US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6215
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. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On November 13 2016 10:25 Sermokala wrote: The case against comey is a really complex series of events that forced a decision that was lose-lose with either side having huge political effects on the election. Can you imagine the outrage if the leaks happened as they did and he confirmed them afterwords? That the FBI didn't announce the reopening of an investigation that it had already made public that he had closed? You could make the argument that he should have never made comments about the investigation from the get go but even then you'll have to imagine a world where the last month of the election had the right argueing about the bill clinton tarmack conversation tainting the FBI investigation into the emails. By the time the election happened they had already announced they hadn't found anything new--and if there was something they could have reported it then. That would have been the responsible thing. Google searches for "Clinton emails" peaked (much higher than at any other point where anything of substance was discussed) directly after he released his letter, and it was about absolutely nothing. https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=clinton emails | ||
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign — and the outside groups that supported it — aired more television advertisements in Omaha than in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin combined. The Omaha ads were in pursuit of a single electoral vote in a Nebraska congressional district, which Clinton did not ultimately win, and also bled into households in Iowa, which also she did not win. Michigan and Wisconsin add up to 26 electoral votes; she appears not to have won them, either. Strategic decisions can make all the difference in a close race. Clinton lost the White House (despite winning the popular vote) to Republican Donald Trump on the strength of about 100,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That is the definition of a close race. But a review of Democrats' advertising decisions at the end of the race suggests Clinton and her allies weren't playing to win a close one. They were playing for a blowout. And it cost them. Clinton and the groups backing her aired three times as many ads as Trump and his supporters over the course of the general election, according to data from the Wesleyan Media Project. Despite that advantage, the Democrats left several key states essentially unprotected on the airwaves as the race came to a close. Take a look at the maps too, it will help visualize all this. www.washingtonpost.com | ||
Sermokala
United States13753 Posts
On November 13 2016 10:36 ZapRoffo wrote: By the time the election happened they had already announced they hadn't found anything new--and if there was something they could have reported it then. That would have been the responsible thing. Google searches for "Clinton emails" peaked (much higher than at any other point where anything of substance was discussed) directly after he released his letter, and it was about absolutely nothing. https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=clinton emails Now I'm talking about the first letter about how they were reopening the investigation because they found the Anthony weiner emails on his phone that his wife was related to Hillary business. The second letter or announcement that they had found nothing came three days before the election when early voting happened. The point is that he publicly already said that the investigation was closed and that he recommended no charges. now that new evidence had come in October that he was forced to review he had to make a choice to publicly announce that he had to reopen the investigation and possibly (but I'm not really going to ) change that recommendation. then he was able to later say "no really there was nothing there but a ton more emails then before nothing changes we found nothing new". Beacuse I don't understand what you're saying. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 13 2016 10:49 LegalLord wrote: Regardless of how you feel about Comey reopening the case, do we all more or less have a consensus that Congressional Democrats handled this really poorly and Harry Reid's letter was in really poor taste that did little more than to create bad blood? I don't remember exactly what congressional democrats did at the time, so it'd depend on which ones and what exactly each one did. I agree reid's letter was in really poor taste and was improper. | ||
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
https://twitter.com/russeurope I can't find out if it is real. Do the civil servants really sit on data like this for two days before announcing it? That seems fishy. But if this is real it would hopefully calm people down. (btw: if you see something about "fox news are retards" in the comment threads somewhere, in French it means "late", not retard) | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 13 2016 10:17 zlefin wrote: danglars -> don't describe "the thread" as a whole, the thread has many people of many different views, ascribing some view to "the thread" in general doesn't make sense, given how you are a part of "the thread" as well, and clearly are more pro-trump. Yes, mother. I grasp your offense, but think you should lay off the condescending speech to give a chance for opinions you dislike to flourish. This thread has a preponderance of evidence that LL's fixes for Dems moving forward will strike against opposition. Now, if you want to make the argument that the D's will have an easier time of it than I'm making out, please make a substantive response about the demonization of Trump/his supporters that still persists. It is a very sensitive topic that people are protesting in the streets right now. I'd rather hear alternate takes on the situation and for everyone to hear each other out. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
i'd say just ignore him. if it's true it'll come out from better sources. sometimes various issues slow down the processing of results (mechanical breakdowns or such, sometimes the vote counting machines break and they have to be hand-counted). if they had the data in all in proper form they'd announce it. but sometimes there's appeals or checks they have to do first. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 13 2016 10:49 LegalLord wrote: Regardless of how you feel about Comey reopening the case, do we all more or less have a consensus that Congressional Democrats handled this really poorly and Harry Reid's letter was in really poor taste that did little more than to create bad blood? Reid went in the wrong direction. This is a big opportunity for someone of opposite persuasion to lead the Democrat party to reconciliation. Sanders had the start of it, committing to working with Trump in areas of agreement, even though he ended it in some cheap smacks. Anybody that can strike a middle path has the opportunity to pull together the shattered factions in the House & Senate minorities. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 13 2016 11:09 Danglars wrote: Yes, mother. I grasp your offense, but think you should lay off the condescending speech to give a chance for opinions you dislike to flourish. This thread has a preponderance of evidence that LL's fixes for Dems moving forward will strike against opposition. Now, if you want to make the argument that the D's will have an easier time of it than I'm making out, please make a substantive response about the demonization of Trump/his supporters that still persists. It is a very sensitive topic that people are protesting in the streets right now. I'd rather hear alternate takes on the situation and for everyone to hear each other out. it's not condescending to request that people not categorize the entire thread as being one way and of one mind. your other statements are irrelevant to the point I was taking on. nothing I said there inhibits or discourages alternate opinions AT ALL. so please read more carefully before responding. | ||
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
The media outlets they've bedded themselves w/ are still calling Trump supporters name and still fabricating lies. The DNC must cut off all ties with the media they've bedded with in order to regain any credibility. When Obama became president, instead of being happy about it or be nicer to others, the DNC went on as hard as ever with identity politics. The DNC now have to face the fact that people are just simply tired about it. | ||
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 13 2016 09:19 LegalLord wrote: It'd be interesting to study to what extent protectionism does and doesn't hurt the development of an economy. Selective protectionism can indeed work for allowing an industry to develop the means to become competitive. Yet at this point the discussion is mostly in terms of broad platitudes, and I'm not whitedoge enough to be interested in getting bogged down in that line of debate. You're right, though, that I am basically advocating some degree of protectionism at the core of my strategy. And while it is true that protectionism can be harmful, it doesn't have to be. Not if it's done right. It's the same promise everyone makes, from Obama to Romney to McCain to everyone else. It's much easier to pay lip service to the idea of reviving the rural communities than to commit to a truly massive structural reorganization of the economy. But it is possible to make a policy that would help them. Usually you need a war to get that to happen though. And not a bad war like Iraq that just makes everyone poorer, a good war like WWII that puts people to work. You can put people to work digging ditchs and filling them back in which is more productive than war. Oh, yeah, the infamous WWII was great for the economy spiel. Do people actually have any idea how people lived during WWII? You'd be appalled at rationing, price controls, etc. for almost every good (never mind the millions that died that is a necessity of war). Can only have 1/4 lb of meat a week. A gallon of milk a month. All of the goods that improve our lives - well, no more of them because we need to re-purpose the factories to build bombs and mechanized weaponry which have negative usefulness past the bare minimum of security. But jobs! War Command Economy is about the worst thing you can do to a people for their standard of living. | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Very cyclical, yes, but the parties also change over time. Trump Republicans are pretty far removed from Bush Republicans in character. | ||
![]()
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
I'm not sure if Trump can even deliver on his populist promises but he captured that movement and rode it to victory. Like if we do his whole tax cut thing, it will destroy the budget. But if we impose a tariff, I suppose a revenue tariff might help get some money for the federal government. Interesting times we live in for sure. | ||
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
On November 13 2016 12:32 Nyxisto wrote: Looking back at federal elections in the US I'm not really sure there's some inherent logic to the elections. It just seems to be eight year cycles until the next party takes over no matter what's going on in the real world. I really think the Dems should focus on the states that they have solid majorities in and invent some liberal version of state's rights while trying to obstruct at the federal level. I don't really know about identity politics, the Republican campaign was just as heavily influenced by their own version of it, they just call it 'real America'. and rant against NY values. That seemed to do the trick. I would love it for blue states to rediscover federalism or separation of powers. Some CA legislators are already talking about it, though not int hose terms exactly. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On November 13 2016 10:49 LegalLord wrote: Regardless of how you feel about Comey reopening the case, do we all more or less have a consensus that Congressional Democrats handled this really poorly and Harry Reid's letter was in really poor taste that did little more than to create bad blood? Yes, they blew the whole thing. Going all the way back to claiming the emails were nothing (even if there was nothing to come of it, it wasn't nothing, Hillary supporters are screaming from the rafters that the emails are what sunk her, it's tangential whatever Comey did. If Democrats said, "No your extremely careless handling of secure materials, your mistake in setting it up in the first place, and your repeated lies about it mean we're not going to back you", instead of "nothing to see here folks, move along" we likely wouldn't be in this mess. Reid's letter was one of his last gasps for a completely irrelevant politician. | ||
Sermokala
United States13753 Posts
On November 13 2016 13:12 LegalLord wrote: I can't help but feel bad for Chris Christie. He really went to bat for Trump back when his victory was far from certain. But because he was caught in some stupid corruption he lost the chance to be VP, and lost his position as transition leader. Now he'll be lucky to get a job as presidential shoe shiner. I don't know if I can feel bad for the guy if he really did have that bridge clogged up like he did. | ||
| ||