US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. Spinedriver

    Spinedriver SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    181
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    Moncton,Canuckistan
    My wife follows politics much more than I do and her theory is that every Democrat to hold office for the last few decades has been very pro "big business". So at this point, the Republicans could care less if they win the Presidency because if Hillary wins, they'll just bully her into giving them what they want, just like Obama. Let the Democrats "win" the election but when it comes to making policy, they'll just use the house and/or Senate to block what they don't like.

    That's why Bernie Sanders is the real wild card in this scenario. If Hillary wins, it'll be business (pardon the pun) as usual. It'll basically be Obama 2.0 for the next 4 years where nothing will be done about huge tax incentives for large corporations and although she probably won't do anything horrible, she won't be doing anything spectacular either.

    Sanders wants to seriously shake things up and that scares the hell out of a LOT of people. If he gets elected and the GOP starts in with the filibustering and putting insane riders onto bills he's trying to pass, he's not going to just sit there, throw his hands up and go 'Oh well, what can you do'. He's gonna start yankin' some leashes and finally show the general public why things don't get done in Washington.
     
  2. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    I'm not trying to invalidate your point here, because I think there's a lot of truth in it, but isn't this fairly similar to the impression everyone had of Obama when he ran the first time?

    By memory (a memory that is decreasingly reliable) Obama represented something genuinely different in mainstream politics (Sanders and Trump[?]), spoke about issues that favoured the general population over big business (Sanders), and at least initially used a lot of 'tough-talk' to promote the idea that he was going to get things done with or without anyone else's support (and has made virtually annual speeches about how he'll shut down Guantanamo Bay "by the end of the year" ever since).

    In some instances, he has succeeded in forcing an issue, in others, his hands have been tied. If the senate remains roughly the same (and jerrymandering has all but guaranteed that outcome), Sanders will have no choice but to either accept that his hands will be tied occasionally or risk looking like an 'underachiever' if he opens his mouth every time someone blocks him in the senate.

    I say all of this knowing that I want Sanders in the White House more than any other current (and many former) candidates. Obama wanted to shake things up and it scared the hell out of a lot of people. When people are scared, they behave irrationally. It would explain a lot about the last eight years.
     
  3. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I was talking to some of my family today and many of them are Rubio and Kasich supporters. They pretty much said they'd vote for Sanders over Trump or Cruz if it came down to it due to him being probably the only genuinely honest candidate running. This is despite them disagreeing with his policy ideas. They seem to be in agreement that his heart's in the right place regardless compared to Clinton and Trump, whom come across as more self serving.
     
  4. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    [​IMG]

    This gives a pretty solid layout to show that ideologically he's quite significantly different from Obama. I'd personally prefer someone more ideologically like Jill Stein, but in our screwed up voting system she'd never have a chance (especially since 3rd parties get almost zero national exposure).

    Obama didn't run his campaign on cleaning up corruption though, which is what even he needed to do to get done what he wanted IMO. I don't recall it even being mentioned in the last two presidential races. Healthcare was his swan song and he somewhat succeeded in doing what he set out to do, even if it's lackluster and problematic in areas. I think Obama was a necessary step for someone like Sanders to be in a position to be elected though. Healthcare has been a hot topic for the last 8 years and a lot has happened in that time period. People are finely fed up and as long as the support doesn't end with voting for president I think real change within the system can genuinely occur. However, if people get whomever they want in office and then they ignore politics for the next 4 years, like people usually do, then indeed nothing will change.

    Congress is not necessarily interested in helping or executing the things he wants to do (especially when it comes to cleaning up corruption I imagine since that ends the extra pay days they've been receiving), which is why he hasn't had more success on some of his campaign plans in the first place. If he is to succeed we all have to be far more active in politics. This applies to whomever gets the nomination realistically, but is especially true if Bernie is to succeed in his endeavors.
     
  5. Spinedriver

    Spinedriver SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    181
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    Moncton,Canuckistan
    You're absolutely right. When Obama ran the first time, he was the candidate of "change". Even now, given what he's done in the past 8 years, his run was pretty good. The thing of it is that he's a bit of a corporatist and that's the reason why the Gov't hasn't cracked down on the "Wall St." gang and big oil industries. He gets a lot of donations from those people and as the saying goes, "You don't bite the hand that feeds".

    I'm sure there will be plenty of times where Sanders will be blocked from getting certain things done but a lot has to be said for effort. When the big Wall St. bailout came around, people were up in arms about it but Obama passed the bill without hesitation. If Sanders were in charge, I'd say there was a good chance even he would have passed it too but I guarantee he would have seen to it that those that caused it would have been held accountable, rather than let them retire/walk away with Millions in their bank accounts. So yeah, I'm not saying that Bernie will turn the Gov't on it's head and everything will change overnight but at least he's not "indebted" to special interest groups that will keep him from doing what he's set out to do.
    ie: He doesn't owe any "favors" to anyone because of large donations or super pacs given to his campaign.
     
