Page 84 of 84

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:12 am UTC
by ucim
What would it take, legally, to make Trump the King of the US?

Jose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:40 am UTC
by Mutex
ucim wrote:What would it take, legally, to make Trump the King of the US?

Jose

I KNEW Trump had an account on here.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:54 am UTC
by ucim
I am not a crook! Oops... I mean: There was no collution! And this king thing, it's gonna be YUGE! All the other great countries have a king, why should the US be second rate?

It takes two thirds of the states, and then three quarters of the states for ratification, to get rid of that silly clause in the fake constitution the evil press keeps TRUMPeting (see what I did just there? it's because I'm a WINNER) I took... oops, I mean Trump won 32 states; that's three quarters right there, and it would be more once we keep the Democ illegals from voting. And you'll have a king to worship like you'll never believe; it will be so great you'll be tired of winning!

MAHA!

So, what's to stop us?

Wait - this just in from the President of Mexico (they don't have a king, that's why they're losers!). He says, and I quote: "If the US makes you king, we'll build the wall for you!" Canada's saying the same thing.

TR TheRealJose

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:55 am UTC
by eran_rathan
Lies. Trump can't spell ratification, let alone knows what it means.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:36 am UTC
by orthogon
A Point of View: Is the US president an elected monarch?
David Cannadine wrote:But ironically, when the leaders of the American Revolution tried to work out what powers they should give to the newly created American presidency, the only models available were those of contemporary European monarchies, and especially the British. And so the founding fathers gave to the American presidency just those powers they erroneously believed King George III still possessed - to appoint and dismiss his cabinet, to make war and peace, and to veto bills sent up by the legislature. From the outset, then, the American presidency was vested with what might be termed monarchical authority, which meant that it really was a form of elective kingship. So when Henry Clay, the leader of the American Whig Party regretted that, under Andrew Jackson, the presidency was "rapidly tending towards an elective monarchy", he was in error because it had been an elective monarchy from the very beginning.

In the words of one late 19th Century American newspaper: "Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king."

Cannadine goes on to say "That may not have been the whole truth of things then, and it is not the whole truth of things now", but clearly feels there is a lot of truth in it.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:23 am UTC
by Soupspoon
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/930346433177378817 wrote:One of the most accurate polls last time around. But #FakeNews likes to say we’re in the 30’s. They are wrong. Some people think numbers could be in the 50's. Together, WE will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

...followed by an image claiming 46% approval rating, by Rasmussen, although actually checking http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... rack_nov13 it doesn't even look that good, even in that single tracker's context, because the trend is definitely downwards while noisy.

And then there's the weasel words "some people think <wishful thinking>", which I'm sure fools some people. Probably those who want to be fooled.

(Not to mention the "WE will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" which creates an odd emphasis, opposing the better "we WILL make America great again", perhaps capitilising all the MAGA initials. And I also dislike "30's", plural, with that apostrophe, but that's not just a Trump thing.)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:48 am UTC
by LaserGuy
ucim wrote:What would it take, legally, to make Trump the King of the US?

Jose


Another 9/11.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:05 pm UTC
by jewish_scientist
ucim wrote:What would it take, legally, to make Trump the King of the US?

He would need to at least double the number of stupid pills in the water.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:31 pm UTC
by Sableagle
jewish_scientist wrote:
ucim wrote:What would it take, legally, to make Trump the King of the US?

He would need to at least double the number of stupid pills in the water.

I really doubt that.

Image

From 22 to 27 mg/kg isn't a doubling in the dose.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:21 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
ucim wrote:What would it take, legally, to make Trump the King of the US?

Jose


Four more years, I suppose.

That's certainly the first step.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:41 am UTC
by sardia
Tyndmyr wrote:
ucim wrote:What would it take, legally, to make Trump the King of the US?

Four more years, I suppose.
That's certainly the first step.

