|
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. |
Gross incompetency should be enough to get him removed.
|
if trump were anything but an absolute moron he'd stay miles away from putin unless absolutely necessary.
|
On July 19 2017 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 07:23 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems. On July 19 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:22 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:On July 19 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:[quote] Somebody's gotta turn it back to Democrat solutions that don't revolve around Trump, Trump+Russia, or Trump+corruption. It doesn't look like Perez, Schumer, or Pelosi has the leadership ability to make that happen. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. It's viewed as inappropriate, sure, but not warranting 24/7 coverage and high focus ... an area that the beltway is out of sync with the rest of America. If the current leadership keeps the same focus, and stays in as the "current leadership" after losing so many seats, the Dems deserve 2018 and 2020 losses. Congress as such isn't focused on Russia, a committee is but Congress is free to do whatever they want, The only thing they are doing tho is failing to pass anything at all. That's also why Russia is so much in the news. There is nothing else coming out of the Government because they are utterly paralyzed by their own internal issues. When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong. Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post. My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing. I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you. I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple. As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election. As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches. ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy. In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations. The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism?
Where are you coming from with this "should" in politics? They "shouldn't" do anything out of fairness, they "should" craft their message around something appealing to voters that strengthens their brand in the long term. I illustrated why I thought they were going about setting up 2018 & 2020 campaigns wrong and I linked the poll that supported it.
|
I think most democrats and leftists in this thread are on record that Pelosi should probably be replaced.
I've not been very impressed with Perez so far but it hasn't been that long (The whole "can't endorse a pro-lifer democratic candidate in Kansas" episode was particularly dumb though).
There's not really anything we can do to get that to happen, though.
|
On July 19 2017 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 07:23 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems. On July 19 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:22 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:On July 19 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:[quote] Somebody's gotta turn it back to Democrat solutions that don't revolve around Trump, Trump+Russia, or Trump+corruption. It doesn't look like Perez, Schumer, or Pelosi has the leadership ability to make that happen. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. It's viewed as inappropriate, sure, but not warranting 24/7 coverage and high focus ... an area that the beltway is out of sync with the rest of America. If the current leadership keeps the same focus, and stays in as the "current leadership" after losing so many seats, the Dems deserve 2018 and 2020 losses. Congress as such isn't focused on Russia, a committee is but Congress is free to do whatever they want, The only thing they are doing tho is failing to pass anything at all. That's also why Russia is so much in the news. There is nothing else coming out of the Government because they are utterly paralyzed by their own internal issues. When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong. Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post. My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing. I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you. I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple. As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election. As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches. ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy. In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations. The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism?
I think both parties are scum. It's just that around here (and most places tbh) a lot people have a hard time understanding that the Dems operate in basically the same way that the Republicans do for some reason. I fully expect the Dems to be obstructionist. It's a proven opposition party strategy. It has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican.
Think of it this way: modern politics is an extremely competitive game (i.e. one played mostly by former lawyers where you get a plum lobbying job and/or other rewards during/after playing) where those who generate the most votes get to keep their job. If you don't do things like lie to your base, endorse policies that you know are suboptimal for political reasons, be obstructionist, get bribed by donors, etc. you are going to be competed out. Even a theoretical moral politician who really believes in his/her cause has to play the game just to survive the next election.
This a fact of the system; it's not unique to being a Democrat or Republican. In the current system, the expectation is that politicians are going to optimize their electoral chances in the next election. And if you read any decent news source, they'll frame politicians actions in terms of how it'll affect voters because of this. The only time ideology really comes into play is when a politician isn't under electoral pressure for whatever reason.
