Realcent.org

I would have preferred the result..resulted in more balance. But then I thought, Is there a republican anymore?

Republicans are done IMO, thank God.
All the politics aside. What can be a good thing? What is next?

Rebuild the rust belt?
Start a war?
The Wall?

The gridlock is over.

However, it all depends on Trump's leadership style. If he works with congress, things will move. If he tries to direct congress, it will be like an ineffectual 3rd party president, and not much will change.

IdahoCopper wrote:The gridlock is over.

However, it all depends on Trump's leadership style. If he works with congress, things will move. If he tries to direct congress, it will be like an ineffectual 3rd party president, and not much will change.

All politics aside please

Is anything "real" going to happen?
America bet the farm on an obviously flawed (like everyone) but motivational guy.

Once everything, the shock settles down, what happens?

1st thing remove the white house garden day 1
Day 2 troops on the ground to get rid of ISIS
1 year from now fix Obama Care

Trumps choices for cabinet will tell a tale of the future. If it is filled with CEOs from fortune 500 companies I expect we will see a shift in the control of the fascist (marriage between government and corporations that uses the military to achieve it's goals) direction I see our country moving towards. Less government control and more business controlled.

If it turns this way, lobbyist will be less of a profitable profession as the board room will have its hands more directly on the levers of power instead of the puppets. Unless, The Donald turns out to be a more benevolent dictator who will actually allow more of the wealth and power to flow to the people in the trenches, the communities in which they live and the states they reside in, instead of elite pockets. Did he profess something like this? It did seem to me his speeches were designed to imply the improvement of the lot of the commoner. Or does "make America Great again" have a different meaning?

I think we will see change and it appears it will include less government (a libertarian dream). But what remains to be seen is if the power of the international corporations increases proportionally.

Again, not afraid to say I may be wrong. I was wrong about Brexit and Trump winning the white house so I'm 0 for 2 in thinking TPTB would allow both to happen and allow the change to occur to the status quo. I ponder, perhaps this is the change TPTB have wanted and obtained? And all having been done democratically by We the People.

Certainly the peoples of the UK and USA now accept the responsibility that this is the change we made happen of our own free will. Time will tell. But, my paranoia of human behavior has saved my arse many more times than once.

Hell, I want to see him build the wall and make Mexico pay for it. If he does this, he will have at least kept his first and primay campaign promise. More than many of the predicessors ever did.

Ah, but did TPTB want you to think they wanted to let that happen.

Well all jokes aside, i think hillary and obama both gave great speeches this afternoon.. You vould tell it really stung her and him, both the swollowed that horse pill and put america first. Honestly, there is a lot to say about that

Republicans control the presidency, the senate, the house, and immediately get to choose a supreme court justice.

On the surface, it would appear that conservatives can do whatever they want.

But Trump is not a conservative. Trump is a populist who ran a "hope and change" campaign. And half of the republican party still greatly dislikes him.

Will that change? Quite possibly.

His cabinet picks will start to tell the story. If he brings in a bunch of establishment figures like Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions, he may appease the party and get along better with congress, but nothing much will change for the American people. If he brings in actual outsiders we may see a genuine shift in executive policy, but he will have a much harder time getting those proposals through congress. It will most likely be a medley of insiders and outsiders.

Trump following through on his promise to dismantle Obama's executive orders would be a good place to start in January.

IdahoCopper is right. If Trump tries to tell congress what to do, he will get nowhere. This will be a much different position of power than he is accustomed to. He can't fire congress, he can't buy his ideas into existence (at least not in way he is used to), and he has to reconcile with voters in four years (though historically voters are very hesitant to vote an incumbent president out of office, even with low approval ratings).

His victory speech at three this morning, in contrast to the vast majority of his campaigning, came off as level-headed and unifying. Hopefully that is a sign of things to come. Otherwise we are in for a very bumpy ride.

daviscfad wrote:<snip>]i think hillary and obama both gave great speeches this afternoon..<snip>

You gotta look at here eyes as she is giving her consolatory speech. It's not normal. I had to stop watching at around 2 1/2 minutes.

I think he works mostly at what he said the whole time myself. Given the way he portrayed his stances which imo were much more nuanced then he is given credit for I believe he understands both the population and the government then most give him credit for. I expect him to play the population off of the government. I expect him to attempt to force the government to do what he wants by offering the general population something many on both sides want in such a way WE force the hand of congress and the senate. He sees the chess board, and he knows how to get one piece to move another.

