The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Patticus]

6 minutes ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

Come the next Democratic legislative trifecta, we just might be poised to get single payer or something damned close, if the Medicaid expansion stays intact.

What would prevent the Medicaid expansion from being resurrected if it were to be eliminated by the GOP? If they can repeal x, y or z parts of the ACA, surely they can be reinstated later?

Or do you mean that if the expansion is ended, the Democratic goal will become reestablishing it, rather than expanding or building on it?

[Tani Coyote]

2 minutes ago, Patticus said:

What would prevent the Medicaid expansion from being resurrected if it were to be eliminated by the GOP? If they can repeal x, y or z parts of the ACA, surely they can be reinstated later?

Really, just GOP control of one of the branches and/or the state governments, given they can obstruct and opt out of such a thing.

Basically, the situation we dealt with after the first 2 years of Obama's term.

I'm willing to bet the opposition will be less vicious if the next Democratic President is white, though. Racial attitudes have shifted, but I'm still seeing a very powerful "economic populism or racial equality, pick one" mentality akin to what we had with the New Deal era.

[KHCast]

Kinda ironic how that's the case, despite tons of people saying race isn't an issue for them. Still can't believe how in 2017 racial inequality/treatment and subtle superiority thoughts are still things within society. Yet many have the nerve to act like there's no prejudice or discrimination at all despite the obvious.

[KHCast]

So an anti-gay lawmakers been having an affair with his cousin...lol. So homosexuality is seen as less okay than incest to these guys. Gotcha. Now that would be the end of my laughter...until I saw this angry FB comment actually shaming the gay community for "morality shaming" and was in defensive of this, holding it to the same standard of homosexuality saying we're hypocrites and that it's no different then us wanting to marry another guy. I mean...holy shit you guys need to read this 

Quote

So how is morality-shaming an admitted anti-gay individual considering legal cousin marriage more objectionable than living a homosexual lifestyle? How is one preferrable over the other. First cousin marriage is common in the Middle East. It  is also legal throughout almost the entire globe except in places in the United States and places in the Far East. Feigning a moral high-ground is simply puerile. Did you forget the Amish community (who do not allow it, but have a higher percentile of birth defects due to their small population when compared to conventional first cousins.. What about the LDS community? (It is allowed, but modern convention frowns on it.) Also  the rates of defects between first cousins tend to be about the same as a woman giving birth in her forties. The percentile is much higher in older parts of the globe where it has been practiced longer and gene pool has had very little variance. You ascribe to a liberal ideology then admittedly point a moral blame whete there is no point to be made. On the contrary, if progressive values are ethically pristine, and the popular standard then you should actually be defending his choice to marry who he wants. After all, you want your choice to marry someone of the same sex defended. The schoolyard rhetoric guised under the face 'of your religious or moral values' is unceremoniously recieved here. The problem with leftist progressivism is eventually you run out of people to label and lay blame to. Can't make anti-marriage choice, anti-hetero remarks while giving a hand job to the guy next to you and not see the irony. You want equality; then you gotta dish it out too. Living in Mexifornia doesn't help your cause at the moment, since most of the those poor, unjustly treated, immigrants come from the same counties where it's allowed to marry the said cousin.. LOL

Calling it "Mexifornia" probably ain't helping his case...Jesus. I think the point in our community laughing is the mere hypocrisy of this lawmaker in wanting to pursue equality while still firmly being against LGBT rights 

 

link btw 

 

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

Kinda ironic how that's the case, despite tons of people saying race isn't an issue for them. Still can't believe how in 2017 racial inequality/treatment and subtle superiority thoughts are still things within society. Yet many have the nerve to act like there's no prejudice or discrimination at all despite the obvious.

I think the most telling thing is that even nominally egalitarian people find themselves leaning rightward towards people like Trump whenever they're confronted with the idea that non-whites could be the majority by 2050.

