Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:51 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You take out any region and the economy struggles for a while. Capital takes a long time to accumulate, especially human capital. It's not like *poof* a factory appears someplace.

However, as valuable as California is, it's not the only source of technology in the US. San Francisco is full, and Austin is growing. The actors of California are not unique, most are not born there, and if California were to sink into the ocean move, movies and tv would suck for a decade or so but the industry would recover in another region. The real reason Hollywood was chosen to be the HQ of movies was its proximity to New Jersey. Seriously, Edison was almost as vicious with copyrights as Hollywood is today, so there's some irony there. California may have year round harvests, but it's not the breadbasket of the US.


And yet, claiming (as I have seen many do) that the country would be better off without California, is frankly a short-sighted and idiotic statement (Not to mention how horrible it is to be laughing at the wholesale slaughter or sinking of about 12% of the entire US population*). Of course recovery would be possible and would happen in time, however the disruption is nothing to laugh at, and downplaying that amount of goods and resources is stupid (California produces about 13% of the entire countries GDP, and consistently contributes more in taxes than it receives from the Federal Government. We essentially subsidize the rest of the country, much like most "blue states"). The only reason we have less say in government is because electoral college shenanigans, and that the number of seats in the house hasn't been reassessed (or moved at all) since the 1920s, leading us to be very underrepresented proportionally.

*US population = 323.1 Million (2016 Numbers). California population = 39.25 Million (2016 Numbers)
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6950
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:59 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:Net Neutrality is basically Internet-ACA, so much of my comments above apply here as well.
Pretty much all your points demonstrate a level of breathtaking ignorance, but I just wanted to highlight this one in particular.

Some of the stuff you said is so ignorant it comes off as genuinely hurtful -- like I get you're trying to be civil, but there's a point where your ignorance is actually not just insulting, but emotionally painful to read. You treat things that have wrecked the lives of people I love with a casual flippancy -- a flippancy that makes me very uninterested in discussing any of it with you. No amount of etiquette is going to change the fact that a lot of your statements here exhibit a passive, casual cruelty.

This statement though? This one is just flat-out silly.

Pretty much every major internet tech company -- outside of the internet providers themselves -- support net neutrality. Imagine a version of ACA, except the vast majority of hospitals, doctors, nurses, medical equipment providers, medical research companies, and even the patients themselves support it. Only insurance companies think it's a bad idea.

There's only two types of people I've met who oppose Net Neutrality: People who don't understand what it is, and fanatical libertarians. Like, the kind who call taxes 'theft' and think the reason privatized prisons don't work are because of those gosh-darn prison-guard unions. In other words, 'idiots'.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:35 pm UTC

Note: I do NOT support getting rid of Cali, only just giving them a slice of humble pie

Remember; California isn't truly much more liberal than the rest of the country, just that the conservatives have all but given up. Split up California, with the farmers in the North getting their own state, so that you have more representation in Congress, and you'll find fewer Democrats in power than you'd like.

As for actual power, remember, DC and government does not have a monopoly on power. Hollywood dominates American culture, which shapes how we see the world, and I'd say that combined they have more longterm power and influence than the executive branch.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby MartianInvader » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:53 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Remember; California isn't truly much more liberal than the rest of the country, just that the conservatives have all but given up.

I think a statement like this needs a source. 46% of the country voted for Trump, 31% of California voted for him. You'll see higher percentages for every Democratic presidential nominee and lower for every Republican since Reagan's election (but not his re-election), and he was FROM California. I'd love to see any numbers you can provide that indicate California isn't more liberal than the rest of the country.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:16 pm UTC

California political geography

Reread what you quoted. Didn't say California wasn't more liberal. Said they weren't much more liberal.

And remember, voting results only show who showed up to vote. If one side has been consistently disillusioned, they arent going to show up in the same percentages. It's like being a fan of a sports team that consistently sucks; of course you aren't going to watch as often as the other fans.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby MartianInvader » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:25 pm UTC

Nice link, but the geographic map they provide looks just like the rest of the country - blue cities and their metros, and red rural areas.

The population-weighted map sure makes California look MUCH more liberal than the country as a whole to me.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:16 pm UTC

Yeah, I'm going to have to call bullshit on the "Well Republicans in California have just given up" defense. Crunching the numbers, California had 24.3 Million people eligible to register to vote for the 2016 election, of which 17.8 Million are registered, that puts it at about 73% registration rate (and 75% of those registered voted in the election). Compare this to the country as a whole, (218.9M eligible, 146.3M registered, for about 67% registration rate) and California has a higher percentage of eligible voters registered and voting than the country as a whole.

