Shoblongoo Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, eclipse said: So much for checks and balances, then. If the courts order something, it doesn't get done, and there's no consequences, then something is seriously wrong. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/10/separated-families-migrant-children-deadline-trump-administration-676078"Administration lawyers have requested an extension on Tuesday’s deadline and are holding a conference call with the judge Tuesday afternoon to discuss how to move forward. HHS officials said they need more time to conduct background checks, which they say have turned up issues in some cases." That's--something??? If they aver it is impossible for them to comply with the court ordered deadline and the judge grants an extension--fine. The judge grants an extension. Stunning display of incompetence on the Administration's part, but the system of checks and balances is still intact. (there should still be way more accountability from VOTERS than what we are seeing, and the fact that there isn't is more concerning) If the Court rules the administration has not shown good cause for an extension and orders that HHS officials comply immediately or be held in contempt of Court... ...well...that will be appealed to a higher Court before its binding. But that sets up a potential stress test that seriously calls into question if this president is so corrupt and surrounded by so many enablers, he can no longer be judicially constrained. Edited July 10, 2018 by Shoblongoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karimlan Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Deck-stacking, plain and simple. It's a lot like what Duterte is doing over here in PH currently, with a supposed constitutional convention in the offing. The way things go, I may very well be looking at a change in the Constitution in about two years' time (or one, depending on how power-hungry the motherfuckers in Malacañang and the House of representatives are). I believe it was Jefferson who said something along the lines of "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Needless to say, people be quaking in their boots now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Shoblongoo said: "zero tolerance" kidnapping and child abuse as an immigration policy Storming out of a G7 summit after getting into a public fight with the hosting prime minister and throwing a starburst at the German Chancellor Praise for the "very fine people" among White Nationalists marching with torches + chanting Nazi slogans The Russia Probe Stormy Daniels "Little Rocket Man" Hurricane Maria Robert Porter #FakeNews #MeToo To be absolutely fair, there are so many people who enjoyed watching Merkel and Macron get slammed by Trump, myself included. Not necessarily because I like Trump but I despise the EU and European leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expshare Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) There needs to be aggressive educational reforms enforced by police and/or military when necessary. I don't think parents should have the right to deprive their children of proper education. Any sloppy history textbooks need to be replaced with proper university-level history books. Geometry class should focus on logic and *proper* proofs (in other words no more tables, and graded based on the quality of the argument). ICE dismantled, drugs decriminalized / shift to focus on rehabilitation and healthcare, many prisons closed, etc. Also the F-35 Lightning II project should be halted as soon as possible, and a Manhattan Project-esque team of top tier scientists/engineers/mathematicians should be hired and dedicated to the problem of finding solutions to climate change / environmental devastation and to the goal of planning/engineering/creating economically viable energy technologies. There are a million other important things that could be mentioned, and all of these things are unlikely to occur, unfortunately. Edited July 14, 2018 by expshare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etrurian emperor Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Life said: To be absolutely fair, there are so many people who enjoyed watching Merkel and Macron get slammed by Trump, myself included. Not necessarily because I like Trump but I despise the EU and European leaders. There probably are people who enjoy that. The problem with that is that world politics and the prosperity of the west is so much more important than those petty dislikes and that on the whole those two are far more respectable persons than Trump whatever their flaws might be. People get a cheap laugh about Trump being an ass to his allies....okay, and then what? At the end of the day they still need to work together, something that Trumps attitude is making a lot more difficult. Laughing about people you dislike being disrespected is certainly something you can do but the western alliance growing weaker and weaker when an increasingly hostile world grows stronger and stronger isn't particularly funny. It may prove to be the most damming legacy Trump leaves the west with. Being ''slammed'' is also an overstatement. A more accurate representation would be that they are the adults in the room that have the annoying task of babysitting a political toddler. Edited July 11, 2018 by Etrurian emperor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karimlan Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said: A more accurate representation would be that they are the adults in the room that have the annoying task of babysitting a political toddler. Very well put. Trump makes George W. Bush look politically mature by comparison. Not by much, but Dubya had the upbringing, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Dubya really wasn't as bad as people made him out to be. The thing about George W. Bush is that he was at least humble enough to know that he wasn't the smartest man in the room, and listen to people who knew more than him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johann Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said: Dubya really wasn't as bad as people made him out to be. The thing about George W. Bush is that he was at least humble enough to know that he wasn't the smartest man in the room, and listen to people who knew more than him. Dubs's worst qualities were that he was way too easily influenced by his inner circle while also being someone who "sticks to his guns" instead of admitting that something isn't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Holy Elf Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 5 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said: There probably are people who enjoy that. The problem with that is that world politics and the prosperity of the west is so much more important than those petty dislikes and that on the whole those two are far more respectable persons than Trump whatever their flaws might be. People get a cheap laugh about Trump being an ass to his allies....okay, and then what? At the end of the day they still need to work together, something that Trumps attitude is making a lot more difficult. Laughing about people you dislike being disrespected is certainly something you can do but the western alliance growing weaker and weaker when an increasingly hostile world grows stronger and stronger isn't particularly funny. It may prove to be the most damming legacy Trump leaves the west with. Being ''slammed'' is also an overstatement. A more accurate representation would be that they are the adults in the room that have the annoying task of babysitting a political toddler. Thank you for eloquently putting into words something I was struggling to phrase politely. Trump and his sycophants enjoy "slamming" western leaders they dislike while relatively propping up the likes of Putin and Duterte who are obvious fascists. Because tweaking the noses of people who are your allies who you have some political disagreements with apparently ranks as more important than standing up for democracy. It's mind-blowing, really. Can you even imagine if Obama had taken to Twitter for a tirade against David Cameron while propping up Hugo Chavez as a great guy? Trump's raison d'etre appears to be "winning" against Team Blue, and that takes priority over any ideology or reason. If it were just him, we'd be able to dismiss him as one narcissistic asshole who will be history by 2024 at the latest, but unfortunately it's very clear that a large number of people are taking up his mantle. (And before anyone jumps down my throat, I don't think the left is immune to this disease either; the president's behaviour normalises it for everyone.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, expshare said: I honestly gave up hope on America. The backlash against the current direction the country is going in doesn't seem obviously sufficient when you consider the sleaziness and moral impunity of most conservatives in power. When your existential enemies do not play by any rules, then you might be more effective if you regard the law as merely a consideration. Key politicians and persons could be bribed and coerced to lessen the power of Trump and his political acolytes, preferably to the point of zero power (indefinite imprisonment for treason and crimes against humanity whenever salient). The law is largely designed to help those in power. As for addressing the problem of nationwide delusions, there needs to be aggressive educational reforms enforced by police and/or military when necessary. I don't think parents should have the right to deprive their children of proper education. Any sloppy history textbooks need to be replaced with proper university-level history books. Geometry class should focus on logic and *proper* proofs (in other words no more tables, and graded based on the quality of the argument). ICE dismantled, drugs decriminalized / shift to focus on rehabilitation and healthcare, many prisons closed, etc. Also the F-35 Lightning II project should be halted as soon as possible, and a Manhattan Project-esque team of top tier scientists/engineers/mathematicians should be hired and dedicated to the problem of finding solutions to climate change / environmental devastation and to the goal of planning/engineering/creating economically viable energy technologies. There are a million other important things that could be mentioned, and all of these things are unlikely to occur, unfortunately. ...not the worst wish-list you got there. Always fun to brainstorm a if I had absolute control of the government and could implement any series of changes I wanted to try and make the country better, what would I do? agenda encouraging anyone who has one to share Mine would be Cut all military spending in half. Reallocate excess military spending to domestic agenda Remove tax exempt status from religious organizations Create new tax brackets above current top bracket for persons making over $500,000 and $1 million. Subject brackets to higher individual tax rates. Merge + expand medicare and medicaid into a universal public healthcare program that provides universal healthcare to all Americans at baseline standard-of-care (i.e. diagnostics, emergency medical treatment, and end-of-life care); keep private insurance and private healthcare as a market-based alternative for wealthier persons who want to pay extra for better coverage and more coverage options. Create new program allowing any child who meets baseline community service + academic requirements in high school to attend a 4-year public university and pursue an undergraduate degree, tuition-free and sponsored through the Department of Education. Legalize all recreational drugs except for opiates and amphetamines License private businesses to lawfully produce and sell and employ producers and sellers as salaried employees, subject to state regulation and taxation. Suspend the sentence of anyone currently serving prison time or probation for a decriminalized drug offense Expunge the criminal record of everyone with a decriminalized drug offense Pass law requiring minimum wage to be set to the baseline cost of living in every state and county, and requiring that said minimum wage be adjusted for cost of inflation no less than every ten (10) years. Grant conditional legal status to every immigrant in the United States who has not been arrested for a violent crime; create process for obtaining full legal status by subsequently registering with immigration services and obtaining valid documentation and applying for adjustment of status. Remove quota system from applications for legal entry and expedite the process of legal entry. THEN vigorously enforce border security and adopt a strict policy of detaining and deporting anyone who tries to enter illegally. The idea being that if we're expediting the lawful process and making it accessible for anyone who wants to do it the right way and you're still trying to sneak in illegally--well now its fair to presume that you're obviously up to no good. Eisenhower-esque public works project of hiring architects, engineers, and construction crews to renovate and modernize our public infrastructure. Highways. Bridges. Railroads. Airports. Gas & Utilities. Everything--it's long overdue. Manhattan Project-esque program to take the best scientific minds in the country, and set them to the task of finding economically feasible alternatives to oil, gas, and coal + preparing them for mass use within the next decade. Make stricter law regulating the circumstances in which police are allowed to use lethal force; adopting an objective reasonableness standard rather than the subjective fear of the officer Vigorously enforce said law by requiring that all police officers wear active body cameras and audio-recording devices while on duty. Give state attorney generals and state civil rights divisions--not police departments and internal affairs--original jurisdiction over investigations into cases of civilians being shot by police officers. Require all lawful gun owners in america to be licensed and to register their firearms with the ATF. Require that persons must complete mental health screening and a safety training course before being licensed to own and operate firearms. Implement more criminal law penalties for unlawful possession, distribution, and use of firearms. ________________ ...there...thats my public policy wishlist... Thats what America looks like if I ever become benevolent dictator Edited July 11, 2018 by Shoblongoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etrurian emperor Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said: Thank you for eloquently putting into words something I was struggling to phrase politely. Trump and his sycophants enjoy "slamming" western leaders they dislike while relatively propping up the likes of Putin and Duterte who are obvious fascists. Because tweaking the noses of people who are your allies who you have some political disagreements with apparently ranks as more important than standing up for democracy. It's mind-blowing, really. Can you even imagine if Obama had taken to Twitter for a tirade against David Cameron while propping up Hugo Chavez as a great guy? You're welcome I think the main reason for Trump's behavior towards his allies has to do with the type of politician he and the European leaders are. The classic Left wing vs Right wing angle starts to be outdated and will instead be replaced with another one: Statesmen vs Demagogues. Trump has seen this an acts accordingly. Trump just has more in common with the populist wolves than he does with his western allies. Trump may not be an actual serial killer like Duterte or successfully strangling democracy like the Polish Piss party, Hungary's Orban or Erdogan but they all share the same style and their followers see the same appeal in them. They are all macho's, though men who unlike those establishment sissy's ''say it like it is'', know what needs to be done and who stands up for the little guy. Putin does not share the vulgarity of his populist peers but he is the leader they all want to be, the one who successfully ended all those pesky things like checks and balances, the opposition or independent court and media. With this all out of the way Putin has reached the populist end game where he can rule without rivals or limits, and exploit the state for all its worth. That's the stage the populist all want to reach regardless of whether its possible or not. In America it doesn't seem to be possible but in Turkey it has already happened. Trumps Western allies are different. Merkel has much more in common with Obama who Trump clearly despises. She's analytical, sees politics as a job instead of a game to be played for self gain, believes in the global system rather than nationalism and generally doesn't go out of her way to screw things up for her own benefit. Most Western leaders are that or at least try to act like that. There's definitely overlap with the populists in that they sometimes knowingly do the wrong thing for electoral gain but they don't do this in ways that puts democracy or even the entire country at stake. When talking to Statesmen Trump will be in the company of people who know that what he's doing is wrong and who have an entirely different style. When he's with the demagogues he's in the company of his peers who all have the same desires and style that he himself has. Its not hard to see why he would prefer the company of his peers over those that don't play their game. Edited July 11, 2018 by Etrurian emperor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) "Public Policy wishlist" eh? I already with most of Shoblongoo's suggestions but I'll throw a few wild ideas. 1. #FauxNews act: Regulation created in an effort to prevent propaganda from being presented as a reputable news source, to prove compliance, annual proof must be provided. Non-compliant shows must provide a disclaimer (ADA compliant) demonstrating its status as entertainment or simply not an actual news source. The disclaimer must be shown at the beginning of the program and upon return from commercial breaks. Failure to comply can lead to termination of non-compliant show/outlet. 2. Women's choice act: Abortion is legal and no longer open for legislative discussion unless brought to the table by women in any of the 3 branches of government. Executive orders regarding abortion cannot be enacted. Prostitution in a nutshell: treated as consent and entirely up to the woman, clubs forcing women to give consent or requiring that they be willing to in order to work there are not allowed. 