|
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 26 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:
So with Pence being the one to do all this tie-breaking, does that mean Democrats only need to flip 1 senate seat to bring everything to a standstill?
Yes. If they pick up one or two seats in the Senate, the entire process will grind to a standstill if the GOP continues on the track they are going on. They will no long be able to be effective without working with the Democrats, so all the conservative pet projects will die. That is the problem with voting for conservative representatives. What they want to do in government is something that the opposing party would never allow to happen, so there is no ability govern. They have no interest in a deliberative process.
|
Alexander Nix, who heads a controversial data-analytics firm that worked for President Donald Trump’s campaign, wrote in an email last year that he reached out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about Hillary Clinton’s missing 33,000 emails.
Nix, who heads Cambridge Analytica, told a third party that he reached out to Assange about his firm somehow helping the WikiLeaks founder release Clinton’s missing emails, according to two sources familiar with a congressional investigation into interactions between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Those sources also relayed that, according to Nix’s email, Assange told the Cambridge Analytica CEO that he didn’t want his help, and preferred to do the work on his own.
If the claims Nix made in that email are true, this would be the closest known connection between Trump’s campaign and Assange.
Cambridge Analytica did not provide comment for this story by press time.
After publication, Assange provided this statement to The Daily Beast: ”We can confirm an approach by Cambridge Analytica and can confirm that it was rejected by WikiLeaks.”
Nobody has published the 33,000 emails that were deleted from the personal email server Hillary Clinton used while she was secretary of State.
“It’s not at all clear that anybody hacked Clinton’s emails or has them,” said one of the sources familiar with the investigation.
Those 33,000 messages were a central focus of Trump and his allies during the campaign. At least one Republican operative tried to recruit hackers to obtain those emails, according to The Wall Street Journal. And at a press conference on July 27, 2016, while the Democratic National Convention was underway, Trump –– then the Republican nominee –– said he hoped the Kremlin would recover those emails.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’ll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said.
And on the campaign trail, Trump praised Wikileaks and tweeted about their findings. Politifact calculated that he mentioned the site about 137 times during the campaign.
“I love Wikileaks!” he proclaimed at a rally on Oct. 10, shortly after the site began publishing emails hacked from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
Source
|
On October 26 2017 00:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:
So with Pence being the one to do all this tie-breaking, does that mean Democrats only need to flip 1 senate seat to bring everything to a standstill? Yes. If they pick up one or two seats in the Senate, the entire process will grind to a standstill if the GOP continues on the track they are going on. They will no long be able to be effective without working with the Democrats, so all the conservative pet projects will die. That is the problem with voting for conservative representatives. What they want to do in government is something that the opposing party would never allow to happen, so there is no ability govern. They have no interest in a deliberative process.
Is this criticism something specific to the conservative side or do liberal politicians also want to do things the opposing party would never allow to happen and have no interest in a deliberative process?
|
On October 26 2017 00:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 00:10 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:
So with Pence being the one to do all this tie-breaking, does that mean Democrats only need to flip 1 senate seat to bring everything to a standstill? Yes. If they pick up one or two seats in the Senate, the entire process will grind to a standstill if the GOP continues on the track they are going on. They will no long be able to be effective without working with the Democrats, so all the conservative pet projects will die. That is the problem with voting for conservative representatives. What they want to do in government is something that the opposing party would never allow to happen, so there is no ability govern. They have no interest in a deliberative process. Is this criticism something specific to the conservative side or do liberal politicians also want to do things the opposing party would never allow to happen and have no interest in a deliberative process?
The "liberal" politicians are still largely the same group that were willing to work with and compromise with past Republican administrations.
The current Republicans, or at least the major subset of the party in power right now, are the ones that basically campaigned on no compromise no quarter.
|
On October 26 2017 00:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 00:10 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:
So with Pence being the one to do all this tie-breaking, does that mean Democrats only need to flip 1 senate seat to bring everything to a standstill? Yes. If they pick up one or two seats in the Senate, the entire process will grind to a standstill if the GOP continues on the track they are going on. They will no long be able to be effective without working with the Democrats, so all the conservative pet projects will die. That is the problem with voting for conservative representatives. What they want to do in government is something that the opposing party would never allow to happen, so there is no ability govern. They have no interest in a deliberative process. Is this criticism something specific to the conservative side or do liberal politicians also want to do things the opposing party would never allow to happen and have no interest in a deliberative process?
