U.S. Politics: Are You Threadening Me Master Jedi?

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Weak parties, strong partisanship.

It's why I am excited that Democrat approval isn't as high as you would think in such times. Maybe it indicates a return to accountability.

Sadly it's probably precisely the opposite. Strong parties would help in this; weak party happiness but strong party identification indicates people who are unwilling to change their votes, but are also unhappy with the result. Again, as long as the other side eats babies, there's no way someone's going to switch sides - and right now, anyone who identifies as democrat or republican really does see the other side as the baby eaters.

[OldGimletEye]

On 1/28/2018 at 10:03 PM, Yukle said:

Reading through the past few posts, I can see an assumption underlying the arguments that I disagree with when I observe politics.

People aren't identifying as conservative, and therefore Republican, or progressive, and therefore Democratic. They're identifying as the party itself, with the objective of winning power and having it being held. Idealists within each exist, and the people who are ideologically bound to a party exist, but I don't think people are voting to see particular policies enacted (or poor working class people wouldn't keep voting for the elephants who are not working to their interests) but they're voting to see their party win, like a sports club.

There is probably some truth that average Joe or Jane doesn’t care all that much about ideology and just goes along with whatever the Republican or Democratic party does because they are more interested in playing team Republican or team Democrat. I have relatives from appalachia that come from counties are are strongly pro-Republican. And the strong pro-Republicanism has little to do with ideology but is based more on historical circumstance, when their ancestors decided to strongly back the Union during the Civil War. If the Republican Party turned socialist tomorrow they’d probably roll with it.

That said, I think there can be little doubt that the elites within the Republican Party do try to sell conservatism and try to sell governing according to “conservative principles” or whatever is the way to go. And in fact, many of the “professional conservatives” people like Hannity and Limbaugh have gained an enormous amount of money and power by selling conservatism. And they have enormous power to shape opinion within the Republican Party, or at least, with some Republicans I know. There is a reason I think, Limbaugh was invited to the white house and the fact Reagan dubbed Limbaugh his intellectual heir to carry the conservative torch.

A few threads back there was some discussion about Reagen being like would be celebrity presidents like The Rock, Zuckerberg, Cuban, Oprah or whoever. But, as I pointed out, whatever one might think of Reagan’s policies, he wasn’t some guy that just woke up day in 1980, decided to run for president, and then got a governing ideology. In fact, he had been carrying the torch for the conservative cause for a very long time before that, at least since his famous speech in the early 1960s railing against Medicare or universal health coverage. And the type of conservatism that Reagan represented was able to take over the Republican Party. And I think that was no accident, as movement conservatives really laid the groundwork for their movement in the 1970s. Places like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute were founded in the 1970s, which one might call the intellectual infrastructure for the conservative movement.

And the conservative movement, I’d argue was enormously successful. Not only did they seem to take control of the Republican Party, but probably successful in shifting the Democratic Party to the right and pushing american politics to the right. I think there is a strong case to be made that the “triangulation” of Bill Clinton and the “New Democrats” was because there was feeling in the Democratic Party that they simply couldn’t withstand the conservative tide, which seemed to dominate the 1980s and the 1990s.

So maybe the average voter doesn’t care about ideology that much. But, there can be no doubt, that the policy making elite and elite opinion makers within the Republican Party try to push conservatism. When center right types like Ozimek or Brooks lament what has happened in the Republican Party, I’d certainly hope they’d recognize that was no accident, but the result of conservatives within the Republican Party being willing to make deals with the devil, until they created a monster they could not control. People like Kristol can lament what has happened with the Republican Party, but he certainly had a hand in creating the situation by promoting people like Sarah Palin.

In short, maybe average joe or jane Republican doesn’t care about ideology that much, but certainly the elites within the Republican Party that help to shape their opinions have pushed average Jane or Joe Republican in a more conservative direction. And now some of them are frightened of the monster they helped to create.

[OldGimletEye]

Yes, could we please stop getting sentimental and misty-eyed about Dubya.

There are plenty of effective criticisms to be made against Trump.

Talking ‘bout the good old days under Dubya isn’t one of them.

