U.S. Politics: Feelings Trump Facts

[Commodore]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What has Trump done to suggest he gives a crap about his "constituants"?

That he put out the list at all indicates he gives a crap about their electoral support

 

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What has Trump done to suggest he gives a crap about his "constituants"?

Ordinarily, I'd point out that political scientists know that most politicians try to keep most of their promises, but this is the Great Orange Ego Elemental we're talking about. So who knows what Trump will bother doing?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Commodore said:

That he put out the list at all indicates he gives a crap about their electoral support

 

To gain election.  You presume he cares about re-election.  I don't.  He cares about having power now.  

[Week]

No need to re-litigate as he clearly was mocking the reporter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/09/meryl-streep-was-right-donald-trump-did-mock-a-disabled-reporter/?utm_term=.8e863a007c9e

Just such an amazing lack of common decency (no surprise) and that DJT is continuing to pay attention to the real issues.

 

Also, lol @ being "attacked" by anyone at the fucking GOLDEN GLOBES. Get a fucking grip.

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 minutes ago, Commodore said:

That he put out the list at all indicates he gives a crap about their electoral support

 

Yes, and his history is one of never radically changing his mind after he gets what he wants.

I am sure the first Justice will be from the list or be a fine conservative. It is after it can be different.

I will want a Scalia in terms of that he did view flag burning as protected by the 1st Amendment.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Commodore said:

That he put out the list at all indicates he gives a crap about their electoral support

 

He also said he would lock her up and get Mexico to pay for the wall. How did those work out?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 hours ago, Ordos said:

I have a question that might sound silly but honestly I do not know. So the President-elect (whom I will not name so I do not give him the luxury of free advertising and attention which he craves) said during the election first that he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. Then he adjusted that to just people from countries where there is a high rate of terrorism. 

I come from a Indonesia which might fit the category of what he is talking about. I have an American tourist visa that is valid until the summer of 2019. Could my visa be revoked and hence blocking any future trip to the states I plan on taking? I asked some visiting Americans (who did not vote for the President-elect) and they said that they do not know.

I can't imagine that any policy of this sort would effect a travel visa. I'd be really surprised if you had any issues there.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

 

Tax plan - lowering personal rates is great (Reagan and Kennedy both did it), but the business tax rate cut is the big one. Will make us the best country to do business.

 

So did Bush, and he had the worst economy of any modern president. 

[Dr. Pepper]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He also said he would lock her up and get Mexico to pay for the wall. How did those work out?

But but but he'll do it eventually maybe!

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So did Bush, and he had the worst economy of any modern president. 

Those are facts.  Can't use facts.

[Fez]

Fun!

Quote

 

According to an official within the Department of Energy, this past Friday, the President-elect’s team instructed the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration and his deputy to clean out their desks when Trump takes office on January 20th.

The NNSA is the $12 billion-a-year agency that “maintains and enhances the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.” It’s unclear when the two officials will be replaced.

Traditionally, all political appointees of an outgoing presidential administration turn in resignation letters effective on noon of inauguration day, January 20. But appointees in key positions—like the people who make sure our nukes work—are often asked to stay on in their roles until a replacement can be found and confirmed by the Senate, helping ensure a smooth transition and allowing our government to continue functioning. In fact, for the entirety of Obama’s first term and into part of his second, the NNSA Administrator remained a Bush appointee.

-break-

“There are scores more appointees within the department,” our source told us. “Secretarial and administration appointments that don’t require Senate confirmation, mostly performing policy, liaison, and strategic advisory capacities in support of the agency they’re at. They serve at the will of the head of their agency. Those people are, theoretically, also out on inauguration day unless otherwise directed, which hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge.”

 

 

There's been a lot of focus on how conservative the Trump administrative is looking, but let's not forget how shockingly incompetent it is probably going to be (based on the campaign and the transition efforts). In a lot of areas this won't matter too much, things will muddle along, but then there's this kind of thing where it could have terrifying impacts. In the short-term this won't affect current US nuclear capability, since the chain of command is all military up to the President, but it could have long-term consequences that severely damage US capabilities. And this appears to be going on at all agencies across the government.

