|
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 October 13 2017 22:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2017 22:28 ChristianS wrote:On October 13 2017 22:01 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 21:40 ChristianS wrote:On October 13 2017 21:29 Artisreal wrote:On October 13 2017 21:14 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 20:38 Gahlo wrote:On October 13 2017 10:24 Tachion wrote:On October 13 2017 09:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Kushner is untouchable. Undisclosed meetings and contacts, secret back channels, hiding e-mails, undisclosed finances, none of it seems to matter. He could turn up with a body in his trunk and probably get away with "Oh, I don't know how that got there". He never should have even been in his position in the first place due to anti-nepotism laws, and yet there he stays. No point in going after him now when Trump can just pardon it. On October 13 2017 21:00 Artisreal wrote:
There's a lot of merit in forcing him to do so and a conviction, which I unknowingly assume is a prerequisite for a pardon, would be immensely significant. Are people really so insane to think a conviction of Kushner and a presidential pardon is meaningless? Or that prosecutors aren't biting at the bit for anything provable? I know people here are obsessed with demonizing Trump supporters, but a son-in-law "untouchable" because of conviction then pardon is ridiculous. Why did you include my post? I literally said what you said. A conviction isn't a requirement for pardon. He can pardon anyone for anything they did or did not do at any time after they did or did not do. Presidents can pardon someone for things they may or may not have done, thus preempting any criminal proceedings. Some people think pardoning allies for campaign malfeasance is the line he can't cross without congressional republicans starting to consider impeachment, but I think it's quite likely that if Kushner got charged, Trump would immediately pardon with the argument that the charges are bullshit and he wants his team to go back to work instead of fighting bullshit criminal charges. And the rest of the world would think "that's fucked up" but not do anything about it. Just like all the other fucked up shit he's said and done. Danglars would probably still consider him a "necessary evil." Which is why I just argued that a conviction/pardon of his son-in-law would be a big thing against someone that didn't think it would be one. You should really substitute my real arguments for your contortions of them and assumptions if you want to rise above the trolls. I never said you wouldn't think it was a big deal, just that it probably wouldn't move the dial for you on whether Trump was a "necessary evil." Is thst not true? That's a pleasant surprise. I asked once what Trump would have to do for you to consider him a mistake, and you refused to answer. That doesn't give me much choice besides guessing what your answer might be. There's no "real argument" to substitute. He can be a historical impeached president that was also a necessary evil for the time. I still don't know why you ignored my past statements and imply there's some contradiction present.
Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I apologize. Does this mean you'd support impeachment if he starts pardoning campaign members for criminal acts? That really would be a pleasant surprise for me.
Edit: oops, broke the quote, I'll fix it
Edit2: fixed
|
Keep in mind Trump isn't killing the subsidies to poor people, he's killing the subsidies to insurance companies (unless he's said otherwise, who knows with that incompetent buffoon). Poor people will still pay about the same for health insurance; the federal and state governments will just have to pay way more through the subsidies they provide directly to people and people who don't get subsidies or employer insurance will suffer.
|
|
|
On October 13 2017 23:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2017 22:57 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 22:21 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2017 22:14 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 22:02 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2017 21:57 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 21:18 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2017 21:09 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 16:53 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote:
Well unless it's a black, m-2-f transgender disabled Muslim socialist, the SJW faction won't be satisfied, so any reasonably sane Republican will win by default. I've seen enough leftists in this thread both understand the label and reject it. It's a positive thing that it has this stigma and people that make primarily identity arguments and race-card arguments flee from it. Can't have this conversation in a vacuum my friend That was just an aside to why there's hope. Anything else on the actual post aside from your quoted segment? It was pretty much an answer to your whole post. Identity politics aren't good or bad in a vacuum. Your attempt to encourage leftist views that it is bad strategically cannot be separated from your initial misguided thought that they are bad in a vacuum. I said it in light of the forumgoers here and informatively to morty. I can't really make sense of your comment. I'm not making some point-by-point defense that SJW-ism and identity politics and race-card politics are bad, I'm just observing the stigma in the past and (unquoted portion) elaborating on its proponents and makeup. On October 13 2017 21:29 Artisreal wrote:On October 13 2017 21:14 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 20:38 Gahlo wrote:On October 13 2017 10:24 Tachion wrote:Kushner is untouchable. Undisclosed meetings and contacts, secret back channels, hiding e-mails, undisclosed finances, none of it seems to matter. He could turn up with a body in his trunk and probably get away with "Oh, I don't know how that got there". He never should have even been in his position in the first place due to anti-nepotism laws, and yet there he stays. No point in going after him now when Trump can just pardon it. On October 13 2017 21:00 Artisreal wrote:
