U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

[FJAG]

I'm not sure that these are what he should be looking at. I think that one of the reasons that Mr Trump appealed to Joe Average American was their being fed up with government by regulation rather than legislation. Lobbyists at many federal agencies managed to get regulations put in place that made life easier for their principals, and harder for average folk. The EPA comes to mind - it is apparently possible to follow the EPA rules, and contravene them at the same time (I have no proof of that, so it may be an urban legend).

One has to keep in mind though that the executive (except where it has direct constitutional authority) cannot make regulations unless the legislature in a particular statute has delegated a specific agency/department/ministry the power to make regulations. As an example look at s 12 of the NDA http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-2.html#h-9 The process is similar in the US (for starters you can look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations).

This is a very common procedure because legislatures do not have the time to work out all the details of how its legislation should be put into effect and leaves this to the appropriate ministry to work out.  If the legislature disagrees with the way a given regulation effects the founding legislation then the legislature can amend the statute can limit the agency's power to make the offending regulations.

I'm sorry, because as I've said before, I believe we have far too many and too detailed regulations but this is not because there is some great conspiracy or fraud by the executive to negate the legislature's powers. In Canada this is not so apparent because our executive is formed from the ruling party in the legislature and generally the regulations match the legislatures intent (at least until the next election and both the legislature and executive change). It is much more apparent as a point of conflict in the US where the legislature and the executive are often/on occasion formed by opposing parties.

Again, I think you're right. Perhaps some of the problem is that we're not producing high school or college graduates suited to work those jobs. When you look at the number of adverts for tradesmen or skilled workers, you can see why we have programmes like the TFW, and why factories are moving to where the workforce is. If we focused less on university and more on college and the trades, perhaps we wouldn't be losing so many of these technical jobs.

I definitely agree that we should greatly reduce public support for universities except for programs that benefit the country as a whole (eg. teaching, engineering, medicine, hell even law) Anyone who wants to study the philosophy of 12th century nihilists or the mating rituals of the Baffin Island ptarmigan should do so on their own dime. The money saved should be redirected to community college programs for trades and skilled workers.

That however does not solve the problem that many high paid skilled jobs (both blue and white collar) are disappearing and I have no more solution to that than our current political parties (targeting outsourcing the trend to outsource offshore looks attractive on the surface but is impractical in the long run. Manufacturing will always gravitate towards a solution that cuts production costs to protect market share. Tariffs will only impact the consumer who is primarily your ordinary Joe Lunch Bucket again.

Evaluating the government from the perspective you describe has never been a factor in American politics, and you only invoke Godwin if you example isn't factually correct. Not that I take issue with your comparison, but I wouldn't put Mr Trump in the same class as the other four you've mentioned. He may be bombastic and display some nationalist tendencies, but I don't see the US erecting labour or re-education camps any time soon.

I think that is only because the US has a very firm constitution that protects the balance of power as between the legislature, executive and judiciary. If you undercut any of those three the slippery slope is opened up. Take a look at the number of countries who have given the power to the executive to fire and replace the judiciary or who have a "rubber stamp" legislature that produces the laws that the executive demands.

Liberty is a fragile thing.

:cheers:

 

[ModlrMike]

One has to keep in mind though that the executive (except where it has direct constitutional authority) cannot make regulations unless the legislature in a particular statute has delegated a specific agency/department/ministry the power to make regulations. As an example look at s 12 of the NDA http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-2.html#h-9 The process is similar in the US (for starters you can look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations).

This is a very common procedure because legislatures do not have the time to work out all the details of how its legislation should be put into effect and leaves this to the appropriate ministry to work out.  If the legislature disagrees with the way a given regulation effects the founding legislation then the legislature can amend the statute can limit the agency's power to make the offending regulations.

I'm sorry, because as I've said before, I believe we have far too many and too detailed regulations but this is not because there is some great conspiracy or fraud by the executive to negate the legislature's powers. In Canada this is not so apparent because our executive is formed from the ruling party in the legislature and generally the regulations match the legislatures intent (at least until the next election and both the legislature and executive change). It is much more apparent as a point of conflict in the US where the legislature and the executive are often/on occasion formed by opposing parties.