You are making the claim that the ratio of republicans to democrats in California is similar to the rest of the country, but that Republicans are not registering/voting due to "giving up." If that were the case then not only were proportionally more Republicans not registering/voting, but for some reason in California the percentage of democrat registration/voting is much higher percentage than the rest of the country...you're going to have to have something to back that up.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:49 pm UTC

For fucks sake.

"California is not as liberal as you think" DOES NOT EQUAL "California is actually conservative"

All I am saying is that there are more conservatives in California than you would expect given its perception in the public eye.

Where does California rank as pro choice in the US? It's not in the top 10. Around the bottom of the top 3rd.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:52 pm UTC

TL;DR: It's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that California Republicans have been giving up on the Republican Party at a much higher rate than other California political party members have been giving up on their parties. Still, the Republican Party didn't lose anywhere near as many voters over the past decade as the Democratic and No Party Preference categories gained, so the Republican Party's shrinkage is probably best explained by its inability to attract new members to replace those who die, rather than by the idea that Republicans are "giving up."

That's if (big if) I can accurately estimate the rate of "giving up" by voter registration, rather than by whether people actually vote (or for whom).

From the California Secretary of State's Odd-Numbered Year Report of Registration, February 10, 2017:

[Data slightly re-arranged by me because the original is formatted in a table that I don't want to take time to reconstruct.]

REGISTRATION BY POLITICAL PARTY

Report Date: February 10, 2017
Democratic: 8,700,440 44.8%
Republican: 5,027,714 25.9%
No Party Preference: 4,762,212 24.5%
Other: 942,243 4.9%

[...Compare that with ten years prior...]

Report Date: February 10, 2007
Democratic: 6,667,437 42.5%
Republican: 5,362,473 34.2%
No Party Preference: 2,953,414 18.8%
Other: 699,034 4.5%


Over the past decade, from a voter registration perspective, all parties have lost ground to the "No Party Preference" category, but the Republican Party seems to have lost the most.

(But a more significant factor is probably the tendency for new voters joining the rolls--either due to young people reaching voting age or to immigration from other states and countries--to be more inclined to join the Democratic or No Party Preference categories than the anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, anti-reproductive-rights, anti-social-services, and anti-minimum-wage Republican category. Conservatives also tend to be older, which puts them at greater risk of leaving the rolls due to death or senility.)

It's worth mentioning that the fastest-growing California political party is the American Independent Party, which a lot of people who consider themselves "independents" have joined by mistake. (See this Los Angeles Times article: Are you an independent voter? You aren't if you checked this box.) The "Other" category contains those folks, who should be in the "No Party Preference" category.

I found the "Political Party Registration Highlights" section of that document (see link above) pretty interesting. It lists the top ten California counties for registration in each party. San Francisco is at the top of both the Democratic Party (57.72%) and No Party Preference (31.06%) categories. I knew that Republicans were a very endangered species there, but I didn't know just how rare they were.

Surprisingly,
Spoiler:
California's voter registration percentages have actually risen quite a bit, over the past decade:

TOTAL VOTER REGISTRATION

Report Date: February 10, 2017
Eligible Voters:1: 24,939,710
Registered Voters: 19,432,609
Percent: 77.92%

[...Compare that with ten years prior...]

Report Date: February 10, 2007
Eligible Voters:1: 22,768,146
Registered Voters: 15,682,358
Percent: 68.88%

1 The figures given are unofficial but are based on U.S. Census data, as adjusted by information from the California Department of Finance and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:16 pm UTC, edited 14 times in total.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:56 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Remember; California isn't truly much more liberal than the rest of the country, just that the conservatives have all but given up.