There's a lot of merit in forcing him to do so and a conviction, which I unknowingly assume is a prerequisite for a pardon, would be immensely significant. Are people really so insane to think a conviction of Kushner and a presidential pardon is meaningless? Or that prosecutors aren't biting at the bit for anything provable? I know people here are obsessed with demonizing Trump supporters, but a son-in-law "untouchable" because of conviction then pardon is ridiculous. Why did you include my post? I literally said what you said. It was mainly to acknowledge and reiterate. I also wondered why Gahlo would think it was insignificant in the first place. Would you disagree with the notion that identity politics are inherently bad? You should, this notion is demonstrably false, but I can't make sense of your worldview if you do disagree with it, including but not limited to your strategical tips for the left. I think its current practice is at levels that are absolutely bad. I know past apartheid and slavery made it necessary and it can be an important minor force if political debate swings back. Wouldn't it then make more sense for the left to refocus its use of identity politics in the directions where it makes sense to use them (according to you) rather than to drop them entirely? If the left gives up on identity politics, the right isn't going to pick them up, so we just lose them as a whole. Seems like the wrong thing to advocate, strategically or not, if you do think they can have a positive impact on situations and be used for good.
I wasn't aware I identified a direction where it makes sense to use it. You can try to incorporate people obsessed with that topic, be my guest, but they have quite a list of demands compared to people that just want jobs, national security, comity, and the like. I've gone way to long into what groups I'm not a part of should do for their own benefit recently, so I'll leave it at that.
On October 13 2017 23:25 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2017 22:57 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 22:28 ChristianS wrote:On October 13 2017 22:01 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 21:40 ChristianS wrote:On October 13 2017 21:29 Artisreal wrote:On October 13 2017 21:14 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 20:38 Gahlo wrote:On October 13 2017 10:24 Tachion wrote:Kushner is untouchable. Undisclosed meetings and contacts, secret back channels, hiding e-mails, undisclosed finances, none of it seems to matter. He could turn up with a body in his trunk and probably get away with "Oh, I don't know how that got there". He never should have even been in his position in the first place due to anti-nepotism laws, and yet there he stays. No point in going after him now when Trump can just pardon it. On October 13 2017 21:00 Artisreal wrote:
There's a lot of merit in forcing him to do so and a conviction, which I unknowingly assume is a prerequisite for a pardon, would be immensely significant. Are people really so insane to think a conviction of Kushner and a presidential pardon is meaningless? Or that prosecutors aren't biting at the bit for anything provable? I know people here are obsessed with demonizing Trump supporters, but a son-in-law "untouchable" because of conviction then pardon is ridiculous. Why did you include my post? I literally said what you said. A conviction isn't a requirement for pardon. He can pardon anyone for anything they did or did not do at any time after they did or did not do. Presidents can pardon someone for things they may or may not have done, thus preempting any criminal proceedings. Some people think pardoning allies for campaign malfeasance is the line he can't cross without congressional republicans starting to consider impeachment, but I think it's quite likely that if Kushner got charged, Trump would immediately pardon with the argument that the charges are bullshit and he wants his team to go back to work instead of fighting bullshit criminal charges. And the rest of the world would think "that's fucked up" but not do anything about it. Just like all the other fucked up shit he's said and done. Danglars would probably still consider him a "necessary evil." Which is why I just argued that a conviction/pardon of his son-in-law would be a big thing against someone that didn't think it would be one. You should really substitute my real arguments for your contortions of them and assumptions if you want to rise above the trolls. I never said you wouldn't think it was a big deal, just that it probably wouldn't move the dial for you on whether Trump was a "necessary evil." Is thst not true? That's a pleasant surprise. I asked once what Trump would have to do for you to consider him a mistake, and you refused to answer. That doesn't give me much choice besides guessing what your answer might be. There's no "real argument" to substitute. He can be a historical impeached president that was also a necessary evil for the time. I still don't know why you ignored my past statements and imply there's some contradiction present. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I apologize. Does this mean you'd support impeachment if he starts pardoning campaign members for criminal acts? That really would be a pleasant surprise for me. Edit: oops, broke the quote, I'll fix it Edit2: fixed
It depends on the crime, but pardoning family members for obviously criminal acts definitely falls under the header. A lot of these former campaign workers are just under the cloud of suspicion and I'm not acquainted with particular charges that prosecutors are considering. For example, I don't think Trump would pardon for something arising from failure to register as a foreign agent.
