Vox: Policy Stakes

zoogs

zoogs

New member
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13483020/policy-stakes-2016

Imagine for a moment that Tuesday evening Americans gather round their Twitter feeds and television sets and begin to see that the polls were wrong. Not wrong by much, necessarily, but off by about 5 points in each state, meaning that Donald Trump will be elected president and that Republicans will maintain or even slightly expand their majorities in Congress. Now imagine that none of the darkest fears of Trumps critics come to pass.

He doesn't staff his administration with inept sycophants or sell America out to the Russians or unleash an unprecedented wave of race riots and pogroms or abuse power to persecute his enemies or steal taxpayer money or undermine democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Imagine, in other words, that Trump does what he says he wants to do on taxes, the environment, immigration, and health care. Its true that he is not a passionate policy wonk; nor does he seem like someone who is deeply invested, on a personal level, in the non-immigration aspects of his policy agenda. But the agenda is there, and on all these non-immigration issues his views are basically in line with the vision put forth by Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who will do the boring work of drafting the bills for Trump to sign.
Click to expand...
I *do* want to start a new thread about this, because I think the policy angles deserve to be considered on their own.

A generous discussion in which "demon specter Trump" is replaced by an anodyne signer of Republican bills. An argument framing this election as a choice between "a better way" and an extension of Obama's policies -- including a persuasive, compelling view about which is a radical remake and which is not.

Purely from an issues perspective, I'm opposed to what have become established GOP policy goals. I think this piece does a good job at outlining the reasons for those reservations.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You beat me to posting this, I found it a very interesting read this morning, and although people will chirp automatically about Vox being liberal leaning I found this article to be pretty balanced.

 
Do you really believe that Trump and the republicans would get by with all of this as quoted below? No way Trump deports millions - that hyperbole. He has backed away from his earlier statements regardless. Either way it won't happen. Here is why. In the primaries he has thrown out the redest of the red meat. The GE if elected will moderate him or should. He will not have a mandate like Reagan had. Even if he has a repub house and senate, Congress will not allow the deportation of millions. Ryan and McConnell have opposed Trump's statements in that area. Besides that, the Dems will oppose him in the Senate and with no super majority, like Obama had to pass his radical agenda including the failure that is Obama Care as demonstrated by the high increases in premiums, Trump won't be able to pass any thing radical regardless of his words. The do nothing republicans will no longer have an excuse and will need to work wt the Dems to 'get things done'. No longer can they be obstructionists. There will be moderation. Yes, Obama was talking to UNC students today and he was painting the picture that a Trump election was like the 2nd coming of Genghis Khan . I suspect that true conservatives will be disappointed in Trump in the end but much less than if Clinton was elected. If Clinton is elected and the Repubs hold Congress, we'll have more grid lock and 4 years of investigations. Her radical agenda will be opposed.

By the way, I believe the EPA and agencies need to be limited in their regulations. Congress has failed to fulfill its obligation to legislate and has passed it over to agencies that they have created. The child agencies have become the parent. They have their place of course but too often they have become filled wt progressives who legislate via regulations.

vox quotes

The result would be a sweeping transformation of American life. Millions would be forcibly removed from their homes and communities as new resources and a new mission invigorate the pace of deportations. Taxes would drop sharply for the richest Americans while rising for many middle-class families. Millions of low-income Americans would lose their health insurance, while America’s banks would enjoy the repeal of regulations enacted in the wake of the financial crisis. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would end, likely collapsing global efforts to restrain emissions, greatly increasing the pace of warming

What’s more, under the leadership of Speaker Ryan, House Republicans have already cooked up a massive agenda on domestic policy that commands majority support and that Trump has largely endorsed. The centerpiece is a major cut in taxes for high-income people financed by deep cuts to anti-poverty programs, paired with broad deregulation of the finance and health insurance sectors along with a substantial rollback of federal air pollution regulation.

And you said Vox isn't liberal. Here they are praising Hillary for the opportunity to create a progressive SC. This is my greatest fear in a Hillary presidency. Radical courts that believe babies can be torn apart inches from birth, seconds from birth. Anyone who can support partial birth abortion doesn't deserve our vote. This is more 'progressive' (I call it barbaric) then even the progressive abortion laws of European countries.

vox quote:

Clinton, by contrast, will almost certainly be dealing with a Republican House that makes it difficult for her to enact much in the way of dramatic new legislation. But she will probably have a chance to create the first progressive Supreme Court majority in a generation and back it up with a sweeping transformation of America’s lower courts. She is promising to do meaningful things on climate change through executive action and has made some very aggressive commitments on immigration.

 
There's a lot to unpack there.

I'll start with this:

Radical courts that believe babies can be torn apart inches from birth, seconds from birth.
Click to expand...
Fiction.

As for the Supreme Court, yes, it would be the first opportunity for a progressive Supreme Court in a generation. Why? Because conservatives have dominated the Court for the previous generation. To their dismay, some of their most ideologically rigorous hopes have gone over the other side; these are regarded as ghastly failures and resulted in even more rigor in assuring a stranglehold on their partisan majority.

In response to the very first time they will not have a 5-4 majority, the Party that will not accept anything less than a total agent of their will has stonewalled Obama's nominee and are currently promising to stonewall Hillary for another four years.

(4) 1x Reagan, 1x HW, 2x W

(4+1) 2x Clinton, 2x Obama (+1, pending)

When Obama took office, it looked like this:

(7) 2x Reagan, 2x HW, 2x W, 1x Ford

(2) 2x Clinton

When Bush took office, it looked like this:

(7) 3x Reagan, 2x HW, 1x Nixon, 1x Ford

(2) 2x Clinton

When Clinton took office -- 24 years ago -- it looked like this:

(8) 3x Reagan, 2x HW, 2x Nixon, 1x Ford

(1) 1x Ford, 1x Kennedy

Generally, I view the prospect of a progressive Supreme Court as balance that's past due. I don't think liberals are nearly as uniform in their demands for an ideological bastion on the Court. Many of the names floated around for Obama's nomination were quite moderate, and very well esteemed. This fact made them subject to some gnashing of the teeth from parts of the Left ("Merrick Garland is tough on crime!"), and an apoplectic meltdown from the Right.

Furthermore, two of the three oldest Justices are solidly on the liberal wing (RBG and Souter), and the third (Kennedy) was the closest to the middle of the conservative wing. These are the only likely retirees in a Clinton presidency.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
There's a lot to unpack there.

I'll start with this:

Radical courts that believe babies can be torn apart inches from birth, seconds from birth.
Click to expand...
Fiction.

As for the Supreme Court, yes, it would be the first opportunity for a progressive Supreme Court in a generation. Why? Because conservatives have dominated the Court for the previous generation. To their dismay, some of their most ideologically rigorous hopes have gone over the other side; these are regarded as ghastly failures and resulted in even more rigor in assuring a stranglehold on their partisan majority.

In response to the very first time they will not have a 5-4 majority, the Party that will not accept anything less than a total agent of their will has stonewalled Obama's nominee and are currently promising to stonewall Hillary for another four years.

(4) 1x Reagan, 1x HW, 2x W

(4+1) 2x Clinton, 2x Obama (+1, pending)

When Obama took office, it looked like this:

(7) 2x Reagan, 2x HW, 2x W, 1x Ford

(2) 2x Clinton

When Bush took office, it looked like this:

(7) 3x Reagan, 2x HW, 1x Nixon, 1x Ford

(2) 2x Clinton

When Clinton took office -- 24 years ago -- it looked like this:

(8) 3x Reagan, 2x HW, 2x Nixon, 1x Ford

(1) 1x Ford, 1x Kennedy

Generally, I view the prospect of a progressive Supreme Court as balance that's past due. I don't think liberals are nearly as uniform in their demands for an ideological bastion on the Court. Many of the names floated around for Obama's nomination were quite moderate, and very well esteemed. This fact made them subject to some gnashing of the teeth from parts of the Left ("Merrick Garland is tough on crime!"), and an apoplectic meltdown from the Right.

Furthermore, two of the three oldest Justices are solidly on the liberal wing (RBG and Souter), and the third (Kennedy) was the closest to the middle of the conservative wing. These are the only likely retirees in a Clinton presidency.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the Scalia replacement. I think Garland was a good candidate by Obama. I think, however, Hillary goes wt more progressive candidates than a Garland.

The Fiction part: Are you saying partial birth doesn't occur right before birth or that courts aren't radical when they allow such a procedure via the supposed right found somehow in the 14th amendment.

 
Trump/GOP and Climate Policy.

Some of these moves will be easy for Trump and Republicans in Congress to pull off. Others will be harder: Senate Democrats and environmental groups in court will fight them tooth and nail, as they did during the Reagan and Bush years. But there’s no escaping the fact that the GOP is in a strong position to demolish and reshape the regime of environmental protection that has been built up over the past 50 years.
Click to expand...
One of the biggest issues on the ballot to me this year. And a source of incredible frustration.

 
zoogs said:
Trump/GOP and Climate Policy.

Some of these moves will be easy for Trump and Republicans in Congress to pull off. Others will be harder: Senate Democrats and environmental groups in court will fight them tooth and nail, as they did during the Reagan and Bush years. But theres no escaping the fact that the GOP is in a strong position to demolish and reshape the regime of environmental protection that has been built up over the past 50 years.
Click to expand...
One of the biggest issues on the ballot to me this year. And a source of incredible frustration.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's a complete no-brainer and a big reason why I'm staunchly anti-Republican.
Is money more important than being able to breathe the air, having access to water, and not killing off more and more species of animals and plants? (The answer is no).

Also, it doesn't make a lick of sense that preventing damage to the environment is considered non-conservative.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top