|
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 20 2017 18:26 Artisreal wrote:
Clinton... Wanted... War... With... Russia
True story though.....
Nobody ever claimed the DNC emails were not legit.
Also not true.
|
On May 20 2017 16:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
The_Donald has gone private after some of their mods were removed for repeatedly harassing other users. They're now threatening to move to voat, a site which appears to be shutting down anyways. This is only political news because I swear to god Trump's team directly took talking points from that subreddit (the most memorable one to me being the source for the idea that airplanes in the 1970s did not have movable armrests, because airplanes in the 2010s don't so Trump clearly couldn't have molested that one woman) Interesting timing no? Sean Hannity mentions T_D on his show on Fox in relation to the Seth Rich murder investigation. T_D goes private within a few hours after that.Many of the top posts were talking about Seth Rich. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/reddit-the-donald-4chan-seth-rich-murder/We've got wikileaks offering $20,000 for information into the murder of Rich. Rich being the leaker is far more believable than the Russian hacking story. Edit - my mistake, wikileaks reward for information on Seth Richs murder was increased to $130,000 a few months ago.Substantial sum.But according to most people on here it's irrelevant that wikileaks is offering this huge sum for information on his death.It's irrelevant that Rich was killed in a "robbery" where nothing was stolen from him.Pretty bizarre. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/822213093065367553?lang=en
I get that you WANT to believe something so you will ignore anything that doesnt fit that view but they already know how the hack was done, they know who did it and they know how the information received reached wikileaks. Basically they already know that it had nothing to do with this staffer. Secondly when hearing a story like this its always best to check where its coming from and what is their motivation. For instance the parties most heavily pushing it are Fox News and Russia (and other right-wing websites. Both of those groups have a vested interested interest in getting the focus off of Russia either for direct reasons or indirect reasons of wanting to not have to talk about Russia and instead preferring to talk about chaos within the DNC (if you dont think a right wing website would prefer to talk about chaos on the left rather then looking within you are insane).
Basically this theory can be grouped in the same space as 9/11 truthers, the crazy people who think sandy hook never happened, birthers and all those other weird conspiracy theories (one of which we know the president wrongly believed so I am somewhat surprised he hasnt tweeted about this yet).
|
On May 20 2017 19:31 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 19:16 Leporello wrote:
6) In privacy from American media, Trump gives them, directly, intelligence given to us by Israeli sources, a country that considers Russia hostile (and extremely anti-semitic). This one was blown way out of proportion, I think. We got a very one-sided story from whomever leaked this. Even when McMasters gave his explanation, the headlines were all about one part of his explanation (the fact that Trump was ignorant about the source). It wasn't until I came across this Soviet propaganda video that I saw a clip of McMasters explaining some of the context of the conversation that made it all seem a lot milder than it had been portrayed by US media.
It's not the legal hook, I just think it's generally absurd and should anger everyone.
Applying the context is what makes it worse. Both men are close associates of Putin, at least one of which is suspected of election-subversion in several countries, ours included. If we need to give Russia Israeli-intelligence, which I highly doubt we need to do, then do it off-handed. Not to Putin's personal trolls in a private meeting in the Oval Office.
What's sad is it's actually the least important part of this fiasco now, because in perfect Nixon fashion, the crime most apparent in all this is the blatant cover-up. All that really mattes, in the purpose of having good reason for impeachment, is, do we think the NYT is lying to us? The White House did not deny their story today. Not even that, really -- do we think Donald Trump's own tweets and interviews are lying to us?
The only way obstruction of justice could be any clearer is if Donald Trump wrote, in pen, "I, Donald Trump, fired the director of the FBI to obstruct his investigation into my affairs." For semantics.
