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.
On February 19 2017 05:06 Plansix wrote: The Republicans are spineless. They rode the Trump wave and his supporters to victory, baggage at all. I hope they look forward to accomplishing nothing.
Their spinelessness was apparent during the campaign when half of them looked ready to jump ship every time Trump made a gaffe, only to be back riding his coattails as soon as the crisis passed.
On February 19 2017 05:06 Plansix wrote: The Republicans are spineless. They rode the Trump wave and his supporters to victory, baggage at all. I hope they look forward to accomplishing nothing.
Their spinelessness was apparent during the campaign when half of them looked ready to jump ship every time Trump made a gaffe, only to be back riding his coattails as soon as the crisis passed.
6 years of not governing or really doing anything has been rough on their sense of civics. I'm surprised they even remember how to draft legislation.
On February 19 2017 05:06 Plansix wrote: The Republicans are spineless. They rode the Trump wave and his supporters to victory, baggage at all. I hope they look forward to accomplishing nothing.
Their spinelessness was apparent during the campaign when half of them looked ready to jump ship every time Trump made a gaffe, only to be back riding his coattails as soon as the crisis passed.
6 years of not governing or really doing anything has been rough on their sense of civics. I'm surprised they even remember how to draft legislation.
I guess if you count the shutting down the EPA thing, pretty sure that's the only thing written by a legislator on capital hill in a long time. Though I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was actually drafted by someone who is not a legislator.
On February 19 2017 05:06 Plansix wrote: The Republicans are spineless. They rode the Trump wave and his supporters to victory, baggage at all. I hope they look forward to accomplishing nothing.
Their spinelessness was apparent during the campaign when half of them looked ready to jump ship every time Trump made a gaffe, only to be back riding his coattails as soon as the crisis passed.
6 years of not governing or really doing anything has been rough on their sense of civics. I'm surprised they even remember how to draft legislation.
I guess if you count the shutting down the EPA thing, pretty sure that's the only thing written by a legislator on capital hill in a long time. Though I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was actually drafted by someone who is not a legislator.
They did write that terrible law that let US citizens file civil actions against Saudi Arabia. That one was well written and didn't have any clear flaws.
On February 19 2017 06:24 Plansix wrote: LegalLord doesn't like it when anyone talks about possible conflicts with Russia or worries about conflicts with Russia. Or dictators as a whole. McCain made the mistake of sticking to his long standing political view that Russia is going to try to destabilize Europe if given the chance.
I mean, mistake if he's courting LL's support I guess. I have trouble figuring out what you would even do to get his support. He seems ready enough to acknowledge Trump's a disaster, but cheers whenever some new boneheaded nationalist policy comes out of the white house.
I've come to terms with that nothing good will come of Trump's presidency. So now all that's left is to hope for maximum chaos.
Though if you want any specific policy statements, the best way to get them is to ask.
Sure, okay. Let's start here: what economic/trade policy do you actually favor? You've spent plenty of time talking about how the free marketeers/free trade advocates have too little answer for the WWC whose jobs are impacted. What do you think can actually be done for them? It seems unlikely to me that they would fare well in a trade war, and cutting back on immigration might leave jobs for them, but the rise in food prices will also make it a lot harder to make ends meet. We've discussed the problem plenty, what do you see as the solution?
