions.

Quote

As a candidate, President Trump boasted that his economic plan “would conservatively boost growth to 3.5 percent per year on average  . . . with the potential to reach a 4% growth rate.”[3]  And Secretary Mnuchin has said that under President Trump’s policies, economic growth will pick up to “3 percent or higher.”[4]

Quote

For example, the last Obama budget, released in 2016, projected that sustainable economic growth after 2018 would be 0.3 percentage points higher than CBO was projecting.  The average longer-term growth forecast of the over 50 private forecasters compiled by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators was 0.2 percentage points higher than CBO’s.  But the difference between the forecast in the forthcoming Trump budget and CBO’s is expected to far exceed the differences in prior administrations’ budgets over the past three decades, and flies in the face of standard analyses of the economy’s future growth potential.

But, he's gonna run it like a bidness!!!!

Quote

Once excess unemployment has been eliminated and capacity utilization is back to normal, however, the economy’s growth rate is constrained by growth in the potential labor force (the number of people who seek work when the labor market is strong) and growth in labor productivity (the output produced per hour worked by that labor force).  These “supply-side” constraints on growth are overwhelmingly determined by demographic and technological factors over which policymakers have limited control.

 

Quote

Economist Edward Lazear, Chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, attempted in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed to offer explanations for how the policies President Trump advocates might boost labor-force growth and productivity enough to achieve 3.2 percent growth, which he cites as the Administration’s target.[25]  Like the Trump team, Lazear touted the purported benefits of “investment-friendly tax policy” and business relief from “burdensome” regulations.  But Lazear concluded that achieving such a high growth rate is “unlikely.”

Me thinks some people want to play team Republican, without looking like a complete fool.

Quote

President Trump has claimed that his tax cuts will provide a dramatically larger boost to economic growth than most analysts believe is realistic, and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has said the Trump economic plan of tax and spending cuts combined with changes to our trade, regulatory, and energy policies will “pay for itself with growth.”  Those claims do not stand up to scrutiny.  Actually achieving such growth would generate substantial additional revenue over what would come in with slower growth.  But adopting unrealistically rosy economic assumptions for one’s policies as a way to avoid offsetting their cost (or scaling them back) will markedly understate the adverse impact those policies have on actual future deficits.   

But, but, given the Party of Bidness' prior record, why wouldn't we think, "America Is Officially Open For Bidness!!!!".

[Fez]

Burr and Warner just stepped out of a senate hearing for an unscheduled meeting with Rosenstein, who came to the Hill to talk to them. Its not clear if Rosenstein went through official channels or is just there on his own; if he's on his own though, things could be about to get very bad for the White House. Burr seems to be one of the only elected Republicans taking all this stuff seriously, but luckily is the one heading up the senate investigation.

[Fez]

Also, it sounds like the Rock is seriously considering running for President (and he's a registered Independent these days). GQ has a cover story on him about it. http://www.gq.com/story/dwayne-johnson-for-president-cover He clearly doesn't want to directly attack Trump yet (which is smart, if he's hoping to get a lot of wrestling fans to vote for him), but its easy to read into what he's saying (which may be an incorrect reading; though he does come out in opposition to the travel ban).

Quote

 

As for what Johnson believes, well, he's remained cagey. People searching for evidence of party loyalty point out that he spoke at the 2000 Republican convention, which is true; but he also attended the Democratic convention that same year, encouraging audiences at both events to vote. These days, he tells me, he's registered as an independent.

“How do you think Donald Trump is doing?” I ask.
“Mmm… With any job you come into, you've got to prove yourself. And…” Johnson pauses, performing lightning-fast mental calibrations. “Personally, I feel that if I were president, poise would be important. Leadership would be important. Taking responsibility for everybody. [If I didn't agree with someone] on something, I wouldn't shut them out. I would actually include them. The first thing we'd do is we'd come and sit down and we'd talk about it. It's hard to categorize right now how I think he's doing, other than to tell you how I would operate, what I would like to see.”

What would you like to see?”

“Right?” Johnson says, laughing. He's obviously a little nervous, plucking at the spandex material stretching across his massive thighs, but he doesn't attempt to end the line of questioning. “I'd like to see a better leadership. I'd like to see a greater leadership. When there's a disagreement, and you have a large group of people that you're in a disagreement with—for example, the media—I feel like it informs me that I could be better. We all have issues, and we all gotta work our shit out. And I feel like one of the qualities of a great leader is not shutting people out. I miss that part. Even if we disagree, we've got to figure it out. Because otherwise I feel, as an American, all I hear and all I see in the example you're setting is ‘Now I'm shutting you out. And you can't come.’ [Disagreement] informs us. The responsibility as president—I [would] take responsibility for everyone. Especially when you disagree with me. If there's a large number of people disagreeing, there might be something I'm not seeing, so let me see it. Let me understand it.”

