Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

[betarhoalphadelta]

can I ask why you were so unhappy? Was it the hope and change rhetoric? Did you think he was actually a progressive or liberal?

Because if you loved W., you had to have liked Obama. He was almost the same guy in terms of policy, just came in very different packaging.

I've gathered that CWSooner, like me, is a libertarian. Whether he's "big-L" or "little-l" libertarian is TBD.

I came into the 2008 election thinking that most of Obama's policies would probably not be things I would support, as he was a Democrat. I was REALLY hoping that he'd live up to the civil liberties noises he'd made through his campaign, as that was a huge portion of why I didn't like W. I was disappointed after seeing his administration, but was at least hopeful on election night.

[CWSooner]

can I ask why you were so unhappy? Was it the hope and change rhetoric? Did you think he was actually a progressive or liberal?

Because if you loved W., you had to have liked Obama. He was almost the same guy in terms of policy, just came in very different packaging.

Obama's rhetoric and voting record (slim as it was) tagged him as the most left-wing president we had had.  And there was a certain "there's not much about America to love" about him as well.  That's why I was unhappy that he was elected.
I won't argue that his policies did not always reflect his rhetoric (in both good and bad ways), but his rhetoric was not centrist.
You've made the point earlier that W and Obama we the same guy, but I don't agree.
Not even in foreign policy, where I think the similarities are strongest.  Bush would not have abandoned the SOF negotiations with Iraq and just pulled the troops out because no agreement had been reached.
And certainly not in domestic policy.  Obama's biggest domestic policy achievement was ObamaCare.  No Republican president that there has ever been would have advanced that idea.
I can see people liking Bush better than Obama and vice-versa, but I don't agree that they were essentially the same.

[Cincydawg]

Yeah, only a Democrat like Romney would ever advance something like Obamacare ....

[CWSooner]

I've gathered that CWSooner, like me, is a libertarian. Whether he's "big-L" or "little-l" libertarian is TBD.

I came into the 2008 election thinking that most of Obama's policies would probably not be things I would support, as he was a Democrat. I was REALLY hoping that he'd live up to the civil liberties noises he'd made through his campaign, as that was a huge portion of why I didn't like W. I was disappointed after seeing his administration, but was at least hopeful on election night.

I'm more of a "conservatarian," Bwarb.
I had hope that the fact that we had elected a black man president would work to promote racial harmony in America.  I thought that, if that would happen, it would be the silver lining to having a president with whose ideas I disagreed.
Instead, racial friction and animosity got much worse.  And both parties and both ends of the political spectrum deserve some blame for that.

[CWSooner]

Yeah, only a Democrat like Romney would ever advance something like Obamacare ....

Romney's defense of that was politically weak, but it was constitutionally sound.  There are things that are appropriate and constitutional for states to do that are not so for the federal government.  (I thought RomneyCare was bad policy anyway.)
You can move out of Taxachusetts if you don't like RomneyCare and still remain an American living in America.  Not so with ObamaCare.

[Cincydawg]

I am pleased that this discussion has not erupted into flaming.  We have all stepped well over an old line, and it has largely been OK.

[847badgerfan]

What criminal case is this?  Flynn pled guilty 2 (?) years ago and was convicted.  He has lately said that he wants to withdraw his agreement to the plea-bargain because he was misled by the FBI and poorly represented by his lawyers.  Is his conviction being overturned?

US dropped all charges today. Heads are rolling in the DOJ and soon in the FBI. Trouble is brewing.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Obama did exactly what I had hoped.  His message was pretty lefty, but his actions were more centrist.  


btw, I'll keep saying this, whats-his-face Newt Gingrich released a list of things he would do early on in the primaries.  Obama actually accomplished everything on that list.  I wish I could find it.

[OrangeAfroMan]

It is public information, right?  The media will report on it.  They don't report an individual state until its polls have closed.

Our elections are run by the states  (within some limits).

Right.....but it's a NATIONAL election, and if it looks like it's going a certain way, that's going to influence results in the west.  

It seems like an obvious conflict that's easily fixed.  Just wait a couple of hours.

[Mdot21]

Flynn violated the law.

If you think that Hillary should have been prosecuted, as I do, then you have to accept that the prosecution of Flynn was justified.

I just wish everybody had to play by the same set of rules.

