|
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 August 03 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 01:04 mozoku wrote:On August 03 2017 00:34 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2017 00:23 mozoku wrote:
I also think you guys are forgetting, in the liberal rush to say "I told you so", that it wasn't a foregone conclusion in November that Trump's presidency was going to turn out like it has. Nobody was sure if he was going to act more presidential post-election, or what his policy priorities would be. You're projecting your own ignorance as if it was universal. By November we had absolutely no reason to doubt that Trump was anything other than what he had repeatedly shown himself to be. Exactly what I already covered in that quote. People like you are in such a rush to say "I told you so!" that they ignore the realities of forecasting. Presidents at war with their own Congress are exceedingly rare. Unprecedented in the first 6 months, I believe. The Russia collusion investigation is totally unprecedented. His approval ratings are unprecedented. His inability to pass any serious legislation when his party controls Congress is unprecedented. He's not the first populist president in US history, so you can't claim that his populism made this inevitable either. Nate Silver (a forecaster everyone here respects afaik) was writing about the his high uncertainty of how Trump's presidency would develop as well. If you were predicting this stuff in November, you're just an idiot who got lucky. Or a partisan shill calling "doomsday" who happened to be right. What has developed was not a rational high probability forecast based on the information available in November. Yes, Trump has unprecedented opposition in Congress, but he hasn't done himself any favors. No one is making him pimp these inept healthcare bills. No one is preventing him from at least attempting to form his own congressional coalitions to move an agenda forward. And no one can claim that the Trump Administration has done a good job handling this Russia nonsense. To say the least, there is a lot of room for improvement on Trump's end. It's too soon to declare Trump's presidency a failure, but at some point, this period of Trump learning on the job needs to end.
Well said. Out of curiosity, what would you deem as the threshold for declaring Trump's presidency a failure? Where would you draw the line? What would need to happen? Because I feel like the bar has been lowered an incredible amount in terms of expectations, which might push the threshold back a bit more than usual in terms of what level of ineptitude is finally just too much.
|
The dynamic that Mohdoo and I were discussing has existed in politics forever. Long before Trump. It dates back to Jackson or even Adams. It is a part of democracy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
That Trump was going to be an embarrassment abroad was clear from the outset. Europe doesn't like Republicans all that much, especially populist ones. Them distancing themselves from a potential Trump administration was extremely obvious.
That Trump would fail to "get along with Russia" was perhaps not obvious to the common man but something I could have easily told would be true even at the time. The only way that would have happened would be if there were a genuine attempt to understand and diffuse the tensions between the two that run longer than a century. Trump doesn't have the chops for that and the overwhelming majority of the fixed administration doesn't have the desire.
That killing Obamacare would be tough was perhaps an open question. It's a shitty stopgap, that helps the most vulnerable in society at the cost of everyone else. It has had years and years worth of unfortunate failures and Republican incompetence is its last lifeline. Fortunately that lifeline has not yet run out.
The standard Republican fare with regards to social matters? Yeah, quite predictable.
The depth of cronyism and corruption within the government? Depends on how charitable you are. As of now the least charitable interpretations of Trump's history seem to be most accurate.
Overall, I'd say it wouldn't have been a surprise in November for things to turn out like this. It wasn't a sure deal, and it wasn't anywhere near an impossibility. However, if we want to play the "look what you did, America!" game then let's remember that our alternatives were quite shoddy as well.
