General US Politics

[Zasplach]

5 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Then it'll be Prohibition all over again, with local and state authorities warning pharmacies and pot shops about an impending raid. 

That only worked in places of extreme corruption like Chicago where gangs (Al Capone) ran the local governments and police forces or bribed them heavily and federal authorities didn't have a true police force, the FBI was created after Prohibition to prevent this sort of thing.  If local authorities want to have that sort of gumption (zero chance they will) they can expect to charges of interfering with federal prosecution which is a hefty charge.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Zasplach

[John Denver Fan]

I recently heard on the news that the Democrats are trying to impeach Donald Trump. But I think they will fail in the end. Also Tom Steyer has been encouraging citizens of the U.S. to tell their congressmen to impeach him. He done it in October of 2017 and I recently found another ad by him for the same reason as the one in October of 2017.

Edited January 7, 2018 by John Denver Fan

[Lord Raven]

18 hours ago, John Denver Fan said:

I recently heard on the news that the Democrats are trying to impeach Donald Trump. But I think they will fail in the end. Also Tom Steyer has been encouraging citizens of the U.S. to tell their congressmen to impeach him. He done it in October of 2017 and I recently found another ad by him for the same reason as the one in October of 2017.

This is pretty old news and I'm kinda surprised that the Republicans aren't going to help them follow through despite partisanship because the current trajectory of the presidency will make trump lose in 2020

[Time the Crestfallen]

9 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

This is pretty old news and I'm kinda surprised that the Republicans aren't going to help them follow through despite partisanship because the current trajectory of the presidency will make trump lose in 2020

It's a matter of what they stand to gain vs. what they stand to lose. The Republicans had plenty of opportunities to get Trump impeached already, and they decided to stick by it so they can try and push their legislation through with minimal worries.

At this point, there's no benefit to dropping Trump imo; the GOP brand is basically radioactive to anyone even remotely left of center (by US standards) at this point in time, and whatever good will they get from the moderates within their own base will be matched, if not exceeded, by the huge rift they'd draw between the moderates and the Trump voters. Not to mention that given Trump's tendency for highly public meltdowns, the split will be far from amicable.

Going into 2020, they already have to deal with what looks like a renewed passion amongst Democrat voters. Ousting Trump would be tantamount to conceding.

To be frank though, I'm not exactly looking forward to 2020. Reagan gave us Bush, and Bush gave us Trump. Based on what I've seen so far, I'm definitely not looking forward to what Trump will give us. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if one or more GOP candidates openly ran as a fascists at this point.

[Lord Raven]

Reagan went into Bush Jr. who was largely considered an effective president. I'm not too concerned about what the Republicans field; from what it's sounding like more and more as of late, Trump fell ass backwards into the presidency.

If they don't field 15 candidates like last time and none of them are weak willed then I highly doubt the GOP will give into nationalism again. I also think his approval will plummet hard once people lose their healthcare after it becomes unaffordable due to the repeal of the individual mandate and they all of a sudden can't deduct a shitload from their taxes.

What is concerning is that Trump's goal appeared to be martyrdom and attention to become stupidly famous. This guy definitely fell ass backwards into the candidacy and the later presidency.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Zasplach]

Reagan to Bush Sr to Bush Jr, kind of a bit of transitioning for both parties in that time too, ie first time GOP controlled both houses of Congress in '94 in 40 years with Newt's Contract with America too.  As a major aside, I think both parties are kind of due for some major restructuring and realignment, it's been a while, but that's neither here nor there.

And this may be an unpopular opinion here, but I don't think President Trump has done anything worthy of impeachment.  Now don't get me wrong, I understand that impeachment is a wholly political endeavor, but historically in America it is to remove someone who has either obviously committed a crime or is so unfit for office that the Congress has to act.  There is a reason why the Senate has never convicted a president to actually impeach him, not one time.  We got extremely close with President Andrew Johnson, but that was when the Radical Republicans in Congress made such a blatantly unconstitutional law that impeaching him would have been an affront that some noticed. 

