US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6986
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. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42777 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
She blew her chance by simply not being electable enough, and there is zero reason to have her run again. Even she probably can't pull another DNC collusion fest off. | ||
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
I'd guess that they'll likely run a safe Biden-esque candidate. Some cookie-cutter White guy that won't stir up too much controversy. I imagine he'll run a campaign filled with nice-sounding platitudes about "hope" and "change" and "opportunity for all." With very little substance but a focus on pretending he can actually do something for the poor working-class voter in small-town America while expounding virtuous messages of equality for the city-folk. As long as he doesn't accuse everyone of being evil, racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, vegan-hating bigots if they question a policy or action or support the idea that illegal-immigrants should be deported... That should probably do it, it works in every other election. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Knowing the DNC they will probably promote a DWS run or something though. | ||
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On February 28 2017 08:56 LegalLord wrote: Anyone who has the appearance of being an upstanding citizen would do. Knowing the DNC they will probably promote a DWS run or something though. In b4 Donna Brazile for 2020. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
WASHINGTON — House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said today that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the national security adviser fired by President Trump, may have done the country a “big favor” if he signaled to the Russian ambassador that sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama after the Russian cyberattack on Democratic Party officials would be lifted once President Trump took office. The comments by Nunes, a vocal defender of the Trump White House, seemed to be the strongest indication to date that Flynn may have sought to undercut Obama’s actions, giving private assurances to Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, that punitive measures just imposed by the then-president would go away under Trump. Nunes told reporters at a press conference that he had been briefed on the contents of intercepted conversations between Flynn and Kislyak, but had not seen the transcript of those calls. Still, he dismissed the idea that Flynn had done anything wrong, and said that the punitive actions taken by Obama over the election hack were “petty” and “not taken seriously” by Moscow. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, talks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol about the committee’s Russia investigation on Feb. 27, 2017. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) “If the discussions occurred around ensuring there was no overreaction by the Russian government, so the new administration could do, like all the other previous administrations who think they can work with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin … if that’s what General Flynn did, to keep the lines of communications open and make sure the Russians didn’t overreact … that did us a big favor, and we should be thanking him,” Nunes said. “If that’s what was said, I don’t know what the problem with that would be,” Nunes added. “That’s exactly what he [Flynn] should be doing.” When a reporter noted that at the time of the key phone call between Flynn and Kislyak last Dec. 29, Obama and not Trump was the president, Nunes abruptly dismissed the question. “Are you a Logan Act guy?” Nunes shot back at the reporter, referring to the never-used 18th century law that prohibits private citizens from conducting their own foreign policy. Nunes’ innocuous description of the Flynn phone call was later strongly rejected by Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence panel, underscoring the partisan rift within Congress over the investigations into Russian hacking. Source | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 28 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote: NBC/WSJ Poll 51% media has been too critical of Trump 53% "The news media and other elites are exaggerating the problems with the Trump administration because they are uncomfortable and threatened with the kind of change that Trump represents." Meanwhile: 44 vs 48 approval rating Obamacare: Even split on good idea/bad idea Only 4% "working well the way it is" rofl 1/3 confident in GOP's ability to replace the law Travel ban 44/45 practically dead even. Pretty hilarious given all the rhetoric saying it shouldn't be close. Consensus that Russia meddled somehow and support for the investigation. Forgot to highlight the original reason for Dem quote: GOP favorability: 35/43 (-8) Dem favorability: 30/46 (-16) The DNC is truly exceptional. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
Even if she doesn't run, whoever does get the establishment backing, will be someone very close to her. It's going to have to be a wall of nope at the prospect, or she'll twist arms and force herself in. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
53% "The news media and other elites are exaggerating the problems with the Trump administration because they are uncomfortable and threatened with the kind of change that Trump represents." This is a terribly worded poll question. The statement is hard to argue with, but a lot of people still answered no since they personally disagree with "the kind of change Trump represents." Also how is "the news media and other elites" neutral wording? I'm surprised this made it into a poll put out by NBC/WSJ. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On February 28 2017 09:39 Plansix wrote: Guys, Hilary still runs the DNC and is preparing to run Chelsea for senate in the future. And then stealing her body to mak a third run for the Oval Office. Let me take 2 reasonable statements and add a third crazy one in a failing attempt to make the first two sound crazy. | ||
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On February 28 2017 09:48 Plansix wrote: Objectively true. You don't say? You respond too quickly. | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
It's the perfect strategy. Anyone who argues against her will be a racist and misogynist. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Sry, people throw around objectively when they likely should use ostensibly. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 28 2017 09:47 jalstar wrote: This is a terribly worded poll question. The statement is hard to argue with, but a lot of people still answered no since they personally disagree with "the kind of change Trump represents." Also how is "the news media and other elites" neutral wording? I'm surprised this made it into a poll put out by NBC/WSJ. They include a few color questions/push poll questions. Like "For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.” But note with your original gripe, it is focused on how much of the population think it's media+elites vs Trump. Is this a war between two partisan sides or not? Slim majority says yes. | ||
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On February 28 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote: I know you guys think she won't run for all the reasons you guys covered and more, but I'm not so sure she understands that, and as evidenced by the Perez thing the same wing still has control over the party. Even if she doesn't run, whoever does get the establishment backing, will be someone very close to her. It's going to have to be a wall of nope at the prospect, or she'll twist arms and force herself in. I think our primary in 2020 will be similar to the the republicans' in 2016. We'll have a Rubio and a Bush to see which type of establishment resonates best, then have someone who completely blows them both out of the water. | ||
![]()
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
| ||