It's a diplomatic answer. Few people would argue with the value of great leadership. To date, Johnson's embryonic political platform has largely consisted of similar neutral statements, and a robust love for the troops. I want to get more specific.

“What are your thoughts on the Muslim ban?”

“I completely disagree with it,” he says without hesitation. “I believe in our national security to the core, but I don't believe in a ‘ban’ that bans immigrants. I believe in inclusion. Our country was built on that, and it continues to be made strong by that. And the decision felt like a snap judgment. I feel like the majority of, if not all, Americans feel that protection is of huge importance. But the ideology and the execution [of national-security initiatives] is where we really have to be careful of not making those snap decisions, because there's a tail effect... Within 24 hours, we saw a ‘tail effect.’ It grew to heartache, it grew to a great deal of pain, it grew to a great deal of confusion, and it had a lot of people scrambling.”

 

 

[Gertrude]

I had a recent discussion with my brother about outsiders and political office. We are both disgusted by the political establishment and welcome non-traditional candidates and outsiders to the process. He was thinking now that Trump has broken the seal, so to speak, that it would be easier for others to follow in his footsteps. People would see that you don't have to have 'put in your time' and a good candidate with good ideas could prevail. I was more leary of that idea, thinking that Trump's incompetence would make people more wary of unproven leaders. Of course, my view of his incompetence is biased, but I fully trust that he is going to do something disastrous that will make it hard for all but those most stubborn to deny, In response specifically to Johnson running, my view is that if you're serious about running for president, why not show us you deserve our trust by making a difference locally first? Governorship is not a small thing - why shoot for the moon just because you think you can?

eta: in reading this back, it sounds like I am representing my brother as thinking Trump was a 'good candidate'. I can assure you that is not the case, but enough people did, and that's the point.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Governorship is not a small thing - why shoot for the moon just because you think you can?

I think the reason is that if you are governor first, then you are going to be running for president on your record.  If you are a shitty governor, you are going to have trouble being President.  And being Governor (unlike being president) is definitely a lower profile job than Hollywood Leading Man.

[Gertrude]

Just now, Maithanet said:

I think the reason is that if you are governor first, then you are going to be running for president on your record.  If you are a shitty governor, you are going to have trouble being President.  And being Governor (unlike being president) is definitely a lower profile job than Hollywood Leading Man.

That's my point. I get why a person would not want something like a pesky record bogging them down. I didn't word it well, I guess.

While it's easier in some ways for the person running, it's a hell of a lot harder on the people voting for them. We're supposed to trust in that person, when that person hasn't even made a minimal effort to earn that trust. The assumption that I will make is that it's all about the candidate's ego at that point and not a desire to serve the country.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I disagree. Let's check off what's happened in the last year.

Trump wins the primary

Trump becomes President

Trump destroys the office of the Presidency

The Warriors choke like dogs in the NBA Finals.

And if you don't take that hat off, inept Maester of Memes, they'll choke again to President LeBron James!

 

I think context is important here. #1) I'm not concerned with someone scrolling over my profile pic and seeing a MAGA hat. Anyone who's read say 3 of my posts in this thread knows I despise Trump and has to know that it is there ironically. #2) That pic has a very specific reference in that it is the picture the press took of a MAGA hat in Tom Brady's locker. The sole purpose of me using that pic was to troll Pat's fans in the NFL thread, and I believe it served its' intended purpose. On top of all that, I think we now know who wears the pants in the Brady family, as Tommy missed the Pat's trip to the White House. So I'm going to say that in context, the pic has worked as a minor jinx of sorts.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Gertrude said:

I had a recent discussion with my brother about outsiders and political office. We are both disgusted by the political establishment and welcome non-traditional candidates and outsiders to the process. He was thinking now that Trump has broken the seal, so to speak, that it would be easier for others to follow in his footsteps. People would see that you don't have to have 'put in your time' and a good candidate with good ideas could prevail. I was more leary of that idea, thinking that Trump's incompetence would make people more wary of unproven leaders. Of course, my view of his incompetence is biased, but I fully trust that he is going to do something disastrous that will make it hard for all but those most stubborn to deny, In response specifically to Johnson running, my view is that if you're serious about running for president, why not show us you deserve our trust by making a difference locally first? Governorship is not a small thing - why shoot for the moon just because you think you can?

eta: in reading this back, it sounds like I am representing my brother as thinking Trump was a 'good candidate'. I can assure you that is not the case, but enough people did, and that's the point.

