EPTI doubt the IG report will change anyone's mind, though. If you were pro-Clinton before the report's release, you'll dismiss the report as a confirmation of Clinton's non-criminal negligence. If you were anti-Clinton, you'll read the report as evidence that Clinton will be indicted.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3904
| 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. | ||
|
zf
231 Posts
I doubt the IG report will change anyone's mind, though. If you were pro-Clinton before the report's release, you'll dismiss the report as a confirmation of Clinton's non-criminal negligence. If you were anti-Clinton, you'll read the report as evidence that Clinton will be indicted. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
SAN DIEGO — Donald Trump could have taken a victory lap last week. Instead, he went on a grudge tour. During his first big campaign swing since locking up the Republican presidential nomination, Trump went after an odd and seemingly random group of people — Democrats and Republicans, famous and obscure. There seemed little to gain politically from the attacks, and his targets were linked by just one thing: Trump felt they had all done him wrong. So he blasted Republicans who have yet to endorse him, including Jeb Bush, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Mitt Romney, who Trump said “walks like a penguin.” He declared that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton doesn’t look presidential, and he went after her allies, especially Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whom Trump continues to call “Pocahontas” even after being told the nickname is offensive. He mocked those protesting him and slammed reporters covering his candidacy. During the four-day, four-state tour, Trump also went after people who were probably unknown to his supporters until he brought them up: Barbara Res, a former employee quoted in an article about his treatment of women, and U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is assigned to hear a fraud case against now-defunct Trump University. Trump’s cutting insults and simplistic attacks have been a hallmark of his candidacy, viewed by supporters as proof that he is fearless and willing to attack institutions from the Republican Party to the Vatican. During Trump’s fight for the Republican nomination, his calculated shots at rivals helped take them out, one by one. But with the nomination apparently secured, last week’s fusillade of digs seemed counterproductive. Why go after the GOP’s only two female minority governors — Martinez and South Carolina’s Nikki Haley — when there are many other elected Republicans who have not endorsed him? What does he gain from smearing a former employee and a federal judge whom most of his supporters have never heard of? Why comment on Clinton’s voice and appearance instead of her record? Source | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 30 2016 23:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Is he talking about Gary Johnson? https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/737025756488978432 It's the same shit people always say about third party candidates. Gary Johnson is as viable as Sanders or Nader. People huddle around strength and a 3rd party is always weak. The only thing that makes a 3rd party more viable this term is the incredibly high unfavorables. But they still get support. Because they are strong. It's just the sad reality of how most of humanity is genetically inclined to be followers. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28915 Posts
Honestly though, that debate was absolutely hilarious. They managed to pack more insane statements into a 2 hour session than what we saw from the republican debates combined - and without me fearing for the safety of the world - because these guys will never be influential.  That said, with the exception of Austin Petersen, I thought they all seemed like really sympathetic people, but yeah.. worldviews not synchronized with reality and all that. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I wish it wasn't too much trouble to start my own party; then I'd do that, and show them a real (boring) debate. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
I understand that political plurality is not the final solution to all the problems - we have now the most fragmented political scene ever and I still struggle to find any party whose goals would be reasonably aligned with mine, but I guess I am a little bit of an outlier in my opinions. But the US system doesn't seem to be very efficient in projecting the will of people into the actions of government. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22675 Posts
On May 31 2016 00:30 opisska wrote: A question to my fellow Americans: I see an increasing discontent with the (rather unique) bipartisan system virtually everywhere. The main problem of it, where you have just two sets of viewpoints to pick form, while your own will probably contain parts from both sides. So why do you still nurture it? Why there aren't more motions to change the voting system so that it's easier to form plurality? I get it that people aren't very keen on voting for a 3rd party in a majority-based system, but it would still really help if people started doing that. I understand that political plurality is not the final solution to all the problems - we have now the most fragmented political scene ever and I still struggle to find any party whose goals would be reasonably aligned with mine, but I guess I am a little bit of an outlier in my opinions. But the US system doesn't seem to be very efficient in projecting the will of people into the actions of government. Because by voting 3e party instead of the 'least harmful of the 2' your actually making it more likely that you get screwed over by the 'more harmful' winning. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
