President Donald Trump: The Thread

[StrangeSox]

Some of that's procedure, but it's also a fear of a motivated and activist base that will primary anyone who doesn't hold a hard line. The parties are also increasingly aligned on ideological axes in ways that they weren't in previous decades.

 

VV Soxbadger, I think the real threat of losing power right now is if they show any sort of compromise. A lot of districts these days are blood red or deep blue, so the "real" elections are in the primaries (just like most Chicago elections). Look what happened to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

 

The parents/voters are

Edited January 31, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

I disagree. You cant make "rules" to fix people. Just because hardliners were voted in 6 years ago, doesnt mean today people arent fed up with it. If those people who are already in power cant learn how to "play nice", then its time for different people. The rules have been the same since the beginning, but the whole "I cant work with the other side" is seemingly a relatively new phenomenon.

 

I am not saying that every person in congress cant play nice, just that if they continue to believe "This is what their constituents want" they wont change their behavior. If there is a real threat that they will lose power all of a sudden maybe theyll "play nice again."

 

I hate to use this analogy, but Congress is like a child who is fighting over a toy. At some point we as the parents, have to tell them if they cant share, no one gets to play.

[bmags]

I disagree. You cant make "rules" to fix people. Just because hardliners were voted in 6 years ago, doesnt mean today people arent fed up with it. If those people who are already in power cant learn how to "play nice", then its time for different people. The rules have been the same since the beginning, but the whole "I cant work with the other side" is seemingly a relatively new phenomenon.

 

I am not saying that every person in congress cant play nice, just that if they continue to believe "This is what their constituents want" they wont change their behavior. If there is a real threat that they will lose power all of a sudden maybe theyll "play nice again."

 

I hate to use this analogy, but Congress is like a child who is fighting over a toy. At some point we as the parents, have to tell them if they cant share, no one gets to play.

 

But I that's a reflection of the electorate. They are not out of step with their electorate.

 

They are in a big cycle where less ideological parties are required for the senate to run, the parties are more ideological, and the senate cannot run, and then the public votes in fresh lambs for the slaughter who say they can fix the unfixable.

 

If we survive this debacle from Trump, the only way out I see is curtailing executive power. But exec power make it easier for congress to rule, and right now it isn't possible with super majorities required.

[illinilaw08]

But I that's a reflection of the electorate. They are not out of step with their electorate.

 

They are in a big cycle where less ideological parties are required for the senate to run, the parties are more ideological, and the senate cannot run, and then the public votes in fresh lambs for the slaughter who say they can fix the unfixable.

 

If we survive this debacle from Trump, the only way out I see is curtailing executive power. But exec power make it easier for congress to rule, and right now it isn't possible with super majorities required.

 

Executive orders are necessary for administrative agencies to function when there is obstructionism in Congress - vacancies need to be filled, the agencies need to be run. You can't make them go away. You can only challenge the constitutionality of the Order when it goes too far (something the Rs actually did successfully with at least one of Obama's EOs. And you ultimately have to hope that the power of the executive is being wielded by someone who is an adult.

 

Ultimately, if you want to get the hardliners out, there has to be greater participation in elections that happen in non-Presidential years and, more importantly, in the primaries. The hardline voters come out at the primaries, forcing politicians to run to the right or the left respectively.

[bmags]

Executive orders are necessary for administrative agencies to function when there is obstructionism in Congress - vacancies need to be filled, the agencies need to be run. You can't make them go away. You can only challenge the constitutionality of the Order when it goes too far (something the Rs actually did successfully with at least one of Obama's EOs. And you ultimately have to hope that the power of the executive is being wielded by someone who is an adult.

 

Ultimately, if you want to get the hardliners out, there has to be greater participation in elections that happen in non-Presidential years and, more importantly, in the primaries. The hardline voters come out at the primaries, forcing politicians to run to the right or the left respectively.

 

I don't think executive orders need to go away, I think executive orders as replacement for governing need to go away.

