|
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 June 24 2017 09:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 08:52 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 08:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Do we actually know what's in the Senate bill yet? Last I heard the contents were still secret from the general public.
Also, Clinton's, Bernie's, and Warren's tweets on the matter are really stupid. Danglars is absolutely correct when he says they are helping Trump's 2020 campaign. Their words are better advertising for Trump's style than anything that Trump could ever say.
The only effective Dem response about healthcare bill I've seen so far comes from Joe Biden. If Democrats want to win elections, they should look to him for guidance. I think we do, iirc someone posted a full text aways back in the thread; but maybe that was just a working copy. those tweets do have some issues; but they're not counterfactual, which is something at least. they may not play well amongst republicans, but they do play well amongst the democrats, so they do so because it's in their individual interest to look like they're fighting trump. Great point. "Look like." Therein lies the problem. If they actually wanted to fight Trump, they could retweet the AFLCIO or Biden. Or write 140 characters expressing the same sentiments. Instead, their actions are Trump's greatest asset. Why? Because I know a lot of Trump voters, and I don't know anyone who voted for Trump because they thought he was a genius. They voted for him because of this: "The Outsider, Donald Trump, has arrived to clean house! You don’t have to agree with him! You don’t even have to like him! He is your personal Molotov cocktail to throw right into the center of the bastards who did this to you! SEND A MESSAGE! TRUMP IS YOUR MESSENGER!" - Michael Moore And when those Trump voters see "death party" it just reinforces that they made the right choice.
Yes, it's a tragedy of the commons situation, there's no good answer to it. individual defection is too valuable for the larger strategy ot be maintained. I full well know it can be an asset to trump voters; extremists feed off each other, each one justifying the others' existence.
also those Trump voters are idiots; but that's nothing new, still quite sad though, it also ofc makes them assholes. The dynamics that lead to increasing partisanship and vitriol have been quite well studied; it's why my preferred solution is to alter the inputs that lead to a partisan dynamic. change the dynamics and the solutions will work themselves out.
|
On June 24 2017 09:20 Danglars wrote:I want to see the same people accusing Trump of divulging classified info to the Russians argue WaPo is doing just great here. I'm sure Putin appreciates knowing precisely which tools are at the US's disposal + Show Spoiler +but I'd have to ask LegaLord lol
I think WaPo's disclosure of NSA attempts to plant trojans in Russian critical infrastructure is totally wrong. I think Trump's divulging of info was also totally wrong. I'm at least consistent.
That being said, I'm not surprised in the least at this news. More importantly, I would bet any amount of money that Putin was already looking for exploits to Russian critical infrastructure, because of a little something called Nitro Zeus.
|
On June 24 2017 09:31 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 09:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2017 08:50 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2017 08:29 LuckyFool wrote:On June 24 2017 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2017 08:22 Danglars wrote:On June 24 2017 08:09 Doodsmack wrote:
I'm loving this new era of civility. Let's tiptoe right to the edge of calling the GOP murderers right after one almost got assassinated by a Berniebro. Are you denying people will die as a result of the Republican "healthcare" bill? Because that would seem like a counterfactual claim. Also "Berniebro" roflmao. Darn those Republicans for not supporting healthcare that will let people live forever. I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or just a piss-poor rejoinder. On June 24 2017 08:31 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2017 06:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This man should be fired for that terrible pun (?). That said, I'd bet it is slightly more substantive without reporters thinking they can make the evening news by peppering Spicer with silly Russia questions. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ I know Trump is a terrible president by practically every measure, but I'm curious what supporters of Hillary think her first ~150 days would have looked like. Would she have accomplished anything? If so, what? Presumably she would have done a better job at filling departments with cronies, but besides that, would she have been any more effective at passing her agenda than Trump? What parts? Assuming congress otherwise had the composition it does now; filling departments with competent people would be the main thing. the claim of them being filled with cronies is unfounded hate, not surprising coming from you though. I'd assume no major legislative accomplishments, as lacking control of congress it's hard to get such through. I don't think it's enough time for her to do the kind of backroom wrangling she's better at it to get something done legislatively. I'd assume the republicans put forth a bunch fo dumb symbolic bills that she then vetoes. Alot of her agenda would be continuing what Obama was doing, which is rather easier to do than changing laws. most of the benefits wouldn't be highly apparent for some time; competent administration is good for a country, but the benefits are generally slow to accumulate and not very visible; much like decent preventative measures. of course mostly the good part would not be not being the shitshow that is trump  Are you being intentionally dense? You know what the word crony means right? Or you think she would be filling positions with strangers of which she knew nothing of their loyalty? This isn't even a crack on her, it's what every president has always done. But the answer seems to