US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8406
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
LMAO. People first rush to defend him, imploring us to realize this isn't just a result of pressure and that he really believes this stuff. And thennnnn he posts this. On August 15 2017 08:58 Gahlo wrote: I'd be happy with starting on proportional EC splitting like Maine and Nebraska do. Applied to all states, does that not just end up being the popular vote? | ||
![]()
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On August 14 2017 20:31 m4ini wrote: You originally disagreed with DPB's characterization that the extremists on the right and left are very different in their nature and the severity of their behavior. Your proof was examples in Germany. Now you are saying the the difference may exist in the USA but eventually the left will be 'just as bad' as the right because that's what ultimately happened in Germany. I understand what you are trying to prevent here, and generally I agree with it, but you are going about this conversation the wrong way.That reasoning will get you nowhere though. People in germany are not magically different. If your argument is "it's not what the situation in the US is - fair enough. But as i pointed out, you quite literally go down the exact same route as germany did which led to what happened on G20 or generally on every first of may. The entire post i was quoted was trying to point out that left wing extremists generally aren't as bad (less violent, less dangerous), hence shouldn't be condemned as much. As farvacola pointed out with his statistics, that's just plain wrong: there's no difference in quality of the violence, not even in death toll (relative). You just have less left wing extremists, something that will go up especially with a president that has to be opposed and is an extremist himself. Again, as farvacola pointed out, they're not just equally bad in germany. You also are arguing as if you established the fact that left wing extremists are "better", something that i find rather funny. If anything, it's opinion against opinion here, because the only statistically relevant difference between right wing and left wing extremism is that you have less of it. And no, that doesn't mean that left wing extremists generally are less deadly, it simply means that you have less left wing extremists than right wing extremists. So who's doing that? Banning people from discussing facts? I don't see the correlation between "banning from discussing facts" (which has nothing to do with extremism) and what we're talking about. Anyway, lets move on. Why do you consider it acceptable to provide a whole list of counterpoints in a discussion and then follow it up with a "let's move on"? If you had made a couple of passing comments, instead of providing various counterpoints, and said "let's move on" I'd be inclined to agree... and the thread itself already has since quite a few hours passed.You guys think that left wing extremism is fine, If that's what you think then you clearly didn't get anything out of this discussion. you deal with that later down the line. Keep one thing in mind though: extremists (regardless of ideology) are violent. Nurturing violent groups in a country where you can buy deadly weapons at a kiosk might be the not the best idea (as was clearly shown with right wing extremists, these are nurtured too). But what do i know, left wing extremism would never go violent apart from the fact that they're as likely to go violent and kill people as a right wing extremist. I generally won't argue with you there, although I do wish you'd temper your absolute statements a bit. | ||
Introvert
United States4660 Posts
On August 15 2017 08:59 Mohdoo wrote: Applied to all states, does that not just end up being the popular vote? Those states don't do it proportionally anyways, it's by district (and popular vote). | ||
Gahlo
United States35094 Posts
On August 15 2017 08:59 Mohdoo wrote: LMAO. People first rush to defend him, imploring us to realize this isn't just a result of pressure and that he really believes this stuff. And thennnnn he posts this. Applied to all states, does that not just end up being the popular vote? From what I looked at briefly, winner gets 2 and then the rest is split by district. | ||
Uldridge
Belgium4594 Posts
On August 15 2017 08:58 zlefin wrote: getting people to care; or understand the need to fix it; is hard. what's really hard is that since most people won't know how to fix it; they won' tbe able to intelligently and correctly select the people trying to fix it from all the other people. at any rate, there's some good research in the political science field at least. Would you be able to elaborate on that research in political science, or at the very least point me to it? | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21378 Posts