Trump's base has several useful traits that make them very useful for any attempt at Kingship/authoritarianism.
1. They don't believe anything that isn't far right news, even on conservative news outlets. Aka they automatically seek out and consume propaganda.
2. They don't have economic goals, they have emotional goals. You could screw them via taxes, jobs, healthcare etc etc, but if you can cause their opponent's anguish, they are happy with the result. Insults are cheap/free, but budgets is real money. If you have a base that doesn't care what happens so long as the opposition party is hurt, it frees you to cater to the rest of your party.
Trump has taken advantage of these properties, but I wonder if Democrats could do something like this. You'd need a group of suckers, who feed on only emotional victories. Maybe the Bernie voters?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... nt-add-up/
Not too many outlets are covering this one outside of Nate Silver and Human Rights Watch.
When the New UCR Project became what is now called the UCR-Technical Refresh this fall, The FBI published a page devoted to the Technical Refresh that has very few details of the plan. But there is a change to wording that is striking.
One bullet-pointed goal of the project that once read, “Provide a streamlined publication process that will give users quicker access to the data,” now reads as two bullet points: “Provide a streamlined publication process” and “Provide users swifter access to the data.”

That may seem insignificant, but that grammatical sleight of hand could mean that the FBI is looking to justify a new interpretation of what it means to “streamline” the publication process. Rather than streamline by providing users swifter access to the data, perhaps the FBI is now looking to streamline by decreasing the amount of data they provide. Given that the FBI has not yet responded to further requests for comment, we’re left to read between the lines.
The FBI deleted a bunch of data from the gold standard in crime reporting, and now they're lying about why they deleted it. Since nobody else is covering this story, we probably won't know until 2020, if ever.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:14 am UTC
by ucim
sardia wrote:If you have a base that doesn't care what happens so long as the opposition party is hurt, it frees you to cater to the rest of your party.
Trump has taken advantage of these properties, but I wonder if Democrats could do something like this.
You really want both parties to be evil?

Jose

Re: Empty Suit Presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:40 am UTC
by morriswalters
Empty Suit President will never be king unless there is a coup d'etat. FDR frightened people who believed in that possibility. He had four terms and they put term limits on the Presidency by amending the Constitution. Congress is jealous of their prerogatives. This isn't Turkey. Yet.

More facts and less guessing might be desirable. They seem to be reading to much from too little data. Could we wait until the new data set is available before we fall into a panic.
Rather than streamline by providing users swifter access to the data, perhaps the FBI is now looking to streamline by decreasing the amount of data they provide. Given that the FBI has not yet responded to further requests for comment, we’re left to read between the lines.

Re: Empty Suit Presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:49 am UTC
by Liri
morriswalters wrote:Empty Suit President will never be king unless there is a coup d'etat. FDR frightened people who believed in that possibility. He had four terms and they put term limits on the Presidency by amending the Constitution. Congress is jealous of their prerogatives. This isn't Turkey. Yet.

More facts and less guessing might be desirable. They seem to be reading to much from too little data. Could we wait until the new data set is available before we fall into a panic.
Rather than streamline by providing users swifter access to the data, perhaps the FBI is now looking to streamline by decreasing the amount of data they provide. Given that the FBI has not yet responded to further requests for comment, we’re left to read between the lines.

The new data set has been available. That's what Clare' s initial article was about. This is their follow-up after the FBI contacted them to complain.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:50 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
sardia wrote:You'd need a group of suckers, who feed on only emotional victories. Maybe the Bernie voters?

Right, because people who like the one candidate in either party that's all about the issues instead of empty meaningless rhetoric are the "suckers who feed on only emotional victories".

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:36 am UTC
by morriswalters
Liri wrote:The new data set has been available.
I stand corrected.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:36 pm UTC
by Thesh
Trump is reversing a ban on importing elephant trophies from Africa.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-re ... d=51178663

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:48 pm UTC
by Chen
Thesh wrote:Trump is reversing a ban on importing elephant trophies from Africa.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-re ... d=51178663


I'm kinda torn on this one. Culling is definitely a useful tool and having people pay to do it certainly can help conservation efforts. The problem, of course, is corruption in the areas of the hunting. Perhaps it's using negative stereotypes but I'm pretty sure corruption is pretty darn high in a lot of these African countries. As such, it's not clear if the culling is being done properly to begin with AND its not clear if the money is actually going to conservation efforts or just lining some random dude's pockets.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:49 pm UTC
by sardia
Chen wrote:
Thesh wrote:Trump is reversing a ban on importing elephant trophies from Africa.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-re ... d=51178663


I'm kinda torn on this one. Culling is definitely a useful tool and having people pay to do it certainly can help conservation efforts. The problem, of course, is corruption in the areas of the hunting. Perhaps it's using negative stereotypes but I'm pretty sure corruption is pretty darn high in a lot of these African countries. As such, it's not clear if the culling is being done properly to begin with AND its not clear if the money is actually going to conservation efforts or just lining some random dude's pockets.

