Should President Trump, be impeached? Who bears the burden, of proof, the right, or the left?

MayCaesar

CYDdharta said:

I want the government to be as small and powerless as possible .

Why do you not call Trump out on things he did to expand the government then, such as, but not limited to: increase of tariffs, domestic company subsidies, expanded budget leading to a large government debt and so on? It seems to me that Trump supporters in general only care for reduction of the size of the government when traditionally Democrat policies are being curbed, but are completely okay with Republicans expanding the government just the same way.

Trump is a usual big government warrior, just like Obama or W Bush. If you actually look at the entire spectrum of his policies, as opposed to the selected few policies that align with your proclaimed vision of the government, then you have to admit that he is not the savior you think he is. He is not a person draining the swamp; he is a part of the swamp. And the total number of federal regulations under him has not decreased in any noticeable way.

Relevant figure:



I am someone who actually wants the government to be small, independent on who is in charge - and we have not had a president with a similar philosophy since Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton, in turn, was a very moderate government cutter, afraid to go far enough, who broke under the pressure of the Congress by the end of his term. There has been no president that shrunk the size of the government in any noticeable way in either the 21st or 20th century, and all presidents have played the same game in this regard. Perhaps one day people will wake up and realise that everyone claiming to be their savior is the same as those they claim to want to save people from - that is the only way reduction of the size of the government actually becomes possible one day. It will not happen if people keep getting scammed by one politician after another.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta I don't think you are really answering my questions here, kind of seems like you are avoiding them.

When I ask who you are refering to because this statement:

No, his focus was on the Swamp;

Has multiple interpretations that makes it ambiguous. Do you mean Trump was focusing on the swamp or Peter S was focusing on the swamp?

Each has their own implications that you are not making clear.

Who says it is bad that these people you call "the swamp" are holding jobs for a long time? Where I come from that is called a career. The longer you do a job, the better you get at it. Maybe Peter S (I don't want to say his last name) is a bad person, but just because you can find 1 example of a bad person does not mean that everyone is like that.

Firing your own people because they disagree with you is not an example of them putting themselves before the US, but they do have a common denominator, which I am not convinced actually cares for the country more so than himself.

Now you're just trying to be , and succeeding magnificently.  That particular exchange was about Strozk.  I said Strozk.  I quoted Strozk.  Pres. Trump was nowhere to be found.  I never said any of the rest of this.

Alright, so then do you think that Trump has taken any action to make the government smaller, given the fact that Trump has an authoritarian agenda, and has expanded the power of the president, and his tariffs and budget cuts will widen the budget deficit, opening the doors for more hard-line larger government in the future?

ROFL, authoritarian agenda?!?  Expanded the power of the president???  The last president used the US military to assassinate US citizens abroad without even a trial.  Your partisan blinders are tied a bit too tight.

MayCaesar

CYDdharta said:

ROFL, authoritarian agenda?!?  Expanded the power of the president???  The last president used the US military to assassinate US citizens abroad without even a trial.  Your partisan blinders are tied a bit too tight.

"President X was worse" is not a defence of the current president, and is a whataboutist argument, in the best traditions of Soviet Union. Soviets employed the same argument to defend themselves from any criticism: "You are saying we have problem X? Oh, but country Y has an even bigger problem!"

Trump is obviously less authoritarian than Obama was. That is not a very high standard, however, and he is still quite authoritarian on the overall historical scale.

Ayn Rand said it best about the American conservatives, almost 60 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGETLGuTcE
They are much better at talking about the limited government, than at actually doing something to limit it.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Why are we talking about Peter S? This thread is supposed to be about Trump. Like Biden, the guilt of Peter S is not relevant to Trump. Even if you kill a criminal (not in self defense) it is still murder. I wasn't asking about his quote anyways, I was asking about one of yours, but I digress.

So I have been leading you down this path for a reason through questions, but now that MayCeasar has laid it all out for you, why not just read what he said. There is no denying that Trump has an authoritarian agenda, and the numbers prove it. Again, Obama's agenda (which was also authoritarian) is irrelevant to Trump's guilt.

Why do you think that pushing the blame is going to magically make him innocent?

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

Why do you not call Trump out on things he did to expand the government then, such as, but not limited to: increase of tariffs, domestic company subsidies, expanded budget leading to a large government debt and so on? It seems to me that Trump supporters in general only care for reduction of the size of the government when traditionally Democrat policies are being curbed, but are completely okay with Republicans expanding the government just the same way.

