President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
the right that doesn't make that mistake. They fail a lot (and wow do we mock them for it) but even as they fail they move it signifciantly their way.Youi keep going on about the filibuster of which my knowledge was largely restricted to Mr Smith but I noticed that the record for filibustering was broken the other day. The record had been opposing the civil rights act. Presumab
the performative filibuster to delay progress of all Senate procedures which record was broken is a different thing, I am talking about the fact that right now you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything except nominations (judicials, secretarial and so on) and reconciliation bills (specific budget related bills with a lot of constraints).
the Senate could at any time remove that threshold (it did for judicial nomination for ex) but if it does, them it's GG any program you like the first time republicans have congress.
it's not like in the UK where the simple majority of Parliament can make everything into law or remove any existing law ok? you need 60/100 senators which almost never happened, Obama had them for like one year iirc and it is what he used to pass Obamacare (he had to make a lot of concessions because 2-3 of those 60 weren't actually leftists).
Trump did jack **** with his trifecta (control of both houses which he had for 2 years) on the legislative side during his first term, just passing his tax cuts in reconcilation (which is why they expire this year and aren't permanent, not a "real" law)
man look at the case this time, the purported beneficiaries of trump manipulations aren't in office ffs.it's the people who donated to Trump (and republicans more generally). The Mercier, the Griffin, the Adelson, the Musk and so on and on and they can put any amount of degrees of separation between them and the money made and still make the money and they have a structure in p
I wasn't making a case on how to completely stop insider trading... that's why my literal first sentence was, "There's no way to completely stop insider trading."
I know English isn't your first language, so maybe I should test my Italian... but regardless, my point was how to turn a bad into something more positive for the American people.
Are you now going to pretend like you're an expert in political financial disclosures? Because I actually do know something about this.
I wasn't making a case on how to completely stop insider trading... that's why my literal first sentence was, "There's no way to completely stop insider trading."
I know English isn't your first language, so maybe I should test my Italian... but regardless, my point was how to turn a bad into something more positive for the American people.
Extremist always try to find absolutism solution .
If it just improving , they don’t really care .
Extremist always try to find absolutism solution .
If it just improving , they don’t really care .
it wouldn't be an improvement, you would just be punishing people with a lot of money if they want to enter politics directly (by taxing them more on their capital gains) while doing nothing to the actual insider trading you purportedly want to avoid in politics: donors/friends/relatives making money because their politician gives them tips.
ofc the ACTUAL solution would be to remove a lot of power from politics so that elected people cannot affect financial markets in general very much to begin with.
Extremist always try to find absolutism solution .
If it just improving , they don’t really care .
Ya, agreed. Unfortunately it's always easiest to think in binary terms, and gets infinity more complex and nuanced the further you get from the binary epoch.
Ya, agreed. Unfortunately it's always easiest to think in binary terms, and gets infinity more complex and nuanced the further you get from the binary epoch.
for tariffs and regulations that significantly affect markets the easy solution exists: make them all impossible in the constitution, stop playing God with society.
for defense spending and other stuff there is no easy solution but one thing is clear: the penalty has to be death.
using political power for personal gain to the detriment of society should be high treason punishable with death, a complete violation of a fundamental pillar of society, an unforgivable one.
maybe that won't remove it completely but it would make incentives very different.
of course with no statute of limitations, and no pardon possible.
it wouldn't be an improvement, you would just be punishing people with a lot of money if they want to enter politics directly (by taxing them more on their capital gains) while doing nothing to the actual insider trading you purportedly want to avoid in politics: donors/friends/relatives making money because their politician gives them tips.ofc the ACTUAL solution would be to r
It's interesting to me how consistent this thinking is w/ people who support similar positions to you. It's almost like a brain glitch.
Here's a wild idea... maybe you'll elect better leaders who aren't just self-interested and money obsessed, but instead, encourage people who actually want to serve to better their community?
But the brain glitch is... you think people w/ money are somehow smarter than others. And anyways, again... this would just be WHILE in office only.
for tariffs and regulations that significantly affect markets the easy solution exists: make them all impossible in the constitution, stop playing God with society.
You do realize that among conservatives, they consider the people who actually believe this stuff, dupes right? Most people on the right have said something similar to the above, but they don't actually believe it.
In fact, there's a whole "new conservative movement", which essentially says what liberals have been saying for decades. The job of government is to steer the economy towards the outcomes they want - just like most countries do. Not pretend there's some ultimate free market which will produce the results you want in the end.
No serious person really believes that. It's like teenage fantasy thinking.
You can read-up if you're unfamiliar:
These are the people who know, that if Trump doesn't take ultimate authoritarian power, the conservative right in America is going to need a new, more adult direction that can actually help the working class.
You do realize that among conservatives, they consider the people who actually believe this stuff, dupes right? Most people on the right have said something similar to the above, but they don't actually believe it.In fact, there's a whole "new conservative movement", which essentially says what liberals have been saying for decades. The job of government is to steer the economy
There are 2 big tents in American politics (and some stuff on the fringes).
Those tents are necessarily made up of very different people with different priorities, attitudes, preferences.
Free markets, anti regulation , old school laissez faire people exist in the USA in numbers large enough to make a difference (unlike in many other countries).
At the time being they are leaning republican much more than democrat (that can change ofc).
And they were decisive this election to pick Trump over Harris.
