• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

IMO Fox News barely counts as News. Many political or politically connect items they put out as ED-OPs, and admitted others are guilty of this to but there seems a lot more care toavoid politicizing apolitical topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few studies have looked at *news* reporting (ignoring editorials and talk shows) and found that Fox News is the least politically biased of the major commercial news sources - the big tv news networks, the news wires, several major newspapers.

It is also the only one NOT to the political left of the US public as represented by the makeup of Congress in Obama's first couple years (when the Dems had a majority of both houses).

Now if you drag in the explicitly-political programs, of course, *everybody* is a lot more political... and you aren't talking about news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out at this point that Donald Trump is NOT reflective of the Republican party. Going after him does not put you on the general-purpose left. It's not just the Washingon Post, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Drachefly said:

I'd like to point out at this point that Donald Trump is NOT reflective of the Republican party. Going after him does not put you on the general-purpose left. It's not just the Washingon Post, here.

That is Trump's greatest advantage and liability at the same time. 
If Trump were representative of the Republican Party, we'd be talking about President Clinton now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on another forum said something on the order of "it's disconcerting to have a Republican politician, once elected, show some inclination to do what he claimed he would do while campaigning... but I could get used to it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Someone on another forum said something on the order of "it's disconcerting to have a Republican politician, once elected, show some inclination to do what he claimed he would do while campaigning... but I could get used to it".

Any politician at the national level, it's a surprise.  D or R...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Someone on another forum said something on the order of "it's disconcerting to have a Republican politician, once elected, show some inclination to do what he claimed he would do while campaigning... but I could get used to it".

'Some inclination' shouldn't be too surprising since our previous president showed some

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

(NOTE: whether you agree with a promise is irrelevant to this following bit:) He did every reasonable action within his power to close the prison at Guantanamo, but that really required Congress, which did not go along. There are a lot of 'compromises'  on there, and several outright successes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Drachefly said:

I'd like to point out at this point that Donald Trump is NOT reflective of the Republican party. Going after him does not put you on the general-purpose left. It's not just the Washingon Post, here.

That fact gives me some small hope that the Republican-controlled Congress won't simply roll over for him. I also hope that he fulfills his campaign promise and appoints a new Justice as much like Scalia as possible--those "checks and balances" are about to get a serious workout, and a principled originalist might be just what we need to salvage the Bill of Rights. It would also be nice if the new Justice had enough respect for stare decicis to uphold Obergefell v. Hodges.

And I want a pony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2017 at 11:53 AM, Vorlonagent said:

I don't know what to tell you then.  You are welcome to your own definitions of things.  I've found they make a hash of discussions like this because we're using the same words for different concepts.

I agree that Fox' news reporting is biased conservative.  It practically can't be otherwise.  Fox is so hated in so many corners, I would think it very easy to want to push back.  But Fox' conservative bias does set it apart from news sources it is otherwise similar to. 

Here's my beef with Fox News, and it isn't their reporting, it's the editorializing. You'd think by listening to the pundits they put on the air, that the world was ending because of Obama during the last 8 years. It wasn't a discussion or debate as much as it was an echo chamber of its own. And so when you claim a special place to "fairness" or "balance", that's not really being honest with your viewership. And if you have the viewership of Fox News, you can't really claim to be the scrappy underdog anymore, either. Which is what they are implying by claiming to not be part of the mainstream media. 

If you can somehow be an avid viewer of the channel, and dodge all the hyperbolic editorial spew from some of the personalities, the reporting itself isn't that bad. But the same can also be said of other channels. But the reality is that those personalities, along with many others who have pushed hyperbolic rhetoric meant to divide rather than debate, is making real discussion about policies, etc that much harder to actually do in this country. 

On 1/24/2017 at 11:53 AM, Vorlonagent said:

But if these social conservative projects are what dominate Trump's agenda, it's the quickest way to lose power.  That's what destroyed the lock on government power that the Democrats got in 2009: Getting drunk with power and deciding to embark on some grand social crusade.  If you are worried about inroads against established rights, it's better for your enemy to overreach, as the Democrats did with Obamacare, and get their wings clipped in the midterms in 2 years.  What you do NOT want is for the Republicans to actually take care of business, shore up the economy, bring down the deficit and roll back social advances with a death of 1000 small cuts.

I find it kinda funny that you bring up the ACA. Since that was one of Obama's campaigning points in 2008. That makes me wonder how many independents were even aware of Obama's agenda when voting for him, if it was general anger against Republicans after W's administration, or if the sliding support for this sort of healthcare bill (it went from 69% support in 2006 to 47% in 2014 in polls, and much lower in certain groups that tend to vote in midterms) is what hurt democrats in 2010. 

But, advancing an agenda you campaigned on is not what I'd call "drunk with power". I wouldn't even accuse Trump of being drunk with power for trying to build the border wall when he clearly stated that's what a vote for him meant. I may think the border wall and the plan of making Mexico to pay for it is utterly brainless, but it is what he campaigned on. 

Hell, here's the thing. I do hope Trump is successful in one area of his 100 days document. But it's also the one where he's got a snowball's chance in hell of dealing a real blow. I do want to see him at least push for reforms around lobbying, congressional terms, etc. I'm less enthused about the shotgun approach to addressing the number of regulations, since it will just cut both ways, but that's not that surprising or abnormal when we have ideologies that suggest the only good regulation is a nonexistent one. 

On 1/24/2017 at 11:53 AM, Vorlonagent said:

We haven't seen yet what Trump will or won't do for the economy or what segment.  Don't talk like we're 3 years into his term.  We're not.  All you have to go on are Clinton Campaign rhetoric for predictions of what Trump will do and that stuff was designed to scare you.  Get a few data points before you start drawing lines.

This is just a dodge and a dismissal via strawman. I'm not even using the "Clinton Campaign rhetoric" as you call it. I'm talking about what Trump has said and not said about his economic plan. I'm talking about his transition team's own 100 day document. Unless you want to claim that Clinton wrote Trump's speeches, and wrote Trump's transition documents. I am also talking about the general influence a president can actually have on an economy of this size, which you also ignore. The unfortunate reality is that the federal government's influence  is a bit like a ship on a rough sea. You can steer your ship, but you still need the cooperation of the waves to get where you intend to go. Sometimes, it's easy, sometimes it's hard. But in either case, it is just one more input into a very complicated system. A system complicated enough, that ideologies are a terrible way to set economic policy for a nation as big as this one. But, that's the system we have with both the Democrats and the Republicans. Go figure.

You also bring up shrinking the deficit. In the face of Trump's infrastructure plans, military expansion, border wall and tax proposals (and I agree that we need some infrastructure work done in this country), I'm not sure Trump's going to have much more luck on that front than either of the two previous presidents. The cuts elsewhere are going to have to run deep if you expect to cut revenue, add on new expenses, and then somehow also reduce the deficit you are running. I'd love for you to paint a plausible scenario where Trump's policies lower the federal deficit. I'd also love to see a plausible scenario where Americans aren't somehow stuck paying for the border wall. I've seen many arguments, but they all wind up in the American consumer's lap at the end of the day. 

But here's the thing, you're going to have to do better than dismissing arguments without a good rebuttal if I'm going to continue this conversation. It's not really debate when you attack straw men, ignore arguments, and behave like I cannot possibly have an informed opinion here. If you are in "wait and see" mode, and haven't thought about what Trump's stated agenda means in terms of the effects, that's fine. But let's not act like this isn't something we should be discussing when we talk about Trump's agenda and what it can mean over the coming years. 

On 1/24/2017 at 11:53 AM, Vorlonagent said:

And CERTAINLY do not write yourself out of the economy because you feel you won't be allowed in.  That's just self-inflicted pain and you don't need that.

Social conservatives are going to make some inroads.  That's to be expected, but don't blow small losses into big ones or you'll never have any peace of mind, ever.  Separate what you're concerned a loss would mean from what it actually means.  Comfort your fears and strive for the reassurance of an honest, not emotionally-charged assessment.

These are not just "small losses" that I'm concerned with, but rather legal entrenchment of what is currently allowed due to the lack of protections outside the public sector (and those are only held together by EO), by allowing the private sector to justify the behavior in the eyes of the law to the point that the individuals are denied any recourse against that discrimination. 

But when members of the trans community regularly are denied access to housing and jobs via discriminatory practices, that is exclusion. Without basic economic stability, you do block people from joining into the economy and prevent them from participating. And in the current situation where certain larger employers on the coasts are the main ones willing to actually offer protections to their LGBT employees, you can still limit where and how members of that community participate in the economy by making it difficult to move, which also tends to tie up what capital they do have in the regions where they feel like they can have that needed stability. 

I wouldn't call it self inflicted when we're talking about practices that have the effect of marginalizing and sidelining members of society (in some ways more intentional than others, but the effect is there all the same).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BurntAsh said:

Here's my beef with Fox News, and it isn't their reporting, it's the editorializing. You'd think by listening to the pundits they put on the air, that the world was ending because of Obama during the last 8 years.

How do you feel about the pronouncements from practically every major media source other than Fox News, that the world is ending because of Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:
2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

Here's my beef with Fox News, and it isn't their reporting, it's the editorializing. You'd think by listening to the pundits they put on the air, that the world was ending because of Obama during the last 8 years.

How do you feel about the pronouncements from practically every major media source other than Fox News, that the world is ending because of Trump?

Fox in general seems to want to get in Canada's face really bad. First was back in 2015 with Fox Sports' lousy treatment of us while the Toronto Blue Jays were making their post season run. And just recently Fox News tweeted that the shooter in the attack on the Quebec Mosque the other day was of Moroccan origin, which is completely false, and they haven't made any corrections at this time, which prompted our Prime Minister to fire back.

Edit, turns out Fox News has deleted the tweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

How do you feel about the pronouncements from practically every major media source other than Fox News, that the world is ending because of Trump?

Give me specific examples, and we'll talk about them. There is certainly some hyperbole out there. And honestly, I try to avoid the worst of it, but if you've got something specific to cover, I'll cover it. But your statement as-is comes with this sort of vague damnation as to not really be something I can comment on directly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

Here's my beef with Fox News, and it isn't their reporting, it's the editorializing. You'd think by listening to the pundits they put on the air, that the world was ending because of Obama during the last 8 years. It wasn't a discussion or debate as much as it was an echo chamber of its own. And so when you claim a special place to "fairness" or "balance", that's not really being honest with your viewership. And if you have the viewership of Fox News, you can't really claim to be the scrappy underdog anymore, either. Which is what they are implying by claiming to not be part of the mainstream media. some ways more intentional than others, but the effect is there all the same).

I think they can when they are so ideologically unique only conservative focused news network on cable or broadcast TV)  Also Fox is roundly and routinely hated from seemingly all quarters liberal or left.  The only reason Fox is so large is *because* they are the only conservative news network interrupting what would otherwise be uniformly liberal-biased news coverage on broadcast and cable.

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

If you can somehow be an avid viewer of the channel, and dodge all the hyperbolic editorial spew from some of the personalities, the reporting itself isn't that bad. But the same can also be said of other channels. But the reality is that those personalities, along with many others who have pushed hyperbolic rhetoric meant to divide rather than debate, is making real discussion about policies, etc that much harder to actually do in this country. rs of society (in some ways more intentional than others, but the effect is there all the same).

I can go with this.  Though my politics are right of center there aren't many of the Fox talking heads I have much respect for.  I pretty much like Bill O'Rielly.  Sean Hannity and whatever that woman they have on after him, they both are really ideological and really annoying to watch or listen to.

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

I find it kinda funny that you bring up the ACA. Since that was one of Obama's campaigning points in 2008. That makes me wonder how many independents were even aware of Obama's agenda when voting for him, if it was general anger against Republicans after W's administration, or if the sliding support for this sort of healthcare bill (it went from 69% support in 2006 to 47% in 2014 in polls, and much lower in certain groups that tend to vote in midterms) is what hurt democrats in 2010. 

But, advancing an agenda you campaigned on is not what I'd call "drunk with power". I wouldn't even accuse Trump of being drunk with power for trying to build the border wall when he clearly stated that's what a vote for him meant. I may think the border wall and the plan of making Mexico to pay for it is utterly brainless, but it is what he campaigned on. 

Hell, here's the thing. I do hope Trump is successful in one area of his 100 days document. But it's also the one where he's got a snowball's chance in hell of dealing a real blow. I do want to see him at least push for reforms around lobbying, congressional terms, etc. I'm less enthused about the shotgun approach to addressing the number of regulations, since it will just cut both ways, but that's not that surprising or abnormal when we have ideologies that suggest the only good regulation is a nonexistent one.

I don't remember a government takeover of healthcare ever being popular.  Hillary Clinton chaired a healthcare reform committee that ran into the same issues the Democrats did in 2009.  Clinton quite reasonably chose not to sail into that storm. 

I describe the 2009 democrats as drunk with power because they did sail into the storm.  They had a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (until Ted Kennedy died and was replaced with a Republican) so they didn't have to give a french fried fig about what anybody thought. And once they started down the healthcare reform road they couldn't stop themselves and looked for some way, any way, to push legislation onto the country. 

As I say, I never heard that 69% of the US favored a government takeover of heathcare (I can believe that 69% wanted "something done") but I do remember that at the point where ACA passed 69% of the US was against it.  The Republicans reaped majorities in state government, congress and the got the presidency as a result.  I hope you get to see enacted some of the good stuff you want from Trump.

 

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

This is just a dodge and a dismissal via strawman. I'm not even using the "Clinton Campaign rhetoric" as you call it. I'm talking about what Trump has said and not said about his economic plan. I'm talking about his transition team's own 100 day document. Unless you want to claim that Clinton wrote Trump's speeches, and wrote Trump's transition documents. I am also talking about the general influence a president can actually have on an economy of this size, which you also ignore. The unfortunate reality is that the federal government's influence  is a bit like a ship on a rough sea. You can steer your ship, but you still need the cooperation of the waves to get where you intend to go. Sometimes, it's easy, sometimes it's hard. But in either case, it is just one more input into a very complicated system. A system complicated enough, that ideologies are a terrible way to set economic policy for a nation as big as this one. But, that's the system we have with both the Democrats and the Republicans. Go figure.

I don't see a strawman here.

A staple of the Clinton Campaign was to take what Trump said and make it seem like some ominous policy statement.  I've heard people repeat these assertions more or less verbatim and more or less continuously claiming the wolf is at the door from before the election through Trump's inauguration.  Now that Trump is doing things, the complaints I hear now are at least new ones.

 

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

These are not just "small losses" that I'm concerned with, but rather legal entrenchment of what is currently allowed due to the lack of protections outside the public sector (and those are only held together by EO), by allowing the private sector to justify the behavior in the eyes of the law to the point that the individuals are denied any recourse against that discrimination. 

But when members of the trans community regularly are denied access to housing and jobs via discriminatory practices, that is exclusion. Without basic economic stability, you do block people from joining into the economy and prevent them from participating. And in the current situation where certain larger employers on the coasts are the main ones willing to actually offer protections to their LGBT employees, you can still limit where and how members of that community participate in the economy by making it difficult to move, which also tends to tie up what capital they do have in the regions where they feel like they can have that needed stability. 

I wouldn't call it self inflicted when we're talking about practices that have the effect of marginalizing and sidelining members of society (in some ways more intentional than others, but the effect is there all the same).

Do you have any examples of Trump Executive Orders changing the status quo here?  Just today, I thought I saw a newsblurb saying Trump was keeping Obama Admin policy. 

That's is the problem you have when all you have is an Executive Order.  A stroke of a pen changes everything.  They who live by the EO, die by it.  Blame the Democrats for pushing ACA down the nation's throat and destroying their ability to help or defend the trans population, among other things. 

At least one Supreme Court case should be moving through the courts.  I'd be surprised if there wasn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President fired Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General, when she would not enforce the travel ban.

Donald Trump has been in office less than two weeks.  His Attorney General nominee should have been involved with the transition team that wrote up the initial set of Executive Orders.  She should at least have been consulted and/or advised about the legal plans for the first few days of the President's term.

If the President's choice to lead the Justice Department is not on board with the President's legal orders, then something is already dysfunctional in the Administration.

Are we going to see four years of Cabinet Officers who aren't consulted when orders and legislation are being drafted?  Secretaries who become mere administrative assistants, unable to voice objection or exercise discretion?

Wild Speculation:
Sally Yates may become a martyr for the right wing/conservative faction who are, or will become, dissatisfied with the Donald.

Error. Yates was not Trump's choice. She was from the previous administration awaiting the arrival of the next AG.

Edited by Pharaoh RutinTutin
Relevant detail added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

I'm less enthused about the shotgun approach to addressing the number of regulations, since it will just cut both ways, but that's not that surprising or abnormal when we have ideologies that suggest the only good regulation is a nonexistent one. 

I'm more worried that this approach to regulations is part of Trump's denial that climate change is an issue, as a lot of regulations are in place to control pollution, which the EPA says is a main cause of climate change. The problem is, those regulations also make sure that our air is breathable, our water is drinkable, and our food is edible. So removing those regulations would put everyone at risk regardless of whether or not climate change is affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

The President fired Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General, when she would not enforce the travel ban.

Donald Trump has been in office less than two weeks.  His Attorney General nominee should have been involved with the transition team that wrote up the initial set of Executive Orders.  She should at least have been consulted and/or advised about the legal plans for the first few days of the President's term.

It's entirely reasonable to think Yates is grandstanding for partisan political reasons.

Yates is an Obama appointee.  I consider it obvious that Obama's Attorney General appointments were compromised ideologically, but understand others may differ.  If Obama politicized the top positions, why not others down through the ranks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scotty said:

I'm more worried that this approach to regulations is part of Trump's denial that climate change is an issue, as a lot of regulations are in place to control pollution, which the EPA says is a main cause of climate change. The problem is, those regulations also make sure that our air is breathable, our water is drinkable, and our food is edible. So removing those regulations would put everyone at risk regardless of whether or not climate change is affected.

That's a part of it, but I consider it a minor problem in the face of the larger ideology that all regulation is bad, even the ones meant to avoid allowing companies to move costs/risks/etc (i.e. dumping waste that turns out to be toxic like you say) onto other industries (public services) and taxpayer funded cleanups. But there's also a lot of protectionist regulation and other regulations that do hamper the ability of small businesses to form and compete in the marketplace without ever larger sums of money from investors to get them over the hurdles. So I can at least understand where the desire to cut back comes from. And even if the administration was being more careful on what to repeal, then yes, overzealous gutting of EPA regulations would still be a concern.

16 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I don't see a strawman here.

A staple of the Clinton Campaign was to take what Trump said and make it seem like some ominous policy statement.  I've heard people repeat these assertions more or less verbatim and more or less continuously claiming the wolf is at the door from before the election through Trump's inauguration.  Now that Trump is doing things, the complaints I hear now are at least new ones.

The straw man is ignoring the argument, and instead turning to attack the Clinton campaign. It's a distraction to talk about what the Clinton campaign does when I'm talking about the plan Trump himself has talked about, is talking about, and is doing things about. I couldn't give one whit about Clinton at this point, because she's not the one running the current administration. It's the words and actions of the administration that are in play here, and discussion of how they may play out if implemented as suggested.

Since you seem to have nothing more to contribute to the topic that you seemed like you wanted to get into, I'm done on this front. Because honestly, this sort of finger pointing trying to assign blame instead of discussing the actual topic is not helping find middle ground.

16 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I think they can when they are so ideologically unique only conservative focused news network on cable or broadcast TV)  Also Fox is roundly and routinely hated from seemingly all quarters liberal or left.  The only reason Fox is so large is *because* they are the only conservative news network interrupting what would otherwise be uniformly liberal-biased news coverage on broadcast and cable.

18 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

If you can somehow be an avid viewer of the channel, and dodge all the hyperbolic editorial spew from some of the personalities, the reporting itself isn't that bad. But the same can also be said of other channels. But the reality is that those personalities, along with many others who have pushed hyperbolic rhetoric meant to divide rather than debate, is making real discussion about policies, etc that much harder to actually do in this country. rs of society (in some ways more intentional than others, but the effect is there all the same).

I can go with this.  Though my politics are right of center there aren't many of the Fox talking heads I have much respect for.  I pretty much like Bill O'Rielly.  Sean Hannity and whatever that woman they have on after him, they both are really ideological and really annoying to watch or listen to.

Bill gets my goat sometimes too. He's said some profoundly mind-numbing things on air from a place of stubbornness and ignorance (saying "you can't explain that" in relation to tides when debating with an atheist, and then goalpost moving when his ignorance was pointed out in a later video), and he's still coming from an ideological center. He's an editorializing pundit, not a reporter. He's not trying to be "fair and balanced". But he isn't quite as bad as Hannity or Beck have been at times. And hell, +2 points to Beck for running a segment debunking the FEMA Camp nonsense on air, -1 point for sensationalizing and implying it was true on Fox & Friends earlier in the day to drive up viewership for the segment. 

In general, I tend to avoid the talking heads (no matter the network) unless they are intentionally trying to be funny. Because watching them get heated up over errors of fact, or hyperbole just wears me about.

16 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I don't remember a government takeover of healthcare ever being popular.  Hillary Clinton chaired a healthcare reform committee that ran into the same issues the Democrats did in 2009.  Clinton quite reasonably chose not to sail into that storm. 

I describe the 2009 democrats as drunk with power because they did sail into the storm.  They had a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (until Ted Kennedy died and was replaced with a Republican) so they didn't have to give a french fried fig about what anybody thought. And once they started down the healthcare reform road they couldn't stop themselves and looked for some way, any way, to push legislation onto the country. 

As I say, I never heard that 69% of the US favored a government takeover of heathcare (I can believe that 69% wanted "something done") but I do remember that at the point where ACA passed 69% of the US was against it.  The Republicans reaped majorities in state government, congress and the got the presidency as a result.  I hope you get to see enacted some of the good stuff you want from Trump.

So, with Trump's approval in the toilet as far as an incoming president is concerned, you are suggesting we can say he's drunk on power for pursuing the agenda he spoke about on the campaign stump, yes? Honestly, if you see that both sides act as if the election was saying "yes, we want you to implement that agenda you spoke of" when they win, it's a lot easier to find the middle ground that I spoke of earlier. 

And it's funny, because the ACA has compromises that were intended to find middle ground with Congress critters on the other side of the aisle. Negotiations that were done just to get the bill into and through committee, and onto the floor. It took cues from a bill that was meant to find middle ground with Mitt Romney when he was governor in 2006. The fact that some of those people who were involved backed off once it reached the floor in order to maintain support of their base is another matter. But what's interesting is that overall, 68% were at least somewhat in favor of an individual mandate based on this data from 2007 which is interesting when looking at the lead-up to the election. And you see a surprising majority saying that costs should come from a mix of employers, individuals and the government across the political spectrum.

16 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Do you have any examples of Trump Executive Orders changing the status quo here?  Just today, I thought I saw a newsblurb saying Trump was keeping Obama Admin policy. 

That's is the problem you have when all you have is an Executive Order.  A stroke of a pen changes everything.  They who live by the EO, die by it.  Blame the Democrats for pushing ACA down the nation's throat and destroying their ability to help or defend the trans population, among other things. 

Here's the problem, I discuss concerns, you demand proof of action. I'm not talking about actions, I'm talking about stated intent, stances and the like of members of congress and the vast majority of the administration. Stated policy that will take time to materialize. You don't wait until your group is under some new oppression to speak out against those plans. Trump's probably the most sane one in his own administration when it comes to LGBT issues, but even he's said that he will sign FADA if it comes across his desk. And in the face of that possibility, it doesn't really matter wether Trump leaves the federal contractor anti-discrimination EO intact or not. So if speaking out maybe tilts him over just enough to reconsider before it comes across his desk, that's not a bad thing. And it's not an existential freakout to discuss these things while taking him at his word. I'm not basing this stuff on things beyond what he has said on the public record as his stated intent. 

And again with the finger pointing and blaming. It doesn't change the stance of Trump's cabinet, the Congressional leaders, or his willingness to sign in such legislation. And just shrugging and going "oh well, not this administration's fault" doesn't cut it. We can and should demand better treatment and respect from our leaders as people, regardless of why they got voted in. 

48 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

It's entirely reasonable to think Yates is grandstanding for partisan political reasons.

Yates is an Obama appointee.  I consider it obvious that Obama's Attorney General appointments were compromised ideologically, but understand others may differ.  If Obama politicized the top positions, why not others down through the ranks?

Yes, but it's also not common for a president to dismiss the acting AG from the other party during the transition period, instead of just waiting for their appointee to get the rubber stamp. I think it isn't terribly surprising though. Considering courts were already starting to rule against the effects the EO was having, Yates probably did see it as a stand worth taking, and I'd be surprised if she didn't see the firing coming. Trump could have taken the high road here, shrugged it off, and just waited for Sessions. But considering how Trump has behaved on the trail and in public, this seems in character for him. But I don't think it will do much to heal any divisions. 

But I'll just add, when we start approaching each other as "compromised ideologically" as a point of fact, it's just going to be that much harder, again, to reverse the polarization in the political arena. This is a form of hyperbole that doesn't even discuss the issues, but rather fuels divisions. And with no substance to really debate, I take my leave of the thread before I get too frustrated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

That's a part of it, but I consider it a minor problem in the face of the larger ideology that all regulation is bad, even the ones meant to avoid allowing companies to move costs/risks/etc (i.e. dumping waste that turns out to be toxic like you say) onto other industries (public services) and taxpayer funded cleanups. But there's also a lot of protectionist regulation and other regulations that do hamper the ability of small businesses to form and compete in the marketplace without ever larger sums of money from investors to get them over the hurdles. So I can at least understand where the desire to cut back comes from. And even if the administration was being more careful on what to repeal, then yes, overzealous gutting of EPA regulations would still be a concern.

The EPA has only itself to blame by exceeding its mandate and overzealously regulating.  There's always a backlash.
 

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

The straw man is ignoring the argument, and instead turning to attack the Clinton campaign. It's a distraction to talk about what the Clinton campaign does when I'm talking about the plan Trump himself has talked about, is talking about, and is doing things about. I couldn't give one whit about Clinton at this point, because she's not the one running the current administration. It's the words and actions of the administration that are in play here, and discussion of how they may play out if implemented as suggested.

Since you seem to have nothing more to contribute to the topic that you seemed like you wanted to get into, I'm done on this front. Because honestly, this sort of finger pointing trying to assign blame instead of discussing the actual topic is not helping find middle ground.

Have it your way.  I'll take the hit for being too tired of hearing about what Trump says and how it means the sky is falling to be able to process your specific concerns.

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

Bill gets my goat sometimes too. He's said some profoundly mind-numbing things on air from a place of stubbornness and ignorance (saying "you can't explain that" in relation to tides when debating with an atheist, and then goalpost moving when his ignorance was pointed out in a later video), and he's still coming from an ideological center. He's an editorializing pundit, not a reporter. He's not trying to be "fair and balanced". But he isn't quite as bad as Hannity or Beck have been at times. And hell, +2 points to Beck for running a segment debunking the FEMA Camp nonsense on air, -1 point for sensationalizing and implying it was true on Fox & Friends earlier in the day to drive up viewership for the segment. 

In general, I tend to avoid the talking heads (no matter the network) unless they are intentionally trying to be funny. Because watching them get heated up over errors of fact, or hyperbole just wears me about.

Yeah I've seen Bill get in one of those places at times, too.  That and some of the eyerolling cutsey stuff his show does with Dennis Miller.  I like Miller as a commentator.  He's smart and funny and doesn't need stupid cartoons and/or sound effects sharing his screen.

I actually don't watch cable so by definition I don't watch Fox News unless I'm visiting my mom who lets it run through the entire run of talking heads while she reads a book.
 

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

So, with Trump's approval in the toilet as far as an incoming president is concerned, you are suggesting we can say he's drunk on power for pursuing the agenda he spoke about on the campaign stump, yes? Honestly, if you see that both sides act as if the election was saying "yes, we want you to implement that agenda you spoke of" when they win, it's a lot easier to find the middle ground that I spoke of earlier.

Of course a political party is going to take a victory as a mandate, no matter how slim the margin of victory is.  It's how you play the game. 

Trump doesn't have power to be drunk on.  He's just a Prez with an allied congress.  I haven't seen Trump arrogantly overreach his limits yet.  he hasn't pushed anything on the US yet that the nation has pushed back against hard saying "we do NOT want this!" or bulled ahead anyway.  He may do so once he starts pushing the major points of his legislative agenda, but he hasn't started in on that yet. 

I include Trump's temporary travel ban on refugees or persons from a shortlist of countries.  There's plenty of people who don't like it, true.  But not anywhere at the levels of dislike we saw for Obamacare when it was in Congress.  At this stage, it's just the usual suspects making the expected amount of noise.
 

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

And it's funny, because the ACA has compromises that were intended to find middle ground with Congress critters on the other side of the aisle. Negotiations that were done just to get the bill into and through committee, and onto the floor. It took cues from a bill that was meant to find middle ground with Mitt Romney when he was governor in 2006. The fact that some of those people who were involved backed off once it reached the floor in order to maintain support of their base is another matter. But what's interesting is that overall, 68% were at least somewhat in favor of an individual mandate based on this data from 2007 which is interesting when looking at the lead-up to the election. And you see a surprising majority saying that costs should come from a mix of employers, individuals and the government across the political spectrum.

I don't know who the Commonwealth Fund is or if they have an ideological bias.  A quick google-fu suggests they are at least somewhat skewed to the Left.

We'll otherwise have to agree to disagree here.  I saw no seeking of middle ground during ACA's time in Congress.  Sure the D's would have liked a couple of R's to sign on so they could say Obamacare was "bipartisan", but that's about it.  I saw no flexibility or willingness to compromise in the Democrats.  They didn't need it and wouldn't drop the matter even when they found it hard to keep some of their own in line.  And they lost big time because of it.

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

Here's the problem, I discuss concerns, you demand proof of action. I'm not talking about actions, I'm talking about stated intent, stances and the like of members of congress and the vast majority of the administration. Stated policy that will take time to materialize. You don't wait until your group is under some new oppression to speak out against those plans. Trump's probably the most sane one in his own administration when it comes to LGBT issues, but even he's said that he will sign FADA if it comes across his desk. And in the face of that possibility, it doesn't really matter wether Trump leaves the federal contractor anti-discrimination EO intact or not. So if speaking out maybe tilts him over just enough to reconsider before it comes across his desk, that's not a bad thing. And it's not an existential freakout to discuss these things while taking him at his word. I'm not basing this stuff on things beyond what he has said on the public record as his stated intent. 

And again with the finger pointing and blaming. It doesn't change the stance of Trump's cabinet, the Congressional leaders, or his willingness to sign in such legislation. And just shrugging and going "oh well, not this administration's fault" doesn't cut it. We can and should demand better treatment and respect from our leaders as people, regardless of why they got voted in.

We can pick over things Trump says and be disturbed by them if we want.  I don't think you're really concerned about talk.  You're concerned that Trump with translate that talk into action.  So the focus becomes Trump's current actions, which are a far better measure of his future actions than what he says.  At the moment there isn't much action to go on.  What little there is, however, suggests that the nightmare scenarios you are concerned about may not be as bad as feared or won't materialize at all.  You can drive yourself nuts with possible futures while we wait for more hard data, but all you'll have for it is lost sleep and frayed nerves.  And you'll still have to cope with whatever actually happens anyway.  You're burning emotional resources now that you'll want later being concerned.
 

3 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

Yes, but it's also not common for a president to dismiss the acting AG from the other party during the transition period, instead of just waiting for their appointee to get the rubber stamp. I think it isn't terribly surprising though. Considering courts were already starting to rule against the effects the EO was having, Yates probably did see it as a stand worth taking, and I'd be surprised if she didn't see the firing coming. Trump could have taken the high road here, shrugged it off, and just waited for Sessions. But considering how Trump has behaved on the trail and in public, this seems in character for him. But I don't think it will do much to heal any divisions. 

But I'll just add, when we start approaching each other as "compromised ideologically" as a point of fact, it's just going to be that much harder, again, to reverse the polarization in the political arena. This is a form of hyperbole that doesn't even discuss the issues, but rather fuels divisions. And with no substance to really debate, I take my leave of the thread before I get too frustrated. 

I'd say someone is ideologically compromised if their ideology is more important to them instead of things like integrity or professionalism. 

What's Yates' obligation as acting AG?  Seems to me courtesy and professionalism would have Yates keep herself out of the public eye and do her job more or less the way the new AG would until the AG officially takes over. 

Instead, Yates went out of her way to undermine Trump.  By publicly announcing that she would not defend Trump's immigration order, Yates departed "how things are usually done".  Yates herself destroyed the traditional courtesies that would have protected her position. Trump just did the obvious thing by ejecting someone he could no longer trust.

What am I supposed to think of someone who acted as unprofessionally as Yates did?  Her actions look ideologically motivated, so what else is there to say but that she is "ideologically compromised"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

What's Yates' obligation as acting AG?  Seems to me courtesy and professionalism would have Yates keep herself out of the public eye and do her job more or less the way the new AG would until the AG officially takes over. 

