U.S. Politics: Trump of the Will

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

Are they holding him accountable? I must have missed it in between every subpoena, document  and interview request being ignored or dismissed by the WH Council or DOJ. 

Did you miss what happened today too? Look Mex, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Democrats control half of one of the branches of government. They need to acquire more power, and impeaching Trump is a risky proposition with little to no clear payoff and it could indeed backfire. They're investigating everything they can and we should support it.

3 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Again, this is why people hate politics and politicians. The country I want to live in does not take political calculations into account over holding criminals accountable. I know that's not the country we live in right now, but how are we supposed to get there if we don't act when we can?

I totally understand it might be a political miscalculation. I completely get that 4 more years of Trump is unthinkable. This is where I'm drawing my line. Do the god-damn right thing because it's right. If letting Epstein go so he can continue to do what he does would up our odds of taking back the White House, would that be an acceptable trade-off for you?

That's a bit different, wouldn't you say? Letting a child predator out changes the game, impeaching Trump does not.

As to the first paragraph, I'd say that's only part of the reason why. Keep in mind, there are a number of polls that indicate a majority of Americans cannot name the three branches of government. If that's not day 1 high school civics stuff, IDK what is. And those same people likely view elected officials as over educated ivory tower types who look down on them. I feel like political tactics are not the major driver for dislike of politicians. 

As to your question in the other post, it get's tricky. First, keep in mind that while "politicians" are widely disliked, constituents tend to like their elected official, assuming they're of the same party. And of course politicians care what their voters think, it's just that some care more than others just like some are better at communicating that than others. This is in part why I wish people were more involved. Some of the common tropes lose their bite once you get some first hand experience.

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

Indicted by your own words as a  member of the class that has made this situation; certainly not a member of the class that can or will or even wants to remedy it.  That's why voters went for others than the established moderates, and want new people.  

Impeachment proceedings.  If Puerto Ricans can put a backbone of fear into those assholes in their legislature, surely, we here on the mainland can do the same thing.

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken, as I've never been there, but from the outside looking in I'd say small, homogeneous territory's behavior is not a great indicator of the entire United States.

3 hours ago, Gertrude said:

That's a big reason (I think perhaps the main reason) why Trump was able to win the R nomination and part of why he won the election.

 He won because it was a crowded field and his blatant racism shot him up from 1% to 15-20% initially, and given the winner take all approach of the Republican primaries, that was enough to keep him afloat as Republicans reluctantly gave in.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, felice said:

Put up his disapproval?

On top of what DMC said, it could actually drive independents to Trump. When people feel scared, they vote Republican. 

38 minutes ago, Leap said:

Listening so far, only Republican I've heard today who wasn't a complete joke was Hurd(?). My favourite was definitely that Buck fellow though - seemed so shocked to hear Mueller say "yeah, you could indict Trump after he leaves office". Hehe.

I've been surprised by some of the negative coverage. Mueller all but said he committed crimes and that if he wasn't the President, he'd be charged. IDK what more you could ask for, especially from an extremely conservative person, legally speaking. 

[Gertrude]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

He won because it was a crowded field and his blatant racism shot him up from 1% to 15-20% initially, and given the winner take all approach of the Republican primaries, that was enough to keep him afloat as Republicans reluctantly gave in.

That's part of it, but the people I know who liked Trump as a candidate kinda knew he was horrible, but liked the idea of him as a wrecking ball for DC. I know this is anecdotal, but I really don't think people give this aspect enough consideration.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Mueller to testify before Ways and Means committee next Tuesday.   speculation isthat he's prepared his testimony in verse formand his aide will be accompanying on ukelele.  

[felice]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

On top of what DMC said, it could actually drive independents to Trump. When people feel scared, they vote Republican.

What would they be scared of? It could also motivate non-voters to show up, and discourage turnout by the semi-reasonable fringe of Republicans.

[Larry of the Lawn]

What fucking 'independent' who wasn't in a coma for the last few years is going to flip to Trump?  

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

My you sound like trump.

News for ya -- Puerto Rico is the US, which is why Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

Oh please. Puerto Rico is a US territory with a completely separate governing and voting scheme compared to the US. They cant even vote for POTUS unless they leave and establish residence in a state. The people living in Puerto Rico are not politically dealing with the same things by a longshot. 

Of course I know they are US citizens. They are not residents of the United STATES. And even if they were up in arms about Trump (they aren't) it wouldn't matter a bit politically. 

Anyway, way to miss the entire point. There were almost a million people protesting for days in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans flew in specifically to protest. They protested in boats, underwater, dancing, singing, at night and at day. THAT is what people fed up with the status quo looks like. 

