Trump just won the election

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's my understanding that awesome drop off in the '90's was due to the fall of the USSR.  Basically, Reagan won the cold war, and the world went from 2 competing global superpowers trying to outspend each other, to just 1 global superpower.  

Could be.

What I was led to believe at the time was that Clinton actually followed conservative fiscal policy.  And because he was a beloved Democrat, Congress didn't oppose his fiscal policies.  So, we got to see what would happen economically during a fiscally conservative administration.

I was too busy professionally and trying to raise a young family that I didn't keep up with the details of all of this.  So, I have nothing to verify that with.  But that was what was being said during the Clinton years.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 10/3/2024 at 11:36 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Everything I've read about the CBP App (which was launched under Trump, btw) paints it as an administrative tool to help asylum seekers schedule appointments, upload documents, and communicate easily with CBP.

Allow me to fill in the blanks.

Yes, the app (as an app to schedule appointments) was launched under the Trump admin.  It was specifically to help immigrants gain exemptions to restrictions due to COVID protocols at the time.  Those who were otherwise perfectly legal to gain entry (be it for permanent residency or temporary travel) and had a significant need to travel were considered.

At the time, that was all it was supposed to be used for -- to schedule appointments to see if they could be exempted from certain aspects of COVID-based denial of entry.

But plans change, and an app can be modified to do something it was never intended to do.

Quote

CBP's technology division continues to pursue opportunities for data batching and CBP One IO application will continue to trasnform (SIC) and expand capabilities.

The expansion will take a while longer as CBP One was not initially designed for this particular process, but OFO is confident it can be accomplished.

NOTE: OFO = US Customs and Border Protection.  Yes, really.

Under Biden-Harris, the app was expanded to make it a one-click legal status (figuratively).

Quote

A Capability Roadmap for CBP One from October 2020 shows CBP’s plans for the app, which did not include plans to use the app for processing individuals at ports of entry.

However, a few months later, it was being used for just that.

The Remain in Mexico policy was known as MPP.

Quote

As the Biden administration ended MPP, it relied on international non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) staff members to bring asylum-seekers back into the U.S. while their cases continued. CBP One could be used to verify that immigrants seeking to reenter the U.S. actually had ongoing cases under MPP.

"International non-governmental organizations"... like coyotes and human traffickers?  Yes, it happened.  A lot.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

46 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What I was led to believe at the time was that Clinton actually followed conservative fiscal policy.  And because he was a beloved Democrat, Congress didn't oppose his fiscal policies.  So, we got to see what would happen economically during a fiscally conservative administration.

Well, yes.  I was only half-paying attention myself, but it is true that Clinton, House, and Senate had an opportunity to not shrink budgets and keep spending at cold war levels, but they didn't.  

Must keep in mind that the 104th congress hit in 1995, and both houses flipped from Dem to Republican, with Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America sort of running things.   I think the R's even had a veto-proof margin at the time, although I might be wrong. 

It was the last time I was proud of the Republicans on the federal level.  Watching the Contract pass, watching Maxine Waters screaming about how the welfare reform would result in "bodies stacked like cordwood".  Plus, it killed the national 55MPH speed limit mandate, which was probably my favorite part.

A decade later I was chuckling even more, when the dems started claiming that the 1995 welfare reform was their baby because Clinton signed it.  It had worked so well, you see.

*Sigh*.  And now it looks like if Trump gets into office, he'll make it worse than the Dem plan which is already horrible.   

Edited October 9, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Allow me to fill in the blanks.

Wow.  So, Trump wasn't lying, and the "Harris turned it into a magic wand" blather was actually on-point?   February 2023 people were saying this?:

Quote

On October 28, 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched a mobile device application called CBP One. In January 2023, the Biden administration announced that it would expand the use of CBP One.

CBP One is now used by migrants in the following situations:

Migrants seeking to schedule appointments to obtain exemptions at ports of entry from Title 42 – the health law used by the government to expel asylum seekers based on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans can use CBP One from their home countries to submit biometric information to CBP as part of the process to apply for travel authorization and obtain parole through special programs for those nationalities.

The use of CBP One for these purposes has raised concerns about gaining access to asylum—a legal right—through a smartphone app; about whether this app is technically capable of handling such an important task; and about the app’s privacy implications.

OoOOOOOOOOOOO00O0OOO SNAP

So when folks think "oh, that app has been around forever" and "That's Trump's app", folks are basically believing a lie?  A lie reinforced, re-told, dug in and defended by Democrats and fact checkers and "impartial" debate moderators alike?