A few general points that must be fulfilled by an economic policy I would approve of: 1. A focus on developing a robust internal economy which is capable of surviving any global trade shocks. That is, the US doesn't need to be able to supply everything for itself at every point in time, but it should be such that if that were to be necessary, it would be able to do so. The US isn't a peasant nation with a lack of resources, but it certainly is one that can be remarkably short-sighted on ensuring that it is capable of producing everything it needs to. Ramping up production isn't particularly hard, but starting up a new industry is. To accomplish this goal, selective protectionism is a tool that could be worth using. 2. An emphasis on providing high-quality work to less skilled workers. The wealth of the US has not decreased - the country is wealthier than it was back when "everybody had a middle class income." The problem, on the one hand, is that a lot of the unskilled/semiskilled work is best done by robots or cheap slave labor rather than "middle class" Americans. But on the other hand, a lot of the time that's just an excuse for company owners to make more $$$. This doesn't mean that old jobs need to be preserved if it's just an illusion that the old factory jobs are coming back. But I do think that there should be deliberate effort - in the form of large infrastructure development - put towards ensuring that the communities in which the WWC "losers" live have plenty of high-quality, productive jobs. 3. Access to free education and healthcare for all, and a greater focus on providing practical training for semiskilled workers. An ability to be able to gain a quality education and deal with health issues without them leading to absurd debt traps is a necessity in the modern world. Both have ballooned into unsustainable generators of debt that make life terrible for all those involved and reduce the effective income of everyone. Easier to live on $30k/yr, no debt, than on $50k/yr with $200k debt. And there is absolutely no necessity for these programs to come with such a price tag, other than that governments feel the need to cut government spending. 4. An end to the H1-B and other forms of skilled slave labor. In its place, there should be a program that awards foreign skilled highly talented laborers the means to work in the US with the same legal rights as an American worker. If there is a dearth of such people available, then that requirement should not be a problem. And as a corollary, the education system especially at the graduate level should heavily favor local students over internationals and not be built as a cash cow for the universities (private universities excepted). 5. Fewer, or at least better-considered, free trade deals. As they are, free trade deals have a tendency to cripple less effective domestic industries in favor of foreign companies flooding the market. NAFTA for example killed Mexican farmers because of US food supply. If such scenarios cannot be prevented, then it's best just not to have them.
That's a good simple summary of where I'd like economic policy to go.
On February 19 2017 05:56 pmh wrote: Most people in the Netherlands seem to think everything will turn out fine,just like it always has.
You have a short memory. The Netherlands got trampled by every single European conflict before the declaration of Pax Americana. The end of Pax Americana is going to be very worrying unless we accept a Teutonic dominated Europe and allow them to assume the role of regional Hegemon.
Uhh, the European Union -should- be the "regional hegemon" of Europe. The way you are wording this, it seems like you are genuinely suggesting that America should be the hegemon of the entire world, which is nothing short of oppressive in terms of economics and sovereignty of countries outside of America.
You seem to think there is a difference between the European Union and a German dominated Europe. Also American Hegemony has ushered in an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity in the world. Whatever your views on their politics, America's unquestioned military supremacy and military alliances has ended great power conflict for almost four generations. There are plenty of reasons to take issue with the last 70 years but historically speaking it has been extremely peaceful and America has been a far better Hegemon than many others that tried to fill that role.
MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain broke with the reassuring message that U.S. officials visiting Germany have sought to convey on their debut trip to Europe, saying on Friday that the administration of President Donald Trump was in "disarray".
McCain, a known Trump critic, told the Munich Security Conference that the resignation of the new president's security adviser Michael Flynn over his contacts with Russia reflected deep problems in Washington.
"I think that the Flynn issue obviously is something that shows that in many respects this administration is in disarray and they've got a lot of work to do," said McCain, even as he praised Trump's defense secretary.
"The president, I think, makes statements (and) on other occasions contradicts himself. So we've learned to watch what the president does as opposed to what he says," he said.
European governments have been unsettled by the signals sent by Trump on a range of foreign policy issues ranging from NATO and Russia to Iran, Israel and European integration.
Great job, John Rambo McCain. Might as well have just gone there and said, "you can go ahead and start panicking now."
Ah, yes. The naive europeans, what a shock that was to hear that the white house is in disarray. No one would've expected that, after it, well, was in so much disarray that it couldn't have been worse if you'd dub everything in the last weeks with the benny hill theme.
Believe me, europeans are able to form their own opinions based on (admittedly, fake) news from overseas.
All McCain did was to take the opportunity to take another jab at trump. If you assume that somehow him stating "the white house is in disarray" is different from "the white house showing that it's in disarray", well. Can't help you there.
I don't care if it's blindingly obvious that Trump's administration has no idea what it is doing, so obvious that even a European can see it. Going out and saying it sends the wrong message. Beyond saying "our government is incompetent" it also says "we're not willing to put on the face of a unified front." It's externalizing an internal disagreement and basically tattling to Europeans, a shameful thing for an American senator to do.
I disagree. No one is going to not see the trainwreck of Trump. Standing by him just makes the EU wonder if all Republicans are as stupid. (esp since the last R, Bush, was not great either).
