U.S. Politics 2018

[TheHead]

We need a OMGF drumt Trump!!!! 111  anic:    thread.

Or it could stick to this thread.  Considering for 8 years the US politics thread, along with several others spammed by blog posts, was whining about Obama and those evil liebrul snowflakes. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Or it could stick to this thread.  Considering for 8 years the US politics thread, along with several others spammed by blog posts, was whining about Obama and those evil liebrul snowflakes.

Well you could live update omfg Trump tweets in the  omfg Trump!!!!111 thread.

Win win.

 

[TheHead]

Considering this is US Politics and President Trump has a propensity to engage in fights, fire people, wage war and act like a complete fool on Twitter I think this thread will do just fine 

 

[PuckChaser]

Or we could lock this up/hand out timeouts if people don't want to contribute rational arguments and adult discussion on either side of the aisle, instead of trolling.

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Jarnhamar]

Or we could lock this up/hand out timeouts if people don't want to contribute rational arguments and adult discussion on either side of the aisle, instead of trolling.

- Milnet.ca Staff

Without a hint of sarcasm that would be great. The constant crying about Trump, while comforting to some no doubt, detracts from more serious issues and really does turn this thread about US politics into what's essentially just a Trump bashing thread.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>"Trumpites with nativist attitudes and little regard for the moral code that has guided most past presidents"

Tying it back to "US Politics", the primary point is that much of the commentary that Trump is responsible for a sudden deterioration in political conduct and discourse is mistaken, and people should stop making that mistake; secondarily, assuming that people across the spectrum of "Trumpites" are all unhesitating Trump defenders with no misgivings about the man is a foolish and unfair generalization.

One common theme of Trump's critics is that he is some sort of threat to democratic institutions.  But aside from cheapening the office of the presidency - which isn't much of a threat to democratic institutions - no-one makes much of a case.  Mostly where I see the erosion of institutions is prior to the advent of and in the responses to Trump.

- Trump's opponent didn't make the usual graceful concession speech on election night.
- People opposed to Trump sought by various means to influence / alter the customary function and output of the electoral college.
- There seems to be a standing inquisition to look into the affairs of the president and his associates; it is composed of people known to largely be members and supporters of the opposition party; it isn't offering up the immunity deals and tolerance for "misspoken" answers to investigators that were de rigeur during the investigation into Hillary's deeds.
- The Democratic Party has gone all-in on the presidency; it no longer has the patience to seek compromise with Republicans on any particular issue, nor is there anything of substance that Republicans want that Democrats are willing to trade away in pursuit of some legislation; consequently they are content to let a Democratic president become increasingly authoritarian while refusing to assert Congressional prerogatives and blocking Republicans from doing it; this has dramatically increased the stakes of winning the presidency and the dysfunction in Congress.

 

[FJAG]

Changing direction slightly!

The ongoing saga of Adm Ron Jackson and his delayed confirmation hearings in the Senate.

Fox published several efficiency reports showing Obama considered Jackson a great guy. Seems to me that the one thing that this article shows me is that he was made a one star on Oct 3. 2016. Before that he was a Capt(N) who had run the White House medical staff for a few years. Seems to me that his promotion to a two star came pretty quickly under Trump after giving that positive medical report.

More importantly can a guy who a short eighteen months ago was a mere Capt(N) running a small clinic really run a department with 377,000 employees, hundreds of facilities and a budget of US$273 billion? Never mind the allegations coming out against him.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/24/document-shows-obama-praised-va-nominee-jackson-supported-promotion-immediately.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/24/opinions/trumps-worst-sin-against-ronny-jackson-lizza/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs

???

 

[mariomike]

The constant crying about  Trump, while comforting to some no doubt, detracts from more serious issues and really does turn this thread about US politics into what's essentially just a Trump bashing thread.

But, the "constant crying" in US Politics 2018 about  President and Mrs. Clinton, and President Obama - who are not even in office - is cool?

Nothing wrong with bashing them, but there are other threads for that,

eg:

US Election: 2016 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/108210.2975
129 pages

20 Jan 09: What the world wants from the new American president
https://army.ca/forums/threads/80911.0

etc...

And what about those "LIEbrals"? 

Sorry, we can't all be Trump cheerleaders in US Politics 2018.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The past activities of former presidents and former secretaries of state, in their respective roles, have a real time effects on president day politics.

 

[kkwd]

Democratic Party sues Russia, Trump campaign and Wikileaks, claiming conspiracy to help Trump win 2016 election.

Para 131 on page 36 of the suit establishes one indisputable absolute positively honest to god truth.

131. On November 8, 2016, Trump won the election to become President of the United States.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The past activities of former presidents and former secretaries of state, in their respective roles, have a real time effects on president day politics.

