THE ERA OF TRUMP

[TheReal_ND]

Someone give me a quick rundown. I'm too busy texting my wife and telling her she took away the only person I have ever lived and calling suicide hotlines.

[Smitty-48]

Being a conservative, I'd rather go one way or the other, partial thow them a bone wall is the worst of both worlds, so If I was going to concede on the wall, I would say OK, but fuck these half measures, if we're building a wall, then lets go all the way, and if it is such a great idea, it should not rely on some goofy Mexicans will pay for it scheme, just pay for it, but lets get our money's worth and make conprehensive, to wit, even bigger and more beautiful than the Alt-Right thought it could ever be.

Well Trump will go with that if he thinks that would work better than the strategy I suggested and can still pass. The location, cost, payment, size and/or length of the wall are all negotiable, he just used the "big and beautiful, mexico will pay for it" mental image to get him elected.

The only southern border security plan that Trump won't accept is a plan with no wall whatsoever. If the best border security plan involves no wall on any portion of the border, than he'll reject it because he needs to deliver on the campaign promise, but he'll no doubt try to pass the best border security plan that he can as long as it includes a wall and has a chance at passing congress.

Indeed, which is why if I am going to be forced to concede on the wall to get the budget past a veto, then I would go all the way, the problem with the American system, is half measures, even if you're a fiscal hawk conservative, you must recognize that most money is actually wasted by doing things half assed just to get them through congress, perfect may be the enemy of the good, but watering down generally doesn't even yield good, it just yields a sad sack half assed partial wall with a Mexican riding a donkey right through the giant holes in it.

[Okeefenokee]

[StCapps]

Being a conservative, I'd rather go one way or the other, partial thow them a bone wall is the worst of both worlds, so If I was going to concede on the wall, I would say OK, but fuck these half measures, if we're building a wall, then lets go all the way, and if it is such a great idea, it should not rely on some goofy Mexicans will pay for it scheme, just pay for it, but lets get our money's worth and make conprehensive, to wit, even bigger and more beautiful than the Alt-Right thought it could ever be.

Well Trump will go with that if he thinks that would work better than the strategy I suggested and can still pass. The location, cost, payment, size and/or length of the wall are all negotiable, he just used the "big and beautiful, mexico will pay for it" mental image to get him elected.

The only southern border security plan that Trump won't accept is a plan with no wall whatsoever. If the best border security plan involves no wall on any portion of the border, than he'll reject it because he needs to deliver on the campaign promise, but he'll no doubt try to pass the best border security plan that he can as long as it includes a wall and has a chance at passing congress.

Indeed, which is why if I am going to be forced to concede on the wall to get the budget past a veto, then I would go all the way, the problem with the American system, is half measures, even if you're a fiscal hawk conservative, you must recognize that most money is actually wasted by doing things half assed just to get them through congress, perfect may be the enemy of the good, but watering down generally doesn't even yield good, it just yields a sad sack half assed partial wall with a Mexican riding a donkey right through the giant holes in it.

Too many checks and balances in the American system of governance results in a vetocracy that changes slowly and incrementally if the public is divided on an issue, this leads to a lack of bold experimentation and to a decreased likelihood of policy innovation on issues of contention. Even if one party controls the house, senate and presidency in their republican system there is far more infighting in that system than with the typically majority government in a parliamentary system.

The Canadian system is more prone to full measures that are bad policy being implemented than the American system, but is better at correcting once that happens and is less prone to half measures that are bad policy being implemented than the American system. So we come out a little ahead by my score.

[Okeefenokee]

[C-Mag]

Love me some Carolla, he speaks my language.

[TheReal_ND]

I don't can someone remove California

[Smitty-48]

The Canadian system is more prone to full measures that are bad policy being implemented than the American system, but is better at correcting once that happens and is less prone to half measures that are bad policy being implemented than the American system. So we come out a little ahead by my score.

Well, score number one with our current government is them backing down on electoral reform, so, correction made, very bad policy experiment avoided, FPTP FTW.

Outright victory for the Conservatives, and IMO the most important one to win. Didn't require any obstruction or hysteria or anything like that, they simply outmaneuvered the Liberals the old fashioned way.

Kept calm, carried on, built a coalition against the policy, prevented the Liberals from stacking the deck, pitted the Liberals against the NDP, steering them into an untenable positiion, forcing them to eat crow; well played.

[de officiis]

Jonathan Turley's take on the conflicting decisions out of Boston and Seattle over the travel ban.

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/02/04/108507/

[de officiis]

Someone explain what DeO said in plain speak. That dude could tell me the sky was falling, and I would listen. Just give me the normal speak version.

Sorry, this area of law is complicated to say the least and well outside the scope of my practice. If you check out Jonathan Turley's blog here, you will find a helpful description. Essentially, however, Washington and Minnesota were able to obtain a temporary restraining order against enforcement of important parts of the Trump Administration's recent executive order banning persons from 7 countries in the middle east from entering the country. I believe part of the States' argument hinged on the due process rights of visa holders against religious discrimination.

Here is a link to the Boston judge's order. Naturally it is not getting as much press coverage as the Seattle ruling.

http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp ... -order.pdf