• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see...Trump beat Hillary because of gerrymandering.

So who do you think we'll elect as our next U.S. Supreme Court Justice?

This is actually the plan for 2020. Considering they stole the Supreme Court Nomination from Obama, I guess they will get their way. Don't you know Michigan and Pennsylvania do want to allocate their electoral votes through Gerrymandered districts? Guess not.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/20...020-by-6-percent-and-still-win-a-second-term/

You are so snide about Trump's nomination to the Supreme court which I know is why you voted for him, despite the fact that stealing that nomination from Obama was unprecedented, and your continual lamentation that liberals love to legislate from the bench. Your hypocrisy is showingt.
 
This is actually the plan for 2020.

What does that have to do with the great week Trump had November 7-11, 2016? Not to mention 9 months of a very strong primary season.

There are a lot of criticisms that can be levelled legitimately at Trump, and a lot of room for reasonable discussion. The claim that he is a lousy politician who has never had a good week was...laughable. But it is indicative of a mindset so emotionally invested in hating the guy that all objectivity is lost.
 
This is actually the plan for 2020. Considering they stole the Supreme Court Nomination from Obama, I guess they will get their way. Don't you know Michigan and Pennsylvania do want to allocate their electoral votes through Gerrymandered districts? Guess not.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/20...020-by-6-percent-and-still-win-a-second-term/

You are so snide about Trump's nomination to the Supreme court which I know is why you voted for him, despite the fact that stealing that nomination from Obama was unprecedented, and your continual lamentation that liberals love to legislate from the bench. Your hypocrisy is showingt.
The Supreme Court seat was not stolen. Biden and Schumer both advocated for the same position the republicans took. All the Democrats had to do was win the election.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.wash...omas-democrats-hypocritical-on-supreme-court/
 
Last edited:
Where is the evidence that Obama was a policy wonk? Smart, articulate guy? Sure. Policy wonk? Nah -- I don't see that at all.

There's a few books on the subject, but Obama was deeply involved in the policy proposals that came out of the early Administration even to the consternation of the Democrats on the Hill who felt left out and almost like "junior" partners. Obama was more involved in crafting of policy than Bill Clinton in the first-year of his Presidency -- and yes, that took a step back with the ACA, largely because Obama felt it'd be impossible to get his proposals through Congress without them having a very significant degree of say in any legislation. This was naive in the sense that, Congress wants to be involved, but they don't want to take the heat or take any responsibility for negative consequences.

He punted on the ACA, on the Stimulus bill....All the things that a true policy wonk like Clinton would have jizzed over, he punted on.

I'm not sure how this makes sense. A policy wonk is a person who fully understands legislative proposals and dives into the details of the plans. Barack Obama is known for being actively engaged in the creation of policy except for the ACA; to which, he wanted a broad compromise, which, as Democrats later admitted, was a monumental mistake.

The reason Obama avoided presenting his own healthcare legislation to Congress was because he wanted to avoid the pitfalls that the Clinton Administration ran into, and he also felt it was appropriate to yield to concerns from Democrats on the Hill about being left out of policy discussions.

Frankly, I think Reagan was more involved in policy than was Obama. He had very clear ideas and goals, and fought like hell for them. Massive revamping of tax code, along with huge tax cuts. Massive rebuilding of the military. Standing up to those godless Commies....Didn't really care who he pissed off, either.

That's not being a "policy wonk;" that's being an ideologue. And Reagan was definitely more of an ideologue than Obama because, again, Obama was a pragmatist - and by the middle of his first-term, he had embraced Third-Way Democratic politics and tried (and failed) to use political triangulation to get legislation passed through Congress.

I think Obama went through all 8 years somewhat mystified that everyone just wouldn't come together in agreement at a consensus he thought reasonable.

I would agree with you if you changed 8 to 3; that's definitely true. In his second-term though, no; Obama knew the score by then, but .. by that time, it was too late.
 
What does that have to do with the great week Trump had November 7-11, 2016? Not to mention 9 months of a very strong primary season.

There are a lot of criticisms that can be levelled legitimately at Trump, and a lot of room for reasonable discussion. The claim that he is a lousy politician who has never had a good week was...laughable. But it is indicative of a mindset so emotionally invested in hating the guy that all objectivity is lost.

Is that as laughable as how hard you have to work to prove he had 1 good week, the week he was elected? It's sad man.
 
There's a few books on the subject, but Obama was deeply involved in the policy proposals that came out of the early Administration even to the consternation of the Democrats on the Hill who felt left out and almost like "junior" partners. Obama was more involved in crafting of policy than Bill Clinton in the first-year of his Presidency -- and yes, that took a step back with the ACA, largely because Obama felt it'd be impossible to get his proposals through Congress without them having a very significant degree of say in any legislation. This was naive in the sense that, Congress wants to be involved, but they don't want to take the heat or take any responsibility for negative consequences.

