Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:15 am UTC

Fantastic Idea wrote:He can totes fire them, that's not unprecedented. He does need congress to confirm his selection of the next one, though.

Ah. Thank you (sorry for my ignorance on that). Is the reasoning unprecedented, though? Removal from post due to dissenting opinion? It feels extreme, but I could also see it having been done before.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Trump presidency

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:18 am UTC

Don't apologize for not understanding a FUCKING MADMAN. He is not operating in anything like accepted parameters. This is not normal.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:20 am UTC

Fantastic Idea wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:If "Satanists" going to a rally is keeping otherwise Democratic-leaning Christians out of the tent, I have no idea how to approach them


Just one of many examples I've seen in the past few months.

A particularly egregious example was Stephen Colbert's condemnation of Trump. What burns most is that Stephen Colbert knows exactly what he's doing with these segments... he's a pretty smart guy and is rather knowledgeable of issues regarding Religion.

What is egregious about the Colbert clip? It seemed spot-on to me and creepy in how accurate his predictions were. We're gonna love and cherish each other now, I tell ye, while the President sends out his minions for the Muslims and the Jews and the gays.
I will continue my personal war on Christmas, as well. Fuck Christmas.
I'm sorry you don't think that Christians are ENOUGH of a protected class in this country.


As a Catholic, I was fine with Colbert's rant for the most part. And then Colbert then just violates the 2nd Commandment for comedy.

It wasn't very funny at that point. Especially because Colbert is definitely the kind of guy who knows what he was doing.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:22 am UTC

I know it's not normal, that much can be seen quite easily. I'm just not sure exactly how far from the legal code he has strayed yet. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding firing/replacing interm AGs and other such positions, and I am wondering how close he is to being outside the law completely. But thanks for not making me feel like an idiot :D

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:23 am UTC

Fantastic Idea wrote:Don't apologize for not understanding a FUCKING MADMAN. He is not operating in anything like accepted parameters. This is not normal.


This is what it looks like when you run the country like a business. Soon he's going to declare bankruptcy, sell of all of our assets, and then lay off the public while he takes a $90 trillion severance package.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: Trump presidency

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:30 am UTC

Quantized wrote:I know it's not normal, that much can be seen quite easily. I'm just not sure exactly how far from the legal code he has strayed yet. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding firing/replacing interm AGs and other such positions, and I am wondering how close he is to being outside the law completely. But thanks for not making me feel like an idiot :D


I have to do more reading (tomorrow, with coffee, it's late where I am now) before I fully comprehend this personally, although there was at least one other President who fired not one but multiple acting AGs, if I heard the news I was just watched correctly. Not sure about ICE.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3900
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:35 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:As a Catholic, I was fine with Colbert's rant for the most part. And then Colbert then just violates the 2nd Commandment for comedy.


The one about not worshipping other gods than God, and not having graven images (Idolatry).

I always found most Christians a bit suspect about that, having so many images in their places of worship of Jesus who is the son of God, not God himself. Seems like that one's been in the crapper for a while.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:46 am UTC

Dauric wrote:I always found most Christians a bit suspect about that, having so many images in their places of worship of Jesus who is the son of God, not God himself. Seems like that one's been in the crapper for a while.


Well, they settled that fairly recently in Nicaea, I believe.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:00 am UTC

Fantastic Idea wrote:
Quantized wrote:I know it's not normal, that much can be seen quite easily. I'm just not sure exactly how far from the legal code he has strayed yet. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding firing/replacing interm AGs and other such positions, and I am wondering how close he is to being outside the law completely. But thanks for not making me feel like an idiot :D


I have to do more reading (tomorrow, with coffee, it's late where I am now) before I fully comprehend this personally, although there was at least one other President who fired not one but multiple acting AGs, if I heard the news I was just watched correctly. Not sure about ICE.


Well yeah, Nixon's Saturday Morning Massacre. But the general idea is that these people serve the President. So its not unprecedented by any stretch of the imagination.

There's nothing illegal here, its just sorta dickish.

Dauric wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:As a Catholic, I was fine with Colbert's rant for the most part. And then Colbert then just violates the 2nd Commandment for comedy.


The one about not worshipping other gods than God, and not having graven images (Idolatry).


