|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 04 2017 01:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 01:15 Doodsmack wrote:On January 03 2017 21:20 LegalLord wrote:Wake up to what exactly? That Congress suck ass? We are aware. That Congressional Republicans are terrible? We are aware. That we should have put Congressional Democrats in charge instead? They're really not much better. Truth is that the political climate sucks and there is no easy fix. It's not just an American problem. Do you think it's okay for that office to be gutted? My first reaction would be, "no, it isn't." I don't know much about the office and whether its work is good or if it's a vanity project disguised as an ethics body, but given that this seems to be done discretely I lean towards the former. I do, however, see it as an inevitable consequence of nominating Hillary Clinton for president and thinking that the alternative is so unspeakably horrible that people could be coerced into going along with it. That was a gamble that failed and to be fair we didn't expect it to, but nevertheless the opening was created and exploited. that second paragraph is just nonsense. yes, there are issues with hillary; but it's hardly INEVITABLE that nominating hillary leads to the republicans gutting an ethics office. those two things aren't so interrelated for that to be the case at all. I get thta you hate hillary a lot, and that you're angry over this whole mess, and that hillary has some serious flaws. but PLEASE stop shoehorning hillary hate into EVERYTHING. just put an anti-hillary statement in your sig or something.
You miss the string of causality I'm trying to get at.
Hillary campaign has something of an undertone of "vote for me because even if you don't like me, I'll save the things you do care about from the GOP menace." Supreme Court, Congress, Obamacare, you name it. Coattails have some role here and while on the surface the Democrats did gain, what really happened was the Democrats failed to capitalize on a GOP vulnerability which could have allowed them to retake control of the Senate at the least.
That went out the window when she dragged the Democrats down with her own reputation.
|
On January 04 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 01:58 zlefin wrote:On January 04 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 01:15 Doodsmack wrote:On January 03 2017 21:20 LegalLord wrote:Wake up to what exactly? That Congress suck ass? We are aware. That Congressional Republicans are terrible? We are aware. That we should have put Congressional Democrats in charge instead? They're really not much better. Truth is that the political climate sucks and there is no easy fix. It's not just an American problem. Do you think it's okay for that office to be gutted? My first reaction would be, "no, it isn't." I don't know much about the office and whether its work is good or if it's a vanity project disguised as an ethics body, but given that this seems to be done discretely I lean towards the former. I do, however, see it as an inevitable consequence of nominating Hillary Clinton for president and thinking that the alternative is so unspeakably horrible that people could be coerced into going along with it. That was a gamble that failed and to be fair we didn't expect it to, but nevertheless the opening was created and exploited. that second paragraph is just nonsense. yes, there are issues with hillary; but it's hardly INEVITABLE that nominating hillary leads to the republicans gutting an ethics office. those two things aren't so interrelated for that to be the case at all. I get thta you hate hillary a lot, and that you're angry over this whole mess, and that hillary has some serious flaws. but PLEASE stop shoehorning hillary hate into EVERYTHING. just put an anti-hillary statement in your sig or something. You miss the string of causality I'm trying to get at. Hillary campaign has something of an undertone of "vote for me because even if you don't like me, I'll save the things you do care about from the GOP menace." Supreme Court, Congress, Obamacare, you name it. Coattails have some role here and while on the surface the Democrats did gain, what really happened was the Democrats failed to capitalize on a GOP vulnerability which could have allowed them to retake control of the Senate at the least. That went out the window when she dragged the Democrats down with her own reputation.
hmm, I see your chain of causality.
but again my objection was to the precise wording you used, in particular "inevitable consequences".
minor partial contributing factor i'd be fine with, and probably quite a number of other descriptions i'd be fine with.
but it's still only one modest factor amidst many others. I do not see evidence for it being even the primary contributor.
that the dems should have done better doesn't mena everything republicans do falls on the dems for failing. the reps doing bad things is on them. heck, the dems might have gone along with gutting this office anyways, there's a fair number of ethics violations on all sides after all.
the thing that irks me, is that it seems like no matter waht the issue, you try to put as much of the blame on hillary as possible. yes, she has some blame, and made a lot of mistakes. but not everything is her fault, and it feels like you always try to pin everything on hillary. others in the thread have also had times where they're like that, where they just keep harping on something over and over and over, and even if their points are sound and valid, it gets kinda tiresome after awhile cuz they've been repeated so much, and we all know the points.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I don't think this Ethics Committee is one of those things that is partisan. It's controversial even among the Republican House members.
|
Looks like Megyn Kelly is off to NBC.
|
Wow... All it takes is one source to name names that voted to cut the OCE.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 04 2017 03:12 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Megyn Kelly is off to NBC.
