The Trump Presidency – 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I think white supremacist is harsh and unwarranted. I would say pro-white. And is there really an issue with this? What is the most attacked person in the country today? White males.

When will the people that control almost all the money, land, and political power in this country catch a break.

[JPhillips]

The GOP should see Will Hurd as a rising star, but after yesterday, I expect he's done for.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When will the people that control almost all the money, land, and political power in this country catch a break.

If these things were owned collectively by race then that statement might mean something.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If these things were owned collectively by race then that statement might mean something.

So where is the attack on white men? As a white man, I feel pretty comfortable. I'm given advantages financially and legally. I've never had anyone say anything negatively to me about being a male or being white. Never dealt with sexual harassment or assault. Never been seen as a terrorist, illegal, or criminal because of my skin color.

I just need someone to explain what attacks I've had to endure that are so bad? Because to me, it sounds like a bunch of whiny snowflakes wanting to play victim.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So where is the attack on white men? As a white man, I feel pretty comfortable. I'm given advantages financially and legally. I've never had anyone say anything negatively to me about being a male or being white. Never dealt with sexual harassment or assault. Never been seen as a terrorist, illegal, or criminal because of my skin color.

I just need someone to explain what attacks I've had to endure that are so bad? Because to me, it sounds like a bunch of whiny snowflakes wanting to play victim.

They are being attacked 'in the narrative'. I'm willing to secede that point if any conservative white males can tell me why white-males-being-attacked-in-the-modern-narrative is vastly more concerning than non-white-males-being-physically-financially-and-judicially-attacked-for-hundreds-of-years-of-reality?

[Thomkal]

So Epstein was found injured and semi-conscious in his jail cell today. Looks right now he might have tried to hang himself, or make it look like he did in order to get a transfer to a new facility:


Jeffrey Epstein Found Injured in NYC Jail Cell After Possible Suicide Attempt: Sources - NBC New York

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I just need someone to explain what attacks I've had to endure that are so bad? Because to me, it sounds like a bunch of whiny snowflakes wanting to play victim.

Silly rabbit. Don't you know when conservatives whine about being under attack it is a legitimate threat from the despicable libs?

Snowflake is only reserved for those on the left who are offended by the actual racist POTUS and his myriad of shenanigans.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Harambe

If you secede that point, there's not much distance between that and "well slavery was bad (but it was the evil Dumbocrat party that was pro-slavery and the Republican president Abe Lincoln freed them) but everything after that is a lamestream media fabrication meant to make me feel bad about being a good honest Christian white man."

That slope isn't particularly slippery for me. I'm definitely willing to concede that white men are being attacked in "the narrative"......with the assumption that that the only narrative they are listening to is being called in from the same house.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

They are being attacked 'in the narrative'. I'm willing to secede that point if any conservative white males can tell me why white-males-being-attacked-in-the-modern-narrative is vastly more concerning than non-white-males-being-physically-financially-and-judicially-attacked-for-hundreds-of-years-of-reality?

I'm not sure being attacked in the narrative is any different than calling out historical privileges - social and financial - and the benefits that continue to accrue from that today.

Of course, I'd also contend that some people trying to make it solely about being 'pro-white' is ok because they are coming for us are trying to obscure that poor whites are being treated like crap by the same people who are calling themselves their saviors.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What are you talking about? The Dems have been at open war with that group. Pelosi and AOC have not gotten along well at all. Are you suggesting they should've ignored a racist attack on their own members just because of policy disagreements?

You are correct that the Dem party leaders have not gotten along with them. I retract.

I was going a different route with that based off of what Atocep was saying and didn't really go back to compare it to what I was responding.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

They are being attacked 'in the narrative'. I'm willing to secede that point if any conservative white males can tell me why white-males-being-attacked-in-the-modern-narrative is vastly more concerning than non-white-males-being-physically-financially-and-judicially-attacked-for-hundreds-of-years-of-reality?

Originally Posted by Harambe

If you secede that point, there's not much distance between that and "well slavery was bad (but it was the evil Dumbocrat party that was pro-slavery and the Republican president Abe Lincoln freed them) but everything after that is a lamestream media fabrication meant to make me feel bad about being a good honest Christian white man."

Can y'all just cede the point and not secede it.
I got nothing else....

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GOP should see Will Hurd as a rising star, but after yesterday, I expect he's done for.

