President-Elect Donald Trump: The Thread

[StrangeSox]

It really isn't though. We have seen the Dems rally behind winners like Fidel Castro, Che Guerva, and Iran in recent years. The whole Machiavelli thing is just disgusting though. But that is the overly simplisitic political system we have apparently put into place now.

 

It seems pretty silly to try to accuse the Democrats of Machiavellian power grabs by linking them to Fidel Castro (now dead, not in power for years and not a friend of the Democrats prior to that), Che Guerva (Communist Revolutionary who's been dead for many decades and may be viewed somewhat fondly by leftists, but leftists aren't exactly welcome within the Democratic party), and Iran (nuclear deal I guess?) when Republicans have, off the top of my head and in just the last few years:

 

1) Heavily gerrymandered every state as much as they could, given them large majorities in the House (and state houses) even when they receive fewer total votes. This is highlighted in North Carolina, where Republicans currently hold a 10-3 lead in Congressional seats but would hold anywhere from an 8-5 lead to a 5-8 deficit in a non-partisan districting scenario

 

2) Stripping away as much power from the incoming Democratic NC governor as possible

 

3) Removing the most vital and effective parts off the VRA via one of the worst SC decisions ever written, which lead directly to

 

4) Ramped up voter suppression efforts across the country, from all sorts of voter role purges to changing in voting times and locations to unnecessary (for integrity, but great for suppression) Voter ID laws.

 

5) Using their powers in the House to launch partisan 'investigation' after partisan investigation with the admitted purpose of politically damaging Hillary Clinton

 

6) Unprecedented obstruction in Congress up to and including shutting down the government and threatening to blow up the world economy via debt default multiple times

 

7) Blocking dozens of executive and judicial appointments for the nakedly partisan reason that they can

 

8) Stealing a Supreme Court seat by engaging in 7)

 

9) Attempted to prevent a Congressionally authorized agency from coming into existence via 7) (CFPB)

 

10) Nominating and electing Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, the least qualified person to ever hold the office by a very wide margin

 

Complaining about an overly simplistic political system in the very same post you try to equate Democratic and Republican political actions by bringing up three things that don't even really make sense is not the best look.

[southsider2k5]

It seems pretty silly to try to accuse the Democrats of Machiavellian power grabs by linking them to Fidel Castro (now dead, not in power for years and not a friend of the Democrats prior to that), Che Guerva (Communist Revolutionary who's been dead for many decades and may be viewed somewhat fondly by leftists, but leftists aren't exactly welcome within the Democratic party), and Iran (nuclear deal I guess?) when Republicans have, off the top of my head and in just the last few years:

 

1) Heavily gerrymandered every state as much as they could, given them large majorities in the House (and state houses) even when they receive fewer total votes. This is highlighted in North Carolina, where Republicans currently hold a 10-3 lead in Congressional seats but would hold anywhere from an 8-5 lead to a 5-8 deficit in a non-partisan districting scenario

 

2) Stripping away as much power from the incoming Democratic NC governor as possible

 

3) Removing the most vital and effective parts off the VRA via one of the worst SC decisions ever written, which lead directly to

 

4) Ramped up voter suppression efforts across the country, from all sorts of voter role purges to changing in voting times and locations to unnecessary (for integrity, but great for suppression) Voter ID laws.

 

5) Using their powers in the House to launch partisan 'investigation' after partisan investigation with the admitted purpose of politically damaging Hillary Clinton

 

6) Unprecedented obstruction in Congress up to and including shutting down the government and threatening to blow up the world economy via debt default multiple times

 

7) Blocking dozens of executive and judicial appointments for the nakedly partisan reason that they can

 

8) Stealing a Supreme Court seat by engaging in 7)

 

9) Attempted to prevent a Congressionally authorized agency from coming into existence via 7) (CFPB)

 

10) Nominating and electing Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, the least qualified person to ever hold the office by a very wide margin

 

Complaining about an overly simplistic political system in the very same post you try to equate Democratic and Republican political actions by bringing up three things that don't even really make sense is not the best look.

 

Pretending that Republicans are the only ones who abuse power isn't exactly a great look either. For starters it is really straight forward to make the same argument about all of Obama's post election executive orders in an attempt to sabotage Trump before he even takes office.

 

Then there is the state of Illinois and its gerrymandering as a perfect example of what happens when Democrats hold the levers of power. I mean have you seen the Illinois 4th district?

[StrangeSox]

Yes, Democrats also gerrymander and I'd love a 50 state requirement for nonpartisan districts.

 

And nothing in that post implies that Democrats don't also sometimes use their power to obtain, maintain and expand power.

 

But to continue to pretend that both sides are equally as bad and engage in it just as much, especially when your leading examples were nonsensical to begin with, is just as bad if not worse than the meme politics you complain about. It was the Republican leader of the Senate who threatened to turn the report on Russian hacking completely political if it was publicly released before the election, and it was the Democratic President who said nothing. It was Republicans who stole a supreme Court seat and relegated North Carolina to less than a full democracy, not Democrats.

[LittleHurt05]

Has anyone seen news on how to get tickets for the Presidential farewall speech? Last I saw was they were going to give them away on Saturday, but nothing since.

 

They are available for purchase on the Health Insurance marketplace

[caulfield12]

If Republicans were in charge of the executive branch:

 

1) No way does the FBI "flip flop" in the final 10-11 days happen so close to a presidential election, inconceivable

 

2) No way do they wait until AFTER the election in terms of the Russian hacking evidence (and "sanctions")

 

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-d...-215837024.html

Here's an example of what we've devolved into. Sanders, rightly...points out that Trump long ago promised to defend all the government entitlement programs, and, not only that, accuses Huckabee of copying his idea.

 

Reading the comments, instead of dealing with the issue of Trump's accountability...you simply get partisan attacks of Sanders.

 

So why should the Democrats even bother to "objectively" tell the truth when it doesn't make the news/isn't memeworthy and doesn't end up with them retaining power?

 

The Republicans would never have been so "soft" and "non-partisan" as Obama attempted to be with the FBI and Russian hacks issue. I honestly think nobody in the Democratic Party believed Trump could actually win until it was too late...but now there's nothing Obama can do as his entire legislative legacy is under attack. Obama has never been a fan of the Clintons and vice-versa. It's my belief he wanted to "censure" the Clintons while still believing she could not possibly "blow" the election.

Edited January 5, 2017 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

Who knows what the future will hold, but at least Trump stood against the ethic's committee thing.

[caulfield12]

Who knows what the future will hold, but at least Trump stood against the ethic's committee thing.

 

Otoh, those were easy political points to score that didn't cost him anything.

 

Remember, he's going to have to at least cooperate with the party beginning January 20th, and publicly slapping their wrists isn't going to sit well from an optics standpoint. Most members of Congress feel they can easily outlast the president, that he's just a temporary "anomaly" who will be around for at most 8 but likely only 4 years.

[NorthSideSox72]

Certainly there are different levels of bad. What the North Carolina legislature has been trying to do is a level unseen from either party in any state in recent memory, actually decapitating specified executive powers.

 

But gerrymandering is done often, and to detriment, by both parties, in many states.

 

Pretending that Republicans are the only ones who abuse power isn't exactly a great look either. For starters it is really straight forward to make the same argument about all of Obama's post election executive orders in an attempt to sabotage Trump before he even takes office.

 

Then there is the state of Illinois and its gerrymandering as a perfect example of what happens when Democrats hold the levers of power. I mean have you seen the Illinois 4th district?

 

On the bolded - is that the one that is shaped like a giant fist and middle finger raised, with the finger going up through the south side of the city to the south loop?

 

Who knows what the future will hold, but at least Trump stood against the ethic's committee thing.

 

Well let's be clear, he didn't take a stand against it, he said the timing was bad. If you want to give credit on stopping that, amazingly, it belongs to the constituents who stood up and made so much noise about it.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Who knows what the future will hold, but at least Trump stood against the ethic's committee thing.

 

He said that cutting the OCE shouldn't be a PRIORITY; not that it shouldn't be done. His tweet called the OCE "unfair".

[CrimsonWeltall]

Then there is the state of Illinois and its gerrymandering as a perfect example of what happens when Democrats hold the levers of power. I mean have you seen the Illinois 4th district?

 

The 4th is definitely ridiculous, but it's basically there to give Latino voters a representative. It's not taking away from Republicans.

[RockRaines]

All this arguing back and forth about which side did what. At the end of the day, politicians are s***heads that are only out for their own interest or the internet of their organization. They were created to be representatives of the people and that has evolved into something so far from that I dont even know what to call it.

 

 

[RockRaines]

Who knows what the future will hold, but at least Trump stood against the ethic's committee thing.

Obamacare looks like it wont even be looked at until 2019 so its anyone's guess what he will do and wont do compared to his promises.

Edited January 5, 2017 by RockRaines

[Balta1701]

Obamacare looks like it wont even be looked at until 2019 so its anyone's guess what he will do and wont do compared to his promises.

I'll believe it when I see it. Their #1 priority for years is that health care should be a privilege of the wealthy. So far they have done everything they needed to make it clear they will make that their goal. It doesn't even have to be on purpose - companies have taken losses in the insurance exchanges because of the hope that once the premiums balanced starting in about 2018 they'd be able to recoup them with the people they'd brought on board. If the exchanges are going to end in 2019, then there's no reason to stay on the exchange in 2018.

[RockRaines]

I'll believe it when I see it. Their #1 priority for years is that health care should be a privilege of the wealthy. So far they have done everything they needed to make it clear they will make that their goal. It doesn't even have to be on purpose - companies have taken losses in the insurance exchanges because of the hope that once the premiums balanced starting in about 2018 they'd be able to recoup them with the people they'd brought on board. If the exchanges are going to end in 2019, then there's no reason to stay on the exchange in 2018.

Well we know nothing will happen at least until end of the midterms, so if something WILL happen it wont be till 2019.

 

So far:

Drain the swamp - nope

Less influence by wall street- nope

Repeal Obamacare immediately - nope

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Well we know nothing will happen at least until end of the midterms, so if something WILL happen it wont be till 2019.

 

So far:

Drain the swamp - nope

Less influence by wall street- nope

Repeal Obamacare immediately - nope

Did you catch the edit? I realized I needed to add that after caffeine addition. It doesn't have to be deliberate - if the exchanges are ending in 2019 or 2020, or if the subsidies are even reduced starting in 2018, then virtually all companies on them will leave in 2018.

[caulfield12]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/higher-incom...-163613852.html

 

The 2% of upper middle class Americans who are going to be paying higher taxes under Trump...

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-calls-for-...-143034008.html

This is rich...Trump upset the GOP is being set up to take the "blame" on the health care issue. Well, no, it's called assuming the responsibility to fix it if you're the actual party in power. The GOP made zero effort eight years ago to do anything but obstruct a system that was actually far more conservative than Mitt Romney's program in Massachusetts.

 

 

We're seriously considering a major cut in SS and Medicare benefits to those earning $12-14,000 per year but completely content to give Tillerson a $180 million golden parachute. Good luck on that.

Edited January 5, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/higher-incom...-163613852.html

 

The 2% of upper middle class Americans who are going to be paying higher taxes under Trump...

 

130k/year salary now has to pay a whopping 875 bucks more in taxes. Big deal.

[pettie4sox]

130k/year salary now has to pay a whopping 875 bucks more in taxes. Big deal.

 

hopefully that was meant to be /green otherwise you're a terrible conservative.

[caulfield12]

You would think that 2% who's going to actually be paying HIGHER taxes would be a bit upset that almost all of the benefits of the new tax policies are flowing upwards to the Top 1%, and, more specifically, the Top 10% of that 1%.

 

These 2-3%ers are SUPPOSEDLY the JOB CREATORS/FAMILY FARMERS/SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AS WELL, are they not?

 

Or these are "merely" white collar professionals who mostly work FOR someone else? So they can safely be overlooked by Trump, because the majority of them aren't likely to vote Democrat regardless?

Edited January 6, 2017 by caulfield12

[LittleHurt05]

Did you catch the edit? I realized I needed to add that after caffeine addition. It doesn't have to be deliberate - if the exchanges are ending in 2019 or 2020, or if the subsidies are even reduced starting in 2018, then virtually all companies on them will leave in 2018.

 

How many companies are even left? 1 or 2? Obamacare already shut down so many insurance companies the past few years, might as well complete the knockout punch.

[RockRaines]

130k/year salary now has to pay a whopping 875 bucks more in taxes. Big deal.

Isnt it though?

[pettie4sox]

Isnt it though?

 

It's a big deal and it's disingenuous of him to think otherwise.

[Dick Allen]

So USA taxpayers ARE paying for the Mexico wall. Mexico will just pay them back, or something.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

So USA taxpayers ARE paying for the Mexico wall. Mexico will just pay them back, or something.

Don't worry. Rapists and murderers draw the line at debt.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's a big deal and it's disingenuous of him to think otherwise.

 

Nah, it's really not. My wife and I are near that joint income range and an extra ~1600 bucks over the course of the year is not a huge deal in the grand scheme of our budget/financial plans. Would I like to have that money instead of paying that in taxes? Sure, absolutely. But it's not debilitating to my family's lifestyle. And if he's going to increase other tax incentives or credits, like child care credits, as he said he would, it ends up being a wash anyway.

 

That doesn't mean I agree that a married couple making 225k/year should pay more than a married couple making 1.5 million a year. That's just dumb. And I've said before the right's protection of the rich in this country is nonsensical. I've always been a conservative, even a fiscal conservative, who isn't concerned with more taxes on the rich. I'm also not under the delusion that taxing the rich is going to solve our economic problems and I still think the middle class to lower upper class pays far too much.

 

edit: and i guess more to the point, using someone making 130k/year or a family making 225k/year paying .05% of their annual salary more in taxes as the "victim" isn't going to win you many PR battles.

Edited January 6, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero