US Politics: Follow the Money!

[Yukle]

38 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Lol, you guys are expecting too much from mcbigski.

Well, I'm already annoyed that mcbigski looked at my list of unpalatable things Trump has done and simply blew it off as if it's irrelevant.

But I do want to genuinely engage, and will do so, so I'm awaiting an actual response: how is this good enough? The entire world is laughing at the USA's stupidity and I want to know why Trump voters think it's worth it.

And it's not encouraging the response is to just pretend that nothing is wrong, but maybe mcbigski is considering what to write first, rather than ignoring my concerns.

[Bonnot OG]

6 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Well, I'm already annoyed that mcbigski looked at my list of unpalatable things Trump has done and simply blew it off as if it's irrelevant.

But I do want to genuinely engage, and will do so, so I'm awaiting an actual response: how is this good enough? The entire world is laughing at the USA's stupidity and I want to know why Trump voters think it's worth it.

And it's not encouraging the response is to just pretend that nothing is wrong, but maybe mcbigski is considering what to write first, rather than ignoring my concerns.

It speaks to the lack of character Trump supporters have to still be supporting him. 

He could burn a cross and they would still support him. Hell, he might as well burn a cross given what he says, who he supports, and who supports him. 

[mcbigski]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

How's that outsider doing with the FCC, EPA, Dept. Of Education, etc working out?  This dude is grabbing what he can and doubling down on fucking over the entire country in it will make a buck for the the elite.  

On a policy level, are you happy with what's happening?  

On an individual basis, the new tax law is great for me.  Lower marginal rates and about a $25k pass through deduction.

And there's been a lot of other folks getting some 'crumbs' too.  Obviously the deplorables aren't going to spend as wisely as our Ivy League educated overlords, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Pretty much all good with Gorsuch so far.  I like my Justices to interpret the law rather than try to make it.  Separation of powers is a feature not a bug to me.  Hoping for a few retirements in the next 5 years...

I like embassy move to Jerusalem.  Last time it went before Congress about 3/4 or more voted in favor, so hardly a unilateral move.

Plus the Trump adminstration has demoted ISIS to the jayvee.

As far as the Dept of Education, I'm anti gov't union so quite in favor of charter schools and DeVos doesn't really bother me. 

A bit early to declare a good result in Korea or the Middle East but greater signs of progress than I've seen in decades.   I've read that there's a bit of land rush going on bordering the DMZ and the Saudis are screening movies, letting women drive, and seem to have a sub rosa alliance with the Israelis to counter balance the Iranians.  Also, great job dumping that agreement.  If it were in the US's best interest than BHO should have been able to get it approved by Congress...

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

If it's literally that you can't hack Clinton being a woman, then say it. If it was you don't agree with her policies, say which ones.

Yes that's exactly it.  I hate women categorically.  Your insight is amazing.  If only I could understand lefties as completely. 

[Yukle]

5 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Yes that's exactly it.  I hate women categorically.  Your insight is amazing.  If only I could understand lefties as completely. 

Firstly, that comment was immediately followed by an assertion that you should say which of her policies you didn't like. Taking it out of context subverts its obvious intention: It was instead an invitation to state your reasoning - and that I would engage with that reasoning, no matter what it was or how guarded you may feel about it.

Also, I think you're either lying or you are not remembering the campaign accurately. Those are not the reasons you voted for Trump because none of those things were campaign issues that he mentioned!

You know what he did campaign on? Basically nothing other than a wall. That was almost his only consistent policy.

Of all of the things you've mentioned, only the move to Jerusalem and the SC are policies that Trump consistently stated on the campaign trail. Are we to believe that you somehow magically knew that all of the other things would happen?! Even his tax plan isn't his plan at all, and he didn't even campaign for it. He did say he wanted to get rid of the AMT, but that was the only specific point he ever made.

So, really, literally your only motivation that you could have known in advance was the SC pick.