Oh, right. Very few Christians actually agrees which commandment was the 2nd one. I'm talking about this 2nd commandment.

Not the 2nd Commandment you were talking about... which I guess Stephen Colbert also violated. (Catholics believe this is part of the 1st Commandment). In any case, it was an unnecessary addition to his rant and really added nothing aside from blasphemy and poor taste.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6347
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:24 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- ... mographics

The youth turnout was gradually going up, not by a huge amount, but going up nonetheless until about 2010 with the whole economic crisis. If you can get Democrats out to vote in 2018, show there is a real chance for student debt relief, an actual plan to rein in Wall Street, a welfare reform plan that consolidates programs and eliminates the welfare cliff but expands benefits to reduce poverty. Go big and bold and make it fucking inspiring, and the youth will turn out enough to make a difference. Republicans have shown that pragmatism doesn't win elections, and we can tone it down a bit in Congress, while making sure we deliver actual results. And yes, the youth vote was decisive in recent elections so there is enough of a gap there to sway elections, even if not by themselves.

Image Color me unimpressed with the strength of that relationship. In addition, when you ask for the youth vote, you just asked to stab yourself every midterm. =( It's no way to govern if your electorate only shows up half the time.

About the firings, look up bloody sunday and Nixon's firings of AGs. Should seem pretty similar.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:05 am UTC

You are talking about over 20 million voters, which is 15.4% of the voters from 2012 - I don't know why people so religiously write off such a huge group of voters.

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf

Just because they don't have a huge turnout rate doesn't mean they don't matter.

EDIT: Besides, the more young Democrats we attract now, the more old Democrats we will have in the future.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby zmic » Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:41 am UTC

Fantastic Idea wrote:There's new 45 news tonight!

The Acting Attorney General of the United States, Sally Yates, today put out a statement that she would not defend the unconstitutional 'muslim ban' preventing immigrants from select countries and people with visas and green cards from entering the US. The 45 administration called it a betrayal.
So 45 fired her and swore in a new 'acting AG' before 9pm.
No idea by whom, we just have to take their word for it that he's been sworn in. Our new AG is Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, until Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is confirmed. Which I personally hope he is not, because he is a racist piece of shit, but that's JUST ME. Also I expect Sessions will enforce the federal drug laws and weed became legal in my state TODAY and I would like to keep it that way.

So, people do what the president says or they get fired. No dissent is acceptable. Even if the president does something unconstitutional.


Who says the immigration ban is unconstitutional? I don't think it is.

Much worse than the immigration ban is the fact that so many people believe they have to use intellectual dishonesty in order to oppose Trump. That's why Trump gets blown up into a bigger deal than he really is.
Last edited by zmic on Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:45 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby maybeagnostic » Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:44 am UTC

Thesh wrote:You make that assertion, but I don't know why. Absolutely everything we know about why Trump won was because of the Hillary stuff with the emails and the leaks, not because we offended too many racists and theocrats that had no intention of voting Democrat in the first place.

Do you seriously believe that? Because if you honestly believe that 30% of the population is racist theocrats for voting for Trump and another 40% is kind of racist theocrats for not voting against Trump, you must believe the US has much bigger problems than Trump.
Fantastic Idea wrote:You're doing the same thing you say we're doing, you just seem to be unable to notice that liberals don't try to legislate our religious beliefs onto others.
No, they sue them into effect because they lack the support required to pass laws but they still actively push their agenda which is by-and-large the one more disruptive to the status quo. What's your point?
Fantastic Idea wrote:If pointing out that republicans institute racist laws and cater to christians only is shaming them, I don't see why I should stop.
If you do something shameful, be ashamed.
Pretty poor strategy when the people don't believe their actions are shameful. Especially poor strategy when you don't even know why they actually did it and you lost but didn't learn anything from it.

Some of the people who voted for Trump are horrible people- extreme nationalists, racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. It is a worrying and very vocal part of his supporters and a downright terrifying presence in his cabinet. These kinds of people exist everywhere though. They are a lot more visible in European multi-party systems where it is really easy to see their numbers swelling with general discontent and going down when things are going well but they seem confined in the 5-20% range pretty consistently (I don't have anything to back this up except very imperfect personal observation). These people exist in the US as well but the two party system does too good a job of hiding their presence. Trump got 48% of the vote which means that the US either had a huge hidden group of hardcore racists who were just secretly waiting for an opportunity (hint: this isn't the case) or a lot of people voted for him for other reasons. Trying to figure out who these other people are and what they were hoping to achieve by voting for Trump should be a priority for democratic supporters.

