u.s. politics: a cruel and unusual government

[BloodRider]

28 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Some worry that a Trump infrastructure bill would look just like a privatization bill, and if so that is something the Dems should absolutely not support. 

Yes.  I fear that this will be the case.  Every time Trump has talked about Infrastructure it has sounded like a time in the money shower for him and his cronies.  I doubt much infrastructure will get built not many people will get jobs.  And those who do get work will get stiffed.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, BloodRider said:

Yes.  I fear that this will be the case.  Every time Trump has talked about Infrastructure it has sounded like a time in the money shower for him and his cronies.  I doubt much infrastructure will get built not many people will get jobs.  And those who do get work will get stiffed.

It's also awesome that they've just repealed all the regulations about making new infrastructure flood and hurricane-resistant. Just in time to repair Houston and Miami.

 

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If Trump were remotely competent, he’d do an infrastructure bill.

The FED is still having trouble hitting it’s inflation target. Markets still seem thirsty for American Safe assets ie US Treasuries.. It would push up employment too and wage growth. (and yes, I know that the official employment numbers look low, but that is another story).

And here is the part where I’m conflicted. My old full employment Democratic heart thinks we could use a little infrastructure spending. But, on the other hand, it might help get Trump elected. But, Trump is incompetent, so I guess its a moot point.

I guess while bad men can be good kings, it’s also the case that bad man can also be incompetent idiots.

The big worry post-election was that Trump would follow Bannon's advice and go hard on infrastructure investment and populism and basically build enough support cause he was "making stuff better" that people would ignore his horrible racism and corruption and grifting and shitty policies and the fact that everything he was doing with "investment" was just a handout of government money to rich people.

Thankfully, he turned out to be an incompetent moron easily captured by the GOP establishment.

 

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

If a good infrastructure bill is put together, I say Dems should get on board.  As you imply, the way it would boost Trump's reelection chances is through increasing employment.  That's probably pretty damn marginal - and the benefits for the country outweigh a marginal increase in his reelection probability.  Further, in basically all competition I've always had a "give me the best you got" mindset.  If the Dems can't find a way to beat Trump in 2020 merely because they helped him pass an infrastructure bill, that's on the Dems.

Yeah, that's the kind of attitude that led to all the shit that's happening now. If Trump rides a wave of populism into reelection, that's not on Dems, that's on everyone cause we're all gonna keep getting fucked. Don't give Trump run a populist game. Especially one that's just gonna be a grift anyway.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yeah, that's the kind of attitude that led to all the shit that's happening now. If Trump rides a wave of populism into reelection, that's not on Dems, that's on everyone cause we're all gonna keep getting fucked. Don't give Trump run a populist game. Especially one that's just gonna be a grift anyway.

Doing what's best for the country based on the slim chance it helps Trump get reelected is the same "kind of attitude"?  If Trump rides a wave of populism, it's not going to be based off an infrastructure bill he passed three years prior.  The notion is rather silly.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I think they have a clear avenue to compromise between the debt ceiling and DACA/Dreamers.  However, on tax cuts the Dems should revert back to a hard line.  I do not want to give him nor the GOP Congress a victory there.  Infrastructure may be workable but who knows if he still actually cares about that.

I think Democrats should work with Trump on those issues and many more......after the 2018 elections. If they can take back the House (reasonable chance) and the Senate (less likely), then they can drag Trump to their positions on many issues, and Trump would do it for the sake of getting victories. That's smart from a political stand point and as you said in the post above, you'd be doing what's best for the country. The only risk here is that you're gambling on the country rewarding Democrats for the successes and not Trump. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but given how badly Trump is viewed, it's a risk worth taking in my book, and if nothing else it will reinforce the image that the Democrats are the party that can actually get things done compared to the disastrous, do nothing 115th Republican led Congress. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I don't know if Trump will continue to try out bipartisanship or not.  My suspicion is it can't last - Trump lacks the discipline not to lash out somehow and sabotage any sort of bipartisan deal. 

