EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9497
| 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. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On December 13 2017 03:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The link in that tweet mentions a bible study group in congress. I checked and found this article, which I found somewhat interesting. After a simple buffet of eggs, bacon, fruit, and other offerings, anywhere from 15 to 30 senators from both parties break spiritual bread at this nondenominational feast. They sing a hymn, share cares and concerns, pray for each other, and hear an inspirational talk from a current or former senator, often about a deeply personal experience. The speakers alternate weekly by party. [..] The prayer breakfast is one of the few venues on the Hill where members of both parties mix socially. In a typical week, about a quarter of the Senate shows up, including members of leadership from both parties, according to Coons. Participants drop politics at the door. They observe strict confidentiality. No staff. No journalists. It’s just the senators and the chamber’s chaplain, who leads the singing. The Senate breakfast and its companion in the House are invisible to the public. Yet that is exactly what makes them so beneficial, say attendees. The confidentiality of the breakfasts allows lawmakers to get to know each other as human beings. They hear about each other’s personal struggles and joys, about concern for family members, friends, and staff. That builds trust and friendship. It can even lead to bipartisan legislation. One participant says that it’s the only time when a senator is speaking and others are really listening. The meetings have their share of critics, who see them as too clubby, too secretive, and too much religious talk under the rotunda. But in a world where religion can divide people and nations, faith is helping to bridge the political chasm in Congress. While no one thinks the breakfasts will fundamentally change the tenor of one of the most divisive periods in Washington history, they are acting as a moderating influence – and helping to promote a sense of civility and understanding on the Hill. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 13 2017 04:41 IyMoon wrote: I am really confused, what is wrong with her using slut shaming? slut shaming is when you criticize women for having a normal sexual/ social life in a way that men are not scrutinized for. apply it here would in effect be assuming what trump applied is true. in this case, it's really (just) trump implying gillibrand is a ho. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 13 2017 04:41 IyMoon wrote: I am really confused, what is wrong with her using slut shaming? It seems to imply that she actually gave Trump a blowjob. In all likelihood Trump was using language that he intended to allude to a blowjob (even though she probably only begged for money), even though he chose language that only goes right up to the edge of establishing with certainty that that's what he meant. It's a classic Trump statement that has double meaning (a dog whistle). | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
At least our President is held to a lower standard than a teenager who would be fired in an instant from this though. Great. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On December 13 2017 04:46 Plansix wrote: The President is the punching bag for all the flaws during their time in office. There are 500 members of congress and two huge political parties. Some people just like to focus on the president because it’s easy. This is the case for anyone in pretty much every senior leadership position ever. Obama was effectively the CEO of the Democratic party while he was in office. Problems within the Democratic party fall under his responsibility. That he's "busy" is no more valid than him than it is for John Stumpf. Set better priorities and delegate better. I'm not drawing an equivalence between Obama's Democratic party and Wells Fargo. I'm drawing an equivalence between the standards for evaluating leadership performance within an organization where one had control over issues that led to future problems. Edited because the issues Obama is being criticized for didn't require absolute power but you guys are latching on to that anyway and I'm too busy to debate with you guys over the obvious fact that nobody in DNC would have argued against Obama putting any value on state-level elections or most of the other issues Obama is actually being criticized for. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 13 2017 05:09 mozoku wrote: This is the case for anyone in pretty much every senior leadership position ever. Obama was effectively the CEO of the Democratic party while he was in office. Problems within the Democratic party fall under his responsibility. That he's "busy" is no more valid than him than it is for John Stumpf. Set better priorities and delegate better. I'm not drawing an equivalence between Obama's Democratic party and Wells Fargo. I'm drawing an equivalence between the standards for evaluating leadership performance within an organization where one has essentially absolute power. he doesn' thave absolute power in the Dem party though. tha'ts not how parties are setup. he doesn't even have a vast amount of power, at least not de jure, de facto he may, or may not have a lot of power. nor is he considered to be "in charge" of the party durin that time. and it's a pretty huge difference, cuz what he's in charge of ISNT the Dem party, but the entire country, a job which rightfully takes priority over party matters. so you're drawing an invalid equivalence. these aren' european style parties. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 13 2017 05:09 mozoku wrote: This is the case for anyone in pretty much every senior leadership position ever. Obama was effectively the CEO of the Democratic party while he was in office. Problems within the Democratic party fall under his responsibility. That he's "busy" is no more valid than him than it is for John Stumpf. Set better priorities and delegate better. I'm not drawing an equivalence between Obama's Democratic party and Wells Fargo. I'm drawing an equivalence between the standards for evaluating leadership performance within an organization where one has essentially absolute power. The President is the CEO of the entire executive branch, not the DNC. He is the leader of the democratic sitting democratic party, not its election apparatus. The presidency is a job so taxing that is causes the President’s executive assistants to get gray hair before their mid 20s. And most of them only last a year. Political parties that cannot keep their shit together without hands on guidance from the oval office deserve to fail. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22559 Posts
