|
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. |
|
|
I certainly hope the Trump administration ends up being sane enough not to undermine the Paris Accords.
|
On January 04 2017 04:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 04:18 LegalLord wrote: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. 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.
If it wasn't clear, neither "moderate wing" nor "non-progressive wing" nor "centrist wing" are proper descriptions. Maybe we could call it "the establishment" if you like that more, but then perhaps it's telling that in 538's words, Hillary is the "most establishment favored candidate in history."
On January 04 2017 04:28 zlefin wrote:
and bigly isn't a word.
Our president is Trump. I will not miss the opportunity to use Trumpian grammar here.
On January 04 2017 04:28 zlefin wrote:
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.
By that measure Clinton would also be a bad president. It's arguable because no one foresees the future but I am pretty confident that that measure would not put Hillary in a goodly light when we would have been discussing her legacy.
|
On January 04 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 04:28 zlefin wrote:On January 04 2017 04:18 LegalLord wrote: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. 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. If it wasn't clear, neither "moderate wing" nor "non-progressive wing" nor "centrist wing" are proper descriptions. Maybe we could call it "the establishment" if you like that more, but then perhaps it's telling that in 538's words, Hillary is the "most establishment favored candidate in history." Our president is Trump. I will not miss the opportunity to use Trumpian grammar here. Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 04:28 zlefin wrote:
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. By that measure Clinton would also be a bad president. It's arguable because no one foresees the future but I am pretty confident that that measure would not put Hillary in a goodly light when we would have been discussing her legacy.
establishment wing seems fine. go with that.
I'm uncertain on hillary accomplishments, while I have considerable doubts, she is a policy wonk, and is fairly good at political wrangling.
so she might have done some good stuff.
|
Norway28739 Posts
wasnt trump saying big league?
|
On January 04 2017 05:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
wasnt trump saying big league?
You'll be surprised how little that matters.
|
On January 02 2017 16:37 LegalLord wrote:
If nothing else, this campaign was a reminder of the reality that anything that exists in writing never dies and could be used against you. Even just because some guy your email was forwarded to gets hacked by a phish.
Don't put anything in writing that can make you look guilty.
Such guilty paper trails such as ordering pizza, cooking risotto, and being told by DWS to not be biased. The scandal, the horror.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 04 2017 05:08 LegalLord wrote:You'll be surprised how little that matters.
Is this how French and English got all of the silent letters and screwed up pronounciations?
|
According to a Gallup poll released Monday, Americans have significantly less faith in Trump than they had in his predecessors. Only 44% said they are confident Trump will avoid major scandals in his Administration, 46% said they are confident in Trump’s ability to handle an international crisis, and 47% said they trust him to use military force wisely. When the same questions were asked at the start of Barack Obama’s, George W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s terms, roughly three-quarters of Americans said they had confidence in the newly elected President in these areas.
When compared with Gallup’s averages of confidence polling in his predecessors, Trump comes up short: he has a 32-point confidence deficit in his ability to avoid scandals in his Administration, a 29-point deficit in his ability to use military force well and a 28-point deficit in his ability to manage the Executive Branch. Most Americans (60%) believe Trump will be able to get things done with Congress, but even there he comes up far behind his predecessors — the average number of Americans with confidence in Obama, Bush and Clinton to work with Congress was 82%.
The data also reflects a more polarized America than Obama or Bush faced when they came into office. On average, only 21% of Democrats have confidence in Trump’s ability to handle the various responsibilities of the presidency. By contrast, roughly two-thirds of Republicans had some confidence in Obama and the same was true for Bush and Democrats. But Trump even has a confidence deficit among members of his own party: only 84% of Republicans have confidence in his abilities as President, compared with 94% of Democrats who trusted Obama and 95% of Republicans who had faith in Bush.
Yahoo
|
On January 04 2017 06:31 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +According to a Gallup poll released Monday, Americans have significantly less faith in Trump than they had in his predecessors. Only 44% said they are confident Trump will avoid major scandals in his Administration, 46% said they are confident in Trump’s ability to handle an international crisis, and 47% said they trust him to use military force wisely. When the same questions were asked at the start of Barack Obama’s, George W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s terms, roughly three-quarters of Americans said they had confidence in the newly elected President in these areas.
When compared with Gallup’s averages of confidence polling in his predecessors, Trump comes up short: he has a 32-point confidence deficit in his ability to avoid scandals in his Administration, a 29-point deficit in his ability to use military force well and a 28-point deficit in his ability to manage the Executive Branch. Most Americans (60%) believe Trump will be able to get things done with Congress, but even there he comes up far behind his predecessors — the average number of Americans with confidence in Obama, Bush and Clinton to work with Congress was 82%.
