U.S. Politics transition time how Orange became the new black

[SeanF]

22 minutes ago, Werthead said:

This article is interesting from a US foreign policy perspective at the four major flashpoints that lie ahead for the new administration. I'm not keen on the "worst case scenario" for each one being presented, but it does raise valid questions.

The first one raised is the Middle East, but interestingly doesn't focus on ISIS (which is pretty much toast, if the last strongholds can be reduced and retaken in the next few months) but instead on state-actor levels. The article notes that there hasn't been a direct state-level confrontation between Middle East power players for a long time, but that if Trump does tear up the Iranian deal, that will likely lead Iran into restarting its nuclear programmed (helped by Russia) and risk a response by Israel, especially an Israel emboldened by unflinching American support. An Israel-Iran confrontation would force the US to take Israel's side and Russia Iran's, and lead to the very quick dissolution of the Trump-Putin bromance (although the article oddly doesn't go into this). Rolling it back, it would certainly increase Saudi-Iranian tensions in the region considerably even in a best-case scenario.

The second is in Europe, with American reluctance to back up NATO potentially triggering a Russian intervention in the Baltic States that, quite simply, Putin would never risk in a million years if the US made it clear it would abide by its treaty commitments. More dangerous is that, no matter Trump's desire to stay out of it, Congress will not let the United States step back and let Russia roll across Europe again, forcing a confrontation at a later time when Russia is more powerful. However, this part of the article I think underestimates Putin's grasp of timing. Although that can fail and Putin can get greedy and overreach, so far he has shown restraint and a desire not to fight too many conflicts on too many fronts and may not choose to risk an intervention in the Baltics until the situations in Syria and Ukraine are more resolved to his satisfaction.

The analysis of North Korea is the most interesting, because Trump clearly didn't give much of a shit until it became clear how close North Korea is to putting nukes on missiles capable of reaching Hawaii and Alaska, at which point he indicated on Twitter that he would not permit that. However, the article doesn't take account of the fact that Trump may order an attack on the North Korean nuclear facilities unilaterally, which could have dire consequences (a North Korean artillery strike against Seoul, followed by the outbreak of war and a Chinese intervention to prevent America and its allies taking the entire Korean peninsula). However, this analysis ends with the suggestion that even if a major war is averted, Japan may feel emboldened to develop nuclear weapons and emerge as a much more militarised country more willing to take on China in the region, which wouldn't be an ideal outcome either.

The last analysis is of China in the South China Sea and is a bit cursory, which is odd given this is the one area where Trump has already started stirring up trouble (over Taiwan). Obama's attitude towards China in the region was actually sensibly robust: ignoring Chinese claims, sailing ships through the area and daring China to do something (they didn't) and cultivating stronger ties with Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan and so on. Trump's anti-Chinese rhetoric is more dangerous in this regard and could trigger anything from a naval blockade in the busiest sea lanes in the world for trade to an all-out Chinese invasion of Taiwan which the United States would be utterly powerless to prevent.

The real danger identified in the article is that Trump may say something blustering and foolish on Twitter, decide to back it up and then the whole thing starts spiralling out of control very dangerously and to unforeseen ends, which may overcome any illusory benefit from Trump saying nice things about Putin and Kim Jong-Un.

IMO, China would get a very bloody nose if it attempted an invasion of Taiwan.

[Commodore]

these are good ideas re ACA that Trump can implement before any replacement is passed

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/04/obamacare-repeal-bill-gop-congress-column/96088182/

Quote

 

There are two large obstacles to getting relief that is complete and timely. First, legislators’ hearts are not in it — Democrats oppose it, and Republicans look at the political challenges of legislation that doesn’t affect them and are slow-walking a solution. Second, the shocking premium increases and the regulations driving them are thought to be baked in for years, and insurance companies would face huge penalties for offering anything else. We offer a Trumpian solution to both problems.

