Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[FireNexus]

You need to make that distinction because you don't want to feel like you've been had. I don't, because I knew there was something fishy from jump street.

[Ziggy Stardust]

How has he been "had", simply because there happened to be pro-Russian bernie-bots (as you claim, though I'd like some evidence that this was a widespread thing)? The only way he could have been "had" is if Bernie's entire campaign itself was a Russian sponsored organization, which is a ludicrous claim. Are you simply not familiar with what the expression "been had" means?

[The Romulan Republic]

Pretty much. He appears to be saying that we should not make that distinction (between Sanders supporters and Russian bots), the obvious implication of which is that he believes that the Sanders campaign was involved with the Russians, or at the very least that a significant percentage of his supporters were Russian operatives/bots.

If that is not his position, he ought to clarify that, and if it is his position, he ought to provide evidence immediately (HAH!), or concede it.

Edit: In fact, I would argue that Senator Sanders is a victim of the Russian campaign, just as Clinton is. Senator Sanders' message was highjacked, his campaign and supporters used, by imposters who sought to undermine everything he actually believes in by electing Donald Trump. By playing the Left against itself. A goal that FireNexus is actively aiding by continuing his crusade against Bernie Sanders supporters.

I have zero sympathy for the Bernie or Busters, for the people foolish enough to take the bait. But to blame Senator Sanders, or his supporters collectively, for the way that their message was manipulated and misrepresented by operatives of a foreign despot is ludicrous. I might as well say that Hillary Clinton is at fault for the hacking scandal for her lack of email security and for pissing off Putin.

But ultimately, the only ones to blame here are the Russian government, and possibly the Trump campaign.

[Flagg]

This is all you need to know about Comey:

FBI director James Comey had a very busy July.

He closed a protracted investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. He filed no charges but blasted her conduct as “extremely careless” nonetheless, a lasting wound to her campaign. The public lashing contravened the normal procedure of staying silent on cases that are not prosecuted. Comey’s grandstanding press conference at the time seemed political.

Meanwhile, he confirmed at a congressional hearing yesterday, that in that same month the FBI had opened an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, collusion intended to hurt the Clinton campaign and help Donald Trump. Confirming the existence of an investigation before it has concluded was also unusual and possibly political.

During the campaign, Comey kept silent about this investigation into far graver matters than the endless pursuit of what Bernie Sanders called Clinton’s “damn emails”. Given the contacts between Trump campaign officials and the Russians, public acknowledgment of this investigation certainly could have damaged his candidacy. What is known about the Russian meddling has contributed to the historically low approval ratings for a new president.

Here’s the uncomfortable question that hung in the air at yesterday’s hearing: could the FBI director’s disproportionate treatment of the two cases have influenced the outcome of the election every bit as much as any Russian efforts? We will never know.

Shut up and "take the win".

[Flagg]

How has he been "had", simply because there happened to be pro-Russian bernie-bots (as you claim, though I'd like some evidence that this was a widespread thing)? The only way he could have been "had" is if Bernie's entire campaign itself was a Russian sponsored organization, which is a ludicrous claim. Are you simply not familiar with what the expression "been had" means?

I'm on record as not exactly being Sanders' biggest fan (to say the least) and I don't think for any fraction of a second that he had, or would have, any part in trying to sabotage her campaign in a "regular" manner after the convention, let alone join in some unholy union with President Pussygrabber and Vlad Barechest to kneecap the Clinton campaign.

Would some of his supporters maybe engage in shenanigans? Probably, but I doubt it would be in any number to matter.

[FireNexus]

How has he been "had", simply because there happened to be pro-Russian bernie-bots (as you claim, though I'd like some evidence that this was a widespread thing)? The only way he could have been "had" is if Bernie's entire campaign itself was a Russian sponsored organization, which is a ludicrous claim. Are you simply not familiar with what the expression "been had" means?

I'm on record as not exactly being Sanders' biggest fan (to say the least) and I don't think for any fraction of a second that he had, or would have, any part in trying to sabotage her campaign in a "regular" manner after the convention, let alone join in some unholy union with President Pussygrabber and Vlad Barechest to kneecap the Clinton campaign.

Would some of his supporters maybe engage in shenanigans? Probably, but I doubt it would be in any number to matter.