The data also reflects a more polarized America than Obama or Bush faced when they came into office. On average, only 21% of Democrats have confidence in Trump’s ability to handle the various responsibilities of the presidency. By contrast, roughly two-thirds of Republicans had some confidence in Obama and the same was true for Bush and Democrats. But Trump even has a confidence deficit among members of his own party: only 84% of Republicans have confidence in his abilities as President, compared with 94% of Democrats who trusted Obama and 95% of Republicans who had faith in Bush. Yahoo
So in other news people elected a president they don't really like?
|
Not surprising, no matter who won the election that would have been true.
|
On January 04 2017 06:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 06:31 Doodsmack wrote:According to a Gallup poll released Monday, Americans have significantly less faith in Trump than they had in his predecessors. Only 44% said they are confident Trump will avoid major scandals in his Administration, 46% said they are confident in Trump’s ability to handle an international crisis, and 47% said they trust him to use military force wisely. When the same questions were asked at the start of Barack Obama’s, George W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s terms, roughly three-quarters of Americans said they had confidence in the newly elected President in these areas.
When compared with Gallup’s averages of confidence polling in his predecessors, Trump comes up short: he has a 32-point confidence deficit in his ability to avoid scandals in his Administration, a 29-point deficit in his ability to use military force well and a 28-point deficit in his ability to manage the Executive Branch. Most Americans (60%) believe Trump will be able to get things done with Congress, but even there he comes up far behind his predecessors — the average number of Americans with confidence in Obama, Bush and Clinton to work with Congress was 82%.
The data also reflects a more polarized America than Obama or Bush faced when they came into office. On average, only 21% of Democrats have confidence in Trump’s ability to handle the various responsibilities of the presidency. By contrast, roughly two-thirds of Republicans had some confidence in Obama and the same was true for Bush and Democrats. But Trump even has a confidence deficit among members of his own party: only 84% of Republicans have confidence in his abilities as President, compared with 94% of Democrats who trusted Obama and 95% of Republicans who had faith in Bush. Yahoo So in other news people elected a president they don't really like?
That may be an understatement.
|
Well, looks like ol' Megyn "Santa is white, Jesus was white." Kelly is heading over to NBC. Should fit right in.
Megyn Kelly wanted out of Fox News.
On Tuesday she stunned the television news world by defecting from Fox, her TV home for the past decade, and joining NBC News.
Later this year Kelly will start hosting a daytime news program on weekdays and a prime time program on Sundays, both on the NBC network.
Kelly will only be on Fox for a few more days. She will sign off her 9 p.m. show, "The Kelly File," on Friday night.
The move will be perceived in the industry as a coup for NBC and a blow to Fox. In the past couple years, Kelly has become one of the biggest stars on television as she defied expectations and tangled with Donald Trump.
Bolstered by Bill O'Reilly's 8 p.m. show, Kelly at 9 p.m. had the second-most watched news program on all of cable news.
Source
|
On January 04 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, looks like ol' Megyn "Santa is white, Jesus was white." Kelly is heading over to NBC. Should fit right in. Show nested quote +Megyn Kelly wanted out of Fox News.
On Tuesday she stunned the television news world by defecting from Fox, her TV home for the past decade, and joining NBC News.
Later this year Kelly will start hosting a daytime news program on weekdays and a prime time program on Sundays, both on the NBC network.
Kelly will only be on Fox for a few more days. She will sign off her 9 p.m. show, "The Kelly File," on Friday night.
The move will be perceived in the industry as a coup for NBC and a blow to Fox. In the past couple years, Kelly has become one of the biggest stars on television as she defied expectations and tangled with Donald Trump.
Bolstered by Bill O'Reilly's 8 p.m. show, Kelly at 9 p.m. had the second-most watched news program on all of cable news. Source
Regardless of her views, I was pretty impressed by her debate moderation. Curious to see what this turns into.
|
On January 04 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Well, looks like ol' Megyn "Santa is white, Jesus was white." Kelly is heading over to NBC. Should fit right in. Show nested quote +Megyn Kelly wanted out of Fox News.
On Tuesday she stunned the television news world by defecting from Fox, her TV home for the past decade, and joining NBC News.
Later this year Kelly will start hosting a daytime news program on weekdays and a prime time program on Sundays, both on the NBC network.
Kelly will only be on Fox for a few more days. She will sign off her 9 p.m. show, "The Kelly File," on Friday night.
