|
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 27 2017 23:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 23:31 LegalLord wrote:On June 27 2017 23:20 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2017 23:15 LegalLord wrote:
Trump wasn't alone in normalizing corruption and lining one's own pockets ahead of the country, nor in potentially criminal incompetence. The politician formerly known as electable on the other side helped create an environment where that shit was acceptable, just as long as the opposition is just marginally more scummy. Trump didn't rise in a vacuum - and he keeps on winning because his opponents don't realize that people aren't blind to the fact that they are the same brand of scum, just with less power. So because Clinton did it first, how long do we have to wait until we can discuss Trump also doing it? Just give me a time frame we need to wait to become “Free of Sin” and your whataboutism is not long applicable. You first - how many times has the excuse for emails been, "but Colin Powell did it too!" or "but Republicans are scummy too so it's all justified in the grand scheme of things" or something of that sort? I know you like your clever little labels and the like - but there's plenty of "whataboutism" to go around if you want to play that game. If we're talking about how Trump is so bad and how everything he does is evil and Russian, we might as well mention the other side that has and continues to enable him. The Democrats can pride themselves in their string of "closer than they should have been" losses all day until they realize that the reason they keep losing to scum is because they themselves are scum - just a hell of a lot less competent at it. But you notice how after the election I took 90 days to think about shit and have attempted to be more critical of the democrats after the loss? And there is nothing clever about your attempts to bring up Clinton when the topic of the thread even has a whiff corruption associated with it. It became predictably banal months ago.
The result after 90 days was clearly a renewed effort to blame anyone and everyone for the disaster that happened - the Russians, the racists, the idiots who just don't know what they are doing, the scummy people who make up Trump's core - and so on.
Clinton continues to come up because she and her loyalists within the party refuse to let it go. Every single bad thing about Trump is tried to use to subtly allow other things to be swept under the rug. We're supposed to allow for dregs like Schiff, McCain, Schumer, Pelosi, and the like - because they oppose the dregs of Trump and loyalists. Yeah, no - we know how bad Trump is and rehashing it does no good if all it's used for is to try to enable another group of dregs who on balance are not much better, if at all.
But hey - blaming anyone and everyone for Trump and refusing to look in the mirror and see that the problem goes both ways is a staple of modern anti-Trump strategy. Sorry, he isn't quite bad enough for me to forget I hate the other side too.
|
don't bother with legal; people like pushing the clinton was highly corrupt narrative even though she was in fact not particularly profiteering; and at any rate to a far less degree than trump was. trying to blame clinton for people electing on overtly and far more corrupt Trump simply doens't hold. and a lot of the clinton corruption claims were of course false/fabricated/overblown, unlike the Trump ones.
claiming that clinton was normalizing corruption; pffft, only in the midns of the addled who believed things like clinton cash. which was promulgated as a smear tactic.
|
On June 27 2017 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 11:32 Adreme wrote:On June 27 2017 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
haha. Conservative, Democrat, what's the difference anyway ;P
Yeah I'm not as hardcore as some leftist (like you don't see me calling to abolish police every time they murder someone) but I'm increasingly sympathizing with more radical left positions, being bombarded with how incompetent and malicious both parties actually are.
Strictly from an apolitical "would you hire this person" perspective most of congress should be fired. I lose more and more patience with people who refuse to see that at this point.
Like I was pointing out earlier, our participation is a bipartisan failure of preserving a democracy. None of them should be excused from their responsibility in it's piss poor condition.
Trump is insatiably incompetent and somehow has spent his whole life and now the presidency making money hand over fist by lying to people, disappointing them, then getting them to buy his bullshit yet again. (for those who seem to miss my Trump criticisms). The thing is when you focus on what is actually possible you are left in a position where you have to ask "What were congressional democrats actually ABLE to do?" Not what should be done or what could be done but what is actually possible for them to do. For around a year they had a senate majority where they needed EVERY democrat in order to pass anything of substance, which considering what a few of them were its impossible to really do. So what else were they supposed to do that they did not do. I am sure it is different on a state by state basis but on a national level what exactly were the 95% of democratic congressmen supposed to do that they did not? I think it's sad people have resigned themselves to actually believing the lie that politicians are doing the best possible job given the circumstances. 10 minutes in a poor neighborhood followed by 10 minutes in a wealthy neighborhood should make it pretty clear we're REALLY far from our politicians doing the best they can with what they have. Unless the suggestion is that Democrats (and Republicans) can't help but be beholden to corporate interests because our system is so decrepit. Like who in the world actually believes the best that our politicians could "actually accomplish" was 40+ year old computer systems at the VA to slow down the ~20 veterans who kill themselves every day? Obviously they could have done better than that if they gave a shit. It's a matter of priorities and it's about time people see what our politicians priorities are. It's not what they say it is. EDIT: That Democrats can't beat Republicans isn't "aw that's how the cookie crumbles" it's a "how in the hell can they be so god damn awful at this!?"