This isn't a ploy to legitimize the Trump's hunting trips?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:52 pm UTC
by Chen
Well I mean it could very well be that too, assuming Trump (or his associates) are big game hunters.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:56 pm UTC
by Thesh

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:11 pm UTC
by Liri
Roy Moore has 9 accusers now (as of 9:06 AM EST). I don't really expect him to step down, but maybe, if polls start going very badly for him.

Might not happen though. From the NYT:
“All I really know is that Christians will always be attacked no matter what,” said Pamela Hicks, an apartment manager who attended Mr. Moore’s speech on Tuesday. “It could be true, it could be false, but he’s led by God, and that’s all that matters.”


:|

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:25 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
CAUTION: do not have a hot beverage in your mouth while reading the following story:

Steve Mnuchin and Louise Linton mocked for posing with dollars
US Treasury chief and wife, previously criticised for how they spend money, are pictured admiring sheet of new bills

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:38 pm UTC
by Plasma_Wolf
Ah, that well known argument of living in the name of God.

A traditional excuse for religious extremists, regardless of which religion they come from. They conveniently forget or ignore the basic rule that a religion is to better yourself. Something to strive to instead of something to use as an excuse for your wrongdoings.

These happy-clappy people...

Maybe excusing Moore also has to do with a fear of losing the foundations of their belief, rather than only their hatred of their political opponents.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:50 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
As I kid I wondered what "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain" was doing in the Ten Commandments, alongside stuff like stealing and killing. It seemed way too petty to belong there.

But as an adult I've seen the tremendous evil that gets excused by naive churchgoers when sociopaths hang God's name--the ultimate celebrity endorsement!--on their own personal or political agenda. Yup, it definitely belongs.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:14 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
ucim wrote:
sardia wrote:If you have a base that doesn't care what happens so long as the opposition party is hurt, it frees you to cater to the rest of your party.
Trump has taken advantage of these properties, but I wonder if Democrats could do something like this.
You really want both parties to be evil?

Jose


I mean...politics. It ain't always pretty.

Democrats can definitely embrace further partisanship. Politicians at present do not seem to be frequently punished for partisanship. The question of if they should is rather more complicated. What would more partisanship buy them? Do they have a Leftist version of Trump that might win? Is that really a goal? Republicans are definitely willing to accept Trump rather than democrats in power, but at the end of the day, this means that...they have Trump. Something that some are thrilled about, but others really are not.

I stared at the betting(roughly 50/50) on Moore on Predictit for a while, before opting to bet that money against Clinton getting slammed legally in 2017 instead. I honestly can't tell if the first will happen. Sure, he *should* be screwed, maybe, but...alabama. I just don't know. Clinton ought to be safe through 2017, though. That's free money.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:32 pm UTC
by EdgarJPublius
ucim wrote:
sardia wrote:If you have a base that doesn't care what happens so long as the opposition party is hurt, it frees you to cater to the rest of your party.
Trump has taken advantage of these properties, but I wonder if Democrats could do something like this.
You really want both parties to be evil?

Jose


They aren't already?

The lesser of two evils is still evil

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:03 pm UTC
by sardia
Sure Trump is an evil bastard, and there's much to be said about his base. But imagine a constituency that is ok with their taxes being raised and their services being cut. That would free up resources to be spent on others and free politicians from alienating other groups unnecessarily. I honestly didn't think a group like Trump's base existed, but it presents intriguing possibilities.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:53 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
I'm not sure that Trump's base is "okay" with having their taxes raised and services cut (I'm pretty sure they would scream bloody murder if you straight up said you planned to do that in those terms to their faces), as they are just unaware or unwilling to believe that that's going to happen to them (obviously their glorious leader wouldn't do that to them, so it must be someone else who deserves it having their services cut and taxes raised).

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:43 am UTC
by Liri
Pfhorrest wrote:I'm not sure that Trump's base is "okay" with having their taxes raised and services cut (I'm pretty sure they would scream bloody murder if you straight up said you planned to do that in those terms to their faces), as they are just unaware or unwilling to believe that that's going to happen to them (obviously their glorious leader wouldn't do that to them, so it must be someone else who deserves it having their services cut and taxes raised).