On August 15 2017 08:06 Plansix wrote: Reforming elections would go a long way to keeping very rich donors from spoon feeding their views to candidates. But the system isn’t as broken as people say. We are just in a cycle where the post WW2, post Vietnam/civil right politicians are cycling out. The new politicians have no great conflict or struggle to use as a touchstone for real crisis. The Iraq war was a side show that left America bitter and war weary. The closest we came was 2007 and we managed to pull out of that. And without crisis, there is a total lack of leadership. The parties are devoid of leaders and they have stuffed shirts instead. Or people who got support by voting no nothing for 6 years. They will fail and be replaced. Hopefully this election cycle, but maybe not. But to be honest. There is not really way to “fix the system”. This government is a reflection of the US people. A bunch of people who grew up in an era where the biggest crisis was 9/11. And if you look at how our political parties and voters failed to respond to that, its sort of makes sense that shit is fucked. We sent to war with a random nations because we were high on patriotism and let ourselves be lied to. I don't think I buy this line of reasoning. US politicians are shit because they haven't been in a big crisis? So why is the rest of the world more or less functional when they haven't been in any bigger crisis? Why is it that only the US politicians needs a major struggle to keep him focused on actually doing his job? As for the discussion on how to fix the political system. I'm inclined to say you can't. Because people are the problem, be it as voters or as politicians. Who knows, maybe I will live to see the day we turn to advanced AI to handle governing. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 15 2017 09:36 Gorsameth wrote: I don't think I buy this line of reasoning. US politicians are shit because they haven't been in a big crisis? So why is the rest of the world more or less functional when they haven't been in any bigger crisis? Why is it that only the US politicians needs a major struggle to keep him focused on actually doing his job? As for the discussion on how to fix the political system. I'm inclined to say you can't. Because people are the problem, be it as voters or as politicians. Who knows, maybe I will live to see the day we turn to advanced AI to handle governing. I cannot look at the dumpster fire that is the conservative run GOP and not think "man, this is a group of people who have no idea how we ended up in the Great Depression. They think its a thing stupid people did a long time ago and we will never fall for that again." And I cant look at the Democrats and think this is the party of labor that created all the support systems that we benefit from now. This group that is more interested in optics and purity tests than results. They aren't scared of fucking up or causing massive harm or a war. At some level, they have bought into the left vs right pro-wrestling coolaid. And the US voters did too. | ||
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 15 2017 08:59 Mohdoo wrote: LMAO. People first rush to defend him, imploring us to realize this isn't just a result of pressure and that he really believes this stuff. And thennnnn he posts this. Applied to all states, does that not just end up being the popular vote? Nah, proportional EC vote includes the 2 bonus votes per Senator such that smaller states are still favored. | ||
Uldridge
Belgium4594 Posts
On August 15 2017 10:02 Plansix wrote: scared of fucking up or causing massive harm or a war. At some level, they have bought into the left vs right pro-wrestling coolaid. And the US voters did too. So basically you're saying your country is run by the WWE? But I thought wrestling wasn't real... | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 15 2017 10:11 Uldridge wrote: So basically you're saying your country is run by the WWE? But I thought wrestling wasn't real... It isn't real until Trump retweets footage of WWE and then its real incitement to violence. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 15 2017 10:11 Uldridge wrote: So basically you're saying your country is run by the WWE? But I thought wrestling wasn't real... We were lied to. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
On August 15 2017 10:11 Uldridge wrote: So basically you're saying your country is run by the WWE? But I thought wrestling wasn't real... On the contrary, Vince McMahon knows how to do his job. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 15 2017 09:13 Uldridge wrote: Would you be able to elaborate on that research in political science, or at the very least point me to it? I can't elaborate much (well, I could, but I haven't read the stuff in awhile, so it might be rather fuzzy); I can point to a few things. There's the book in my sig on democracy done by some pol-sci people; which itself has a lot of citations to the other research in the field as well. I recommend it, it's a good read. There's also the "wisdom of crowds" phenomenon, and research into places where it works well and where it doesn't (it doesn't work so well in voting). | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/07/civil_war_historical_markers_a_map_of_confederate_monuments_and_union_ones.html Also to go with it: | ||
