|
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 May 16 2017 05:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:On May 16 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 05:02 Nebuchad wrote:On May 16 2017 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
You cannot at the same time refuse a blank vote and complain that you didn't have a choice but vote for Trump. If he's a positive over no one, then that's the primary reason why you voted for him, not the lack of choice that you were given, and so the martyrdom is unwarranted. Not that that's what I'm doing, but why not? And since you seem to be confused, I'm not apologizing for my Trump vote at all, nor am I claiming that I voted for him because there was no viable alternative (even though there wasn't). Because the act of voting for Trump over no one necessitates a level of support, which contradicts the notion that you would have voted for him "because you had no choice". But it appears I misunderstood you. I don't get your "This x1000" as it stands, then. You can vote for somebody because you believe in his platform and because no one else has an acceptable platform. The two concepts seem perfectly consistent to me. If instead of Hillary we had another candidate with a similar, but slightly lesser platform than Trump's, I probably would have voted for the other candidate instead. What many of the Leftists around here forget is that we on the Right have different ideas for how to make America great than the Left does (this is where Uldridge is getting tripped up). Given the Left's love affair with all things subjective, one would think that this omission in thought wouldn't occur. What you describe isn't "having no choice", it's "choosing". Don't look at me, you're the one trying to inject this "people voted for Trump because they had no choice" concept into the discussion. I think it's all semantics.
I've acknowledged that you apparently planned to say something different at the start. However you have told me that even though that wasn't what you said, someone could totally have said it and that would work as a position. So yeah, I'm looking at you.
|
On May 16 2017 05:23 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:10 biology]major wrote:
candidates have to earn your vote, this shit stain 1 vs shit stain 2 pragmatism isn't for everyone, and certainly not for me. This is called apathy. It's a sure symptom of the internet age, when you can cast infinite gobs of cynicism on any person or thing that you please. "They're both shit stains." You can say things like that with little argument, and find a lot of agreement -- like most platitudes. That is what they're good for. Nice for casual conversation with polite strangers, but not a great way to engage in politics. But, no. It'd be much more accurate to say, one is a civics-educated politician with years of civil service with whom I have political disagreements. The other is a "reality"-businessman with a Wrestlemania-persona who says things I like to hear. They're hardly the same. There are stark, clear differences, which some would like to ignore. But this equivalency and urge to simplify things into "same shit, different pile" isn't actually non-partisan at all. It's the type of thing a person will say when they want to disavow responsibility for their own partisanship. "Yeah, I voted for Bush and Trump, but, eh, like Hillary would've been any better." Well, maybe Hillary would've been better. Maybe not. But she sure as shit would NOT be the same.
I would agree with you if the political parties weren't so ideologically antagonistic. For me to vote for a democrat it would require the following three things to happen. 1) Republican party candidate must be shit (trump qualifies) 2) Democratic party candidate must have exceptional character/integrity (bernie was close). 3) The candidate must be willing to escape party lines on atleast one major issue (similar to how trump did with infrastructure). A shitty party line democrat with questionable judgement and character will never earn my vote.
|
On May 16 2017 05:23 Leporello wrote:
This is called apathy.
It's a sure symptom of the internet age, when you can cast infinite gobs of cynicism on any person or thing that you please. "They're both shit stains." You can say things like that with little argument, and find a lot of agreement -- like most platitudes. That is what they're good for. Nice for casual conversation with polite strangers, but not a great way to engage in politics.
But, no. It'd be much more accurate to say, one is a civics-educated politician with years of civil service with whom I have political disagreements. The other is a "reality"-businessman with a Wrestlemania-persona who says things I like to hear.
They're hardly the same. There are stark, clear differences, which some would like to ignore.
But this equivalency and urge to simplify things into "same shit, different pile" isn't actually non-partisan at all. It's the type of thing a person will say when they want to disavow responsibility for their own partisanship. "Yeah, I voted for Bush and Trump, but, eh, like Hillary would've been any better."
Well, maybe Hillary would've been better. Maybe not. But she sure as shit would NOT be the same.
No, it's not apathy, it's oversimplificationt. Of course one could start to address what both candidates are and what they represent, but if they don't appeal to both of you, they can very well be tossed aside as an afterthought because you don't need to invest in them any longer mentally. They have not convinced you, so why should you put any more effort in trying to be convinced by their arguments and persona?