Fantastic Idea wrote:This is why I don't get your logic, it seems like we experienced two different elections.
People experienced a myriad of different elections. There was just such an overwhelming amount of scandals and commentary and opinions that the majority of voters only paid attention to a tiny part of it.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:51 am UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Thesh wrote:You make that assertion, but I don't know why. Absolutely everything we know about why Trump won was because of the Hillary stuff with the emails and the leaks, not because we offended too many racists and theocrats that had no intention of voting Democrat in the first place.

Do you seriously believe that? Because if you honestly believe that 30% of the population is racist theocrats for voting for Trump and another 40% is kind of racist theocrats for not voting against Trump, you must believe the US has much bigger problems than Trump.


That seems fairly obvious to me (the bolded problems bit, not the numbers bit - I don't know enough about US society to have a view on that)... I believe that every nation has problems that are much bigger than their leader. To give just a few examples, which could apply to just about any developed nation at the moment:

  • Wealth inequality
  • An economic system which relies on indefinite growth trying to operate in a finite world which will most likely no longer support such growth
  • Systemic discrimination of various sorts
  • The long drawn out death throes of manufacturing economies
  • How to respond to the existential threat of climate change (whether by ignoring it or otherwise)

Trump seems more a symptom of various problems than their cause (though he does also seem intent on causing a good few problems of his very own).

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:13 am UTC

Quantized wrote:I know it's not normal, that much can be seen quite easily. I'm just not sure exactly how far from the legal code he has strayed yet. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding firing/replacing interm AGs and other such positions, and I am wondering how close he is to being outside the law completely. But thanks for not making me feel like an idiot :D

He can fire at will if they are appointees. She would have left in any case as soon as the new AG was in place. Normally there is a little dance when Appointees are fired, they "resign" instead. This is symbolic, he broke no law. Trumps immigration order may or may not be legal. That will be settled in court.

Edit
@Sardia
It was the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor, the AG and his Deputy resigned rather than give the order.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:02 pm UTC

What Thesh said, sardia: young voters do this crazy thing called "aging into older voters". And younger voters were turned out by a nutty socialist.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Chen
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:10 pm UTC

zmic wrote:Who says the immigration ban is unconstitutional? I don't think it is.

Much worse than the immigration ban is the fact that so many people believe they have to use intellectual dishonesty in order to oppose Trump. That's why Trump gets blown up into a bigger deal than he really is.


From what I'm reading the added bit about allowing people into the US if they are being religiously persecuted in their country and if they are from a religious minority within said country is the part that throws it into clearly unconstitutional territory. You're favoring one religion over another at that point, and that is what is strictly forbidden.

The blanket ban from various countries might have been held up as constitutional, though granted I'm far from a lawyer.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby jewish_scientist » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:10 pm UTC

4 and a half new pages have been added since I was last here. That was about 19 hours ago. I do not know how to respond in this situation. Help?
Last edited by jewish_scientist on Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:26 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:12 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Thesh wrote:You make that assertion, but I don't know why. Absolutely everything we know about why Trump won was because of the Hillary stuff with the emails and the leaks, not because we offended too many racists and theocrats that had no intention of voting Democrat in the first place.

Do you seriously believe that? Because if you honestly believe that 30% of the population is racist theocrats for voting for Trump and another 40% is kind of racist theocrats for not voting against Trump, you must believe the US has much bigger problems than Trump.


For the past decades, everything we have been trying to do to fix problems with society has been met by oppositions by Republicans who say our problems are because 1) foreigners taking all the jobs 2) immigrants/minorities driving around listening to raps and shooting the jobs 3) because society does not accept Christian values and 4) socialism. Now, their party has been focusing on voter suppression against minorities for years, and I haven't seen a sea of Republican standing up and saying it's unacceptable. So it seems obvious to me that Republicans are fine with racism if it benefits them, and that makes them racists. Because everyone who is not okay with that stuff stopped supporting the party long ago, it means that pretty much every single aspect of Republican policy is driven by one of those things.