I expect him to attempt to streamline spending at many levels in a way we havent seen before. Get the same things we pay for currently done for less. I expect the more reactionary portion of the left to continue in the streets and increase in intensity over time. They have been trained imo to think hes the rising of hitler and many things hes does will not seem like this to rational people but it will to them. The crack down on said riots will only inspire them to do it more. Util average day to day people are just fed up with it. Especially since imo most will like him especially the middle which is where the population is trending.

I expect mostly quality cabinet picks. with a few WTH moments thrown in. He will pick people known for results mostly.

2 years from now many will imo consider him the best president of the modern era, at the same time a more radical portion still sees hitler after hes gutted government in various ways while still keeping it top heavy but streamlined. Things will mov slow at first, lots of critics but as he gets the ball rolling things will cascade into new patterns.

I expect democrats to be GUTTED. Doesnt matter if obama pardons a few key people. Many will be in prison or crushe dpoltically.

I expect Trumps brand of populism breeds a new american dream, that creates a new poltical dynasty. Far from my personal ideal but insanely better then the currently path of interventionism and globalism. This happens as people realize he really WAS doing this because of his vision for the nation and a desire to re build the middle class and put the nation on a stable course. People like nate and john might never be happy through this because imo they are purists. They will see only a demagogue and wont understand the appeal thinking he has us all brainwashed, but they arent the types to join the rioters either, whom they might see as justified.

Most righties, the middle and many lefties will like it. It wont be my ideal at all either especially since although streamlined things will be top heavy towards the gov still. It will however be effective and put the US on a stable path forward. The american dream will wake up, centered more around work ethic and a brand of blind fairness. Not handout fairness. Jobs americans wont do anymore? That wont be a thing by the time hes done. People will wonder how they ever fell into such a silly mindset to begin with. Meanwhile the radicalized "learned" group continues to fester and boil over and will essentially eat themselves.

Trumps populism will go global within 2-4 years. Warping the whole political landscape. Many long time allies will despise us, amny will be confused and many will be inspired. For the inspired ones, they carry the torch of the future. How closely did you all follow his speeches? The guys a tank and bulldog. There will be none of this, he never gets his way and ends up a lame duck. His opponents will fall before him. his opponents politically will become the shrill angry ones they told us Trump was. If his planned path fails he retreats and finds another. We didnt just hire a guy who lays down and quits if he doesnt get his way. Some things he does might fail entirely, detractors will go wild with delight, as he simply picks up and moves on.

Ivanka will be the first actual female president likely 8 years from now, voted in by a landslide. A new dynasty was born last night. People dont get that yet, but just watch I bet Im right. She will do what hillary did as first lady, and be involved politically in some way. This will also drive anti trump people wild, but it will be well imed and those who like the trumps by that point will have no issues seeing her as worthwhile.



You know what? I did this exact thing as Bush came to power, then obama. I was mostly right both times and certainly in the general outlines. LOL guess we will know in a few years if Im 3 for 3. It will take awhile for him to get the ball moving but I expect this is the general outline of how it will play out.

Any idea on the level of those three proposed tax brackets and likelihood they come about? For those keeping score at home we now have 7 tax brackets.

natsb88 wrote:Republicans control the presidency, the senate, the house, and immediately get to choose a supreme court justice.

What's to stop Obama from (attempting to) filling the vacancy? I was under the impression he was only waiting as a courtesy to Hillary?

beauanderos wrote:

natsb88 wrote:Republicans control the presidency, the senate, the house, and immediately get to choose a supreme court justice.

What's to stop Obama from (attempting to) filling the vacancy? I was under the impression he was only waiting as a courtesy to Hillary?

Oh no they pushed it a bit. republicans wouldnt let it pass insisting they would wait for the next president instead. Many on the left interpreted this as a failure of democracy rather then part of the checks and balances purposely built into our government. If you read many left leaning sources presidents are dictators and should be able to pass anything they want anytime.

We had a president that didn't like the results of only 6 Justices, so he packed the court with three more. And that my friends, is how Socialism got a toehold in the USA.


Why are there 9 Supremes?
There don't have to be—the Constitution doesn't specify—and there weren't always. The Federal Judiciary Act called for a chief justice and five associate justices. And the Court didn't settle into the current lineup of eight associates and a chief until the late 1860s.

