EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9644
| 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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46456 Posts
On January 08 2018 01:27 Doodsmack wrote: What is this in reference to? I know he frequently talks about how bad of a president he thinks Obama was and other president-related negatives, but this seems to be a random personal jab at Obama, which Trump usually reserves for everyone else. Is he just projecting his own personal issues with mental acuity and old age onto his predecessor? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 08 2018 04:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: What is this in reference to? I know he frequently talks about how bad of a president he thinks Obama was and other president-related negatives, but this seems to be a random personal jab at Obama, which Trump usually reserves for everyone else. Is he just projecting his own personal issues with mental acuity and old age onto his predecessor? note that the tweet itself is years old. people are just reposting it now because its apropos. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On January 08 2018 04:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: What is this in reference to? I know he frequently talks about how bad of a president he thinks Obama was and other president-related negatives, but this seems to be a random personal jab at Obama, which Trump usually reserves for everyone else. Is he just projecting his own personal issues with mental acuity and old age onto his predecessor? Tweet is 3+ years old. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46456 Posts
On January 08 2018 04:22 zlefin wrote: note that the tweet itself is years old. people are just reposting it now because its apropos. Ah, I didn't notice the date; thanks for pointing that out to me! It really does seem that every single one of his old tweets that he posted during Obama's presidency are quite relevant to Trump's issues as president. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On January 07 2018 22:15 a_flayer wrote: Some rich dude complaining about the Democrats being too far left: If you don't want to listen to that mouth-breathing sack of shit talking, here's the gist of what he said: "How dare these Bernie supporters say money in politics has a corrupting influence on politicians!!!!" "Anyway, I called Pelosi and Schumer and told them they won't get my big donations anymore if they don't do what I say". Some hard-hitting questions of the reporter, too, of course, who immediately noticed that apparent hole in logic and ... oh wait, no, they just laughed and nodded. Reminds me of this: Or the 2016 GOP primaries, where every billionaire had its own candidate. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On January 08 2018 13:00 mierin wrote: I imagine it is (because I can't imagine anything else) but in other countries is the only thing driving policies money? Donors control everything here, healthcare/education/other fundamental rights as human beings mean absolutely nothing. If it is I wonder how humanity can dig itself out of this hole it's dug for itself. Sure money inspires creativity, innovation and all that but at what cost? Yes and no. Of course you have donations in other countries too (i can only speak for germany in that case now). You don't have blatantly buying politicians though. There are rules in place, rules which prevent lobbying (as in the "US lobbying", where it's pretty much equal to buying politicians). Donations that are granted to the party in anticipation or in return for a particular economic or political benefit are illegal. No anonymous donations above 500 euros are allowed. For example, Heckler and Koch was prosecuted in 2011 for trying to get around the rules for donations by obfuscating them. Not to mention that over here there are nowhere near the sums used compared to the US. Now. Companies certainly do donate money to the party that they get the most out of, that's normal. But as an example, paying off (not donating, paying off) people to get net neutrality removed, that can't happen over here. And i'm pretty sure that goes for a big part of europe (not all of it). edit: which is, i suppose, partially due to the political system in the US. We don't have powerful senators etc over here forming a senate/congress that you can control. We also have more than two parties, which makes "buying votes" unfeasible - there's too many opinions on things. edit2: basically, to take net neutrality as an example again, this could not happen in germany. The list of donations to people who voted against it would be way too long, every single vote would be contested by the "regulatory office" - since it's obvious that the ISPs paid these people off to get a particular economic benefit. Hence, can't happen. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On January 08 2018 01:02 oBlade wrote: The fact that the messenger, in this case the news media, entertainment industry, and academia all lean to varying degrees left and even further anti-Trump specifically, is itself a level of information control that's not unrelated to why they never seem to make mistakes in Trump's favor as you'd expect to happen from random mistakes. They've made many mistakes in Trump's favour. They've mis-reported several things that have seemingly exonerated him from more serious elements of the swirling accusations, and he's pounced every time. The news media is the news media. Different outlets have different viewpoints. Isn't Faux News still the main news outlet in the US of A? And isn't it essentially state run media at this point? You know, the media that the President legitimises and holds up as an example of fine and independent news that calls the FBI a criminal conspiracy of KGB-like tactics that maybe we need to talk about shutting down due to it being an inconvenience? Maybe they wouldn't be so anti-Trump if he wasn't the worst? Maybe the blame lies not on the media reporting how awful he is, but in Trump being... you know... awful? Are there some stories in particular that are getting stuck in your craw? | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
This is 6 month's old, but I doubt many have seen it. It puts an interesting light on Graham and Grassley's actions of late. Something is genuinely wrong with these two Senators. Graham looks like a kid asking if his parents know about the accident that happened, and then Grassley has a rage-spasm. edit: at 3:35ish he compares himself and his situation to Michael Flynn, saying he doesn't want that to happen to him. Because it's "political". Remember this was before Flynn was indicted and pled guilty. And, I mean, he is obviously just genuinely concerned about himself, in the middle of this FISA hearing. He repeatedly is asking for specifics on intel as it relates to him personally, which is, despite Grassley's rage, an extremely inappropriate thing to do. He has no more right than any citizen to be asking those questions. Senate Committee hearings aren't for private dealings and requests, obviously. Also, by requesting an investigation into Christopher Steele, Graham and Grassley are giving themselves an excuse to refuse releasing the Fusion GPS Intel Committee transcripts, which Fusion GPS has been publicly asking Congress to release. The transcripts will eventually find their way out, as the request for an investigation into Steele doesn't actually mean anything. As will most of whatever guilt these people are brazenly trying to sweep under the carpet. What could possibly be worth it, other than short term survival I suppose. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46456 Posts
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ss6qQM054B0 | ||
|
oBlade
United States6510 Posts
On January 08 2018 18:14 iamthedave wrote: The news media is the news media. Different outlets have different viewpoints. Isn't Faux News still the main news outlet in the US of A? And isn't it essentially state run media at this point? You know, the media that the President legitimises and holds up as an example of fine and independent news that calls the FBI a criminal conspiracy of KGB-like tactics that maybe we need to talk about shutting down due to it being an inconvenience? Fox is the biggest single outlet (I think you're right and it still is) mainly because the right has no other outlets but it's dwarfed by the consortium of left-leaning outlets. The president doesn't need to legitimize anything as the US enjoys freedom of the press by default. With this reasoning, just imagine how much state-run media there would be in a Hillary administration. I don't know what the KGB bit is referencing but I find most Russia talk quite McCarthyist. Not 3 years ago the American left had no problem enumerating the problems of the alphabet soup of agencies that comprise the police and surveillance state, and now at the slightest hint of misconduct of any individual within that pile of organizations dogmatically insists that the FBI is inherently beyond reproach and could never have a flaw. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On January 08 2018 21:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Thinking back to how the 2011 WHCD and Seth Meyers's jokes helped influence Trump's decision to run for president, there's been a ton of speculation over the last 10 hours as to whether or not Oprah will run for 2020. Last night was the Golden Globes, and Oprah gave an insanely powerful speech. So many goosebumps, even R.L. Stine is jealous. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ss6qQM054B0 God I hope not, that entire awards ceremony was a bunch of pat-on-the-back, hand wavey bullshit that plays directly into the public's disillusionment with popular mouthpieces a la Hollywood. Surely, Oprah has plenty of nice things to say when given a stage and tacit immunity from criticism, but how exactly does being a champion of feminism square with the fact that nearly every act of charity she has ever undertaken has come alongside one or many price-tags that have led to her being one of the richest people in the world. Her support for and friendship with dangerous hacks like Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz falls right in line with the sort of public figure attitudes that led to Trump being elected in the first place. On January 08 2018 21:08 oBlade wrote: Fox is the biggest single outlet (I think you're right and it still is) mainly because the right has no other outlets but it's dwarfed by the consortium of left-leaning outlets. The president doesn't need to legitimize anything as the US enjoys freedom of the press by default. With this reasoning, just imagine how much state-run media there would be