Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Leroy42 wrote: »

For his whole admin?

Never said whole as 8 years is a long time but when he was elected in 2008 he did.

So the majority of the US clearly agrees with this agenda.

There are 326 million Americans, they are not one homogenous group. Even the main parties have different viewpoints and agendas.

controlling those that don't agree with you?

Like the EU, which has the UK leaving and Merkel under pressure to find an agreement on immigrants this week? Stones in glass houses and all that.

Voters need to take responsibility, it is too easy to simply be lazy and blame someone else.

Pot Kettle

This is their country,

Yes it is, so I am curious as to why it vexes you so much since you dont live there.

failing to connect with the voters, maybe thats because the voters don't like the message.

You could be onto something there.

Land of the brave and home of the free?

It is actually land of the free, home of the brave. Like most of your posts, you have it arseways.

[Deleted User]

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

That's not true whatsoever.

He had majorities in both houses but was short of a supermajority, so you're correct. But to say it's not true whatsoever is a bit much.

spacecoyote

Some not so hot news for the benefits of the tax plan.

The finalised Q1 2018 GDP has been revised down to 2%. Part of the justification for the bill was that the tax cuts would spur growth by as much as 1% a year, bringing it to around 3% on average. Even with the 3% estimate they were going to be looking at increasing the deficit, but if the levels stay at closer to 2% there will be an even bigger hole to dig out of.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-28/u-s-first-quarter-gdp-growth-revised-down-to-2-on-services

The forecasts are much better for Q2, but with the dollar strengthening significantly & the potential impact of the trade tariffs, these could also be impacted

Ideological differences I can understand though. If that was why Republicans opposed Garland and they were OK with a more moderate pick or some such I would be fine with them rejecting an Obama candidate. That is why it was different. Reagan still had his pick, he just had to compromise on ideology.

Yeah many don't see stuff like removing gay marriage or other things as going backwards. Doesn't mean it isn't. While you want gun rights conservative it also means you have to live other rulings as part and parcel of your vote. You can't morally state you only voted for gun control and say you are not to blame (well collectively, I doubt you had a casting vote) for other consequences from the vote.

While I can see how people might have been fooled 2 years ago at this point a vote for Trump like candidates is at least displaying a willingness to turn a blind eye to kids being thrown in over crowded cages. People may be voting for less gun control or fiscal policy but that sort of treatment of people is a consequence of those votes (an issue with democracy is that nuance is difficult, best of a bad lot for governing people really).

Nah he is an out and out racist. A nationalist would be worried about a more aggressive Russia instead of blindly taking their word. Plus the entire birther thing, he had to know he had nothing to show Obama was foreign. Maybe this definition of nationalism just overlaps with racism which is also possible. ("My country is the best" taken to it's logical conclusion will get you to a similar place).

Manic Moran wrote: »

I still think he's a nationalist, not a racist, though the difference seems lost on many. However, who says anyone here approves of him? The goal can be not to 'own the libs', but to advance a policy. I would think he is considered by many conservatives and independents more as a 'useful idiot'. After all, he can only sign legislation sent to him by Congress, and whatever about the Presidency, the votes for the 2017/18 Congress were pretty weighted.

Before I crack my knuckles and start listing out examples of why he is, do you really believe that?

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

While I have only read about that nomination the issue with Bork seems entirely separate. Democrats thought he was too extreme in his views and attacked his constitutional stance. The Republicans just refused to consider anyone.
Reagan still got his pick but he just had to pick one that was more acceptable to both sides.

Well, yes and no. Surely any objection to a judge by a party as opposed to by senators is based on the likely views and rulings. Bork was an originalist with a definitely conservative mindset. It's not as if we don't have any of those on the courts. Republicans object to those who take the living document form of interpreting the constitution, and it's not as if we don't have those either.

A flat refusal to even consider Garland was without doubt very bad form and a terrible precedent. The end result, though, if they heard him and then Borked him vs refusing to hear him, would be the same: He wouldn't be appointed: In effect a procedural filibuster. The difference was in perception.

Granted I don't get how they are members of parties and how they obviously disagree so heavily with what the constitution says. How can anyone put much merit in their judgements if, given any particular issue they have heard, just under half of supreme court judges disagree with the call.

I don't know if they are members of parties per se, or are just known to have leanings. However, there is a theory that split decisions should not be unexpected in the Supreme Court: If the case were so unambiguous that a unanimous or near-unanimous outcome would be normal, the cases shouldn't be getting to the Supreme Court in the first place.