3. "Campaign contributions" act: Lawmakers currently in power may not take contributions of any kind. Corporations may not donate to any candidate running for office. Lawmakers involved bribery (because that's what these stupid things really are) may be punishable by death while Corporations involved will pay a fine and remove their current CEO. 4. All men are created equal act: Regulations seeking to discourage wage gaps due to trivial factors such as gender and ethnicity. Lynching becomes a federal crime. Participation in supremacist groups of any sort removes right to run for any position of power within any form of government in the country. Increased penalties for hate crimes or just cases where racism is blatantly obvious. 5. Presidential stasis act: Candidates running for presidency must pass an ethical compliance test created to demonstrate fundamental understanding of the constitution and willingness to uphold common code of conduct standards typically found in working environments. A sitting president under investigation that demonstrates ill-intent/defamation of Special counsel, obstruction of justice, attacks towards the free press will immediately have his/her powers void and unable to partake in foreign affairs. Duration of "status" cycles every 3 months, appeals can be made to the supreme court and special counsel to allow president to partake in his/her duties at the end of the 3 month stasis period. 6. Government restore point act: At the end of a President's term, if the approval rating is 51%, a "restore point" is created to maintain the government in that current standing in terms of policy. Should a subsequent president be impeached in either of their 2 terms, policies enacted after the last "restore point" and under the impeached president's time will be null and void until congress re-enacts them under an expedited time-frame. 7. The Government is FOR THE PEOPLE act: Annually, registered voters may access an online resource to vote on the country's top 5 issues. Votes are tallied up after a certain deadly an issues with over 60% of the voters against current implementation of the law may not be ignored by congress and must become a top priority for them to address. Presidential stasis or consideration for outright impeachment will be available as an extra option each year. You do not need to have been registered to vote for the last Presidential election. 8. Science act: No governmental authority may dismiss a scientific issue without evidence. Basically, don't allow a stupid president to pull out from a climate agreement without valid reasoning and don't allow government officials to throw away a scientific subject because they think it's a hoax or the National Science Foundation made it up. 9. Historical integrity act: Publications and resources meant for educational purposes that undermines or misrepresents events in history are subject to removal. This is primarily to fight things like the Koch brothers trying to create educational material that tries to whitewash slavery and things that may try to deny the holocaust. 10. Religion out of policy act: Any public official who condones an opposed policy and attempts to defend it using the bible or their religion immediately terminates the policy in question. 11. "Do your damn job" act: If a government official has to be ordered by a judge to do their job, the subject is immediately terminated from that position. Easy example being Scott Pruit Also, as many people already figured, the reunification of the kids and their parents is seeing complications primarily from the kids being too young to understand who their parents and siblings are and they're forcing the parents to pay for DNA tests costs. Nice. Fuck Trump. Edited July 11, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 18 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 1. #FauxNews act: Regulation created in an effort to prevent propaganda from being presented as a reputable news source, to prove compliance, annual proof must be provided. Non-compliant shows must provide a disclaimer (ADA compliant) demonstrating its status as entertainment or simply not an actual news source. The disclaimer must be shown at the beginning of the program and upon return from commercial breaks. Failure to comply can lead to termination of non-compliant show/outlet. Who's doing the regulation here? Because this can go down some really awful path. It's basically Government-approved media. The main issue is that media chases the money. Rupert Murdoch funds left and right wing sources, for instance. Many times, the information is correct (this is literally just taking shots at fox news), but CNN and etc are sensationalist media. That means that a lot has to be done to take away the profiteering power of news media. We already have laws in place that force Fox News to acknowledge that it only does like a half hour of news reporting a day, so even with a disclaimer it won't do much but unnecessarily put the government into free speech. The only actual way is to make new laws based on corporations and limiting their power. I'm also going to point out that #4 is abuseable, #6 is not how polls/approval rating works, and #11 is a very strange one because some officials may refuse to do their jobs out of protest either way. More on #6: a "restore" point requires significantly more work and legislation doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's basically a reset button that really doesn't work, and if a bunch of issues came from a war that happened, then how will resetting to the last 51% state fix things? Furthermore, approval ratings are often calculated independently with different polls having different biases, and the only website that seems to weigh things based on reliability is 538, and I wouldn't exactly want a company or website's ownership to determine the state of our country. Especially since 51% is a snapshot in time, and it has uncertainty/deviation/etc to keep it. The idea is better if you went to 60%, but it still ignores how hard it is to restore and re-enforce old laws. Besides, FDR had Japanese people in internment camps and had definitely a >51% approval rating when he died, and if Truman ended up with like 30% approval rating would we really want that? Otherwise, ideally I would restrict strictly corporations and federal government, placing more emphasis and importance in local and state-wide governments as built into our government. With the federal government resource allocation, defense, foreign affairs, resolving abuses of the law by the state government, and any nationwide issues that are common between states. That's just a system though. I tend to think of restrictions caused by the government in the context of "do I trust someone like Trump with this law?" thanks to this election. It's easier to take these things in good faith when you have someone like Obama as president, but Nixon or Trump? Fuck that. I don't trust the government to act in good faith, only to be re-elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Alright, and my response to this: 15 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 1. #FauxNews act: Regulation created in an effort to prevent propaganda from being presented as a reputable news source, to prove compliance, annual proof must be provided. Non-compliant shows must provide a disclaimer (ADA compliant) demonstrating its status as entertainment or simply not an actual news source. The disclaimer must be shown at the beginning of the program and upon return from commercial breaks. Failure to comply can lead to termination of non-compliant show/outlet. I get the spirit in which this is coming from, but I think it'll create more problems than it solves. If someone is crazy enough to take Fox News as Actual News, it'll be pretty easy for them to claim that the government has reason to suppress Fox because they're close to the truth or whatever mental gymnastics conspiracy theorists use. 17 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 2. Women's choice act: Abortion is legal and no longer open for legislative discussion unless brought to the table by women in any of the 3 branches of government. Executive orders regarding abortion cannot be enacted. Prostitution in a nutshell: treated as consent and entirely up to the woman, clubs forcing women to give consent or requiring that they be willing to in order to work there are not allowed. I think some legislation involving abortion clinics might be handy, like making sure they're not using coat hangers to perform their services. WRT prostitution, it needs to be both genders, and anyone running a brothel must provide heath check-ups for their workers, for free (risks inherit to the job and all). 19 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 3. "Campaign contributions" act: Lawmakers currently in power may not take contributions of any kind. Corporations may not donate to any candidate running for office. Lawmakers involved bribery (because that's what these stupid things really are) may be punishable by death while Corporations involved will pay a fine and remove their current CEO. I do not support making taxpayers pay more money to punish those that are taking money from the public. Anyone caught doing inappropriate things with money should reimburse the wronged party, in full. 21 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 4. All men are created equal act: Regulations seeking to discourage wage gaps due to trivial factors such as gender and ethnicity. Lynching becomes a federal crime. Participation in supremacist groups of any sort removes right to run for any position of power within any form of government in the country. Increased penalties for hate crimes or just cases where racism is blatantly obvious. In other words, extend the laws regarding hiring to address the wage gap. 23 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 5. Presidential stasis act: Candidates running for presidency must pass an ethical compliance test created to demonstrate fundamental understanding of the constitution and willingness to uphold common code of conduct standards typically found in working environments. A sitting president under investigation that demonstrates ill-intent/defamation of Special counsel, obstruction of justice, attacks towards the free press will immediately have his/her powers void and unable to partake in foreign affairs. Duration of "status" cycles every 3 months, appeals can be made to the supreme court and special counsel to allow president to partake in his/her duties at the end of the 3 month stasis period. Real talk, do you really want Pence to run the show while Trump is under investigation? 