|
On May 20 2017 21:07 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 19:31 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 19:16 Leporello wrote:
6) In privacy from American media, Trump gives them, directly, intelligence given to us by Israeli sources, a country that considers Russia hostile (and extremely anti-semitic). This one was blown way out of proportion, I think. We got a very one-sided story from whomever leaked this. Even when McMasters gave his explanation, the headlines were all about one part of his explanation (the fact that Trump was ignorant about the source). It wasn't until I came across this Soviet propaganda video that I saw a clip of McMasters explaining some of the context of the conversation that made it all seem a lot milder than it had been portrayed by US media. The only way obstruction of justice could be any clearer is if Donald Trump wrote, in pen, "I, Donald Trump, fired the director of the FBI to obstruct his investigation into my affairs." For semantics. John McCain would be deeply troubled by the revelation, but would continue to support Trump with votes. Paul Ryan would explain that you can't believe everything Trump says. McConnell would issue a mildly worded rebuke. Fox News would plug their ears, close their eyes, and start screaming that the news is fake. Trump would come out later, and say "so? What does it matter?" and the GOP would collectively conclude that it was unimportant and ignorable.
|
On May 20 2017 12:27 biology]major wrote:
Why do these people keep working for him? I would have quit a while ago if I were spicer tbh. It gets to that point where you put yourself before your boss. He can't take criticism and doesn't know what no means, so as a staffer of his you are working your butt off predicting his enigma mind and trying to stay in front of it, for virtually no reward and damaged credibility.
there's always some people who truly believe in their boss and the plan and the mission; even if the situation is fairly terrible.
for some people, working in the white house for the President is a huge enough reward to be worth some pretty severe downsides.
|
How Europe/NATO prepares for the Donald
When European diplomats meet these days, they often swap stories about Trump—and how to manage their volatile new ally. “The president of the United States has a 12-second attention span,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a former senior official in April after meeting Trump in the Oval Office. Not only that, this person told me, the president seemed unprepared and ill-informed, turning the conversation to North Korea and apparently unaware that NATO is not a part of the ongoing North Korea saga.
Such anecdotes have shaped how Europe’s anxious leaders are preparing for Trump’s trip this week — he will come to Brussels for a NATO session on Thursday—and for another one planned for early July, when he visits Germany for a G-20 summit at which he is expected to meet Putin face to face for the first time.
Some of the reported preparations for the NATO session in Brussels this week suggest just how much the volatile-clown theory of the American president has now taken hold.
NATO has downgraded the May 25 session to a meeting from a summit and will hold only a dinner to minimize the chances of a Trump eruption. Leaders have been told to hold normally windy remarks to just two to four minutes to keep Trump’s attention. They are even preparing to consider a “deliverable” to Trump of having NATO officially join the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria, as Trump has said his priority is getting NATO to do more in combating terrorism. “It’s a phony deliverable to give to Trump, a Twitter deliverable,” said a former senior U.S. official, pointing out that the individual NATO member states are already members of that coalition.
A Trump photo-op with a chunk of the World Trade Center has been choreographed in hopes of convincing the president who called NATO “obsolete” to reaffirm the basic principles of an organization committed to the mutual security of its members. The World Trade Center wreckage is part of a memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attacks at NATO’s new headquarters that Trump is set to officially open (though the building is not in fact finished), and NATO observers hope he will use the occasion to finally endorse the principle in Article V of the NATO Treaty that requires countries to treat an attack on one NATO country as an attack on all — an article that has only been invoked once in the organization’s history: after 9/11. “The purpose of the 9/11 memorial opening is to try to get Trump to mention the Article V commitment, since how can he get around it? It’s the only time Article V was ever used,” the former official said.
This is viewed as an especially crucial moment for Trump to do so, given his stated goal of working more closely with Russia even as Russia threatens neighboring states like the three Baltic countries that are now NATO members. But Trump has resisted it, and as Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution has reported, “Trump’s failure to endorse Article V is not an oversight. Members of his cabinet have unsuccessfully tried to insert this language into his remarks, including at his meeting with Stoltenberg.”
Now, they are finally hoping he will do so — but have no promise.
No promises might well be the theme of Trump’s trip. Consider Trump’s original campaign-trail threat to blow up NATO if member states don’t live up to their commitment to put 2 percent of the budget into defense; even that, it appears, might now might be back on the table. Trump has publicly claimed victory on that score, crowing that he had already forced allies to comply, but in fact, few countries have actually raised their spending — and an anonymous senior White House official told a reporter this week that “he is not going to stay in NATO if NATO does not make a lot more progress.”
