EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2736
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22610 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 14 2016 07:19 Simberto wrote: I know that i changed my positions on an awful lot of topics just over the last ten years alone, sometimes due to me learning more things, sometimes due to me realizing that i was actually retarded before. I don't see why this shouldn't ever happen to politicians. So, there are a couple of issues. First: Is it due to new facts, or due to a changed political climate? Its assumed that in most cases, unless you point to a specific fact that you learned, that its due to the changed political climate. This is frowned upon because why should I vote for you because you say you believe X (which I also believe) when if a % of voters becomes against X you will no longer support it? I'm not voting for a position I like, I'm voting for a coinflip that landed on heads...this time. You are not an asset to a voter. Second: Is it due to you learning new facts? Or just facts being discovered? If you didn't know the facts, you are probably incompetent, so why should I trust you to be competent with the facts on other positions you are taking? You are, at best, a useful idiot who I will try to replace with a competent person who shares my beliefs. Third: What are these new facts? Did they change my position? Often, the answer to the second question is no. For instance, if the CIA had stopped cooking their Soviet numbers in 1984, its unlikely Reagan would have stood down on his military buildup, nor would it have convinced most of his supporters to flip flop on that. Now, imagine, however, that the new facts were that the Soviets were indeed 15x stronger than the USA, and military buildup would be nothing more than pissing on a brick wall. Maybe those facts change Reagan's mind, but they also change many of the voter's mind because they prefer to be alive over dead. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
In the ideal world, the congress member would explain why they held their previous belief and what changed their mind. But that isn't how the political world works. But our cynicism on the subject doesn't help either. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
Everyone should be able to look back at themselves not even 5 years ago and think to themself "Man, I was a god damn retard". That means you're growing and you're not a psycho. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
I would much rather someone move from one plan to another in light of changing circumstances, emerging information and their own evolving application of reason than stick with a bad plan to save face. That's how it works everywhere else. I can understand that repeated back-and-forwards changes might suggest that someone is only parroting the courses of action they're putting forward, but that's a deep edge case and the accusation gets thrown around far more than it's relevant. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple. “Sweetheart, I’d like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign,” he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed. But the couple’s decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz’s successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports. Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put “personal funds” totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — “which is all we had saved,” as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago. A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose. Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission, in which candidates are required to disclose the source of money they borrow to finance their campaigns. Other campaigns have been investigated and fined for failing to make such disclosures, which are intended to inform voters and prevent candidates from receiving special treatment from lenders. There is no evidence that the Cruzes got a break on their loans. A spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz’s presidential campaign, Catherine Frazier, acknowledged that the loan from Goldman Sachs, drawn against the value of the Cruzes’ brokerage account, was a source of money for the Senate race. Ms. Frazier added that Mr. Cruz also sold stocks and liquidated savings, but she did not address whether the Citibank loan was used. The failure to report the Goldman Sachs loan, for as much as $500,000, was “inadvertent,” she said, adding that the campaign would file corrected reports as necessary. Ms. Frazier said there had been no attempt to hide anything. Source | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 14 2016 09:55 cLutZ wrote: I am very surprised by how charitable you are all to politicians. I've seen very few of them who "evolve" more quickly on an issue than the majority within their own party. Gay Marriage and Immigration are two that very quickly come to mind. There are, of course, always principled crusaders like your Bernies or your Jeff Sessions but they don't evolve they are the one's who, if they successfully plead their case to the public, cause others to. Obama got elected on political idealism. He was going to be a different kind of politician at the helm of a newly transparent political process, look at any speech 2007-2008. I think the charity remains, though now it's with Sanders, and the only afterthought is that Obama turned out to be a bad apple (or simply too much to do in too little time and later too much opposition. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On January 14 2016 13:17 Mohdoo wrote: Let's say Trump decides to go all-in on Cruz regarding this campaign finance stuff. "Cruz claims to be anti-establishment and trying to clean up Washington, yet he is corrupt in this way and that way and put all his money into getting elected" etc etc etc. Am I the only one who thinks that could be a campaign-winning move? If he can make Cruz supporters think "Wow. Trump truly is the only one.", I could imagine him cranking up to 40%+. Except this story revealed exactly zero new things. And I'm not sure even Trump can turn someone taking a loan into something. He may try though. I mean this birther stuff is pretty dumb as well. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 14 2016 13:28 Introvert wrote: Except this story revealed exactly zero new things. And I'm not sure even Trump can turn someone taking a loan into something. He may try though. I mean this birther stuff is pretty dumb as well. Trump's entire campaign is based on taking mildly accurate things, making them extremely inaccurate, and using his charisma and public speaking skills to turn it into a dagger that makes others look weak while making himself look strong. I honestly think it's viable. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24366 Posts