be nothing. Considering Democrats are struggling despite having Trump and the walking shit-show the Republicans are in power I think it's fair to say that Democrats would be in even worse shape going into 18 and even less likely to change the house so essentially she wouldn't pass anything for 4 years (like I said during the primary). Democrats strategy of running on damage mitigation is a loser and will continue to be a loser until they realize it's a loser and change strategies. no, you're the one being intentionally dense. crony has clear negative connotations that are unjustified in this instance, as you full well know. it's also false that all presidents only fill positions with cronies, as you also full well know. It's also pretty clear I didn't say nothing, so that's just you strawmanning. don't ask the question if you're going ot pretend the answer is something other than what it is; and lie about what people said. you're not in a position to complain about strategy when you can't even get basic argumentation right. What negative connotations does crony have and in what way is it unjustified? I didn't say she would only fill positions with cronies so that's an argument against one I never made. You did say nothing, you said the big thing would be essentially doing nothing. I was wondering if there was some substantive progress she would have made and so far the answer is no, she had no plan to do anything and her supporters saying Bernie's inability to compromise would have inhibited his ability to make change was basically hot air as they never expected Hillary to get anything done. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/25165/does-using-the-word-crony-necessitate-a-negative-connotationhttps://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cronyhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cronyin modern American english, crony has significant negative connotations. Not making negative progress is a pretty good thing; and the point of comparison here was to Trump, not to Bernie. So you don't get to randomly bring in Bernie, cuz that wasn't the choice presented for the discussion. She had TONS of plans to do things, as you darn well konw, and saying otherwise is just you lying again. I'd expect Hillary to get things done positively if the Dems position in congress was stronger, as it turns out it isn't; and my entire statement you just responded to was SPECIFICALY premised on IF the congressional situation was the same as it is now. Bernie may've had issues even with Dem control of Congress; but Bernie still isn't that relevant for the comparison here anyways. Saynig that what I said was essentially nothign is a flat out lie, I reread my statement quite exactingly, and it's not at all close to "nothing" So you're strawmanning again, if you're gonna lie, shitpost, and strawman, just don't post at all.
lol. Yeah saying a politician (who lied repeatedly during the campaign) and her friends might be less than completely honest, totally out of place... Do we live in the same US?
I didn't "randomly" bring Bernie in. I referenced a very specific argument from the Primary that I thought was bullshit then and has now been confirmed as bullshit.
I'd expect pockets full of gold if I shit bullion, both were not the reality in which the argument was made.
So I'm still reading you as saying her not stopping Obama era policies would be her big accomplishment. AKA nothing.
Put another way, what would she have preserved that Bernie wouldn't have (besides increased escalations in Syria and a few other middle eastern countries)?
|
On June 24 2017 09:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 09:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On June 24 2017 08:52 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 08:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Do we actually know what's in the Senate bill yet? Last I heard the contents were still secret from the general public.
Also, Clinton's, Bernie's, and Warren's tweets on the matter are really stupid. Danglars is absolutely correct when he says they are helping Trump's 2020 campaign. Their words are better advertising for Trump's style than anything that Trump could ever say.
The only effective Dem response about healthcare bill I've seen so far comes from Joe Biden. If Democrats want to win elections, they should look to him for guidance. I think we do, iirc someone posted a full text aways back in the thread; but maybe that was just a working copy. those tweets do have some issues; but they're not counterfactual, which is something at least. they may not play well amongst republicans, but they do play well amongst the democrats, so they do so because it's in their individual interest to look like they're fighting trump. Great point. "Look like." Therein lies the problem. If they actually wanted to fight Trump, they could retweet the AFLCIO or Biden. Or write 140 characters expressing the same sentiments. Instead, their actions are Trump's greatest asset. Why? Because I know a lot of Trump voters, and I don't know anyone who voted for Trump because they thought he was a genius. They voted for him because of this: "The Outsider, Donald Trump, has arrived to clean house! You don’t have to agree with him! You don’t even have to like him! He is your personal Molotov cocktail to throw right into the center of the bastards who did this to you! SEND A MESSAGE! TRUMP IS YOUR MESSENGER!" - Michael Moore And when those Trump voters see "death party" it just reinforces that they made the right choice. Yes, it's a tragedy of the commons situation, there's no good answer to it. individual defection is too valuable for the larger strategy ot be maintained. I full well know it can be an asset to trump voters; extremists feed off each other, each one justifying the others' existence. also those Trump voters are idiots; but that's nothing new, still quite sad though, it also ofc makes them assholes. The dynamics that lead to increasing partisanship and vitriol have been quite well studied; it's why my preferred solution is to alter the inputs that lead to a partisan dynamic. change the dynamics and the solutions will work themselves out.
