Impressed by the Trump administration part II

posted by Heretic

Getting hard to not feel bad for McCain. Dude had a very accomplished life, but gets shit on by the Rs because he wasn't the sort of party-before-country swamp-dweller they love. While also getting shit on by the Ds because every time he didn't toe the party line, they seemed to think he was one of them, so when he didn't take their side on another issue, they took it as some massive betrayal by a tool who wanted to have his cake and eat it, too.

Kind of depressing to those of us who are more moderate and who'd like more officeholders to be something other than generic mouthpieces for whatever party they're affiliated with to realize that the end result of being a moderate in today's culture is to simply have both sides hate you because you aren't 100% entrenched in their bullshit. The way this site's Pure R Dipshits are talking about McCain is about the same way I've seen Pure Prog Dipshits talking about Gabbard, to where she apparently is a Trump mole who is planning to run as an Independent simply to siphon off potential D voters.

While I have a particular disdain for most of his policies (making him a largely big-government warhawk, as far as I'm concerned), I very much agree.

It's absurd how entrenched the houses are.  You basically know the outcome before any vote based on party affiliations alone.

To quote Churchill: "If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary."

We could really just boil down the houses to the majority ratios and let everyone else take a long, unpaid vacation.
 

posted by gut

"The Squad" might be an exception mainly because of outside money, which is pretty messed up.  I certainly wouldn't want AOC representing my district - if she's not after even bigger things she certainly seems much more interested in the national stage than her home district.

Give it time.  I'd wager the old guard in both parties are looking for a means to oust them as well.  They're probably too popular at the moment, but I'm betting they're looking for a way.

posted by geeblock

So just so I’m understanding this correctly they only had the majority by 1 person?

It was 52-48 R’s.  But Collins and Murkowski defected, making it 50-50, and Pence would have broken the tie.  But then McCain at the last minute defected, and the repeal lost 51-49. 

Holy cow. If the news reports are accurate, The #2 in Iran was just killed from an air strike. Suleimani was responsible for the killing of 100s of American military. 

Dont mess with the US under Trump.  Wonder how many times we could have got this guy under Obama?

Yes, I'm sure they'll just scuttle into their corner and not retaliate at all.

This is dumb.

SMH, just gtfo of the middle east please. 

I'm glad this guy is gone, I really am. However, what is the legal basis for killing someone from a legal government post? Normally, we have targeted guys that were part of groups and not affiliated with state governments. This guy was head of an Iranian government organization and while we called him a terrorists, he did belong to a state. I think the administration is trying to use to the AUMF, which I'm not sure was written for this case. 

It seems like the President should have either not taken the shot, or at least gone to Congress to get authority to target another country, Iran. This is almost technically, an act of war. 

I also feel this gives Iran the greenlight to target our government officials. 

Again, glad this guy is gone. 

posted by Spock

Dont mess with the US under Trump.  Wonder how many times we could have got this guy under Obama?

Yay! Another round of Middle East conflict to the delight of no one besides mouth-breathing idiots and dipshits who jack off to any chance we have to flex military muscle. And all the blind partisan commentary that will provide for both sides of morons, such as this. Because I have a sneaking suspicion that a few years ago, CC did not say "Dont mess with the US under Obama. Wonder how many times we could have got this guy under Bush?" when Bin Laden got whacked.

Continue the Iran discussion here:

https://ohiochatter.com/forum/politics/buckle-up-for-war-fellaswhat-happens-next

posted by Heretic

 And all the blind partisan commentary that will provide for both sides of morons, such as this. Because I have a sneaking suspicion that a few years ago, CC did not say "Dont mess with the US under Obama. Wonder how many times we could have got this guy under Bush?" when Bin Laden got whacked.

I tend to disagree with this, as most people were glad Bin Laden was killed, regardless of party (doubtful they gave Obama the credit, I'll give you that). A lot of the left crying about this guy getting killed though. 

posted by iclfan2

I tend to disagree with this, as most people were glad Bin Laden was killed, regardless of party (doubtful they gave Obama the credit, I'll give you that). A lot of the left crying about this guy getting killed though. 

I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with, since the part in parenthesis where you are kind of agreeing with me is basically the main point I was saying, with the other one being that this particular killing will get every moron on both sides out of the woodwork to give their idiotic takes on things. With you seeming to disagree with a point that exists more in your brain than in anything I typed.

posted by O-Trap

1. A far left magazine?  Christianity Today?  You serious, Clark?  I mean, I've know of liberal evangelicals for a long time, but Christianity Today hardly fits that bill.
    