There are some, but they have never dominated the democratic party. Not for the last 20 years or so. The Democrats have been the party of compromise and working with the GOP. The Bush tax cuts, no child left behind and so on. They want to work on DACA and other things that the majority of Americans support. The conservative wing of the Republican party is the wing of “NO” to all forms of compromise and have threatened to primary anyone who does so.
And there are things that the conservatives want that are not viable or possible. A block grant for medicare is just not possible. 50% of children in the US are born being covered by medicare. There are states that cannot exist and provide healthcare without medicare. That is why they couldn’t repeal the ACA, because their view on how healthcare should function directly harms their own voters. In many ways, they live in a fantasy land. The left has people like this, but they have not seized control of the party the tea party did to the Republican party.
On October 26 2017 00:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 00:38 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2017 00:10 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:
So with Pence being the one to do all this tie-breaking, does that mean Democrats only need to flip 1 senate seat to bring everything to a standstill? Yes. If they pick up one or two seats in the Senate, the entire process will grind to a standstill if the GOP continues on the track they are going on. They will no long be able to be effective without working with the Democrats, so all the conservative pet projects will die. That is the problem with voting for conservative representatives. What they want to do in government is something that the opposing party would never allow to happen, so there is no ability govern. They have no interest in a deliberative process. Is this criticism something specific to the conservative side or do liberal politicians also want to do things the opposing party would never allow to happen and have no interest in a deliberative process? The "liberal" politicians are still largely the same group that were willing to work with and compromise with past Republican administrations. The current Republicans, or at least the major subset of the party in power right now, are the ones that basically campaigned on no compromise no quarter.
Backed by massive conservative donors that pushes things like preventing Obama from naming a second Supreme Court justice and a repeal of the ACA. The conservative base of the GOP is also backed by wealthy donors pushing for policies that will harm the GOPs base.
Edit: To answer your question directly: I would have the exact same problem with any left leaning group that simply refused to compromise or work with the right. With the rise of a more progressive section of the democrats, a repeat of the tea party take over is a concern that is voiced often, even among super progressives.
|
United States43991 Posts
On October 26 2017 00:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2017 00:10 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:
So with Pence being the one to do all this tie-breaking, does that mean Democrats only need to flip 1 senate seat to bring everything to a standstill? Yes. If they pick up one or two seats in the Senate, the entire process will grind to a standstill if the GOP continues on the track they are going on. They will no long be able to be effective without working with the Democrats, so all the conservative pet projects will die. That is the problem with voting for conservative representatives. What they want to do in government is something that the opposing party would never allow to happen, so there is no ability govern. They have no interest in a deliberative process. Is this criticism something specific to the conservative side or do liberal politicians also want to do things the opposing party would never allow to happen and have no interest in a deliberative process?
Take the example of healthcare. The "liberal" policy is to nationalize the healthcare providers, create a new tax to pay for the provision of healthcare, and create a nationwide rationing system, per the NHS. The "conservative" policy is to mandate risk pooling between the healthy and unhealthy to level out insurance costs to make them more equitable and manageable, and then allow the free market of insurance and healthcare providers to take it from there (per the Heritage Foundation's proposals).
Which one happened?
That said, on the specific issue of Social Security reform to tailor it to current actuarial models, I'll give you that both sides are refusing to budge, despite the middle ground being pretty reasonable. It's one of those issues where doing nothing wins votes because nobody anywhere actually likes the solution and the problem feels like one that can be deferred indefinitely, even though it can't.
|
Well we know what side the Government will be on...
A record high number of respondents to a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they support the legalization of marijuana, including more than half of Republicans polled.
Overall, 64 percent of those reached by Gallup said they support the legalization of marijuana, up 4 percentage points from October 2016. The percentage of Gallup respondents who support legalization has climbed consistently since 2012, when 48 percent of those polled said they supported it.
Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but the drug has been legalized by eight states and the District of Columbia. Many other states allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes under laws with varying degrees of strictness.
Of the Republicans reached by Gallup’s poll, 51 percent said they support legalization, a 9-point increase relative to last year. It is the first time that a majority of Republicans have expressed support for marijuana legalization in Gallup polling.
The Gallup poll was conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 11, reaching 1,017 adults, via landlines and cellphones, in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The margin of error for the poll’s full sample size was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Source
|
Yea, fuck the people, keep it illegal so they continue to waste money!
edit: /s
|
On October 25 2017 09:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
wasn't it already known last year that after the GOP funder backed out that the DNC stepped up to fund the firm?