A sixth associate was added in 1807, a seventh and eighth in 1837, and a ninth in 1863. Congress sought to restructure the Court during the contentious administration of Andrew Johnson, Abraham Lincoln's controversial successor. A law passed in 1866 called for a decrease in the number of associate justices from nine to six through the process of attrition. Seven associates still remained on the bench in 1869, when a law was passed to increase the number back to eight. By that time President Ulysses S. Grant had taken office.

That's how things stood until 1935, when a largely conservative Court unanimously overturned three of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal provisions. Roosevelt was reelected by a landslide the next year. So in 1937, he invested his political capital in making the court more liberal and, presumably, more enthusiastic about the New Deal.

Roosevelt proposed the "Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937" -- known ever since as "the Court-packing scheme." The Supreme Court would add one justice for every sitting justice over age 70. Roosevelt argued that the Court, with its six septuagenarians, wasn't up to the job. (In the current Court, six justices will be at least 70 by the end of 2008.)

http://mentalfloss.com/article/18976/wh ... -court-all

I think the Senate/DJT could shock the world again and crush their political opponents again like this:
The Senate should conform Merrick Garland ASAP. If they don't, DJT should nominate him on January 21.

Democrats wouldn't know what to do....and Republicans would gain some big credibility as "healers" and "uniters"

natsb88 wrote: Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions

Sessions is cool. Christie just rubs me the wrong way. If Trump feels like he owes Christie a position at the WH, I hope he just makes him the food taster.

Christy is the kind of guy who would make you sit in traffic for hours so he can score some political points. Guiliani is a political ghoul. There are rumors floating that Trump is considering Jaime Dimon for treasury secretary. To even consider him would be like considering John Dillinger for a bank manager job.

I like what Treetop said.

Cut Federal employment in half the first year. The first to go are the ones who do not pay their TAXES, that should not take Two Weeks. Congressional committees should make a staff chore of listing any fed reg in Their Areas that interfere with States Rights, the Elected Comm should have power to rescind the bureaucrats BS. Congress Staff may grow but each staff comm in That Area should Sunset every Six months. Some regulations may need to be reinstated but in the meantime let the chips fall, Especially for those three months past due on Taxes.
Make this stick by never rehiring any one fired for PAST tax issues. Any elected Federal office holder has 90 days to get Current or they GO.

Yes I was one who thought He was buggered by the [big people] JACK ASSES

If you don't want to do the TIME don't do the CRIME.

blackrabbit wrote:Christy is the kind of guy who would make you sit in traffic for hours so he can score some political points. Guiliani is a political ghoul. There are rumors floating that Trump is considering Jaime Dimon for treasury secretary. To even consider him would be like considering John Dillinger for a bank manager job.

God, I hope you are wrong.

So Trump indeed selected Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. Not a surprise. He is also a populist, and a big endorsement. And a 20-year senator, with a 20+ year career in government attorney positions before that. How "outsider"

Sessions has been talking about a wall for more than a decade. He has also called for reducing the amount of legal immigration allowed, opposes making it easier to immigrate legally, and he opposes free trade at every opportunity.

He supported the war in Iraq. He said of anti-war protesters: "The group who spoke here the other day did not represent the American ideals of freedom, liberty, and spreading that around the world. I frankly don't know what they represent, other than to blame America first." Yeah, we spread so much freedom and liberty to Iraq He also voted against legislation prohibiting the US military from engaging in torture (it passed 90 to 9).

“The civil libertarians among us would rather defend the constitution than protect our nation’s security.” - 2007 defending the Patriot Act

In 2015 he argued to keep and renew the Patriot Act as-is, specifically bulk data collection. He argued that the USA Freedom Act warrant process was too burdensome and the NSA would not be able to access data quick enough to combat Islamic terrorism. (How many terror plots has mass surveillance and bulk data collection uncovered and stopped? none, apparently. the only terror plots the government claims credit for stopping have been DHS/FBI sting operations where they provided the plans and materials and instructions and waited for people dumb enough to take the bait)

Sessions is a strong supporter of civil asset forfeiture. He has opposed reform saying it "would be a huge detriment to law enforcement.”