But didn't he also do that with the $800B stimulus bill? That was essentially delegated to Pelosi. I remember reading a ton of articles on the left about that. And I remember the bill Pelosi ended up producing made some folks in the Administration unhappy.
 
But didn't he also do that with the $800B stimulus bill? That was essentially delegated to Pelosi. I remember reading a ton of articles on the left about that. And I remember the bill Pelosi ended up producing made some folks in the Administration unhappy.

Obama was actively involved in the stimulus bill at the onset, but yes you could say he punted towards the end; I think that'd be accurate, and I don't contest that description of events. I would only put to you his reasoning:

Between Obama, Pelosi, and Reid; Pelosi would be the point-person on any such legislation. She could get her version of the bill, her proposal, through the House -- and they needed the stimulus passed in the first quarter of the year due to the massive increases in job losses that were being reported on a daily basis. Obama and his advisers realized that trying to debate with Pelosi on such a bill was less important than getting the overall stimulus bill passed; so, the Administration felt it would be best to allow Pelosi to take the lead on the bill.

And I think it's important to understand this decision in context.

From the very moment Barack Obama was sworn in, he was at odds with Pelosi on almost every major policy proposal the White House put forward. And she was very vocal about her opposition to his vision. Pelosi felt that, with a liberal near super-majority, now was the time to ram through left-wing policies and the time for working with Republicans had passed. Pelosi went so far as to suggest Obama prosecute Bush Administration officials for war crimes, and was openly offended when they scoffed at the idea.

Over the first 100 days of the Presidency, Pelosi was a tenuous ally to the President at best, and oftentimes she was an outright adversary. She felt it was important to keep the President beholded to the liberals of the Party who got him through the primary against Hillary Clinton.

So Obama, less than 4 weeks on the job, decided it would be best to accede to Pelosi on the stimulus bill, while also allowing the ACA to be largely crafted by Pelosi and Reid -- to people whom disagreed strongly on the nature of such a bill, openly argued that the President should take the point, and with respect to Reid, could not whip the necessary votes to pass a truly liberal piece of legislation.

So with that said, I think with respect to the ACA, Obama failed -- miserably. Many in the former Administration admit the failures of this time. With the stimulus, I think it was a tactical move to bring Pelosi back into the fold, because she is much more valuable as an ally than an outspoken adversary dividing the Party.

In hindsight, it would have been better if Obama had acceded more control to Pelosi because the Party would have had greater ideological direction and cover. We lacked strong leadership in those early days because Obama felt that reason and rationality could and ultimately would win the day. He felt that his character and his openness to compromise with Republicans would somehow heal party divisions - not realizing what was happening around him.

It's a shame really...
 
Obama was actively involved in the stimulus bill at the onset, but yes you could say he punted towards the end; I think that'd be accurate, and I don't contest that description of events. I would only put to you his reasoning:

I wouldn't dispute the reasoning. But in terms of actual, meaningful legislation that came out of his Presidency, the ACA is probably No. 1, and after that...the Stimulus? And he really didn't have a very active role in either, whatever the reasons. Maybe Dodd-Frank, although I'm not sure how much he played the wonk with that either.

It's just hard for me to think of him as a wonk when I can't really think of any signature piece of legislation in which he played a wonkish role.
 
I wouldn't dispute the reasoning. But in terms of actual, meaningful legislation that came out of his Presidency, the ACA is probably No. 1, and after that...the Stimulus? And he really didn't have a very active role in either, whatever the reasons. Maybe Dodd-Frank, although I'm not sure how much he played the wonk with that either.

It's just hard for me to think of him as a wonk when I can't really think of any signature piece of legislation in which he played a wonkish role.

I don't dispute his level of involvement in those pieces of legislation, nor would I dispute their importance to his Presidency.

I would only dispute the qualification that he needed to be actively crafting the policy of these proposals in order to be considered a policy wonk in a generalized sense; I don't think it makes sense to argue that, because he wanted Congress to take control of the ACA and the House to lead on the stimulus that he somehow is no longer a wonk.

Rather, I would assert that these decisions reflect the several political compromises the President made in the act of governing; compromises that he felt, and was advised, were necessary to achieve a pragmatic solution rather than an ideological failure (see: Hillarycare).

I don't agree with the decisions; however, I do understand the rationale.
 

Trump finally figured out how to make the Russia scandal go away. PACK IT UP BOYS!

But really... What? Don't we already know the sourcing of the Dossier? Steele was working for the Republicans and then it was dropped and picked back up by the Dems... or something along those lines? Why is he inventing an FBI conspiracy to attack him? Like they coordinated with the Russians to create a "fake" dossier with unverified info to attack him? What?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top