EPTEdit: To be clear I don't think Trump planned this, his hyper ego, polarizing attitude, and unpredictability were perfect for the media storm. That and Americans just love them an asshole with confidence if you think about a lot of characters in TV shows and movies.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6342
| 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. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
Edit: To be clear I don't think Trump planned this, his hyper ego, polarizing attitude, and unpredictability were perfect for the media storm. That and Americans just love them an asshole with confidence if you think about a lot of characters in TV shows and movies. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On November 30 2016 11:53 LegalLord wrote: Low level as in, it's just some guy lining his own pockets in a way that all else held else equal I'd like to avoid, but it's unlikely to harm the country in any appreciable way. He's just going to give business to his company. Presidents become wealthy. Trump will probably multiply his already substantial net worth while in office. Nothing particularly special to write home about; he just has more money to start with. So more conflicts of interest. And do the thread's resident CF alarmists feel the same way? I normally try to be careful about accusing large movements of hypocrisy – "Clinton supporters" attacking Trump for questioning the legitimacy of the election, followed by "Clinton supporters" saying the election was hacked, for instance, is a poor case for hypocrisy because you'd have to show it was the same Clinton supporters saying both things. But when the position of Trump, with widespread support from his movement, is that Clinton can't be president because the CF has all kinds of conflicts of interest that suggest corruption, and then Trump goes ahead and lines his pockets with taxpayer dollars, unless that earns an outcry from Trump supporters it certainly seems like the majority of his movement is deep in hypocrisy. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 30 2016 11:48 kwizach wrote: It really is quite remarkable how some people are heavily blaming Clinton for the lack of focus on policy when almost every time she put forward policy proposals, she was completely drowned out by noise in the media (whether on Trump's latest nonsensical declarations or on her e-mails). She had nothing to offer rural America? Here's a fact sheet that was already put forward by her campaign in August 2015. Some rural communities are suffering from substance abuses? Here are some of her proposals to fight drug and alcohol addiction. Investing in infrastructure? Check. Manufacturing? Job training? Small businesses? Transitioning to clean energy jobs? Any other issue? You name it. So, what happened when she put policy forward? Oh, I don't know: Now, should Clinton still have tried to focus more on policy issues? I guess so, but the point remains that policy largely received no coverage. A Tyndall Report study recently showed that by the end of October, the three flagship nightly news programs had spent a grand total of 32 minutes on issue coverage (defined as: "It takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy") throughout the entire year, way below the standards for previous elections. Note that this includes all possibly policy issues put together. The time spent on Clinton's e-mail server? 100 minutes -- three times more than all policy issues combined. To put it simply, policy positions were usually not sufficient in themselves during this campaign to break through the noise in a significant way. Again, should she still have tried to push forward her policy proposals even further? Sure, and it's especially easy to say with hindsight, but anyone interested in looking at this objectively rather than through anti-Clinton lenses will be forced to conclude that media coverage and other factors are to a very substantial extent to blame for the lack of visibility of her policy proposals. Clinton would have absolutely loved for this election to be about policy, because she utterly crushes Trump on policy as soon as there's a need to go beyond a slogan. edit: also, let's not forget how actual policy proposals that happen to aim to help minority groups against ills that they specifically are suffering from are routinely dismissed here and elsewhere as "identity politics". Also here's a picture that perfectly sums up Clinton & policy: (Note the notification on the right) ![[image loading]](http://crooksandliars.com/files/images/16/08/2016-08-11.jpg) On the low level corruption thing, I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer to how that plays into foreign policy if one of Trump's properties are attacked considering how tightly Trump is keeping his brand winded up with his personal identity. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 30 2016 12:39 biology]major wrote: Isn't this a massive incentive for companies to keep jobs here? They get a spike in free publicity and the lowered corporate tax rate plus tariffs should really continue this carrier trend. He's not even in office yet and 1000 American jobs are saved. This guy is going to get shit done, all the doubters are in for a fun 4 years. It's premature to celebrate without seeing the terms of the deal. It's easy to save jobs by subsidizing them. How much was spent to get this? But that doesn't really address the issue, it's just a welfare payment by another name. also to be seen is whether the deal will be followed through on | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
