The Trump Presidency: Sweet/Sweat 16

[The Man]

Not quite. They were offered the same money to attend than if the event had not taken place. They were threatened with making LESS money than if the event never happened.

It was "go to the event and look supportive or have your pay docked".

If the event happened (which it did) and they did not attend they got less money that week. Hence, they got more money for attending than not attending. No ones pay was docked, the hours just counted as worked hours for overtime threshold if they attended and didn't count as worked hours if they didn't attend. That part is explicit in the memo, though I'm still not sure if they had to take PTO just to get paid if they didn't attend. Either way it was counted the same way as PTO for not attending, not counted as working hours for overtime threshold. That the most they could have gotten by attending was just their normal pay (which includes such regular overtime) doesn't change the fact that they were paid more for attending than not attending and even specifically notified of that difference beforehand. Hence, they were specifically offered more money to attend than not to attend just like the dude off the street.

 

[The Man]

With an implicit side order of "the management will disapprove of your not attending"

That seems to only have been implicit in attending and being disruptive.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Not content with destroying the US, Trump also has ruined the Queen's lawn!

 

[quadraginta]

Not quite. They were offered the same money to attend than if the event had not taken place. They were threatened with making LESS money than if the event never happened.

It was "go to the event and look supportive or have your pay docked".

One o' them there distinction without a difference thingies.

 

[angrysoba]

Here's the problem.

Suppose that background checks make no or almost no difference in the case of mass shootings. Indeed, I think this is very plausible.

Then the attention on mass shootings will be focused on something that won't actually help solve the problem. Once the checks are in place, attention will go elsewhere. You can bet that, if the Republicans cave for this solution, they will not react well when another solution, say an assault weapon ban, is suggested hereafter. They've already compromised their position.

Thus, focusing on checks as a fix for the mass shooting problem will make more effective solutions less likely.

Now, the limit to this argument should be obvious. While I doubt such checks will prevent mass shootings, they may prevent other deaths and hence be a not insignificant positive. However, if our aim is shooting deaths in general, then we're being misled. The checks are being suggested specifically to deal with mass shootings and if they are adopted and do no good in that respect, how will the public react? Will this make it easier or harder to do something that actually addresses the problem?

I'd much rather that, if one wants universal background checks, they support it for gun deaths generally rather than pretend that mass shootings will be less likely.

The problem is that prevention of mass shootings will (almost) never make the news, or even if it does such as recent reports of police intercepting mass shooters before they commit their crimes, the news won’t make an impact.

If it prevents any mass shootings along with any other shooting deaths it would seem worthwhile.

Like I said before, the NYT link suggests it would be somewhat effective at least, maybe more so than an assault weapons ban (I can’t remember exactly).

If you think there is one particular strategy that would be most effective and you don’t want to squander the chances of getting it through by bringing in a weaker solution first then fine, but what is that solution?

Otherwise, if you have no better solution then simply saying “but what if we try X and it doesn’t work” seems to be counseling despair or advocating for doing nothing.

And yes, calling it the Donald J Trump Act would be a great way of preventing the Republicans claiming that their hand was forced by the Democrats.

 

[The Man]

Not content with destroying the US, Trump also has ruined the Queen's lawn!

What, did he pull a Billy Carter on the side of the palace?

 

[angrysoba]

Man, that would be a great move. That would force Trump to come out and say he's changed his mind. That would hurt.

At least one Democratic Congressman is pressing for Trump to do something like this. I realize that what is feasible falls short of the universal background checks that the Democrats are pushing for, but Murphy at least seems to have the same idea as me that if Trump endorses it other Republicans will fall into line and that they won’t if he doesn’t. He really does call the shots for the GOP.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/23/chris-murphy-trump-guns-background-checks-1473457

 

[a_unique_person]

Trump Retweeted

The White House
@WhiteHouse
"We have excess corn in various parts of our country with our farmers because China did not do what they said they were going to do. And Prime Minister @AbeShinzo, on behalf of Japan, they're going to be buying all of that corn." — President @realDonaldTrump

Don't use Twitter. Did he just retweet himself? Is the Whitehouse retweeting Trump?

 

[a_unique_person]

Ya, I think. I don't even think they pretended. They were polite, of course. Real leaders are. But they said nothing like that.



Hans

He would have said it to them and they would have have said whatever they had to say to keep him happy.

 

[a_unique_person]

When he says he's staying on ten or fourteen years, it is reasonable to think he's joking. It's also reasonable to think he's joking that way to introduce the notion, I suppose.

ETA: Just saw the clip again. Must admit that "I am the Chosen One" was not delivered like a joke at all.

He said it just the way the anti-Christ would say it. But that's ok. It means the end times really are nearly here.