Because he asked the questions a rep should, instead of impugning Mueller's character or political grandstanding? Why would that put him in a bad light?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Can y'all just cede the point and not secede it.
I got nothing else....

The South will rise again in this debate! (that bothered me too)

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Because he asked the questions a rep should, instead of impugning Mueller's character or political grandstanding? Why would that put him in a bad light?

Your second question is answered by your first.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Because he asked the questions a rep should, instead of impugning Mueller's character or political grandstanding? Why would that put him in a bad light?

Mr. van Winkle, I've got some bad news about what's become of the GOP while you've been asleep.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Can y'all just cede the point and not secede it.
I got nothing else....

SOVEREIGN CITIZEN. I live on this point now, and y'all will respect my rights as I draw them up.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Mr. van Winkle, I've got some bad news about what's become of the GOP while you've been asleep.

I believe the GOP will revert to something closer to its original ideals or will eventually.become a fringe party. Either way, if Hurd has the quality he appeared to at the hearing, he will be just fine.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I believe the GOP will revert to something closer to its original ideals or will eventually.become a fringe party. Either way, if Hurd has the quality he appeared to at the hearing, he will be just fine.

He's most likely going to have to do it as something other then a congressman though. He just barely held his seat in 2018 and the district should be even more dem friendly in 2020. He has won a lot of respect for being his own person though, so he might hold on.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I believe the GOP will revert to something closer to its original ideals or will eventually.become a fringe party. Either way, if Hurd has the quality he appeared to at the hearing, he will be just fine.

Trump has a ninety some percent approval rating amongst the GOP. The party is Trump and there will be plenty of people in line to be the next Trump, especially if the Dems let him get away with everything.

I'm not sure how you are defining, original ideals, but I'd love to see evidence for believing the party is going to change post-Trump.

[Arles]

This may be the most difficult election for me to vote on in my lifetime. I can't say I've struggled that long with any of my votes (96 - B Clinton, 00 - W, 04 - W, 08 - McCain, 12 - Obama, 16 - H Clinton). But if Warren or Sanders get the democratic nomination, I have the following dilemma:

1. Vote for Warren or Sanders who I like more personally, but whose fiscal policies I completely disagree with. I will certainly pay significantly more in taxes (using Bernie's plan as a reference) and see changes to health care and entitlements that it may take years to recover from.

2. Vote for Trump and bring back a buffoon and a horrible human being to the White House. But, the practical impact of his buffoonery will be negligible and won't have to deal with the actual fiscal issues of Sanders/Warren.

If you could guarantee me a republican congress for 4 years, I would probably bite the bullet and vote for Sanders or Warren. Still, this is really a cruddy position to be in. I'm really hoping a democrat that I can get behind ends up winning the nomination.

[JPhillips]

I can absolutely guarantee 41 GOP votes in the Senate and I feel pretty confident the Dems won't get rid of the filibuster.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

2. Vote for Trump and bring back a buffoon and a horrible human being to the White House. But, the practical impact of his buffoonery will be negligible

Say wha? He may be a buffoon, but he's done quite a bit of non-negligible things and if you just mean fiscally, his tax cuts have exploded the deficit and may lead to a major correction a few years from now (especially since he's reduced enforcement).

[CU Tiger]

Aside from making a mockery of the office and possibly setting precedents for more nefarious intended successors, what is in your opinion, the biggest non-negligible impact he has had?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump has a ninety some percent approval rating amongst the GOP. The party is Trump and there will be plenty of people in line to be the next Trump, especially if the Dems let him get away with everything.

I'm not sure how you are defining, original ideals, but I'd love to see evidence for believing the party is going to change post-Trump.

Might be pie in the sky, but in my experience, when things go extreme, they tend to bounce back to center.

As for the ideals, I'm more thinking McCain-esque fiscal conservatism (which I agree with) and social fundamentalism (which I don't).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Aside from making a mockery of the office and possibly setting precedents for more nefarious intended successors, what is in your opinion, the biggest non-negligible impact he has had?

I've mentioned the tax cuts for those who are fiscally conservative minded. Though I think the roll back of the climate policies is massive (though there seems to be some pushback as auto makers today made a deal with California to have higher vehicle efficiency standards). In Trump's first year in office he mostly focused on rolling back Obama era climate policies - removing some wilderness protections for National Parks, taking away environmental limitations on fracking, targeting rules on endangered wildlife, gutting the EPA.

That's probably the biggest. The labor rolebacks (including ACA rollbacks - Dept Labor enforces those) are pretty large as well.

