TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#252426: Aug 17th 2018 at 7:29:25 AM

From a purely practical standpoint, I suppose the question becomes "who do you least want in office?"

ACW from Arlington, VA (near Washington, D.C.) Since: Jul, 2009
#252427: Aug 17th 2018 at 7:47:18 AM

On a different topic: Omarosa and Trump deserve each other, don't they?

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#252428: Aug 17th 2018 at 7:53:24 AM

Yeah, and I love it when the inner circle tears each other apart.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#252429: Aug 17th 2018 at 7:56:01 AM

For more hilarity it seems Trump loyalists have changed their position on the midterms.

'If they take the House, he wins big': Trump loyalists see upside in impeachment

I absolutely love how their argument has gone from "The Dems will never win in the midterms #redwave" to "Ok the Dems are going to win but it's merely a part of Trump's Thousand Year Plan", it's hilariously and blatantly delusional.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 17th 2018 at 10:58:08 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#252430: Aug 17th 2018 at 7:59:58 AM

Hate to go Godwin, but they are really sounding like Axis die-hards....in 1944-5.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#252431: Aug 17th 2018 at 8:00:43 AM

[up]Nah that's an apropos comparison, that's exactly what comes to mind when hearing their backpedals and rationalizations in the face of encroaching defeat.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 17th 2018 at 12:26:43 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
DrunkenNordmann from Exile Since: May, 2015
#252432: Aug 17th 2018 at 8:04:50 AM

[up][up] Godwin's Law only concerns probability, not applicability - the man himself said to just go ahead and compare people to Nazis if the shoe fits.

We learn from history that we do not learn from history
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#252433: Aug 17th 2018 at 9:23:48 AM

With the election coming up, Donnie Boy is convinced he's the One True Savior to save the Republican party, and that his showing up for Republican campaigns makes Democrats go home and cry themselves to sleep.

    Full article text 
Emphasis mine.
Donald Trump gave the Wall Street Journal an impromptu, 20-minute interview on Wednesday, touching on everything from his beloved tariffs to his decision to yank John Brennan’s security clearance. The president’s preferred topic, though, was clear. According to the Journal, Trump repeatedly “interrupted the conversation to summon aides to the Oval Office to share charts” detailing the electoral success of candidates he’s endorsed. Trump sounded very much like a man confident that he alone can keep Republicans in control of Congress.

“As long as I can get out and campaign, I think they’re going to win, I really do,” Trump said of his party. “It’s a lot of work for me. I have to make 50 stops, it’s a lot. So, there aren’t a lot of people that can do that, physically. Fortunately, I have no problem with that.” But won’t all that stumping just motivate Democratic voters to make sure they show up for the midterms? “If you want to know the truth, I don’t think it energizes them,” he said. “I think it de-energizes them. I think they give up when I turn out.”

There is—brace yourself, dear reader—little evidence to suggest this is even remotely true. Polling from the Pew Research Center and others suggests that Democrats and Republicans are both historically excited to vote in the midterms, and that excitement is due predominantly to their feelings about Trump. And while the president says it was, for instance, his rally that propelled Troy Balderson to a “great victory” in Ohio’s special election last week, it’s just as likely that his appearance there failed to turn out the GOP base and instead mobilized Democrats. Balderson himself feared just that possibility, if Gov. John Kasich can be believed. At the very least, it’s clear Democrats didn’t throw in the towel after Trump’s MAGA show came to town. The race has not yet been officially called, but Balderson currently leads by less than one percentage point in a district Trump won by 11 and that Democrats haven’t represented in Congress for more than three decades.

It’s not entirely clear that even Trump’s own inner circle believes his boasts, at least not with regard to the House. A number of Trump loyalists recently floated the self-serving idea to Politico that losing the lower chamber would lead to Trump’s impeachment but also ensure his reelection. The report, published Thursday, relied almost exclusively on unnamed sources—including “one prominent conservative and Trump supporter” granted anonymity so that he could claim that unnamed “well-respected thinkers” totally agree with him—leaving it more than a bit muddled. But the buried rationale is that some slice of these Republicans believes the House is as good as gone and so they’d rather Trump make his peace with that and then use his time trying to save the Senate. Given the lower chamber will be decided largely in districts Trump lost and the upper chamber in states he won, it’s no secret why the GOP Powers That Be would rather see Trump take the stage in North Dakota than in Orange County.

