US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6252

On November 17 2016 08:28 xDaunt wrote:

This is the correct analysis. Hillary's own misconduct, errors, and poor planning probably created at least a 5 point headwind for her. Eliminate those, and she wins comfortably. That's why all of this deflecting of blame away from her is so silly. Her own fuckups indisputably put her election at risk, and she paid for it.

On November 17 2016 08:53 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of which, are there still any open allegations of sexual misconduct on behalf of our president-elect? Or did they basically drop off after they stopped being politically relevant?

On November 17 2016 08:53 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of which, are there still any open allegations of sexual misconduct on behalf of our president-elect? Or did they basically drop off after they stopped being politically relevant?

On November 17 2016 09:33 LegalLord wrote:

Sounds like the ideas of a rambling conspiracy theorist with a tendency towards cultural objectivism.

I suppose that would appeal to some of the Bernie crowd, but I'm sure I speak for at least some others when I say that for many people, supporting Bernie was just supporting the only sane option out of the four feasible candidates (Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders) in this race. His Wall Street diatribes didn't do him many favors with some looking for more substantive policy talk.

On November 17 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, for all of you Bernie fans and other members of the anti-Wall Street crowd, have you seen Bannon's speech from a couple years ago that he gave at the Vatican? It should give you a raging boner at the possibilities of a Trump presidency.

Here's the transcript.

In fact, one of the committees in Congress said to the Justice Department 35 executives, I believe, that they should have criminal indictments against — not one of those has ever been followed up on. Because even with the Democrats, right, in power, there’s a sense between the law firms, and the accounting firms, and the investment banks, and their stooges on Capitol Hill, they looked the other way.

So you can understand why middle class people having a tough go of it making $50 or $60 thousand a year and see their taxes go up, and they see that their taxes are going to pay for government sponsored bailouts, what you’ve created is really a free option. You say to this investment banking, create a free option for bad behavior. In otherwise all the upside goes to the hedge funds and the investment bank, and to the crony capitalist with stock increases and bonus increases. And their downside is limited, because middle class people are going to come and bail them out with tax dollars.
And that’s what I think is fueling this populist revolt. Whether that revolt is in the midlands of England, or whether it’s in Middle America. And I think people are fed up with it.

And I think that’s why you’re seeing — when you read the media says, “tea party is losing, losing elections,” that is all BS. The elections we don’t win, we’re forcing those crony capitalists to come and admit that they’re not going to do this again. The whole narrative in Washington has been changed by this populist revolt that we call the grassroots of the tea party movement.

And it’s specifically because those bailouts were completely and totally unfair. It didn’t make those financial institutions any stronger, and it bailed out a bunch of people — by the way, and these are people that have all gone to Yale, and Harvard, they went to the finest institutions in the West. They should have known better.

And by the way: It’s all the institutions of the accounting firms, the law firms, the investment banks, the consulting firms, the elite of the elite, the educated elite, they understood what they were getting into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand to the government to be bailed out. And they’ve never been held accountable today. Trust me — they are going to be held accountable. You’re seeing this populist movement called the tea party in the United States.

On November 17 2016 09:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Pretty scary when one thinks about it...

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/status/799014832402038784

On November 17 2016 09:38 xDaunt wrote:

Yeah, but that's the besides point. Now we know where the idea came from to put the reimplimentation of Glass Steagall into the GOP platform. Clearly it was Bannon. And if you look at his comments about the investment banks, Bannon makes no bones about the fact that he wants to hold them accountable for what happened in 2008. So back to my original point -- for all of you anti-Wall Street leftists who pined for Bernie or Warren to be president, you may have gotten something just as good or even better in Trump.

On November 17 2016 09:53 a_flayer wrote:


That makes it look like anything "non-mainstream" is false news. How exactly is that a sensible way to approach the problem of false news? When is something mainstream news? Would it be false news in October when some alternative news source reports Trump is looking like he is poised to win?

On November 17 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:

I've always preferred Trump to normal republicans. I mainly have concerns about his character and some of the implications of his statements. Policy wise I think most non-conservatives would gladly take him over Mike Pence or Ted Cruz.

I can't remember which surrogate of Trump's it was, but before the roles of Bannon + Priebus were announced they basically said that choosing Priebus over Bannon would result in a revolt from his base. I think that Trump is trying to have it both ways with his current choices, both pandering to his base with the role of Bannon and to the mainstream GOP with Priebus. I'm not sure if he will be able to pull it off, though. The pushback against Bannon has been pretty extreme from the establishment media, far more so than I would have thought warranted initially. It could very well be due to his anti-wall street stances. There's almost an incoherent panic from some media persons about him, leading to more and more extreme statements that are basically music to Trump supporter's ears. The finer line to dance will be later on, I think - the establishment GOP is nervous about Bannon's presence, wanting Priebus to be the one with the real power, and if they get a hint that Priebus will be marginalized they'll start speaking about the need for getting rid of Bannon themselves.

On November 17 2016 10:22 Nyxisto wrote:


Trump didn't look like he was poised to win even by admission of his own team. A broken clock is still right twice a day. Being right occasionally doesn't validate a faulty method. The same thing is true for conspiracy theories. They're not redeemed by the fact that they contingently might be true.

Hundreds of American companies, including Mars, Nike, Levi Strauss and Starbucks, have urged President-elect Donald J. Trump not to abandon the Paris climate deal, saying a failure by the United States to build a clean economy endangers American prosperity.

In a plea addressed to Mr. Trump — as well as President Obama and members of Congress — 365 companies and major investors emphasized their “deep commitment to addressing climate change,” and demanded that he leave in place low-emissions policies in the United States.

“Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk,” the companies said in a joint letter announced on Wednesday in Marrakesh, Morocco, where global leaders are determining the next steps for the Paris deal. “But the right action now will create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness.”

The companies also said that they would push ahead with their own targets to reduce their carbon footprints regardless of steps taken by Mr. Trump once he is in office. During his campaign, Mr. Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, pledged to leave the Paris accord, dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and undo Mr. Obama’s climate change policies.

“This doesn’t change our commitments,” said Kevin Rabinovitch, global sustainability director at Mars, which has pledged to eliminate 100 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions from its factories and offices by 2040. “We’re doing this because we see a real business risk. We see a real business problem.”

Businesses large and small have scrambled in the days since Mr. Trump’s victory to chart their next moves in an uncertain regulatory situation. Mr. Trump’s campaign pledges and musings have been driven by the belief that the economy will grow faster if businesses are freed from cumbersome federal regulations, especially those that limit carbon emissions.

The president-elect has heightened environmentalists’ fears that his administration will take on an anti-climate, anti-environment bent by appointing the climate contrarian Myron Ebell to lead the E.P.A. transition. Climate change activists have denounced Mr. Ebell, whose Competitive Enterprise Institute has received funding from oil and gas interest groups.

Some corporations, like the country’s largest automakers, have already seized on a potential upside to the president-elect’s leanings, urging a rethinking of stringent federal auto emissions standards. An easing of federal standards for passenger cars, which together with the rest of the transportation sector emit more carbon dioxide than any other part of the American economy, could have immense implications for overall emissions.

Others, like solar and wind power companies, have raced to find common ground with Mr. Trump, pressing for reassurances that his administration will not slash investment in renewable energy or alter federal tax credits on renewable energy projects.

Posted by Foxnews on 16 november, 2016
Pence removing lobbyists from Trump transition team

Is Pence fulfilling Trump's promise to 'drain the swamp'?

Lobbyists are being purged from official roles in President-elect Donald Trump's transition team, sources told Fox News late Tuesday.

The move to get rid of lobbyists in key roles was one of the first decisions made by Vice President-elect Mike Pence in his role overseeing the construction of a Trump administration.

One source said the decision to remove the lobbyists "makes good on [Trump's] vision of how he wants his government constructed."

On November 17 2016 08:57 Gorsameth wrote:

I don't think anyone of them actually filled charges, so they are not relevant.