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.
Just like Deripaska’s payments to Manafort, the “disproportionate” Russian investments in Trump’s businesses, which Trump still owns, weren’t bribes. They didn’t involve the KGB, and they probably didn’t include any secret payments either. The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the question “was this all legal,” because it probably was. Congress, or an independent investigator, needs to find a way to ask, “was this moral,” because it surely wasn’t, and “does it constitute undue influence,” which it surely does.
Sounds very similar to the Clinton accusations of corruption. I'm personally inclined to agree that these are grave accusations, but the legal system and most of the people in this thread seem to be willing to dismiss those types of accusations quite easily. It's unfortunate, really.
I think what most people keep skimming over is the fact that Trump's team and associates keep lying about this stuff.
I'm sure if it actually is all innocuous, and all the involved people said "yes, I met with X on this date" it would blow over and be reduced the same marginal conspiracy theories. But they didn't, and now other parties are forced to investigate deeper to see if there's anything else they lied about.
As far as I can see, though, the indications point more to incompetence than conspiracy.
On March 29 2017 03:18 LightSpectra wrote: What's "the left"? Are we talking about the left from a global perspective, in which case there's not many of those visible in the media spotlight to even try to kindle a scandal to begin with. Or are we talking like "left of Donald Trump," which is essentially every American who's ever lived except for Murray Rothbard and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Trump is not particularly right-wing, honestly. Being far-right and being a buffoon are not the same thing. And Trump is a more politically moderate buffoon.
Depends on how you want to define the far-right really. I would say his selective xenophobic ethno-nationalism and isolationism fits exactly where Le Pen, Wilders, Petry, and Salvini are, and there's little hesitation (except among their supporters) to call them all far-right.
If you mean far-right on an economic scale, then no, he's not a full anarcho-capitalist. Just a nepotist out for his own ego and pocket. However the policies that he does endorse are social Darwinist and corporatist, which are often considered to be far-right for social reasons instead of economic.
A hardline on immigration is not particularly outside the Republican norm. It's outside the European norm so Euros will scream and foam at the mouth, but it's standard right wing fare here.
He's said stuff supporting Planned Parenthood and the like in the past, even if he has toned it down for his own benefit. He isn't far-right by American standards, really. Just bumbling and incompetent.
Look, you're not wrong. The one-dimensional left-right scale is neither objective nor scientific. It was originally designed to mean republicans versus monarchists in the 18th century. Then it meant (classical) liberals versus reactionaries in Europe, and agararian antifederalists versus federalists in America in the 19th century.
After World War II it broadly converged to mean the following: Far-left - Marxists, anarchists Left - Democratic-socialists, social-democrats Center-left - Social-liberals, Christian-democrats Center-right - Liberal-conservatives, classical liberals Right - Social-conservatives Far-right - Racialists, fascists, ultra-nationalists, etc.
So yeah, there is certainly a valid point to be made that Trump doesn't fit in the "far-right" that used to be occupied solely by the likes of the British National Party or the National Democratic Party of Germany, since he's not overtly a racialist or fascist. On the other hand, there's a very good argument to be made that the likes of Trump, Marine Le Pen, Petry, Wilders, etc. are just yesterday's racialists that have figured out that being a little more polite and less batshit insane makes them more electable.
Like I said, it's not scientific or objective, and if you scrutinize it too much it breaks down. Nevertheless the term "far-right" does have a coherent meaning, and Trump falls squarely into that.
Just like Deripaska’s payments to Manafort, the “disproportionate” Russian investments in Trump’s businesses, which Trump still owns, weren’t bribes. They didn’t involve the KGB, and they probably didn’t include any secret payments either. The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the question “was this all legal,” because it probably was. Congress, or an independent investigator, needs to find a way to ask, “was this moral,” because it surely wasn’t, and “does it constitute undue influence,” which it surely does.
Sounds very similar to the Clinton accusations of corruption. I'm personally inclined to agree that these are grave accusations, but the legal system and most of the people in this thread seem to be willing to dismiss those types of accusations quite easily. It's unfortunate, really.
I think what most people keep skimming over is the fact that Trump's team and associates keep lying about this stuff.
I'm sure if it actually is all innocuous, and all the involved people said "yes, I met with X on this date" it would blow over and be reduced the same marginal conspiracy theories. But they didn't, and now other parties are forced to investigate deeper to see if there's anything else they lied about.
As far as I can see, though, the indications point more to incompetence than conspiracy.
Then an investigation will point that out, like it did with Clinton's emails for example.
