Take away the tweets and the craziness and Trump has governed as an establishment Republican-he is a establishment Republican, before that he was an establishment Democrat. His major (maybe only) accomplishment was the tax cut- a centerpiece of Republican orthodoxy. The rest-cutting regulations, foreign policy, etc (save the rhetoric) is boiler plate. Unfortunately, everyone is outraged by the tweets and the man but that's just a distraction-it's the reactionaries in charge that's the danger

I voted for Jill Stein but there were aspects of Trump that appealed to me- primarily that he would destroy the Republican Party. Also his isolationism was welcome and a break from the bipartisan endless wars since 9/11. Same with his anti-corporatism.Of course that was all just bulls$it but that Trump at least was refreshing. But that Trump is now in the clutches of Ryan/McConnell. Free Trump! Smash the state!

In terms of policy accomplishment, Trump has definitely been a standard establishment Republican. Cutting taxes and social services, that's their thing.

sycasey said:

---

In terms of policy accomplishment, Trump has definitely been a standard establishment Republican. Cutting taxes and social services, that's their thing.

---

Still seems odd to me that the GOP continues to prop up Trump when Pence would be more effective in passing their agenda. They're terrified of special elections, so they let aholes like Blake Farenthold finish out their terms even in very safe seats.

Women are the largest voting bloc and it's more likely that another Stormy Daniels will surface than Trump will become less toxic to female votes.

Understand evangelicals' opposition to abortion, but was absurd for Santorum to go after birth control pills to pander to evangelicals.

Trump will get more women and Latinos elected and scorched earth policies on gay issues are non-starters with young voters.

Reince Priebus is a dweeby *******, but his 2012 autopsy was spot on about the GOP's future. May be off by 6 to 8 years, but catering to a vanishing base is a disaster.

BearDevil said:

---

sycasey said:

---

In terms of policy accomplishment, Trump has definitely been a standard establishment Republican. Cutting taxes and social services, that's their thing.

---

Still seems odd to me that the GOP continues to prop up Trump when Pence would be more effective in passing their agenda. They're terrified of special elections, so they let aholes like Blake Farenthold finish out their terms even in very safe seats.

Women are the largest voting bloc and it's more likely that another Stormy Daniels will surface than Trump will become less toxic to female votes.

Understand evangelicals' opposition to abortion, but was absurd for Santorum to go after birth control pills to pander to evangelicals.

Trump will get more women and Latinos elected and scorched earth policies on gay issues are non-starters with young voters.

Reince Priebus is a dweeby *******, but his 2012 autopsy was spot on about the GOP's future. May be off by 6 to 8 years, but catering to a vanishing base is a disaster.

---

I think it's because they know that Pence has the charisma of a rock. Trump is an a**hole and an idiot, but he was a popular TV personality for years, so he clearly does have charisma, at least with a certain base of voters.

Pence is not draining the swamp. Neither is Trump but this is where his tweets score points.

BearDevil said:

---

Still seems odd to me that the GOP continues to prop up Trump when Pence would be more effective in passing their agenda. They're terrified of special elections, so they let aholes like Blake Farenthold finish out their terms even in very safe seats.

---

As much as I dislike Trump and as much as the left moans about "Constitutional crisis," removing Trump through impeachment and conviction absent clear proof of satisfying the elements of impeachment and removal would be the true Constitutional crisis. The left should know by now that political expediency, including tempering with filibuster rules when they were in power, will come back to bite them. We can survive Trump as long as we, as Americans, honor our Constitution even when it doesn't serve our personal preferences.

BearDevil said:

---

Women are the largest voting bloc and it's more likely that another Stormy Daniels will surface than Trump will become less toxic to female votes.

---

We should also know by now that we can't predict what a voting bloc will do. It isn't as if any prior prediction of how people would vote in response to events have come true. I was surprised as any on the number of women votes Trump received before.

BearDevil said:

---

Understand evangelicals' opposition to abortion, but was absurd for Santorum to go after birth control pills to pander to evangelicals.

---

In order to understand this issue a bit better, we need to understand the difference between evangelicals and Catholics. If may be easy to confuse the two (as some confuse different ethnic groups among Asians or Europeans), but Santorum is Catholic, and birth control is a Catholic issue and not an evangelical issue. Abortion is an issue for both.

BearDevil said:

---

Trump will get more women and Latinos elected and scorched earth policies on gay issues are non-starters with young voters.

Reince Priebus is a dweeby *******, but his 2012 autopsy was spot on about the GOP's future. May be off by 6 to 8 years, but catering to a vanishing base is a disaster.

---

If that is the case, then you have nothing to worry about. The left will dominate all branches of government soon enough. Sometimes it feels like the left, however, is just whistling past the graveyard.