The danger, as always, for Republicans is that the president won’t listen. Trump’s comments to the Journal show he is either unwilling or unable to accept the possibility that he’s anything but a closer. During the Oval Office interview, the president and his team repeated two of their favorite claims as evidence: No Trump endorsee has lost a GOP primary, and only one of nine Trump-backed Republicans has lost a special election. Both claims are false, but even if they weren’t, they still wouldn’t be convincing.

There have been a total of 11 federal special elections since Trump took office last year. The president didn’t bother getting personally involved in the first, in a deep blue Los Angeles-area congressional district that Democrats held, but he played a factor in the next 10, eight of which Republicans did indeed win—but by nowhere near by the size of the partisan lean of each district, which ranged from suburban-Atlanta red to southeast-Utah dark red.

And then there were the two special election losses, the first of which doubled as a primary defeat. In Alabama last year, Trump backed interim Sen. Luther Strange, who lost the GOP primary to Roy Moore, who then received Trump’s backing—both before and after he was accused of being a sexual predator—only to lose to Democrat Doug Jones when it counted. And in western Pennsylvania this spring, Rick Saccone fell to Conor Lamb even after Trump made a late appearance on the Republican’s behalf. (Trump’s self-scorekeeping also conveniently excludes last year’s gubernatorial race in Virginia, where Trump-backed Ed Gillespie lost to Democrat Ralph Northam by 8 points.) Trump is free to argue that Moore was a special case and should be excluded from his win-loss record, but he is instead suggesting it simply never happened, much as he is doing with the Strange blotch on his otherwise perfect primary record.

It remains possible that Democrats won’t gain the two dozen seats they need to take back the House, or even if they do, that they fail in their bid to overcome a brutal calendar to win the Senate as well. But everything we’ve seen to date suggests either of those outcomes would be due largely to gerrymandering, geographical quirks, and other factors. That Trump can’t accept that, though, is hardly a surprise. Just ask him about the popular vote.

I really, really want to see the unhinged rant that happens if the Democrats take both House and Senate. I'm pessimistic about the possibility, but man do I want to see it happen. And my registration for Nevada election is g2g.

And with our discussions about ICE, a deported immigrant is suing the agent who deported him, since the deportation only happened because of forged documentation. Anyone want to guess how many other deported immigrants are in the same situation, but without a high-powered law firm going to bat for them?

    Full article text 
Emphasis still mine.
Ignacio Lanuza had every reason to believe he’d earned the right to live in the United States. An undocumented immigrant from Mexico, Lanuza had worked in masonry and construction since entering the country in 1996. He married a U.S. citizen and had two children, both citizens. In May 2009, Lanuza petitioned an immigration judge to become a lawful resident.

Because he had a family, more than 10 years of residence, and no criminal record, he should have qualified for legal status. But at his hearing, an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement attorney produced startling evidence against him: a form signed by Lanuza accepting voluntary departure to Mexico, dated January 2000. By signing this document, the lawyer explained, Lanuza had rendered himself ineligible for legal residence. The judge agreed and ordered him deported.

There was one problem: The form was a forgery. Jonathan M. Love, the ICE attorney, had fabricated it for the specific purpose of securing Lanuza’s deportation. Aided by a new lawyer, Lanuza was able to confirm the fraud in 2012 and received lawful resident status in 2014. Now he is seeking more complete restitution, suing Love for violating his due process rights. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s conservative justices, it is extremely difficult to sue a federal agent for damages. But on Tuesday, a federal appeals court allowed Lanuza’s suit to move forward in a forceful opinion decrying the “egregious constitutional violation” at issue.

This victory may embolden other victims of ICE to hold their abusers accountable in court. Yet it is also a reminder that ICE did not become monstrous under Donald Trump. It is an agency that’s rotten to its core, and it committed some of its most shocking malfeasance under the oversight of a Democratic Congress and president. Supporting the abolition of ICE is not just about opposing Trump: It is about taking on a rogue agency that defies the law no matter who is in charge.

By Love’s own admission, the ICE attorney had no motive to sabotage Lanuza other than sheer malice and a desire to win the case. “Why did I do this?” Love wrote in a letter to the judge who sentenced him to 30 days in jail in 2016. “If I truly knew, I would not be standing here in front of you. … It was stupid and unnecessary, and the consequences of my actions have tarnished my hard work and dedication to public service for the last 30 years.”

Love does not appear to have put a great deal of thought into his plan. The document he forged, known as an I-826 form, was dated Jan. 13, 2000, and made reference to the Department of Homeland Security. Yet DHS did not exist in 2000; it was created in 2003 in response to 9/11.