I believe it because no one has pointed at a moment and said "they should have done this". Even in your post its not a "they should have done this" its more of a "why didnt they just win" and the answer to that is simple. People do not want to believe something that runs counter to there political beliefs and will search for a reason to not believe it. I knew multiple college educated republicans who believed that Obama was using a different metric for unemployment then Bush was and that was the only reason the numbers came down. They would not even listen to evidence to the contrary which could be easily provided.
How can you change the mind of people who will literally invent reasons that are wholly untrue in order to deny the successes that someone has?
|
I really don't understand the continued defense of Hillary. Let me remind y'all that Hillary lost to Trump. She lost to the guy whom y'all consider to be politically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. That says all you need to know about her quality as a person and a politician.
|
Losing a popularity contest maybe makes you a bad candidate, it doesn't make you crooked, corrupt or whatever... AND she lost, why is she brought up again and again?
|
On June 27 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
I really don't understand the continued defense of Hillary. Let me remind y'all that Hillary lost to Trump. She lost to the guy whom y'all consider to be politically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. That says all you need to know about her quality as a person and a politician.
Yes, Legal did succeed in turning the conversation to Hillary.
|
On June 27 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
I really don't understand the continued defense of Hillary. Let me remind y'all that Hillary lost to Trump. She lost to the guy whom y'all consider to be politically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. That says all you need to know about her quality as a person and a politician.
I believe it says more about the condition of American state, politics and society rather than Hillary herself. People like Trump (or worse) have won elections all over the world and that doesn't make their opponents automatically awful human beings.
|
On June 27 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
I really don't understand the continued defense of Hillary. Let me remind y'all that Hillary lost to Trump. She lost to the guy whom y'all consider to be politically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. That says all you need to know about her quality as a person and a politician.
It says something about Clinton's charisma for sure.
It also says something about ~50% of the voting public that voted for a political, intellectual and morally bankrupt person.
Yes Clinton should have run a better campaign, but that does not excuse Republican voters for voting for quite possibly the worst president in history.
As for your scenario. I would argue you could run, say Merkel against Trump in the US and she may well lose. Does that make her a worse person and politician? Or does that say something about the voting public in the US and the political situation in general?
|
Apparently OKeefe has released another video about CNN producers editing news. I'm sure this is the video where OKeefe stopped deceptively editing and outright fabricating lies. /s
However, be prepared for a new wave of ridiculous talking points from republicans.
|
United States44190 Posts
On June 27 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
I really don't understand the continued defense of Hillary. Let me remind y'all that Hillary lost to Trump. She lost to the guy whom y'all consider to be politically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. That says all you need to know about her quality as a person and a politician.
Ah yes, the world in which the quality of a person and a politician is judged by whether they become President and only the person who gets the second greatest share of the votes is judged worthy.
I think Trump is an awful person. I also acknowledge that he won the election. That doesn't mean that Hillary must, by definition, be a worse person. We must examine the facts, and the facts are that Clinton is a hell of a lot less corrupt than Trump.
|
On June 27 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
I really don't understand the continued defense of Hillary. Let me remind y'all that Hillary lost to Trump. She lost to the guy whom y'all consider to be politically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. That says all you need to know about her quality as a person and a politician.
Oh yes, end of discussion, that automatically makes Hillary worse than Trump no matter what, because the American voting populace is infallible.
I'm also noticing how the discussion in this thread is being turned strangely towards the Democrats and Hillary. Why focus on Trump and how corrupt/incompetent this administration is, when you can just bitch about liberals who aren't in power right now. That makes sense.
|
United States44190 Posts
On June 28 2017 00:02 Velr wrote:
Losing a popularity contest maybe makes you a bad candidate, it doesn't make you crooked, corrupt or whatever... AND she lost, why is she brought up again and again?