|
On August 03 2017 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On August 03 2017 01:04 mozoku wrote:On August 03 2017 00:34 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2017 00:23 mozoku wrote:
I also think you guys are forgetting, in the liberal rush to say "I told you so", that it wasn't a foregone conclusion in November that Trump's presidency was going to turn out like it has. Nobody was sure if he was going to act more presidential post-election, or what his policy priorities would be. You're projecting your own ignorance as if it was universal. By November we had absolutely no reason to doubt that Trump was anything other than what he had repeatedly shown himself to be. Exactly what I already covered in that quote. People like you are in such a rush to say "I told you so!" that they ignore the realities of forecasting. Presidents at war with their own Congress are exceedingly rare. Unprecedented in the first 6 months, I believe. The Russia collusion investigation is totally unprecedented. His approval ratings are unprecedented. His inability to pass any serious legislation when his party controls Congress is unprecedented. He's not the first populist president in US history, so you can't claim that his populism made this inevitable either. Nate Silver (a forecaster everyone here respects afaik) was writing about the his high uncertainty of how Trump's presidency would develop as well. If you were predicting this stuff in November, you're just an idiot who got lucky. Or a partisan shill calling "doomsday" who happened to be right. What has developed was not a rational high probability forecast based on the information available in November. Yes, Trump has unprecedented opposition in Congress, but he hasn't done himself any favors. No one is making him pimp these inept healthcare bills. No one is preventing him from at least attempting to form his own congressional coalitions to move an agenda forward. And no one can claim that the Trump Administration has done a good job handling this Russia nonsense. To say the least, there is a lot of room for improvement on Trump's end. It's too soon to declare Trump's presidency a failure, but at some point, this period of Trump learning on the job needs to end. Well said. Out of curiosity, what would you deem as the threshold for declaring Trump's presidency a failure? Where would you draw the line? What would need to happen? Because I feel like the bar has been lowered an incredible amount in terms of expectations, which might push the threshold back a bit more than usual in terms of what level of ineptitude is finally just too much.
I don't know. I guess it's like pornography -- I'll know it when I see it. But the specter of Trump getting nothing done and the Democrats potentially taking over Congress next year is a big red flag.
|
On August 03 2017 01:04 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 00:34 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2017 00:23 mozoku wrote:
I also think you guys are forgetting, in the liberal rush to say "I told you so", that it wasn't a foregone conclusion in November that Trump's presidency was going to turn out like it has. Nobody was sure if he was going to act more presidential post-election, or what his policy priorities would be. You're projecting your own ignorance as if it was universal. By November we had absolutely no reason to doubt that Trump was anything other than what he had repeatedly shown himself to be. Exactly what I already covered in that quote. People like you are in such a rush to say "I told you so!" that they ignore the realities of forecasting. Presidents at war with their own Congress are exceedingly rare. Unprecedented in the first 6 months, I believe. The Russia collusion investigation is totally unprecedented. His approval ratings are unprecedented. His inability to pass any serious legislation when his party controls Congress is unprecedented. He's not the first populist president in US history, so you can't claim that his populism made this inevitable either. Nate Silver (a forecaster everyone here respects afaik) was writing about the irrationality of making certain predictions about the path of the Trump presidency as well. If you were predicting this stuff in November, you're just an idiot who got lucky. Or a partisan shill calling "doomsday" who happened to be right. What has developed was not a rational high probability forecast based on the information available in November.
do you have a link to that Silver article?
|
United States42009 Posts
On August 03 2017 01:04 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 00:34 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2017 00:23 mozoku wrote:
I also think you guys are forgetting, in the liberal rush to say "I told you so", that it wasn't a foregone conclusion in November that Trump's presidency was going to turn out like it has. Nobody was sure if he was going to act more presidential post-election, or what his policy priorities would be. You're projecting your own ignorance as if it was universal. By November we had absolutely no reason to doubt that Trump was anything other than what he had repeatedly shown himself to be. Exactly what I already covered in that quote. People like you are in such a rush to say "I told you so!" that they ignore the realities of forecasting. Presidents at war with their own Congress are exceedingly rare. Unprecedented in the first 6 months, I believe. The Russia collusion investigation is totally unprecedented. His approval ratings are unprecedented. His inability to pass any serious legislation when his party controls Congress is unprecedented. He's not the first populist president in US history, so you can't claim that his populism made this inevitable either. Nate Silver (a forecaster everyone here respects afaik) was writing about the irrationality of making certain predictions about the path of the Trump presidency as well. If you were predicting this stuff in November, you're just an idiot who got lucky. Or a partisan shill calling "doomsday" who happened to be right. What has developed was not a rational high probability forecast based on the information available in November.
