Trump's Winning Streak

[big_country90]

Nice article.

Link for Raoul.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/donald-trump-presidency-supreme-court-economy/index.html

 

[sistersville]

Most of the credit for gaining the majority in the supreme court goes to Kentucky's Cocaine Mitch.. Trump will get most of the credit. I'm shocked Kavanaugh will be confirmed. With all the liberal press and all the left'ies and all of hollywood and all those sickening women liber's wasn't enough to overcome the.great mind of Mitch

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Link for Raoul.

 

[big_country90]

Mitch McConnell is an unsung hero in all this. Dude has played politics like a baller over the last few years.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

 

[big_country90]

Done deal.

In all seriousness, how can anybody look at Trump's presidency objectively and not deem it a resounding success already, not even two years in?

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

Done deal.

In all seriousness, how can anybody look at Trump's presidency objectively and not deem it a resounding success already, not even two years in?

It's an incredible success, and it just keeps getting better. To address your question, most on the left will never ever acknowledge it. I mean, he says mean things, and talks normal, just like everybody else does.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

In all seriousness, how can anybody look at Trump's presidency objectively and not deem it a resounding success already, not even two years in?

Merely being transformative does not make a Presidency a success.

 

[big_country90]

Merely being transformative does not make a Presidency a success.

No, but being extremely successful does.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

No, but being extremely successful does.

To me there are two ways to judge a Presidency. As a political scientist, I can say so far he has been successful in that many policy ideas have been implemented. Policies can be a failure but if he is strong enough to implement them he is a success. And that brings me to the other side. As a historian, it is way too early to tell if he is a success. There are too many short and long term things we cannot decide in this moment. The trade war can backfire. The tax cuts could lead to a crippling debt position (in a few years we will be spending more on debt service than on defense, that is not good). Gamble v US is a huge case for SCOTUS, and frankly if Kavanaugh turns out to be the deciding vote for Gamble he is a piece of shit, forget the pardon issues, it would be a blow to Federalism and that would make him a fvcker in and of itself, not to mention the serious implications for fighting crime, which would make Trump a fvcker (Trump is too simple to understand the bigger picture, he would just be happy he could save his buddies from state prosecutions with a pardon, which is what liberals are squawking about, but a serious student of law and government can plainly see the broader implications). Kavanaugh was always a little too favorable for executive power for me but I could overlook that, let's hope he doesn't feel he needs to give a gift to his benefactor, I am less trusting after his partisan outburst. Foreign policy decisions could trigger a war with Iran, which might not be pretty (Iran has some serious Russian tech). Kim could be playing Trump and nuke the shit out of South Korea. Regardless of political beliefs between the two of us, there are a lot of things that could go wrong. If you view politics as "winning or losing" in the moment you miss the big picture, which takes a while.

As a political scientist I think Obama's first term was badass. As a historian I can tell you the verdict is in and the ACA is a failure. That's just how it works.

And it could all work out fine and Trump is still garbage as a human being. He makes JFK and Nixon look like saints, which is saying something. History will judge that as well.

 

[Bankerreturns]

The fact that you thought the ACA was great in the beginning just devalues your opinion on everything else.

 

[WV-FAN]

To me there are two ways to judge a Presidency. As a political scientist, I can say so far he has been successful in that many policy ideas have been implemented. Policies can be a failure but if he is strong enough to implement them he is a success. And that brings me to the other side. As a historian, it is way too early to tell if he is a success. There are too many short and long term things we cannot decide in this moment. The trade war can backfire. The tax cuts could lead to a crippling debt position (in a few years we will be spending more on debt service than on defense, that is not good). Gamble v US is a huge case for SCOTUS, and frankly if Kavanaugh turns out to be the deciding vote for Gamble he is a piece of shit, forget the pardon issues, it would be a blow to Federalism and that would make him a fvcker in and of itself, not to mention the serious implications for fighting crime, which would make Trump a fvcker (Trump is too simple to understand the bigger picture, he would just be happy he could save his buddies from state prosecutions with a pardon, which is what liberals are squawking about, but a serious student of law and government can plainly see the broader implications). Kavanaugh was always a little too favorable for executive power for me but I could overlook that, let's hope he doesn't feel he needs to give a gift to his benefactor, I am less trusting after his partisan outburst. Foreign policy decisions could trigger a war with Iran, which might not be pretty (Iran has some serious Russian tech). Kim could be playing Trump and nuke the shit out of South Korea. Regardless of political beliefs between the two of us, there are a lot of things that could go wrong. If you view politics as "winning or losing" in the moment you miss the big picture, which takes a while.

As a political scientist I think Obama's first term was badass. As a historian I can tell you the verdict is in and the ACA is a failure. That's just how it works.