 

[phiwum]

The problem is that prevention of mass shootings will (almost) never make the news, or even if it does such as recent reports of police intercepting mass shooters before they commit their crimes, the news won’t make an impact.

If it prevents any mass shootings along with any other shooting deaths it would seem worthwhile.

Like I said before, the NYT link suggests it would be somewhat effective at least, maybe more so than an assault weapons ban (I can’t remember exactly).

If you think there is one particular strategy that would be most effective and you don’t want to squander the chances of getting it through by bringing in a weaker solution first then fine, but what is that solution?

Otherwise, if you have no better solution then simply saying “but what if we try X and it doesn’t work” seems to be counseling despair or advocating for doing nothing.

And yes, calling it the Donald J Trump Act would be a great way of preventing the Republicans claiming that their hand was forced by the Democrats.

I don't claim any expertise at all, but my uninformed intuition is that an assault weapons ban together with a restriction on ammo capacity would do more good at preventing mass shootings than an extension of background checks to sales and transfers by private individuals. Both of the solutions I mention would be very difficult to pass in the current climate, however.

I don't know of any mass shooting event that involved a gun show purchase, except perhaps for the Vegas shooter. I don't see how a background check would have prevented his purchase.

Background checks only prevent sales to people who cannot legally own firearms. I don't think that applies to many of the shooters we've seen.

You're absolutely right that an effective law will mostly not be noticed. People will notice the shootings it fails to prevent, but not the shootings that have been prevented. They might notice a downward trend in shootings, but that doesn't have the emotional impact of the shootings that are not stopped.

Also, just to be clear, it is an unfortunate fact that mass shootings produce an exaggerated fear. Everyone is scared by these traumatic events, but they are surely a small minority of gun deaths in the US. Focusing on the dramatic outliers might produce a more limited solution than focusing on gun deaths generally speaking, but I don't think the public is ready to tackle the larger problem.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't claim any expertise at all, but my uninformed intuition is that an assault weapons ban together with a restriction on ammo capacity would do more good at preventing mass shootings than an extension of background checks to sales and transfers by private individuals. Both of the solutions I mention would be very difficult to pass in the current climate, however.

I don't know of any mass shooting event that involved a gun show purchase, except perhaps for the Vegas shooter. I don't see how a background check would have prevented his purchase.

Background checks only prevent sales to people who cannot legally own firearms. I don't think that applies to many of the shooters we've seen.

You're absolutely right that an effective law will mostly not be noticed. People will notice the shootings it fails to prevent, but not the shootings that have been prevented. They might notice a downward trend in shootings, but that doesn't have the emotional impact of the shootings that are not stopped.

Also, just to be clear, it is an unfortunate fact that mass shootings produce an exaggerated fear. Everyone is scared by these traumatic events, but they are surely a small minority of gun deaths in the US. Focusing on the dramatic outliers might produce a more limited solution than focusing on gun deaths generally speaking, but I don't think the public is ready to tackle the larger problem.

I think the larger public is ready according to this recent poll. It's our Republican politicians who are afraid to buck the NRA and their base.

It found that 67 percent of Americans support making US gun laws stricter, while 22 percent say they should be left as they are and 10 percent think they should be made less strict.

https://www.apnews.com/99e6a9b480a947eab6da194697b8a303

 

[Ladewig]

Trump Retweeted

The White House
@WhiteHouse
"We have excess corn in various parts of our country with our farmers because China did not do what they said they were going to do. And Prime Minister @AbeShinzo, on behalf of Japan, they're going to be buying all of that corn." — President @realDonaldTrump

Almost three years into it and I am still sometimes mistaking President Trump for a normal person.

I noticed that President Trump frequently talks about other countries agreeing to buy agricultural products and then not doing buying it. I was about to say, surely someone who has lived his whole life screwing over vendors must understand that any agreement not in writing is meaningless. Then I remembered how nucking futs this guy is; of course he is going to complain about someone else doing something he does regularly.

 

[phiwum]

Almost three years into it and I am still sometimes mistaking President Trump for a normal person.

I noticed that President Trump frequently talks about other countries agreeing to buy agricultural products and then not doing buying it. I was about to say, surely someone who has lived his whole life screwing over vendors must understand that any agreement not in writing is meaningless. Then I remembered how nucking futs this guy is; of course he is going to complain about someone else doing something he does regularly.

It's more ridiculous than that. The government of Japan doesn't determine how much corn the nation buys. Private businesses do. So Abe never made any promise about how much corn would be bought.

I imagine it's the same with China, though I could be mistaken.

 

[kookbreaker]

He's the incumbent, 40% approve of him, the Democrats will have a pathetic nominee, Gerrymandering, and more media manipulation, so pretty good. [insert sad emoji here]

Well.