In fact, as people like Ozimek, indicate, the current nuttiness we are now seeing, may in fact have it’s origins from the Dubya administration.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/28/16941964/will-ferrell-snl-george-w-bush

Quote

Actor Will Ferrell revived his portrayal of President George W. Bush on Saturday Night Live to deliver a reminder about the 43rd president, whose approval ratings have skyrocketed recently: Just because Trump is a bad president doesn’t mean Bush was a good one.

“I’m suddenly popular AF,” Ferrell, who hosted SNL on Saturday, said. “A lot of people are saying, ‘Man, I wish George W. Bush was still our president right about now. So I just wanted to address my fellow Americans tonight and remind you guys that I was really bad.”

 

[The Wedge]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yes, could we please stop getting sentimental and misty-eyed about Dubya.

There are plenty of effective criticisms to be made against Trump.

Talking ‘bout the good old days under Dubya isn’t one of them.

In fact, as people like Ozimek, indicate, the current nuttiness we are now seeing, may in fact have it’s origins from the Dubya administration.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/28/16941964/will-ferrell-snl-george-w-bush

 

The stock market chart comes with its own slide whistle sound!

The W administration was its own disaster. Imagine if Cheney was VP now using his nefarious ways to get things done. Heck, Trump talks about shooting someone with impunity, but Cheney actually SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE and the guy apologized to Cheney for it.

[Fez]

On 1/27/2018 at 10:39 AM, TheKitttenGuard said:

The start of what I think is going to be a major Landmark decision from the Supreme Court.

 

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/flagstaff-attorney-facing-loss-of-state-contract-over-israel-boycott/article_d5535cb4-ca52-5cff-bcf0-ab8d192373ed.html

The case looks to be is that Israel has to have "special" Protection on prior unfair action. This is not just a First Amendment but a ruling on a lot of International Law. 

Prior to the SCOTUS ACA decision that made the Medicaid expansion optional, I'd have said this was an open-and-shut case in favor of Arizona. It doesn't matter what you think of BDS or Israel, its simply that governments have the right to set whatever preconditions they want to their funding, especially their contracts, so long as they don't discriminate against a protected class. And choosing to participate in a boycott as a way to express your free speech does not make you a protected class.

I still believe that's the correct way of thinking about it. But ever since the SCOTUS ruling, which said that governments can't coerce with funding. Or at least, can't always; it's not clear when it is and isn't okay (since stuff like the National Highway Act to enforce age 21 as the minimum legal drinking age is still in force and not being challenged).

So, who knows? *shrug*

[TheKitttenGuard]

35 minutes ago, Fez said:

Prior to the SCOTUS ACA decision that made the Medicaid expansion optional, I'd have said this was an open-and-shut case in favor of Arizona. It doesn't matter what you think of BDS or Israel, its simply that governments have the right to set whatever preconditions they want to their funding, especially their contracts, so long as they don't discriminate against a protected class. And choosing to participate in a boycott as a way to express your free speech does not make you a protected class.

I still believe that's the correct way of thinking about it. But ever since the SCOTUS ruling, which said that governments can't coerce with funding. Or at least, can't always; it's not clear when it is and isn't okay (since stuff like the National Highway Act to enforce age 21 as the minimum legal drinking age is still in force and not being challenged).

So, who knows? *shrug*

So a man will need to sue on religious grounds to get a fair hearing.

The way the Arizona AG describe the law it is based that Israel deserve a special Protection. I think that should be demonstrated for it is the reason for the law and punishment. 

The response I found to be is the state can make any law for any reason and only recourse is a narrow definition. 

[OldGimletEye]

Rampant inflation still not around the corner, it would appear.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/01/time-to-put-the-brakes-on-jobs/

Quote

Should the Fed continue raising interest rates?

After several rate increases and with unemployment at a 17-year low, Fed officials face the question of whether joblessness might fall so much that they should pick up the pace of tightening to prevent the economy from overheating. The latest employment report released Friday by the Labor Department doesn’t suggest they need to move more aggressively or slow down. Employers added 148,000 jobs in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.1%. Average hourly earnings of private-sector workers rose 2.5% from a year ago, in line with recent monthly readings.

Goodness. We wouldn’t want joblessness to fall too low, would we? That might force employers to pay people more!

