Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14308
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-08 09:51pm

Crossroads Inc. wrote:
2018-06-08 09:13pm
Ok so going into far end of crazy...
What happens if Trump proactively says:
“Anyone convicted by Mullet will be automatically pardoned”
Just to dick with everyone?
In a sane world, he'd be immediately impeached. But in a sane world, with a Congress that put duty over partisanship, that would have happened already- at the very latest, when he admitted to firing Comey because of the Russia investigation. In this world, it becomes a talking point for the Democrats, and maybe leads to impeachment if there's a blue wave in the midterms (in other words, just more of the same).

It probably increases the pressure to find violations of state law they can be charged for, since Trump can only pardon Federal crimes, thank God.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2298
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Minneso'a

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Napoleon the Clown » 2018-06-08 10:01pm

Crossroads Inc. wrote:
2018-06-08 09:13pm
Ok so going into far end of crazy...
What happens if Trump proactively says:
“Anyone convicted by Mullet will be automatically pardoned”
Just to dick with everyone?
Mueller starts filing state charges instead. The president can't pardon state charges/convictions, just federal.
I have kittens for sale! They will come with their first round of vaccines and paperwork indicating vaccine status. Located in Kandiyohi county in Minnesota, I am willing to transport a kitten as far as St Cloud, MN if you're sure you want one. Coming to look at them here is also an option. There are a variety of coat patterns. PM me for details if interested!

User avatar
Dominus Atheos
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3692
Joined: 2005-09-15 09:41pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Dominus Atheos » 2018-06-08 11:27pm

Debate over detained migrant kids heats up as number tops 10,000

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said last week it was holding 10,773 migrant children in custody, though it's unclear how many of them were forcibly separated from their parents.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/inde ... ant_k.html

I don't want to prove Godwin's lLaw, but this is getting disturbingly close to concentration camps.

bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3670
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by bilateralrope » 2018-06-09 03:55am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-08 06:01pm
If Trump thinks asbestos is so safe, why doesn't he go eat some?
Related question: If Trump and the EPA declare it safe, is it legal to mail envelopes full of asbestos to them ?

Sadly I can see some people being stupid enough to do so.

User avatar
SCRawl
Has a bad feeling about this.
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
Location: Burlington, Canada

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by SCRawl » 2018-06-09 10:53am

Regarding President Trump's claims that asbestos is 100% safe, once applied, according to my understanding that's pretty close to being true. Once it's applied, it's supposed to be pretty stable. The problem is that sometimes, when you have to remove or otherwise disturb the stuff with that already-applied asbestos products on it, it's not safe anymore; once it gets into the air, and you inhale it, well, it's pretty much the opposite of 100% safe. Not to mention that mining, processing, and applying asbestos is also pretty hazardous.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.

I'm waiting as fast as I can.

Patroklos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2312
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Patroklos » 2018-06-09 11:04am

Yes, just like PCBs. The problem is that used as an industrial or construction material its always just a matter of time before its disturbed for modification or demolition, or it deteriorates due to use or exposure.

Which of course leads to the problem that if you don't understand its dangers before hand, and it takes a good amount of time from its first introduction to when those events start to happen and then for the related health effects to manifest and be traced to it, the stuff has been installed everywhere. Especially in the case of asbestos, because its just so damn useful.

User avatar
SCRawl
Has a bad feeling about this.
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
Location: Burlington, Canada

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by SCRawl » 2018-06-09 12:10pm

My point is that when narrowly interpreted, President Trump's claims about asbestos aren't quite as nonsensical as they appear. It's a bit like saying that sodium cyanide is 100% safe as long as you don't ever come into contact with it; it's kind of a dumb thing to say, but it's still true. This is as opposed to some of the other presidential musings of the past few hundred days, many of which are demonstrably untrue when using any reasonable standard for evaluating them.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.

I'm waiting as fast as I can.