What are you talking about, tragedy of the commons? I don't see how that applies here at all.
I have an answer to the problems that the Dem party is facing, and it is very simple. You want to win elections? Look to the examples set by Bill Clinton and to a lesser extent Joe Biden. Try for some of that Slick Willie charm instead of the Biden gaffe machine. (Don't worry if you aren't as charming as Bill was in his heyday; you're facing Donald Trump aka the most disliked candidate in US presidential history.) You want to lose elections? Continue down the road of extreme identity politics and culture wars. Keep smearing all of your opponents as racist, sexist, and evil.
|
I'd like to make a public announcement for the good of anyone reading this thread: Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor are total frauds.
The British press already knows that Mensch is a fraud. "Giving... Louise Mensch Twitter access is like giving a machine gun to a chimpanzee" because "it’s something you could see yielding a few laughs but inevitably it’s going to get out of hand."
|
So, you admit that Bernie would have filled the office with cronies of questionable honesty then? and that he himself is one?
You may be thinking of that argument all the time, but we aren't, you didn't mention Bernie, and made the issue a comparison to Trump, then changed.
I also specifically said she'd do a lot of decent background work, which matters a lot to the essential functioning of government, but is not that visible. which is very much not nothing, so you're sitll strawmanning.
Bernie would've screwed up some in foreign policy, cuz his foreign policy chops are known to be quite waek.
I answered the questoin that you in fact ASKED, not the different question which you're now shifting to afterwards.
|
On June 24 2017 09:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 09:35 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 09:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On June 24 2017 08:52 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 08:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Do we actually know what's in the Senate bill yet? Last I heard the contents were still secret from the general public.
Also, Clinton's, Bernie's, and Warren's tweets on the matter are really stupid. Danglars is absolutely correct when he says they are helping Trump's 2020 campaign. Their words are better advertising for Trump's style than anything that Trump could ever say.
The only effective Dem response about healthcare bill I've seen so far comes from Joe Biden. If Democrats want to win elections, they should look to him for guidance. I think we do, iirc someone posted a full text aways back in the thread; but maybe that was just a working copy. those tweets do have some issues; but they're not counterfactual, which is something at least. they may not play well amongst republicans, but they do play well amongst the democrats, so they do so because it's in their individual interest to look like they're fighting trump. Great point. "Look like." Therein lies the problem. If they actually wanted to fight Trump, they could retweet the AFLCIO or Biden. Or write 140 characters expressing the same sentiments. Instead, their actions are Trump's greatest asset. Why? Because I know a lot of Trump voters, and I don't know anyone who voted for Trump because they thought he was a genius. They voted for him because of this: "The Outsider, Donald Trump, has arrived to clean house! You don’t have to agree with him! You don’t even have to like him! He is your personal Molotov cocktail to throw right into the center of the bastards who did this to you! SEND A MESSAGE! TRUMP IS YOUR MESSENGER!" - Michael Moore And when those Trump voters see "death party" it just reinforces that they made the right choice. Yes, it's a tragedy of the commons situation, there's no good answer to it. individual defection is too valuable for the larger strategy ot be maintained. I full well know it can be an asset to trump voters; extremists feed off each other, each one justifying the others' existence. also those Trump voters are idiots; but that's nothing new, still quite sad though, it also ofc makes them assholes. The dynamics that lead to increasing partisanship and vitriol have been quite well studied; it's why my preferred solution is to alter the inputs that lead to a partisan dynamic. change the dynamics and the solutions will work themselves out. What are you talking about, tragedy of the commons? I don't see how that applies here at all. I have an answer to the problems that the Dem party is facing, and it is very simple. You want to win elections? Look to the examples set by Bill Clinton and to a lesser extent Joe Biden. Try for some of that Slick Willie charm instead of the Biden gaffe machine. (Don't worry if you aren't as charming as Bill was in his heyday; you're facing Donald Trump aka the most disliked candidate in US presidential history.) You want to lose elections? Continue down the road of extreme identity politics and culture wars. Keep smearing all of your opponents as racist, sexist, and evil.