 

Also, relevant to the above.

Likely, needs to be read by Casey Mulligan, Marvin Goodfriend, The CEO Business Clown Table, and the rest of the conservative clown crew.

Doesn’t assume Walrasian market clearing and Rational Expectations. I’m liking it already.
https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article/34/1-2/169/4781819

Quote

In this paper we set out a three-equation model with two alternate parts—one summarized by a vertical and the other by a horizontal long-run Phillips curve. The former is appropriate to ‘normal’ macroeconomic conditions and the latter to a world following a financial crisis that occurred in a low-inflation environment. In doing so we borrow from some of the most interesting recent developments in macroeconomics that seek to analyse the long drawn-out post-financial crisis period of low growth and very low inflation by introducing heterogeneous agents, incomplete markets, and precautionary savings.

However, in contrast to many New Keynesian models, we pay attention to investment. In particular, we model investment as a multiple equilibrium strategic complementarities game in which uncertainty is the key to the choice of equilibrium. The simple two-part three-equation model with mechanisms that help account for recent experience builds on our earlier work on small tractable macroeconomic models targeted at policy-makers and students, and motivated by the need to understand contemporary macroeconomic problems.1

Also a few points:

1. If being at the Zero Lower Bound for inflation is a problem, it’s probably best to avoid it. Accordingly, overshooting the 2% inflation target for awhile probably isn’t are biggest problem. It’s anchoring it lower than 2% that is the problem.

2. If the model is right, and it produces under investment for years, this would lead one to conclude hysteresis effects are likely. And conservative sorts of people, hysteresis effects to don't have to be great, to make fiscal policy very very cheap. And of course if we were a sane country we’d might have more safe assets that might have dampened down the current stock market bubble. Plus you wouldn’t have the “Poor Savers!” issue.

......................................................................................................

Yes, yes, we all know that well mannered and well bred people are supposed to wrinkle their noses at Trump, though in reality they like his policies.
 

Quote

Trump at Davos creates a collision of many strains of global political economics and Trumpian psychology, as Noah Bierman nicely covers here. Trump’s populism is largely phony, so to the extent that he hits the Davos elites with America-first protectionism, it will be accompanied by an implicit wink, as if to signal: “Hey, fellow billionaires. This globalization stuff is working out great for us. But watch and learn, Davos. If you want to keep this deal going, you’ve got to shout a lot more about the ‘forgotten man and women.’ You might even need to slap a tariff on something here and there. But that’s a small cost of doing business. You guys saw my tax cut, right?! You’re welcome!”

........................................................................................................

Ezra Klein worries about politics getting more tribal. But, I think once you accept, that the conservative clown crew was never going to listen to arguments or reason, then maybe that’s exactly what is needed.

Time to get a lot tougher on the conservatism.

Of course professional centrist types will go “but liberals!”. Just forgetting about crude both sidism for a moment, this just isn’t about liberals and conservatives anymore, but about conservatives against everyone else, from the center right to those on the far left.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/29/16900646/trump-administration-tweets-media-polarization

Quote

There are two Trump presidencies.

One of them is the official presidency of Donald Trump, leader of the Republican Party, driver of the legislative agenda, head of the executive branch.

A year in, that presidency looks surprisingly normal. Trump has largely outsourced his agenda to the congressional GOP and their allies inside his administration. As a result, he has pursued policies similar to what Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush might have pursued: repeal of Obamacare, tax cuts for corporations, deregulation for the energy industry. When he goes to Davos — and, note, he goes to Davos! — he gives the kind of speech any Republican might give at Davos.

 

Quote

Even before Trump, American politics was becoming dangerously angry, polarized, bitter. In this, Trump’s rise is more symptom than cause. 

Everyone needs to go to their chalk board and write 100 times: Donald Trump did not hit the Republican Party out of the blue. He was created by The Republican Party….Donald Trump did not hit the Republican Party out of the blue. He was created by The Republican Party….

[Fez]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

So a man will need to sue on religious grounds to get a fair hearing.

The way the Arizona AG describe the law it is based that Israel deserve a special Protection. I think that should be demonstrated for it is the reason for the law and punishment. 