Increased tariffs?  Domestic company (farm) subsidies?  You must be referring to Pres. Trump's efforts to get a fair trade balance.  I get it, you've been quite clear that you don't care about fair trade, but most of us do.  The vast majority of expanded spending went to rebuilding our military, which has been depleted by prior administrations, particularly the last, which not only expanded areas of combat operations, but also slashed the defense budget.

Trump is a usual big government warrior, just like Obama or W Bush. If you actually look at the entire spectrum of his policies, as opposed to the selected few policies that align with your proclaimed vision of the government, then you have to admit that he is not the savior you think he is. He is not a person draining the swamp; he is a part of the swamp. And the total number of federal regulations under him has not decreased in any noticeable way.

Relevant figure:

I don't get it.  You posted a graph that shows Pres. Trump reduced regulations, proving my point.  If you look at that graph more closely, you'll notice Pres. Trump is the first president since Reagan to have reduced federal regulation in his first year in office.  That's a pretty impressive feat.  Looking at the other pertinent graphs which you chose not to post, Pres. Trump has been even more impressive;

I am someone who actually wants the government to be small, independent on who is in charge - and we have not had a president with a similar philosophy since Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton, in turn, was a very moderate government cutter, afraid to go far enough, who broke under the pressure of the Congress by the end of his term. There has been no president that shrunk the size of the government in any noticeable way in either the 21st or 20th century, and all presidents have played the same game in this regard. Perhaps one day people will wake up and realise that everyone claiming to be their savior is the same as those they claim to want to save people from - that is the only way reduction of the size of the government actually becomes possible one day. It will not happen if people keep getting scammed by one politician after another.

Slick Willie was never serious about cutting government.  The chart you posted shows that.  You make excuses for him, a lot of people do.  He was a very charismatic person, He was a fraud, a huckster, and a , but he was charismatic.  And he still ended with more pages of regulations than when he started.It was during his time in office that Congress went from passing actual budgets to passing continuing resolutions, so it seems government accountability doesn't rate highly on your list either.

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

"President X was worse" is not a defence of the current president, and is a whataboutist argument, in the best traditions of Soviet Union. Soviets employed the same argument to defend themselves from any criticism: "You are saying we have problem X? Oh, but country Y has an even bigger problem!"

Trump is obviously less authoritarian than Obama was. That is not a very high standard, however, and he is still quite authoritarian on the overall historical scale.

Ayn Rand said it best about the American conservatives, almost 60 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGETLGuTcE
They are much better at talking about the limited government, than at actually doing something to limit it.

Actually, Pres. Trump being less authoritarian than 0bama IS an achievement.  The partisanship which has been growing since at least the Clinton administration has stifled Congress to the point that they get nothing done.  At this point, the only way for the federal government to get anything done is for the executive branch to order it done through rules, regulations, EOs, etc.  That's why every president since Clinton has seemed more authoritarian than the last, except for Pres. Trump.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta Why are we talking about Peter S? This thread is supposed to be about Trump. Like Biden, the guilt of Peter S is not relevant to Trump. Even if you kill a criminal (not in self defense) it is still murder. I wasn't asking about his quote anyways, I was asking about one of yours, but I digress.

So I have been leading you down this path for a reason through questions, but now that MayCeasar has laid it all out for you, why not just read what he said. There is no denying that Trump has an authoritarian agenda, and the numbers prove it. Again, Obama's agenda (which was also authoritarian) is irrelevant to Trump's guilt.

Why do you think that pushing the blame is going to magically make him innocent?

This thread is about the impeachment trial, and as you have already admitted, Pres. Trump has been impeached for trying to uncover information that should be imparted in the elections (primary and possibly general).  I guess there's really nothing more that needs to be said.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta You really don't know what you are talking about, Obama was so pro-military it was insane. We are currently spending a similar portion of our GDP on the military to what we did during WWII and we are in no major open conflict. The military was anything but depleted during the Obama administration, and again, it is irrelevant to Trump's case if this was or was not true, you can't prove his innocence by playing the comparison game. Obama cut the defense budget because the wars in the middle east was declining after the Bush era conflicts, and this is before we start talking about the groundwork he laid for the future of autonomous weapons.

Tariffs are not free trade, in fact they are the literal opposite of free trade, they are protectionist policies.

The graph shows that he reduced regulations only after raising them, and they are still very high in relation to other presidents throughout history.

