EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3053
| 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. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
I think that is why people like Trump. because they don't give a fuck about who he is but that they think he can win using his boisterous attitude. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
Well that would be something. Don't think anyone expected that Republicans would be the one's running as an independent with Trump representing the party. Probably be easier than trying to paper over all the stuff they will have said by then. Pretty sure the remaining folks have all said something about the other that all but disqualifies them from possibly coming together. Same on the left though so a convention nomination for Clinton and Trump could get us the 4 way race all the pundits have been masturbating to. Think those still favor Trump and Sanders though since they have the most die hard supporters. Though Hillary folks seem to have no line that she could cross that would not be dismissed as "pragmatic" so I guess anything could happen. On February 27 2016 06:19 Slaughter wrote: The way people talk about the opposite party in these debates you would think that they wish they could round them up and put them all in prison. Does the right see 0 value in any ideas that come out of the left and vice versa? No wonder there is such a gridlock because these clowns all act like the other side is a villain that must be defeated so no one wants to compromise. When has politics become a game where the only goal is to "beat" the other side? Its like no one gives a fuck about actually working together and doing the best thing for the country they just care about winning. They think they are objectively right on every issue and that the other side is satan. No one entertains the idea that maybe their perspective for a particular issue might be the weaker one and that the other side might have some good insight to either complement theirs or just be straight superior. I think that is why people like Trump. because they don't give a fuck about who he is but that they think he can win using his boisterous attitude. If Trump showed up in a KKK grand wizard robe at the convention people would tell us about how he just wanted something comfortable and liked the color and has nothing to do with being racist. I think the level of snark is appropriate here usually. Pretty rare something comes up where the sides aren't already too far apart to make progress. When it does, people usually shift pretty well, the usual posters anyway. The election has changed that dynamic a bit with a surprisingly dedicated group of Hillary supporters. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On February 27 2016 06:19 Slaughter wrote: Does the right see 0 value in any ideas that come out of the left and vice versa? Conservatism nowadays is just doubling down on social conservatism. Which is to say, never making a lasting impact on the world. Just making sure that changes in society take 5-20 years longer. Social conservatism is a commitment to limiting societal evolution, so I don't see a shred of value in it. It is short sighted and doesn't pay respect to how radically the world has changed and will continue to change. Things like keeping gay marriage illegal, limiting abortions and keeping health care a luxury simply have no merit. None of these things will be around in 100 years and that is what makes social conservatism definitively incorrect. It is not a process of learning or growth. It is sitting still and using appeals to tradition to validate stagnation. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 27 2016 06:19 Slaughter wrote: The way people talk about the opposite party in these debates you would think that they wish they could round them up and put them all in prison. Does the right see 0 value in any ideas that come out of the left and vice versa? No wonder there is such a gridlock because these clowns all act like the other side is a villain that must be defeated so no one wants to compromise. When has politics become a game where the only goal is to "beat" the other side? Its like no one gives a fuck about actually working together and doing the best thing for the country they just care about winning. They think they are objectively right on every issue and that the other side is satan. No one entertains the idea that maybe their perspective for a particular issue might be the weaker one and that the other side might have some good insight to either complement theirs or just be straight superior. I think that is why people like Trump. because they don't give a fuck about who he is but that they think he can win using his boisterous attitude. The trend I see coming out of the GOP is them shifting from a fiscal conservative view of government, where it should do as little as possible and rely on the states, to a general loathing of the process of government as a whole. That government should go away, expect for the parts that give them power or pay them. The slap at Cruz that he will drop out right before he goes on vacation will likely turn out to be true. Regan, as conservative as he was, didn’t loath the democrats. He didn’t hate them. The most hard line conservatives back in the day still respected Ted Kennedy and were even his friend. Back then, they saw the fellow senators as co-workers, not the enemy. I can’t tell if this new batch hates government badly that badly, or just say they do to stay in power, collect government pay checks and line up lobbyist jobs for when they are done. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
