|
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 April 16 2017 06:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:On April 16 2017 06:07 ChristianS wrote:
Holy fuck. President won't release tax returns everyone knows are shady. Protestors call on him to release them. And you guys are shitting on the protestors? haters gotta hate. not just an expression; it's how they live with things. we all have our coping mechanisms. More like, we need a real resistance and this isn't it. Also a wasted opportunity to draw attention to something that matters both politically and to peoples lives unlike Trumps taxes which no one would be surprised by, save maybe some people shocked at what's legal in the tax code.
Please explain what your 'real resistance' would accomplish when A) the Republicans hold a majority in the House, Senate and Presidency and B) no one will care about anything protested for today, 2 years from now during the mid-terms.
|
On April 16 2017 06:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2017 06:07 ChristianS wrote:
Holy fuck. President won't release tax returns everyone knows are shady. Protestors call on him to release them. And you guys are shitting on the protestors? More like "go for it, but I don't really give a shit." Party officials that do it are a different story.
Sure, if party leaders were just plugging their ears and saying "tax returns tax returns tax returns russia russia russia" for the next year and half, that would be wasting an opportunity to present a clear alternative to the current shitty regime.
But protests are protests. The message is not usually very focused or nuanced; it's a least common denominator that people could aggregate enough support around to get a group of people to leavevtheir homes for. I bet all this got started because of that time Conway said "we litigated this all election, and it turned out no one cared." So some organizers got people together and said "let's show them we care about corruption in government." There's no reason people can't protest about other things too, or that other messages can't be represented in this same protest.
I think you guys get a little too enamoured with your own political savviness sometimes.
|
It's a saturation problem. Too much BS and we can no longer properly concentrate on the issues that really matter. The ISP selling data was passed because we were forced to concentrate on other shit that didn't matter. Attention spans are limited and it's best to choose your battles.
|
So what story is the Saturday Tax March distracting from?
|
Nothing; it's a false allegation cuz he just wants to hate.
Stories that really matter are ignored because real people DONT care about issues that really matter.
You can't change that; trying to focus on actual issues simply means you get ignored and get no coverage at all.
|
On April 16 2017 07:32 ChristianS wrote:
So what story is the Saturday Tax March distracting from?
Well it's hard to pick just one because Trump just invents so many. But NK, his provocations in Syria, the fact that his staff are an utter mess, nepotism perhaps - just a few of the many issues that get buried by this saturation strategy of the folks who think that "keeping the pressure on" without a goal is useful.
|
Nepotism is pretty closely related to the tax return stuff. Did anything in particular happen with the Syria stuff in the last ~48 hours? And how does focusing on NK help rally public opinion against Trump? This seems like a decent way to turn a non-political event (tax day) into an anti-Trump event.
|
A new report suggests that President Donald Trump really wants to ride in Queen Elizabeth II‘s royal carriage in a few months, and the British aren’t happy about the idea.
An article from The Times of London says that Trump has put in a request to ride with Her Highness in her gold-plated carriage when he makes his first state visit to the United Kingdom in the fall. Trump is known to prefer extravagance and showmanship at his events, and according to the report, the White House views a carriage procession as an “essential element of the itinerary” when he visits Buckingham Palace.
World leaders riding in the queen’s carriage isn’t terribly unusual, seeing as the buggy was previously featured in state visits for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The carriage is equipped with bulletproof glass and other emergency features, though it is hardly as secure as the fortified car Barack Obama elected to use in his state visits.
Between this and expectations of major anti-Trump protests, a source told the Times that they are concerned the state visit will be a security nightmare.
“The vehicle which carries the president of the United States is a spectacular vehicle. It is designed to withstand a massive attack like a low-level rocket grenade. If he’s in that vehicle he is incredibly well protected and on top of that it can travel at enormous speed. If he is in a golden coach being dragged up the Mall by a couple of horses, the risk factor is dramatically increased.”
Trump is not particularly popular in the UK, seeing as there were several popular petitions to ban him from Great Britain, and to deny him a ceremonial state visit once he was elected
http://www.mediaite.com/online/trumps-reported-demand-to-ride-in-queens-horse-drawn-carriage-has-upset-some-brits/
(source article is behind a paywall : https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-demands-gold-plated-welcome-xjnffdq32
|
On April 16 2017 08:29 ChristianS wrote:
Nepotism is pretty closely related to the tax return stuff. Did anything in particular happen with the Syria stuff in the last ~48 hours? And how does focusing on NK help rally public opinion against Trump? This seems like a decent way to turn a non-political event (tax day) into an anti-Trump event.
