US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4079

On June 18 2016 07:09 Introvert wrote:
I wonder if Paul Ryan knows there is this body called Congress, that is supposed to keep the president in check. Not just stuffed courts.

On June 18 2016 07:11 Plansix wrote:

If he starts throwing around executive orders, the courts need to be used to stop them. If he gets crazy out of control, then they could go down the nightmare path of cutting the funding to the executive branch through ways and means. But that is when all hope is lost and we need to all get bug out bags, because we are fucked if it comes to that.

On June 18 2016 07:18 Introvert wrote:


But the courts are too slow (and too powerful, but that's a separate issue). Obama is doing this with DAPA and DACA. They are moving ahead while things are in court. By the time the courts are finished it won't matter.

Congress has a responsibility, not just the courts.

On June 18 2016 07:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Mostly by white men that are scared of her.

On June 18 2016 07:20 Plansix wrote:

Injunctions are instant and can be put in place until the order is allowed or not. If he ordered a ban on Muslims, that shit would get fucking stayed by the court. Or congress would act. Both branches can keep the executive branch in check.



Some white dudes are easily intimated. I remember when the Notorious RBG said that the correct number of women on the Supreme court was 9 a lot of dudes got very mad. Her reasoning was sound though.

On June 18 2016 07:30 Introvert wrote:


Both branches can, but I'm criticizing Ryan preemptively punting to the courts. But maybe I shouldn't be too harsh.

Editor's note: This post contains language and photos some readers may find inappropriate.

I've covered presidential campaigns for decades. I've never had to bleep — or drop an asterisk into — a candidate's speech.

Until this year.

Take this Donald Trump quote from a rally in Virginia:

"We're gonna win with the military. We're gonna knock the s*** out of ISIS. We're gonna knock the s*** out of them."

That's one of the big lines of a typical Trump speech. Then there was the time he didn't actually drop the F-bomb. He just mouthed it to the camera.

"We're gonna have businesses that used to be in New Hampshire that are now in Mexico come back to New Hampshire and you can tell them to go ..." he paused to mouth the word, "... themselves."

He seems to know his language can pack a punch.

"I'm not allowed to use any bad words," Trump said at a Pittsburgh rally. "If I had used the A-word, they'd say, 'Ooh, Trump used foul language ... horrible, horrible."

That's from the stage at his rallies. Outside, the expletives are on a whole different level.

A Trump rally in Charleston, W.Va., in May.
A Trump rally in Charleston, W.Va., in May.
Don Gonyea/NPR
At a Trump rally at the Fox Theater in Atlanta this week, I came across a T-shirt vendor working the long line of people who were waiting for the doors to open. It was 8:30 in the morning, but the front of the shirt he was selling featured photos of Hillary Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and a vulgar phrase: "Hillary s**** but not the way Monica does."

And the back of the shirt — in huge, unavoidable letters — says: "Trump That B****." It's a hot seller at the rallies.

Around the corner and down the block, I found TaMara Moore standing outside a van loaded with shirts. One of his shirts says — again in giant letters: "Donald F*****' Trump."

And the back: "If you don't bleed red, white and blue take your b**** a** home."

Over the course of the campaign, these shirts have gone almost mainstream. Early on, vendors sold them way out in the parking lot or off to the side somewhere. Not anymore.

TaMara Moore said he doesn't believe the shirts he sells cross a line. "Freedom of speech, baby," he explained.
TaMara Moore said he doesn't believe the shirts he sells cross a line. "Freedom of speech, baby," he explained.
Don Gonyea/NPR
Moore said his shirts don't cross a line. When I asked him if the message was appropriate, he said, "Freedom of speech, baby."

He also said families buy the shirts, even with their kids in tow.

"You'd be surprised how many people have a dislike for Hillary," he said. "I was a little shocked."

But not every one approves, including another vendor, Claude Stafford of Sarasota, Fla.

"I'd have to pass on those," Stafford said of the crude T-shirts. I asked him why.

"Just not my character. You know, you see kids and stuff, and they say, 'Mommy, what's that say?' I just can't do it," he said.

Stafford was pulling a red wagon full of more traditional fare: shirts and hats that say "President Trump 2016."

I also came across 24-year-old McKinley Witzler waiting in line. He argued that the shirts with rude slogans are no different from what you see at an Atlanta Falcons football game, for example. Still, he said he doesn't approve of that Hillary and Monica shirt.

"The content of the shirt, it's ridiculous. It's over the top," he said. "It's demeaning to women."

But he says the attention it gets is overblown. How about that other one, that says "Donald F*****' Trump?"

"Would I wear that shirt personally? Probably not. That shirt, I don't really have a problem with though," he said. "If you're that enthusiastic about Trump, then that's OK with me."

On June 18 2016 07:03 FiWiFaKi wrote:


Well sadly there's been very few polls recently.

When I made the statement, it was because of my peers, looking at Huffington post polls where she's 1.8% down with 28.7% of people having not heard enough, which is pretty god awful. Usually, as more people hear of you, your ratings go down.

Like Kasich had favorable ratings of +10-15, and most people didn't even bother to listen to what he said. And as people got to listen to what he said, that's when he went out of favor.

Her ratings only look "okay" since everyone else's ratings are awful, but the reality is she's around Hillary level if you account for everything, which is, bluntly put, fucking awful. She's more disliked than Ben Carson, and on par with dings like Chris Christie or Carly.

There's got to be like at least 10 people who she can pick that will be at least say +15 favorable. I think it's a good idea to make most people "meh happy", than 40% very happy, 10% meh happy, and 50% pissed off.



Well sure, you can use that, but it's more a compound of the indicators.

Say you go to 10 year view, try to draw a line of best fit as well you can (yeah, that data is kind of bad, no filter and so it's just bouncing up and down). Obviously not a perfect indicator, as the capital can represent so many different sources.

Terms of trade is probably the clearest indicator out of all those that you can look at, when you zoom out to max time.

I think it is important for two opposing views to respect each other, and If you want to convince a person of anything you must first gain their respect.

On June 18 2016 09:46 farvacola wrote:
While I disagree with pretty much everything you say, Solar, I will agree that that blog is pretty awful

On June 18 2016 09:09 SolaR- wrote:
My girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend(who I despise) posted this blog in support of personally attacking people in arguments.

The main premise is that personal attacks can be used effectively against opposing opinions or viewpoints by exploiting how inept the person voicing that opinion really is. The blog says that we should stifle people with oppressive(or what that person deems as oppressive) opinions or ideas with these personal attacks.

It goes on to say that in reaction to the personal attacks, people take the moral high ground saying that they will not resort to your level. The blog claims that this is just posturing, and the person being attacked has no real argument but to take the moral high ground on your personal attacks.

Quite frankly, I find this blog to be really ridiculous. I was just curious to see what you guys think. This blog cites Neil Postman's, Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book that I have read. I think the author of this blog is misrepresenting the book, and unfairly attacking it to support his own agenda.

I think it is important for two opposing views to respect each other, and If you want to convince a person of anything you must first gain their respect.


samkriss.wordpress.com

I indulge in strange fantasies in which they get kidnapped and beaten to a pulp, are humiliated on live TV, expose themselves from a medieval tower, develop a psychotic fear of frogs, or sneak into people’s homes to commit strange acts of voyeurism. Some of these comments are potentially libellous (sue me, you fuckers!), all of them are frankly gratuitous and unnecessary. In fact, this is an occasional response I receive – my point, when I bother to make one, is marred by the vitriol of the personal insults; it’s unfair and unbecoming; when I insult someone’s person it can look as if I’m not competent to grapple with their ideas. So why do it?

On June 18 2016 10:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:


It should look bad? Terms of trade are abysmal (don't compare it between 2013 to 2015, but an actual ongoing trend), and don't look at capital flow equals to zero as equilibrium. The population and the economy should be growing, and hence at least you should compare it to the historic rates.

And looking the same as last few years would suggest that debt will increase at the same rate, which is not acceptable.

On June 18 2016 09:56 Danglars wrote:
Maybe in five years to a decade we can work back towards respecting each side, but it's a long shot. Even in this thread on the internet in a gaming forum was locked, had a very contested/ideological bans, can't even debate effective military actions or foreign policy in war. Which is to say, nobody's convincing anybody and the battleground extends to the (un)shared language/semantics and what policy proposals should be instantly disregarded.