I'm just asking you to defend your statement here. I can't see any proof that less Republicans register/vote here proportionally than elsewhere in the country due to "Giving Up." What I do see evidence of is that California appears to be more politically active (higher percentage registering/voting), as well as more Democratic-leaning than other states.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:03 pm UTC

Did find that source for abortion nationwide, which is an ok proxy for conservative vs liberal. I'm currently on my phone so I can't really search for anything. You want to show me on which issues that California overwhelming polls liberal in comparison to everyone else? I'm trying to find something for support for illegal immigrants by state, but again, phone. Want the results of Proposition 8? That had voter turnout of 80%, and passed by a 5 point margin, though a lot changed in 10 years.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:27 pm UTC

http://news.gallup.com/poll/125066/state-states.aspx Going over this, California polls much higher than the National average in pretty much every "Liberal/Conservative" metric. However this isn't what burned my biscuit about your claim, which was that Republicans (conservatives) are underrepresented due to "giving up." There is pretty much no way to defend this statement.

Edit: Gallup also puts California as tied for #5 in "Most liberal states*" which I would certainly count that as " much more liberal than the rest of the country"

*http://news.gallup.com/poll/181505/mississippi-alabama-louisiana-conservative-states.aspx
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:39 pm UTC

Does California vote in the same proportion as the polls would imply? That is, if hypothetically 60% poll liberal, does California typically vote 40% Republican? Because if it's only 30% voting Republican when polls suggest 40%, that suggests conservatives stay home.

And id say being #5 is "more liberal than rest of country", not "much more liberal than rest of country".

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:53 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Does California vote in the same proportion as the polls would imply? That is, if hypothetically 60% poll liberal, does California typically vote 40% Republican? Because if it's only 30% voting Republican when polls suggest 40%, that suggests conservatives stay home.


I submit that in a typical election that may be a good indicator (However such a 10% discrepancy could just as easily be due to another factor, such as a national Republican candidate is unpalatable to the typical California Republican), however the last election was far from the typical election, and can't really be used for any metric in Conservative/Liberal in my opinion. Of the self-professed conservatives that I know, only one said they voted for Trump, which would skew the data for baseline data. I feel that 2012 may be too far back in history to represent the current political climate (According to Gallup for 2012, California doesn't even break the top 10 for most liberal states*)

Edit: I'd say it's "much more liberal than the rest of the country" if you count the country's ideology as a whole as the baseline (listed as "nation" in the Gallup poll).

*http://news.gallup.com/poll/160196/alabama-north-dakota-wyoming-conservative-states.aspx
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

elasto
Posts: 3261
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:07 am UTC

The US government has begun shutting down many of its services after the Senate failed to agree on a new budget.

A bill to fund the federal government until 16 February did not receive the required 60 votes amid a bitter dispute over immigration and border security.

It is the first shutdown ever to happen while the same party, the Republicans, controls Congress and the White House.

The impasse will affect hundreds of thousands of federal workers, and the recriminations have already begun.

Democrats will argue that they had a deal with the president on their bipartisan compromise that included immigration reform - only to have him back away during that fateful obscenity-laden Oval Office meeting last week. Republicans will frame this as liberals putting undocumented immigrant protections over military readiness and health insurance for poor kids.

The blame game began at midnight, and the winner has yet to be decided. Generally, the loser in these types of showdowns is the party entering the fight with the lowest popularity - bad news for Mr Trump and the Republicans.

The good news, for both sides, is that their political bases will be thrilled they are playing hardball. Midterm election years, like 2018, tend to encourage this kind of rally-the-base manoeuvres.

Now that the line has been crossed, this could become a protracted, ugly fight.

Didn't Trump claim to be an 'expert negotiator' during the elections or something? It's some feat to manage to negotiate a government shutdown when controlling both the executive and legislature...

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1895
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:32 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Didn't Trump claim to be an 'expert negotiator' during the elections or something? It's some feat to manage to negotiate a government shutdown when controlling both the executive and legislature...
huge negotiations. The best negotiations.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:47 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Want the results of Proposition 8?
Prop. 8 leaves some voters puzzled
How Proposition 8 passed in California — and why it wouldn’t today
Why Prop 8 Passed
Speaking out recently against Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown made an appeal for the importance of protecting the rights of same-sex couples. And then he urged his audience to vote yes on the proposition.