The President has been below average at best and he isn't a good person, his character is clearly lacking, but I've seen no proof from the Muller investigation showing he's committed a major crime, ie something worthy of impeachment and this book from Micheal Wolff does nothing to make me think that the President is mentally unfit, he's not a genius, he probably has average to above average IQ, but he's just an older gentleman who says stupid things.  He's like if you gave my crotchety eighty year old grandfather a twitter account, he's say thoughtless things, but despite that, he isn't 'mentally unfit'. Besides, look a little into Mr. Wolff, he's clearly at best a gossip columnist, he's an admitted liar, who down right says he exaggerates for effect and he doesn't even act like a proper journalist with sources and quotes.  His book is meant to sell and oh boy it's gonna sell.

I think everyone needs to temper all  this talk of impeachment.  I know that President Trump has the ethical sense of a pawn scum and that his actions can hurt millions of Americans and that he's unpopular, but, and this is an important but, millions, probably tens of millions, of Americans still support him.  If it looks like the majority of Americans (especially the "establishment") are pushing out the President just because they don't like his antics or because they find him unpleasant, there will be hell to pay.  It will push those people into a more horrible camp than the Trump one, they actually exist, and the country will be further galvanized.  I know this is counter-intuitive,  but give the president more rope, as the saying goes, he'll hang himself.  He's unethical, he'll do something or he already has, worthy of either impeachment or at least disqualification (don't know what that looks like, but there are several options).  Stop calling for his impeachment all the time, treat him like what he is, but cover it with no commentary, eventually the majority of the country will catch on to his heinous antics and unethical behavior.  I suspect that 20% of the country will stand with him no matter what,  but if 80% are repulsed, the country can heal at least, we have to get there.

In terms of politics, who knows how the GOP will react to all this, reading tea leaves is a waste of time, better to react and think about what is.  I'm of the opinion that this election could result in a populist movement in both parties, something that's never really happened in America politics, something I would loathe, but it could just as well result in an anti-populist 'return to normalcy' movement in both parties where we see a reharmonization of the country  and an agreement on the basic norms of the country that 65%-75% of Americans can live with.  Who knows, it could always get worse? Maybe we have a race to the bottom for the country.  

Edited January 9, 2018 by Zasplach

[Time the Crestfallen]

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Reagan went into Bush Jr. who was largely considered an effective president. I'm not too concerned about what the Republicans field; from what it's sounding like more and more as of late, Trump fell ass backwards into the presidency.

You mean Bush Sr. right? I'm pretty sure Bush Jr. is considered one of the Presidency's biggest disasters, but idk.

It's less ass-backwards and more the standard of how people like him get through; the moderate vote was divided between several tendencies while he had the unified crank voting base.

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

If they don't field 15 candidates like last time and none of them are weak willed then I highly doubt the GOP will give into nationalism again. I also think his approval will plummet hard once people lose their healthcare after it becomes unaffordable due to the repeal of the individual mandate and they all of a sudden can't deduct a shitload from their taxes.

You say that as if the GOP isn't already pretty nationalistic. Trump just took it from crypt-nationalism to overt nationalism. Besides, borderline fascism won't be the only remnant of Trump's presidency. His rhetoric and campaign tactics will likely linger like a bad smell.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Phillius the Crestfallen

[Zasplach]

5 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

You mean Bush Sr. right? I'm pretty sure Bush Jr. is considered one of the Presidency's biggest disasters, but idk.

Average to below average at worst, people with any historical perspective put Jr way above terrible presidents like Carter, Nixon, Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Grant etc.  President Bush was okay, war in Iraq not withstanding, the war in Afghanistan made lots of sense and was very popular at the time, the expansion of Medicare was a relatively successful program and though he wasn't successful, just like President Obama, he attempted comprehensive immigration reform that could have fixed this mess we are in.  The economic downturn was both a result of the deregulation of the Glass-Stegall act, which happened under President Clinton, and the eventual downturn of the economy.  His response was measured, just like President Obama's really and saw the expansion of the federal government to fix the problem.  His tax bill was wholly political and mildly popular, the middle class tax reforms are still in effect as of today .  Bush was okay, not great, but okay.  