in a Hillary administration. I don't know what the KGB bit is referencing but I find most Russia talk quite McCarthyist. Not 3 years ago the American left had no problem enumerating the problems of the alphabet soup of agencies that comprise the police and surveillance state, and now at the slightest hint of misconduct of any individual within that pile of organizations dogmatically insists that the FBI is inherently beyond reproach and could never have a flaw. This amounts to justification via unverifiable statements that really don't hold up to any sort of granular scrutiny. Try to make your point without using lazy "the American left" agglomerations that only end up true if one limits their perspective or otherwise privies a backwards look that ignores large swaths of bipartisan discontent with any manner of government functions. This very thread has its posters who belong to "the American left" that criticized Obama's agencies and his shitty policies ranging from immigration to bank bailouts and continue to do so now. Where has anyone ever said that the FBI is beyond reproach? You are trying to minimize the influence of Fox News while basically playing their game of scarecrow stuffing. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On January 08 2018 21:11 farvacola wrote: God I hope not, that entire awards ceremony was a bunch of pat-on-the-back, hand wavey bullshit that plays directly into the public's disillusionment with popular mouthpieces a la Hollywood. Surely, Oprah has plenty of nice things to say when given a stage and tacit immunity from criticism, but how exactly does being a champion of feminism square with the fact that nearly every act of charity she has ever undertaken has come alongside one or many price-tags that have led to her being one of the richest people in the world. Her support for and friendship with dangerous hacks like Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz falls right in line with the sort of public figure attitudes that led to Trump being elected in the first place. This amounts to justification via unverifiable statements that really don't hold up to any sort of granular scrutiny. Try to make your point without using lazy "the American left" agglomerations that only end up true if one limits their perspective or otherwise privies a backwards look that ignores large swaths of bipartisan discontent with any manner of government functions. This very thread has its posters who belong to "the American left" that criticized Obama's agencies and his shitty policies ranging from immigration to bank bailouts and continue to do so now. Where has anyone ever said that the FBI is beyond reproach? You are trying to minimize the influence of Fox News while basically playing their game of scarecrow stuffing. Didn't Oprah get stuck with Dr. Phil after the beef industry threatened to basically end her? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ How are the Democrats so bad at this? | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46456 Posts
On January 08 2018 21:11 farvacola wrote: God I hope not, that entire awards ceremony was a bunch of pat-on-the-back, hand wavey bullshit that plays directly into the public's disillusionment with popular mouthpieces a la Hollywood. Surely, Oprah has plenty of nice things to say when given a stage and tacit immunity from criticism, but how exactly does being a champion of feminism square with the fact that nearly every act of charity she has ever undertaken has come alongside one or many price-tags that have led to her being one of the richest people in the world. Her support for and friendship with dangerous hacks like Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz falls right in line with the sort of public figure attitudes that led to Trump being elected in the first place. I don't think it's fair to equate Oprah to Trump (or, I suppose, "support for Oprah" to "support for Trump"). I agree with you that Dr. Oz is a sellout, but the fact that Oprah actually is a self-made billionaire who started from abject poverty, had to deal with the hardships of being a woman and being black over the past half-century, actually fought for equity and equality every step of the way (including on her shows and in her movies), and is a progressive success story of overcoming obstacles and empowering people- not just herself. In other words, pretty much the opposite of Trump's story. Granted, I don't know her specific political platforms, but her speech last night was definitely electrifying and it reminded me of some of Obama's best speeches, with the masterful oration and clarity that is currently absent from our executive branch. I have no idea if Oprah will run in 2020, and if she does I don't yet know if I'll vote for her in the Democratic primary, but she's definitely a force to be reckoned with, no matter what. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6510 Posts