Pence is hyper ambitious, so he sold his soul to have a shot at POTUS. McConnell's dream job is Majority Leader, so assume he retires if Dems regain the Senate.

Ryan's a mystery. Didn't run with Mitt because he wanted to become Speaker. He's carrying Trump's water now, but that's not a future path to POTUS. Boehner has been extremely relaxed after he didn't have to deal with the Tea Party House dip****s anymore. Ben Sasse is the best positioned 'Pub for 2024, although Nikki Haley still has an outside shot.

iwantwinners said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

bearister said:

---

Soon enough the members of the tRump Crime Family will be perp walked through the Rose Garden in handcuffs and ankle chains wailing like banshees and soiling their designer underwear.

---

You don't need to brag to the others who may still be in ANGER or DEPRESSION that you're in the TESTING phase, one step shy of ACCEPTANCE

---

Just curious: Do you really not see the insanity, the essentially constant lies, the dangerous buffoonery, the striving for authoritarianism, the scapegoating, the racism, the inability to deal with reason, etc., etc., etc., etc.?; and do you really think that all politicians are that bad? Or maybe you don't care about any of those things.

---

Of course, I see it. The outrage is not credible, however, it is partisan. The outrage isn't principled, or else Obama would have been denounced given his foreign policy and civil rights record.

I'm not a Republican, I've never voted for one in my life. I have many grievances regarding the Republican party's ideology, politics, and rhetoric. There are about two or three Republicans that I'm aware of that I'd vote for public office.

Ultimately the president is inconsequential (relatively), and while American voters are notoriously fickle and often vote based on character as much as politics, I do the opposite. I'm not voting for Reverand. I'm voting for a public officer whose priorities and politics align with mine more than others. I view "Shillary" and "dRump" moral failings as unideal and embarrassing -- FOR THEM. I don't think Hillary is a bad candidate just because she's a political climber and pragmatist, will believe in anything that suits the ascendance of her career, feigns interest in causes and people, and lies almost compulsively if you're a liberal who aligns with her politics. Same goes for Trump. I think his vulgarity and lack of "presidential-ness" is of minor importance relative to his political goals as a president. We're not voting for these people to be godfather to our children, or marry our daughters and sons.

Hope this helps you understand my position better. I don't disagree with all the criticism of Trump here or elsewhere. But I don't find the outrage or disapproval of it credible at all. The rhetoric gives it away. It's so obviously an expression of a stage of grief, it's very infantile and hypocritical. Anger, embarrassment, shock, etc -- and the inability to cope with it is what is both amusing and sad.

---

To me, the monstrousness of Trump's personality as expressed in his rallying points that translate already into majorly destructive policies, for example to the ecology, to ethnic minorities and to the financial stability of the government, is most disturbing because of what it reflects about the American body politic, and where it could, apparently fairly easily go, where other supposedly developed countries have gone, following a uniformed, buffoon savior who exonerates the population by casting all sins on the despised other. Sure, Trump is a clown and a con-man as to whom nothing he says or does can be taken seriously. But: (1) He is the President of the United States who can blow up the world on a whim (unless there is someone there at that moment to physically and illegally stop him), and (2) he has the support of the at least tens of millions who believe everything that Sean Hannity says. Whatever the "crimes" of Obama (which, even in Greenwald's mouth, appear substantially limited in actual scope, albeit weakly understood by Obama, which is dangerous for the future - and I saw his limitations from the beginning when the first thing he did was to cave in to the oligarchs on, of all things, FISA - but much of those failings was more an inability to get past Republican obstructionism, on, for example, immigration, Guantanamo Bay, infrastructure - really, you name it), there is truly nothing that even approaches the Witches' Brew posed by the marriage of Fox News, Trump, the Fine People in KKK/Nazi marches, the NRA, and the tens of millions of true believers who, to such a large extent, comprise the current American body politic.

calbear93 said:

---

BearDevil said:

---

Still seems odd to me that the GOP continues to prop up Trump when Pence would be more effective in passing their agenda. They're terrified of special elections, so they let aholes like Blake Farenthold finish out their terms even in very safe seats.

---

As much as I dislike Trump and as much as the left moans about "Constitutional crisis," removing Trump through impeachment and conviction absent clear proof of satisfying the elements of impeachment and removal would be the true Constitutional crisis. The left should know by now that political expediency, including tempering with filibuster rules when they were in power, will come back to bite them. We can survive Trump as long as we, as Americans, honor our Constitution even when it doesn't serve our personal preferences.

BearDevil said:

---

Women are the largest voting bloc and it's more likely that another Stormy Daniels will surface than Trump will become less toxic to female votes.

---

We should also know by now that we can't predict what a voting bloc will do. It isn't as if any prior prediction of how people would vote in response to events have come true. I was surprised as any on the number of women votes Trump received before.