Lanuza knew he had not agreed to be deported in 2000. (“Nobody ever read to me or gave me any copy of the [document],” he insisted.) But his lawyer at the time did not notice that the I-826 form was fraudulent, and the immigration judge accepted its validity. Lanuza attempted to subpoena the immigration agents who had allegedly asked him to sign the form, but the judge denied his request. Instead, he ordered Lanuza removed on the basis of the forged form, a decision affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

It was not until Lanuza obtained new counsel—the Seattle firm Dobrin & Han—that anyone carefully scrutinized the document. Hilary Han, his lawyer, sent it to a forensic document examiner, who noticed the DHS discrepancy as well as a host of irregularities. He concluded that Love had used a real DHS document as his template, then used “erasure, deletion or overlay of text” to conceal its original content. Mismatched handwriting, a suspect signature, and the use of white-out to obscure key information all pointed toward manipulation, as well.

In February 2012, Lanuza took this evidence to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The board reopened his case, citing the “seriousness and particularity of the allegations,” and directed the immigration judge to conduct a full hearing. In January 2014, nearly five years after Lanuza was condemned to deportation, the judge made him a lawful permanent resident.

Ten months later, with the help of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Lanuza filed his lawsuit against Love. The suit finally spurred ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate Lanuza’s allegations, which found them credible. In January 2016, prosecutors took action against Love, charging him with deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law. In addition to serving 30 days in jail, he agreed to stop practicing law for 10 years and paid Lanuza $12,000.

It is galling, though not surprising, that ICE did not investigate Love for more than a year and a half after Lanuza initially pointed out the forgery. ICE must have known about the evidence when Lanuza’s attorney asked that the case be reopened. But the agency apparently did not see fit to immediately alert federal prosecutors that one of its lawyers had broken the law. Had Lanuza not filed suit, ICE might never have investigated Love at all. In May, when a federal judge found that ICE officers had fabricated evidence in a different deportation case, he condemned ICE attorneys for endorsing agents’ blatant falsehoods in court. The Lanuza case represents another example of ICE employees—both law enforcement officers and lawyers—covering each other’s tracks.

Lanuza’s lawsuit was placed on hold during Love’s prosecution, and it has since dragged on due to Love’s status as a federal agent. While victims of federal misconduct can, in theory, seek damages for their suffering, the Supreme Court has made these suits increasingly difficult to win. In 2015, a federal court tossed out the bulk of Lanuza’s suit. He appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated his suit on Tuesday. The court acknowledged that civil actions against federal agents are “disfavored” but held that Lanuza’s case constitutes “a proper use of our judicial power.”

“At its core,” the court concluded, “this case is about a lie, and all the ways it was used, over several years, to defraud the courts. Government attorneys are given great power, and with that power comes great responsibility.” Love exploited his responsibilities to torment an immigrant. The Constitution gives his victim the right to seek recompense in the courts.

Throughout its opinion, the court stressed that its holding was limited to these “narrow” and “egregious” facts— malicious fabrication of evidence by an officer of the federal government. ICE has been caught concocting false evidence before, but not many of its targets will be able to meet this high bar of proving that agents falsified evidence against them. At best, Lanuza’s procedural victory this week could inspire more immigrants to come forward with claims of ICE’s lawlessness. Few may triumph, but at minimum, they will help Americans grasp the corruption at every level of the agency.

That corruption is, sadly, bipartisan. Lanuza’s ordeal occurred during Obama’s tenure, as the president foolishly turned ICE into a vicious deportation machine. The agency waited for years before punishing Love despite ample evidence that he had engaged in criminal conduct.

Love’s fraud is a symptom of a deeper illness. Calls on the left to abolish ICE do not simply reflect knee-jerk opposition to Trump. They indicate a growing understanding that the agency’s relentless deportation drive is antithetical to justice.

The article also has a link to the actual forged document, if you're interested in that. And it's worth noting that many, probably most, of the judges in cases with ICE just automatically take them at their word.

And I'm not going to copy the article, but Slate looked at spy pens Omarosa might have used, in case any Tropers need to record conversations with their own racist, sexist bosses.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#252435: Aug 17th 2018 at 10:08:25 AM

That's not great optics, I don't know enough about protocol for such things or the consequences of such a decision to have a more firm opinion on the matter.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Robrecht Your friendly neighbourhood Regent from The Netherlands Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
#252436: Aug 17th 2018 at 10:26:02 AM

I want to say deranged, but that seems ableist...

