The Trump Presidency – 2016

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

For this analogue to hold, the next Republican primary would have significantly fewer choices as the options gradually dwindle with each cycle. Yet that's not what we are seeing happen. The point I was making with the primaries is that each time we have on of these(pretty much whenever either party doesn't have an incumbent), the 'owl', 'snake', etc. voters have a chance to convince the rest that their candidate is better. Every party evolves over time. Clinton isn't the same as Obama who wasn't the same as Kerry, same with Trump/Romney/McCain/Bush etc. There's always a full opportunity for people to decide to pick someone quite different than the person they picked last time around, and different aspects of the party gain/lose influence. It's not static like the video claims and choice is increasing, not decreasing.

I don't disagree as much temporally from election cycle to election cycle, but the voters in later primaries had fewer choices than the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Money, strategeries, etc. coalesced around the early leaders. Maybe the video is missing a transition statement for it to be a perfect comparison to our primary system, I'll grant that, but the first past the post primaries really reduce choice beyond the first couple of primary dates.

In the general election, it's a little baked once you arrive at a two party system because of the way the rules and the money are set up. third parties get crowded out by one of the big two.

We have rank choice voting in all local elections here and it works really well, provides for a more positive campaign where candidates talk about issues and how they can solve them rather than how awful the other guy or gal is.

I'd be all for seeing it on a broader basis.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I was not a fan of how she handled Bill's infidelities. If you are with a serial cheater, either you do not respect yourself, or you are in it strictly for the

I get most of the rest of your post, I may disagree with most of your conclusions but I appreciate the discourse. But how can you possibly mention Hillary being a victim of adultery and not having any respect for her reaction... when the alternative is Donald Trump?

[Edward64]

FWIW, good discussion from all sides.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Abortion as an issue for the religious right (Catholics, who have been pretty consistent on the issue, excluded) really only arose in the last 40 years.

The odd thing with abortion is that it is at it's lowest point since the Roe vs Wade ruling. The advent of sex education and increased access to birth control has worked.

It's why I still contend that Pro-Life is really not about abortion. They've opposed both sex education and contraceptives. You can argue their efforts lead to many more abortions every year.

Truth is that it's about women and sex. People upset that others are having it. Whether that's through jealousy or their own insecurities is another story.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Some really good, logical, well thought out arguments from some people in here today. Really good points.

This needs to be repeated. This has been a good FOFC day

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Whether that's through jealousy or their own insecurities is another story.

Men have generally struggled with the thought of women having sex for enjoyment.

I struggle to understand how someone can be pro life but not want expanded Healthcare or expanded social programs for low income families. You want a fetus to go full term but give zero shits about what happens afterwards. You can't call that pro life.

[JPhillips]

If you don't want to look at things like the Willie Horton ad, look at the nearly two decade long campaign to restrict voting access for minorities. Don't forget that the Bush2 US attorneys scandal was about forcing them to publicly investigate voter fraud. As soon as the Supreme Court eliminated preclearance states rushed to put restrictions on registration and voting. There are a ton of examples like the recent Georgia county that tried to close seven of nine polling locations in heavily black areas.

You can argue that intent here is more partisan than racial, but the only way to restrict voting and be relatively certain it hurts Democrats far more than Republicans is to target minorities and college voters. Whether the intent is racial or not, the plan and the outcome has been to clearly make it more difficult for Blacks and Hispanics to register and vote.

The GOP electeds know the outcome is racially biased, but as with so many other items, they don't care because it makes it more likely they win.

There's soooo much evidence that the GOP, at best, tolerates racism that I can't see how a rational person can deny it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump cancels pay raises for most federal employees set to take effect in January, citing budget.

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) August 30, 2018

You are a shithead, Williamson.

Yeah with the current projected inflation increases I'm essentially taking a decent pay cut next year.