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30085
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Simon_Jester » 2018-06-09 08:43pm

Gandalf wrote:
2018-06-08 06:58pm
Simon_Jester wrote:
2018-06-05 08:12am
There is NO sign that the Founding Fathers EVER seriously considered that a president could use the pardon power to render himself effectively above the law. That is very obviously not what they meant; they took great pains to ensure that no part of the government they were designing would be above the law.
Yeah, but at the same time I think a few of them might have also had trouble with the ideas of emancipation, and extending voting to people who aren't just white guys.

Maybe appealing to the intent of eighteenth century people to run a country in the twenty-first century may not be a recipe for success. :P
Don't be silly.

This isn't an argument of the form "18th century dudes' intent overrides modern dudes' intent."

This is an argument of the form "This argument by the Trumpistas is so grossly stupid, even 18th century dudes knew it was stupid." It's like "I'm a caveman and even I think this is ridiculous."

...

The one class of concepts that the founding generation of American politicians actually got comprehensively RIGHT was this one. Namely, the idea that government officials' power should be limited, and that no member of the government should be above the law.

They got a shitload of other things wrong, but they did get that one concept right- that government should have constitutional restrictions on what it can do to people, and that any one individual within the government should have way more restrictions on what they personally can get away with.

And of course all this is merely supplementary to the more general point that NO constitutional document should ever be interpreted in a moronic way like "aha, I can interpret this particular piece of wording stupidly, in such a way as to render the whole rest of the document irrelevant and let me seize ULTIMATE POWAH!" Because that's not how constitutions work, or are supposed to work.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 14368
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Gandalf » 2018-06-09 08:56pm

The funny part is that the 18th century land and slave owning class which started the whole genocidal enterprise even enter these discussions at all.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
Tribble
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2215
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Tribble » 2018-06-09 10:18pm

Gandalf wrote:
2018-06-09 08:56pm
The funny part is that the 18th century land and slave owning class which started the whole genocidal enterprise even enter these discussions at all.
Well, the US Consitution is still predominatently based on that they wrote, so... not really surprising that their viewpoints are still looked at today? Do you believe their viewpoints are wrong in this particular instance?
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage

User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4479
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by LaCroix » 2018-06-10 01:35pm

Tribble wrote:
2018-06-09 10:18pm
Gandalf wrote:
2018-06-09 08:56pm
The funny part is that the 18th century land and slave owning class which started the whole genocidal enterprise even enter these discussions at all.
Well, the US Consitution is still predominatently based on that they wrote, so... not really surprising that their viewpoints are still looked at today? Do you believe their viewpoints are wrong in this particular instance?
Fun(?) fact:
Although the idea that you base a society on the ideas of 18th century slave owners is kind of abhorrend, if you were to toss the US constitution today and let the current US government write a new one, you'd most likely get something worse...
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

houser2112
Padawan Learner
Posts: 325
Joined: 2006-04-07 07:21am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by houser2112 » 2018-06-11 09:01am

LaCroix wrote:
2018-06-10 01:35pm
Fun(?) fact:
Although the idea that you base a society on the ideas of 18th century slave owners is kind of abhorrend, if you were to toss the US constitution today and let the current US government write a new one, you'd most likely get something worse...
There is no doubt in my mind about that. I've heard leftist groups clamoring for a Constitutional Convention to fix what's wrong with our government, and I have to say "are you insane?". We've seen what happens when you give states outsized power (the Civil War and the election of two presidents in my lifetime to lose the popular vote). Do they really think we'll get something better (from a liberal viewpoint) giving all of those ruby-red states an equal voice?

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30085
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Simon_Jester » 2018-06-11 11:53am

Gandalf wrote:
2018-06-09 08:56pm
The funny part is that the 18th century land and slave owning class which started the whole genocidal enterprise even enter these discussions at all.
Because historical revisionism is unhealthy, and discussing a document while in denial about who wrote it is a form of revisionism.

By being mindful of the fact that the Constitution was written by a bunch of 18th century colonial aristocrats whose chief mitigating virtue was that they subscribed to the newsletters of some then-forward-thinking political philosophers, a great deal about the Constitution, and when it should and should not be taken in a literalist way, is revealed.