She actually won the popularity contest, for what it's worth. It's just the electoral college system isn't a popularity contest. That's one of the things that makes xDaunt's claim so odd.
|
Mitch McConnell is delivering an urgent missive to staffers, Republican senators and even the president himself: If Obamacare repeal fails this week, then the GOP will lose all leverage and be forced to work with Chuck Schumer.
President Donald Trump continued to float the possibility on Monday that Congress and the White House would simply let Obamacare’s individual markets collapse if the GOP’s repeal effort goes down later this week. But McConnell called up Trump recently, according to people with knowledge of the call, to deliver a reality check.
Voters expect Republicans to deliver on their long-held promise to repeal the law, McConnell said, according to those people. And failing to repeal the law would mean the GOP would lose its opportunity to do a partisan rewrite of the law that could scale back Medicaid spending, cut Obamacare’s taxes and repeal a host of industry mandates.
Instead, Republicans would be forced to enter into bipartisan negotiations with Democrats to save failing insurance markets.
McConnell delivered a similar missive Monday to Republican senators at his leadership meeting and to top GOP staffers, warning that Democrats will want to retain as much of Obamacare as possible in a bipartisan negotiation, according to Republican aides.
“If we fail, we’re going to be negotiating with Chuck Schumer,” said one Republican staffer.
McConnell’s motivational words are aimed at reviving support for his bill to repeal the health law through the party-line reconciliation method this week. GOP leaders are hunting for votes to even start debate on the bill, with at least four Republicans currently opposed to the legislation as written and many more undecided.
Republicans will have a party lunch on Tuesday that will offer a window into the repeal bill’s prospects and potential deal-making to be done.
McConnell still has about $188 billion in funds that he could use to shore up the bill’s support by offering Republicans money to fight opioid abuse, as well as several more proposals he could include to attract conservative support, particularly the expansion of health savings accounts to woo the party’s right flank.
The Senate is likely to vote on kicking off floor debate on the bill on Wednesday, though it could occur on Tuesday. Vice President Mike Pence will dine with wavering Republican senators on Tuesday night, which could boost the bill’s prospects for a Wednesday vote.
McConnell has told senators for weeks that he fears a failed repeal effort would be followed by a large bailout of the insurance industry that would be supported by moderate Republicans and Democrats, per people familiar with his thinking. And McConnell would be content to not touch Obamacare repeal again if this bill failed.
Trump has repeatedly weighed taking away cost-sharing subsidies and has privately told activists and administration officials that Democrats would own the failure of Obamacare and it could be a political boon for Republicans.
But some of his senior officials believe the White House would take at least some of the blame if markets imploded.
If the bill fails, Democratic leader Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his members would be empowered to negotiate with centrist Republicans to save the flailing markets. A trio of Democratic senators met with some Republicans earlier this spring to discuss a bipartisan proposal to shore up the nation’s health care system, but there are many elements of the GOP’s bill that those Democrats will not support.
“The price of admission for me sitting down with you is I’m not willing to per cap block grant Medicaid and eliminate Medicaid expansion,” said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), recalling her message to those Republicans.
Source
|
On June 27 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
I really don't understand the continued defense of Hillary. Let me remind y'all that Hillary lost to Trump. She lost to the guy whom y'all consider to be politically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. That says all you need to know about her quality as a person and a politician.
What does that say about the field of Republicans that he crushed? Are they all more politically, morally, intellectually bankrupt than Trump and that's why they lost?
|
And none of that has anything to do with Trump hosting pay to play events in his hotel like a modern day Taft.
|
sure the far left and the more or less morally bankrupt conservatives can pretend that everything that led to hillary's loss was completely and utterly her fault, sign of her moral turpitude, etc. or we could be honest and say that she had certain weaknesses and made a number of mistakes, but there were a ton of other factors beyond her control that impacted her candidacy, which when added up were just enough to put trump in the white house.
|
On June 28 2017 00:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Mitch McConnell is delivering an urgent missive to staffers, Republican senators and even the president himself: If Obamacare repeal fails this week, then the GOP will lose all leverage and be forced to work with Chuck Schumer.