That was never my suggestion. My thinking was that the "Bernie deserves to stay in" fervor that our friend was so vehement in his support of was likely to have been stoked by the RussiaBots in order to drive that wedge. I have no evidence for that claim, though, so I withdraw it pending further investigation.

[Exonerate]

Devin Nunes, House Intelligence chair gave a press brief on US surveillance of Trump's transition team. Funnily and as no surprise to anybody familiar with NSA surveillance, when Comey denied wiretapping Trump, it might depend on what your definition of wiretapping is. The fact that it was legal barely matters because we all know the criteria for collection is wide enough to drive a truck through.

During the election I posed the question of whether Trump would be accepted as legitimate if he won... let me now follow up with will Liberals/Democrats accept IC surveillance(and all that it implies) of an elected president if it gets them closer to impeaching Trump?

What a fucking shit show, I feel like everything has been flipped upside down. First Comey was a hero for saying Clinton would not face prosecution, then he was a villain for his letter (I think he's moving back towards Good Guy after denying wiretapping of Trump?). Wikileaks was good for transparency during the Bush administration, and now they're supposed to be an Russian propaganda mouthpiece to be ignored. The Intelligence community can't be trusted... unless they're talking about Russia's role in the election and ties to Trump. Trump's election has laid American political dysfunction completely bare and for me, really underscores that the Democrats are little more principled (and less effective in opposition) than the Republicans.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh goodie, another round of "THEY'RE ALL JUST AS BAD" mindless generalization and false equivalency.

Behold the normalization of a fucking Klan-endorsed rapist, masquerading as intelligent political discourse.

Honestly, given all the allegations against Trump... they probably should have been wiretapping the fucker, if a legal pretext could be found to do so. So props to the FBI for doing its fucking job, at least some of the time. This isn't partisan, this is "Donald Trump is of interest in multiple criminal cases."

But of course, Trump has framed the issue so that any investigation, even an entirely legitimate one, will now be treated as proof of a conspiracy against Trump by that bad, sick man Obama. And people like you, still clinging to your mindless doctrine of "They're all the same", will happily lap it up.

Congratulations. You got suckered by the world's biggest con man, again.

I mean, do you have any idea how fucking dangerous it is to create a political climate where any investigation of the President is seen as a partisan conspiracy?

Edit: And its mighty interesting how the head of the committee that is supposed to be investigating Trump is passing on evidence selectively to the Trump White House when it suits their message. Oh, and he's a former Trump surrogate too, apparently. Do you not see the problem with that?

[The Romulan Republic]

I guess the moral is: Let the world burn, as long as we can stick it to the "establishment".

[TheFeniX]

I guess the moral is: Let the world burn, as long as we can stick it to the "establishment".

I don't see anything in Exonerate's post that requires that kind of tongue-lashing in response. You want people to see the forest for the trees: sure. I agree. But there's enough people in America that don't think that way and, when combined with gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement, can swing an election. We've been over this before, but a disturbingly large amount of Americans do not believe either party represents their interest nor can get anything positive done for them.

So, as we dig further and further (and faster considering the Internet age), it's only going to become easier for the electorate to lump both parties into the same shit-pile and cash-out while only those people with specific axes to grind bother with the process.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am just so sick of "They're both the same"-type rhetoric. Its an oversimplified, demonstrably false cliche, it makes a man like Trump seem legitimized and normal while dividing the opposition against him, and anyone who still holds to it now, after everything that's happened not only during the election but since election day (hell, even if you don't buy collusion with Russia), is clinging to a position that is frankly divorced from the reality of the situation. So yes, I have very little patience left for it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, you have problems with Centrist Democrats, I'm all on board with that. I just wish people would make more accurate and less lazy criticisms than trying to treat them as equivalent to the Republicans, and that people would keep the larger strategic picture in mind.

I mean, even if you hate the Democrats with all your heart, I guarantee you have a better chance of getting better candidates elected through the Democratic Party than by ditching them for a third party or independent run. Not a great chance, perhaps, because the primary process is dysfunctional beyond belief, but at least a better chance.

[TheFeniX]

I am just so sick of "They're both the same"-type rhetoric. Its an oversimplified, demonstrably false cliche, it makes a man like Trump seem legitimized and normal while dividing the opposition against him, and anyone who still holds to it now, after everything that's happened not only during the election but since election day (hell, even if you don't buy collusion with Russia), is clinging to a position that is frankly divorced from the reality of the situation. So yes, I have very little patience left for it.

