Who cares if he doesn't like him, he chose him, and for shitty fucking reasons. That's all I need to know. He drug him and his shitty stances upwards into mainstream.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Who cares if he doesn't like him, he chose him, and for shitty fucking reasons. That's all I need to know. He drug him and his shitty stances upwards into mainstream.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
He chose him for the votes and I agree that's shitty... what if something happens to Trump? That's a legit concern I understand Link having.
A Link to the Past
Banned
It is entirely justified, LGBT people cannot afford to wait and see what happens with the cabinet. It is a logical assumption that if Trump offered Kasich to be the most powerful VP, Pence was given a similar offer. You can certainly argue that there are factors that would suggest that Pence was not, but that's just your guess.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
My admittedly vague counterpoint to the Kasich story is that it was many moons ago and during the primaries. So much has changed. Trump isn't gonna let someone he outright forgets that exists until turning around and seeing him standing behind him hold a ton of sway in the inner circle. Doesn't like him, didn't want him as VP, plus the stories about Kushner being so instrumental in the campaign and being someone Trump listens to more than anyone tells me there's nothing to worry about (unless...again, he dies in office).
shinra-bansho
Member
You're all such easy marks.
Anyway. Trump says he's going to put together bilateral trade deals as he scraps the TPP.
Setting aside the inefficiency, does anyone think his deals will affirm and expand environmental protections as the TPP did?
Does anyone think his deal with Malaysia or Vietnam or Brunei if they ever happen will include consistency plans to enforce improved labour conditions, ending child labour and enabling union formation?
Does anyone think they'll for some reason omit ISDA clauses?
But no TPP.
Anyway. Trump says he's going to put together bilateral trade deals as he scraps the TPP.
Setting aside the inefficiency, does anyone think his deals will affirm and expand environmental protections as the TPP did?
Does anyone think his deal with Malaysia or Vietnam or Brunei if they ever happen will include consistency plans to enforce improved labour conditions, ending child labour and enabling union formation?
Does anyone think they'll for some reason omit ISDA clauses?
But no TPP.
Dominican Power
Member
That's why I oppose Tim Ryan being in a leadership role. He seems like he wants to focus on white people first and then minorities second.
I think he completely misread the room here and is about to face a "You come at the Queen, you best not miss" situation.
This theory nicely ignores Trump putting Pence in charge of the transition team.
Why, precisely, do you believe Kushner is a moderating force and not just someone looking out for the various family business interests?
Barack Lesnar
Banned
There haven't been threads made about this (that i recall) but there's been so many reports from all the networks about how instrumental Jared Kushner was to the campaign and how close he and Trump are and how much Trump trusts him and takes his advice. Just google his name. He has far more influence on Trump than Pence does...guarantee you. This is something we should all be happy about as Kushner is extremely intelligent, moderate and reasonable...a good balance to the circus.
I read a thing about his challenge yesterday and he sounds just plain dumb, the sort of dude who cares more about ideology than anything else.
Sirpopopop
Member
I don't think anyone disputes that? Regardless, Kushner wanted Pence in the room. What does that tell you about Kushner?
shinra-bansho
Member
His US Trade Representative will need Senate confirmation anyway. The GOP isn't going to confirm a protectionist.
Yes, we've all heard that Kushner has Trump's ear, but to what value? Was Trump going to pick David Duke as his chief strategist and Kushner talked him down to Bannon?
What does Kushner stand for beyond obtaining more power and money for himself?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Torture is only accepted among the absolute fringe people who let anger and revenge take over, and TV and Movies.
Which, closely matches up with Trump when you think about it...
TestOfTide
Banned
So let's be clear here: Your entire basis for thinking Trump will be a good president is the assumption that he will not govern similar to how he campaigned.
Rather than explain why that could be called a ridiculous logic, I'm going to ask two simple questions:
1) If Trump ends up governing as a hardcore republican and does things like ban/register Muslims, appoint justices that overturn key social liberalism decisions, and use his power to undermine the free press and lock up dissidents, will you change from being pro-Trump?
2) Similar to the above question, but basically a more direct question: Hypothetically what could Trump do as president that would make you no longer support him?