Instead we have someone with close ties to Trump who all but cancels the House Intelligence Committee investigation for seemingly no legit reason
Trump would absolutely fit in the BNP. "America First" is essentially what the BNP are about (obviously Britain first in their case but whatever). Britain for the British and all that. He's literally indistinguishable from European fascists. So are the likes of xDaunt etc with their advocacy of war crimes, seizing the natural resources of nations too weak to protect them and so forth but whatever. The alt-right may appear to be on the normal spectrum in American politics but when you translate that to Europe, you're in the BNP. The British BNP far-right is just the Republican Party at this point and Trump absolutely fits in it.
Just like Deripaska’s payments to Manafort, the “disproportionate” Russian investments in Trump’s businesses, which Trump still owns, weren’t bribes. They didn’t involve the KGB, and they probably didn’t include any secret payments either. The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the question “was this all legal,” because it probably was. Congress, or an independent investigator, needs to find a way to ask, “was this moral,” because it surely wasn’t, and “does it constitute undue influence,” which it surely does.
Sounds very similar to the Clinton accusations of corruption. I'm personally inclined to agree that these are grave accusations, but the legal system and most of the people in this thread seem to be willing to dismiss those types of accusations quite easily. It's unfortunate, really.
I think what most people keep skimming over is the fact that Trump's team and associates keep lying about this stuff.
I'm sure if it actually is all innocuous, and all the involved people said "yes, I met with X on this date" it would blow over and be reduced the same marginal conspiracy theories. But they didn't, and now other parties are forced to investigate deeper to see if there's anything else they lied about.
As far as I can see, though, the indications point more to incompetence than conspiracy.
Then an investigation will point that out, like it did with Clinton's emails for example.
Instead we have someone with close ties to Trump who all but cancels the House Intelligence Committee investigation for seemingly no legit reason
Republicans are afraid of what this might do to them. It's only two months in and they've probably made as much of an ass of themselves in that time as it takes most unpopular presidents to do in a term. Only by virtue of not having a multi-trillion dollar war on the record does Trump avoid being worse than Bush as of present. Hard to start a war in two months; we're probably going to get to it sooner or later.
Just like Deripaska’s payments to Manafort, the “disproportionate” Russian investments in Trump’s businesses, which Trump still owns, weren’t bribes. They didn’t involve the KGB, and they probably didn’t include any secret payments either. The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the question “was this all legal,” because it probably was. Congress, or an independent investigator, needs to find a way to ask, “was this moral,” because it surely wasn’t, and “does it constitute undue influence,” which it surely does.
Laughably unserious piece. She's right to say "the question now is whether our political system is cable of grappling with this particular form" because she advocates poppycock. Congress is ill-equipped to pass judgement on morality; that's for the American citizen to decide. They'll have FBI investigation and journalism to go off of. Secondly, she's just advancing her own personal opinion in masquerade of legitimate inquiry. She is sure in her own political beliefs and those only. She masquerades them as if she questions the ability of Congress to function, when really she just wants more people to think like she does.
It wraps back on insider DC frustration in being unable to sell scandals. So they demand more investigations without pointing to criminality ... moral investigations ... undue influence investigations. The only true meaning is you favor letting one political party bully the legislature into witch-hunts of the McCarthyite variety without proof or substance.
Just like Deripaska’s payments to Manafort, the “disproportionate” Russian investments in Trump’s businesses, which Trump still owns, weren’t bribes. They didn’t involve the KGB, and they probably didn’t include any secret payments either. The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the question “was this all legal,” because it probably was. Congress, or an independent investigator, needs to find a way to ask, “was this moral,” because it surely wasn’t, and “does it constitute undue influence,” which it surely does.
Sounds very similar to the Clinton accusations of corruption. I'm personally inclined to agree that these are grave accusations, but the legal system and most of the people in this thread seem to be willing to dismiss those types of accusations quite easily. It's unfortunate, really.
I think what most people keep skimming over is the fact that Trump's team and associates keep lying about this stuff.
I'm sure if it actually is all innocuous, and all the involved people said "yes, I met with X on this date" it would blow over and be reduced the same marginal conspiracy theories. But they didn't, and now other parties are forced to investigate deeper to see if there's anything else they lied about.
As far as I can see, though, the indications point more to incompetence than conspiracy.
I won't really contest this. Bigger question is if they're incompetent enough to be manipulated without knowing it, or just incompetent enough to do dumb stuff and not realize it's really dumb.
Regardless, I'm amused that the President and his staff being incompetent morons is a "non-scandal".
