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

Kakuzan Let memes die. Kill them, if you have to. from Knock knock, open up the door, it's real. Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Let memes die. Kill them, if you have to.
#238426: Apr 12th 2018 at 6:53:48 AM

It really is a time to be alive when you have to decide whether Trump is being delusional to think he is somehow invulnerable to the law, or if he is too stupid to realize that like many things, that isn't how attorney-client privilege works. And as someone over at Twitter pointed out, there is no privilege if Cohen indeed pay Stephanie Clifford off without Trumpy boy knowing or being involved.

[down] I already know that. I just figured that it has already been repeated multiple times on this thread and everywhere else. Though it really does compound how there is no way to claim that the privilege is being legally violated.

edited 12th Apr '18 7:02:07 AM by Kakuzan

Don't catch you slippin' now.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#238427: Apr 12th 2018 at 6:57:50 AM

[up] While that is indeed a factor, the main point of law is that attorney-client privilege ceases to apply when the communications are themselves part of a criminal act to which either actor is a party. If paying off Daniels involved bank fraud (for example), then anything Trump and Cohen discussed regarding it would not be privileged.

Moreover, if Trump knew and approved of the payment, he becomes a co-conspirator. Knowing Trump, his defense will probably be something along the lines of, "I just discussed it with him; any illegal acts were all on his end and I didn't know about them." Which generally doesn't hold water in "mob boss" style cases.

edited 12th Apr '18 7:03:48 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#238428: Apr 12th 2018 at 7:50:14 AM

Double Post: CNN is reporting that the National Enquirer paid a doorman $30K for his silence about Trump's sex life.

Well, we already knew that the Enquirer is shilling for Trump, but man, I wish I had lots of money and lots of friends with money so I could make all the bad things I've (hypothetically) done go away. Who cares about consequences when you have cash, amirite?

edited 12th Apr '18 7:57:56 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
FyodorDose Since: Mar, 2018
#238429: Apr 12th 2018 at 7:58:08 AM

I'm so sick of the "Trump sex scandal" talk. So some shit happened like a decade ago. Okay. We knew he was a weird scumbag already. I'm sure we have way better things to criticize Trump on than that. In fact, we absolutely do.

It's honestly tabloid-tier news.

edited 12th Apr '18 7:59:35 AM by FyodorDose

Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#238430: Apr 12th 2018 at 8:01:41 AM

[up]No it's not, the issue is not that he had an affair other than the hypocrisy of the evangelicals that's not what's important. The important part is the high likelihood that he tried to squash it through illicit means like bribery or intimidation.

edited 12th Apr '18 8:02:31 AM by Fourthspartan56

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
thatindiantroper Since: Feb, 2015
#238431: Apr 12th 2018 at 8:01:50 AM

It’s more a put how his cover up may have stayed into campaign fraud territory.

Although I’ll admit for most people it’s just about rubbing it in Trump supporters faces , once again how much of a disgusting creep their great white hope is.

Wildcard Since: Jun, 2012
#238432: Apr 12th 2018 at 8:04:55 AM

[up][up][up]Statutory Rape shouldn't ever be forgotten about. Even if was a decade ago.

Also if your talking about the more mundane of his affairs, sure but it is rather odd not hearing any reponse coming from the supposed party of family values.

edited 12th Apr '18 8:05:18 AM by Wildcard

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#238433: Apr 12th 2018 at 8:07:59 AM

[up][up][up][up] There are several aspects to this:

  • The constant harping of Republicans and their base on "family values" while some of their highest profile politicians regularly get caught cheating on their wives, abusing women, and otherwise doing all the things they claim to be against. Yet, these politicians still enjoy high levels of support.
  • The open question of whether any of these sexual encounters involving Trump constituted actual criminal acts.
  • The fact that money was paid by third parties to people with information about Trump to secure their silence while Trump was a candidate for office. This may make them into "in kind" campaign contributions that violated campaign finance laws.
  • The fact that Trump and/or his allies may have lied about the existence of, purpose of, and/or source of funds for these payments.