Is this link somewhere?
|
orge H.W. Bush has made an apology, via a statement, to actress Heather Lind, who alleged Tuesday that the former president “touched [her] from behind” during a photo op four years ago.
“President Bush would never—under any circumstance—intentionally cause anyone distress, and he most sincerely apologizes if his attempt at humor offended Ms. Lind,” the former president’s spokesman said in a statement to People.
Per People, in a now-deleted Instagram post containing the photo with Bush, Lind, who starred in the four-season AMC show TURN: Washington’s Spies, detailed her encounter with Bush. She said that during a photo op, he “He touched [her] from behind from his wheelchair with his wife Barbara Bush by his side..”
In Lind's post, she featured a photograph of all five living former presidents, describing her reaction to the sight: “I found it disturbing, because I recognize the respect ex-presidents are given for having served,” she wrote. “And I feel pride and reverence toward many of the men in the photo. But when I got the chance to meet George H. W. Bush four years ago to promote a historical television show I was working on, he sexually assaulted me while I was posing for a similar photo.”
“He didn’t shake my hand,” she said. “. . .He told me a dirty joke. And then, all the while being photographed, touched me again.”
Lind went on to say that the former first lady “rolled her eyes” when she saw what her husband had done, “as if to say, ‘not again.’” She added that his security guard told her she shouldn’t have stood next to Bush. Throughout the interaction, she said, the group was instructed to call Bush “Mr. President.”
“It seems to me a president’s power is in his or her capacity to enact positive change, actually help people, and serve as a symbol of our democracy,” she wrote. “What comforts me is that I too can use my power, which isn’t so different from a president, really. I can enact positive change. I can actually help people. I can be a symbol of my democracy. I can refuse to call him president, and call out other abuses of power when I see them.”
www.vanityfair.com
|
|
|
On October 25 2017 19:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 12:10 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2017 10:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 25 2017 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On October 25 2017 10:52 Plansix wrote:
Again, the opposition. Red team vs blue team. There is no goal of homogeneity, only division and opposition. Co-existence with the left is impossible for the modern conservative. Dominance is the only end game they accept. It's not about us vs them. It's about policy and principle. My relentless criticism of the GOP should make that obvious. You need to ditch this stupid theory of yours. Genuinely curious what principles you're talking about? The central tenets of conservativism can be broadly distilled down to 1) individual liberty, 2) importance of family, 3) national strength, 4) capitalism, and 5) civic virtue and morality. The GOP has talked a very big game on Nos 1 and 4, but have badly failed to deliver. Individual liberty. Unless your a black athlete peacefully protesting police violence. Then you need to shut up and get in line like a good little drone.
Not to mention Stop and Frisk or the right to get an abortion.
|
well, i mean, half of that is provably true and the other is only arguably untrue.
on a scale of things trump says where 1 is pants on fire and 10 is beyond a reasonable doubt, though the average seems to be in the 3-4 range, this is at least a 7.
|
|
|
On October 25 2017 13:26 Noidberg wrote:
Many people called me a nut months ago when i said the USA was founded on republicanism or Fascism which you are now seeing the conservatives implement, AGAIN. Basically swamp to swamp from liberal to conservative and all thanks to Bannon. Trump tried to be moderate, he really did to try to hold this nation together from extremes but nope the mob is draining the swamp.
You're back!!! Excellent.
I don't understand. Bannon created the swamp, is that what you are saying? Trump was trying not to drain the swamp but "the mob" (who??) managed it anyways....?
What did you think of Flake's speech?
What are your thoughts on Donald Trump and the Russians?
|
Buck Passer in Chief strikes again. This is the crucial context on Trump's "he knew what he signed up for" line. Trump makes a point to pass the buck as hard and as fast as he can.
|
Yeah, when I first heard about "he knew what he signed up for", my first thought was that he knows this operation did not go well and that someone would end up getting blamed for the dude's death. It was clear he was already intent on passing blame.
|
Got bad news for Trump, he authorized the mission. Or he gave the generals authority to do so. There is no buck passing in the chain of command.
|
On October 26 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:
Got bad news for Trump, he authorized the mission. Or he gave the generals authority to do so. There is no buck passing in the chain of command.
Did he, though? Is there some kinda paper trail? If Trump says he didn't authorize it, how do we verify?
|
So those generals are going to get court martialed or whatever for not following the chain of command and executive a combat mission without the Commander in Chief's authorization, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