Just like Deripaska’s payments to Manafort, the “disproportionate” Russian investments in Trump’s businesses, which Trump still owns, weren’t bribes. They didn’t involve the KGB, and they probably didn’t include any secret payments either. The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the question “was this all legal,” because it probably was. Congress, or an independent investigator, needs to find a way to ask, “was this moral,” because it surely wasn’t, and “does it constitute undue influence,” which it surely does.
Sounds very similar to the Clinton accusations of corruption. I'm personally inclined to agree that these are grave accusations, but the legal system and most of the people in this thread seem to be willing to dismiss those types of accusations quite easily. It's unfortunate, really.
I think what most people keep skimming over is the fact that Trump's team and associates keep lying about this stuff.
I'm sure if it actually is all innocuous, and all the involved people said "yes, I met with X on this date" it would blow over and be reduced the same marginal conspiracy theories. But they didn't, and now other parties are forced to investigate deeper to see if there's anything else they lied about.
As far as I can see, though, the indications point more to incompetence than conspiracy.
I won't really contest this. Bigger question is if they're incompetent enough to be manipulated without knowing it, or just incompetent enough to do dumb stuff and not realize it's really dumb.
Regardless, I'm amused that the President and his staff being incompetent morons is a "non-scandal".
Think of it more as a "lesser scandal." A point in a long line of idiocies under a president who is terrible.
Danglars, xDaunt: if it turns out that the Russians allegations were right all along (i.e. there was an explicit conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government), will you eat a hat on camera?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) shot down the idea that Republicans would be able to revive their Obamacare repeal effort, after a House replacement bill was pulled from the floor Friday.
McConnell’s remarks Tuesday afternoon threw cold water on optimism coming from the House GOP earlier in the day that lawmakers would be able to come to a deal on the bill.
“I think where we are on Obamacare, regretfully at the moment, is where the Democrats wanted us to be, which is the status quo,” McConnell said a press conference on Capitol Hill when asked if the Senate would be able to pass major health care legislation this year without 60 votes.
“It’s pretty obvious we were not able, in the House, to pass a replacement. Our Democratic friends ought to be pretty happy about that because we have the existing law in place and I think we are just going to have to see how that works out,” McConnell said. “We believe it will not work out well, but we’ll see. They’ll have an opportunity now to have the status quo, regretfully.”
McConnell went on to thank President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan for their efforts to pass the Obamacare replacement bill, the American Health Care Act.
House leaders had aimed to pass the bill last week, which marked the seventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, but faced revolts from both the caucus’ far-right and centrist flanks. The legislation would have gutted Medicaid, overhauled Obamacare’s tax credits, cut its taxes on the industry and high-earners, and scaled back its insurer reforms.
It was pulled from the floor dramatically Friday afternoon because it did not have the votes, and key Republicans quickly called the effort dead. On Tuesday, House Republicans came out of a conference meeting optimistic that they would be able to go back to negotiating on the legislation while tackling other aspects of the GOP agenda.
“We had a very constructive meeting with our members. Some of those who were in the no camp expressed a willingness to work on getting to yes and to making this work,” Ryan said at a press conference after the meeting. The New York Times reported that top Trump adviser Steve Bannon had quietly restarted discussions with members of the two House GOP factions that sunk the bill.
McConnell had publicly stayed out of House infighting over the direction of the legislation, but other GOP senators had warned that the House bill would be dead-in-arrival in the Senate. Some senators were mildly optimistic at House leaders’ announcement that they were renewing work on the bill, while others signaled that they would be focusing on other agenda items, including a tax overhaul.
“I think its going to take a while,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said of the repeal effort. “We need to focus on taxes and there will come a day when Obamacare collapses, obvious to everyone, and when that day comes, we need to work together to replace it.”
On March 29 2017 04:18 LightSpectra wrote: Danglars, xDaunt: if it turns out that the Russians allegations were right all along (i.e. there was an explicit conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government), will you eat a hat on camera?
I freely admit the possibilities of conspiracies to make the media look like braying donkeys and America to be great again. I have an explicit conspiracy for a birthday party with someone of questionable origin that may or may not be a Russian intelligence operative which I have not disclosed of my own free will to Senate investigators, notwithstanding my support of Trump in the general election.
And fuck if it isn't hard to keep up with what's being alleged as days go on. I expect my incoming NSA guy to have conversations with Russia, but not lie about them (though the idiotic firestorm about Russia gives great cause to lie). I expect senators to talk to ambassadors, it's basically their job. So let's proceed with accusations that Trump's not a citizen of the United States and Conway hacked voting machines in Pennsylvania.
