Author Topic: The Trump Presidency  (Read 444974 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13770 on: February 13, 2018, 05:00:43 PM »
To my liberal friends. I just want you to realize - and I hope I've earned your trust as being objective - if President Obama had rolled this proposal out, it would've been praised as "innovative, healthy, and cost-effective."

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13771 on: February 13, 2018, 05:01:48 PM »
https://twitter.com/AnnieLowrey/status/963427645374517249

60 questions about the Blue Apron replacement for SNAP.
Very Stable Genius

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7733
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13772 on: February 13, 2018, 05:05:26 PM »
To my liberal friends. I just want you to realize - and I hope I've earned your trust as being objective - if President Obama had rolled this proposal out, it would've been praised as "innovative, healthy, and cost-effective."

I promise you I wouldn't have.

Offline jonoh81

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1477
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13773 on: February 13, 2018, 05:07:10 PM »
To my liberal friends. I just want you to realize - and I hope I've earned your trust as being objective - if President Obama had rolled this proposal out, it would've been praised as "innovative, healthy, and cost-effective."

I'm sure for some of the hacks, sure.  I personally would have the exact same problems with it based on the ideas being pushed around so far.  If there's a good idea in there, it's getting destroyed by real-life details that too many are glossing over. 

Offline bfwissel

  • Premium Member
  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13774 on: February 13, 2018, 05:07:39 PM »
To my liberal friends. I just want you to realize - and I hope I've earned your trust as being objective - if President Obama had rolled this proposal out, it would've been praised as "innovative, healthy, and cost-effective."

Why would someone who is liberal praise Trump's idea as "innovative, healthy, and cost-effective"?  It's prediction that it would save money is based in some fantasy world where shipping to individuals would somehow be cost effective.  It would also decrease freedom to choose foods that satisfy the melting pot of people in this country to one that is more in line with prison meals.  If the goal is healthier food, the SNAP program could emulate WIC (Women, Infants and Children) and just outlaw certain foods from being purchased with food stamps.
"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7733
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13775 on: February 13, 2018, 05:10:28 PM »
All of the Republicans here are completely missing the irony that a Republican president wants to replace a free market mechanism for providing SNAP benefits with a communist system where Big Gubmit decides what rations its low income citizens get.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13776 on: February 13, 2018, 05:11:59 PM »
All of the Republicans here are completely missing the irony that a Republican president wants to replace a free market mechanism for providing SNAP benefits with a communist system where Big Gubmit decides what rations its low income citizens get.

Oh, I agree. I'm just pointing out a contradiction. Though I believe in limited government, I'm actually not opposed to some hand-holding to make sure people get their nutrients. Mrs. Obama's plan was great as an idea, imo.

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7733
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13777 on: February 13, 2018, 05:21:56 PM »
^ The healthy food in schools initiative was completely different than this SNAP proposal.

The current SNAP program allows adults to make decisions about what food they buy, what tradeoffs to make regarding cost/convenience/health/personal preferences. If you want to encourage SNAP recipients to make healthier choices, there are ways you could do so that wouldn't require burning the current system down. Some states are already doing this by offering discounts on produce when paid with EBT cards.

On the other hand, most children are not given many choices regarding what lunches they are served in schools. (My school district didn't offer choices at lunch until I got to high school, when we got the ability to choose between the standard school lunch or the "burger basket".) So it makes total sense to make sure that the lunches that children are given are actually nutritious. Parents who hate Michelle Obama still have the freedom to pack a lunch for their kids.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13778 on: February 13, 2018, 05:32:12 PM »
^I understand it was different.

I am merely here to say that it's my personal belief that government can play a role in providing nutritious food to its citizens. No more, no less.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13779 on: February 13, 2018, 05:39:49 PM »
"Poor people spend their food stamps on steak and lobster!" is a such a BS Republican talking point, it's not even worth responding to.

Not that many Republicans make that point.  There are more of them who *will* argue, with some justification, that poor people tend to spend food budgets on potato chips and Twinkies and other packaged snacks, and will push back on the common liberal complaint that it's just too expensive to eat healthy.  I'll wager I could find a thread on these boards--and I know I could on the old CU ones--where people share fairly cheap meals that they've prepared themselves that still feature whole grains, fresh produce, protein, etc.

That said, I don't even like that line of Republican argument because I share the concerns cited in that NPR article that the government shouldn't be picking and choosing what specific rations of food you get.  The concern cited about saving money by avoiding retail doesn't ring that strongly to me.  Grocery markup isn't usually astronomical, and it saves the government from having to try to manage this logistical and procurement operation--a chance for bureaucracy and bloat if ever there was one.