The low number of major rules, published pages, and final rules could be interpreted as having a hands off approach, but it is also inductive of failure to push laws through normal legal outlets, something that Trump prefers not to do, instead choosing other less legal outlets and preferring his own personal approach to handling presidential matters (i.e. Sending Rudy Giuliani to discuss official business with Ukraine instead of using resources specifically designated for this purpose ) 

I think it is ironic that you describe Bill Clinton: "fraud, a huckster, and a , but he was charismatic" and then fall for Trump in much the same fashion, since we could describe Trump the exact same way. The assumption that "government accountability" is somehow a virtue when you support Trump is very puzzling to me, since he seems to go way out of his way to be unaccountable, even to the point where he goads his opponents into attacking his supporters, then claims he will pay the legal fees. Or when he personally attacks whistle blowers or anyone who disagrees with him, firing people left and right just for speaking their opinion. This can only result in a reduction in talent and an increase in loyal supporters, who will do his bidding because he asked, even if it breaks the law. How's that for unaccountably?

No, the true thing that makes Trump a dirty authoritarian monster is the way he censors the media by constantly attacking anything he disagrees with as "fake news" and pushes the agenda that we should not pay attention to news sources that disagree with our world view. That is authoritarianism 101, and it is a dangerous misrepresentation of the values on which the US was built. Seems like everyone from both sides of the political aisles are too willing to throw out these values just for a win. The end result is a gradual pull towards authoritarian ideals, which will one day collapse our nation.

This is a problem from within, before we even consider outside threats, like Russia or China, who did interfere with the election, much to Trump's benefit, do not forget this. The investigation did not reveal any collusion, which implies that Trump is a puppet of Russia, rather than a mutual benefactor, and he might not even be aware of it. Trump is more useful to Russia than to the US is the only conclusion we can draw from this.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta So should the president be allowed to, for example, order the military to assassinate a political rival?

obviously not because that would be a gross misuse of power.

If you don't think this is acceptable, then what about order them to arrest a political rival?

Again, a gross misuse of power.

If you don't think that is acceptable, then what about ask a private company or individual to investigate a political opponent?

This is borderline acceptable, but if it is done with government resources it is too far.

If you don't think any of these is okay, then why should it be allowed for any president to ask a foreign official to investigate an opponent in exchange for illegally withheld foreign aid?

I don't know why people defend this, unless they care more about Trump than they do about the nation. When Trump is out of office, things will carry on. Even the things people elected him for are temporary at best. Draining the swamp was not about getting rid of career bureaucrats until more recently, In the book by Ken Buck “drain the swamp” is about term limits for congress and a balanced budget act, not about removing career government workers in non-elected positions. He was not opposed to lobbyists however. At some point the term got twisted, probably by someone who "is very smart because I have a very very big brain" who has never picked up a book in his life and yells at professionals that ask him to read any legal document, prefers slideshows with pictures, leaves meetings with foreign leaders because he is bored, and is constantly texting and watching TV.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta You really don't know what you are talking about, Obama was so pro-military it was insane. We are currently spending a similar portion of our GDP on the military to what we did during WWII and we are in no major open conflict. The military was anything but depleted during the Obama administration, and again, it is irrelevant to Trump's case if this was or was not true, you can't prove his innocence by playing the comparison game. Obama cut the defense budget because the wars in the middle east was declining after the Bush era conflicts, and this is before we start talking about the groundwork he laid for the future of autonomous weapons.

Ah the irony.  Military spending is about the ONLY cut to spending 0bama ever made.

U.S. military decimated under Obama, only 'marginally able' to defend nation

Tariffs are not free trade, in fact they are the literal opposite of free trade, they are protectionist policies.

I didn't say free trade, I said FAIR trade.

The graph shows that he reduced regulations only after raising them, and they are still very high in relation to other presidents throughout history.

That's not possible, the graph only shows 2 years that Pres. Trump had been in office.  You must be looking at the sudden surge of regulations the 0bama admin push through on their way out.

The low number of major rules, published pages, and final rules could be interpreted as having a hands off approach, but it is also inductive of failure to push laws through normal legal outlets, something that Trump prefers not to do, instead choosing other less legal outlets and preferring his own personal approach to handling presidential matters (i.e. Sending Rudy Giuliani to discuss official business with Ukraine instead of using resources specifically designated for this purpose )

You are mistaken.  Rules and regulation are not the same things as laws.  Laws are not part of any of the charts posted.