[mauchow]

This is a typical on Facebook pretty much daily on my feeds:

"Mike Mau this country would be fucked if trump was out period! Never had more jobs never had economy like it has been in yrs! I’m assuming your democratic and watch out country go to shit! My eyes all the pussies go democratic or welfare why is out country screwed democratic party"

"Mike Mau is there enough to put trump at guilt nope! Like anything I m life I say shouldn’t be public till conviction cause all it does is ruin a persons life media is what’s wrong with this country and parents who don punish there kids"

"Just saying is trump even in it yet! And people run there mouth! If he is convicted then run your mouth! So sick of bs every democratic person is out for him! Why? Cause he is not politically speaking and says what he believes and made this country great again so whine and protest like all the other people! We went through Obama which was worst 8 yrs in American history. But Democratic Party will blame on bush! What’s wrong with this country is Democratic Party poor me blame everything on others �� done arguing he gets impeached watch country go to depression my words"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Living in California at that time, and hearing a lot of the other items, I was on board with him. I did forget that he started his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, and have never listened to either of his speeches there.

I look at his cutting of taxes, tackling stagflation, being strong on the Soviets, as why I would have voted for him had I been old enough. Also, he changed the national psyche from what had come before, especially from the malaise of Carter.

With regards to cutting welfare, and the welfare queens, my experience with that in Memphis was that it was predominately a black issue, that said, I did know some whites on welfare as well. The neighborhood I lived in myself, had a roughly 50/50 split racially, but the back street which had not been redeveloped as it was supposed to be was poor (think $150k starter homes and then a road of primarily shacks), and that was 80% black. That street had a crack house, had a couple of gang or drug related killings, and the police regularly had a stakeout in the area trying to nail the suppliers.

My reason for not backing long term welfare has been the impact it has on people. My personal experience, when someone gives me something, it is not as important as something I have earned or worked for. College is a great example, I screwed around my first two years, not completely, but I did not buckle down as much as I could have. I offered to help pay for some of it, but my parents refused. It was not until my father had a cancer battle that I pulled up the boot straps and realized I had to get moving, I might have had to support my mother in the near future. I had also learned that when I relied on myself, whatever I was doing, it turned out much better than when I relied on someone else to help.

This was reinforced by my environment, in Memphis, what projects there were, were all run down and dilapidated. The minorities where I lived had well maintained yards, and acted more or less like I did. Of course, several of them were the children of former NFL players or major black entertainers.
One of my friends godparents was Isaac Hayes.

In California, most of my friends were minorities. My best friends were Argentinian, Filipino, mixed Mexican/Black, and mixed Black/White. In Memphis while in school, I was not as popular as I could have been because I had no issue interacting with what black students we had (the area I went to school from 4th grade through high school was 95% white).

What I learned from my time in Memphis was economics played a much larger role than race in how you were going to act. One of my friends from 6th grade on in Memphis wound up running the IT department for a major hospital in MN. He listened to Michael Savage and bought into a lot of what he had to say. He was much harder on other blacks than I was because he went through some of the same challenges as those less fortunate. His father walked out on the family when he was in 6th or 7th grade. He was smart enough to realize that he was possibly going to fall off the wagon after high school. So he enrolled in the military, did his 4 years, went to college, and got a CS degree. His stance, and one I had similarly arrived at previously, was for the less fortunate, going through the military, taking advantage of the GI Bill, would provide a great springboard for the rest of your life. It provides discipline and a middle class (granted, lower middle class for most) income as well as job skills that could set you up for the next stage of your life.

So I might be tone deaf, in part because I think people think similarly to the way I do. Of course, as you get older you realize this is not the case. When I was 27, I was put in charge of one of the inventory teams at work as an auditor. My entire crew was black. Whenever, I was doing spot checks, I was accused of being racist and making them do it because I was in charge. Rather than argue, I asked them to get out of the way, and did one or two of the recounts. When they realized I was just trying to get the job done as it was supposed to be done, they went ahead and did what was required. The problem was, there were other people there that during previous inventories jerked them around because they thought it was funny.

So when you have stuff like Willie Horton, etc., come up, I did not immediately think, ah, this is code to heighten my fear of blacks, I looked at it as Dukakis backed a poorly designed furlough system.

I did not vote for Obama because I disagreed with his policies.

The one person that I did not vote for because of who they were was Hilary Clinton. I did not like the job she did as Sec. of State, and I heard too many stories about her when I traveled in AR extensively from 98-2002. I was not a fan of how she handled Bill's infidelities. If you are with a serial cheater, either you do not respect yourself, or you are in it strictly for the

As I have mentioned before, I voted for Trump because he listed his Supreme Court short list, which was important to me. I also hoped that the devil we did not know, would be better than the devil we do know. In the next election, I have no idea what I am going to do. The problem is, I do not see the Democrats running a fiscal conservative. Then again, the Republicans have not either since '88.

