|
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 05:44 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. 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.
everyone here already knows your language parser is more like an algorithm and less like intelligence. i think i mentioned you should brush up on hermeneutics a few months ago. how about you brush up on your hermeneutics and add the books you read on it your sig?
|
On May 16 2017 06:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:13 xDaunt wrote: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?
marco rubio had some troubles if i recall correctly.
|
On May 16 2017 07:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 06:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2017 04:13 xDaunt wrote: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? marco rubio had some troubles if i recall correctly.
Very true... getting outplayed by Christie iirc? Broken record?
|
On May 16 2017 07:37 Plansix wrote:
I can't remember, didn't the Republicans think leaking classified information was a big deal before?
He also has the right to start a nuclear war as well.
|
I finally understand his plan.
It's all a ruse! He's doing the good 'ol seller's strategy on them. They won't know what to do! He's baiting them all in with he's seemingly dimwitted self, but when the fishes get close enough, BAM, he bites. And boy oh boy will they be stuck in his belly, let me tell ya!
The entire world at one point in time will think "wtf is this guy on about?" and that's the moment he'll strike. First he starts with the Russians. It's genius. Why is it genius? Because he already had the diving board laid out to him from the start, with this entire Comey thing. Mind you, this was all cleverly set up. Comey's in on it! Next are the Chinese. Trump will start badgering them on global warming, while tripling his emissions, but also, of course cleverly, profiting one hundredfold of off that. The fines he'll have to pay will be peanuts in comparison to the profits! But this will never surface. He'll be busy carving an underground military industry of never seen proportions. And the genius of it all? It's all in the wall! The entrance of the biggest war helicopter production facility will be where the pride and glory of America stands. The beacon of border! But the going will get tough. And the big countries will think he's weak. And when they strike with their missiles rockets bombs and their tanks and their boats, the biggest fleet of war helicopters will rise to the sky and strike them all down!
Then all the resources and land will be for the taking as they've pumped all their resources into attacking a seemingly weakened America, who's secretly never been stronger. All because of the best, the only, the dearest, the most handsome, the biggest-handed, Donald J. Trump.
|
On May 16 2017 07:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:He also has the right to start a nuclear war as well.
Ted Lieu and Merkley are trying to pass a first use law. don't think it's gone very far though.
|
On May 16 2017 07:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:He also has the right to start a nuclear war as well.
By "the right", I assume he means legally (president can declassify info while leaking it, while others can't for the most part) as opposed to morally or what's in the best interest of the country...
What Trump did is undoubtedly idiotic, but I believe it's legal because he's the president.
|
A really fun game could be to try to predict republican statements after each of these trump gaffes
Paul Ryan: "You know I used to really value classified information, and people who fail to keep it confidential should not receive any further classified briefings. Except if it's Donald Trump, he's cool"
|
On May 16 2017 07:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 06:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2017 04:13 xDaunt wrote: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? I'm not close minded to anything. My political values distinctly align with the political Right. When the democrats start pushing a Right-leaning agenda, then I'll consider voting for them. So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country. Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here...
I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
|
On May 16 2017 08:04 biology]major wrote:
A really fun game could be to try to predict republican statements after each of these trump gaffes
Paul Ryan: "You know I used to really value classified information, and people who fail to keep it confidential should not receive any further classified briefings. Except if it's Donald Trump, he's cool"
Of all the probabilities, the idea he was acting as a Manchurian candidate feeding information to his Russian operatives and controllers is ridiculous. The only implication here is that he’s unschooled. This is his first go around with sensitive information and he might’ve slipped up. If he did, it’s not good. On the other hand, if it’s not deliberate, it’s not exactly a high crime and misdemeanor.
Charles Krauthammer
The excuse appears to be "Well, it was classified, but it wasn't THAT classified"
|
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action.
And how many of those reasons would you be able to think of if it was president Obama or Hillary Clinton being accused of this, and not donnie?
|
I do have to agree this is overblown. There's no way of knowing what kind of information was shared in the room, so I don't really feel like it's necessary to anything else than shrug.
