EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8062
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:21 KwarK wrote: Gore received a packet of Bush debate prep materials. He contacted the FBI, as he should have, rather than take advantage of the material without knowing its provenance. What Trump did is pretty new. The DNC made someone that slipped their candidate debate materials in a primary the interim chair, a lot has changed since 2000. I feel like I covered the "newness" with "far more sloppy" and "with modern flair". You remember what happened with that investigation (into the Bush debate leak)? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:35 Mohdoo wrote: lol you can always tell when p6 is on his phone Mafia 3 isn't going to play itself and I'm not gonna upstairs to post. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On July 12 2017 08:43 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Axios on whats next to come from the White House https://www.axios.com/inside-the-white-house-scramble-on-the-trump-jr-emails-2457466929.html Some bad things would happen if Trump did what Roger Stone proposed. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:44 Slaughter wrote: Some bad things would happen if Trump did what Roger Stone proposed. Isn't roger stone roughly alex jones levels of a nutjob? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell announced on Tuesday plans to delay the start of August recess by three weeks – cutting the break in half – in order for Republicans to complete work on a healthcare plan and other legislative items. Republicans on Capitol Hill are poised to unveil a revised healthcare bill later this week. McConnell cited other pressing matters, such as nominations stymied by Democratic opposition and the need to pass a defense authorization bill. “In order to provide more time to complete action on important legislative items and process nominees that have been stalled by a lack of cooperation from our friends across the aisle, the Senate will delay the start of the August recess until the third week of August,” the Kentucky senator said. The Senate was meant to start a five-week recess at the end of July, but a number of Republicans called for a delay amidst struggles within the party to reach a deal on healthcare. In a tweet on Monday, Donald Trump said: “I cannot imagine that Congress would dare to leave Washington without a beautiful new healthcare bill fully approved and ready to go!” McConnell outlined an ambitious timeline for the healthcare bill, saying he expected to hold a procedural vote by the end of next week. An updated draft will be released on Thursday, the Republican leader said, with a new Congressional Budget Office score following as early as Monday. As Republican leaders huddled with their members in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, the contours of the bill remained unclear. Senators kept mum when asked what revisions were laid out, many saying they would need to see a final product and an updated CBO score before taking a position. “From my perspective it is not sufficient to just make minor changes in the bill,” said Susan Collins of Maine, who was among the first to announce her opposition to the previous Senate healthcare plan. “I hope there’s going to be a complete overhaul, but I have no idea.” The initial version of the Senate bill, which the CBO projected would leave 22m Americans without insurance by 2026, left at least 10 Republicans opposed. Republicans hold 52 seats, meaning they can afford to lose just two votes if their bill is to pass with vice-president Mike Pence breaking the tie. Among the revisions under discussion are $45bn in funding for combatting the opioid crisis. At least two Republicans, Rob Portman of Ohio and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, opposed the initial plan in part because it would have gutted coverage for addiction and included only $2bn for to address opioid problems. Some Republicans leaving Tuesday’s meeting said McConnell would likely keep in place at least two Affordable Care Act (ACA) taxes on high-income earners – a 3.8% investment tax and a 0.9% payroll tax. The taxes, which apply to households earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning more than $200,000, would provide about $230bn over a decade. Republicans said that could be directed toward a fund to mitigate out-of-pocket costs and thus persuade some holdouts. Nonetheless, satisfying the moderate and conservative wings of the party remains a challenge. Staunch conservatives, such as Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, have argued that the bill must go further in eliminating the regulatory requirements of the ACA. Cruz and Lee are pushing for an amendment that would allow insurers to offer plans that do not meet the existing law’s coverage requirements. That path has been rejected by most of their colleagues, out of concern that it would undermine coverage for pre-existing conditions. Republicans are using a process known as reconciliation to pass the plan, which requires a simple majority vote so long as the bill is limited to spending, taxes and the deficit. The lack of consensus on how to fulfil a seven-year pledge to dismantle the ACA, known popularly as Obamacare, prompted Republican senators to agree on at least one thing: the need to stay in Washington a few weeks longer. Source | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:47 m4ini wrote: Isn't roger stone roughly alex jones levels of a nutjob? That doesn't really stop Trump from taking people's advice. He put Bannon on the NSC for a while, after all | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:55 TheTenthDoc wrote: That doesn't really stop Trump from taking people's advice. He put Bannon on the NSC for a while, after all I do realise that, as well as his "endorsement" of Alex Jones. I'm just hesitant to believe that the rest of the GOP would just get in line following advice of a nutjob. I mean, at some point tribalism goes too far, even american politicians should realise that by now. | ||
KwarK
United States44440 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
NPR does a quick run down of the laws that bar seeking assistance from foreign governments to win an election. It's quick, but they talk with an expert in that area of law. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
