EPTAlso look up George p bush. You want to talk about a guy who looks like he should run for president here he is. Guy go t 49% of the Hispanic vote his first election, served in the current war, and now looks like the perfect next generation of Texas republican. I'd aim at 2036 maybe for the first Hispanic president.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6157
| 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. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13750 Posts
Also look up George p bush. You want to talk about a guy who looks like he should run for president here he is. Guy go t 49% of the Hispanic vote his first election, served in the current war, and now looks like the perfect next generation of Texas republican. I'd aim at 2036 maybe for the first Hispanic president. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 10 2016 08:46 On_Slaught wrote: Probably closer to apathy or nihilism at this point but I'll take optimism. At least you believe fixing things is an option. From the responses I've seen post-election, people refuse to get out of their hermetic bubble. There is nothing wrong with modern liberalism or the Democratic Party or their tactics; it is everyone else's fault. For all their rejection of traditional religion and its scope in modern life, their defensive rants eerily resemble Tertullian's writings (right down to the unabashed glee in morally condemning their opponents). On November 10 2016 08:57 TheYango wrote: Democratic political strategy also has an obsession with maintaining the moral high ground.. I remember David Foster Wallace pointing this out during McCain's 2008 run. Democrats just can't see the harm of ceding all claims of realpolitik to the Republicans, and the latter aren't exactly pragmatic when it comes to policy either. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:03 CosmicSpiral wrote: At least you believe fixing things is an option. From the responses I've seen post-election, people refuse to get out of their hermetic bubble. There is nothing wrong with modern liberalism or the Democratic Party or their tactics; it is everyone else's fault. Biden told Democrats how to fix themselves in October. The warnings were there and ignored. That's what frustrates me about this whole thing. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
God damn it's starting.. Donald Trump has selected one of the best-known climate skeptics to lead his U.S. EPA transition team, according to two sources close to the campaign. Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading Trump’s transition plans for EPA, the sources said. The Trump team has also lined up leaders for its Energy Department and Interior Department teams. Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is heading the DOE team; former Interior Department solicitor David Bernhardt is leading the effort for that agency, according to sources close to the campaign. Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in the energy and environment realm. His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules. Ebell, who was dubbed an “elegant nerd” and a “policy wonk” by Vanity Fair, is known for his prolific writings that question what he calls climate change “alarmism.” He appears frequently in the media and before Congress. He’s also chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of nonprofits that “question global warming alarmism and oppose energy-rationing policies.” | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21364 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:01 Sermokala wrote: Joe Biden 2020 the return of the firewall? Also look up George p bush. You want to talk about a guy who looks like he should run for president here he is. Guy go t 49% of the Hispanic vote his first election, served in the current war, and now looks like the perfect next generation of Texas republican. I'd aim at 2036 maybe for the first Hispanic president. If he changes his last name he might have a chance. Not sure the people will welcome a 4th Bush trying to run for President. Something about dynasties and not liking the establishment. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
I feel sorry for those poor who voted Trump. His economic views will crush them. While the current recovery under Obama failed to reach them in larger numbers (having wider accessibility in the form of information and support to get on the path) Trump is not the man to do what they want. 0 plans and surrounds himself with the scum of the republican party who just use the same shit economics that created the mess (and much larger wealth gap) in the first place. And you know what? I don't think Trump actually cares. He will just pass the buck onto that scum then put his name on it. So yay for all the worst ideas of the GOP coming to fruition because Trump only cares about making himself look good. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:01 Mohdoo wrote: I know hindsight is 2020, but... Bernie won Wisconsin 57 to 43. Should that not have shown Democrats the fact that Union worker types were becoming skeptical of the democratic elite? If these working class union type of democrats were choosing Sanders over Clinton, they should have wondered why. Then they should have found that these workers are voting for Sanders for the same reasons these types were originally brought into the party. If they had considered that, they would have realized these voters would be charmed by Trump the same way they were charmed by Bernie. I feel like the massive polling miss in Michigan in the primaries should have been a cautionary tale for Hillary | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The two most powerful Republicans in Congress on Wednesday reiterated their determination to repeal Obamacare ― and said they look forward to finally passing a bill now that a fellow Republican, Donald Trump, is about to become president. In a pair of celebratory but relatively muted press conferences, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) each cited repeal of the president’s signature health care law as a major priority for the next legislative session. In the Senate press conference, a reporter asked McConnell directly whether he intended to move on the Affordable Care Act “right away.” McConnell didn’t answer with a yes or a no, but he said: “It is a pretty high item on the agenda. I would be shocked if we did not move forward to keep our commitment to the American people.” Ryan expressed similar sentiments at his press conference, saying that the “health care law is not popular.” The statements are not at all surprising. House Republicans have passed bills to repeal the law more than 50 times, and in January, the Senate finally passed a version of a repeal bill as well. Of course, Republican leaders have also promised to replace the law with an alternative health care scheme. So has Trump. But they have never agreed on the specifics of a replacement scheme ― instead endorsing policy outlines with modest levels of detail, at most. Experts who have looked at these alternatives and inferred the details have determined that GOP plans would typically result in far fewer people with insurance, less financial protection for people with insurance, or some combination of the two ― reversing Obamacare’s historic progress toward expanding coverage, in part or in whole. For example, one recent analysis, published by the Commonwealth Fund and written by scholars at the RAND Corporation, estimated that a fully fleshed-out version of Trump’s reform outline would result in between 16 million and 25 million people losing health insurance. To be clear, a “repeal-and-replace” course of action, whatever form it took, would likely also benefit some people and groups. Young people in good health would likely end up with access to cheaper coverage, since insurers would not be under the same restrictions to provide coverage to everybody at relatively uniform prices. Taxes on the wealthy and on various parts of the health care sector, which the law uses to finance its expansion of health insurance, would come down. But with Obamacare about to enter its fourth year of full operation, any substantial changes would cause major disruption, perhaps enough to give Republicans pause ― if not because of the human cost, then because of the potential for a political backlash. Source | ||
|
wptlzkwjd
Canada1240 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 10 2016 08:57 TheYango wrote: Democratic political strategy also has an obsession with maintaining the moral high ground. Hence why their only response to things like gerrymandering or government shutdowns is to whine about how the Republicans are all being bad people rather than executing a political strategy that accomplishes their goals the way the Republicans do (even though those goals aren't necessarily good for the people). I don't see a Democratic Tea Party being nearly as effective for this reason. I can't speak for other states and how Democrats are elsewhere, but they are well on their way to owning Colorado as a consequence of their superior organization. The sophistication of their networks and ground game here is light years ahead of the Republicans. I've had conversations with friends of mine who are Republicans with political aspirations who are not only hesitant to run for office in Colorado as a result of the GOP's organization deficits here, but who have also considered switching parties and taking advantage of the Democrat machine. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
Add McConnel to the list and you get the perfect suicide squad of outlandishly obnoxious retards. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:17 wptlzkwjd wrote: Can someone explain to me how proposition 61 in California failed? All I can offer is this http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/61/ the cons section of it. basically, it was assumed that drug manufacturers would simply raise the price on medicine for veterans to offset the cost they were gonna lose elsewhere. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:07 Blisse wrote: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/ God damn it's starting.. The second he won we all knew the environment was fucked. I'd like to say he won't do that much damage in 4 years, but I'm not so sure since science says we are already behind the ball. At least the other Paris signers say they will stick to the goals laid out in it. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:07 Blisse wrote: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/ God damn it's starting.. That feeling that I need to apologize to the world for my nation. Sort of like a decade ago. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:07 Blisse wrote: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/ God damn it's starting.. What was it that Obama said in 2008? Something like "Elections have consequences?" I'm all for Trump putting a leash on the EPA on these carbon emission issues. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote: What was it that Obama said in 2008? Something like "Elections have consequences?" I'm all for Trump putting a leash on the EPA on these carbon emission issues. Well we can just hope that the sea level recognises and respects the democratic will of the American people User was warned for this post | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:01 Mohdoo wrote: I know hindsight is 2020, but... Bernie won Wisconsin 57 to 43. Should that not have shown Democrats the fact that Union worker types were becoming skeptical of the democratic elite? If these working class union type of democrats were choosing Sanders over Clinton, they should have wondered why. Then they should have found that these workers are voting for Sanders for the same reasons these types were originally brought into the party. If they had considered that, they would have realized these voters would be charmed by Trump the same way they were charmed by Bernie. the rustbelt situation was recognized as a problem but the eye poppingly high effectiveness of certain anti-trump lines in test groups stood out, so they thought a pure anti-trump message on the social aspects would be enough. she made a number of moves at the platform level(opposing trade, talking about opioids etc) to adjust for the populist context, but it clearly was not enough because either people didn't really get to see her platform or they didn't believe her. hindsight wasn't needed because as you say the warning signs were obvious, but they were too confident in the social message vs trump, particulalry because it tested well with republican women. not just biden, bill was really talking up having to go hard at the rustbelt voters. her campaign was just a bit too many cooks in the kitchen scenario. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:29 Nyxisto wrote: Well we can just hope that the sea level recognises and respects the democratic will of the American people Well, let's remember the people voted for Hillary. The electorate elected Trump.  That might bear a lot of repeating the next 4 years. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On November 10 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote: What was it that Obama said in 2008? Something like "Elections have consequences?" I'm all for Trump putting a leash on the EPA on these carbon emission issues. When China is taking big steps towards curbing climate change, and US isn't, you really have to ask why. There are hundred's of people with master's and PHD's for every one that denies man-made climate change. Trump is listening to that one. Do you realize how asinine that is? | ||
| ||