[down] To address your pre-edit point, it's not that these are the most important issues facing our President; it's that they add to the pile. They just keep coming from all angles, and to ignore any one of them because "there are worse things to be concerned about" becomes awfully hard to take at face value when every single issue is met with the same kind of deflection.

edited 12th Apr '18 8:15:39 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
FyodorDose Since: Mar, 2018
#238434: Apr 12th 2018 at 8:08:22 AM

edit: fuck it

edited 12th Apr '18 8:08:42 AM by FyodorDose

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#238435: Apr 12th 2018 at 8:26:26 AM

Exclusive: Inside the GOP plan to discredit Comey

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's allies are preparing an extensive campaign to fight back against James Comey's publicity tour, trying to undermine the credibility of the former FBI director by reviving the blistering Democratic criticism of him before he was fired nearly a year ago.

The battle plan against Comey, obtained by CNN, calls for branding the nation's former top law enforcement official as "Lyin' Comey" through a website, digital advertising and talking points to be sent to Republicans across the country before his memoir is released next week. The White House signed off on the plan, which is being overseen by the Republican National Committee.

"Comey is a liar and a leaker and his misconduct led both Republicans and Democrats to call for his firing," Republican chairwoman Ronna Mc Daniel said in a statement to CNN. "If Comey wants the spotlight back on him, we'll make sure the American people understand why he has no one but himself to blame for his complete lack of credibility."

While it's an open question how successful Republicans will be in making their case against Comey, given that Trump unceremoniously dismissed him last May 9, there is no doubt that many Democrats remain furious at how the former FBI director treated Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Republicans hope to remind Democrats why they disliked Comey by assailing his credibility, shining a new light on his conduct and pointing out his contradictions — or the three Cs. An old quotation from Clinton is prominently displayed on the "Lyin'Comey" website, with Trump's former Democratic rival saying that Comey "badly overstepped his bounds."

Political contradictions

The political contradictions surrounding Comey are underscored by how such a central part of the Republican plan is built around reminding Americans of how Democrats had disdain for him, particularly those from the Clinton campaign. Republicans will argue that Comey "repeatedly usurped" the authority of then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and violated protocol by "publicly acknowledging the existence of ongoing FBI investigations."

The Republican plan also takes a closer look at Comey's appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee last June, when he testified that the President had asked him to stop investigating Flynn. That contradicted a remark he made earlier when testifying that the President did not ask him to stop an investigation for political reasons.

For Comey, who once enjoyed wide bipartisan support in Washington, the book tour comes with high stakes. A former deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, he was appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the FBI in 2013.

Since Trump dismissed Comey during the fourth year of a 10-year term he has remained largely silent, with the exception of testifying last summer on Capitol Hill and a handful of searing tweets aimed at the President. The memoir's release is the first major opportunity for Comey to speak aloud — and be subjected to questions — about his interaction with Trump before being fired.

"Mr. President, the American people will hear my story very soon," Comey wrote last month on Twitter. "And they can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not."

The RNC plan, which was approved by the White House, attempts to portray Comey as a man simply out for himself. "James Comey's publicity tour is a self-serving attempt to make money and rehabilitate his own image," said Mc Daniel, the RNC chairwoman.

Are they seriously trying to discredit Comey as a Witness, or is this just regular Republican vindictiveness?

edited 12th Apr '18 8:28:17 AM by megaeliz

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#238436: Apr 12th 2018 at 8:28:20 AM

[up] I imagine it's both. The GOP machine only has one way to handle powerful people who speak out against it.

This is an amusing tidbit from the "Where are they now?" file, and relevant since Paul Ryan unexpectedly announced his forthcoming retirement.

CNN (and others): Former House Speaker John Boehner joins the board of a cannabis company.

His "thinking has evolved" on this matter, per a tweet. He's going to be promoting the legalization of marijuana "so we can do research, help our veterans, and reverse the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities."

Is being in Republican politics some sort of brain virus that makes you do crazy, stupid things but is reversible by leaving that world and returning to real life?

edited 12th Apr '18 8:29:39 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#238437: Apr 12th 2018 at 8:31:42 AM

Something good for once.

How Retirements Like Paul Ryan’s Are Shrinking Republicans’ Built-In Advantage in the House [1]

Alone, no single retirement can do much to shift the national race for House control.

But after a year full of them, it seems Republicans can’t afford too many more. Each new departure, including the retirement of House Speaker Paul Ryan, narrows the Republican path to retain the House.

That path is getting so narrow that it increasingly seems to hinge on one — very real — possibility: the chance that the long-awaited Democratic wave simply won’t materialize. And while that’s certainly possible, all of the conditions for a wave seem to be in place.

Two years ago, the Republicans had another way to win. They could ride out a wave election, like those in 2006 or 2010, by relying on their considerable structural advantages to overcome a deeply unfavorable national political environment.

But today those Republican advantages are greatly diminished. State and federal court rulings in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have eroded or even completely undone Republican partisan gerrymanders. Thirty-nine Republican representatives have decided not to run for re-election, with the latest being Mr. Ryan, the House speaker, and Dennis Ross, a Florida congressman.

The retirements are so consequential because they deprive the party of the advantage of incumbency. Even in wave election years, incumbents generally win re-election in districts that tilt somewhat toward their party. Most Republican incumbents represent such districts, in part because of partisan gerrymandering and the tendency for Democrats to cluster in urban districts and “waste” votes.

It’s a different story without the advantage of incumbency. In a wave year, the president’s party struggles to retain open seats in competitive districts, even those that tilt toward their party. Often, a retirement is the difference in whether a race is competitive at all.

Here’s a rule of thumb: A Republican retirement in competitive districts costs the party about one-third of a seat, on average, in this political environment. Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ross were the 18th and 19th such retirements for the Republicans. Collectively, it suggests the retirements will cost the Republicans the equivalent of around six seats. (Of course, there are always such retirements, but the pace of them in this cycle is well above the norm.) That is one-fourth of the seats the Democrats need to retake the House.

It makes it increasingly difficult for the Republicans to prevail in a wave election.

One way to think about it is in terms of the national popular vote: What margin of victory would Democrats need to take the House? In 2014 and 2016, the Republican structural advantage was so large that the Democrats might have needed an eight-plus-point victory — even larger than the Republican margin in 2010 and 1994, and about as large as the Democratic margin in 2006. So it seemed that the Republicans had a plausible and even a good chance to survive a wave in 2018.

But today, Democrats would be favored to win with less than a seven-point popular vote margin. (This figure leaves aside the question of uncontested Democratic seats.)

By our estimates, the retirements of Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ross brought the estimated tipping-point threshold to around 6.7 points, with the exact figure depending on whether Republicans can recruit strong candidates, down from 6.9 points. (It’s important to emphasize that this figure is not nearly as exact as it sounds. It’s only the point at which the Democrats are “favored”; it is not to say that the Democrats would win with a seven-point margin but not with a six-point margin. There are many conditions under which Democrats could win with a smaller popular vote victory or lose with a larger one.)

A difference of 1 or 1.5 points in the Democratic popular vote threshold might not seem like much. But it’s significant in this political context. If recent history is any guide, it’s quite realistic to think a midterm wave election would yield a 6.7-point margin in the major party vote. The Democrats surpassed it in 2006; so did Republicans in 1994 and 2010. On the other hand, an eight-plus-point victory would seem more challenging. Only the Democrats pulled it off, in 2006, and just barely.

For good measure, Democrats have typically led by more than 6.7 points on the generic congressional ballot, a poll question that tracks closely with the eventual national popular vote. They’ve held such a large advantage for most of the last year. Their margin usually sits around eight points, a tally that might yield a true tossup without the Republican retirements.

In other words: The Republican structural advantage in the House has diminished to the point where Democrats seem clearly favored to win, if the Democratic lead in the polls of the last year holds, and if the polls turn out to be right. Neither of those things are assured; I would think no one needs to be reminded of that. But it’s a big change from six or eight months ago.

edited 12th Apr '18 9:06:57 AM by megaeliz

TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#238438: Apr 12th 2018 at 9:24:45 AM

"We're back": The appointment of Bolton and nomination of Pompeo has given many hawkish neo-cons who were frozen out of the Obama administration and, until now, the Trump administration, a hope of getting back inside

Who you know and that you've worked before in Washington has always been the most important currency in D.C. (Certainly more important than whether you've done a good job or not, or even whether the work you did is related to the new position you'd be working.) To find that potentially being useless for at least two, and possibly three presidential administrations (depending on who gets in next after Trump) was the equivalent of lifelong political exile. By then their contacts may well be dried up and their expiration date reached. The conversation would be "So you did that back for Bush in 2004? So what? That was a lifetime ago. What have you done lately?" instead of "Ooh, you did that for Bush? Welcome aboard, we'll find something for you to do until you can get a sufficiently prestigious and influential job." Worse yet, (as far as these assholes are concerned) it would mean missing the chance to a new generation of their staffers and such to carry on their point of view and put them on the insider track. Otherwise they just get too old for serious consideration, have no one to carry on after them, and find their POV on the dustbin of history.

However, despite this window of opportunity, some of them are refusing to work under Trump, and others are on an informal blacklist for signing onto Never Trump letters during the 2016 Presidential campaign.

    Return of Neo-Con? 
First, President Trump promised to drain the swamp of Washington. Very quickly, many of the swamp creatures were let back in. But a contingent of them stayed out: Republican foreign-policy hawks and centrists who had opposed Trump.

But the arrival of John Bolton to the National Security Council, and Mike Pompeo to the State Department, could spell a fresh start for Washington’s Republican foreign-policy establishment, the kind of people who would have been automatic hires in a Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio administration. Many of them have been sitting on Capitol Hill or at think tanks, after also missing out on the action during the Obama administration. The tumultuous and bizarre Michael Flynn era, the messy, infighting fueled Flynn-to-Mc Master transition at the National Security Council, and the head-scratching austerity reign of Rex Tillerson at the State Department? These, some in foreign-policy circles felt, were better avoided. Bolton and Pompeo, though, seem like a return to something more familiar to those whose worldview and experience were shaped by the Bush administration, or even earlier Republican administrations.

But despite who serves under him, Trump is still the president. And statements made in the heat of the campaign—op-eds, public commentary, and especially signatures on anti-Trump letters—have had a lasting impact for some in the Republican foreign-policy sphere. The effective “blacklist” against Never Trumpers, who formed the core of the group that would be the likeliest pool of foreign-policy-related political appointees in a Republican administration, has still discouraged some who opposed Trump from even putting their names up for consideration.

At the same time, the new regime could lead to opportunities for a younger set, as older Bush Administration alumni start to age out of contention for the big jobs.

“With Tillerson and Mc Master there were basically no normal conservative right-wing kids getting national-security jobs. Anybody who wrote an anti-Trump letter was iced out,” the Bolton ally said. “Now with Pompeo and Bolton, if it can last long enough, there’s a chance to mold another generation of conservative foreign-policy types with real experience, a real network, and what does that meant for the next Republican administration? The people who work for Pompeo and Bolton could be the core of the movement for a long time to come.”

Bolton and Pompeo don’t exactly have a surplus of people to hire. Many Republicans in Washington have so far declined to work for Trump, wary of the administration’s unceasing internal chaos and mistrustful of the president and those surrounding him in the White House. Or, they’ve been essentially disqualified due to past criticism of Trump. Both Bolton and Pompeo have been soliciting names. The atmosphere resembles the transition, with resumes flying around town from Hill types and think tankers. At the NSC, a list was drawn up for Bolton by outgoing National-Security Adviser H.R. Mc Master’s team, according to a source familiar with the list. Other sets of names are circulating unofficially. Already, changes are being made: NSC spokesman Michael Anton and Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert both resigned over the past few days just before Bolton could fire them, and replace them with his own people. Anton was briefly considered but not chosen for the vacant White House communications-director job, according to a former White House official. On Wednesday, CNN reported that deputy national-security adviser for strategy Nadia Schadlow had also resigned.

The departures of Anton, Bossert, and Schadlow show that Bolton is serious about installing his own people, but the reshuffling is taking place during a major crisis—right now, the likely U.S. military intervention against the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.

A distinction is being made “between Never Trump people who disqualified themselves and people who signed the letters,” one Republican foreign-policy source familiar with the deliberations on hiring said. “Even the Trump guys always distinguish between the first letter and the second letter.” The first letter came out at the beginning of March 2016, in the midst of the primary season, and has over 100 signatories. The second letter signaled more irrevocable opposition to Trump, appearing in The New York Times in August 2016 when he was then the GOP nominee. Signatories to the letters included august names in the foreign-policy community like the neoconservative intellectual Robert Kagan, who signed the first letter, and retired Air Force general, former NSA chief, and former CIA Director Michael Hayden, who signed the second.

...

“The biggest challenge both Bolton and Pompeo face are staffing challenges,” Edelman, who signed both letters during the campaign, said. “When it comes to political appointees, Bolton and Pompeo are going to be fighting over the same limited talent pool.” He pointed out that many of those in the 55 to 65 age bracket whom Pompeo could cull for senior positions were either career diplomats who had fled the government under Tillerson, or had signed letters that made them off-limits as political appointees.

Pompeo and Bolton are not, themselves, comforting enough for the most ardent anti-Trump conservatives to feel comfortable going inside. “If you really don’t like Trump you’re not gonna go in because John Bolton’s there now,” one of the Republican foreign-policy sources said.

That goes even for Bolton’s former employees. Some sources suggested to me that Mark Groombridge, who worked for Bolton at the U.S. mission to the UN and at his super PAC, might be someone Bolton is considering hiring. But when I reached out to Groombridge, he was unequivocally a no on the idea, sending a multi-part email listing his complaints with Bolton and, more importantly, with Trump, whom he adamantly opposes and views as a “misogynistic, narcissistic, and frankly asshole [sic].”

“It frankly doesn’t really matter who the national-security adviser is,” Groombridge said. “I don’t know that John has his ear. That’s not a criticism of John, that’s just a function of the president.”

After hobbling government revenue with the tax cuts, Republicans are attempting once again to get a balanced budget amendment Due to the CBO estimating trillion dollar plus a year deficits due to the tax cuts,this would effectively force a return to a pre-New Deal levels of spending and social welfare.

It's almost certain they won't get anything to pass at this point, but it always pays to remember that creating deficits in order to create an excuse to cut social welfare programs and return us all to the glorious days before welfare, Medicare, Social Security, labor rights, and almost all the benefits we think of as integral to modern life is the main Republican goal. Everything they do on fiscal policy should be seen as another step on that path.

    I'm experiencing a 90s flashback and it sucks 
Republicans were unfazed by the deficit impact of their $1.5 trillion tax cut when they passed it. Now they are trying to make deficits unconstitutional.

The House is scheduled to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment Thursday. Though several states require their legislatures to pass a balanced budget every year, the federal government does not have the same requirement. In fact, many economists argue it’s necessary for the federal government to go into debt for the greater good of the economy. Nevertheless, balanced budget amendments are something of a white whale on the right. And many conservatives believe it is the only way to actually enact spending cuts.

There’s no question the United States is in a lot of debt, but Democrats are quick to point out the irony of Republicans pushing a Balanced Budget Amendment now: On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office — the independent official body that measures the impact of legislation — reported that deficit spending will increase by $11.7 trillion over the next 10 years, $1.58 trillion of which is because of the Republican tax cuts and the omnibus spending bill.

For decades, Republicans have campaigned on cutting federal spending and reducing the national debt. And while there’s an ongoing debate among economists over how big an actual threat the deficit is, Republicans, now in control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, have done just the opposite.

The bill the House plans to vote on this Thursday would be one of the first steps in amending the US Constitution to bar the government from spending more than it brings in in federal revenue. Changing the Constitution requires approval from two-thirds of the House and Senate and then it must be passed by two-thirds of state legislatures. Republicans currently hold 32 of 50 state legislatures.

This is all very unlikely to happen. But Republicans are pushing it anyway. It reveals a deeply unpopular partisan agenda to make deep cuts to everything from food stamps to health care.

Both Republicans and Democrats have used the idea of a balanced budget amendment as a political tool for a long time.

The movement really started in the late 1970s, when Republicans brought up a Balanced Budget Amendment to rein in spending under Jimmy Carter’s administration. Over time, its popularity has grown and waned on both sides of the aisle. Even California Gov. Jerry Brown, who was running against Carter for the Democratic nomination, supported it at the time. He’s since had a change of heart.

There was another push for a balanced budget amendment after Ronald Reagan-era tax cuts ballooned the deficit. Activist groups like the National Taxpayers Union began to push for a constitutional convention on the Balanced Budget Amendment to achieve this goal. These groups have continued to fight for the cause. But the amendment has failed every time — in 1982, and again in 1986, and again in 1995, and so on. The last time Congress voted on a Balanced Budget Amendment was in 2011.

Now, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) gets a vote on a version of this amendment. The amendment would ban deficit spending, require that spending not exceed 20 percent of gross domestic product, and require a majority to increase taxes and three-fifths majorities to raise the debt limit.

While fighting to pass tax cuts, Republicans steered clear of talking about the deficit. Many rejected reports from the CBO and offered rosy economic growth projections instead. They even passed a waiver to ensure the tax bill wouldn’t automatically trigger a sequestration across some major mandatory spending programs, like Medicare, federal student loans, and agriculture subsidies under the 2010 deficit management pay-as-you-go law.

But almost immediately after the tax bill passed and the sequester was averted, House Republicans’ seemed to remember their longstanding concerns about the national debt and began eying ways to trim government spending, targeting everything from food stamps and Medicaid to Social Security and Medicare.

The CBO says the national debt will likely be equal to the size of the Gross Domestic Product in 10 years, and if Congress chooses to extend Republican tax policies, those deficits will only grow larger. So far, under a Republican-led Congress, the deficit is expected to grow to $804 billion this fiscal year, which ends on September 30 — about $665 billion more than in 2017.

And so Republicans who supported the tax cuts and many who supported the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill that will keep the government open through September 30 and fund the military at historic levels, are now behind an initiative to make deficits illegal.

Welcome to the latest development of what has been a year of Republican budget theatre. Even conservatives, who have long railed against deficit spending (but who mostly voted for the tax bill) are calling this vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment insincere.

“There is no one on Capitol Hill, and certainly no one on Main Street, that will take this vote seriously,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) told Politico.

There’s no question that the Balanced Budget Amendment is a messaging bill, giving Republicans the chance to go home to their constituents and say that they voted in favor fiscal responsibility.

But as such, it highlights the part of the Republican agenda that’s unpopular. To balance a budget, you can do one of two things: raise taxes or cut spending. Republicans cut taxes last year, and their ideas to cut spending (reforming entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security) are deeply unpopular.

Medicare and Social Security continue to stand along Medicaid as some of the most popular federal spending programs. Earlier this year, only 12 percent of Americans said they wanted Congress to decrease Medicaid spending, according to a poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation. A Pew study found only 10 percent of Republican-leaning Americans wanted to reduce funding for Social Security, and 15 percent wanted to decrease spending on Medicare.

If Republicans ever con people into going for this, the U.S. would effectively doom itself to collapse unless it could immediately reverse course.

Wendy Vitter, a pro-life wacko who claims abortions make women more likely to get cancer and die violent deaths and advocated for putting brochures saying that (which she called a fact at the time) in doctors offices, and who also refuses to say if she supports school desegregation, had a hearing before Congress yesterday regarding her nomination to be a federal judge.

Not a single Republican has indicated they would vote against her and they greeted her warmly at the hearing. Plus she's the wife of a former Republican Senator, (taken down by a sex/prostitution scandal in 2015) so don't expect there to be any roadblocks in her way. Say hi to your newest Federal judge.

