Will our democracy survive Trump?

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Thanks_Tom RR said:

Absolutely. If you find yourself or another HB member is the target of insults, feel free to bring those posts to the attention of the mod team. In fact, I was just going to post this post below as something that is insulting (though not necessary directed at any one person).

 

I have been called "liberal" for years, despite asking people who call me that to stop. I take offense to that as much as people take offense to being lumped in with racists.  Are we going to punish people who call others "liberal" or "libs" as well? 

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

If you actually look at the Economist which tends to skew more to the Left, they have cited many faults to the world financial collapse including Central Banks throughout Europe along with changes in savings habits in Asia which pushed down global interest rates.  Hence the reason it was deemed a world financial collapse, not a US financial collapse.   I do agree that members of both parties dating back to the 1990s helped contribute to change with Freddie and Fannie that caused the housing collapse in the US.  

 

s#!t. I forgot to add "please, please, please don't cite Freddie and Fannie in your response."

 

If you don't have "derivative bundling by financial institutions who shouldn't be gambling with other people's money" ranked above "the saving habits of Asia" then you should probably ease yourself out of this conversation. 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I have been called "liberal" for years, despite asking people who call me that to stop. I take offense to that as much as people take offense to being lumped in with racists.  Are we going to punish people who call others "liberal" or "libs" as well? 

Knapplc, you know the mod review process as well as any. I am not saying anything about a punishment, just that any post reported will be reviewed. If the post is determined to violate board rules, then action is warranted.

 

Again, let's continue this conversation in another thread (if you wish) as to not derail this one.

[knapplc]

Just now, Thanks_Tom RR said:

Knapplc, you know the mod review process as well as any. I am not saying anything about a punishment, just that any post reported will be reviewed. If the post is determined to violate board rules, then action is warranted.

 

Yep, and thank you. Just wanted to make it clear that people should not have false hope that they can persecute others for use of the term "racist."  Personal attacks are one thing. Discussing the current political climate is another, and simply disliking a term used in political discussions is not a license to bother the Mods. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Again, if you're black and you say nice things about Donald Trump, he will love you.

 

If you're a white racist and you say nice things about Donald Trump, he will love you. 

 

It's that simple.

 

The narcissism comes first, the racism second.

 

And not just racism, of course. Everything is a distant second to the narcissism. 

 

 

[ZRod]

54 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

No it picked up in 2010 and continued until 2016.  You can easily find multiple sources discussing the growth in regulations under Obama, and the cost of those regulations on businesses.  Here is another with a nice graph year by year.

 

https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/red-tape-rising-2016-obama-regs-top-100-billion-annually

 

I'll read the link later, but heritage foundation is far from credible. Again, in your own words and opinion which regulations are causing the issue. Quantity does not equal quality, or the lack there of. Surely if you think regulations hurt the economy you can site specific ones that were damaging or ill-advised. If you can't then I think you should probably have a serious reevaluation of your position.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Re: Regulation.

 

This one goes back to the Bush administration, but it's indicative of the mindset and the problem.

 

The Clinton administration had just passed a new regulation on air conditioner efficiency standards, raising the minimum energy efficiency for what is generally the cheapest machine. The cheapest machines are typically purchased in bulk by builders and developers for use in multiple units, not surprisingly on the lower end of the housing spectrum. 

 

Immediately on taking office, the Bush administration starts rolling back every Clinton era regulation they can. Air Conditioner efficiency standards, too, because hey....pro-business!

 

 Oddly enough, the air conditioner industry wasn't really fighting this one. The #2 air conditioner manufacturer in the U.S. came out publicly to support the regulation as a necessary step for the industry. 

 

But the White House prevailed because regulation = bad, especially any last-second Bill Clinton regulation.

 

That summer a heat wave hit Chicago, thousands of cheap, inefficient air-conditioners broke the grid, and hundreds of mostly poor people died. It was a situation the regulation was specifically designed to address. Deregulation did nothing to advance the industry it was supposedly protecting. It was petty and partisan and hurt people who never heard about either the regulation or deregulation because we rarely do. 

 

 

[StPaulHusker]

5 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Re: Regulation.

 

This one goes back to the Bush administration, but it's indicative of the mindset and the problem.

 

The Clinton administration had just passed a new regulation on air conditioner efficiency standards, raising the minimum energy efficiency for what is generally the cheapest machine. The cheapest machines are typically purchased in bulk by builders and developers for use in multiple units, not surprisingly on the lower end of the housing spectrum. 