You can't have even known about the Iran deal, because it wasn't a point that Trump was consistent on. He clearly doesn't understand the terms of the deal, since he hasn't mentioned any specific grievances with it. The only point he raises is the "billion dollars cash" that was given to Iran. Which isn't even accurate, it was an agreement to lift sanctions. To say nothing of the fact that it's not the US's plan to scrap, the whole world is in on this, too.

So why did you do it? What was your mindset at the time? Not with hindsight, which you are applying, but what was your active reason?

13 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Pretty much all good with Gorsuch so far.  I like my Justices to interpret the law rather than try to make it.  Separation of powers is a feature not a bug to me.  Hoping for a few retirements in the next 5 years...

Except Trump has openly slammed this aspect of America's government. He refuses to cooperate with any aspect of oversight, including the sycophantic congressional reviews of the election which were going to exonerate him anyway. When the courts struck down his Muslim ban he angrily shouted about how rigged the system is, so Trump clearly doesn't share your opinion in this matter.

 And why are you still refusing to acknowledge all of the issues I've raised with him? That's twice you've decided to swat them aside. There are yuge flaws in Trump's running of America, which are unprecedented in their scale of illegality. He has - despite your strange suggestion of no majority - a congressional majority. That's the only reason he hasn't been convicted of violating the emoluments clause, or been forced to take a firm stance against Russia.

[Yukle]

Also, not to make a fine point of it or anything, but 60 Palestinians were shot during the embassy move.

It's not that Americans disagreed with it, it's that it was a bargaining chip, and one that Trump gave up for absolutely nothing.

And 60 Palestinians died.

Should I state that again?

60 protesters died. Did you know that? They were shot by Israelis. After the embassy move. And Trump called it a good day. After people died. From bullet wounds.

Fatal ones.

I just reread your post and you said you were happy with the move.

How the hell are you so cold about that?!

The dead people, I mean. You don't think literally every person on earth saw that coming and that's why no previous President did it? Because they didn't want people to die?

Like, for instance, the protesters, the ones who were shot dead?

ETA: Seriously, @mcbigski, if your intention was to appeal to reason and state what you're not somehow broken in the skull, are you sure you don't want to clarify what you mean? As well as, you know, justify all of the other problems I've raised with Trump?

[DMC]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That’s kind of the point though. People are shrugging their shoulders today at things that would have jarred them a year ago. And I’m of the belief that that’s what’s helping Trump’s numbers. People who don’t already hate him are numb to his flaws, but are willing to give him credit when he’s perceived to have done something positive. The only question I have at this point is this unique to Trump, or the new normal in American politics that will last long after Trump’s presidency?

I hate the term normalizing.  I hate normalizing so much I hate normalizing the term normalizing by typing the word normalizing so much.

..Anyway, the entire concept is pretty stupid in general, but especially in terms of Trump.  Everything the POTUS does on routine is going to be normalizing.  That's self-definitional.  The media is going to cover the office no matter what.  And any way they do will logically result in normalizing.  If 100% of outlets covered his actions by explicitly stating such actions should not be normalizing, you not what the effect would be?  It'd normalize it.

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

As long as anyone has about a 40% base acceptability provided the economy is doing okay, chances are good this is the new normal in American politics. 

Well, there's also this:  The lowest approval rating since Truman of a president to win re-election is 48% with GWB.  And on Truman, polling was nascent then, and he went from 40% on June 18-24 1948 to 69% on Jan 12-17 1949.  So...who knows what went on in between ("Dewey Defeats Truman" election was on November 2, 1948).

10 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I dunno.  I think Fox benefits him so much because it's already a TV staple.  I remember visiting my grandmother's assisted living facility and Fox News was on like every TV in the joint.

Right.  Trump may enjoy Twitter, but his most valuable communication to his most reliable voters is via FNC.  He ain't gonna fuck with that (nor does he have to - they'll do whatever he wants).

6 hours ago, Yukle said:

In fairness, Israeli nationalism isn't uniformly focused on oppression.

