• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Planit said:
Michael Flynn is this generation's Oliver North.


Nothing will be done because of who controls the legislature. pResident tRump is as teflon as Reagan was. That is becoming apparent.
Click to expand...

I think the humourous part of Trump is that the people who hated Obama voted him in. And because of Trump, Obama will be looked back on as a much better President because of Trump.

And note, Trump won't be remembered like Reagan is. He most certainly will be remembered for his crass language, "straight talking", and un-Presidential demeanor. So far he isn't a deal maker, and he certainly isn't making America great again. He still has 3 years though....
 
Planit said:
Michael Flynn is this generation's Oliver North.


Nothing will be done because of who controls the legislature. pResident tRump is as teflon as Reagan was. That is becoming apparent.
Click to expand...

Mid term elections. Even the die hard Trumpeters are dying down. Entire house is up for re-election, 33 senators are up, 34 including Session's seat. 9 GOP seats, 23 Dem seats, the rest are independents who generally side Dem. If the Dem's secure all 23 of their seats, in addition to at least 7 GOP seats, the senate shifts power. It's a huge uphill battle there, but given how bad the GOP are looking right now, those who don't really have a party allegiance may be more inclined to straight ticket their Dem representatives. 2018 will be it, the final showdown of the Trump administration. If he makes it through to the mid-terms, and the Dems manage to wrest control, I guarantee we'll see an impeachment. Trump will NOT resign like Nixon, he'll hold out because he's far too prideful.
 
michaelskis said:
I think that there is a connection, but the question is what will be done about it? Will Trump be removed from office? Will this result in Hillary becoming president?
Click to expand...

My only problem with removing the Drumpf is that Pence takes over and he's more likely to make something happen that I wouldn't agree with.

Planit said:
Nothing will be done because of who controls the legislature. pResident tRump is as teflon as Reagan was. That is becoming apparent.
Click to expand...

It's not that he's teflon, it's that the party wants to prop him up for their own ends. They know they can ram through some political BS bills and he'll sign it.
 
I say he's "Teflon" because he accepts no blame and pushes it off on someone else (wiretapping claim is not my fault it was Susan Rice) - no failure is his fault.
 
dvdneal said:
My only problem with removing the Drumpf is that Pence takes over and he's more likely to make something happen that I wouldn't agree with.
Click to expand...

Only way Trump goes is if the Dems control the legislature. IE, Pence will have no ability to do anything.
 
YES

Gedunker said:
The Republicans don't want to govern.
They want to rule.

8-!:not:
Click to expand...

Great observation....and it is getting worse with control of all branches of government. The rubes get what the rubes deserve.....but the rest of us don't deserve this crap. He is known to me as Comrade 45.
 
Gedunker said:
The [STRIKEOUT]Republicans[/STRIKEOUT] Politicians don't want to govern.
They want to rule.

8-!:not:
Click to expand...

There... I fixed that for you.


While it is true, I think it is both sides that rather rule than govern. DC is full of lobbyist loving, corporate greed seeking, politicians instead of statesman who are out to do what is best for the people. Many states have the same issue on a drastically smaller scale.
 
michaelskis said:
There... I fixed that for you.


While it is true, I think it is both sides that rather rule than govern. DC is full of lobbyist loving, corporate greed seeking, politicians instead of statesman who are out to do what is best for the people. Many states have the same issue on a drastically smaller scale.
Click to expand...

I can normally go along with you on these types of statements, but what we are currently seeing is orders of magnitude different. You've got a compulsive liar as President that thrives on attacking anyone that disagrees with him and wants to undermine a free & independent press. You've got a Congress that is in bed with said President. Yes, there absolutely is a cross-party pattern of ceding too much authority to the executive branch. The democrat-controlled legislature actually pushed back on Obama to some degree regarding accountability, legislative priorities, etc. The GOP controlled Congress represents a COMPLETE abdication of their constitutional responsibility to check the executive. I've got a real issue with the deference the GOP leadership in the legislature is showing to a president that is looking increasingly like a despot.

People talk a lot about the causes of how we got here, going into complex discussions of political science, sociology, etc. When you pull back though, I see one fundamental cause: gerrymandering. That is how you get widespread feelings of disenfranchisement and unresponsiveness. That is how you get Constitutional abdication. That is how you get populist uprising in American-style democracy.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I can normally go along with you on these types of statements, but what we are currently seeing is orders of magnitude different. You've got a compulsive liar as President that thrives on attacking anyone that disagrees with him and wants to undermine a free & independent press. You've got a Congress that is in bed with said President. Yes, there absolutely is a cross-party pattern of ceding too much authority to the executive branch. The democrat-controlled legislature actually pushed back on Obama to some degree regarding accountability, legislative priorities, etc. The GOP controlled Congress represents a COMPLETE abdication of their constitutional responsibility to check the executive. I've got a real issue with the deference the GOP leadership in the legislature is showing to a president that is looking increasingly like a despot.

People talk a lot about the causes of how we got here, going into complex discussions of political science, sociology, etc. When you pull back though, I see one fundamental cause: gerrymandering. That is how you get widespread feelings of disenfranchisement and unresponsiveness. That is how you get Constitutional abdication. That is how you get populist uprising in American-style democracy.
Click to expand...

Your first mistake is assuming that Trump is actually a 'Republican'. He isn't and that is why he is having a more difficult time getting his ridiculous ideas passed. His past friendship and campaign contributions to Hillary show that he does not give a crap about the Republican party. He ran because he knew that he could beat the political establishment because people were sick and tired of business as usual. Think about that for a moment. Society elected a total sociopath to the highest office on the planet because they saw it as being better than more of the same.

Second, by the sheer fact that democrats want to increase the size of government and regulation, it shows that they are also out for control instead of governance. Obama limited the freedoms of people with the additional tax that we call Obamacare.

Third, Obama pulled the same crap when the Democrats controlled everything. Obama care was not bipartisan and Congressional Leadership had to bribe Bart Stupak to vote for to approve to get it passed. Bart can't even go back to the UP without people screaming at him for betraying his constituents.

Finally, unless there has been some upheaval in the federal structure, our government is not a democracy so please for the love of humanity and history stop calling it that. We are and have always been a constitutional republic. The biggest difference is the power of those in DC have gone far past what was intended in the constitution.





Personally, the I think the system is broken and those with an R or a D behind their name are the exact same. But too many people are willing to be somewhere between a puppet and a sheep. They just do what the party talking points tell them to do. Until society starts demanding better, I think the era of Trump like presidents will continue until the US is just a shadow of what it once was.
 
michaelskis said:
Finally, unless there has been some upheaval in the federal structure, our government is not a democracy so please for the love of humanity and history stop calling it that. We are and have always been a constitutional republic. The biggest difference is the power of those in DC have gone far past what was intended in the constitution.

Personally, the I think the system is broken and those with an R or a D behind their name are the exact same. But too many people are willing to be somewhere between a puppet and a sheep. They just do what the party talking points tell them to do. Until society starts demanding better, I think the era of Trump like presidents will continue until the US is just a shadow of what it once was.
Click to expand...

I disagree about them being the same. They do both suck--on that we agree. But they are not the same--they suck in much different ways, although for some similar reasons (human nature to hoard power).

The thing about Trump is that you have to classify him as Republican based simply on the fact that those that are holding him up are Republican elected officials, members of the public supporting are typically Republican (Texas is my reference point for this, YMMV), and Republican leadership in Congress, including Committee chairs, are disinclined to offer any type of check on his efforts to date. I agree he is far from any kind of classical GOP/conservative definition, but he has clearly chosen a tribe for the time being and that tribe has accepted him, by and large, as one of their own.

And you know what I mean by democracy (little "d" democracy). John Q. Citizen does not know or honestly want to discuss the subtle intricacies of constitutional republics vs. true-blue democracy. You and I will enjoy conversations like that, but anybody that works in planning/government is wired different to enjoy that kind of thing. You run around to them correcting that and let me know how it goes and how many times they grump about being smug or elitist (I know you aren't, but you'll get called that). The point of my statement is that gerrymandering is the source of the conditions that lead to populist uprisings in this country, not to debate the finer points of political system description. Gerrymandering occurred through desires to consolidate power. Term limits won't fix that--you'll get into a weird world of endorsements/naming heirs and a rebirth of machine politics. District reform has to occur first.