So, while they are busy focusing on bullshit issues, the rich are standing by and laughing as they reap the spoils of class warfare. Pretty much every problem in our society boils down to "it costs money, so therefore we can't afford it" - which the same people will argue "America is the richest country in the world" in defense of capitalism - and if you are talking to a Republican that is followed up by "besides, it's the immigrants" or "besides, it's the foreigners" or "besides, it's the lack of a strong religious foundation". In other words "We cannot solve the problem, you people who are suffering *are* the problem" - which seems to me to be an excuse to not help than anything.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:14 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:He can fire at will if they are appointees. She would have left in any case as soon as the new AG was in place. Normally there is a little dance when Appointees are fired, they "resign" instead. This is symbolic, he broke no law. Drumpfs immigration order may or may not be legal. That will be settled in court.
Edit
@Sardia
It was the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon fired the Special Prosecutor, the AG and his Deputy resigned rather than give the order.


I guess the part I'm most worried about is his reasoning; it seems a very extreme method of control, but looking at Nixon's actions I can definitely see that this is not the first time for something like this. Interesting. Thanks for bearing with me, I know I'm ignorant on this stuff.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:23 pm UTC

Chen wrote:The blanket ban from various countries might have been held up as constitutional, though granted I'm far from a lawyer.
People seem not to understand how this works. The only body that can call anything unconstitutional is SCOTUS. And it is done per issue. Trumps order may or may not be unconstitutional. But until the SCOTUS rules you don't know. How the court ruled in the past gives you some idea of how they might rule on a current issue, giving you a legal justification to challenge a current action.
Quantized wrote:I guess the part I'm most worried about is his reasoning;
You, me and a whole lot of other people. Especially when you consider a beloved four term President placed people in what were effectively concentration camps, and was supported by SCOTUS.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:37 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:4 and a half new pages have been added since I was last here. That was about 19 hours ago. I do not know how to respond in this situation. Help?


Which situation are you talking about? The forum posts or the president?

maybeagnostic
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby maybeagnostic » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:04 pm UTC

I am actually finding it next to impossible to keep up with this topic as well.

Thesh wrote:For the past decades, everything we have been trying to do to fix problems with society has been met by oppositions by Republicans ...
Yet what are the alternatives of working with at least some of the republican or undecided voters? Trump won at least in part by appealing to some voters who weren't expected to vote republican and succeeded. I am not saying you or any other specific person needs to set aside their valid objections and reach out but if no one does it, things won't get better- best outcome is Trump utterly failing to deliver on what really matters to those voters and they are even more upset and willing to take risks next time around. I see this in my own country where every time a government fails to deliver on their promises and "fix" things, voters grow increasingly willing to take the next absurd gimmick offer from someone promising the world with no plan to back it up.

Quercus wrote:Trump seems more a symptom of various problems than their cause (though he does also seem intent on causing a good few problems of his very own).
I agree but he has successfully (and far from single-handedly) drowned out discussion of anything else for quite a while now.

Edit:
Fantastic Idea wrote:And how does that compare to every time an angry conservative calls me a 'precious snowflake' who needs a 'safespace'? Isn't that them trying to 'shame' me for having a concept of respectful behavior?
I really wanted to get back to this. The people making fun of you for being a 'special snowflake' are probably trying to shame you but is it working? Are you going to change your position because they pointed out you are being a special snowflake? Are you likely to listen to that person if they proceeded to make a reasonable argument after starting out with name calling?
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Trump presidency

Postby pogrmman » Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:30 pm UTC

Quantized wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:4 and a half new pages have been added since I was last here. That was about 19 hours ago. I do not know how to respond in this situation. Help?


Which situation are you talking about? The forum posts or the president?



Probably the forum posts, this is moving crazy fast.

I think that the Democrats do need to change their strategy somewhat to reduce the Republican's strength in congress. In part, I think that they should really, really push voters to vote in the midterm elections. I'm not sure exactly how they should change their strategy, but it is clear that it's not really working.

I think part of the issue is that Democrats don't seem to appeal to rural voters -- I mean, look at a county by county map of the US. The Democrats won most of the major urban areas, but lost most of the rural areas.

