Political Roundtable Part XII

[Induveca]

"Not everyone is blessed with the necessary IQ and reasoning skills to make it through college and get employed in a productive field." This is what might look like an ordinary statement but is really ugly. The disaffected white workers whose cause nate seems to feel aligned with & whose resentment gave us the current jackass Presidnyet, wouldn't like to be described as lacking "necessary IQ and reasoning skills."

I do think it's reasonable to question the "reasoning skills" of anyone who would vote for a bigot, bully and liar like Trump.

Yup. That's going to work real well for your side politically. "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot... or a bigot... or Hitler".

Doubling down and increasing the "deplorable" label seems like a poor strategy.

[pineappleheadindc]

I see that customs personnel at airports refused to comply with judicial cease-and-desist orders. That's executive branch personnel not adhering to judicial branch legal declarations.

Book this: On January 29, 2017 -- I'm calling that Trump will be impeached before his first term over.

More importantly, it will be Congressional *Republicans* who will lead the impeachment proceedings (all to save their brand).

[gtn130]

"Not everyone is blessed with the necessary IQ and reasoning skills to make it through college and get employed in a productive field." This is what might look like an ordinary statement but is really ugly. The disaffected white workers whose cause nate seems to feel aligned with & whose resentment gave us the current jackass Presidnyet, wouldn't like to be described as lacking "necessary IQ and reasoning skills."

I do think it's reasonable to question the "reasoning skills" of anyone who would vote for a bigot, bully and liar like Trump.

Yup. That's going to work real well for your side politically. "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot... or a bigot... or Hitler".

yeah i agree people underestimated how spiteful and illogical trump voters are

[nate33]

I see that customs personnel at airports refused to comply with judicial cease-and-desist orders. That's executive branch personnel not adhering to judicial branch legal declarations.

Book this: On January 29, 2017 -- I'm calling that Trump will be impeached before his first term over.

More importantly, it will be Congressional *Republicans* who will lead the impeachment proceedings (all to save their brand).

Never gonna happen. Or it certainly won't happen unless there's a massive landslide win for Democrats in 2018, giving them both houses.

Republican congressmen are trying to win the votes of Republicans, not Democrats. How is impeaching Trump going to help Republican congressmen win votes?

[pineappleheadindc]

I see that customs personnel at airports refused to comply with judicial cease-and-desist orders. That's executive branch personnel not adhering to judicial branch legal declarations.

Book this: On January 29, 2017 -- I'm calling that Trump will be impeached before his first term over.

More importantly, it will be Congressional *Republicans* who will lead the impeachment proceedings (all to save their brand).

Never gonna happen. Or it certainly won't happen unless there's a massive landslide win for Democrats in 2018, giving them both houses.

Republican congressmen are trying to win the votes of Republicans, not Democrats. How is impeaching Trump going to help Republican congressmen win votes?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to extend and revise my remarks. Here is my thinking:

1. Congressional Republicans don't care about Trump, they care about maintaining Republican control of Congress.
2. Trump and Bannon are not helping themselves. It's only been a little over a week and they're sinking in polls, kinds screwing up simple things like Executive Orders and them being vetted by (their own) executive branch agencies.
3. At some point, Trump and crew are gonna hit a mark where their relative unpopularity will risk mid-term election results. Their "brand" is gonna be toxic. That's when, in self-preservation mode, Congressional Republicans are gonna act.
4. They have Mike Pence teed up. I think Congressional Republicans would prefer to work with him. He's conservative and one of them, but not unpredictable like Trump. So if they dump Trump, they can look like they're willing to look after the American people against an unpopular President, but still line up a President who'll back their agenda. Win-win.
5. I see that Customs agents did not fully comply with court orders freezing deportations as part of the recent immigration Executive order. That's a Constitutional conflict. Republicans will take advantage of Trump continued overreaching when they need to, dump him to show the American people just how nonpartisan they are, and tee up Pence, who'll back their agenda while not having the patina of Trump on him.