The most effective strategy for the Dems as a group is to not go so hard after Trump (which lets his supporters feel under attack and makes them defensive); and instead let him collapse on his own. However an individual Dem who's vocally anti-trump will get coverage (which is valuable), and increased support from Democratic voters happy that someone is standing up to Trump. Thus it's in the interest of an individual Dem to defect from the strategy and be more strongly anti-Trump. thus it's tragedy of the commons aka prisoners dilemma - it's advantageous to defect from the strategy. If a Dem isn't anti-trump enough, they risk losing a primary to a more vocal anti-trump person; the effect of primaries pushing partisanship.
The dems don't practice extreme identity politics, that's a canard, only some identity politics, and not much more than Republicans do; culture wars, somewhat, no moreso than the Republicans do though again.
that siad, I'm fully aware of the strategic implications you're getitng at; but I'm not in a position to apply a better strategy; and even then there are limits due to the aforementioned individual incentives.
it'd also be nice if the opponents weren't so evil in practice
|
On June 24 2017 09:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
I'd like to make a public announcement for the good of anyone reading this thread: Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor are total frauds.
The British press already knows that Mensch is a fraud. "Giving... Louise Mensch Twitter access is like giving a machine gun to a chimpanzee" because "it’s something you could see yielding a few laughs but inevitably it’s going to get out of hand."
I've always said friends don't let friends retweet Louise Mensch.
|
On June 24 2017 09:46 zlefin wrote:
So, you admit that Bernie would have filled the office with cronies of questionable honesty then? and that he himself is one?
You may be thinking of that argument all the time, but we aren't, you didn't mention Bernie, and made the issue a comparison to Trump, then changed.
I also specifically said she'd do a lot of decent background work, which matters a lot to the essential functioning of government, but is not that visible. which is very much not nothing, so you're sitll strawmanning.
Bernie would've screwed up some in foreign policy, cuz his foreign policy chops are known to be quite waek.
I answered the questoin that you in fact ASKED, not the different question which you're now shifting to afterwards.
Yeah, pretty much, though his cronies are exponentially better people than hers. Not sure who's crony you're saying Bernie would be, but he's not perfect, despite the presumption that folks like myself think so.
Ah of course the "decent background work" whatever the hell that means? You do remember the state department under her guidance right? The one that had countless unaddressed problems that remained unaddressed throughout her tenure? The disaster that was/is Libya? I know people presume that because she's well informed that she's a great executor, but I think the campaign, where no one knew better exactly what she needed to do to win than her and her staff shows that she's not quite as good at the turning knowledge into action part.
So presuming you could describe what this "background work" was, I don't take at face value the idea that she would have been making any significant progress, nor do I consider staving off regression an accomplishment of significance.
I'm curious what error you would see Bernie making that would be worse than the war in Syria Hillary advocates?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 24 2017 09:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
I'd like to make a public announcement for the good of anyone reading this thread: Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor are total frauds.
The British press already knows that Mensch is a fraud. "Giving... Louise Mensch Twitter access is like giving a machine gun to a chimpanzee" because "it’s something you could see yielding a few laughs but inevitably it’s going to get out of hand."
And yet the necessity of having a proper dose of "fuck Russia, facts be damned" in one's day gives these frauds a platform. I have seen plenty of folks even on this forum defending them.
|
gh ->
I do remember the state department; and I know there were issues, as well as some considerable successes like the Iran deal.
I know your hatedom for her makes it hard for you to see that.
I see no basis to conclude his cronies are better than hers; nor am I inclined to accept your use of the word cronies as being legitimate in either case anyways.
If you're poorly informed, you tend to do an even worse job at the basic executive work, witness - trump.
I don't care what you take at face value or not; that is irrelevant to your ever shifting questions and moving goalposts.
I'm done talking to you for now, unless you own up to your strawmanning, there's no point in further discussion.
|
On June 24 2017 10:02 zlefin wrote:
gh ->
I do remember the state department; and I know there were issues, as well as some considerable successes like the Iran deal.
I know your hatedom for her makes it hard for you to see that.
I see no basis to conclude his cronies are better than hers; nor am I inclined to accept your use of the word cronies as being legitimate in either case anyways.
