US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7303

On April 08 2017 18:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Trump has never been a wildcard. There was no chance on earth his unpredictability was going to lead to anything better than the statu quo.

Take any issue, like the environment. Was there a chance that he would be better than Clinton?

Or taxation, was there a chance in heaven he would have a more progressive, fairer taxation plan than Clinton?

You elect an ignorant, vindicative, incompetent, unstable man to office, and you get a lot of uncertainty. It's uncertain if it's gonna be god awful or worse than that. The possibility that Trump could be better than Clinton was never remotely there.

On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message.

Syria Strike Puts U.S. Relationship With Russia at Risk

WASHINGTON — The American military strike against Syria threatened Russian-American relations on Friday as the Kremlin denounced President Trump’s use of force and the Russian military announced that it was suspending an agreement to share information about air operations over the country, devised to avoid accidental conflict.

Mr. Trump, who has made repairing strained ties with Moscow a central ambition of his presidency, even amid criticism of Russian meddling in last year’s American election, found that goal at risk as the countries traded harsh words in a diplomatic confrontation reminiscent of past dark moments between the two powers.

President Vladimir V. Putin’s office called the Tomahawk cruise missile strike on Syria a violation of international law and a “significant blow” to the Russian-American relationship, while Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev said it had “completely ruined” it. Trump administration officials suggested Russia bore some responsibility for the chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians that precipitated the American response.

At home, Mr. Trump found support among a broad cross-section of normally critical establishment Republicans and Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Senator John McCain, who backed the sort of action that President Barack Obama refused to take under similar circumstances four years ago. Mr. Trump was among those who urged Mr. Obama not to order a strike back then, even though many more civilians had been killed at the time.

The US says it has put Bashar al-Assad on notice that it will take further military action if he uses chemical weapons again, while appearing to back away from wider military involvement in the Syrian conflict, less than 24 hours after launching Tomahawk missiles at a regime airbase.

“The United States will no longer wait for Assad to use chemical weapons without any consequences. Those days are over,” the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, told a special session of the UN security council.

“The United States took a very measured step last night, Haley added. “We are prepared to do more, but we hope that will not be necessary. ”

On April 08 2017 23:24 Karpfen wrote:


You imply, arbitrarily that:
1) Investing in enivronmental-friendly policies right now is more beneficial than spending less while it is only going to be worth it when the effects of climate warming will start to be felt way more and more countries will adopt enivornmental-friendly policies because it will also be worth it economically.

2) That the current taxation system is unfair to poor people and, the way you put it, it seems like raising taxes is going to generate a higher income for poor people than making industries restart, granting them jobs.

Now, especially on point 2, I do not take a stand on the issue but neither can you since you seem a bit ill informed on the implications of President Hillary.

On April 08 2017 23:45 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> that seems like a case of the "ambiguous they" someone mentioned awhile ago. i.e. you complain that people say X then people say not X, and what's up with that? btu the problem is that it was different people saying those things (or at least unspecified). listing two differing accusations without showing it was the same people could easily just be different people making different points that happen to oppose each other.

On April 08 2017 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:

1 is what virtually every scientist that is not a clown is saying. 2 is common sense to anyone who has read Trump's program. I should have added the counterpart to the big present to the rich, namely the slashing of social program, which are going to get 6 million white working class americans who voted Trump like one man, and countless people from the minorities below the poverty line.

Those were always Trump's intention. There were no wildcard there.

If you think that Clinton was all about crushing the poor to make tax break for billionaire or that a total reversal of all efforts on global warming while all scientists say it's urgent to do something will be beneficial, you are simply wrong.

On April 08 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote:

NYT has been running stories that Trump's close ties to Russia are tantamount to actual collusion for five months now. If you can't see the humor in this quick about-face, or have trouble recalling their journalistic thrust over a long time period, then I suggest we won't see eye to eye on this on your grounds of criticism ever. I am specific and your complaint is absolutely unfounded and facile.

On April 09 2017 00:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Even if "NYT" was some monolithic superentity parsing out exactly which stories are published, the claims aren't truly contradictory. Elements of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow as a narrative is in no way contradictory with Trump acts hastily in foreign policy and potentially endangers foreign relations as a narrative.

In fact, given the NYT's other reporting those narratives sync almost perfectly-for them he's a fairly easily manipulable ill-tempered clod with poor tactical consideration and impulse control who conducts about-faces on a whim which can undo all that manipulation. Those kinds of people are sure to fuck up their own plans.

On April 09 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:

So Putin comes out pretty bad in this for all these manipulations wasted. Does the official Putin spokesperson have a comment?

On April 08 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:
I'm very happy we live in such a land of opportunity that accusations of Trump being far too close to Russia change to Trump endangering US relations with Russia.


NYT

I would like to thank the Hillary campaign and the mainstream media for making politics great again.


The Guardian

On April 09 2017 00:37 plated.rawr wrote:


I haven't seen anyone claim Trump was bringing the US closer to Russia. Trump is bringing Trump closer to Putin because it serves Trump's ambitions, which is something entirely different. Just the good ol' abuse of power to reach own goals, and putting himself and his family over the american people and the office he wields.

Wether the US Russia relations improve or worsen is pretty irrelevant as far as Trump is concerned. He just wants those good business connections.

The fact that a large part of the Republican base suddenly poll much more in favor of Russia as a reaction to Trump's friendliness to Putin is just a pretty amusing side-effect. If anything, it shows their eagerness to follow leadership, tradition be damned - something which is quite amusing from a self-proclaimed conservative party.

On April 09 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:

That's why I said "Trump is far too close to Russia" and not US. Do you see Trump business connections in Russia furthered by pumping missiles into her ally?