The most interesting reading I've seen on the subject though is political scientists beginning to discuss a "post-party" America in which that system begins to break down and/or new parties emerge. Basically, it is a super nerdy and somewhat academic discussion of the strength of populism to potentially overcome the party apparatus, discussing the psychology and sociology of what took place during the election and what happens when parties lose strength in gerrymandered circumstances. Talks a lot about echo chamber politics and dismissal of anybody that disagrees with you, and the role that may eventually play in party reform, future elections, etc. Google around and you'll find some interesting reading.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I disagree about them being the same. They do both suck--on that we agree. But they are not the same--they suck in much different ways, although for some similar reasons (human nature to hoard power).

The thing about Trump is that you have to classify him as Republican based simply on the fact that those that are holding him up are Republican elected officials, members of the public supporting are typically Republican (Texas is my reference point for this, YMMV), and Republican leadership in Congress, including Committee chairs, are disinclined to offer any type of check on his efforts to date. I agree he is far from any kind of classical GOP/conservative definition, but he has clearly chosen a tribe for the time being and that tribe has accepted him, by and large, as one of their own.

And you know what I mean by democracy (little "d" democracy). John Q. Citizen does not know or honestly want to discuss the subtle intricacies of constitutional republics vs. true-blue democracy. You and I will enjoy conversations like that, but anybody that works in planning/government is wired different to enjoy that kind of thing. You run around to them correcting that and let me know how it goes and how many times they grump about being smug or elitist (I know you aren't, but you'll get called that). The point of my statement is that gerrymandering is the source of the conditions that lead to populist uprisings in this country, not to debate the finer points of political system description. Gerrymandering occurred through desires to consolidate power. Term limits won't fix that--you'll get into a weird world of endorsements/naming heirs and a rebirth of machine politics. District reform has to occur first.

The most interesting reading I've seen on the subject though is political scientists beginning to discuss a "post-party" America in which that system begins to break down and/or new parties emerge. Basically, it is a super nerdy and somewhat academic discussion of the strength of populism to potentially overcome the party apparatus, discussing the psychology and sociology of what took place during the election and what happens when parties lose strength in gerrymandered circumstances. Talks a lot about echo chamber politics and dismissal of anybody that disagrees with you, and the role that may eventually play in party reform, future elections, etc. Google around and you'll find some interesting reading.
Click to expand...


Ironically, I think we agree in quite a bit but it is the foundations of it that we don't agree on. To start, I base my opinion of what the federal government is based on one major thing. The Constitution of the United States. It says we are a republic... not a democracy. It does not even use the word democracy. There is a lot of discussion about changing it until until it officially changes, I don't care what the classroom pundits we call professors call it. It is what the Constitution says it is.

Both sides seek to increase their power hold over the american people in different ways, but both sample from the same well. Gerrymandering is mostly a republican problem, but there are democrat districts as well. The democrats create programs, laws, divisions, incentives, and such to keep the people under their control to the point where the population depends on it. We are seeing it with the healthcare bill. The perception that people might lose their healthcare terrifies some people who were completely against it. However the foundation of it is that it is not the government's role to provide free healthcare to people.

In the end, they both suck. We as a society need to stop pandering to the Republicans or Democrats and need to start standing up as Americans and demanding better.
 
hes-middle-finger-giran-goop-kentucky-fried-chickens-hit-www-kevinkarstens-14525924.png
 
So Trump shot missiles at Syria. What they did to their own people, to the children is horrific. I think some sort of retribution telling them that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

However, I don't think that the US is the one to do it and I think it was wrong that we acted alone. I also think that he should have talked to Congress before taking action. It is one thing for us to do something if Americans had been targeted and attacked... but this was not our fight to get involved in.
 
I do think the President gets *some* latitude on strikes like this. He should have, however, at least briefed key members of Congress (i.e. committee chairs and minority leader on committee) prior. This is partly because I get the need to act quickly and to minimize the opportunity for Syria to shift assets away from the likely target while the President & Congress coordinate. If American assets are on the ground in the risk area for chemical weapons (advisors, agents, etc.), then the strike makes sense. Likewise, I do believe there is an imperative need to hit back when chemical weapons are used, and that doesn't always provide time for coordination on "hey, who should do this?" The reality is the U.S. has the best resources for this kind of response.