I have discussed this with some fellow disability activists and our consensus is that in this case deranged is probably fine since modern use, like 'dumb' and stupid', is far removed from its origins and, unlike 'crazy' or 'psycho', it's practically never used as a slur for people with a mental disability in common speech.

Edited by Robrecht on Aug 17th 2018 at 10:27:58 AM

Angry gets shit done.
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#252437: Aug 17th 2018 at 11:41:30 AM

Bernie wrote an op-ed about one of his favorite topics, one I still happen to agree with him about, why we need single-payer health care like every other civilized country out there.

    Full article text 
Emphasis mine.
(CNN) — Let's be clear. The American people are increasingly tired of a health care system that works for Wall Street investors, insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry — but ignores their needs. They want real change, and poll after poll shows that they want to move toward a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system. And for good reason.

Today, the United States has the most expensive, inefficient, and bureaucratic health care system in the world. Despite the fact that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care for all — and have 30 million uninsured and even more who are underinsured — we now spend more than twice as much per capita on health care as the average developed country.

According to a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development analysis, we spend more than $10,300 per capita on health care. Meanwhile, Canada spends just $4,826, France spends $4,902, Germany spends $5,728, and the United Kingdom spends $4,264.

Further, despite this huge expenditure, which now constitutes almost 18% of our GDP, our health care outcomes are worse than most of these other countries. For example, our life expectancy is 2.5 years lower than Germany's and our mortality rate for children under the age of 19 is at the top of the list compared to other developed countries.

The ongoing failure of our health care system is directly attributable to the fact that — unique among major nations — it is primarily designed not to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way. Instead, the system makes maximum profits for health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and medical equipment suppliers.

The Medicare-for-all legislation that I wrote, which now has 16 co-sponsors in the Senate, would provide comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child in our country — without out-of-pocket expenses. No more insurance premiums, deductibles or co-payments. Further, it would expand Medicare coverage to include dental and vision care. In other words, this plan would do exactly what should be done in a civilized and democratic society. It would allow all Americans, regardless of their income, to get the health care they need when they need it.

Under the current system, while thousands of Americans die each year because they lack access to the health care they desperately need, the top five health insurance companies last year made $21 billion in profits, led by the United Health Group, which made $10.56 billion.

As tens of thousands of American families face bankruptcy and financial ruin because of the outrageously high cost of health care, the CE Os of major insurance companies receive disgustingly high levels of compensation. According to Axios, in 2017, the CEO of United Health Group, Dave Wichmann, received $83.2 million; the CEO of Aetna, Mark Bertolini, received $58.7 million, and the CEO of Cigna, David Cordani, received $43.9 million.

Today, as an indication of how dysfunctional our current system is, about one out of every five Americans cannot afford to fill the prescriptions given to them by their doctors because we pay, by far, the highest price in the world for prescription drugs. A 2013 study showed that in 2010, the United States paid, on average, about double what was paid in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Switzerland for prescription drugs. Since 2014, the cost of 60 drugs commonly taken has more than doubled, and 20 of them have at least quadrupled in price.

While millions of Americans are unable to afford the medicine they desperately need, or are forced to cut their pills in half in order to save money, five top drug companies made over $50 billion in profits last year and, in 2015, 10 prescription drug CE Os made a combined $327 million in total compensation.

Would a Medicare-for-all health care system be expensive? Yes. But, while providing comprehensive health care for all, it would be significantly less costly than our current dysfunctional system because it would eliminate an enormous amount of the bureaucracy, administrative costs and misplaced priorities inherent in our current for-profit system.

Instead of doctors and nurses spending a significant part of their day filling out forms and arguing with insurance companies, they could be using their time to provide care to their patients. We'd be able to save up to $500 billion annually in billing and administrative costs. That money could be used to greatly expand primary care in this country and make certain that all Americans got the health care they needed when they needed it — saving billions on expensive emergency room care and hospital visits. Instead of paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, we could save hundreds of billions over a 10 year period through tough negotiations with the drug companies.

The benefits of a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system are so obvious that even a recent study done by the right-wing Mercatus Center estimated that it would save Americans more than $2 trillion over a decade, reducing the projected cost of health care between 2022 and 2031 from $59.7 trillion to $57.6 trillion. Needless to say, that wasn't the point the study attempted to emphasize. Rather, the author of the study was hoping the headline — "Medicare for All costs the federal government $32.6 trillion" — would frighten the American people and get them to oppose it.

While opponents of Medicare for all focus their criticism on the increased taxes the American people will have to pay, they conveniently ignore the fact that ordinary people and businesses will no longer have to pay sky-high premiums, co-payments and deductibles for private health insurance.