If you're poorly informed, you tend to do an even worse job at the basic executive work, witness - trump.
I don't care what you take at face value or not; that is irrelevant to your ever shifting questions and moving goalposts.
I'm done talking to you for now, unless you own up to your strawmanning, there's no point in further discussion.
lol if what I have is "hatedom" what you're displaying can only be described as hopelessly sycophantic. We can call the cronies a wash since you seem to think politicians are upstanding honest people, even when they consistently lie to your face.
We use the word "tend" because it's not simple cause and effect, one can be well informed and terrible, or ill-informed and great. I think there is ample evidence of both Hillary's depth of knowledge (outside of technology) and her incompetent execution.
You actually tried to use her basic non-involvement in the Iran deal as your mark of her success at state? Like really?
I don't know what kind of formal debate you thought you were involved in, but I was having what I thought to be a conversation/discussion. These are known to vary in topic and breadth from moment to moment.
|
On June 24 2017 09:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 09:35 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 09:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On June 24 2017 08:52 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 08:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Do we actually know what's in the Senate bill yet? Last I heard the contents were still secret from the general public.
Also, Clinton's, Bernie's, and Warren's tweets on the matter are really stupid. Danglars is absolutely correct when he says they are helping Trump's 2020 campaign. Their words are better advertising for Trump's style than anything that Trump could ever say.
The only effective Dem response about healthcare bill I've seen so far comes from Joe Biden. If Democrats want to win elections, they should look to him for guidance. I think we do, iirc someone posted a full text aways back in the thread; but maybe that was just a working copy. those tweets do have some issues; but they're not counterfactual, which is something at least. they may not play well amongst republicans, but they do play well amongst the democrats, so they do so because it's in their individual interest to look like they're fighting trump. Great point. "Look like." Therein lies the problem. If they actually wanted to fight Trump, they could retweet the AFLCIO or Biden. Or write 140 characters expressing the same sentiments. Instead, their actions are Trump's greatest asset. Why? Because I know a lot of Trump voters, and I don't know anyone who voted for Trump because they thought he was a genius. They voted for him because of this: "The Outsider, Donald Trump, has arrived to clean house! You don’t have to agree with him! You don’t even have to like him! He is your personal Molotov cocktail to throw right into the center of the bastards who did this to you! SEND A MESSAGE! TRUMP IS YOUR MESSENGER!" - Michael Moore And when those Trump voters see "death party" it just reinforces that they made the right choice. Yes, it's a tragedy of the commons situation, there's no good answer to it. individual defection is too valuable for the larger strategy ot be maintained. I full well know it can be an asset to trump voters; extremists feed off each other, each one justifying the others' existence. also those Trump voters are idiots; but that's nothing new, still quite sad though, it also ofc makes them assholes. The dynamics that lead to increasing partisanship and vitriol have been quite well studied; it's why my preferred solution is to alter the inputs that lead to a partisan dynamic. change the dynamics and the solutions will work themselves out. What are you talking about, tragedy of the commons? I don't see how that applies here at all. I have an answer to the problems that the Dem party is facing, and it is very simple. You want to win elections? Look to the examples set by Bill Clinton and to a lesser extent Joe Biden. Try for some of that Slick Willie charm instead of the Biden gaffe machine. (Don't worry if you aren't as charming as Bill was in his heyday; you're facing Donald Trump aka the most disliked candidate in US presidential history.) You want to lose elections? Continue down the road of extreme identity politics and culture wars. Keep smearing all of your opponents as racist, sexist, and evil.
Your statement is based on the assumption that the USA elections in 2017 were actually legitimate democratic elections.
If any one of these things didn't occur and flawlessly damage the election process, Hillary Clinton would be president.
Literally ALL of these had to happen along with a perfect storm to have Clinton lose.
1) Comey speaks out a week before election and falsely reopens Clinton investigation to damage credibility.
2) Everything Russia did that we know and that we don't know.
3) MASSIVE, MASSIVE, voter suppression via "interstate crosscheck", google interstate crosscheck, greg palast, best democracy money can buy.
4) Pick a candidate like Hillary Clinton and have a candidate lose the primary like Bernie Sanders lose the primary (also leak that the dems played favorites and tilted the scales).