I'd agree with much of the above. I fully understand that legislators typically don't do detail work, but to my mind there has been significant mission creep by agencies under the guise of regulation. I don't mean where new legislation is created, rather these new rules are created under existing laws. I remember reading somewhere that in one year in Britain, there were 1500 new regulations. I also remember reading that there was a government that proposed any new regulation had to result in the repeal of a previous one. Again, I can't find the direct articles, but I'm sure you get the idea.

In the end I suppose I'm mostly libertarian on the subject. I believe that government should focus on clearly defined core services, and in the main allow the citizenry to just get on with their lives.

 

[Good2Golf]

All of the nationalists in Europe lost- LePen significantly. Trump has some of the lowest approval ratings in the history of the presidency and lost the popular vote (yes, I know he won the college and it doesn't matter, but it matters in your argument).

I disagree with your analysis- the evidence doesn't back it.

But it does matter. 

I am by no means a Trump fan, but he and his team assessed just how popular he had to be and where, and he darned near targeted it perfectly.  Instead of whining about jerrymandering, he exploited it and went to the assessed "swing ridings" to influence the outcome to his wishes.  If the DNC hadn't prematurely crowned Queen Hillary, and sent Bernie packing, it might have been another kettle of fish.

Here in Canada, the additional complexity of FPTP and riding share makes things a bit more complex, but there can be no doubt in any reasonably considered mind in Canada, that the NDP is conceptually comprised of two main blocks: a) the lunch pail carrying blue collar/true labour guys; and b) the SJW/special interest group/Marxist/enviro(but not too enviro people.  There is strain there and the day that snaps, is the day the NDP per se, dies and there will be (at least) two subsequent groups trying to rebrand and pick up the pieces as best as they can.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

But it does matter. 

I am by no means a Trump fan, but he and his team assessed just how popular he had to be and where, and he darned near targeted it perfectly.  Instead of whining about jerrymandering, he exploited it and went to the assessed "swing ridings" to influence the outcome to his wishes.  If the DNC hadn't prematurely crowned Queen Hillary, and sent Bernie packing, it might have been another kettle of fish.

Here in Canada, the additional complexity of FPTP and riding share makes things a bit more complex, but there can be no doubt in any reasonably considered mind in Canada, that the NDP is conceptually comprised of two main blocks: a) the lunch pail carrying blue collar/true labour guys; and b) the SJW/special interest group/Marxist/enviro(but not too enviro people.  There is strain there and the day that snaps, is the day the NDP per se, dies and there will be (at least) two subsequent groups trying to rebrand and pick up the pieces as best as they can.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I agree the popular vote doesn't matter re. The US election. Where it does matter is in the assertion made that Trumps election is a foreshadowing of the end of the left. In this regard the popular vote matters as more people voted against him than for him. My counter argument was that the vote totals indicate that Thuc's basic thesis isn't defensible in light of evidence.

Clinton's loss is due to her inability to reach workers and her decision to spend time with celebrities vice visiting swing states.

 

[dimsum]

I think this pretty fitting, especially the last paragraph.

I’m a Trump supporter. Thank you for disagreeing with me.

By Gary Abernathy August 1 at 1:08 PM
Gary Abernathy is publisher and editor of the (Hillsboro, Ohio) Times-Gazette.

HILLSBORO, Ohio

The most gratifying responses I receive via email, telephone and old-fashioned letters are not from readers who agree with me, although those are appreciated. The ones I like most are from readers who do not support President Trump but say I’ve helped them better understand those who do.

“I read your column on the Washington Post’s op-ed page today, and I have been yearning to understand some things about support for Trump.”

“This liberal continues to want to better understand the perspective of the other side, in hope that the gulf in the American political landscape can be bridged, because it seems that the extreme polarization will not be tenable for long.”

“As a person who did not vote for Donald Trump and finds it frightening that so many of my fellow citizens chose to do so, I have been trying to get an understanding of his appeal.”

“Thank you for your article in the Washington Post. It addressed many questions that I, an ‘East Coast elite snowflake’ have had about the Trump supporters. We wonder if and why people still support this president.”