There is nothing wrong with breaking rank to distance yourself from someone you find reprehensible. (and yes those goes from Democrats aswell)
Agree entirely with this. McCain and others distancing themselves from Trump is an absolute necessity for Europeans to maintain faith in future american republican leadership.
What a world we live in where people treat McCain as if he were a force for good.
I mean, the Poles/Balts certainly love him because he parrots their delusions about Russia, but beyond that I would hope people would have a better understanding of the man who chose Sarah Palin as VP.
I think McCain at least tries to be a force for good. I obviously don't agree with him politically, but at least I can respect the man, and I can understand that people whose political affiliation differs from my own likes him. I think politics has to accept the reality that populations everywhere have differing opinions on how society should be structured, and as such, in democracies, we're bound to occasionally be governed by people we disagree with. And if I have to choose a republican president, I think, McCain isn't going to embark on a mission of emboldening hatefulness and lack of human decency, and that separates him positively from the pro-Trump wing. I can deal with hawkish republicans, because history has shown that the world can progress even despite them - even if they are disastrous for whatever region happens to be affected by the meddling desires.
From your posting history, it kinda seems like 'rhetoric employed towards russia' is close to your top priority when evaluating whether or not you like a politician. For me, this is pretty far down the line - even if I actually agree that Russia is better than her reputation in the US would indicate. Trump's possible russian ties and pro-russian stances are also very far down the line of reasons why I am opposed to Trump. The Cold War is over and US-Russian relations are no longer a major cause of worldly strife. That might not sound like a McCain endorsement - but in a way it is, because I don't think McCainy anti-russian statements would ever evolve into more than anti-russian statements, which is part of the status quo the world has seemed quite capable of handling. Possibly autocratic and certainly delusional leaders of superpowers, those have a history of being disasters.
As we say over in the US, there has yet to be a war that McCain didn't want to be involved in. He is our local hawk who spends his entire life hawking everywhere. He is, after all, the candidate for president who wanted to be in Iraq for 100 years.
Bad, and especially badly considered, rhetoric towards Russia isn't really a positive. But if I have to be realistic, this is the US, a country which is well-known for being obtuse in all matters Russia, so I don't really put all that much stock in it. I'm not super into Trump for his pro-Russian statements, for that matter. Russia is fully capable of taking care of itself, even if it has to undermine a few first world democracies to do so.
MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain broke with the reassuring message that U.S. officials visiting Germany have sought to convey on their debut trip to Europe, saying on Friday that the administration of President Donald Trump was in "disarray".
McCain, a known Trump critic, told the Munich Security Conference that the resignation of the new president's security adviser Michael Flynn over his contacts with Russia reflected deep problems in Washington.
"I think that the Flynn issue obviously is something that shows that in many respects this administration is in disarray and they've got a lot of work to do," said McCain, even as he praised Trump's defense secretary.
"The president, I think, makes statements (and) on other occasions contradicts himself. So we've learned to watch what the president does as opposed to what he says," he said.
European governments have been unsettled by the signals sent by Trump on a range of foreign policy issues ranging from NATO and Russia to Iran, Israel and European integration.
Great job, John Rambo McCain. Might as well have just gone there and said, "you can go ahead and start panicking now."
Ah, yes. The naive europeans, what a shock that was to hear that the white house is in disarray. No one would've expected that, after it, well, was in so much disarray that it couldn't have been worse if you'd dub everything in the last weeks with the benny hill theme.
Believe me, europeans are able to form their own opinions based on (admittedly, fake) news from overseas.
All McCain did was to take the opportunity to take another jab at trump. If you assume that somehow him stating "the white house is in disarray" is different from "the white house showing that it's in disarray", well. Can't help you there.
I don't care if it's blindingly obvious that Trump's administration has no idea what it is doing, so obvious that even a European can see it. Going out and saying it sends the wrong message. Beyond saying "our government is incompetent" it also says "we're not willing to put on the face of a unified front." It's externalizing an internal disagreement and basically tattling to Europeans, a shameful thing for an American senator to do.
I disagree. No one is going to not see the trainwreck of Trump. Standing by him just makes the EU wonder if all Republicans are as stupid. (esp since the last R, Bush, was not great either).