Been pulled off this enough due to work and will probably continue to stray from the original intent, so I will post this and get back to doing what I need to.

You have a narrow view on the term welfare. You're basing it on food stamps and perhaps a monthly check to help cover costs. But if we're talking about "earning" things, we have to be broader in that view.

For instance, if you live in a wealthy suburb, you will attend a much better school as someone in a poor neighborhood. Is this not a form of welfare (or perhaps a handout is a better term)? The child certainly didn't "earn" access to a better school system. They didn't "earn" the future opportunities for college that this would bring.

You mentioned your parents being able to pay your college which is something many students don't have the luxury of. They either have to take out huge loans or work during the school year. That seems like something you didn't "earn". And sure it came from your parents, but it's still a handout.

I understand the whole bootstraps argument and would believe in it if this was a level playing field. But you're spotting a team's opponent 30 points and then questioning why they aren't winning that game. Yes there are times when a team can come back and win that game, but it's still an enormous disadvantage to overcome.

There are many forms of "welfare" in this country. Why didn't Reagan talk about the massive agricultural subsidies we give farmers? What about huge tax break wealthy individuals get from their rate on capital gains? Or the estate tax that allows you to give tax free income to people who didn't "earn it"? Where is the same outrage from Republican voters when states hand over billions in tax subsidies to large profitable companies? Or pay defense contractors for systems and products the country doesn't need simply because it creates jobs in a certain district? Perhaps because the people those handouts went to fit a certain demographic.

The point is that welfare and handouts are everywhere in this country. Whether it be through the government or a wealthy parent. And that we cherry pick a few because it aims to make people feel better about themselves.

Truth is that the higher rate of food stamps in the black community is likely do to the very short time they've been close to equal footing as everyone else. Little over 50 years ago segregation was still a thing. A few generations back they were enslaved. You have years of being unable to legally vote that is still being worked on today. Considering the lack of generational economic mobility in this country, it's not a surprise that a segment of the population which were treated as second-class citizens may not yet overcome that disadvantage in the course of 1 or 2 generations.

If you want to preach a system where people "earn" what they get, then you have to have a system where the playing field is level.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Men have generally struggled with the thought of women having sex for enjoyment.

I struggle to understand how someone can be pro life but not want expanded Healthcare or expanded social programs for low income families. You want a fetus to go full term but give zero shits about what happens afterwards. You can't call that pro life.

I don't know if I'd consider myself Pro-Life because of it's stigma toward women. But I personally hate abortion. I think it's one of the saddest things someone could do and I wish people didn't feel like they had to be in that position in the first place.

That's why I'm for sex education. Why I'm for free contraceptives to all that want it. Make it as easy as possible to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

And as for the money argument, it's much cheaper to pay for contraceptives than the child of an unwanted pregnancy. Rates of crime, incarceration, and so on are much higher. So if a few hundred bucks saves our government the millions in costs through the justice system that an unwanted child in a bad situation might bring, that would seem to be a fiscal victory.

But like you said, this is about women having sex and it making some people very uncomfortable.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

To me, Bush was Albany. Getting away with Patriot Act, torture, false wars, planting false info with press, cronyism with enron and fema, blowing up the debt and deregulating wall street.

Not sure what Trump has gotten away with. Only things passed were purely at the discretion of congress. No wall, no healthcare repeal, no jailed Hiliary

I kind of agree with this. His damage to the country lies more with our relations overseas and with the increase of hate based on race and ethnicity. The Russia infiltration into the party is concerning but that can be wiped out in an election cycle. You'd think the next President would look to be much tougher on Russia just for the sake of public relations.

People like Cheney and Kissinger make Trump look like a saint.

Probably the saving grace is that Trump is more obsessed with what cable news says about him than actually passing policy. People complain about him watching Fox News all day, but would you rather have him engaged in the Presidency?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by mauchow

...stuff from Facebook...

This is my feed almost every single day...and between the spelling and grammar issues, it's not hard to figure out who the majority of "die-hard" Trump supporters are.

(There are exceptions, obviously.)

What it does, however, is make me even less sensitive to the argument that the GOP won in 2016 because it appealed to white, working class voters who had been left behind.

The country didn't leave you behind, you half-educated morons. You didn't keep up. I remember you from high school, yes, and while I was working my ass off for scholarships, taking on college debt, working my way through school at all levels, you were partying your way through the weekends and reveling in gridiron glory, Al Bundy style, and assuming that would be your whole life.

You were, you see, one of the inevitable losers in a capitalist economic system, because you stopped adapting to change. Now you want a handout and are angry that you're not getting it. (And here you think the handouts are going to us debt-laden college kids. All about that personal responsibility, right?)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I've got plenty of screeds for corporate interests who have slanted the game in their favor. That's not a party politics issue, as far as I'm concerned. That's a political class issue, but none of those dumb fuckers are going to take it to heart until they're up against the wall when the revolution comes. We're all swirling down the drain...the more competitive among us are just swirling a little slower.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm reading a lot of negativity from Dem supporters on HRC here and I don't get it. I voted for her then and would again any day over Trump.

That's not to say I don't agree with Trump on some issues but overall HRC would have been a much better president IMO. The ideal situation would have been HRC in the presidency and a GOP Congress.

Because however she was as a Senator in a blue state and a Sec State in a blue government, she was absolute shit at campaigning nationally, and we as a nation paid for her arrogance. She got rocked by Obama early in '08 and could never recover and despite having the DNC having the finger on the scale in '16 couldn't finish off Sanders. Then in a general election assumes she has the Midwest locked up and spends her last weeks trying to flip Georgia and Arizona to "run up the score"


Ignoring a 30 year smear campaign against her, she's just not a good campaigner.

[jeff061]

Yep, Clinton's failure brought this baboon into office. The second she lost she should have disappeared into retirement. Instead I have to hear her BS excuses on why it's someone else's fault she couldn't beat a fool like Trump as she champions her shit book. Cause money.

And yeah, she was my choice as well and I completely believe 95% of the knocks on her are vapor from a decades long smear campaign. Regardless,
the loser needs to just go away now. There's nothing constructive to be had from her squawking.

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is my feed almost every single day...and between the spelling and grammar issues, it's not hard to figure out who the majority of "die-hard" Trump supporters are.

(There are exceptions, obviously.)

What it does, however, is make me even less sensitive to the argument that the GOP won in 2016 because it appealed to white, working class voters who had been left behind.

The country didn't leave you behind, you half-educated morons. You didn't keep up. I remember you from high school, yes, and while I was working my ass off for scholarships, taking on college debt, working my way through school at all levels, you were partying your way through the weekends and reveling in gridiron glory, Al Bundy style, and assuming that would be your whole life.

You were, you see, one of the inevitable losers in a capitalist economic system, because you stopped adapting to change. Now you want a handout and are angry that you're not getting it. (And here you think the handouts are going to us debt-laden college kids. All about that personal responsibility, right?)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I've got plenty of screeds for corporate interests who have slanted the game in their favor. That's not a party politics issue, as far as I'm concerned. That's a political class issue, but none of those dumb fuckers are going to take it to heart until they're up against the wall when the revolution comes. We're all swirling down the drain...the more competitive among us are just swirling a little slower.

Exactly. I stopped arguing with these guys last year even though it takes a lot not to.. theres just no point anymore. Whatever trump says is gospel as indicated by him saying the country would go in the shitter if he was to be impeached.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by mauchow

Exactly. I stopped arguing with these guys last year even though it takes a lot not to.. theres just no point anymore. Whatever trump says is gospel as indicated by him saying the country would go in the shitter if he was to be impeached.

Well Mike Pence would then be president, I don't think Trump is wrong on this one .

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by mauchow

Exactly. I stopped arguing with these guys last year even though it takes a lot not to.. theres just no point anymore. Whatever trump says is gospel as indicated by him saying the country would go in the shitter if he was to be impeached.

The unfortunate thing is that his policies may very well be putting us in the shitter, but we'll coast long enough for things to hold out until he's out of office. And boy, will we hear it when he's out of office.