Crap @Phoenix_person.  I believe you when you speak out against lies.  How does this make you feel?

 

 

[Carborendum]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Must keep in mind that the 104th congress hit in 1995, and both houses flipped from Dem to Republican, with Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America sort of running things.

Yes, I think I remember that now.

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I think the R's even had a veto-proof margin at the time, although I might be wrong. 

No, we had a majority.  But there were just enough RINOs who kept us from passing a lot of legislation.  So, the House was the only means of preventing Democrats from passing without Republican buy-in.  But a LOT of it was bi-partisan during that era (for one term).

Then Dems got control of the House.  As I recall, there was a vote to tax Social Security benefits.  It was a tie in the senate.  And Gore cast the deciding vote to allow taxation of Soc Sec benefits.

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

*Sigh*.  And now it looks like if Trump gets into office, he'll make it worse than the Dem plan which is already horrible.   

I don't really know what he'll do as far as deficit spending.  It could go either way.  It seemed like he wasn't "terrible" until he signed the COVID omnibus package.

I've always been against his COVID policies.  I thought he was doing so well, too.  But whatever.

Edited October 9, 2024 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Both Bushes were fairly flat.

Obama sucked worst than COVID.  That's pretty bad.  But he eventually flattened out.

In economics, there's always talk of presidents creating a strong/weak economy vs inheriting it (and that's when economists aren't arguing over whether POTUS has any true influence over the economy at all). In Obama's case, anyone who was a self-sustaining adult in 2008 knew that the economic hellscape was inherited by him, not created by him. And as much as I despise Dubya and probably will until my dying breath, I don't really think it was directly his fault either. 

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Wow.  So, Trump wasn't lying, and the "Harris turned it into a magic wand" blather was actually on-point?   February 2023 people were saying this?:

OoOOOOOOOOOOO00O0OOO SNAP

So when folks think "oh, that app has been around forever" and "That's Trump's app", folks are basically believing a lie?  A lie reinforced, re-told, dug in and defended by Democrats and fact checkers and "impartial" debate moderators alike?

Crap @Phoenix_person.  I believe you when you speak out against lies.  How does this make you feel?

Honestly? Whatever. As I already said, I don't actually care what their legal status is. It's not a one-button ticket to citizenship, it's a one-button ticket (probably a gross oversimplification; this is a government app, after all) to not being deported. Cool.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Migrants seeking to schedule appointments to obtain exemptions at ports of entry from Title 42 – the health law used by the government to expel asylum seekers based on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans can use CBP One from their home countries to submit biometric information to CBP as part of the process to apply for travel authorization and obtain parole through special programs for those nationalities.

 

Edited October 9, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[LDSGator]

24 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

In economics, there's always talk of presidents creating a strong/weak economy vs inheriting it (and that's when economists aren't arguing over whether POTUS has any true influence over the economy at all). In Obama's case, anyone who was a self-sustaining adult in 2008 knew that the economic hellscape was inherited by him, not created by him. And as much as I despise Dubya and probably will until my dying breath, I don't really think it was directly his fault either. 

It wasn’t any of their faults. The economy is organic, it’s not something people can control. It’s not run by anyone-well, it is, but it’s run by 333 million people every day. Going to work, exchanging in free transactions, etc. All the government can do is make things worse.   

[Carborendum]

33 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

In economics, there's always talk of presidents creating a strong/weak economy vs inheriting it (and that's when economists aren't arguing over whether POTUS has any true influence over the economy at all). In Obama's case, anyone who was a self-sustaining adult in 2008 knew that the economic hellscape was inherited by him, not created by him.

That's fair.  But then you can't credit Obama for the DOW booming up during that same period.  You can't have it both ways.

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's fair.  But then you can't credit Obama for the DOW booming up during that same period.  You can't have it both ways.

100% agree. It’s like gasoline prices. We blame other administrations when gasoline goes up, but in reality it’s mostly supply and demand. Gasoline taxes are a different story.  

[JohnsonJones]

18 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Could be.

What I was led to believe at the time was that Clinton actually followed conservative fiscal policy.  And because he was a beloved Democrat, Congress didn't oppose his fiscal policies.  So, we got to see what would happen economically during a fiscally conservative administration.

I was too busy professionally and trying to raise a young family that I didn't keep up with the details of all of this.  So, I have nothing to verify that with.  But that was what was being said during the Clinton years.

I'd say that a large part of it was a Republican Congress, and unlike many who are in Congress today and the antagonism between them and the Presidents, they actually decided to cooperate.