No doubt jittery officials have reason to be nervous. In an interview as Trump departed, Stoltenberg told Bloomberg TV that “Trump has clearly stated to me in several conversations … that he’s strongly committed to NATO.” As for Thursday’s meeting in Brussels? “I hope and expect that he will reiterate his strong commitment to NATO.”
But will he? And what would it mean if he does?
The question of Donald Trump’s real views on NATO might not be as entertaining as the political spectacle unfolding in Washington, but the answer is just as uncertain.
http://www.politico.eu/article/people-here-think-trump-is-a-laughingstock/
|
As usual, Trump will probably say some nice things about NATO at one point and say something completely different when someone else tells him to say something else. They simply have to weather the storm and hope nothing else of consequence comes up that will actually require US executive cooperation.
|
On May 20 2017 11:43 GreenHorizons wrote:rofl, it's like even Anderson was surprised that was out loud. Lord heard him too, and he almost agreed cause he knows it's so true. Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 11:24 Mohdoo wrote:
Am I the only one who is kinda worried about Comey's safety? He should be safe with his flawless blue suit camouflage and a curtain, unless Trump notices the 6'8" guy re-enacting a bad horror movie gag.
CNN pays that guy and others to come on and defend Trump. It's literally his job to defend everything Trump does. This practice is one of the many reasons CNN is garbage.
Here's a video from Vox that talks about how CNN tries to make politics into sports, and why that's a problem:
www.vox.com
|
On May 20 2017 22:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:How Europe/NATO prepares for the Donald Show nested quote +When European diplomats meet these days, they often swap stories about Trump—and how to manage their volatile new ally. “The president of the United States has a 12-second attention span,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a former senior official in April after meeting Trump in the Oval Office. Not only that, this person told me, the president seemed unprepared and ill-informed, turning the conversation to North Korea and apparently unaware that NATO is not a part of the ongoing North Korea saga.
Such anecdotes have shaped how Europe’s anxious leaders are preparing for Trump’s trip this week — he will come to Brussels for a NATO session on Thursday—and for another one planned for early July, when he visits Germany for a G-20 summit at which he is expected to meet Putin face to face for the first time.
Some of the reported preparations for the NATO session in Brussels this week suggest just how much the volatile-clown theory of the American president has now taken hold.
NATO has downgraded the May 25 session to a meeting from a summit and will hold only a dinner to minimize the chances of a Trump eruption. Leaders have been told to hold normally windy remarks to just two to four minutes to keep Trump’s attention. They are even preparing to consider a “deliverable” to Trump of having NATO officially join the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria, as Trump has said his priority is getting NATO to do more in combating terrorism. “It’s a phony deliverable to give to Trump, a Twitter deliverable,” said a former senior U.S. official, pointing out that the individual NATO member states are already members of that coalition.
A Trump photo-op with a chunk of the World Trade Center has been choreographed in hopes of convincing the president who called NATO “obsolete” to reaffirm the basic principles of an organization committed to the mutual security of its members. The World Trade Center wreckage is part of a memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attacks at NATO’s new headquarters that Trump is set to officially open (though the building is not in fact finished), and NATO observers hope he will use the occasion to finally endorse the principle in Article V of the NATO Treaty that requires countries to treat an attack on one NATO country as an attack on all — an article that has only been invoked once in the organization’s history: after 9/11. “The purpose of the 9/11 memorial opening is to try to get Trump to mention the Article V commitment, since how can he get around it? It’s the only time Article V was ever used,” the former official said.
This is viewed as an especially crucial moment for Trump to do so, given his stated goal of working more closely with Russia even as Russia threatens neighboring states like the three Baltic countries that are now NATO members. But Trump has resisted it, and as Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution has reported, “Trump’s failure to endorse Article V is not an oversight. Members of his cabinet have unsuccessfully tried to insert this language into his remarks, including at his meeting with Stoltenberg.”
Now, they are finally hoping he will do so — but have no promise.
