Jump to content

US Politics: Loyalty Oaths for Everyone!


Mexal

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

 Republicans are giving up on their years-long dream of repealing Obamacare.

Though the GOP still controls both chambers of Congress and maintains the ability to jam through a repeal-and-replace bill via a simple majority, there are no discussions of doing so here at House and Senate Republicans’ joint retreat at The Greenbrier resort. Republicans doubt they can even pass a budget providing for the powerful party-line “reconciliation” procedure used to pass tax reform last year, much less take on the politically perilous task of rewriting health care laws in an election year.

 

Republicans give up on Obamacare repeal
Most GOP lawmakers aren’t interested in another failed effort to gut the health law in an election year.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/01/obamacare-repeal-republican-status-381470?lo=ap_f2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit off topic, but I'll put it here anyway. This helped me escape the Trump dystopia, if only for a few minutes. This woman is a hero.

Quote

 

She had offered to buy the bird its own plane ticket, according to travel blog Live and Let Fly.

Nonetheless the airline refused to let the bird board at Newark airport in New Jersey, saying it did not meet guidelines due to its weight and size.

United says this was explained to the traveller before she arrived at Newark.

Pictures of the striking bird and its owner, attempting to travel to Los Angeles, emerged via The Jet Set, a travel-based talk show.

The images show the animal perched on an airport baggage trolley, as fellow passengers gaze at it in shock.

After six hours at the airport, the exotic bird and its human companions decided to take to the road and instead drive across the US.

 

'Emotional support peacock' barred from United Airlines plane

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42880690

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

Trump is a more polarizing President than most, but he is certainly not the only polarizing President in US history. If you treat him as described in your post, the next polarizing President (and there will surely be one) will have a choice not between fighting for power, probably losing and thus facing ruin on the one hand and becoming an elder statesman on the other, but between fighting for power, probably losing and facing ruin on the one and possibly facing ruin anyway on the other. It can be argued that one of the defining feature of democratic societies is a non-vindictive transition of power (we even let Nixon off the hook). I realize you hate Trump, but do you hate him enough to break this tradition?

I personally want his destruction to come from his own past and present deeds. Every president runs the risk of ruining his own name or future earning potential because of their deeds in office. If they haven't done anything illegal, then that's all they lose. I personally think Trump and his business associates are dirty as hell and want his downfall to come from his past and present actions that he is highlighting because of his ill-advised bid for the presidency. I'm not sure what you think I am advocating, but I want to see a little justice done. If I am wrong and Trump is squeaky clean, then I don't get to witness his ruin and I'm deeply disappointed. But that's it and it's done. If he's not, then I want to see the full power of the law come down on his head. It's not his policies that I want to punish, as much as I might disagree, but his personal behaviors. Why is that a bad thing? Why have laws if we don't enforce them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However bad Trump is, it will only register with those all ready opposed to Trump or those who are politically astute and have the bare minimum of scruples to recognize he's the worst of the worst we could have chosen to lead us.

GOP/Trump's base + politically apathetic + politically amnesiac + ignorant of international news = ~ 50% of the country that keeps the GOP viable in presidential elections. As long as they don't feel like a minority being threatened and their 401k is looking nice then there seems no real difference between Trump and Obama. A good SOTU by Telepromter Trump can easily make his numbers go up. If everything feels the same, or maybe employment is even looking better, the Russia inquiry seems like so much nonsense along with all politics being like equal B.S. on both sides, Trump's arrogance, bad attitude, bad language, ignorance, sliminess, and general penchant to break everything he touches is just more much ado about nothing. And then Trump has a good chance to be reelected.

The democratic wave still has a chance in 2018 as well as Trump losing relelection in 2020, but to get over the 50% hump the dems need to get through to those apathetic, amnesiac, and/or ignorant (the base being a write off). It's just doubly sad that those voters and the Dems being able to get their message through are what we need to depend on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

However bad Trump is, it will only register with those all ready opposed to Trump or those who are politically astute and have the bare minimum of scruples to recognize he's the worst of the worst we could have chosen to lead us.