Rather than having Ted Cruz's, and Mike Lee's who stonewall and insist on trying to close down Governments, you had them actually compromising and working to figure out what each side was after and what they would go for.

The Republicans, due to this ideology (which seems to be lost on a large minority of theirs today, which causes them to be a do nothing House of Representatives instead of a governing body that actually...well...governs) probably did more to accomplish this feat than Clinton did.  Clinton just had to sit back and not throw a fit (IMO).  Luckily the Democrats were not so stonewalling back then either, and with both sides able to have at least some ability to compromise between them and work together, they accomplished being able to do better things with the budget (I wouldn't say great things, but better than other times). 

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'd say that a large part of it was a Republican Congress, and unlike many who are in Congress today and the antagonism between them and the Presidents, they actually decided to cooperate.

Hmmm... They Bill Clinton was impeached.  Doesn't sound like cooperation to me.

Biden was never impeached.

[Phoenix_person]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hmmm... They Bill Clinton was impeached.  Doesn't sound like cooperation to me.

Biden was never impeached.

Another sign of how much has changed. A Stormy Daniels story would have absolutely ruined a politician in the 90s, especially a Republican one.

[JohnsonJones]

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Hmmm... They Bill Clinton was impeached.  Doesn't sound like cooperation to me.

Biden was never impeached.

Biden wasn't involved in certain things that Bill Clinton was, or suspected of certain things as the Clintons were that caused the investigation that led to the impeachment in the first place (though it was through no lack of trying from Republicans this time around).  Biden probably was more honest in certain things when questioned about them then Bill Clinton was at the time (or so it appears currently with the investigative panels that the Republicans have led into their impeachment attempts).

That said, it was a start of things turning like they are today, but it was only the start.  Today the antagonism has increased to a ridiculous point between the parties.

@Phoenix_person is correct in my opinion, that things that Trump have done (Clinton's indiscretion, despite something I also feel was highly immoral, is small change compared to what Trump has done) would have absolutely ruined a presidential candidate in the past.  One reason why the idea that Trump is still considered is so mind boggling to some who have seen how Republicans have acted towards those so immoral in the past. 

Continuing on the impeachment issue though...

It also always bugs me when people say someone was impeached.  Thus far, we've never actually HAD a president successfully impeached...per se.  They've passed the articles of impeachment on some presidents, but when it's been tried in the Senate, NONE of them have ever actually ever been successfully and fully impeached.  Thus, technically, though the articles of impeachment have passed, the actual impeachment of the office of the President has never truly been fully accomplished.  Trump had articles of impeachment passed on him and it was sent to the Senate, who basically waived it.  Thus, he was never TRULY impeached (despite that the Democrats try to claim he was twice impeached, if he had actually been truly and fully impeached just once, he probably would have been removed from office...).

It's like saying someone is a murderer who was charged with murder, put in jail, and then found not guilty in a court of law.  Just because someone is charged, does not make them guilty of the offense, at least legally.

 

[LDSGator]

43 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

NONE of them have ever actually ever been successfully and fully impeached

Yes they have, they just haven’t been removed from office. Johnson, Clinton and Trump have all been impeached. 

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Thus far, we've never actually HAD a president successfully impeached...per se. 

If "per se" means "the incorrect definition most people believe", than you're correct.   I think words are important, so I'll stick with the correct definition. 

Andrew Johnson Impeachment Date: February 24, 1868 Impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act by removing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, a Lincoln appointee, without Senate approval. Acquitted by one vote.

Bill Clinton Impeachment Date: December 19, 1998 Impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice related to his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Acquitted.

Donald Trump (First Impeachment) Impeachment Date: December 18, 2019 Summary: Impeached on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to his dealings with Ukraine. Acquitted.

Donald Trump (Second Impeachment) Impeachment Date: January 13, 2021 Summary: Trump was impeached on the charge of incitement of insurrection following the January 6 Capitol riot. Acquitted.

I started watching impeachment proceedings with Clinton.  The pomp is kind of cool to watch, with a real "founders" vibe to it.  If it's a Republican getting impeached, it's a huge media event and there's guards and crowds  and talking heads to cover it and talk about it.  Clinton's impeachment delivery got zero coverage - I think I was able to watch it on CSPAN or PBS or something - there are no videos that I can find.   But the House impeaches and bangs the gavel.  Then the House person and entourage walk across the hall from the House to the Senate.   He goes through the doors of the senate, almost like an unwanted guest, demands the floor even though he's not part of the senate, and reads out the articles of impeachment. (I'm going off of memory here, but either the 1st Trump impeachment, or the Clinton impeachment, the guy had no microphone and was proudly yelling from the floor up at the seated Senate.)  This forces the senate to pick up the matter whether they want to or not.