BearDevil said:

---

Understand evangelicals' opposition to abortion, but was absurd for Santorum to go after birth control pills to pander to evangelicals.

---

In order to understand this issue a bit better, we need to understand the difference between evangelicals and Catholics. If may be easy to confuse the two (as some confuse different ethnic groups among Asians or Europeans), but Santorum is Catholic, and birth control is a Catholic issue and not an evangelical issue. Abortion is an issue for both.

BearDevil said:

---

Trump will get more women and Latinos elected and scorched earth policies on gay issues are non-starters with young voters.

Reince Priebus is a dweeby *******, but his 2012 autopsy was spot on about the GOP's future. May be off by 6 to 8 years, but catering to a vanishing base is a disaster.

---

If that is the case, then you have nothing to worry about. The left will dominate all branches of government soon enough. Sometimes it feels like the left, however, is just whistling past the graveyard.

---

A not-often-expressed perspective which makes sense to me. The one light for me is what happened in California when the Republicans very heavily rode the Anti-Latino horse with Prop 187. I wondered at the time whither El Gigante Dormiendo; but, much to my surprise and delight, it awoke and arose much faster, and with much more power than I had ever imagined, and, at least for the present, has made California a largely Republican-Free Zone. In hindsight, this seems to me to typify the creation of the American Middle Class.. All of a sudden, all those people (in whatever historically despised ethic group) who have been working steadily their entire lives, and the children have been regularly achieving higher education, and all have been creating big and small businesses, becoming rising stars in the arts, and participating more and more and more and more in the political process, become a critical mass which majorly populate both the electorate and the elected, as well as the appointed and accomplished organs of government - more American in spirit than the captives of Fox News, the NRA and the right wing donor class, who historically opposed them.

Was a CalSO Counselor in the early '80s. At one point, they had a special extended EOP/AA program for at risk admits. The kids in my group were terrific, but some of their family stories were heartbreaking.

A Chicano Studies prof gave a lecture about pending CA demographic changes that proved to be even earlier than projected. If I knew the projections more than a decade before 187, it's bizarre the CA GOP still willingly destroyed their future. CA companies started offering domestic partner benefits just after 187. Trump base is still fighting battles that CA academia and business recognized decades ago.

Texas isn't going to turn blue overnight, but will be purple shortly after NV and AZ predictably follow CA's and NM's earlier transformations. Just gets accelerated if AZ GOP nominates Sherriff Joe.

Clinton lost because of a wave of non college educated whites but she still would have won if she had been able to turn out other parts of the Obama coalition- blacks, Hispanics, young people, with whom she did worse. The Democrats don't have to flip so called "moderates" or suburban white women. They just need a better candidate and message to appeal to what Clinton f$cked up.

State Sen. Kevin de Leon was a major activist behind prop 187. Now he's running against DiFi for her senate seat. He has my vote.

As for why the CA GOP ignored the demographic projections...because they were in power and didn't want to see it happen because ignorance is bliss. But ultimately they blew it. At the time Latinos were receptive to the GOP and participated despite being traditional Democrats. Many thought this was because of the small business aspect in the Latino population. Regardless, the GOP went after immigration (and race) and killed their party in CA. After all that Reagan Country crap...it was good to see.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

quite the ideological partisan orgy here. What stage of grief are you in?

---

Is this what people do when they can't address and grapple with an argument

---

It's either that or the Gish Gallop.

---

Did you even read what that means? There was a thread on immigration where people arrived at a conclusion and worked backwards to apologize/justify it. Their best shot was sentimental feelings and emotions disguised as policy and moral arguments. "They're people too!"

---

I do know what it means and your response is quite a hysterical non-seqitur. Look at oski003's multi point post as a recent example. The falsehoods are piled on top of each other that it becomes a chore to set the record straight. I stopped reading your lengthy scribes on immigration, but from what I saw they were similar.

I'm sorry that you lost your job to an undocumented immigrant but that doesn't mean we have to listen to you spewing your emotional garbage here every night after you get home from the bar.

---

Emotional garbage? Is this you projecting? I didn't realize facts and points of view on immigration contrary to the emotive and narrow empathy at the bottom of most of your posts.

I don't doubt you stop reading things you don't agree with. Very un-Cal.

sycasey said:

---

In terms of policy accomplishment, Trump has definitely been a standard establishment Republican. Cutting taxes and social services, that's their thing.

---

why is putting more of people's money in their pocket bad again? It's only controversial, from a policy and economic standpoint now, when juxtaposed with our debt, and the government's spending priorities. Democrats do it, just with a different narrative.

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

quite the ideological partisan orgy here. What stage of grief are you in?