First: Use an executive order to immediately undo the congressional exemption from Obamacare: This illegal circumvention of the law was brought to us by the Obama administration via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) when Congress realized the law that was good enough for the rest of America would cause members of Congress and their staff to lose their own employer (i.e. taxpayer) provided coverage, and force them to pay their own way in the exchanges. The OPM rule instead forced taxpayers to pay after Congress fraudulently attested to the D.C. Health Benefit and Exchange Authority that the House and Senate were small businesses with fewer than 50 employees each.

Why does this matter? There is nothing as motivating as skin in the game, and without the protection of the illegal OPM rule, Congress’ members and staffers paying their own way in the Obamacare exchanges would be miraculously motivated to rapidly solve the problems crippling these markets. And every bit as important, as this would bite on both sides of the aisle, the climb to 60 Senate votes would immediately look a lot less steep.

Second, create a viable and vibrant parallel insurance market immediately, permitting people who want insurance to buy any state-legal insurance they want.

This could be accomplished by zeroing out penalties for selling non-compliant plans (aka, the plans people actually want, not the ones designed by bureaucrats in Washington) by adding language to the repeal bill that is similar to that used to eliminate penalties for violating the individual and employer mandates. That would give Trump a strong basis to extend Obama’s “keep your plan” fix to waive Obamacare’s regulations not just for renewals but for new enrollees as well, allowing states to create Obamacare-exempt individual insurance markets.

States that wanted to allow their citizens an insurance market with real choices could reap the benefit of lower premiums. And states that didn’t play along would bear the political responsibility for restricting the options of their constituents.

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Commodore,

Can the President cause a law to apply to Congress by Executive Order?

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, Commodore said:

these are good ideas re ACA that Trump can implement before any replacement is passed

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/04/obamacare-repeal-bill-gop-congress-column/96088182/

 

So much conservative nonsense here, I don't even know where to begin. Like for instance "shocking premium" increases.

I'd wish people would read things like oh I don't know the 2016 Kaiser Healthcare Report on Premiums in Employer sponsored health care.

And once again the whole "buying insurance across state lines" thing is an utter joke. Brought to you by the same people that think the gold standard is a great idea. LOL.

[TheKitttenGuard]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

IMO, China would get a very bloody nose if it attempted an invasion of Taiwan.

Taiwan will be completely devastated for China's bloody nose.

North Korea is the one that is the sum of all my fears.

[aceluby]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So much conservative nonsense here, I don't even know where to begin. Like for instance "shocking premium" increases.

I'd wish people would read things like oh I don't know the 2016 Kaiser Healthcare Report on Premiums in Employer sponsored health care.

 

But it has all the catchphrases!!!  Skin in the game!  Bureaucrats in Washington!  Real choices!  There couldn't possibly be disastrous side effects of something like this.  None at all.

[Free Northman Reborn]

56 minutes ago, Werthead said:

This article is interesting from a US foreign policy perspective at the four major flashpoints that lie ahead for the new administration. I'm not keen on the "worst case scenario" for each one being presented, but it does raise valid questions.

The first one raised is the Middle East, but interestingly doesn't focus on ISIS (which is pretty much toast, if the last strongholds can be reduced and retaken in the next few months) but instead on state-actor levels. The article notes that there hasn't been a direct state-level confrontation between Middle East power players for a long time, but that if Trump does tear up the Iranian deal, that will likely lead Iran into restarting its nuclear programmed (helped by Russia) and risk a response by Israel, especially an Israel emboldened by unflinching American support. An Israel-Iran confrontation would force the US to take Israel's side and Russia Iran's, and lead to the very quick dissolution of the Trump-Putin bromance (although the article oddly doesn't go into this). Rolling it back, it would certainly increase Saudi-Iranian tensions in the region considerably even in a best-case scenario.

The second is in Europe, with American reluctance to back up NATO potentially triggering a Russian intervention in the Baltic States that, quite simply, Putin would never risk in a million years if the US made it clear it would abide by its treaty commitments. More dangerous is that, no matter Trump's desire to stay out of it, Congress will not let the United States step back and let Russia roll across Europe again, forcing a confrontation at a later time when Russia is more powerful. However, this part of the article I think underestimates Putin's grasp of timing. Although that can fail and Putin can get greedy and overreach, so far he has shown restraint and a desire not to fight too many conflicts on too many fronts and may not choose to risk an intervention in the Baltics until the situations in Syria and Ukraine are more resolved to his satisfaction.