Does that look like anywhere in the United STATES? 

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What fucking 'independent' who wasn't in a coma for the last few years is going to flip to Trump?  

Lots and lots. Here are some:

That fucking minivan in front of me who didnt have a single trump sticker but had tons of "fight socialism" signs

Lots of skeptical people who didnt vote in 2016 because they hated both candidates but saw that the US hasn't collapsed into hell

Altherion

Lots of people who are racist but not particularly politically motivated normally and are now proud to vote their racism

(If the candidate is a woman) lots of sexists who want a woman to win, just not ya know THAT one because reasons 

[Martell Spy]

So, Trump is going to win the nobel prize?

South Korea: North Korea fires 2 projectiles into sea

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/south-north-korea-launch-1432926

Quote

 

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea fired two unidentified projectiles into the sea on Thursday, South Korea’s military said, the first launches in more than two months as North Korean and U.S. officials work to restart nuclear diplomacy.

The South’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said the projectiles were fired from the eastern coastal town of Wonsan and flew 430 kilometers (267 miles). It wasn’t immediately known what type of projectiles North Korea fired. But in the past, such launches have involved missiles or artillery.

Some observers say the North could intend to show the U.S. and others what would happen if diplomacy fails. Recently, North Korea was ramping up pressure on the U.S. ahead of the possible resumption of nuclear talks.

North Korea is desperate to win sanctions relief, but U.S. officials have maintained North Korea must first take significant steps toward nuclear disarmament.

A senior U.S. official said the Trump administration was aware of the reports of a “short-range projectile launched from North Korea.” The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide a response, said the administration had no further comment at this time.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 7/24/2019 at 11:13 AM, Fragile Bird said:

Canada has a universal health care system that is not as good as what many European countries have, so people have private insurance to cover the gaps. However, not a great many actually buy private insurance (where did you get that number?) the additional coverage comes from employee benefits.

What is covered by health care will vary slightly from province to province, but basically all your visits to your doctor, most specialists (stuff like cosmetic surgery is on your tab, unless it’s deemed medically required, like for scars from a terrible accident) and treatment in hospital. While you are in hospital everything is provided, once you are discharged you pay for your own meds and supplies. Most tests are covered, like mammograms and colonoscopies. In fact I get reminder letters from the government telling me to book my mammogram and reminding me this is the year for PAP tests (the medical community concluded annual PAP tests aren’t needed and switched it to every two or three years). Vaccines for the young are covered, as are flu shots for everyone.

Our health care system does not pay for prescriptions, optometrists and corrective lenses, dental care or a lot of rehab treatment. Or ambulances, a big issue in rural areas, although most provinces have air ambulance serving very remote areas. Every election the question of dental care and prescription plans gets booted around by the parties. Private insurance, usually in the form of employee benefit plans, pays for prescription drugs, dental, eye ware, massage therapy, perhaps psychiatric counseling, and often some supplies like corrective foot ware.

Once you turn 65 your prescriptions are covered, with a small initial deductible of $100 a year for most people, and some stuff is added like the vaccination for shingles and eye exams.

My car insurance covers many extras if I am injured in an accident, perhaps that is included in the 75% number you quote. I looked at getting private coverage after I left my last employer, but decided the coverage was as expensive as paying for stuff out of pocket.

My brother had massive surgery in March, to repair a huge aneurysm found behind his stomach. The biggest out-of-pocket expense, paid by me, was the parking downtown, which hits $25 after a couple of hours. He’s been put on some very pricey drugs, but since he is 69 once he pays the annual $100 he’s covered.

 

Yeah I think that 75% was employee benefits. But still that equates to private / insurance add ons to the public health system.

On 7/24/2019 at 11:17 AM, ants said:

Australia and the UK certainly do. In the UK I would guess over 95% of services would go through it. In Australia we also have private insurance that supplements the public Medicare. 

So no, in other words.

Medicare for all (as I understand the rhetoric) is that there's no private parallel to Medicare and health insurance system / market. All healthcare is provided through Medicare and it's 100% paid from taxes / by the govt (arguably 100% govt funding of healthcare would necessitate some level of deficit spending that is not recovered from future tax income).

I think a model with that level of purity isn't really possible, but it appears that's what people like Sanders are advocating. For starters where do vanity medical procedures sit, should the govt pay for people's botox, collagen and silicon implants and facelifts? If all doctors are employed by the govt it implies vanity procedures will either be govt funded, or there will have to be a separate pay to play facility for that kind of thing. Personally I only want the govt to pay for medically necessary procedures, but there's always going to be debate about what's medically necessary if one is to (rightly) give mental health the same regard as physical health. Breast augmentation isn't physically necessary for a woman who's had a mastectomy, but it is often medically necessary from a mental health standpoint.