On January 08 2018 21:11 farvacola wrote: This amounts to justification via unverifiable statements that really don't hold up to any sort of granular scrutiny. Try to make your point without using lazy "the American left" agglomerations that only end up true if one limits their perspective or otherwise privies a backwards look that ignores large swaths of bipartisan discontent with any manner of government functions. This very thread has its posters who belong to "the American left" that criticized Obama's agencies and his shitty policies ranging from immigration to bank bailouts and continue to do so now. Where has anyone ever said that the FBI is beyond reproach? You are trying to minimize the influence of Fox News while basically playing their game of scarecrow stuffing. Justification of what? I don't know what the moral issue issue is right now that you're apparently passionate about. Mention of immigration and bank bailouts makes me think you're talking about something else so I don't know. But anyway, of course not the entire left, this comes up constantly when people speak generally or identify a trend, I'm not talking about anything universal or sweeping, we know people are individuals and not blocks, nobody said otherwise. But you have the news, you've seen the talking heads going how it's so unpatriotic and un-American to go after the FBI. Don't act indignant about statements that don't apply to you personally (that nobody said applied to you or whoever else you're mentioning) like they therefore don't apply to a real group of people. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On January 08 2018 22:44 oBlade wrote: Justification of what? I don't know what the moral issue issue is right now that you're apparently passionate about. Mention of immigration and bank bailouts makes me think you're talking about something else so I don't know. But anyway, of course not the entire left, this comes up constantly when people speak generally or identify a trend, I'm not talking about anything universal or sweeping, we know people are individuals and not blocks, nobody said otherwise. But you have the news, you've seen the talking heads going how it's so unpatriotic and un-American to go after the FBI. Don't act indignant about statements that don't apply to you personally (that nobody said applied to you or whoever else you're mentioning) like they therefore don't apply to a real group of people. The American Right - since this is the terminology best fitting - is currently going after an FBI investigation set in motion by a Republican congress, run by a Republican, investigating a Republican president. At first it was just 'this'll shut those dems up', then Mueller started to find things and started issuing indictments, and all of a sudden the entire FBI is a 'criminal conspiracy' that needs to be shut down. This isn't 'the FBI is beyond reproach' this is one set of politically active individuals arbitrarily deciding that one of the your country's highest offices of the law is corrupt entirely BECAUSE it's doing its job and exposing corruption in the Trump campaign. Sure, people were critical of the FBI back during the Benghazi BS, but I don't recall a single Democratic voice saying that the entire FBI needs to be shut down over it. The talking heads are right on this matter. This constitutes a direct attack on law and order in America, because the law and order party doesn't like it when law and order comes knocking on their doors instead of the doors of people they don't like. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On January 09 2018 00:30 iamthedave wrote: The American Right - since this is the terminology best fitting - is currently going after an FBI investigation set in motion by a Republican congress, run by a Republican, investigating a Republican president. At first it was just 'this'll shut those dems up', then Mueller started to find things and started issuing indictments, and all of a sudden the entire FBI is a 'criminal conspiracy' that needs to be shut down. This isn't 'the FBI is beyond reproach' this is one set of politically active individuals arbitrarily deciding that one of the your country's highest offices of the law is corrupt entirely BECAUSE it's doing its job and exposing corruption in the Trump campaign. Sure, people were critical of the FBI back during the Benghazi BS, but I don't recall a single Democratic voice saying that the entire FBI needs to be shut down over it. The talking heads are right on this matter. This constitutes a direct attack on law and order in America, because the law and order party doesn't like it when law and order comes knocking on their doors instead of the doors of people they don't like. Personally, I make a distinction between random FBI rumors and direct FBI actions. The FBI has basically taken legal action against & possibly even arrested Manafort for some financial wrongdoings, yes? Flynn is working with them, but isn't arrested, just charged with lying to them (some relatively inconsequential lie, iirc) -- we'll see what happens there in the end. Maybe there's some other folks, I dunno. These aren't 'criminal conspiracy' things, they are fairly clear and sensible actions. This is fine. But, there's also tons of sort-of-rumors floating about. The constant leaks of "anonymous source says Mueller is going after X, Y, Z". This is mostly pointless dribble as far as I'm concerned. It may be true that he's investigating those things and/or people, but it doesn't really add much of anything. Unless there are concrete actions taken by the FBI against certain people as a result of their investigation, there's really nothing interesting happening. Obviously they're going to investigate thoroughly, so while most of these rumors may be true at a basic level, it doesn't really mean squat other than the FBI is still staffed. | ||
| ||