I think it is ironic that you describe Bill Clinton: "fraud, a huckster, and a , but he was charismatic" and then fall for Trump in much the same fashion, since we could describe Trump the exact same way. The assumption that "government accountability" is somehow a virtue when you support Trump is very puzzling to me, since he seems to go way out of his way to be unaccountable, even to the point where he goads his opponents into attacking his supporters, then claims he will pay the legal fees. Or when he personally attacks whistle blowers or anyone who disagrees with him, firing people left and right just for speaking their opinion. This can only result in a reduction in talent and an increase in loyal supporters, who will do his bidding because he asked, even if it breaks the law. How's that for unaccountably?

What's puzzling to me is how you think Pres. Trump seems to go way out of his way to be unaccountable.

No, the true thing that makes Trump a dirty authoritarian monster is the way he censors the media by constantly attacking anything he disagrees with as "fake news" and pushes the agenda that we should not pay attention to news sources that disagree with our world view. That is authoritarianism 101, and it is a dangerous misrepresentation of the values on which the US was built. Seems like everyone from both sides of the political aisles are too willing to throw out these values just for a win. The end result is a gradual pull towards authoritarian ideals, which will one day collapse our nation.

NYT sets the tone for a large number of news agencies.  When they admit they have no intention of treating the president fairly even before the election, they are demonstrating that they are, indeed, fake news.  Most have known that for quite some time, which is why trust in the mainstream media has been tending downward for decades.  Pres. Trump's unfair media coverage has laid bare the mainstream media's bias.

This is a problem from within, before we even consider outside threats, like Russia or China, who did interfere with the election, much to Trump's benefit, do not forget this. The investigation did not reveal any collusion, which implies that Trump is a puppet of Russia, rather than a mutual benefactor, and he might not even be aware of it. Trump is more useful to Russia than to the US is the only conclusion we can draw from this.

This is an utterly asinine position to take.  You think Putin wanted someone to arm a nation he was in conflict with???  You think Putin wanted someone to undercut the price of oil, the heart of the Russian economy???  As I said before, your partisan blinders are tied a bit too tight.  The ones who are proving themselves useful to the Kremlin are the Democrats and the anti-Trumpers, who are doing nothing in Congress other than undermining the president and hamstringing the administration.  But Putin is loving that.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta So should the president be allowed to, for example, order the military to assassinate a political rival?

obviously not because that would be a gross misuse of power.

If you don't think this is acceptable, then what about order them to arrest a political rival?

Again, a gross misuse of power.

If you don't think that is acceptable, then what about ask a private company or individual to investigate a political opponent?

This is borderline acceptable, but if it is done with government resources it is too far.

If you don't think any of these is okay, then why should it be allowed for any president to ask a foreign official to investigate an opponent in exchange for illegally withheld foreign aid?

I don't know why people defend this, unless they care more about Trump than they do about the nation. When Trump is out of office, things will carry on. Even the things people elected him for are temporary at best. Draining the swamp was not about getting rid of career bureaucrats until more recently, In the book by Ken Buck “drain the swamp” is about term limits for congress and a balanced budget act, not about removing career government workers in non-elected positions. He was not opposed to lobbyists however. At some point the term got twisted, probably by someone who "is very smart because I have a very very big brain" who has never picked up a book in his life and yells at professionals that ask him to read any legal document, prefers slideshows with pictures, leaves meetings with foreign leaders because he is bored, and is constantly texting and watching TV.

How about investigate corruption?  Should a president be allowed to have corruption investigated?

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Obama isn't on trial, Trump is, and he increased military spending for no real reason, does not seem like a "small government" policy if it is not all across the board now does it? I was in the military during the Obama administration and everything ran just smoothly. The claim "Military decimated under Obama" is simply false.

Tariffs aren't fair trade either, and they are authoritarian.

That's not possible, the graph only shows 2 years that Pres. Trump had been in office.  You must be looking at the sudden surge of regulations the 0bama admin push through on their way out.

It is possible, and that is what the graph shows, 2017 is up from 2016, only to go down in 2018.

You are mistaken.  Rules and regulation are not the same things as laws.  Laws are not part of any of the charts posted.

He still uses unofficial means to enact his desires, which is not something you have contested, so we must assume it is true.

What's puzzling to me is how you think Pres. Trump seems to go way out of his way to be unaccountable.

Sending Rudy Giuliani to discuss official business with Ukraine instead of using resources specifically designated for this purpose demonstrates unaccountably to the American public, and indicates he puts himself before America.

NYT sets the tone for a large number of news agencies.  When they admit they have no intention of treating the president fairly even before the election, they are demonstrating that they are, indeed, fake news.  Most have known that for quite some time, which is why trust in the mainstream media has been tending downward for decades.  Pres. Trump's unfair media coverage has laid bare the mainstream media's bias.

