The First 100 days

[Monahorns]

I think the Trump administration's reducing of regulations has been the greatest contributor to the economy so far. It reduces the cost of business and increases the speed of business. Some things government does around economics have a delayed effect. With regulation reduction you should see effects very quickly.

Listening to a podcast yesterday with Randall Holcombe who described the greatest threat to capitalism is what he calls political capitalism. Others call it cronyism or crony capitalism. One of the biggest problems under political capitalism is regulatory capture and rent seeking where economic elites work with political elites to get deals which weaken their competition or require the purchase of their products. Think of corn ethanol regulations or the requirement to buy insurance under the ACA.

Every year that Trump is President is another year where there is at least a chance the number of regulations will be reduced.

 

[I35]

Some believe that Trump faced his moment to make history with a war with Iran for the better or worse last night. Or at least a minimum it being a conflict. He backed off targeting three sites even though he said they were locked and loaded to do so.

I believe last night was actually planned carefully what to say happened with not seriously take out three different sites in Iran. It was reported President Trump stepped back after hearing it would kill up to 150 Iranians. I see it as this was just talk to let Iran know we are willing to take them out without having to take them out or at least the targets there. I believe this because if it was serious, we wouldn’t have announce how close we came to taking out their three sites. This was purely a message to Iran to back off or it may be real next time.

 

[Monahorns]

Trump showed true restraint towards Iran without just ignoring their misconduct. Who would have thought. So maybe he won't start nuclear war, SH?

 

[horninchicago]

Heard an interesting take that Iran wanted Trump to retaliate. That way, they could go to the UN and ask for talks on THIER terms.

Now, we still hold the cards.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Some believe that Trump faced his moment to make history with a war with Iran for the better or worse last night. Or at least a minimum it being a conflict. He backed off targeting three sites even though he said they were locked and loaded to do so.

I believe last night was actually planned carefully what to say happened with not seriously take out three different sites in Iran. It was reported President Trump stepped back after hearing it would kill up to 150 Iranians. I see it as this was just talk to let Iran know we are willing to take them out without having to take them out or at least the targets there. I believe this because if it was serious, we wouldn’t have announce how close we came to taking out their three sites. This was purely a message to Iran to back off or it may be real next time.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump showed true restraint towards Iran without just ignoring their misconduct. Who would have thought. So maybe he won't start nuclear war, SH?

The jury is still out. He showed restraint yesterday but many if his actions until this point have led us the this precipice.

I don't think Trump wants to start a war but in this situation his faux tough guy persona is leading us in that direction. Ask yourself are we closer to war with Iran now than we were on his inauguration date?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

If we are it is due to Iranian belligerence.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

The jury is still out. He showed restraint yesterday but many if his actions until this point have led us the this precipice.

I don't think Trump wants to start a war but in this situation his faux tough guy persona is leading us in that direction. Ask yourself are we closer to war with Iran now than we were on his inauguration date?

Lol, so being tough is off the table and its all our fault. Forget they've been doing their fair share to warrant the "tough" approach. Yep, all good ole America and Trumps fault. I'm sick of this narrative from the libs, but it works for fooling about half the country.

 

[LongestHorn]

hehe

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

What's funny? I fail to see the humor, so perhaps you will be kind enough to explain it.

 

[LongestHorn]

Let's start with you sounding like a retired gym coach who has asked that question thousands of times.

Beyond that, I grew up around guns and magazines, and magazines about guns, and enjoyed movies with guns, where they often said "locked and loaded". You follow me?

 

[I35]

That’s exactly why I think it was just talk to send a message more than acting on anything.

hehe

Iran is much weaker. That’s why they are acting out, because the sanctions are hurting them. That’s all they know is to be aggressive in response. That means it’s working.

I say Iran should bring us a pallet full of cash secretively, in the middle of the night to pay us for the drone they shot down.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

That's a pretty big failure at explaining the humor.

 

[humahuma]

I think he thinks it's funny because the President said "cocked and loaded..." instead of locked and loaded.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Thanks. Now I get it. I'm a dumb-*** and completely skipped over that word as I read the tweets at least 10 times.

And now his explanation of the humor is a hell of a lot more obvious too!

 

[LongestHorn]

And the General calling him sir was funny because it’s an important fact to the bonespur. That was also very funny.

 

[Monahorns]

I don't think Trump wants to start a war but in this situation his faux tough guy persona is leading us in that direction. Ask yourself are we closer to war with Iran now than we were on his inauguration date?

No. We aren't. Iran has sunk oil tankers and shot down a US drone and he hasn't retaliated. Trump can be an idiot but actions speak louder than words.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If we are it is due to Iranian belligerence.

It takes two to tango.

 

[Seattle Husker]

No. We aren't. Iran has sunk oil tankers and shot down a US drone and he hasn't retaliated. Trump can be an idiot but actions speak louder than words.

Not closer, seriously? Iran's actions are their own just as Trump's are. Both have walked us down a path that Thursday resulted in the loss of slightly older version of a ~$100m drone. Trump's rhetoric, pulling out of the nuclear deal and sanctions also contributed to this near war footing.

Here's the thing. The entire world knows that Trump doesn't want war. He just created some new imaginary red line that a human life is the trigger.

 

[Monahorns]

Not closer, seriously? Iran's actions are their own just as Trump's are. Both have walked us down a path that Thursday resulted in the loss of slightly older version of a ~$100m drone. Trump's rhetoric, pulling out of the nuclear deal and sanctions also contributed to this near war footing.