Brown misspoke. He intended to advocate a no vote. But he isn't alone in confusing which side is which. As election day nears, both supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 worry that voters will be confused by a choice that can seem counterintuitive: Voting no on the initiative means voting yes on gay marriage, while voting yes means gay marriage would be disallowed.
Let's start with the basics. Statewide, Prop. 8 was approved -- the "yes" vote was in favor of eliminating same-sex marriage -- 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent. That number is even more remarkable when you consider that President Obama won California with 61.1 percent of the vote on the same day. (Worth noting: Then candidate Obama opposed same-sex marriage.)
The explanation? Many largely black churches supported Prop. 8 while Hispanics, a heavily Catholic community, were more naturally inclined to side with their faith -- and against gay marriage.
The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.
The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents.
Polling suggests that half a million people who opposed same-sex marriage mistakenly voted against the proposition. They were confused by the idea that a “no” vote was actually a vote for gay marriage. This “wrong-way voting” affected both sides, but overwhelmingly it helped the “no” side. Our analysis suggests that the division among California voters on same-sex marriage at the time of Proposition 8 was actually 54% to 46% — not so close.


Bullshit bullshit waffle bullshit confusion complacency anger vitriol bullshit Think of the children! bullshit apathy bullshit fear confusion apathy bullshit, same as any other election or referendum, really.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18685
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:05 pm UTC

At least I get paid retroactively? If I put in overtime?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Ginger » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:10 pm UTC

Proposition 8's wording is hella strange, voting one way gives the wrong answer and voting the second way gives the answer Conservatives and religious voters wanna see? Anyways, we should always allow same-sex marriages, being gay is not illegal anymore, it's not a mind sicknesses and GAY PEOPLE NEED MARRIAGES. Marriages are fundamental rights to every citizens in my opinion. Every single citizen should be allowed to marry, maybe the churches won't do it, but maybe a judge shall? And it's super important in any democratic nation that EVERY. Voter. Gets his or her say, his or her lifestyles respected, and not get ban from all marriages b/c of a silly, superficial religious F bombing quibble fits they're having over it.
Cersei Lannister wrote:In the game of thrones you either win or you die.


O-Ren Ishii wrote:Look at me Boss Matsumoto... look at my eyes. Do they look like the eyes of someone you killed?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:24 pm UTC

Wait, why is state recognized marriage needed for any person, straight or gay?

No, not saying criminalize same sex marriage

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1895
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:45 pm UTC

for the legal benefits
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:52 pm UTC

... and that brings up an issue for people all over the "free" world: poly marriages. I don't think anywhere yet recognises a committed relationship between three or more people, except some "no free" places where men can have multiple wives. If Adrian is with Betty, Betty is with Adrian and Charles, Charles is with Betty and Deborah and Deborah is with Charles and that's it, no other partners, for 40 years, they can't share a house and share the mortgage payments as a married group. The government calls some of their contributions rent and that's taxable income so they get to take 20% of it, or whatever the fraction is. Charles can't give money tax-free to Betty and to Deborah, because the government won't recognise both of them as being his partner. If Charles and Deborah die in a car crash, Betty can't collect Charles' military pension. The government just crosses it off their list of liabilities and uses it to wallpaper over the cracks in the toilet walls at Westminster.

I don't know of a way to fix that without creating a loophole open to exploitation, but that's often the case.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

elasto
Posts: 3261
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:07 pm UTC

Probably moral discomfort is at the root of it - but creating tax/benefit loopholes is a biggie too - especially when paired alongside 'quickie divorces' which modern society also expects.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18685
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:19 pm UTC

lol at the idea that legality surrounding marriage rights has ANYTHING to do with fear of exploitation of tax loopholes.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:03 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:I don't know of a way to fix that without creating a loophole open to exploitation, but that's often the case.
This would kill pensions but they are dying anyway. It sets up the possibility of marriages which could exist hundreds of years, potentially forever. I find that funny.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:14 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Sableagle wrote:I don't know of a way to fix that without creating a loophole open to exploitation, but that's often the case.
This would kill pensions but they are dying anyway. It sets up the possibility of marriages which could exist hundreds of years, potentially forever. I find that funny.

Science fiction and fantasy literature has come up with some models of that that at least superficially appear workable (Heinlein's
the moon is a harsh mistress
springs to mind, I think Alaistair Reynolds' Poseidon's Children also had something like that).

Legally I think the way to go is complete marriage privatisation. I don't think the state has any business being involved in marriage anyway, seems like a hangover from before the separation of church and state. Marriage is a contract, and should be handled like any other contract, without the state granting special privileges to those who choose to so contract.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:34 pm UTC

Yeah, I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I'd go with a corporation myself.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Ginger » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:37 pm UTC

Privatized marriage would comoditize marriages. Better to let religious or government officials handle it. I'd even let anyone have a license to give marriages. Just not B word female dog corporations that look the other way constantly.
Cersei Lannister wrote:In the game of thrones you either win or you die.


