|
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 July 31 2017 11:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 00:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Danglars to his credit has only minimally supported Trump and has justified his vote on narrow grounds relating to the US presidential election system (which may be a simplification but it captures a good portion). I could never agree on a vote for Donald Trump, simply because of competence and standing for the US, but that seems to be his view. He's so damn unacceptable on everything but those narrow grounds. It was a close decision between skipping or throwing away my vote because I considered both totally insufferable. (And let's be real, California my vote doesn't matter anyways)
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster? I would have guessed that would pit real conservatives against Trump supporters, but I'm not in either camp and can't say for certain how they're likely to feel about that
|
On July 31 2017 02:00 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 00:10 Danglars wrote:
Obligatory "only supported given the binary nature of US presidential elections" here (amazing how it's still relevant). Redo the election with a believable conservative dem or a brick and Trump doesn't get my vote. Do you have anyone in mind you would have voted for over Trump that is a Democrat?
At this exact moment, Zell Miller. Dems have such a limited representation from old school conservatives that could be trusted not to bankrupt us all or advance radical social policies that it's hard. Next crop I'm sure I could point to several.
|
I dunno if they want to do down that road since I am sure the GOP congressional members know that their majority won't last forever and could easily swing to where Dems could shove through all kinds of things they hate the most. I am sure they have the bare minimum of foresight to see that shoving through a shit healthcare bill isn't worth it.
|
On July 31 2017 11:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 11:46 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 00:31 Doodsmack wrote:
Danglars to his credit has only minimally supported Trump and has justified his vote on narrow grounds relating to the US presidential election system (which may be a simplification but it captures a good portion). I could never agree on a vote for Donald Trump, simply because of competence and standing for the US, but that seems to be his view. He's so damn unacceptable on everything but those narrow grounds. It was a close decision between skipping or throwing away my vote because I considered both totally insufferable. (And let's be real, California my vote doesn't matter anyways) Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster? I would have guessed that would pit real conservatives against Trump supporters, but I'm not in either camp and can't say for certain how they're likely to feel about that
Not worth it even to repeal Obamacare; we'd get some shitty version of single payer within a decade. The legislative filibuster is necessary to limit the expansion of government spending and control and too much harm will come from its removal.
|
On July 31 2017 09:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 08:14 ChristianS wrote:
So the push from the White House is that the Senate doesn't get to move on to anything else until they pass something on healthcare. Sounded like he might be threatening a veto on anything else? Which sounds insane, but I guess it's his idea of getting more involved in the process.
It's funny how the only way Trump knows how to get involved is to threaten people with ultimatums. Its not funny because it shows that our national executive is an incompetent idiot.
The competency angle is my greatest misgiving with Russian collusion conspiracy nuts.
|
On July 31 2017 12:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 09:56 Sermokala wrote:On July 31 2017 08:14 ChristianS wrote:
So the push from the White House is that the Senate doesn't get to move on to anything else until they pass something on healthcare. Sounded like he might be threatening a veto on anything else? Which sounds insane, but I guess it's his idea of getting more involved in the process.
It's funny how the only way Trump knows how to get involved is to threaten people with ultimatums. Its not funny because it shows that our national executive is an incompetent idiot. The competency angle is my greatest misgiving with Russian collusion conspiracy nuts.
Trump didn't have to do it himself. His staffers were the ones seeking it and he probably just didn't give a shit or even know it was shady and just took whatever help was given to him. That and a lot of it was probably his own staffers using their positions for personal enrichment.
I don't think he ever was like "lets collude" from him but his utter incompetence at running anything, choosing good people, and probably him being lazy af at actually RUNNING day to day things led to a bunch of shady people doing illegal things while he just sits there oblivious and being high as hell off of his media and political success.
|
On July 31 2017 12:10 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 12:02 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 09:56 Sermokala wrote:On July 31 2017 08:14 ChristianS wrote:
So the push from the White House is that the Senate doesn't get to move on to anything else until they pass something on healthcare. Sounded like he might be threatening a veto on anything else? Which sounds insane, but I guess it's his idea of getting more involved in the process.
It's funny how the only way Trump knows how to get involved is to threaten people with ultimatums. Its not funny because it shows that our national executive is an incompetent idiot. The competency angle is my greatest misgiving with Russian collusion conspiracy nuts. Trump didn't have to do it himself. His staffers were the ones seeking it and he probably just didn't give a shit or even know it was shady and just took whatever help was given to him. That and a lot of it was probably his own staffers using their positions for personal enrichment. I don't think he ever was like "lets collude" from him but his utter incompetence at running anything, choosing good people, and probably him being lazy af at actually RUNNING day to day things led to a bunch of shady people doing illegal things while he just sits there oblivious and being high as hell off of his media and political success.
