|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 23 2017 06:06 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 06:00 LegalLord wrote:On April 23 2017 05:14 micronesia wrote:
LegalLord, what point are you trying to make? This is supposed to be a discussion thread, not an inject sarcastic complaining one liners thread. You have a problem with sarcastic complaining one-liners and you make it known... with a sarcastic complaining one-liner? In this case, though, the means and point are quite appropriate. Trump's talking points about the depleted military and budget are quite self-contradictory and the contradiction is best pointed out through sarcastic mockery. LegalLord first of all, what I said was not sarcastic. More importantly, it wasn't clear what you were responding to specifically, so I couldn't reproduce your 'argument' even if I tried. How is it contradictory to slash the budget and instead put all money towards the military? I think it's stupid and I'm prepared to provide reasons why I think it's stupid, but the question is really yours to answer.
Was a response to this post on the previous page, three posts before mine.
On April 23 2017 05:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Defense Secretary James Mattis has privately told Congress the Trump administration's Pentagon budget request isn't sufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding the military as President Donald Trump has vowed to do, four sources familiar with the conversations told CNN.
Trump has repeatedly said he would rebuild the military with a massive defense spending increase, but the funding planned for next year's budget is less than what the Pentagon sought, according to sources with knowledge of the deliberations.
Mattis is not publicly raising concerns about the $603 billion Pentagon budget plan, aligning himself with the White House's decision, though it's a stance that's sparking frustration from some Republican defense hawks in Congress. But the Pentagon's private assessment matches lawmakers' public criticisms of Trump's budget plan.
"Mattis continues to express to members of the Armed Services Committees that he's being thwarted getting his message out that $603 billion is insufficient to do what Trump has called for," said a Republican lawmaker, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about internal deliberations.
Trump has said he wants to boost the military by adding tens of thousands more Army soldiers, grow to a 350-ship Navy and add supply the Air Force with more fighter jets.
"Our military is building and is rapidly becoming stronger than ever before. Frankly, we have no choice!" Trump tweeted Sunday. The military, in fact, is still operating under spending levels approved by Congress while President Barack Obama was in office.
In a statement, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Badger said, "We expect Congress will work with the administration to fund much of our additional (fiscal) 2017 budget request. The secretary and the service chiefs highlighted the readiness needs of the armed forces in their recent testimony. That has not changed."
While the White House has touted its $603 billion defense budget as a 10% increase of $54 billion, Republican defense hawks say the White House's math doesn't add up. They argue the defense budget is actually about 3% more than the $584 billion that the Obama administration was already planning for in 2018, and that it falls short of the $640 billion that Republicans like Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain of Arizona insist is needed for the military. Source
|
yes, gh, you get to bring up something that was already addressed and countered as if it's still sound, as usual.
|
On April 23 2017 06:21 zlefin wrote:
yes, gh, you get to bring up something that was already addressed and countered as if it's still sound, as usual.
^ This isn't disengaging.
Trump’s favorability rating is at 44 percent positive and 51 negative.
Making Trump more popular than the Democratic party and any of it's leaders including Hillary Clinton. But that's because Trump is.... President I guess, that's what makes him more popular than the people resisting him, despite the laundry list of terrible he is?
You think you countered it but you really didn't. Just actually disengage instead of continuing to be wrong.
|
I tried to disengage, you disagreed adn chose NOT to disengage. you don't get to complain I didn't disengage when you pressed the attack.
and yes, trump got more popularity because he's president. most people are stupid and terrible judges of who should and shoudln't be supported.
|
I'm done talking to you
No, I'M done talking to you
NO, I'M DONE
NO, NOW WE'RE DONE
BUT WAIT
seriously, you two...
|
On April 23 2017 06:27 zlefin wrote:
I tried to disengage, you disagreed adn chose NOT to disengage. you don't get to complain I didn't disengage when you pressed the attack.
and yes, trump got more popularity because he's president. most people are stupid and terrible judges of who should and shoudln't be supported.
I didn't say I was disengaging, and I'm not complaining, I'm trying to help you out.
You said it's easy for Bernie to be popular as an outsider and blah blah, stuff that doesn't apply to the people who are more popular than Democrats. Democrats are unpopular because people don't like them.
Whether people like the people they should is a completely different conversation. I admit it's been fun to see you finally get riled up like this.
On April 23 2017 06:29 Tachion wrote:
I'm done talking to you
No, I'M done talking to you
NO, I'M DONE
NO, NOW WE'RE DONE
BUT WAIT
seriously, you two...
I'll admit I was wrong, it's not pointless, it's been fun seeing him get riled up like this instead of his usual bland and pointless "but what about this little caveat that should be added to what was obviously a generalized point not meant to account for every situation" type of posts.
|
|
|
Shower Thought: Super delegates were used by the democratic party to suppress a populist. But then they lost to populism in the election. Basically worked against having the winning weapon of our political climate.
|
On April 23 2017 13:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Shower Thought: Super delegates were used by the democratic party to suppress a populist. But then they lost to populism in the election. Basically worked against having the winning weapon of our political climate.
Except for that time Obama used them to defeat HRC.
|
On April 23 2017 13:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 13:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Shower Thought: Super delegates were used by the democratic party to suppress a populist. But then they lost to populism in the election. Basically worked against having the winning weapon of our political climate. Except for that time Obama used them to defeat HRC.
I'm just saying for this election. This election was massively skewed against elitism/corruption/status-quo. Populism is the perfect way to win in that atmosphere.
|
The issue of populism has never been getting elected.
|
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 23 2017 13:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:
The issue of populism has never been getting elected.
You're saying the DNC would have preferred Trump over Bernie?
|
On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign.
Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll?
|
On April 23 2017 14:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll?
He's being a bit flippant because this is an argument that's been rehashed over and over. Some people here think the DNC was stupid in how they ran the campaign/who they backed in the primary. Some people here think that identity politics and outside influence had some effect and is reasonable to say it could have tipped the scales in the election. Others, though I haven't seen anybody explicitly espouse it here, are certain that the Democratic party lost because of no fault of their own.
It's the song on the radio and is always on somehow and you just wish you could skip it every time it comes up.
|
On April 23 2017 14:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll?
Probably sarcasm
|
On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign.
This idea that there can only be one story from an election is really dumb. I'm not sure why people keep coming back to it. It can be all of the things you mentioned.
|
On April 23 2017 14:44 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 14:36 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll? He's being a bit flippant because this is an argument that's been rehashed over and over. Some people here think the DNC was stupid in how they ran the campaign/who they backed in the primary. Some people here think that identity politics and outside influence had some effect and is reasonable to say it could have tipped the scales in the election. Others, though I haven't seen anybody explicitly espouse it here, are certain that the Democratic party lost because of no fault of their own. It's the song on the radio and is always on somehow and you just wish you could skip it every time it comes up.
Has any commentator tried to argue the DNC didn't fuck up? Because I sure haven't seen that. Joshua Micah Marshall is the most Establishment Democrat commentator I read, and he still said Comey/Russia/etc. might have barely tipped the election, but proceeded to talk a lot about how the Dems messed up to let it get that close in the first place.
It's this weird strawman that LL, GH and others keep erecting, burning to the ground, and erecting again. In a close election any small force that helped Trump, or any small force that could have helped Clinton and didn't, could be described as "why Trump won." And it would be true for all of them, because any small thing could have tipped the scale. But if no one is saying the Democrats didn't fuck up, then stop with the strawman and let's have an actual conversation.
|
On April 23 2017 15:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2017 14:44 Gahlo wrote:On April 23 2017 14:36 ChristianS wrote:On April 23 2017 13:53 a_flayer wrote:
Nah man, it was Russias fault. Russia and misogynists. Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. Has anyone said this? Or are you just being a troll? He's being a bit flippant because this is an argument that's been rehashed over and over. Some people here think the DNC was stupid in how they ran the campaign/who they backed in the primary. Some people here think that identity politics and outside influence had some effect and is reasonable to say it could have tipped the scales in the election. Others, though I haven't seen anybody explicitly espouse it here, are certain that the Democratic party lost because of no fault of their own. It's the song on the radio and is always on somehow and you just wish you could skip it every time it comes up. Has any commentator tried to argue the DNC didn't fuck up? Because I sure haven't seen that. Joshua Micah Marshall is the most Establishment Democrat commentator I read, and he still said Comey/Russia/etc. might have barely tipped the election, but proceeded to talk a lot about how the Dems messed up to let it get that close in the first place. It's this weird strawman that LL, GH and others keep erecting, burning to the ground, and erecting again. In a close election any small force that helped Trump, or any small force that could have helped Clinton and didn't, could be described as "why Trump won." And it would be true for all of them, because any small thing could have tipped the scale. But if no one is saying the Democrats didn't fuck up, then stop with the strawman and let's have an actual conversation.
A strawman you say?
Hillary Clinton Explains Why She Really Lost to Trump
Almost four months after her stunning defeat, Hillary Clinton on Thursday primarily blamed her loss to President Donald Trump on four factors that were beyond her control.
The former Democratic presidential candidate cited Russian meddling in the election, FBI Director James Comey's involvement toward the end of the race, WikiLeaks' theft of emails from her campaign chairman, and misogyny.
Russia. "A foreign power meddled with our election," she said, labeling it "an act of aggression." She called for an independent, bipartisan investigation into the Kremlin's involvement and said the probe should examine whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.
Misogyny. "Certainly, misogyny played a role. That has to be admitted," she said. Clinton added that "some people — women included — had real problems" with the idea of a woman president.
Comey. Clinton cited as damaging to her campaign his unusual decision to release of a letter on October 28, less than two weeks before Election Day, that said he was looking at additional emails related to the FBI probe of the former secretary of state's use of a private server.
WikiLeaks. Weeks of disclosures of stolen emails from the personal account of then-Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, were particularly harmful, Clinton said, adding that it "played a much bigger role than I think many people yet understand."
Source
Now, granted, she also admits there were "other reasons" (which remain undefined) but these were the main factors according to her. Not some strawwoman, Hillary Clinton says this herself. Rather than looking at the factors that were "within her control" she personally deems it necessary to highlight that the "major factors" were "beyond her control". And that's just utter bullshit. That's why I'm being "flippant".
|
Given that all four were major factors (well, Comey maybe not major, but definitely enough to swing the election), it's not bullshit. As has been explained a million times, multiple sufficient causes means there's a lot of things that can be accurately described as "the reason Trump won." Hillary Clinton is just about the worst possible person to assess the Democrats' mistakes in the 2016 election, and even she acknowledges the Democrats had other reasons they lost. So yes, I do say Its got nothin to do with the Democratic party, they are blameless and ran a flawless campaign. is just a straw man.
I don't know why you put "flippant" in quotes, I didn't say that. I said "troll." And given that you're focusing the conversation around criticizing a position that even Hillary Clinton isn't espousing, and nearly every other reasonable commentator from the left acknowledges the Dem campaign had a lot of flaws, "troll" continues to seem entirely appropriate. Granted you're not alone; LL and GH are often happy to erect this same strawman and pummel it for a while. But it's just as useless when they do it, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