O-Ren Ishii wrote:Look at me Boss Matsumoto... look at my eyes. Do they look like the eyes of someone you killed?

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1895
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:14 pm UTC

Order your own personalized Premier Wedding Pro™ in the next 5 minutes and get a FREE CAKE*! CALL NOW!!

*PREMIER WEDDINGS Co. Ltd. reserves the right to not bake the cake. The product is presented AS IS and any damages are the responsibility of the customer. The customer agrees to waive ALL rights to litigate against PREMIER WEDDINGS Co. Ltd. for ANY reason upon purchase of the presented product; further restrictions may apply.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3100
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby emceng » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:11 am UTC

Yablo wrote:
emceng wrote:Yablo, would you please describe exactly what Trump is doing that you support? You keep saying he's doing a good job, and following through on his promises. Which exactly do you support? This is what we are seeing from this administration:


The intentional undermining of nearly every cabinet department - destroying the EPA, interior department, encouraging businesses in rapacious land use, removing regulations that prevent companies from hurting the environment

Changing policy and/or direction isn’t exactly undermining. I’m a governmental accountant for the State of Alaska, and I handle federal grants for contaminated sites and spill prevention, so I deal pretty closely with the EPA. For several years now, I’ve felt the EPA has had far too much power and has been allowed to bully states. What Trump’s administration is doing there is reining in a lot of that power to check its abuse.

Regarding the Interior Department, I fully support the protection and preservation of parks and monuments, and I’m open to the argument that the administration may go too far in removing those protections. At the same time, there is a lot of land that could (and probably even should) be used for other purposes.

Bullying states is not the same as allowing corporations to do whatever the hell they want. The EPA having too much power might be a problem, but there can be a balance - this administration is basically trying to get rid of all of their power.
Encouraging discrimination against LGBT people
Active discrimination against people of color

These points would definitely be unacceptable, but I don’t see Trump actually doing this. Well, other than the selection of A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe as a running mate. I absolutely believe he could be more sensitive to LGBT and racial issues, but I don’t see that he’s actively discriminating. It seems to me more like a blustery stand-off with Basic Human Decency (which I also believe has gotten way out of hand).

Let's see - blocking transgender students from using the bathroom of their choice. Attempting to ban transgender people from joining the military. Having the DOJ make transgender no longer a protected class. Those are things Trump did. That is ignoring him appointing horribly anti-gay people to his administration, and not just Pence.
Also, if you can't see Trump's racism, I don't know how to explain it to you. He's been suspected and accused for decades of blatant racism against blacks. His actions in choosing personnel(historically white administration), his comments about Hispanics, and his acting like anyone who isn't white doesn't belong in the USA. Those are demonstrable facts.
A belief that only white Americans are real Americans

Again, I don’t see this. He started one of the biggest outreach movements by the Republican party toward the African-American community. I’ll admit he’s said some really unacceptable things about Hispanics in the past, and I don’t appreciate that sort of negative generalization against any group. But if he’s ever expressed the belief that only white Americans are real Americans, I’ve never heard it, and neither has Google.
[/quote]

Just recently it came out that he asked a woman where she was from. She was from America, but because she was a person of color, he kept pressing, asking for where her 'people' came from. Do you think he's asked this of a single white person in his entire life? And maybe he made outreach to the black community - but how? By praising neo-Nazis? Cutting programs for the poor?
Packing the justice system with judges based on political motives, not any sort of judicial skill


I’m not saying this is okay, but presidents have been doing this for a long time. If a president can find appointees for judgeships who both fit the president’s politics and have judicial skill, all the better. If it comes down to one or the other, unfortunately, most presidents are going to go with someone who agrees with them. Political appointments can’t completely be placed on Trump’s shoulders either, though. When he got into office, he had hundreds of nominations to make, and Congress had to confirm each one. In many cases, Democrats and Republicans alike stalled the process for political gains. To my knowledge, we still don’t have an ambassador to Germany despite Trump’s appointment months ago.[/quote][/quote]
Ok, so since it has happened in the past, you are ok with him nominating a guy that has never tried a single case in court? You're ok with him nominating a freaking sci-fi author that happens to have a law degree?
Damaging the relationships with our best allies