“Good people don’t smoke marijuana. We need grown ups in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it is in fact a very real danger.” - April 2016 senate hearing

"I’m a big fan of the DEA. These legalization efforts sound good to people. They say, ‘We could just end the problem of drugs if we could just make it legal.’ But any country that’s tried that, Alaska and other places have tried it, have failed. It does not work." - categorically false statements made in a 2010 meeting with the DEA director

Sessions can undo the 2009/2013 Justice Department memorandums that instruct federal agencies not to interfere with state marijuana laws if he so desires. Seems like a very real possibility.

He also voted in favor of constitutional amendments banning flag desecration and gay marriage and has a laundry list of anti-gay positions and votes. He is a divisive figure, not a unifying figure.

Sessions has his moments, but he gets far too much credit from liberty lovers. He is definitely an establishment figure. The neocon wing of the GOP should like him.

Trump's pick for CIA director, Mike Pompeo, is also a big supporter of the NSA and warrantless data collection. "Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database. Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed." He has criticized shutting down CIA black sites and requiring CIA interrogators to adhere to anti-torture laws. He also said in February that the proper outcome for Edward Snowden is a death sentence.

What a refreshing outsider anti-establishment perspective

Rosco wrote:I like what Treetop said.

Cut Federal employment in half the first year. The first to go are the ones who do not pay their TAXES, that should not take Two Weeks. Congressional committees should make a staff chore of listing any fed reg in Their Areas that interfere with States Rights,<snip> Any elected Federal office holder has 90 days to get Current or they GO.

<snip>.

I like the way he thinks, too!

natsb88 wrote:
What a refreshing outsider anti-establishment perspective

Your posts cracked me up honestly. Unless you changed your mind you voted for a guy who called his VP pick his co president who supported much of what you outlined in addition to banning almost all guns.

Im not surprised by these cabinet picks at all myself. It would be impossible to get most of what he outlined done without working with established politicians and thus far hes appointing the established people who supported him. These picks do not by themselves show he isnt going to attempt what he said at all. Hed be a complete lame duck and never get any of his people approved if he picked true outsiders, instead he put in those who supported him. This is actually rather obvious imo.

We wont have any real indication if he is leading as an outsider until he is actually in office and we see if he acts on most of what he promised or not. He always seemed more strategic then most give him credit for to me. If he HAD pushed for actual outsiders Id be drastically more concerned for the chances hed accomplish anything positive because it would show me he wasnt strategic at all. Not to mention many or all of them would never be approved anyway. So I took these picks as a very good sign myself. Thus far mostly insiders who showed support or atleast acceptance of Trump. He may indeed get things done. He may indeed understand the chess board. Time will tell, but these picks were a good sign for anyone supportive of Trumps policies that can see the bigger picture.

If you saw his list of things hes after to "drain the swamp" for instance, it would be impossible to do even in our warped state of affairs with to much power in the executive office in a nation with checks and balances without many insiders in your corner.

We will know for sure a few months or a year tops after he is in office if he is a real outsider to washington or not. As I already said though these picks are all good signs though. He would have proven himself an idiot if he went with actual outsiders at this stage. Hed have been more of a lame duck then carter perhaps. More of a joke for sure.

Putting disagreeable establishment authoritarians (swamp monsters) in positions of significant power in government (the swamp) and scratching their backs because they scratched his back (political favors) are all signs that Trump is a strategic non-politician outsider who is right on track to change everything. Got it.

Undeniably imo. Without any insiders in his corner he will get nowhere. Hes putting in the insiders that showed support for him, he needs such people to even have a chance. You mock it but its point blank obvious imo. If he is half of what he claimed to be he already has an uphill battle even WITH a bunch of insiders on his side. Leadership of both parties didnt like him keep in mind. the GOP didnt even give him a single dollar for his campaign when its generally half they give of the monies raised during the election. It isnt even necessarily that he gave them positions because they showed support although maybe. Its just as likely if he is what he claimed to be he surrounded himself with proven allies. This is mandatory ESPECIALLY if he truly intends to "drain the swamp". Without allies hes an orange lame duck with lame hair. with allies, if he is what he claimed, he might actually get some of it done. Still funny that you voted for a swamp monster supporting most of what you said who also wants most of your guns.

We will see if Trump was serious once hes actually in office. He was always a gamble. But we already knew we lost with all the other 3 major picks. Trump can get a decent amount done with executive action since obama and others made it with executive action. His more interesting proposals however he will need most of congress and the senate behind him. this is 100% impossible without allies.