I disagree. While the situation is not preferable, if this doesn't convince the Democratic establishment to run more candidates that take stances other then "well, I'm least I'm not that asshole," then it becomes apparent they are not a party worth voting for and need to be demolished alongside the GOP or restructured from the ground-up like the GOP was after 2008.

I can dream, right?

Unfortunately, the Republican party, once again in the driver's seat, seems poised to self-destruct (again) and poison their last remaining bastion of free votes. Though they could possibly find replacements and there will still be supporters, but I'm not sold those will be on the level that can compete even against a burn-out like Clinton. Even if that doesn't happen, Trump has pretty much unified opposition against him and we're already seeing fractures in the "stand as one" GOP. We're 4 months in.....

When Bush went down, he took a lot of Republicans with him. So, if Democrats can weather the storm, they can go right back to business as usual shortly after.

NOTE: This is assuming that the people who passed on HRC are motivated to vote (once again) against the party trying to destroy them. I am hoping that the laziness 8 years of Obama brought is finally dead.

And Trump is "legitimate," though not "normal" considering the majority of Americans. Treating him as anything such was a rather large part of why 2016 happened. So, start trying to find common ground among those people who aren't fully in-line with your world-view or polarize current Democrats and get them motivated (provided Trump didn't do the job for you).

Because yelling at people who are tired of trying to decide who will screw them less and if it's even worth getting off their ass to vote seems self-defeating at this point. You will do nothing to convince them to change their views. I'm not saying coddle them or kiss their ass, but people want alternatives, not excuses.

[The Romulan Republic]

Be realistic.

Whatever problems the Democratic Party has, it is possible for Progressives to win Democratic primaries- certainly for Congress (see Warren and others), and likely for the Presidency as well. Bernie Sanders got about 45% of the primary vote. Regardless of what the "establishment" (a term which is vague to the point of meaningless if it can include anyone who supported Hillary Clinton but not include Donald Trump) has to say about it.

Whereas 5% is an extraordinarily good run for a Green or Libertarian candidate, and beyond the wildest hopes of any other minor party. I can't even think of an independent run that ever got close to those numbers in a Presidential race.

So it is objective fact that, based on existing statistics, you have a much better chance of getting a progressive as your Democratic nominee than of winning a third party/independent bid.

If you hate the Democrats so much that you simply refuse to vote Democrat under any circumstances, then obviously that logic won't appeal to you. But I'd be lying if I said that I don't find that position short-sighted and self-destructive, as well as harmful to the security of the majority of people in the United States and on this planet.

I don't care about getting Democrats elected for the sake of getting Democrats elected, and I don't think most Democratic voters do. I care about getting strong liberals and progressives elected. That's hard to do by any means, but we have a better chance of doing that right now through the Democratic Party, flawed and corrupt though it is, than through any other means. If that changes, so will my loyalties.

[Zixinus]

The problem is that the voting system is trapped now in a two-party system. A third party is impossible because everyone is convinced that voting for a third party is a waste and since everyone is convinced that voting for a third party is a waste not enough people will vote for a third party. The two-party system emerged because of this thinking in the first place.

The problem is that the only way to get out of this devil's cycle is for a large number of people to stop doing what they are already doing so it could be broken. Not possible when there is opposition and attempts of gaming the system. That and reforming the voter system, which would be against the interest of the carrier politicians in office not to mention question the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is that the voting system is trapped now in a two-party system. A third party is impossible because everyone is convinced that voting for a third party is a waste and since everyone is convinced that voting for a third party is a waste not enough people will vote for a third party. The two-party system emerged because of this thinking in the first place.

Its a bit more complicated than that.

First of all, particularly in a democratic system, large coalitions will always have the advantage over small parties, because you need to get at least close to fifty percent of voters to accomplish much beyond a symbolic protest. This is something that's true in any system- even in a parliamentary system, you need either a majority government, or a coalition of smaller parties, to get anywhere. Take Canada: we have, what, five parties represented in Parliament right now? But their are only two that ever elect a Prime Minister or form a majority government.