|
|
|
On October 13 2017 23:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2017 23:06 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2017 22:57 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 22:21 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2017 22:14 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 22:02 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2017 21:57 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 21:18 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2017 21:09 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 16:53 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote:
Well unless it's a black, m-2-f transgender disabled Muslim socialist, the SJW faction won't be satisfied, so any reasonably sane Republican will win by default. I've seen enough leftists in this thread both understand the label and reject it. It's a positive thing that it has this stigma and people that make primarily identity arguments and race-card arguments flee from it. Can't have this conversation in a vacuum my friend That was just an aside to why there's hope. Anything else on the actual post aside from your quoted segment? It was pretty much an answer to your whole post. Identity politics aren't good or bad in a vacuum. Your attempt to encourage leftist views that it is bad strategically cannot be separated from your initial misguided thought that they are bad in a vacuum. I said it in light of the forumgoers here and informatively to morty. I can't really make sense of your comment. I'm not making some point-by-point defense that SJW-ism and identity politics and race-card politics are bad, I'm just observing the stigma in the past and (unquoted portion) elaborating on its proponents and makeup. On October 13 2017 21:29 Artisreal wrote:On October 13 2017 21:14 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2017 20:38 Gahlo wrote:On October 13 2017 10:24 Tachion wrote:Kushner is untouchable. Undisclosed meetings and contacts, secret back channels, hiding e-mails, undisclosed finances, none of it seems to matter. He could turn up with a body in his trunk and probably get away with "Oh, I don't know how that got there". He never should have even been in his position in the first place due to anti-nepotism laws, and yet there he stays. No point in going after him now when Trump can just pardon it. On October 13 2017 21:00 Artisreal wrote:
There's a lot of merit in forcing him to do so and a conviction, which I unknowingly assume is a prerequisite for a pardon, would be immensely significant. Are people really so insane to think a conviction of Kushner and a presidential pardon is meaningless? Or that prosecutors aren't biting at the bit for anything provable? I know people here are obsessed with demonizing Trump supporters, but a son-in-law "untouchable" because of conviction then pardon is ridiculous. Why did you include my post? I literally said what you said. It was mainly to acknowledge and reiterate. I also wondered why Gahlo would think it was insignificant in the first place. Would you disagree with the notion that identity politics are inherently bad? You should, this notion is demonstrably false, but I can't make sense of your worldview if you do disagree with it, including but not limited to your strategical tips for the left. I think its current practice is at levels that are absolutely bad. I know past apartheid and slavery made it necessary and it can be an important minor force if political debate swings back. Wouldn't it then make more sense for the left to refocus its use of identity politics in the directions where it makes sense to use them (according to you) rather than to drop them entirely? If the left gives up on identity politics, the right isn't going to pick them up, so we just lose them as a whole. Seems like the wrong thing to advocate, strategically or not, if you do think they can have a positive impact on situations and be used for good. I wasn't aware I identified a direction where it makes sense to use it. You can try to incorporate people obsessed with that topic, be my guest, but they have quite a list of demands compared to people that just want jobs, national security, comity, and the like. I've gone way to long into what groups I'm not a part of should do for their own benefit recently, so I'll leave it at that.
I would surmise that if something isn't inherently bad, there are situations in which it's good. Those would be the directions where it makes sense to use it.
|
I'm surprised the subsidy cut hasn't gotten more coverage.
|
I think it's because relatively few people understand how they work, talking heads included. The news will pick up on the closures of facilities and cascading effects soon enough.
|
I thought WAYYYYYYYY too highly of people on the right when I believed Bush was pushing it for their "this guy kinda sounds/acts a little to moronic to be president" threshold.
|
As part of my ongoing inquiries into elected vs appointed officials, i'd be curious as to people's assessments on the current Executive:
Poll: Who is doing a better/less bad job?Trump's Cabinet (16) 100% Trump (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: Who is doing a better/less bad job? (Vote): Trump
(Vote): Trump's Cabinet
2nd edit: ok I think I got it working right.
edit: hmm, I think I set up the poll wrong, going to try to fix that.
|
I was expecting a few more "elected officials" when I saw there was a poll. Who appointed whom? More than half of that original cabinet could've been a Jeb Bush choice.
|
You posted this in a tweet before, it costs the government $194 billion over 10 years relative to current law, meaning assuming healthcare stays exactly the same, which is uncertain.
|
On October 14 2017 00:25 oBlade wrote:You posted this in a tweet before, it costs the government $194 billion over 10 years relative to current law, meaning assuming healthcare stays exactly the same, which is uncertain.
are you trying to argue that it's not correct to analyze the effect of an EO based on how the EO would result in a difference from what would happen without it? is there some secret healthcare reform plan that we should be factoring in?
|
On October 14 2017 00:24 Danglars wrote:
I was expecting a few more "elected officials" when I saw there was a poll. Who appointed whom? More than half of that original cabinet could've been a Jeb Bush choice.
it is a rather thin choice selection, but it's only going to be one small data point as part of the larger inquiries.