You have politics backwards. I. A two party system you first think how to win at all costs, then about what you can pass that j creases your chances of winning again in the future.
You don't start from "principled" positions.
That's a losing strategy in the 2 big tents system (it can work if you carve out a niche your corner completly in a proportional system).
I know a lot of people on the right big tent paid lip service to libertarianism in regulation but then regulated the hell out of society anyway (still less than democrats though).
That doesn't change the fact that pro freedom people will pick the tent which wants to regulate less (or not vote / bote third party if both want to regulate too much).
Maybe very few people want to actually achieve the constitutional ban I would love to see. But a reduction in regulations, a significant one? Maybe 10% would.
And if you want to win elections you need them so you will have to play ball and remove some regulation when you win otherwise they will stop voting for you for a while and so on.
So you do achieve a slight reduction in state regulatory violence as a pro freedom person voting on the right and that's better than the alternative
The "we can win" thing is tiresome. I'm not strategizing for the Democratic Party. I'm not strategizing for anything. I don't expect or want my posts to be put up on lawn signs. For the most part in this thread people are analyzing the world as it is. If you want a "what can we do to change things" planning session, then you should make that clear, because it's not what mo
I dont buy that in generaal
People regularly talk about the need to vote for least worst and dont get that criticism. Talking about the need not to vote least worst is the same. Poeple talk about a need to counter right wing arguments. I agree but there's also a need to counter the approach of others who help the right with the name calling shaming rubbish. Obviously there's disagreement about the approaches but it simply isn't correct that it's not about what we should do. There are so many other examples.
It's all part of politcs and it's also part and parcel of analyzing the world as it is. Personally I like to see a lot more analyzing of the world in all regards.
Most importantly here imo is that people regularly argue as to why we can't win. I argue that we can.
I will apologise for it being tiresome. That's definitely a valid point.
reply before you read this chez
Spoiler
Don't be mad. That was just a setup for you to apologize as a joke
WSJ: Supreme Court Tells Government to Seek Return of Man Mistakenly Deported to El Salvador Prison
The Supreme Court told the Trump administration to seek the return of a migrant mistakenly sent to a Salvadoran prison, rebuffing government claims that it need do nothing to remedy its error.
There were no dissents noted in the order Thursday, which directed the government to take steps to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29 years old, back to the U.S. from the maximum security facility it sent him to on March 15.
Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. without authorization from El Salvador while a teenager. A 2019 immigration court order had forbidden repatriating him, after finding he faced threats from a local gang that targeted his family’s pupusa business.
The administration maintained that its only error was sending him to El Salvador rather than to a third country, and that federal courts had no power to command officials to retrieve him once he was in custody by a foreign government overseas.
“The rule of law won today,” said Andrew Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia. “Time to bring him home.”
“The rule of law won today,” said Andrew Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia. “Time to bring him home.”[/I]
Hopefully, but don't celebrate until you're in the end zone.
Yeah, that's premature. Like I always say, it's not over until the money actually hits the bank.
I dont buy that in generaalPeople regularly talk about the need to vote for least worst and dont get that criticism. Talking about the need not to vote least worst is the same. Poeple talk about a need to counter right wing arguments. I agree but there's also a need to counter the approach of others who help the right with the name calling shaming rubbish. Obviously there's di
I am not sure who can claim democrats /the left "can't win". You won in 2020 and 2022.
Labor just won in the UK, the SPD is in the new government in Germany
Ya, agreed. Unfortunately it's always easiest to think in binary terms, and gets infinity more complex and nuanced the further you get from the binary epoch.
You read my mind .
Donal trump before entering the office
“We will save America after Biden destroyed it”
Trump in office
“Those tariffs will bring back America greatness”
Trump after tariffs
“It’s a tough time and be a troublesome transition but we are still doing great “
???
After turning the world upside now , crashing almost every assets in the world and countries, the US still standing just fine ….
I mean for an economy that was killed by Biden , I’m not sure trump and me share the same definition of a destroyed economy under Biden if it still fine after all that failed tariffs strategy by trump .
reply before you read this chez
Spoiler
Don't be mad. That was just a setup for you to apologize as a joke
**** Now I can't think of a suitable punchline
I am not sure who can claim democrats /the left "can't win". You won in 2020 and 2022.
Labor just won in the UK, the SPD is in the new government in Germany
Agree or not, you must realise I think labour epitimizes 'least worst' rather than anything close to being left wing. Their incredibly poor vote share should also givo give us hope that we could turn the corner on voting least worst rather than for what we want. Wont be without a lot of pain though.
I dont really talk of German politics apart from concerns aboutt the rise of the far right.
Trump had five tariff goals - has he achieved any of them?
no to 2,3,5, a potential, partial yes for 1 and 4 so I'm saying 1/5 (ish)
Though 5 is so laughably bad it might even be a -1
I flicked through a bit of it on YouTube. Most culty thing ever.
Just taking turns to fellate Trump's ego with absurd lies.
Agree or not, you must realise I think labour epitimizes 'least worst' rather than anything close to being left wing. Their incredibly poor vote share should also givo give us hope that we could turn the corner on voting least worst rather than for what we want. Wont be without a lot of pain though.I dont really talk of German politics apart from concerns aboutt the rise of the
I realize that for "actual leftists" Labour is just a "least worst" but please realize that for actual rightwing people Meloni is as well, so if it's normal to claim Meloni is "the right winning" then accept that Labour is "the left winning".