Nationalism is a wholly populist movement, it could rise and fall with the country's whims.  Both political parties have had real stinkers and come swinging back from it; after President Nixon, it didn't look like the GOP could ever win again, he was such an unrepentant disaster and then Reagan happened, the Democrats had disasters like Carter, but Clinton still had two terms.  The parties remake themselves to the whims of the voters all the time, only time can tell. 

[Etrurian emperor]

2 hours ago, Zasplach said:

Average to below average at worst, people with any historical perspective put Jr way above terrible presidents like Carter, Nixon, Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Grant etc. 

I thought that if you took away the scandals then old Nixon has some pretty decent achievements under his belt. Wasn't he the one who started normalizing the relation with China?

[Zasplach]

41 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I thought that if you took away the scandals then old Nixon has some pretty decent achievements under his belt. Wasn't he the one who started normalizing the relation with China?

Tricky Dick also created the EPA, enacted the clean water act and 'ended' the war in Vietnam.  It doesn't mean he isn't the only President in the history of the Republic(almost 220 years) to leave the Presidency without dying or ending his term.  He literally used the executive branch of the government to break the law and then spent 2 years covering it up; that scandal spirals him into the doldrums.  He helped create this culture of cynicism and potential bureaucratic corruption, he filled the executive branch with his cronies and made a mess that took basically the whole 70's to clean up and into the 80's.  Besides he helped start off that whole 'stagflation' problem of the 70's.  You can say nice things about General Grant's presidency too (I don't call him president because I like the man too much and his presidency was that bad) he adopted the 15th amendment (black suffrage) and ended the KKK, which didn't reappear for almost 40 years, but the Tea Pot Dome scandal and all of the related problems he created with his friends and cronies in the federal government drives down his presidency.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Zasplach

[Moblin Major General]

Teapot Dome was Harding, @Zasplach. No president squandered potential as badly as William Henry Harrison, who was so stubborn he died because he didn't wear a coat in the rain. 1 month after he took office.

[Shoblongoo]

If I had to rate all the presidents of my lifetime...

I'd say Bush Sr. was the best (and most tragically underappreciated) of all of them. A true statesman. 

Trump is his own bottom-dwelling tier  of awful.

And then I'm not entirely sure how I would rate Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama in between. They all did some things that I like and respect. They were also all deeply flawed and problematic presidents in their own way. 

...like I'm sorry...say what you want about the guys governing record and praise him rightly or wrongly for the peace and prosperity of the 1990s. Bill Clinton was a sexual predator and abuser of women.
 
...Bush Jr. will sadly forever be remembered for the Iraq War debacle 

...and Obama seriously dropped the ball on Russia, Iran, and Syria. 
 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Zasplach]

6 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Teapot Dome was Harding, @Zasplach. No president squandered potential as badly as William Henry Harrison, who was so stubborn he died because he didn't wear a coat in the rain. 1 month after he took office.

Yep, there's a 'William Henry Harrison' line of bad, that whole talking at your inauguration for so long in the rain that you catch pneumonia thing and my apologies, Harding is the tea pot dome President Grant had the whiskey ring and the creation of the DOJ.  I think the Presidents I mentioned are worse than general Tippecanoe, honestly. 

[Lord Raven]

20 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

You mean Bush Sr. right? I'm pretty sure Bush Jr. is considered one of the Presidency's biggest disasters, but idk.

Sr. yes, Jr. is the worst president of my lifetime so far, and that's counting the past year in bullshit with Trump.

 

EDIT: I'm not counting Bush Sr. in this since I was born after Clinton was elected, but the choices are Clinton, Trump, Obama, and Bush Jr. I'd say so far Obama > Clinton > Trump > Bush Jr.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Slumber]

The "Jr. is the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with!" attitude has downplayed just how bad W was. While it's arguable if any single one of W's years was as bad as Trump's first year, there were 8 years of Bush. There was a lot of build up to the bad policies that crippled the nation after W left.

I'd rather get kicked in the balls once than get punched in the balls 8 times in succession. I guess the question in 3 years is going to turn into "Would I rather get punched in the balls 8 times or kicked in the balls 4 times?"

Edited January 10, 2018 by Slumber

[Time the Crestfallen]

5 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Sr. yes, Jr. is the worst president of my lifetime so far, and that's counting the past year in bullshit with Trump.

Perhaps, but we've only had one year of Trump compared to eight of Bush. I sincerely doubt we'll be getting another term of Trump, so we'll have to judge by the legacy he leaves behind.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Phillius the Crestfallen

[Shoblongoo]

13 hours ago, Slumber said:

The "Jr. is the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with!" attitude has downplayed just how bad W was. While it's arguable if any single one of W's years was as bad as Trump's first year, there were 8 years of Bush. There was a lot of build up to the bad policies that crippled the nation after W left.

I'd rather get kicked in the balls once than get punched in the balls 8 times in succession. I guess the question in 3 years is going to turn into "Would I rather get punched in the balls 8 times or kicked in the balls 4 times?"

I think once we've had a chance to really unpack and digest the past several decades, the history books are going to be much kinder to Bush Jr. than contemporary opinion. He was a below-average president and I think the historical record will reflect as much. Unlike Trump though he actually had some redeeming traits and good policy ideas--civility and good humor towards his harshest critics, medicare Part D for seniors, the global initiative to combat HIV/AIDS, etc.

One thing I think Bush Jr. gets unfairly blamed for is the Crash of 2008.

And I'll put this out there as a general rule-of-thumb: all Presidents get more credit than they deserve when the economy grows, and more blame than they deserve when the economy stutters. 

Yes--it happened during his presidency. I challenge anyone in this thread to set forth a mechanism of causation that can be traced back to an action that came out of the Bush White House. Or to name one policy that Bush could have enacted to prevent it that, without they benefit of 20-20 hindsight as to what was coming, would have either:

(a)  Passed Congress, if he attempted to do it as a Law
(b)  Passed Judicial Review and public outrage at misuse of presidential power, if he attempted to do it as an Executive Order

...the one man who, IIRC, actually warned the crash was coming all the way back in 2003 and tried to introduce new Lending Regulations in the Senate to prevent it was Senator John McCain.

He was filibustered by Democrats in an effort led by Senator Chris Dodd. (Who would later introduce some of the same proposals AFTER the crash as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. Then have the Democrats take credit for financial regulation reform. Because making sure the right party got credit for the reforms was more important than making sure the reforms were timely passed to head-off a major financial crisis)

Bush of course gets the blame because he's president. But, IMO, the unclean hands there were in the Senate.  Bush didn't really do anything wrong.

The one thing I think he will be remembered for unfavorably in the historical record is the Invasion of Iraq.  

Edited January 10, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Etrurian emperor]

12 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

Perhaps, but we've only had one year of Trump compared to eight of Bush. I sincerely doubt we'll be getting another term of Trump, so we'll have to judge by the legacy he leaves behind.

Everyone also sincerely doubted that America would get a Trump term to begin with. I wouldn't write him off just yet. Trump being a disaster in the making was there for everyone to see but his base still passionately voted for him and they don't seem to rejoin the rest of us in reality anytime soon. His voters remain unbelievably loyal no matter what Trump says and does. If nothing made them turn on Trump so far then I think nothing ever will. 

[Thane]

What are you guys' thoughts on Trump's mental state? Even if he doesn't suffer from anything, he doesn't seem like a guy who copes well with stress. I don't want to buy into any conspiracy theories, but there is footage of him looking confused and walking in the wrong direction. Maybe I'm just reading too much into that.