In states with a less urban population, this is likely to mean that the Republicans will keep winning.

I get why the Democrats don't exactly resonate with the voters in rural areas, but it might make sense to try and do something to get them to vote more blue. They are around 1/2 of the electorate! Even if they don't turn their counties Democratic, it could reduce Republican margins in close states. If they could do that without changing their platform enough to lose urban votes, they should do it.

-----

On another note, there is this. Supposedly, Trump will continue protections for the LGBT community in the workplace. It's a start, but I'm not exactly sure this will continue. I'm afraid that the administration will try and get the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges overturned. Unfortunately, it seems like this has a chance of happening what with the new justice and all.

Quite a number of my friends aren't straight, and it would be awful to see some of their rights taken away.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8171
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:05 pm UTC

That's something I'm personally worried about, seeing as I'm getting my green card through a same-sex marriage. We'll be trying to find out in the next month or two how much they can screw us over - can our marriage be annulled? Can they refuse to renew my green card next year? It's not fun.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:13 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:That's something I'm personally worried about, seeing as I'm getting my green card through a same-sex marriage. We'll be trying to find out in the next month or two how much they can screw us over - can our marriage be annulled? Can they refuse to renew my green card next year? It's not fun.

I think it really depends on how far this presidency goes in terms of a control state. Under Pence, I could see some pretty shitty stuff happening for same-sex couples. I doubt that anything drastic like annulling marriages or refusing green cards will happen anytime soon, but I really don't know. If they try stuff like that, there will be resistance, that much I'm confident about.

Chen
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:22 pm UTC

Overturning SCOTUS rulings usually takes a LONG time between the ruling and the overturning of it. Even the most conservative justices aren't going to want their decisions second guessed so quickly, even on a cause they can get behind. I'd be more worried about Roe v. Wade.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8171
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue Jan 31, 2017 4:47 pm UTC

The SCOTUS ruling was regarding inheritance laws. It implies the general status and rights allotted to same-sex marriages that currently exists, but the actual implementation by immigration services is due to an Obama executive order.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:24 pm UTC

pogrmman wrote:
Quantized wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:4 and a half new pages have been added since I was last here. That was about 19 hours ago. I do not know how to respond in this situation. Help?


Which situation are you talking about? The forum posts or the president?



Probably the forum posts, this is moving crazy fast.

I think that the Democrats do need to change their strategy somewhat to reduce the Republican's strength in congress. In part, I think that they should really, really push voters to vote in the midterm elections. I'm not sure exactly how they should change their strategy, but it is clear that it's not really working.

I think part of the issue is that Democrats don't seem to appeal to rural voters -- I mean, look at a county by county map of the US. The Democrats won most of the major urban areas, but lost most of the rural areas.

In states with a less urban population, this is likely to mean that the Republicans will keep winning.

I get why the Democrats don't exactly resonate with the voters in rural areas, but it might make sense to try and do something to get them to vote more blue. They are around 1/2 of the electorate! Even if they don't turn their counties Democratic, it could reduce Republican margins in close states. If they could do that without changing their platform enough to lose urban votes, they should do it.

-----

On another note, there is this. Supposedly, Trump will continue protections for the LGBT community in the workplace. It's a start, but I'm not exactly sure this will continue. I'm afraid that the administration will try and get the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges overturned. Unfortunately, it seems like this has a chance of happening what with the new justice and all.

Quite a number of my friends aren't straight, and it would be awful to see some of their rights taken away.



Actually, a lot of the supposed strength of the Republicans came from gerrymandering the hell out of every state they could in the 2010 elections.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Chen
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:26 pm UTC

I thought Obergefell v. Hodges was about same-sex marriage bans being unconstitutional.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:34 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I thought Obergefell v. Hodges was about same-sex marriage bans being unconstitutional.

It overturned Baker vs Nelson, which said bans were constitutional, and made same-sex marriage legal across the country and required such marriages to be recognized everywhere. So yes, it did say bans were unconstitutional (if I am reading this correctly) and also legalized same-sex marriage across the country.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby MartianInvader » Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:59 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:Actually, a lot of the supposed strength of the Republicans came from gerrymandering the hell out of every state they could in the 2010 elections.