There is nothing wrong with breaking rank to distance yourself from someone you find reprehensible. (and yes those goes from Democrats aswell)
Agree entirely with this. McCain and others distancing themselves from Trump is an absolute necessity for Europeans to maintain faith in future american republican leadership.
What a world we live in where people treat McCain as if he were a force for good.
I mean, the Poles/Balts certainly love him because he parrots their delusions about Russia, but beyond that I would hope people would have a better understanding of the man who chose Sarah Palin as VP.
My response was to the statement as made by McCain. Not to his value as a person/politicians.
Now here's where I see the problem. Trump wasn't in Europe this time of year. Mattis was; he mostly gave Europe the honeyed words of commitment they wanted to hear. Tillerson came by and was what he promised to be: an American working for America, committed to American values, but also seeking to reevaluate American policies for the better. Certainly they all gave something to think about (Mattis gave the "pay your 2%" line), but that should have been somewhat more comforting than what Trump had given them. Should have been alright for the moment.
Then John Rambo McCain comes in and says "oh yeah, it's fucked, everything's fucked, but I still love you guys."
Dunno about you but I definitely see that as a problem.
So, I was watching some Russian propaganda on YouTube where they interviewed Nick Brana, the former national political outreach coordinator for Bernie Sanders. He was talking about starting a new political party, which is obviously not going to be very effective, but he did highlight something I found sort of interesting. Namely that the level of people who identify politically as independents is at an all-time high.
Looking at this chart (gallop.com) seems to verify what he said. What I found particularly interesting was the very strong and immediate decline of democrats after the election of Obama which, without pointing blame at anyone specifically, coincided with the time of the economic crisis. I very much doubt they suddenly decided to become racist, so what's up with that?
I was also watching this video with Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, where he shows an interesting story about the political dysfunction and the polarization of the political parties. The polarization of the political elites is worse than it was in the decades after the civil war, and it's not looking much better for the common people. It's fairly dated by now (from 2013 I think), but I'm pretty sure the intensification of this polarization hasn't stopped in the slightest. The only redeeming factor is the one I mentioned above, where it became clear that people have been leaving the established parties.
There must be some sort of opportunity here to break through the establishment of both parties, no? Even if Sanders failed this time, it really seems there is a window for a 3rd party to gain numbers if they take on the same kind of messaging he did (ie. an endless tirade against big money in government). Perhaps by becoming more active on a state level and relying on grass-roots/social media rather than the more expensive traditional channels of spreading one's message.
Both political parties have been taking it in the teeth for 2 decades. Their dynamic is just wearing thin and they can't get new members. I am getting in shooting distance of 40 years old and this is the state of politics I have always known. The attrition rate is high for both parties, but more for the Republicans. But their stale mate and inability to branch out or modify their stances means issues have gone unaddressed for decades. Immigration for one. Student loans are another. Our terrible education system is a third. And as these issues become more and more pressing, the parties are not responding with any level of urgency.
On February 19 2017 05:56 pmh wrote: Most people in the Netherlands seem to think everything will turn out fine,just like it always has.
You have a short memory. The Netherlands got trampled by every single European conflict before the declaration of Pax Americana. The end of Pax Americana is going to be very worrying unless we accept a Teutonic dominated Europe and allow them to assume the role of regional Hegemon.
Uhh, the European Union -should- be the "regional hegemon" of Europe. The way you are wording this, it seems like you are genuinely suggesting that America should be the hegemon of the entire world, which is nothing short of oppressive in terms of economics and sovereignty of countries outside of America.
You seem to think there is a difference between the European Union and a German dominated Europe. Also American Hegemony has ushered in an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity in the world. Whatever your views on their politics, America's unquestioned military supremacy and military alliances has ended great power conflict for almost four generations. There are plenty of reasons to take issue with the last 70 years but historically speaking it has been extremely peaceful and America has been a far better Hegemon than many others that tried to fill that role.