 

I'm glad that DACA was done in 2012, but policy is so much more tenuous when done this way. It's bad for all.

[illinilaw08]

I don't think executive orders need to go away, I think executive orders as replacement for governing need to go away.

 

I'm glad that DACA was done in 2012, but policy is so much more tenuous when done this way. It's bad for all.

 

No disagreement there.

[Steve9347]

Well, at least we know politics isn't completely broken in this country as Betsy DeVos got through despite being fully opposed by the dems.

[NorthSideSox72]

One of the best ways to make the primaries less of a run-to-the-extreme race is for states to allow their voters to vote in primaries for ALL parties, not one or the other. Sure there will be a few jokers who intentionally vote extreme on the "other" side, but will vote for who they want to win. That will automatically draw out many more votes for moderate candidates.

 

Another way to do it is to use the Iowa model for districting, creating more heterogeneous districts that will vote for more moderate candidates for house seats as well.

 

There are procedural ways to improve things. But the biggest thing is still to get more people to vote in all elections and get involved. Nothing will work as well as that.

 

[Balta1701]

One of the best ways to make the primaries less of a run-to-the-extreme race is for states to allow their voters to vote in primaries for ALL parties, not one or the other. Sure there will be a few jokers who intentionally vote extreme on the "other" side, but will vote for who they want to win. That will automatically draw out many more votes for moderate candidates.

 

Another way to do it is to use the Iowa model for districting, creating more heterogeneous districts that will vote for more moderate candidates for house seats as well.

 

There are procedural ways to improve things. But the biggest thing is still to get more people to vote in all elections and get involved. Nothing will work as well as that.

FWIW, recently published research says that this claim did not hold up to field testing.

More generally political scientists have not found much evidence that tinkering with the primary voting rules has much impact on the level of polarization in legislatures (see here and here and here). There seems to be three reasons why open primaries don’t seem, by themselves, to produce more moderate candidates. First, it remains the case that more extreme voters tend to participate in greater proportions even in open primaries. As I’ve noted many times before, political activism and more extreme views go hand-in-hand. Second, as Seth Masket points out, party activists, who tend to be more ideologically extreme, still control a variety of means, including endorsements, money and campaign expertise, which they can use to help their favored candidates get a leg up in the selection process. Third, it appears that in the California top-two election process, voters were not always able to distinguish the more ideologically moderate candidate running under a party label.

[bmags]

We should have super delegates.

[StrangeSox]

There is likely even more horrible s*** coming down the pipe (sewage) line from Trump/Bannon on immigration.

 

A leaked Trump order suggests he’s planning to deport more legal immigrants for using social services

 

This executive action, though — according to the draft obtained by Vox, which seems consistent with the Post’s reporting — would ask the Department of Homeland Security to issue a rule saying that an immigrant can’t be admitted to the US if he’s likely to get any benefit “determined in any way on the basis of income, resources, or financial need.”

 

People who use any of those benefits and are in the US on visas would be subject to deportation. And the order would even require the person who sponsored an immigrant into the US to reimburse the federal government for any benefits the immigrant used.

 

This is draconian. It seeks to punish not only legal immigrants in the US and their families, but their US-citizen relatives. It’s a reflection of a worldview in which any benefit that an immigrant gets from the government is, in some way, a theft of American tax money — and punishes immigrants as thieves accordingly.

 

The draft order (or at least the draft obtained by Vox last week) would also seek to show this to the public, by using government reports to make the case against immigrants’ use of public services.

 

It would direct the government to publish regular reports on the benefits used by immigrants in the US — and how that money could be “reinvested” in the inner cities, something Trump proposed as a candidate.

[StrangeSox]

Here's Donald Trump, Jr. Check out that tweet he 'liked'

 

[StrangeSox]

And in more depressing news, 49% of Americans actually support Trump's Muslim Ban.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Feds detain Katy High School student from Jordan following President Trump's immigration ban

 

A 16-year-old Jordanian visa holder, who attends Katy High School, has been detained by U.S. immigration officials for more than three days following President Trump's controversial immigration executive order, according to his brother.

Mohammad Abu Khadra, who lives in Katy with his brother Rami, traveled to Jordan last week to renew his visa. When he flew into Bush IAH airport Saturday, immigration officials allegedly canceled his visa and detained him at the airport for about 72 hours. He was transferred to a detention center in Chicago Monday and has no access to his cell phone.

 

Mohammad is among dozens of visa holders and immigrants to be detained at U.S. airports since President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday indefinitely barring all Syrian refugees from entering the United states and suspending all refugee admissions for 120 days. It also prohibits citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for 90 days, whether they are refugees or not. Those countries include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Mohammad's native Jordan is not on the list.

[caulfield12]

There is likely even more horrible s*** coming down the pipe (sewage) line from Trump/Bannon on immigration.

 

A leaked Trump order suggests he’s planning to deport more legal immigrants for using social services

 

Well, THAT'S not going to create another huge government bureaucracy.

 

Another version of the "death panel" that the GOP has warned about for 20+ years with health care management.

 

Yet it will be politically popular with all those Trumpicans who only see immigrants and/or minorities as having babies/free hospital services (increasing costs for "good" people), predominantly substance abusers, all applying for welfare/wic/tanf and largely unmotivated to work, yet driving around in 2017 Cadillacs/BMW's with the latest iphone and abusing food stamps to buy alcohol or liquor (well, trading purchases for those items), etc.

 

Of course we will never address those addicted to oxy or meth in Appalachia or the Rust Belt with many of the same social services needs because we pretend they don't exist or because they're largely white.

Edited January 31, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Feds detain Katy High School student from Jordan following President Trump's immigration ban

 

On first read, thought they meant the prophet Muhammad wasn't from Saudia Arabia.

 

Crazy stuff, yet somehow not surprising coming out of Texas.

[NorthSideSox72]

FWIW, recently published research says that this claim did not hold up to field testing.

Yeah so, none of those examples are what I was proposing. Not an open primary, not some sort of top grouping runoff - but being allowed to vote in the primaries of all parties.

 

[caulfield12]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/my-jewish-ir...=1hNZpbT0pYUDA1

Joshua Brown

CEO at Ritholtz Wealth Management

United StatesFinancial Services

 

 

To my Jewish, Irish, Asian and Italian friends, let’s remember:

 

Your ancestors were lower than dirt when they arrived here.

 

Italians were referred to – openly – as a subhuman race of rats and criminals.

 

Irishmen were apes and monkeys.

 

Laws were passed to keep Chinese women out of the country, so that the Chinese males who were brought over for menial labor couldn’t produce offspring.

 

Jews were spat upon in the streets and routinely excluded from polite society.

 

Unhire-able. Undesirable. Laws were passed to allow for the mass discrimination and segregation of your great grandparents, not much more than a century ago...

Edited January 31, 2017 by caulfield12

[The Beast]

A real problem is that our current "labels" dont really fit most people well. I used to say I was more fiscally conservative, but after this election I dont even know what fiscal conservative means anymore.

 

There used to be some good in both parties being counter-balances, but now it seems to just be about power. Whoever is in power wants to expand the federal govt to enforce their agenda, whoever isnt in power tries to check it. Nobody wants to work with the other side because they seemingly fear that they wont get re-elected.

 

We all have different ideas/opinions, but we should all agree that our government should be doing what it can to make life better for the most people. Whether thats more govt/less govt, whatever. But this whole "Im taking my ball and going home" routine has gotten old. I am not going to get into who started it, but when Republican's dont even bother to vote on a Supreme Court judge, they have to expect that there will be some sort of counter-response.

 

Its almost as if we need a movement to vote out every incumbent. Just to put the fear back into them.

I just try to keep it very basic for people. I voted democratic in the general election three times for president, one time of which was because I didn't (and don't) like Trump or his policies. I thought Obama did a decent job with what he was handed and felt the republicans obstructed him in the last term big time. I supported Obamacare but felt the implementation was off. I'm not huge on spending money elsewhere when our infrastructure needs it here, but I think we still need to work with other countries. I don't like spending money like Madigan does in Illinois and voted for Rauner. I think there should be a path to citizenship and don't care about illegal or legal immigrants as long as they pay taxes (they are working jobs Americans don't want anyway).

 

So maybe I'm a progressive based on that. I would agree with you when you say labels don't fit most people well. That's why I've grown tired of people just throwing the word "liberal" around like a bad label since many of us don't fit just democrat or republican as a label. And I would agree about the Supreme Court Justice point as well as voting out incumbents. There's a lot of people in there who need to get out...if I didn't do my job I wouldn't get paid or fired and some members of congress almost make double of what I make.

[Chisoxfn]

I guess I'll be the one to say it, I don't disagree with us temporarily stopping and reassessing our vetting process. What I disagree with is how we went about it and how unsmooth and undiplomatic the entire process was. That said, the statement made by Rudy Guilani regarding his order, was terrifying.

[StrangeSox]

More on the draft immigration orders being considered

 

It weighs how to make the country's immigration program "more merit based," calls for site visits at companies that employ foreign workers, and tasks the Department of Homeland Security with producing a report twice a year on the total number of foreign-born people -- not just nonimmigrant visa holders -- who are authorized to work in the United States.

It also instructs DHS and the State Department to submit a report on "the steps they are taking to combat the birth tourism phenomenon," meaning instances in which noncitizens come to the U.S. to have children who in turn gain citizenship, a popular conservative refrain but one that is dismissed by immigration experts as a relatively minor problem.

 

[LittleHurt05]

There is likely even more horrible s*** coming down the pipe (sewage) line from Trump/Bannon on immigration.

 

A leaked Trump order suggests he’s planning to deport more legal immigrants for using social services

 

I still just don't understand how he can just make all this s*** the law without Congress or the courts having a say.

[Soxbadger]

I still just don't understand how he can just make all this s*** the law without Congress or the courts having a say.

 

Well even if he is doing something he "cant", youd need the legislature or judiciary to stop him. As of now the legislature is controlled by Republicans, and they dont seem to want to assert their power.

[StrangeSox]

I guess I'll be the one to say it, I don't disagree with us temporarily stopping and reassessing our vetting process. What I disagree with is how we went about it and how unsmooth and undiplomatic the entire process was. That said, the statement made by Rudy Guilani regarding his order, was terrifying.

 

The issue with this is that it assumes there was some sort of problem that needed to be addressed that this ban helps with. Instead, it only hurts our country's safety, as explained in this dissent channel letter signed by about 900 state department officials.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.c...android-verizon

 

A trump supporter in Quebec city killed more Muslims since that order was issued than the total number of people killed by immigrants to this country by everyone who came from the targeted countries since 1975. And remember that this order went far beyond consideration just for new refugees.

 

You couple this with the earlier directive for DHS to publish a regular report detailing all of the crimes committed by immigrants, the draft orders to deport any and all legal immigrants who receive some sort of aid and charge their us sponsor, the idiotic wall, and you get a very dark picture.

Edited February 1, 2017 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

I guess I'll be the one to say it, I don't disagree with us temporarily stopping and reassessing our vetting process. What I disagree with is how we went about it and how unsmooth and undiplomatic the entire process was. That said, the statement made by Rudy Guilani regarding his order, was terrifying.

Reassessing what? A process that is already more stringent than most any on Earth? One that has made sure not a single refugee has committed some terrorist act, ever? One that has made terrorism from foreigners in this country so rare that it is a small fraction of those committed by our own citizens?

 

It serves zero practical or functional purpose in the realm of security. It is unfounded fear of brown people that motivated this. Nothing real or logical.