At a time when health care in 2018 for a typical family of four with an employer-sponsored PPO plan now costs more than $28,000, according to the Milliman Medical Index, the reality is that a Medicare-for-all system would save the average family significant sums of money.

A recent study by RAND found that moving to a Medicare-for-all system in New York would save a family with an income of $185,000 or less about $3,000 a year, on average. Even the projections from the Mercatus Center suggest that the average American could save about $6,000 under Medicare for all over a 10-year period.

A Medicare-for-all system not only benefits individuals and families, it would benefit the business community. Small- and medium-sized businesses would be free to focus on their core business goals instead of wasting precious energy and resources navigating an incredibly complex system to provide health insurance to their employees.

Needless to say, there is huge opposition to this legislation from the powerful special interests that profit from the current wasteful system. The insurance companies, the drug companies, Wall Street and the Koch brothers will undoubtedly spend billions on lobbying, campaign contributions and television ads to defeat Medicare for all. But they are on the wrong side of history.

Here is the bottom line: If every major country on earth can guarantee health care to all and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States of America cannot do the same.

There's a lot that Bernie's wrong about in politics, but this piece seems pretty spot-on to me. It's reflecting the same arguments that we've seen in this very thread, too. But I don't think Bernie's secretly a troper ...

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#252438: Aug 17th 2018 at 12:00:52 PM

So... Like... Not the enduring legacy of both open and dogwhistled racism against blacks, natives and basically anyone not a WASP, the repeating policy of hypocritically propping up dictators (and no, I don't just mean the actual installing of dictators in South America during the Cold War) in the name of preserving 'freedom', the still rampant homophobia and the myriad other systemic issues?

I mean... The whole torturing people thing wasn't good, not remotely, but compared to some of the shit that's been going on in and around the US for decades, even centuries, it's relatively minor.

I genuinely was naive enough to believe America was getting better as a consistent fact. That we, the next generation (X-Y in my case as I was born in 1980) had agreed that racism was bad and that it was something we were going to try to make steps to correct. Homophobia was something I'd suffered a bad case of (I turned away from it 180 degrees thanks to a spiritual event in my life) but I believe was the next thing to overcome as part of this path of progress.

And in Dubya's term, I realized then just how much was the case of it not getting better but getting worse.

Mind you, my blinders were such that I actually assumed people weren't voting for Trump becuse of racism for a long time. I kept wanting to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Aug 17th 2018 at 12:01:29 PM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#252439: Aug 17th 2018 at 12:24:06 PM

There's a lot that Bernie's wrong about in politics, but this piece seems pretty spot-on to me. It's reflecting the same arguments that we've seen in this very thread, too. But I don't think Bernie's secretly a troper ..

This sums up my feelings completely, Over-all I'm not a fan of Sanders but he is completely right here.

Americans want healthcare reform and all the data points towards Medicare for All being a objectively superior to the current system and exactly what we need as a nation.

I genuinely was naive enough to believe America was getting better as a consistent fact. That we, the next generation (X-Y in my case as I was born in 1980) had agreed that racism was bad and that it was something we were going to try to make steps to correct. Homophobia was something I'd suffered a bad case of (I turned away from it 180 degrees thanks to a spiritual event in my life) but I believe was the next thing to overcome as part of this path of progress.

Racism being a very real problem and America getting better over racism are both fully compatible positions to hold.

The fact that the alt-right got so much opposition in its marches when the KKK previously did not is clear evidence that things are quite better, doesn't mean that there isn't a long way to go but things have improved.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 17th 2018 at 3:28:08 PM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#252440: Aug 17th 2018 at 12:32:27 PM

Also, Trump thinks that multiple jet fighters can be bought for $21 million. It's adorable if my 5 year old nephew thinks he can buy a jet fighter for $100. Less so when it's the president.

The thing is, as I mentioned the day before it got postponed, The total cost was $92 million - the $21 million figure was just for Washington, D.C.'s part of it, though I'm not sure whether that's lumped in with the aforementioned $42 million for interagency spending or not - D.C. was the only organization to actually release the financial details.

And holy shit, even Fox News is giving him some (albeit toned-down) flak for it.

But, true to form, Trump continues to embody Never My Fault, as he blamed D.C.'s mayor for the cost - while blatantly omitting the expenditures incurred by the DoD and other governmental agencies.

It's getting more than a bit depressing when I increasingly consider Starship Troopers to be a better idea by simple virtue that Trump wouldn't have been permitted to run as President.