Also, frankly, the small parties in the US are... kind of pathetic, for the most part. I wouldn't have wanted to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein even if they'd had a good chance of winning. And as long as small parties prioritize ideologically purity and protesting against "the establishment" over building a credible coalition that can actually win, that's unlikely to change.

Of course, its also a vicious cycle, because the strongest candidates are unlikely to seek the nomination of a minor party.

This doesn't mean that their is no room for change. But it means that those who want change are more likely to do so by trying to change one of the big parties from within. This is possible: The Republican Party today is very different from the Republican Party of the '50s, or even, to a lesser extent, the Republican Party of the '90s/'00s. Its a change overwhelmingly for the worse, but it has changed.

And going the other way, the Democratic Party today is a vast improvement over the overtly white supremacist, and at one point pro-slavery/Confederate sympathizer, party it once was. Hell, the two parties basically traded places in a lot of ways.

The problem is that the only way to get out of this devil's cycle is for a large number of people to stop doing what they are already doing so it could be broken. Not possible when there is opposition and attempts of gaming the system. That and reforming the voter system, which would be against the interest of the carrier politicians in office not to mention question the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

The only way it is likely to change is if one of the big parties completely collapses. I was hoping this would happen to the Republican Party last time around, but most of them chose party loyalty over not siding with the Klan to elect a rapist.

This likely means splitting the vote and basically accepting the loss of an election cycle or two, which simply isn't an option when you have one party that is working to literally strip away the most fundamental values of our democracy, rule of law, and social safety net.

And I pretty much guarantee that if it happened, we'd eventually resettle back into two dominant parties, albeit with different names and perhaps slightly different composition and platforms. Because building a broad coalition is how you actually win.

Edit: I actually agree that the current situation of "Insane far Right party vs. overly Centrist compromiser party" is untenable. But unless we want to just concede one-party government to the Republicans, we have to hold ranks as much as possible. Something has to give, but it damn well better be the other side that breaks first. It sucks, but that's just the way it is.

[Zixinus]

The problem is that you (a Democrat) is in an entrhenched, war-mindset "we must ignore our difference and pull together to survive or the other will destroy everything we hold dear" and so is the Republican party (as far as I can tell). That is why there is a two-party system and that is why it will remain a two-party system unless something devastating happens.

A mayor reform and social change would be needed in the US to get it out of this current cycle. But then it wouldn'T be the US of today and that new system would have its own problems.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is that you (a Democrat) is in an entrhenched, war-mindset "we must ignore our difference and pull together to survive or the other will destroy everything we hold dear" and so is the Republican party (as far as I can tell). That is why there is a two-party system and that is why it will remain a two-party system unless something devastating happens.

The difference is that the Republican Party represents an obvious existential threat to the most basic rights of the American people, as well as to global peace and security. Far more, right now, than the Democrats do. That may sound hypocritical, but the facts are on my side on this one.

No matter what anyone says, the two are not equivalent, not even close. And the illusion that they are is part of what leads to people thinking things like "Trump may be a racist, xenophobic sexual predator, but at least he's not part of the establishment" (despite his whole life being built on inherited wealth).

A mayor reform and social change would be needed in the US to get it out of this current cycle.

Yes, and it'll happen sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.

But unless you really want to give the Republicans a couple more terms of even greater control of the government, then it cannot happen until the lockstep Republican unity breaks down. Or it must happen via internal reform of the Democratic Party.

I want to be very clear that I am not saying "Accept the status quo and never object to anything that the Democratic Party leadership does."

What I am saying is that we need to push reform through the Democratic Party, hopefully without ripping the party apart in the process. And that however long the odds of that seem, the available statistics and historical records emphatically indicate that it has a better chance of success as a strategy than third party/independent bids, at least at the Presidential level.

But then it wouldn'T be the US of today and that new system would have its own problems.

Indeed.

[Lonestar]

how's that Obamacare repeal going

[TheFeniX]

Anyone keeping up with Trumpcare? It's looking like you don't even need Democrats to try and run Republicans off the road, Republicans will do it for you. Seems like even the GOP doesn't want to risk removing their electorate from the teet of disgusting social services. ZOMG COMMUNISM! They can't even get it to a vote.