So what? The smart move is to just ignore him when he throws his little temper tantrums. Schumer and Pelosi have already demonstrated that they'll do just that if it means getting a victory on their turf. That's how they rolled Trump and the Republican Congressional leadership.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think Democrats should work with Trump on those issues and many more......after the 2018 elections.

Disagree with this on principle.  If Trump wants to get all bipartisan based on new yawk then the time is now.  After the midterms the Dems should afford him nothing in anticipation of the reelection fight, regardless of congressional composition.  Obviously, there are mitigating factors that may change this by 2019, but that's the framework I'm working on right now.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

If a good infrastructure bill is put together, I say Dems should get on board.  As you imply, the way it would boost Trump's reelection chances is through increasing employment.  That's probably pretty damn marginal - and the benefits for the country outweigh a marginal increase in his reelection probability.  Further, in basically all competition I've always had a "give me the best you got" mindset.  If the Dems can't find a way to beat Trump in 2020 merely because they helped him pass an infrastructure bill, that's on the Dems.

The multiple catastrophes here in the US should provide lots of work -- and it will need lots of immigrant labor too -- to clear away the mountains of mess from the hurricanes and the wildfires, haul it away (wonder to where) and rebuild.  If rebuilding actually will be able to go on.  FEMA runs out of money today.

All of this will affect elections for both parties enormously.

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

All of this will affect elections for both parties enormously.

I think it's far too premature to speculate on whether and how much Harvey and Irma affect future elections at this point.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Senate Decides to Continue Funding Paris Climate Accord Measure

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-climatechange/defying-trump-senate-panel-approves-funding-for-u-n-climate-body-idUSKCN1BJ1LA?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/Trump: fark these GOP traitors. I'm raising the debt ceiling!

GOP: Oh yeah? I'm funding the fight against Climate change!

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Senate Decides to Continue Funding Paris Climate Accord Measure

/Trump: fark these GOP traitors. I'm raising the debt ceiling!

GOP: Oh yeah? I'm funding the fight against Climate change!

Quote

The amendment passed 16-14. Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee voted in favor, as did all committee Democrats except for West Virginia’s Joe Manchin.

Could be wrong, but I think it's very doubtful Alexander and Collins changed their votes based on the debt ceiling deal.

[Martell Spy]

Sen. Murphy thinks he can build an on-ramp to single-payer health care
The Connecticut Democrat will advance a plan he argues “may be the fastest way to a single-payer system.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/8/16275998/chris-murphy-single-payer

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Could be wrong, but I think it's very doubtful Alexander and Collins changed their votes based on the debt ceiling deal.

Yeah, I'm not saying that's why this happened. Just saying it's a pattern I could learn to enjoy watching.

[ThinkerX]

I almost find myself wishing Rush had stood by his 'Irma is a hoax' proclamation and stayed put:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/limbaugh-to-evacuate-after-calling-irma-climate-change-ploy/ar-AArvMe0?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

His supporters are tying themselves in knots in the 'comments' section.

Then, we have assorted congress critters from (relatively untouched) parts of Texas who voted against Harvey flood relief, citing issues with the debt ceiling.  One has to wonder what their life expectancy is.  Oh, and they were joined by more congress critters from Florida.  Ideology over reality - one of the major elements in destructive cults:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/these-gop-lawmakers-voted-against-harvey-aid-debt-limit-extension/ar-AArw3Mb?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580

The Dem's all voted in favor of the relief package. 

 

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Rush Limbaugh Argues Hurricane Forecasts Are Liberal Conspiracies, Is Also Evacuating Because of Hurricane Forecast

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/08/rush_limbaugh_evacuates_palm_beach_after_rant_about_liberal_hurricane_hype.html

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I think it's far too premature to speculate on whether and how much Harvey and Irma affect future elections at this point.

Katrina was the tipping point for dubya.  There are many ways catastrophic disasters affect elections.  Not to mention how the Texans and some other red state assholes treated the blue east coast after Sandy.

Not to mention the irrefutable fact that enormous amounts of money and labor are needed to rebuild a huge amount of the country now -- and we must expect more of this all the time.