This is quite true. Both sides try to gerrymander and game the laws for political benefit, but the Republicans have been benefiting from it much more lately.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6347
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:34 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Actually, a lot of the supposed strength of the Republicans came from gerrymandering the hell out of every state they could in the 2010 elections.

This is quite true. Both sides try to gerrymander and game the laws for political benefit, but the Republicans have been benefiting from it much more lately.

You guys are thinking small ball. This is how you game the presidency.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/un ... till-lost/
Tldr just make States that are sorta blue give away electoral votes by congressional district winner. This guarantees a Republican victory or at least makes the climb substantially harder. It be like requiring Democrats to win the electoral college with an extra state. Be careful when a fox comes to the hen house bearing gifts of electoral reform.

Mutex
Posts: 1342
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:50 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Actually, a lot of the supposed strength of the Republicans came from gerrymandering the hell out of every state they could in the 2010 elections.

This is quite true. Both sides try to gerrymander and game the laws for political benefit, but the Republicans have been benefiting from it much more lately.

You guys are thinking small ball. This is how you game the presidency.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/un ... till-lost/
Tldr just make States that are sorta blue give away electoral votes by congressional district winner. This guarantees a Republican victory.

Don't the states themselves decide how they give away the electoral votes? So, blue states would have do decide to adopt a system that benefits republicans?

Are there states that vote blue in the presidential elections but have republican governors?

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Lazar » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:55 pm UTC

Yep. But you would need the legislatures too, and there would be fierce Democratic opposition to that.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6347
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:55 pm UTC

You forget that the majority of the country is under Republican control. There are plenty of blue States that gave their votes to Clinton which the GOP would love to cut into. But yes, this is very dangerous and could bite the Republicans. The trick is to update the laws every election to make sure your side wins.

Opus_723
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:40 pm UTC

pogrmman wrote:
Quantized wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:4 and a half new pages have been added since I was last here. That was about 19 hours ago. I do not know how to respond in this situation. Help?


Which situation are you talking about? The forum posts or the president?



Probably the forum posts, this is moving crazy fast.

I think that the Democrats do need to change their strategy somewhat to reduce the Republican's strength in congress. In part, I think that they should really, really push voters to vote in the midterm elections. I'm not sure exactly how they should change their strategy, but it is clear that it's not really working.

I think part of the issue is that Democrats don't seem to appeal to rural voters -- I mean, look at a county by county map of the US. The Democrats won most of the major urban areas, but lost most of the rural areas.

In states with a less urban population, this is likely to mean that the Republicans will keep winning.

I get why the Democrats don't exactly resonate with the voters in rural areas, but it might make sense to try and do something to get them to vote more blue. They are around 1/2 of the electorate! Even if they don't turn their counties Democratic, it could reduce Republican margins in close states. If they could do that without changing their platform enough to lose urban votes, they should do it.

-----

On another note, there is this. Supposedly, Trump will continue protections for the LGBT community in the workplace. It's a start, but I'm not exactly sure this will continue. I'm afraid that the administration will try and get the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges overturned. Unfortunately, it seems like this has a chance of happening what with the new justice and all.

Quite a number of my friends aren't straight, and it would be awful to see some of their rights taken away.


I absolutely agree that Democrats need to reach out to rural voters. I think it could really revitalize the party, and it would be much more natural for them than reaching out to conservative Christians.

Just to throw out some ideas that are probably naive, but along the lines that Democrats should be thinking: Getting farmers out from under the thumbs of the corporation's they contract with. Revitalizing and updating rural roads, dams, and irrigation infrastructure. Making water rights in the southwest more accessible to ordinary property owners. Shuffle some of the self-employment taxes off of small family businesses and onto large corporations. Hell, decouple education funding from local property taxes and you'll help rural AND inner-city schools in one move. Even gentrification, without the racial component, is a problem in my hometown as wealthy Californians are retiring to the area for the scenery and driving property values way up. Call it something different and they'll listen.

Same goes for environmentalism. Use local issues to sell global warming action. In my state, we've got oyster farmers in swing federal districts struggling with ocean acidification. Find a moderate timber company CEO who is concerned about the recent bark beetle epidemics and give them a platform to speak. Grab a bunch of fishermen who are worried about the decline in salmon, let them do the talking for you. These rural counties have Democrats, just not enough to win. Just get the city Democrats to back out of the spotlight for awhile.