It's a subconscious error. People make the leap that if one group grows in power, it means their own must lose it. And so racism - and bigotry of any kind - becomes a kneejerk response, even if the person doesn't harbor any real feelings of disdain or hatred.

A lot of the problem boils down to the brain buying into the idea that economics and politics are zero sum, that there must be winners and losers. In reality, done right, you really can create a tide that lifts all boats.

[KHCast]

So...not sure if this has been discussed yet. Not sure where a actual link talking about this is, but I saw this scrolling through my feed

[-Robin-]

 

 

Go figure.

 

As for the Republican healthcare bill, the Congressional Budget Office numbers are in, and 24 more million people are expected to lose insurance under the plan from 2018 to 2026, with 14 million dropped in 2018 alone. So, the bill's basically DOA unless severe changes are made.

[Patticus]

5 hours ago, -Robin- said:

[Tweet]

Go figure.

Meanwhile, Spicer got up in front of the press today and told them and us that Trump doesn't really think that Obama wiretapped him.

Quote

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday that President Donald Trump “doesn’t really think” that Barack Obama “tapped his phone personally,” seeming to walk back Trump’s explosive and unsubstantiated claim that his predecessor ordered an illegal wiretap of Trump Tower.

“He doesn't really think that President Obama went up and tapped his phone personally,” Spicer told reporters at the afternoon press briefing.

Spicer tried to argue that Trump had accused the Obama administration of general “surveillance” activities, and not a literal wiretap, even though Trump himself had use the term “wire tapping” in one of several tweets making the claim without evidence on March 4. Spicer claimed that the fact that Trump put quotation marks around the words “wire tapping” in one tweet was proof that he was not speaking literally.

“I think there is no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election. That is a widely-reported activity that occurred back then,” Spicer said. “The president used the word wiretap in quotes to mean broadly surveillance and other activities during that.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/sean-spicer-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretapping-236001

Trump uses quotes like the tabloid press*, which allows him to get away with so much. He knows exactly what he's doing.

*He's best friends with the man who owns the Globe and the Enquirer, two of America's biggest tabloids, occupying prime real estate in supermarket checkout aisles nationwide.

[PSI Wind]

On 3/13/2017 at 0:32 PM, KHCast said:

So...not sure if this has been discussed yet. Not sure where a actual link talking about this is, but I saw this scrolling through my feed

Okay first of all, the stuff that was in that leak was old code that Wikileaks has been sitting on. Two, no fucking shit CIA can spy on us. It's called the Central INTELLIGENCE Agency. The matter is on that they CAN but we don't know how MUCH compared to what Snowden released with the NSA. Third, why the FUCK would the CIA stage a scandal like that, have Trump elected knowing that Trump would not respect the office or CIA at all, and go after him? The CIA doesn't even HAVE to have him as President to go after Trump as a traitor. It wouldn't be required. It's common fucking sense. It's the same argument on people saying that Soros....sorry, I mean "(((Soros)))" paid illegal immigrants to vote for Hillary and make her have 3 million more votes but overall lose in STATES THAT DON'T FUCKING MATTER!

[Patticus]

Guys guys guys guys guys guy guys. It's all kicking off tonight!

 

Maybe it'll kick off. Maybe not. It could be nothing, of course - Comey could get up there and say he's got nothing on Trump, and the tax returns could be entirely clean, but it could go the other way as well.

Edit: According to rumors swirling about the internet, the tax returns are about 10 years old, so... we're not likely to see Russian connections, and we'll still need to see more.

[CleverSonicUsername]

It basically only proved that he's a rich guy who gets rich guy tax breaks. The problem is it doesn't show where he's getting his income.

So besides providing even more evidence that the American public is interested in seeing Trump's tax returns, this really doesn't prove jack.

[Patticus]

Little in the way of answers, a lot in the way of questions:

What might we find out if we had the various currently missing addenda to the 2005 1040 form?
What would we find out if we saw tax returns from other years?
Who is Trump paying, and to whom is he beholden?
If he was under an IRS audit, why didn't he produce the letter of notification that would have proven its existence?
What did he make a $100m loss on in 2004 that would require he roll it over to next year?

