[Discussion] Hope to Remember The Trump Administration Thread as being 'transparent and honest'

Let's follow and discuss what our newest presidential administration gets up to, the good, the bad, the lawsuits, and the many many indictments.

Bruce wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
Stele wrote:

US fights UN recommendation for breast feeding.

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

This is us now. Corporate welfare above all else. To hell with children as long as some asshole makes more money next quarter.

A lot of those studies have been debunked. The few statistically significant differences, as long as the formula is manufactured correctly, are minimal. Something like 6 women have to breastfeed for 9 months to prevent one ear infection.

On top of that, in a lot of developing nations, women aren't getting enough nutrition for themselves, let alone breastfeed. Formula at least ensures the kids are developing well. Again, as long as it is made to standards. Maybe fix the hunger problems before shaming formula-using parents.

Breastfeeding came back into vogue in the US as a way for the upper class to say, "I make so much my wife can stay home all day" and look down on formula families where both parents work, and eventually "studies" were done to making the working class feel worse about being poor.

Also, I wouldn't want someone getting 2 hours of sleep on a good night driving themselves or a baby around.

Source: Adam Ruins Everything and related science journalism.

Seems like it is still up for debate.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w24452
"Mortality from Nestlé's Marketing of Infant Formula in Low and Middle-Income Countries"

Published March this year.

I feel like the media is really milking this story for all its worth.

Bruce wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
Stele wrote:

US fights UN recommendation for breast feeding.

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

This is us now. Corporate welfare above all else. To hell with children as long as some asshole makes more money next quarter.

A lot of those studies have been debunked. The few statistically significant differences, as long as the formula is manufactured correctly, are minimal. Something like 6 women have to breastfeed for 9 months to prevent one ear infection.

On top of that, in a lot of developing nations, women aren't getting enough nutrition for themselves, let alone breastfeed. Formula at least ensures the kids are developing well. Again, as long as it is made to standards. Maybe fix the hunger problems before shaming formula-using parents.

Breastfeeding came back into vogue in the US as a way for the upper class to say, "I make so much my wife can stay home all day" and look down on formula families where both parents work, and eventually "studies" were done to making the working class feel worse about being poor.

Also, I wouldn't want someone getting 2 hours of sleep on a good night driving themselves or a baby around.

Source: Adam Ruins Everything and related science journalism.

Seems like it is still up for debate.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w24452
"Mortality from Nestlé's Marketing of Infant Formula in Low and Middle-Income Countries"

Published March this year.

That paper says the primary vector for the deaths is unclean water. Which will also harm breastmilk, just not as much. Yes, Nestle pushed marketing in places with bad water, but that is a knock against Nestle the company, not formula feeding writ-large.

Nomad wrote:

I feel like the media is really milking this story for all its worth.

It's the mother of all clickbait.

CaptainCrowbar wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I feel like the media is really milking this story for all its worth.

It's the mother of all clickbait.

Can't fault some people for wanting to keep abreast of the situation.

Rat Boy wrote:
CaptainCrowbar wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I feel like the media is really milking this story for all its worth.

It's the mother of all clickbait.

Can't fault some people for wanting to keep abreast of the situation.

Keeping abreast is the formula for success.

Mixolyde wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:
CaptainCrowbar wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I feel like the media is really milking this story for all its worth.

It's the mother of all clickbait.

Can't fault some people for wanting to keep abreast of the situation.

Keeping abreast is the formula for success.

I hate to skim, but this thread seems about 2% more enjoyable today based on recent posts.

Honestly, I’ve just been skimming it.

Huh. He chose a white male who thinks the president can't be indicted for a crime and praised the dissent in Roe.

Weird.

So weird.

oilypenguin wrote:

Huh. He chose a white male who thinks the president can't be indicted for a crime and praised the dissent in Roe.

Weird.

Not what I expected at all.

BlackSheep wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Huh. He chose a white male who thinks the president can't be indicted for a crime and praised the dissent in Roe.

Weird.

Not what I expected at all.

Yes, this a complete surprise.

Is this where he finally pivots?

Would've been the same pick of Rubio Cruz Romney or Jeb. Elections matter.

Mmmm...dbl post in honor of our double think era.

Top_Shelf wrote:

Would've been the same pick of Rubio Cruz Romney or Jeb. Elections matter.