  6. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    336
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    And the GOP voters who put them there will respond "yes, that's exactly what we elected them to do!" See: the last six years. I think a lot of you have unrealistically optimistic ideas about how much change the president can make.
     
  7. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,223
    Likes Received:
    3,104
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Obama's batting average on campaign promises is roughly 0.450 versus the GOP's batting average of 0.380 on campaign promises [source: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises | PolitiFact GOP Pledge-O-Meter: Tracking the promises of the GOP Leadership in Congress | PolitiFact ]

    The point I made earlier, however, still stands, that it's not the president's job to write bills. Congress is supposed to write bills, the president is supposed to check them, and enforce them (should they become laws), and the supreme court is supposed to decide them (once they are laws) when they aren't clear enough.

    Not that the government works this way, but that's the way it is supposed to work, in writing.

    No matter who stands at the podium and no matter what promises are made, the government is all checks and balances, so the president does not become omnipotent. So Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim-Busstop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel can tell you that if you elect him for president, he'll replace all of the fish in the ocean with sea monsters named "Eric", and stop people from stacking things on top of other things, but it'll mean nothing either way, because it'll never be within his power to do so.
     
  8. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    All else aside, an honest candidate is far superior to a dishonest one and the president being the last step in the process of bills being passed means two things:

    1) He can set policy into motion by passing nothing else until they attempt to pass what progressives are wanting done.

    2) More importantly, he can prevent policy from being passed into law all together.

    Number two coupled with an honest president who has spent his career fighting for regular Joe's and not succumbing to the negatives of the political machine sounds worth it all on its own even if he accomplishes nothing else. All of the republican candidates and Clinton are dishonest and beholden to people that don't have America's best interest at heart.

    This election IMO is also about party direction because the Clinton's have pushed the Democratic party further and further right. All else aside, this brings the party back to the left where it belongs and potentially creates momentum where more people with more progressive principals try for political seats across the country giving progressives some much needed wind in their sails. This is already happening to a degree as Tim Canova is running to take down Debbie Schultz for her seat and his political views are far better aligned with Sanders than the current crop of Dem's. I think this will bolster existing progressives in the party as well, like Warren, allowing them to accomplish their policy ideas without being blocked by Republicans AND Democrats alike (Debbie Schultz is trying to pass a very Republican bill as we speak to allow predatory payday lenders to avoid CFPB's new regulations).

    DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency

    If presidents had zero say or power we wouldn't have the ACA at all in any form, whether or not it's good. They would have ignored it all together.
     
  9. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,223
    Likes Received:
    3,104
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Not that veto is a soft power, but veto is only a means of getting things not done, not a means of getting things done. It's also not bullet-proof, if a 2/3 majority of congress gets behind a bill, the president can no longer block it with a veto.
     
  10. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Doesn't happen typically.

    Would you prefer congress pass bills that are bad for regular citizens just so we 'get things done'? Being able to veto and having the conscience to do so doesn't sounds like a thing to consider bad to me. Had Clinton done so more frequently while he was president it's likely policy like glass-steagall would still be in effect.
     
  11. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,223
    Likes Received:
    3,104
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Of course not. However, if congress is typically not getting anything done, having a president who blocks stuff a lot is not going to change the way things are going in Washington.

    I'm just being realistic. Everyone hates congress, and they hope the president will fix things. The president does not have the power to change congress. Also, the reason everyone hates congress is because of the idiots everyone else is electing, but these people, on average, like the idiot they are electing. That's a result of districting.

    So, the Trumpers can elect Trump, and expect him to run the democrats from the Northers states out of congress, but it's not going to happen. The Bernie supporters can elect Bernie Sanders hoping for him to run the GOP out of Washington, or to get them to behave a little better, but that won't happen, either. Everyone can go and vote for a new congressman in their own districts, but no one in Boston is going to vote out the guy in rural Wyoming.
     
  12. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Sometimes being realistic just turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy much like when most people like a 3rd party candidate, but vote red or blue anyhow. It becomes a reality because it is made into one, not because it was necessarily destined to be the case regardless.

    I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said, but pessimism isn't going to get people more active in politics so that things can change. Most places have abysmal voter turnout for non-presidential elections, so the majority of potential voters haven't even offered their opinion on their local politicians. In any case, people at least being more aware of their politicians actions allows them to hold them accountable on some level.

    As for Bernie, he's for fixing the Democratic party just as much as congress in general, so it isn't just Republican districts in play here. I'd also contend that we've had major sways in our political system over the last 100 years so this notion that 'nothing will ever change' is largely bull..... We had the Dixiecrat split during the 60's, Carter's push for neo-liberalism in the 70's, Reagan's neo-con push in the 80's, Clinton's push for further neo-liberal policies in the 90's, the tea party takeover of the Republicans in the 2000's, and parties have come and gone throughout our nations history. Things can and have changed for better or worse many times. I fail to see why all of a sudden it's simply impossible.
     