[JPhillips]

We now torture children and kidnap children as a matter of policy.

If the ACA lawsuit kills it, that will be huge as there's no backup plan for what happens.

The US has given up it's traditional role as an advocate for human rights. We're comfortable letting other countries torture and kill their own citizens.

The damage done to our traditional allies and alliances will take a long time to fix. Other countries won't trust that this was a one-off.

The tariffs are probably easily reversed, but they've done real damage to the economy and to our trading relationships.

[thesloppy]

I think that building a financial policy around reducing demand for American farmed goods, depleting their workforce and covering the difference from out of the government coffers might have horrible, non-negligible effects that ripple for years.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Might be pie in the sky, but in my experience, when things go extreme, they tend to bounce back to center.

As for the ideals, I'm more thinking McCain-esque fiscal conservatism (which I agree with) and social fundamentalism (which I don't).

If Trump wins in 2020, 'nuff said.

If Trump loses, he'll be around for another 4-8 years to run again or play GOP kingmaker. I think the GOP party is the party of Trump for another 10 years or so (or until he passes).

[ISiddiqui]

I think we know that if Trump loses, he's going to claim the election was stolen from him and fight the results. And then will run again in 4 years on the stolen result thing.

Unless he gets crushed. Even then he may run again

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Aside from making a mockery of the office and possibly setting precedents for more nefarious intended successors, what is in your opinion, the biggest non-negligible impact he has had?

Supreme Court appointments is currently biggest right now. No doubt there is an impact, just unknown exactly how it will play out over the next 20 years.

If it happens (e.g. second term), the Wall & Immigration "reform" would be a very strong contender.

Other possibilities ...

Re-working of the China trade/IP deal, eliminating NK threat, continued economic growth & rising stock market ...

[BishopMVP]

He'll be 78 years old by 2024. The people around him could probably prop up an increasingly senile Trump if he wins in 2020, but if he loses that election being able to run in 2024 seems like a tall task.

[NobodyHere]

Sweden has let the US black community down I guess.

Trump: Sweden has 'let our African American community down' in A$AP Rocky case

[bbgunn]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Sweden has let the US black community down I guess.

Trump: Sweden has 'let our African American community down' in A$AP Rocky case

Oh my goodness, what are we going to do? [/sarcasm]


That's like saying if Justin Bieber got arrested in Sweden, then Sweden let the Caucasian American community down.

[JPhillips]

Could you imagine the shitstorm of criticism if Obama had tried this hard to free a rapper accused of assault?

Were any GOP complaints made in good faith?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

He'll be 78 years old by 2024. The people around him could probably prop up an increasingly senile Trump if he wins in 2020, but if he loses that election being able to run in 2024 seems like a tall task.

About same age as Biden and Sanders now. Both surprisingly spry for being ancient.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Aside from making a mockery of the office and possibly setting precedents for more nefarious intended successors, what is in your opinion, the biggest non-negligible impact he has had?

A lot of the stuff can be fixed. I can't imagine we'll see another President this far to the left on foreign trade. Immigration is fluid. I'd say the biggest impact he has had are:

Tax cuts - This is more about massively increasing the deficit. I just don't know how it ever gets under control with revenues so low and a refusal to cut military spending. And it's tough to implement tax increases on a populace.

Rollback of environmental regulations - Probably too late anyway and most of these people will be dead by the time the world has to deal with the consequences. But hitting that acceleration button isn't helping.

Race relations - White supremacists has been pushed to the fringes of society for decades and it reversed quickly. Many work alongside him in the office and it's seen as socially acceptable to be blatantly racist. This has led to a rise in right-wing terrorism in the country and I have a feeling will continue to fuel violence and division. Then again, maybe it was always there and he's just the guy willing to say the quiet parts out loud.


With all that said, if he doesn't start a war, he's better than W. I know it's a low bar, but some bad policy and being an embarrassment to the country isn't as bad as starting a forever war that kills so many people. If he sticks to his "no wars" policy, I feel much better.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

1. Vote for Warren or Sanders who I like more personally, but whose fiscal policies I completely disagree with. I will certainly pay significantly more in taxes (using Bernie's plan as a reference) and see changes to health care and entitlements that it may take years to recover from.

You would pay more in taxes but bring home more in your paycheck. People forget that with a national healthcare system, you aren't paying premiums out of every paycheck. You aren't paying your deductible. If you're in your 40's and a male, that's likely over $5k in savings (over $10k if it's for your family). I doubt your tax increase would be more than that.