Nonetheless, I believe it would be better for the people of Europe if they were the "local hegemon" of their own continent, rather than under the heel of a foreign hegemon. You can say that there is no difference between the EU and a German dominated Europe, but that doesn't mean what you say is true at all in practice. Sure, they have the biggest portion of influence, and there's flaws in the EU political machine, but it's still much better than having an entirely foreign power act as a hegemon. I remain a firm believer of the idea that local people should have sovereignty over their own regions of the world.
And while there has been peace and such, I don't particularly find that America is responsible for the ushering in of said peace part. That's reserved for the entities that don't go to war. America just happens to be the dominant force on the world (through historical events) and the conditions for all-out war do not exist (again, as a result of events). You could also make a claim that the Soviet Union was responsible for peace by not going to war with the west (their internal politics notwithstanding - just as you say about my views on American internal politics).
On February 19 2017 05:56 pmh wrote: Most people in the Netherlands seem to think everything will turn out fine,just like it always has.
You have a short memory. The Netherlands got trampled by every single European conflict before the declaration of Pax Americana. The end of Pax Americana is going to be very worrying unless we accept a Teutonic dominated Europe and allow them to assume the role of regional Hegemon.
Uhh, the European Union -should- be the "regional hegemon" of Europe. The way you are wording this, it seems like you are genuinely suggesting that America should be the hegemon of the entire world, which is nothing short of oppressive in terms of economics and sovereignty of countries outside of America.
You seem to think there is a difference between the European Union and a German dominated Europe. Also American Hegemony has ushered in an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity in the world. Whatever your views on their politics, America's unquestioned military supremacy and military alliances has ended great power conflict for almost four generations. There are plenty of reasons to take issue with the last 70 years but historically speaking it has been extremely peaceful and America has been a far better Hegemon than many others that tried to fill that role.
The latter point of this really has to be emphasized. And like, I come from a family that leans quite strongly socialist. My dad, partially as a response to the vietnam war and to american hegemony, at some point during the 70s, favored armed socialist revolution - in Norway. He has later stated that 'this was fucking insane on my behalf', and to be fair, he was a teenager, but anti-american sentiments have echoed quite frequently in the household I grew up in. And I shared these for a long time (and I still think that a whole shitload american actions during the cold war were completely indefensible, even when considered part of an important fight to halt the spread of soviet influence).
But even coming from this perspective, I have no problems realizing that overall, the period between 1945 and 2015 is (imo, without question) the period of greatest prosperity for humanity that humanity has ever seen, and it has happened at the guiding hand of America, the Hawk. Not that I think the hawkishness is what caused the prosperity, and I still think critique of american foreign policy is for the most part completely legitimate, but as far as countries leading the world is concerned, America has been a better choice than any other tried country or empire.
I know it gets a bad rap, but free trade, open trade is what really did a number on conflict in the EU and abroad. It created more economic stability for nations and made them less likely increase their GDP by permanently borrowing a bunch of land from another nation. It has its flaws that must be addressed in this era of instant communication, but it is very good at preventing wars.
Edit: Liquid`Drone: The problem we face now is that our fathers are old. And after them, no one will remember these times of conflict and strife. And that is the time when people think "why not?". When people start thinking that taking another nations natural resources to pay for your bullshit war is a good idea.
On February 19 2017 08:30 Plansix wrote: I know it gets a bad rap, but free trade, open trade is what really did a number on conflict in the EU and abroad. It created more economic stability for nations and made them less likely increase their GDP by permanently borrowing a bunch of land from another nation. It has its flaws that must be addressed in this era of instant communication, but it is very good at preventing wars.
There were a bunch of factors relating to the end of great power conflict in Europe. Free trade and the EU was one of the many ways that war for territory and wealth was made obsolete. Military alliances vs a common enemy was another. US occupation of Germany a third etc. Nukes a fourth. But yeah, the point of the EU was always to bind France and Germany together too closely for them to fight. The problem, for the non Germans at least, is that the EU trade union has become a tool through which Germany can fulfill her historical destiny of dominating Europe.
If they are going to do it anyways, might as well do it with as little bloodshed as possible. Humans are not getting father apart. The fact that we have these political discussions across nations is proof of that. We can't be afraid of that future because we can't stop it.
On February 19 2017 08:30 Plansix wrote: I know it gets a bad rap, but free trade, open trade is what really did a number on conflict in the EU and abroad. It created more economic stability for nations and made them less likely increase their GDP by permanently borrowing a bunch of land from another nation. It has its flaws that must be addressed in this era of instant communication, but it is very good at preventing wars.