Your view (and mine as well) of Trump might be biased, but not by much. He is incompetent. At no point has Trump really demonstrated he has much command of policy issues or has shown any ability how to get governing done. It’s a pity he had never been vetted in another governing role.

I’d would argue, like any other profession, governing does take a skill set which you develop by doing governing. So I am extremely leery of putting a person in the highest office in the land with no prior governing experience.

Every time, I hear suggestions of people like the Rock or Zuckerberg running for president, I cringe. Both these gentleman might very very good at what they do. But, that doesn’t necessarily translate into them being good at governing or having a good grasp of policy issues. I’d much prefer to see how they do in office that is not the Presidency.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Every time, I hear suggestions of people like the Rock or Zuckerberg running for president, I cringe. Both these gentleman might very very good at what they do. But, that doesn’t necessarily translate into them being good at governing or having a good grasp of policy issues. I’d much prefer to see how they do in office that is not the Presidency.

/Obligatory

[Gertrude]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I’d would argue, like any other profession, governing does take a skill set which you develop by doing governing. So I am extremely leery of putting a person in the highest office in the land with no prior governing experience.

Pretend this is what I said in the first place because that's exactly what I was getting at. I may love everything you're saying, but show me you know how to translate that into action.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Gertrude said:

, but show me you know how to translate that into action.

I'm not sure what you mean here. 

ETA.

Never mind. I know what your were saying here. I misread it.

Dumb me.

Sorry.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Also, it sounds like the Rock is seriously considering running for President (and he's a registered Independent these days). GQ has a cover story on him about it. http://www.gq.com/story/dwayne-johnson-for-president-cover He clearly doesn't want to directly attack Trump yet (which is smart, if he's hoping to get a lot of wrestling fans to vote for him), but its easy to read into what he's saying (which may be an incorrect reading; though he does come out in opposition to the travel ban).

 

Uh, I could have sworn he was still a Republican. That said, there's a better retired wrestler to take Trump down:

 

Our President is a clown......

(and evil for wasting beer)

[Kalbear]

Huh.

 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Burr and Warner just stepped out of a senate hearing for an unscheduled meeting with Rosenstein, who came to the Hill to talk to them. Its not clear if Rosenstein went through official channels or is just there on his own; if he's on his own though, things could be about to get very bad for the White House. Burr seems to be one of the only elected Republicans taking all this stuff seriously, but luckily is the one heading up the senate investigation.

The follow-up is that Burr said it had been previously arranged, but because of events this was the only time they could meet.

And they did not talk about whether or not Rosenstein was angry at the WH for pinning the donkey's tail on him.

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Huh.

 

Could be related to Trump/Russia, but there's a good chance this is a separate matter entirely. The Strategic Campaign Group consulting firm is based in Annapolis, and they've been having trouble with the FEC over inappropriate payments to PACs dating back to 2014; this could just be about that.

[HoodedCrow]

Trump is creating chaos, because people were starting to close in on corruption. Tax money is not supposed to go to hotels and golf courses that you own or were created from laundered money.

[Kalbear]

Just now, HoodedCrow said:

Trump is creating chaos, because people were starting to close in on corruption. Tax money is not supposed to go to hotels and golf courses that you own or were created from laundered money.

Well, at least not so brazenly. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Burr and Warner just stepped out of a senate hearing for an unscheduled meeting with Rosenstein, who came to the Hill to talk to them. Its not clear if Rosenstein went through official channels or is just there on his own; if he's on his own though, things could be about to get very bad for the White House. Burr seems to be one of the only elected Republicans taking all this stuff seriously, but luckily is the one heading up the senate investigation.

In an NBC interview that just aired, Trump admitted that he had predetermined that he was going to fire Comey before Rosenstein was even a part of the picture, and would have fired Comey even if Rosenstein said he shouldn't.

Literally everything the WH has been saying for the last few days was a lie.

Also, some how Huckabee-Sanders is even worse at briefings than Spicer.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

I think context is important here. #1) I'm not concerned with someone scrolling over my profile pic and seeing a MAGA hat. Anyone who's read say 3 of my posts in this thread knows I despise Trump and has to know that it is there ironically. #2) That pic has a very specific reference in that it is the picture the press took of a MAGA hat in Tom Brady's locker. The sole purpose of me using that pic was to troll Pat's fans in the NFL thread, and I believe it served its' intended purpose. On top of all that, I think we now know who wears the pants in the Brady family, as Tommy missed the Pat's trip to the White House. So I'm going to say that in context, the pic has worked as a minor jinx of sorts.

Dang dude, I was going cartoonish rodeo clown and you went college professor.