All of this and many more little things that allow someone like Trump to come and ride the wave Bernie started as the non-mainstream option.
|
On June 24 2017 09:26 Gorsameth wrote:You must be new at this. Your supposed to bait us into saying that the article is fine. not outright state it would be hypocracy. But since you asked. No I dont think the WaPo should be releasing such articles. Esp when I dont see what the point of release it us. Pressure Trump into making use of it?
On June 24 2017 09:35 TheLordofAwesome wrote:I think WaPo's disclosure of NSA attempts to plant trojans in Russian critical infrastructure is totally wrong. I think Trump's divulging of info was also totally wrong. I'm at least consistent. That being said, I'm not surprised in the least at this news. More importantly, I would bet any amount of money that Putin was already looking for exploits to Russian critical infrastructure, because of a little something called Nitro Zeus.
Thank you both for applying a consistent principle.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 24 2017 09:31 LegalLord wrote:I'm on the line with Putin right now - he is grateful for the support he gets from the #resistance over the past five months. Tell him my checks late for defending his puppet. Have Kislyak drop it off in the hotel room or something.
|
On June 24 2017 10:50 ShambhalaWar wrote:
If any one of these things didn't occur and flawlessly damage the election process, Hillary Clinton would be president.
Literally ALL of these had to happen along with a perfect storm to have Clinton lose.
1) Comey speaks out a week before election and falsely reopens Clinton investigation to damage credibility.
2) Everything Russia did that we know and that we don't know.
3) MASSIVE, MASSIVE, voter suppression via "interstate crosscheck", google interstate crosscheck, greg palast, best democracy money can buy.
4) Pick a candidate like Hillary Clinton and have a candidate lose the primary like Bernie Sanders lose the primary (also leak that the dems played favorites and tilted the scales).
All of this and many more little things that allow someone like Trump to come and ride the wave Bernie started as the non-mainstream option.
5) Spend a late advertising blitz on Texas rather than contesting Michigan and Wisconsin.
There's a lot of things that could have, independently, swung the election with the benefit of hindsight. Don't pin 100% of the blame on any one of them.
|
The only real difference Clinton would have made is Gorsuch would've been on the court. Not because the democrats would've nuked the filibuster, because GOP would have confirmed him to avoid a transgender judge from San Francisco or something absurd. There likely would have been a 50-50 or 51-,49 dem Senate. House would be the same. Nothing would've happened til 2018 when the house turned glowing bright red off running against Clinton and probably the senate too. Clinton would've been impeached by now, possibly even for legitimate reasons (though probably not). Impeachment would've become the new repeal the aca symbolic vote by the house, which the senate would grow increasingly annoyed with but been powerless to stop. They may have tried to weaponize Ted Cruz by forcing the house GOP to be around him.
All in all, it is a pretty dark timeline.
Would've been fewer diplomatic incidents though.
|
On June 24 2017 10:50 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 09:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On June 24 2017 09:35 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 09:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On June 24 2017 08:52 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 08:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
Do we actually know what's in the Senate bill yet? Last I heard the contents were still secret from the general public.
Also, Clinton's, Bernie's, and Warren's tweets on the matter are really stupid. Danglars is absolutely correct when he says they are helping Trump's 2020 campaign. Their words are better advertising for Trump's style than anything that Trump could ever say.