Any particular reason to think it's more than just a career-minded move? Sounds like they offered her a promotion.
|
On January 04 2017 03:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 01:58 zlefin wrote:On January 04 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 01:15 Doodsmack wrote:On January 03 2017 21:20 LegalLord wrote:Wake up to what exactly? That Congress suck ass? We are aware. That Congressional Republicans are terrible? We are aware. That we should have put Congressional Democrats in charge instead? They're really not much better. Truth is that the political climate sucks and there is no easy fix. It's not just an American problem. Do you think it's okay for that office to be gutted? My first reaction would be, "no, it isn't." I don't know much about the office and whether its work is good or if it's a vanity project disguised as an ethics body, but given that this seems to be done discretely I lean towards the former. I do, however, see it as an inevitable consequence of nominating Hillary Clinton for president and thinking that the alternative is so unspeakably horrible that people could be coerced into going along with it. That was a gamble that failed and to be fair we didn't expect it to, but nevertheless the opening was created and exploited. that second paragraph is just nonsense. yes, there are issues with hillary; but it's hardly INEVITABLE that nominating hillary leads to the republicans gutting an ethics office. those two things aren't so interrelated for that to be the case at all. I get thta you hate hillary a lot, and that you're angry over this whole mess, and that hillary has some serious flaws. but PLEASE stop shoehorning hillary hate into EVERYTHING. just put an anti-hillary statement in your sig or something. You miss the string of causality I'm trying to get at. Hillary campaign has something of an undertone of "vote for me because even if you don't like me, I'll save the things you do care about from the GOP menace." Supreme Court, Congress, Obamacare, you name it. Coattails have some role here and while on the surface the Democrats did gain, what really happened was the Democrats failed to capitalize on a GOP vulnerability which could have allowed them to retake control of the Senate at the least. That went out the window when she dragged the Democrats down with her own reputation. hmm, I see your chain of causality. but again my objection was to the precise wording you used, in particular "inevitable consequences". minor partial contributing factor i'd be fine with, and probably quite a number of other descriptions i'd be fine with. but it's still only one modest factor amidst many others. I do not see evidence for it being even the primary contributor. that the dems should have done better doesn't mena everything republicans do falls on the dems for failing. the reps doing bad things is on them. heck, the dems might have gone along with gutting this office anyways, there's a fair number of ethics violations on all sides after all. the thing that irks me, is that it seems like no matter waht the issue, you try to put as much of the blame on hillary as possible. yes, she has some blame, and made a lot of mistakes. but not everything is her fault, and it feels like you always try to pin everything on hillary. others in the thread have also had times where they're like that, where they just keep harping on something over and over and over, and even if their points are sound and valid, it gets kinda tiresome after awhile cuz they've been repeated so much, and we all know the points.
i actually agree with slefin. you should just put your hillary hate in your sig, legalord, so that you dont have to write a new paragraph of hate in every post
|
|
|
See, this is the type of shit that Republicans need to stop doing, and I hope that Trump bludgeons them for it.
|
On January 04 2017 03:40 xDaunt wrote:See, this is the type of shit that Republicans need to stop doing, and I hope that Trump bludgeons them for it.
I wonder what made them think this was going to fly in the first place? It just doesn't make sense. We have some real idiots running the country... maybe some of the TLers here need to start running for office.
|
Well it doesn't help that Trump tweeted his disapproval in the same hour that Kellyanne Conway said Trump had a mandate to get rid of the OCE.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 04 2017 03:10 zlefin wrote:
the thing that irks me, is that it seems like no matter waht the issue, you try to put as much of the blame on hillary as possible.
The problem is only by proxy related to Hillary herself. It's that the party apparatus is very deeply staffed with the kind of people that enabled her campaign and continue on the same erroneous path that allowed the current situation to arise. When I say "Hillary" I more so mean "the Clinton Democratic establishment" which is a far more enduring political force, that continues to have relevance. I see that there is a prevailing desire to snub the progressive left and the WWC in favor of an identitarian perspective on issues and I do not think that that is in the best interest of the future of the party.