The analysis of North Korea is the most interesting, because Trump clearly didn't give much of a shit until it became clear how close North Korea is to putting nukes on missiles capable of reaching Hawaii and Alaska, at which point he indicated on Twitter that he would not permit that. However, the article doesn't take account of the fact that Trump may order an attack on the North Korean nuclear facilities unilaterally, which could have dire consequences (a North Korean artillery strike against Seoul, followed by the outbreak of war and a Chinese intervention to prevent America and its allies taking the entire Korean peninsula). However, this analysis ends with the suggestion that even if a major war is averted, Japan may feel emboldened to develop nuclear weapons and emerge as a much more militarised country more willing to take on China in the region, which wouldn't be an ideal outcome either.

The last analysis is of China in the South China Sea and is a bit cursory, which is odd given this is the one area where Trump has already started stirring up trouble (over Taiwan). Obama's attitude towards China in the region was actually sensibly robust: ignoring Chinese claims, sailing ships through the area and daring China to do something (they didn't) and cultivating stronger ties with Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan and so on. Trump's anti-Chinese rhetoric is more dangerous in this regard and could trigger anything from a naval blockade in the busiest sea lanes in the world for trade to an all-out Chinese invasion of Taiwan which the United States would be utterly powerless to prevent.

The real danger identified in the article is that Trump may say something blustering and foolish on Twitter, decide to back it up and then the whole thing starts spiralling out of control very dangerously and to unforeseen ends, which may overcome any illusory benefit from Trump saying nice things about Putin and Kim Jong-Un.

1. Russia and Iran aren't joined at the hip. Russia doesn't need Iran. Or at least, it doesn't need to sacrifice its own interests to protect Iran. Putin could take a neutral point of view on the Iran issue and let Iran deal with the fallout. There have already been other articles about how the Russia-Iran alliance in Syria is one of convenience rather than long term mutual interests. And that Iran was getting too influential for Putin's taste in the aftermath of the Syrian intervention.

2.This idea that Russia is going to "roll across Europe" is just so far fetched. A few tiny Baltic states (and even that is a stretch, given Putin's geo-strategic cost-benefit assessment) is hardly "rolling across Europe".

3. Frankly, Japan taking up a more militaristic role as a counter to China would be a welcome development in the world. Lest we all want to bow down to the Chinese in 50 years time, more countries need to start taking that stance.

4. China doesn't have the military power to take anything in the South China sea if the US decided to prevent them. And they aren't going to risk nuclear war over it. As for Korea, if Trump decides to crush the Kim Jong-Un dynasty once and for all, well, maybe it would be good to finally lance that boil. Any such war wouldn't last very long.

[Guy Kilmore]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

It shouldn't be Ellison or Perez. Neither have any experience at party building. If the DNC was smart they'd look at all 50 state party chairs, identify the most successful ones and bring them in to determine who has the best strategy that would translate to the national level.

I am not in tune at all with MN Democratic state politics, but wouldn't we be a good example of a state that has a string Democratic party?  I still think that the party is paying a bit for supporting the legalization of gay marriage.

[Commodore]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Commodore,

Can the President cause a law to apply to Congress by Executive Order?

the law already applies to Congress

[Tibbs]

4 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It's absurd to state that Ellison's backers are trying to "gin up" any outrage outside of the outrage felt over baseless attacks of anti-Semitism from some of Clinton's biggest donors.

And supporters of the Sanders/Ellison wing of the party are already alienated. That's sort of the point. Perez would be a fine candidate under normal circumstances, but in this case, he's being pushed as a more palatable alternative to the establishment wing of the party based on his close ties to the Obama organization and Clinton campaign. 