24 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 6. Government restore point act: At the end of a President's term, if the approval rating is 51%, a "restore point" is created to maintain the government in that current standing in terms of policy. Should a subsequent president be impeached in either of their 2 terms, policies enacted after the last "restore point" and under the impeached president's time will be null and void until congress re-enacts them under an expedited time-frame. What was good eight years ago may not be appropriate now. A President is not a purely evil, mustache-twirling villain from a kid's show. In other words, it's possible for a "bad" president to do good things. And this will steamroll that. 27 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 7. The Government is FOR THE PEOPLE act: Annually, registered voters may access an online resource to vote on the country's top 5 issues. Votes are tallied up after a certain deadly an issues with over 60% of the voters against current implementation of the law may not be ignored by congress and must become a top priority for them to address. Presidential stasis or consideration for outright impeachment will be available as an extra option each year. You do not need to have been registered to vote for the last Presidential election. If the IRS has issues keeping their tax refunds straight due to online fraud, I have no idea how this proposed site will do any better. 29 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 8. Science act: No governmental authority may dismiss a scientific issue without evidence. Once upon a time, it would've been okay to say that women were making up the pains they claimed to feel during their periods. Today, we're familiar with menstrual cramps. Science is ever-changing. The root of this issue IMO is human nature, but good luck enacting change there. 33 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 9. Historical integrity act: Publications and resources meant for educational purposes that undermines or misrepresents events in history are subject to removal. This is primarily to fight things like the Koch brothers trying to create educational material that tries to whitewash slavery and things that may try to deny the holocaust. IMO the entire educational system needs a reform, but that's for another day. 36 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 10. Religion out of policy act: Any public official who condones a opposed policy and attempts to defend it using the bible or their religion immediately terminates the policy in question. It would be a lot more efficient to enforce the separation of church and state (preferably as a constitutional amendment), thus making this illegal. But what do I know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: Who's doing the regulation here? Because this can go down some really awful path. It's basically Government-approved media. The main issue is that media chases the money. Rupert Murdoch funds left and right wing sources, for instance. Many times, the information is correct (this is literally just taking shots at fox news), but CNN and etc are sensationalist media. That means that a lot has to be done to take away the profiteering power of news media. We already have laws in place that force Fox News to acknowledge that it only does like a half hour of news reporting a day, so even with a disclaimer it won't do much but unnecessarily put the government into free speech. The only actual way is to make new laws based on corporations and limiting their power. It's a tricky one no doubt but its implementation would require experts on journalism to chime in. I didn't go into too much detail on these and mostly just outline what the goal would be. Ideally, this wouldn't be necessary if improvements to the education system do indeed result in a world where we don't have morons taking Alex Jones' words seriously Fox News propaganda as actual news while suggesting that news they don't like are fake news. Either I think the whole fake news issue needs to be addressed because it IS an issue that is dividing the country. 5 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: I'm also going to point out that #4 is abuseable, #6 is not how polls/approval rating works, and #11 is a very strange one because some officials may refuse to do their jobs out of protest either way. I'm interested to know your points on #4. As for #11, again, I don't go into much detail and just throw it out there to outline what the goal is but to be more specific, it's basically to remove people like Scott Pruitt more quickly, specially heads of a department that just don't do jack shit or attempt to change something in place without evidence when there IS evidence that put things into place. 10 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: More on #6: a "restore" point requires significantly more work and legislation doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's basically a reset button that really doesn't work, and if a bunch of issues came from a war that happened, then how will resetting to the last 51% state fix things? Furthermore, approval ratings are often calculated independently with different polls having different biases, and the only website that seems to weigh things based on reliability is 538, and I wouldn't exactly want a company or website's ownership to determine the state of our country. Especially since 51% is a snapshot in time, and it has uncertainty/deviation/etc to keep it. The idea is better if you went to 60%, but it still ignores how hard it is to restore and re-enforce old laws. Besides, FDR had Japanese people in internment camps and had definitely a >51% approval rating when he died, and if Truman ended up with like 30% approval rating would we really want that? Limited to last point. For all the shit we give Obama on not having done enough, the state of the government's policies is better off where he left it as opposed to where it'll be when Trump is impeached. The idea is that if by some miracle we end up with another Trump, Nixon or any Shmuck trying to move us in reverse when it comes to human rights, reversing the policies and executive orders enacted by that asshole shouldn't take up too much time during the presidential term of someone actually intending to move the country forward. 12 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: I tend to think of restrictions caused by the government in the context of "do I trust someone like Trump with this law?" thanks to this election. It's easier to take these things in good faith when you have someone like Obama as president, but Nixon or Trump? Fuck that. I don't trust the government to act in good faith, only to be re-elected. Yeah it is tricky. On paper de-regulation sounds appealing but I simply don't trust corporations. Ultimately though, the people need to have more chances to make an impact on something as opposed to JUST the presidential election and the midterms. We're all expecting to see Trump impeached some time after the mid-terms but we don't know for sure if it's happening, when it is happening and the damage done by Trump should've been stopped earlier this year. It is just ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 13 minutes ago, eclipse said: I get the spirit in which this is coming from, but I think it'll create more problems than it solves. If someone is crazy enough to take Fox News as Actual News, it'll be pretty easy for them to claim that the government has reason to suppress Fox because they're close to the truth or whatever mental gymnastics conspiracy theorists use. They can claim whatever they want as they have the freedom of speech to do that but I don't believe that more than half the people will take the fool's side unless the current administration is in that bad of a state. 16 minutes ago, eclipse said: I think some legislation involving abortion clinics might be handy, like making sure they're not using coat hangers to perform their services. WRT prostitution, it needs to be both genders, and anyone running a brothel must provide heath check-ups for their workers, for free (risks inherit to the job and all). That's fine, ultimately the point is to just remove legal abortion as a chip for these stupid parties to play specially when those in power are mostly men. And yes, both genders WRT to prostitution. I forgot to mention men because I was writing about an issue in particular to women having the choice to do what they want with their bodies but you're right. 