The response I found to be is the state can make any law for any reason and only recourse is a narrow definition. 

How is he going to sue on religious grounds? Argue that his religion requires him to boycott Israel? Good luck with that.

States do have absolute authority to make any law for any reason so long as it doesn't violate the US constitution (or their state constitution, but those are usually easy for a state legislature to amend). The Arizona AG doesn't necessarily need to argue that Israel deserves special protection, he likely did so for political reasons. As I said, the SCOTUS ACA decision maybe muddies the water a bit (hard to say); but all the state should need to do is say that the state felt the anti-boycott law was in the state's interest (no need to prove it) and then prove that the law didn't discriminate against anyone based on a protected class.

States make laws about funding decisions that harm people all the time (e.g. "welfare reform"), its entirely within their right; so long as its not discriminatory. End of story.

[Guest]

Rodney Frelinghuysen (R- N.J.) announced he will not seek re-election in 2018.

Frelinghuysen is now the ninth House committee chairman to opt against seeking reelection this year. But unlike most of the other eight committee chairmen who are retiring, Frelinghuysen would not have had to relinquish his gavel next year due to the GOP’s term-limit rules that only allow committee chairmen to serve for three consecutive terms.

His retirement could make it easier for Democrats to take advantage of an open seat this election cycle instead of attempting to topple a 12-term incumbent.

National Democrats are rallying around Mikie Sherill, who had already launched a campaign against Frelinghuysen.

[TheKitttenGuard]

31 minutes ago, Fez said:

How is he going to sue on religious grounds? Argue that his religion requires him to boycott Israel? Good luck with that.

States do have absolute authority to make any law for any reason so long as it doesn't violate the US constitution (or their state constitution, but those are usually easy for a state legislature to amend). The Arizona AG doesn't necessarily need to argue that Israel deserves special protection, he likely did so for political reasons. As I said, the SCOTUS ACA decision maybe muddies the water a bit (hard to say); but all the state should need to do is say that the state felt the anti-boycott law was in the state's interest (no need to prove it) and then prove that the law didn't discriminate against anyone based on a protected class.

States make laws about funding decisions that harm people all the time (e.g. "welfare reform"), its entirely within their right; so long as its not discriminatory. End of story.

A person can reject Israel actions based on religious grounds. It does not apply to the case in question for I did not see it brought up.

 

[Fragile Bird]

Something that has not been mentioned here (I don't think I missed it) but a panel on the US International Trade Commission unanimously agreed that the almost 300% duty slapped on Bombardier's C-series jet were unjustified because the small jet did not harm Boeing's business, as Boeing claimed. The tariff infuriated both Canadians and Brits (there's a plant in Belfast), because Boeing doesn't make small jets and has no plans for making small jets, yet Boeing claimed they might one day want to make small jets. More like, they wanted airlines to forget about small jets for low volume routes and buy big jets for those routes anyway. That, or as the cynics said, they failed to buy out Bombardier and decided to destroy them instead.

Boeing immediately announced they will continue the fight. They can appeal the decision of the ITC or they could go to the WTO.

Commentators here have pointed out that the ITC currently has 2 vacancies (because, of course, Trump has not attended to hundreds of vacancies across the board) and terms for others are coming to an end. We are all assuming Trump will simply fill those vacancies with blatantly political appointees, and so a future appeal could be successful.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/01/26/u-s-international-trade-commission-rules-in-favour-of-bombardier-in-boeing-dispute_a_23344891/

[Zorral]

18 hours ago, Inigima said:

Easy, killer. I'm no Trump fan. I'm just pointing out that the story is bogus, which it is. 

Well, as of this AM, again, the claims have reignited that there is some, at least, fire there:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/us/politics/jose-andres-ivanka-trump.html

Whatever.

Jose Andres is still a hero. 

The Trump family is still the worst of the worst --we  know what the Trumps think of Puerto Ricans.