GOP/Trump's base + politically apathetic + politically amnesiac + ignorant of international news = ~ 50% of the country that keeps the GOP viable in presidential elections. As long as they don't feel like a minority being threatened and their 401k is looking nice then there seems no real difference between Trump and Obama. A good SOTU by Telepromter Trump can easily make his numbers go up. If everything feels the same, or maybe employment is even looking better, the Russia inquiry seems like so much nonsense along with all politics being like equal B.S. on both sides, Trump's arrogance, bad attitude, bad language, ignorance, sliminess, and general penchant to break everything he touches is just more much ado about nothing. And then Trump has a good chance to be reelected.

The democratic wave still has a chance in 2018 as well as Trump losing relelection in 2020, but to get over the 50% hump the dems need to get through to those apathetic, amnesiac, and/or ignorant (the base being a write off). It's just doubly sad that those voters and the Dems being able to get their message through are what we need to depend on.

 The way the economy is going , it seems unlikely that the voters are going to give the Democrats the chance to do much of anything comes the 2018 midterms so they might spend the next two years on the sidelines . As for 2020 , at this time , hard to predict.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

 The tradition carries because one day you might be the prisoner or someone you know. However, this is only a tradition among Presidents and their Admins. It has nothing to do with Congress or the people, or states for that matter.

 

Trump's lucky he's not governor of Illinois. We may elect the corrupt bastards, but they know what may happen.  Prison is part of the retirement package

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Yukle said:

I don't thing the institutions are holding at all. The FBI is slowly being cut to pieces, the Supreme Court is now safely back in conservative hands, the electoral map was drawn by gerrymanders.

People who have recused themselves are still interfering in an investigation and Mueller will be fired soon.

The intelligence council is one of America's institutions and it just voted to release a memo that exonerates Trump in some way.

The Republicans aren't stupid, and they're not going to lose Congress. They are even leading in campaign financing - incredibly. They don't need a majority of voters (obviously) and it doesn't matter, just enough to hold on.

Just you wait - soon enough they'll expand the court to 9 to ensure a more stable majority, they'll merge the liberal federal courts into the conservative-dominated ones, they'll do away with the convention that opposition members get to sit in all committees...

One by one, the institutions are failing. Time and time again Trump is exposed, and time and time again, he emerges unscathed.

Yes they are. The FBI is resisting Trump. The head of the agency might step down if the House memo is released, and that would be a huge blow to Trump. Rosenstein is standing up to Trump as well. And the Supreme Court has been conservative for a long time. McConnell did some shady stuff to keep it that way, but the dynamics of the court remain unchanged.

It’s fair to say that the recusals are not being respected, but did you ever think they would be?

Intelligence council? The Intelligence Committee did vote to release the memo, which isn’t going to exonerate Trump, and the intelligence committee is fighting it tooth and nail. I wouldn’t be too worried here, considering the growing consensus is that it will be a dud.

They very well main lose Congress. Trumps approval is low, the tax cuts hurt blue state Republicans, and a lot of incumbents have retired. This is fertile ground for a wave.

I’m not even sure they can do that to the courts, if I understand your worry correctly. And besides, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that they will attempt to do so.

Trump remains unscathed from his personal scandals. But his political ones are causing him harm, chief among them is the Mueller investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Altherion said:

This isn't going to happen, but suppose that you were magically empowered to make it so. Would you really want this? Think it through: in the entire history of the US, there has not been an administration that has tried to hang on to power beyond its lawful term. This is in large part because the entire system is designed to resist this and it would be exceedingly difficult to do it, but the other reason against it is that the Presidents who walk away from power become elder statesmen with a respectable annual income (plus potentially a lot more via books, speeches, etc.) and plenty of opportunities to boost their family in politics and in business.

Trump is a more polarizing President than most, but he is certainly not the only polarizing President in US history. If you treat him as described in your post, the next polarizing President (and there will surely be one) will have a choice not between fighting for power, probably losing and thus facing ruin on the one hand and becoming an elder statesman on the other, but between fighting for power, probably losing and facing ruin on the one and possibly facing ruin anyway on the other. It can be argued that one of the defining feature of democratic societies is a non-vindictive transition of power (we even let Nixon off the hook). I realize you hate Trump, but do you hate him enough to break this tradition?