19 minutes ago, eclipse said: Real talk, do you really want Pence to run the show while Trump is under investigation? Do I want Pence as president? Absolutely not. Do I think Pence would be worse than Trump as president? I disagree with this argument. From what I've seen, the argument is primarily fueled by the notion that Pence is smarter than Trump and would be a more competent corrupt president. Despite this being true, I still think Trump is the worst option because at the end of the day, Trump and Pence are for the same thing but Trump is visibly WORSE than Pence in every single way. I agree with Bill Maher on this one but personally I would simply prefer having no President during 2019 and 2020 over having either of those motherfuckers in power. 28 minutes ago, eclipse said: If the IRS has issues keeping their tax refunds straight due to online fraud, I have no idea how this proposed site will do any better. The fact is that if someone wants to hack something, they'll eventually find a way to hack with enough effort and resources. The IRS' incompetency should not be a reason why an effort on increasing the frequency of the people's voice on the country's issues should be stopped. If it is not via an online resource and it needs to be like the currently implemented elections but more frequently then so be it. Bottom line is, we saw Trumps incompetence extremely early but do not have a voice in the matter until the halfway point of term and it's shown us how much damage a moron in power can do and the flaw of the checks and balances in place depending on faith in our elected officials when the majority in power are currently corrupt bastards we cannot trust. 35 minutes ago, eclipse said: Once upon a time, it would've been okay to say that women were making up the pains they claimed to feel during their periods. Today, we're familiar with menstrual cramps. Science is ever-changing. The root of this issue IMO is human nature, but good luck enacting change there. I don't believe this is a logical comparison or perhaps the fault is on how I worded it initially but to reiterate: Basically, don't allow a stupid president to pull out from a climate agreement without valid reasoning and don't allow government officials to throw away a scientific subject because they think it's a hoax or the National Science Foundation made it up. The EPA removed Climate Change as a concern with no evidence to backup their actions and although Scott Pruitt is gone, there's no indication of the next guy retracting such actions taken by his predecessor. 40 minutes ago, eclipse said: It would be a lot more efficient to enforce the separation of church and state (preferably as a constitutional amendment), thus making this illegal. But what do I know? Even better. Every time I hear a government official cite the bible to defend their crappy policies, I just wanna take a copy of the bible and smack them in the face with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: It's a tricky one no doubt but its implementation would require experts on journalism to chime in. I didn't go into too much detail on these and mostly just outline what the goal would be. Ideally, this wouldn't be necessary if improvements to the education system do indeed result in a world where we don't have morons taking Alex Jones' words seriously Fox News propaganda as actual news while suggesting that news they don't like are fake news. Either I think the whole fake news issue needs to be addressed because it IS an issue that is dividing the country. Forcing media to be nonprofit is one way to go about it. 2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: I'm interested to know your points on #4. As for #11, again, I don't go into much detail and just throw it out there to outline what the goal is but to be more specific, it's basically to remove people like Scott Pruitt more quickly, specially heads of a department that just don't do jack shit or attempt to change something in place without evidence when there IS evidence that put things into place. On #4? Oh man... 4. All men are created equal act: Regulations seeking to discourage wage gaps due to trivial factors such as gender and ethnicity. Lynching becomes a federal crime. Participation in supremacist groups of any sortremoves right to run for any position of power within any form of government in the country. Increased penalties for hate crimes or just cases where racism is blatantly obvious. This is very illiberal. If someone joins a supremacy group and deeply regrets it upon learning more -- that person can make a good candidate. Someone joining a supremacy group will only be voted upon in this currently partisan voting pattern we're seeing across the country. And the solution, here, addresses the result of the problem and not the root of the problem, and placing it into law only encourages further divide. Having that said, there are more than just white supremacy groups, and can you imagine BLM being called a black supremacy group by Donald Trump and barring literally every single person in there from office? And you know the Republicans and the VP will go with him when he wants that. This will most likely be some sort of weird executive privilege -- to place certain "supremacy" groups on the watch. Then what? You get protest groups labeled as supremacy groups and you're fucked. I know you're not arguing the details but I'm looking at the concept you're trying to ban. And you can't just cite current supremacy groups because more will follow, and eventually you get a smooth talking supremacist -- who keeps his supremacy on the DL -- and part of a group that's like BLM for white people and bam he still runs for the Republican Party because they'll be able to adapt and exploit a loophole. Much of your post is also centered around the idea of punishment versus rehabilitation. I'm all for prison reform, and I'm all for rehab programs instead of enhancing our private prison system with more punishment, and basically continuing its own form of slave labor and prison guard brutality. It's a hard solution, but a lot of our current problems can get on their way out as the generations progress.It should be shameful to be a supremacist, but not in the sense that we isolate a supremacist -- they or their children aren't that far gone and many are just ignorant. I can offer more perspective on that later. But while it should be shameful to be a supremacist, it's pretty easy to forget that some people just don't know any better about the "right thing," and that people are in supremacy groups because it sounds appealing. Some of your wanted laws just seem spiteful. Edited July 12, 2018 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (this forum software bugs me, man, what even is the character limit? is it just a line limit?) As for #11, it seemed so minor but it also seems very specific to this administration. Executive departments and things change quite a bit between administrations so it just seems unnecessary, especially since in any other administration it would happen. I'd rather someone run an entire executive branch well ahead of an election (because seriously, our elections are 2 fucking years long and we know the nominee for like 6 months, so take those 6 months to get the whole executive branch on the ballot by October of an election year) than something like that, so we can at least see a history of competence. It's pretty clear that Senate confirmation hearings get to be bullshit in the bipolar state. 2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: Limited to last point. For all the shit we give Obama on not having done enough, the state of the government's policies is better off where he left it as opposed to where it'll be when Trump is impeached. The idea is that if by some miracle we end up with another Trump, Nixon or any Shmuck trying to move us in reverse when it comes to human rights, reversing the policies and executive orders enacted by that asshole shouldn't take up too much time during the presidential term of someone actually intending to move the country forward. But you can't reset a political state. It really doesn't fix anything, and in fact looking at history if there's total democratic control and hell even republican defectors once the Trump tumor is removed, it can easily be made significantly better later on. On top of that, reversal of policy won't fix anyone's issues, especially since I don't see someone's approval rating being above 50% anywhere in the near future. We still have a 40% floor for Trump, so do you honestly think that constantly rebooting the Obama presidency will fix anything? Especially if, say, the ACA causes some major issues 10 years down the line that they didn't expect? If an institution is broken, then we need to rebuild it better so it doesn't break again, not restore the old one and create a small update. It may not have even been worth restoring the old one in the first place, and to get it implemented. It also does not make sense, because there are major bills that have partisan votes and then there are many other bills that don't which generally are not bad. Furthermore, it still doesn't address the divide; people voted against and disapproved of Obama's policies and they basically become more entrenched as a result because they'll have to live through it again for a few years. It's definitely a lose-lose for democracy overall to get to a restore point. Finally, we can't logistically get a vote