and I imagine most folk aren't aware enough of alternate voting schemes to be seriously considering it. More high profile people would need to start discussing it in order to gain momentum. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On May 31 2016 00:42 Gorsameth wrote: Because by voting 3e party instead of the 'least harmful of the 2' your actually making it more likely that you get screwed over by the 'more harmful' winning. You could say the same in our multi-party system. Yet, there are parties who get from 0 to 25 percent (which is as high as it ever gets) in a matter of years. It just requires people to abandon your way of thinking and it apparently happens in Europe a lot. Why can't it happen in the US. I am really curious how the system stayed as it is for such an immensely long time. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On May 31 2016 00:48 zlefin wrote: Most of Europe has parliaments, and proportional representation systems, rather than first past the post voting. OMG, I checked it and the whole Congress is one-per-district majority voting, right? (It's actually pretty hard to find it online explained to a European ) I was honestly not aware of that. I always thought it's only a subset. Well, that makes it harder, I agree. Still, it takes only about 35 % of voters in a district to break the equilibrium ... | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Yes, all of congress is one-per-district majority voting. In much of europe, several smaller parties form a ruling coalition to get the majority in parliament; in the US, due to the nature of things, those smaler groups instead form together into a single party as an alliance, then try to get each other elected. That's why the US parties are called "big tent" parties, as they tend to have a much more diverse set of groups within them than european parties (and more freedom for members to go against the party on some issues). On occasion interest groups may switch from one party to another, depending on who's offering what they're interested and disputes over various things. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8214 Posts
On May 31 2016 00:30 opisska wrote: A question to my fellow Americans: I see an increasing discontent with the (rather unique) bipartisan system virtually everywhere. The main problem of it, where you have just two sets of viewpoints to pick form, while your own will probably contain parts from both sides. So why do you still nurture it? Why there aren't more motions to change the voting system so that it's easier to form plurality? I get it that people aren't very keen on voting for a 3rd party in a majority-based system, but it would still really help if people started doing that. I understand that political plurality is not the final solution to all the problems - we have now the most fragmented political scene ever and I still struggle to find any party whose goals would be reasonably aligned with mine, but I guess I am a little bit of an outlier in my opinions. But the US system doesn't seem to be very efficient in projecting the will of people into the actions of government. Well, the american constitution needs to be completely changed but it's never gonna happen because a lot of americans think the founding father were some kind of Jedi masters and that the constitution is the bible (which shouldn't even be a reason but then again...) The belief that america is the greatest country in history and so special and so on and other nationalist rubbish don't help to consider that this document the whole system is based on needs some serious, serious rewriting because it was written by a bunch of slave owners in the 18th century and doesn't make much sense today. Think about it, France has had 5 democratic constitutions since 1789 (let's forget about the monarchic, imperial and fascist episodes in between), and many call for a new one, because the Vth Republic was designed in the 60's, and the world has changed a lot since. Meanwhile, in the US, we get mass murders every saturday because the founding father made sure that people could defend themselves against the Sioux by allowing them to carry weapons (of coooourse they had forseen the problem of lunatic, psychologically fragile kid that can go down the street and buy a war weapon to kill all his little comrades).. It goes without saying that there should be two rounds to the presidential, like in France, another presidential republic. You vote for Bernie first round and for Clinton second. And Bernie gets his share of MPs and the Democrats govern with a coalition. Simple. The thing is, if now you vote for a third party, you are basically helping the other side to win. When the other side is as batshit crazy and dangerous as Trump and the Rep, you don't do it unless you are completely irresponsible (I guess I should project myself as a right winger and say that of course you don't vote libertarian because Clinton is so evil and Trump is obviously the better option but that's beyond my forces). Nader is basically responsible for the historical disaster that the Bush era has been for America and the world. The world would be a different place if Gore had been president. Starting with the burning (oops) problem of global warming. Being noble and believing in your conviction at the cost of ten years of not fighting what is probably the biggest ecological catastrophe in history is not great. Not talking about Iraq and all the endless stream of idiotic decision the Bush administration has made. So you are stuck with a system where the primary is the first round, which is a horrible idea as we are seeing. Unsolvable problem. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a "public service" by triggering a debate over surveillance techniques, but still must pay a penalty for illegally leaking a trove of classified intelligence documents. "We can certainly argue about the way in which Snowden did what he did, but I think that he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made," Holder told David Axelrod on "The Axe Files," a podcast produced by CNN and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics. "Now I would say that doing what he did -- and the way he did it -- was inappropriate and illegal," Holder added. Holder said Snowden jeopardized America's security interests by leaking classified information while working as a contractor for the National Security Agency in 2013. "He harmed American interests," said Holder, who was at the helm of the Justice Department when Snowden leaked U.S. surveillance secrets. "I know there are ways in which certain of our agents were put at risk, relationships with other countries were harmed, our ability to keep the American people safe was compromised. There were all kinds of re-dos that had to be put in place as a result of what he did, and while those things were being done we were blind in certain really critical areas. So what he did was not without consequence." Snowden, who has spent the last few years in exile in Russia, should return to the U.S. to deal with the consequences, Holder noted. Source | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22675 Posts
On May 31 2016 00:53 opisska wrote: OMG, I checked it and the whole Congress is one-per-district majority voting, right? (It's actually pretty hard to find it online explained to a European ) I was honestly not aware of that. I always thought it's only a subset. Well, that makes it harder, I agree. Still, it takes only about 35 % of voters in a district to break the equilibrium ... Single 3e party congressmen exist, Bernie was one of them for example but a small handful of independents do nothing and convincing enough people in enough voting districts to actually break the congressional 2 party system is a monumental task. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On May 31 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote: Single 3e party congressmen exist, Bernie was one of them for example but a small handful of independents do nothing and convincing enough people in enough voting districts to actually break the congressional 2 party system is a monumental task. Bernie ran for office without a democrat running against him so not really. He's an "independent" who ran with the blessing of the Democratic party. Whistle blow, but don't break the law. Is that even possible... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Two years after Colorado began its first retail sales of cannabis, towns and cities across the state are enjoying the benefits in a number of ways. With sales this year expected to reach $1 billion, local governments are seeing windfalls of tax revenue, which is funding education, recreation, infrastructure improvements, and even aid to the homeless. The small town of Mountain View may be able to dispel its reputation for collecting revenue through speeding tickets, now that two pot shops reside there. “We have such a small tax base,” said Mayor Jeff Kiddie, who opposed pot stores. “Medical and retail marijuana have definitely helped the town’s bottom line. I’d be lying if I said it didn’t.” Similar stories abound in the 22 counties and 62 cities that allow retail cannabis sales. In Aurora, which has collected millions in sales taxes and fees since October 2014, the City Council keeps the money in a separate fund so it can show the public exactly where cannabis revenue is spent. $1.5 million will be used to address the homeless issue, $2.8 million will go toward a recreation center, and $3.8 million will fund an Interstate 225 crossing. Northglenn uses the money for capital projects and to purchase water rights. Adams County will spend $500,000 on scholarships for low-income students. Filling potholes and fixing roads is a common theme in other towns. Source | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22675 Posts
On May 31 2016 01:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Bernie ran for office without a democrat running against him so not really. He's an "independent" who ran with the blessing of the Democratic party. Whistle blow, but don't break the law. Is that even possible... Its possible if your not under some form of non-disclosure. So... impossible for anything actually important/juicy. | ||
| ||