He is led by Jesus and Jesus wouldn't raise my taxes.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:49 am UTC
by Soupspoon
Christ is heavily into personal investment portfolios. Jesus saves!

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:42 am UTC
by Aiwendil
Jesus saves, but Moses invests.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:45 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
Jesus saves; Buddha makes incremental backups.

or:

Jesus saves... passes to Moses... TOUCHDOWN!

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:37 pm UTC
by Drumheller769

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:01 pm UTC
by cphite
Pfhorrest wrote:I'm not sure that Trump's base is "okay" with having their taxes raised and services cut (I'm pretty sure they would scream bloody murder if you straight up said you planned to do that in those terms to their faces), as they are just unaware or unwilling to believe that that's going to happen to them (obviously their glorious leader wouldn't do that to them, so it must be someone else who deserves it having their services cut and taxes raised).


The proposed tax reform would raise taxes on a lot of Trumps base, yes; but the vast majority of them will be relatively slight increases, and most tend to believe - rightly or wrongly - that the plan will result in higher economic activity and thus actually benefit them in the long run, in the form of higher wages and greater opportunity. And, a lot of these folks don't view government "services" in the same light that you might. A lot of people believe that they can do better for themselves and their families than government can, if government would get out of the way. They see government services as a crutch; something they'd rather not need in the first place.

In short, the suggestion that they're "okay" with paying more to receive less is not really accurate, or is at the very least incomplete. What they're okay with is paying slightly more taxes in exchange for what they believe will be greater economic activity, and with it greater economic opportunity.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:56 pm UTC
by sardia
cphite wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I'm not sure that Trump's base is "okay" with having their taxes raised and services cut (I'm pretty sure they would scream bloody murder if you straight up said you planned to do that in those terms to their faces), as they are just unaware or unwilling to believe that that's going to happen to them (obviously their glorious leader wouldn't do that to them, so it must be someone else who deserves it having their services cut and taxes raised).


The proposed tax reform would raise taxes on a lot of Trumps base, yes; but the vast majority of them will be relatively slight increases, and most tend to believe - rightly or wrongly - that the plan will result in higher economic activity and thus actually benefit them in the long run, in the form of higher wages and greater opportunity. And, a lot of these folks don't view government "services" in the same light that you might. A lot of people believe that they can do better for themselves and their families than government can, if government would get out of the way. They see government services as a crutch; something they'd rather not need in the first place.

In short, the suggestion that they're "okay" with paying more to receive less is not really accurate, or is at the very least incomplete. What they're okay with is paying slightly more taxes in exchange for what they believe will be greater economic activity, and with it greater economic opportunity.

But here's the thing, the base doesn't get demoralized from bad news like the bill is a betrayal. That really frees up Congress to focus on other interest groups. Now they can cater towards corporations without having to compromise as much.
Imagine the possibilities if you had a base with that much devotion. You could clean up all the bad tax policies and pay for it on your base's back. You only have to promise them it'll be better soon.

I do wish Franken didn't just resign, but that he be pushed into resigning because of Democratic pressure against sexual harassment. That would send a message.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:36 pm UTC
by cphite
sardia wrote:
cphite wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I'm not sure that Trump's base is "okay" with having their taxes raised and services cut (I'm pretty sure they would scream bloody murder if you straight up said you planned to do that in those terms to their faces), as they are just unaware or unwilling to believe that that's going to happen to them (obviously their glorious leader wouldn't do that to them, so it must be someone else who deserves it having their services cut and taxes raised).


The proposed tax reform would raise taxes on a lot of Trumps base, yes; but the vast majority of them will be relatively slight increases, and most tend to believe - rightly or wrongly - that the plan will result in higher economic activity and thus actually benefit them in the long run, in the form of higher wages and greater opportunity. And, a lot of these folks don't view government "services" in the same light that you might. A lot of people believe that they can do better for themselves and their families than government can, if government would get out of the way. They see government services as a crutch; something they'd rather not need in the first place.

In short, the suggestion that they're "okay" with paying more to receive less is not really accurate, or is at the very least incomplete. What they're okay with is paying slightly more taxes in exchange for what they believe will be greater economic activity, and with it greater economic opportunity.