No promises might well be the theme of Trump’s trip. Consider Trump’s original campaign-trail threat to blow up NATO if member states don’t live up to their commitment to put 2 percent of the budget into defense; even that, it appears, might now might be back on the table. Trump has publicly claimed victory on that score, crowing that he had already forced allies to comply, but in fact, few countries have actually raised their spending — and an anonymous senior White House official told a reporter this week that “he is not going to stay in NATO if NATO does not make a lot more progress.”
No doubt jittery officials have reason to be nervous. In an interview as Trump departed, Stoltenberg told Bloomberg TV that “Trump has clearly stated to me in several conversations … that he’s strongly committed to NATO.” As for Thursday’s meeting in Brussels? “I hope and expect that he will reiterate his strong commitment to NATO.”
But will he? And what would it mean if he does?
The question of Donald Trump’s real views on NATO might not be as entertaining as the political spectacle unfolding in Washington, but the answer is just as uncertain. http://www.politico.eu/article/people-here-think-trump-is-a-laughingstock/
If this is true, like they are really behaving like this, this is so sad. You have to handle a superpower with kid gloves because he can't pay attention long enough to do his job or he'll whine and tweet mean words about it later. Damn, America. Damn.
|
On May 20 2017 23:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 22:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:How Europe/NATO prepares for the Donald When European diplomats meet these days, they often swap stories about Trump—and how to manage their volatile new ally. “The president of the United States has a 12-second attention span,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a former senior official in April after meeting Trump in the Oval Office. Not only that, this person told me, the president seemed unprepared and ill-informed, turning the conversation to North Korea and apparently unaware that NATO is not a part of the ongoing North Korea saga.
Such anecdotes have shaped how Europe’s anxious leaders are preparing for Trump’s trip this week — he will come to Brussels for a NATO session on Thursday—and for another one planned for early July, when he visits Germany for a G-20 summit at which he is expected to meet Putin face to face for the first time.
Some of the reported preparations for the NATO session in Brussels this week suggest just how much the volatile-clown theory of the American president has now taken hold.
NATO has downgraded the May 25 session to a meeting from a summit and will hold only a dinner to minimize the chances of a Trump eruption. Leaders have been told to hold normally windy remarks to just two to four minutes to keep Trump’s attention. They are even preparing to consider a “deliverable” to Trump of having NATO officially join the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria, as Trump has said his priority is getting NATO to do more in combating terrorism. “It’s a phony deliverable to give to Trump, a Twitter deliverable,” said a former senior U.S. official, pointing out that the individual NATO member states are already members of that coalition.
A Trump photo-op with a chunk of the World Trade Center has been choreographed in hopes of convincing the president who called NATO “obsolete” to reaffirm the basic principles of an organization committed to the mutual security of its members. The World Trade Center wreckage is part of a memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attacks at NATO’s new headquarters that Trump is set to officially open (though the building is not in fact finished), and NATO observers hope he will use the occasion to finally endorse the principle in Article V of the NATO Treaty that requires countries to treat an attack on one NATO country as an attack on all — an article that has only been invoked once in the organization’s history: after 9/11. “The purpose of the 9/11 memorial opening is to try to get Trump to mention the Article V commitment, since how can he get around it? It’s the only time Article V was ever used,” the former official said.
This is viewed as an especially crucial moment for Trump to do so, given his stated goal of working more closely with Russia even as Russia threatens neighboring states like the three Baltic countries that are now NATO members. But Trump has resisted it, and as Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution has reported, “Trump’s failure to endorse Article V is not an oversight. Members of his cabinet have unsuccessfully tried to insert this language into his remarks, including at his meeting with Stoltenberg.”
Now, they are finally hoping he will do so — but have no promise.
No promises might well be the theme of Trump’s trip. Consider Trump’s original campaign-trail threat to blow up NATO if member states don’t live up to their commitment to put 2 percent of the budget into defense; even that, it appears, might now might be back on the table. Trump has publicly claimed victory on that score, crowing that he had already forced allies to comply, but in fact, few countries have actually raised their spending — and an anonymous senior White House official told a reporter this week that “he is not going to stay in NATO if NATO does not make a lot more progress.”