[Commodore]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So did Bush, and he had the worst economy of any modern president. 

far as I know the corporate income tax rate hasn't changed since the 80s

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

Tax plan - lowering personal rates is great (Reagan and Kennedy both did it), but the business tax rate cut is the big one. Will make us the best country to do business.

Are you trying to sell us on supply side snake oil? There are plenty of reasons to think that the cut's on income taxes during the Reagan Era had little to do with the recovery in the 1980s.

It had mainly to do with monetary policy, it would seem. Please, stop insulting our intelligence with this bull.

With regard to the new corporate tax plan: Personally, I'm not vehemently exactly opposed to the principle behind it, which is to tax only economic rents, and not normal economic profits, although truth be told I'm probably more of a Piketty man, than a Chamely-Judd man. If you, however, change the corporate tax so that normal profits are taxed at 0%, then I have serious reservations about lowering the tax code to 20%. It seems to me that we should do everything possible to tax economic profits.

And I'd note, that I doubt the new corporate tax plan will have the affect that conservatives claim, as they have a really bad habit of over promising on their preferred polices. See Kansas, for example.

 

[Commodore]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Are you trying to sell us on supply side snake oil? There are plenty of reasons to think that the cut's on income taxes during the Reagan Era had little to do with the recovery in the 1980s.

It had mainly to do with monetary policy, it would seem. Please, stop insulting our intelligence with this bull.

We can assume by default you think everything I post is bullshit/horseshit/snake oil. No need to repeat yourself every time. 

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, Commodore said:

We can assume by default you think everything I post is bullshit/horseshit/snake oil. No need to repeat yourself every time. 

The flip side is that you almost never actually supply any data to back your claims.

Though  to be clear to the rest of y'all: Commodore's arguments aren't economic, they're moral. He feels it is morally incorrect for the government to interfere with business, he believes that taxation is morally wrong, and therefore even if the policies are failures and cause major harm that's fine because at least they're moral. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

30 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

With regard to the new corporate tax plan: Personally, I'm not vehemently exactly opposed to the principle behind it, which is to tax only economic rents, and not normal economic profits, although truth be told I'm probably more of a Piketty man, than a Chamely-Judd man. If you, however, change the corporate tax so that normal profits are taxed at 0%, then I have serious reservations about lowering the tax code to 20%. It seems to me that we should do everything possible to tax economic profits.

 

Out of curiosity, how do you determine what's an economic rent and what's a normal economic profit on a systematic basis?

[Commodore]

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The flip side is that you almost never actually supply any data to back your claims.

I think that's holding me to an unequal (and unreasonable for a message board discussion) burden of proof

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Though  to be clear to the rest of y'all: Commodore's arguments aren't economic, they're moral. He feels it is morally incorrect for the government to interfere with business, he believes that taxation is morally wrong, and therefore even if the policies are failures and cause major harm that's fine because at least they're moral. 

What was his take on the bailout? 

I really can't get my head behind a "taxation is immoral" argument. The moral benefits to taxation far outweigh the concerns of personal liberty. You like usable roads? Fire/Police services? Libraries? County hospitals? I just don't see how you can make a moral argument of any substance against taxation unless those funds are being abused to a degree that you are not benefiting from social services.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Commodore said:

I think that's holding me to an unequal (and unreasonable for a message board discussion) burden of proof

Others are certainly willing to bring up things, and have done so quite a bit against your viewpoints, myself included. If you simply cannot provide data we can simply assume your viewpoints are beliefs and faith, and should be taken with the same credibility that other belief and faith-based approaches should be.

[Dr. Pepper]

We can just put the "taxation is immoral" folks all in Florida.  They are probably the same as the "climate change is a chinese hoax" folks.  

 

[OldGimletEye]

NVM