I don't know, I remember Jane Sanders saying of Dean and O'Malley when they both flirted with running for Chair that these were, "Decent people, but not progressives." I know anecdotal evidence counts for nothing, but I've noticed a lot of people making bizarre claims that Perez has no authentic liberal credentials. 

I have two problems with this line of argument on Ellison's behalf: Bernie Sanders was and is divisive, putting Ellison up on the grounds of his connection to Sanders because only a Sanders-backed candidate can be a unity choice is simply silly. Of course the people who weren't on board with Sanders to begin with are going to find it divisive if the main credential you offer is any particular candidate's ability to assuage those voters. More pertinently to me, however, is the nature of the demand that these "alienated" (some are, some aren't) voters are making: It's post-policy, un-ideological, and based off of smearing the accomplishments of any other liberal politician that doesn't come with the explicit Sanders stamp of approval. The concession they want is a kind of political hagiography that has nothing to do with the post in question or the causes that most of them claim to care about. I personally find that distasteful. 

In the interest of even-handedness, I think that this Vox piece makes the affirmative case for Ellison on the grounds that you're arguing.  

[zelticgar]

Apparently Pal Ryan does not know what Dabbing is.  I love when politicians kids misbehave during swearing in ceremonies.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 3.1.2017 at 8:13 AM, DunderMifflin said:

The more I think about it I'd put it higher considering what it was up against. Who can we really say ran an above average campaign in recent history? Bill Clintons 92 run maybe??? 2000 Bush i guess.I think Obama's ran itself pretty much, his charisma just sealed it. It's mostly just somebody with huge money behind them that goes with the already established positions of their parties with maybe a couple of tiny off script opinions. Other than that I'd say the best campaigns we've seen were from guys like Howard Dean that got farther than expected but ultimately fizzled out for whatever reason. 

 

Also when you go back to Bush and Clinton it's an era before our current hyper media when it was much easier to look cool at all times.

Bill Clinton ran an above average campaign. In some ways it was even groundbreaking. He was relatively unknown before he became Potus. So he toured all the TV shows that used to be beneath a Presidential candidate, including cooking shows and doing his saxophone thing. So he used the medium television in a new way. Today a lot of his campaign stuff looks old fashioned now, but it was new at the time.

Obama's campaign was also above average, and somewhat groundbreaking. Obama used the medium internet with social media and stuff much better than campaigns before him, and he also pushed the polling and big data campaigning to a new level. To reduce it to just his charisma is really not doing justice to his campaign and the people who ran it.

Of course both campaigns had a more relatable/charismatic person on top of the ticket. That makes this uninspired Hillary Clinton campaign harder to take. Sanders himself is not a particularly great/exciting speaker - at least imo he is not. Yet, he gave Clinton with her much better organization behind her campaign a real run for her money, esp. in the rust belt (maybe he had more credibility?). Yet, she didn't see the writing on the wall in Michigan and the other states and toured in *explicit* Arizona. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

39 minutes ago, Tibbs said:

I don't know, I remember Jane Sanders saying of Dean and O'Malley when they both flirted with running for Chair that these were, "Decent people, but not progressives." I know anecdotal evidence counts for nothing, but I've noticed a lot of people making bizarre claims that Perez has no authentic liberal credentials. 

I have two problems with this line of argument on Ellison's behalf: Bernie Sanders was and is divisive, putting Ellison up on the grounds of his connection to Sanders because only a Sanders-backed candidate can be a unity choice is simply silly. Of course the people who weren't on board with Sanders to begin with are going to find it divisive if the main credential you offer is any particular candidate's ability to assuage those voters. More pertinently to me, however, is the nature of the demand that these "alienated" (some are, some aren't) voters are making: It's post-policy, un-ideological, and based off of smearing the accomplishments of any other liberal politician that doesn't come with the explicit Sanders stamp of approval. The concession they want is a kind of political hagiography that has nothing to do with the post in question or the causes that most of them claim to care about. I personally find that distasteful. 

