U.S. Politics: Hairpiece In the Middle East Part 2

[LongRider]

So speaking of Trump and keeping people loyal to him, did ya'll see where Chris Christie threw Flynn under the bus, right after he threw Trump there by claiming he told Trump not to hire him. Plus, he said Comey is not a nut job.  Lol, Christie gets his 15 minutes of schadenfreude. 

 

span data-node-flag="true">ahttp://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2017/05/22/christie-comey-not-a-nutjob-i-wouldnt-let-flynn-in-the-white-house-112233

 

[Kalbear]

Now with all I said earlier about the impeachment thing, here's another thing to consider: Trump will only be not impeached if the value he provides is greater than the pain he causes. The weaker he is - and most of it is by himself - the more he'll have to cave to congressional interests, not the other way around. While Trump's approval hurts, it only hurts so much - and that can somewhat be mitigated by turning on him, like Amash and the guy from Florida did already. 

And that turnaround can happen just like that. That's the real key - that the tide can turn in one news cycle. As an example, Republicans supported Nixon all the way through his firing of the special prosecutor and the Saturday Night Special - but they folded when it was revealed he ordered his chief of staff to tell the CIA to end the prosecution.

By all accounts there is more than ample evidence to indicate that Trump could be impeached, for an absurd amount of charges. The best question I have is whether or not Trump knows what thin ice he's skating on right now.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Triskan said:

 

Conclusion:  we are not living in a sane world.

Ahem. It was only the US people who elected him. If it was up to the developed world as a whole he wouldn't have even got close to the service entrance of the White House.

[LongRider]

I would argue that is was some of the US people, and Putin, who elected him.  Let's give Putin his due.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Triskan said:

I swear I've seen tons of conflicting opinion on this and don't know what to think.  Even though I understand the dynamic where it feels unlikely to get the needed amount of GOP Senators I still have a feeling it's possible depending on what new revelations might arise.  

It's only the Republicans that can push him out, so it's down whether they get their fill of him. For them the sooner he's out the better, because the later into his term it gets then the chances of losing the next presidential election. And doing it this year means better chance of holding the majorities in congress.

If the Dems had picked up just one district in those special elections the Republicans would probably have the knives out right now.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

There is almost zero chance that Trump gets impeached in the next 2 years. There's not even a particularly good chance that he is impeached at all, and there's even less of a chance that he gets indicted in the Senate. 

Could we please use the correct term here? Impeachment is the same thing as indictment. If this makes it to the Senate, he's already been indicted. It is up to the Senate to decide whether or not to CONVICT him, not indict him.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ormond said:

Could we please use the correct term here? Impeachment is the same thing as indictment. If this makes it to the Senate, he's already been indicted. It is up to the Senate to decide whether or not to CONVICT him, not indict him.

Fair enough - though my understanding is that indictment is not the same thing as impeachment. But yes, you're right; the House votes on which articles of impeachment to impeach, the senate votes whether or not to convict on each article.

Yeah - note that a grand jury led by Mueller could actually indict Trump in theory, though it would have no real power other than to indicate that he had committed a crime. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, S John said:

I think the best hope for a swing to the left in American politics is for the Democrats to focus on getting their own shit together with a non-geriatric candidate

This something I think about quite a bit and have no answer for. Just what is the game plan here for Democrats?

It seems we have one party that has utterly lost its mind and the other doesn't seem like it could organize a fire in a match factory. It's a bit worrisome.

[IamMe90]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Could we please use the correct term here? Impeachment is the same thing as indictment. If this makes it to the Senate, he's already been indicted. It is up to the Senate to decide whether or not to CONVICT him, not indict him.

"Indictment" is a term specific to criminal proceedings, and "impeachment" is a term specific to legislative proceedings. They are akin with respect to their function within those proceedings, however. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Fair enough - though my understanding is that indictment is not the same thing as impeachment. But yes, you're right; the House votes on which articles of impeachment to impeach, the senate votes whether or not to convict on each article.

Yeah - note that a grand jury led by Mueller could actually indict Trump in theory, though it would have no real power other than to indicate that he had committed a crime. 

Impeachment in the House is the functional equivalent of indictment, Ormond's right here.  Whether Mueller's investigation more formally indicts Trump legally (which he won't) is immaterial - Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate case, obviously that didn't matter.

Anyway, this thread is getting way too ahead of itself.  Let's see what happens.  As has been mentioned, Comey's public testimony should feed the beast sometime soon.

[Paladin of Ice]

So in a single deft move, the Trump administration is looking to screw students, create a new too big to fail financial institution, and aggravate a growing bubble with the power to take the US economy right down.

Quote

The Department of Education said it will hand over the work of servicing federal student loans to one company — from the current roster of nine — in what it says is a money-saving move, triggering concern and criticism from student loan advocates who fear customer service would get worse.

The department estimates the move will save about $130 million in the next five years. "Savings are expected to increase significantly over the life of the contract,” Secretary of Education Betsy De Vos said in a statement. “Borrowers can expect to see a more user-friendly loan servicing interface, shorter email and call response times and an improved payment application method.”

Of about $1.4 trillion of student debt now owed by 44 million Americans, a vast majority of the total — more than $1 trillion — is issued by the Education Department. The government currently outsources the work of handling payment, collection, payment deferment and general customer service to nine private companies.

By granting the business to one company, the government will create "a trillion dollar bank," said Natalia Abrams, executive director of Student Debt Crisis, an advocacy group. "The too-big-to-fail is what we saw with the banks in 2008," she said. "I see this already as an industry out of control, with high profit. And in creating one company...there would be no competition."

...

