EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4891
| 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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 03 2016 08:34 TheYango wrote: Isn't that what's happening to the Republican party right now? Trump represents a shitty enough candidate for a lot of traditional Republicans that they're jumping off the train. I responded to the second half of this post earlier, but this first half actually deserves its own response. I see Trump more as the result of that backlash than as an example of it. An example would be Jeb Bush. Jeb had similar party backing as Hillary. But you don't need to go any further than "Bush" to see that people don't like him. He was certainly going to be the Republican "anyone but Hillary" candidate that they would push. Enter Trump, who gained a lot of support from many people for thoroughly bashing Jeb for all the shit that people hate about the Bush family and their legacy. The result was that the establishment lost its ability to push the Republican front runner that it would want (as they usually can) and Trump won the primary. The rest is history. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On September 03 2016 08:38 Nevuk wrote: GOP rhetoric is pretty frightening to me. I'm about 50% convinced that there is going to be some type of mass violence from Trump supporters when he loses. It's getting hard for me to want to make long term plans that rely on a functioning society for anytime after election day. Trump's whole "2nd amendment people could fix it", "only way I can lose is if the election is rigged", etc. are just appalling. Then there's things like this starting to come from the GOP firebrands: I mean, I know that the late 19th century had some more absurd US political things than are going on now, but still. I thought that Obama was going to make himself emperor of earth before he left office so he'd be the last president ever. Now its on Hillary to do it or what? I guess maybe the intergalactic lizard people counsel changed their minds. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 03 2016 08:38 Nevuk wrote: GOP rhetoric is pretty frightening to me. I'm about 50% convinced that there is going to be some type of mass violence from Trump supporters when he loses. It's getting hard for me to want to make long term plans that rely on a functioning society for anytime after election day. Trump's whole "2nd amendment people could fix it", "only way I can lose is if the election is rigged", etc. are just appalling. Then there's things like this starting to come from the GOP firebrands: https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/771725535089192961 I mean, I know that the late 19th century had some more absurd US political things than are going on now, but still. ... because inflated rhetoric about Trump is getting old. Just taking the latest IBD/TIPP poll, we're talking about accusing 39% of likely voters or maybe 46 million Americans committing violence. The only thing his "rigged" rhetoric is doing is weak premature defeatism. Terran crying at three minutes that if he loses it's because Protoss is OP. "starting to come from the GOP firebrands" Starting to come? Were you born yesterday? This just in, conservative firebrand says provocative things? | ||
KwarK
United States43814 Posts
On September 03 2016 08:38 Nevuk wrote: GOP rhetoric is pretty frightening to me. I'm about 50% convinced that there is going to be some type of mass violence from Trump supporters when he loses. It's getting hard for me to want to make long term plans that rely on a functioning society for anytime after election day. Trump's whole "2nd amendment people could fix it", "only way I can lose is if the election is rigged", etc. are just appalling. Then there's things like this starting to come from the GOP firebrands: https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/771725535089192961 I mean, I know that the late 19th century had some more absurd US political things than are going on now, but still. This is late. Carson was saying that it wouldn't even make it to the election a year ago. It's been the working assumption of several prominent Republican figures that these are the end times, either because of Barry Soetoro's dictatorship, the Muslims or God showing up and closing the show. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 03 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote: I'm tired of discussing candidates; let's discuss policy. What policy questions/issues should we address? How do we change the election system so that fewer shitty candidates become politically relevant? I'd start with Citizens United and FPTP. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 03 2016 09:46 LegalLord wrote: How do we change the election system so that fewer shitty candidates become politically relevant? I'd start with Citizens United and FPTP. with great difficulty. The best plan is to try to hold a constitutional convention (not to overturn it, but to do a bunch of amendment) because most of the changes that would be done have to be done by changing the constitution; and it's easier to somewhat bypass the existing reins of power if we have a convention run by various groups from the states. I'd like to try an entirely different means of selecting people; the current system relies too heavily on self-selection and self-promotion, rather than a thorough look over the available candidates. It often seems shocking how, in a nation of hundreds of millions, we get things we're so prone to complaining about. the biggest challenge in any reform, is that no matter how good the idea is; to get it implemented you tend to need the people who currently hold power, so it either needs to be to there benefit, or they need to be sufficiently idealistic to be willing to do it because it's just a good thing to do. let's try approval voting. and just try to get it done in one state for state elections. Then it can try to spread from there if successful. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 03 2016 09:13 Danglars wrote: ... because inflated rhetoric about Trump is getting old. Just taking the latest IBD/TIPP poll, we're talking about accusing 39% of likely voters or maybe 46 million Americans committing violence. The only thing his "rigged" rhetoric is doing is weak premature defeatism. Terran crying at three minutes that if he loses it's because Protoss is OP. "starting to come from the GOP firebrands" Starting to come? Were you born yesterday? This just in, conservative firebrand says provocative things? Eh, it used to come from Alex Jones-types who were viewed as nutjobs on par with David Icke. Now Alex Jones is becoming semi-credible. I'm not saying all 39% of people would. If it's even .1% of that number it's still enough to be greatly worrying, and those are the numbers more along what worries me. Anyways, I went and read the full quotes from that interview with Bachmann and it was a lot more reasonable than I thought. What she meant was that it was the last election the GOP could conceivably win due to demographics. (I think that's wrong but I can understand why she thinks it). | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 03 2016 09:55 Nevuk wrote: Eh, it used to come from Alex Jones-types who were viewed as nutjobs on par with David Icke. Now Alex Jones is becoming semi-credible. I'm not saying all 39% of people would. If it's even .1% of that number it's still enough to be greatly worrying, and those are the numbers more along what worries me. Anyways, I went and read the full quotes from that interview with Bachmann and it was a lot more reasonable than I thought. What she meant was that it was the last election the GOP could conceivably win due to demographics. (I think that's wrong but I can understand why she thinks it). Ok. I've just heard enough hysterics for one election from both sides. It makes the weirdos that thought Obama was going to suspend elections sound sane. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
With fewer than 70 days to go before Election Day, the Republican National Committee announced it is making significant strides when it comes to competing in battleground states in the fall. It still falls far short of the ground game already in place by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. On Friday, the RNC announced the addition of 392 staffers and 98 new offices across 11 battleground states. The new staff and field offices will be added in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. With this beefed-up personnel, the RNC said the total number of paid employees across the country now exceeds 1,000 and it "currently has more staff in the field than at any point in the 2012 cycle." "Our organizing efforts began years ago and this new wave of hires will seamlessly plug into our operation as we head into the final stretch of the campaign season," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. "The RNC is committed to sending Donald Trump to the White House and solidifying our majorities in Congress." Trump, the Republican nominee, has leveraged his celebrity and unorthodox campaign style to gain a tremendous amount of so-called "free media" throughout his campaign. But he has also had to rely heavily on the RNC to build an on-the-ground campaign infrastructure — opening campaign offices, hiring staff and volunteers — things campaigns traditionally do much on their own. Source | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 03 2016 08:32 LegalLord wrote: The unfortunate simple answer is that right now there is no other solution- the only choices for this election cycle alone are Hillary, Trump, people who won't win, and not vote. I won't choose not to vote, and there is no point in wasting the vote on the third party. So it's one of the main two and it'll probably be Hillary. In isolation that is some form of support for the lesser of two evils argument. But on the other hand it's one that both parties make so there really is no other option. However, in the longer term there is certainly going to be a better chance to make a difference. That requires that people act in such a way that they show party leadership that they cannot simply push a shitty candidate, and apply "lesser of two evils" again and again to get them elected; that that will cost them their voter base if they try it. That would probably require voting for the "greater" of two evils in at least one election cycle, though perhaps this isn't the right one seeing just to what extent the Republican Party is fucked up right now. Slavoj - Trump is the dirty baby who needs to be thrown out to make us believe that we got rid of the dirt. If Trump remains the Republican candidate, we will get a truly “feel-good election.” In spite of all our problems and petty squabbles, when there is a real threat to our basic democratic values we come together, just like France did after the terrorist attacks. But this comfortable democratic consensus should worry the Left. We should take a step back and turn the gaze on ourselves. What is the exact makeup of this all-embracing democratic unity? Everybody is there, from Wall Street bankers to Bernie Sanders supporters and veterans of the Occupy movement, from big business to trade unions, from army veterans to LGBT+ activists, from the ecologists horrified by Trump’s denial of global warming and the feminists delighted by the prospect of the first woman president to the “decent” Republican establishment figures terrified by Trump’s inconsistencies and irresponsible “demagogic” proposals. [...] The message of this consensus to the Left is: You can get everything, we just want to keep the essentials, the unencumbered functioning of the global capital. With this frame, President Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can!” acquires a new meaning: Yes, we can concede to all your cultural demands, without endangering the global market economy—so there is no need for radical economic measures. Or, as University of Vermont professor Todd McGowan put it (in a private communication to me): “The consensus of ‘right-thinking people’ opposed to Trump is frightening. It is as if his excess licenses the real global capitalist consensus to emerge and to congratulate themselves on their openness.” | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
To act like Assange, who at the same time hosts a show on RT and denounces state propaganda, should be taken serious is really laughable. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Republican National Committee had high hopes that Donald J. Trump would deliver a compassionate and measured speech about immigration on Wednesday, and prepared to lavish praise on the candidate on the party’s Twitter account. So when Mr. Trump instead offered a fiery denunciation of migrant criminals and suggested deporting Hillary Clinton, Reince Priebus, the party chairman, signaled that aides should scrap the plan, and the committee made no statement at all. The evening tore a painful new wound in Mr. Trump’s relationship with the Republican National Committee, imperiling his most important remaining political alliance. Mr. Priebus and his organization have been steadfastly supportive of Mr. Trump, defending him in public and spending millions of dollars to aid him. But the collaboration between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Mr. Priebus’s committee has grown strained over the last month, according to six senior Republicans with detailed knowledge of both groups, some of whom asked to speak anonymously for fear of exacerbating tensions. There is no prospect of a full public breach between the Trump campaign and the R.N.C. because both sides rely on a joint fund-raising arrangement crucial to their election efforts. But tensions have grown to such a point that they threaten to diminish the party’s ability to work smoothly with Mr. Trump during the most critical post-Labor Day phase of the race, when the committee traditionally helps supervise an extensive voter turnout effort. Mr. Trump, who has struggled to raise money, is dependent on his party’s national committee to perform many of the basic functions of a presidential campaign. Should the partnership continue to deteriorate, it could hinder Mr. Trump’s bid for a late comeback in the race. Source | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
Mexican senator to propose anti-Trump expropriation law A Mexican senator is proposing legislation to empower the government to retaliate if a U.S. administration led by Donald Trump inflicts expropriations or economic losses on his country to make it pay for a border wall. Republican presidential nominee Trump has vowed to have Mexico fund the planned wall to keep out illegal immigrants if he is elected, and threatened to fund it by blocking remittances sent home by Mexicans living in the United States. Armando Rios Piter, an opposition senator for the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), will next week present the initiative he hopes will protect Mexicans, and highlight the risks of targeting them economically. The plan offers a taste of the kind of tit-for-tat measures that could gain traction between the two heavily-integrated economies if Trump wins the presidency at the Nov. 8 election. In a preliminary summary of the proposal, which also foresees giving the Senate the power to disavow international treaties when the interests of Mexico or its companies are threatened by other signatories, it states: "In cases where the property/assets of (our) fellow citizens or companies are affected by a foreign government, as Donald Trump has threatened, the Mexican government should proportionally expropriate assets and properties of foreigners from that country on our territory." Total remittances to Mexico from abroad - most of which come from the United States - were worth nearly $25 billion last year, according to the central bank. Bilateral trade between the two nations is worth about half a trillion dollars a year. Trump has also threatened to tear up a trade deal with Mexico if it is not recast in the United States' favor. He met President Enrique Pena Nieto in Mexico City this week, sparking fierce criticism in Mexico of the government for hosting him. Afterwards, Trump repeated his pledge to make Mexico foot the bill for the wall. Mexico says it will not pay. It is yet to be established how such expropriations could work, nor is it clear what chance the bill could have of passing. The PRD and other leftist parties hold less than a quarter of the 128 seats in Mexico's Senate. Rios Piter said his aim was to counter threats by Trump to target Mexicans in the United States and to stress that the economic welfare of both nations is at stake. "At a time like this, it's vital for us to understand why this relationship benefits both. We're neighbors, we're friends, we're partners," he said. "He's putting (that) at risk." The initiative also seeks to protect Mexico against unilateral changes to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump has threatened to ditch. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-mexico-idUSKCN1182PL who would have thought | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On September 03 2016 11:35 Toadesstern wrote: Am I late on this? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-mexico-idUSKCN1182PL who would have thought It's okay, it would hurt Mexico 10x as badly as the US. The bargaining chip is on the US, and Mexico can try their silly antics, but its just a bluff or an extremely stupid economic decision for them. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On September 03 2016 12:06 FiWiFaKi wrote: It's okay, it would hurt Mexico 10x as badly as the US. The bargaining chip is on the US, and Mexico can try their silly antics, but its just a bluff or an extremely stupid economic decision for them. I really can't think of any other recent scenarios in which a country decided to do something that was considered to be economically stupid but did it anyways for emotional reasons.... oh wait Brexit | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 03 2016 12:32 Toadesstern wrote: I really can't think of any other recent scenarios in which a country decided to do something that was considered to be economically stupid but did it anyways for emotional reasons.... oh wait Brexit "Foreign nations are fucking with your economy to influence you politically" is a damn good reason to take an economic hit on principle to prove a point. And often the plebs understand that better than those in power. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 03 2016 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/kimguilfoyle/status/771848665983889408 As long as it gets up! | ||
| ||
