US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6896

On February 17 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:

You're absolutely right that looking at Trump is depressing, especially from a racism angle. It's because he says things like that he wants Jews handling his money, and had to be legally compelled to start renting to "colored people", that when a black reporter asks about the black caucus and he tells her to set up the meet we're suspicious that he thinks they all live together in one big halfway house in "the inner cities".

You've got to admit that it's not much of a stretch with Trump. Most people don't say these things because most people aren't 70 year olds with a track record of racism but even then, those that do would probably be given the benefit of the doubt. Trump doesn't get the benefit of the doubt when he implies all people of an ethnic minority know each other because there really isn't much benefit of the doubt left in his case.

On February 17 2017 04:41 xDaunt wrote:

The Right isn't pretending anything. It knows what Trump is and what Trump is not. All that matters is the bottom line. And the bottom line here is that Trump is the tool through which many policies favored by the Right will be enacted. It just happens to be an added benefit that Trump is going to do permanent damage to Leftist institutions that have antagonized the Right for years.

On February 17 2017 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm sure you would love this argument if it was used by the left. Yeah we don't care that they habitually lie, seem remarkably uninformed (didn't know what the CBC was for example), questionable foreign relations, etc... because you know, they are going to pass stuff we want.

lol, like come on man, you're too smart to think that doesn't look idiotic.

On February 17 2017 04:50 Sermokala wrote:

Thats a really unfair thing to be suspicious of someone of, clearly hes got a track record of saying inflammatory things that go on the line but putting words in his mouth and applying whatever meaning you want to his words is pretty far out as well. I'm pretty sure the black caucus knows each other from their caucusing together. People shouldn't be surprised about racial identification when the organization they associate with is racially named. Its like being surprised planned parenthood is getting all the anti abortion attention from politicians.

On February 17 2017 04:41 xDaunt wrote:

The Right isn't pretending anything. It knows what Trump is and what Trump is not. All that matters is the bottom line. And the bottom line here is that Trump is the tool through which many policies favored by the Right will be enacted. It just happens to be an added benefit that Trump is going to do permanent damage to Leftist institutions that have antagonized the Right for years.

On February 17 2017 04:52 xDaunt wrote:

Wasn't this basically the argument for voting for Hillary? Suggesting that people vote for policy over personal flaw is nothing more than pointing out the obvious.

On February 17 2017 04:57 opisska wrote:


Is this really a common line of thought among US republicans? Because that would really help me finally close my mouth after months of awe and wondering about how the hell can anyone support someone as inept in ... everything as Trump. Or is it just a particular position of a person with above-average intellect and most of Trump's supporters are actually buying him? Is it in any way or form known what fraction of people think like this?

But even then, aren't you worried that the fallout from Trump's incompetence will outweight the benefit of the policies? Barring generl luck (such as vast natural resources), prosperity in a country typically stems from "things working" - the countries with highest quality of life are those where the system works with predictability and stability, to which Trump seems to embody the polar opposite in his first actions. Even if we accept that his policies are good for the economy and living conditions of Americans, isn't it possible that all the disruptions will turn out to be too costly, because he just doesn't seem to think things through?

On February 17 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:

The woman Trump told to set up the meeting wasn't a member of the black caucus, she was a journalist. While I'm sure the members of the black caucus do know each other, she's not one of them. She was just black. Trump, for some reason, decided that this black woman would know all the members of the black caucus.

On February 17 2017 04:52 xDaunt wrote:

Wasn't this basically the argument for voting for Hillary? Suggesting that people vote for policy over personal flaw is nothing more than pointing out the obvious.

On February 17 2017 05:10 Plansix wrote:

I don’t know about you, but I know every single person with my specific ethnic make up within 100 miles and can set up meetings sat any time. We meet bi-weekly.

On February 17 2017 05:13 Slaughter wrote:
XDaunt's attitude shouldn't be a surprise. Republicans over the last 10 years have shown to increasingly be willing to damage the country as a whole in the name of securing as many wins for GOP as possible.

On February 17 2017 05:15 KwarK wrote:

It's tough getting to know the English in America, we don't broadcast much outside of the first 11 days of November. Those are basically the only days I get people coming up to me and introducing themselves.

The part where she'd set it up for Trump was weird too. Like you'd think the President's secretary would give them a very limited selection of time slots to pick from and they'd work around that. Not a reporter setting it up and telling the President to cancel whatever he had planned for that time and show up. Is he really just not very busy?

President Donald Trump's new nominee for secretary of labor, Alexander Acosta, could face a grilling in the Senate over claims that — while he was the top federal prosecutor in Miami — he cut a sweetheart plea deal in 2008 with a billionaire investor accused of having sex with dozens of underage girls.

As the U.S. attorney for Southern Florida, Acosta agreed not to file any federal charges against the wealthy financier, Jeffrey Epstein, if he pled guilty to state charges involving soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor for prostitution.

Epstein ultimately received an 18-month sentence in county jail and served about 13 months — treatment that provoked outrage from alleged victims in the case.

Soon after the deal was cut in 2008, two women filed suit claiming that the decision to forgo federal prosecution violated a federal law — the Crime Victims Rights Act — because they and other teenagers Epstein paid for sex were never adequately consulted about the plea deal or given an opportunity to object to it.

Acosta is not a party in the suit, which names only the federal government as a defendant. In 2015, lawyers for the women demanded Acosta submit to a deposition in the case. The motion was withdrawn last year as settlement talks in the case went forward, but the case remains pending.

"There is good reason to believe that if the prosecutors had exposed their dealings to scrutiny by Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and other victims, they would not have reached such a sweetheart plea deal," the alleged victims' attorneys wrote in a court filing last year.

Acosta acknowledged to the media in 2011 that he came under extreme pressure from Epstein's high-powered defense team, which included legal heavyweights such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr and Florida criminal defense attorney Roy Black.

Acosta said Epstein's defense mounted "a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors."

"I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered," the former U.S. attorney wrote. He said his office stuck to its opening position in the case, but he also acknowledged that the ultimate punishment in the case may have been more lenient than Epstein deserved.