Instead, Yates went out of her way to undermine Trump.  By publicly announcing that she would not defend Trump's immigration order, Yates departed "how things are usually done".  Yates herself destroyed the traditional courtesies that would have protected her position. Trump just did the obvious thing by ejecting someone he could no longer trust.

What am I supposed to think of someone who acted as unprofessionally as Yates did?  Her actions look ideologically motivated, so what else is there to say but that she is "ideologically compromised"?

Why didn't Trump wait until all of his administration had been settled in before putting out executive orders? He should have known that anyone from the Obama administration still in office would be likely to oppose anything he did. Just because Yates was acting AG while waiting for her replacement, it doesn't make her obligated to agree with anything Trump does. All she did was oppose the travel ban, and she had the support of the justice department against the ban as well. Trump firing her gives off a "my way or the highway" message to everyone else that would think to oppose him on anything.

The way I see it, there are two ideologies at work here, so how could we pick which one is compromised?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Why didn't Trump wait until all of his administration had been settled in before putting out executive orders? He should have known that anyone from the Obama administration still in office would be likely to oppose anything he did. Just because Yates was acting AG while waiting for her replacement, it doesn't make her obligated to agree with anything Trump does. All she did was oppose the travel ban, and she had the support of the justice department against the ban as well. Trump firing her gives off a "my way or the highway" message to everyone else that would think to oppose him on anything.

The way I see it, there are two ideologies at work here, so how could we pick which one is compromised?

HUGE BIG EDIT.  I'm rewriting my rely to make it simpler.

At this point either Trump or Yates has abused their office.  :I suppose "both" is possible, but I'm going to try and make either-or fly.

Yates called Trump out by publicly stating she would not defend his executive order.  She needs a damn good reason to depart the normal conventions of her job which is to smooth the way for Trumps real AG.  Going public does not do that, hence the need for a damn good reason.

If Yates has cause to go public then Trump has abused his office in the form of an illegal or unconstitutional executive order.  If he hasn't overreached, Yates' job is to stay out of sight.

While there are plenty of people who contend Trump's order is unconstitutional they're armchair lawyers with a partisan axe to grind.  Even Yates has admitted there is a case to be made for Trump's order.  Right there we have enough evidence to think that Trump's order is not so grievous a thing as to warrant Yates going public.  Which means Yates abused her office.  Which means Trump has every reason to fire her.

I believe Yates was acting out of ideology, using the respect give to "Attorney General" to make Trump and his order look more dictatorial than it actually is.  "If the acting AG doesn't like Trump's order, it must be bad".  Trump firing her throws fuel on the fire. "Wow Trump's such a dictator that he's firing anyone that won't go along with his unconstitutional orders". 

Other people are welcome to their POVs.  This is mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

HUGE BIG EDIT.  I'm rewriting my rely to make it simpler.

At this point either Trump or Yates has abused their office.  :I suppose "both" is possible, but I'm going to try and make either-or fly.

Yates called Trump out by publicly stating she would not defend his executive order.  She needs a damn good reason to depart the normal conventions of her job which is to smooth the way for Trumps real AG.  Going public does not do that, hence the need for a damn good reason.

If Yates has cause to go public then Trump has abused his office in the form of an illegal or unconstitutional executive order.  If he hasn't overreached, Yates' job is to stay out of sight.

While there are plenty of people who contend Trump's order is unconstitutional they're armchair lawyers with a partisan axe to grind.  Even Yates has admitted there is a case to be made for Trump's order.  Right there we have enough evidence to think that Trump's order is not so grievous a thing as to warrant Yates going public.  Which means Yates abused her office.  Which means Trump has every reason to fire her.

I believe Yates was acting out of ideology, using the respect give to "Attorney General" to make Trump and his order look more dictatorial than it actually is.  "If the acting AG doesn't like Trump's order, it must be bad".  Trump firing her throws fuel on the fire. "Wow Trump's such a dictator that he's firing anyone that won't go along with his unconstitutional orders". 

Other people are welcome to their POVs.  This is mine.

There's also the belief that such a ban would fuel ISIS's propaganda machine. I recall discussing this back when other countries in Europe weren't allowing refugees in, or giving them poor treatment, because of fear that any one of them could be a terrorist, that when you have people who desperately need help being refused that help, it increase the chance of them turning to criminal acts and even joining the ones they were running from because "well I guess ISIS was right, these people don't deserve what they have". Even if Yates didn't have any legal grounds to do what she did, I don't see anything wrong with opposing something that you believe could potentially do more harm than goods, especially when the ban cherry picks specific countries while it's been proven that ISIS members aren't always from those countries, what's to stop people from England, Spain, even Canada who might have joined ISIS from entering the US and causing trouble? If Trump really wants to keep terrorists out, then he might as well lock the entire world out, and I know that wouldn't go over well with anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now