What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

It is fascinating, really, how a number of people can be swayed to this extent.

Especially those guys, they are old. Most of their lives they were taught and told to fear and hate Russia. But to defend their chosen tribe they switch realities without much effort or doubt.

Brings a new meaning to the term "redneck"

[Jacob]

It's been a while since either side was willing to compromise.

Obama's first two years were all about reaching out and compromise. The response from the GOP was almost pure spite.

[bogh]

Bogh, Thanks for the link, I'll read a the rest of it later.

Hope you're doing well, good to see you back on languish. 

Doing pretty well (back in Denmark after a number of years in New Zealand). I tend to lurk here, but rarely post these days, so haven't really been gone.

[mongers]

Bogh, Thanks for the link, I'll read a the rest of it later.

Hope you're doing well, good to see you back on languish. 

Doing pretty well (back in Denmark after a number of years in New Zealand). I tend to lurk here, but rarely post these days, so haven't really been gone.

Good to hear that.

[Camerus]

Jesus, comparing a hard ideologue like Gorsuch - pure red meat for the Heritage zealots - to a vanilla middle of the roader like Garland is absurd.

It's a bit rich to complain about the other side not crossing the bridge halfway when the embers are still hot from when you just firebombed it.

I don't think anybody here was doing either of those things. I don't blame Democrats for not voting for Gorsuch. However I don't think that example should be neglected either when considering recent examples of SCOTUS nominees being purely partisan with little common ground.

"The GOP did it first" argument is fine as it goes, especially following the Garland stonewalling (though I also wonder whether Obama would have nominated as moderate a candidate had Dems controlled Congress and thus whether Garland's nomination is a fair example of Democratic reasonableness). But the problem is that GOP partisans will just point to what they view as previous SCOTUS "outrages" in recent decades as their justification for not cooperating over Garland. And on it goes.

Which is to say, to tie into an earlier discussion, whichever side of the partisan divide you fall on, writing off the opposite ~40% of the population as "deplorables" or as Romney's 47% or whatever scum beyond hope of dialogue or even at extremes of listening to and then moderating with effective policy is a dangerous game.

[Berkut]

Jesus, comparing a hard ideologue like Gorsuch - pure red meat for the Heritage zealots - to a vanilla middle of the roader like Garland is absurd.

It's a bit rich to complain about the other side not crossing the bridge halfway when the embers are still hot from when you just firebombed it.

I don't think anybody here was doing either of those things. I don't blame Democrats for not voting for Gorsuch. However I don't think that example should be neglected either when considering recent examples of SCOTUS nominees being purely partisan with little common ground.

"The GOP did it first" argument is fine as it goes, especially following the Garland stonewalling (though I also wonder whether Obama would have nominated as moderate a candidate had Dems controlled Congress and thus whether Garland's nomination is a fair example of Democratic reasonableness). But the problem is that GOP partisans will just point to what they view as previous SCOTUS "outrages" in recent decades as their justification for not cooperating over Garland. And on it goes.

Which is to say, to tie into an earlier discussion, whichever side of the partisan divide you fall on, writing off the opposite ~40% of the population as "deplorables" or as Romney's 47% or whatever scum beyond hope of dialogue or even at extremes of listening to and then moderating with effective policy is a dangerous game.

You don't have to fall on one side of the partisan divide to see that both sides have most certainly not been equally to blame in lack of bipartisanship around basic governance.

It is trivial to decide that both sides crazies can easily see the other side as not willing to compromise, but that doesn't make them equally correct.

The left has not defined themselves as being in fundamental opposition to even basic moderate right positions.

The Tea Party right has gone so far as to define itself in holy war with center right members of the right!

This is not a case of both sides being equally to blame.

[Admiral Yi]

Romney's 47% or whatever scum beyond hope of dialogue

That's not what he said.  He mentioned the people who don't pay any federal income tax.

[Camerus]

I don't believe that "both sides are equally to blame" (whatever that would even mean) is a useful or even accurate way of explaining how America wound up in its current mess. It's clear that the current GOP is a repulsive monster that needs to be tamed.

I'm more interested in ways that Democrats (or moderate conservatives, as I'm sure there are still some left) can think about analyzing past missteps and creating good policies that move America forward. That would involve some self reflection and dialogue, steps which shouldn't imply that Democrats are either equally culpable or totally blameless.

