|
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. |
On December 08 2016 04:14 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 03:38 a_flayer wrote:On December 08 2016 03:30 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On December 08 2016 03:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
But that was just a politically driven conclusion. President-elect Donald Trump is doubling down on his repudiation of the intelligence agencies he will soon lead, telling Time magazine he still believes the unified U.S. government assessment that Russia sought to interfere in the presidential election was not only wrong, but politicized.
"I don't believe it. I don't believe they interfered," Trump told Time in an interview for the current issue, which names him "person of the year." Asked if he thought the conclusion of America's spies was politically driven, Trump said, "I think so." He did not elaborate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-again-rejects-u-s-spies-conclusion-russia-hacked-election-n693141 Graham is being ridiculous here, especially towards the end where he goes something along the lines of "Russia is now breaking apart the EU". Yeah, okey. I'm pretty sure we're entirely responsible for that ourselves. We don't need help in breaking apart at all. Even if Russia is funding right-wing groups that want to break the EU apart, it is basically just wasted money. Besides that, I read in an interview with one of the peeps who left Geert Wilders' party that they received the most money from the US (through corporations). So maybe the US is also trying to break apart the EU? All that is just as ridiculous as the suggestion that Russia was responsible for Brexit. Wasn't the suggestion that there was a problem with the machine votes dismissed by looking at the stats in those regions from previous years and finding a more-or-less match in terms of discrepancy with regards to non-machine vote regions? While I agree that it's wrong to blame Russia for these results, that comparison is really stretching it. One is done as a matter of government policy and applies pressure in a single direction, the other is done at private level without a unified cause. You'll often find US groups funding both pro and anti civil liberties causes in the same country.
Oh yeah, I probably should have put some sort of sarcastic disclaimer on that one. Heh.
|
On December 08 2016 05:25 xDaunt wrote:
Is anyone excited about Joe Biden running in 2020?
He'll plain and simply be too old. He would be 78 at the time of running...
|
On December 08 2016 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 05:25 xDaunt wrote:
Is anyone excited about Joe Biden running in 2020? He'll plain and simply be too old. He would be 78 at the time of running...
It would be interesting to see a poll of Democrats of who they would like to see win the nomination in 2020.
Would also be interesting to see if Democrats still think primaries should intentionally exclude non-partisans, whether party purity is really more important than appealing to those outside of the party as well as inside.
|
On December 08 2016 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2016 05:25 xDaunt wrote:
Is anyone excited about Joe Biden running in 2020? He'll plain and simply be too old. He would be 78 at the time of running... It would be interesting to see a poll of Democrats of who they would like to see win the nomination in 2020.
I'd like someone new. No one currently on the scene looks like a particularly great successor - neither among the rising stars nor among the old guard. O'Malley is the only one I've seen who looks kind of promising but I also don't know him well enough to say if he'd be a good president.
|
I feel like the DNC has done a garbage job at prepping the future of the party. It's like Clinton wanted it so bad she didn't even let the party foster talent.
GOP has more than a few prominent republicans who no one would be surprised is running for president.
For the democrats its like "uhhh...gore? uhhhh kerry? uhhhh pel..o..si?  ((((("
On December 08 2016 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2016 05:25 xDaunt wrote:
Is anyone excited about Joe Biden running in 2020? He'll plain and simply be too old. He would be 78 at the time of running... It would be interesting to see a poll of Democrats of who they would like to see win the nomination in 2020. Would also be interesting to see if Democrats still think primaries should intentionally exclude non-partisans, whether party purity is really more important than appealing to those outside of the party as well as inside.
How about you?
|
On December 08 2016 05:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 04:22 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 02:56 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while. i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive. @above see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context. The rhetoric was definitely divisive. Suggesting his opposition were reprobates or racists. It was never loudly active, I can give you that. But he's the guy that called Republican Party extremists. Said Republicans will do anything to "rig the system for those at the top." Republican rhetoric was recruiting for ISIL. Republican policy harms millions of Americans. He fought with the political big guns and continually made reference to his opponents as having no legitimate ground for opposition. So his just desserts for spending so much time bullying the opposition (and some say it was justified) is somewhere around half the country feeling marginalized ... your views and concerns aren't legitimate, they're attached to hardliners or extremists. The best microcosm of this attitude was talking about Americans who "cling to guns and religion." This is probably all an argument for the history books when the figure of Obama is judged by what he actually said and did. Nixon was also pushed by the media as one thing (some radical), and years later everyone discovered something else (moderate policymaking) after active warfare against his administration was completed. Today the same types are carrying water for the Obama administration, but eventually they'll move on. Trump even now has a chance to show what deal-making is (and I'll probably hate the deals) to contrast with the way Obama clung to his ideology and sorta flipped the table and demonized the negotiators every time he signed something. But if you can't see it now, stay tuned ... it's the internet age and all his speeches and addresses are catalogued for future biographers to examine his methods and impact for those that missed it the first time around. I'd be remiss to not also mention the parallel culture wars in society that treated groups like traditional christians and white working class families like they were the enemy and their views on the functioning of society were not just wrong but evil. well if there are (at least) two sides which you seem to acknowledge it makes one wonder what a non-divisive president would look like. presumably you are not arguing for a radical centrism. so for the description "divisive" to not be a tautological corollary to an axiomatic two party system there must be something more than simple disagreement. and i dont see that in obama's case. he seems eminently reasonable (eg in a conversation) and level headed with significant levels of empathy.
You said what it would take to be non-divisive president: level headed and having sufficient empathy. What you might've read is my contention that he has repeatedly and consistently behaved otherwise. Policy disagreements can be debated on their merits without insisting Republicans have gone off the deep end (and see the kind of president elected in the backlash). He's given sound bites to civil discourse while pushing proto-uncivil discourse. He's not as blunt as Trump about it, for sure. Slight exception for using a memorial for fallen police officers to slander police officers; that time he was just as bad. This comes against his wide base of support that thinks he was forced to behave in this manner rather than electing to make it trench warfare. Bill Clinton was a good counter example, at least within his presidency, for bringing the nation together. Veto the bill twice, then sign it, and herald it as a big win. He was more the traditional politician to Obama's fondness for ideological campaigns.
|
On December 08 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:I feel like the DNC has done a garbage job at prepping the future of the party. It's like Clinton wanted it so bad she didn't even let the party foster talent. GOP has more than a few prominent republicans who no one would be surprised is running for president. For the democrats its like "uhhh...gore? uhhhh kerry? uhhhh pel..o..si? (((((" Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2016 05:25 xDaunt wrote:
Is anyone excited about Joe Biden running in 2020? He'll plain and simply be too old. He would be 78 at the time of running... It would be interesting to see a poll of Democrats of who they would like to see win the nomination in 2020. Would also be interesting to see if Democrats still think primaries should intentionally exclude non-partisans, whether party purity is really more important than appealing to those outside of the party as well as inside. How about you?
Definitely open up the primaries, I don't think keeping them closed does anything positive for the party/country, I think it was a poor argument in the first place, primarily fueled by the knowledge it helped Hillary.
My favorites for 2020 after Kanye are probably Bernie Sanders, Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard, I guess in that order atm. They each have their issues, but I find them all to be better potential candidates than Biden and Trump.
|
If Biden runs I don't see how they could keep Sanders out - the primary argument against Sanders in 4 years will be his age, and it seems absurd to keep the previous runner up for your nominee out of the primary.
|
If Sanders decides to run in 2020, I hope everyone just quietly bows out. Not-republicans are way, way too divided.
|
On December 08 2016 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:
If Sanders decides to run in 2020, I hope everyone just quietly bows out. Not-republicans are way, way too divided.
What if Hillary was in the primary? Same position?
|
Democrats don't need any more retreads. They need fresh faces. The fact that the average age of their leaders is 76 should be highly concerning to the rank and file. Democrats like to nag Republicans about being the part of old white dudes, but they should get a load of who's currently running their party.
|
On December 08 2016 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:
If Sanders decides to run in 2020, I hope everyone just quietly bows out. Not-republicans are way, way too divided. What if Hillary was in the primary? Same position?
Yes, absolutely. Get her the fuck out of here.
Any Democrat that loses Wisconsin is incompetent beyond repair.
|
On December 08 2016 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Democrats don't need any more retreads. They need fresh faces. The fact that the average age of their leaders is 76 should be highly concerning to the rank and file. Democrats like to nag Republicans about being the part of old white dudes, but they should get a load of who's currently running their party.
At the rate things are going, I fully believe Nikki Haley has one of the best chances to be the first woman US president in 2024.
|
On December 08 2016 05:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On December 08 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 04:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really understand the necessity of American antagonism towards Russia. I certainly understand why the EU has a dog in the fight given that they share a continent and there's a bunch of hoopla regarding oil and gas pipelines and supplies. But looking strictly at core American interests, I'm not sure which ones are really implicated by the things that Russia is doing. Depends how you define "core American interests." If the Middle East is one of them then there's a reasonably good reason for being upset with the way Russia stands in opposition there. Also, Hillary needed someone to blame to take the attention off the contents of the Wikileaks hacks. Russia is the obvious and easy scapegoat there. I don't think that the US has a core interest in the Middle East anymore. We don't need their oil. I'm pretty sure that we have more than they do at this point, and I know that we have more than enough to satisfy our demands for possibly another two centuries. We have a general interest in ensuring stability over there so as to avoid massive impacts to global trade, but frankly, given our oil production, massive risk premium and cost increases from interruption to Middle Eastern oil benefits us. The US needs to control the stright of hormuz in order to keep the petrodollar. Its literally the flower of American Imperialism and the focus of global US policy. Do you think we're the only one that buys oil or decides what the price of oil is?
Military control of the Strait of Hormuz doesn't really have that much to do with the Petrodollar. The use of the dollar in the oil trade is a relic of Bretton Woods and the post-WW2 economic order.
|
On December 08 2016 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Democrats don't need any more retreads. They need fresh faces. The fact that the average age of their leaders is 76 should be highly concerning to the rank and file. Democrats like to nag Republicans about being the part of old white dudes, but they should get a load of who's currently running their party. At the rate things are going, I fully believe Nikki Haley has one of the best chances to be the first woman US president in 2024.
Could be 2020. I don't see Trump sticking around. But I don't find her to be all that impressive. Her response to the State of the Union was very plastic, and I haven't seen her do anything that is likely to motivate the base to nominate her.
|
On December 08 2016 06:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 05:37 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 04:22 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 02:56 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while. i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive. @above see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context. The rhetoric was definitely divisive. Suggesting his opposition were reprobates or racists. It was never loudly active, I can give you that. But he's the guy that called Republican Party extremists. Said Republicans will do anything to "rig the system for those at the top." Republican rhetoric was recruiting for ISIL. Republican policy harms millions of Americans. He fought with the political big guns and continually made reference to his opponents as having no legitimate ground for opposition. So his just desserts for spending so much time bullying the opposition (and some say it was justified) is somewhere around half the country feeling marginalized ... your views and concerns aren't legitimate, they're attached to hardliners or extremists. The best microcosm of this attitude was talking about Americans who "cling to guns and religion." This is probably all an argument for the history books when the figure of Obama is judged by what he actually said and did. Nixon was also pushed by the media as one thing (some radical), and years later everyone discovered something else (moderate policymaking) after active warfare against his administration was completed. Today the same types are carrying water for the Obama administration, but eventually they'll move on. Trump even now has a chance to show what deal-making is (and I'll probably hate the deals) to contrast with the way Obama clung to his ideology and sorta flipped the table and demonized the negotiators every time he signed something. But if you can't see it now, stay tuned ... it's the internet age and all his speeches and addresses are catalogued for future biographers to examine his methods and impact for those that missed it the first time around. I'd be remiss to not also mention the parallel culture wars in society that treated groups like traditional christians and white working class families like they were the enemy and their views on the functioning of society were not just wrong but evil. well if there are (at least) two sides which you seem to acknowledge it makes one wonder what a non-divisive president would look like. presumably you are not arguing for a radical centrism. so for the description "divisive" to not be a tautological corollary to an axiomatic two party system there must be something more than simple disagreement. and i dont see that in obama's case. he seems eminently reasonable (eg in a conversation) and level headed with significant levels of empathy. You said what it would take to be non-divisive president: level headed and having sufficient empathy. What you might've read is my contention that he has repeatedly and consistently behaved otherwise. Policy disagreements can be debated on their merits without insisting Republicans have gone off the deep end (and see the kind of president elected in the backlash). He's given sound bites to civil discourse while pushing proto-uncivil discourse. He's not as blunt as Trump about it, for sure. Slight exception for using a memorial for fallen police officers to slander police officers; that time he was just as bad. This comes against his wide base of support that thinks he was forced to behave in this manner rather than electing to make it trench warfare. Bill Clinton was a good counter example, at least within his presidency, for bringing the nation together. Veto the bill twice, then sign it, and herald it as a big win. He was more the traditional politician to Obama's fondness for ideological campaigns.