Our beloved 'moderate rebels' bombed some buses with evacuated citizens.
|
I think my initial guess that Bannon lasts 6 months is gonna be about right. He's playing outside his specialty in Washington.
|
On April 16 2017 06:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2017 06:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:On April 16 2017 06:07 ChristianS wrote:
Holy fuck. President won't release tax returns everyone knows are shady. Protestors call on him to release them. And you guys are shitting on the protestors? haters gotta hate. not just an expression; it's how they live with things. we all have our coping mechanisms. More like, we need a real resistance and this isn't it. Also a wasted opportunity to draw attention to something that matters both politically and to peoples lives unlike Trumps taxes which no one would be surprised by, save maybe some people shocked at what's legal in the tax code. Please explain what your 'real resistance' would accomplish when A) the Republicans hold a majority in the House, Senate and Presidency and B) no one will care about anything protested for today, 2 years from now during the mid-terms.
Well one obvious one I've been harping on for a while now (so I know you know) would be rallying support behind HR 676 and similar legislation.
But thinking Trump's Tax march is useful for much more than some cathartic "See we don't like you still" is just dumb and it is unquestionably a wasted opportunity.
Democrats are just doing terrible and like with Hillary and the general, it wont be a surprise if they manage to blow the easiest mid terms they've had in a loooong time.
It's this type of mentality among Democrats that had people repeating the incredibly stupid explanations for why they threw the KS4 special election.
|
I don't think you can count losing an election by seven points in an area that is expected to lean Republican by 20 points in a neutral national environment and hasn't elected a Democrat in 20 years as a throw. Unless throw now just means "didn't win."
|
On April 16 2017 12:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I don't think you can count losing an election by seven points in an area that is expected to lean Republican by 20 points in a neutral national environment and hasn't elected a Democrat in 20 years as a throw. Unless throw now just means "didn't win."
It means they didn't even try and the guy still got within 7 points. Unless you count the last minute stuff they did after getting shamed into it, then suggested they shouldn't have done.
Hasn't stopped them from taking credit for it being as close as it was though. The point of the comment wasn't about whether it was a "throw" or not anyway, it was about the unbelievably stupid excuses they tried to pass off.
|
Source
Thompson has been an energetic candidate, but failed to gain major Democratic financial support.
Gee willikers, I wonder why that might be!
Bernie Sanders campaign activist James Thompson
Nevermind.
|
United States43538 Posts
The national party is not going to throw money at fights it can't win. That's not what it's for.
|
On April 16 2017 14:54 KwarK wrote:
The national party is not going to throw money at fights it can't win. That's not what it's for.
This is part of one of the dumb excuses they used. It's stupid because they did end up throwing money at it and they could have done it sooner when it would have been more helpful.
Oh and that's the opposite of a 50 state strategy. Oh and they are claiming the 7 point spread as a win anyway, so a smaller gap would have been an even bigger win even if we're sticking with the lie that they don't spend money on races they will probably lose (not mentioning the last important race they wasted an absurd amount of money on).
|
United States43538 Posts
Of course they're claiming it as a win. Everyone claims everything as a win. That doesn't mean it actually was a win, nor that they should have wasted money trying to get it even closer. They didn't get the seat, which would be actually winning, but they did better than expected so they declared victory anyway, despite the fact that they don't have the seat. The fact that they declared it as a win doesn't mean that burning money to get an even narrower margin would be an even bigger win. They lost. It's binary.
You need to learn what opportunity cost is.
|
On April 16 2017 16:04 KwarK wrote:
Of course they're claiming it as a win. Everyone claims everything as a win. That doesn't mean it actually was a win, nor that they should have wasted money trying to get it even closer. They didn't get the seat, which would be actually winning, but they did better than expected so they declared victory anyway, despite the fact that they don't have the seat. The fact that they declared it as a win doesn't mean that burning money to get an even narrower margin would be an even bigger win. They lost. It's binary.
You need to learn what opportunity cost is.
If that's the angle you want to take than they burned way more than $25-100k worth of good will with progressives. Burning $100k and spending some effort would be a much more economic decision than what they'll have to spend to try to get back the shred of understanding they had left.
It was a stupid decision with equally poor excuses.
And as far as I'm concerned Kerry and Clinton owe the Democratic party a hefty sum considering their ample resources they shouldn't have the audacity to ask anyone for money until they put some more of their own skin in the "party" game.
Though I'd be fine with them just walking away too.
EDIT: Oh and are we to presume there wasn't any money raised out of KS4 to the national party? They could have at least gave them their money back to try to win a local race.
|
I'm not intimately familiar with the details of a 50 state strategy like the Dems won with in 2006, but I don't think it involves dumping a bunch of money into a race that's expected to have a 20 point spread. I'd guess it involves running a bunch of very moderate candidates in red states, seeing where the polling is close, and spending money where you think you can win.
And are you really saying that failed presidential nominees should have to pay back donations made to their campaign?
|
hard to try a 50-state strategy when a lot of people aren't comfortable with running candidates as far right as would be needed to have a chance in some of those places. not impossible, but definitely difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