Which is generally why I rehash the past, but I suppose some people need the link between past and present to be clearer.

Stated in a general sense, one of the things preventing Trump's critics from having as much impact as they otherwise might is that the bar they accuse Trump of failing to clear on any given issue might have been already set much lower in the past in order to retain a political advantage.  Bill Clinton is one of the primary examples; there has been a lot of hand-wringing since the election (among Democrats) that they should not have excused and defended him; some have gone so far as to regret that he was not convicted (on the articles of impeachment) by the Senate.  (At present, one of the high hopes of Democrats is that Trump will fall into the trap of submitting to an interview by investigators, and that they will have no difficulty getting his mouth operating ahead of his brain and mak[ing] a false statement.  This will be difficult to turn into anything useful, since [Senate] Democrats chose to ignore the obvious and thumb their noses at everyone; the bar has been set.)  Some would like to throw Bill under the bus in order to then claim some sort of "tradesies" for Trump, but I doubt that will go anywhere because neither of the Clintons is a concession with any value anymore.

 

[kkwd]

Sorry, we can't all be Trump cheerleaders in US Politics 2018.

Cheerleaders, hardly an appropriate word. Just because you support what President Trump is doing doesn't make you a cheerleader. I have hear it asked how anybody could support such a person. Well, how are things in the US right now? Worse than before President Trump took office? Has anybody lost any rights? How is the economy? There is a lot of hair tearing and gnashing of teeth over President Trump's tweets but not much on his policy and accomplishments. Oh, I forgot, some people think he hasn't accomplished a thing. When you read this Trump complaint / cheap shot / look what he said!!! thread you tend to forget.

 

[mariomike]

Cheerleaders, hardly an appropriate word.

I never thought of you as one of the Trump cheerleaders;  I always respected your ability to think. 

 

[FJAG]

>The past activities of former presidents and former secretaries of state, in their respective roles, have a real time effects on president day politics.

Which is generally why I rehash the past, but I suppose some people need the link between past and present to be clearer.

Stated in a general sense, one of the things preventing Trump's critics from having as much impact as they otherwise might is that the bar they accuse Trump of failing to clear on any given issue might have been already set much lower in the past in order to retain a political advantage.  Bill Clinton is one of the primary examples; there has been a lot of hand-wringing since the election (among Democrats) that they should not have excused and defended him; some have gone so far as to regret that he was not convicted (on the articles of impeachment) by the Senate.  (At present, one of the high hopes of Democrats is that Trump will fall into the trap of submitting to an interview by investigators, and that they will have no difficulty getting his mouth operating ahead of his brain and mak[ing] a false statement.  This will be difficult to turn into anything useful, since [Senate] Democrats chose to ignore the obvious and thumb their noses at everyone; the bar has been set.)  Some would like to throw Bill under the bus in order to then claim some sort of "tradesies" for Trump, but I doubt that will go anywhere because neither of the Clintons is a concession with any value anymore.

I disagree with your premise that "past activities of former presidents and secretaries of state, in their respective roles, have a real time effect on present day politics". I do agree that the public tends to frequently compare present day politicians' actions with those of ones in the past.

What I don't quite understand is why you are so quick to say your boy Trump was better than Clinton. IMHO, Clinton was one of the worst examples of a president in modern times. (I always thought his run away from Somalia and his treatment of the US military was reprehensible. On the other hand I thought his appointment of Ginsberg to the Supreme Court was an excellent choice). You might as well say he was better than Buchanan or Harding which is equally meaningless.

Trump has to stand on his own feet. He either has the ability to be an effective president or he does not. So far I have seen very little coming from him other than jingoisms, bald-faced lies, mean spirited knee jerk attacks on his perceived enemies and a hodge podge of incoherent executive actions. One would have expected much more from a Republican president with a Republican majority in Congress. The US Constitution clearly divides powers as between the president, the Congress and the several States. Trump simply has neither the understanding nor the ability to use the government to properly implement a coherent agenda. In large part that is because the only agenda that he has is a nihilist one which is focused on reversing everything and anything that Obama accomplished. Perhaps the fact that he will get nothing of consequence done while in office will be the saving grace for the US.

I have more and more come to believe that the problem isn't so much Trump, but that part of the US population that continues to support and defend him when it is so obvious that he is in well beyond his depth. At some point, I expect, they will realize that the swamp isn't being drained but that new swamps are being dug and that the emperor has no clothes. I wonder what will happen then.

[cheers]

 

[Altair]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/25/arizona-special-election-debbie-lesko-holds-on-to-seat-for-republicans

Lesko, a former state senator, led Democrat Hiral Tiperneni, a doctor and political newcomer, by a margin of 53% to 47% in the race for a Phoenix-area seat that Donald Trump had won by over 20 points.

