EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6900
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 17 2017 07:05 farvacola wrote: the special schools for nice kids make up far too small a portion of the for-profit education market to render that a justifiable fear; education and coastal properties are the next big bubbles, and suburbia will not be immune to the effects of either. it's the perceptions. already charter parents rate their schools higher despite having same or worse results. maybe you are too optimistic about human nature. you should try being gloomy all the time | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And at some point the democrats or whatever emerges from the wreckage will find a way to win elections. But until then, the red states can touch the stove and all end up like West Virginia. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44287 Posts
On February 17 2017 06:24 biology]major wrote: There is a fixation on the negative stories regardless of what outlet you follow. An outlet that does positive and negative coverage of Trump, I'll call that balanced and worth consuming. There is some good in there, but the hysteria is caused by an unending fixation on the negative. Never read a breitbart article in my life so I'm not sure what that's about. Honestly, the only inquisitive TV journalist I've seen who isn't terribly biased is Cooper on Fake News Network TM. Regarding the Russia thing, it's stupid because we are put in a position where we have leaks that have damning implications, but then have no access to any other follow up information. What are we supposed to do with this information lol? I'm just going to listen to what mattis says, he seems like a independent agent in Trump's admin and so far he has been calling out Russia. Mainstream media reported when the stock market broke 2300 etc or when companies opened new factories in the US. I don't think it's fair to say "the news is almost all bad about Trump, therefore they must not be reporting the good". That only makes sense if you start with the assumption that news, both good and bad, exists in roughly equal quantities and any deviation from that is the result of biased filtering. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 17 2017 07:15 biology]major wrote: Catastrophe aside, 4 years goes by quick, are the democrats going to open up the playing field this time and let more people battle for the nomination? the dems per se didn't prevent the field from being open. it's just that most people didn't want to go up against hillary because they felt they were gonna lose. when you have a system wherein the question is who chooses to run, rather than who should run, that happens. though it'd kinda happen anyways, as there's usually not that many people before some are clearly better choices than others. losing and getting a pitiful showing (like 1-2%) can be bad for the career, which is why not everyone just dives for it, it can also make enemies. that said, it's common to only have 5-6 people showing interest, which is what the dems had at the start. the really large republican field was an abnormality historically. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12533 Posts
On February 17 2017 07:15 biology]major wrote: Catastrophe aside, 4 years goes by quick, are the democrats going to open up the playing field this time and let more people battle for the nomination? Depends if we get Ellison or Perez I think. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 17 2017 07:21 Nebuchad wrote: Depends if we get Ellison or Perez I think. The field in 2020 will be wide open no matter what. They have no bench, so it is going to be anyone’s game. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 17 2017 07:21 zlefin wrote: the dems per se didn't prevent the field from being open. it's just that most people didn't want to go up against hillary because they felt they were gonna lose. when you have a system wherein the question is who chooses to run, rather than who should run, that happens. though it'd kinda happen anyways, as there's usually not that many people before some are clearly better choices than others. losing and getting a pitiful showing (like 1-2%) can be bad for the career, which is why not everyone just dives for it, it can also make enemies. that said, it's common to only have 5-6 people showing interest, which is what the dems had at the start. the really large republican field was an abnormality historically. Then it comes down to why they thought they were going to lose. If they were afraid the primary would be rigged against them, well, the proof is in the pudding on that. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 17 2017 07:28 Gahlo wrote: Then it comes down to why they thought they were going to lose. If they were afraid the primary would be rigged against them, well, the proof is in the pudding on that. they thought they were gonna lose because hillary had a LOT of establishment support, was a long-time party stalwart, had high name recognition, and had a strong mastery of policy, and had already done one good try for the presidency. nothing ot do with riggedness per se, just they knew they'd be going up against a powerful machine. they'd just rather wait for a more open field to make their try. and they don't want to get on hillary's bad side. while some may dislike hillary alot, most of those people aren't in democratic primaries so won't matter much there. they thought they'd lose because they were of a lesser caliber? that'd be my assumption at least. also i'm not sure there's a good monetization model for also-rans (i.e. some republicans, especially less political ones lately go presidential run -> lucrative deal as a talking head on Fox news or somesuch). I haven't seen so many dem-side people trying that. there's no need to bring riggedness suspicions into it. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo5921600.html chapter 7 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Most of the races narrow to 2-3 choices after the first chunk of primaries anyway. The Republican primary this time was way outside the norm. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On February 17 2017 07:39 oneofthem wrote: read this http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo5921600.html chapter 7 The way you are presenting that, I am going to assume it says what I want it to say. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn denied to FBI agents in an interview last month that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States before President Trump took office, contradicting the contents of intercepted communications collected by intelligence agencies, current and former U.S. officials said. The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy, as lying to the FBI is a felony, but any decision to prosecute would ultimately lie with the Justice Department. Some officials said bringing a case could prove difficult in part because Flynn may attempt to parse the definition of sanctions. ... Senior Justice and intelligence officials who have reviewed the phone call thought Flynn’s statements to Kislyak were inappropriate, if not illegal, because he suggested that the Kremlin could expect a reprieve from the sanctions. WSJ | ||
| ||