Their most recent elections produced, as usual, a coalition government. Israel's future with Palestinians is - not surprisingly - the most divisive political issue. Some believe the best way forward is to return to the problematic original borders that the UK partitioned. Others to assume that the Jewish settlements prove a successful conquest over the entire nation, and therefore Palestinians are citizens of a larger Israel. Others that Israel has conquered the entire nation and giving up the Sinai peninsula was a concession in exchange for expelling non ethnic-Jewish people from Israel.

But the "We get everything" message is very easy to tell. Political parties and groups agitating for more moderate stances argue among themselves about what such concessions will be. On the other hand, "We get everything" is simple, clear and easy to understand.

Israel's elections are always fraught with tension and violence and not all Israelis are proud to see Palestinians killed.

This probably deserves it's own post, but some quick hits here (although I'll probably end up rambling).  Israeli nationalism goes both ways.  Characterizing the entire Israeli people, or government, in one certain way is just as stupid as attributing all of Americans as Trumpist.  There are plenty of important Jewish voices that do not only not agree with Bibi's coalition, but even the Chuck Schumers of the world.  That being said, Israeli's party system is incredibly volatile and alarmingly centrifugal, which is why Bibi has been able to secure power for as long as he has (this time around).  The Kadima party was dominant just a half-decade ago.  Now?  Doesn't exist.

There are 30-40 years of precedent in US-Israeli-Palestinian (and Egyptian) relations that has preserved the Palestinian's right of return as a bargaining chip.  Trump took a big old shit over that.  The embassy was bad enough - and I had a little fit on here when it was announced - but Trump's posture ensures the rest of the Middle East can use this as a fig leaf for the next generation of agitation and violence.  It truly disgusts and depresses me to my core.  The rest of the Arab world will continue to exploit the Palestinian cause without helping them as refugees, Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran will continue to recruit and bolster their influence, and Israel will continue to exacerbate any escalation generated by the former.  Going on 5 decades now, studies continue to show Muslim-originated attacks escalate immediately prior to Israeli elections.  Why'dcha think they'd do summin like that??  It's an endless cycle of playing into their hands.

[Yukle]

31 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

This probably deserves it's own post, but some quick hits here (although I'll probably end up rambling).  Israeli nationalism goes both ways.  Characterizing the entire Israeli people, or government, in one certain way is just as stupid as attributing all of Americans as Trumpist.  There are plenty of important Jewish voices that do not only not agree with Bibi's coalition, but even the Chuck Schumers of the world.  That being said, Israeli's party system is incredibly volatile and alarmingly centrifugal, which is why Bibi has been able to secure power for as long as he has (this time around).  The Kadima party was dominant just a half-decade ago.  Now?  Doesn't exist.

There are 30-40 years of precedent in US-Israeli-Palestinian (and Egyptian) relations that has preserved the Palestinian's right of return as a bargaining chip.  Trump took a big old shit over that.  The embassy was bad enough - and I had a little fit on here when it was announced - but Trump's posture ensures the rest of the Middle East can use this as a fig leaf for the next generation of agitation and violence.  It truly disgusts and depresses me to my core.  The rest of the Arab world will continue to exploit the Palestinian cause without helping them as refugees, Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran will continue to recruit and bolster their influence, and Israel will continue to exacerbate any escalation generated by the former.  Going on 5 decades now, studies continue to show Muslim-originated attacks escalate immediately prior to Israeli elections.  Why'dcha think they'd do summin like that??  It's an endless cycle of playing into their hands.

Agreed; I was also glossing over lots of specifics. Just saying that all Israelis can be tarred with the same brush.

It's a problem with using proportional representation in a unicameral chamber. I like PV in a house of parliament - if you have two of them and one of them doesn't use it. It's great for ensuring minority protection in a house of review, like the upper house. But it's dreadful for stability if it's the chamber of government, in a lower house or the only chamber that exists.