Those are just a few among many. These writers are sincere and passionate as they go on to explain to me why I am wrong. But people across the political spectrum have a hunger to understand those whose views seem the polar opposite of their own.

This sincere yearning for understanding is in contrast to the steady diet of divisive programming from too many cable news outlets. Depending on which channel they watch, viewers know that certain programs will dependably spend an hour bashing Trump with the most catastrophic hyperbole, or else blindly defending him while suggesting that anyone who disagrees is un-American.

I am not naive. There are people who simply hate Trump and have no interest in letting go of their hate, and I hear from them. I know that hate flows in the other direction, too. But based on the scores of responses I have received, most Americans, whether pro- or anti-Trump, engage in deeper analysis and perspective than the bombastic presentations of too many cable news programs suggest.

I respect everyone who participates in the political process. In these pieces, you won’t see me differentiate “real Americans” from others who somehow are not real Americans, or use terms such as “liberal snowflake.” Some have taken offense to my reference to East or West Coast “elitists.” If that’s the most derogatory term I use, please forgive me. I realize that not every liberal who lives on the coasts has an elitist attitude, and of course even elitists are real Americans, too.

The Times-Gazette endorsed Trump, and I continue to support him. As someone who took a break from journalism and worked in politics for 15 years, I understand the game as it has come to be played. I like that Trump is a game-changer, a disrupter, a practitioner of what I see as “crafted chaos.” Our stale system and its corrupted processes are in need of disruption.

To me, much of the blowback that Trump gets is a reaction to all this disruption, to the establishments he challenges in both parties and to a news media that was, for at least a year, planning extensive and glowing coverage celebrating the first female commander in chief. Trump spoiled that, too, and they are not pleased.

I’ll keep trying to represent, as cogently as I can, the people and regions whose continued support for the president seems such a mystery to so many, and from time to time touch on other subjects that might help explain the people, influences and issues from Trump country.

A thoughtful email came from someone associated with a human rights organization in Washington, challenging a few things I had written. But after a pleasant exchange — including my assurance that the Times-Gazette carries national and international news from the Associated Press in our print edition — he replied, “I think we are more on the same page than first glance might indicate. A good sign in sometimes trying times.”

Many of us will never agree on politics. But if we try harder to understand each other, we might realize that we are on the same page more often than we think, and that our commonalities are greater than our differences — even among those who enthusiastically support, and those who aggressively resist, the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-trump-supporter-thank-you-for-disagreeing-with-me/2017/07/31/f4b9ce84-7306-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.dcd4112df69f

 

[FJAG]

I'd agree with much of the above. I fully understand that legislators typically don't do detail work, but to my mind there has been significant mission creep by agencies under the guise of regulation. I don't mean where new legislation is created, rather these new rules are created under existing laws. I remember reading somewhere that in one year in Britain, there were 1500 new regulations. I also remember reading that there was a government that proposed any new regulation had to result in the repeal of a previous one. Again, I can't find the direct articles, but I'm sure you get the idea.

In the end I suppose I'm mostly libertarian on the subject. I believe that government should focus on clearly defined core services, and in the main allow the citizenry to just get on with their lives.

I agree with most everything you say and that puts me back into my earlier expressed viewpoint that the swamp is in the legislature.

1. Where a ministry oversteps it's mandate to make regulations the regulations can be challenged and struck down in court as being ultra vires (beyond their legal power) of the ministry. (I did this once in Manitoba respecting the regulations under the Bills of lading Act respecting, of all things, an insurance exemption for a courier package. Damn thing started in small claims court was appealed to the Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal (was one of those it's not the money but the principle things). Any citizen can bring that type of action.

2. The problem is that almost all regulations are made within the powers given to the respective ministry which then basically requires that the legislature amend the empowering legislation to close the loophole. Congress hasn't been able to do that notwithstanding the majority party's whining over the last half decade.

3. The power to reduce regulations is available to both the executive and the legislature. The executive has little incentive to do so. Generally once the regulation and its enforcement mechanism is in place, they are happy to sit back and let the process run as long as the legislature gives them sufficient appropriations to keep the circus humming along. Legislatures typically don't look back either; they move on to the next thing on the agenda.