Apathy is when you vote for either or don't vote because you don't care about the outcome at all. The latter is probably going to happen in much higher frequency.
|
On May 16 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:02 Nebuchad wrote:On May 16 2017 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
You cannot at the same time refuse a blank vote and complain that you didn't have a choice but vote for Trump. If he's a positive over no one, then that's the primary reason why you voted for him, not the lack of choice that you were given, and so the martyrdom is unwarranted. Not that that's what I'm doing, but why not? And since you seem to be confused, I'm not apologizing for my Trump vote at all, nor am I claiming that I voted for him because there was no viable alternative (even though there wasn't). Because the act of voting for Trump over no one necessitates a level of support, which contradicts the notion that you would have voted for him "because you had no choice". But it appears I misunderstood you. I don't get your "This x1000" as it stands, then. You can vote for somebody because you believe in his platform and because no one else has an acceptable platform. The two concepts seem perfectly consistent to me. If instead of Hillary we had another candidate with a similar, but slightly lesser platform than Trump's, I probably would have voted for the other candidate instead. What many of the Leftists around here forget is that we on the Right have different ideas for how to make America great than the Left does (this is where Uldridge is getting tripped up). Given the Left's love affair with all things subjective, one would think that this omission in thought wouldn't occur.
Not even to mention that voting for the platform despite the failings of the candidate has the long term goal of influencing future platforms and candidates of the right towards behavior we like (combative attitude towards leftist narratives, better inter-party negotiation on conservative positions), discourse we like (altering the conversation on immigration and national security), and taking sacrifices today to build a better future for our children. Lenin said, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Modern GOP politicians took it a step further, by agreeing to a set of rules by which it's led by the leash held by the opposition. The 2016 presidential election was a necessary yet imperfect fight back.
|
If Trump represents discourse you like, that's scary. His word is not credible - you don't even know what his plans are (and neither does he).
|
On May 16 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 05:02 Nebuchad wrote:On May 16 2017 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
You cannot at the same time refuse a blank vote and complain that you didn't have a choice but vote for Trump. If he's a positive over no one, then that's the primary reason why you voted for him, not the lack of choice that you were given, and so the martyrdom is unwarranted. Not that that's what I'm doing, but why not? And since you seem to be confused, I'm not apologizing for my Trump vote at all, nor am I claiming that I voted for him because there was no viable alternative (even though there wasn't). Because the act of voting for Trump over no one necessitates a level of support, which contradicts the notion that you would have voted for him "because you had no choice". But it appears I misunderstood you. I don't get your "This x1000" as it stands, then. You can vote for somebody because you believe in his platform and because no one else has an acceptable platform. The two concepts seem perfectly consistent to me. If instead of Hillary we had another candidate with a similar, but slightly lesser platform than Trump's, I probably would have voted for the other candidate instead. What many of the Leftists around here forget is that we on the Right have different ideas for how to make America great than the Left does (this is where Uldridge is getting tripped up). Given the Left's love affair with all things subjective, one would think that this omission in thought wouldn't occur. Not even to mention that voting for the platform despite the failings of the candidate has the long term goal of influencing future platforms and candidates of the right towards behavior we like (combative attitude towards leftist narratives, better inter-party negotiation on conservative positions), discourse we like (altering the conversation on immigration and national security), and taking sacrifices today to build a better future for our children. Lenin said, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Modern GOP politicians took it a step further, by agreeing to a set of rules by which it's led by the leash held by the opposition. The 2016 presidential election was a necessary yet imperfect fight back.
Most of the things you've quoted here, the GOP was already doing and would have continued to do regardless. I'm glad the 2016 election happened so that the GOP can start having a combative attitude towards leftist narratives... Lol. As per negotation of what the conservative positions of the GOP are, they'll continue to be dictated by whoever gave them the most money this time around, Trump won't change a thing.
|
No, the GOP decidedly was not on the same track that Trump moved it to in 2016. Even attempting to argue otherwise would belie a gross misunderstanding of conservative politics.
|
On May 16 2017 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 03:40 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 03:23 NewSunshine wrote:On May 16 2017 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 02:49 Nevuk wrote:By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans say the health care legislation that was recently passed by the House and supported by President Donald Trump is a bad idea instead of a good idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Forty-eight percent say it's a bad idea, including 43 percent of respondents who "strongly" believe that.
