EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6373
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 06 2016 14:33 Sermokala wrote: If Trump doesn't get 270 and the election from the EC the supreme court will give him the presidency and abolish the EC before inauguration day. Its a non issue people are flapping their wings for pointlessly. If the SC abolishes the electoral college before inauguration day it would be hard for Trump to justify being President, considering he's relying on the winner-take-all nature of the EC to be the winner. That said they almost certainly won't do any such thing, considering the EC is the only constitutional mechanism for selecting a president. | ||
|
pmh
1355 Posts
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumps-air-force-one-tweet-143753937.html | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On December 07 2016 00:07 LegalLord wrote: I'm sure a lot of potential faithless electors would reconsider their protest if Trump's electoral margin were narrow, rather than moderately strong. A message of a vote of no confidence is significantly less impactful than starting one of the biggest constitutional crises in a long time. Except it probably wouldn't... unless they all switched their vote to Hillary. If they got Trump below 270, but Hillary was also below 270 (because they chose a third party) Then it would just go to the House of Representatives... dominated by Republicans...Republicans that may hate Trump, but want to get reelected from their republican leaning districts, and probably hate Hillary more. House chooses Hillary... they have to deal with a Democratic president who they hate, and are defying the normal constitutional order of things House chooses third person (Cruz, Pence, Donald Duck..depending on who the electors chose)... they get someone they sort of like, but are making someone president who got less than 5% votes across the country AND defying the normal constitutional order of things. House chooses Trump.. they get someone they might hate, but he's a Republican who will pass at least some of their agenda, and he's the person most voted for in most of their districts. If enough of the electors flipped to Hillary, then there would be a challenge by Trump....especially if any of them are from states where the electors are bound by law. Supreme court wouldn't want it.... so it would probably work its way up until the "binding of the electors" was held up.. and then all the higher levels would affirm the lower level/decline to take it. If Hillary reached 270 from unbound electors..... then there would be a full blown constitutional crisis. Especially with a Republican controlled Congress.... The Supreme Court might drop down to 7 justices, since the Senate might just refuse to add any Justices that the "pretender" would appoint. (chances are we would get an amendment to the process) | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13779 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On December 07 2016 01:21 pmh wrote: Lol this is epic, trump negotiating the price of the new air force one. Such a boss ha ha ha. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumps-air-force-one-tweet-143753937.html Reminds me of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5gpn1l/pentagon_buries_evidence_of_125_billion_in/ It always makes me laugh when people say "increase governent spending!!!1" when it's already probably x3 time over what it's supposed to be. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 07 2016 01:21 pmh wrote: Lol this is epic, trump negotiating the price of the new air force one. Such a boss ha ha ha. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumps-air-force-one-tweet-143753937.html Trump sure knows how to pick 'em. This is a nice, high profile, yet relatively limited issue that Trump can use to continue to build his legend. And he's probably right that this particular contract is bloated. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12298 Posts
On December 07 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote: Trump sure knows how to pick 'em. This is a nice, high profile, yet relatively limited issue that Trump can use to continue to build his legend. And he's probably right that this particular contract is bloated. Would you object if I asked you to write a series of things that Trump could do where you'll disagree with him? Cause I'm getting the distinct sense that you're just agreeing with things as they come because Trump is the one doing them. If you've already done that I apologize, it's possible I missed it. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 07 2016 01:45 Nebuchad wrote: Would you object if I asked you to write a series of things that Trump could do where you'll disagree with him? Cause I'm getting the distinct sense that you're just agreeing with things as they come because Trump is the one doing them. If you've already done that I apologize, it's possible I missed it. There are a lot of things that he could do that I'd disagree with -- pretty much anything that falls outside of my policy preferences. For example, if Trump stopped being a nationalist and pursuing nationalist objectives, I'd be very unhappy with him. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
4b is not a completely insane price tag though. i did a quick search and the presidential limo evidently costs 1.5m, which is several fold the couple hundred grand for an ordinary limo. so having a presidential-version of whatever machinery cost several x of what the commercial version does not seem out of the ordinary. i can't find where the 4b comes from either. much like the carrier deal, which ended up outsourcing most of the jobs to mexico and effectively keeps a few hundred as a loss leader this is a PR stunt with little grounding in reality. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
According to the Department of Defense budget there's about $2.8 billion dollars allotted on the project until fiscal 2021. The document didn't put a total figure on the cost. The figure was marked as "continuing" under cost to complete. Which would be about .56b/yr or about 0.001% of the DoD's annual budget each year through 2021. Even if they buy the planes for 4 billion, if they keep them for 25 years the cost of the planes in relation to the total DoD budget (never mind the total US budget) is absurdly small. So good on him if he can negotiate it down with good terms, there's nothing wrong with getting such a win. A penny saved is a penny earned and all that. But it seems like Trump is focusing a lot on high profile, but ultimately low impact things. Is that going to carry over into his actual presidency? I can totally see us in 2020 (or sooner) on the same course as we are now, but with Trump campaigning/arguing he's been a great success because of a trickle of small deals like Carrier or this Air Force One thing. Like hell the Carrier deal is really popular even with all the problems and even though it still means Carrier is cutting jobs that exist currently. Basically I think Trump will favor easier High Profile small things over larger systemic gains that are harder to measure. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 07 2016 02:22 Logo wrote: But it seems like Trump is focusing a lot on high profile, but ultimately low impact things. Is that going to carry over into his actual presidency? I can totally see us in 2020 (or sooner) on the same course as we are now, but with Trump campaigning/arguing he's been a great success because of a trickle of small deals like Carrier or this Air Force One thing. Like hell the Carrier deal is really popular even with all the problems and even though it still means Carrier is cutting jobs that exist currently. Basically I think Trump will favor easier High Profile small things over larger systemic gains that are harder to measure. I think that Trump will continue to pick high profile, easy wins so that he can expand his popularity, which in turn will fuel his mandate and build his political capital. If we've learned nothing else from the campaign, it's that Trump understands the power and manipulating perception. I do not expect him to shy away from tackling larger issues that are important to him, such as immigration. If anything, I think that he's going to use the smaller issues to give him more leverage to tackle the larger ones. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 07 2016 02:27 Slaughter wrote: Well the country wasn't in nearly a bad of a spot as Trump claimed during the election so he could sit back and focus on small things that get him a lot of press and see "look how good we are doing now" despite not changing much. the blue collar manufacturing workers will be less than impressed when he fails to bring back the jobs, minus a few thousand here and there for PR. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21870 Posts
And yes I fully expect him to parade around tiny victories as his great work. Doubt it will hold up if a recession hits and no amount of tweeting can hide the pain in people's wallets but we will have to see how it goes if it comes to that. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 07 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote: There are a lot of things that he could do that I'd disagree with -- pretty much anything that falls outside of my policy preferences. For example, if Trump stopped being a nationalist and pursuing nationalist objectives, I'd be very unhappy with him. I think that the other thing bears mentioning in response to Nebuchad's post that's not-so-subtly accusing me of being a Trump cheerleader is this: regardless of how agreeable Trump's policies and actions are, what he's doing is undeniably interesting and exciting. For how many years have people wanted some kind of change in Washington? Something to shake up partisan gridlock and status quo? Well, we're getting that change now. We'll see whether any good comes of it, but the quality of the spectacle is undeniable. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/11/29/another-clinton-trump-divide-high-output-america-vs-low-output-america/?utm_campaign=Brookings Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=38499796 I'll quote parts later. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21870 Posts
On December 07 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote: I think that the other thing bears mentioning in response to Nebuchad's post that's not-so-subtly accusing me of being a Trump cheerleader is this: regardless of how agreeable Trump's policies and actions are, what he's doing is undeniably interesting and exciting. For how many years have people wanted some kind of change in Washington? Something to shake up partisan gridlock and status quo? Well, we're getting that change now. We'll see whether any good comes of it, but the quality of the spectacle is undeniable. Sometimes your sitting at home a little bored wanting for something interesting to happen to occupy your mind. Getting attacked by a wild bear would fit that criteria. But its normally not something people wish for. Your attitude is that of the well off white male who has (almost) nothing to fear. You call it a spectacle but when your job, your pension, your health insurance or your gay marriage are affected by it your slightly less happy. Congratulations and enjoy the spectacle in your silver tower. Just don't get mad that other people who's daily lives are effected by the 'spectacle' going on are a little cross. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12298 Posts
On December 07 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote: I think that the other thing bears mentioning in response to Nebuchad's post that's not-so-subtly accusing me of being a Trump cheerleader is this: regardless of how agreeable Trump's policies and actions are, what he's doing is undeniably interesting and exciting. For how many years have people wanted some kind of change in Washington? Something to shake up partisan gridlock and status quo? Well, we're getting that change now. We'll see whether any good comes of it, but the quality of the spectacle is undeniable. I don't know what gave you the impression that I was trying to be subtle about it. And that's not really the type of answer I was looking for, btw, as it's vague and can still reasonably be argued to apply in most of the likely situations. | ||
|
pmh
1355 Posts
On December 07 2016 02:22 Logo wrote: I'm confused by the Air Force One Article, no where in the article does it say $4 billion other than from Trump. They say: Which would be about .56b/yr or about 0.001% of the DoD's annual budget each year through 2021. Even if they buy the planes for 4 billion, if they keep them for 25 years the cost of the planes in relation to the total DoD budget (never mind the total US budget) is absurdly small. So good on him if he can negotiate it down with good terms, there's nothing wrong with getting such a win. A penny saved is a penny earned and all that. But it seems like Trump is focusing a lot on high profile, but ultimately low impact things. Is that going to carry over into his actual presidency? I can totally see us in 2020 (or sooner) on the same course as we are now, but with Trump campaigning/arguing he's been a great success because of a trickle of small deals like Carrier or this Air Force One thing. Like hell the Carrier deal is really popular even with all the problems and even though it still means Carrier is cutting jobs that exist currently. Basically I think Trump will favor easier High Profile small things over larger systemic gains that are harder to measure. that does not seem unlikely I have to admit. | ||
| ||