on approval rating for every American and approval rating polls are snapshots in time. It also creates just another election -- if you want an accurate one after all -- and that's more voter suppression! Imagine how bad it would be to re-implement policies that may literally not be adjusted for current technology or social settings, on top of all that. And what if -- and again, these are edge cases but there are more than enough edge cases for this being a bad idea -- Congress had a 2/3 majority in all of the bills it passed so it was basically veto proof by the president. And the president has a 30% approval rating because he's Nixon's head in Futurama. Do we undo all of that, too? 2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: Yeah it is tricky. On paper de-regulation sounds appealing but I simply don't trust corporations. Ultimately though, the people need to have more chances to make an impact on something as opposed to JUST the presidential election and the midterms. We're all expecting to see Trump impeached some time after the mid-terms but we don't know for sure if it's happening, when it is happening and the damage done by Trump should've been stopped earlier this year. It is just ridiculous. It's not about de-regulation. I do believe government has to regulate businesses, but I also don't believe that the federal government should be micro-managing the states unless issues become dire (which amounts to Supreme Court cases getting stricken down). Federal regulations are for law that's common to all states as well as corporations, but regulations in general make more sense to be local regulations. Regardless, people have plenty of chances. Phone your senator, phone your local representative, run for local office or join your local political party or movement or something to that extent. Progress is incremental and there are growing pains when progress moves faster than our slowest mass of people allow it. But as it stands, some of the laws you're putting forth are not addressing the root cause of division, which in my opinion is a result of groups being vindictive towards a group that they don't necessarily interact with. In all honesty, that's the way things will go; people in the baby boomers are on their way out and Gen X and the Millennial generations will be in charge. Who knows, maybe both of them will have much more empathy with how much different life was than our parents promised us. You realize that millennial voters carried like 40 or so states for Hillary Clinton, right? I'll be voting democrat no matter what in the fall because I believe the Republican Party is severely compromised and actively brainwashing a base rather than upholding democracy. The Democratic Party kinda sucks but I'd rather they be kinda incompetent than someone who, I actually fear, will not step down if he loses an election and will trigger one of the greatest constitutional crises in the country's history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Lord Raven said: On #4? Oh man... This is very illiberal. If someone joins a supremacy group and deeply regrets it upon learning more -- that person can make a good candidate. Someone joining a supremacy group will only be voted upon in this currently partisan voting pattern we're seeing across the country. And the solution, here, addresses the result of the problem and not the root of the problem, and placing it into law only encourages further divide. Fair point. I brought it up mostly because we have someone from that linked group running for office, perhaps a different group but bottom line, white supremacists are running for office. As for addressing the root of the problem over result, you're right but the fact is that we haven't address the root of it and preventing people with the ideology that one race is supreme over others should be something to consider going forward as evidenced by the increasing hate crimes and assaults we're seeing in Trump's America. Supremacists should have no power in government is the baseline with #4. 2 hours ago, Lord Raven said: 1. Having that said, there are more than just white supremacy groups, and can you imagine BLM being called a black supremacy group by Donald Trump and barring literally every single person in there from office? And you know the Republicans and the VP will go with him when he wants that. This will most likely be some sort of weird executive privilege -- to place certain "supremacy" groups on the watch. Then what? You get protest groups labeled as supremacy groups and you're fucked. 2. I know you're not arguing the details but I'm looking at the concept you're trying to ban. And you can't just cite current supremacy groups because more will follow, and eventually you get a smooth talking supremacist -- who keeps his supremacy on the DL -- and part of a group that's like BLM for white people and bam he still runs for the Republican Party because they'll be able to adapt and exploit a loophole. 3. Much of your post is also centered around the idea of punishment versus rehabilitation. I'm all for prison reform, and I'm all for rehab programs instead of enhancing our private prison system with more punishment, and basically continuing its own form of slave labor and prison guard brutality. It's a hard solution, but a lot of our current problems can get on their way out as the generations progress.It should be shameful to be a supremacist, but not in the sense that we isolate a supremacist -- they or their children aren't that far gone and many are just ignorant. I can offer more perspective on that later. But while it should be shameful to be a supremacist, it's pretty easy to forget that some people just don't know any better about the "right thing," and that people are in supremacy groups because it sounds appealing. Some of your wanted laws just seem spiteful. 1. I'm aware, that's why I worded as "Supremacists" and not "White Supremacists" in that list. Yes, i can imagine Trump and the current Republicans and Pence calling BLM Black Supremacists because they're that stupid, and it is not much different from how they're attacking the media by calling them the enemy of the people as this administration just loves to exaggerate and twist things for their benefit. 2. The idea is to make it more difficult to get another president who's a supremacist (and Trump is quite possibly one for sure). The Trump era should bring nothing but shame on American history as the foundation of the country included these words and Slavery is a thing of the past so we should be long past the times where fools believe they're superior to others because of something as stupid and trivial as the color of their skin. Evidently, we still have morons like this and one of them is in power and the corrupt majority refuses to do their fucking job of removing the turd. This cannot happen again. 3. I'm all for rehabilitation but I see that something as more necessary for the common people. Punishment is something I'm seeing as a necessity as of late but that's specifically for those in power engaging in the blatant corruption we see today. Don't know about you but rehabilitation from being part of a corrupt group of power doesn't seem like something that really needs to happen as you have ex-republicans coming out and suggesting that the house be flipped because Republicans are not going to do a thing on Gun control for example. These people are not sick, they're sane, they're choosing greed over their duty to the people that voted them and they want to hold on to that power for self benefit. Am I being spiteful on this matter? Perhaps, I could be wrong with these suggestions and I do wish to see the flaws in my thinking which is why I asked you to expound on this particular matter. Ultimately, when it comes to lawmakers or just people in power, I simply want all chance of a supremacist being in power snuffed out and for lawmakers to have a dire consequence if they choose corruption over duty. If the current bribery the politicians of both parties currently engage in were punishable by deaths, I don't believe we would've seen a coward like Paul Ryan pushing for benefits to the rich for self-gain. There's little to no consequence for this fucker and he wants to continue pushing for policies that are against the people before he retires at age 48 when most people in the country even dream of such a thing. This cannot continue to stand. I retract #6. I agree with your points and ultimately, the idea came simply because I hate the thought of a new progressive president having to waste time in his/her term to undo/re-implement policies to move us forward. It fucking sucks and makes keeping trust of our allies in foreign countries difficult because people aren't exactly wrong when they bring up that trusting the US is kind of dangerous when the next guy in charge has the potential to just flip on everything the previous guy did out of spite. I work with colleagues in Germany and it infuriated me to find out Trump already making things difficult by attacking Germany this morning, I can't stand Trump and I wish he gets executed if he's found guilty of Treason. #11 is indeed specific to the current administration, it's just so that it is faster to get rid of garbage like Scott Pruitt if it happens again. That guy was overdue for removal long ago but he was kept around because fucking Trump doesn't know what a president is. 2 hours ago, Lord Raven said: 1. It's not about de-regulation. I do believe government has to regulate businesses, but I also don't believe that the federal government should be micro-managing the states unless issues become dire (which amounts to Supreme Court cases getting stricken down). Federal regulations are for law that's common to all states as well as corporations, but regulations in general make more sense to be local regulations. 