By contrast, just 23 percent call the legislation a good idea, including 18 percent who "strongly" say that.
That 25-point gap between good idea and bad idea is larger than the NBC/WSJ poll ever found for Barack Obama's health-care plan. Back in December of 2013, following problems with the rollout of the HealthCare.Gov website, 50 percent had said the Obama plan was a bad idea, versus 34 percent who said it was a good idea.
This past February, however, 43 percent of Americans called the Obama plan a good idea, while 41 percent said it was bad.
On May 4, the House approved legislation - by a narrow 217-213 majority - to repeal and replace Obama's Affordable Care Act. No Democrats voted for the bill, and the legislative activity has since moved to the U.S. Senate.
According to the new NBC/WSJ poll, 52 percent of Republican respondents say the GOP health-care legislation is a good idea, versus 77 percent of Democrats who believe it's a bad idea. Among independents, it's 44 percent bad idea, 18 percent good idea.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amp/poll-48-percent-say-house-gop-health-care-bill-bad-n759201 Meanwhile single-payer polls better than both of them and is the lowest of the 3 on either party's agenda because that makes sense. And yet it's a successful model for universal health coverage, as indicated by its adoption in some form in nearly every 1st world country. Except the USA. And I don't expect it to change anytime soon, the big money is so entrenched in it at this point, it would take a lot. The astonishing part is how intent people on both sides are denying that the money dumping into these politicians coffers and associates wallets is what is stopping it. You see we need our politicians to take that corrupting money so that they can compete with each other... which people are denying that the vast sums of money are having an influence? i.e. i'd like examples of which people you're referring to and exactly what they're saying. I mean the people here know if I'm talking about them. They would have been the people denying that the dozens of millions of dollars going into certain candidates bank accounts would influence them in ways contrary to our best interests (as opposed to theirs) all last year. Specifically to the contemporary, I would point to the DNC failing to reinstate Obama's ban on lobbyist cash into the DNC. But as I was suggesting, there's not a lot of practical difference between denying it, and arguing that we have to accept it.
i'd say there's a very huge difference between denying it and arguing we have to accept it.
and it'd depend on what "acceptance" means. everyone I know on the left, including here, would like to cut down on the influence of those millions of dollars, but there's limited ways to actually do so effectively; and money always finds a way.
I agree the practical difference isn't huge; but it is of some value for understanding the situations and analyzing them; and it's a distinction worth making. I also trend to be pedantic and specific in my words, so, as with msot people, I parse what other says using similar standards to what I use myself.
Generally speaking, there's often a rather big difference between denying something (which is to argue that it is false), and arguing that it is true but necessary and must be accepted.
if you don't want to name the people here publicly, can you do it in pm? cuz otherwise I'm still not sure who you're talking about.
That DNC thing you mention does sound troubling, I'll read up on that if I remember to, but much is happening in the thread.
|
On May 16 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 03:40 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 03:23 NewSunshine wrote:On May 16 2017 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 02:49 Nevuk wrote:By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans say the health care legislation that was recently passed by the House and supported by President Donald Trump is a bad idea instead of a good idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Forty-eight percent say it's a bad idea, including 43 percent of respondents who "strongly" believe that.
By contrast, just 23 percent call the legislation a good idea, including 18 percent who "strongly" say that.
That 25-point gap between good idea and bad idea is larger than the NBC/WSJ poll ever found for Barack Obama's health-care plan. Back in December of 2013, following problems with the rollout of the HealthCare.Gov website, 50 percent had said the Obama plan was a bad idea, versus 34 percent who said it was a good idea.
This past February, however, 43 percent of Americans called the Obama plan a good idea, while 41 percent said it was bad.
On May 4, the House approved legislation - by a narrow 217-213 majority - to repeal and replace Obama's Affordable Care Act. No Democrats voted for the bill, and the legislative activity has since moved to the U.S. Senate.