4.  Limiting the number of regulations isn't the answer either. It's an easy trick to simply amalgamate a number of regulations made under one statute into one giant omnibus regulation. This, of course, doesn't solve the problem. The only way to do that is to focus on the subject matter of the regulation and make a determination as to whether or not it is still needed or can be improved. Again, something that neither the legislature or executive or even the civil service staff have any incentive to do. Generally they are forward thinkers looking for new problems to solve not the clean up of the mess made in their wake.

5. I tend to blame the legislature as the ultimate problem because in most parliamentary systems, the legislature has control of the purse strings. Money doesn't flow unless the legislature approves it. Again in Canada that's not an internally controversial issue because the executive creates the budget and it's party (if in a majority) approves it pro forma. It's only where there are minority governments (or in the case of the US when there are opposing parties as between the executive and legislature) where there is some room for horse trading to cut funding. Unfortunately that's where some of the most offensive pork barrelling deals are made.

I honestly don't have a solution to the problem. I agree totally that it is there and needs to be addressed but how is a big problem in the US and Canada although I think the problem facing the EU is potentially much worse with its domineering bureaucracy.

:cheers:

 

[Good2Golf]

I agree the popular vote doesn't matter re. The US election. Where it does matter is in the assertion made that Trumps election is a foreshadowing of the end of the left. In this regard the popular vote matters as more people voted against him than for him. My counter argument was that the vote totals indicate that Thuc's basic thesis isn't defensible in light of evidence.

Thucydides referred to whether the left could keep things together and avoid a fractured effort against Trump's populist center-to-right, which would de facto result in Trump having less to worry about next time, vis a vis popularity, than he did in 2016.  Perhaps its not Thucydides thesis that isn't defensible, but yours?  Perhaps if the DNC doesn't change its modus operandi for 2020, voter shift may in fact see popular vote and electoral college vote align, vice contrast. 

Of course, as those familiar with the Scientific Method know, theses are not 'defended' -- they are 'proved' or 'disproved' and we won't know which is the case until 2020.

Regards
G2G     

 

[Kirkhill]

Alexander's solution to knotty problems applies.

Kind of like managing emails.

Disregard them all.

If something is critical somebody will let you know soon enough.

 

[Brad Sallows]

But to believe the swamp is mostly in the legislature, you'd have to ignore the very active stance of "pen and phone".  The executive was unabashedly open about his desire to act when the legislature would not, leaving them to either remove his fait accompli or not.  And what is the hope of closing a loophole with a legislative filibuster still permitted?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I'm not sure if you're trolling or really can't see the difference between those 2 posts... especially since you're cherry picking a post that I believe was made before I was DS and before we made a conscious decision to change the tone in the politics threads specifically (I can't see if you quoted the DTG on my phone unfortunately).

I never troll.

I just call bullshit when I see it.

Much like I have been doing in the Army for longer than you have been alive.

Out here.

 

[PuckChaser]

Much like I have been doing in the Army for longer than you have been alive.

As pointed out in another thread, just because you're old doesn't necessarily mean you're right. If you want to continue to grind your axe, feel free to drop me a PM. No need to pick a fight here and drag it further ff topic:.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

As pointed out in another thread, just because you're old doesn't necessarily mean you're right. If you want to continue to grind your axe, feel free to drop me a PM. No need to pick a fight here and drag it further ff topic:.

Hmmm.

PM - not so much.  I don't have anything invested in making this "P"

I will not call BS in private if it occurs in public.

As to "old" - cute.  One man's old is another man's experienced, but you go Tiger.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Thucydides referred to whether the left could keep things together and avoid a fractured effort against Trump's populist center-to-right, which would de facto result in Trump having less to worry about next time, vis a vis popularity, than he did in 2016.  Perhaps its not Thucydides thesis that isn't defensible, but yours?  Perhaps if the DNC doesn't change its modus operandi for 2020, voter shift may in fact see popular vote and electoral college vote align, vice contrast. 

Of course, as those familiar with the Scientific Method know, theses are not 'defended' -- they are 'proved' or 'disproved' and we won't know which is the case until 2020.

Regards
G2G   

I defended 2 theses so my appologies for the use of the defence vice proved.

