US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8040

On July 10 2017 00:45 a_flayer wrote:

What do you mean? It's kind of like getting someone from Citigroup or Goldman Sachs to run the US Treasury. You get an expert in the field who knows exactly what's up, with no ulterior motives.

On July 10 2017 01:07 LegalLord wrote:

You could make the exact same argument for Russia, or Comey, or deplorables, or whatever the fuck else you want. The bottom line is this: it should not have been close, it should have been a blowout. Based on the relative policy positions Hillary was definitely better positioned to win. Given Trump's temperament and qualifications or lack thereof, he should have lost by at least a 5 percent margin. But it's not the tiny little things that caused her to be vulnerable - it's the large scale scumminess that opened the door to a mildly different kind of scum.

President Trump announced Saturday that the United States will pledge $50 million to a new World Bank initiative which his daughter Ivanka has helped to spearhead and will take a leading advocacy role going forward.

In applauding his daughter’s work in the creation of the new fund, which will aim to help women entrepreneurs in developing nations gain access to capital and connect them with mentors, the president suggested that his daughter’s life would be easier if not for him.

On July 10 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
So Saudi Arabia cares about women in entrepreneurship? Good for them, that's very generous of them to contribute to such a project.

Or are we playing the "pin endless vaguely suspicious things on Trump" again?

On July 10 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
So Saudi Arabia cares about women in entrepreneurship? Good for them, that's very generous of them to contribute to such a project

On July 10 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
So Saudi Arabia cares about women in entrepreneurship? Good for them, that's very generous of them to contribute to such a project.

Or are we playing the "pin endless vaguely suspicious things on Trump" again?

On July 10 2017 01:41 zlefin wrote:
and legal is back to harping on clinton falsely yet again; can't you just let it go legal?
clinton may have come up organically in the thread, but what you're doing is just bringing up the same ol' false spiel over and over, and it's very unhelpful and incredibly tiresome, and brings nothing new to the thread; all you do is force people to rehash the same old arguments over and over.

On July 10 2017 02:56 KwarK wrote:
The marginalized portion of middle America that the Democrats are struggling with view anyone but a "normal" President as the liberal elites trying to shove their progressive anti white male agenda down everyone's throats. The narrative matters, whether it's dumb or not. It's this weird reverse assumption of privilege, if a candidate who looks exactly like they expect a President to look like is pushed then clearly he must have earned it, whereas if a candidate who had to overcome some kind of societal discrimination through exceptional merit is pushed then clearly what is going on is that they don't really deserve it and are getting special treatment.

Can't reason with these folks.

President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.

The meeting was also attended by his campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner only recently disclosed the meeting, though not its content, in confidential government documents described to The New York Times.

...

In a statement on Sunday, Donald Trump Jr. said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. The law so enraged Mr. Putin that he retaliated by halting American adoptions of Russian children.

“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.” Mr. Trump said.

When he was first asked about the meeting on Saturday, he said only that it was primarily about adoptions and mentioned nothing about Mrs. Clinton.

On July 10 2017 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:


And yet the Democrats strategy is to try to win them over by balancing more racism with their brand of identity-politic. Democrats will fail in 2018 and 2020 if they don't pull their heads out.

On July 10 2017 06:09 KwarK wrote:

It is? You're the one pushing for them to go further into their circular progressive echo chamber and marginalize the idiots even further. I'm the one saying that they tried to do too much too fast and that a lot of the country needs to be led at the pace of their stupidest member with constant reinforcement that they're okay and that their place in society isn't being threatened.

In 2020 the Democrats need to think of what Michelle Obama as a candidate would look like, and then get whoever is the furthest from that they can find. 8 years of a black President has already pushed a lot of America out of their comfort zone, they need to be reassured that white male privilege isn't going anywhere anytime soon and that they're still basically on top. Trump's success is an example of that, Trump proves that no matter how incompetent, unqualified and generally vile an individual is, if he's born white, male and rich then the world is his oyster. Modern America is becoming an increasingly scary place for a lot of folks these days, what with women wearing pink hats and uppity negr Urban Americans filming cops. The Democrats have let their brand become associated with all that scary change, they need to do more to show that they're not interested in upsetting the racist patriarchy.

The problem isn't too much identity politics, it's that they didn't pander to the right group.

On July 10 2017 06:32 KwarK wrote:
The reality is that a lot of progressive change is a zero sum game. Whether it's real benefits they're losing, such as the ability to own someone else and benefit from their labour, de facto benefits they're losing, such as being overrepresented politically by denying the franchise to others, or just symbolic benefits, such as sitting at the front of the bus, what is being given to some Americans is being taken from others.

No getting around that. If folks in Alabama start allowing black people to vote then the political power of each white voter will be diminished through dilution. Whether it's right or not isn't important when you need to get people to vote for it, it's a tough sell.

On July 10 2017 06:32 KwarK wrote:
The reality is that a lot of progressive change is a zero sum game. Whether it's real benefits they're losing, such as the ability to own someone else and benefit from their labour, de facto benefits they're losing, such as being overrepresented politically by denying the franchise to others, or just symbolic benefits, such as sitting at the front of the bus, what is being given to some Americans is being taken from others.

No getting around that. If folks in Alabama start allowing black people to vote then the political power of each white voter will be diminished through dilution. Whether it's right or not isn't important when you need to get people to vote for it, it's a tough sell.