The New Lounge

[Mac9192]

Agree with Ghost that the people Trump put around him in his first term were DC mainstays. He said as much in his interview with Rogan. We are dead serious when we say the swamp needs to be drained. There's no accountability up there. Why aren't more people outraged, or at the very least, mildly curious, that these people get elected with salaries of roughly $200k a year, then become millionaires a short time later? And they don't want to leave!!

Politics are like watching Wrestling. Talk crap about the other side when the camera is on, then when we aren't looking they're having drinks together (by the way thank you Pelosi for that idea) or playing cards.

So forgive me for being a little giddy when I read things from DOGE, and what they say they want to do. I just hope they aren't blowing smoke up our asses like too many have been doing for years.

 

[KDSTONE]

Agree with Ghost that the people Trump put around him in his first term were DC mainstays. He said as much in his interview with Rogan. We are dead serious when we say the swamp needs to be drained. There's no accountability up there. Why aren't more people outraged, or at the very least, mildly curious, that these people get elected with salaries of roughly $200k a year, then become millionaires a short time later? And they don't want to leave!!

Politics are like watching Wrestling. Talk crap about the other side when the camera is on, then when we aren't looking they're having drinks together (by the way thank you Pelosi for that idea) or playing cards.

So forgive me for being a little giddy when I read things from DOGE, and what they say they want to do. I just hope they aren't blowing smoke up our asses like too many have been doing for years.

Agree. I’ll take no experience over Swamp experience.
Obama had only served two years in the Senate; I don’t remember the media bemoaning his “lack of experience”. They were too busy embarrassing themselves

 

[Dattier]

I actually think Trump's biggest failure in personnel was the people with the most government experience in his first term.

I think those were the people who kept him in check. Maybe I'm alone here in thinking keeping him in check is a good thing. If it was anyone else, I would think y'all would join me in thinking it's a bad thing for a leader to be surrounded by people whose #1 quality is loyalty to the leader. Good leaders want the people around them to offer pushback.

 

[Mac9192]

I think those were the people who kept him in check. Maybe I'm alone here in thinking keeping him in check is a good thing. If it was anyone else, I would think y'all would join me in thinking it's a bad thing for a leader to be surrounded by people whose #1 quality is loyalty to the leader. Good leaders want the people around them to offer pushback.

You're talking in a more perfect system. Which in most people's opinion, has been broken, and is not working for its citizens. And it has gotten worse over the last four years. As far as him being kept in check? I'd agree, but only when it comes to him and a microphone.

The number one goal is for everyone to be on the same page. His page. That's based off what he accomplished his first term. I could be wrong, but I think he's gonna actually govern with our best interests in mind.

What a brilliant idea.

 

[Dattier]

“keep them secure”. You spelled them wrong. It’s spelled u-s
Undocumented You mean the illegals right? I’m all for treating people humanely, but show me in the US Constitution these rights of which you speak

Okay, so when I get fed up with your crap and start pushing back again with a similar tone and then you try to call me on it, I'm putting this on the record as your having done so first. And now I'll drop it and respond respectfully anyway.

Yes, it secures the public, and if a violent offender tried to escape, the fact that guards could be authorized to use deadly force is a sign that the public's safety is paramount, but no, I did not spell anything wrong. An offender serving their time still deserves medical treatment, and if they are a potential target for revenge while somewhere outside the prison, it's our responsibility to secure and protect them, too.

I prefer the term undocumented immigrants. I don't flinch when y'all call them illegal immigrants. I expect similar non-flinching in return. We're all adults here. "The illegals" is worse, though. It's a way of dehumanizing them. It's just like "Black people" is better than "the Blacks."

Plyer v Doe, 1982: "A state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved."
Reno v Flores, 1993: Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority: “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”
Graham v Richardson, 1971: "Resident non-citizens have access to rights under the Equal Protection Clause, and a state law that discriminates against them must be justified by a compelling state interest to be valid... Discrimination against foreign nationals in the area of welfare benefits does not implicate any compelling state interest. There is not even any legitimate state interest in withholding benefits in order to preserve them for its own citizens, since foreign nationals also contribute to state revenues."

In case you're going to be a stickler for "in the Constitution," I'll point out that one basis for the small sampling of rulings cited above is where the Constitution specifies that people have certain rights, not specifically citizens.

 

[Dattier]

Agree. I’ll take no experience over Swamp experience.
Obama had only served two years in the Senate; I don’t remember the media bemoaning his “lack of experience”. They were too busy embarrassing themselves

Obama's lack of experience was definitely a concern. Like Trump, perceived net positives by enough people got him elected anyway. A lack of experience is surmountable, but it's not a non-issue.

 

[Dattier]

So forgive me for being a little giddy when I read things from DOGE, and what they say they want to do. I just hope they aren't blowing smoke up our asses like too many have been doing for years.

I'm sure there will be some smoke. It's politics, after all. It's a pretty low bar.
A lot of it sounds great on the surface. One thing I am concerned about, though, is that there may be programs whose authorization has lapsed, but which are doing a lot of good. That's a red tape error that should not in and of itself be the sole reason to cut it.