This is the atmosphere they have created, which as several ministers in New Jersey and others as well, cannot help but liken to nazi Germany and the Jews:

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2018/01/hundreds_gather_to_support_nj_immigrants_detained.html

https://splinternews.com/new-jersey-immigrants-homes-ransacked-after-being-targ-1822491986

https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/27/homes-immigrants-nj-sanctuary-ransacked/1072596001/

[Lord Lannister]

The two party system sucks. I can't stand one political party and the other routinely disappoints me. It's no longer about the issues or morals, it's we're less bad than the other group. There's no accountability, the political subclass of both parties doesn't much care about anything other than maintaining their grip on power, and the election process is motivated out of fear and mud slinging.

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

The two party system sucks. I can't stand one political party and the other routinely disappoints me. It's no longer about the issues or morals, it's we're less bad than the other group. There's no accountability, the political subclass of both parties doesn't much care about anything other than maintaining their grip on power, and the election process is motivated out of fear and mud slinging.

I agree the two party system sucks, but a lot of what you're describing are seen to more or less the same extent in countries with multiparty elections.  Lack of accountability, an entrenched political subclass and elections based on fearmongering are more or less universal shortcomings of representative democracies, and have been for generations. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it.

The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent. But the reference to Mr. Rosenstein’s actions in the memo — a much-disputed document that paints the investigation into Russian election meddling as tainted from the start — indicates that Republicans may be moving to seize on his role as they seek to undermine the inquiry.

 

Secret Memo Hints at a New Republican Target: Rod Rosenstein

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-carter-page-secret-memo.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[DanteGabriel]

19 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Secret Memo Hints at a New Republican Target: Rod Rosenstein

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-carter-page-secret-memo.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Rosenstein is the one who could refer Trump for impeachment if Mueller's investigation uncovers wrongdoing. Anyone who replaces Rosenstein would presumably be a Trump patsy.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

Rosenstein is the one who could refer Trump for impeachment if Mueller's investigation uncovers wrongdoing. Anyone who replaces Rosenstein would presumably be a Trump patsy.

Now Jace is confused. I thought impeachment was a political act, not a legal one.

So isn't Rosenstein 'referring' Trump for impeachment effectively the same as me doing it?

[Ormond]

7 hours ago, The Wedge said:

The W administration was its own disaster. Imagine if Cheney was VP now using his nefarious ways to get things done. Heck, Trump talks about shooting someone with impunity, but Cheney actually SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE and the guy apologized to Cheney for it.

There is no evidence at all that Cheney deliberately shot this man. Even if one believes he was careless enough that a court could have convicted him of criminal negligence, that's still a far cry from what Trump was talking about. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Now Jace is confused. I thought impeachment was a political act, not a legal one.

So isn't Rosenstein 'referring' Trump for impeachment effectively the same as me doing it?

What DG is referring to is this:

Quote

Many legal scholars believe a sitting president can’t be criminally indicted, meaning that if Mueller finds evidence of crimes by Trump, his strongest recourse might well be to make a referral to Congress for potential impeachment proceedings. But some of those experts tell TPM that under the regulation governing the special counsel’s office, Mueller lacks the authority to make that referral without approval from Justice Department officials overseeing his investigation.

And yes, Rosenstein would be the one to make the referral.  However, this is all inside-baseball and you're effectively right - if Mueller believes articles of impeachment should be recommended, he will find a way to release the information and the evidence therein.  In fact, a prospective Rosenstein replacement attempting to suppress Mueller from doing so would - sorry to get too Alice in Wonderland-y - only serve as further supporting evidence.

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

What DG is referring to is this:

And yes, Rosenstein would be the one to make the referral.  However, this is all inside-baseball and you're effectively right - if Mueller believes articles of impeachment should be recommended, he will find a way to release the information and the evidence therein.  In fact, a prospective Rosenstein replacement attempting to suppress Mueller from doing so would - sorry to get too Alice in Wonderland-y - only serve as further supporting evidence.

I know baseball! Jace knows sports! Sports!

I can sports all day, playa. You don't want to know the kind of inside deals I can get on baseballs! Any balls, really. Yeah, that's right! You didn't think that a little lady-brain could understand shoppe talk? Yeah, Jace knows all about the inner circle. AND!!! I know why the pitcher can't leave it unless he times the outs! That's how he wins! It's why there's closers. Only closers get the cookie.

You thought you were being smartypantz but really you've exposed yourself as an unrepentant buffoon and willful fool!