According to the new NBC/WSJ poll, 52 percent of Republican respondents say the GOP health-care legislation is a good idea, versus 77 percent of Democrats who believe it's a bad idea. Among independents, it's 44 percent bad idea, 18 percent good idea.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amp/poll-48-percent-say-house-gop-health-care-bill-bad-n759201 Meanwhile single-payer polls better than both of them and is the lowest of the 3 on either party's agenda because that makes sense. And yet it's a successful model for universal health coverage, as indicated by its adoption in some form in nearly every 1st world country. Except the USA. And I don't expect it to change anytime soon, the big money is so entrenched in it at this point, it would take a lot. The astonishing part is how intent people on both sides are denying that the money dumping into these politicians coffers and associates wallets is what is stopping it. You see we need our politicians to take that corrupting money so that they can compete with each other... which people are denying that the vast sums of money are having an influence? i.e. i'd like examples of which people you're referring to and exactly what they're saying. I mean the people here know if I'm talking about them. They would have been the people denying that the dozens of millions of dollars going into certain candidates bank accounts would influence them in ways contrary to our best interests (as opposed to theirs) all last year. Specifically to the contemporary, I would point to the DNC failing to reinstate Obama's ban on lobbyist cash into the DNC. But as I was suggesting, there's not a lot of practical difference between denying it, and arguing that we have to accept it. That DNC thing you mention does sound troubling, I'll read up on that if I remember to, but much is happening in the thread.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/269266-dnc-rolls-back-restrictions-on-lobbyist-donations
I'm not seeing a clear statement in there saying the provision was stripped or if (as GH says) they were simply not reinstated.
|
On May 16 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:
No, the GOP decidedly was not on the same track that Trump moved it to in 2016. Even attempting to argue otherwise would belie a gross misunderstanding of conservative politics.
It certainly wouldn't surprise me that I grossly misunderstand conservative politics in the US. However, since I'm curious, you're going to have to enlighten me instead of just saying it.
|
while xdaunt is of course wrong in his vote; as is danglars with the unsound point he made; there is some underlying merit to it:
while trump has a lower expected value, and a far greater downside risk, he does have more potential to turn out good (because of the high uncertainty).
but the situation is also clearly not one which justifies an unlikely gamble.
like if I'm playing farkle and i'm at 2000 and the opponent is at 9000; sure, I have to just keep going for it to hope I can get the points to reach 10000. but reality is not in that situation.
so following expected value is better; and the expected value was better with hillary than with someone unfit for office.
of course this assumes rational voting; if you choose some other principle of voting from a normative standpoint, then of course you can do anything.
|
On May 16 2017 05:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:
No, the GOP decidedly was not on the same track that Trump moved it to in 2016. Even attempting to argue otherwise would belie a gross misunderstanding of conservative politics. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that I grossly misunderstand conservative politics in the US. However, since I'm curious, you're going to have to enlighten me instead of just saying it.
It's been covered like three or four different times in this thread. Go look at the Flight 93 Election article and the discussion of it around here.
|
On May 16 2017 05:49 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2017 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 03:40 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 03:23 NewSunshine wrote:On May 16 2017 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 02:49 Nevuk wrote:By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans say the health care legislation that was recently passed by the House and supported by President Donald Trump is a bad idea instead of a good idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Forty-eight percent say it's a bad idea, including 43 percent of respondents who "strongly" believe that.
By contrast, just 23 percent call the legislation a good idea, including 18 percent who "strongly" say that.
That 25-point gap between good idea and bad idea is larger than the NBC/WSJ poll ever found for Barack Obama's health-care plan. Back in December of 2013, following problems with the rollout of the HealthCare.Gov website, 50 percent had said the Obama plan was a bad idea, versus 34 percent who said it was a good idea.
This past February, however, 43 percent of Americans called the Obama plan a good idea, while 41 percent said it was bad.
On May 4, the House approved legislation - by a narrow 217-213 majority - to repeal and replace Obama's Affordable Care Act. No Democrats voted for the bill, and the legislative activity has since moved to the U.S. Senate.