---

Is this what people do when they can't address and grapple with an argument

---

Not even objecting to the conclusions in this thread (though I haven't read them all), I'm laughing at the selective partisan outrage and hackery. The same ideological, non-principled outrage you see on MSM propaganda of all political stripes. It's not about what, why, or how, it's about whom is doing this. Is he on my team? No? I'm pissed. Yes? Let's ignore or spin it.

---

I can only give you my impressions and I'm sure you'll disagree, but . . .

To my mind, no one in these threads has behaved as more of a partisan hack than you. I see in your other posts that you say you're not a Republican, but everything you've posted in support of your points thus far has come from an obvious right-wing outlet (New York Post editorial, Dinesh D'Souza video, The Donald Reddit group). I mean, you came in here complaining about an "ideological partisan orgy" while posting that image that creates an absolute caricature of Democratic voters and their positions. That's precisely the reason I threw your own words back at you from the other thread . . . you don't see your own hypocrisy.

I'm also sure that this post will simply slide off your back and you'll return to calling me a "libtard" who is only ruled by emotions and not logic or whatever. I'm just letting you know that I'm on to your game. My only regret is ever having tried to engage with you in a serious policy argument.

---

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to engage with ideas and sources you've always disagreed with. It should be rather easy to refute them, and observers will see how correct you are. I have no idea what the reddit group is, and I posted the NYpost because it had cited FACTS that were being ignored by the majority on these boards due to ideology and bias. Don't hate the messenger for bringing facts to your attention that intrudes on your ideological narratives and presuppositions.

I don't recall reading much other than emotive lashing out at a president and politics they don't like. I'm not sure there was much of substance to engage with, so I thought I'd have fun. I could be wrong, I didn't read every single post.

I pointed out how your narrow empathy was a poor foundation for fairness, public policy, and many other things. We can disagree on immigration policy, that's fine, what I am critical of most is the inconsistency in some of the assertions about immigrants and immigration policy generally, and the habit of trying to discredit points of view not on the basis of the arguments and facts presented but rather on the identity of the messenger. There is a double standard based on one's identity or group/affiliation. It's what got Trump elected, and it permeates boards like this.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Pence is not draining the swamp. Neither is Trump but this is where his tweets score points.

---

Presidents campaign on "changing" the way government fundamentally operates...then they get in office and they realize they need other people's help and partnership to get things done. I wish they'd stop...but more than that I wish voters would stop buying it.

iwantwinners said:

---

Of course, I see it. The outrage is not credible, however, it is partisan. The outrage isn't principled, or else Obama would have been denounced given his foreign policy and civil rights record.

---

What is so bad about Obama's "foreign policy and civil rights record." Judging by the link, Congress passed a law saying the CIA could detain or kill enemy foreign combatants like Anwar Al-Alwaki who happen to be U.S. citizens without a trial or other due process, and Obama signed the bill. Sounds like Obama was "tough on terrorism." Do you disagree with that policy? If not, why should Obama be denounced for it?

Are you saying liberals, moderates and conservatives are unprincipled to be outraged now at Trump's actions unless they were also outraged by the signing of the enemy combatant law? Come on, it is not unprincipled to be pro-Obama and anti-Trump. Trump is objectively a horrible person and deserves the outrage. The worst it seems you can say about Obama is he went after the bad guys to keep us safe.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Of course, I see it. The outrage is not credible, however, it is partisan. The outrage isn't principled, or else Obama would have been denounced given his foreign policy and civil rights record.

---

What is so bad about Obama's "foreign policy and civil rights record." Judging by the link, Congress passed a law saying the CIA could detain or kill enemy combatants like Al Qaeda terrorist Anwar Al-Alwaki who happen to be U.S. citizens without a trial or other due process, and Obama signed the bill. Sounds like Obama was "tough on terrorism." Do you disagree with that policy? If not, why should Obama be denounced for it?

Are you saying liberals, moderates and conservatives are unprincipled to be outraged now at Trump's actions unless they were also outraged by the signing of the enemy combatant law? Come on, it is not unprincipled to be pro-Obama and anti-Trump. Trump is objectively a horrible person and deserves the outrage. The worst it seems you can say about Obama is he went after the bad guys to keep us safe.

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't know about the rest of you, but I will be perfectly comfortable ignoring the comments from iwantwinners from here on out.

Not because I disagree with him, but because I don't believe he is on the level. Don't feed the troll.

---

Honestly, you seem more trollish than he does. Your accusation without evidence that he is not on the level seems quite trollish to me.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't know about the rest of you, but I will be perfectly comfortable ignoring the comments from iwantwinners from here on out.

Not because I disagree with him, but because I don't believe he is on the level. Don't feed the troll.

---

Honestly, you seem more trollish than he does. Your accusation without evidence that he is not on the level seems quite trollish to me.