Thank you for being a voice of reason.  Its amazes me that people are opening talking about murdering the entire Trump clan here and not really getting any other pushback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Thank you for being a voice of reason.  Its amazes me that people are opening talking about murdering the entire Trump clan here and not really getting any other pushback.

Hmmm? I read someone put forward they'd like the Trump financial empire/Trump name brand to crumble. I didn't see the part where anyone said they'd like the Trumps to be dead. But maybe I just missed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Thank you for being a voice of reason.  Its amazes me that people are opening talking about murdering the entire Trump clan here and not really getting any other pushback.

Where do you get murder? I didn't know financial ruin = murder. Also, Altherion is wrong in this case. Trump's issues extends way beyond what he did as President. His financial ruin, if it happens, will be due to his shady deals as head of the Trump Org, not due to his actions as the President. The way we treat former presidents has no bearing on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Thank you for being a voice of reason.  Its amazes me that people are opening talking about murdering the entire Trump clan here and not really getting any other pushback.

There's a (dare I say it?) crappy but amusing Canadian tv series called  Schitt's Creek, about a very wealthy family who lose it all due to scheming they got caught on and now have to live a middle class and horrible life, unrelieved by the lavishing comfort of the things money can buy that they previously used to ignore each other with.

That's how I imagine the Trumps in the future. Impoverished and forced to live with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Altherion said:

This isn't going to happen, but suppose that you were magically empowered to make it so. Would you really want this? Think it through: in the entire history of the US, there has not been an administration that has tried to hang on to power beyond its lawful term. This is in large part because the entire system is designed to resist this and it would be exceedingly difficult to do it, but the other reason against it is that the Presidents who walk away from power become elder statesmen with a respectable annual income (plus potentially a lot more via books, speeches, etc.) and plenty of opportunities to boost their family in politics and in business.

Trump is a more polarizing President than most, but he is certainly not the only polarizing President in US history. If you treat him as described in your post, the next polarizing President (and there will surely be one) will have a choice not between fighting for power, probably losing and thus facing ruin on the one hand and becoming an elder statesman on the other, but between fighting for power, probably losing and facing ruin on the one and possibly facing ruin anyway on the other. It can be argued that one of the defining feature of democratic societies is a non-vindictive transition of power (we even let Nixon off the hook). I realize you hate Trump, but do you hate him enough to break this tradition?

Trump has already broken tradition in that his only policies are to revert everything the last administration did.  That has never been done before because of the 'traditions' you so naively think should still apply.  No.  Fuck that guy.  He will never become an 'elder statesman' because he's never been a statesman.  He's a clown who is treating his job like the spoiled rich guy he is.  I hope his brand is ruined forever.  I hope that the next administration immediately begins looking into all the shady stuff he's done when he doesn't have the presidential pardon to fall back on.  If he thinks that the new rules he's playing by won't have consequence, then he deserves absolutely every terrible thing that happens to him, and he should absolutely be the poster child of what happens when trample over long standing traditions in order to personally profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Thank you for being a voice of reason.  Its amazes me that people are opening talking about murdering the entire Trump clan here and not really getting any other pushback.

No one said murder, you precious pearl-clutching snowflake. I wish them misery and penury and relentless public shaming, and a nice long life to enjoy all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

There's a (dare I say it?) crappy but amusing Canadian tv series called  Schitt's Creek, about a very wealthy family who lose it all due to scheming they got caught on and now have to live a middle class and horrible life, unrelieved by the lavishing comfort of the things money can buy that they previously used to ignore each other with.

That's how I imagine the Trumps in the future. Impoverished and forced to live with each other.

Arrested Development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 The way the economy is going , it seems unlikely that the voters are going to give the Democrats the chance to do much of anything comes the 2018 midterms so they might spend the next two years on the sidelines . As for 2020 , at this time , hard to predict.