It's no surprise Trump thought Republicans would fall in line behind anything he did to try and discredit Obama. But we've had over 7 years of our bastardized socialized medicine and rolling it back, even to fuck the poor, isn't really an option.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who supports the bill despite having reservations about it, said it’s a “big hit” if the bill goes down.

“If it doesn’t pass, this issue is dead,” Diaz-Balart said Friday. “This is the one shot ― good, bad, or indifferent ― this is the one shot to deal with health care.”

Way to swing for the fences. I see Casey is at bat here.

I really, really, really hope Ryan goes down for his part in this mercy flush. Ugh, unlikely, but I can fucking dream.

Either way, the legacy of Trump is looking great: "I kicked a bunch of illegals out of the country and you guys get to pickup the tab for that wall Mexico was going to pay for." Great, now we get to see how well he does trying to pick a fight with Iran.

[Gaidin]

how's that Obamacare repeal going

[img]http://i.imgur.com/EafnvWi.jpg[img]

Hey Trump. Governing is hard.

[The Romulan Republic]

Watching the Republicans get a taste of the Kobiashi Maru that is Health Care Reform is just delicious.

[TheFeniX]

Hey Trump. Governing is hard.

Trump? Nah bro (I used bro, but it's cool because I already hate myself for other reasons I'm about to go into. But feel free to give me shit for using it anyway. I would.). This is Republicans eating shit because "it's easy to criticize" is a valid complaint here. They spent 8 years being the obstruction shit-asses and now they have to drive. They have to fix things and they are completely incapable of understanding reality and how to govern under the system that currently exists.

"Obamacare is the law of the land," Ryan said. "It’s going to remain the law of the land."

Eat it fucker. Baby gonna cry? Poor baby, you want a baba? Don't care, please break the link if you have to, call me a moron who posts stupid shit and I'll take it gladly, but I cannot NOT post this:


I really really REALLY don't like Paul Ryan. It's nothing personal, I just think he's a terrible person and it shames me to be in the same species as him.

But I am not blameless here. I was a chicken-shit and I am so goddamn mad at myself for being one when it came to this. I knew this shit was doomed to fail the second an egomaniac like Trump said "Imma fix tah Obamas care, who's down for it?" because the GOP has some semblance of self-interest and Trump is just not the guy they are going to ride to Hell with. But I hedged my bets because let's face it: who knows what the GOP is capable of these days? I pulled the whole "well guyz, IF Republicans." No, I should have just come out and said it: this is a given when you put an obstructionist party in charge, they can't accomplish a fucking thing when they can't rally against someone like Obama or those "degenerate enabling Dimocrats!" Because without a common enemy, they just fucking turn on each other and look out for #1.

Obama strong-armed, cajoled, pleaded, and made whatever deals he had to to make the ACA happen, and he and Democrats took a major beating for it. And you worthless palm-fuckers give up after you run into the slightest opposition? Fucking. Clownshoes. Even if I fucking hated Obama and the ACA (I most definitely DO NOT), I would have to respect a man willing to go that far to represent his electorate, even if at the time they didn't know what they needed.

The GOP be all "B-b-b-b-b-b-but MOMMY! The other team didn't play fair!"

Is there a sane country out there that would take a moderately intelligent Texan, his teacher wife, and a metric ton of firearms? The wife is optional.*

*Please don't tell my wife I made this joke. She'll fucking kill me.

[Gaidin]

Hey Trump. Governing is hard.

Trump? Nah bro (I used bro, but it's cool because I already hate myself for other reasons I'm about to go into. But feel free to give me shit for using it anyway. I would.). This is Republicans eating shit because "it's easy to criticize" is a valid complaint here. They spent 8 years being the obstruction shit-asses and now they have to drive. They have to fix things and they are completely incapable of understanding reality and how to govern under the system that currently exists.

Well, my term for them since 2010 is 'publicly funded troll', but yea. They used to be able to depend on the Presidential Veto or Harry Reed being a dick to them. The Democrats spent literally 14 months writing and passing the ACA. It's not that the democrats thought their program was perfect. It's that they knew they had to embed it into the political bedrock and they did just that. The electorate got used to it and made it indispensable so it could be improved at some later date.

Trying to yank it out in the space of two or three weeks just doesn't fly.

[Thanas]

Well Trump promised he would defeat Isis within a month so deadlines are something he clearly does not understand.