Edit: And to be honest, I've been shrugging at this stuff from day 1 the shitshow started. Like.. the frenzy just seems way out of proportion. Stop making a circus out of your own country, lol.
|
On May 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action.
Well, if I knew the president disclosed classified information, I would probably not be willing to leak to the press unless they promised not to reveal what it was.
Then again, we had this whole conversation about the inclusion of the Steele dossier in briefing materials when you were adamant that mentioning its inclusion was fake news even when it was confirmed to have been included, and I think it's crystal clear this will end up unfolding the same way and everyone will be convinced they were right about what happened all along.
|
On May 16 2017 08:04 biology]major wrote:
A really fun game could be to try to predict republican statements after each of these trump gaffes
Paul Ryan: "You know I used to really value classified information, and people who fail to keep it confidential should not receive any further classified briefings. Except if it's Donald Trump, he's cool"
Sean Spicer: What's "classified" even mean, anyway? I think we're all aware that *the spirit* of the information wasn't classified in any way, unless you mean classifying it as unclassified in which case you're all being disengenuous. Shame on all of you; Trump doesn't talk to Russians. *Bolts out of the room."
Trump follow-up: Actually everything Sean Spicer said is wrong. I talk to a tremendous number of Russians; they're terrific people. They make the best chocolate cake, can you believe it? They're made of gold- the cakes, not the Russians- and I went to Russia and I couldn't believe it but it was there and I was like whoa Mr. Putin that's pretty great and he was you know the Russians really are the best Americans they really are the best and by the way a lot of people don't know this about Putin but he's a great guy and a terrific leader and a passionate lover and when we agreed to take over China because you know China keeps winning they're not playing fair we're losing to Mexico even our leaders are sad can you believe how low Arnold's ratings are almost as low as my rating for SNL and Alec Baldwin is just fake news. SAD!
|
On May 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action.
Its almost as if saying what the information was to the press would be 'leaking classified information' and could end up with the leaker in prison...
|
On May 16 2017 08:23 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
So we have an article that says that Trump disclosed "highly classified information" without saying what the information is or the purpose of its disclosure. The sole purpose is to make Trump look bad. I can think of a whole bunch of legitimate reasons why we'd share classified information with Russia or any other state for that matter. This is more fake news in action. And how many of those reasons would you be able to think of if it was president Obama or Hillary Clinton being accused of this, and not donnie?
That's the hilarious part, this thread is like an experiment into how far people on both sides, myself included, will go to defend those who they percieve in a positive notion and the opposite for someone they perceive in a negative notion. We had people minimizing all clinton's faults back then, whereas the right wing posters would relentlessly attack. Now the tides have turned and we are seeing the opposite. It's a duh statement, but it's really funny when you just take a step back and look at the positions taken by the posters and use the litmus test of : "how would you react if this was hillary clinton." I know danglars thinks he's immune to these hypotheticals, but we already have proof in this thread how people react: Like partisan hacks.
|
On May 16 2017 08:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 07:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 06:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 16 2017 04:13 xDaunt wrote: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? I'm not close minded to anything. My political values distinctly align with the political Right. When the democrats start pushing a Right-leaning agenda, then I'll consider voting for them. So your values "distinctly align" with killing healthcare, killing education, taking from the poor to give to the rich, and suppressing civil rights? Because in 2017, we're way passed saying something as unnuanced as "I'm a Republican because I believe in fiscal responsibility". There is sooo much more to that party, and it's killing our country. Like, excuse us Republicans, we're trying to have a society over here... I don't know why you even affect to discuss values. If your only experience with political values is the disingenuous political talking points like Republicans want to push granny of the cliff, you neither know nor understand the values. Furthermore, it's hard to see if explaining them will actually produce understanding. We're trying to have a debate, you're trying to declare victory over the debate and move on. It's a very stultifying concept and ought to be relegated to authoritarian societies.
How is it disengenuous when the push for the AHCA over the ACA is a very real possibility by Republicans? You really can't get much closer to pushing granny off a cliff than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