The economy hasn't mattered in any of the elections in the last year, why would it suddenly be a driving force now?  Republicans have to run on their tax bill vote, a tax bill that's hated, a tax bill that's tied to Trump, and Trump consistently polling under 40%.  The only way the economy matters in 2018 is if it crashes, in which case Republicans will be absolutely hosed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aceluby said:

The economy hasn't mattered in any of the elections in the last year, why would it suddenly be a driving force now?  Republicans have to run on their tax bill vote, a tax bill that's hated, a tax bill that's tied to Trump, and Trump consistently polling under 40%.  The only way the economy matters in 2018 is if it crashes, in which case Republicans will be absolutely hosed.  

We'll see on the tax bill. I think popularity will go up over time as people start seeing differences in their paychecks which there will be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Thank you for being a voice of reason.  Its amazes me that people are opening talking about murdering the entire Trump clan here and not really getting any other pushback.

Not to mention all the cries for child slavery and heroin in the drinking water that went completely unchallenged. Rw’er reads ‘ruined financial empire’ and thinks ‘mass murder’...sounds about right.

Can you imagine if the people with political power thought this way? Why, we’d see legislation like...oh...right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good news everyone! We now have the first pro-disease Congress and Administration in history!

CDC to reduce efforts to stop overseas disease outbreaks by 80% due to lack of funding.

Quote

Four years after the United States pledged to help the world fight infectious-disease epidemics such as Ebola, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is dramatically downsizing its epidemic prevention activities in 39 out of 49 countries because money is running out, U.S. government officials said.

The CDC programs, part of a global health security initiative, train front-line workers in outbreak detection and work to strengthen laboratory and emergency response systems in countries where disease risks are greatest. The goal is to stop future outbreaks at their source.

Most of the funding comes from a one-time, five-year emergency package that Congress approved to respond to the 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa. About $600 million was awarded to the CDC to help countries prevent infectious-disease threats from becoming epidemics. That money is slated to run out by September 2019. Despite statements from President Trump and senior administration officials affirming the importance of controlling outbreaks, officials and global infectious-disease experts are not anticipating that the administration will budget additional resources.

Two weeks ago, the CDC began notifying staffers and officials abroad about its plan to downsize these activities, because officials assume there will be “no new resources,” said a senior government official speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss budget matters. Notice is being given now to CDC country directors “as the very first phase of a transition,” the official said. There is a need for “forward planning,” the official said, to accommodate longer advance notice for staffers and for leases and property agreements. The downsizing decision was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

The CDC plans to narrow its focus to 10 “priority countries,” starting in October 2019, the official said. They are India, Thailand and Vietnam in Asia; Jordan in the Middle East; Kenya, Uganda, Liberia, Nigeria and Senegal in Africa; and Guatemala in Central America.
Countries where the CDC is planning to scale back include some of the world’s hot spots for emerging infectious disease, such as China, Pakistan, Haiti, Rwanda and Congo. Last year, when Congo experienced a potentially deadly Ebola outbreak in a remote, forested area, CDC-trained disease detectives and rapid responders helped contain it quickly.

In Congo's capital of Kinshasa, an emergency operations center established last year with CDC funding is operational but still needs staffers to be trained and protocols and systems to be put in place so data can be collected accurately from across the country, said Carolyn Reynolds, a vice president at PATH, a global health technology nonprofit group that helped the Congolese set up the center.
This next phase of work may be at risk if CDC cuts back its support, she said. “It would be akin to building the firehouse without providing the trained firemen and information and tools to fight the fire,” Reynolds said in an email.

...

The risks of deadly and costly pandemic threats are higher than ever, especially in low- and middle-income countries with the weakest public health systems, experts say. A rapid response by a country can mean the difference between an isolated outbreak and a global catastrophe. In less than 36 hours, infectious disease and pathogens can travel from a remote village to major cities on any continent to become a global crisis
 

I've been trying to calm the rage this provokes ever since I first saw this. So far, nothing is working. It sure is a good thing Rupert Murdoch, Warren Buffet, and GE got their tax breaks though! Much better than any other uses that could have been put towards! :bang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...