On November 30 2016 11:53 LegalLord wrote: Low level as in, it's just some guy lining his own pockets in a way that all else held else equal I'd like to avoid, but it's unlikely to harm the country in any appreciable way. He's just going to give business to his company. Presidents become wealthy. Trump will probably multiply his already substantial net worth while in office. Nothing particularly special to write home about; he just has more money to start with. So more conflicts of interest. I feel like you're only considering how his position affects his business interests but ignoring the much more important consideration of how his business interests affect his decision-making. I don't care how much money he has, I care about the fact that his foreign policy could be affected by how it will affect his real estate holdings. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 30 2016 13:05 ChristianS wrote: And do the thread's resident CF alarmists feel the same way? I normally try to be careful about accusing large movements of hypocrisy – "Clinton supporters" attacking Trump for questioning the legitimacy of the election, followed by "Clinton supporters" saying the election was hacked, for instance, is a poor case for hypocrisy because you'd have to show it was the same Clinton supporters saying both things. But when the position of Trump, with widespread support from his movement, is that Clinton can't be president because the CF has all kinds of conflicts of interest that suggest corruption, and then Trump goes ahead and lines his pockets with taxpayer dollars, unless that earns an outcry from Trump supporters it certainly seems like the majority of his movement is deep in hypocrisy. Part of the problem is just how guilty Clinton manages to make herself look. She just does something kind of stupid then makes it look 100x worse. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On November 30 2016 13:31 LegalLord wrote: Part of the problem is just how guilty Clinton manages to make herself look. She just does something kind of stupid then makes it look 100x worse. How poor the Democrats manage to be at messaging never ceases to amaze me. You'd think with the kind of money she had she'd be able to assemble the marketing A team and dominate the conversation. Instead it was all "Trumped up trickle down" and taking months and months to just say "hey, I made a mistake on that email thing, won't happen again." It's like that time Al Gore having helped in Congress with the project that led to the ARPANET actually wound up hurting his campaign somehow. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On November 30 2016 14:24 ChristianS wrote: How poor the Democrats manage to be at messaging never ceases to amaze me. You'd think with the kind of money she had she'd be able to assemble the marketing A team and dominate the conversation. Instead it was all "Trumped up trickle down" and taking months and months to just say "hey, I made a mistake on that email thing, won't happen again." It's like that time Al Gore having helped in Congress with the project that led to the ARPANET actually wound up hurting his campaign somehow. A lot of it is a matter of perception. Democrats always present themselves as representing the moral high ground; they usually cede any authority to make 'pragmatic' decisions to the Republican Party. Whether or not you believe her indiscretions were worse than Trump's, she was going to get worse flack for it due to what she was supposed to stand for. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On November 30 2016 14:24 ChristianS wrote: How poor the Democrats manage to be at messaging never ceases to amaze me. You'd think with the kind of money she had she'd be able to assemble the marketing A team and dominate the conversation. Instead it was all "Trumped up trickle down" and taking months and months to just say "hey, I made a mistake on that email thing, won't happen again." It's like that time Al Gore having helped in Congress with the project that led to the ARPANET actually wound up hurting his campaign somehow. Hey I liked that Trumped up line. I think democrats wanted Hillary to apologize. I think that's what I remember reading about in WikiLeaks anyway; it was mostly Hillary's decision about when, and if, she should apologize. It definitely came too late but I don't think you can blame democrats for it generally, it was just Clinton's decision since she's the boss of her own campaign. Aside I loved that post by Kwizach. I didn't realize how bad it was; I didn't even realize Clinton had such a progressive policy on making progress towards debt-free college. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote: By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. It's the one-two whammy. Make Goldman Sachs Great Again, Make the Establishment Great Again. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. And let me be clear: Flynn/Sessions/Pompeo are outstanding picks and I salute Trump for making them. His latest ones are awful. Everyone I hear under consideration for SoS is awful. It has all the makings of waiting four or eight years to try to get another in the White House that will get the bureaucracy under control again. On November 30 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote: Courtesy of Samizdat, take a look at this wonderful picture. It says things about Trump's cabinet search that words simply cannot lol. ![[image loading]](http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/trumpromney_112916getty_0.jpg?itok=-Epz8JNo) Wait sam!dzat joins kwark posting through others? I seriously expected a third throwaway account and not this kind of tomfoolery. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6191 Posts