It could be argued Obama did the same thing. I personally consider countries like Israel and Guatemala to be among out best allies. Every action an administration takes is going to please some countries and upset others. What I see is that Trump ignores the opinions of the rest of the world in much of his decision-making as it affects the U.S. That’s not to say the opinions of the rest of the world don’t matter. In fact, I wish Trump would pay more attention to the rest of the world even if he ultimately does decide it’s in America’s best interests to go against them. Brushing off the concerns of our allies is bad. They may not like it if we go against them, but it would go over much better if Trump at least pretended to consider their concerns.
[/quote]
Even if Obama pissed off every country in the world, that has absolutely no bearing on what Trump is doing. Trump is making idiotic blunders every time he talks to a world leader. He does not know how to negotiate, or even act around world leaders.
Cozying up to dictators

Like Obama did in Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba … Or how Obama told Medvedev to let Putin know he’d have more flexibility to deal after the election? I don’t advocate cozying up to dictators, but it seems like it’s what presidents do. Bush, Jr. loved Saudi Arabia. Lyndon Johnson loved an oppressive Brazilian regime his CIA helped to install. Kennedy and Park Chung-Hee in South Korea … Hell, I love Ronald Reagan, but even he cozied up to Indonesia while their death squads slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. At least Trump called Taiwan.
[/quote]

Again, who the fuck cares what Obama did? I'm asking you, why you think it's ok that he seems to absolutely love Putin, and think Duterte is doing an awesome job, despite being a murderer, and abetting murder.
Attacking the press for reporting the truth

In an astounding number of cases, though, they aren’t reporting the truth. Or they’re twisting the truth or leaving out important details. I will admit to being so tired of hearing Trump mention “Fake News.” Whether what they report is true or not, the president should, in most cases, ignore it publicly. That’s why he has a press secretary.
[/quote]

Ok, wow. Just wow. How can I argue this? Are you being disingenuous, or do you actually believe this? Below you say you recognize that Trump lies. How is it that you believe he does lie, just not about the media?

Undermining confidence in the FBI for political gain

To be fair, the FBI did a lot of that undermining on its own.
[/quote]
How exactly? They've made mistakes, but no other administration in history has had their party attack the FBI to distract from a criminal investigation.
Signing a tax bill that is based on the lie that the economy will grow at twice the rate of any reasonable projection, and that will cause huge economic burdens for years to come

He does exaggerate nearly everything, but he didn’t draft the bill, and he didn’t vote on the bill. I don’t believe the tax bill he signed will be nearly as great as he says it will, and there are some things I think it should have done differently, but I also don’t think it’ll be an economic burden at all. What he should have done is get involved with the tax bill at the foundation rather than just telling Congress to throw a little of this and some of that in there, and get it done by Christmas.
[/quote]
Ok, I can agree that it isn't all on Trump for the tax bill, but he signed it. You are not right that you think it won't be an economic burden. It's increasing the deficit 1.5 TRILLION dollars. It's making structural problems with the basic tax structure that will not be easily fixed.
Trying to kill the ACA

Everything I’ve personally experienced with the ACA has been negative. Because I’m a state employee, I have a great healthcare system compared to a lot of private businesses and individuals, but even my premiums and copays have almost doubled. The free market system we had before the ACA may not have been perfect, but in my experience, it was far better.

Rather than increasing costs for everyone just to subsidize insurance for millions of people who may not even want it, and then penalizing the people who still don’t want it is just ridiculous. I totally agree everyone should have access to healthcare, and many people can’t afford even basic insurance, but I don’t believe it’s okay to force people into plans they don’t want or don’t need and then charge them more for it just to cover other people.