On January 14 2016 13:28 Introvert wrote: Except this story revealed exactly zero new things. And I'm not sure even Trump can turn someone taking a loan into something. He may try though. I mean this birther stuff is pretty dumb as well. Doesn't just have to be that he fudged that he actually started his Senate campaign on a loan instead of just liquidating his assets (which Trump would probably also make fun of), Trump can hype questioning Cruz's super PAC and his big money donors. Getting money out of politics is popular even in Republican circles and Cruz has given Trump plenty of ammo. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On January 14 2016 09:55 cLutZ wrote: I am very surprised by how charitable you are all to politicians. I've seen very few of them who "evolve" more quickly on an issue than the majority within their own party. Gay Marriage and Immigration are two that very quickly come to mind. There are, of course, always principled crusaders like your Bernies or your Jeff Sessions but they don't evolve they are the one's who, if they successfully plead their case to the public, cause others to. Gay marriage polled at 40% at best in the 90s. It polls at 60-70% now. The big middle of the country evolved, the part whose votes matter. Politicians can evolve with that big middle 30%. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On January 14 2016 14:29 GreenHorizons wrote: Doesn't just have to be that he fudged that he actually started his Senate campaign on a loan instead of just liquidating his assets (which Trump would probably also make fun of), Trump can hype questioning Cruz's super PAC and his big money donors. Getting money out of politics is popular even in Republican circles and Cruz has given Trump plenty of ammo. Trump might try to do something, but most of that seems like a strch. I mean Cruz explained it here. https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/687463737431842816/photo/1 This really is a non-story, it's like someone did some opposition research and just flung that out to see what happened. Who knows. I mean the Cruz's didn't do anything unusual, and loans were made known before the election. I suppose someone willing to go down the brither trail not once, but twice, might try to spin something innocuous into a story, but I'm sure. People went after Rubio for his finances too at one point, and that died quickly. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 14 2016 14:36 JW_DTLA wrote: Gay marriage polled at 40% at best in the 90s. It polls at 60-70% now. The big middle of the country evolved, the part whose votes matter. Politicians can evolve with that big middle 30%. Yes. That's what I said. Changing your opinion based on polling data is correctly ridiculed. One other thing that flip-floppers are consistently unable to articulate (and why they are correctly ridiculed) is why they supported the old position. Just by way of example, Obama was against gay marriage in 2008, but now cannot seemingly comprehend why someone would continue to hold that position. In fact, he and his allies treat it as bigotry. Lets assume we didn't have the 22nd Amendment, and he was running for a 3rd term, why would a moderate liberal who holds free speech in high regard not assume he would make a similar switch following a hypothetical 2016 election regarding things like trigger warnings and other censorship issues (in the event that a significant % of the Democratic voting block adopts that stance)? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24366 Posts
On January 14 2016 14:49 Introvert wrote: Trump might try to do something, but most of that seems like a strch. I mean Cruz explained it here. https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/687463737431842816/photo/1 This really is a non-story, it's like someone did some opposition research and just flung that out to see what happened. Who knows. I mean the Cruz's didn't do anything unusual, and loans were made known before the election. I suppose someone willing to go down the brither trail not once, but twice, might try to spin something innocuous into a story, but I'm sure. People went after Rubio for his finances too at one point, and that died quickly. Like has been said before Trump's already turned total fiction into a common belief among Republicans so it wouldn't be unheard of for him to make it into something bigger than it is. But like I said, his current financing for his campaign would be even easier for Trump to rail on to make him look like a typical political puppet for his big money donors. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
If only our political representatives did what the majority of their constituents thought they should do. What a novel concept. I don't care what Obama's actual opinion on gay marriage is, what matters is he helped bring it to pass (or at least didn't stand in its way based on his 'principles', a la Kim Davis). If he later "lied" about his opinion to reflect the shift in public-opinion... why is that a bad thing? | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 14 2016 14:29 GreenHorizons wrote: Doesn't just have to be that he fudged that he actually started his Senate campaign on a loan instead of just liquidating his assets (which Trump would probably also make fun of), Trump can hype questioning Cruz's super PAC and his big money donors. Getting money out of politics is popular even in Republican circles and Cruz has given Trump plenty of ammo. Yeah, but "the MSM digs up smear campaign" is even more beloved amongst Republicans. This is about as meaningful an issue to the GOP base as Marco Rubio spending campaign funds on personal expenses/mismanaging personal finances or whatever gibberish MSNBC trotted out at that one debate. Especially in Iowa where people vote with their bibles. Beyond that, Trump starting to attack someone else in earnest beyond one-off insults is conceding he feels threatened, which is something he doesn't really want to do while projecting the image of the frontrunner. Then again he's about as likely to follow my logic or advice as that of a homeless man on the street so anything's possible, especially if he's getting petulent about not being in the news again like when he released his first TV ad. | ||
| ||