(That's something else I was talking about the other day - most presidents are ok at staying out of the public eye and for the most part letting their successors do their thing. I really don't see Trump not continuing to draw attention to himself.)

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I really don't see Trump not continuing to draw attention to himself.)

Hopefully for everyone’s sake he just dies off quickly and the stain he’s brought out and covered the country with can start to heal. If he’s still around post-office he’s just going to continue being a story and continue to divide and distract from whatever the next President tries to accomplish.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The odd thing with abortion is that it is at it's lowest point since the Roe vs Wade ruling. The advent of sex education and increased access to birth control has worked.

Oh, absolutely. If you teach a girl how to take control of her fertility, she will; that's not even, strictly speaking, a teen pregnancy thing. Women who learn about that but aren't sexually active as teenagers will remember what they learned when they're young adults and start down that path.

It's really no different than Vacation Bible School: teach 'em young, and they'll remember as adults. It's just, y'know, different subject matter.

It's why I still contend that Pro-Life is really not about abortion. They've opposed both sex education and contraceptives. You can argue their efforts lead to many more abortions every year.

Truth is that it's about women and sex. People upset that others are having it. Whether that's through jealousy or their own insecurities is another story.

Pretty much. Show me somebody who supports strengthening food and housing security, and helping needy parents get affordable, accessible child care, while at the same time opposing abortion, and I'll show you someone who's genuinely pro-life. The problem, to me, is that way too many of those who claim "pro-life" think that ends with "banning abortion and everything will be perfect forever." It doesn't work that way. Banning abortion will have consequences, and I don't mean "you should have kept your legs together." It impacts society, and it reverberates generationally. If you want to reduce abortion, you need to educate girls and you need to provide a robust safety net so that at-risk pregnant women don't turn to abortion out of desperation.

[JPhillips]

This from Trump is getting a lot of deserved mockery,

"They want to raid Medicare to pay for socialism."

But it's also a clear window into the worldview of a lot of Trump voters. They have earned their government checks and Dems want to steal their money and give it to minorities that didn't earn it.

[JPhillips]

dola

There's a pretty high stakes deadline on the NAFTA talks with Canada today. Yesterday there were reports something would get signed, but today that's in question. Trump couldn't resist shit talking about how the U.S. wasn't making any compromises and Canada was losing, and a reporter got the comments. Now that they are public the Canadians are resisting signing the deal.

Best negotiator ever.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

There's a pretty high stakes deadline on the NAFTA talks with Canada today. Yesterday there were reports something would get signed, but today that's in question. Trump couldn't resist shit talking about how the U.S. wasn't making any compromises and Canada was losing, and a reporter got the comments. Now that they are public the Canadians are resisting signing the deal.

Best negotiator ever.

In hindsight, the fact that Trump is a bad negotiator seems so obvious. He's never had to negotiate. He was born rich. And he only did deals where his money gave him leverage over the other guy. And when he couldn't even do that right, he declared bankruptcy.

The guy's never had to do an arms-length negotiation in his life. So, yeah, he sucks at it as badly as someone like I would.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The unfortunate thing is that his policies may very well be putting us in the shitter, but we'll coast long enough for things to hold out until he's out of office. And boy, will we hear it when he's out of office.

He appears to be doing the same thing Thatcher did in England - he's funding the now by selling the future.

In Thatchers case she nationalised all the profit making industries which were government owned and gave short-term money to voters as bribes (sold under-priced so easy money from stock purchases, tax changes and cheap housing).

In Trumps case he's inflated the market by giving tax cuts to corporations - this will seem 'great' until the deficit gets to a level where things are no longer sustainable and serious cuts have to be done.

My expectations is that he and the Republicans will ignore this totally until the Democrats get into power and then blame them for the deficit .... and the cuts/tax raises they have to do to get things under control will then eventually fuel the Republicans being re-elected at some point in the future.

[JPhillips]

The GOP has been clear about the plan, cause a fiscal crisis and use it to cut entitlements. It's the how to for getting to Norquist's idea of a government small enough to drown in the bath tub.

[Edward64]

I agree with this decision in principle but don't think the US should eliminate all the aid but should greatly reduce it. I get people here can bring up inconsistencies in Trump's FP and there are other more worthy areas that can be cut. But why is the US the largest contributor?