All we have to do is look at other countries that do this. They pay significantly less for their healthcare and get better results.

I also don't know why Warren or Sanders would be bad fiscally for the country. Deficit has grown dramatically under the last 4 Republican Presidents. It's shrunk under the last 2 Democratic Presidents. Maybe it's time to give them a shot?

[RainMaker]

While we were talking about white people being the true victims, this high school student who is an American citizen was held in wretched conditions for 23 days for no reason.

No shower for 23 days: U.S. citizen says conditions were so bad that he almost self-deported | Immigration | Dallas News

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

With all that said, if he doesn't start a war, he's better than W. I know it's a low bar, but some bad policy and being an embarrassment to the country isn't as bad as starting a forever war that kills so many people. If he sticks to his "no wars" policy, I feel much better.

Similarly, I might be terrified of the guy and his legacy, but prison reform is also one of my big personal issues and I think it could be argued that Trump has done more on that front than Obama did in his first term.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by bbgunn

Oh my goodness, what are we going to do? [/sarcasm]


That's like saying if Justin Bieber got arrested in Sweden, then Sweden let the Caucasian American community down.

Biebs is/was Canadian

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

While we were talking about white people being the true victims, this high school student who is an American citizen was held in wretched conditions for 23 days for no reason.

No shower for 23 days: U.S. citizen says conditions were so bad that he almost self-deported | Immigration | Dallas News

I read up on the reason for detention, and that's completely on his mom. I can understand why they questioned the validity of his documentation.

The conditions in which he and others were held? Unforgivable. I don't understand why it's so hard to treat detainees with basic human rights and kindness. We treat them much worse even than felons in maximum security prison.

[SirFozzie]

The cruelty is the point.

It's not QUITE evil for the sake of being evil, but they're trying to make it a part of the reason NOT to come.

I think one of the things that is going to be lost post-trump is America's ability to act as a moral compass. It's more naked threats and bullying now

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You would pay more in taxes but bring home more in your paycheck. People forget that with a national healthcare system, you aren't paying premiums out of every paycheck. You aren't paying your deductible. If you're in your 40's and a male, that's likely over $5k in savings (over $10k if it's for your family). I doubt your tax increase would be more than that.

I don't think that even matters. We blast politicians all the time for protecting the wealthy, for protecting the dominance of white indviduals in the country, we talk about electing an open racist as a president and defending the action about being in part a fear of diversity and a fear of what's different. But then we come to economics and we ourselves do the same things we accuse politicians of.

We sit around here talking about how our 401k's are going up. Poor people don't have 401k's. We talk about how great high deductible health plans are. Poor people can't use those.

As individuals on this board, many of us making more that we could ever need to live completely happy lives. Fighting tooth and nail to make sure that your individual taxes do not go down one cent is an active act of accepting the healthcare crisis that we have, of the huge issue we have with poverty and lower income folks, many of whom are white of course, but we all know that income/healthcare and all that are far worse for a far higher % of minorities than they are for white folks. So to fight so hard and to vote based on your own paycheck, understand that is part of keeping those millions of underprivileged people down. Its not slavery, we're not burning crosses at anyone's doors. But we're actively participating in the same effort that we blame so many politicians for - ensuring that the poor and destitute remain that way so that the already comfortable don't have to make a single change.


I know there's nothing I can do to prevent responses of "not all white people" and "not me I don't have it THAT good" - I know, I know, some people have it less easy than others. But most of us here can afford healthcare, we have threads on retirement savings where most of us have at least some, albeit less than we'd want. We don't end up homeless if we get laid off and can't find a job the next week. And no one can tell you that you have to do differently. But these conversations occur in a vacuum, with zero thought of the fact that decisions of convenience and comfort for most of us, have life and death implications for millions. These conversations cannot occur in a vacuum. They have a very real impact on the lives of so many people to whom we, as a nation, should feel responsible for providing a base level of humanity.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Radii

But most of us here can afford healthcare, we have threads on retirement savings where most of us have at least some, albeit less than we'd want. We don't end up homeless if we get laid off and can't find a job the next week. And no one can tell you that you have to do differently. But these conversations occur in a vacuum, with zero thought of the fact that decisions of convenience and comfort for most of us, have life and death implications for millions. These conversations cannot occur in a vacuum. They have a very real impact on the lives of so many people to whom we, as a nation, should feel responsible for providing a base level of humanity.