Don't forget the coke.
|
I'm more inclined to believe Trump trying to frantically and incompetently cover up something he didn't think was illegal at the time to protect his own ego (he can't even bear to know he lost the popular vote; I doubt he can bear to know his campaign enjoyed any unfair advantages) than some vast complex conspiracy with him as a deep Russian mole.
|
It is important to note that it's a false dichotomy that Trump was either A)a fully witting and competent agent on behalf of the Russians, or B)a total imbecile that Russia is merely exploiting for their own ends, sowing chaos in the American electoral system. While B is the more believable of the 2, it's certainly not appearing to be entirely true either, in light of the evidence we've seen so far.
|
On July 31 2017 12:10 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 12:02 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 09:56 Sermokala wrote:On July 31 2017 08:14 ChristianS wrote:
So the push from the White House is that the Senate doesn't get to move on to anything else until they pass something on healthcare. Sounded like he might be threatening a veto on anything else? Which sounds insane, but I guess it's his idea of getting more involved in the process.
It's funny how the only way Trump knows how to get involved is to threaten people with ultimatums. Its not funny because it shows that our national executive is an incompetent idiot. The competency angle is my greatest misgiving with Russian collusion conspiracy nuts. Trump didn't have to do it himself. His staffers were the ones seeking it and he probably just didn't give a shit or even know it was shady and just took whatever help was given to him. That and a lot of it was probably his own staffers using their positions for personal enrichment. I don't think he ever was like "lets collude" from him but his utter incompetence at running anything, choosing good people, and probably him being lazy af at actually RUNNING day to day things led to a bunch of shady people doing illegal things while he just sits there oblivious and being high as hell off of his media and political success.
The problem with this line of thinking is there is no one, except maybe Manafort, more pro-Putin than Trump. I don't hear Sessions talking about Putin's wonderful leadership and approval-ratings. Trump is the one who campaigned on a pro-Putin message. His now infamous foreign-policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel was his creation, and it was a love-letter to Russia. Trump had to approve the RNC-platform change on Ukraine. He's done these things almost entirely singularly. He is the asset.
It's why I don't think "collusion" is even relevant. The President is a statesman, and our statesman spouts Putin talking-points. Who cares if he's getting something out of it (although he obviously did)? Whether there is a direct transaction from cause to effect is kind of irrelevant to the damage being done.
GJ electing that, GOP.
|
On July 31 2017 13:43 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 12:10 Slaughter wrote:On July 31 2017 12:02 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 09:56 Sermokala wrote:On July 31 2017 08:14 ChristianS wrote:
So the push from the White House is that the Senate doesn't get to move on to anything else until they pass something on healthcare. Sounded like he might be threatening a veto on anything else? Which sounds insane, but I guess it's his idea of getting more involved in the process.
It's funny how the only way Trump knows how to get involved is to threaten people with ultimatums. Its not funny because it shows that our national executive is an incompetent idiot. The competency angle is my greatest misgiving with Russian collusion conspiracy nuts. Trump didn't have to do it himself. His staffers were the ones seeking it and he probably just didn't give a shit or even know it was shady and just took whatever help was given to him. That and a lot of it was probably his own staffers using their positions for personal enrichment. I don't think he ever was like "lets collude" from him but his utter incompetence at running anything, choosing good people, and probably him being lazy af at actually RUNNING day to day things led to a bunch of shady people doing illegal things while he just sits there oblivious and being high as hell off of his media and political success. The problem with this line of thinking is there is no one, except maybe Manafort, more pro-Putin than Trump. I don't hear Sessions talking about Putin's wonderful leadership and approval-ratings. Trump is the one who campaigned on a pro-Putin message. His now infamous foreign-policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel was his creation, and it was a love-letter to Russia. Trump had to approve the RNC-platform change on Ukraine. He's done these things almost entirely singularly. He is the asset. It's why I don't think "collusion" is even relevant. The President is a statesman, and our statesman spouts Putin talking-points. Who cares if he's getting something out of it (although he obviously did)? Whether there is a direct transaction from cause to effect is kind of irrelevant to the damage being done. GJ electing that, GOP.