The government has experience dealing with an exclusive private-sector partner in student loan servicing. From 2003 to 2013, ACS Education Services handled servicing of direct student loans under a Department of Education Contract worth an estimated $2 billion. Acquired by Xerox in 2010, it's now known as Xerox Education Services.

During ACS’ tenure, many borrowers complained that they were overcharged, or faced difficulties getting into income-driven repayment plans that would lower their monthly payments. In Nov. 2016, ACS agreed to a $2.4 million settlement with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office over allegations of those problems and others.

ACS cooperated with the investigation and agreed to make improvements to its student loan servicing practices, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said in an announcement of the settlement.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and two state attorneys general sued Navient in January. The lawsuits alleged that the Delaware-based company, the nation’s largest student loan servicer, processed borrowers’ payments incorrectly, provided inaccurate payment information and failed to act when borrows complained. Additionally, the company allegedly provided incentives to employees who recommended that struggling borrowers postpone payments under an option in which interest continues to pile up, instead of switching to an income-driven payment plan that avoids extra fees.

All to save 130,000,000 out of a 4,000,000,000,000 budget.

For whatever reason the board doesn't want me to be able to turn the text above into a link, so here you go: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/22/trump-grant-student-loan-servicing-work-just-one-company/102004374/

[IamMe90]

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Impeachment in the House is the functional equivalent of indictment, Ormond's right here.  Whether Mueller's investigation more formally indicts Trump legally (which he won't) is immaterial - Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate case, obviously that didn't matter.

Anyway, this thread is getting way too ahead of itself.  Let's see what happens.  As has been mentioned, Comey's public testimony should feed the beast sometime soon.

No, he isn't. Ormond was making a semantic correction when he knew the substance of what Kalbear was saying, but his correction was not, in fact, semantically correct. "Functionally the same" is not same thing as "semantically the same."

Not that any of this matters. But I didn't start it...

[DMC]

1 minute ago, IamMe90 said:

No, he isn't. Ormond was making a semantic correction when he knew the substance of what Kalbear was saying, but his correction was not, in fact, semantically correct. "Functionally the same" is not same thing as "semantically the same."

Not that any of this matters. But I didn't start it...

LOL, fair enough.  Impeach and convict is intro Gov stuff - and it's pretty straightforward that it resembles indict and convict, including the Chief Justice presiding over the Senate hearings.

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

By all accounts there is more than ample evidence to indicate that Trump could be impeached, for an absurd amount of charges. The best question I have is whether or not Trump knows what thin ice he's skating on right now.

He's not skating on thin ice because of this:

5 hours ago, S John said:

Further, I think in today's climate of misinformation it might actually be the worst possible thing that could happen in terms of how divided the US is politically.  Get rid of Trump prematurely and we are talking about tens of millions of Americans who are going to feel completely vindicated in what Rush and Hannity et. al. have been saying for years - that it IS true that the (liberal) Washington establishment and the (liberal) news media can and will supersede our democracy.  And I do believe that things could get uglier than they already are.

Unless he somehow manages to damage the interests of a significant fraction of the ruling class (and so far he has done nothing of the sort), removing him is simply not worth the risk -- especially since the Democrats can use him to bolster their gains in 2018.

[Fragile Bird]

Funniest thing I've read today: Fox news numbers are way down, finishing third in an important demographic, and a big part of that could be because of Trump supporters tuning out because they don't want to hear news of him breaking promises. Too depressing.

[House Balstroko]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Ahem. It was only the US people who elected him. If it was up to the developed world as a whole he wouldn't have even got close to the service entrance of the White House.

That's debatable. While he may not have actually won, there is still a growing level of support for far right parties worldwide. 

Take the recent French election as an example, a lot of people are praising Macron's win yet completely ignoring the fact that Le Pen got over a third of the votes and ended up in second place. That is something that should not be dismissed. 

 

[A True Kaniggit]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Funniest thing I've read today: Fox news numbers are way down, finishing third in an important demographic, and a big part of that could be because of Trump supporters tuning out because they don't want to hear news of him breaking promises. Too depressing.

Or in Trump words.... SAD!

[DMC]

Ugh.  Trump's statement on the Manchester attack preoccupied with calling the perpetrators losers.  Sounds like an unenthused high school bully.  Juxtapose that with Theresa May's - Theresa May! - very eloquent statement, and it makes me wanna go back to Yorktown and fight for the redcoats.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

That's debatable. While he may not have actually won, there is still a growing level of support for far right parties worldwide. 

Take the recent French election as an example, a lot of people are praising Macron's win yet completely ignoring the fact that Le Pen got over a third of the votes and ended up in second place. That is something that should not be dismissed. 

 

The vote for Trump in France probaby would still have been 2:1 against him. So despite Le Pen being in the run off the end result was a substantial rejection of her brand of populist nationalism.

[Fez]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If the Dems had picked up just one district in those special elections the Republicans would probably have the knives out right now.

There's only been one congresional special election so far, in Kansas (Georgia's first vote was the jungle primary). MT-AL is on May 25, CA-34 (safe Democratic, so its being ignored) is June 6, GA-6 is June 20, SC-5 is June 20, and AL-SEN will be on December 12. There's also the regularly scheduled New Jersey and Virginia governors and state legislatures races this November.

MT-AL and GA-6 are the canaries in the GOP coal mine. Just having them be real close is a strong sign for Democrats, but if either or both are pick-ups its going to be serious panic among Republicans. They should panic even if MT-AL is a close win for them, after all there's 120 GOP-held districts that are less red than it and all are vulnerable if MT-AL is close; but it seems like it'd take an actual loss for it to matter right now.