His theses, to me, was more of a reflection of the left-right dynamic and how the people were "realizing the left was a wolf was in sheep's clothing" (quotes mine as I am paraphrasing). I disagree with this assertion independent of the DNC, LPC, labour, or any other party. Generally, I disagree because I see the extremes of both sides to be equally out of touch with the world. Trumps victory and brexit, then, are not events I see as being the heralding of a new Era.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The argument about nationalist parties should be looked at in totality. Nationalist parties are in power in Poland and Hungary, and have made steady gains in the polls in Western European nations as well. The Front National, Dutch "Party for Freedom" German AfD and Italian "Five Stars" movement hardly existed a decade ago, and even five years ago were curiosities, rather than strong contenders and coming in second or third in elections. The only reason they are not fully in command is the PR electoral systems in Europe allow coalitions to be formed expressly against them by politicians (most of whom share little common interests with each other otherwise).

President Trump's supposed low popularity ratings are derived from the same polling companies which showed Hillary Clinton wining in a landslide, and to further muddy the "popular vote" argument, the pro Hillary popular vote was concentrated in a handful of US counties, as you can see in an granular electoral map.

The meta argument isn't that politicians have control over the apparatus of governments for now in Europe, or that there are pockets of voters who did not vote for President Trump, but rather that the political "Left" is flailing about trying to get working class voters (their supposed constituency) to vote for them despite decades of catering to issues and groups which working class people either have no interest in or despise. Populists like Trump or Nationalists like the European parties are appealing to working class voters because they cater to the wants and needs of these people, and the political left (and even the traditional right) is collapsing because a new breed of politicians is assembling a new electoral coalition using different ideas, tools and methodologies than the old parties.

Dutch coalition for freedom- 13.1%
Front National- 33.9% in run off
German AfD- 8-10%
Italian M5S- 27-29%

The support for the parties noted is low, even in Italy where the M5S is running a close second (in a very very multi-party environment). So, it is difficult to say that only coalitions are holding them back (even if your assertion that coalitions were invented just to hold these fellows out could be proven). "Collapse" is a touch strong of a term for traditional parties.

As for the US political map, I fully understand the electoral college makes a majority vote irrelevant. However, the election was decided by a few areas in swing states that Obama carried in 2012. That they swung republican inthe last election doesn't mean the US is really turning hard right. TBH, the way things are a broom with a wig could run for either party and likely carry 40%.

In general I find nationalist parties distasteful for a multitude of reasons, but nothing you've presented has me concerned they have a way ahead outside of a few narrow minded folks.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Michael deAdder cartoon 2/8/17  ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

On sanctions:  on the one hand ...

Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act”

Today, I signed into law the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which enacts new sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia.  I favor tough measures to punish and deter bad behavior by the rogue regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang.  I also support making clear that America will not tolerate interference in our democratic process, and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization.

That is why, since taking office, I have enacted tough new sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and shored up existing sanctions on Russia ...

... while on the other:

Statement by President Donald J. Trump on the Signing of H.R. 3364

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3364, the "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act."  While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea, and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed.

In its haste to pass this legislation, the Congress included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions.  For instance, although I share the policy views of sections 253 and 257, those provisions purport to displace the President's exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds, in conflict with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry ...

You can check out H.R.3364 - Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act here.

 

[Lumber]

I'm confused... are these not statements about the same thing?

 

[dimsum]

I'm confused... are these not statements about the same thing?

They are, but the first is championing it while the second was signed despite Congress included some "clearly unconstitutional provisions".  ???

 

[Kirkhill]

I read it as a statement of agreement under duress while, at the same time, maintaining the supremacy of the executive in foreign affairs.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm confused... are these not statements about the same thing?

:nod:

I read it as a statement of agreement under duress while, at the same time, maintaining the supremacy of the executive in foreign affairs.

... all while registering pissed-off-edness without vetoing said bill.

I don't know if I'd go as far as "duress", given the legislative branch (one of the ones people voted for) is one of the legs of the checks & balances tripod working together to balance things in the U.S. - or at least based on my understanding of the appropriate SchoolHouse Rock video  ;D