---

Are you saying it is a troll within a troll within a troll or simply that it is trollish in its trollishness and its trolliosity?

bearister said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't know about the rest of you, but I will be perfectly comfortable ignoring the comments from iwantwinners from here on out.

Not because I disagree with him, but because I don't believe he is on the level. Don't feed the troll.

---

Honestly, you seem more trollish than he does. Your accusation without evidence that he is not on the level seems quite trollish to me.

---

Are you saying it is a troll within a troll within a troll or simply that it is trollish in its trollishness and its trolliosity?

---

I am saying that there are multiple layers of trolliosity within a wide range of trollishness demonstrated by the troll trollishly accusing another of trollism.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't know about the rest of you, but I will be perfectly comfortable ignoring the comments from iwantwinners from here on out.

Not because I disagree with him, but because I don't believe he is on the level. Don't feed the troll.

---

Honestly, you seem more trollish than he does. Your accusation without evidence that he is not on the level seems quite trollish to me.

---

It was most certainly not without evidence.

sycasey said:

---

I don't know about the rest of you, but I will be perfectly comfortable ignoring the comments from iwantwinners from here on out.

Not because I disagree with him, but because I don't believe he is on the level. Don't feed the troll.

---

This is probably the most self-righteous, delusional, pathetic method of virtue signaling I've ever seen. "I don't know about the rest of your guys' virtue, but mine is extraordinarily great and it won't allow me to engage my opponent going forward because I'm declaring he's a troll, and those of you who continue to engage him are thus inferior to me as well." Presupposing somebody else's motivations and arguments are inferior in a post completely bereft of argument, persuasion or evidence. Topping it off is the predictable tactic when one wants to escape debate to discredit the opponent's sincerity and good faith (again with zero evidence, just your vague, mealy-mouth inferences) -- and then posing it as a rallying cry for the herd to join you. What is more insecure than that.

Your arguments aren't very good or consistent, so I won't miss your responses, but my goodness if the FACTS and points of view I present are so axiomatically incorrect or 'fake', it should be quite simple and effortless for you to denounce them. And it is possible, and actually quite common, for two people to disagree on something and have valid reasons for their own views and rejecting their opponent's. What I often object to is the internal logic of your arguments, as at least in the immigration conversation, targeted empathy drove your ideology on the issues, and when presented with why that is misguided, it became about a multitude of other things, none of which could stand up to any consistent or coherent logic.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't know about the rest of you, but I will be perfectly comfortable ignoring the comments from iwantwinners from here on out.

Not because I disagree with him, but because I don't believe he is on the level. Don't feed the troll.

---

Honestly, you seem more trollish than he does. Your accusation without evidence that he is not on the level seems quite trollish to me.

---

It was most certainly not without evidence.

---

Evidence of trolling? This evidence would be certainly easy for you cite then. I'll wait.

What do you consider what you are and have been doing? When you feel you can't get away with calling someone a racist, sexist, or homophobe, is trolling the next in line when you can't handle a discussion?

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

In terms of policy accomplishment, Trump has definitely been a standard establishment Republican. Cutting taxes and social services, that's their thing.

---

why is putting more of people's money in their pocket bad again? It's only controversial, from a policy and economic standpoint now, when juxtaposed with our debt, and the government's spending priorities. Democrats do it, just with a different narrative.

---

WRONG! At the end of the Clinton Presidency, there were not only a solid history of budget surpluses, but endless surpluses projected for the foreseeable future, all of which were immediately destroyed and reversed by the Bush Tax Cut for the Rich, and the neocons' drunken spending on the totally un-necessary and meaningless Iraq War, the worst part of which was NOT its near total absorption of American blood, treasure and standing in the world, but the tens of millions of people, murdered, maimed, displaced, forced into abject poverty and victimized by various kinds of crime, including eventually oppression, including murder and torture, by both ISIS and Al Assad. Finally, if you think that the government should have any funding, then stop resorting to cant cliches, and discuss the actual pros and cons of the various things that government spends money on, and make a case, for example, against public education, or public health, or public safety, or support for scientific research that no other source of funding supports, such that, without government support, much of the modern world would simply not exist. Maybe you think that the utterly profligate waste on the Iraq War, or the tax support for the oil industry, long after it became the most profitable business in history to that point in time, are all better than the aforementioned governmental functions.

mikecohen said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

In terms of policy accomplishment, Trump has definitely been a standard establishment Republican. Cutting taxes and social services, that's their thing.

---

why is putting more of people's money in their pocket bad again? It's only controversial, from a policy and economic standpoint now, when juxtaposed with our debt, and the government's spending priorities. Democrats do it, just with a different narrative.