Closer compared to what? Closer due to Iran's actions? Sure. They have been blowing stuff up in the water. But reasonably speaking are Trump's actions putting us in jeopardy to war? No. He threatened but he ultimately didn't retaliate.

I am against the sanctions but the nuclear deal seemed like a farce to me anyway. Did Iran's nuclear develop activity change based on pulling out of the agreement?

 

[Seattle Husker]

You know we have crossed over the line of honest debate and disagreement when the President is described as rigging the census when the question has been on the census in the past and it is within his Constitutional authority to add what questions he wants.

Also another data point that Progressives view the Constitution as illegitimate. You would think at some point Americans could call that treason.

Honest debate? ThecTruml administration reasoning for adding the question was flawed per the SCOTUS decision in today's ruling. John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Roberts pointed out that the Commerce Dept appears to have gone looking for a justification and approached the Justice department about the Voting Rights Act not the other way arend as they claimed. Ross began the conversation merely 2 weeks into his role.

I strongly urge conservatives to #BoycottUSCensus.

 

[Monahorns]

But honestly, the US census should just include citizens right? Since that is what determines the number of representatives in Congress and Electoral College.

If you don't agree why do you think non-citizens should get to decide in any way how our country is governed? They don't get to vote but Progressives already want to change that law to.

I could agree to include permanent residents too and maybe even those who are living in the US under up to date Visas. But really, the government is run by and for the citizens of the US. That doesn't mean non-citizens should be neglected or abused. I get that. But doesn't common sense tell you that Trump has been reasonable on this matter?

 

[Seattle Husker]

But honestly, the US census should just include citizens right? Since that is what determines the number of representatives in Congress and Electoral College.

If you don't agree why do you think non-citizens should get to decide in any way how our country is governed? They don't get to vote but Progressives already want to change that law to.

I could agree to include permanent residents too and maybe even those who are living in the US under up to date Visas. But really, the government is run by and for the citizens of the US. That doesn't mean non-citizens should be neglected or abused. I get that. But doesn't common sense tell you that Trump has been reasonable on this matter?

The Census date is used for soooooooo much more than informing Representatives. At this point, that's a "nit" compared to the other 99% of value the Census has to Federal, State, local governments, researchers, and corporations. It's central to our economy.

I agree with the need to exclude illegal immigrants from representation but at the expense of the rest of the value seems short-sided. It's trully cutting off your nose to spite your face

 

[Monahorns]

What else is it used for? Maybe different counts can be used for the different purposes.

 

[Seattle Husker]

What else is it used for? Maybe different counts can be used for the different purposes.

Nearly all federal funding for States services has some tie to census data. That's a given. It's also a huge factor is reasearch (NHS) and labor dept etc. The more important aspect is companies leverage the data to make business decisions. For example, when I was with Starbucks we leveraged the data to inform where we should open new stores. Labor department data, which the census is a major component, was a major subset of our Employee Analytics. This was 10 years ago. I can only imagine the creative ways they are using it now. I've heard that marketing spend also has a huge tie to the demographic data within the census.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Just FYI - noncitizens are considered in reapportionment and therefore in the allocation of electoral votes. They aren't "represented" in the sense that they can't legally vote. However, they are counted. That means that the citizens in those districts have more voting clout than those in districts that don't have as many noncitizens.

If we only counted citizens in apportionment, it would cost states like Texas and California. Texas would probably lose a seat. California would probably lose at least one.

By the way, basing apportionment and electoral votes on citizenship would be unconstitutional. Sorry to piss on anybody's parade, but it's true.

 

[4th_floor]

Just FYI - noncitizens are considered in reapportionment and therefore in the allocation of electoral votes. They aren't "represented" in the sense that they can't legally vote. However, they are counted. That means that the citizens in those districts have more voting clout than those in districts that don't have as many noncitizens.

If we only counted citizens in apportionment, it would cost states like Texas and California. Texas would probably lose a seat. California would probably lose at least one.

By the way, basing apportionment and electoral votes on citizenship would be unconstitutional. Sorry to piss on anybody's parade, but it's true.

You are much more qualified than I to determine the who is counted in apportionment. However, I don't think that was the intent of the founders - since untaxed Indians were not counted and slaves were only counted as 3/5. Other than convincing John Roberts to resign, what needs to be done to remove non-citizens from apportionment? Do we need a constitutional amendment?

 

[LongestHorn]

“It’s not racist to repeal the 14th!”

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

“It’s not racist to repeal the 14th!”

What does the 14th amendment say about race? I look forward to your enlightenment.

The word Indian is in it so its obviously already racist. Is it racist to repeal a racist law? It is sexist for sure because it only gives men the right to vote so lets repeal it on that. Are you in?

 

[Mr. Deez]

You are much more qualified than I to determine the who is counted in apportionment. However, I don't think that was the intenttaxehe founders - since untaxed Indians were not counted and slaves were only counted as 3/5.

Which founders? Remember, we amended the Constitution (14th Amendment), so in this context, the "founders" isn't people like Madison or Jefferson. It's Reconstruction-era hacks like John Bingham, Thaddeus Stevens, and Charles Sumner, and those guys didn't give a **** about the original founders. If they had, they wouldn't have pushed the 14th Amendment in the first place. None of that was necessary to save the Union or free the slaves.

They passed the following, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

"Persons" means people, not citizens. And to be fair, the original language also referred to "free persons."

Other than convincing John Roberts to resign, what needs to be done to remove non-citizens from apportionment? Do we need a constitutional amendment?

Yes.