Large majority of Palestinians don't like us, I'm sure the aid is appreciated by those that are directly affected, but Palestinians as a whole won't ever appreciate us because of many (arguably) valid reasons. SA has stepped up to the plate but article didn't have a breakdown of "other nations". I'm pretty sure the other ME countries can chip in to help more.

Why be the biggest contributor to a country/people that is not friendly when there is no strategic interest? Why give a handout to them when its not appreciated? I rather use the funds on other countries/people or causes that can move the dial.

Palestinians brand US aid cut to UN group 'a flagrant assault' - BBC News

The US has been the largest single donor to Unrwa, providing $368m (£284m) in 2016 and funding almost 30% of its operations in the region.
:
The state department said the US had shouldered a "very disproportionate share of the burden of Unrwa's costs", and that the international community should contribute more.
:
President Trump also appears unhappy with how US aid to the region has been received.

He has previously tweeted that the US has not received "appreciation or respect" for the aid it has provided, and that the Palestinians are unwilling to negotiate with Israel.

[Edward64]

I like this re: RMD with the caveat the tax/deficit implications are not known yet. Sure it advantages the wealthy (but they'll always have tax advisers to minimize their retirement taxes anyway). It helps upper/middle class savers too like me.

Very likely it'll keep money in the stock market which is a good thing.

I would up the pre-tax contribution amounts to encourage more saving.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/trum...ive-order.html

Specifically, an executive order Trump signed seeks a review of how required minimum distributions from 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts are calculated, and for regulators to see how small businesses can more easily band together to offer retirement plans to their workers.

As it stands, retirees must begin taking withdrawals, or RMDs, at age 70½. The amount they must take out annually is based on life expectancy tables issued by the IRS. The purpose of reviewing the rules would be to update those tables and allow account holders to take lower RMDs. (Roth versions of 401(k) plans and IRAs do not come with mandated distributions until after the death of the owner.)

[PilotMan]

Would you rather be supplying aid to the Palestinians and maintaining a sphere of influence and communication with them, or would you rather save the money, but lose your influence and watch Russia fill that void. Do you think they would be easier to work with in achieving a peaceful, negotiated settlement with option 1, or option 2?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I like this re: RMD with the caveat the tax/deficit implications are not known yet. Sure it advantages the wealthy (but they'll always have tax advisers to minimize their retirement taxes anyway). It helps upper/middle class savers too like me.

Very likely it'll keep money in the stock market which is a good thing.

I would up the pre-tax contribution amounts to encourage more saving.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/trum...ive-order.html

dola


It should come as no surprise, that surprise! baby boomers are looking for ways to tweak rules that benefit them, and only them (RE minimum distributions past age 70), as they have for the last 40 years.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Would you rather be supplying aid to the Palestinians and maintaining a sphere of influence and communication with them, or would you rather save the money, but lose your influence and watch Russia fill that void. Do you think they would be easier to work with in achieving a peaceful, negotiated settlement with option 1, or option 2?

How about a couple more options.

Redirect the aid to Egypt or Jordan, both in the same sphere of influence and are somewhat friendly to the US strategic interests.

Re: easier to work with in achieving a peaceful settlement, helping the Palestinians with this aid won't help that. Helping Jordan and Egypt might with the pressure/influence they have in the region.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It should come as no surprise, that surprise! baby boomers are looking for ways to tweak rules that benefit them, and only them (RE minimum distributions past age 70), as they have for the last 40 years.

Shouldn't blame Baby Boomers as a whole but I agree that it only directly benefits them. However, more money in the stock market indirectly benefits everyone.

The other part was helping small companies band together to offer more retirement options. So it's not all one-sided.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

However, more money in the stock market indirectly benefits everyone.

No, not even close to everyone.

[JPhillips]

Trump and his folks are geniuses when it comes to manipulating the media. In any other administration these changes would have barely merited a couple of paragraphs buried somewhere in the business section. Trump, though, has a signing ceremony and suddenly a trivial regulatory change and a study to examine proposed changes become news.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

How about a couple more options.

Redirect the aid to Egypt or Jordan, both in the same sphere of influence and are somewhat friendly to the US strategic interests.