No doubt jittery officials have reason to be nervous. In an interview as Trump departed, Stoltenberg told Bloomberg TV that “Trump has clearly stated to me in several conversations … that he’s strongly committed to NATO.” As for Thursday’s meeting in Brussels? “I hope and expect that he will reiterate his strong commitment to NATO.”
But will he? And what would it mean if he does?
The question of Donald Trump’s real views on NATO might not be as entertaining as the political spectacle unfolding in Washington, but the answer is just as uncertain. http://www.politico.eu/article/people-here-think-trump-is-a-laughingstock/ If this is true, like they are really behaving like this, this is so sad. You have to handle a superpower with kid gloves because he can't pay attention long enough to do his job or he'll whine and tweet mean words about it later. Damn, America. Damn.
You can bet that a lot of the normal stuff that happens at such summits is now being down in meetings between officials, away from Trump. Limiting the expose to and from Trump to a bare minimum.
|
On May 21 2017 00:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 23:33 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 20 2017 22:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:How Europe/NATO prepares for the Donald When European diplomats meet these days, they often swap stories about Trump—and how to manage their volatile new ally. “The president of the United States has a 12-second attention span,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a former senior official in April after meeting Trump in the Oval Office. Not only that, this person told me, the president seemed unprepared and ill-informed, turning the conversation to North Korea and apparently unaware that NATO is not a part of the ongoing North Korea saga.
Such anecdotes have shaped how Europe’s anxious leaders are preparing for Trump’s trip this week — he will come to Brussels for a NATO session on Thursday—and for another one planned for early July, when he visits Germany for a G-20 summit at which he is expected to meet Putin face to face for the first time.
Some of the reported preparations for the NATO session in Brussels this week suggest just how much the volatile-clown theory of the American president has now taken hold.
NATO has downgraded the May 25 session to a meeting from a summit and will hold only a dinner to minimize the chances of a Trump eruption. Leaders have been told to hold normally windy remarks to just two to four minutes to keep Trump’s attention. They are even preparing to consider a “deliverable” to Trump of having NATO officially join the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria, as Trump has said his priority is getting NATO to do more in combating terrorism. “It’s a phony deliverable to give to Trump, a Twitter deliverable,” said a former senior U.S. official, pointing out that the individual NATO member states are already members of that coalition.
A Trump photo-op with a chunk of the World Trade Center has been choreographed in hopes of convincing the president who called NATO “obsolete” to reaffirm the basic principles of an organization committed to the mutual security of its members. The World Trade Center wreckage is part of a memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attacks at NATO’s new headquarters that Trump is set to officially open (though the building is not in fact finished), and NATO observers hope he will use the occasion to finally endorse the principle in Article V of the NATO Treaty that requires countries to treat an attack on one NATO country as an attack on all — an article that has only been invoked once in the organization’s history: after 9/11. “The purpose of the 9/11 memorial opening is to try to get Trump to mention the Article V commitment, since how can he get around it? It’s the only time Article V was ever used,” the former official said.
This is viewed as an especially crucial moment for Trump to do so, given his stated goal of working more closely with Russia even as Russia threatens neighboring states like the three Baltic countries that are now NATO members. But Trump has resisted it, and as Thomas Wright of the Brookings Institution has reported, “Trump’s failure to endorse Article V is not an oversight. Members of his cabinet have unsuccessfully tried to insert this language into his remarks, including at his meeting with Stoltenberg.”
Now, they are finally hoping he will do so — but have no promise.
No promises might well be the theme of Trump’s trip. Consider Trump’s original campaign-trail threat to blow up NATO if member states don’t live up to their commitment to put 2 percent of the budget into defense; even that, it appears, might now might be back on the table. Trump has publicly claimed victory on that score, crowing that he had already forced allies to comply, but in fact, few countries have actually raised their spending — and an anonymous senior White House official told a reporter this week that “he is not going to stay in NATO if NATO does not make a lot more progress.”
No doubt jittery officials have reason to be nervous. In an interview as Trump departed, Stoltenberg told Bloomberg TV that “Trump has clearly stated to me in several conversations … that he’s strongly committed to NATO.” As for Thursday’s meeting in Brussels? “I hope and expect that he will reiterate his strong commitment to NATO.”