[montestewart]

the Trump White House needs to just stop doing anything until they can figure out what the hell is going on

[verbal8]

I do think it's reasonable to question the "reasoning skills" of anyone who would vote for a bigot, bully and liar like Trump.

Yup. That's going to work real well for your side politically. "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot... or a bigot... or Hitler".

yeah i agree people underestimated how spiteful and illogical trump voters are

I think it is a big mistake to paint Trump voters with a broad brush. Especially in key states a significant number of them voted for Obama in 2008 and even 2012. There also are significant amounts of normal straight ticket Republicans many of whom were likely holding their nose when voting for him.

A funny thing about Nate's quote above if you take out bigot and replace it with any of a dozen other insults - you pretty much have the Trump political playbook.

[verbal8]

I see that customs personnel at airports refused to comply with judicial cease-and-desist orders. That's executive branch personnel not adhering to judicial branch legal declarations.

Book this: On January 29, 2017 -- I'm calling that Trump will be impeached before his first term over.

More importantly, it will be Congressional *Republicans* who will lead the impeachment proceedings (all to save their brand).

Never gonna happen. Or it certainly won't happen unless there's a massive landslide win for Democrats in 2018, giving them both houses.

Republican congressmen are trying to win the votes of Republicans, not Democrats. How is impeaching Trump going to help Republican congressmen win votes?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to extend and revise my remarks. Here is my thinking:

1. Congressional Republicans don't care about Trump, they care about maintaining Republican control of Congress.
2. Trump and Bannon are not helping themselves. It's only been a little over a week and they're sinking in polls, kinds screwing up simple things like Executive Orders and them being vetted by (their own) executive branch agencies.
3. At some point, Trump and crew are gonna hit a mark where their relative unpopularity will risk mid-term election results. Their "brand" is gonna be toxic. That's when, in self-preservation mode, Congressional Republicans are gonna act.
4. They have Mike Pence teed up. I think Congressional Republicans would prefer to work with him. He's conservative and one of them, but not unpredictable like Trump. So if they dump Trump, they can look like they're willing to look after the American people against an unpopular President, but still line up a President who'll back their agenda. Win-win.
5. I see that Customs agents did not fully comply with court orders freezing deportations as part of the recent immigration Executive order. That's a Constitutional conflict. Republicans will take advantage of Trump continued overreaching when they need to, dump him to show the American people just how nonpartisan they are, and tee up Pence, who'll back their agenda while not having the patina of Trump on him.

I could very easily see the military being the thing that does Trump in. I don't think it takes too many Generals complaining to their Senators about a "loose cannon" president before impeachment proceedings would start - heck it could even start with the Secretary of Defense. Ironically I think the recent military service of Matthis probably makes him less tolerant of impacts to the rank-and-file military vs. a typical Secretary of Defense.

Here is a crazy scenario that could play out - a significant number of Republicans want to impeach Trump to save their brand, but the Democrats don't want to let them off the hook. I especially see this as likely if this were to happen on mid-terms that the Republicans maintain some Congressional control.

I think Trump not seeking a second term is a possibility. If he feels he shook up Washington and can claim victory, he could "Quit while he is ahead". However I think it is very unlikely he will resign during his term. I think he will take any impeachment process to the bitter end. I see some parallels between that and his failing casinos - which probably would have failed a lot less if he gave up control earlier.

[closg00]

Does he remember this?

Read on Twitter

It's sad that someone as level-headed as Pence has to lower himself to trumps level of stupidity.

If you watch some of Conway's interviews, you can spot the little moments when a piece of her soul dies.

She is an absolute genius liar and spinner, it's breathtaking to behold.

[dckingsfan]

the Trump White House needs to just stop doing anything until they can figure out what the hell is going on

Dang - the immigration thing was a nit. The National Security Council changes were the big thing - and they hardly got mentioned. How do you demote the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

In a conspiracy kind of way - was the immigration thing a smoke screen?