On the one hand: He's the most disliked President in living memory
On the other hand: Presidents who had low ratings can still recover or even win

On the one hand: Trump does have an extremely loyal base that keeps his approval level at 40%.
On the other hand: That base might erode in a subtle way. I doubt any of his voters will vote Democrat in 2020 but they might also stay home.

On the one hand: He's the incumbent, which is usually an advantage in elections.
On the other hand: Being the incumbent means you can't pull out a 'new' line very effectively. Trump's polling was pretty moribund until his team developed the 'drain the swamp' bit that cast him as the outsider vs the establishment politician. Harder to pull that kind of trick when you've been in office for a few years.

On the one hand: As things are going, the Democrats will likely select Biden, who does not inspire the younger vote.
On the other hand: No other hand here, unless the kids get over it and vote 'D' despite their misgivings.

On the one hand: The economy seems to be doing well.
On the other hand: A lot of folks seem to not be giving him credit for the economy, seeing it as an extension of the Obama era recovery.

On the one hand: A recession may be looming,
On the other hand: Trump may be able to blame it on Democrats or a Federal Reserve he cannot personally control.

On the one hand: Trump's previous campaign tactics managed squeaker wins
in crucial states, giving him the electoral vote over the popular vote.
On the other hand: Trump's popularity in those states seems to have dropped. Not as assured victory for either side at this point.

On the one hand: Voter suppression and gerrymandering are very real.
On the other hand: Not really an other hand here.

On the one hand: If the Democrats select someone who isn't Biden the candidate may lack cross-appeal to some of the more conservative crossover votes
On the other hand: Obama won two Presidential elections despite this detail, and some of Trump's plans for other cadidates may not be ideal: I am convinced he thinks he can beat Elizabeth Warren just by calling her 'Pocahontas' for the better part of a year.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Then I remembered how nucking futs this guy is; of course he is going to complain about someone else doing something he does regularly.

He mocks other people for being old, fat, and ugly. Enough said!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't get it. After the hate for GW and his needless war, he still got reelected. And after Obama who wasn't perfect but did a damn good job, we got Trump instead of one of the most qualified candidates to come along because of some backlash against a black guy? How messed up is that?

 

[a_unique_person]

There was a whole hating on Hillary industry running in the right-wing loony webs. After many years they finally had a chance to vent their hatred directly. Another candidate probably would have done better. I think she was badly done by myself, much as Julia Gillard was in Australia. It is interesting that an uppity black was elected but an uppity woman? No way.

 

[dudalb]

Well.

On the one hand: He's the most disliked President in living memory
On the other hand: Presidents who had low ratings can still recover or even win

On the one hand: Trump does have an extremely loyal base that keeps his approval level at 40%.
On the other hand: That base might erode in a subtle way. I doubt any of his voters will vote Democrat in 2020 but they might also stay home.

On the one hand: He's the incumbent, which is usually an advantage in elections.
On the other hand: Being the incumbent means you can't pull out a 'new' line very effectively. Trump's polling was pretty moribund until his team developed the 'drain the swamp' bit that cast him as the outsider vs the establishment politician. Harder to pull that kind of trick when you've been in office for a few years.

On the one hand: As things are going, the Democrats will likely select Biden, who does not inspire the younger vote.
On the other hand: No other hand here, unless the kids get over it and vote 'D' despite their misgivings.

On the one hand: The economy seems to be doing well.
On the other hand: A lot of folks seem to not be giving him credit for the economy, seeing it as an extension of the Obama era recovery.

On the one hand: A recession may be looming,
On the other hand: Trump may be able to blame it on Democrats or a Federal Reserve he cannot personally control.

On the one hand: Trump's previous campaign tactics managed squeaker wins
in crucial states, giving him the electoral vote over the popular vote.
On the other hand: Trump's popularity in those states seems to have dropped. Not as assured victory for either side at this point.

On the one hand: Voter suppression and gerrymandering are very real.
On the other hand: Not really an other hand here.

On the one hand: If the Democrats select someone who isn't Biden the candidate may lack cross-appeal to some of the more conservative crossover votes
On the other hand: Obama won two Presidential elections despite this detail, and some of Trump's plans for other cadidates may not be ideal: I am convinced he thinks he can beat Elizabeth Warren just by calling her 'Pocahontas' for the better part of a year.

Gerrymandering has zero impact on the Presedential race;voter suppression might.

 

[Solitaire]

Does anyone know what the odds are on Trump doing a second term?

PredictIt puts Trump chance of winning at 43% and chance of losing at 57%.

Interestingly on the Democratic Party side,
Warren's 19% chance just edges out Biden's 18%.

P. S. Was that losing his mind or loosing his mind?