Edited by ironballs16 on Aug 17th 2018 at 12:44:43 PM

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#252441: Aug 17th 2018 at 12:35:34 PM

[up]x4 Small nitpick, but I believe most countries don’t have true single payer. Nearly all the countries you’re thinking of have universal coverage in various ways, mostly with tax financed government accounts paying for the vast majority of health care costs, but single payer is one of a number of ways to achieve that.

I don't want to be like those Republicans who still voted for Roy Moore and Trump despite their abuse.

While it is closer than I’d like to the Roy Moore style justifications and rationalizations, Ellison is the candidate unless he drops out, politically he’s far better than the Republican, (although I’m virtually at the point where I think voting for any Republican is wrong and against the nation’s best interests) and in the worst case he could be replaced by another like minded person or voted out in a primary at another time, giving Democrats a chance to find someone who is qualified, not an abuser, and doesn’t have any similar skeletons in their closet.

It’s certainly better in my calculus than giving the position to a Trumpster, or any Republican who is either ideologically in sync with the party or can be pressured or have their arm twisted to force them to go along the Republican line.

And considering that Republican politicians are world class arm twisters and Republican primaries have already had the effect of eliminating moderates or forcing them to go along with the party’s reprehensible policies, there are extremely few Republicans I would trust in a position of power. The cleanest, most moderate and decent Republican is better than the scummiest, most corrupt Democrat, but in any other circumstances, fuck it, vote Blue.

I don’t like being in that position or thinking that way, but decades of losses for what I see as the right direction for this country means our backs are against the wall and we have to act accordingly.

Edited by TheWanderer on Aug 17th 2018 at 4:22:48 AM

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#252442: Aug 17th 2018 at 12:42:52 PM

[up][up] Also I’d like to point out that even if you could theoretically afford fighter jets with that money, that’s not how the military budget works. That money would likely come out of a contingency fund somewhere, and those aren’t used for domestic weapons procurement.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 17th 2018 at 12:42:29 PM

They should have sent a poet.
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#252443: Aug 17th 2018 at 12:43:27 PM

Small nitpick, but I believe most countries don’t have true single payer. Nearly all the countries you’re thinking of have universal coverage in various ways, mostly with tax financed government accounts paying for the vast majority of health care costs, but single payer is one of a number of ways to achieve that.

Yes but this doesn't really contradict anything I said, in that I did not claim that single payer is the only form of universal healthcare.

Simply that it's superior to the status-quo and good for the nation.

I'm not opposed to a hybrid system per-se but I dislike the idea of for-profit entities being involved in healthcare, not to mention that as long as they exist they will push and push to back it private again. Single-payer is thus ideologically preferable to me over other forms of healthcare.

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
ironballs16 Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Owner of a lonely heart
#252445: Aug 17th 2018 at 1:01:09 PM

[up]

Probably a good call given that the Judge is already under protection by US Marshals due to death threats.

"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#252446: Aug 17th 2018 at 1:07:04 PM

There's no probably about it.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#252447: Aug 17th 2018 at 1:43:52 PM

https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2018/08/17/day-575/

Day 575: A very good person.

1/ Advisers are worried that Trump will back Erik Prince's plan to privatize the war in Afghanistan with Blackwater security contractors. Trump's national security team are concerned that his impatience will cause him to seriously consider proposals like Prince's or abruptly order a complete U.S. withdrawal. Prince hasn't spoken directly to Trump about the plan, but plans to launch an aggressive media "air campaign" in coming days. Prince's sister is Education Secretary Betsy De Vos. (NBC News)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/officials-worry-trump-may-back-erik-prince-plan-privatize-war-n901401

2/ Trump canceled his military parade and blamed "the local politicians who run Washington, D.C. (poorly)" for inflating the cost. "When asked to give us a price for holding a great celebratory military parade," Trump tweeted, "they wanted a number so ridiculously high that I cancelled it. Never let someone hold you up!" The Pentagon postponed Trump's parade to 2019 yesterday – before Trump "decided" to cancel it via tweet this morning – as the costs ballooned from an estimated $12 million to $92 million. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's parade a "sad" plan. (New York Times / Politico / Washington Post)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/17/trump-cancels-military-parade-fighter-jets-783035