So what I'm okay with:
  • A quick, proportional response that clearly targets the source of the chemical weapons attack and potentially protects American assets on the ground, with minimal civilian risk. I don't want military intervention to go beyond this, especially without Congressional action.

Needs improvement:
  • Better Congressional coordination
  • Better international coordination (at least getting other countries to back us up, assist in sponsoring the attack, etc.); this appears to be a go it alone strategy that I'm not a fan of
  • Consistency in Syrian strategy... we won't take refugees escaping the quantifiable circumstances there, but we'll shoot missiles when Trumpendejo sees a video that makes him sad? Our Syrian policy is wildly inconsistent.
  • The current Russia policy is completely schizophrenic, and this Syrian action is going to make it worse.

I can't help but recall that Congress said "no" when Obama suggested intervention way back. It is interesting to watch how certain members are responding to Trump doing this without Congressional blessing. I guess when it is a fat, old, billionaire white guy with a (R) after his name, it is okay.

And I'm cynical... I don't think for a second Trumpy was bothered by the pictures of the children. I think he saw the opportunity to create a distraction that conflicts with the growing narrative & evidence that he (and his family) is a treasonous leach.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
And I'm cynical... I don't think for a second Trumpy was bothered by the pictures of the children. I think he saw the opportunity to create a distraction that conflicts with the growing narrative & evidence that he (and his family) is a treasonous leach.
Click to expand...
Trump's next good will (aka bread and circuses) move is to try to make the trains run on time and build a world class Autobahn system. :p
 
Yesterday, a friend from college posted on FB that since Trump flipped his thoughts on Syria after seeing the photos of dead children, maybe he should be shown the photos of the children at the San Bernardino school to flip his thoughts on gun control. She posted this on FB when the only information that was confirmed was that there was a shooting at an elementary school. I responded that it was too soon to go political with it but she proceeded to argue with me about it. We now know that it was in a gun free zone, in one of the states with super strict gun control laws, committed by a guy who had a history of weapons charges and domestic abuse which prevents him from owning a gun by CA state laws, and he followed all the required processes and procedures to access the class room.

But yet she calls for increased gun control but is somewhat trying to back peddle saying it was more about how Trump flip flops his policies (which that part I agree on)

It is frustrating when people from either side jump to conclusions and call for increased laws when in reality, the increased laws would have not prevented the situation.

What happened was a horrific event and I still believe that if you are going to designate a place to be a gun free zone, you should have to walk through a metal detector before entering a building.
 
michaelskis said:
What happened was a horrific event and I still believe that if you are going to designate a place to be a gun free zone, you should have to walk through a metal detector before entering a building.
Click to expand...
ON this we agree.
 
As Kimmel said, he broke rule 1. Never defend Hitler.

The Kansas election came out pretty close. I look forward to other state elections and the midterm elections. If it's any predictor, there's gonna be some change.
 
dvdneal said:
The Kansas election came out pretty close. I look forward to other state elections and the midterm elections. If it's any predictor, there's gonna be some change.
Click to expand...

Meh. "Because Trump" only goes so far for the Dems as a strategy. The GA 6th District special election (to replace Tom Price) is a good example - it's been red since the Carter administration. 17 candidates with no primary, so Ds/Rs/Is on the same ballot. The Dem machine is supporting John Ossoff (a supremely unqualified twerp who doesn't even live in the district) - he's raised north of $8 mil, 95% of which has come in from outside of the state :)v:). He'll probably pull in ~42% of the vote, which is, admittedly, darn impressive for a race with 17 freaking candidates. He'll then pull in 42% of the vote in the runoff after the GOP lines up behind whichever of the Rs finishes second in the initial voting. The local rag sheet loves to point out that my fair county (which is a large portion of the 6th) went for Hillary, while conveniently ignoring that every other race in that cycle went heavily for the Rs...
 