That said, the 2017 and 2014 terms were particularly unusual in the percentage of cases which were unanimous. Only 14% of cases last year were decided with 5-4 or 5-3 votes. Over half were 9-0, which is somewhat astonishing.
NY Times if you can get past the paywall. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-term-consensus.html?mcubz=1
National Review if you can't. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/unanimous-supreme-court-decisions-are-more-common-you-think/

My personal opinion is that since SCOTUS only rules on some 150 a year out of 7,000 applications, the cases taken up come under three categories: Significant social impact which result in the 5-4s, obviously egregious mistakes below which must be corrected (resulting in the 9-0s) and matters of important law which haven't yet been addressed (Resulting in the rest).

But is that really what the US majority wants? To go backwards?

Maybe. If you consider it going backwards. I happen to like the idea of SCOTUS ruling in favour of firearms owners and certainly don't think it a step backwards, but you and I presumably both consider a reversal of gay marriage to be going backwards. However, obviously a lot of voters in the US don't. Hooray for representative republics, where we get a vote. We don't -always- get it right, but more often than not it works out.

Ps - i haven't had one reply by any trump supporter or defender in here (there must be some surely) challenging me on my assessment of the man. I can only conclude, as Leroy said in a different way, that they approve of a racist in order to own the libs.

I still think he's a nationalist, not a racist, though the difference seems lost on many. However, who says anyone here approves of him? The goal can be not to 'own the libs', but to advance a policy. I would think he is considered by many conservatives and independents more as a 'useful idiot'. After all, he can only sign legislation sent to him by Congress, and whatever about the Presidency, the votes for the 2017/18 Congress were pretty weighted.

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

Obama had a super majority.

For his whole admin? Don't think so.

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe not backward, but when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House, and 33 out of 50 governorships, perhaps for once stop blaming a caricature of the American population and blame the Democrats for falling out of favor with the American people.

The Republicans are winning, while the Democrats are not. It is that simple. These people are not appointed nor anointed. They are elected.

So the majority of the US clearly agrees with this agenda. I was trying to be nice and give the benefit of the doubt to all those that voted for Trump. But clearly they are happy being racist, backward thinking controlling zealots.

Fine, but they should admit that and stop pretending they are anything else was the point I was making. Is the US, for so many years seen as a leading nation in the world, turning back in on itself, afraid of change, driven by religious ideology and based on controlling those that don't agree with you?

This constant need to blame the Dems. "Oh, I only voted for Trump because of HC", its the same line. There is simply no comparison between how Trump has behaved and been enabled by the GOP and anything the DNC have done. Voters need to take responsibility, it is too easy to simply be lazy and blame someone else. This is their country, and they are letting it be taken over simply because the other side are what? If the dems are failing to get the message across, failing to connect with the voters, maybe thats because the voters don't like the message. Maybe they don't want to hear about access to healthcare, cutting back school gun massacres etc.

Land of the brave and home of the free?

WinnyThePoo

markodaly wrote: »

Obama had a super majority.

That's not true whatsoever.

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe not backward, but when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House, and 33 out of 50 governorships, perhaps for once stop blaming a caricature of the American population and blame the Democrats for falling out of favor with the American people.

The Republicans are winning, while the Democrats are not. It is that simple. These people are not appointed nor anointed. They are elected.

Nothing to do with the spouting of racist, hyperbolic populist lies which appeal to a certain portion of the electorate, reinforced and propagated by a powerful tv network company that bangs out propaganda 24/7?

Okay then

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think what this SCOTUS appointment, whomever it will be (and it will be a conservative) should let everyone know in the US that elections have serious consequences.

Sure it was all great fun, shouting lock her up, laughing at disabled reporters, calling the media the enemy, making Mexicans enemy No.1. So what if this guy had no experience and had never shown any social conscience. So what he he treated women badly, was clearly racist. Was it important that he had apparently little grasp of facts, or indeed any ideology apart from blaming everyone else.

Well, this shows that they do matter, and they can have very serious impacts. Not just on those Mexicans and Muslims, but this could very well lead to serious restrictions on gay marriage, on abortions. It could ramp up the freedom to own guns and so continue the disaster that that brings.

The voters in the US need to wake up and understand that this stuff is serious business, not some TV show. The mid-terms gives them that chance. Many Trump supporters used the line "HC, I just couldn't vote for her" line to excuse themselves from having to admit they accepted the racism etc. Well HC isn't running, and far from Trump being a newcomer, everyone is well aware of Trump and the GOP enabling of him.

There are of course those that will welcome restrictions on gay marriage, restrictions on abortions. But is that really what the US majority wants? To go backwards?

Maybe not backward, but when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House, and 33 out of 50 governorships, perhaps for once stop blaming a caricature of the American population and blame the Democrats for falling out of favor with the American people.

The Republicans are winning, while the Democrats are not. It is that simple. These people are not appointed nor anointed. They are elected.

Christy42 wrote: »

While I have only read about that nomination the issue with Bork seems entirely separate. Democrats thought he was too extreme in his views and attacked his constitutional stance. The Republicans just refused to consider anyone.
Reagan still got his pick but he just had to pick one that was more acceptable to both sides.

