u/nemoomen

I have had my username since before the Nemo Omen was a gun, but these days I'd be fine.

Ironically I'm pretty staunchly anti gun but I'm pro being able to hide in anonymity because all the Google results about my username are filled with gun stuff.

The context is so different that the answer has to be "in some ways yes in other ways no."

Jackson wanted to expand the right to vote...to white men who didn't own land. How do we compare that to a president in the modern day? Is it a closer approximation if someone wants to expand the right to vote to more people in the present day, or is that too different a concept, and the equivalent is helping non-land-owners in the working class?

I think it's worth more to think about what you're trying to ask here. Is he Jacksonian in that his political worldview becomes dominant and persistent? I think we have disproven "dominant" at this point but I do think persistent. He has changed the Republican Party to a new party, we're going to have people voting in the next election who were 6 in 2016, this IS the Republican party to them and they would find it crazy if you said Mitt Romney could ever be a presidential candidate for that party.

Obviously a party has to have more than just opposition, this is a critique leveled every 2 years at whoever is out of power.

For a minority party the Democrats have been getting their stuff out there more than usual with the shutdown for limits on ICE, getting the Epstein Files released, passing a war powers resolution against action in Iran.

Someone told him all the women he appointed must be DEI hires. Gabbana following Noem and Bondi.

On the economy, in general yes. I think the economy would be limping along basically like this regardless of who was president.

But I'm not shouting at the rooftops because broad tariffs and Iran are, like I said, some of the few things that actually do impact the economy and in this case they make it worse based on unilateral Administration action. One of the few Administrations that actually should be blamed for gas prices.

We give way too much credit and blame to presidents for the economy. They do have the ability to make an impact, but it gets swamped by private sector factors unless it's a particular subset of things with a big enough impact.

Oil shocks significantly hurt the economy. They are almost always political, from the 1973 shock for supporting Israel to 1979 with Iran, to Ukraine/Russia, and now Iran (again). Agree or disagree with the process on any one of those, but it is a political decision the president makes.

Other things are matters of degree. Tariff solar panels and yes, that is a political decision that hurts the US economy, but it's not going to register on any graph. Increase tariffs on everything from everywhere by 10% or more, and that's noticeable.

One positive thing they do is rally support for stimulus packages in a recession. I don't know that it's worth breaking out Congress as separate in this discussion, yes they pass it, but they wouldn't without the president's support.

I knew it would be bad but after he won I actually thought, at least he's not a W Bush type Republican who's going to send us to war in the Middle East.

I don't think Build The Wall is a good use of money, I'm glad he just kinda forgot about that core plank of his 2016 campaign, but at least it wouldn't have been the giant self own of tariffs and Iran.

My brother in law is a Burmese chef who spent time in Thailand, and he refuses to make Pad Thai in his restaurant because he considers it garbage street food, like serving the free bar peanuts in a restaurant.

My question is, what were those 5k troops doing? And what else are we doing in the German bases?

If the same people are just doing the same stuff from some other base, then moving them around doesn't do much unless we can close a base.

I'm all for shrinking down the number of US bases if we're maintaining all our important processes, that money can be better used elsewhere. I don't think that is what is happening here.

Does anyone really believe timely passage of the farm bill is swaying a single vote when gas prices are up as high as they are and masked government agents are murdering US citizens?

This is a planted story so that when they DO lose the House, the new minority whip can use this as an explanation and get everyone lined up behind them.

Absolutely no reason to give this article a second thought if you're a discerning news consumer.

That doesn't work in a two party system. The midpoint would just shift.

The US is conservative relative to other countries, but some degree of small-c conservatism makes sense for a country that performs so well economically.

It is objectively funny that even specifically Iran was the war all the Trump supporters (and Trump himself on Twitter in the past) warned the other side was going to start. And then he does it.

If you count all the VA benefits that will be paid out through the rest of the lives of those deployed, it's multiples more, and we WILL be paying it.

I believe in open borders for libertarian reasons.

There's no rule saying we'll be fine.

But we're all working towards it.

WW2 ended September 2nd 1945, + 9 months = Summer 1946.

Whoops.

It's better to keep some FAAB for playoffs if you can, but you gotta assume your league mates are going all in and you need to outbid whatever they're bidding.

You c*n't

swear on the internet.

Facebook expanded beyond college-only in 2007 IIRC.

In the absence of signed MOUs from Trump’s transition team, the current government cannot begin the process of providing briefings or security clearances for incoming officials.

OK that's obviously making the US less secure and it's dangerous but it only really hurts the future Trump Administration, I wonder why they would---

Crucially, the FBI also remains unable to conduct any background checks on the president-elect’s prospective cabinet, raising alarm over the possibility that senators may be rushed into voting on his nominations without the appropriate due diligence having been carried out.

Got it.

To do anything not strictly related to taxes, they'd have to abolish the filibuster in the Senate, which they would need 50 Senators to agree to, which they probably don't have.

They would also need all Republicans in the House to agree to whatever it is, with a margin of error of 2-5 members.

It's not that it can't be done but it would have to be a pretty perfectly crafted law.

Who's tolerating? Nobody knows who did it.

19 year old home breaking down eh? We have different styles. My house is 100+ years old. The roof, yes also needs to be replaced. And yes, there's 100 years of weird decisions to marvel at, but that's part of the charm.

Go run independent local candidates in Utah (lots of anti-Trump Republicans), Alaska and Maine (low population, lots of independents, ranked choice voting), and Washington/California/Louisiana because of their jungle primaries.