But will he? And what would it mean if he does?
The question of Donald Trump’s real views on NATO might not be as entertaining as the political spectacle unfolding in Washington, but the answer is just as uncertain. http://www.politico.eu/article/people-here-think-trump-is-a-laughingstock/ If this is true, like they are really behaving like this, this is so sad. You have to handle a superpower with kid gloves because he can't pay attention long enough to do his job or he'll whine and tweet mean words about it later. Damn, America. Damn. You can bet that a lot of the normal stuff that happens at such summits is now being down in meetings between officials, away from Trump. Limiting the expose to and from Trump to a bare minimum.
Give Trump a kids table.
|
Yea it's not cool being American right now. We will forever look back on this past election as a sore spot in our history and cringe to ourselves "Damn we fucked up bad!" like with Vietnam and other stuff since.
|
On May 21 2017 00:40 riotjune wrote:
Yea it's not cool being American right now. We will forever look back on this past election as a sore spot in our history and cringe to ourselves "Damn we fucked up bad!" like with Vietnam and other stuff since.
indeed.
I do wish more politicians had put up proposals to prevent things like this from happening in the future; but either they don't, or we just can't hear about them because the crazy is sucking up all the airtime.
|
On May 21 2017 00:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 00:40 riotjune wrote:
Yea it's not cool being American right now. We will forever look back on this past election as a sore spot in our history and cringe to ourselves "Damn we fucked up bad!" like with Vietnam and other stuff since. indeed. I do wish more politicians had put up proposals to prevent things like this from happening in the future; but either they don't, or we just can't hear about them because the crazy is sucking up all the airtime.
What would be some proposals to be put forth to minimize this from happening again? I mean, there are some Presidents that weren't lifetime politicians that turned out to be great. And some that were just not. Is 5 years of civil service of some sort a minimum mandatory from this point forward? Some basic social studies classes? Must not have had a reality TV show or be an actor/musician?
|
On May 21 2017 01:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 00:55 zlefin wrote:On May 21 2017 00:40 riotjune wrote:
Yea it's not cool being American right now. We will forever look back on this past election as a sore spot in our history and cringe to ourselves "Damn we fucked up bad!" like with Vietnam and other stuff since. indeed. I do wish more politicians had put up proposals to prevent things like this from happening in the future; but either they don't, or we just can't hear about them because the crazy is sucking up all the airtime. What would be some proposals to be put forth to minimize this from happening again? I mean, there are some Presidents that weren't lifetime politicians that turned out to be great. And some that were just not. Is 5 years of civil service of some sort a minimum mandatory from this point forward? Some basic social studies classes? Must not have had a reality TV show or be an actor/musician?
All of them before trump were politicians or soldiers .
|
On May 21 2017 01:25 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 01:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 21 2017 00:55 zlefin wrote:On May 21 2017 00:40 riotjune wrote:
Yea it's not cool being American right now. We will forever look back on this past election as a sore spot in our history and cringe to ourselves "Damn we fucked up bad!" like with Vietnam and other stuff since. indeed. I do wish more politicians had put up proposals to prevent things like this from happening in the future; but either they don't, or we just can't hear about them because the crazy is sucking up all the airtime. What would be some proposals to be put forth to minimize this from happening again? I mean, there are some Presidents that weren't lifetime politicians that turned out to be great. And some that were just not. Is 5 years of civil service of some sort a minimum mandatory from this point forward? Some basic social studies classes? Must not have had a reality TV show or be an actor/musician? All of them before trump were politicians or soldiers .
You know what I meant. Is there a way to stop an aberration from happening again like this? Or do we just roll with the punches and take our chances?
|
On May 21 2017 01:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 01:25 Nevuk wrote:On May 21 2017 01:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 21 2017 00:55 zlefin wrote:On May 21 2017 00:40 riotjune wrote:
Yea it's not cool being American right now. We will forever look back on this past election as a sore spot in our history and cringe to ourselves "Damn we fucked up bad!" like with Vietnam and other stuff since. indeed. I do wish more politicians had put up proposals to prevent things like this from happening in the future; but either they don't, or we just can't hear about them because the crazy is sucking up all the airtime. What would be some proposals to be put forth to minimize this from happening again? I mean, there are some Presidents that weren't lifetime politicians that turned out to be great. And some that were just not. Is 5 years of civil service of some sort a minimum mandatory from this point forward? Some basic social studies classes? Must not have had a reality TV show or be an actor/musician? All of them before trump were politicians or soldiers . You know what I meant. Is there a way to stop an aberration from happening again like this? Or do we just roll with the punches and take our chances?