There were a bunch of factors relating to the end of great power conflict in Europe. Free trade and the EU was one of the many ways that war for territory and wealth was made obsolete. Military alliances vs a common enemy was another. US occupation of Germany a third etc. Nukes a fourth. But yeah, the point of the EU was always to bind France and Germany together too closely for them to fight. The problem, for the non Germans at least, is that the EU trade union has become a tool through which Germany can fulfill her historical destiny of dominating Europe.
that plan was actually designed by everybody who wasn't Germany. This is basically the old De Gaulle-ain idea of the "French horseman on the German horse" with France running all the institutions while Germany stays demilitarised and its economic power is being leveraged.
This wasn't really a problem but the original idea, that France or somebody else isn't in the driver seat is more owed to domestic problems than anything else.
Europe’s leaders gathered in apprehensive mood in Munich on Saturday for their first chance to weigh up the new US leadership’s approach to collective defence in the face of what many perceive as a growing Russian threat.
The signs have been mixed, and confusing, since Donald Trump won election last November. He initially signalled warmth towards Vladimir Putin and some scorn towards Nato. More recently he has appeared to backtrack on both fronts.
The US vice-president Mike Pence, making his first visit to Europe since taking office, failed to quell those anxieties in a speech on Saturdayat the Munich security conference.
Instead, he left some of his European allies confused and alarmed, angry at being chastised for failing to pull their weight in the defence alliance, and concerned that too little attention is being paid to the future of the European Union.
The audience, made up of national leaders, defence and foreign ministers and other senior government figures, who would normally, out of politeness, offer up a warm welcome for a senior US politician, greeted some of his comments with sparse applause.
Pence, reiterating that the US remained committed to Nato, attempted to soothe concerns that Trump might deal directly with Putin, bypassing western Europe. The audience welcomed his promise that Russia will be held “accountable” for its actions in Ukraine, although he didn’t spell out how.
But he lost them when he went further than US defence secretary James Mattis at Nato headquarters last week in rebuking Nato members such as Germany, France and Italy for failing to pay a fair share of its financial burden.
Echoing Trump’s threat last year that he would not necessarily be bound by Nato’s article five, which commits every member to come to the aid of any that comes under attack, Pence reiterated the president’s warning that military help might depend on how much a country under attack had contributed to Nato.
Pence reminded the audience in Munich that Nato had two core principles; one was article five but the other, usually forgotten, was article three, dealing with shared financial burden. “We vowed in that treaty to contribute our fair share to our common defence,” Pence said. “The promise to share the burden of our defence has gone unfulfilled for too many for too long and it erodes the very foundation of our alliance. When even one ally fails to do their part, it undermines all of our ability to come to each other’s aid.”
Speaking after Pence, Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, made it clear, as did German chancellor Angela Merkel earlier, that the country did not intend to be bullied by the Trump administration into increasing defence spending. “I don’t know where Germany can find billions of euros to boost defence spending if politicians also want to lower taxes,” Gabriel said.
The French foreign minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, tweeted to express disappointment that Pence’s speech contained “not a word on the European Union”. Trump has welcomed Brexit and seems hostile towards multilateral organisations such as the EU.
On February 19 2017 05:06 Plansix wrote: The Republicans are spineless. They rode the Trump wave and his supporters to victory, baggage at all. I hope they look forward to accomplishing nothing.
Their spinelessness was apparent during the campaign when half of them looked ready to jump ship every time Trump made a gaffe, only to be back riding his coattails as soon as the crisis passed.
6 years of not governing or really doing anything has been rough on their sense of civics. I'm surprised they even remember how to draft legislation.
I guess if you count the shutting down the EPA thing, pretty sure that's the only thing written by a legislator on capital hill in a long time. Though I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was actually drafted by someone who is not a legislator.
They did write that terrible law that let US citizens file civil actions against Saudi Arabia. That one was well written and didn't have any clear flaws.
And now that they have a useful fool in the oval office they can pass all the shitty legislation that they want quietly while everyone is staring into the dumpster fire of the white house.
EPT