This is why I never understand why posters here frame their rhetoric about Republican politicians they dislike in moral terms, or competence terms. For every Republican courting racists, there's a Democrat effectively bribing public unions (as Democrats are almost exclusively pro-union, and the politician elected by a public union then negotiates against the public union). The politicians themselves are mostly just reflections of their electorate and what they can do to keep their jobs. I'm 100% sure that 90%+ of the politicians in Washington are of far above average intelligence, and are generally competent people. They're mostly former lawyers, and they manage a successful political operation. The vast majority of Americans couldn't do that. The politician you see in public is not the the politician you'd find in private. The reason Washington is such a mess is because the system and electorate are broken and mostly idiotic/unreasonable, respectively.
xDaunt had a post to a similar effect some pages back that I thought was pretty well-said, in case anyone remembers.
EDIT: Trump is sort of an exception to this post. He was born into wealth and celebrity, and sort of lucked into the presidency for a number of reasons that he didn't really orchestrate.
EDIT2: Obviously, there's large differences in policy between parties. The bases are very different and have very different views, but the politicians are representing either party are all playing the same game.
|
On July 19 2017 08:16 Nevuk wrote:
I think most democrats and leftists in this thread are on record that Pelosi should probably be replaced.
I've not been very impressed with Perez so far but it hasn't been that long (The whole "can't endorse a pro-lifer democratic candidate in Kansas" episode was particularly dumb though).
There's not really anything we can do to get that to happen, though.
Sure the Republicans are committed to destroying our healthcare system and voted for an actually Corrupt and endlessly deceitful President, but the Democrats have weak messaging. Vote Indy!
|
On July 19 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Gross incompetency should be enough to get him removed.
I think that invokes too many political questions to enforce. (Devil's Advocate) Who's to say he's not doing exactly what voters sent him to do? Politicians do that? Who's to say the opposition party doesn't like what he's doing and just calls it gross incompetence to get a removal vote in order?
It shortcuts elections in a republic and the current standard of "high crimes and misdemeaners" is sufficient, combined with elections every four years if voters really feel the incompetence is the primary voting decision for them. I'd rather not have elected leaders deciding that his abilities make him deserving of ejection. The fabric of society demands that voter's choice be respected at the highest level.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2017 08:19 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 07:23 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems. On July 19 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:22 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:On July 19 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Congress as such isn't focused on Russia, a committee is but Congress is free to do whatever they want,
The only thing they are doing tho is failing to pass anything at all.
That's also why Russia is so much in the news. There is nothing else coming out of the Government because they are utterly paralyzed by their own internal issues. When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong. Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post. My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing. I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you. I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple. As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election. As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches. ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy. In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations. The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism? I think both parties are scum. It's just that around here (and most places tbh) a lot people have a hard time understanding that the Dems operate in basically the same way that the Republicans do for some reason. I fully expect the Dems to be obstructionist. It's a proven opposition party strategy. It has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican. Think of it this way: modern politics is an extremely competitive game (i.e. one played mostly by former lawyers where you get a plum lobbying job and/or other rewards during/after playing) where those who generate the most votes get to keep their job. If you don't do things like lie to your base, endorse policies that you know are suboptimal for political reasons, be obstructionist, get bribed by donors, etc. you are going to be competed out. Even a theoretical moral politician who really believes in his/her cause has to play the game just to survive the next election. This a fact of the system; it's not unique to being a Democrat or Republican. In the current system, the expectation is that politicians are going to optimize their electoral chances in the next election. And if you read any decent news source, they'll frame politicians actions in terms of how it'll affect voters because of this. The only time ideology really comes into play is when a politician isn't under electoral pressure for whatever reason. This is why I never understand why posters here frame their rhetoric about Republican politicians they dislike in moral terms, or competence terms. For every Republican courting racists, there's a Democrat effectively bribing public unions (as Democrats are almost exclusively pro-union, and the politician elected by a public union then negotiates against the public union). The politicians themselves are mostly just reflections of their electorate and what they can do to keep their jobs. I'm 100% sure that 90%+ of the politicians in Washington are of far above average intelligence, and are generally competent people. They're mostly former lawyers, and they manage a successful political operation. The vast majority of Americans couldn't do that. The politician you see in public is not the the politician you'd find in private. The reason Washington is such a mess is because the system and electorate are broken and mostly idiotic/unreasonable, respectively. xDaunt had a post to a similar effect some pages back that I thought was pretty well-said, in case anyone remembers.