In the interest of even-handedness, I think that this Vox piece makes the affirmative case for Ellison on the grounds that you're arguing.  

That's imo a case of killing the messenger, who brings bad news. I remember saying something along the lines of, that as fractured as the GOP is, the Democrats might end up in a similar shape over a year ago. The standard response was: No, the Democratic Coalition is not going to fall apart any time soon. I think we are starting to see at least some tearings at the seams. While the GOP freakshow tries to find the true conservative to lead them to the promised land. The Democrats are now looking for the Progressive that was promised. And I am still curious what the Democrats equivalent to a RINO will be. I hope it's not a DINO. Let's see who gets to make the definition of progressive.

[SerHaHa]

Quote

an all-out Chinese invasion of Taiwan which the United States would be utterly powerless to prevent.

Defend that statement.  I'd like to see on what you base this.  You could begin by listing all of China's amphibious assault capabilities.  That should give you a pretty good clue.  And I'm talking the main body of Taiwan, not Kinmen (do you even know what and where Kinmen is?).  China has the capability to hit Taiwan with numerous ballistic and cruise missiles, probably airstrikes as well, but they'd pay a heavy toll in aircraft in doing so, but landing troops either through amphib or airborne ops, enough to actually establish a beach head and break out of it, is another matter entirely.  A single carrier battle group to the east of Taiwan would be enough to help defend against what very limited amphib capability China has, and an airborne assault vs Taiwan would be a turkey shoot. 

China currently has the 1st and 164th Marine brigades tasked and trained, and equipped for amphibious assault.  Around 6000 troops that are pretty spun up.  The PLAN (Chinese Navy) has 4 amphib transport dock assault ships right now in service, pretty much copies of USN vessels in terms of size and capability.  Do you think 4 such vessels with around 20 to 25 basic landing craft ships,  would be able to effectively seize Taiwan, even without US intervention?

China, particularly their Navy and their Air Force, have made huge strides since the turn of the century, but they are in NO way capable of just walking into Taiwan by invasion.  They could pound on Taiwan, however landing troops and keeping them going logistically is something they aren't able to do yet, especially with the US military helping to defend against that.

[Commodore]

Zuckerberg definitely running 2020

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

7 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Zuckerberg definitely running 2020

 

He'd just barely be eligible.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 No longer an atheist? I call bullshit.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I am not in tune at all with MN Democratic state politics, but wouldn't we be a good example of a state that has a string Democratic party?  I still think that the party is paying a bit for supporting the legalization of gay marriage.

Well it's difficult for me to say exactly, both because I'm biased as a former employee of the DFL and I've never worked with another state party so I don't really have a comparison point. Overall I'd guess it's above average, but it's far from perfect. Leadership is solid and it's networked really well. The only major flaw I can identify is that it's fund raising needs a lot of improvement, but that's usually offset by strong state wide candidates. The DFL should hold most state wide offices, and currently we hold all of them. We should always at least have four Congressional seats, and currently we have five, although we need to be more competitive in CD-2 and CD-3 (CD-6 is forever a lost cause, as that's Bachmann country). The state legislatures are currently a disaster, and we should never be in the minority in the State Senate. I'm currently attributing that mostly to there not being any state wide candidates this year, but that's still not a good excuse.  

All that said, the party is in pretty good shape for 2018. My old boss will enjoy curb stomping whom ever the Republicans want to nominate for the Senate seat, and Dayton's been a good Governor so I expect his successor will have a fairly easy election (aided by Amy running again). I fear CD-8 might get picked off as Nolan is not the strongest candidate, but otherwise not much will change. Although a lot will depend on how Trump performs. 

As for legalizing gay marriage, I doubt that has much of an impact, and Republicans were clearly punished in 2012 for pushing for a Constitutional ban.

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 1/3/2017 at 10:32 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

 

Quote

 

 

17 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

. 

i hate the quote function.

 

32 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 No longer an atheist? I call bullshit.

Dude's got billions of copies of this paper that says "in God we trust"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Yeah,

Now I wonder what you were quoting.