The only effective Dem response about healthcare bill I've seen so far comes from Joe Biden. If Democrats want to win elections, they should look to him for guidance. I think we do, iirc someone posted a full text aways back in the thread; but maybe that was just a working copy. those tweets do have some issues; but they're not counterfactual, which is something at least. they may not play well amongst republicans, but they do play well amongst the democrats, so they do so because it's in their individual interest to look like they're fighting trump. Great point. "Look like." Therein lies the problem. If they actually wanted to fight Trump, they could retweet the AFLCIO or Biden. Or write 140 characters expressing the same sentiments. Instead, their actions are Trump's greatest asset. Why? Because I know a lot of Trump voters, and I don't know anyone who voted for Trump because they thought he was a genius. They voted for him because of this: "The Outsider, Donald Trump, has arrived to clean house! You don’t have to agree with him! You don’t even have to like him! He is your personal Molotov cocktail to throw right into the center of the bastards who did this to you! SEND A MESSAGE! TRUMP IS YOUR MESSENGER!" - Michael Moore And when those Trump voters see "death party" it just reinforces that they made the right choice. Yes, it's a tragedy of the commons situation, there's no good answer to it. individual defection is too valuable for the larger strategy ot be maintained. I full well know it can be an asset to trump voters; extremists feed off each other, each one justifying the others' existence. also those Trump voters are idiots; but that's nothing new, still quite sad though, it also ofc makes them assholes. The dynamics that lead to increasing partisanship and vitriol have been quite well studied; it's why my preferred solution is to alter the inputs that lead to a partisan dynamic. change the dynamics and the solutions will work themselves out. What are you talking about, tragedy of the commons? I don't see how that applies here at all. I have an answer to the problems that the Dem party is facing, and it is very simple. You want to win elections? Look to the examples set by Bill Clinton and to a lesser extent Joe Biden. Try for some of that Slick Willie charm instead of the Biden gaffe machine. (Don't worry if you aren't as charming as Bill was in his heyday; you're facing Donald Trump aka the most disliked candidate in US presidential history.) You want to lose elections? Continue down the road of extreme identity politics and culture wars. Keep smearing all of your opponents as racist, sexist, and evil. Your statement is based on the assumption that the USA elections in 2017 were actually legitimate democratic elections. If any one of these things didn't occur and flawlessly damage the election process, Hillary Clinton would be president. Literally ALL of these had to happen along with a perfect storm to have Clinton lose. 1) Comey speaks out a week before election and falsely reopens Clinton investigation to damage credibility. 2) Everything Russia did that we know and that we don't know. 3) MASSIVE, MASSIVE, voter suppression via "interstate crosscheck", google interstate crosscheck, greg palast, best democracy money can buy. 4) Pick a candidate like Hillary Clinton and have a candidate lose the primary like Bernie Sanders lose the primary (also leak that the dems played favorites and tilted the scales). All of this and many more little things that allow someone like Trump to come and ride the wave Bernie started as the non-mainstream option.
Well 1 the election was in 2016 not 2017 2. comey announced that they had to reopen the investigation because they might have found new evidence. Do you not think that they found new evidence or that they didn't reopen the investigation? I don't see how democratically picked candidate (no matter how much the organization as a whole was tipping the scales) delegitimizes the election as a whole. Also just general "whatever russia did" isn't a real point its speculation. I'm sure Isreal has had an effect on US elections for the entirety of their existence but It doesn't delegitimizes the election.
The Idea that the election was illegitimate is whats keeping the democrats from moving on and capitalizing on trumps presidency. at this rate the 2018 elections are going to be a wash and god save us in 2020.
|
It has to be one of the most colorful, doubt ridden elections in US history. Bush v Gore got nothing on this shit. Claiming otherwise is just denying history. Trump won, but he sowed the seeds of doubt the entire way just in case he didn't And had Clinton won, we would see the exact same thing. Nevuk is right that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This is the brand of politics we have chosen for ourselves. Until both parties start running better candidates at all levels of government, this is what we get. The elite, monied liberals of Pelosi vs Rand loving Frat boys of Ryan. McConnell vs Schumer, in a death lock of shitty bills drafted in secret vs the dumbest floor sign in history.
|
On June 24 2017 11:38 Plansix wrote:
It has to be one of the most colorful, doubt ridden elections in US history. Bush v Gore got nothing on this shit. Claiming otherwise is just denying history. Trump won, but he sowed the seeds of doubt the entire way just in case he didn't And had Clinton won, we would see the exact same thing. Nevuk is right that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This is the brand of politics we have chosen for ourselves. Until both parties start running better candidates at all levels of government, this is what we get. The elite, monied liberals of Pelosi vs Rand loving Frat boys of Ryan. McConnell vs Schumer, in a death lock of shitty bills drafted in secret vs the dumbest floor sign in history.
If people truly want better candidates, they should vote for them more. We have what we have in considerable part because that's what people vote for.
|
On June 24 2017 11:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 11:38 Plansix wrote:
It has to be one of the most colorful, doubt ridden elections in US history. Bush v Gore got nothing on this shit. Claiming otherwise is just denying history. Trump won, but he sowed the seeds of doubt the entire way just in case he didn't And had Clinton won, we would see the exact same thing. Nevuk is right that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This is the brand of politics we have chosen for ourselves. Until both parties start running better candidates at all levels of government, this is what we get. The elite, monied liberals of Pelosi vs Rand loving Frat boys of Ryan. McConnell vs Schumer, in a death lock of shitty bills drafted in secret vs the dumbest floor sign in history. If people truly want better candidates, they should vote for them more. We have what we have in considerable part because that's what people vote for.
Yes, I did just say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