Interesting observation. Yes, indeed both parties have politicians that attempt to corral together coalitions of voters. So what. Your insight that parties have politicians is meaningless. Have you by chance read what POLICIES that the parties vote for? Do you think they are the same? They are not. Do not let the socialist-nutbag left or the alt-right meme armies confuse you. The parties agree on less than they ever have.
|
On July 19 2017 08:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 07:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 19 2017 07:42 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Trump, Putin held a second, undisclosed meeting at G20 summit
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a second, previously undisclosed meeting at the G20 summit earlier this month in Germany, a White House official said on Tuesday.
The two leaders held a two-hour meeting on July 7 in which Trump later said Putin denied allegations that he directed efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The White House official did not say how long the second meeting took place or what was discussed. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-putin-idUSKBN1A32H5 What the fuck. The section about Trump not having his own translator is illuminating. The man is so clearly out of his depth.
It's just madness. But I guess he never cared if his words were accurate or well spoken anyway, so who cares if the translator could change the details or nuances of what you said to the other head of state. 
Or he just trusts the Russians completely. For ...reasons
|
On July 19 2017 08:25 Wulfey_LA wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2017 08:19 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 07:23 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems. On July 19 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:22 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:On July 19 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Congress as such isn't focused on Russia, a committee is but Congress is free to do whatever they want,
The only thing they are doing tho is failing to pass anything at all.
That's also why Russia is so much in the news. There is nothing else coming out of the Government because they are utterly paralyzed by their own internal issues. When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong. Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post. My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing. I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you. I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple. As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election. As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches. ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy. In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations. The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism? I think both parties are scum. It's just that around here (and most places tbh) a lot people have a hard time understanding that the Dems operate in basically the same way that the Republicans do for some reason. I fully expect the Dems to be obstructionist. It's a proven opposition party strategy. It has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican. Think of it this way: modern politics is an extremely competitive game (i.e. one played mostly by former lawyers where you get a plum lobbying job and/or other rewards during/after playing) where those who generate the most votes get to keep their job. If you don't do things like lie to your base, endorse policies that you know are suboptimal for political reasons, be obstructionist, get bribed by donors, etc. you are going to be competed out. Even a theoretical moral politician who really believes in his/her cause has to play the game just to survive the next election. This a fact of the system; it's not unique to being a Democrat or Republican. In the current system, the expectation is that politicians are going to optimize their electoral chances in the next election. And if you read any decent news source, they'll frame politicians actions in terms of how it'll affect voters because of this. The only time ideology really comes into play is when a politician isn't under electoral pressure for whatever reason. This is why I never understand why posters here frame their rhetoric about Republican politicians they dislike in moral terms, or competence terms. For every Republican courting racists, there's a Democrat effectively bribing public unions (as Democrats are almost exclusively pro-union, and the politician elected by a public union then negotiates against the public union). The politicians themselves are mostly just reflections of their electorate and what they can do to keep their jobs. I'm 100% sure that 90%+ of the politicians in Washington are of far above average intelligence, and are generally competent people. They're mostly former lawyers, and they manage a successful political operation. The vast majority of Americans couldn't do that. The politician you see in public is not the the politician you'd find in private. The reason Washington is such a mess is because the system and electorate are broken and mostly idiotic/unreasonable, respectively. xDaunt had a post to a similar effect some pages back that I thought was pretty well-said, in case anyone remembers. Interesting observation. Yes, indeed both parties have politicians that attempt to corral together coalitions of voters. So what. Your insight that parties have politicians is meaningless. Have you by chance read what POLICIES that the parties vote for? Do you think they are the same? They are not. Do not let the socialist-nutbag left or the alt-right meme armies confuse you. The parties agree on less than they ever have.
Yeah, they don't have much agreement in policy. I had a sentence in my post on that I deleted it for some reason.
|
On July 19 2017 08:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Gross incompetency should be enough to get him removed.
yeah it should; but that's not the system we have 
|
On July 19 2017 08:16 Nevuk wrote:
I think most democrats and leftists in this thread are on record that Pelosi should probably be replaced.