So, yes. I support killing the ACA, but not without a plan that’s at least as good as the free market system we had before.
[/quote]
Ok, so you want to change and improve the ACA. That's completely reasonable. Trump and the GOP's attempts to repeal it have had zero to do with improving it, and all about just killing the whole thing, with vagues promises about 'replacing it', which is bullshit.
Appointing anti-Net Neutrality people to the FCC

Net Neutrality is basically Internet-ACA, so much of my comments above apply here as well.
[/quote][/quote]
That....that isn't how net neutrality works. Not at all. Preventing ISPs from fucking over the public is a basic public good. That's one of the basic things government should do - make sure utilities are working properly. It has nothing to do with a mandate, or insurance, or anything even close to the ACA.
Violating the emoluments clause since day 1

So far, every lawsuit brought against him on those grounds has been dismissed, so until there’s a change in that regard, I honestly don’t think anything else needs to be said on the matter. If he ever is found to have knowingly violated the clause, he should be held accountable just as any other U.S. citizen would. He’s a businessman, so he would have no excuse.
[/quote]
Yes, the lawsuits have been dismissed. You are also setting an unprovable limit for the law. You're saying you want it to be proven that Trump broke the law, and that he knew it. I mean he's fucking dumb enough to probably tell people he did, but it is unlikely it'll happen.

Look at what has been happening though. He doubled the entrance fee for Mar-A-Lago. He constantly goes to his property and makes the Secret Service pay him for cart rental, living spaces, offices in Trump tower, and on and on. He's also hosting political events at his properties, lining his pockets even more.

Also, what about the money for his inauguration? He claimed they'd donate it or something, but it's even worse than his claimed veteran's donation during the campaign.
Putting billionaires in his administration that potentially profit from what they are doing

Every member of every president’s cabinet can potentially profit from what they are doing. The only way the president can be accountable for that is if he appoints them knowing they’ll do that. It’s not only illegal for them to profit from their position, the profit they stand to gain probably isn’t close to the profit most of them would gain outside the cabinet.
I haven’t looked at his cabinet members’ net worth recently, but to my knowledge, most of them are only multi-millionaires. The net worth of his cabinet members is quite a bit more than Obama’s, I’ll give you that.
[/quote]
Sure seems like Devos is funneling profits to her family business. There are likely others, but I'm running out of give a damn for this post.
Provoking North Korea for no fucking reason

I’ll give you this, too. North Korea is doing a lot that isn’t in the best interests of America or much of the rest of the world, but ridiculing another world leader isn’t presidential. Telling them his nuclear button is bigger and actually works is pretty funny, but it’s not presidential. The whole world already knows how North Korea feels about America and they know how America feels about North Korea. There’s no need for either side to make it worse.

He should definitely not ignore North Korea, but he shouldn’t antagonize them. Assure the U.S., North Korea, and the rest of the world that we are prepared for any eventuality and we have measures in place to defend ourselves and our allies. Then assure the world that we are committed first and foremost to a diplomatic solution, but remind them we will match an act of war with a fast and decisive strike. Then leave it at that.

Responding to every threat North Korea makes with a threat or scoff of our own only makes us look bad and makes them relevant.
Completely ignoring any potential Russian interference in the 2016 or 2018 elections

Of course, Russia interfered. It’s what they do. We do the same to them. Governments all over the world do that to everyone else. There’s been no credible evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and I don’t believe there ever will be, but I have no doubt Russia interfered. I think their goal was to cause and amplify the division and antagonism we’re experiencing, and I think they love watching the fallout. Fighting with ourselves over this is only helping their cause.

Still, the Trump administration should address it beyond simply dismissing accusations of collusion.

Ok, no direct evidence made public yet of collusion. But where there's smoke, there's probably fire. And there is a fuck ton of smoke here. Three Cabinet members had Russia Contacts
Wilbur Ross
Tillerson
Sessions

His family - all talked with Russians
Ivanka
Don Jr.
Kushner

Then Flynn, Page, Manafort, a ton of fucking business contacts, and on and on and on.
Trump is also blatantly lying constantly. Do you really think the president should 1) lie to the American people all the time, and 2) do it on trivial things, and 3) be really incompetent at it?

Most politicians lie blatantly and if not constantly, at least often. I think what he’s doing most of the time is exaggerating rather than lying, and that’s something politicians do, too. It’s also something people with a level of arrogance displayed by Trump, Obama, and both Clintons do.

I don’t believe the president should lie to the American people at all. There are things we need to know and have a right to know. But there are also things we don’t need to know, and with the culture of leaking we’ve developed, those things come out whether we need them or not, whether we have a right to them or not.

Lying about trivial things is a problem. I’ve known several people who do that. They volunteer lies about things I don’t even care about or never even thought about which will never affect me or even come up again. They lie to me. About things that just happened to us. And they tell me like I wasn’t there. And they’re telling it wrong. I don’t like lying in any form, and I’ve always believed that honesty is to be respected. It’s by far the biggest reason I opposed Clinton.