The race was being watched as a potential test of Trump’s popularity after surprising Democratic special election victories in Republican strongholds like Pennsylvania and Alabama.

A strong performance by Democrats in a district where the party did not even field a challenger in the last two elections marked yet another troubling sign for the Republican party ahead of the 2018 elections. Trump made a last-minute appeal on Tuesday, urging voters to support Lesko, who he was “Strong on Border, Immigration and Crime. Great on the Military”.

I see a theme.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I doubt that Trump is "better" than Clinton, but it's beside the point, which is not about defending Trump.

People want the simple - or, for their political faction, convenient - explanation.  So a great deal of "Trump is the worst thing ever to happen to us; he's destroying our political institutions; how can anyone defend/support him; blah blah blah" emerges.  Whether or not their own past actions and choices and set-asides of customary practice and decorum were also instrumental and lay on the direct path from whatever period they remember as politically pleasant to what they have now is lost or deliberately ignored.

To continue with my current example: consider those who thought Bill Clinton's behaviour was no big deal, or that it was excusable, or that the Senate did not degrade itself by failing to convict on a not particularly doubtful charge of perjury: they are all early contributors to the current state of affairs.

I remember all through the '80s, '90s, and well into GW Bush's term reading stories of Republican politicians who fell afoul of self-induced scandals.  Pretty much without exception, they were shown the door if they didn't find it themselves.  At some point, I suppose people who lean Republican figured that if Democrats could endlessly ignore the disreputable parts of, for example, the Kennedys and Clintons in order to retain political power, it was stupid to play the game differently.  What results is the politics of "my party, right or wrong".

The people who benefited from a one-sided standard and now want to pretend the fault lies only with Republicans / conservatives / "Trumpites" are free to continue to pretend the emperor is not naked, but it is easy to predict that every time they sacrifice principle to short-term advantage, it will eventually come back the other way.

One bright light in all this is that conservativism on the whole doesn't have the same strength of cross-platform unity progressives tend to enjoy; there was never at any time during Trump's run-up to the presidency or now a lack of conservative voices pointing out that to excuse Trump's faults is to expect to be hung by their own rope at some point in the future.

 

[mariomike]

I have more and more come to believe that the problem isn't so much Trump, but that part of the US population that continues to support and defend him when it is so obvious that he is in well beyond his depth. At some point, I expect, they will realize that the swamp isn't being drained but that new swamps are being dug and that the emperor has no clothes. I wonder what will happen then.

[cheers]

A study by the University of Pennsylvania was released on April 23, 2018 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( PNAS ) about "that part of the US population",

"Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote"
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115

It explains that his most enthusiastic supporters ( less-educated whites * ) weren’t losing income or jobs. Instead, they were concerned about their place in the world,

“It was about dominant groups that felt threatened by change and a candidate who took advantage of that trend.

For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country, white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race.”

* Behind Trump’s victory: Divisions by race, gender, education.
Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/


Regarding President Trump, his use of social ( anti-social? ) media, and "cyber-bullying".

This post, in U.S. Politics 2018, received 1,500 MilPoints. So, it may be worth a second look,

I apologize for the tone of my remarks about Donald Trump, they go against what I have said many times about good manners, but he is sui generis, isn't he? He puts himself above the rules so he (and his apologists) ought not to complain when others break them in talking about him.

Of course, we do not wish to risk lowering our standards of discussion to that level by employing the same tactics "because he does."

 

[Brad Sallows]

There exists a preventive measure for the Trumps and Fords of the world.

All that is necessary is for the centrist politicians to govern ethically, prudently, and modestly and for people in general to mind their own business and eschew the impulse to impose limits on others.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I doubt that Trump is "better" than Clinton, but it's beside the point, which is not about defending Trump.

People want the simple - or, for their political faction, convenient - explanation.  So a great deal of "Trump is the worst thing ever to happen to us; he's destroying our political institutions; how can anyone defend/support him; blah blah blah" emerges.

I tend to agree with you.  The outrage was huge towards Obama from the right site as was the outrage towards "Dubya" from the left.  It wouldn't matter who won last election for either party the witch hunt to discredit the winner would have started as soon as the results were public if not before. 

What this whole thing actually says is that that country, and to some extent ours as well, is getting dangerously polarized.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Besides the issues with policy direction, a lot of people found his identity politics, sticking his nose into police investigations, wishy washy foreign policy all quite frustrating. To be fair, he is an excellent orator, likely the best since Reagan. While the words flow like honey, they have little value. His family life is exemplary, something he shares with the Bushes.