The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[Leadeye]

I really don't think the antifa people will be happy regardless of the election outcome. Being angry seems to be their preferred posture.

 

[Fargo]

https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-presses-supreme-court-chief-justice-on-russia-dossier/4550330.html

Trump tweets directions to the Chief Justice of SCOTUS about what he should do about the FBI and FISA court.

I don't think DJT understands that people in the other branches of the government don't actually work for him.

Well, since the FISA court is only open to his employees...

 

[T.Lex]

Well, since the FISA court is only open to his employees...

Then he should tell his employees what to do.

Telling the judge/justice what to do? That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

He's entertainingly and elaborately fired people before. As far as I know, the FISA-appearing DOJ people aren't part of the special/independent counsel. (Open to correction on that.)

 

[Trigger Time]

Then he should tell his employees what to do.

Telling the judge/justice what to do? That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

He's entertainingly and elaborately fired people before. As far as I know, the FISA-appearing DOJ people aren't part of the special/independent counsel. (Open to correction on that.)

He can tell anyone he wants what to do. They dont have to listen if they arent his subordinates.
I suspect the fisa judge is sympathetic to the Democrats. Why else wouldn't they be holding some people in contempt or something? I dont know how it works when a prosecutor lies to a judge to get a warrant? What recoarse does the judge have?

 

[T.Lex]

He can tell anyone he wants what to do. They dont have to listen if they arent his subordinates.

Well, historically people have been concerned when POTUS starts telling SCOTUS justices what they should do. But I get it. This administration is immune to that kind of thing.

In other news, this just came across: Trump is canceling some budgeted pay raises for 2019 for federal employees across the country, saying it is too expensive. Meanwhile, a roughly comparable number of dollars are going to be spent to pay farmers and other businesses negatively impacted by tariffs.

Policy issue aside, there is a practical one: federal workers vote. The timing of this, right before the midterms, could be a mistake.

 

[Trigger Time]

Well, historically people have been concerned when POTUS starts telling SCOTUS justices what they should do. But I get it. This administration is immune to that kind of thing.

In other news, this just came across: Trump is canceling some budgeted pay raises for 2019 for federal employees across the country, saying it is too expensive. Meanwhile, a roughly comparable number of dollars are going to be spent to pay farmers and other businesses negatively impacted by tariffs.

Policy issue aside, there is a practical one: federal workers vote. The timing of this, right before the midterms, could be a mistake.

I dont think the average American has any sympathy for any federal workers. They certainly dont for veterans.

 

[T.Lex]

I dont think the average American has any sympathy for any federal workers. They certainly dont for veterans.

As to your latter point, I disagree. I think the average American has a great deal of sympathy for veterans. I don't want to get into the spitting/no spitting, but I, too, have kin that were in the military during Vietnam and in Vietnam. The current US is nothing like that, with regard to our veterans. Sure, there are some fringes, but not the average.

The federal worker thing, you're probably right. But I believe most federal workers vote. Can't say that about most Americans. Especially in mid-terms.

 

[Trigger Time]

As to your latter point, I disagree. I think the average American has a great deal of sympathy for veterans. I don't want to get into the spitting/no spitting, but I, too, have kin that were in the military during Vietnam and in Vietnam. The current US is nothing like that, with regard to our veterans. Sure, there are some fringes, but not the average.

The federal worker thing, you're probably right. But I believe most federal workers vote. Can't say that about most Americans. Especially in mid-terms.

Oh I'm not speaking of Vietnam. I'm talking right now. The VA healthcare system and how its killing veterans, contributing to their conditions becoming worse, encouraging suicides (and I'm not as sympathetic to suicide as some are), and many other things we could get into. Meanwhile lazy bums and scammers are getting free top notch healthcare same as people who work or did work to earn theirs. If this was a voting issue priority it would be fixed. It is not. It doesnt poll high at all.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh I'm not speaking of Vietnam. I'm talking right now. The VA healthcare system and how its killing veterans, contributing to their conditions becoming worse, encouraging suicides (and I'm not as sympathetic to suicide as some are), and many other things we could get into. Meanwhile lazy bums and scammers are getting free top notch healthcare same as people who work or did work to earn theirs. If this was a voting issue priority it would be fixed. It is not. It doesnt poll high at all.

I see where you're coming from now. But I still disagree. At least with your part about average Americans.

I think average Americans DO want all that fixed. A big chunk of them probably thought Trump was going to make it a priority. (Sorry, had to mention that, especially in this thread.)