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On August 15 2017 10:25 Plansix wrote: I know it is slate but this this animation about when confederate memorials were installed is excellent. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/07/civil_war_historical_markers_a_map_of_confederate_monuments_and_union_ones.html Also to go with it: https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/897255950951866368 Wow. Definitely the best argument against them I've ever seen. Certainly puts into context the thought behind building. | ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Topical, protestors took down a statue in NC (not the one that the white supremacists murdered for) Also, reading the youtube comments on it may hurt your brain. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Three days after Donald Trump named his campaign foreign policy team in March 2016, the youngest of the new advisers sent an email to seven campaign officials with the subject line: “Meeting with Russian Leadership - Including Putin.” The adviser, George Papadopoulos, offered to set up “a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss US-Russia ties under President Trump,” telling them his Russian contacts welcomed the opportunity, according to internal campaign emails read to The Washington Post. The proposal sent a ripple of concern through campaign headquarters in Trump Tower. Campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis wrote that he thought NATO allies should be consulted before any plans were made. Another Trump adviser, retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, cited legal concerns, including a possible violation of U.S. sanctions against Russia and of the Logan Act, which prohibits U.S. citizens from unauthorized negotiation with foreign governments. But Papadopoulos, a campaign volunteer with scant foreign policy experience, persisted. Between March and September, the self-described energy consultant sent at least a half-dozen requests for Trump, as he turned from primary candidate to party nominee, or for members of his team to meet with Russian officials. Among those to express concern about the effort was then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who rejected in May 2016 a proposal from Papadopoulos for Trump to do so. The exchanges are among more than 20,000 pages of documents the Trump campaign turned over to congressional committees this month after review by White House and defense lawyers. The selection of Papadopoulos’s emails were read to The Post by a person with access to them. Two other people with access to the emails confirmed the general tone of the exchanges and some specific passages within them. Papadopoulos emerges from the sample of emails as a new and puzzling figure in the examination of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russian officials and their proxies during the 2016 election, now the subject of a special-counsel investigation. Less than a decade out of college, Papadopoulos appeared to hold little sway within the campaign, and it is unclear whether he was acting as an intermediary for the Russian government, although he told campaign officials he was. While the emails illustrate his eagerness to strengthen the campaign’s connections to the Russian government, Papadopoulos does not spell out in them why it would be in Trump’s interest to do so. His entreaties appear to have generated more concern than excitement within the campaign, which at the time was looking to seal the Republican nomination and take on a heavily favored Hillary Clinton in the general election. But the internal resistance to Papadopoulos’s requests is at odds with other overtures Trump allies were making toward Russia at the time, mostly at a more senior level of the campaign. Three months after Papadopoulos raised the possibility of a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. and son-in-law Jared Kushner met with a delegation led by a Russian lawyer offering to provide damaging information on Clinton. Manafort attended that Trump Tower session in June 2016, a meeting now under scrutiny in the special counsel’s collusion inquiry. But the new emails reveal that Manafort had rejected a request from Papadopoulos just the previous month to set up a meeting between Trump and Russian officials. In July 2016 and again two months later, Jeff Sessions, then a senator and senior foreign policy adviser to Trump, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. + Show Spoiler + And also in July, a few weeks after Papadopoulos asked his superiors whether other campaign advisers or aides could accept some of the Russians’ invitations, Carter Page, another foreign policy adviser, spoke at a Russian university in Moscow. Page said he made the trip independently of the campaign. To experts in Russian intelligence gathering, the Papadopoulos chain offers further evidence that Russians were looking for entry points and playing upon connections with lower-level aides to penetrate the 2016 campaign. Former CIA director John Brennan in May told the House Intelligence Committee that he had seen worrisome evidence of “contacts and interactions” between Russian officials and the Trump campaign, although he offered no specifics. Steven L. Hall, who retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of managing the agency’s Russia operations, said when told by The Post about the emails: “The bottom line is that there’s no doubt in my mind that the Russian government was casting a wide net when they were looking at the American election. I think they were doing very basic intelligence work: Who’s out there? Who’s willing to play ball? And how can we use them?” Papadopoulos, a former intern and researcher at the conservative Hudson Institute, was on a list of campaign volunteers that Trump announced as his foreign policy advisory team during a meeting with The Post’s editorial board in March 2016. Trump called Papadopoulos an “excellent guy.” Almost immediately, Papadopoulos came under scrutiny for his