According to the new NBC/WSJ poll, 52 percent of Republican respondents say the GOP health-care legislation is a good idea, versus 77 percent of Democrats who believe it's a bad idea. Among independents, it's 44 percent bad idea, 18 percent good idea.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amp/poll-48-percent-say-house-gop-health-care-bill-bad-n759201 Meanwhile single-payer polls better than both of them and is the lowest of the 3 on either party's agenda because that makes sense. And yet it's a successful model for universal health coverage, as indicated by its adoption in some form in nearly every 1st world country. Except the USA. And I don't expect it to change anytime soon, the big money is so entrenched in it at this point, it would take a lot. The astonishing part is how intent people on both sides are denying that the money dumping into these politicians coffers and associates wallets is what is stopping it. You see we need our politicians to take that corrupting money so that they can compete with each other... which people are denying that the vast sums of money are having an influence? i.e. i'd like examples of which people you're referring to and exactly what they're saying. I mean the people here know if I'm talking about them. They would have been the people denying that the dozens of millions of dollars going into certain candidates bank accounts would influence them in ways contrary to our best interests (as opposed to theirs) all last year. Specifically to the contemporary, I would point to the DNC failing to reinstate Obama's ban on lobbyist cash into the DNC. But as I was suggesting, there's not a lot of practical difference between denying it, and arguing that we have to accept it. That DNC thing you mention does sound troubling, I'll read up on that if I remember to, but much is happening in the thread. http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/269266-dnc-rolls-back-restrictions-on-lobbyist-donationsI'm not seeing a clear statement in there saying the provision was stripped or if (as GH says) they were simply not reinstated.
hmmm, I see, interesting. ty for the link.
|
United States24743 Posts
So apparently POTUS has been advised not to discuss the possibility of tapes. What is the procedure for verifying if there actually are Oval Office secret recordings or not? I think this is damaging for the administration either way because forcing the administration to answer a yes/no of if tapes exist results in one of two possibilities: 1) admit the tweet was referring to fictitious tapes, or 2) admit the tapes exist which is bad in and off itself. The thing to watch out for, I suppose, is attempts to block efforts to get that question answered.
|
On May 16 2017 06:01 micronesia wrote:
So apparently POTUS has been advised not to discuss the possibility of tapes. What is the procedure for verifying if there actually are Oval Office secret recordings or not? I think this is damaging for the administration either way because forcing the administration to answer a yes/no of if tapes exist results in one of two possibilities: 1) admit the tweet was referring to fictitious tapes, or 2) admit the tapes exist which is bad in and off itself. The thing to watch out for, I suppose, is attempts to block efforts to get that question answered.
It's going to be a smooth ride in getting those tapes because we have brave republicans and an honest and transparent president
|
On May 16 2017 05:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:50 Nebuchad wrote:On May 16 2017 05:40 xDaunt wrote:
No, the GOP decidedly was not on the same track that Trump moved it to in 2016. Even attempting to argue otherwise would belie a gross misunderstanding of conservative politics. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that I grossly misunderstand conservative politics in the US. However, since I'm curious, you're going to have to enlighten me instead of just saying it. It's been covered like three or four different times in this thread. Go look at the Flight 93 Election article and the discussion of it around here.
Could you summarize why you think the GOP is on the move to meet the expectations of the Flight 93 article, or at least point me to when it was you have discussed it?
|
On May 16 2017 05:49 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:44 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2017 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 03:40 zlefin wrote:On May 16 2017 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 03:23 NewSunshine wrote:On May 16 2017 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 16 2017 02:49 Nevuk wrote:By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans say the health care legislation that was recently passed by the House and supported by President Donald Trump is a bad idea instead of a good idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Forty-eight percent say it's a bad idea, including 43 percent of respondents who "strongly" believe that.
By contrast, just 23 percent call the legislation a good idea, including 18 percent who "strongly" say that.
That 25-point gap between good idea and bad idea is larger than the NBC/WSJ poll ever found for Barack Obama's health-care plan. Back in December of 2013, following problems with the rollout of the HealthCare.Gov website, 50 percent had said the Obama plan was a bad idea, versus 34 percent who said it was a good idea.
This past February, however, 43 percent of Americans called the Obama plan a good idea, while 41 percent said it was bad.
On May 4, the House approved legislation - by a narrow 217-213 majority - to repeal and replace Obama's Affordable Care Act. No Democrats voted for the bill, and the legislative activity has since moved to the U.S. Senate.