I couldn't care less what the NYT says, they are irrelevant. What I do care about is what Trump says, and given how he flip flops on issues, openly lies, and attacks people almost daily on twitter none the less (It is my opinion that only idiots and people with ADHD use twitter) The vast majority of Trump's own words would be considered rude and disrespectful if they came from someone you knew personally, but for some reason people get a hard-on when the read them from the POTUS.

This is an utterly asinine position to take.  You think Putin wanted someone to arm a nation he was in conflict with???  You think Putin wanted someone to undercut the price of oil, the heart of the Russian economy???  As I said before, your partisan blinders are tied a bit too tight.  The ones who are proving themselves useful to the Kremlin are the Democrats and the anti-Trumpers, who are doing nothing in Congress other than undermining the president and hamstringing the administration.  But Putin is loving that.

First off, Trump took action to disarm a nation Russia is in conflict with when he withheld congressional approved aid to Ukraine, for which he has been impeached for. Congress armed Ukraine, not Trump.

The way Trump talks about Putin makes it sound like he is his ultimate fan boy... Not exactly the words of a mortal enemy of democracy now is it?
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/

As I have alluded to before, I am not a democrat or a republican.

You know what, I agree with you when you say: "who are doing nothing in Congress other than undermining the president and hamstringing the administration"

but probably not for the same reasons. Putin is a f***ing master politician, I think it is reasonable that his plan (as he has been doing for decades) was to do specifically this, by installing a president who would divide the nation and be a distraction to everything important, and for this reason he needs removed from office, lest we go through 4 more years of this Horse S***. You can't really expect the DNC or the GOP to just give up and let Trump have his way, do you?

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Investigation into corruption should not require the president to do anything for it to happen.

MayCaesar

@CYDdharta

I do not know what "fair trade" is; I know what free trade is, and tariffs affect the trade freedoms of all parties partaking in an international transaction.
Regardless of anything, this is an example of Trump introducing new regulations, rather than de-regulating something.

If you zoom in on the plot, you will see that the net number of federal regulations increased under Trump. He first introduced a few regulations, then cut down a few regulations, but he introduced more than he cut down. Granted, the graph ignores the last ~8 months of his presidency, but these 8 months are not going to overwrite the previous 2.5 years.

1994 was the peak of the number of federal regulations existing in the US, and it was not as big as then ever until Bush'es presidency. Clinton actually has something to show for his promises to deregulate the economy, however minor it is. Trump does not.

They are all frauds and liars; this is what you do not appreciate. Trump is not an exception either. He is just more obvious in his lies, as he lacks the filter most other politicians have, causing them to think before every sentence they utter.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta Obama isn't on trial, Trump is, and he increased military spending for no real reason, does not seem like a "small government" policy if it is not all across the board now does it? I was in the military during the Obama administration and everything ran just smoothly. The claim "Military decimated under Obama" is simply false.

0bama ABSOLUTELY decimated the military, in fact he MORE than decimated it.  (Decimate means to reduce by 1/10)

“The U.S. military is rapidly approaching a one-war-capable force,” said Mr. Wood, a former Marine Corps officer and strategic planner. “So [it is] able to handle a major war and then having just a bit of residual capability to handle other minor crises that might pop up. … But it is a far cry from being a two-war force.”

“The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force are putting it under significant pressure,” the report concluded. “The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.”

Tariffs aren't fair trade either, and they are authoritarian.

It's a means to an end.  China's unfair trade practices have been a complaint for decades, but no one was willing to do anything about it.  Kudos to Pres. Trump.

It is possible, and that is what the graph shows, 2017 is up from 2016, only to go down in 2018.

I can't take you seriously when you are either ignorant of who was in the White House in 2016 or too disingenuous to admit it.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta Investigation into corruption should not require the president to do anything for it to happen.

It shouldn't, but it does when the heads of the agencies that are supposed to investigate corruption are, themselves, corrupt.

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

@CYDdharta

I do not know what "fair trade" is; I know what free trade is, and tariffs affect the trade freedoms of all parties partaking in an international transaction.
Regardless of anything, this is an example of Trump introducing new regulations, rather than de-regulating something.

If you zoom in on the plot, you will see that the net number of federal regulations increased under Trump. He first introduced a few regulations, then cut down a few regulations, but he introduced more than he cut down. Granted, the graph ignores the last ~8 months of his presidency, but these 8 months are not going to overwrite the previous 2.5 years.