If you have alternate poll ideas I'd be happy to hear them.
My inquiry originally grew out of some research I read comparing elected vs appointed judges, which found that appointed judges did a markedly better job.
and I liked Jeb Bush
|
On October 14 2017 00:25 oBlade wrote:You posted this in a tweet before, it costs the government $194 billion over 10 years relative to current law, meaning assuming healthcare stays exactly the same, which is uncertain.
There are no signs that the GOP is going to be able to repeal the ACA or change healthcare in the next 10 years. They failed after making their hardest and likely only push.
|
CBS
NASHVILLE, TN (WSMV) - Tennessee Titans wide receiver Rishard Matthews will not stay in the locker room or pay a fine if the NFL makes a new rule requiring players to stand for the national anthem at games. Mathews told a News 4 producer that if a new rule is put in place, he will quit playing professional football. Soon after publishing the tweet, Matthews deleted it. This comes after NFL teams across the country began kneeling or staying in their locker rooms during the national anthem because of statements by President Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly criticized players and teams who kneel during the anthem to protest, saying that any players who refused to stand should be fired. Earlier this month, the Seattle Seahawks and Titans stayed off the field during the anthem. This was the first Sunday after Trump made his comments. After the game, the Titans released this statement: “As a team, we wanted to be unified in our actions today,” the players said in a statement posted on the Titans’ website. “The players jointly decided this was the best course of action. Our commitment to the military and our community is resolute and the absence of our team for the national anthem shouldn’t be misconstrued as unpatriotic.” Read more: http://www.cbs46.com/story/36588844/titans-wr-will-leave-football-if-nfl-makes-new-rule-on-anthem#ixzz4vP48yhKu
|
On October 14 2017 00:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2017 00:25 oBlade wrote:You posted this in a tweet before, it costs the government $194 billion over 10 years relative to current law, meaning assuming healthcare stays exactly the same, which is uncertain. There are no signs that the GOP is going to be able to repeal the ACA or change healthcare in the next 10 years. They failed after making their hardest and likely only push.
They've made like 3-4 pushes. There's no healthcare reform they can get without compromising with democrats, which would be anathema to their primary voters.
|
Trump's hardcore base will see his subsidy cut as a good thing I think. Because these people are more concerned with virtue signaling than actually making positive change, they see Trump sticking it to healthcare as a disrespect to Obama. They will say if the ACA weren't such a mess, these subsidies wouldn't hurt Americans. Trump is doing the right thing by getting rid of costly subsidies, since they are Obama spending. The negative effects of the subsidies being removed only exist because of Obama.
|
On October 14 2017 01:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Trump's hardcore base will see his subsidy cut as a good thing I think. Because these people are more concerned with virtue signaling than actually making positive change, they see Trump sticking it to healthcare as a disrespect to Obama. They will say if the ACA weren't such a mess, these subsidies wouldn't hurt Americans. Trump is doing the right thing by getting rid of costly subsidies, since they are Obama spending. The negative effects of the subsidies being removed only exist because of Obama.
I actually doubt this. People virtue signal etc. Right up until it hits their wallets. His rich supporters won't care, but much of his base is poorer.
|
On October 14 2017 01:22 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2017 01:20 Mohdoo wrote:
Trump's hardcore base will see his subsidy cut as a good thing I think. Because these people are more concerned with virtue signaling than actually making positive change, they see Trump sticking it to healthcare as a disrespect to Obama. They will say if the ACA weren't such a mess, these subsidies wouldn't hurt Americans. Trump is doing the right thing by getting rid of costly subsidies, since they are Obama spending. The negative effects of the subsidies being removed only exist because of Obama. I actually doubt this. People virtue signal etc. Right up until it hits their wallets. His rich supporters won't care, but much of his base is poorer.
Consider how many of these sub-par rural folks blame big government for their low wages and inability to support a family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