For example, the Founders were terrified of standing armies, for essentially stupid reasons albeit ones that had little to do with the stereotypical class-war narrative of why they were bad people. They didn't make allowances for extensive interstate commerce, because they were 18th century people writing when most economic activity other than shipping stayed within like 20-30 miles of its source. They included an amendment process because they were colonial aristocrats who knew their country was going to be changing, expanding, and developing in various ways. They wrote in separation of powers to a much higher degree than most European parliamentary democracies have because they had NO prior working models for the kind of republic they wanted to found, and were overly enthused with Montesquieu's misunderstanding of how the British system worked. And so on.

Awareness of authorship and willingness to mention authorship when discussing a document helps understand that document and place it in historical context. Trying to make the authors unpersons because they did bad things that the world hadn't globally acknowledged as bad yet will not help us accomplish anything, unless the goal is to proclaim the Year Zero.
LaCroix wrote:
2018-06-10 01:35pm
Fun(?) fact:
Although the idea that you base a society on the ideas of 18th century slave owners is kind of abhorrend, if you were to toss the US constitution today and let the current US government write a new one, you'd most likely get something worse...
The thing is, the Constitution is set up so that we can amend the abhorrent ideas out of existence (e.g. abolishing slavery). So after 230 years of that process, all that's left of the Founders' bad ideas are the merely bad ideas, like presidential democracy as opposed to a parliamentary system.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 14368
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Gandalf » 2018-06-11 05:08pm

I'm not sure what's funnier, the complaints about historical revisionism being "unhealthy," or the whole unpersons thing. Either way, comedy achieved.

Protip; do some proper research into historical revisionism as a concept and get back to me.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2745
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2018-06-11 07:22pm

Gandalf wrote:
2018-06-11 05:08pm
I'm not sure what's funnier, the complaints about historical revisionism being "unhealthy," or the whole unpersons thing. Either way, comedy achieved.

Protip; do some proper research into historical revisionism as a concept and get back to me.
I'm having a hard time following what your argument is, precisely, because you are relying more on snark than coherency. But I'm going to give a stab at responding to you nonetheless.

Your basic point seems to be summed up when you wrote: "Maybe appealing to the intent of eighteenth century people to run a country in the twenty-first century may not be a recipe for success." When stated that way, it seems like a reasonable point. It is true that making political decisions in modern America SOLELY on the basis of what you interpret the intents of the Founding Fathers to have been is a backwards and damaging way to conduct our affairs.

However, it also seems to be missing Simon's point in a very important and very basic way. Remember, Simon isn't making the argument "We should make our political decisions based on what we think the Founding Fathers would have wanted". He is making the argument, "If literal interpretation of the text of the Constitution becomes ambiguous, we should leverage our knowledge of the historical context of the document, including what we think the motivations of the Founding Fathers were, in order to clear up the ambiguity, regardless of whether or not we believe the Founding Fathers were correct." These are VERY different positions to take. Simon's isn't making some stubborn dogmatic appraisal of the inherent worth of the Founding Fathers' beliefs, he is advocating for intelligent and flexible decision-making when it comes to trying to interpret the Constitution.

It also isn't clear what exactly you propose as an alternative to Simon's argument. The entire point is that literal interpretation of the Constitution in this case produces inconsistencies and contradictions, so in what light do you propose to actual interpret the Constitution if trying to frame it within a historical context "may not be a recipe for success"? It's a bit like saying that we shouldn't try to interpret the text of the Bible with respect to what we know about its historical context in which it was written, and rely instead on a literal interpretation of the text.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 14368
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

Post by Gandalf » 2018-06-12 02:09am

I never stated that appealing to the mystical Founders was the whole basis of US constitutional law. Though sometimes it certainly seems like a ouija board isn't too far away. But the fact that they are in the equation is what's so puzzling. Why appeal to their intent at all? Is it just their flowery stated intents, or what their actions showed? And so on.

As cults of personality go, it's not a bad one.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

Post Reply