Hillary herself isn't going to be president and that should be settled. The DoJ should just put her in prison for mishandling classified documents and we can just get on with our lives. + Show Spoiler +(that's a joke, just so you're aware)
Maybe "inevitable consequences" wasn't the right word, but the sentiment behind it was this: what exactly did you think was going to happen when you put such a widely disliked candidate as your nominee? Not good things. Maybe it would have been a win but the next few years would show it to be a pyrrhic victory.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 04 2017 03:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Well it doesn't help that Trump tweeted his disapproval in the same hour that Kellyanne Conway said Trump had a mandate to get rid of the OCE.
Not sure what happened there.
|
On January 04 2017 03:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 03:10 zlefin wrote:
the thing that irks me, is that it seems like no matter waht the issue, you try to put as much of the blame on hillary as possible. The problem is only by proxy related to Hillary herself. It's that the party apparatus is very deeply staffed with the kind of people that enabled her campaign and continue on the same erroneous path that allowed the current situation to arise. When I say "Hillary" I more so mean "the Clinton Democratic establishment" which is a far more enduring political force, that continues to have relevance. I see that there is a prevailing desire to snub the progressive left and the WWC in favor of an identitarian perspective on issues and I do not think that that is in the best interest of the future of the party. Hillary herself isn't going to be president and that should be settled. The DoJ should just put her in prison for mishandling classified documents and we can just get on with our lives. + Show Spoiler +(that's a joke, just so you're aware) The real issue at hand is the enduring legacy of her impact on the Democratic Party, which I see as needing to be removed. Maybe "inevitable consequences" wasn't the right word, but the sentiment behind it was this: what exactly did you think was going to happen when you put such a widely disliked candidate as your nominee? Not good things. Maybe it would have been a win but the next few years would show it to be a pyrrhic victory.
i'm not sure why it's the "clinton democratic establishment" rather than simply the "democratic establishment".
I don't much like hte party establishments of either party, at least not at the federal level. both of them suck.
what's the WWC? looking through acronym lists I see nothing obvious that it would be.
your words are claiming that if sanders was the nominee, then the republicans would not have tried to remove the ethics commission. that may not have been your intent, but that is basically what your words have said.
there's also grossly inadequate evidence that a hillary win would've been a pyrrhic victory. especially compared to the alternative. so I see no basis for that claim of yours.
|
On January 04 2017 03:55 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 03:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Well it doesn't help that Trump tweeted his disapproval in the same hour that Kellyanne Conway said Trump had a mandate to get rid of the OCE. Not sure what happened there.
Either the GOP figured Trump would rubber stamp it and didnt talk to him or he was his usual flip flop self.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 04 2017 03:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 03:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 03:10 zlefin wrote:
the thing that irks me, is that it seems like no matter waht the issue, you try to put as much of the blame on hillary as possible. The problem is only by proxy related to Hillary herself. It's that the party apparatus is very deeply staffed with the kind of people that enabled her campaign and continue on the same erroneous path that allowed the current situation to arise. When I say "Hillary" I more so mean "the Clinton Democratic establishment" which is a far more enduring political force, that continues to have relevance. I see that there is a prevailing desire to snub the progressive left and the WWC in favor of an identitarian perspective on issues and I do not think that that is in the best interest of the future of the party. Hillary herself isn't going to be president and that should be settled. The DoJ should just put her in prison for mishandling classified documents and we can just get on with our lives. + Show Spoiler +(that's a joke, just so you're aware) The real issue at hand is the enduring legacy of her impact on the Democratic Party, which I see as needing to be removed. Maybe "inevitable consequences" wasn't the right word, but the sentiment behind it was this: what exactly did you think was going to happen when you put such a widely disliked candidate as your nominee? Not good things. Maybe it would have been a win but the next few years would show it to be a pyrrhic victory. i'm not sure why it's the "clinton democratic establishment" rather than simply the "democratic establishment". what's the WWC? looking through acronym lists I see nothing obvious that it would be. your words are claiming that if sanders was the nominee, then the republicans would not have tried to remove the ethics commission. that may not have been your intent, but that is basically what your words have said.
WWC = white working class.
The "Clinton establishment" I use here as a contrast to the "progressive wing." Perhaps a better term could be used but none comes to mind and the Clintons are solidly associated with the former far more so than the latter.
I don't think Sanders would be a popular president. He would have probably won because not enough people hate him, but he would run into a lot of issues along the way. But the reason they want to remove the ethics committee is obviously a "to the victor goes the spoils" scenario. If they didn't win bigly and take a full sweep of the government, they wouldn't have pushed for it at all.
I would have preferred a more strongly grounded candidate than Sanders (who is a bit pie-in-the-sky for my tastes, and a bit too leftist) but he is definitely the best of the four (Cruz, Trump, Clinton, Sanders) in my eyes.
|
On January 04 2017 04:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 03:56 zlefin wrote:On January 04 2017 03:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 03:10 zlefin wrote:
the thing that irks me, is that it seems like no matter waht the issue, you try to put as much of the blame on hillary as possible. The problem is only by proxy related to Hillary herself. It's that the party apparatus is very deeply staffed with the kind of people that enabled her campaign and continue on the same erroneous path that allowed the current situation to arise. When I say "Hillary" I more so mean "the Clinton Democratic establishment" which is a far more enduring political force, that continues to have relevance. I see that there is a prevailing desire to snub the progressive left and the WWC in favor of an identitarian perspective on issues and I do not think that that is in the best interest of the future of the party. Hillary herself isn't going to be president and that should be settled. The DoJ should just put her in prison for mishandling classified documents and we can just get on with our lives. + Show Spoiler +(that's a joke, just so you're aware) The real issue at hand is the enduring legacy of her impact on the Democratic Party, which I see as needing to be removed. Maybe "inevitable consequences" wasn't the right word, but the sentiment behind it was this: what exactly did you think was going to happen when you put such a widely disliked candidate as your nominee? Not good things. Maybe it would have been a win but the next few years would show it to be a pyrrhic victory. i'm not sure why it's the "clinton democratic establishment" rather than simply the "democratic establishment". what's the WWC? looking through acronym lists I see nothing obvious that it would be. your words are claiming that if sanders was the nominee, then the republicans would not have tried to remove the ethics commission. that may not have been your intent, but that is basically what your words have said. WWC = white working class. The "Clinton establishment" I use here as a contrast to the "progressive wing." Perhaps a better term could be used but none comes to mind and the Clintons are solidly associated with the former far more so than the latter. I don't think Sanders would be a popular president. He would have probably won because not enough people hate him, but he would run into a lot of issues along the way. But the reason they want to remove the ethics committee is obviously a "to the victor goes the spoils" scenario. If they didn't win bigly and take a full sweep of the government, they wouldn't have pushed for it at all. I would have preferred a more strongly grounded candidate than Sanders (who is a bit pie-in-the-sky for my tastes, and a bit too leftist) but he is definitely the best of the four (Cruz, Trump, Clinton, Sanders) in my eyes.
how about using the "moderate wing" or the "non-progressive wing"? or the "centrist wing"
maybe they want to remove the ethics committee cuz they want to be unethical, and they'd do so if they could regardless. it doesn't look at all like to the victor goes the spoils, they're not giving out piles of cash to republican causes after all.
they'd still want to regardless of who's president, whether they'd succeed might vary based on who the president is and whether they veto, but it seems ot make more sense to put the onus on the ones voting to get rid of the ethics committee (or is a commission) than on the ones who lost for not winning so they could stop it.
they also didn't win bigly, they may have the legislature and presidency (sort of), but it was hardly a bigly win, more like a squeaker.
and do you have any solid basis for a clinton victory being a pyrrhic victory, or is that just opinion?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 04 2017 04:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 04:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 03:56 zlefin wrote:On January 04 2017 03:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 03:10 zlefin wrote:
the thing that irks me, is that it seems like no matter waht the issue, you try to put as much of the blame on hillary as possible. The problem is only by proxy related to Hillary herself. It's that the party apparatus is very deeply staffed with the kind of people that enabled her campaign and continue on the same erroneous path that allowed the current situation to arise. When I say "Hillary" I more so mean "the Clinton Democratic establishment" which is a far more enduring political force, that continues to have relevance. I see that there is a prevailing desire to snub the progressive left and the WWC in favor of an identitarian perspective on issues and I do not think that that is in the best interest of the future of the party. Hillary herself isn't going to be president and that should be settled. The DoJ should just put her in prison for mishandling classified documents and we can just get on with our lives. + Show Spoiler +(that's a joke, just so you're aware) The real issue at hand is the enduring legacy of her impact on the Democratic Party, which I see as needing to be removed. Maybe "inevitable consequences" wasn't the right word, but the sentiment behind it was this: what exactly did you think was going to happen when you put such a widely disliked candidate as your nominee? Not good things. Maybe it would have been a win but the next few years would show it to be a pyrrhic victory. i'm not sure why it's the "clinton democratic establishment" rather than simply the "democratic establishment". what's the WWC? looking through acronym lists I see nothing obvious that it would be. your words are claiming that if sanders was the nominee, then the republicans would not have tried to remove the ethics commission. that may not have been your intent, but that is basically what your words have said. WWC = white working class. The "Clinton establishment" I use here as a contrast to the "progressive wing." Perhaps a better term could be used but none comes to mind and the Clintons are solidly associated with the former far more so than the latter. I don't think Sanders would be a popular president. He would have probably won because not enough people hate him, but he would run into a lot of issues along the way. But the reason they want to remove the ethics committee is obviously a "to the victor goes the spoils" scenario. If they didn't win bigly and take a full sweep of the government, they wouldn't have pushed for it at all. I would have preferred a more strongly grounded candidate than Sanders (who is a bit pie-in-the-sky for my tastes, and a bit too leftist) but he is definitely the best of the four (Cruz, Trump, Clinton, Sanders) in my eyes. how about using the "moderate wing" or the "non-progressive wing"? or the "centrist wing" maybe they want to remove the ethics committee cuz they want to be unethical, and they'd do so if they could regardless. it doesn't look at all like to the victor goes the spoils, they're not giving out piles of cash to republican causes after all. they'd still want to regardless of who's president, whether they'd succeed might vary based on who the president is and whether they veto, but it seems ot make more sense to put the onus on the ones voting to get rid of the ethics committee (or is a commission) than on the ones who lost for not winning so they could stop it. they also didn't win bigly, they may have the legislature and presidency (sort of), but it was hardly a bigly win, more like a squeaker. and do you have any solid basis for a clinton victory being a pyrrhic victory, or is that just opinion?
The won bigly in that they control the legislature, the presidency (sort of - Trump is going to break rank with Republican norms in a big way), and they will most likely preserve their Scalia seat. Yes, this will see a response to the fact that people genuinely don't like Congressional Republicans, but full control of the government by an inch is full control of the government by a mile.
It's a pyrrhic victory in that if history and her approval rating are any indication, Hillary would be very unlikely to win in 2020 (same is true for Trump, but I would call the Republican victory right now nothing short of pyrrhic as well). And the party would be dragged down with her.
"Moderate wing" does not properly encompass the concerns of DNC collusion, the hawkishness on FP, and the pro-trade group. I prefer "Clinton wing" there because it is very closely aligned to Hillary Clinton's policies rather than "Democratic standard moderate fare."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
FLAT ROCK, Mich./WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co (F.N) said Tuesday it will cancel a planned $1.6 billion factory in Mexico and will invest $700 million at a Michigan factory, after President-elect Donald Trump had harshly criticized the Mexico investment plan.
The second largest U.S. automaker said it would build new electric, hybrid and autonomous vehicles at the Flat Rock, Michigan plant.
Ford Chief Executive Mark Fields said the decision to cancel the new Mexico factory was in part related to the need to "fully utilize capacity at existing facilities" amid declining sales of small and medium sized cars such as the Focus and Fusion.
Fields also endorsed "pro growth" tax and regulatory policies advocated by Trump and the Republican-led Congress. "This is a vote of confidence for President-Elect Trump and some of the policies he may be pursuing," Fields said.
Trump repeatedly said during the election campaign that if elected he would not allow Ford to open the new plant in Mexico, which he called an "absolute disgrace" and would slap hefty tariffs taxes on imported Ford vehicles.
Ford executive chairman Bill Ford Jr. told reporters he spoke with Trump to notify him of the decision. A Ford spokesman said the decision was influenced by Trump's policy goals such as lowering taxes and regulations but there were no negotiations between Ford and the Republican over the decision to cancel the Mexico plant or invest in Michigan.
Also on Tuesday, Trump threatened to impose a "big border tax" on General Motors Co (GM.N) for making some of its Chevrolet Cruze cars in Mexico.
The New York businessman, who has vowed to bring back American jobs that have been outsourced overseas and be tough on illegal immigration from Mexico, takes office on Jan. 20.
Source
|
On January 04 2017 04:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 04:08 zlefin wrote:On January 04 2017 04:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 03:56 zlefin wrote:On January 04 2017 03:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 04 2017 03:10 zlefin wrote:
the thing that irks me, is that it seems like no matter waht the issue, you try to put as much of the blame on hillary as possible. The problem is only by proxy related to Hillary herself. It's that the party apparatus is very deeply staffed with the kind of people that enabled her campaign and continue on the same erroneous path that allowed the current situation to arise. When I say "Hillary" I more so mean "the Clinton Democratic establishment" which is a far more enduring political force, that continues to have relevance. I see that there is a prevailing desire to snub the progressive left and the WWC in favor of an identitarian perspective on issues and I do not think that that is in the best interest of the future of the party. Hillary herself isn't going to be president and that should be settled. The DoJ should just put her in prison for mishandling classified documents and we can just get on with our lives. + Show Spoiler +(that's a joke, just so you're aware) The real issue at hand is the enduring legacy of her impact on the Democratic Party, which I see as needing to be removed. Maybe "inevitable consequences" wasn't the right word, but the sentiment behind it was this: what exactly did you think was going to happen when you put such a widely disliked candidate as your nominee? Not good things. Maybe it would have been a win but the next few years would show it to be a pyrrhic victory. i'm not sure why it's the "clinton democratic establishment" rather than simply the "democratic establishment". what's the WWC? looking through acronym lists I see nothing obvious that it would be. your words are claiming that if sanders was the nominee, then the republicans would not have tried to remove the ethics commission. that may not have been your intent, but that is basically what your words have said. WWC = white working class. The "Clinton establishment" I use here as a contrast to the "progressive wing." Perhaps a better term could be used but none comes to mind and the Clintons are solidly associated with the former far more so than the latter. I don't think Sanders would be a popular president. He would have probably won because not enough people hate him, but he would run into a lot of issues along the way. But the reason they want to remove the ethics committee is obviously a "to the victor goes the spoils" scenario. If they didn't win bigly and take a full sweep of the government, they wouldn't have pushed for it at all. I would have preferred a more strongly grounded candidate than Sanders (who is a bit pie-in-the-sky for my tastes, and a bit too leftist) but he is definitely the best of the four (Cruz, Trump, Clinton, Sanders) in my eyes. how about using the "moderate wing" or the "non-progressive wing"? or the "centrist wing" maybe they want to remove the ethics committee cuz they want to be unethical, and they'd do so if they could regardless. it doesn't look at all like to the victor goes the spoils, they're not giving out piles of cash to republican causes after all. they'd still want to regardless of who's president, whether they'd succeed might vary based on who the president is and whether they veto, but it seems ot make more sense to put the onus on the ones voting to get rid of the ethics committee (or is a commission) than on the ones who lost for not winning so they could stop it. they also didn't win bigly, they may have the legislature and presidency (sort of), but it was hardly a bigly win, more like a squeaker. and do you have any solid basis for a clinton victory being a pyrrhic victory, or is that just opinion? The won bigly in that they control the legislature, the presidency (sort of - Trump is going to break rank with Republican norms in a big way), and they will most likely preserve their Scalia seat. Yes, this will see a response to the fact that people genuinely don't like Congressional Republicans, but full control of the government by an inch is full control of the government by a mile. It's a pyrrhic victory in that if history and her approval rating are any indication, Hillary would be very unlikely to win in 2020 (same is true for Trump, but I would call the Republican victory right now nothing short of pyrrhic as well). And the party would be dragged down with her. "Moderate wing" does not properly encompass the concerns of DNC collusion, the hawkishness on FP, and the pro-trade group. I prefer "Clinton wing" there because it is very closely aligned to Hillary Clinton's policies rather than "Democratic standard moderate fare."
so try "centrist wing". because hillary policies are fairly stnadard centrist democrat policies. they've been pro-trade for quite awhile. she's more hawksih than most I'll grant, but that doesn't make the dnc mainstream hawkish. so no, calling it the clinton wing really isn't apt.
and collusion has no particular bearing on centrist vs others. you awnna fight corruption tha'ts one thing (or unjustifiable perceived corruption), but there's no reason for you to keep pushing it hillary.
you can all that bigly if you like, but that's inaccurate and you know it. and bigly isn't a word.
that someone may lose the presidency later is not inherently pyrrhic, it's in the nature of the presidency that the party who has it tends to lose seats because they have to actually govern.
the question on pyrrhicity would be whether worthwhile things are accomplished, and what the benefits of that were, as balanced versus what ill was done.
calling itthe clinton wing doesn't clarify much to many of us, and mostly looks like you still just trying to hate on clinton as much as possible all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