The move will be perceived in the industry as a coup for NBC and a blow to Fox. In the past couple years, Kelly has become one of the biggest stars on television as she defied expectations and tangled with Donald Trump.
Bolstered by Bill O'Reilly's 8 p.m. show, Kelly at 9 p.m. had the second-most watched news program on all of cable news. Source
How dare a news source allow different views into their news cycle. Don't they know echo chambers are the only ones liberals allow?
|
That wasn't a diffrent view, that was just plain retarded.
|
On January 04 2017 03:20 LegalLord wrote:Any particular reason to think it's more than just a career-minded move? Sounds like they offered her a promotion.
She probably sees it as both a career-minded move and as a better cultural fit for what she wants to do. She's probably right on the latter, but I strongly suspect that she is wrong on the former. FNC is one of those platforms where the talent benefits hugely from the FNC brand. I wouldn't be surprised if her ratings sorely disappoint.
|
On January 04 2017 06:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 06:31 Doodsmack wrote:According to a Gallup poll released Monday, Americans have significantly less faith in Trump than they had in his predecessors. Only 44% said they are confident Trump will avoid major scandals in his Administration, 46% said they are confident in Trump’s ability to handle an international crisis, and 47% said they trust him to use military force wisely. When the same questions were asked at the start of Barack Obama’s, George W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s terms, roughly three-quarters of Americans said they had confidence in the newly elected President in these areas.
When compared with Gallup’s averages of confidence polling in his predecessors, Trump comes up short: he has a 32-point confidence deficit in his ability to avoid scandals in his Administration, a 29-point deficit in his ability to use military force well and a 28-point deficit in his ability to manage the Executive Branch. Most Americans (60%) believe Trump will be able to get things done with Congress, but even there he comes up far behind his predecessors — the average number of Americans with confidence in Obama, Bush and Clinton to work with Congress was 82%.
The data also reflects a more polarized America than Obama or Bush faced when they came into office. On average, only 21% of Democrats have confidence in Trump’s ability to handle the various responsibilities of the presidency. By contrast, roughly two-thirds of Republicans had some confidence in Obama and the same was true for Bush and Democrats. But Trump even has a confidence deficit among members of his own party: only 84% of Republicans have confidence in his abilities as President, compared with 94% of Democrats who trusted Obama and 95% of Republicans who had faith in Bush. Yahoo So in other news people elected a president they don't really like?
He definitely got more votes than favorable opinions. Basically, hate him or like him, of the two, he was the better choice by a narrow electoral margin. Exit polls confirmed this. And in terms of elections, it's unheard of.
|
On January 04 2017 07:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 03:20 LegalLord wrote: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. She probably sees it as both a career-minded move and as a better cultural fit for what she wants to do. She's probably right on the latter, but I strongly suspect that she is wrong on the former. FNC is one of those platforms where the talent benefits hugely from the FNC brand. I wouldn't be surprised if her ratings sorely disappoint.
If she were a guy or one of the less popular females i would agree but since shes hot and pretty famous now I would imagine her career will be just as big or bigger now with NBC
|
Some prominent conservatives have signed on to a letter warning President-elect Donald Trump that he needs to sell off his businesses to address his many conflicts of interest.
"Respectfully, you cannot serve the country as president and also own a world-wide business enterprise, without seriously damaging the presidency," says a letter sent Monday by a bipartisan group of politicians, ethics advocates and academics.
The letter was signed by several moderate Republicans, including former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson and former Rep. Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma, who was chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee.
But the signers also include some further-right conservatives, including Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, and political consultant John Pudner of Take Back Our Republic, which seeks to build GOP support for campaign finance reform.
Pudner was instrumental in the successful Tea Party-backed effort to unseat then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican. He also is a contributor to Breitbart News, which has been managed in recent years by Trump's senior counselor, Stephen Bannon.
A Trump supporter, Pudner said that cleaning up Washington had been a central part of the president-elect's campaign and that now he needs to follow through.
"He made such a theme of things like the revolving door and the ways in which decisions can be influenced, not for the public good," Pudner said. "If you have the presidency and people are going to question every week, 'Why is he making this decision? Is there some business angle on it?' I just think it undercuts so much of the reason that people did support him."
Other signatories included several good-government groups, such as People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Common Cause and the Revolving Door Project, as well as liberal Democrats such as Zephyr Teachout of Columbia Law School and Harvard Law School's Laurence H. Tribe.
Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told CNN on Monday that a news conference is planned for Jan. 11 to address conflicts of interest. But she added that the date might shift, depending upon the advice of Trump's lawyers.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