 

Immediately on taking office, the Bush administration starts rolling back every Clinton era regulation they can. Air Conditioner efficiency standards, too, because hey....pro-business!

 

 Oddly enough, the air conditioner industry wasn't really fighting this one. The #2 air conditioner manufacturer in the U.S. came out publicly to support the regulation as a necessary step for the industry. 

 

But the White House prevailed because regulation = bad, especially any last-second Bill Clinton regulation.

 

That summer a heat wave hit Chicago, thousands of cheap, inefficient air-conditioners broke the grid, and hundreds of mostly poor people died. It was a situation the regulation was specifically designed to address. Deregulation did nothing to advance the industry it was supposedly protecting. It was petty and partisan and hurt people who never heard about either the regulation or deregulation because we rarely do. 

 

 

 

Interesting

 

I will wait patiently while other HB members come up with a similar analogy on how deregulating something HELPED individuals prosper.  

[Landlord]

17 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

 

Interesting

 

I will wait patiently while other HB members come up with a similar analogy on how deregulating something HELPED individuals prosper.  

 

 

 

The same way that lowering corporate tax cuts helps the middle class because billionaires will hire more employees...?

 

Wait, s#!t, that doesn't seem to happen either.

[Guy Chamberlin]

If we can get the MAGA folk to commit to the time when America was Great (in order to make it so again), you will find an America with a much higher tax on the wealthy.

[methodical]

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

If we can get the MAGA folk to commit to the time when America was Great (in order to make it so again), you will find an America with a much higher tax on the wealthy.

 

You aren't thinking back far enough.  I'm pretty sure the people driving (funding) this return to greatness mean pre-1913 tax wise.  Even if the people voting for it think it means ~1950s.

[Vegas]

22 hours ago, commando said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-executive-orders/

 

"First of all, the number of executive orders issued by President Obama is grossly exaggerated here. Through his first term (i.e., the first four years of his presidency), Barack Obama issued 147 executive orders, not 923. (Barack Obama signed a total of 275 executive orders during his two terms, averaging 35 a year; the lowest number signed since Grover Cleveland.)"

 

FWIW....trump has issued 86 EOs so far in less than 2 years.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump

 

the biggest user of EOs?    Franklin D. Roosevelt 

And if you continue to scroll down on the wikipedia link you sent me you should notice that (D) Jimmy Carter averaged 80 EOs a year while (R) Trump averages 45. So tell me again how our democracy is in danger of surviving Trump. Which for the record, America isn't actually a Democracy but rather a Constitutional Republic for everyone that that keeps calling it that. 

[Vegas]

17 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Thus far Vegas is far more cordial and conversational than Ric ever was. No need to lump him in like that just because he's obviously on the more conservative side of things.

Well I try to be cordial and open minded but from what I have seen from this forum is a ratio of 10:1 Liberal/Conservative. That would drive me crazy too having to fight off all you nut jobs lol. So cheers to Ric because it sounds like you're my only ally here. 

[commando]

3 hours ago, Vegas said:

And if you continue to scroll down on the wikipedia link you sent me you should notice that (D) Jimmy Carter averaged 80 EOs a year while (R) Trump averages 45. So tell me again how our democracy is in danger of surviving Trump. Which for the record, America isn't actually a Democracy but rather a Constitutional Republic for everyone that that keeps calling it that. 

you are the 1 who said "I can recall Obama saying "I have a pen and a phone" because he couldnt pass legislation through Congress. And he did just that, he signed executive order after executive order bypassing Congress and abusing the power that our founding fathers didn't invision"   i gave proof that he didn't abuse the power like you alleged.   now you are moving the goal posts.  

[Moiraine]

3 hours ago, Vegas said:

Well I try to be cordial and open minded but from what I have seen from this forum is a ratio of 10:1 Liberal/Conservative. That would drive me crazy too having to fight off all you nut jobs lol. So cheers to Ric because it sounds like you're my only ally here. 

 

 

 

It’s hard to fight people off with reason when the data doesn’t support your claims.

 

Also, there are plenty of conservatives here but the smart ones who post regularly have come to the conclusion that sometimes Trump is wrong and that Obama wasn’t the devil 24/7.

Also, signing executive orders is the status quo. I'm not sure why you're telling yourself it's on par with anything else that's been mentioned in this topic.