[Camerus]

Romney's 47% or whatever scum beyond hope of dialogue

That's not what he said.  He mentioned the people who don't pay any federal income tax.

Sorry, I phrased that awkwardly... there should have been a comma after 47% as I and wasn't saying Romney was calling them scum. But Romney was clearly saying that the 47% were pretty much unreachable deadbeats beyond all hope of engaging.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the video. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
   
"And I mean the president starts out with 48, 49 percent ... he starts off with a huge number," Romney continued. "These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

[Oexmelin]

I'm more interested in ways that Democrats (or moderate conservatives, as I'm sure there are still some left) can think about analyzing past missteps and creating good policies that move America forward. That would involve some self reflection and dialogue, steps which shouldn't imply that Democrats are either equally culpable or totally blameless.

It's a laudable goal - but I get the feeling you'd get quite a diverse number of answers about what constitutes "moving America forward" - or what the mistakes of the Democrats are/were. The current challenge is how to deal with a party in power that exhibits few of the restraints one would wish to see in a functioning democracy. If the only way to do that is to come up with a comprehensive and moderate platform, my fear is that it will not mobilize enough people to meet that challenge.My vague sense is that a number of people consider moving away from the "white working class" is the Democrats' mistake (and I am sure it's part of it), but it was a mistake to play along the racial lines around which unions had been organized for so long.

But to work that back in, you'd have to have a bunch of policies fighting against inequalities, and in favor of labor. I am pretty sure that would quickly reveal some major fault lines.

[Camerus]

I'm more interested in ways that Democrats (or moderate conservatives, as I'm sure there are still some left) can think about analyzing past missteps and creating good policies that move America forward. That would involve some self reflection and dialogue, steps which shouldn't imply that Democrats are either equally culpable or totally blameless.

It's a laudable goal - but I get the feeling you'd get quite a diverse number of answers about what constitutes "moving America forward" - or what the mistakes of the Democrats are/were. The current challenge is how to deal with a party in power that exhibits few of the restraints one would wish to see in a functioning democracy. If the only way to do that is to come up with a comprehensive and moderate platform, my fear is that it will not mobilize enough people to meet that challenge.My vague sense is that a number of people consider moving away from the "white working class" is the Democrats' mistake (and I am sure it's part of it), but it was a mistake to play along the racial lines around which unions had been organized for so long.

But to work that back in, you'd have to have a bunch of policies fighting against inequalities, and in favor of labor. I am pretty sure that would quickly reveal some major fault lines.

Absolutely you would get divergent views on what the best path forward is - that would be part of the process of building a big tent platform that could try to address concerns of a wide swath of Americans. The first hurdle would be making it more attractive to most voters than Trumpism. Yes, compromises would have to be made and some folks would be lost along the way,  but I don't believe this is impossible. In fact I believe that this is really the only option.

As for pro-labour (or pro-worker) policies, I suspect there may be more broad based support for it in America than 10, 15 years ago.  After all, Trump's focus on workers' jobs and economic concerns was a big reason why he gutted his GOP rivals of the older "makers and takers" mold, and almost certainly played a crucial role in capturing the Rust Belt swing states on election day, even if Trump's administration in practice has turned out to be a bonanza for the 1%.

[dps]

Obamacare is a heritage foundation health care plan that shovels billions into insurance companies. It is as right wing as it comes. The only reason the GOP is against it is because it was passed by a black democrat.

Bullshit.  While I agree that the ACA is a terribly flawed law that mostly just enriches health insurance companies, my opposition to it has nothing to do with Barack Obama being black, or a Democrat.

[DGuller]

Obamacare is a heritage foundation health care plan that shovels billions into insurance companies. It is as right wing as it comes. The only reason the GOP is against it is because it was passed by a black democrat.

Bullshit.  While I agree that the ACA is a terribly flawed law that mostly just enriches health insurance companies, my opposition to it has nothing to do with Barack Obama being black, or a Democrat.

I suspect that it has been impacted by bankrupt arguments from people who did take exception to the black Democrat.