There's also the fact that Israel's bordering countries are hardly going to be pleased with an emboldened Israel. I imagine another concession from the USA could be the recognition of complete Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, to the fury of Jordan in particular.

Looking over your post, I'd expand the comment "Muslim-originated attacks" to also add separately that there are also "Arab-originated attacks". They often overlap, but not always. Since Hezbollah's base in Lebanon relies upon them having a wider religious appeal (with about 40% of Lebanon being Christians, mostly Maronites), they sometimes instead attack Israel as being anti-Arabic. Which is a bit rich for a country founded by ethnic Greeks, and is ethnically diverse.

[Ormond]

51 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 

Well, there's also this:  The highest approval rating since Truman of a president to win re-election is 48% with GWB.  And on Truman, polling was nascent then, and he went from 40% on June 18-24 1948 to 69% on Jan 12-17 1949.  So...who knows what went on in between ("Dewey Defeats Truman" election was on November 2, 1948).

 

This doesn't make sense to me. Did you mean to say the lowest approval rating since Truman of a president who won re-election was 48%?

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Agreed; I was also glossing over lots of specifics. Just saying that all Israelis can be tarred with the same brush.

Yeah, my intent was to back you up on that.

17 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I like PV in a house of parliament - if you have two of them and one of them doesn't use it. It's great for ensuring minority protection in a house of review, like the upper house. But it's dreadful for stability if it's the chamber of government, in a lower house or the only chamber that exists.

In every constitutional design, there needs to be a body that is intended to protect the minority.  In parliamentary systems that's often the upper chamber of the "legislature" (such as it is) moreso than the judiciary.  And that's fine.

20 minutes ago, Yukle said:

There's also the fact that Israel's bordering countries are hardly going to be pleased with an emboldened Israel. I imagine another concession from the USA could be the recognition of complete Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, to the fury of Jordan in particular.

It's very difficult to predict how Israel's neighbors will react to all this in the long run.  I'm not going to pretend I'm smart enough to predict.  What I do know is Israel's neighbors have routinely allowed or even encouraged vociferous ideologies against their neighbor while simultaneously avoiding (one way or another) taking non the Palestinian victims they proclaim to be speaking for.  But, in general, yes, Jordan has been the best neighbor in this and any other regard.

Anyway, Israel would not be cool with the US taking over the WB and Gaza, let alone how neighboring states would (have to) feel about it.  That's a non-starter.

24 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Looking over your post, I'd expand the comment "Muslim-originated attacks" to also add separately that there are also "Arab-originated attacks". They often overlap, but not always. Since Hezbollah's base in Lebanon relies upon them having a wider religious appeal (with about 40% of Lebanon being Christians, mostly Maronites), they sometimes instead attack Israel as being anti-Arabic. Which is a bit rich for a country founded by ethnic Greeks, and is ethnically diverse.

I intentionally used the term "Muslim-originated attacks" for precisely this reason.  Lebanon is over 50% Christian, but they're necessarily not a party of Hezbollah.

3 minutes ago, Ormond said:

This doesn't make sense to me. Did you mean to say the lowest approval rating since Truman of a president who won re-election was 48%?

Yes, I meant lowest.  Sorry, will edit thanks.

[House Balstroko]

10 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

Scum government and scum ideology that allows people like them to get voted in. 

That country is bigoted as all fucking hell.

People that support that sort of policy, and the ones that give the order and pull the trigger should spend the rest of their days removing buried bombs / land mines / and fuses................. while hundreds of yards back behind the sandbags dressed in kevlar, a foreman impacted by their apartheid and ethnic cleansing policies, pulls the trigger on a red megaphone that squelches feedback. Do it over and over again to them. 

I didn't realize that throwing rocks, bombs or sending kids as suicide bombers qualified as a peaceful protest. Israel is in it's right to defend itself.

On another note, I don't see anything wrong with the embassy move. Jerusalem is Israel's capital and the US is just honoring that position. Other countries should follow suit.