---

WRONG! At the end of the Clinton Presidency, there were not only a solid history of budget surpluses, but endless surpluses projected for the foreseeable future, all of which were immediately destroyed and reversed by the Bush Tax Cut for the Rich, and the neocons' drunken spending on the totally un-necessary and meaningless Iraq War, the worst part of which was NOT its near total absorption of American blood, treasure and standing in the world, but the tens of millions of people, murdered, maimed, displaced, forced into abject poverty and victimized by various kinds of crime, including eventually oppression, including murder and torture, by both ISIS and Al Assad. Finally, if you think that the government should have any funding, then stop resorting to cant cliches, and discuss the actual pros and cons of the various things that government spends money on, and make a case, for example, against public education, or public health, or public safety, or support for scientific research that no other source of funding supports, such that, without government support, much of the modern world would simply not exist. Maybe you think that the utterly profligate waste on the Iraq War, or the tax support for the oil industry, long after it became the most profitable business in history to that point in time, are all better than the aforementioned governmental functions.

---

I don't think you understood my post, or better yet I didn't articulate well enough my point of view. I'm saying Democrats do it too -- i.e., they've cut taxes before. Yes, Clinton had a surplus. Obama did not when he cut (or rather extended the lifespan of Bush's cuts). Both parties love to overspend (it's easy because it's not theirs, and everybody, rich and poor, wants to suck from the government teet of handouts) and their base of all socioeconomic stripes benefit. Actually cutting benefits to people is not popular. So parties demonize spending over here and spend like crazy over there on something that benefits them politically.

The problem with Bush's tax cuts is he didn't balance the budget by cutting spending to accommodate those cuts. Throw in the war and medicare prescriptions, and you've got a drunken sailor as an accountant.

It sounds like you think cutting taxes, in principle, is bad politics AND economics. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, at 37% or so, what is the appropriate and moral top individual tax rate and why?

We might agree on most of the rest. The easiest, simplest, and least impactful segment to cut spending is defense, IMO.

iwantwinners said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

In terms of policy accomplishment, Trump has definitely been a standard establishment Republican. Cutting taxes and social services, that's their thing.

---

why is putting more of people's money in their pocket bad again? It's only controversial, from a policy and economic standpoint now, when juxtaposed with our debt, and the government's spending priorities. Democrats do it, just with a different narrative.

---

WRONG! At the end of the Clinton Presidency, there were not only a solid history of budget surpluses, but endless surpluses projected for the foreseeable future, all of which were immediately destroyed and reversed by the Bush Tax Cut for the Rich, and the neocons' drunken spending on the totally un-necessary and meaningless Iraq War, the worst part of which was NOT its near total absorption of American blood, treasure and standing in the world, but the tens of millions of people, murdered, maimed, displaced, forced into abject poverty and victimized by various kinds of crime, including eventually oppression, including murder and torture, by both ISIS and Al Assad. Finally, if you think that the government should have any funding, then stop resorting to cant cliches, and discuss the actual pros and cons of the various things that government spends money on, and make a case, for example, against public education, or public health, or public safety, or support for scientific research that no other source of funding supports, such that, without government support, much of the modern world would simply not exist. Maybe you think that the utterly profligate waste on the Iraq War, or the tax support for the oil industry, long after it became the most profitable business in history to that point in time, are all better than the aforementioned governmental functions.

---

I don't think you understood my post, or better yet I didn't articulate well enough my point of view. I'm saying Democrats do it too -- i.e., they've cut taxes before. Yes, Clinton had a surplus. Obama did not when he cut (or rather extended the lifespan of Bush's cuts). Both parties love to overspend (it's easy because it's not theirs, and everybody, rich and poor, wants to suck from the government teet of handouts) and their base of all socioeconomic stripes benefit. Actually cutting benefits to people is not popular. So parties demonize spending over here and spend like crazy over there on something that benefits them politically.

The problem with Bush's tax cuts is he didn't balance the budget by cutting spending to accommodate those cuts. Throw in the war and medicare prescriptions, and you've got a drunken sailor as an accountant.

It sounds like you think cutting taxes, in principle, is bad politics AND economics. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, at 37% or so, what is the appropriate and moral top individual tax rate and why?

We might agree on most of the rest. The easiest, simplest, and least impactful segment to cut spending is defense, IMO.