.....
wow
Apparently people who thought Trump would be guided entirely by his ego, appoint incompetent sycophants to key positions, change his positions constantly, and entirely struggle to understand how politics worked just got lucky when proven right. Because there's just no way anyone could have seen that coming.
|
United States42009 Posts
On August 03 2017 01:19 LegalLord wrote:
That Trump was going to be an embarrassment abroad was clear from the outset. Europe doesn't like Republicans all that much, especially populist ones. Them distancing themselves from a potential Trump administration was extremely obvious.
That Trump would fail to "get along with Russia" was perhaps not obvious to the common man but something I could have easily told would be true even at the time. The only way that would have happened would be if there were a genuine attempt to understand and diffuse the tensions between the two that run longer than a century.
The tensions between the US and Russia run longer than a century? What exactly was the beef between Tsar Nicholas II and Woodrow Wilson?
|
That sounds about right. Congress flipped after 2 years of Obama, but that was after the bank bail outs and ACA. The chances of any meaningful legislation being passed at this point is almost zero. This tax reform bill isn’t going to happen. I doubt it would have happened if they repealed the ACA. There is such a thing as over promising and both parties really need to learn what it is.
On August 03 2017 01:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 01:19 LegalLord wrote:
That Trump was going to be an embarrassment abroad was clear from the outset. Europe doesn't like Republicans all that much, especially populist ones. Them distancing themselves from a potential Trump administration was extremely obvious.
That Trump would fail to "get along with Russia" was perhaps not obvious to the common man but something I could have easily told would be true even at the time. The only way that would have happened would be if there were a genuine attempt to understand and diffuse the tensions between the two that run longer than a century. The tensions between the US and Russia run longer than a century? What exactly was the beef between Tsar Nicholas II and Woodrow Wilson?
I also find this claim to be dubious. After WW2, the US has some comically low number of experts on Russian history. It was like less than 30 nationwide. We had almost no one who spoke the language in government. The country might as well have been Mars to most of the nation.
|
Slightly off-topic: I watched Rocky recently. It was straight up bizarre how much anti-Russia stuff was in that movie. It felt kind of uncomfortable at times. There was some serious demonizing going on.
|
Rocky is a great artifact of that time. People forget how scrappy and low budget it was. It is almost an indie movie by today’s standards. The anti-Russia overtones reflected the times. I said this in another thread, but the Cold War is mostly caused by two massive economic powers believing the worst about each other at all time. And it was driven by a very real fear of nuclear war.
Edit: Also the "romance" in that movie is a true product of its time. Not at all comfortable to watch today.
|
United States42009 Posts
Was Rocky meant to be developmentally disabled in the movies? Because I always felt like that was a big part of the portrayal but I was never sure if it was intentional. If I recall correctly in the second one he wanted to try and get a sitting down job but he wasn't really sure what that entailed. Like a child pretending to be a doctor by saying long words and inspecting blank charts. Unfortunately there wasn't any kind of community where he could be properly taken care of and he was forced let people punch him in the face for money.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Our president signed the sanctions bill. Huzzah.
|
On August 03 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:
Our president signed the sanctions bill. Huzzah.
I wonder if Putin will make an "I am disappoint" statement about Trump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 03 2017 01:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:
Our president signed the sanctions bill. Huzzah. I wonder if Putin will make an "I am disappoint" statement about Trump.
Probably going to be a simple "it's unfortunate that our US partners have chosen to further strain US-Russia relations" comment.
