EPTThis is the kind of hypocrisy that's appalling. Neoliberals say "laissez-faire policies works great, it just doesn't work when it's crony-capitalism/corporatism". Okay, so now we have a clear example of a crony-capitalist/corporatist, are you going to do something about it? ... No?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7247
| 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. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
This is the kind of hypocrisy that's appalling. Neoliberals say "laissez-faire policies works great, it just doesn't work when it's crony-capitalism/corporatism". Okay, so now we have a clear example of a crony-capitalist/corporatist, are you going to do something about it? ... No? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 03 2017 22:31 LightSpectra wrote: Yup, there we go, another campaign promise broken. Trump's a con man. It's increasingly impossible to deny. Are the Republicans going to wake up to this soon? Will their voters? This is the kind of hypocrisy that's appalling. Neoliberals say "laissez-faire policies works great, it just doesn't work when it's crony-capitalism/corporatism". Okay, so now we have a clear example of a crony-capitalist/corporatist, are you going to do something about it? ... No? I'm guessing it won't affect them that much; between rationalization for some, and many just accepting that he's corrupt but will help their side. pretty sure quite a number of them already accepted trump's fairly corrupt, and this won't change that. partisanship can generally justify quite a lot, especially if the other side is highly vilified. just a guess though, as I don't understand them that well. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
On April 03 2017 22:39 zlefin wrote: I'm guessing it won't affect them that much; between rationalization for some, and many just accepting that he's corrupt but will help their side. pretty sure quite a number of them already accepted trump's fairly corrupt, and this won't change that. partisanship can generally justify quite a lot, especially if the other side is highly vilified. just a guess though, as I don't understand them that well. In response to "many just accepting that he's corrupt but will help their side", I hope those people realize how detrimental that idea is. Presidents that are perceived as being good leave a long-lasting mark. Reagan's influence is still felt deeply within the GOP. On the other hand, Bush was so unpopular that the Democrats got their biggest wins since the 1950s out of it, and more people than ever were completely disillusioned with the GOP and conservatism. They might be holding power now but Trump's popularity ratings are so poisonous that there's little doubt that there will be a huge Democratic sweep in 2018 and most likely 2020 as well. This is the time for the Republicans to do damage control and distance themselves from Trump, but they don't seem to be doing that at all. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 03 2017 22:50 LightSpectra wrote: In response to "many just accepting that he's corrupt but will help their side", I hope those people realize how detrimental that idea is. Presidents that are perceived as being good leave a long-lasting mark. Reagan's influence is still felt deeply within the GOP. On the other hand, Bush was so unpopular that the Democrats got their biggest wins since the 1950s out of it, and more people than ever were completely disillusioned with the GOP and conservatism. They might be holding power now but Trump's popularity ratings are so poisonous that there's little doubt that there will be a huge Democratic sweep in 2018 and most likely 2020 as well. This is the time for the Republicans to do damage control and distance themselves from Trump, but they don't seem to be doing that at all. If they realized how detrimental it was they'd not have voted for trump in the first place  or otherwise had more sense.yes, there are some substantial long-term risks, but democratic politics tends to be very short-term focused, a sad truth; and in the short-term, trump has a core of staunch supporters, and angering that group would likely cost a number of individuals their positions due to primaries or general election failures. I'd say they are keeping some distance from Trump, many aren't that close ot him, and merely work with him on areas of agreement, and feel free to disagree. of course, as he's president, it still greatly shapes perceptions of the party, and they still need to work with him to try and get their agenda items through. the long term party strategic effects are far less relevant than the short term holding onto their position effects. the republicans will dump him once he becomes more of a liability, but for now they seem to be sticking to a sort of cooperative ambivalence, waiting for him to implode more so they can cut him loose without taking too much flak for it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Sensationalism aside, I await further reports confirming Nunes's instincts. I really thought unmasking would be at greater distance from Obama, then passed along. I'll have to buy popcorn on the way home from work. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
 .Also: Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law. These are requests to learn from Rice, not actual leaks, and if she had other info suggesting Russian coordination, I could see this as being reasonable. It's also interesting that the White House Counsel's office instructed Cohen-Watnick, a 30 year old Flynn staffer who is Trump's senior director for intelligence on the NSC (and who McMaster tried to get fired), to stop his research into the issue. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On April 03 2017 18:03 Nebuchad wrote: "Oh you voted for Gorsuch because you're above politics? Well now we're going to primary you on the left and soon you're going to be below politics." The problem is in those states where a primary from the left would lose to a republican. (the DNC would probably support a DINO at the risk of losing a Senate seat.) In those cases the Senator could also run as an Independent. (Primarying is a bigger risk in the House because D+R are sorted within states much more than between states) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
(There's four undecided Democrats, but it's really not likely all four of them will fall in line against a filibuster.) Any strong opinions on TL about that? 10 years ago the idea was so unthinkable, now it's almost inevitable. EDIT: Minutes after I posted this, WaPo updated to show that one of the undecideds now supports the filibuster. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The Democrats should agree to drop the filibuster if McConnell removes himself the Senate leadership. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23479 Posts
On April 04 2017 02:01 LightSpectra wrote: Looks like the nuclear option's happening for Gorsuch. Only four Democrats have said they would oppose a filibuster: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/gorsuch-filibuster-whip-count/ (There's four undecided Democrats, but it's really not likely all four of them will fall in line against a filibuster.) Any strong opinions on TL about that? 10 years ago the idea was so unthinkable, now it's almost inevitable. I like how they call 3 of the Democrats voting FOR Gorsuch as "against a filibuster" instead of "supporting Gorsuch". Republicans don't have the votes for the nuclear option, so that's always been an empty threat. I'm still pretty confident they aren't going to filibuster (or it will be just for show). Berniecrats have put a crap ton of pressure on folks so McCaskill did a 180 and others are saying they will support a filibuster (even if they said the opposite previously). | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
On April 04 2017 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Republicans don't have the votes for the nuclear option, so that's always been an empty threat. It only takes 51 to change the procedures of the Senate. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On April 04 2017 02:16 Plansix wrote: NPR reported last week that most of the Senate agrees that removing the filibuster will make the Senate and Supreme Court worse. They also agree that it is likely to happen. The Democrats should agree to drop the filibuster if McConnell removes himself the Senate leadership. Yeah this is basically I think what the Republicans have forced. The non-vote of Garland really leaves the democrats no choice but to put up a fight for that seat (regardless of the judge's qualifications), but ultimately the issue isn't about whether that judge should come to a vote, eventually everything needs to move forward and obviously Garland is never going to be re-nominated, but what it should cost the Republicans for basically screwing everyone and everything over for their own partisan gain. On April 04 2017 02:30 LightSpectra wrote: It only takes 51 to change the procedures of the Senate. 51 for sure or is 50 + VP enough? Or I guess put another way, does the VP get a tie-breaking vote in procedural issues like this? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1879 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