If you believe DonJR's and DJT's public comments, at the time they did not think Russia was helping DJT's campaign. But Goldstone blithely says, yeah, Russia is trying to help DJT through Aras and Emin. DonJR doesn't bat an eye. He doesn't say anything that would suggest that DonJR didn't already know that to be the case. In the response email there is no challenge to the idea that Russia is helping DJT. This strongly implies that DonJR knew about the Russian help before it was offered and had no ground on which to challenge the existence of this help as of June 2016. TLDR: DonJR accepts the premise that Russia is trying to help DJT win as of June 2016. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 12 2017 09:38 Plansix wrote: Mafia 3 isn't going to play itself and I'm not gonna upstairs to post. Pfft try Roller Coaster Tycoon | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
Think just how much it changes that story if even with all that going for him, he still had to cheat to win. And to be clear, if that's what happened that was cheating. Again, I'm not talking in terms of what he might or might not get convicted for. It's not really about the specific text of criminal statutes or whether the burden of proof has been met. Prior to this story dropping there seemed to be a prevailing understanding among Americans that it would be wrong for an American candidate for president to accept the illegally obtained aid of a foreign power in order to win the election. And prior to this story dropping, it seemed like that hadn't happened – Russia had intervened, sure, but there wasn't evidence that Trump's campaign had worked with the Russians to obtain the information, strategize about when/how to release it for maximum impact, etc. This time last week if someone answered "how did Trump get elected" with "A mismanaged campaign from the Dems, plus Trump worked with a rival power to swing the election," you would figure you were in a crazy left conspiracy corner of the internet. Now that seems like the most likely interpretation of the facts (albeit not yet totally proven). The implications of this are potentially wide-reaching, too. If the collusion becomes very clear and explicit in the coming weeks, it could exonerate Hillary somewhat in 2020 ( If the story stops with just this set of emails from Donald Trump Jr, I think it'll make Trump take a hit in popularity for a bit, Democrats will have more ammo to push the Russia narrative which will hurt him in a more prolonged way, but otherwise it will mostly be a historical footnote – it'll change the way historians answer the question "how did Trump get elected" but it won't have a massive impact on Trump's term. That said, it seems likely there will be more after this, if only because members of the Trump team would have had to leak this and an obvious motivation would be to get out ahead of something bigger. Another way to think of it: we've seen here that the Russians were eager to make contact with the Trump campaign, and we've also seen evidence that the Trump campaign was happy enough to do so as well. There's also been no evidence that the Trump campaign later had a change of heart and didn't want to work with the Russians (and if that evidence existed, they would likely have offered it to exonerate themselves). So even if we believe Don Jr. that this particular meeting didn't lead to actual collusion, why on earth would we think this was the last attempt? I guess if there was one question I would have for xDaunt, it would be this: forget the legal question of whether a crime was committed, or whether there's enough evidence for a conviction. If the Trump campaign worked with Russia to disperse illegally obtained information in order to swing the election, do you think that's wrong? Do you think that's something American political candidates should do? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
The way I see this is that even if this ends up being bad for Trump I only really see Trump Jr bleeding for it while the old man will have no issue with this himself. If he's willing to sac his son is another question. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On July 12 2017 10:38 Doodsmack wrote: I think it's safe to say that Don Jr's email is not just smoke, it's a raging fire. If more comes out I personally am not sure Trump could survive it. Last week Trump was trying to downplay the possibility of Russian interference in the 2016 election. He ran some denialist nonsense and said China could have done it. The Don Jr. email proves that people at the highest levels of the Trump campaign team knew that Emin and Aras (Trump's friends from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant) were providing high level Russian intelligence information to the Trump campaign as a part of a Russian effort to help DJT. If you read the emails carefully, it is clear that Goldstone knew that Don Jr. knew about Emin and Aras and the Russian active measures to help DJT as of June 2016. What changes now is that no one can possibly deny that Russia was trying to help DJT win because we have documentary evidence that at least Goldstone, Don Jr. Emin, Aras, Manafort, and Kushner knew of the Russian active measures at the time. The critical email again: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5964ea16d9fccd03708b50fb-1583/don%20jr%20email%204.jpg) | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9077 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 12 2017 10:42 Toadesstern wrote: Would Trump Jr. getting screwed be a big problem for Trump in that he'd than basicly admit that there's something that went wrong? The way I see this is that even if this ends up being bad for Trump I only really see Trump Jr bleeding for it while the old man will have no issue with this himself. If he's willing to sac his son is another question. And that's based on the assumption that Trump Sr. had no knowledge of this meeting taking place 1 floor beneath him, and that they should not reflect on him in any way. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14220 Posts
In the end it might be the thing that sinks Trump but really how many times have we already said that? He'll meander on without doing anything and end up as the weakest leader the world has ever seen. | ||
| ||