It's all there as part of the checks and balances built into our federal government, as a way of ensuring that no one person or party ever gets so powerful they can act above the law.

Edited October 11, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Ironhold]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

@Phoenix_person is correct in my opinion, that things that Trump have done (Clinton's indiscretion, despite something I also feel was highly immoral, is small change compared to what Trump has done) would have absolutely ruined a presidential candidate in the past.  One reason why the idea that Trump is still considered is so mind boggling to some who have seen how Republicans have acted towards those so immoral in the past. 

A lot of his supporters have taken a "the lesser of two evils" stance on the matter. 

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

A lot of his supporters have taken a "the lesser of two evils" stance on the matter. 

As have many Republicans who are supporting Kamala Harris, including my entire immediate family. My parents voted third party in '16 and Biden in '20, both staunch Reagan conservatives. They don't seem to mind Kamala generally, but they despise Trump.

[LDSGator]

38 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

As have many Republicans who are supporting Kamala Harris, including my entire immediate family. My parents voted third party in '16 and Biden in '20, both staunch Reagan conservatives. They don't seem to mind Kamala generally, but they despise Trump.

Goldwater/Reagan/Rush conservative-libertarian here. I don’t mind Kamala personally, but I’d never vote for her. Libertarian party this cycle. 

[Carborendum]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

...things that Trump have done (Clinton's indiscretion, despite something I also feel was highly immoral, is small change compared to what Trump has done) would have absolutely ruined a presidential candidate in the past.  One reason why the idea that Trump is still considered is so mind boggling to some who have seen how Republicans have acted towards those so immoral in the past. 

I vote for Trump not because of his personal immorality.  I vote for Trump because he is less of a threat to the Constitution than any prominent Democrat that I've ever heard speak.

Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights:

Who is for shutting down free speech?  Democrats.(1A)
Who is for shutting down religious observances and public demonstrations?  Democrats. (1A)
Who is for shutting down opposing view points in the press?  Democrats. (1A)
Who is for getting rid of guns in civilian hands?  Democrats. (2A)
Who plotted to gain search warrants with no probable cause and frame a former President?  Dems (4A)
Who just denied a neutral jury in some very publicly  trials?  Democrats.(5&6A)
Who denied Trump the right to witnesses in his defense?  Democrats. (6A)
Who denied the 8th Amendment to the Jan 6thers?  Democrats.
Who denied Texas the 10th Amendment just a year ago?  Democrats.
BONUS ROUND: Who's for abolishing the Electoral College?  Democrats.
Who wants to secure our national sovereignty?  NOT Democrats.

But if that's not enough, and you want to stand on your high horse on sexual immorality, then what about Biden and his "handsiness" with little girls?  You give him a pass on that?  The media and all the legal system certainly did.  So, why not you too?

What about the fact that Kamala prostituted herself to get ahead in the government?  She gets a pass too?

What's sauce for the goose is fit for the gander.  If you have any problems with Trump, it should be worse with BOTH Biden and Kamala.

I'm at least trying to be generous and forgive them all for that as far as my vote goes.  But I cannot sacrifice my vote for people who want to destroy the Constitution.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I vote for Trump because he is less of a threat to the Constitution than any prominent Democrat that I've ever heard speak.

I was trying to get all excited and maga and whatnot, but I'm left sobbing onto my mail in ballot because you basically nailed it.  It's not who will be the best for the nation, it's not who shows the most fiscal discipline, or who's going to apply the fixes to our issues the best.  It's who'll do the least damage while in office.

[LDSGator]

24 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's who'll do the least damage while in office.

My liberal friends say that to justify their vote for Kamala as well. 

[Traveler]

42 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

My liberal friends say that to justify their vote for Kamala as well. 

You should note to your friends the difference that has manifested in the Middle East between support for the Abraham Accords - and not supporting the Abraham Accords.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You should note to your friends the difference that has manifested in the Middle East between support for the Abraham Accords - and not supporting the Abraham Accords.

 

The Traveler

I’m extremely blessed when it comes to my friends. My liberal friends and I have had in depth discussions about many issues. There are never hard feelings, periods of estrangement or temper tantrums.  
 

I’ll bring it up next time. 

[Phoenix_person]

Getting back to the thread topic, Trump just won the election. 😬

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

My liberal friends and I have had in depth discussions about many issues. There are never hard feelings, periods of estrangement or temper tantrums.

As opposed to when I talk with you, and one of us always ends up fleeing in tears.