But here's the thing, the base doesn't get demoralized from bad news like the bill is a betrayal.


Because most of them don't see it as a betrayal. Most people who voted Trump agree with the idea of reduced corporate taxes, and even if they aren't necessarily happy about a tax hike for themselves, understand that to be a necessary evil. They have no reason to feel demoralized.

A lot of the news media keeps trying to spin this as a "betrayal" based on the fact that lower and middle income people will be paying slightly more, but that really only holds water if you're looking at if from a perspective that is to the left of the average Trump voter. Folks on the left tend to believe that corporations and the wealthy ought to pay more, and the little guy should pay less. Folks on the right tend to believe that corporations and the wealthy are bearing too much of the burden already, to the extent that it's choking the economy.

Regardless of which you or I believe to be the "correct" side, the reality is that the Trump base tends to believe the latter; and this bill reflects that way of reasoning.

That really frees up Congress to focus on other interest groups. Now they can cater towards corporations without having to compromise as much. Imagine the possibilities if you had a base with that much devotion. You could clean up all the bad tax policies and pay for it on your base's back. You only have to promise them it'll be better soon.


Again, you're operating from the premise that their devotion is being tested by some kind of betrayal... but it just isn't the case. By and large the base wants lower corporate taxes - the bill does that. They may not be thrilled by the individual increases - but those really aren't as significant as is being suggested by most of the media coverage. A lot of people will see their individual taxes increased, but by negligible amounts.

At the end of the day what will matter is the results. If the changes result in economic growth, and that growth results in better jobs and better pay for people, the GOP will win big. If the growth doesn't materialize, or doesn't translate into better jobs and pay, the GOP will lose big.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:20 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
cphite wrote:At the end of the day what will matter is the results. If the changes result in economic growth, and that growth results in better jobs and better pay for people, the GOP will win big. If the growth doesn't materialize, or doesn't translate into better jobs and pay, the GOP will lose big.


Given what's happened in Kansas over the past few years, implementing exactly this type of tax policy, I'd (hope?) expect that 2020 for the GOP will look like 2010 did for the Democrats.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:06 pm UTC
by cphite
eran_rathan wrote:
cphite wrote:At the end of the day what will matter is the results. If the changes result in economic growth, and that growth results in better jobs and better pay for people, the GOP will win big. If the growth doesn't materialize, or doesn't translate into better jobs and pay, the GOP will lose big.


Given what's happened in Kansas over the past few years, implementing exactly this type of tax policy, I'd (hope?) expect that 2020 for the GOP will look like 2010 did for the Democrats.


States are at a disadvantage in that they're required to balance their budget, whereas the federal government can operate under deficit. It's not unreasonable to argue that, had they been able to run a deficit, Kansas may have started seeing better results in a couple of years; but that wasn't an option. Frankly, they tried to do too much too fast. Had they been more moderate in their cuts, they might have been seen better results - but it's difficult to know for sure.

Speaking only for myself, I think the GOP plan is going to be a mixed bag. I think it actually will boost the economy, but I think it's going to take too long for the workforce to see any real benefits for it to save the GOP from a severe pounding in 2020.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:03 am UTC
by jewish_scientist
Chen wrote:
Thesh wrote:Trump is reversing a ban on importing elephant trophies from Africa.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-re ... d=51178663


I'm kinda torn on this one. Culling is definitely a useful tool and having people pay to do it certainly can help conservation efforts.


"Legal, well-regulated sport hunting as part of a sound management program can benefit the conservation of certain species by providing incentives to local communities to conserve the species and by putting much-needed revenue back into conservation," a Fish and Wildlife spokesperson said in a statement.

Apparently population control is not a reason behind this decision. Also, what on Earth does the part I underlined mean? Why would local communities that do not care about conserving species care now that foreigners have started killing them?

Liri wrote:Roy Moore has 9 accusers now (as of 9:06 AM EST). I don't really expect him to step down, but maybe, if polls start going very badly for him.

Might not happen though. From the NYT:
“All I really know is that Christians will always be attacked no matter what,” said Pamela Hicks, an apartment manager who attended Mr. Moore’s speech on Tuesday. “It could be true, it could be false, but he’s led by G-d, and that’s all that matters.”


:|

Someone should let Hicks know that actions speak louder than words.