[Time the Crestfallen]

25 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Everyone also sincerely doubted that America would get a Trump term to begin with. I wouldn't write him off just yet. Trump being a disaster in the making was there for everyone to see but his base still passionately voted for him and they don't seem to rejoin the rest of us in reality anytime soon. His voters remain unbelievably loyal no matter what Trump says and does. If nothing made them turn on Trump so far then I think nothing ever will. 

Fair enough I suppose. Although, part of the reason that he won was because he was up against Hillary, who's a whole other can of worms.

Guess we'll just have to wait till 2020.

16 minutes ago, Thane said:

What are you guys' thoughts on Trump's mental state? Even if he doesn't suffer from anything, he doesn't seem like a guy who copes well with stress. I don't want to buy into any conspiracy theories, but there is footage of him looking confused and walking in the wrong direction. Maybe I'm just reading too much into that.

Kind of hard to say. There's no doubt that personality disorders and/or dementia can't be ruled out based on his actions and age, but dealing with pure speculation isn't something I would advise. The only way we'd know for sure is if he actually got his mental health checked and publicised the results.

Changing the topic from Presidential quality for a moment, I saw some stories floating around about the possibility of Mueller interviewing Trump. What does everyone think of that? Personally speaking, there's no way in hell Mueller gets a hold of the Tangerine-in-Chief himself unless there's no way he can get out of it.

[Shoblongoo]

2 hours ago, Thane said:

What are you guys' thoughts on Trump's mental state? 

He's a malignant narcissist and he's been one his entire adult life.

[Zasplach]

2 hours ago, Thane said:

What are you guys' thoughts on Trump's mental state? Even if he doesn't suffer from anything, he doesn't seem like a guy who copes well with stress. I don't want to buy into any conspiracy theories, but there is footage of him looking confused and walking in the wrong direction. Maybe I'm just reading too much into that.

Playing armchair psychiatrist is like playing armchair quarterback, really easy to do with no consequences, but not of very much value.  The president is an older gentleman who has 'senior' moments, he occasionally loses his train of thought and gaffes and he's basically always said stupid things, that's not new to his old age.  While I won't speak highly of all members of the Trump Administration, some (Mr. Kelly, General McMaster, Mr. Tillerson) seem like loyal enough Americans who would speak up if the President was truly mentally deficient so as to be unable to execute the job of the presidency.  The 25th Amendment provides a means for the cabinet and the Vice President to oust the president for the such a problem and if a vote was taken or even considered, this administration leaks like a sieve, so everyone would know. Here's the relevant text: 

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.^[3]

2 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

Changing the topic from Presidential quality for a moment, I saw some stories floating around about the possibility of Mueller interviewing Trump. What does everyone think of that? Personally speaking, there's no way in hell Mueller gets a hold of the Tangerine-in-Chief himself unless there's no way he can get out of it.

Unless the Congress either renews or rewrites the special counsel laws, I don't think there's really any way for Mr. Mueller to compel President Trump to talk to him.  Now, if the seat upon which the president rests becomes too hot, then he may have no choice but to talk to Mr Mueller.  Right now, I don't see anything that would make President Trump talk to him, so he won't.

  

[Shoblongoo]

At the risk of playing armchair psychiatrist: 

[Moblin Major General]

Who's to say the last one isn't true? We don't hear a lot from Melania, but I bet having the Secret Service around her 24/7 is insurance of her fidelity, unlike with Clinton.

[Time the Crestfallen]

44 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

Unless the Congress either renews or rewrites the special counsel laws, I don't think there's really any way for Mr. Mueller to compel President Trump to talk to him.  Now, if the seat upon which the president rests becomes too hot, then he may have no choice but to talk to Mr Mueller.  Right now, I don't see anything that would make President Trump talk to him, so he won't.  

Basically. Trump has no reason to talk to Mueller and has nothing to gain from it, so why bother? I must admit though, the suggestion that he answer Mueller's questions via written response was amusing to think about.

As for Trump's mental health, I remember there was an article making the rounds a while ago about Congressmen being prescribed Alzheimer's medication, so who knows. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Phillius the Crestfallen