According to the new NBC/WSJ poll, 52 percent of Republican respondents say the GOP health-care legislation is a good idea, versus 77 percent of Democrats who believe it's a bad idea. Among independents, it's 44 percent bad idea, 18 percent good idea.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amp/poll-48-percent-say-house-gop-health-care-bill-bad-n759201 Meanwhile single-payer polls better than both of them and is the lowest of the 3 on either party's agenda because that makes sense. And yet it's a successful model for universal health coverage, as indicated by its adoption in some form in nearly every 1st world country. Except the USA. And I don't expect it to change anytime soon, the big money is so entrenched in it at this point, it would take a lot. The astonishing part is how intent people on both sides are denying that the money dumping into these politicians coffers and associates wallets is what is stopping it. You see we need our politicians to take that corrupting money so that they can compete with each other... which people are denying that the vast sums of money are having an influence? i.e. i'd like examples of which people you're referring to and exactly what they're saying. I mean the people here know if I'm talking about them. They would have been the people denying that the dozens of millions of dollars going into certain candidates bank accounts would influence them in ways contrary to our best interests (as opposed to theirs) all last year. Specifically to the contemporary, I would point to the DNC failing to reinstate Obama's ban on lobbyist cash into the DNC. But as I was suggesting, there's not a lot of practical difference between denying it, and arguing that we have to accept it. That DNC thing you mention does sound troubling, I'll read up on that if I remember to, but much is happening in the thread. http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/269266-dnc-rolls-back-restrictions-on-lobbyist-donationsI'm not seeing a clear statement in there saying the provision was stripped or if (as GH says) they were simply not reinstated.
I've talked about that before, but what I am referencing is this:
Before the voting could get underway at a DNC meeting held in Atlanta over who should head the party structure as chairperson, members of the DNC had to first decide whether or not they would reinstate Obama-era rules which barred the party from accepting money from lobbyists.
After contentious debate, the party ultimately elected against reinstating the ban, citing the usefulness of lobbyist cash in elections.
Source
EDIT: Back when they first took it off I suggested it was bad, in Hillary's/Consultant class's interest, not the voters, and not a good long term plan.
I heard they had to do it to stay competitive with Republicans. They did it, raised/spent more money than anyone ever, and lost to the worst major party candidate in our lifetimes anyway.
|
The same meeting US Media wasn't allowed to take part, but Russian media was.
|
The optics of shutting out American press but not Russian press was already bad, but classified information? While that could be almost anything, it only looks worse and worse.
|
On May 16 2017 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 16 2017 02:27 Velr wrote:
If you voted trump and still would, yes, your the very definition of stupid partisanship.
I can get behind plenty of conservative (not religious conservative) positions because i deal with hardcore conservatives everyday (which tend to be a bit more religious here too).
I don't agree with them but i see where they are comming from and thanks to my job i see the stupidity of the left daily.
The thing is: If you now still stand behind trump, you better get paid by him or your just dillusional and want your country to go down.
Ffs "not voting for someone like trump" is actually the best argument "the establishment" had against the hard right since... i don't know, i'm 34 and don't remember such a shitshow in any modern/firstworld country.
Berlusconi looked better than Trump when he was at his worst. Which is why I have to keep bringing it up. Because people don't believe there were actually two choices at play, and there's compelling arguments for repeating that vote for Trump. Oh, and by the way, this continually blasting of Trump's mistakes while recognizing none of the background arguments is called nonpartisanship or something by the left and it's frankly drop-dead hilarious. "He's objectively ..." mmhmm I'll listen in when hardcore alt-Left and regressive-Left persons make conservative positions not look unideological. You'll have to take off the horse blinders while staring gape-mouthed at Trump for maybe a couple weeks to notice the media, DNC, and leftist cultural warriors are all complicit. Now let's all repeat together that Trump is awful and all his supporters are "delusional and want your country to go down." Because that's how you show you're above "the very definition of stupid partisanship." Jesus Christ, this x1000. Given my stated positions and policy preferences, who the fuck am I supposed to vote for if not Trump? Sure as shit won't be a Democrat for obvious reasons. And which Republican should I be voting for? Most of them sucked donkey ass last time around, and I'm not holding out hope that the next crop will be much better if Trump fails.
Literally every other Republican candidate (besides Carson when he was sleepwalking) could speak in complete sentences, which is a low threshold for the President of the United States but at least disqualifies Donald Trump.
I don't understand why you're so closed-minded when it comes to politics. Why is "being a Democrat" automatic disqualification, in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