---

I know neither the economy nor the budget well enough to get into the weeds to the degree necessary to answer your questions definitively; however I do think that: (1) What has really made this country great over the years is the distribution of wealth downward and broadly, by means of both governmental and private action; (2) The current grotesquely maldistributed wealth, where the top 1% of the population control 99% of the wealth (and vice-versa) speaks the most clearly about what is wrong with the country, so that the most massive tax cut in history going almost entirely to that top 1%, along with Ryan & the R's idea of paying for it by massively cutting most of what supports opportunity for socioeconomic advancement, while, in practice, favoring higher unemployment in order to support higher profits (without any plan for investing those higher profits outside the mantra of trickle down, which has never work in history - especially since the Fed bailed out the oligarchs from the Great Recession by giving them free money, precious little of which went to improve employment, education, health care, small business, R&D, or any of the other things which so massively improved the lives of the masses of Americans from the 1930s forward) is one of the worst ideas since national socialism. No, increasing taxes on the top 1% (who are unlikely to be meaningfully wounded by that) is immediately more beneficial than cutting military spending, although it does occur to me that careful examination of the military budget, and global exigencies, could yield greater efficacy AND real national security.

Let get back on topic. Rob Porter anyone? FBI informed WH his domestic violence allegation yet he was promoted. Sounds like the Colorado football scenario.

BearChemist said:

---

Let get back on topic. Rob Porter anyone? FBI informed WH his domestic violence allegation yet he was promoted. Sounds like the Colorado football scenario.

---

This brings to mind a story I saw on KTVU 10 o' clock news about 20 years ago. It was an interview with former San Francisco Police Chief Thomas Cahill on the occasion of his 90th birthday. He was dressed in his uniform, which still fit him. Leslie Griffith asked him a series of questions. One of the questions was whether they had such a thing as domestic violence when he was a young patrolman. In his still detectable Irish brogue, Cahill responded that they didn't call it domestic violence in his day. He explained that from time to time he would get a call from a wife that had been beaten by her husband. Cahill would respond to the call, go over to the house and invite the husband to come outside. Cahill would give the following advice to the husband: "Next time you feel anger towards your wife, go outside, get some exercise and walk around the block a few times until you cool down." He concluded with "I like to exercise a lot myself, and if your wife ever calls me again telling me that you hit her, I am coming over here and you and me are going to have quite an exercise session." Cahill said he never got a call back from any of the battered wives.

Rob Porter looks soft and entitled to me. A couple of old fashioned clown stompings would set whatever is wrong with him right. Fathers and brothers of women like his ex wives need to have "exercise sessions" with guys like him.

bearister said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Let get back on topic. Rob Porter anyone? FBI informed WH his domestic violence allegation yet he was promoted. Sounds like the Colorado football scenario.

---

This brings to mind a story I saw on KTVU 10 o' clock news about 20 years ago. It was an interview with former San Francisco Police Chief Thomas Cahill on the occasion of his 90th birthday. He was dressed in his uniform, which still fit him. Leslie Griffith asked him a series of questions. One of the questions was whether they had such a thing as domestic violence when he was a young patrolman. In his still detectable Irish brogue, Cahill responded that they didn't call it domestic violence in his day. He explained that from time to time he would get a call from a wife that had been beaten by her husband. Cahill would respond to the call, go over to the house and invite the husband to come outside. Cahill would give the following advice to the husband: "Next time you feel anger towards your wife, go outside, get some exercise and walk around the block a few times until you cool down." He concluded with "I like to exercise a lot myself, and if your wife ever calls me again telling me that you hit her, I am coming over here and you and me are going to have quite an exercise session." Cahill said he never got a call back from any of the battered wives.

Rob Porter looks soft and entitled to me. A couple of old fashioned clown stompings would set whatever is wrong with him right. Fathers and brothers of women like his ex wives need to have "exercise sessions" with guys like him.

---

Sometimed the wisdom of elders is, well, wise. But maybe Rob learned to deal with his anger that way from an upbringing that involved violence in the home. I'm no child psychologist or anything, just throwing that out there.

mikecohen said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

In terms of policy accomplishment, Trump has definitely been a standard establishment Republican. Cutting taxes and social services, that's their thing.

---

why is putting more of people's money in their pocket bad again? It's only controversial, from a policy and economic standpoint now, when juxtaposed with our debt, and the government's spending priorities. Democrats do it, just with a different narrative.

---

WRONG! At the end of the Clinton Presidency, there were not only a solid history of budget surpluses, but endless surpluses projected for the foreseeable future, all of which were immediately destroyed and reversed by the Bush Tax Cut for the Rich, and the neocons' drunken spending on the totally un-necessary and meaningless Iraq War, the worst part of which was NOT its near total absorption of American blood, treasure and standing in the world, but the tens of millions of people, murdered, maimed, displaced, forced into abject poverty and victimized by various kinds of crime, including eventually oppression, including murder and torture, by both ISIS and Al Assad. Finally, if you think that the government should have any funding, then stop resorting to cant cliches, and discuss the actual pros and cons of the various things that government spends money on, and make a case, for example, against public education, or public health, or public safety, or support for scientific research that no other source of funding supports, such that, without government support, much of the modern world would simply not exist. Maybe you think that the utterly profligate waste on the Iraq War, or the tax support for the oil industry, long after it became the most profitable business in history to that point in time, are all better than the aforementioned governmental functions.