[Zorral]

Puerto Rico is, whatever you all say, part of the USA.  Otherwise Puerto Ricans could not vote in US elections.

Hello?  Can't do, can't do, can't do.  And those who do do -- aren't really murkins.  Gads you all.

The Dem ruling class once again show their spineless assholery.  They have NO IDEA of how to handle media, and they try to kill those who do.  Eat your young.  That's what the Dems do.

 

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Lots and lots. Here are some:

That fucking minivan in front of me who didnt have a single trump sticker but had tons of "fight socialism" signs

Lots of skeptical people who didnt vote in 2016 because they hated both candidates but saw that the US hasn't collapsed into hell

Altherion

Lots of people who are racist but not particularly politically motivated normally and are now proud to vote their racism

(If the candidate is a woman) lots of sexists who want a woman to win, just not ya know THAT one because reasons 

So, by "lots and lots," you mean, like 19.  Total.  I think getting the third party back is insanely important, I really do, said this a bunch.  But, c'mon, they were pissed and/or disengaged about Hillary.  Which was understandable.  If it's Harris or Warren?  I don't see that type of fuck-off-ness.

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Oh please. Puerto Rico is a US territory with a completely separate governing and voting scheme compared to the US. They cant even vote for POTUS unless they leave and establish residence in a state. The people living in Puerto Rico are not politically dealing with the same things by a longshot.  

Of course I know they are US citizens. They are not residents of the United STATES. And even if they were up in arms about Trump (they aren't) it wouldn't matter a bit politically. 

Anyway, way to miss the entire point. There were almost a million people protesting for days in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans flew in specifically to protest. They protested in boats, underwater, dancing, singing, at night and at day. THAT is what people fed up with the status quo looks like. 

Does that look like anywhere in the United STATES? 

I'm sure you don't mean it, but there's an imperialistic bent to this post that's vaguely concerning. Like I can imagine a British guy in the time before the American revolution saying much the same about the thirteen colonies.

[Altherion]

On 7/23/2019 at 12:52 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

Sarcasm aside, the problem is your side talking about innocent until proven guilty just looks like attempting to defend the indefensible. Its the last refuge of defense for your political allies, and it's seen as virtually an admission that there may indeed be some guilt, and the individual concerned is only trying to get off on a technicality.

First, I don't have a political side -- I dislike the two major American parties in roughly equal measure and none of the smaller parties have a chance. Second, it is possible for innocent until proven guilty to be the last refuge, but that is certainly not what happened with Kavanaugh (or, for that matter, with Franklin). It only becomes a last refuge when there is incontrovertible evidence of guilt, but it falls just barely short of being a complete proof. With Kavanaugh, there was no evidence at all beyond the accusations themselves -- no time, no place, no witnesses who corroborated the story... they best they could do was hearsay and even then when questioned directly, most people claiming second-hand knowledge hedged their bets. With Franklin, it was not quite so clear, but still, it's far more likely a political hack job than not.

On 7/23/2019 at 12:52 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

And, of course innocent until proven guilty is only a standard to be applied to legal prosecution. The concept does not exist in the court of public opinion. It's the mob that rules there.

The concept exists outside of courts, it's just that the standard of proof is weaker in some than in others. In fact, this is a foundational aspect of every social organization that is even slightly exclusive and every organization with a hierarchy. Think about it: what would happen if anyone could accuse any CEO of wrongdoing and be believed without being required to present any evidence? Or a professor or a university student or a member of some club... this list can go on almost forever. Yes, except in the legal system, there is usually no formal statement to the effect of "innocent until proven guilty", but it is almost always implied in any sane organization.

And yes, the mob rules in the court of public opinion -- but this is precisely why as society evolved, we took as much power from the court of public opinion as possible. The mob is, practically by definition, disorderly and fickle. It is madness to rely on its judgement for anything of consequence.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

The concept exists outside of courts, it's just that the standard of proof is weaker in some than in others. In fact, this is a foundational aspect of every social organization that is even slightly exclusive and every organization with a hierarchy. Think about it: what would happen if anyone could accuse any CEO of wrongdoing and be believed without being required to present any evidence? Or a professor or a university student or a member of some club... this list can go on almost forever. Yes, except in the legal system, there is usually no formal statement to the effect of "innocent until proven guilty", but it is almost always implied in any sane organization.

 

The courts can put a person in prison or even deprive them of life. There is nothing like that in universities and other orgs. 