I've not been very impressed with Perez so far but it hasn't been that long (The whole "can't endorse a pro-lifer democratic candidate in Kansas" episode was particularly dumb though).
There's not really anything we can do to get that to happen, though.
And I think most democrats and leftists disagree on what is the path forward. Put differently, I don't think you'd find broad agreement on anything about what she's doing that's wrong, and what she's not doing that would be right. Is an appropriate amount of podium/interview/statement time spent on Russia or not? Is identity politics at an acceptable level (given what's believed about Republicans' treatment of women and racial/sexual/sexual identity minorities), or should it be reduced? I saw resistance in this very thread at supporting a pro-life candidate in Nebraska for the good of party, since it's so obviously an anti-woman and anti-women's-health position. I'm pro-life so the choice is easy. Judging from the reaction here, I don't see widespread agreement behind either of the two recent (April this year) statements:
Perez's "every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices" and Democrats should speak with "one voice" on the issue
Pelosi's "of course" you can be a Democrat and pro-life and is happy to serve alongside "members who have not shared my very positive, aggressive position on promoting a woman's right to choose."
|
On July 19 2017 08:02 Nevuk wrote:Um, just what. I'm so confused by this. + Show Spoiler +Yes, a US congressman just asked about alien civilizations on Mars
I love when people get the "so there is is a chance" grin in their face when a scientists tells them "it's highly unlikely".
|
pelosi got the ACA passed. that's a sight more than wonderboy ryan has ever accomplished.
|
On July 19 2017 08:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 07:23 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems. On July 19 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:22 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:On July 19 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Congress as such isn't focused on Russia, a committee is but Congress is free to do whatever they want,
The only thing they are doing tho is failing to pass anything at all.
That's also why Russia is so much in the news. There is nothing else coming out of the Government because they are utterly paralyzed by their own internal issues. When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong. Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post. My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing. I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you. I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple. As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election. As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches. ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy. In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations. The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism? Where are you coming from with this "should" in politics? They "shouldn't" do anything out of fairness, they "should" craft their message around something appealing to voters that strengthens their brand in the long term. I illustrated why I thought they were going about setting up 2018 & 2020 campaigns wrong and I linked the poll that supported it.
Our fundamental disagreement is on what the poll shows.
To me it shows Congress should do their job and govern, which is on the Republicans since they control both the House and Senate.
You on the other hand use it as a metric for Democratic messaging.
I think that if you want to talk about messaging you should use a poll that asks questions like "should the media report less on Russia?" and not "Should congress focus on Healthcare".
|
On July 19 2017 08:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
pelosi got the ACA passed. that's a sight more than wonderboy ryan has ever accomplished.
She's amazing at whipping votes but makes for a poor figurehead purely because of how hated she is by the GOP. I don't think her ego could accept her being reduced to whip instead of leader, but she's pretty perfect for the role.
OK, I know why I want her leadership changed - mainly strategic reasons, symbolic gesture being a small part. I don't actually dislike Pelosi at all. Why is she so hated by the GOP?
On July 19 2017 08:30 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 08:02 Nevuk wrote:Um, just what. I'm so confused by this. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIqcEPYO7nE Yes, a US congressman just asked about alien civilizations on Mars I love when people get the "so there is is a chance" grin in their face when a scientists tells them "it's highly unlikely".
The scientist's somewhat inscrutable expression makes it even better. A mixture of bafflement and amusement
|
On July 19 2017 08:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 08:06 Plansix wrote:On July 19 2017 07:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 19 2017 07:42 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Trump, Putin held a second, undisclosed meeting at G20 summit
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a second, previously undisclosed meeting at the G20 summit earlier this month in Germany, a White House official said on Tuesday.