On November 30 2016 13:31 CatharsisUT wrote: I feel like you're only considering how his position affects his business interests but ignoring the much more important consideration of how his business interests affect his decision-making. I don't care how much money he has, I care about the fact that his foreign policy could be affected by how it will affect his real estate holdings. Most of his assets are in the US though and in real estate which is pretty old. Not sure how much he can benefit from jt in 4 years. Colficts of interests like that are still ridiculous though for a president of the US. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote: It's the one-two whammy. Make Goldman Sachs Great Again, Make the Establishment Great Again. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. And let me be clear: Flynn/Sessions/Pompeo are outstanding picks and I salute Trump for making them. His latest ones are awful. Everyone I hear under consideration for SoS is awful. It has all the makings of waiting four or eight years to try to get another in the White House that will get the bureaucracy under control again. Wait sam!dzat joins kwark posting through others? I seriously expected a third throwaway account and not this kind of tomfoolery. I don't think he's read this thread in months. Great pic though ! | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote: I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. What could possibly have made you think that there were 3 bullets in his gun? | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 30 2016 13:21 zlefin wrote: It's premature to celebrate without seeing the terms of the deal. It's easy to save jobs by subsidizing them. How much was spent to get this? But that doesn't really address the issue, it's just a welfare payment by another name. also to be seen is whether the deal will be followed through on Considering how a lot of people seem to think basic income is the next logical step, if Trump can somehow implement something like that in the guise of jobs, that would actually be somewhat brilliant, given how resistant a lot of people are to such ideas. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5277 Posts
On November 30 2016 13:05 Slaughter wrote: i have something better because that's selling the establishment short on smugness. The media was too busy raking in money when they discovered how much attention the latest dumb shit Trump did kicked in. The guy basically memed his way into the white house because the media ate his dumb shit up and the rest of their time was devoted to Clinton emails so she basically was frozen out from being "boring" and talking about policy. This whole election became a national reality show and Trump was the asshole character that is a star because people loved to talk about him no matter if they liked or hated him. Edit: To be clear I don't think Trump planned this, his hyper ego, polarizing attitude, and unpredictability were perfect for the media storm. That and Americans just love them an asshole with confidence if you think about a lot of characters in TV shows and movies. they gave more airtime to Trump because no one thought he had a chance so they figured it'll do no harm to have a clown entertain the masses for a change. it's their fault they didn't take Trump seriously. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21367 Posts
On November 30 2016 18:35 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Considering how a lot of people seem to think basic income is the next logical step, if Trump can somehow implement something like that in the guise of jobs, that would actually be somewhat brilliant, given how resistant a lot of people are to such ideas. In theory yes, but to fund basic income you need high corporate taxes to generate the funding required (and to offset the loss of income tax as companies make more with fewer jobs). Instead you get tax cut after tax break and a further ballooning budget. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote: It's the one-two whammy. Make Goldman Sachs Great Again, Make the Establishment Great Again. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. And let me be clear: Flynn/Sessions/Pompeo are outstanding picks and I salute Trump for making them. His latest ones are awful. Everyone I hear under consideration for SoS is awful. It has all the makings of waiting four or eight years to try to get another in the White House that will get the bureaucracy under control again. Wait sam!dzat joins kwark posting through others? I seriously expected a third throwaway account and not this kind of tomfoolery. Wait there are people that think Flynn and Sessions are good? I don't want either of them anywhere near a government office. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On November 30 2016 13:04 xDaunt wrote: Trump hasn't given up anything yet. And if the price is lowering corporate tax rates, that should have happened years ago. Our current corporate tax rates are idiotically high. You should see how it is in France. Your corporate taxes are quite low. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 30 2016 22:45 Incognoto wrote: You should see how it is in France. Your corporate taxes are quite low. Yes, I get that there are some countries out there are more insane than we are when it comes to overall tax burdens. But I'm pretty sure that we're higher than you unless you have some extra corporate taxes that we don't. | ||
| ||