Ok. I'm 100% with you there.

But Flynn made a plea deal to a single charge- lying to the FBI about a telephone conversation. That's it. All of the documents and information that have been released showed the FBI entrapped him. It was some really sneaky BS and abuse of FBI power. It absolutely, 100% should've been dismissed and I am glad that it was.

If they want to throw a charge at him for violation of the FARA act for not registering as a foreign agent that was lobbying on behalf of a foreign government and for trying to register it after the fact- go ahead be my guest. All signs point to him being guilty as sin there. But I'm guessing that is a whole can of worms the elite in DC do not want to open. My guess is a lot of them are guilty as sin in this regard.

[Cincydawg]

Right.....but it's a NATIONAL election, and if it looks like it's going a certain way, that's going to influence results in the west. 

It seems like an obvious conflict that's easily fixed.  Just wait a couple of hours.

The Presidential election technically is NOT a national election at all.  It's all run by the states (within certain national "limits").

The state legislatures are allowed to select Electors anyway they wish.  They could use Clucko to pick them if they wanted.  They could pick them at random from the voting lists (which might be more effective).  They might even be able to select electors not based on what their state outcome is but on the NATIONAL popular vote.

[CWSooner]

Ok. I'm 100% with you there.

But Flynn made a plea deal to a single charge- lying to the FBI about a telephone conversation. That's it. All of the documents and information that have been released showed the FBI entrapped him. It was some really sneaky BS and abuse of FBI power. It absolutely, 100% should've been dismissed and I am glad that it was.

If they want to throw a charge at him for violation of the FARA act for not registering as a foreign agent that was lobbying on behalf of a foreign government and for trying to register it after the fact- go ahead be my guest. All signs point to him being guilty as sin there. But I'm guessing that is a whole can of worms the elite in DC do not want to open. My guess is a lot of them are guilty as sin in this regard.

Yeah, Flynn pled guilty to the least of his crimes and the feds dropped the more serious stuff.  Now he wants to retract his guilty plea.  I have little sympathy for the guy.
However, I'll always believe that if I as an Army officer had disclosed the classified information that Hillary did before, during, and after her tenure as Secretary of State I would have been court-martialed, convicted, and sent to Leavenworth for the Long Tour.  I was in three different assignments that required me to have a TS-plus clearance, so I've had some experience dealing with classified material.  As we operated when I was an air cavalry squadron S-2 (intelligence and security officer), my team would not disclose information from open sources if we knew that it was classified.  So, even if TIME magazine had a story that included information in it that we knew to be classified, we would not use that information in a non-classified briefing.  Hillary, at the opposite end of the carefulness spectrum, figured that if she just deleted the classification markings from a document, it was OK to deal with it as if it came out of TIME magazine.
I saw an analysis of what the FBI did and it did not meet the definition of entrapment.  Entrapment is when you trick the other party into committing a crime, not when you trick him into admitting that he committed it.
I don't think the FBI has clean hands in all its dealings with Trump associates, subordinates, and hangers-on, but that doesn't mean that Flynn should not suffer punishment for his crimes.

[CWSooner]

The Presidential election technically is NOT a national election at all.  It's all run by the states (within certain national "limits").

The state legislatures are allowed to select Electors anyway they wish.  They could use Clucko to pick them if they wanted.  They could pick them at random from the voting lists (which might be more effective).  They might even be able to select electors not based on what their state outcome is but on the NATIONAL popular vote.

That, IMO, would be a probably-technically constitutional way to completely violate the spirit of the Constitution.  There's no way that the Framers could have imagined that someday the people of some states would determine their electoral votes by seeing how people in other states voted. 

[OrangeAfroMan]

The Presidential election technically is NOT a national election at all.  It's all run by the states (within certain national "limits").

The state legislatures are allowed to select Electors anyway they wish.  They could use Clucko to pick them if they wanted.  They could pick them at random from the voting lists (which might be more effective).  They might even be able to select electors not based on what their state outcome is but on the NATIONAL popular vote.

You're arguing something I'm not addressing on purpose.  I get all of that, BUT - no state should release its results until all states are finished voting.  Virginia can start counting and finish, but hold onto the results until the other states' voting are closed.  
I don't see any harm in that and kind of can't believe why it isn't that way.