And it could all work out fine and Trump is still garbage as a human being. He makes JFK and Nixon look like saints, which is saying something. History will judge that as well.

as a common motherfvcker analyzing what a self proclaimed polysci dude just puked, it's awfully damned funny how, what one would think would be an objective analysis from a "political scientist" (go ahead, dick, say "as a political scientist" one more fvckin' time and watch me laugh and puke at the same time), was full of nothing but negativity on what "could" occur. while i understand that everything indicated could be a possibility, it's just more proof that you are who you don't think you are, and you cannot separate who that is (a liberal whackjob) from the other person you want to be (a political scientist

Spoiler

).

 

[sistersville]

As a political historian and a political scientist and basically a closet liberal at least Raoul is not completely blinded. His moral code keeps him far from the far left
But as a political scientist he must examine the far left and their beliefs so as a political historian he can explain to others in the future what happened in the Kavanaugh battle for his seat on the bench. P s .I can't stand Mitch McConnell and Raoul is a cool dude, educated yet a little redneck

 

[19MU88]

Merely being transformative does not make a Presidency a success.

sticking your head in the sand doesn't mean things aren't happening around you.

 

[A Cousin From Richmond]

As a political scientist...

As a political scientist...

You mentioned this twice in this post - what do you do for a living? I cant imagine few things more mentally exhausting than working in this career field.

 

[herdfan429]

To me there are two ways to judge a Presidency. As a political scientist, I can say so far he has been successful in that many policy ideas have been implemented. Policies can be a failure but if he is strong enough to implement them he is a success. And that brings me to the other side. As a historian, it is way too early to tell if he is a success. There are too many short and long term things we cannot decide in this moment. The trade war can backfire. The tax cuts could lead to a crippling debt position (in a few years we will be spending more on debt service than on defense, that is not good). Gamble v US is a huge case for SCOTUS, and frankly if Kavanaugh turns out to be the deciding vote for Gamble he is a piece of shit, forget the pardon issues, it would be a blow to Federalism and that would make him a fvcker in and of itself, not to mention the serious implications for fighting crime, which would make Trump a fvcker (Trump is too simple to understand the bigger picture, he would just be happy he could save his buddies from state prosecutions with a pardon, which is what liberals are squawking about, but a serious student of law and government can plainly see the broader implications). Kavanaugh was always a little too favorable for executive power for me but I could overlook that, let's hope he doesn't feel he needs to give a gift to his benefactor, I am less trusting after his partisan outburst. Foreign policy decisions could trigger a war with Iran, which might not be pretty (Iran has some serious Russian tech). Kim could be playing Trump and nuke the shit out of South Korea. Regardless of political beliefs between the two of us, there are a lot of things that could go wrong. If you view politics as "winning or losing" in the moment you miss the big picture, which takes a while.

As a political scientist I think Obama's first term was badass. As a historian I can tell you the verdict is in and the ACA is a failure. That's just how it works.

And it could all work out fine and Trump is still garbage as a human being. He makes JFK and Nixon look like saints, which is saying something. History will judge that as well.

Mr political scientist you work with special needs adults. You enjoy politics probably more than most. Just because you had a bullshit major in college, and yes polo Soc is a bullshit major, doesn’t make you a scientist.

Oh one more think is poli Scott a hard science or soft science?

 

[Chevy1]

After his re-election, George W. was viewed as a "success".....however, by the end of his 2nd term, the stench of his administration's failure was so strong, the republicans didn't even want him at their national convention.

An administration without truth and honor is lacking in some very basic things all of us value. We'll see how an administration built on corruption and lies will stand the test of history.

 

[ThunderCat98]

As a political scientist I think Obama's first term was badass.

Statements like this make people less apt to seriously consider your opinion on any given issue.

 

[Chevy1]

Statements like this make people less apt to seriously consider your opinion on any given issue.

I suppose many British viewed the American uprising as a debacle. They were wrong.

Obama's first term was badass

The enormous job of resuscitating the economy and the country's financial industry was humongous. We could have limped along for years and years like the 30s and the Great Depression. Bringing health care to millions of Americans was another win. Not saying Obamacare was/is optimal...but at least the problem was identified and addressed.

As far as healthcare is concerned, candidate Trump recognized the healthcare issue. But President Trump simply follows the republican playbook, and we'll be back to where we were in '07.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

The fact that you thought the ACA was great in the beginning just devalues your opinion on everything else.

Actually I did not think it was great if the goal was to lower the cost of healthcare per capita, and was adamant about that. I do think it was good to give more people access to health care. These are separate issues.

 

[big_country90]

Who actually refers to themselves as a "political scientist?"

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Statements like this make people less apt to seriously consider your opinion on any given issue.

Did he or did he not achieve his policy agenda in the first term? He did. Trump is doing the same. It's not a measure of if the policies are good.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Who actually refers to themselves as a "political scientist?"

Someone who is explaining the different views of political success.