Granted I don't get how they are members of parties and how they obviously disagree so heavily with what the constitution says. How can anyone put much merit in their judgements if, given any particular issue they have heard, just under half of supreme court judges disagree with the call.

Yep. Garland was called a consensus vote by certain GOP members who had the vote to appoint or not.

McConnell point blank refused ANYONE.. not just Garland.

That's the difference.

Manic - both parties act like a holes (as politicians do), I agree, but if you cannot see scale in terms of magnitude, but moreover the erosion of women's rights, gay rights and the increase of racism under this president which would and did not happen on Democrats watch then I don't know what to say to you.

Ps - i haven't had one reply by any trump supporter or defender in here (there must be some surely) challenging me on my assessment of the man. I can only conclude, as Leroy said in a different way, that they approve of a racist in order to own the libs.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It makes for an interesting tactical decision for both Trump/GOP and the Democrats..

Do the GOP delay the selection and hearings for the SCOTUS seat until after the mid-terms so they can use it to get votes or do they push to get it done ASAP.

The inverse applies to the Dems , do they fight really hard to delay and fillibuster the hell out of a vote in hopes that they win the majority in November and then force a moderate choice on Trump or do they just let it happen so that it's no longer an electoral tool for the GOP?

The Dems cannot filibuster this as its a SCOTUS appointment. GOP have the majority.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course Obama suffered the same, the difference being that his party did not control the votes.

Obama had a super majority.

Leroy42

I think what this SCOTUS appointment, whomever it will be (and it will be a conservative) should let everyone know in the US that elections have serious consequences.

Sure it was all great fun, shouting lock her up, laughing at disabled reporters, calling the media the enemy, making Mexicans enemy No.1. So what if this guy had no experience and had never shown any social conscience. So what he he treated women badly, was clearly racist. Was it important that he had apparently little grasp of facts, or indeed any ideology apart from blaming everyone else.

Well, this shows that they do matter, and they can have very serious impacts. Not just on those Mexicans and Muslims, but this could very well lead to serious restrictions on gay marriage, on abortions. It could ramp up the freedom to own guns and so continue the disaster that that brings.

The voters in the US need to wake up and understand that this stuff is serious business, not some TV show. The mid-terms gives them that chance. Many Trump supporters used the line "HC, I just couldn't vote for her" line to excuse themselves from having to admit they accepted the racism etc. Well HC isn't running, and far from Trump being a newcomer, everyone is well aware of Trump and the GOP enabling of him.

There are of course those that will welcome restrictions on gay marriage, restrictions on abortions. But is that really what the US majority wants? To go backwards?

Manic Moran wrote: »

josip wrote: »

This epitomises where the US is at the moment.
He is a Supreme Court judge with decades of experience, and a liberal viewpoint despite being a Republican nomination.

No, he is still considered a conservative, just one who (bless him) is very good at not letting his viewpoints be disctated by dogma, so he has also become known as the swing vote with not infrequent opinions which benefit the liberal position.

But that is still preferable to allowing the Democrats any say in his successor.
Republican first, US Supreme Court judge second.

The irony is that this is precisely how Kennedy ended up getting appointed in the first place. Solid opposition to Bork by the Democrats has resulted in ‘borked’ becoming an adjective and Senate hearings for Supreme Court justices becoming shams as nominees now know to shut the hell up about their opinions.

Then, of course, there is the Democrats going nuclear in 2013, when it suited them. What I would -hope- for is that after this nomination folks will say “OK, we’ve made our point, I think, we’ll change the rules back’, but of course there is bigger-all chance of the Senate doing it. Even though it is probably in the Republican interest to do it, given that there is no guarantee they’ll be in charge when the next vacancy comes up. They don’t seem to think long term.

Remember I said a few pages back “a pox on both their houses?” Another perfect example as to why. Both sides are guilty. Both sides have very short memories which only work when it suits them.

While I have only read about that nomination the issue with Bork seems entirely separate. Democrats thought he was too extreme in his views and attacked his constitutional stance. The Republicans just refused to consider anyone.
Reagan still got his pick but he just had to pick one that was more acceptable to both sides.

Granted I don't get how they are members of parties and how they obviously disagree so heavily with what the constitution says. How can anyone put much merit in their judgements if, given any particular issue they have heard, just under half of supreme court judges disagree with the call.

Manic Moran

josip wrote: »

This epitomises where the US is at the moment.
He is a Supreme Court judge with decades of experience, and a liberal viewpoint despite being a Republican nomination.

No, he is still considered a conservative, just one who (bless him) is very good at not letting his viewpoints be disctated by dogma, so he has also become known as the swing vote with not infrequent opinions which benefit the liberal position.

But that is still preferable to allowing the Democrats any say in his successor.
Republican first, US Supreme Court judge second.