If the Palestinians dropped their arms and recognized Israel's right to exist, they would have a state by now, with East Jerusalem as it's capital. 

[Gorn]

3 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

I didn't realize that throwing rocks, bombs or sending kids as suicide bombers qualified as a peaceful protest. Israel is in it's right to defend itself.

On another note, I don't see anything wrong with the embassy move. Jerusalem is Israel's capital and the US is just honoring that position. Other countries should follow suit.

If the Palestinians dropped their arms and recognized Israel's right to exist, they would have a state by now, with East Jerusalem as it's capital. 

First, there are dozens of non-lethal ways to disperse protesters, even violent ones. Israeli forces deliberately selected the live-ammo option instead.

Second, if Palestinians dropped their arms, they wouldn't have even the little they have at the moment, and they would instead live as refugees in neighboring countries with Israel controlling 100% of the territory. The only way to obtain any concessions in a peace agreement is to negotiate from a position of (relative) armed strength.

[House Balstroko]

9 minutes ago, Gorn said:

First, there are dozens of non-lethal ways to disperse protesters, even violent ones. Israeli forces deliberately selected the live-ammo option instead.

Second, if Palestinians dropped their arms, they wouldn't have even the little they have at the moment, and they would instead live as refugees in neighboring countries with Israel controlling 100% of the territory. The only way to obtain any concessions in a peace agreement is to negotiate from a position of (relative) armed strength.

I disagree. If Israel truly wanted to remove the Palestinians it would have done so a long time ago. Their primary interest is in securing a safe space. When Egypt dropped it's arms, Israel ceded control of the Sinai back to them. When they pulled out of southern Lebanon and Gaza, they got rocket attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah. 

Arabs have attacked Israel multiple times with the sole objective of destroying it. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 hours ago, Shryke said:

Why would they do that though?

The entire point of what Ailes created is to do exactly what is happening now. To create a parallel narrative to the real news so that no Republican president can ever again be impeached. It's a propaganda outlet and it's doing a bang up job.

This is all working as intended.

That's the big question. The only thing I can come up with is Trump being too much to stomach (even) for Murdoch at some point.

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, House Balstroko said:

I disagree. If Israel truly wanted to remove the Palestinians it would have done so a long time ago. Their primary interest is in securing a safe space. When Egypt dropped it's arms, Israel ceded control of the Sinai back to them. When they pulled out of southern Lebanon and Gaza, they got rocket attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah. 

Arabs have attacked Israel multiple times with the sole objective of destroying it. 

 

But Israel did remove the Palestinians, first in 1948, then again during the 1949-56 period, then again in 1967. This is why more Palestinians today live in diaspora than in Palestine and Israel combined.

If their primary interest was simply securing a safe space, they would stop supporting West Bank settlements, as well as creating new ones.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is, primarily and above everything else, about land. Both sides would like 100% control of the entire land, either de iure or de facto, with a clear demographic majority for their side on that area. Since this is not achievable, they will both settle for an acceptable compromise, but they have different definitions of acceptable compromise. No Israeli government would accept the return to 1967 borders and the right of return (unless given an outright ultimatum by the US), which is the bare minimum that Palestinians demand.

[butterbumps!]

8 hours ago, Yukle said:

Firstly, that comment was immediately followed by an assertion that you should say which of her policies you didn't like. Taking it out of context subverts its obvious intention: It was instead an invitation to state your reasoning - and that I would engage with that reasoning, no matter what it was or how guarded you may feel about it.

Also, I think you're either lying or you are not remembering the campaign accurately. Those are not the reasons you voted for Trump because none of those things were campaign issues that he mentioned!

You know what he did campaign on? Basically nothing other than a wall. That was almost his only consistent policy.

Of all of the things you've mentioned, only the move to Jerusalem and the SC are policies that Trump consistently stated on the campaign trail. Are we to believe that you somehow magically knew that all of the other things would happen?! Even his tax plan isn't his plan at all, and he didn't even campaign for it. He did say he wanted to get rid of the AMT, but that was the only specific point he ever made.