For many years Hitler was very successful in implementing his policies and projecting power domestically and foreign. He was still a horribly evil man.

Lincoln's first two years were a trainwreck. He certainly came out alright with the historians.

 

[Bankerreturns]

Actually I did not think it was great if the goal was to lower the cost of healthcare per capita, and was adamant about that. I do think it was good to give more people access to health care. These are separate issues.

Everyone in America has access to healthcare and had access to it before the ACA. It's just like everyone has access to buy a new car, or a house, or a smart phone, or life insurance, or a retirement plan. It wasn't about access, it was about getting other people to pay for it.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Mr political scientist you work with special needs adults.

Yes, I feel called to do so. That does not change my education and training in another areas, nor does it change what I read and study in my leisure time.

Keeper is a minister, but he is also a pretty keen historian.

I really do not enjoy "politics". I enjoy the analysis of politics, policy, and history. I like to try to have a deeper understanding of such things. Politics? I wouldn't run for dogcatcher even if it paid a million bucks a year.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Everyone in America has access to healthcare and had access to it before the ACA. It's just like everyone has access to buy a new car, or a house, or a smart phone, or life insurance, or a retirement plan. It wasn't about access, it was about getting other people to pay for it.

If you accept that only people with means deserve access to routine health care, and it is totally smart to have a large chunk of our citizenry walking around sick and putting off care until the situation and costs become unmanageable, this is a wonderful ideology. Personally I find that horribly inefficient (as do you if you are being honest), and kinda shitty for the richest nation on Earth to do.

Keep in mind that before the ACA the "bums" already had coverage. That is a totally different ballgame, and one I would agree with you on. The working poor, not so much. It was laudable to attempt a solution for all the working poor, but it was a solution that does not contain costs.

It is also intellectually dishonest to consider health care the same as a new car or smart phone. No one needs those things. We all need health care. I would not suggest to a working poor person to buy a new car, but I would suggest they see a doctor when they are sick with something beyond a cold.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

was full of nothing but negativity on what "could" occur. .

It's a simple list of how certain policy achievements could turn out bad in the eyes of history. And the growing debt really weighs on me. Elect a true liberal (Obama was closer to Bill Clinton than Bernie Sanders), ram the policies through, and I would do the same.

 

[mlblack16.]

Everyone in America has access to healthcare and had access to it before the ACA. It's just like everyone has access to buy a new car, or a house, or a smart phone, or life insurance, or a retirement plan. It wasn't about access, it was about getting other people to pay for it.

Obamacare is set up to fail. It requires the youth to pay for the old. Considering the disproportion in population of Baby Boomers to younger adults, there are far too many needing a free ride, but that's the democrat way.

Case in point: my sister and her husband are independent contractors, so their work doesn't come with health insurance. While their premiums aren't terrible, the deductible on their plan is outrageous. On the other hand, my father, who recently retired, pays almost nothing.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Obamacare is set up to fail. It requires the youth to pay for the old. Considering the disproportion in population of Baby Boomers to younger adults, there are far too many needing a free ride, but that's the democrat way.

Case in point: my sister and her husband are independent contractors, so their work doesn't come with health insurance. While their premiums aren't terrible, the deductible on their plan is outrageous. On the other hand, my father, who recently retired, pays almost nothing.

This has generally been an idea since ancient civilization. They would set aside part of the grain for the old and the infirm. This works great as long as people keep having lots of babies. We stopped doing so, as has Europe. It's one reason a blind eye has been turned to immigration of the illegal variety.

But any smart, large health insurance plan will expect the young to pay for the old. The young are healthier. One day they will be in the opposite position. That's one of the logical positions of single-payer that appeals to me: keep everyone in the same pool and eventually this should balance out. The trick is how do we make everyone pay, and how do we make everyone contribute; simply taxing spending as a means of revenue does not work when part of the population is not contributing because they are spending welfare money. That's why I support workfare: no free ride with no work unless you are truly disabled.

Does your father have health insurance provided from a contractual obligation? Did he belong to a union? I don't think those promises should be broken. Employees traded higher pay for better benefits, they have every reason to expect those promises to be kept.

 

[Chevy1]

Everyone in America has access to healthcare and had access to it before the ACA. It's just like everyone has access to buy a new car, or a house, or a smart phone, or life insurance, or a retirement plan. It wasn't about access, it was about getting other people to pay for it.

The system spirals out of control. Hospitals can't turn away those who require healthcare. In order for healthcare facilities to avoid bankruptcy, someone has to pay. That falls to those with health insurance....which, in turn, means the cost of their (our) healthcare increases. When heath costs goes up, fewer people can afford it...meaning more people are off healthcare. And it goes on and on.

Then there's the fact that those without healthcare generally declare bankruptcy when they incur significant healthcare expenses.....which impacts more than just the healthcare industry.

Seems like we could move past this issue. It would be better for the nation to have a more inclusive base system of health care.