But I still don’t see most of what Trump says as lying so much as exaggerating. I don’t care for that either, but my tolerance for it is higher.

If a president is going to lie to the American public, he’d damned-well better be a master of it. If what I see as exaggeration on Trump’s part actually turns out to be just very poor lying, I’ll be embarrassed for our entire country.
[/quote]

I am embarrassed for our entire country. He is blatantly lying all the time. Hell, what about his claim the tax bill won't benefit him? It'll make him tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. He's claimed the FBI, CIA, Feinstein, and others all said there was no collusion. None of that is true.
I mean hell, google 'Trump lies' and you'll get about 100 million hits. He's not just exaggerating, he is flat out lying.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Ginger » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:11 pm UTC

emceng wrote:Let's see - blocking transgender students from using the bathroom of their choice. Attempting to ban transgender people from joining the military. Having the DOJ make transgender no longer a protected class. Those are things Trump did. That is ignoring him appointing horribly anti-gay people to his administration, and not just Pence.

Citations needed. When did Trump fuck over all transgendered women and men re: military services and protected classes? I have definitely received bathrooms discrimination, being banned from women's groups and w/e... and if Trump took away the protected status for my groups then... I have no legal recourse to stop that shit from happening again and again.
Cersei Lannister wrote:In the game of thrones you either win or you die.


O-Ren Ishii wrote:Look at me Boss Matsumoto... look at my eyes. Do they look like the eyes of someone you killed?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:53 pm UTC

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... -security/

(Last I heard, the military chiefs said they'd ignore it (they'd not even been asked) and some judges also overruled it, but I haven't been paying close attention to it since.)

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Ginger » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:32 pm UTC

Thank you Soupspoon. And now: An article about what Trump thinks about transgender in the military, and it says they even made NO MOVES to expel those personnel in like the very first or second paragraph. To wit:

The NY Times wrote:WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Thursday that he is doing the United States military a “great favor” by barring transgender people from serving in its ranks — even though the Pentagon has made no move to expel personnel since the commander in chief first tweeted the policy about-face two weeks ago.

So Trump needs to check his white, rich, powerful male privilege. ANYONE should be able to serve in the military except minors TRUMP is a bigot and needs impeached right now. In fact he needs to be subjected to some compulsory military service to see what his war hawkish ways are doing to our poor and abused country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html
Cersei Lannister wrote:In the game of thrones you either win or you die.


O-Ren Ishii wrote:Look at me Boss Matsumoto... look at my eyes. Do they look like the eyes of someone you killed?

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1895
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:56 pm UTC

suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:54 pm UTC


Did you know that snarking without power doesn't actually solve anything? She voted to end the government shutdown.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Ginger » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:22 pm UTC

Well, I dunno about you, but sarcastic responses to bad behaviors actually works. Think of it like an intervention: Trump is, like, addicted to being a spoiled trapped in his teens man child and if someone, anyone, scolds him sarcastically enough times then... he might just stop acting like a spoiled, trapped in his teens man child with severe, wildly inappropriate, commenting on other races and wars and doing the military a "great services" re: BAN HAMMERING all transgendered ppls from serving? Maybe? LOL Trump dodged the draft he is such a total LOSER. No love for Trump and ALL the loves in the worlds for that person calling him out.
Cersei Lannister wrote:In the game of thrones you either win or you die.


O-Ren Ishii wrote:Look at me Boss Matsumoto... look at my eyes. Do they look like the eyes of someone you killed?

Chen
Posts: 5346
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:12 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:Well, I dunno about you, but sarcastic responses to bad behaviors actually works.


Citation please. Im sure it CAN work in some circumstances, I'm not sure Trump is one of those.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3484
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Magnanimous » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:48 pm UTC

In other news, we have a senator named Duckworth.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:36 pm UTC

Magnanimous wrote:In other news, we have a senator named Duckworth.


and she is fucking awesome.

seriously, I want her and Kamala Harris to run together in 2020 (even before this latest badassery, I wanted her to run).
"We have met the enemy, and we are they. Them? We is it. Whatever."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9290
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:53 pm UTC

I want Charlie Baker to challenge Trump in the primaries.

On the Dem side, I'm more Elizabeth Warren than Duckworth...
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests