Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

The thing is, the party leadership tried to turn on him already during the primary. Now he's so popular with the base that only the most well-established Republicans, ones confident they can trounce any primary challenge (McCain) will dare oppose him.

 

Actually, McCain was just re-elected, so he's got 6 years before he has to worry about another election and he's old enough he may not be planning on running again anyhow if Trump doesn't flame out during the course of his 4 years in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry we are heading to a new world war... but... what you post is true. We've had sucky presidents before, even monstrous ones. And we have picked up after and gone again.

 

My 'worst' case scenario with Trump used to be his starting a war with an errant tweet during one of his 3am rants.

 

Now I'm considering the possibility of his actually starting a war with a direct military action.  Probably due to an ill-considered or poorly thought-out order, but still...

 

As a rule, my 'worst' case scenarios usually don't come to pass but I still strongly suspect I will be quite relieved when Trump's presidency is referred to in the past-tense.  (How I feel about POTUS46 is yet to be determined).

 

(Note: 'worst' is used to denote scenarios which do not indulge in letting my inner-GM loose to create situations which only the PCs are capable of thwarting in an epic session involving lots of dice.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he didn't want to take the immigrants Obama had agreed to. That does sound like Trump.

 

Actually, I am confused by the terms of the deal.  The US was to take Indonesians who'd tried to immigrate illegally to Australia, and Australia would take in Central Americans. Okay, I get the concept of trading, but why would they want to trade?  Why wouldn't the US take the central americans and Australia take the Indonesians? (or was it Papua New Guineans? I forget)

 

Not Indonesians. Asylum seekers from all the various wars. Not just from the middle east and Africa either, although that is most of them. More local sources include Sri Lanka and (I think) Burma.

 

Note that it's not illegal to seek asylum under international treaties that Australia has signed. The indefinite offshore detention policy Australia has blatantly ignores that.

 

There have been documented cases of refoulement too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ban has been injucted against but DHS is still sending people back out of the country. I guess they're more afraid of getting fired than AG Yates

CES 

So if the courts rule against Trump he'll just ignore them? Sounds like something George Wallace would have done resisting the Civil Rights movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the courts rule against Trump he'll just ignore them? Sounds like something George Wallace would have done resisting the Civil Rights movement.

The DHS and Customs said the EO is the EO until otherwise. i don't know how that is progressing in court time.

CES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the courts rule against Trump he'll just ignore them? Sounds like something George Wallace would have done resisting the Civil Rights movement.

 

 

The DHS and Customs said the EO is the EO until otherwise. i don't know how that is progressing in court time.

CES

Which defeats the point of an injunction, which is to put a hold on injurious conduct while its legality is sorted through. And in this case he's literally playing around with people's lives. Depending on their situation, sending a person back into a war zone could well be a death sentence.

 

What's more, the precedent this set s is dangerous. If Trump can ignore judicial review with impunity, how safe is anyone? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if you live near coal mining, don't drink the water. The Republicans reversed the pollution rules. They have also reversed the gun policy for mentally handicapped people too

CES 

Sounds like the chances of Flint getting drinkable water are pretty remote then. Apparently poorer cities or neighborhoods being treated badly is a feature, not a bug, of current policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan at all of President Drumpf, but I have to say that I'm in agreement with his statement to Israel about not doing more settlements.  (Only fair to give props where props are due.)

 

That said, I wonder what Drumpf would say if the Israeli PM says, "Hey, we're just acting in our national interest.  I'd think you, of all people, would understand that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan at all of President Drumpf, but I have to say that I'm in agreement with his statement to Israel about not doing more settlements.  (Only fair to give props where props are due.)

 

That said, I wonder what Drumpf would say if the Israeli PM says, "Hey, we're just acting in our national interest.  I'd think you, of all people, would understand that."

New York Times says he is just doing what Obama did

CES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the courts rule against Trump he'll just ignore them? Sounds like something George Wallace would have done resisting the Civil Rights movement.

That's why there was so much discussion of a Constitutional crisis last weekend, before Trump went and did something else shocking to distract from it. But yes, right now CBP is ignoring the judiciary, which is unconstitutional. As a practical matter, however, nothing can be done about it in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why there was so much discussion of a Constitutional crisis last weekend, before Trump went and did something else shocking to distract from it. But yes, right now CBP is ignoring the judiciary, which is unconstitutional. As a practical matter, however, nothing can be done about it in the short term.

 

This situation really highlights how much of a governmental system functioning coherently, is dependent on people respecting and trusting that system, both the people in government and the public being governed. People in office can put whatever decree they want down on paper, but if enough people consider it illegitimate it'll be toothless.

 

And that's the long-term damage that I believe Donald Trump's approach since he started campaigning, has the greatest potential to cause. By constantly impugning the fundamental honesty and legitimacy of everyone and everything that doesn't agree with him, he's undermining everyone's respect for and trust in the system as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually read someone crowing that Trump would get rid of the Jews and help Israel stand against the Muslims.

Remarkble idiocy. Although... I guess deportation of all U.S. jews to Israel would give the Israeli army a sizeable boost...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the long-term damage that I believe Donald Trump's approach since he started campaigning, has the greatest potential to cause. By constantly impugning the fundamental honesty and legitimacy of everyone and everything that doesn't agree with him, he's undermining everyone's respect for and trust in the system as a whole.

This is just the logical conclusion of decades of "government is the problem" and "starve the beast". The entire MO of the GOP is to sabotage or bankrupt the government and then point at how broken government is. From that perspective Trump is the perfect president for them, because he is guaranteed to cause as much chaos as possible while still not being perceived as part of the establishment GOP. The only parts of government that will be spared are the parts that are necessary for corporations to function; everything else is fair game.

 

It's especially tragic because the federal government of the United States was the single biggest force for good throughout the twentieth century, simply by existing. Two Republican administrations have now replaced this source of inspiration and hope with cynicism, lies, and hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Mandelbaum's The Case for Goliath discusses in depth the ways in which U.S. power and policy has acted to stabilize the world, often (granted, not always) to good effect. His argument in brief is that just as governments provide particular services for the community of citizens -- or at least they are supposed to do so -- the USA tries to provide government-like services to the community of states.

 

Trump appears determined to dismantle services for citizens at home and services for other states abroad. I find this worrisome.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...