Maybe some of those ideas are dumb or impractical, I just rattled some stuff off. But that's what the Democrats brainstorming sessions need to look like right now. These are all the sort of things that Democrats used to do well, and they wouldn't need to change the platform much at all. If the base is uncomfortable with the attention being paid to rural whites, use the language of intersectionality in front of those crowds to talk about the rural poor and emphasize how close to the environment these people are. Liberals really want to be compassionate, and if you give them a chance, I think they're absolutely willing to expand the tent in that manner.

I don't think white nationalism is the natural inclination of these people, they just want to be heard. Honestly, most of them have never spoken to a black person, and they just have zero context. If this goes on too long, the problem might be cemented further, but right now I think they can still be pulled away from all this crap they're just kinda going along with now. I know it's hard to forgive them for that, but it's really out of a lack of experience with any kind of diversity rather than intentional hate. Pulling them off the brink before that changes is worth some forgiveness even if you feel it hasn't been earned.

Full disclosure, I grew up in the conservative rural part of a blue state, but I've always been a pretty academically-minded liberal. I dislike city life even though culturally I fit in a lot better here, and I can't do my work back home. My take is that the disconnect with rural issues is the most fundamental reason Democrats do poorly in those counties, and that if they could fix that they would be a force to be reckoned with.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:59 pm UTC

Some good news; the White House reports that Obama's LGBTQA rights act will stay in effect.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... t=20170131

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Trump presidency

Postby pogrmman » Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:06 am UTC

Opus_723 wrote:Spoilered for length:
Spoiler:
pogrmman wrote:
Quantized wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:4 and a half new pages have been added since I was last here. That was about 19 hours ago. I do not know how to respond in this situation. Help?


Which situation are you talking about? The forum posts or the president?



Probably the forum posts, this is moving crazy fast.

I think that the Democrats do need to change their strategy somewhat to reduce the Republican's strength in congress. In part, I think that they should really, really push voters to vote in the midterm elections. I'm not sure exactly how they should change their strategy, but it is clear that it's not really working.

I think part of the issue is that Democrats don't seem to appeal to rural voters -- I mean, look at a county by county map of the US. The Democrats won most of the major urban areas, but lost most of the rural areas.

In states with a less urban population, this is likely to mean that the Republicans will keep winning.

I get why the Democrats don't exactly resonate with the voters in rural areas, but it might make sense to try and do something to get them to vote more blue. They are around 1/2 of the electorate! Even if they don't turn their counties Democratic, it could reduce Republican margins in close states. If they could do that without changing their platform enough to lose urban votes, they should do it.

-----

On another note, there is this. Supposedly, Trump will continue protections for the LGBT community in the workplace. It's a start, but I'm not exactly sure this will continue. I'm afraid that the administration will try and get the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges overturned. Unfortunately, it seems like this has a chance of happening what with the new justice and all.

Quite a number of my friends aren't straight, and it would be awful to see some of their rights taken away.


I absolutely agree that Democrats need to reach out to rural voters. I think it could really revitalize the party, and it would be much more natural for them than reaching out to conservative Christians.

Just to throw out some ideas that are probably naive, but along the lines that Democrats should be thinking: Getting farmers out from under the thumbs of the corporation's they contract with. Revitalizing and updating rural roads, dams, and irrigation infrastructure. Making water rights in the southwest more accessible to ordinary property owners. Shuffle some of the self-employment taxes off of small family businesses and onto large corporations. Hell, decouple education funding from local property taxes and you'll help rural AND inner-city schools in one move. Even gentrification, without the racial component, is a problem in my hometown as wealthy Californians are retiring to the area for the scenery and driving property values way up. Call it something different and they'll listen.

Same goes for environmentalism. Use local issues to sell global warming action. In my state, we've got oyster farmers in swing federal districts struggling with ocean acidification. Find a moderate timber company CEO who is concerned about the recent bark beetle epidemics and give them a platform to speak. Grab a bunch of fishermen who are worried about the decline in salmon, let them do the talking for you. These rural counties have Democrats, just not enough to win. Just get the city Democrats to back out of the spotlight for awhile.