We are not in climate change, which these people have insisted isn't happening or isn't human caused, but in climate destabilization.  Climate change implies some sort of of balance coming into being.  It's not happening. So many people having lost everything -- they aren't going to care about the argument of man-made or not.  They want help, and they want money for clean-up and new homes.

It is not in the least too early to consider these things for elections.

[ThinkerX]

26 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Katrina was the tipping point for dubya.  There are many ways catastrophic disasters affect elections.  Not to mention how the Texans and some other red state assholes treated the blue east coast after Sandy.

Not to mention the irrefutable fact that enormous amounts of money and labor are needed to rebuild a huge amount of the country now -- and we must expect more of this all the time.

We are not in climate change, which these people have insisted isn't happening or isn't human caused, but in climate destabilization.  Climate change implies some sort of of balance coming into being.  It's not happening. So many people having lost everything -- they aren't going to care about the argument of man-made or not.  They want help, and they want money for clean-up and new homes.

It is not in the least too early to consider these things for elections.

I have been coming across articles citing growing hostility from the governors of both Texas and Florida about linking Harvey/Irma with Climate Change. 

[DMC]

35 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Katrina was the tipping point for dubya.  There are many ways catastrophic disasters affect elections.  Not to mention how the Texans and some other red state assholes treated the blue east coast after Sandy.

Not to mention the irrefutable fact that enormous amounts of money and labor are needed to rebuild a huge amount of the country now -- and we must expect more of this all the time.

We are not in climate change, which these people have insisted isn't happening or isn't human caused, but in climate destabilization.  Climate change implies some sort of of balance coming into being.  It's not happening. So many people having lost everything -- they aren't going to care about the argument of man-made or not.  They want help, and they want money for clean-up and new homes.

It is not in the least too early to consider these things for elections.

You said a lot there but did not provide much of an argument for why these disasters will affect elections.  Katrina was devastating to Dubya politically because of how devasting it was to the people he ignored, but that needs to be considered in context.  Even liberals have granted the current FEMA chief great press in dealing with Harvey - that's fundamentally different than "heckuva job Brownie."  

Further, if you think a couple devastating hurricanes are going to change minds on partisan inclinations, I think you're naive.  There is, of course, still many ways the recovery of Harvey and whatever happens with Irma has a political effect.  But it's also entirely plausible that these storms are handled well and the only effect is bumping Trump's approval a couple points during the aftermath.  You've yet to present any reasoning for why this will remain a salient issue 14 months from now.

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Doing what's best for the country based on the slim chance it helps Trump get reelected is the same "kind of attitude"?  If Trump rides a wave of populism, it's not going to be based off an infrastructure bill he passed three years prior.  The notion is rather silly.

Pretending like it's someone else's problem if Trump wins is the attitude. It's everyone's problem.

There is zero reason to give Trump anything he wants or to let himself paint himself as a populist hero.

If Trump wants to sign Democratic party legislation, sure. But don't give him credit or let him get his own agenda through.

[ThinkerX]

Meanwhile, the Boarders here managed to miss this update.

 

Eventually, the relevant grand jury will decide if there is enough evidence to warrant taking this mess to the next stage.

If they decide that the available evidence indicates impeachment should be pursued, then...

Trump WILL take that as a personal attack.  He prides himself on being a 'counter-puncher who strikes back ten times harder.'  Plus, as certain people here really should have learned by now, it is not possible to 'out-crazy' Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-gives-white-house-names-of-6-aides-he-expects-to-question-in-russia-probe/ar-AArwjIv?ocid=msnclassic

Quote

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has alerted the White House that his team will probably seek to interview six top current and former advisers to President Trump who were witnesses to several episodes relevant to the investigation of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the request.

 

 

Mueller’s interest in the aides, including trusted adviser Hope Hicks, former press secretary Sean Spicer and former chief of staff Reince Priebus, reflects how the probe that has dogged Trump’s presidency is starting to penetrate a closer circle of aides around the president.