[mhd]

Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits. Most of these programs require proof of legal immigration status and under the 1996 welfare law, even legal immigrants cannot receive these benefits until they have been in the United States for more than five years.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/

How is the average illegal immigrant collecting welfare and other benefits if they need to to show proof of legal status?

'That myth debunking article is false.

The Two-Variables Method. The far right column in Table 1 reports welfare use for illegal immigrant households using only the two migration variables discussed in the methodology section of this report. Although there is an undercount of illegal immigrants using this method, the table shows that there is simply no question that households headed by illegal immigrants access a good deal of welfare. In fact, illegal immigrants' use of some programs is quite high. For example, using just the two migration variables, 30 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants are on food stamps and 56 percent have at least one person on Medicaid. Any suggestion that there are no welfare costs associated with illegal immigrants is incorrect. The SIPP shows that households headed by individuals with a very high probability of being in the country illegally make significant use of food programs and Medicaid

http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households

As I understand it, illegal immigrants have difficultly getting direct cash assistance, but they have limited eligibility for food stamps, and medicaid. Furthermore, their children are benefiting from the education infrastructure built here by U.S. taxpayers. There's also road and utility infrastructure expenses.

This is not 1890. You can't be very productive with just a strong back and a good work ethic. And there is a massive social safety net providing huge benefits to people. Our immigration policy should reflect this reality.

Basically, it's only those with a college degree who are paying their own way. People with no degree are almost always a burden to society. This is not their fault. Not everyone is blessed with the necessary IQ and reasoning skills to make it through college and get employed in a productive field. I've got no problems with society trying to help out those that need an extra hand. But we don't need to import even more people that are almost certain to be a burden on society. That's insanity.

Nate, you seem to suggest that our immigration policy should accept those who are most likely to contribute (i.e. increase the intellectual capacity of our country). Yet, Bannon doesn't want that either: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/29/14429984/trump-immigration-order-steve-bannon (See "Well I got a tougher — you know, when two thirds or three quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think — on, my point is, a country’s more like, [inaudible], a country’s more than an economy. We’re a civic society").

So, it seems to me that Bannon wants to severely curtail immigration of even those who will clearly be successful (i.e. those with at least college degrees, if not graduate degrees and post docs). It makes no sense. Highly educated people (from wherever) are a boon to any country. Where do you think the tax base comes from to support those who didn't get the education to obtain a successful job?

[dckingsfan]

Yup. That's going to work real well for your side politically. "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot... or a bigot... or Hitler".

yeah i agree people underestimated how spiteful and illogical trump voters are

I think it is a big mistake to paint Trump voters with a broad brush. Especially in key states a significant number of them voted for Obama in 2008 and even 2012. There also are significant amounts of normal straight ticket Republicans many of whom were likely holding their nose when voting for him.

A funny thing about Nate's quote above if you take out bigot and replace it with any of a dozen other insults - you pretty much have the Trump political playbook.

I think you hit the nail on the head. For a long time you could paint someone as a "deporable" and they couldn't get elected. I think it still works well in the blue states. That is why the rhetoric hasn't stopped there.

Now if you are a globalist you are un-American. I hate that. And that rhetoric is working well in the red states. I think it is because the two groups want to see the country go in different directions.

In general (a rash generalization maybe), neither group wants to take the time to really understand what the other group wants.

Fascinating.

[dckingsfan]

Nate, you seem to suggest that our immigration policy should accept those who are most likely to contribute (i.e. increase the intellectual capacity of our country). Yet, Bannon doesn't want that either: ....

That is the interesting part isn't it... it is the part that Obama wasn't willing to deal with either (see early conversation with Jobs).

I think that our immigration policies have come because we don't have a comprehensive and logical policy from either side. Obama's pledge to bring in 100,000 refugees was a non-starter. If he had come out with a policy that was 300,000 and consisted of x% college educated, x% this, x% that - then we most likely aren't in this situation.

The same argument could be applied to Bush and Clinton before him - they used this policy debate to divide.