Maybe some of those ideas are dumb or impractical, I just rattled some stuff off. But that's what the Democrats brainstorming sessions need to look like right now. These are all the sort of things that Democrats used to do well, and they wouldn't need to change the platform much at all. If the base is uncomfortable with the attention being paid to rural whites, use the language of intersectionality in front of those crowds to talk about the rural poor and emphasize how close to the environment these people are. Liberals really want to be compassionate, and if you give them a chance, I think they're absolutely willing to expand the tent in that manner.

I don't think white nationalism is the natural inclination of these people, they just want to be heard. Honestly, most of them have never spoken to a black person, and they just have zero context. If this goes on too long, the problem might be cemented further, but right now I think they can still be pulled away from all this crap they're just kinda going along with now. I know it's hard to forgive them for that, but it's really out of a lack of experience with any kind of diversity rather than intentional hate. Pulling them off the brink before that changes is worth some forgiveness even if you feel it hasn't been earned.

Full disclosure, I grew up in the conservative rural part of a blue state, but I've always been a pretty academically-minded liberal. I dislike city life even though culturally I fit in a lot better here, and I can't do my work back home. My take is that the disconnect with rural issues is the most fundamental reason Democrats do poorly in those counties, and that if they could fix that they would be a force to be reckoned with.


I definitely agree with what you wrote. As a big city person going to college in a pretty small (~9500) midwestern town, I understand why Trump provided the motivation for this county to go red for the first time in a long while. Seemingly all the other towns in the county are dying. What's the only reason the one I'm in isn't? The college that is there.

I think that by stressing things like infrastructure and fixing companies so farmers working for corporations aren't kept in perpetual debt would go over well. There is going to be more damaging flooding, increased erosion, and a better climate for pests here.

They want to feel like they have a voice. I can see why Trump made them feel that.

I also agree that it probably wouldn't require a huge shift in the Democrats' platform to do.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dark567 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:25 am UTC

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ally-yates

This sums up the last couple days.
Spoiler:
In the Washington Post, dueling White House sources argued whether senior policy adviser Stephen Miller or Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was more to blame for this weekend’s chaos. One anonymous White House official gave the Post this remarkable quote about Priebus: “A little bit of under-competence and a slight amount of insecurity can breed some paranoia and backstabbing. … We have to get Reince to relax into the job and become more competent, because he’s seeing shadows where there are no shadows.” (Telling a reporter that doesn’t seem likely to make him less paranoid.)
The Associated Press reported that Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, Defense Secretary James Mattis, and secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson “have told associates that they were not aware of details” of the immigration order until about when Trump signed it. Kelly was in the process of being briefed on the order when a staffer saw Trump signing it on television, according to the New York Times.
Kelly, whose silence throughout much of the weekend was conspicuous, sounds particularly unhappy with how things have been going — the Wall Street Journal reported that he has “clashed with the White House” over their unsuccessful effort to install immigration hard-liner Kris Kobach as his deputy.
The Trump administration has been claiming that the order’s details were vetted with top congressional staff, but congressional leaders professed to know nothing about it. A new Politico report sheds some light on why — House Judiciary staffers had helped Trump aides draft it, but they signed nondisclosure agreements and didn’t tell their bosses (which raises some pretty troubling questions about the separation of powers).
Jared Kushner has often been portrayed as the voice of reason for the Trump White House, but a Vanity Fair report describes a frustrating start to the administration for him: Despite his personal efforts to broker a meeting between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, a Trump tweet ruined things and led to the cancellation of the meeting.
The foreign policy team has been leaking like a sieve too. An intelligence official claimed to Foreign Policy that Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon was “running a cabal, almost like a shadow [National Security Council],” without much of a paper trail. But the New York Times reported that, according to people close to Bannon, he was merely trying to help compensate for Michael Flynn’s “stumbling performance as national security adviser.” (Some negative anonymously sourced anecdotes asserting Flynn has gotten on Trump’s nerves lately also made it into the piece.)
One of the scariest things is that Trump seems to have spies in GOP house members staffs. If that's the case Trump maybe be able to be tipped off if there is any concerted effort for the GOP to stage any sort of resistance. The only thing we have are the copious amount of leaks of the internal tension of Trumps team.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grop and 15 guests