Trump has for decades consorted with a great many known criminals - from drug kingpins to mobsters - and has made some deeply shady deals with Russian oligarchs and Deustche Bank. That should have made seeing his tax returns a top priority in the election, and should by rights continue to make seeing them a priority, from now until the next election day and, if he wins again, beyond.

If 2005's 1040 came out, that proves that the 1040s (and more) from other years could come out as well. If we can get the addenda, it would be incredibly helpful in determining whether the president is paying or is in the pay of known criminals or foreign governments. As was mentioned in the Maddow episode, those money trails could lead back to Beijing, Moscow, even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard! What would it mean if it were made public (from, say, this year's tax return) that the president were in the pay of foreign governments or entities that may be hostile to US interests? It'd surely be a huge scandal.

Also:

[shdowhunt60]

So, noone's been able to explain to me why any of this is productive.

[CleverSonicUsername]

19 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

So, noone's been able to explain to me why any of this is productive.

Candidates have traditionally released their tax returns to prove that they don't have conflicts of interest. In Trump's case, there's a lot of suspicion that he may be beholden to Russian oligarchs, and what exactly that means in terms of his validity as President of the United States. How deep his connection to Russia goes, when it began, and how often he was in contact during the election is all very concerning. These suspicions have been long running, built up from what is known about Trump's past business dealings and the fact that people in his campaign and administration have had ties to Russia.

Of course it could all be nothing. America's favorite boy Comey could get up there and say "I got nothin'!" and then shrug for all we know. But the fact that Trump continues to withhold his return from the public makes him at least appear guilty of something.

 

[shdowhunt60]

9 minutes ago, CleverSonicUsername said:

Candidates have traditionally released their tax returns to prove that they don't have conflicts of interest. In Trump's case, there's a lot of suspicion that he may be beholden to Russian oligarchs,

Yes, I'm aware. Still with no evidence.

Quote

and what exactly that means in terms of his validity as President of the United States.

Very little at this point.

Quote

How deep his connection to Russia goes, when it began,

Or if it even exists.

Quote

and how often he was in contact during the election is all very concerning. These suspicions have been long running, built up from what is known about Trump's past business dealings and the fact that people in his campaign and administration have had ties to Russia.

Again, with no evidence. All these allegations came out of the CIA, and they're totally trustworthy and they don't have an agenda, right?

Quote

Of course it could all be nothing. America's favorite boy Comey could get up there and say "I got nothin'!" and then shrug for all we know. But the fact that Trump continues to withhold his return from the public makes him at least appear guilty of something.

Comey probably doesn't. If anyone would, it's not him or anybody in the FBI. It's going to be the CIA. They're the ones with the Orwellian levels of surveillance, so if anyone knows anything it's going to be them.

At the same time, I wouldn't take anything they say at face value. They ARE professional liars, and have done so constantly.

None of this answers my question by the way. In what way is this actually productive?

[CleverSonicUsername]

Quote

Yes, I'm aware.

Ok so why even post what you originally posted? Sounds like you're both aware and your mind is made up on how you feel about that.

[shdowhunt60]

Because, I'm wondering what you're hoping to accomplish. And my question was not answered. Because all this will succeed in doing is personally humiliating Trump at the very worst. Bravo. Clearly this is something worth not shutting up about for over half a year.

For fucks sake, the birthers at least had a point. Proving that Obama was born out of the country would've meant that he would have failed one major criteria that's critical to becoming POTUS. That's something that would have had a REAL impact, that's something that could've been impeachable.

Personally, I still think that's barking up the wrong tree, because at the end of day that would've meant we had Biden as president, but the point still stands. Birthers had more of a point than people clawing desperately for some loose string at the Russian conspiracy that they're so damned intent on finding.

Man, oh man, I just can't wait for the inevitable sound of absolutely nothing happening.