bill clinton was a radical centrist whose wake left us with W bush, one of the worst presidents in modern history. i'm not sure your analysis of how obama's divisiveness has led to the trump "reaction" holds up.
edit: also for someone who frequently criticizes "liberals" for their hyperbolic overreactions you sure have a penchant for histrionics. obama "slandering" the police? come on. i don't think hardly anything obama has said has been hyperbolic or indefensible. he's too cool for that.
|
On December 08 2016 07:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 08 2016 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Democrats don't need any more retreads. They need fresh faces. The fact that the average age of their leaders is 76 should be highly concerning to the rank and file. Democrats like to nag Republicans about being the part of old white dudes, but they should get a load of who's currently running their party. At the rate things are going, I fully believe Nikki Haley has one of the best chances to be the first woman US president in 2024. Could be 2020. I don't see Trump sticking around. But I don't find her to be all that impressive. Her response to the State of the Union was very plastic, and I haven't seen her do anything that is likely to motivate the base to nominate her.
She's actually super middling. I could see her using the fact that she publicly denied trump to show she's more left leaning than dems think she is, then use the fact that she actually worked with trump to show conservatives how well she works to push their agenda. She would then use the fact that she's neither white nor male to stifle any attempt to paint her run as another "neonazi/alt-right" progression and present herself as the "moderate" choice.
|
On December 08 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:
If Sanders decides to run in 2020, I hope everyone just quietly bows out. Not-republicans are way, way too divided. What if Hillary was in the primary? Same position? Yes, absolutely. Get her the fuck out of here. Any Democrat that loses Wisconsin is incompetent beyond repair.
Russ Feingold too, then. You do realize Republicans control the legislature and the governor's mansion there as well?
|
On December 08 2016 08:45 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2016 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:
If Sanders decides to run in 2020, I hope everyone just quietly bows out. Not-republicans are way, way too divided. What if Hillary was in the primary? Same position? Yes, absolutely. Get her the fuck out of here. Any Democrat that loses Wisconsin is incompetent beyond repair. Russ Feingold too, then. You do realize Republicans control the legislature and the governor's mansion there as well?
When was the last time Democrats lost Wisconsin? Democrats won Wisconsin even during elections we ultimately lost.
Edit: losing Wisconsin by 1 percent in an election where she ended up ahead 2 percent in the popular vote shows how poorly Clinton understood Wisconsin.
|
On December 08 2016 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 08:45 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 08 2016 07:43 Mohdoo wrote:On December 08 2016 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 08 2016 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:
If Sanders decides to run in 2020, I hope everyone just quietly bows out. Not-republicans are way, way too divided. What if Hillary was in the primary? Same position? Yes, absolutely. Get her the fuck out of here. Any Democrat that loses Wisconsin is incompetent beyond repair. Russ Feingold too, then. You do realize Republicans control the legislature and the governor's mansion there as well? When was the last time Democrats lost Wisconsin? Democrats won Wisconsin even during elections we ultimately lost. Edit: losing Wisconsin by 1 percent in an election where she ended up ahead 2 percent in the popular vote shows how poorly Clinton understood Wisconsin.
margin in 2000 and 2004 was under 1%.
polls said that it was blue enough. in hindsight you can come up with all sort of reasons, but to call losing wisconsin "incompetent beyond repair" is far too sweeping of a statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