Re: easier to work with in achieving a peaceful settlement, helping the Palestinians with this aid won't help that. Helping Jordan and Egypt might with the pressure/influence they have in the region.

The U.S. already gives a shit ton of money.to Egypt to not invade Israel. I would imagine they give a fair bit to Jordan, too.

These countries are not friendly with us just "cuz," ya know.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The U.S. already gives a shit ton of money.to Egypt to not invade Israel. I would imagine they give a fair bit to Jordan, too.

These countries are not friendly with us just "cuz," ya know.

Sure. I guess money works with them (and furthers our strategic goals).

[JPhillips]

Really enjoyed a round of golf with President @realDonaldTrump today.

President Trump shot a 73 in windy and wet conditions!

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 9, 2017

To put this in context, a 73 over 18 holes would have easily qualified Trump for the VA Senior Championship at any of the qualifying courses where tournaments were held. Keep in mind seniors golf is age 50 and over. Trump is 71 and obese. But he shot a 73. In wind and rain.

[NobodyHere]

Considering the amount of time he spends golfing it makes sense.

[molson]

There may have been a few mulligans in there, but apparently Trump was a 4 handicap at one point and won a bunch of club tournaments.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how...ump-the-golfer

And I've only golfed a handful of times, but isn't there the element where a really good amateur can occasionally get a pro-level score, but doing so consistently is what separates people talent-wise?

[stevew]

Man I cannot wait until Trump and Kim Jong-il get to play a round of golf in Hell together

[JPhillips]

After a reported score of 68 last November, Trump lowered his handicap to 2.5.

I have no doubt that he's a good golfer for his age. I have great doubt he's one of the best senior amateurs in the country.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by stevew

Man I cannot wait until Trump and Kim Jong-il get to play a round of golf in Hell together

Trump's got nothing on Kim

Kim Jong-Il once carded 38-under par at Pyongyang Golf Course

[JPhillips]

Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018

He's telling the AG to ignore crimes if they're committed by Republicans.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018

He's telling the AG to ignore crimes if they're committed by Republicans.

Guess he also forgot he was President in 2017

[Thomkal]

I guess people have had enough of Steve Bannon; He was announced to be one of the guests at some festival the New Yorker is hosting. People started pulling out left and right and finally they had to uninvite him. Ari Melber got a lot of flak recently for an interview he did with Bannon.



The New Yorker cancels Steve Bannon's festival appearance after growing backlash

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by molson

There may have been a few mulligans in there, but apparently Trump was a 4 handicap at one point and won a bunch of club tournaments.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how...ump-the-golfer

And I've only golfed a handful of times, but isn't there the element where a really good amateur can occasionally get a pro-level score, but doing so consistently is what separates people talent-wise?

Yes. There are a few caveats though, most amateurs do not play with strict adherence to the rules. It is not uncommon to see a guy on the edge of the rough kick his ball over a few inches, lift and replace a shot in the rough, etc.

When I worked at a golf course as a kid, we had a saying, how do you know when a golfer is lying? His lips are moving.

[corbes]

Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency - The Washington Post

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by corbes

Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency - The Washington Post

Super excited to see Trump supporters claiming this is some no name trying to make a buck and a name for himself by lying to the people of 'Merica!

[Thomkal]

Kavanaugh not getting a warm reception from Senate Democrats and protestors in his confirmation hearing. Good

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Kavanaugh not getting a warm reception from Senate Democrats and protestors in his confirmation hearing. Good

I'm not a fan of the protesters disrupting the hearing. All they are doing is fueling the fire for people on the right to claim the left is no better. There are obviously fringes of both sides, but for the left to be seen in such a public forum acting that way isn't a good look.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm not a fan of the protesters disrupting the hearing. All they are doing is fueling the fire for people on the right to claim the left is no better. There are obviously fringes of both sides, but for the left to be seen in such a public forum acting that way isn't a good look.

Except the 2016 election finally proved beyond all doubt that there is no constituency for decorum and respect for institutions. There is no middle to convince, only partisans to inspire. Unfortunately I think this is what smart politics will look like for a while, loud and pointless spectacles that show the base how hard you’re fighting to stop the other side.