2. Regardless, people have plenty of chances. Phone your senator, phone your local representative, run for local office or join your local political party or movement or something to that extent. Progress is incremental and there are growing pains when progress moves faster than our slowest mass of people allow it. But as it stands, some of the laws you're putting forth are not addressing the root cause of division, which in my opinion is a result of groups being vindictive towards a group that they don't necessarily interact with. In all honesty, that's the way things will go; people in the baby boomers are on their way out and Gen X and the Millennial generations will be in charge. Who knows, maybe both of them will have much more empathy with how much different life was than our parents promised us. 3. You realize that millennial voters carried like 40 or so states for Hillary Clinton, right? 4. I'll be voting democrat no matter what in the fall because I believe the Republican Party is severely compromised and actively brainwashing a base rather than upholding democracy. The Democratic Party kinda sucks but I'd rather they be kinda incompetent than someone who, I actually fear, will not step down if he loses an election and will trigger one of the greatest constitutional crises in the country's history. 1. Well as you suggested earlier, perhaps an option is to make news media non-profit. It could work. But hell, we need options and a way to get rid of propaganda. 2. Most of the bolded doesn't really achieve anything. I've actually tried this for net neutrality and could never get in contact with any of them. I live in TX so that only further cements how useless this is coming from someone they would see as "the left". If it did anything, you would see something being done about Gun Control... it's just not happening while the current Republicans are still in control. 3. I'm aware of the voting demographics for the 2016 election and I've been following the same for the Texas midterms. It is true that Millennial did vote for Hilary as a majority and that eventually the "baby boomers" will be out but that's part of the problem: The baby boomers are in power, out of touch with the current world and creating problems they'll leave with the Millennials. We shouldn't be sitting around waiting for that time to come, we should be mitigating the mess so there's less to clean up when that time comes and more time to move forward. I am voting and I'm definitely hoping that Beto O'Rourke beats Ted Cruz in the Senate run. 4. It is funny, most people in this topic will probably vote Democrat but all of them make remarks about how they're not 100% favorable towards the party anyway. How's it not already a constitutional crisis? Trump is practically the constitution stupid when he rants about due process lately when it comes to the Immigration mess he's made. Ironically, due process may just be what's keeping him in power and alive. Edited July 12, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Holy Elf Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 7 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: We're all expecting to see Trump impeached some time after the mid-terms but we don't know for sure if it's happening, when it is happening and the damage done by Trump should've been stopped earlier this year. It is just ridiculous. I'm definitely not expecting it and I would caution others about having this attitude. Trump will only get impeached if (a) Dems actually do well in the House/Senate races this year - not a given by any stretch. (b) Trump's actually guilty of the crimes many suspect him of being guilty of - something nobody posting here can say with anything approaching certainty (c) this guilt can actually be proven Technically the first point is optional but the current GOP is terrified of turning against Trump so good luck. The first point is crucial because it's the only one the average American citizen has any control over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRay Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 11 hours ago, eclipse said: Real talk, do you really want Pence to run the show while Trump is under investigation? I agree that Pence is pretty scary; he seems way too politically savvy. I wish we got someone like him on the Democratic side. While I think he will improve our foreign policy, he is going to probably set us back decades domestically. At least Trump is a complete idiot that no one (the ones that matter, i.e. the rich and powerful) takes seriously, and his incompetence is holding him back in getting more serious things done. I am not sure which is the lessor of two evils. 8 hours ago, Lord Raven said: You realize that millennial voters carried like 40 or so states for Hillary Clinton, right? That is not enough. Millennials still do not do enough to vote in smaller elections. Our age group have a huge problem with voting. We sort of got the presidential election down, but we still need to work on the smaller, more local elections. 6 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: 2. Most of the bolded doesn't really achieve anything. I've actually tried this for net neutrality and could never get in contact with any of them. I live in TX so that only further cements how useless this is coming from someone they would see as "the left". If it did anything, you would see something being done about Gun Control... it's just not happening while the current Republicans are still in control. This takes time and perseverance. While you may not see the results immediately, someone else walking down the street seeing you out there may inspire them to do the same. In my opinion, you do not even need to be out there, as just getting your friends and other Millennials to vote is a huge accomplishment. In my group of friends, only 3 out of 11 of us actually voted in the California elections, so that is pretty shitty despite having me to remind them to vote constantly. If I did not remind them at all, then only 2 of us would have voted. It is not great, but we have to start from somewhere. — — — — — — — Here is my wish list: Constitutional Amendments/Changes Spoiler - Expand the Second Amendment to explicitly include individuals. Its current wording seems to focus on militias. - Explicitly state privacy as a right. - Expand civil rights to better include the LGBTQ community. Social Policy Spoiler - Legalize all weapons, with few exceptions. Firearms and explosives require a license to be owned. License are subject to fees and taxes. - Legalize all drugs. - Legalize prostitution. - Legalize nudity. - Revoke all marriage licenses. The federal government will not recognize any form of marriage. Marriage is a private matter and the government has no business in regulating or recognizing any of it. Married couples no longer get a federal tax advantage. This might be a boon to lawyers, since they might be needed to help the populace draft wills, as inheritance might not automatically go to the spouse anymore. - Remove tax exemptions for religious organizations. - Have more open borders. Political Regulation Spoiler - In order for them to be eligible to be elected, politicians must pass a citizenship (and maybe scientific literacy) test every time they run for election. Their answers will be published publicly. - In order for them to be eligible to be elected, politicians and appointed individuals must renounce their privacy rights forever in regards to information on their personal finances. Any assets used by them will also be subjected to audits (just in case politicians transfer their assets to their children or spouse). Individuals in office will be subjected to annual audits. Individuals no longer in office will be randomly sampled and audited. Others Spoiler - Audit the military and its contractors. I want to know if the high cost is justifiable. - Establish a foreign legion. Foreign recruits can expedite their citizenship process. - Replace railroads with a more modern system, maybe maglev or the Hyperloop. - Replace coal with nuclear power to generate electricity. - Classify internet service providers as utility companies. - Nationalize the education system. STEM should be the focus of our education system. - Fund more research into nuclear fusion, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. - States cannot receive more than 150% (or whatever percentage) of what they contribute to the federal government (a state that generates $100 billion in federal individual income tax revenue can receive up to $150 billion from the federal government), unless states that contribute more agrees. States' votes are weighted by the tax revenue they generate. - Pursue closer economic, social, military, and possibly political integration with allies and other democracies. Basically, something like merging the EU, NAFTA, and NATO into one and remove its geographic constraints. While it is pretty much guaranteed we will support Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, it would be nice to invite them in and make it official. If Trump really wants to take