God, this country fucked itself so badly in 2016. I said it then and I'll say it again: 30-40 years from now we will still be feeling the impact of that election. It will take that long just for progressives to get a fair shot to influence the direction of the country without getting hamstrung at every point, and only if they get their act together post haste and stay unified and keep pushing all that time.

edited 12th Apr '18 9:27:33 AM by TheWanderer

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
NoName999 Since: May, 2011
#238439: Apr 12th 2018 at 9:29:54 AM

[up][up][up][up][up]Trust me, out of everyone here's, you're the last one to be crying "fuck it." [lol]

I mean the President and his lawyer quite possibly used campaign funding to keep a pornstar quiet and indirectly threaten her, thus ruining the integrity of the White House. But we got more important things to focus on (that you hardly ever talk about, I notice). Like why Trump favors one President turned dictator who violates human rights (Duterte) but want to bomb another one (Assad)

edited 12th Apr '18 9:30:09 AM by NoName999

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#238440: Apr 12th 2018 at 9:41:56 AM

Also, from a pragmatic prospective, its a whole lot easier to bring people down on charges of fraud and bribery than it is to prove a massive conspiracy with the Kremlin to sway an election in court.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Deadbeatloser22 from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
Fourthspartan56 from Georgia, US Since: Oct, 2016 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
#238442: Apr 12th 2018 at 10:02:21 AM

[up][up][up]I don't see why favoring one dictator over another is odd, since they're not identical people there's no reason for Trump to like them both. And Trump does seem sincerely horrified by Assad's use of chemical weapons, so that clearly explains why he doesn't like him.

edited 12th Apr '18 10:02:28 AM by Fourthspartan56

"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#238443: Apr 12th 2018 at 10:20:51 AM

Trump orders officials to look into how to reenter the TPP

I... I can't even.

Speaking after a trade meeting with Trump, Republican senators said the president told National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to look into re-joining the negotiations.

“The president multiple times reaffirmed in general to all of us and looked right at Larry Kudlow and said, ‘Larry, go get it done,' " Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), a vocal proponent of free trade, told reporters at the White House.

Sasse cautioned that Trump "is a guy who likes to blue-sky a lot and entertain a lot of different ideas," suggesting the president could eventually change his mind.

Trump told lawmakers he now believes TPP "might be easier for us to join now" because the 11 other nations are close to finalizing a deal without the U.S, according to the Nebraska senator.

If the U.S. were to re-enter TPP, it would be a remarkable about-face for Trump, who repeatedly blasted the trade pact during the 2016 campaign.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump called TPP a "disaster" that is backed by "special interests who want to rape our country."

His decision to pull out of the agreement, one of his first moves as president, was blasted by Republicans who said it put the U.S. at a disadvantage to China on the global stage.

Trump's instructions come at a time when he is engaged in a roiling trade dispute with Beijing and also pushing to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, who are also parties to TPP.

Trump earlier this year opened the door to re-entering the Pacific Rim trade pact if the terms were more favorable to the U.S.

Here's an article from January on how TPP changed once the US left it

Arguably the most controversial intellectual-property provisions concerned medicines. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry argues that its members need strong patents in order to recoup the huge investments required to invent new drugs. That patent regime is one of the reasons health care is so expensive in the U.S., and the pharmaceutical industry has for years pushed hard to export the American system to other countries. That would benefit an important American industry, but its consequences for developing countries where only a few can afford expensive medications are more mixed. “The TPP may lock-in American-style IP laws and embed a set of norms in a region where they are ill suited,” wrote the governance scholar Yanbai Andrea Wang in 2015.

The humanitarian nonprofit Doctors Without Borders put it more bluntly. The original TPP “would have extended pharmaceutical company monopolies, kept drug prices high, and prevented people and medical treatment providers from accessing lifesaving medicines by blocking or delaying the availability of price-lowering generic drugs in many countries,” the organization wrote in a statement in November.

The revised TPP—now renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—includes almost none of those controversial provisions on intellectual property. “The removal of a number of provisions from the CPTPP that are harmful to people’s access to medicines is a major victory,” concluded Doctors Without Borders.

What changed? “Canada took the lead on seeking amendments to the TPP’s deeply problematic intellectual property chapter,” wrote Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor. “The IP chapter largely reflected U.S. demands and with its exit from the TPP, an overhaul that more closely aligns the agreement to international standards was needed.” These issues were included in the deal because major American companies—not just pharma but also the software and entertainment industries—rely on strict intellectual property rules to make money, and their interests set the terms for the American negotiating team. Without America making those demands in exchange for access to its markets, it no longer made economic sense for other countries to accept them, said Malcolm.

“What may be most remarkable—given the U.S.’s absence from the table—is how much of the original deal struck in October 2015 has stuck,” wrote Financial Times trade editor Shawn Donnan. A controversial arrangement whereby companies can sue countries over their domestic laws, known as the investor-state dispute settlement system, remains in a reduced fashion. Labor and environmental protections are largely unchanged. The EFF’s Malcolm pointed to e-commerce provisions that provide only weak privacy protections, among other issues, as still being problematic. But overall, the new deal is so similar to the original that Canadian labor unions are furious that their government is still advancing it, just as labor groups in the U.S. objected under Obama. The non-American architects of global trade, in other words, will come to pretty similar agreements even without the U.S.

edited 12th Apr '18 10:21:37 AM by TheWanderer

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#238444: Apr 12th 2018 at 10:26:11 AM

Someone made a death threat against David Hogg. His account was suspended, but this thread lays everything out, as well as the video he put up that got him suspended

He goes by LAWEREWORLF, and his real name is Frank Espinoza.

The video was identified by someone else as being shot at the Mike Raahauge Shooting Enterprises at 14995 River Rd, Corona, CA 92880. [1]

He's also the the press secretary for the UPNF militia. Facebook

FBI Tips Page

edited 12th Apr '18 10:31:45 AM by megaeliz

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#238445: Apr 12th 2018 at 10:27:36 AM

[up][up] Wanna bet Trumpsters will make an about face on TPP?

edited 12th Apr '18 10:27:45 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#238446: Apr 12th 2018 at 10:28:44 AM

Some Trumpsters are going to be livid over this, but others will follow the shift like the servile cultists they are.

edited 12th Apr '18 10:28:53 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
FluffyMcChicken My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare from where the floating lights gleam Since: Jun, 2014 Relationship Status: In another castle
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
#238447: Apr 12th 2018 at 10:31:19 AM

I mean the President and his lawyer quite possibly used campaign funding to keep a pornstar quiet and indirectly threaten her, thus ruining the integrity of the White House. But we got more important things to focus on (that you hardly ever talk about, I notice). Like why Trump favors one President turned dictator who violates human rights (Duterte) but want to bomb another one (Assad)

You think it's not because Putin's given advice to him on the phone to put up a veneer of anti-Russianness to discredit the Mueller investigation?

edited 12th Apr '18 10:34:10 AM by FluffyMcChicken

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#238448: Apr 12th 2018 at 10:33:22 AM

I'm so sick of the "Trump sex scandal" talk. So some shit happened like a decade ago. Okay. We knew he was a weird scumbag already. I'm sure we have way better things to criticize Trump on than that. In fact, we absolutely do.

Yes. Some stuff happened like a decade ago. Some stuff (you know, the stuff we're talking about? The stuff that got his lawyer's house searched?) happened during the campaign and is most certainly relevant. Just because the bad behavior stretches far back doesn't mean we should ignore the present stuff very much tied to it.

With Daniels, it's not the affair, it's the cover-up.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#238449: Apr 12th 2018 at 10:34:58 AM

edited 12th Apr '18 10:36:18 AM by megaeliz

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#238450: Apr 12th 2018 at 10:35:05 AM

People saying, "So what if our President bribed a woman to keep her mouth shut with campaign money? Big deal!" is how political norms are broken and gross corruption becomes normalized.

"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."

Total posts: 417,856
Top