Well there is also that Putin could have just complimented him a bunch and that gets him all those good things Trump says about him. Trump is really easy to win over so he will say good things about you in public.....like really easy.
|
On July 31 2017 13:54 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 13:43 Leporello wrote:On July 31 2017 12:10 Slaughter wrote:On July 31 2017 12:02 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2017 09:56 Sermokala wrote:On July 31 2017 08:14 ChristianS wrote:
So the push from the White House is that the Senate doesn't get to move on to anything else until they pass something on healthcare. Sounded like he might be threatening a veto on anything else? Which sounds insane, but I guess it's his idea of getting more involved in the process.
It's funny how the only way Trump knows how to get involved is to threaten people with ultimatums. Its not funny because it shows that our national executive is an incompetent idiot. The competency angle is my greatest misgiving with Russian collusion conspiracy nuts. Trump didn't have to do it himself. His staffers were the ones seeking it and he probably just didn't give a shit or even know it was shady and just took whatever help was given to him. That and a lot of it was probably his own staffers using their positions for personal enrichment. I don't think he ever was like "lets collude" from him but his utter incompetence at running anything, choosing good people, and probably him being lazy af at actually RUNNING day to day things led to a bunch of shady people doing illegal things while he just sits there oblivious and being high as hell off of his media and political success. The problem with this line of thinking is there is no one, except maybe Manafort, more pro-Putin than Trump. I don't hear Sessions talking about Putin's wonderful leadership and approval-ratings. Trump is the one who campaigned on a pro-Putin message. His now infamous foreign-policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel was his creation, and it was a love-letter to Russia. Trump had to approve the RNC-platform change on Ukraine. He's done these things almost entirely singularly. He is the asset. It's why I don't think "collusion" is even relevant. The President is a statesman, and our statesman spouts Putin talking-points. Who cares if he's getting something out of it (although he obviously did)? Whether there is a direct transaction from cause to effect is kind of irrelevant to the damage being done. GJ electing that, GOP. Well there is also that Putin could have just complimented him a bunch and that gets him all those good things Trump says about him. Trump is really easy to win over so he will say good things about you in public.....like really easy.
That theory breaks down because its clear that Trump doesn't hold loyalty towards people that aren't family for longer than a few months. He has literally never said anything negative about Putin or Russia for an absurdly long time.
With all of the documents we've seen, behaviour by Trump campaign officials, the financial situation of Trump and Kushner, its clear that the reason why they're so gun-ho about supporting Russia is purely personal and financial. There's a significant amount for Trump to gain if he's able to remove US sanctions on Russia.
There's a reason why Trump gets his funding from Deutsche Bank and other financial sources not known for strict background checks. Being a corrupt rich guy willing to sell a country to a foreign power and being an idiot aren't mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Cubs vs. Brewers? So I'm gonna assume that Christie still hasn't returned to New Jersey yet to do some real governing.
|
Man that body though. Reminds of Earl Sneed Sinclair.
And please. Don't expect politicians to do their job, they're too busy watching games and being on the beach n shit. Hard work this.
|
God what a fucking tool. He was probably hoping so hard the guy would hit him so he'd be arrested.
|
"What are you gonna do, Big Chris, are you gonna temporarily shut down my bridge?"
|
On July 31 2017 21:57 farvacola wrote:
"What are you gonna do, Big Chris, are you gonna temporarily shut down my bridge?"
"You gonna shut down the park and do some Sudoku?"
|
On July 31 2017 11:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 02:00 Azuzu wrote:On July 31 2017 00:10 Danglars wrote:
Obligatory "only supported given the binary nature of US presidential elections" here (amazing how it's still relevant). Redo the election with a believable conservative dem or a brick and Trump doesn't get my vote. Do you have anyone in mind you would have voted for over Trump that is a Democrat? At this exact moment, Zell Miller. Dems have such a limited representation from old school conservatives that could be trusted not to bankrupt us all or advance radical social policies that it's hard. Next crop I'm sure I could point to several.
My dude, the equivalent of that would be for me wishing Nelson Rockefeller was back.
Zell Miller was part of the old Georgia dems who controlled the state for about a hundred years. Then they decided to support what you call radical social policies like civil rights and gay marriage.
This isn't to say that Miller is a bad guy or he did bad things - for example, he led the charge on the HOPE scholarship in Georgia which pays for in-state college for a huge number of students - but in many ways he's far, far from the current Democratic party.
|
Zell Miller decision to abandon the Democrats in 2004 and back George Bush has not stood the test of time. I remember when he attacked John Kerry for being “anti-war” like that is somehow a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