Implement a test you need to pass before being able to run. Have 10k or so questions and randomly give 100 of them on the test day. If they memorize all of them and pass through that you have educated them somewhat and if they pass on their background you have a good candidate.
In a similar vein to language and knowledge tests for citizenship in some places.
|
On May 21 2017 01:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 01:25 Nevuk wrote:On May 21 2017 01:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 21 2017 00:55 zlefin wrote:On May 21 2017 00:40 riotjune wrote:
Yea it's not cool being American right now. We will forever look back on this past election as a sore spot in our history and cringe to ourselves "Damn we fucked up bad!" like with Vietnam and other stuff since. indeed. I do wish more politicians had put up proposals to prevent things like this from happening in the future; but either they don't, or we just can't hear about them because the crazy is sucking up all the airtime. What would be some proposals to be put forth to minimize this from happening again? I mean, there are some Presidents that weren't lifetime politicians that turned out to be great. And some that were just not. Is 5 years of civil service of some sort a minimum mandatory from this point forward? Some basic social studies classes? Must not have had a reality TV show or be an actor/musician? All of them before trump were politicians or soldiers . You know what I meant. Is there a way to stop an aberration from happening again like this? Or do we just roll with the punches and take our chances?
Getting rid of the two party system and the imperial presidency should do the trick. I mean, the USA is like 25 the population of the Netherlands and our head of government has way less relative power and there is almost no chance the PVV (our resident far-right party) could somehow gain majority control of any aspect of government.
|
take it as a learning experience. I don't think there's anything to prevent this form happening. Even if you have that 5 years of civil service requirement I don't think for a second that that would be something that really prepares someone for the job. Very little probably does.
I personally think we've taken a lesson from Trump over here at least. I think a lot of people expected LePen to do a fair bit better in the second round in france. Maybe not win the whole thing but people thought it could get close.
In germany we had the elections in NRW the other day (the most populous federal state in Germany) and everyone was talking about how it was a huge loss for the center-left SPD and how Merkel's CDU really succeeded in getting their voters to show up more than any other party.
I'd say there's a good chance Trump was a wake-up call for a lot of less polarized people going "woah, this shit can actually happen [and miracles like him suddenly turning presidential don't usually happen]" when they didn't use to care about politics before.
|
On May 21 2017 01:42 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2017 01:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 21 2017 01:25 Nevuk wrote:On May 21 2017 01:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 21 2017 00:55 zlefin wrote:On May 21 2017 00:40 riotjune wrote:
Yea it's not cool being American right now. We will forever look back on this past election as a sore spot in our history and cringe to ourselves "Damn we fucked up bad!" like with Vietnam and other stuff since. indeed. I do wish more politicians had put up proposals to prevent things like this from happening in the future; but either they don't, or we just can't hear about them because the crazy is sucking up all the airtime. What would be some proposals to be put forth to minimize this from happening again? I mean, there are some Presidents that weren't lifetime politicians that turned out to be great. And some that were just not. Is 5 years of civil service of some sort a minimum mandatory from this point forward? Some basic social studies classes? Must not have had a reality TV show or be an actor/musician? All of them before trump were politicians or soldiers . You know what I meant. Is there a way to stop an aberration from happening again like this? Or do we just roll with the punches and take our chances? Implement a test you need to pass before being able to run. Have 10k or so questions and randomly give 100 of them on the test day. If they memorize all of them and pass through that you have educated them somewhat and if they pass on their background you have a good candidate. In a similar vein to language and knowledge tests for citizenship in some places.
i feel that it's reasonable to do that for candidates, though we should probably stay away from any sort of tests for voting. literacy tests were a really bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