Bubba said:
Meh. "Because Trump" only goes so far for the Dems as a strategy. The GA 6th District special election (to replace Tom Price) is a good example - it's been red since the Carter administration. 17 candidates with no primary, so Ds/Rs/Is on the same ballot. The Dem machine is supporting John Ossoff (a supremely unqualified twerp who doesn't even live in the district) - he's raised north of $8 mil, 95% of which has come in from outside of the state :)v:). He'll probably pull in ~42% of the vote, which is, admittedly, darn impressive for a race with 17 freaking candidates. He'll then pull in 42% of the vote in the runoff after the GOP lines up behind whichever of the Rs finishes second in the initial voting. The local rag sheet loves to point out that my fair county (which is a large portion of the 6th) went for Hillary, while conveniently ignoring that every other race in that cycle went heavily for the Rs...
Click to expand...

It worked for the Republicans with Obama. I think the D's have a shot at the House and certainly the Senate. If Trump keeps up his antics it certainly won't be pretty for the R's. With that said.... gerrymandering. So we have that....
 
Hink said:
With that said.... gerrymandering. So we have that....
Click to expand...

Bingo. The GA 6th will eventually go blue if the current demographic trends continue (or if the Dems ever back a viable candidate), but it probably ain't happening this time. The GOP dominates the state legislature, though, so eventual redistricting...
 
dvdneal said:
The Kansas election came out pretty close. I look forward to other state elections and the midterm elections. If it's any predictor, there's gonna be some change.
Click to expand...

Nope... I don't think it is a predictor. Political predictors went out the window with this last election. There was Zero chance of Trump winning the electoral college... and yet he did. Hillary might have received more votes, but she won by huge margins in urban areas that were already going blue anyways. The places that she lost was the rural areas in FL, PA, OH, and NC. NC for example ousted a sitting governor for the first time in history with that election... yet trump one the popular vote in the state.

I think we have a better chance of getting a perfect NCAA bracket than predicting this next election.
 
With our race you had a decent Dem, not like GA, who just used phone calls and all that grass roots stuff to get within a couple thousand votes of the R. For a red state that's damn good. Especially since he didn't have a lot of fund raising and the party only kicked in a little at the very end when they realized he might actually have a shot. Way to support your party dems! The R candidate had Koch money, Ted Cruz stumping for him, and robo calls from the tRump and still barely won. The only lesson in this is that Kansas loves it's Koch money.
 
If you want some entertainment, I suggest watching Ted Cruz closely. Beto O'Rourke is a pretty fascinating candidate that is going to check a lot of boxes for people in Texas. He is extremely innovative in campaign tactics, has a very engaging personality, is well-liked by those on the other side of the aisle, and is taking some pretty thoughtful positions with a lot of populist appeal. He's staking out some moral high ground on campaign funding as well that I think will benefit him. His early outreach has been smart--he is going to the rural areas of Texas rather than just focusing on urban turnout. I went to one of his meet & greets, and it was incredibly well done and came across as very authentic. He's still a politician mind you, but he connects well. A good friend is a campaign consultant and has raised an eyebrow about his chances--thinks this could be the first legit statewide campaign shot he has seen since Ann Richards was governor.

Cruz is overestimating his appeal within Texas. A lot of people do not like him and feel he is smug, detached & aloof.
 
Bubba said:
The GA 6th District special election (to replace Tom Price) is a good example - it's been red since the Carter administration. 17 candidates with no primary, so Ds/Rs/Is on the same ballot. The Dem machine is supporting John Ossoff (a supremely unqualified twerp who doesn't even live in the district) - he's raised north of $8 mil, 95% of which has come in from outside of the state :)v:). He'll probably pull in ~42% of the vote, which is, admittedly, darn impressive for a race with 17 freaking candidates. He'll then pull in 42% of the vote in the runoff after the GOP lines up behind whichever of the Rs finishes second in the initial voting. The local rag sheet loves to point out that my fair county (which is a large portion of the 6th) went for Hillary, while conveniently ignoring that every other race in that cycle went heavily for the Rs...
Click to expand...

18 candidates, not 17 - apparently I missed one. And, dear baby jeebus I can't wait for this to be over...the canvassers knocking on my door, the robocalls, the commercials...puleeze make it stop. :-@
 
If Jon Ossoff, the Democrat in the special election down in Tom Cotton's old district in Georgia, wins today's election with 51% and avoids a run off what are the odds that Trump complains about voter fraud?
 