2. Also, a "Radical Left nonbeliever" (sic)?  Dude called the book "Two Corinthians," had no idea what the verse actually said when he was asked what his favorite Bible verse was, doesn't demonstrate any real "fruit of the spirit," and banned bump stocks.  I'm not here to judge whether he is or isn't a believer, but in accordance with the point of James 2, it's hardly clear that he is, at least any more than the people he's accusing of being nonbelievers.  And he's restricted the Second Amendment more than either of the two previous administrations.

C'mon, man.

100% correct there O-Trap

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

My point is that the sitting president is not responsible for the performance of today's economy.  He may put in place policies or appoint judges, etc that will contribute to the economy of the future.  But company's don't decide to build a $500 million manufacturing plant or enter a new  business because of the whims of the current president.  That's fanciful.  Every article QO reads on Drudge about a new plant opening up or a hiring binge is cited as an example of Trump's success.  The questions he never answers are if negative stories can also be attributed to Trump, and should Obama similarly get credit for positive stories that happened during his "regime".

Ah, the tried and true liberal talking point that all the problems economically during Obama's presidency were Bush's fault, and everything working well now is due to Obama's changes. I mean "it takes a long time for policies to take effect" right?

Is there some delay in changes in laws/policies before they take effect on the economy? Absolutely.

Does it take 4-8 years like the democrats/liberals want everyone to believe? No.

posted by geeblock

So just so I’m understanding this correctly they only had the majority by 1 person?

Have to have 60 in the Senate to stop a filibuster, with McCain's "no" they only had 59.

You know this right? It isn't a simple majority in the Senate to pass something unless it is a budget (budgets can be passed with the "nuclear" option so that the minority party can't hold up money).

posted by jmog

Ah, the tried and true liberal talking point that all the problems economically during Obama's presidency were Bush's fault, and everything working well now is due to Obama's changes. I mean "it takes a long time for policies to take effect" right?

 

Is there some delay in changes in laws/policies before they take effect on the economy? Absolutely.

 

Does it take 4-8 years like the democrats/liberals want everyone to believe? No.

Well, except for how he didn't say any of that, yeah.

Thanks obama.

posted by jmog

Ah, the tried and true liberal talking point that all the problems economically during Obama's presidency were Bush's fault, and everything working well now is due to Obama's changes. I mean "it takes a long time for policies to take effect" right?

 

Is there some delay in changes in laws/policies before they take effect on the economy? Absolutely.

 

Does it take 4-8 years like the democrats/liberals want everyone to believe? No.

My point is nothing like what you describe.  It's that the economy is a complex thing and cannot be easily attributable to o the actions of the sitting president. That goes for Trump, Obama or anyone else. QO posts every story he reads about a new plant being built as a credit to Trump's leadership. My point is that large capital investments are years in the making and are reliant on way more than any president's daily actions. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

My point is nothing like what you describe.  It's that the economy is a complex thing and cannot be easily attributable to o the actions of the sitting president. That goes for Trump, Obama or anyone else. QO posts every story he reads about a new plant being built as a credit to Trump's leadership. My point is that large capital investments are years in the making and are reliant on way more than any president's daily actions. 

Every time you post this I laugh at how ignorant it is.  The tax policy in this country effects everything.  Regulatory control effects the stock market greatly.  What Trump has done over the past few years in regards these things HAVE made this economy roll into uncharted territory.

posted by Spock

Every time you post this I laugh at how ignorant it is.  The tax policy in this country effects everything.  Regulatory control effects the stock market greatly.  What Trump has done over the past few years in regards these things HAVE made this economy roll into uncharted territory.

I agree that tax policy and regulations have an effect.  The overall health of the economy - however you want to measure it, though is affected by lots of things beyond just those two factors.  What got me posting on this is the example of QO linking articles to large capital projects - namely new plants.  Those types of investments - hundreds of millions of billions of dollars - are planned and made over many years, not as a reaction of to a new policy announcement alone.  

I do not say the president has no effect on the economy.  But he or she does not cause new mines or billion dollar plants to be announced with that level of immediacy.  That's not against Trump or Obama or anyone else.  The president does not "run" the economy - that is a way to simple way of seeing it.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I agree that tax policy and regulations have an effect.  The overall health of the economy - however you want to measure it, though is affected by lots of things beyond just those two factors.  What got me posting on this is the example of QO linking articles to large capital projects - namely new plants.  Those types of investments - hundreds of millions of billions of dollars - are planned and made over many years, not as a reaction of to a new policy announcement alone.  

I do not say the president has no effect on the economy.  But he or she does not cause new mines or billion dollar plants to be announced with that level of immediacy.  That's not against Trump or Obama or anyone else.  The president does not "run" the economy - that is a way to simple way of seeing it.  

Every time you present this argument, you are just making a case for why the Government needs to stay the fuck out of everything.  You just don't realize it yet.