1994 was the peak of the number of federal regulations existing in the US, and it was not as big as then ever until Bush'es presidency. Clinton actually has something to show for his promises to deregulate the economy, however minor it is. Trump does not.

They are all frauds and liars; this is what you do not appreciate. Trump is not an exception either. He is just more obvious in his lies, as he lacks the filter most other politicians have, causing them to think before every sentence they utter.

No, federal regulations went down in the last 2 lines on the graph, which are the only ones pertinent to the discussion.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Obama isn't on trial here, why are we still talking about him? Also military spending is just too high in general. There is a reason they call Afghanistan the "graveyard of empires" 

Do the ends justify the means? I don't think so, and even if they do this hardly refutes the point that tariffs are an anti-free trade and authoritarian policy.

Take another close look at that graph: The graph ends in 2018, so the last year is 2018, therefore the second to last bar is 2017, the last two bars are years Trump was in office. We can realize this by noticing that the graph is labeling the area between the spacers (it is not very clear which probably lends to your confusion) and is further suggested by the fact that all the other graphs similarly end at the end of 2018.

The second to last bar is higher than the third to last bar (2016), indicating an increase in 2017 from 2016. Therefore, total pages published in the code of federal regulations is only lower in 2018 than in 2017, meaning that the decrease is relative to a previous increase from 2016 when Obama was in office.

Furthermore, even if there was a slight decrease (or as you have suggested, the increase is due to carryover from the Obama administration) It would still only be a small decrease in the total number of pages relative to the final years of the Obama administration, but is much more than the average over that administration, by about 10,000 pages.

MayCaesar

@CYDdharta

They went up in the pre-last bar, and went down in the last bar by a lesser amount, resulting in the net increase of the number of regulations.

Trump may be increasing the number of regulations slower than the previous two presidents did, but he is still increasing, rather than decreasing, them. He is a big government guy, unlike someone like Reagan or Clinton, who actually take some tangible steps (minor, but still) to reduce the size of the government.

Also, that you say that Trump being less authoritarian than Obama is an achievement, considering that Obama is one of the most authoritarian presidents in the history of the US, speaks a lot about your standards. Why not go even lower and say that Trump is a great president, because he is less authoritarian than Kim Jong-Un?
Trump is an improvement over Obama and, probably, Bush, but on the overall scale he is a typical guy who makes a lot of promises, but delivers the same old good governmental expansion.

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

@CYDdharta

They went up in the pre-last bar, and went down in the last bar by a lesser amount, resulting in the net increase of the number of regulations.

Trump may be increasing the number of regulations slower than the previous two presidents did, but he is still increasing, rather than decreasing, them. He is a big government guy, unlike someone like Reagan or Clinton, who actually take some tangible steps (minor, but still) to reduce the size of the government.

Also, that you say that Trump being less authoritarian than Obama is an achievement, considering that Obama is one of the most authoritarian presidents in the history of the US, speaks a lot about your standards. Why not go even lower and say that Trump is a great president, because he is less authoritarian than Kim Jong-Un?
Trump is an improvement over Obama and, probably, Bush, but on the overall scale he is a typical guy who makes a lot of promises, but delivers the same old good governmental expansion.

Are you unaware of 0bama's mad frenzied push for new regulations as he was on his way out?

Obama pushing thousands of new regulations in Year 8

Obama to Push Nearly 100 New Regulations Before Leaving Office

Unless you can separate the 0bama regulations from those passed by the Trump administration, you can only look at 2017 and 2018, which shows a decrease even in your chart.  The total pages published in the federal register haven't been this low since 1993.

MayCaesar

@CYDdharta

Obama was out of the office by the end of January-2017. Are you going to attribute all the federal regulations issued in 2017 to him? Come on.

My chart shows an overall increase in regulations. The dynamic has not changed; it is true that under Trump the new regulations are issued at an uncharacteristically lower rate, but the net increase is still there. The government under Trump is growing, not shrinking, both in terms of the overall number of regulations, and in terms of the size of the budget. There is virtually no reasonable metric one can use to claim that the government is shrinking right now.

This is really a disappointment. I have never been a fan of Trump, but one of the hopes I had with regards to him is that he would actually do something to decrease the size of the budget and cut down regulations dramatically, as he promised. Yet, just like with almost every other politician, his promises were nothing more than words.

I also want to separately mention the sheer insanity that the federal code is. Think about it... Nearly 200,000 pages. 200,000 pages of federal regulations. Sounds like a number from a dystopian novel, yet here we are, living it.
No legal system should need 200,000 pages of regulations. Even 200 pages is too many, but 200,000 is just out of this world.
Until someone comes and actually reduces this number to something less unreasonable, say, from 200,000 to 20,000, this is all just sandbox games.

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

@CYDdharta

Obama was out of the office by the end of January-2017. Are you going to attribute all the federal regulations issued in 2017 to him? Come on.

Yes.  How many of 0bama's regulations were passed in Jan 2017?  Further; just because Pres Trump assumed office in Jan 2017 doesn't mean that work was immediately stopped on 0bama's regulations.It was not a smooth transition.  Quite a few of Pres. Trump's early picks turned out to be pro-big government types that helped push through 0bama's regulations well after the Trump administration assumed office.

My chart shows an overall increase in regulations. The dynamic has not changed; it is true that under Trump the new regulations are issued at an uncharacteristically lower rate, but the net increase is still there. The government under Trump is growing, not shrinking, both in terms of the overall number of regulations, and in terms of the size of the budget. There is virtually no reasonable metric one can use to claim that the government is shrinking right now.

This is really a disappointment. I have never been a fan of Trump, but one of the hopes I had with regards to him is that he would actually do something to decrease the size of the budget and cut down regulations dramatically, as he promised. Yet, just like with almost every other politician, his promises were nothing more than words.

I also want to separately mention the sheer insanity that the federal code is. Think about it... Nearly 200,000 pages. 200,000 pages of federal regulations. Sounds like a number from a dystopian novel, yet here we are, living it.
No legal system should need 200,000 pages of regulations. Even 200 pages is too many, but 200,000 is just out of this world.
Until someone comes and actually reduces this number to something less unreasonable, say, from 200,000 to 20,000, this is all just sandbox games.

Your chart shows a decrease in regulations.  My charts show a marked decrease.  Who would have done more?  Hillary?  Jeb!?  Kasich?  Pres. Trump was the best of the lot, and he still is.

Plaffelvohfen

Of course he should...

MayCaesar

@CYDdharta

Sure, but by the same token I can say that the subsequent mass repeal of regulations was also a continuation of Obama's work. You cannot just attribute all regulations to Obama and all deregulations to Trump; this is a logical fallacy called "cherry picking". You have to start counting somewhere, and the moment Trump became president seems most logical. Trump had every opportunity to start working towards repealing Obama's regulations passed shortly before his term began right away, and by 2018 should have gotten rid of most of them - and he apparently did not.

Who would have done more is an irrelevant question. What is relevant is that the government under Trump has not done enough to lead to an overall reduction of the number of federal regulations; data clearly shows that. You can debate the reasons behind it, and you can claim that Trump still did more than the most - and yes, he probably did - but the facts are what they are.

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

@CYDdharta

Sure, but by the same token I can say that the subsequent mass repeal of regulations was also a continuation of Obama's work. You cannot just attribute all regulations to Obama and all deregulations to Trump; this is a logical fallacy called "cherry picking". You have to start counting somewhere, and the moment Trump became president seems most logical. Trump had every opportunity to start working towards repealing Obama's regulations passed shortly before his term began right away, and by 2018 should have gotten rid of most of them - and he apparently did not.

Incorrect, you're Arguing from Ignorance.  By all means, start from the time Pres. Trump took office, that's been my position all along.  Your chart shows a decrease from 2017 (the first year of the Trump administration) to 2018.  And no, no one can reasonably attribute Pres. Trump's decrease in regulations to 0bama.  0bama never claimed he would reduce regulations, and, as I've already posted, he was responsible for a flurry of regulations on his way out the door.

Who would have done more is an irrelevant question. What is relevant is that the government under Trump has not done enough to lead to an overall reduction of the number of federal regulations; data clearly shows that. You can debate the reasons behind it, and you can claim that Trump still did more than the most - and yes, he probably did - but the facts are what they are.

Who would have done more is an ENTIRELY relevant question.  No one has a magic wand they can wave that will make all of the over-regulation disappear. Whether you'll admit it or not, the truth is Pres. Trump is the first president since Reagan to reduce regulations in his first year in office, and has the potential to be the only one to end his presidency with fewer regulations than he had when he started.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta I made a point above I don't think you ever answered.

Even if we just look at the regulations for 2018 when there was a reduction, it is still much more than the average for all the years Obama was in office. 

The number of pages of regulations went up about 20,000 pages the entire time Obama was in Office, but it only decreased slightly when Trump was in office.