Bubba said:
Ah, you do know Tom Cotton represented Arkansas' 4th district, not Georgia's 6th? There is a difference between these two southern(ish) states. :-@
Click to expand...

D'oh! As I was typing that I kept chanting to myself "Price, not Cotton. Price, not Cotton, Price, not Cotton..." and went ahead and typed out Cotton anyway.
 
Bubba said:
Ha! Fair enough. Anyhoo, Ossoff won't get 50% today.
Click to expand...

Just for that I'm gonna cheer for him to win because he sounds like the underdog and I have no clue about southern politics.

Our DA is so proud that he busted an illegal voter. It's a terrible crime that must be stopped at all costs and believe me we're spending all costs to find that one guy. The DOT is pissed that they keep getting raided to pay for this kind of crap.
 
dvdneal said:
Just for that I'm gonna cheer for him to win because he sounds like the underdog and I have no clue about southern politics.
Click to expand...

He's backed by the national Dem machine (97% of his funding is from out of state per the WSJ) and polling at over 40% in an 18-person race - hardly an underdog.
 
Bubba said:
He's backed by the national Dem machine (97% of his funding is from out of state per the WSJ) and polling at over 40% in an 18-person race - hardly an underdog.
Click to expand...

I bet if he got out there and fixed I-85 today he'd get elected. :D
 
Georgia 6th to a runoff - Ossoff got closer to an outright win yesterday than I thought possible, so I give him credit for that. I'll leave the deep analysis to a buddy of mine who knows politics a hell of a lot better than I do:

Ossoff got really close at 48.1%. Handel made the runoff with 19.8%. Bob Gray a distant third at 10.8%. Nobody else even in double digits. Ossoff's got a real chance in June. His voters will continue to be motivated. The GOP has to work to get everyone who voted for ANY Republican back to the polls. Will Gray/Levell voters be excited enough to show up for Handel? Hard to say. The other question is how many traditional Republican voters went for Ossoff as a rebuke of Trump, and can Handel pick them back off in six weeks. She's in a weird place, as she can't fully spurn him but also can't be seen to embrace him, lest she set off hard feelings in the GOP cold war.

On a larger scale, this shows us the realignment of our politics is real. This was a consistently 60%+ GOP seat in the past the demographics haven't I changed THAT much. Meanwhile, Trump was in Janesville, WI yesterday signing an EO that was mainly targeted at disgruntled union Dems. The GOP may well have decided to play defense in educated, suburban districts that were once thought the heart of the party in favor of the chance at electoral votes in the upper Midwest. It makes some sense in this era of an overly powerful executive branch, but it presents an interesting conundrum: the Democrats aren't exactly redirecting toward the suburbs. Their base remains either urban and black or far-left white.

If neither party is going to try to win over the suburban vote, it is only going to be a matter of time before someone figures out a way to exploit this (much like Trump did last fall) and convince voters to quit choosing the side that appears least hostile to them. That's what suburban GOP voters are dealing with right now.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting that bubba's included that write-up that states tRump was in Janesville, WI for his umpteenth EO. That's good buddy's Paul Ryan's hometown. I wonder if they lunched at his house too (probably not fancy enough for the hairy cheeto).
 
Campaign spending numbers (from the local ragsheet): The money spent during Georgia's 2014 Senate race totaled roughly $15 per vote. The money spent for last week's special election in Georgia's 6th Congressional District (the majority of which was a combination of out of state money for the lead D (Ossoff) and GOP superpac money for anti-Ossoff ads) worked out to about $73 per vote.
 
Last edited:
tRump did it again -

wrong choice of words -

"Congratulations … Tremendous"
Click to expand...
to Purple Heart Recipient
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ons_tremendous_to_purple_heart_recipient.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/22/politics/trump-walter-reed/

ALSO there is this on Earth Day
"Economic growth enhances environmental protection. We can and must protect our environment without harming America's working families. That is why my Administration is reducing unnecessary burdens on American workers and American companies, while being mindful that our actions must also protect the environment," he said.
Click to expand...
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ronmental-protection-must-not-harm-us-workers
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...ens-workers/73pFXIiEpRNWK2jmKEkiYO/story.html
 
Back
Top