So, really, literally your only motivation that you could have known in advance was the SC pick.

You can't have even known about the Iran deal, because it wasn't a point that Trump was consistent on. He clearly doesn't understand the terms of the deal, since he hasn't mentioned any specific grievances with it. The only point he raises is the "billion dollars cash" that was given to Iran. Which isn't even accurate, it was an agreement to lift sanctions. To say nothing of the fact that it's not the US's plan to scrap, the whole world is in on this, too.

So why did you do it? What was your mindset at the time? Not with hindsight, which you are applying, but what was your active reason?

Except Trump has openly slammed this aspect of America's government. He refuses to cooperate with any aspect of oversight, including the sycophantic congressional reviews of the election which were going to exonerate him anyway. When the courts struck down his Muslim ban he angrily shouted about how rigged the system is, so Trump clearly doesn't share your opinion in this matter.

 And why are you still refusing to acknowledge all of the issues I've raised with him? That's twice you've decided to swat them aside. There are yuge flaws in Trump's running of America, which are unprecedented in their scale of illegality. He has - despite your strange suggestion of no majority - a congressional majority. That's the only reason he hasn't been convicted of violating the emoluments clause, or been forced to take a firm stance against Russia.

Trump did have a few slightly more consistent messages, though I think they were in opposition to what it sounds like McBigski was looking for.   He ran on a populist platform-- health insurance for everyone (especially white people), jobs, tax reform (specifically such that people like him would be paying even more), opioid crisis relief, returning "real" industries like mining, clearing out government corruption, and so forth.  A lot of the "big picture" economic messages he was selling were cribbed from democrat positions -- which is probably more damning because it's precisely the kind of economic policy that seems anathema to mcbigski.  Trump was an excellent candidate for economic populists with deeply held contempt for women, non whites, the LGBT+ community and reality, though not really offering much to fiscal conservatives until in office.  I guess the thought was that Congress would steer him to abandon all the populism and that he'd rubber stamp whatever was put in front of him to that end?   

 

ETA:  He was also anti- interventionist, I believe.   I think he also consistently hated the Iran deal if I'm not mistaken, because it was an Obama thing.   But the isolationist platform seems to also have been abandoned.

[LongRider]

56 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 But the isolationist platform seems to also have been abandoned.

America First!  in helping the Chinese company ZTE back on it's feet so it's workers don't lose their jobs!*  Plus, we now see how Trump era sanctions work; bribe Trump to lift sanctions and then he helps the company out of financial trouble caused by sanction penalties.  Now that's just good MAGA!  

 

*(after accepting the Chinese money for his branded Indonesia project....shhhhh)

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

For some Levity, from past night Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Deadpool shows up and ends up telling a few Trump jokes.

https://youtu.be/nlozE2m-NMc

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. It's over, we had a good run. 

But can you take an empress off her throne and put her back in the barn?

[Holy Sith!]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/why-trump-suddenly-wants-to-save-chinese-jobs-6-theories.html

Donald’s mysterious sympathy for ZTE and Chinese jobs should make clear that his “America First” policy is really “Donald First.” Even his most irrational supporters should take notice.

Donald does stand to benefit financially by giving ZTE a break, but it also looks as though he is again running into reality. International economic and political forces can restrain his ego-driven grandstanding just as surely as the other two branches of the federal government have hobbled his domestic agenda.

If nothing else, Donald’s presidency is showing one of the glaring weaknesses of the U.S. Constitution. Constitutional qualifications for holding the highest office in the nation are far too skimpy.

Once upon a time, the sentence “Anyone can be President” encouraged young people to aim high. Now, these are words of warning.

[LongRider]

 

Trump Tower meeting transcripts released

Newly released transcripts of interviews with Donald Trump Jr. and others detail the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians.

 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-tower-meeting-transcripts/index.html