  13. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,223
    Likes Received:
    3,104
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Where did I say change is impossible? I only said that the president has some serious limits to his power, and that most people in the USA have limited understanding of that.

    Also, if you want Bernie for president, vote for him. I'm not discouraging that.

    The best way to change the government is to get congress and parties sorted out. That's either going to be a difficult change to pull off, or it's going to take a very long time. It's not like Bernie's going to get elected and suddenly congress is going to change.
     
  14. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    336
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    That's called "hostage-taking," and if you wouldn't support Republicans doing it, then you shouldn't support the Democrats doing it either. It's the political equivalent of threatening to hold your breath until you pass out.
     
  15. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    It's also exactly how every president has set the policy agenda for their terms. Obama has done exactly this as president. The president's duty is to veto bills he doesn't approve of and sign bills he does. It's one out of a hand full of things he's capable of doing. If we had a Republican president and he did it I may not agree with his decision, but it is well within his right and powers to do so. I don't blindly support the Democratic party.
     
  16. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    336
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    There's a difference between "I'm going to veto a bill I don't like" and "I'm not signing anything until you do what I say," the latter being what you were suggesting originally. I'm not in favor of elected officials behaving like six-year-olds. Again, see: the last six years of Congress.
     
  17. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    336
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Glass-Steagall had enough votes when it passed to override a presidential veto, so no, probably not.
     
  18. Spinedriver

    Spinedriver SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    181
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    Moncton,Canuckistan
    Domestic issues aside, The President is also in charge of dealing with foreign leaders as well. Can you imagine Trump going into Middle East countries to conduct trade agreements ?? If he negotiates half as well as he runs his businesses, within 6 months the only countries the US will be trading with are the ones HE gets his junk made in.
     
  19. tacotiklah

    tacotiklah I am Denko (´・ω・`)

    Messages:
    6,593
    Likes Received:
    959
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Location:
    Lancaster, CA
    The first part of this is the damned honest truth. Citizens United MUST be overturned and religion and our political system MUST have a complete and total divorce from one another. We need to get religion and corporate money out of the way of how we do things in our government. Remember that for all the blaming and finger-pointing that we do for how and why things are the way they are, we all still share blame and have fingers coming right back at us. This government was founded on "of the people, for the people, by the people". We elect these people into office and there are plenty of options in place to remove them. We as citizens must take back our government from aristocrats and the plutocracy that is very much now obviously in place.

    The impeachment process must be use more frequently because as the saying goes, "Politicians and diapers must be changed often and for the same reasons". Term limits for congress must be put in place. Lobbyists HATE when districts get new congressional leaders because it takes more time and money for them to be bought.

    Now while I fully expect the obstructionist right to continue making life miserable for the president should Sanders be elected, I also know that he has been saying these things for years and has been supporting any legislation that attempts to crack down on it. If he were elected, I would know that the president would be on my side and the side of many people who are tired of the way things are being run and want real reform. That's no small matter when the president has your back.

    But as I've said in this thread and countless times over the years, the only REAL change will come when American voters stop with the "congress sucks, but my congressman is amazesauce" mentality and keep voting in the low lifes that sell out their constituents interests to the highest corporate bidder. We keep telling ourselves that this time will somehow be different, but are still shocked when nothing changes.

    If there's anything I've learned from Obama's presidency is that some of the things you thought should happen in the world will change once you actually get to that oval office. I also know that you may have to sacrifice a couple things on your agenda in order to achieve a meaningful compromise that will ultimately benefit all. I do allot for these kinds of variables. But the points I'm bringing up are core issues that just need to happen as is if the US is going to save itself from its own political instability.

    To summarize, the ideal changes to our politics will happen in Congress, not in the white house. Super PACs, career politicians, and religion are all parasites on our system of government; sucking the life out of it until we as country will wither up and die. And it will if we let it. But a step in the right direction is getting a president into office that has SOME power and standing to make some changes (like appointing justices to SCOTUS and if push comes to shove, executive orders). All historical evidence and voting record points to Bernie being the guy that can take initiative to handle the country's affairs. Getting Bernie into the white house is just a first step, but it's an important first step.
     
  20. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    And that's one voters opinion (assuming you vote). You get to use that opinion with your own vote to make things the way you want them to be on election days. Feel free to do so.

    The threat of a veto alone is quite often how presidents get congress to stay the course on their agenda.

    Obama has done exactly this when it came to the Republicans 'Repeal Obamacare' initiatives and I see nothing wrong with this.

    I guess we'll never know since he did in fact sign it. Less than 5% of vetoes are overturned last time I checked the numbers so I doubt you're right.
     

Share This Page