3/ Trump plans to revoke more security clearances from officials who have been critical of him or played a role in Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Over the past 19 months, Trump has fired or threatened nearly a dozen current and former officials associated with the probe, which he calls a "rigged witch hunt." According to his aides, Trump believes he came out looking strong after he revoked former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance, adding that Trump shows visible disdain for Brennan when he sees him on TV. (Washington Post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gears-up-to-strip-more-clearances-from-officials-tied-to-russia-probe/2018/08/16/341fe418-a165-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?utm_term=.b2bca5e3e978

4/ Trump called a career Justice Department official "a disgrace" and threatened to revoke his security clearance "very soon." Bruce Ohr has no involvement in Mueller's investigation, but conspiracy theorists claim he helped start the investigation into Russian election interference. (New York Times / Washington Post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-intelligence-officials-rebuke-trump-for-pulling-brennans-security-clearance/2018/08/17/ea8382f2-a20d-11e8-8e87-c869fe70a721_story.html

A dozen former top intelligence officials accused Trump of "attempt[ing] to stifle free speech" and criticized him for revoking John Brennan's security clearance. "We feel compelled to respond in the wake of the ill-considered and unprecedented remarks and actions by the White House," reads the letter from the officials, who served both Democratic and Republican presidents. Trump told reporters he's gotten a "tremendous response" since revoking Brennan's clearance. (Politico / Los Angeles Times)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/16/trump-brennan-intelligence-officials-criticism-782898

5/ Trump called Paul Manafort a "very good person" as jurors deliberate charges of tax and bank fraud against his former campaign chairman. Trump criticized the trial as "a very sad day for our country," but declined to say whether he would pardon Manafort if convicted. (Bloomberg / Politico / Washington Post)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/17/paul-manafort-trial-trump-pardon-783133

The judge presiding over Paul Manafort's criminal trial has received threats about the case is now under U.S. Marshal protection. Judge T.S. Ellis said he won't release the names and addresses of the 12 jurors deliberating Manafort's fate because he is worried about their "peace and safety." (CNBC)

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/17/judge-in-paul-manafort-trial-said-hes-been-threatened.html

6/ A judge in New York ruled that a confidentiality agreement between the Trump campaign and a former staffer is limited in scope, which could impact other non-disclosure agreements signed by former Trump staffers. Due to the wording of the agreement, only disputes over the agreement itself and some other prohibited behaviors were subject to arbitration. A former campaign staffer filed a complaint last November alleging that she was subjected to "harassment and sexual discrimination" while working on Trump's 2016 campaign. Lawyers for the Trump campaign tried to force the case into private arbitration based on the agreement. (Yahoo News / The Hill)

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/402356-judge-rules-white-house-confidentiality-agreement-is-limited-in-scope

poll/ 57% of Americans think Trump is too friendly with Russia. Overall, 41% consider Russia an enemy of the U.S. (CNN)

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/politics/cnn-poll-trump-russia-enemy/index.html

Notables.

The State Department will not spend some $230 million that had been planned for Syria stabilization projects and instead shift that money to other areas. (Associated Press)

https://apnews.com/31eaa3ca51ed480f90ef6363156b710e

The White House budget office is attempting to cancel about $3 billion in foreign aid using an obscure budget rule to freeze the State Department's international assistance budget. (Politico)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/17/white-house-cut-foreign-aid-money-743481

A federal judge ruled that a Trump official must sit for a deposition in a lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. New York and 16 other states filed a lawsuit in April challenging the constitutionality of the question, arguing it will lead to skewed numbers. (The Hill)

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/402361-judge-rules-trump-official-can-be-deposed-over-census-citizenship

Trump asked the SEC to consider scaling back how often public companies must report earnings to investors from a quarterly basis to twice a year. Trump tweeted that he consulted "some of the world's top business leaders" on steps to create jobs and make business "even better." He said one told him to "stop quarterly reporting and go to a six month system." (Wall Street Journal / Reuters / New York Times / Washington Post)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sec-trump/sec-asked-to-study-six-month-filing-system-for-companies-trump-idUSKBN1L217G


Something separate I came across:

Trump and Omarosa Had a ‘F*cking Weird’ Fight With Vietnam Vets

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-and-omarosa-had-a-fcking-weird-fight-with-vietnam-vets

If nothing else I imagine people will get a kick out of just what the agreement was about:

“It was really fucking weird,” one attendee bluntly assessed to The Daily Beast.

The meeting included President Trump and the envoys of nearly a dozen major vets groups—including the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans of America, American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the right-leaning Concerned Veterans for America—as well as senior staffers such as Stephen Miller, Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, and Manigault-Newman surrounding the large table.