---

I don't think you understood my post, or better yet I didn't articulate well enough my point of view. I'm saying Democrats do it too -- i.e., they've cut taxes before. Yes, Clinton had a surplus. Obama did not when he cut (or rather extended the lifespan of Bush's cuts). Both parties love to overspend (it's easy because it's not theirs, and everybody, rich and poor, wants to suck from the government teet of handouts) and their base of all socioeconomic stripes benefit. Actually cutting benefits to people is not popular. So parties demonize spending over here and spend like crazy over there on something that benefits them politically.

The problem with Bush's tax cuts is he didn't balance the budget by cutting spending to accommodate those cuts. Throw in the war and medicare prescriptions, and you've got a drunken sailor as an accountant.

It sounds like you think cutting taxes, in principle, is bad politics AND economics. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, at 37% or so, what is the appropriate and moral top individual tax rate and why?

We might agree on most of the rest. The easiest, simplest, and least impactful segment to cut spending is defense, IMO.

---

I know neither the economy nor the budget well enough to get into the weeds to the degree necessary to answer your questions definitively; however I do think that: (1) What has really made this country great over the years is the distribution of wealth downward and broadly, by means of both governmental and private action; (2) The current grotesquely maldistributed wealth, where the top 1% of the population control 99% of the wealth (and vice-versa) speaks the most clearly about what is wrong with the country, so that the most massive tax cut in history going almost entirely to that top 1%, along with Ryan & the R's idea of paying for it by massively cutting most of what supports opportunity for socioeconomic advancement, while, in practice, favoring higher unemployment in order to support higher profits (without any plan for investing those higher profits outside the mantra of trickle down, which has never work in history - especially since the Fed bailed out the oligarchs from the Great Recession by giving them free money, precious little of which went to improve employment, education, health care, small business, R&D, or any of the other things which so massively improved the lives of the masses of Americans from the 1930s forward) is one of the worst ideas since national socialism. No, increasing taxes on the top 1% (who are unlikely to be meaningfully wounded by that) is immediately more beneficial than cutting military spending, although it does occur to me that careful examination of the military budget, and global exigencies, could yield greater efficacy AND real national security.

---

I am not saying that there isn't merit to some sharing of wealth, but why would you limit the redistribution to income and why just to 1%. For example, most people in the Bay Area are house-rich and food-rich (and not just the 1%). Shouldn't those top 50% in Bay Area share their house wealth by being forced to rent at minimal, nominal rent a portion of their house to someone who is house-poor? Wouldn't that stimulate the economy by allowing those who may not otherwise get a job because they are homeless also participate in the workforce? And all of the focus on organic food by the top 50% in the Bay Area while the bottom 50% are forced to eat genetically modified food seems unfair and is damaging the life expectancy and health of those who may otherwise be able to work for much longer. Wouldn't it better for our economy if those in the Bay Area were rationed the organic food with most of the remainder of food they are allowed to consume be genetically modified? Why should the top 50% be unfairly healthy at the expense of the bottom 50%? Just wondering how far we are willing to take with redistribution of wealth, and why we won't go further.

BearChemist said:

---

Let get back on topic. Rob Porter anyone? FBI informed WH his domestic violence allegation yet he was promoted. Sounds like the Colorado football scenario.

---

Contrary to his boasts, Trump never had access to the best people and the ones he had to settle for were poorly vetted.

Pence, Newt, and Christie were the three VP finalists. Hard to believe the FBI would alert the Trump team to Porter's prior issues and they still hired him.

Many Mormons (Mitt, Flake, McMullin) are Never Trump because of Trump's messy personal life and the Muslim ban. Porter is LDS and worked for Orrin Hatch. Hatch's Trump support cratered his approval rating in Utah, so he declined to run again.

A fair amount of initial Cruz supporters (Pence, Kellyanne, Huckabee) migrated to Trump. Cruz is a weasel, but his personal life isn't as screwed up as Trump's . Cruz kicked off his campaign at Liberty University, so his initial believers were either phonies or they sold out. Newt and Rudy are also train wrecks and didn't have any other options. Nor aware of any defections from Kasich, Jeb, or Rubio to Trump.

Hope Hicks is young, but she's made some incredibly bad decisions. Joined Trump's campaign, dated a married Lewandowski (who was forced out for allegedly groping a reporter), currently dating Porter and helped draft his defense.

Trump's bunker mentality is to deny any sexual shenanigan allegations, but it's not credible that more than a dozen accusers are all lying. Can't pretend only Bubba and Matt Lauer have issues, but all of Team Trump is squeaky clean to protect the POTUS.