Apparently the Russians say this was a business meeting, and Kushner says it was an official transition meet and greet. So if there is a conspiracy, it is a damn incompetent one. Which is what I would expect out of this group, to be honest.
So you don't even acknowledge the possibility it's true, just the very idea of it is deigned for mockery.
We'll have to make sure it's a big hat.
On March 29 2017 04:39 Danglars wrote: So let's proceed with accusations that Trump's not a citizen of the United States
Considering how hard Trump pushed this conspiracy theory about Obama, I'm not quite sure what's supposed to be ironic about this. You realize that your defense of Trump via this line of sarcasm is actually an unintended condemnation of his ignorance, right?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) shot down the idea that Republicans would be able to revive their Obamacare repeal effort, after a House replacement bill was pulled from the floor Friday.
McConnell’s remarks Tuesday afternoon threw cold water on optimism coming from the House GOP earlier in the day that lawmakers would be able to come to a deal on the bill.
“I think where we are on Obamacare, regretfully at the moment, is where the Democrats wanted us to be, which is the status quo,” McConnell said a press conference on Capitol Hill when asked if the Senate would be able to pass major health care legislation this year without 60 votes.
“It’s pretty obvious we were not able, in the House, to pass a replacement. Our Democratic friends ought to be pretty happy about that because we have the existing law in place and I think we are just going to have to see how that works out,” McConnell said. “We believe it will not work out well, but we’ll see. They’ll have an opportunity now to have the status quo, regretfully.”
McConnell went on to thank President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan for their efforts to pass the Obamacare replacement bill, the American Health Care Act.
House leaders had aimed to pass the bill last week, which marked the seventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, but faced revolts from both the caucus’ far-right and centrist flanks. The legislation would have gutted Medicaid, overhauled Obamacare’s tax credits, cut its taxes on the industry and high-earners, and scaled back its insurer reforms.
It was pulled from the floor dramatically Friday afternoon because it did not have the votes, and key Republicans quickly called the effort dead. On Tuesday, House Republicans came out of a conference meeting optimistic that they would be able to go back to negotiating on the legislation while tackling other aspects of the GOP agenda.
“We had a very constructive meeting with our members. Some of those who were in the no camp expressed a willingness to work on getting to yes and to making this work,” Ryan said at a press conference after the meeting. The New York Times reported that top Trump adviser Steve Bannon had quietly restarted discussions with members of the two House GOP factions that sunk the bill.
McConnell had publicly stayed out of House infighting over the direction of the legislation, but other GOP senators had warned that the House bill would be dead-in-arrival in the Senate. Some senators were mildly optimistic at House leaders’ announcement that they were renewing work on the bill, while others signaled that they would be focusing on other agenda items, including a tax overhaul.
“I think its going to take a while,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said of the repeal effort. “We need to focus on taxes and there will come a day when Obamacare collapses, obvious to everyone, and when that day comes, we need to work together to replace it.”
What I don't understand is why Republicans have felt no incentive to make an actual ACA replacement. The AHCA felt more like it was intended to show an attempt at effort without actually trying to make a bill that would pass. But I don't understand why they wouldn't want to be the ones who actually did improve healthcare.
On March 29 2017 05:28 Mohdoo wrote: What I don't understand is why Republicans have felt no incentive to make an actual ACA replacement. The AHCA felt more like it was intended to show an attempt at effort without actually trying to make a bill that would pass. But I don't understand why they wouldn't want to be the ones who actually did improve healthcare.
With the polar opposite ideas of what healthcare should be within the GOP congress I am not sure its even possible to get anything passed or even remotely agreed on. Its like the disagreements over Obamacare among Dems but amped 1000x.
The GOP doesn't have a single person actually good at crafting policy left, I think. And it's impossible to unite the party enough to write anything because 1/3 of them will flip the table at things the other 2/3 want in a healthcare bill.
I'm not sure they even agree on the "let me buy insurance across state lines to solve everything" gibberish at this point.
I find it amusing that it's been called, since a while back, that the GOP has had no plan whatsoever for any kind of healthcare reform, and that they wouldn't have one now, and lo and behold, the best they can come up with is some ill-planned bill that's nothing short of dead on arrival. They haven't given it a moment's thought in years, they come up with something on the fly whilst twiddling their thumbs, and say it is 'regretful' that the current system is somehow better. They couldn't be arsed to actually devise something new.
It speaks to how fragmented even the 2 parties are now, and how called for more parties really are. I feel it's only a matter of time.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1v46dwt.jpg)