Of course you can eat healthy foods for not a lot of money, but it generally requires a lot of time for meal preparation. There are people receiving SNAP benefits who work two minimum wage jobs. They last thing they want to do after being exhausted from working 12 hours is come home, open up their kit of government-provided rations, and have to cook a meal from scratch.

While I think the "junk food costs less than healthy food" problem is one we need to solve, I think we need to look at the real reason that many low income people eat unhealthy food. It's because a fast food burger or those darned "salty snacks" may be the only joy and release of dopamines that they get in a day. Let's not pretend like they don't realize that unhealthy food is unhealthy.

Yeah, also a lot of poor people don't have great cooking environments or tools. Cooking in a small kitchen with next to no counter space is pretty damn difficult. You need to have the pans, plates, utensils, etc. too. Some of these items can be obtained through charities or cheaply at places like Goodwill, but it's just yet another barrier to healthy eating choices.

And this is territory that Republicans will fight on.  Limited kitchen space is inconvenient but it is overhyped as a true barrier to healthy eating.  Even limited home time because of having to work two jobs doesn't negate the possibility--while some healthy and cheap home-cooked meals take considerably more prep, not all do.

Granted, of course, the stronger Republican aspiration is for mutual support in a family context, rather than people going it alone or relying excessively on the state.  And the Republican Party is not ignorant of the fact that its appeal is weakest where that ideal is furthest from realization--a poverty-level single mother on food stamps (even if also working), by virtue of those demographic characteristics alone, is unlikely to be a Republican even if white, and of course nearly certainly not if black.  Meanwhile, a married white woman in a household only just barely above the income level that qualifies for food stamps is dramatically more likely to be a Republican.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13780 on: February 13, 2018, 05:50:04 PM »
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/373650-fbi-director-trump-hasnt-directed-me-to-stop-russian-meddling-in-2018

Quote
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday said President Trump hasn’t directed him to stop Russian efforts to interfere in this year’s midterm elections.

“We’re taking a lot of specific efforts to blunt Russian efforts,” Wray said when Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked if he’d been directed by Trump to do so.

“As directed by the president?” Reed interjected.

“Not as specifically directed by the president,” Wray responded.
Very Stable Genius

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13781 on: February 13, 2018, 05:54:47 PM »
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/17007892/rob-porter-white-house-story-what-we-know

The White House was considering promoting Rob Porter shortly before the domestic violence allegations surfaced.
Very Stable Genius

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13782 on: February 13, 2018, 05:55:55 PM »
Quote
Trump’s 34 percent turnover rate in his first year is more than three times as high as President Barack Obama’s in the same period and twice as high as President Ronald Reagan’s, which until now was the modern record-holder. Of 12 positions deemed most central to the president, only five are still filled by the same person as when Mr. Trump took office.

"I only hire the best people."
Very Stable Genius

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13783 on: February 13, 2018, 06:55:39 PM »
The entire point about what poor people buy with their food stamps is moot.  I posted a USA study which shows that the buying patterns are similar to all other Americans.  Therefore,  what problem needs correcting as far as food choices ho?

Online Sir2geez

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 274
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13784 on: February 13, 2018, 07:00:15 PM »
FBI chief: Trump hasn't directed me to stop Russian meddling in midterms

FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday said President Trump hasn't directed him to stop Russian efforts to interfere in this year's midterm elections. "We're taking a lot of specific efforts to blunt Russian efforts," Wray said when Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked if he'd been directed by Trump to do so. "As directed by the president?" Reed interjected.
"Not as specifically directed by the president," Wray responded

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/373650-fbi-director-trump-hasnt-directed-me-to-stop-russian-meddling-in-2018%3famp

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13785 on: February 13, 2018, 07:05:10 PM »
Cannot stress this enough... This is the single largest threat to our national security since 1945. Russia will continue to try to undermine our elections, and each attempt they make at our voting machines allows them to learn more and more.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13786 on: February 13, 2018, 07:07:45 PM »
^ and yet the president has done nothing.   Actually doing nothing would be better than what he has done.  He has deflected and thwarted with assistance of a complicit GOP congress.   

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13787 on: February 13, 2018, 10:34:39 PM »
^ and yet the president has done nothing.   Actually doing nothing would be better than what he has done.  He has deflected and thwarted with assistance of a complicit GOP congress.   

Of course Trump hasn't. Trump/GOP needs Putin to stay in power.

Another article, this time from The Hill...

FBI chief: Trump hasn't directed me to stop Russia from meddling in 2018 midterms https://t.co/8ZlLqZvv2J
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.