And no, neither of those are "gotcha questions". They are ways for PoliGAF to gauge to what degree you actually LIKE Trump and to what degree you just like your assumption of what Trump is.
Those countries already made commitments to the other TPP countries for those standards, because Australia, Canada and Japan would be negatively effected by weaker standards in those countries. I think the remaining TPP countries will try to put together a deal without the US and keep those standards in place. The Korea bilateral FTA as well as the Colombia FTA, both of which were negotiated under the Bush administration, include similar so-called "second generation" labor protection requirements.
These requirements benefit the US as well, as US workers are disadvantaged if trading partners have weaker labor standards. I do not know why you would think they would omit such standards in a bilateral deal with Vietnam, Malaysia or Brunei.
If you do an analysis of the requirements, they are still generally weak and leaves much up to the discretion of the local country--I believe China would qualify under the TPP requirements.
Given that Trump desires to seek more protections for American workers, I do not see an indication that he would seek agreements that provide fewer protections to American workers, as that can be easily attacked--"he sold us out for a worst agreement".
If you are interested in a critique of the TPP's labor provisions, you can read the Labor Advisory Committee report on the TPP:
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/file...e-for-Trade-Negotiations-and-Trade-Policy.pdf
You're focusing on Net Neutrality. The immediate implications of a Republican FCC are terribad for the average consumer or business. The US Telecoms industry will become further de-regulated (already comically lacking regulation) - there will be further consolidation of cellular networks and cable companies will benefit from lack of competition as a result.
Everyone's prices will go up (they are already insane in the US) and the choice of services will go down.
The change would be instant. The FCC can choose to scrap regulating telcos under Title-II instantly with one vote. The chairman would be the deciding vote. If people want to fight it - SCOTUS will be flipped so it will back whatever the Republican choice is either way. It's over. Done.
Net Neutrality also means it will be free-for all when it comes to paid prioritization, setting up of walled-garden's and and good old nickel and diming you for access to basic web services and content. Telcos can squeeze the consumer and content provider, oh also as an added benefit, they may even now have a serious weapon to stop cord-cutting. The cherry on top is of course entrenching the current internet status quo by putting up a significant barrier to new and innovative service offerings.
GregLombardi
Member
People should organize a mass disconnect from use of cell phones. Cancel plans left and right. Shelve their entire revenue stream within the span of a year.
Net neutrality rules already did not apply to cell phones... but good luck with that plan.
Yeah no one is going to not use their phone for month's at a time.
The US Telco industry was actually on the verge of something quite special in terms of a real shift to more consumer friendly outcomes - ATT is bleeding wireless revenue (hence need to buy TWX) and Verizon is suffering massive backbook repricing and spin-down because T-Mobile US is cleaning everyone's clock. TMUS was only doing that because the FCC and DoJ want 4 operators. To promote competition - this was what eventually dragged Comcast into the game as well if the industry on the cusp of evoking European/French style fixed-mobile bundling with huge discounts to prevent further loss of high value customers.
All of this is now in the bin. TMUS can now be merged with Sprint or acquired by VZ/ATT potentially. They know the gravy train can be restarted again. Consolidate and not compete anymore.
nintendoman58
Member
So basically come January 20th, no amount of petitioning, calls, and messages can do anything? Just BOOM Net Neutrality's gone, no questions asked?
That's some scary shit right there.
So even if I'm not personally affected by it by me living in Canada I could be seeing all my favorite sites dropping like flies throughout the year?
Don't forget that he hates Christie for prosecuting his father for legitimate crimes.
Maybe Justice Kennedy or Roberts has a change of heart? It won't even get that far. The initial attempt to fight the original FCC Title-II ruling didn't even make the Supreme Court after Scalia died, it would have been a 4-4 at best for the Telcos and pushed back down to the lower courts where they had already lost.
Verizon was actually furious with AT&T, Comcast and Co for even trying to test Net Neutrality with the FCC in the first place. VZ thought use of Title-II and eventual rate-regulation/forced local-loop unbundling was inevitable if the industry tried to push against the basic understand of NN. We were actually on the path to that. The Obama policy was going to deliver European style choice and pricing to the US Telecoms industry - it was well on it's way to that. All gone though. With NN lost to boot.