[The Anti-Targ]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

First, I don't have a political side -- I dislike the two major American parties in roughly equal measure and none of the smaller parties have a chance. Second, it is possible for innocent until proven guilty to be the last refuge, but that is certainly not what happened with Kavanaugh (or, for that matter, with Franklin). It only becomes a last refuge when there is incontrovertible evidence of guilt, but it falls just barely short of being a complete proof. With Kavanaugh, there was no evidence at all beyond the accusations themselves -- no time, no place, no witnesses who corroborated the story... they best they could do was hearsay and even then when questioned directly, most people claiming second-hand knowledge hedged their bets. With Franklin, it was not quite so clear, but still, it's far more likely a political hack job than not.

The concept exists outside of courts, it's just that the standard of proof is weaker in some than in others. In fact, this is a foundational aspect of every social organization that is even slightly exclusive and every organization with a hierarchy. Think about it: what would happen if anyone could accuse any CEO of wrongdoing and be believed without being required to present any evidence? Or a professor or a university student or a member of some club... this list can go on almost forever. Yes, except in the legal system, there is usually no formal statement to the effect of "innocent until proven guilty", but it is almost always implied in any sane organization.

And yes, the mob rules in the court of public opinion -- but this is precisely why as society evolved, we took as much power from the court of public opinion as possible. The mob is, practically by definition, disorderly and fickle. It is madness to rely on its judgement for anything of consequence.

I wasn't talking about you. When I said "your side" the "your" in that case is whomever is being accused of bad behavior by those who would see the person brought low by fair means or foul. 

News flash. Mob rule is back in a way that it never existed before. Social media has blown all those checks on mob rule out the water. The pitchforks might be figurative this time around, but they do a helluva lot more damage. It's irrelevant whether the mob's judgement is reliable. It's the effect that's consequential, and we're seeing the effect, and the effect is considerable and can't merely be dismissed because the mob is made up of ignorant plebs.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

So, by "lots and lots," you mean, like 19.  Total.  I think getting the third party back is insanely important, I really do, said this a bunch.  But, c'mon, they were pissed and/or disengaged about Hillary.  Which was understandable.  If it's Harris or Warren?  I don't see that type of fuck-off-ness.

You greatly underestimate the hatred of women in the US, especially those who try to rule. 

Also I think you lack imagination. There were what, 42% of the eligible population who didnt vote. You don't think some of them are now interested in Trump because of what I stated? When you're talking about margins in the hundreds it doesnt take much to move the needle. 

27 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I'm sure you don't mean it, but there's an imperialistic bent to this post that's vaguely concerning. Like I can imagine a British guy in the time before the American revolution saying much the same about the thirteen colonies.

Then I did a bad job. For the record I am 100% for puerto ricans to either become a state or become an independent nation with a massive amount of reparations from the US. I am completely aware they are US citizens (though they can't vote for anything binding as residents of Puerto Rico, same as any other territory). I think its bullshit what they've had to deal with from this and previous administrations. 

And they are showing the contiguous US states what losing their patience looks like. They are forcing their representatives to start impeachment proceedings. They are forcing resignations. They are forcing change and publicity in the face of corruption and vulgarity. 

That is what people pissed off looks like. People angrily liking things on twitter or marching for a day every year in quiet happy areas wearing hats isn't it. Some people are getting there - crowds blocking ICE facilities and the never again movement is a good start. But most people living in the contiguous US are not caring that much. 

[Jace, Extat]

35 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I'm sure you don't mean it, but there's an imperialistic bent to this post that's vaguely concerning. Like I can imagine a British guy in the time before the American revolution saying much the same about the thirteen colonies.

Came off as factual and unbiased to me. Puerto Rico is a territory owned by the U.S. which is extremely imperialistic. They are permitted nominal citizenship but do not enjoy full political rights unless they relocate to the mainland which is even more imperialistic.

Pointing out the nature of the U.S. and Puerto Rican relationship is an observation, neither condemning nor condoning.

[felice]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also I think you lack imagination. There were what, 42% of the eligible population who didnt vote. You don't think some of them are now interested in Trump because of what I stated?

I think pretty much everybody who'd ever be interested in Trump voted for him in 2016. Racists who feel strongly about supporting a racist agenda but don't regularly vote Republican strikes me as a pretty niche demographic. Sexists who weren't motivated in 2016 won't ever be motivated. And nobody who hadn't already drunk the Kool-Aid has been impressed by his performance in office. A lot more of the 42% are likely to recognise that he's proven uniquely unsuitable for the role of President and needs to go.

[DMC]

59 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You greatly underestimate the hatred of women in the US, especially those who try to rule. 

I think a woman is the best to run against Trump.  And I'm not underestimating anything.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

When you're talking about margins in the hundreds it doesnt take much to move the needle. 

Who the fuck is talking about margins in the hundreds?