As stated earlier...."Candidate" Trump campaigned for more inclusive healthcare - "President" Trump simply smiles and cites the Erik Stratton defense, "hey, you f'd up! You trusted us."

 

[WV-FAN]

It's a simple list of how I hope certain policy achievements turn out bad in the eyes of history. And the growing debt really weighs on me. Elect a true liberal (Obama was closer to Bill Clinton than Bernie Sanders), ram the policies through, and I would do the same.

Bummer wasn't a pimple on Clinton's ass. Didn't hear you complain when bummer doubled the debt.

Oh, fixed your post for ya.

 

[WV-FAN]

Someone who is explaining the different views of political success.

that's just it, when it comes to trump, you have but one view, there's nothing objective about it.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

that's just it, when it comes to trump, you have but one view, there's nothing objective about it.

Yet I said he has been a success in passing his agenda....hmmmm. And I support the trade war thing, just not quite the way he is doing it...although the China poison pill for Canada and Mexico is a good thing.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Bummer wasn't a pimple on Clinton's ass. Didn't hear you complain when bummer doubled the debt.
.

I certainly did. I bitched about how Congress handled the "stimulus", had it been all for infrastructure the debt would have been an investment, not just blown money. Debt for infrastructure investments, in times of crisis (think if California had "The Big One"), in times of war when taxes cannot pay for the war (think WWII)...these are very different things that debt because we cut taxes but keep spending money left or right. I've been consistent AF over the years on this. You might be getting senile.

 

[Bankerreturns]

Sorry, but healthcare is not a right unless you believe the government should control the means of production of said healthcare. If you do then good luck getting people to invest a huge chunk of their life to become proficient in delivering that care at a lower cost. A tailgate buddy of mine is finishing up his cardiology fellowship. He's 34 years old and has been going at it 16 straight years to get to this point. Ridiculous hours for hardly no pay for the last several years. If he would have chosen a different path he would have been making 6 figures for several years already and been well on the path to executive management that would have paid about the same, or more, than he'll make as a doctor. Plus he wouldn't be several hundred thousand dollars in debt.

You want to provide more care at a lower cost? Make it damn near impossible to sue a doctor or hospital without a super clear case of gross negligence that must first be reviewed and signed off on as such by an independent review board before going to trial. I had an anesthesiologist client who made $3 million a year. That's some good money, but unfortunately his malpractice insurance was $1.5 million a year and he had never had a claim against him that the insurance company had to pay out on.

People wonder why drugs cost so much more in the U.S., it's for two reasons, one, we can afford to pay more (we subsidize poor countries) and two, litigation expense. You will never make health care better without Tort reform.

 

[i am herdman]

Lincoln's first two years were a trainwreck. He certainly came out alright with the historians.
--------------------------------------------
Not in South Carolina.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Sorry, but healthcare is not a right unless you believe the government should control the means of production of said healthcare.

Is there a way I can opt out of paying for the critical illnesses of the people you gave this line to when their conditions could have been treated earlier for cheaper? I swear to God conservatives like you sound just as silly as socialists when spouting their pure ideological beliefs that don't apply to how the real world works. In the real world, sooner or later we are going to pay for that person's health care. Let's get that guy treated before it becomes critical...there's another way to make health care cheaper!

Who would you like to appoint the people to your "independent" review board? And if it is not the judiciary doing the appointing, it would be a weakening of the judiciary by another branch of government. Just something to think about....It's a good idea in theory, but there are governors (Fvckhead Bevin comes to mind) I wouldn't trust to appoint anyone to anything, much less as a restriction on the powers of another branch of government.

No one ever said getting to be a doctor is easy. Don't feel too sorry for your cardiologist friend, my first cardiologist drove a 458.

 

[WV-FAN]

.there's another way to make health care cheaper!
.

you for purging deadbeat ambulance chasing attorneys from society, too?

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

you for purging deadbeat ambulance chasing attorneys from society, too?

I am, but I am not sure how to do it the right way. There's a fine line between restricting someone's right to seek legal relief and throwing the doors wide open. And both sides of the argument are mainly very wealthy interests that lobby extensively....neither one can be trusted.

 

[raleighherdfan]

The enormous job of resuscitating the economy and the country's financial industry was humongous.

Exactly. That’s why the actions to back stop illiquid banks, pump liquidity back into the markets actually started before Bush left office (Paulson/Bernanke) continued under Obama and was ultimately created and controlled by the federal reserve bank and not so much by the executive branch

If you wanted to be honest you would also admit that financial policies which fueled the economic meltdown (reduced mortgage underwriting standards with Govt backed guarantees via Fannie&Freddie) began prior to Bush taking office. Some also choose to ignore the Dot Com implosion of 2000 as Clinton was leaving office was an enormous drag on the early years of Bush’s economy.