lack of experience. He graduated from college in 2009, and his LinkedIn profile cited his participation in a Model U.N. program for students among his qualifications. Papadopoulos did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Page, who has been the subject of a foreign surveillance warrant over his connections to Russia, said the Papadopoulos email exchange was another sign that the Russia communications were inconsequential. “The entirely benign offer from a volunteer member of the Trump movement is infinitely less relevant than the real collusion in the 2016 election,” said Page, who was copied on the first Papadopoulos email communication in March. Page said in an email exchange Saturday that “the real scandal lies among Clinton and Obama associates who fed false evidence” to investigators that he said formed the basis of the federal warrant concerning him. [Special counsel Mueller can investigate any crimes he uncovers in Russia probe] Papadopoulos made more than a half-dozen overtures on behalf of Russians or people with Russia contacts whom he claimed to know. On March 24, Clovis, the campaign co-chairman who also served on the foreign policy team, reacted to one proposed Russia meeting by writing, “We thought we probably should not go forward with any meeting with the Russians until we have had occasion to sit with our NATO allies.” In the same email chain, Kubic, the retired admiral, reminded others about legal restrictions on meetings with certain Russian officials, adding, “Just want to make sure that no one on the team outruns their headlights and embarrasses the campaign.” Undeterred, Papadopoulos alerted then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in an April email that he was receiving “a lot of calls over the past month” about arranging a Russia meeting. “Putin wants to host the Trump team when the time is right,” he wrote on April 27. On May 4, Papadopoulos forwarded Lewandowski and others a note he received from the program head for the government-funded Russian International Affairs Council. In it, Ivan Timofeev, a senior official in the organization, reached out to report that Russian foreign ministry officials were open to a Trump visit to Moscow and requested that the campaign and Russians write a formal letter outlining the meeting. Clovis responded to the Timofeev invitation by noting: “There are legal issues we need to mitigate, meeting with foreign officials as a private citizen.” The email chain does not show a response from Lewandowski, who did not return calls seeking comment. Several weeks later, Papadopoulos forwarded the same message from Timofeev to Manafort, the newly named campaign chairman. “Russia has been eager to meet with Mr. Trump for some time and have been reaching out to me to discuss,” the adviser told Manafort. Manafort reacted coolly, forwarding the email to his associate Rick Gates, with a note: “We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips.” Gates agreed and told Manafort he would ask the campaign’s correspondence coordinator to handle it — “the person responding to all mail of non-importance” — to signify this did not need a senior official to respond. [FBI conducted predawn raid of former Trump campaign chairman Manafort’s home] A spokesman for Manafort, whose Virginia home was raided by FBI agents three weeks ago as part of an investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, said the email chain provides “concrete evidence that the Russia collusion narrative is fake news.” “Mr. Manafort’s swift action reflects the attitude of the campaign — any invitation by Russia, directly or indirectly, would be rejected outright,” Manafort spokesman Jason Maloni said in a statement. In an email to The Post, Timofeev confirmed that his organization had discussed a meeting with the Trump campaign in the spring of 2016. The Russian International Affairs Council was created in 2010 by a decree of then-President Dmitry Medvedev as a project of various Russian government agencies. It is led by former foreign minister Igor Ivanov. Its board includes Russia’s current foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, as well as top Russian scholars and business leaders, among them the chairman of Alfa-Bank and Sberbank, two of Russia’s largest banks. “We discussed the idea informally as one of the opportunities for . . . dialogue between Russia and the U.S.,” Timofeev said in the email. “RIAC often hosts meetings with prominent political figures and experts from the US and many other countries.” He said the group would have been open to meeting with other campaigns. Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said officials with the Democrat’s campaign have “no recollections or record” of having been contacted by the group. Similarly an adviser to Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, former Russian ambassador Michael McFaul, said he could not recall any similar invitation. Source Sure this is totally normal. I think it is very odd that they would tell low level staff that meetings should be rejected outright, but then accept a meeting with Trump Jr down the line. Edit: God bless those little activist. I mean, they are totally going to be charged and likely have to pay for repairs or something, but look at them go. Its the American way, wreck shit until the government does what you want. | ||
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
| ||