|
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 February 18 2017 06:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 06:30 Mohdoo wrote:On February 18 2017 02:56 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2017 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 02:34 farvacola wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? It'd be a mistake to let anyone carry the standard for 45 or 55 percent of interested Democrats. GH convincing you that millions of people would consider Perez "forced" on them is him doing good politics more than it is an accurate representation of where folks actually fall on the issue. Either will still provide for the realignment that needs to happen imo. GH convincing me? You might want to spend some time on progressive internet. There are places where even Ellison is viewed as too much of a corporate democrat, but at least he has a decent amount of the support; literally no one is okay with Perez in these circles. I'm not really interested in hand-wavey attempts at using gesticulating towards particular communities to anchor shorthand characterizations of left, more left, and most left. Yes, there are places where literally everyone thinks like GH, but given my unwillingness to get into the mud of figuring out exactly what proportion of the potentially voting public said places represent, you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing with the idea that obstinacy on the part of an ill-determined sub-constituency should control the outcome of a major party decision. GH represents a very unique and not common sub-sect of a larger population, though. As an example, there are a lot of people who didn't wanna vote for Clinton, and chose Bernie, but they also would have voted for Biden in the general election. It is important to realize that while the democratic party may never convince GH, there are still people half way between GH and moderate who also decided to tell Clinton to shove it. Clinton was a very, very hard sale. GH seems like a garden variety pure blooded American leftist. I know many who speak a lot like he does about issues and that's what I'd describe them as. Insert another "electable" comment here.
Yeah, being a PNW resident, I've seen my fair share as well. But I would say that while the bulk of the PNW is huge on Bernie, and hated Clinton, they would have hated Biden way, way, way less. It is difficult to understate the effects of having "wall st" attached to your name around here.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Biden was fine, yes. Certainly more charming and less incompetent. And more actual-electability rather than Clinton "electability." Kind of a "crazy uncle Joe" figure though with some foot in mouth statements. But he'd be a decent consensus leader.
Kind of moot because personal circumstances, but yeah.
|
Biden had the memes going for him. That would have been a blowout win
|
On February 18 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:
Biden was fine, yes. Certainly more charming and less incompetent. And more actual-electability rather than Clinton "electability." Kind of a "crazy uncle Joe" figure though with some foot in mouth statements. But he'd be a decent consensus leader.
Kind of moot because personal circumstances, but yeah.
Right, I guess my main point here is that while Bernie and Clinton were hugely polarizing as primary candidates, there are a lot of types that most democrats can get behind. You don't need to be Bernie to get a big chunk of the Bernie crowd. You don't need to be Clinton to get a good chunk of the Clinton crowd. In many ways, the party feels more divided than it really is because Bernie was the only one crazy enough to oppose Clinton. It's not like Bernie is the only representation of a democrat which is more left than Clinton.
|
Biden wouldn’t be bad. The president’s role is more of a referee between the two houses of congress anyways. He would be well suited for that role than most. And he knows when he is out of his depth.
And he likes trains. God that man loves trains and thinks they are the future of everything.
|
On February 18 2017 07:43 LegalLord wrote:
Biden was fine, yes. Certainly more charming and less incompetent. And more actual-electability rather than Clinton "electability." Kind of a "crazy uncle Joe" figure though with some foot in mouth statements. But he'd be a decent consensus leader.
Kind of moot because personal circumstances, but yeah.
Careful claiming an establishment candidate is good because of high electability  .
|
Republican voters are willing to gloss over frequent, high level contacts with Russian intelligence in service of the hatred of the media. If shit hits the fan for the USA, we know who to blame.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Clinton should have been able to pull it off, as polarizing as she was. She just kept doing things that made so many people hate her - both from the left and the right - that even in the face of Trump they could not in good conscience vote for her. That isn't an ideological divide, that's a bad candidate.
|
The notion of choosing Trump over Clinton based on one's conscience is laughable.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
From the left they would just not vote for her.
From the right, they could see it as an unfortunate compromise to stop certain dangerous events.
|
Following a briefing with Comey:
|
You'd hope one of his advisors would tell him what fake news is. No, it's not a hyper-critical media or one skewed against him.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 18 2017 08:19 PhoenixVoid wrote:You'd hope one of his advisors would tell him what fake news is. No, it's not a hyper-critical media or one skewed against him.
I'm sure they would have told him, and further than he wouldn't have listened.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Eh, Micro Rubio seems like the type of guy who would say that no matter what. He wants to be convinced - he hopes to piggyback on McCain and Graham for Russia hawk relevance.
That said, an investigation is a fine idea. But I don't know what they hope to find.
|
On February 18 2017 08:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 08:19 PhoenixVoid wrote:You'd hope one of his advisors would tell him what fake news is. No, it's not a hyper-critical media or one skewed against him. I'm sure they would have told him, and further than he wouldn't have listened.
I think the conversation would go like this.
"Mr. President, maybe the media isn't-"
"Siddown, shutup, it's all fake news anyways"
|
On February 18 2017 08:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 08:19 PhoenixVoid wrote:You'd hope one of his advisors would tell him what fake news is. No, it's not a hyper-critical media or one skewed against him. I'm sure they would have told him, and further than he wouldn't have listened.
Like the guy who prefaced his question by saying that he doesn't think Trump is antisemitic, but by halfway through his questions Trump was certain he said the opposite?
|
Somehow he manages to surpass my expectations on how much North Korean Dear Leader he can get. Not agreeing that he is the greatest thing ever to happen to humanity? Dishonest and fake.
|
Flint — Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s Civil Rights Commission on Friday released a scathing report arguing that “systemic racism” played a part in Flint’s water contamination crisis.
The 135-page report delves into the history of race and racism in the Flint area and argues that historical practices like redlining — or only renting and selling property to black residents in certain areas of the city — white flight to the suburbs, intergenerational poverty and “implicit bias” all helped lay the groundwork for an economic situation in the city in which an emergency manager was needed in the first place.
Emergency managers were responsible for the decision to switch to the Flint River for the city’s water supply as a cost-cutting move in April 2014. That decision allowed the highly corrosive Flint River water to scrape lead from the city’s aging lead pipes into the drinking water.
At the same time, state officials failed to require corrosion control chemicals be added to the water — something required by federal law and done in cities across the nation to prevent similar situations.
“Systemic racism” then played a large part in the sluggish response to the crisis and officials’ attempts to delegitimize Flint residents’ concerns that problems with the water supply existed long before Snyder’s administration acknowledged an issue, the report argues.
“The commission believes that we have answered our initial question, ‘Was race a factor in the Flint Water Crisis?’ Our answer is an unreserved and undeniable — ‘yes’,” the report said.
“The people of Flint have been subjected to unprecedented harm and hardship, much of it caused by structural and systemic discrimination and racism that have corroded your city, your institutions, and your water pipes, for generations,” the report said.
“When the last of the civil lawsuits and attorney general criminal investigations are completed, and relief dollars from state and federal sources are exhausted, what will remain is a city and its people who will continue to fight against built-in barriers but whose voices — as a matter of public right — must never be stifled or quelled again,” the report states.
The report’s authors, Snyder appointees, say the people of Flint did not “enjoy” the equal protection of environmental or public health laws, they have not had a meaningful voice in the decisions leading up to the Flint Water crisis.
“Many argue they had no voice,” the report says.
The commission did not allege a specific violation of the state’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in the report, however. It instead claims that current state civil rights laws “appear inadequate to address the deeply embedded institutional, systemic and historical racism that we find at the root of this crisis.”
The report offers a litany of potential policy changes, including to the state’s emergency manager law, and implies the emergency manager law is focused on cutting costs at the expense of people’s well-being.
Snyder commission: Racism played role in Flint crisis
|
On February 18 2017 06:07 Doodsmack wrote:
I would have thought that Pruitt having his pockets stuffed with fossil fuel company money would count as vetting issues.
Not for Democrats like Joe Manchin, at least we have a bipartisan EPA pick. If you take away the "Democrats" voting for Pruitt, Pence would have had to come down again to break another tie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