On February 27 2016 06:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Well that would be something. Don't think anyone expected that Republicans would be the one's running as an independent with Trump representing the party. Probably be easier than trying to paper over all the stuff they will have said by then. Pretty sure the remaining folks have all said something about the other that all but disqualifies them from possibly coming together. Same on the left though so a convention nomination for Clinton and Trump could get us the 4 way race all the pundits have been masturbating to. Think those still favor Trump and Sanders though since they have the most die hard supporters. Though Hillary folks seem to have no line that she could cross that would not be dismissed as "pragmatic" so I guess anything could happen. Maybe all the more hilarious by the affirmations of 'not running 3e party' at the start of the very first debate. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21373 Posts
On February 27 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote: I can’t tell if this new batch hates government badly that badly, or just say they do to stay in power, collect government pay checks and line up lobbyist jobs for when they are done. The 2nd option obviously. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
There seems to be a good chunk of the Tea Party darlings that have this very plan. Ride the wave as long as they can, fuck over Obama by doing nothing and then get a sweet lobbyist job with the connections they made. They might also hate government, but not if its paying them or bringing money into their state. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On February 27 2016 06:29 Mohdoo wrote: Conservatism nowadays is just doubling down on social conservatism. Which is to say, never making a lasting impact on the world. Just making sure that changes in society take 5-20 years longer. Social conservatism is a commitment to limiting societal evolution, so I don't see a shred of value in it. It is short sighted and doesn't pay respect to how radically the world has changed and will continue to change. Things like keeping gay marriage illegal, limiting abortions and keeping health care a luxury simply have no merit. None of these things will be around in 100 years and that is what makes social conservatism definitively incorrect. It is not a process of learning or growth. It is sitting still and using appeals to tradition to validate stagnation. I hope you're right, to be honest I am not that optimistic. George Carlin said it best: "It will never get any better, because the owners of this country don't want that![..] Forget the politicians, they are here to give you the idea that you have a choice! You don't, the owners do, THEY OWN YOU." hilarious, but sadly true.. These so called 1%ers only want more for themselves and they're scared shitless and will do anything to prevent change... | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On February 27 2016 07:02 thePunGun wrote: I hope you're right, to be honest I am not that optimistic. George Carlin said it best: "It will never get any better, because the owners of this country don't want that![..] Forget the politicians, they are here to give you the idea that you have a choice! You don't, the owners do, THEY OWN YOU." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ hilarious, but sadly true.. These so called 1%ers only want more for themselves and they're scared shitless and will do anything to prevent change... When pain medication and blood transfusions were first discovered, social conservatives called it playing god and going too far. Social conservatives were also really uncomfortable with women voting. Then black people voting. The issues may change, but the fundamental idea of appeals to tradition to validate societal stagnation is constant. I'm sure in 100 years they will have some other new idea that makes them uncomfortable, but 200 years from now, those issues will have also been totally accepted. The social conservatives we have to deal with focus on abortion and gay rights. But in 100 years, those issues won't even be something people think of. Nonetheless, these modern day social conservatives will fight for things to take longer. | ||
Falling
Canada11279 Posts
Ted Cruz clearly did not grow up listening to Arrogant Worms. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Dow Chemical Co. said it agreed to pay $835 million to settle an antitrust case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death reduced its chances of overturning a jury award. Dow, the largest U.S. chemical maker by sales, said Friday the accord will resolve its challenges to a $1.06 billion award to purchasers of compounds for urethanes, chemicals used to make foam upholstery for furniture and plastic walls in refrigerators. The Midland, Michigan-based company disputed a jury’s finding it had conspired with four other chemical makers to fix urethane prices and asked the Supreme Court to take the class-action case on appeal. Scalia, one of the court’s most conservative members, had voted to scale back the reach of such group suits. “Growing political uncertainties due to recent events with the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class-action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation,” the company said in an e-mailed statement. Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On February 27 2016 07:07 xDaunt wrote: Don't conflate the GOP establishment/leadership with either the GOP base, conservative sentiment, Tea Partiers, or rank & file conservative/GOP politicians. One can't even begin to understand what is going on with the republican party without being able to distinguish between the different factions within it. Good god. I'd love to see candidates put to that list and compare it to mine. Would the folks on the right agree on who was which? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 27 2016 05:15 Doublemint wrote: between "acknowledging a security problem" - which is I believe very much acknowledged by just about anyone - and building a surveillance state even the stasi agents could have never imagined in their wildest dreams... I would guess there can be some middle ground, no? and no, people not knowing that their constitutionally guaranteed privacy(or security from intrusion?) - on massive scales - is violated and therefore no harm is done is _not_ an ok way to approach this. thinking big data and all information/"noise" out there can be translated into actionable intelligence... that's hybris. and will backfire on many fronts very, very hard. heck, it already has. If you're going to use "constitutionally," you'd better use unreasonable search and seizure. There is no broad constitutional right to privacy, only bits and pieces that courts have extended to mean privacy in such and such area. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On February 27 2016 07:53 Danglars wrote: If you're going to use "constitutionally," you'd better use unreasonable search and seizure. There is no broad constitutional right to privacy, only bits and pieces that courts have extended to mean privacy in such and such area. This might enlighten you 2: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html Call me google  | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 27 2016 06:30 Plansix wrote: Reagan fought vicious battles against the likes of Tip O'Neill, even going over his head to make his case to the American people to force their elected representatives to support his agenda. He couldn't persuade the man or work things out through friendship. He stripped away his power by rupturing his rank and file's loyalties and converted his bargaining position into one of strength. The other telling is the story is a deliberate twisting of history to fit a narrative. Namely, conservatives have changed into obstructionists where previously they found success through talk and compromise. It was a bitter fight back then as well. The trend I see coming out of the GOP is them shifting from a fiscal conservative view of government, where it should do as little as possible and rely on the states, to a general loathing of the process of government as a whole. That government should go away, expect for the parts that give them power or pay them. The slap at Cruz that he will drop out right before he goes on vacation will likely turn out to be true. Regan, as conservative as he was, didn’t loath the democrats. He didn’t hate them. The most hard line conservatives back in the day still respected Ted Kennedy and were even his friend. Back then, they saw the fellow senators as co-workers, not the enemy. I can’t tell if this new batch hates government badly that badly, or just say they do to stay in power, collect government pay checks and line up lobbyist jobs for when they are done. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
America’s next long-range strike bomber is now officially called the B-21. Not to be confused with the B-2, the B-52, or the BM-21 Russian-made multiple rocket launch system. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah James made the announcement Friday at the Air Force Association’s annual Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla. According to a report in Reuters, the name of the aircraft will be chosen by service members, as “B-21″ is just the official designation. The aircraft was long rumored to be called the B-3. James also released the first rendering of the aircraft that shows a sleek flying wing design that was teased during a Super Bowl ad last year. The B-21 will be a stealth aircraft, much like the B-2 spirit, and capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Northrop Grumman won a contract for the aircraft in October that could mean as much as $80 billion for the aerospace company, but work on the first 100 planes was delayed after the contract’s award was protested by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Both companies had hoped to win the contract, but according to Reuters, Boeing will no longer pursue legal action that could hold up construction of the B-21. Little is known about the bomber, as its projected capabilities have been kept under wraps to keep the United States’ adversaries from developing countermeasures to defeat it. Source | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 27 2016 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Good god. I'd love to see candidates put to that list and compare it to mine. Would the folks on the right agree on who was which? Well, there's little point in getting bogged down in the details with various members of the rank and file are. They don't really matter, because they are largely under the boot of the current establishment. If you're a congressman or a senator, you're basically coerced into towing the party line, or your political career is over. You may get elected by the folks back home, but you will not advance up the ladder and hold important posts. This is how it works in both parties. This is Ted Cruz's root problem. He's conservatism incarnate: a pure ideologue who will not compromise his conservative values for anything. He refuses to play by the rules of the establishment and he rubs their noses in their own corruption. Because he refuses to play the game and make any compromise whatsoever, he's reviled by everyone in Washington. If conservatives are honest with themselves, they'll understand that Ted's rock solid conservativism is his biggest liability and weakness as a presidential candidate. But back to the problems with the republican party: the root cause of what's happening is the divorce between the whims of the republicans leadership (the establishment) and the desires of the average republican voter. The magnitude of the disenfranchisement and betrayal is huge. Again, let me remind everyone that Jeb Bush kicked off his campaign to a presumably easy nomination by announcing that he was going to win the nomination without cowing to the republican base. | ||
| ||