[CleverSonicUsername]

18 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Because, I'm wondering what you're hoping to accomplish.

 

No, you aren't. Because I told you what getting his tax returns could prove or disprove and you went "I'm aware."

Quote

the birthers at least had a point

hahaha ok

[shdowhunt60]

15 minutes ago, CleverSonicUsername said:

No, you aren't. Because I told you what getting his tax returns could prove or disprove and you went "I'm aware."

Yes, and you completely failed to elaborate on it, which brings me back to my question once again. What does this ACTUALLY DO?

[Patticus]

2 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Yes, and you completely failed to elaborate on it, which brings me back to my question once again. What does this ACTUALLY DO?

It adds fuel to the fire of the demands to see all of Trump's recent tax returns, since it raises more questions than it answers - particularly given how skillfully Maddow has recently joined the dots linking Trump to Beijing, Deustche Bank, Russian oligarchs etc.

Given how little it really tells us though, and the fact that they're stamped "Client Copy," it's likely that Trump himself (or someone within his family circle) leaked the doc - he has leaked stuff on himself before, when he thought it'd be to his advantage to do so. It may have been to quiet down the talk about his tax returns by getting a "good one" out there to prove they're all above board, but much more likely is that he wanted to drive the news cycle away from some other newsworthy goings-on that would hurt him.

The end result is more questions (e.g. is Trump's push to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax driven by a self interested desire to lower his own tax rate?), likely increased demand for the full returns, and a news cycle dominated by the reveal.

Edit: The tax return story directly benefits Trump by pushing this Tillerson story down or out of the news cycle:

Quote

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former head of Exxon Mobil, used an alias email address while at the oil company to discuss information related to climate change, the New York attorney general says.

Eric Schneiderman says Mr Tillerson used an account named "Wayne Tracker" for at least seven years.

Wayne is Mr Tillerson's middle name.

Mr Schneiderman is investigating whether Exxon misled investors and the public about climate change.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39274174

If Trump didn't leak it, someone very close to him probably did, because this story could potentially force Tillerson out, which would reflect awfully badly on Trump.

[Tani Coyote]

3 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

For fucks sake, the birthers at least had a point. Proving that Obama was born out of the country would've meant that he would have failed one major criteria that's critical to becoming POTUS. That's something that would have had a REAL impact, that's something that could've been impeachable.

I think a sitting President possibly having commercial ties to a foreign country (especially one clearly hostile to US interests) is pretty damned concerning, don't know about you.

This completely ignoring that perjury (in the event he testified before Congress) and foreign emoluments are absolutely impeachable. I'd argue we don't even need impeachment procedures if a President is found to be of foreign birth; he would simply be automatically disqualified, as his Presidency is fundamentally illegitimate.

Obama eventually yielded and provided his birth certificate to quell the rumors. Sure, he took a few years to do it, but how often does a President get asked for their birth certificate? From my research, none since Chester Arthur in 1881.

Two key differences here: Trump is adamant about not releasing his returns, when releasing tax returns has become a convention.

Oh, and the third thing: given Russian connections have dogged the Trump administration thus far, is it really a stretch to assume he might have connections himself as a billionaire? This is to say nothing of his repeated praise for Putin.

Frankly, to use the right's own logic against them, he strikes me as if he's hiding something. He could authorize a full release to humiliate his opponents (as you seem fairly keen on happening) and yet... he doesn't.

Then again, he's not well known for his intelligence.

[shdowhunt60]

6 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

I think a sitting President possibly having commercial ties to a foreign country

Were you not Pro-Hillary?

6 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

(especially one clearly hostile to US interests)

Supposedly. I'd say we've been far more hostile to them than they have to us, and I still maintain that a Hillary administration would've escalated this further.

6 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

This completely ignoring that perjury (in the event he testified before Congress) and foreign emoluments are absolutely impeachable. I'd argue we don't even need impeachment procedures if a President is found to be of foreign birth; he would simply be automatically disqualified, as his Presidency is fundamentally illegitimate.