|
On August 03 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 00:37 mozoku wrote:On August 03 2017 00:29 Plansix wrote:
I love how mozoku drops in and makes arguments against points no one is currently discussing, but acts like someone is. I V The only thing I disagree with you on, in this post, is that voters are blameless in this situation. While the Republican leadership deserves plenty of blame, I also think that the voters who put those Republicans (and Trump) in office share the responsibility. The voters never educated themselves. You may as well blame janitors for being janitors or a technician for never being an engineer. These people are the people they are...because of the people they are. It is a somewhat inescapable reality that many people will never be any better than the people they become by just kind of going through the motions of life. Most people don't push themselves, try to grow or feel any amount of internal motivation to make the world a better place. The average human is really, really, reallllly deficient. If the only reason for someone's ignorance is laziness, then I have no problem blaming that person. I can't speak to other analogies like your job examples necessarily, because those may be more complex and may include other issues not necessarily in the control of one individual. But I feel like shrugging Trump voters off as "Eh, whaddya gonna do? The average human is deficient" gives tacit permission for such things to occur and pushes a belief that those situations are unavoidable. Maybe it's just the optimistic educator in me, but I think the vast majority of people can overcome laziness given the right motivation. If those voters were passionate enough to vote, then there's surely some way to make them passionate enough to look up a few things before they vote. That's not to say that they're going to be master fact-checkers or change their political affiliation, but I don't feel like the best way to address the situation is to give them a pass. What was this discussion then? It was about the swing voters who were mainly blue collar workers and tend to have limited education. This limited education is critical because it is a big reason they are unable to find work outside of their previously over-inflated salaries. These voters were given a false sense of importance and accomplishment. When it was taken away, they blamed the government and decided this billionaire guy probably knows what he's talking about. This conversation isn't about the xDaunts of the world. It is about the uncle who works at walmart and thinks the clinton foundation made coal illegal. Edit: Also shoutout to GH: These same voters overwhelmingly rejected Clinton during the primary and are the reason Bernie did way better than some people expected. They went on to reject Clinton for a second time. What exactly makes you think they were being overpaid ?
|
On August 03 2017 01:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 01:40 LegalLord wrote:
Our president signed the sanctions bill. Huzzah. I wonder if Putin will make an "I am disappoint" statement about Trump.
Hopefully he releases the pee tape.
|
Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing the "Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act":
Today, I signed into law the "Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which enacts new sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia. I favor tough measures to punish and deter bad behavior by the rogue regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang. I also support making clear that America will not tolerate interference in our democratic process, and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization.
That is why, since taking office, I have enacted tough new sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and shored up existing sanctions on Russia.
Since this bill was first introduced, I have expressed my concerns to Congress about the many ways it improperly encroaches on Executive power, disadvantages American companies, and hurts the interests of our European allies.
My Administration has attempted to work with Congress to make this bill better. We have made progress and improved the language to give the Treasury Department greater flexibility in granting routine licenses to American businesses, people, and companies. The improved language also reflects feedback from our European allies – who have been steadfast partners on Russia sanctions — regarding the energy sanctions provided for in the legislation. The new language also ensures our agencies can delay sanctions on the intelligence and defense sectors, because those sanctions could negatively affect American companies and those of our allies.
Still, the bill remains seriously flawed — particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate. Congress could not even negotiate a healthcare bill after seven years of talking. By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together. The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President. This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice.
Yet despite its problems, I am signing this bill for the sake of national unity. It represents the will of the American people to see Russia take steps to improve relations with the United States. We hope there will be cooperation between our two countries on major global issues so that these sanctions will no longer be necessary.
Further, the bill sends a clear message to Iran and North Korea that the American people will not tolerate their dangerous and destabilizing behavior. America will continue to work closely with our friends and allies to check those countries’ malignant activities.
I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. That is a big part of the reason I was elected. As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.
www.nbcnews.com
|
On August 03 2017 01:38 KwarK wrote:
Was Rocky meant to be developmentally disabled in the movies? Because I always felt like that was a big part of the portrayal but I was never sure if it was intentional. If I recall correctly in the second one he wanted to try and get a sitting down job but he wasn't really sure what that entailed. Like a child pretending to be a doctor by saying long words and inspecting blank charts. Unfortunately there wasn't any kind of community where he could be properly taken care of and he was forced let people punch him in the face for money.
I think that is just how people without college educations talked about office work back then. It wasn’t seen as skilled labor, as a “sit down job”. Rocky was released in 1976 and we were not in the full swing of college for everyone out of high school. My reading of that is blue collar workers often had no idea how to even obtain a white collar job or the requirements for getting one.