The two leaders held a two-hour meeting on July 7 in which Trump later said Putin denied allegations that he directed efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The White House official did not say how long the second meeting took place or what was discussed. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-putin-idUSKBN1A32H5 What the fuck. The section about Trump not having his own translator is illuminating. The man is so clearly out of his depth. It's just madness. But I guess he never cared if his words were accurate or well spoken anyway, so who cares if the translator could change the details or nuances of what you said to the other head of state. Or he just trusts the Russians completely. For ...reasons
Let's stop saying this stuff is just "idiocy".
There was a directive, from the top, to not tell anyone about this.
The meeting was just him, Putin, and a Putin lackey. That's it.
They didn't tell anyone. Just like every other story we find concerning him and Russia: it was covered up.
|
A Chicago city official was forced to resign after multiple racially bigoted emails came to light as the result of a months-long investigation into illicit materials being sent across the Department of Water Management‘s municipal email network.
One of the offending emails was sent with the subject line of “Chicago Safari Tickets” and reads, in part:
“If you didn’t book a Chicago Safari adventure with us this 4th of July weekend this is what you missed, [and then lists the number of people shot in various black neighborhoods throughout Chicago]…Remember all Chicago Safari packages include 3 deluxe ‘Harold’s Chicken’ meals a day…We guarantee that you will see at least one kill and five crime scenes per three day tour. You’ll also see lots and lots of animals in their natural habitat. Call and book your Chicago Safari today.”
Included with the “Safari Tickets” email was an image of four white people wearing safari gear gawking at and photographing several black people apparently attempting to break into a car.
That city official, formerly employed as a superintendent with the Department of Water Management, a position that pays more than $122k per year, was identified by the Chicago Tribune as Paul Hansen, a politically-connected son of a former longtime alderman (Bernard Hansen) famous in Chicago for his role in a city-wide controversy surrounding the Chicago Cubs’ battle for lights at Wrigley Field.
The younger Hansen was originally being investigated by Chicago Inspector General Joe Ferguson on allegations that he had used his municipal email account to facilitate the purchase and sale of multiple firearms. Over the course of that investigation, Ferguson discovered that Hansen had, in fact, used his city email account to negotiate no less than four firearms deals and five car deals with unnamed individuals.
In one quarter year, Hansen also allegedly used his city computer to view sexually explicit videos and other websites not related to city business on thousands of instances. Ferguson stumbled upon the racist materials only recently.
Along with the “Safari Tickets” email were images of a young black child sitting in a bucket holding a slice of watermelon captioned: “As an apology — Paula Deen Opens Swimming Pool for Youth.” (Food personality Paula Deen–and her high-cholesterol, calorie-heavy brand–became a flashpoint in U.S. race relations in mid-2013 after the disgraced television personality admitted to using the N-word in the past.)
Another Hansen email contained an image of a Ku Klux Klan robe sitting on a post amidst a field of watermelons with the subject line: “Watermelon Protection.”
Though most recipients of the offensive emails are not known to the public, Hansen isn’t the only one subject to the chopping block; Thomas Durkin, the general foreman of plumbers, was forced to resign after sending emails referring to Muslims as “rag head cocksuckers,” and to black people as “wild animals,” respectively.
The most high-profile head, however, is (now former) Water Management Commissioner Barrett Murphy, once head of the department, and a close ally of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Murphy knew about the scurrilous contents of the emails–since he received them–but reporetedly did nothing to discipline his underlings.
The Chicago Sun-Times notes that the Department of Water Management has a long and torrid history, and referenced the department’s “ugly, hate-filled culture” in a report released earlier this month.
Rahm Emmanuel has not been personally implicated in the scandal so far, though, for some reason his aides have seen fit to defend the mayor in public.
lawnewz.com
Chicago is a weird city. Totally baffled at how these people had a job in the first place (one of them had a DUI and his job required a driver's license...) then I remembered it was Chicago.
|
I will say, white people come up with the funniest racism.
|
Best line of the story:
Rahm Emmanuel has not been personally implicated in the scandal so far, though, for some reason his aides have seen fit to defend the mayor in public.
I love that Rahm has been some sort of weird voice of reason for Democrats. Shows you how far gone they are. Anything to stop Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