President Donald Trump continued to float the possibility on Monday that Congress and the White House would simply let Obamacare’s individual markets collapse if the GOP’s repeal effort goes down later this week. But McConnell called up Trump recently, according to people with knowledge of the call, to deliver a reality check.
Voters expect Republicans to deliver on their long-held promise to repeal the law, McConnell said, according to those people. And failing to repeal the law would mean the GOP would lose its opportunity to do a partisan rewrite of the law that could scale back Medicaid spending, cut Obamacare’s taxes and repeal a host of industry mandates.
Instead, Republicans would be forced to enter into bipartisan negotiations with Democrats to save failing insurance markets.
McConnell delivered a similar missive Monday to Republican senators at his leadership meeting and to top GOP staffers, warning that Democrats will want to retain as much of Obamacare as possible in a bipartisan negotiation, according to Republican aides.
“If we fail, we’re going to be negotiating with Chuck Schumer,” said one Republican staffer.
McConnell’s motivational words are aimed at reviving support for his bill to repeal the health law through the party-line reconciliation method this week. GOP leaders are hunting for votes to even start debate on the bill, with at least four Republicans currently opposed to the legislation as written and many more undecided.
Republicans will have a party lunch on Tuesday that will offer a window into the repeal bill’s prospects and potential deal-making to be done.
McConnell still has about $188 billion in funds that he could use to shore up the bill’s support by offering Republicans money to fight opioid abuse, as well as several more proposals he could include to attract conservative support, particularly the expansion of health savings accounts to woo the party’s right flank.
The Senate is likely to vote on kicking off floor debate on the bill on Wednesday, though it could occur on Tuesday. Vice President Mike Pence will dine with wavering Republican senators on Tuesday night, which could boost the bill’s prospects for a Wednesday vote.
McConnell has told senators for weeks that he fears a failed repeal effort would be followed by a large bailout of the insurance industry that would be supported by moderate Republicans and Democrats, per people familiar with his thinking. And McConnell would be content to not touch Obamacare repeal again if this bill failed.
Trump has repeatedly weighed taking away cost-sharing subsidies and has privately told activists and administration officials that Democrats would own the failure of Obamacare and it could be a political boon for Republicans.
But some of his senior officials believe the White House would take at least some of the blame if markets imploded.
If the bill fails, Democratic leader Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his members would be empowered to negotiate with centrist Republicans to save the flailing markets. A trio of Democratic senators met with some Republicans earlier this spring to discuss a bipartisan proposal to shore up the nation’s health care system, but there are many elements of the GOP’s bill that those Democrats will not support.
“The price of admission for me sitting down with you is I’m not willing to per cap block grant Medicaid and eliminate Medicaid expansion,” said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), recalling her message to those Republicans. Source
bipartisanship! compromise! oh the humanity!
|
On June 28 2017 00:07 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
I really don't understand the continued defense of Hillary. Let me remind y'all that Hillary lost to Trump. She lost to the guy whom y'all consider to be politically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. That says all you need to know about her quality as a person and a politician. Oh yes, end of discussion, that automatically makes Hillary worse than Trump no matter what, because the American voting populace is infallible. I'm also noticing how the discussion in this thread is being turned strangely towards the Democrats and Hillary. Why focus on Trump and how corrupt/incompetent this administration is, when you can just bitch about liberals who aren't in power right now. That makes sense.
The thread moves this way because there are two camps. One camp is not willing to discus anything related towards Trump.
The other camp is willing to talk about both sides.
So anything related to Trump is one side circle-jerking eachother. And anything related to the Democrats and Hillary has actual back and forth which makes it seem more 'interesting'.
|
United States44190 Posts
On June 28 2017 00:07 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
I really don't understand the continued defense of Hillary. Let me remind y'all that Hillary lost to Trump. She lost to the guy whom y'all consider to be politically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt. That says all you need to know about her quality as a person and a politician. Oh yes, end of discussion, that automatically makes Hillary worse than Trump no matter what, because the American voting populace is infallible.
American voting populace voted for Hillary. Electoral college voted for Trump.
|
McConnell is also the guy who laughed at people pushing to blow up the filibuster for normal bills. I can’t tell if that is a threat or a way out for moderate Republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