EU is only bastion left for holding up net neutrality now. The EU only followed in the first place because Obama got Wheeler to get activist with the FCC's stance.
If that's the case then fuck everything again. I'm already trying to be pre emptive and switching to a local ISP that actually cares about net neutrality and customer privacy. But sounds like even that won't be enough.
Getting rid of TPP was pretty clear to his candidacy and victory, which is why it is basically the first thing on his agenda. He will lose voters if he offers a worst deal. It really may not matter because trade deals take lots of years, so I doubt he will be able to have anything to offer, unless it is tweaks from the TPP/NAFTA but that would still be TPP/NAFTA plus more American protectionism.
I really doubt he can spin a trade agreement that would protect America even less. There are plenty of anti-trade voices that can jump on such a hypothetical agreement.
RCEP is simply a tariff-reduction agreement, so it is much more simpler and not comprehensive. But the RCEP would have happened with or without TPP. It had 15 rounds of negotiations as of October. It's not like countries, especially countries that are not part of the TPP, will reject entering into a trade deal that includes China, South Korea and India (which are not part of the TPP) because TPP existed.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
https://soundcloud.com/lsepodcasts/the-new-minority-white-working
An LSE lecture about the white working class, Trump, and Brexit. Worth listening to, especially the narrated history of Youngstown and Barking & Dagenham.
An LSE lecture about the white working class, Trump, and Brexit. Worth listening to, especially the narrated history of Youngstown and Barking & Dagenham.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
The 2014 FCC ruling 100% applies to mobile broadband, as seen right in the opening statement of the bright line rules.
However, they acknowledge the "reasonable network management exception" for things done purely for technological reasons could apply differently depending on the technology.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1686026/fcc-15-24a1.pdf
Not that it matters since it's going away, but I need to seize every excuse i can get to nerd out on legal documents that aren't absolutely terrible before the coming government apocalypse.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm not sure we watched the same election if you think Trump can't spin bad as good.
He is currently selling rebates for construction companies and contracters as an infrastructure plan.
And yes, RCEP would proceed with or without the TPP. But you're presumably agreeing that in letting China set the terms of trade in Asia Pacific, there will be no equivalent protections with the enforcement incentive of access to an enormous market.
He is currently selling rebates for construction companies and contracters as an infrastructure plan.
And yes, RCEP would proceed with or without the TPP. But you're presumably agreeing that in letting China set the terms of trade in Asia Pacific, there will be no equivalent protections with the enforcement incentive of access to an enormous market.
Trump can deflect ancillary and personal issues very well. I do not think he can spin an issue that is key to his election victory with swing voters, especially when polls indicate these voters are willing to dump him if he reneged on his promises. These voters aren't diehards like voters that support the Wall or a Muslim ban--these voters traditionally vote Democratic to begin with.
I don't agree that the RCEP is China setting the terms of trade in Asia Pacific. It involves India, South Korea, Australia and Japan as well, which have their own incentives and motivations regarding their domestic industries. The geopolitical bogeymanning of China to push the TPP is silly--if people believe that trade liberalization improves peace, they should encourage a trade agreement that includes China and its Asian rivals--it was always a stretch (and pure scapegoating) to argue that the TPP can strategically "check" or "counter" China, especially when the TPP has provisions that allow APEC countries like China to join later on.
The labor protections seen in these FTAs are a concession to US domestic labor interests, they are still extremely weak--China would still qualify under the TPP standards.
Yes, he's not saying D's shouldn't look towards the Sun Belt, but they also shouldn't just throw a tantrum and give up on the midwest.
whyamihere
Banned
No, I agree.
For the sake of my sanity because I nearly burst into tears every time I think about the Supreme Court, let's not talk about the SCOTUS.
But for real, I dread coming to OT and here because, almost without fail, I see a new Trump story that just makes me want to wither up and die like.....twice a day. It's really hard to tune out and even enjoy things I like because this is just nagging in my mind.
So I'm trying to think.....what's the best case scenario for a worst case problem?