Hmmmm. I dunno. The media played up the relationship between 45 and our turncoat retiring scj. I dunno if he would’ve retired had another repub been in office. Conjecture, I know but.....

Some of the rumblings around Twitter suggest that this pick is interesting because he's got a massive paper trail, and also a lot of emails from the Starr investigation that are all public domain. Theoretically, that could give the dems a way to push for postponing hearings to allow time to vet that paper trail, and also make them available to the public, like Kagan's emails were posted online.

But I'm just being optimistic. In reality, McConnell is going to get the hearing process done as quickly as possible, it's going to be a 51-49 vote, and we're going to be stuck with this guy for half a century.

Well, probably less than that, because I honestly don't see the SCOTUS being a going concern that long, necessarily.

My feeling is that for every Justice 45 seats, the democrats should add the same number +1 to the court to compensate.

Mixolyde wrote:

My feeling is that for every Justice 45 seats, the democrats should add the same number +1 to the court to compensate.

Agreed. Or they should impeach the sitting justices. Gotta get a much larger senate majority for that. But if Trump turns out to have been a traitor, remove his justices.

firesloth wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

My feeling is that for every Justice 45 seats, the democrats should add the same number +1 to the court to compensate.

Agreed. Or they should impeach the sitting justices. Gotta get a much larger senate majority for that. But if Trump turns out to have been a traitor, remove his justices.

I am going to lean into the Open Arguments stance on this one: It is a really bad precedent to set to impeach justices for anything other than actual gross misconduct, no matter how odious or controversial or treacherous the person who nominated them is. If the justice them-self hasn't done anything wrong, you are just throwing them out for political reasons and once you start that you might as well scrap the whole system.

thrawn82 wrote:
firesloth wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

My feeling is that for every Justice 45 seats, the democrats should add the same number +1 to the court to compensate.

Agreed. Or they should impeach the sitting justices. Gotta get a much larger senate majority for that. But if Trump turns out to have been a traitor, remove his justices.

I am going to lean into the Open Arguments stance on this one: It is a really bad precedent to set to impeach justices for anything other than actual gross misconduct, no matter how odious or controversial or treacherous the person who nominated them is. If the justice them-self hasn't done anything wrong, you are just throwing them out for political reasons and once you start that you might as well scrap the whole system.

And that's the dangerous place trump has put us in. He's spending all his time blowing up norms, if the next person does that too, we run the risk of being in the same boat with the NEXT president.

oilypenguin wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
firesloth wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

My feeling is that for every Justice 45 seats, the democrats should add the same number +1 to the court to compensate.

Agreed. Or they should impeach the sitting justices. Gotta get a much larger senate majority for that. But if Trump turns out to have been a traitor, remove his justices.

I am going to lean into the Open Arguments stance on this one: It is a really bad precedent to set to impeach justices for anything other than actual gross misconduct, no matter how odious or controversial or treacherous the person who nominated them is. If the justice them-self hasn't done anything wrong, you are just throwing them out for political reasons and once you start that you might as well scrap the whole system.

And that's the dangerous place trump has put us in. He's spending all his time blowing up norms, if the next person does that too, we run the risk of being in the same boat with the NEXT president.

I can't help but think that if there's ever another Republican President that follows a Democratic President, things are so far gone that it's game over, anyway.

A decent Republican President would look back on the Trump Presidency and say "yeah, as part of proving we're NOT the party of Trump anymore, we're willing to re-establish norms and precedents by chalkling up what the Democrats did to resist Trump to it being an emergency situation."

The norms and precedents that could come back to bite the Democrats are things they transgress a *minority* party. It's the things an out-of-power Ever Trump Republican Party is willing to do on its way down that are worth worrying about.

Even there I'm not sure Ever Trump Republicans are held back by norms or precedent. To the extent they follow them, I think it's because they don't see it in their interest to violate them just yet.

On norms:

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/1755160...

TLDR: the reactionary conservative Republican party is actively "normalizing" non-democratic politics. And has been for a while.

Top_Shelf wrote:

On norms:

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/1755160...

TLDR: the reactionary conservative Republican party is actively "normalizing" non-democratic politics. And has been for a while.

I thought this was an interesting article but I'm unsure as to what the "response" is supposed to be.

OK, so the Republican "normal" is not normal at all/democratic. And so ...?

Regarding crumbling democratic legitimacy

Essentially, every branch of the federal government is facing some sort of legitimacy crisis now. We don't know exactly where the legitimacy breaking point is—people still acknowledge the jurisdiction of the federal government, people use American currency and generally operate as though the system is functional, candidates still file to run for office in elections believed to be fair and open. But it seems likely that we're closer to that breaking point than we've been in a long time.
And the current GOP's approach has generally been to double down on the illegitimacy problem by making it harder for Democrats to vote—passing voter ID laws, purging the rolls of infrequent voters, reducing the number of polling stations, limiting early voting, and so forth. Republicans are settling in to be the minority party in power for many years to come, and they are increasingly testing many voters' faith in the system.
Again, the Constitution allows for popular vote losers to become president, just as it allows for senators representing sparsely populated states to outvote those representing far more people. But there are dangers when those conditions exist too frequently and for too long, and there are further dangers in exacerbating those conditions. Whether you want to call the U.S. a democracy or a republic or anything else, it is a system that rests on democratic legitimacy to operate. If people come to doubt that legitimacy, the consequences could be profound.
matttutor wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:

On norms:

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/1755160...

TLDR: the reactionary conservative Republican party is actively "normalizing" non-democratic politics. And has been for a while.

I thought this was an interesting article but I'm unsure as to what the "response" is supposed to be.

OK, so the Republican "normal" is not normal at all/democratic. And so ...?

It causes us to reflect on how even P&C is Normless now.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
matttutor wrote:
Top_Shelf wrote:

On norms:

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/1755160...

TLDR: the reactionary conservative Republican party is actively "normalizing" non-democratic politics. And has been for a while.

I thought this was an interesting article but I'm unsure as to what the "response" is supposed to be.

OK, so the Republican "normal" is not normal at all/democratic. And so ...?

It causes us to reflect on how even P&C is Normless now.

too soon

=(

Trump pardons Oregon ranchers at center of 40-day standoff

President Trump on Tuesday pardoned a pair of Oregon ranchers whose arson conviction became a focus for opponents of federal government land ownership.

Dwight Hammond, 76, and his son Steven, 49, were convicted in 2012 and sent to prison on arson charges. They had set a series of fires on their ranch that spread to federal land.

The Hammonds’ case became the inspiration for the 40-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016. The organizers wanted to protest federal land ownership.

The Hammonds distanced themselves from the violent occupiers and didn't endorse the action.

thrawn82 wrote:
firesloth wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

My feeling is that for every Justice 45 seats, the democrats should add the same number +1 to the court to compensate.

Agreed. Or they should impeach the sitting justices. Gotta get a much larger senate majority for that. But if Trump turns out to have been a traitor, remove his justices.

I am going to lean into the Open Arguments stance on this one: It is a really bad precedent to set to impeach justices for anything other than actual gross misconduct, no matter how odious or controversial or treacherous the person who nominated them is. If the justice them-self hasn't done anything wrong, you are just throwing them out for political reasons and once you start that you might as well scrap the whole system.

So, you mean we should just stick to the norms, like refusing to consider a justice for an open Court seat because the Republicans don't like the president? or refusing to fill his appointments to the lower judiciary?

You are correct that the Republicans have gone way too far in gaming the system in the extreme. My take on this is there has to be some way to teach them a lesson, to reverse their ill-gotten gains.

Perhaps even to punish them...I still hold out hope that someone in the Justice Dept. puts together enough evidence of foreign collusion on the part of the GOP as a whole that they can shut down the party through some RICO-style action. Mind you, I'm not arguing I hope the GOP colludes, rather that I suspect they already have, and the right argument has to be made to that effect. Add in the NRA, and maybe the last 2 years will not have been for naught...

That's exactly what I mean. When one side makes themselves stronger and advances their cause by destroying the rules and norms that should keep them in check, helping them tear down the system faster "to give them some of their own medicine" isn't fighting them, it's helping them.

thrawn82 wrote:

That's exactly what I mean. When one side makes themselves stronger and advances their cause by destroying the rules and norms that should keep them in check, helping them tear down the system faster "to give them some of their own medicine" isn't fighting them, it's helping them.

Trying to use an already broken system to fight them is also helping them. The system is already being scrapped by the GOP, and the Democrats have little mechanical ability to stop them, or educate their base.