But, I think the structural problems with the VA and how to best help veterans are separate political issues from how average Americans feel about vets.

 

[jamil]

Well, historically people have been concerned when POTUS starts telling SCOTUS justices what they should do. But I get it. This administration is immune to that kind of thing.

In other news, this just came across: Trump is canceling some budgeted pay raises for 2019 for federal employees across the country, saying it is too expensive. Meanwhile, a roughly comparable number of dollars are going to be spent to pay farmers and other businesses negatively impacted by tariffs.

Policy issue aside, there is a practical one: federal workers vote. The timing of this, right before the midterms, could be a mistake.

Well, the chief justice nuzzled Obama’s sack, why not Trump’s?

 

[T.Lex]

Well, the chief justice nuzzled Obama’s sack, why not Trump’s?

Wait. Whut?

I'm sorry, j-dude, I'm not tracking you.

 

[Trigger Time]

I see where you're coming from now. But I still disagree. At least with your part about average Americans.

I think average Americans DO want all that fixed. A big chunk of them probably thought Trump was going to make it a priority. (Sorry, had to mention that, especially in this thread.)

But, I think the structural problems with the VA and how to best help veterans are separate political issues from how average Americans feel about vets.

Ok I'll concede on the "average Americans" portion of society. The masses, the mobs is what I should have said.
Average Americans I still have faith in. That's why we elected President Trump
I believe he is trying hard to help vets and fix the VA but I believe the blood is on Congress hands 95%. Even Obama only had 5% but he totaly blew his 5%.
Trump has made positive impacts on the VA and on that point I can say with 100% first hand knowledge. Much much much more needs fixed though

 

[T.Lex]

Ok I'll concede on the "average Americans" portion of society. The masses, the mobs is what I should have said.
Average Americans I still have faith in. That's why we elected President Trump
I believe he is trying hard to help vets and fix the VA but I believe the blood is on Congress hands 95%. Even Obama only had 5% but he totaly blew his 5%.
Trump has made positive impacts on the VA and on that point I can say with 100% first hand knowledge. Much much much more needs fixed though

From the outside looking in, but with some personal interest involved, I think the best things that have been improved were improved because of other vets. So many of them are figuring out how to work sponsorships and partnerships and leveraging technology to provide resources to vets in need... that's fantastic to watch. Totally a survive, adapt, overcome mentality.

The VA not getting it done? Fine, we'll work together to work against the VA. Great if we can work WITH the VA, but its not the end of the world if we have to work against it, too.

As a political issue, it has always been a problem and probably always will be at some level. At least there isn't a call for a Bonus March. At least not yet.

 

[jamil]

Wait. Whut?

I'm sorry, j-dude, I'm not tracking you.

Don’t you remember Obama lecturing Roberts just before the Obamacare decision? Mission accomplished.

 

[Hawkeye]

Well, historically people have been concerned when POTUS starts telling SCOTUS justices what they should do. But I get it. This administration is immune to that kind of thing.

In other news, this just came across: Trump is canceling some budgeted pay raises for 2019 for federal employees across the country, saying it is too expensive. Meanwhile, a roughly comparable number of dollars are going to be spent to pay farmers and other businesses negatively impacted by tariffs.

Policy issue aside, there is a practical one: federal workers vote. The timing of this, right before the midterms, could be a mistake.

Or maybe a lot of Federal workers tend to vote Demo anyway?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alpo]

From the outside looking in, but with some personal interest involved, I think the best things that have been improved were improved because of other vets. So many of them are figuring out how to work sponsorships and partnerships and leveraging technology to provide resources to vets in need... that's fantastic to watch. Totally a survive, adapt, overcome mentality.

The VA not getting it done? Fine, we'll work together to work against the VA. Great if we can work WITH the VA, but its not the end of the world if we have to work against it, too.

As a political issue, it has always been a problem and probably always will be at some level. At least there isn't a call for a Bonus March. At least not yet.

The doctors are great, the meds work. But, it takes a very very long time to get in to see a specialist other than in an emergency.

 

[BugI02]

Well, historically people have been concerned when POTUS starts telling SCOTUS justices what they should do. But I get it. This administration is immune to that kind of thing.

In other news, this just came across: Trump is canceling some budgeted pay raises for 2019 for federal employees across the country, saying it is too expensive. Meanwhile, a roughly comparable number of dollars are going to be spent to pay farmers and other businesses negatively impacted by tariffs.