What I'm getting at is this: Let's say we have 4 years of a terrible, awful administration and there is a large rebuke from the public. How much actual damage can be done if we get even someone remotely similar to Obama or something is our next president? This is also assuming that they win in 2020, of course.
I just keep thinking....if 8 years of Obama (again...worst case) are completely wiped out under Trump, who is to say that the following president can't undo 4 years of Trump? It's possible, right? That we can right our wrongs and the damage that is about to be done? I know it isn't perfect, but there's a chance, right?
I think what put me over the edge and needed to post this was the education lady scum he just picked. Ugh......
But for real, I dread coming to OT and here because, almost without fail, I see a new Trump story that just makes me want to wither up and die like.....twice a day. It's really hard to tune out and even enjoy things I like because this is just nagging in my mind.
So I'm trying to think.....what's the best case scenario for a worst case problem?
What I'm getting at is this: Let's say we have 4 years of a terrible, awful administration and there is a large rebuke from the public. How much actual damage can be done if we get even someone remotely similar to Obama or something is our next president? This is also assuming that they win in 2020, of course.
I just keep thinking....if 8 years of Obama (again...worst case) are completely wiped out under Trump, who is to say that the following president can't undo 4 years of Trump? It's possible, right? That we can right our wrongs and the damage that is about to be done? I know it isn't perfect, but there's a chance, right?
I think what put me over the edge and needed to post this was the education lady scum he just picked. Ugh......
The margins were tight enough that a bad 4 GOP years probably swings things back.
The crappy part is that we've essentially got to try and pull an Obama '08 again. If we ever get the dominos aligned like that again, we need to have mountains of legislation ready to go (along with a solution to the fillibuster.)
whyamihere
Banned
There would be something very 2016 about Jill Stein saving the country.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
(also for those interested in me, that's a little discussion of one of the places I grew up - not far from Port Talbot).
I'm exactly where you're at right now. I can't avoid it and seeing any news just brings me pain. I can't even watch shows like Colbert and Samantha Bee since they'll just remind me how much hell this will be. I'm trying to find any hope that we can stop or minimize the damage.
Slurpy2k20
Member
Wow, what a fucking family. Husband is heir to a shady, scammy pyramid scheme, and brother founder of a mercenary group that has done some of the most horrible things to people in Iraq. So, what is it about this billionaire's history that gives her a fucking ounce of credibility with education?
LostMyNarbles
Member
Supreme Court Judges will last well beyond any future elections. Even if we miraculously retook all three branches by 2020 the SC would still damage the country.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
We can't rebuild foriegn relations or the economy overnight if he screws that up, but the timeframe to reverse most domestic policies depend on how united republicans will be now versus how united democrats will be in the future.
Conventional wisdom seems to say that it's easier to build a coalition to get rid of stuff than to build something up, but I'm not so sure. I think status quo is the hardest thing to break in either direction, with either the filibuster or 3 republican senators breaking ranks being all that's required to maintain status quo.
Right, that's why I'm pretending it doesn't exist at tge moment and instead pretending that Breyer, Ginsburg,a nd Kennedy all last 4 more years
Yeah, dude, If he were a real moderate, he would've run as a Democrat spewing crazy stuff, not a Republican. And cabinet picks so far and the campaign he ran, says more than whatever silver linings you believe in. He told the New York Times just enough to get more moderate voters to calm down, and judging by your reactions, it worked. But so far, everything points to the fact that he doesn't give a damn about fighting climate change.
He's either going to be a more conservative Republican than usual or as crazy as we all know he will be. I hope I am wrong, of course.
So are you saying that status quo is all we can expect for the next four years? I mean, that's not THAT bad, lol. And if we elect a leader willing to extend an open mind and heart to other foreign leaders, I think any potentially ruined relationships can be mended....if not just the beginning of it.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Well, I guess I mean that things too far off from the status quo will either take up everyone's time with endless debates like the ACA, or it just won't happen. They'll surely change the status quo somewhat, but it'll be using about the same amount of political currency that dems would need to undo it.
At least that's my optimistic view.
My pessimistic view is that they'll use all sorts of loopholes like budget reconciliation that democrats can't or won't use, and it'll take forever to rebuild all the crap they destroy.
- Status