The irony is that this is precisely how Kennedy ended up getting appointed in the first place. Solid opposition to Bork by the Democrats has resulted in ‘borked’ becoming an adjective and Senate hearings for Supreme Court justices becoming shams as nominees now know to shut the hell up about their opinions.

Then, of course, there is the Democrats going nuclear in 2013, when it suited them. What I would -hope- for is that after this nomination folks will say “OK, we’ve made our point, I think, we’ll change the rules back’, but of course there is bigger-all chance of the Senate doing it. Even though it is probably in the Republican interest to do it, given that there is no guarantee they’ll be in charge when the next vacancy comes up. They don’t seem to think long term.

Remember I said a few pages back “a pox on both their houses?” Another perfect example as to why. Both sides are guilty. Both sides have very short memories which only work when it suits them.

Leroy42

There is a saying that better to be a lucky general...

And in this case, along with the previous SCOTUS appointment, Trump is very lucky. There is simply no way that the GOP will pass up this chance. Trump has been crowing about his SCOTUS appointment since day 1, and it is on the top of the list of any supporter.

To think they wouldn't want to double down on that is incredible They also need to make sure they don't give the voters a say, why would they possibly wait until after the mid-terms. If they lose they face the prospect of, at best, losing the ability to put in whomever they choose. But since they already have that why wait.

Trump may not care about abortion as such, but he cares about what his base thinks, and his base think that the SCOTUS is a lefty liberal bastion which is forcing gay marriage and abortions and forcing people to make cakes for gay people and stopping Trump for protecting the country from Muslims.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

That could be a reason to go more moderate. Another poster mentioned it as an idea but there is a serious risk that a judge who might overturn that would drive democrats to the voting booth. Similarly for gay marriage.

This is how losers think, i.e. the Democrats. Reach across the aisle, bipartisan traditions, consensus, consult the opposing party when drafting legislation.

The Republicans regard the whole scene as street warfare, smash and grab what you can while you can. The block Obamas nomination for the Supreme Court in defiance of all tradition and steal that seat for their side, and then demand that Trumps nominee gets due respect.

Trump will nominate an absolute lunatic and the Republicans will push him through before the elections.

Very possible. I can only hope the Democrats turn Roe vs Wade into a reason to hit the ballot box to protect what rights can be protected.

Professor Moriarty

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Judges shouldn't be allowed be members of political parties.

Indeed. But that's the way it is.

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

That could be a reason to go more moderate. Another poster mentioned it as an idea but there is a serious risk that a judge who might overturn that would drive democrats to the voting booth. Similarly for gay marriage.

This is how losers think, i.e. the Democrats. Reach across the aisle, bipartisan traditions, consensus, consult the opposing party when drafting legislation.

The Republicans regard the whole scene as street warfare, smash and grab what you can while you can. They block Obamas nomination for the Supreme Court in defiance of all tradition and steal that seat for their side, and then demand that Trumps nominee gets due respect.

Trump will nominate an absolute lunatic and the Republicans will push him through before the elections.

Captain Obvious

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What is also worth noting is that two other judges are elderly. Breyer is 79 and Ginsberg is 85. Both are considered to be liberal and are Democrats.

Judges shouldn't be allowed be members of political parties.

Professor Moriarty

What is also worth noting is that two other judges are elderly. Breyer is 79 and Ginsberg is 85. Both are considered to be liberal and are Democrats.

everlast75 wrote: »

Re next Supreme Court nominee, Trump is on the record (for what that is worth) as saying that he would appoint a SC judge who would oppose Roe Vs Wade.

That could be a reason to go more moderate. Another poster mentioned it as an idea but there is a serious risk that a judge who might overturn that would drive democrats to the voting booth. Similarly for gay marriage.

Trump will likely go for one that will oppose Roe vs Wade because it will be less likely to make his base get annoyed but he seems not to care about abortion in general so I would not count on it. More headaches for him might convince him to go slightly less right wing when it is an issue he cares nothing about.

Really conservatives should be more thankful for McConnell than they have been. He has played a blinder to get conservatives onto the bench.

josip

BonnieSituation wrote: »

He's Reagan Republican. I'm sure a word might have been had in his ear about when he should go if he had been hinting he was contemplating it.

That being said he's 81 and owes nobody anything at this stage given his ridiculous career so he can go when he likes.

This epitomises where the US is at the moment.
He is a Supreme Court judge with decades of experience, and a liberal viewpoint despite being a Republican nomination.
Yet when the time comes to retire, it looks like he chooses now to retire so that the Republicans can freely choose his successor, rather than wait until after November at which time they may not have the same level of control.
By retiring now, Trump will replace him with a judge who will try to undo any liberal decisions he has voted through in the past 30 years.
But that is still preferable to allowing the Democrats any say in his successor.
Republican first, US Supreme Court judge second.