|
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 15:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales 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? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"? In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance?
Yes that seems to be true, if the proportions were 99% and 1%, it would make sense for the DNC to go for what the 99% wants. However, since the proportions are admittedly fictional, that's not really an interesting thought experiment.
|
On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him.
I'd say attacking judges who rule against him is a much better reason to call him a fascist.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On February 18 2017 12:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist.
Blatantly false. Correlation is not causation, but if the correlation is worrying, that warrants pointing it out.
|
On February 18 2017 16:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 15:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales 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? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"? In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance? Yes that seems to be true, if the proportions were 99% and 1%, it would make sense for the DNC to go for what the 99% wants. However, since the proportions are admittedly fictional, that's not really an interesting thought experiment.
So you have any info on the real proportions? Because I don't know what proportion of Bernie voters are Bernie or busters, which seem to be the only people who care much about Ellison vs Perez.
|
On February 18 2017 16:18 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 16:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 15:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales 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? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"? In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance? Yes that seems to be true, if the proportions were 99% and 1%, it would make sense for the DNC to go for what the 99% wants. However, since the proportions are admittedly fictional, that's not really an interesting thought experiment. So you have any info on the real proportions? Because I don't know what proportion of Bernie voters are Bernie or busters, which seem to be the only people who care much about Ellison vs Perez.
That is simply not true. The large majority of Bernie supporters care about Ellison vs Perez.
|
On February 18 2017 12:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist.
Since I think I'm the one being accused of insinuating that Trump is probably a fascist, let me say that while I'm not clear on the precise definition of fascism, I certainly don't think we should start searching for where he's hiding the camps or installing lead-lined trap doors in our homes for hiding Jews. There's plenty wrong with what's going on right now to worry about without trying to anticipate every possible nightmare scenario in the next four years.
The point of the comparison is that these propagandistic tactics are unprecedented, and there is no innocent scenario for them. He's actively attacking whatever democratic mechanisms can challenge his power. He's directly pitting people's willingness to question the administration against their patriotism and loyalty to the American people, and trying to rally public rage against anyone who chooses to question the administration.
No good comes from this. Contrary to what xDaunt claims, unconstitutionality is not the only legitimate basis for objecting to the government's actions. Telling baldfaced lies, calling journalists liars for demonstrably true stories, and calling on people's patriotism to take his side against the media that challenge him is unacceptable behavior that, if successful, enables authoritarianism. Given all that, we don't need to argue about whether or not he'll be New Hitler someday; there's plenty to object to in the here and now.
|
On February 18 2017 16:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 16:18 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 16:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 15:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales 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? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"? In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance? Yes that seems to be true, if the proportions were 99% and 1%, it would make sense for the DNC to go for what the 99% wants. However, since the proportions are admittedly fictional, that's not really an interesting thought experiment. So you have any info on the real proportions? Because I don't know what proportion of Bernie voters are Bernie or busters, which seem to be the only people who care much about Ellison vs Perez. That is simply not true. The large majority of Bernie supporters care about Ellison vs Perez.
[citation needed]
|
On February 18 2017 16:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 16:18 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 16:01 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 15:30 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales 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? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"? In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance? Yes that seems to be true, if the proportions were 99% and 1%, it would make sense for the DNC to go for what the 99% wants. However, since the proportions are admittedly fictional, that's not really an interesting thought experiment. So you have any info on the real proportions? Because I don't know what proportion of Bernie voters are Bernie or busters, which seem to be the only people who care much about Ellison vs Perez. That is simply not true. The large majority of Bernie supporters care about Ellison vs Perez.
Which one of them doesn't take cash from multinationals and billionaires?
|
On February 18 2017 16:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. I'd say attacking judges who rule against him is a much better reason to call him a fascist.
Fascism always inherits an ideology by definition (ik there are many definitions, but they all have this aspect in common).
An ideology however always has a goal, a so called "endgame szenario" and quite frankly I don't think Trump thinks that far ahead. I mean come on the guy is the very definition of "wingin it", so calling him a fascist is not just straight out wrong, it's hilarious! 
|
Trump may not think far ahead, but Steve Bannon most certainly does. Now I think he's been wrong about a lot thus far, but still, he's the one with the plan here.
|
Well Bannon wants to destroy the establishment, that's not really a secret. But he's not in charge and Trump's unwillingness to listen to his advisors is no secret either.
edit: But hey I'm not a fortune cookie, so I'll just sit back and enjoy the show.
|
Trump calling the press enemies of the people and unamerican is genuinely new territory, and the only other leaders who say that are dictators and fascists. Interesting.
|
U.S. President Donald Trump, scrambling to find a new top security aide after firing his first one and being spurned other candidates, will not guarantee that the next individual to fill the critical role will have full control over staffing and process.
Trump ousted Michael Flynn on Monday in a controversy over the retired lieutenant general’s contacts with Russia. Retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward on Thursday turned down the Republican president’s offer to replace Flynn.
“General Keith Kellogg, who I have known for a long time, is very much in play for NSA - as are three others,” Trump said on Twitter, without naming the other candidates.
Former U.S. National Security Agency head Keith Alexander and former supreme allied commander in Europe James Jones, who held the national security adviser post under former Democratic President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2010, were thought to be under consideration. Both are retired generals.
Two others also thought to be in contention were former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who holds a senior post with the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.
Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who is currently chief of staff of the White House National Security Council, accompanied Trump on a trip to South Carolina on Friday before heading to Florida. He stepped into the national security adviser role on an acting basis after Flynn’s firing.
Trump may meet with candidates for the post during his weekend visit to Florida, a White House official told reporters.
Former CIA chief David Petraeus has dropped out of consideration for the post, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Source
|
On February 18 2017 17:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:32 LegalLord wrote:On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote:
My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist. Since I think I'm the one being accused of insinuating that Trump is probably a fascist, let me say that while I'm not clear on the precise definition of fascism, I certainly don't think we should start searching for where he's hiding the camps or installing lead-lined trap doors in our homes for hiding Jews. There's plenty wrong with what's going on right now to worry about without trying to anticipate every possible nightmare scenario in the next four years. The point of the comparison is that these propagandistic tactics are unprecedented, and there is no innocent scenario for them. He's actively attacking whatever democratic mechanisms can challenge his power. He's directly pitting people's willingness to question the administration against their patriotism and loyalty to the American people, and trying to rally public rage against anyone who chooses to question the administration. No good comes from this. Contrary to what xDaunt claims, unconstitutionality is not the only legitimate basis for objecting to the government's actions. Telling baldfaced lies, calling journalists liars for demonstrably true stories, and calling on people's patriotism to take his side against the media that challenge him is unacceptable behavior that, if successful, enables authoritarianism. Given all that, we don't need to argue about whether or not he'll be New Hitler someday; there's plenty to object to in the here and now.
I simply think you should stick to attacking him on his (de)merits rather than trying to make the comparison. Not necessarily saying you made the comparison - but you did bring it up and I thought the general point needed to be made.
And the "innocent" explanation is this: he's a man with delusions of grandeur, in a position he doesn't belong in, copying the tactics of Fox and such, who commonly question the patriotism of people they don't agree with. It's certainly not unprecedented in the US to question patriotism based on little more than a partisan divide. Nor is having a completely tangential relationship with the truth. And frankly I've seen a lot of attacks on judges in the past, though perhaps never quite that high in the chain of command.
Long story short, it's troubling, but he's cut from the same cloth as non-fascists who do the very same. And making the comparison kind of takes away a lot of the usefulness of calling him out because calling someone a fascist (or making a comparison insinuating as such) or comparing them to Hitler is a time-honored way to use hyperbole to claim someone is doing bad things.
|
A man of the people, yes indeed.
President Donald Trump, living alone inside the White House, often hungers for friendly interaction as he adjusts to the difficult work of governance. At his clubs, he finds what’s missing.
That showed last November at a cocktail and dinner reception celebrating longtime members of his Bedminster, New Jersey golf club. Deep into the process of meeting potential Cabinet nominees, the president-elect invited partygoers to stop by the next day to join the excitement.
“We’re doing a lot of interviews tomorrow — generals, dictators, we have everything,” Trump told the crowd, according to an audio tape of his closed-press remarks obtained by POLITICO from a source in the room. “You may wanna come around. It’ll be fun. We’re really working tomorrow. We have meetings every 15, 20 minutes with different people that will form our government."
"We’re going to be interviewing everybody — Treasury, we’re going to be interviewing Secretary of State,” he continued. “We have everybody coming in — if you want to come around, it’s going to be unbelievable….so you might want to come along.”
As he prepares to spend the third straight weekend at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, the tape provides a window into how Trump conducts himself away from the prying press and among the loyal faces of his club.
Trump’s comfort level among his members also has raised questions about his discretion. The president last weekend turned the Mar-a-Lago patio into an open-air situation room — discussing the response to a North Korean ballistic missile test while club members snapped pictures that ricocheted around social media and put him in the crosshairs of congressional oversight from Democrats and Republicans concerned about lax security protocols.
The incident received widespread condemnation from national security experts. But club members dismissed it as just an example of Trump being the man he has always been with them — available.
President George W. Bush had the respite of his Crawford, Texas, ranch to get away from the pressures of the Oval Office, often mountain biking with his more athletic staffers. President Bill Clinton, unlike many of his predecessors, took a liking to the wooded Camp David. President Barack Obama often had his high school friends visit him at the White House to provide some balance to the daily pressures of being the leader of the free world.
For Trump, the “Winter White House” of Mar-a-Lago offers him more than a warm and gilded setting outside of Washington, D.C. — it puts the isolated president back in the mix with his club family, where friends said he feels most like himself.
“So, this is my real group,” Trump said at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, on November 18, according to the audio tape. “These are the people that came here in the beginning, when nobody knew what this monster was gonna turn out to be, right?”
He added: “I see all of you. I recognize, like 100 percent of you, just about.”
Trump had a packed schedule of meetings that weekend less than two weeks after the election. On the Saturday after the cocktail party, Trump met with Mitt Romney, Michelle Rhee, Betsy DeVos, Todd Ricketts, Bob Woodson, Lew Eisenberg and Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. On Sunday, John Gray, Kris Kobach, Wilbur Ross, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Robert Johnson and David McCormick all schlepped out to Bedminster for meetings.
Trump often appears to want to include his friends in the decision-making process.
Turning to a longtime club member that night, he said: “We were just talking about who we [are] going to pick for the FCC, who [are] we going to pick for this, who we gonna accept -- boy, can you give me some recommendations?”
Source
|
MUNICH, Germany (Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain broke with the reassuring message that U.S. officials visiting Germany have sought to convey on their debut trip to Europe, saying on Friday that the administration of President Donald Trump was in "disarray".
McCain, a known Trump critic, told the Munich Security Conference that the resignation of the new president's security adviser Michael Flynn over his contacts with Russia reflected deep problems in Washington.
"I think that the Flynn issue obviously is something that shows that in many respects this administration is in disarray and they've got a lot of work to do," said McCain, even as he praised Trump's defense secretary.
"The president, I think, makes statements (and) on other occasions contradicts himself. So we've learned to watch what the president does as opposed to what he says," he said.
European governments have been unsettled by the signals sent by Trump on a range of foreign policy issues ranging from NATO and Russia to Iran, Israel and European integration.
Source
Great job, John Rambo McCain. Might as well have just gone there and said, "you can go ahead and start panicking now."
|
Don't listen to what Trump says, look at what he does. That's some real good advice right there if nothing else!
|
His actions are contradictory as well. Remember China?
|
oh right... there was that...
|
Did Trump threaten the one China policy to gain concessions for America, or for his family business? Last week he both agreed to the one China policy and was granted his trademark in China (held up for a decade) for construction rights in his name.
Reportedly he also asked the leader of Peru about held up licenses there. He also doubled the mar a logo membership fee, and is brazenly promoting the club.
This man is predictably selfish in a profound way, to the potential detriment of the country. This is what his voters have risked for us all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