The president began going around the room asking the different representatives what they were working on and how his administration could help, having made veterans’ issues a cornerstone of his 2016 campaign rhetoric.

Soon, he got to Rick Weidman, co-founder of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), who was one of Vietnam vets in the room that day, having served a tour of duty in 1969 as a medic. (Trump famously avoided military service in that disastrous war, ostensibly due to “bone spurs,” and had once said that his prolific sex life was his own “personal Vietnam.”)

According to two sources in the room who requested anonymity, this is when things went off the rails.

During the course of the meeting, Weidman brought up the issue of Agent Orange, an extremely notorious component of the U.S. herbicidal warfare on Vietnam. Weidman was imploring the president and his team to permit access to benefits for a broader number of vets who have said they were poisoned by Agent Orange.

Trump responded by saying, “That’s taken care of,” according to people in the room.

His reply puzzled the group.

Attendees began explaining to the president that the VA had not made enough progress on the issue at all, to which Trump responded by abruptly derailing the meeting and asking the attendees if Agent Orange was “that stuff from that movie.”

He did not initially name the film he was referencing, but it quickly became clear as Trump kept rambling that he was referring to the classic 1979 Francis Ford Coppola epic Apocalypse Now, and specifically the famous helicopter attack scene set to the “Ride of the Valkyries.”

Source present at the time tell The Daily Beast that multiple people—including Vietnam War veterans—chimed in to inform the president that the Apocalypse Now set piece he was talking about showcased the U.S. military using napalm, not Agent Orange.

Trump refused to accept that he was mistaken and proceeded to say things like, “no, I think it’s that stuff from that movie.”

One clue belying the president’s insistence is that the famous Robert Duvall line from the scene in Apocalypse Now, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning,” is not “I love the smell of Agent Orange in the morning.”


Can't take the time to read in detail myself at this moment, but the headline was ominous enough I thought I did put it out there:

"Exclusive: U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger - sources" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-encryption-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-government-seeks-facebook-help-to-wiretap-messenger-sources-idUSKBN1L226D

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 17th 2018 at 2:56:14 AM

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#252448: Aug 17th 2018 at 3:44:40 PM

@fourth: Something being "ideologically preferable" isn't a valid argument in favor of a policy; reality is under no obligation to conform to constructed human ideologies, the pertinent question is whether it would produce a better outcome than alternative proposals.

The answer to that question with all things considered is, in my opinion, a tentative yes. The policy being discussed arguably isn't a "pure" single payer system in the first place. even the most generous plans being discussed don't go as far as the NHS in Britain where both healthcare providers and health insurance is public. The more stingy MFA plans are something more along the lines of Australia where the government provides a basic healthcare plan covering essential treatment and private insurers pick things up around the margins + offer additional services.

@TheWanderer: I'd argue something like single-payer is the best option for the United States. A multi-payer system would give each individual state too much control over healthcare benefits compared to a centrally funded single-payer system, we already have the basic framework for something along the lines of Australia or Canada's system in the form of medicare, and the fixation of Anglo-American corporate culture on weaseling out of giving their workers benefits makes a mandatory employer funded system problematic.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Aug 17th 2018 at 6:57:04 AM

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#252449: Aug 17th 2018 at 3:53:49 PM

@fourth: Something being "ideologically preferable" isn't a valid argument in favor of a policy; reality is under no obligation to conform to constructed human ideologies, the pertinent question is whether it would produce a better outcome than alternative proposals.

The answer to that question with all things considered is, in my opinion, a tentative yes. The policy being discussed arguably isn't (@The Wanderer here) a "pure" single payer system in the first place. even the most generous plans being discussed don't go as far as the NHS in Britain where both healthcare providers and health insurance is public. The more stingy MFA plans are something more along the lines of Australia where the government provides a basic healthcare plan covering essential treatment and private insurers pick things up around the margins + offer additional services.

Don't lecture me, I'm well aware of all of this and I mentioned it being ideologically preferable to explain my support of it.

Not to mention that the article specifically mentions data in its favor, in that a right-wing think tank found that it would result in net savings of $2 trillion. So don't act as if reality not conforming to human ideology has any relevance here, it doesn't.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 17th 2018 at 6:55:16 AM

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
CharlesPhipps Since: Jan, 2001
#252450: Aug 17th 2018 at 3:57:15 PM

Weird fact of today:

I promised a friend that I would play the entirety of the excretable Army of Two games if someone ever actually seriously argued privatizing the US military in war.

Goddammit.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Aug 17th 2018 at 7:26:58 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Total posts: 417,856
Top