You're hitting at the core of why I strongly suspect that far-left policies won't work long-term in a democratic society: people are self-centered. At some point, they're going to vote for their own pocketbooks, and if too much is taken away, they'll revolt. Yes, the "favor the 'haves' mentality is more out in the open on the right, but as you hinted in the post you deleted, establishment Democrats are also in the pockets of corporate interests and addicted to maintaining their own political power.


This isn't just who we are as Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or Socialists or Progressives or Fascists or Anarchists or Americans.



It's who we are as humans.



What you're really talking about it is "how much life-long self-sacrifice will the general population take on for the good of others?" And I'd argue that the answer to that is "little beyond token inconveniences, even for many people who give lip service for wanting change to happen." Remember the discussion several pages back about how little people give to charity? Yeah, that. And speaking of charity, for further evidence of what I'm talking about, charitable giving by individuals dropped in 2018. It was the largest decline since the Great Recession. Why? I'm sure it's because more than a few people don't give out of the goodness of their hearts., but for the tax break, and when the tax break gets removed, they reduce/stop their giving.


It's who we are.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

You're hitting at the core of why I strongly suspect that far-left policies won't work long-term in a democratic society: people are self-centered.

So are people in Sweden (say) not democratic or not people?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I read up on the reason for detention, and that's completely on his mom. I can understand why they questioned the validity of his documentation.

The conditions in which he and others were held? Unforgivable. I don't understand why it's so hard to treat detainees with basic human rights and kindness. We treat them much worse even than felons in maximum security prison.

How is it on his Mother? He had a birth certificate and social security card on him. He's 18. Why does an adult need their Mother to prove their citizenship?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So are people in Sweden (say) not democratic or not people?

Had to look it up. They do vote their pocketbooks too according to this link on Swedish voters.

Digging into the Pocketbook: Evidence on Economic Voting from Income Registry Data Matched to a Voter Survey

Economic performance is one of the best predictors of election outcomes (Duch and Stevenson 2008; Lewis-Beck and Paldam 2000). Yet, the mechanisms by which money flowing through people’s pockets and communities maps into votes is much less clear (Ansolabehere, Meredith, and Snowberg 2014). Moreover, the economic voting literature is rife with inconsistencies. The survey-based literature concludes that voters are sociotropic—caring more about national than personal (pocketbook) economic conditions, backward-looking, and myopic (Fiorina 1981; Kinder and Kiewiet 1979; Kiewiet and Lewis-Beck 2011). Meanwhile, the macro-based literature—and the political economy theory underlying it—assumes votes come from the pocketbook, and largely concludes that voters are, on aggregate, forward looking and highly capable of disciplining politicians for economic outcomes (Erikson, MacKuen, and Stimson 1989, 1992, 2000, 2002).
:
On the whole, then, our data suggest voters are reasonably well informed, at least about their own personal economic circumstances, and seem to use their information rationally. While much of the economic voting literature disagrees with this conclusion, proponents of macropolitics have routinely argued that, on average, voters make very good projections about future economic conditions, and this influences both their partisanship and vote choice (Erikson, MacKuen, and Stimson 1989, 1992, 2000, 2002). 7 Our findings show individual behavior broadly consistent with this macro perspective.

[Edward64]

Wonder how much $2.5B buys ... but it is a start.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/polit...ion/index.html

The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to use $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense to construct parts of a wall along the southwestern border that the government argues is necessary to protect national security.

The decision allows the Defense Department money to be spent now while a court battle plays out over whether the government had the authority to divert funds that were not appropriated for the wall. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow the funds to be used while the court appeals proceed.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How is it on his Mother? He had a birth certificate and social security card on him. He's 18. Why does an adult need their Mother to prove their citizenship?

His mother initially reported that he was born in Mexico because she felt like it would be the only way that he would be able to travel back and forth to family and with her, when he was born. That was on record, as was a couple of other choices that she made out of her own ignorance and fear that she felt like would be right. It really just made matters worse in this instance. I can totally understand how he was questioned and detained, but holding him for 28 days and not being followed up on was complete and total bullshit.

[Thomkal]

Not sure how I missed this today. The House Judiciary Dems have formally announced in federal court that an impeachment inquiry has begun. I think-confused as to what exactly they did today/what it means. But Jerry Nadler said they are now effectively in the midst of a impeachment inquiry.