Policy issue aside, there is a practical one: federal workers vote. The timing of this, right before the midterms, could be a mistake.

As to your latter point, I disagree. I think the average American has a great deal of sympathy for veterans. I don't want to get into the spitting/no spitting, but I, too, have kin that were in the military during Vietnam and in Vietnam. The current US is nothing like that, with regard to our veterans. Sure, there are some fringes, but not the average.

The federal worker thing, you're probably right. But I believe most federal workers vote. Can't say that about most Americans. Especially in mid-terms.

I'm confused. I would have thought you couldn't get rid of Trump fast enough. Your best chance would be if he does badly in the midterms. That would also be the best chance for the resurgence of The Real Republican Party ®

Thus I find your concern for immunization of federal workers from belt-tightening based on their potential vote in the midterms curious. Trump's budget plan included a pay freeze for federal civilian employees. The pay raise was inserted by the house and is not yet in the senate bill but could be inserted in conference. Trump is signaling he is not having that, restoring the status quo rather than taking something away that those workers already had. This is one of those cases where a cut in MSMspeak is simply a failure to go along with a raise. The military is already exempt from this stricture

I could make a case for also exempting front line non-deskjob employees like CBP field agents. In general I'd rather see him just give pallets of cash to farmers, Obama/Khamenei style, than waste it on the average suit fattening on the government teat

In 2016 federal civilian workers had an average wage of $88,809, according the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).5 By comparison, the average wage for the nation’s 114 million private-sector workers was $59,458. Figure 1 shows that average federal wages grew rapidly for a decade, then slowed during the partial pay freeze, and then have risen again in recent years.

When benefits such as health care and pensions are included, the federal compensation advantage over private workers is even larger, according to the BEA data. In 2016 total federal compensation averaged $127,259 or 80 percent more than the private-sector average of $70,764, as shown in Figure 2.

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/federal-worker-pay

 

[T.Lex]

I'm confused.

I'm not surprised.

I would have thought you couldn't get rid of Trump fast enough. Your best chance would be if he does badly in the midterms.

Clearly, you remain confused about the election. Trump isn't running.

That would also be the best chance for the resurgence of The Real Republican Party ®

Thus I find your concern for immunization of federal workers from belt-tightening based on their potential vote in the midterms curious. Trump's budget plan included a pay freeze for federal civilian employees. The pay raise was inserted by the house and is not yet in the senate bill but could be inserted in conference. Trump is signaling he is not having that, restoring the status quo rather than taking something away that those workers already had. This is one of those cases where a cut in MSMspeak is simply a failure to go along with a raise. The military is already exempt from this stricture

I could make a case for also exempting front line non-deskjob employees like CBP field agents. In general I'd rather see him just give pallets of cash to farmers, Obama/Khamenei style, than waste it on the average suit fattening on the government teat

All policy arguments that are reasonable. And which miss the practical point I was making: federal workers vote.

Trump has publicly put himself between them and a pay raise. I'm sure it'll work out fine for him, it always does. But in any other cycle, there'd be issues. Right before the midterms, in which voters will choose members of Congress who may be called upon to decide budgets, this gives the Dems another "look what he's trying to do to you" issue.

I'll also point out that at no point did I posit that the federal workers were entitled to the raise. But keep shadowboxing with arguments I don't make.

 

[BugI02]

Well, historically people have been concerned when POTUS starts telling SCOTUS justices what they should do. But I get it. This administration is immune to that kind of thing.

In other news, this just came across: Trump is canceling some budgeted pay raises for 2019 for federal employees across the country, saying it is too expensive. Meanwhile, a roughly comparable number of dollars are going to be spent to pay farmers and other businesses negatively impacted by tariffs.

Policy issue aside, there is a practical one: federal workers vote. The timing of this, right before the midterms, could be a mistake.

I stand corrected!

The "chance" juxtaposition of those two ideas, according to the letter of the law, is not an argument. It is more of an insinuation or perhaps innuendo

Some might say that those are just greyscale, passive-aggressive forms of argumentation (did I do that right?)

ETA: With plausible deniability!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

As someone affected by the lack of a pay raise for federal employees, I can tell you it's not a big deal. It was 2%. If it was 20%, or even 10%, then yeah, maybe I'd care. It's been 2% for a long time, (and this isn't the first time it's been nixed - happened under Obama as well), and it's been kind of a joke. "Whoohoo! 2%! I'm RICH!!" So no, won't influence my vote in the midterm, or in 2020.