On December 13 2017 05:09 mozoku wrote: This is the case for anyone in pretty much every senior leadership position ever. Obama was effectively the CEO of the Democratic party while he was in office. Problems within the Democratic party fall under his responsibility. That he's "busy" is no more valid than him than it is for John Stumpf. Set better priorities and delegate better. I'm not drawing an equivalence between Obama's Democratic party and Wells Fargo. I'm drawing an equivalence between the standards for evaluating leadership performance within an organization where one had control over issues that led to future problems. I dont consider the President the CEO of his party. He is the figurehead but he is busy leading the country not the party. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 13 2017 05:21 Gorsameth wrote: I dont consider the President the CEO of his party. He is the figurehead but he is busy leading the country not the party. And he cannot fire anyone or control anything. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13414 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 13 2017 05:52 ZeromuS wrote: Times like this Parliamentary systems like those in Canada are wonderful. Because in actual fact, the prime minister is the leader of his party and we vote in parties -- not people. So the person is actually in a very clear way the main representative for their political party. not sure that's a plus for situations like this. it's more like i'ts better there cuz it's Canada. it seems to me to be quite sensible to have the top person NOT have to busy themselves with party matters, and focus more on the actual work of administration. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13414 Posts
On December 13 2017 05:57 zlefin wrote: not sure that's a plus for situations like this. it's more like i'ts better there cuz it's Canada. it seems to me to be quite sensible to have the top person NOT have to busy themselves with party matters, and focus more on the actual work of administration. They are more concerned with administration, but the administration is the job of the party. The cabinet are members of the party. The party votes on things and is the administration. There are people in charge of party matters that aren't strictly political, but in the end thats mostly administrative. Political decisions for the party are policy decisions and are what the party in power does to steer the country. Most of the time the leading party is not a majority so the other parties need to be worked with to pass legislation etc. Also it makes it clear that he is the leader of the party. So party failures are the leader's failures and vice versa. Which incentivizes Members of Parliament to deal with the leader if the leader is a mess and a half. In the US the GOP can try to distance from Trump because he won a series of elections that occur seperately from the party's internal activities and he isn't actually representative of the party even though he is affiliated. You cannot possibly do that in a parliamentary system. And with enough people within the party revolting you can change the leader or vote out the PM without needing a public vote, triggering an election outside of a 4 year cycle. So in the Trump scenario if it was parliamentary they wouldn't need as many people to flip to start the process of a new election as they do right now. | ||
|
Slydie
2003 Posts
On December 13 2017 05:52 ZeromuS wrote: Times like this Parliamentary systems like those in Canada are wonderful. Because in actual fact, the prime minister is the leader of his party and we vote in parties -- not people. So the person is actually in a very clear way the main representative for their political party. The norm in Norway is that the prime minister is also the leader of the party, but it is possible to separate the two, and it has happened. Individual poliicans are often very important, though, and on a local level, it often matters much more who you vote for than which party. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
There are the elected officials of voters that believe abortion is murder. The same ones who don't understand we are a secular nation. That church and state are separate. They don't understand the country they live in or the bill of rights. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28881 Posts
On December 13 2017 07:45 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/940704581742419969 There are the elected officials of voters that believe abortion is murder. The same ones who don't understand we are a secular nation. That church and state are separate. They don't understand the country they live in or the bill of rights. moore's spokespeople are a different breed, wtf. his answer to 'does moore think homosexuality should be illegal' was even dumber. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On December 13 2017 07:45 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/940704581742419969 There are the elected officials of voters that believe abortion is murder. The same ones who don't understand we are a secular nation. That church and state are separate. They don't understand the country they live in or the bill of rights. Alabama's best and brightest. This is the path we are headed down if these idiots continue to win elections and get there way. He actually thought it was some trump card that only Moore had thought of. | ||
| ||