[payitforward]

I do think it's reasonable to question the "reasoning skills" of anyone who would vote for a bigot, bully and liar like Trump.

Yup. That's going to work real well for your side politically. "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot... or a bigot... or Hitler".

Doubling down and increasing the "deplorable" label seems like a poor strategy.

What's going to work real well for you, nate, is to re-interpret people's words to mean something they don't. "question the 'reasoning skills'" of person X doesn't exactly amount to saying person X is "an idiot... or a bigot... or Hitler," does it?

Should work about as well as preventing terroristm by banning Muslims from those 7 countries. After all, of the 185 people either charged with terrorist acts in America since 9/11, or who died before they could be charged, exactly 11 of them were from those countries, and none of those 11 was involved in any of the larger acts or planned acts.

OTOH, 9/11 was planned and carried out by @8 Saudi Arabians (plus another 10 people helping), and if their brothers or cousins or buddies want to come to our country -- hey, come on in, you are welcome here!

[payitforward]

I see that customs personnel at airports refused to comply with judicial cease-and-desist orders. That's executive branch personnel not adhering to judicial branch legal declarations.

Book this: On January 29, 2017 -- I'm calling that Trump will be impeached before his first term over.

More importantly, it will be Congressional *Republicans* who will lead the impeachment proceedings (all to save their brand).

Never gonna happen. Or it certainly won't happen unless there's a massive landslide win for Democrats in 2018, giving them both houses.

Republican congressmen are trying to win the votes of Republicans, not Democrats. How is impeaching Trump going to help Republican congressmen win votes?

First off, to impeach a President is not to succeed in impeaching him -- the question is whether, & how often, there will be a move to impeach him.

Secondly, "Republican congressmen are trying to win the votes of Republicans" isn't on point in at least 2 ways: firstly, they *have* the votes of Republicans, & their concern will be not to lose them. The more wacked out Presidnyet Trump gets the more they are in danger of just that. & secondly, in most districts at least, it takes more than "the votes of Republicans" to be elected.

Any elected Republican looking at what Trump has done so far who thinks "wow, this is great for me" is a fool, & I don't think these folks are fools. Hence I doubt anyone is feeling like things are going well.

Ideologues like you, nate, that's a different matter. He's flying the flags you worship & all is well for you. I'm happy for you (if not for the country he's damaging), but it won't last.

[nate33]

Nate, you seem to suggest that our immigration policy should accept those who are most likely to contribute (i.e. increase the intellectual capacity of our country). Yet, Bannon doesn't want that either: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/29/14429984/trump-immigration-order-steve-bannon (See "Well I got a tougher — you know, when two thirds or three quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think — on, my point is, a country’s more like, [inaudible], a country’s more than an economy. We’re a civic society").

So, it seems to me that Bannon wants to severely curtail immigration of even those who will clearly be successful (i.e. those with at least college degrees, if not graduate degrees and post docs). It makes no sense. Highly educated people (from wherever) are a boon to any country. Where do you think the tax base comes from to support those who didn't get the education to obtain a successful job?

I'm saying it is economic insanity to import people who are likely to be a net negative economically. There are other reasons not to admit various immigrant groups that are unrelated to the economic argument. Those arguments are weaker IMO, but they have some merit.

[nate33]

Yup. That's going to work real well for your side politically. "Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot... or a bigot... or Hitler".

Doubling down and increasing the "deplorable" label seems like a poor strategy.

What's going to work real well for you, nate, is to re-interpret people's words to mean something they don't. "question the 'reasoning skills'" of person X doesn't exactly amount to saying person X is "an idiot... or a bigot... or Hitler," does it?

Should work about as well as preventing terroristm by banning Muslims from those 7 countries. After all, of the 185 people either charged with terrorist acts in America since 9/11, or who died before they could be charged, exactly 11 of them were from those countries, and none of those 11 was involved in any of the larger acts or planned acts.

OTOH, 9/11 was planned and carried out by @8 Saudi Arabians (plus another 10 people helping), and if their brothers or cousins or buddies want to come to our country -- hey, come on in, you are welcome here!