Obama eventually yielded and provided his birth certificate to quell the rumors. Sure, he took a few years to do it, but how often does a President get asked for their birth certificate? From my research, none since Chester Arthur in 1881.

How often to people ask the president for his Tax Returns?

6 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

Two key differences here: Trump is adamant about not releasing his returns, when releasing tax returns has become a convention.

Yes, and clearly not mandatory. I don't think anybody's ever pretended that Trump was conventional.

6 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

Oh, and the third thing: given Russian connections have dogged the Trump administration thus far, is it really a stretch to assume he might have connections himself as a billionaire? This is to say nothing of his repeated praise for Putin.

You mean the connections that they have repeatedly tried to pin him on, and found absolutely nothing?

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

By the way, incredibly funny how we have all this coverage on Trump being spied on... And yet people are laughing when he's now claiming that he was spied on.

6 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

Frankly, to use the right's own logic against them, he strikes me as if he's hiding something. He could authorize a full release to humiliate his opponents (as you seem fairly keen on happening) and yet... he doesn't.

Then again, he's not well known for his intelligence.

That or he has nothing to hide, and it's none of your damned business. That may be how he's looking at it.

Either way, it looks like I was actually wrong. We did get something out of Trump's 2005 1040 forms. Rachel Maddow's complete and utter humiliation.

 

[KHCast]

Am I the only one seeing the irony from Trump defenders regarding the tax returns debacle. Reminds me of a certain email controversy.

 

[PSI Wind]

2 hours ago, KHCast said:

Am I the only one seeing the irony from Trump defenders regarding the tax returns debacle. Reminds me of a certain email controversy.

 

EMAILS!? OH MY GOD YOU'RE RIGHT WHERE ARE THOSE DELETED EMAILS THAT WOULD ONLY BE IN A BACKUP SERVER IF THERE IS ONE!? WHY DID THIS PHYSICAL TAX FORM THAT TRUMP OR SOMEONE IN HIS CIRCLE POSSIBLY LEAK HIMSELF CONSIDERING THE CLIENT COPY ON IT!? BRING.THIS.TO.THE.TOP!

[Nepenthe]

3 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

How often to people ask the president for his Tax Returns?

Not often, usually because the President provides them of their own volition in order to clear the air of collusion and treason.

3 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Yes, and clearly not mandatory. I don't think anybody's ever pretended that Trump was conventional.

You mean the connections that they have repeatedly tried to pin him on, and found absolutely nothing?

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

You realize the investigation is still on-going, right? We're three months into this shitshow, and Nixon's fallout took a year.

3 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

By the way, incredibly funny how we have all this coverage on Trump being spied on... And yet people are laughing when he's now claiming that he was spied on.

No one is claiming Trump was spied on by Russians. They're claiming he knew about and allowed Russian interference and money into the election to skew his chances of winning, and in return would provide political actions that would benefit Russia down the line as the expense of American interests, aka collusion and treason.

This is not the same as him claiming Obama wiretapped his phone, which he and his pets Spicer and Conway couldn't provide evidence of by the court-ordered deadline, because he was lying.

3 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

That or he has nothing to hide, and it's none of your damned business. That may be how he's looking at it.

Same with the birth certificate, but Obama debased himself and provided it to ease (some of) the racists' concerns. This is to say nothing of the fact that Trump lied about not being able to do so because of audits, despite the fact that being audited doesn't prohibit releasing them, then he said he'd release them when he won, then he said that he wouldn't anyway. If he insisted in the beginning that it was no one's business, at least he would've stuck to his principles despite how shady not providing them is regardless. But he didn't. He just kept lying about it.

3 hours ago, KHCast said:

Am I the only one seeing the irony from Trump defenders regarding the tax returns debacle. Reminds me of a certain email controversy.

It was never actually about emails. It was about demonizing a woman Democrat.