his trade war to the next level, we should recognize Taiwan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted July 12, 2018 Share Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said: I'm definitely not expecting it and I would caution others about having this attitude. Trump will only get impeached if (a) Dems actually do well in the House/Senate races this year - not a given by any stretch. (b) Trump's actually guilty of the crimes many suspect him of being guilty of - something nobody posting here can say with anything approaching certainty (c) this guilt can actually be proven Technically the first point is optional but the current GOP is terrified of turning against Trump so good luck. The first point is crucial because it's the only one the average American citizen has any control over. I suppose "hoping" may have been the better term to use here but assuming the system works, there is the expectation that impeachment will occur but you're absolutely right that there's no 100% guarantee of it happening and it's been recently discussed. Trump is definitely guilty of several things but there is something in particular that he is very afraid the public discovers and I believe that may be years of money laundering for the Russians. Here's the things I think he's guilty of: 1. Campaign contributions violation: This one is the Stormy Daniels bit. It is all but officially proven in the courts that the $130,000 was paid as the hush money given how Trump himself disclosed payments of such amounts to Michael Cohen in 2016. 2. Obstruction of Justice: Here's the first bit of several we will see coming from Mueller's investigation. Trump fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation and there's enough on record to debunk any other spin on the matter that they come up with. Republicans today may try to argue that he fired Comey because of how the FBI director handled the Hillary situation during the election based on the recent judicial hearings. Publicly, he tried to have Comey silenced even going as far to suggest that there were tapes of their conversations. To this day, Trump continues voicing his opposition to the investigation and looking for ways he can get away with firing Mueller or weakening the effort. He would've fired Mueller early on if the Republicans and some of his staff didn't threaten impeachment/resignation but if he were to try again, I'm not sure if they would willingly stop him as they would've back then. He is looking to fire Jeff Sessions but seems unable to because the legislative branch won't confirm another Attorney General. He wants to fire Rod Rosenstein because he's the one overseeing the investigation and isn't showing signs of submitting absolute loyalty to Trump and the Republicans as of late have been trying to find ways to discredit him via the recent judicial hearings. The firing of Rod Rosenstein is something we're likely to see very soon his replacement will be the new overseer of the Mueller investigation and someone with Russian ties that benefits Trump by potentially conducting more obstruction of justice on his behalf. Lastly you have there's the Brett Kavanaugh nomination as I predicted and this came simply because Kavanaugh believes the sitting President cannot be subject of an investigation or indictments effectively removing what can lead to impeachment and it's all but confirmed that this one reason is why Kavanaugh was nominated given the political backlash from his own party and base over the nomination and the reports that this nomination and Kennedy's resignation were negotiated months before that. More on that later but as things stand, civilians have enough evidence to prove it because he was stupid enough to say the real reason he fired Comey in an interview. 3. Money Laundering for Russia: Will also come up in Mueller's investigation and Manafort will be facing trial for the same thing. It's known publicly that Trump's a business failure in the US as a lot of the shit he tries to pull are con jobs like Trump U, failures that do not live up to his projections and the 6 bankruptcies noted during the election. Most businessmen in the US have publicly stated how terrible of a negotiator and business man he is and even the ghostwriter for his book "Art of the Deal" has been making slamming him for his behavior, his business skills and his lack of literacy. So how is this stupid moron so rich? Well, a lot of the money comes from Russia according to his own sons and while it is true that he has successful business in other countries and he constantly makes sure that his policies to do not affect him or his family, I don't that success amounts to a majority of his wealth given how he constantly owes money otherwise his sons would have no reason to make those statements but they do because that's where the majority of the money comes from. Obviously most civilians would not be able to go deep into this so it mostly suspicion but if Mueller has gotten ahold of Trump's bank records, it is likely to come up in his report. 4. Tax Evasion: To supplement point 3, this is probably the main reason why Trump refuses to shows his tax returns because revealing them would probably find something incriminating that would've left any slight opposition to him suspicious enough to look into it. There's been requests made to get them to see if Trump might be violating the Emoluments clause given all the Trump-Russia stuff. 5. Charity Fraud: Report from 2017 and then you have the on-going legal troubles where they even went as far as requesting a change in dates and the judge just laughed about it. 6. Collusion with Russia on the 2016 election: The big one in the investigation. Obviously the public doesn't have enough access to information that can the guilt here but there's not exactly much going on proving him innocent of it either. We'll have to wait for the Mueller report to confirm or deny it but I'm convinced that the current arguments that Trump HIMSELF did not coordinate with the Russians during the election are false and they're just trying to hide it as best they can. 7. Conflicts of interest: Throughout the entire presidency you can trace conflicts of interests in policies that Trump has been implementing including the tariffs sparing Ivanka, the Muslim ban not targeting countries he has business in, the ZTE Trump deal and getting his acquaintance, Justice Kennedy, to retire to put in a judge that will support Trump's vote fire Mueller. I'm sure the guilt for these can be proven if investigations for them see no obstruction but the Mueller investigation doesn't have all of these in scope and Republicans are actively trying to obstruct the investigation and have it end sooner rather than when the truth is found. Devin Nunes actively seeks to get ahold of information the Mueller probe has to turn over to Trump and goons like Jim Jordan and Trey Gowdy seek to discredit Rod Rosenstein and the investigation because there's no absolute loyal to Trump from Rosenstein or the investigators. They're even going as far as suggesting the investigation is going on for too long and has produced no evidence when Trey Gowdy himself spent over 2 years on Benghazi and got nothing while Mueller got all those indictments in a matter of months. Trump IS guilty, the Republicans are afraid that he will be found guilty after you snuff out those around him first and Trump's behavior demonstrates absolutely zero signs of innocence and constant tells that he has something criminal he's hiding. All of these points are currently being pursued in legal actions barring the Conflicts of Interest point. Edited July 12, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etrurian emperor Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 So Trump just tweeted that England not going for the suicidal hard Brexit is going to endanger his willingness to offer Britain a trade deal. Seems to me that Trump just demonstrated that he just doesn't like Europe in general. Paradoxically him declaring his hostility also explains why we need the EU and why he hates it. Without membership he can bully and intimidate the individual European countries to do as he wants but when European countries acts together this becomes a lot harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said: So Trump just tweeted that England not going for the suicidal hard Brexit is going to endanger his willingness to offer Britain a trade deal. Seems to me that Trump just demonstrated that he just doesn't like Europe in general. Paradoxically him declaring his hostility also explains why we need the EU and why he hates it. Without membership he can bully and intimidate the individual European countries to do as he wants but when European countries acts together this becomes a lot harder. Any link or was it deleted? All I see around the time of your writing is endorsements and more self-praising. Edited July 13, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etrurian emperor Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: Any link or was it deleted? All I see around the time of your writing is endorsements and more self-praising. Oh, my bad. It was an interview with the Sun were Trump said this rather than a tweet. https://www.businessinsider.nl/donald-trump-theresa-may-brexit-proposal-will-kill-uk-us-trade-deal-2018-7/ http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/sun-interview-trump-offends-british.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.