The number one goal is for everyone to be on the same page. His page. That's based off what he accomplished his first term. I could be wrong, but I think he's gonna actually govern with our best interests in mind.

People on the same page can butt heads pretty hard while ironing out the details of how to proceed toward the same goal, and the steps that emerge can be way better for it. I don't see President Trump being willing to accept that from the people around him.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think he has anyone's best interest in mind but his own, but it seems pointless to get into that right now. And if his own best interests creates a wake that pulls others along in it, I suspect they won't mind what his real interests are anyway.

 

[GhostOf301]

I think those were the people who kept him in check. Maybe I'm alone here in thinking keeping him in check is a good thing. If it was anyone else, I would think y'all would join me in thinking it's a bad thing for a leader to be surrounded by people whose #1 quality is loyalty to the leader. Good leaders want the people around them to offer pushback.

Not that you said anything that I don't agree with. But we view the consequences of Trump being able to push his agenda without guardrails, differently. He should surround himself with people who are loyal and will be influential in his decisions. Not with the goal of "keeping him in check". That's what Congress and the constitution does.

 

[GhostOf301]

I'm sure there will be some smoke. It's politics, after all. It's a pretty low bar.
A lot of it sounds great on the surface. One thing I am concerned about, though, is that there may be programs whose authorization has lapsed, but which are doing a lot of good. That's a red tape error that should not in and of itself be the sole reason to cut it.


People on the same page can butt heads pretty hard while ironing out the details of how to proceed toward the same goal, and the steps that emerge can be way better for it. I don't see President Trump being willing to accept that from the people around him.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think he has anyone's best interest in mind but his own, but it seems pointless to get into that right now. And if his own best interests creates a wake that pulls others along in it, I suspect they won't mind what his real interests are anyway.

Don't you think, at his age, retirement and spending time with family would be in his best interest? I think he is an asshole and has narcissistic tendencies. But I do think he genuinely cares about the country.

 

[Dattier]

Don't you think, at his age, retirement and spending time with family would be in his best interest? I think he is an asshole and has narcissistic tendencies. But I do think he genuinely cares about the country.

The narcissism is what most drives my opinion. I think he cares about power and being in the spotlight.

Not that you said anything that I don't agree with. But we view the consequences of Trump being able to push his agenda without guardrails, differently. He should surround himself with people who are loyal and will be influential in his decisions. Not with the goal of "keeping him in check". That's what Congress and the constitution does.

Loyalty to a person that doesn’t include provisions for constructive criticism is really just fealty. Loyalty to an agenda is healthier, in this context, even if I don’t like their particular agenda.

I don’t have any faith that a GOP-controlled Congress and a court system loaded with Trump-appointed judges will provide much resistance.

 

[Mac9192]

The narcissism is what most drives my opinion. I think he cares about power and being in the spotlight.

Loyalty to a person that doesn’t include provisions for constructive criticism is really just fealty. Loyalty to an agenda is healthier, in this context, even if I don’t like their particular agenda.

I don’t have any faith that a GOP-controlled Congress and a court system loaded with Trump-appointed judges will provide much resistance.

Where you and I disagree is that you have more faith than I do in our government. As a general rule, I think they're contaminated. And we are in a boat that has multiple holes. Trump (I hope) learned some valuable lessons in his first term, had four years to brew about it, and is assembling a crew around him. One that is saying what I think we all need to hear.

Had politicians for the last several decades been doing their job instead of serving their own interests, I don't think Trump would have ever burst onto the scene.

 

[KDSTONE]

Okay, so when I get fed up with your crap and start pushing back again with a similar tone and then you try to call me on it, I'm putting this on the record as your having done so first. And now I'll drop it and respond respectfully anyway.

Yes, it secures the public, and if a violent offender tried to escape, the fact that guards could be authorized to use deadly force is a sign that the public's safety is paramount, but no, I did not spell anything wrong. An offender serving their time still deserves medical treatment, and if they are a potential target for revenge while somewhere outside the prison, it's our responsibility to secure and protect them, too.

I prefer the term undocumented immigrants. I don't flinch when y'all call them illegal immigrants. I expect similar non-flinching in return. We're all adults here. "The illegals" is worse, though. It's a way of dehumanizing them. It's just like "Black people" is better than "the Blacks."

Plyer v Doe, 1982: "A state cannot prevent children of undocumented immigrants from attending public school unless a substantial state interest is involved."
Reno v Flores, 1993: Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority: “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”
Graham v Richardson, 1971: "Resident non-citizens have access to rights under the Equal Protection Clause, and a state law that discriminates against them must be justified by a compelling state interest to be valid... Discrimination against foreign nationals in the area of welfare benefits does not implicate any compelling state interest. There is not even any legitimate state interest in withholding benefits in order to preserve them for its own citizens, since foreign nationals also contribute to state revenues."

In case you're going to be a stickler for "in the Constitution," I'll point out that one basis for the small sampling of rulings cited above is where the Constitution specifies that people have certain rights, not specifically citizens.

Excellent post.