In order for us to say that he has had this effect, he would have to have countered the increase compared to Obama. Now you might say this is unfair, because Obama had more time in office, however if we look at the average Delta for each year Obama was is charge, it is more than the reduction by Trump in his first year, indicating no significant reduction has taken place.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta I made a point above I don't think you ever answered.

Even if we just look at the regulations for 2018 when there was a reduction, it is still much more than the average for all the years Obama was in office. 

The number of pages of regulations went up about 20,000 pages the entire time Obama was in Office, but it only decreased slightly when Trump was in office.

In order for us to say that he has had this effect, he would have to have countered the increase compared to Obama. Now you might say this is unfair, because Obama had more time in office, however if we look at the average Delta for each year Obama was is charge, it is more than the reduction by Trump in his first year, indicating no significant reduction has taken place.

You're low-balling 0bama, it looks more like 25,000 pages, and you're ignoring the other measurements I posted.  The fact that  there was ANY decrease in total pages in Pres. Trump's first year in office is very rare and quite significant.

MayCaesar

@CYDdharta

The chart shows a decrease in 2018, but an increase in 2017 - and the overall result of these two years is an increase. Like I suggested, you can zoom in on the graph to see the relative size of the bars more clearly.

I am saying that Trump is a big government guy who has not reduced the number of regulations, just like the previous presidents, and the data supports my conclusion. I have not made any claims around here about how others would have done compared to him. I do not reasonably expect any presidents actually taking reducing regulations seriously to appear any time soon, and it is quite possible that Trump is the least regulation-heavy president we will know for quite a while - nonetheless, the number of regulations under him has not decreased, according to the data.

Trump is the same kind of a political manipulator as all other candidates; you pretty much have to be in order to compete with other runners. I do not understand the cult around him, just like I did not understand the cult around Obama.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta But not significant enough to reverse Obama's policy changes.

You know, we are spending a lot of time comparing Trump to Obama.

If we look at the other reductions, we will see they are much larger than Trump's.

We might therefore hypothesize, that another candidate who was not elected may have done better, couldn't we?

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

@CYDdharta

The chart shows a decrease in 2018, but an increase in 2017 - and the overall result of these two years is an increase. Like I suggested, you can zoom in on the graph to see the relative size of the bars more clearly.

I am saying that Trump is a big government guy who has not reduced the number of regulations, just like the previous presidents, and the data supports my conclusion. I have not made any claims around here about how others would have done compared to him. I do not reasonably expect any presidents actually taking reducing regulations seriously to appear any time soon, and it is quite possible that Trump is the least regulation-heavy president we will know for quite a while - nonetheless, the number of regulations under him has not decreased, according to the data.

Trump is the same kind of a political manipulator as all other candidates; you pretty much have to be in order to compete with other runners. I do not understand the cult around him, just like I did not understand the cult around Obama.

The CFR is a lousy measure of actual rules and regulations.  Just randomly poking around one section, it includes things like "Remarks at the Celebration of Ireland Dinner, March 17, 1994" "Telephone Remarks to the Crew of the Space Shuttle Discovery, August 2, 2005" "Remarks at a Cinco de Mayo Celebration, Friday, May 4, 2007"Remarks at a Swearing-in Ceremony for Rex W. Tillerson as Secretary of State, February 1, 2017"

The CFR isn't just rules and regulations, it also includes a host of official statements, radio addresses, press releases, etc. that have nothing to do with regulations.  The last example is significant as it illustrates that there will be a significant number of entries in the CFR during an administration's first calendar year in office that have nothing to do with rules or regulations, which probably explains why there was ALWAYS an increase in the CFR during EVERY administration's first calendar year in office. Since such statements are cumulative, the ability of anyone to reduce the CFR is limited. The Federal Registry is a better gauge, but even that is of limited value.  In an issue in which there were 131 documents; 115 were Notices, 5 were Proposed Rules, and 11 were Rules.  The notices are things like "Notice of Public Meetings for the John Day-Snake Resource, 01/27/2020", hardly a rule or regulation.  The best measure comes from the chart, "Significant Final Rules Published by Presidential Year".  By this best measure, the Trump administration is far and away the best administration in the chart's 24 year history.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta But not significant enough to reverse Obama's policy changes.

You know, we are spending a lot of time comparing Trump to Obama.

If we look at the other reductions, we will see they are much larger than Trump's.

We might therefore hypothesize, that another candidate who was not elected may have done better, couldn't we?

See my reply to May above for your error.  No one even comes close to the Trump administration in Significant Final Rules Published by Presidential Year.