The countries designated as a hazard were designated by the Obama Administration in 2015. Trump didn't pick the countries, Obama did. The logic of picking those countries is not because members of those countries perpetrated acts before, it's because those countries have significant terrorism activity and their governments are either unable or unwilling to provide the necessary information for people to be adequately vetted.

Furthermore, Obama instituted an identical ban on travel from Iraq and nobody said squat. As usual, this is all fake outrage drummed up by Soros' paid rent-a-mob protesters and amplified by a hostile media.

[Zonkerbl]

Everybody on my fb feed freaking out right now. Now things are starting to steamroll in the other direction, instead of Republicans inventing lie after lie after lie to justify their hysterical hatred for Hillary, now the guys on my side are starting to manufacture lies to justify hysterical hatred for Trump.

Look guys the truth is bad enough. There's no need to make stuff up.

However! The Post did a writeup of how Obama instituted an "identical" ban. It's not exactly the same situation and frankly it looks like classic truth manipulation to me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_fc-refugee-policy-625pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.946e909f1660

It's not the same situation at all but whatever. The courts will straighten it all out and as long as Trump actually adheres to the court's decisions everything is fine, the checks and balances are working the way they are supposed to. Everybody take a deep breath.

We will get through this.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Doubling down and increasing the "deplorable" label seems like a poor strategy.

What's going to work real well for you, nate, is to re-interpret people's words to mean something they don't. "question the 'reasoning skills'" of person X doesn't exactly amount to saying person X is "an idiot... or a bigot... or Hitler," does it?

Should work about as well as preventing terroristm by banning Muslims from those 7 countries. After all, of the 185 people either charged with terrorist acts in America since 9/11, or who died before they could be charged, exactly 11 of them were from those countries, and none of those 11 was involved in any of the larger acts or planned acts.

OTOH, 9/11 was planned and carried out by @8 Saudi Arabians (plus another 10 people helping), and if their brothers or cousins or buddies want to come to our country -- hey, come on in, you are welcome here!

The countries designated as a hazard were designated by the Obama Administration in 2015. Trump didn't pick the countries, Obama did. The logic of picking those countries is not because members of those countries perpetrated acts before, it's because those countries have significant terrorism activity and their governments are either unable or unwilling to provide the necessary information for people to be adequately vetted.

Furthermore, Obama instituted an identical ban on travel from Iraq and nobody said squat. As usual, this is all fake outrage drummed up by Soros' paid rent-a-mob protesters and amplified by a hostile media.

Wait, Soros is handing out cash for doing what I'm patriotically doing for free? Exercising my constitutionally-guaranteed rights, speaking up against a potentially dangerous and tyrannical ruler.

Where do I sign up to get paid for this?

[mhd]

Nate, you seem to suggest that our immigration policy should accept those who are most likely to contribute (i.e. increase the intellectual capacity of our country). Yet, Bannon doesn't want that either: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/29/14429984/trump-immigration-order-steve-bannon (See "Well I got a tougher — you know, when two thirds or three quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think — on, my point is, a country’s more like, [inaudible], a country’s more than an economy. We’re a civic society").

So, it seems to me that Bannon wants to severely curtail immigration of even those who will clearly be successful (i.e. those with at least college degrees, if not graduate degrees and post docs). It makes no sense. Highly educated people (from wherever) are a boon to any country. Where do you think the tax base comes from to support those who didn't get the education to obtain a successful job?

I'm saying it is economic insanity to import people who are likely to be a net negative economically. There are other reasons not to admit various immigrant groups that are unrelated to the economic argument. Those arguments are weaker IMO, but they have some merit.

I don't any see any merit on curtailing legal immigration from people who are educated to be frank. For example, the richest ethnic group by far in the country are Indian Americans. They are the most educated, have stable families, and are far more likely to have stable families that do not drain the social safety net. Seems to me that they fit the classic conservative mantra of hard work and family values.