[Syt]

https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/

EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

One of the most dangerous construction-related carcinogens is now legally allowed back into U.S. manufacturing under a new rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On June 1, the EPA authorized a "SNUR" (Significant New Use Rule) which allows new products containing asbestos to be created on a case-by-case basis.

According to environmental advocates, this new rule gives chemical companies the upper hand in creating new uses for such harmful products in the United States. In May, the EPA released a report detailing its new framework for evaluating the risk of its top prioritized substances. The report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.

This news comes after the EPA reviewed its first batch of 10 chemicals under the 2016 amendment to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which required the agency to continually reevaluate hundreds of potentially toxic chemicals to see whether they should face new restrictions or be removed from the market. The SNUR greenlights companies to use toxic chemicals like asbestos without thinking about how it will endanger people who are indirectly in contact with it.

Asbestos, once seen as a magical mineral, was widely used in building insulation up until it was banned in most countries in the 1970s. The U.S. is one of the only developed nations in the world that has placed significant restrictions on the substance without banning it completely. New data revealed that asbestos-related deaths now total nearly 40,000 annually, with lung cancer and mesothelioma being the most common illnesses in association with the toxin. That number could rise if new asbestos-containing products make their way into brand new buildings.

Healthy Building Network (HBN), an environmental advocacy group, recently told Fast Company that the fibrous material poses a major health risk for everyone exposed to it, including those who mine it, those who handle it in industrial facilities, as well as people near or inside renovation and construction projects where it's being used. HBN's Board President Bill Walsh said that the chlor-alkali industry is the only industry in the country that still uses asbestos, reportedly importing about 480 tons of the carcinogen each year from Russia and Brazil.

Walsh also pointed out that chlorine-based plastics are commonly found in building-product materials and that "virtually all" asbestos in the U.S. is used in the industrial process to make chlorine. This includes PVC and vinyl plastics, which is largely found in the creation of pipes, tiles, flooring, adhesives, paints, and roofing products.

Though the EPA is easing its regulations against using harmful toxins like asbestos, it will largely be the responsibility of local and state governments, as well as companies and informed consumers to counter these federal moves. Walsh says it's up to sustainable building-product manufacturers and ultimately, architects to pressure the market.

"Architects really set the pace of design, in terms of aesthetics and materials that we like," he said. "If they start to incorporate health-based criteria into their palette, it could really have an influence on what the manufacturers produce."

I'm still baffled (though I guess I shouldn't be) that the EPA determined that checking effects of substances when they get into the air, water, or soil is not relevant for deciding whether or not it's harmful. I mean how blatant can you get in your not-giving-a-fuck-itude?

[The Larch]

Now the Trump administration wants to limit citizenship for legal immigrants
The most significant change to legal immigration in decades could affect millions of would-be citizens, say lawyers and advocates.

The Trump administration is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used a range of popular public welfare programs, including Obamacare, four sources with knowledge of the plan told NBC News.

The move, which would not need Congressional approval, is part of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller's plan to limit the number of migrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year.

Details of the rulemaking proposal are still being finalized, but based on a recent draft seen last week and described to NBC News, immigrants living legally in the U.S. who have ever used or whose household members have ever used Obamacare, children's health insurance, food stamps and other benefits could be hindered from obtaining legal status in the U.S.

Immigration lawyers and advocates and public health researchers say it would be the biggest change to the legal immigration system in decades and estimate that more than 20 million immigrants could be affected. They say it would fall particularly hard on immigrants working jobs that don't pay enough to support their families.
(...)
Using some public benefits like Social Security Insurance has already hindered immigrants from obtaining legal status in the past, but the programs included in the recent draft plan could mean that immigrant households earning as much as 250 percent of the poverty level could be rejected.

A version of the plan has been sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the sources said, the final step before publishing a rule in the federal register.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said, "The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are self-sufficient. Any proposed changes would ensure that the government takes the responsibility of being good stewards of taxpayer funds seriously and adjudicates immigration benefit requests in accordance with the law."

Miller, along with several of his former congressional colleagues who now hold prominent positions in the Trump administration, have long sought to decrease the number of immigrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year. And even before the rule is in place, the administration has made it more difficult for immigrants to gain green cards and for green-card holders to gain citizenship.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-administration-wants-limit-citizenship-legal-immigrants-n897931