Offline X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 10132
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13788 on: February 14, 2018, 12:19:57 AM »
The entire point about what poor people buy with their food stamps is moot.  I posted a USA study which shows that the buying patterns are similar to all other Americans.  Therefore,  what problem needs correcting as far as food choices ho?

I believe that we owe people nutritious food that they need to live, but if they want snacks they can get that with their own money (like all other Americans have to).  Of course, Trump's proposal is ridiculous and unpractical, but I don't see a problem with taking candy, soda, or chips off the approved list for SNAP purchases.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13789 on: February 14, 2018, 12:44:06 AM »
Transport yourself to a world in which it came out that President Obama's lawyer paid $130K to a porn star who claimed to have had an affair with the president. The world would have exploded. Today it's a "meh"

https://twitter.com/morningmoneyben/status/963619368054779904

Tell me again how the liberal media is so unfair to Trump.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 01:02:29 AM by freefourur »

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13790 on: February 14, 2018, 12:58:03 AM »
The entire point about what poor people buy with their food stamps is moot.  I posted a USA study which shows that the buying patterns are similar to all other Americans.  Therefore,  what problem needs correcting as far as food choices ho?

I believe that we owe people nutritious food that they need to live, but if they want snacks they can get that with their own money (like all other Americans have to).  Of course, Trump's proposal is ridiculous and unpractical, but I don't see a problem with taking candy, soda, or chips off the approved list for SNAP purchases.

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP Congress considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

It seems that trying to create limits on what can be purchased would cost more than the savings.  Therefore, making it poor policy and if the shopping habits of recipients match those of non recipients then I see no problem. 

Offline bfwissel

  • Premium Member
  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ***
  • Posts: 1009
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13791 on: February 14, 2018, 10:09:02 AM »
Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP Congress considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

It seems that trying to create limits on what can be purchased would cost more than the savings.  Therefore, making it poor policy and if the shopping habits of recipients match those of non recipients then I see no problem. 

The problem I have with the argument that it would be too hard is that they already have requirements for WIC (Women, Infants and Children).  Why would it be so impossible to do the same with SNAP?  The only reason I can think of is that lobbyists would pressure our Congressmen/Congresswomen to not include their items on the banned list.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-regulatory-requirements-wic-eligible-foods
"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13792 on: February 14, 2018, 10:40:15 AM »
^ I don't think they (USDA) are saying that it's impossible but rather that it would likely cost more than it's worth.  Besides I already hate getting stuck in a line behind someone using WIC vouchers, I couldn't imagine how much slower things would be if that model were expanded.  No thanks.

My solution if we want people to eat healthier foods is to provide a "rebate" for all fresh produce, whole grains, beans, meat and dairy.  For every dollar spent on these items, they receive a matching amount (maybe 25 cents per dollar) in their next months stipend. 
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 10:45:28 AM by freefourur »

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13793 on: February 14, 2018, 11:16:24 AM »
Oops. Somehow this doesn't strike me as a very effective deflection/denial. It sounds more like an admission...

Trump's lawyer says he paid adult film star out of his own pocket
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373753-trumps-lawyer-says-he-paid-adult-film-star-130000-out-of-his-own
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13794 on: February 14, 2018, 11:16:33 AM »

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13795 on: February 14, 2018, 11:28:52 AM »
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/963509387351527425

Quote
#BREAKING: Our coalition of 17 AGs just won a preliminary injunction blocking @POTUS’s discriminatory attempt to end #DACA and deport DREAMers.
Very Stable Genius

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13796 on: February 14, 2018, 11:33:18 AM »
What if ICE agents don't desist? Who's going to physically stop them?
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13797 on: February 14, 2018, 11:43:48 AM »
What if ICE agents don't desist? Who's going to physically stop them?

"Now watch the Supreme Court enforce it" - Andrew Jackson reacting to SCOTUS ruling against Cherokee Migration Proposal aka "Trail of Tears"

Offline mu2010

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13798 on: February 14, 2018, 12:53:13 PM »
You're the attorney not me but isn't that when the US Marshalls arrest somebody for being in contempt of court?

Offline YABO713

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4531
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #13799 on: February 14, 2018, 01:01:48 PM »
You're the attorney not me but isn't that when the US Marshalls arrest somebody for being in contempt of court?

Yeah, they can. But that isn't typically what happens. Most courts are restrained in detaining someone for non-criminal conduct.

Even though it may be the more efficient thing, SCOTUS ordering the arrest of someone is ultimately not great for our Constitutional structure and will inevitably look Banana Republicish. Remember, outside of overriding legislation and impeachment, there really are no checks on SCOTUS, so they're tasked with needing to show extra-human restraint at times.

In our political climate, if SCOTUS ordered the arrest of ICE officers, there would no doubt be an armed conflict.