On August 03 2017 01:57 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2017 00:41 Mohdoo wrote:On August 03 2017 00:37 mozoku wrote:On August 03 2017 00:29 Plansix wrote:
I love how mozoku drops in and makes arguments against points no one is currently discussing, but acts like someone is. I V The only thing I disagree with you on, in this post, is that voters are blameless in this situation. While the Republican leadership deserves plenty of blame, I also think that the voters who put those Republicans (and Trump) in office share the responsibility. The voters never educated themselves. You may as well blame janitors for being janitors or a technician for never being an engineer. These people are the people they are...because of the people they are. It is a somewhat inescapable reality that many people will never be any better than the people they become by just kind of going through the motions of life. Most people don't push themselves, try to grow or feel any amount of internal motivation to make the world a better place. The average human is really, really, reallllly deficient. If the only reason for someone's ignorance is laziness, then I have no problem blaming that person. I can't speak to other analogies like your job examples necessarily, because those may be more complex and may include other issues not necessarily in the control of one individual. But I feel like shrugging Trump voters off as "Eh, whaddya gonna do? The average human is deficient" gives tacit permission for such things to occur and pushes a belief that those situations are unavoidable. Maybe it's just the optimistic educator in me, but I think the vast majority of people can overcome laziness given the right motivation. If those voters were passionate enough to vote, then there's surely some way to make them passionate enough to look up a few things before they vote. That's not to say that they're going to be master fact-checkers or change their political affiliation, but I don't feel like the best way to address the situation is to give them a pass. What was this discussion then? It was about the swing voters who were mainly blue collar workers and tend to have limited education. This limited education is critical because it is a big reason they are unable to find work outside of their previously over-inflated salaries. These voters were given a false sense of importance and accomplishment. When it was taken away, they blamed the government and decided this billionaire guy probably knows what he's talking about. This conversation isn't about the xDaunts of the world. It is about the uncle who works at walmart and thinks the clinton foundation made coal illegal. Edit: Also shoutout to GH: These same voters overwhelmingly rejected Clinton during the primary and are the reason Bernie did way better than some people expected. They went on to reject Clinton for a second time. What exactly makes you think they were being overpaid ?
I'm glad you caught that, because I missed it and also want to know.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The overall result of the bill is that it will make diplomacy tougher in all the regions where the US is already having trouble with that. It was passed with more regard to making a statement than with making sound policy.
|
On August 03 2017 02:04 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing the "Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act":
Today, I signed into law the "Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which enacts new sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia. I favor tough measures to punish and deter bad behavior by the rogue regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang. I also support making clear that America will not tolerate interference in our democratic process, and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization.
That is why, since taking office, I have enacted tough new sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and shored up existing sanctions on Russia.
Since this bill was first introduced, I have expressed my concerns to Congress about the many ways it improperly encroaches on Executive power, disadvantages American companies, and hurts the interests of our European allies.
My Administration has attempted to work with Congress to make this bill better. We have made progress and improved the language to give the Treasury Department greater flexibility in granting routine licenses to American businesses, people, and companies. The improved language also reflects feedback from our European allies – who have been steadfast partners on Russia sanctions — regarding the energy sanctions provided for in the legislation. The new language also ensures our agencies can delay sanctions on the intelligence and defense sectors, because those sanctions could negatively affect American companies and those of our allies.
Still, the bill remains seriously flawed — particularly because it encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate. Congress could not even negotiate a healthcare bill after seven years of talking. By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together. The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President. This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice.
Yet despite its problems, I am signing this bill for the sake of national unity. It represents the will of the American people to see Russia take steps to improve relations with the United States. We hope there will be cooperation between our two countries on major global issues so that these sanctions will no longer be necessary.
Further, the bill sends a clear message to Iran and North Korea that the American people will not tolerate their dangerous and destabilizing behavior. America will continue to work closely with our friends and allies to check those countries’ malignant activities.
I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. That is a big part of the reason I was elected. As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.
www.nbcnews.com
Why does he do this? All he had to do was sign, shut his mouth, and let it go away. Now we have to talk about how he acts like an ass when he does not get his way
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
