EPTNothing more was said here iirc.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9700
| 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. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10864 Posts
Nothing more was said here iirc. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + He's 83 btw... thankfully he's retiring as this is not reassuring. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On January 17 2018 02:52 Plansix wrote: The story in the news is: - The deal was good, Trump was going to sign it. - But then conservatives in the house realized that immigration reform might happen and it didn’t involve some merit based non-sense that would allow them to limit the number of brown people entering the country. - House conservatives pushed to kill the deal. - Trump killed the deal at the meeting and dropped some racist bombs while he was at it. - Now the House is trying to pass a 1 month spending agreement to work out a new deal and think the Senate Democrats will go for it. The house conservatives live in some alternate reality where they think they can get harsher immigration reform somehow, so they are actively trying to kill the deal. And they think the Democrats will blink. I’m not sure it is going to pan out for them. Democrats will have to go for it if it's ever going to pass. The Freedom Caucus has already said it will contribute little to know votes to something that 'kicks the can' again | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On January 17 2018 02:50 Introvert wrote: There were def people in this thread who said Trump should have tweeted about Hawaii or something. Or maybe it was just the low hanging fruit of Stealthblue. There's a difference between addressing the event and being responsible for the event. This was actually pretty major. A lot of people basically prepared to die. The state has an obligation to handle stuff like this better than they did. The safety and well-being of citizens is definitely the responsibility of the state. Trump should at least have said something about making sure it doesn't happen again. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States601 Posts
On January 17 2018 02:52 Plansix wrote: The story in the news is: - The deal was good, Trump was going to sign it. - But then conservatives in the house realized that immigration reform might happen and it didn’t involve some merit based non-sense that would allow them to limit the number of brown people entering the country. - House conservatives pushed to kill the deal. - Trump killed the deal at the meeting and dropped some racist bombs while he was at it. - Now the House is trying to pass a 1 month spending agreement to work out a new deal and think the Senate Democrats will go for it. The house conservatives live in some alternate reality where they think they can get harsher immigration reform somehow, so they are actively trying to kill the deal. And they think the Democrats will blink. I’m not sure it is going to pan out for them. This is a bit of a sidenote, but its funny that the chain migration system we have in place now was designed specifically so that more white people would immigrate to the US, the whole system just backfired. Because there were so many more european immigrants they assumed that those immigrants would bring their families, but the european economies improved enough that the immigration from those countries slowed while more brown countries took their place. (according to Tom Gjelten in his book A Nation of Nations | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22146 Posts
On January 17 2018 02:58 IyMoon wrote: Democrats will have to go for it if it's ever going to pass. The Freedom Caucus has already said it will contribute little to know votes to something that 'kicks the can' again Democrats have no reason to do so tho. A shutdown while the Republicans are in charge of all 3 branches and don't need a single D vote is wonderful news for them. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 17 2018 02:39 Grumbels wrote: Can you at least be honest about this? Clearly there is no level of evidence that would ever satisfy you because you are invested in your NoTrueScotsman fantasy for the conservative movement. The GOP is not conservative, Breitbart is not conservative, rightwing radio hosts are not conservative, and so on. And I am not going to devote the rest of my life to counting what percentage of true conservatives have such opinions about Manning, do your own research... You should read the article you quoted to support the execution of Manning. It doesn’t say it. It offers a real conservative perspective, that you literally tried to use to prove conservatives wanted to kill Manning. Salon and Slate are not mainstream liberals. StealthBlue might like The Guardian and TPW, but they’re also left wing and not representative. I know this. But, if I had a malicious urge, I could find a radio host that’s not nationally syndicated and nobody has heard of, and connect it with a left wing rag and say they’re connected. When called out on it, I can say you’re guilty of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Because, for partisan reasons or ignorance, idiots think all Republicans are conservatives. Conservatives are a faction within the Republican Party. They’re somewhat influential, and we’re presumed to be more influential before Trump’s rise to power (nationalist populist wing ascended spectacularly). I have a lot of sympathy if you have no clue what outlets write for the conservative side of the aisle (and Breitbart did before Andrew Breitbart died and Brannon took over ... a man openly at war with conservatives). But don’t get all high and mighty out of your ignorance to suggest googling makes you an expert on what is and isn’t a no true Scotsman fallacy. Go ask someone. Use Alexa. Google names to find the reach. Don’t literally be the twin of a right-wing troll that read two articles and googled for five minutes and declares “liberals are against representative government” or “liberals think Trump shouldn’t be allowed to tweet hate.” I have a lot of sympathy with newcomers to the conservative wing of the Republican Party, provided they can learn where to look and who are the thought leaders. National Review, the Washington Times, the weekly standard, the daily wire, the blaze, the daily caller, the Washington examiner, heritage think tank just off the topic of my head—any two articles could legitimately be used for “multiple conservatives were calling for X” even if thoughts were divided. And PLEASE read the article you thought was calling for Manning’s death to learn one conservative response. You literally accidentally included it, but its a happy accident you can learn from. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 17 2018 02:50 Introvert wrote: There were def people in this thread who said Trump should have tweeted about Hawaii or something. Or maybe it was just the low hanging fruit of Stealthblue. StealthBlue’s first article comment was rich. But way too much of low hanging fruit. I was looking at Tulsi Gabbard’s quick-pivot, Hollywood Celebrities, and mainstream verified journalists assuming Trump was to blame either in original fault, or not correcting Hawaii’s state agency before half an hour had passed. Tom Nichols got fed up with the rank ignorance and posted that twitter thread to hopefully clarify. He still got responses blaming Trump lol. And when I talk about Trump mania tweets, people act like I’m personally accusing forum members of blaming Trump. Oh well. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On January 17 2018 01:08 Danglars wrote: Exhibit A next time people wonder where govt got its bad rep. And then the Trumpmania tweets about how it's really his fault that Hawaii did a bad job of it. Sigh. https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/952681044636991491 But you see Trump must have been informed immediately of the fake threat, so it's his fault for not telling people ... The idiocy cycle continues. You're trying to score points for two of your biggest messages here, both that the government is incompetent and can't be trusted, and that the anti-Trump is hysterical and constantly blames him for things that aren't his fault. I can appreciate the effort to stay on message. But I don't think you quite prove what you wanted to. To the first point, you've highlighted a single instance of the government making a UI badly. But for it to be very strong, you'd want to prove that the government is uniquely bad at this, or to put it another way, that the private sector doesn't fuck up UI's this badly. But they do, all the time. I bet with a little googling I could find maybe a dozen blogs dedicated entirely to highlighting and making fun of atrocious UIs, and most of their material would be private sector stuff. I would probably suspect that the private sector fucks up this sort of thing less often, but this is pretty poor proof of it. To the other point, there's several problems with this as an example of the hysterical anti-Trump left. First, as others have noted, I haven't seen many people blaming Trump specifically for the false alarm. Maybe there's other sections of the lefty internet where the belief is more widespread, and I just haven't seen them, but for instance, I haven't seen prominent Trump critics (e.g. Josh Marshall) or top Dem leaders (e.g. Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Obama) take the position (if they have and I missed it, feel free to link it). Since you brought it up, "the right wants Chelsea Manning executed" seems like a less unfair characterization. Not, of course, that every right-leaning individual in the country wants that. But if their current president, several federal elected officials, prominent right-leaning commentators, and a popular right-wing community site have all taken the position, it seems fair to say it's a popular, if not consensus right-wing position. How crazy is it for someone to blame Trump for this mistake anyway? The tweet chain you linked even notes that for other causes of a false alarm like this, it would be a POTUS-level issue. Someone might have blamed Trump before the information came out showing it was a local issue, or not have been informed of the details later. If they're a national leader they should really be informed before they express their opinions, but for some randos on Twitter that's a less reasonable expectation. Not to mention there's the "buck stops here" angle. Do we blame Obama for Fast and Furious because he was heavily involved in the planning and implementation of that operation? Or just because he was president at the time, and we hold presidents responsible for what happens under their watch? At the very least, this was a decent opportunity for Trump to show some leadership, investigate what happened, and assure the population we'll keep this machine more secure and well-oiled in the future (along the way, this might assuage our fears a bit about him controlling the nukes). Instead he did nothing. Is that not worthy of some criticism? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 17 2018 03:07 Trainrunnef wrote: This is a bit of a sidenote, but its funny that the chain migration system we have in place now was designed specifically so that more white people would immigrate to the US, the whole system just backfired. Because there were so many more european immigrants they assumed that those immigrants would bring their families, but the european economies improved enough that the immigration from those countries slowed while more brown countries took their place. (according to Tom Gjelten in his book A Nation of Nations That is the amusing part of the entire narrative. That the conservatives and anti-immigration folks want to shut down the system that let their families come to the US because not white people are using it now. They also gloss over how that would impact investment and labor markets in the US. Merit based immigration that also prohibits the meritorious immigrant’s family from coming over will result is very little immigration. The entire proposal doesn’t basically ignores the demands for immigrant labor in the US and pushes for zero immigration. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 17 2018 03:03 Mohdoo wrote: There's a difference between addressing the event and being responsible for the event. This was actually pretty major. A lot of people basically prepared to die. The state has an obligation to handle stuff like this better than they did. The safety and well-being of citizens is definitely the responsibility of the state. Trump should at least have said something about making sure it doesn't happen again. Trump only needs to make sure federally managed detection methods report accurately to whatever agency Hawaii wants to use to notify its citizens. He should shut his trap if he wants to manage how Hawaii state employees get trained in the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency to notify Hawaiians of alerts they might find helpful. I fully expect Hawaiians to be mad enough to demand accountability over a new system. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On January 17 2018 03:25 Danglars wrote: Trump only needs to make sure federally managed detection methods report accurately to whatever agency Hawaii wants to use to notify its citizens. He should shut his trap if he wants to manage how Hawaii state employees get trained in the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency to notify Hawaiians of alerts they might find helpful. I fully expect Hawaiians to be mad enough to demand accountability over a new system. In my eyes, since the threat to Hawaii is a federal issue, the federal government would be justified in saying "Hawaii, you done goofed hard. The federal government will now require your emergency systems meet the following criteria". | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On January 17 2018 03:19 Danglars wrote: StealthBlue’s first article comment was rich. But way too much of low hanging fruit. I was looking at Tulsi Gabbard’s quick-pivot, Hollywood Celebrities, and mainstream verified journalists assuming Trump was to blame either in original fault, or not correcting Hawaii’s state agency before half an hour had passed. Tom Nichols got fed up with the rank ignorance and posted that twitter thread to hopefully clarify. He still got responses blaming Trump lol. And when I talk about Trump mania tweets, people act like I’m personally accusing forum members of blaming Trump. Oh well. What did Tulsi say about it? I saw her blame Trump (and importantly past administrations) for handling North Korea poorly and she used the hysteria over the alarm as an example of the harm being done by having this tense situation. But that's very different from blaming Trump for the false alarm. Did she make some early remarks that were deleted or something? | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Highly likely the the lawyer wasn't refusing Bannon testify to the grand jury, but instead asked for a subpoena, so that Bannon would look less forthcoming in his testimony. People have regularly suspected Bannon is responsible for leaking all the details about Kushner's numerous meetings with Russian pols and oligarchs. I think things are going to get really shitty for Kushner really soon. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 17 2018 03:33 Leporello wrote: Mueller issues his first subpoena for a grand jury testimony against... Steve Bannon, who is repped by the same lawyer as Priebus and McGahn, who already interviewed with Mueller. Highly likely the the lawyer wasn't refusing Bannon testify to the grand jury, but instead asked for a subpoena, so that Bannon would look less forthcoming in his testimony. People have regularly suspected Bannon is responsible for leaking all the details about Kushner's numerous meetings with Russian pols and oligarchs. I think things are going to get really shitty for Kushner really soon. I cannot think of a reason PR reason why an attorney would actively seek to have his client hit with a subpoena over a voluntary interview. Or tell their client it is a good idea. Getting questioned by the FBI is super serious, well beyond who was leaking what deals from the White House. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On January 17 2018 03:33 Leporello wrote: Mueller issues his first subpoena for a grand jury testimony against... Steve Bannon, who is repped by the same lawyer as Priebus and McGahn, who already interviewed with Mueller. Highly likely the the lawyer wasn't refusing Bannon testify to the grand jury, but instead asked for a subpoena, so that Bannon would look less forthcoming in his testimony. People have regularly suspected Bannon is responsible for leaking all the details about Kushner's numerous meetings with Russian pols and oligarchs. I think things are going to get really shitty for Kushner really soon. Especially with trump running him out of town and then over with a bus. Bannon has 0 reason to hold back | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 17 2018 03:39 ticklishmusic wrote: I'm still hung up on all these guys having the same lawyer thing. You are not the only one. It seems very strange considering what is going on. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 17 2018 03:22 ChristianS wrote: You're trying to score points for two of your biggest messages here, both that the government is incompetent and can't be trusted, and that the anti-Trump is hysterical and constantly blames him for things that aren't his fault. I can appreciate the effort to stay on message. But I don't think you quite prove what you wanted to. To the first point, you've highlighted a single instance of the government making a UI badly. But for it to be very strong, you'd want to prove that the government is uniquely bad at this, or to put it another way, that the private sector doesn't fuck up UI's this badly. But they do, all the time. I bet with a little googling I could find maybe a dozen blogs dedicated entirely to highlighting and making fun of atrocious UIs, and most of their material would be private sector stuff. I would probably suspect that the private sector fucks up this sort of thing less often, but this is pretty poor proof of it. To the other point, there's several problems with this as an example of the hysterical anti-Trump left. First, as others have noted, I haven't seen many people blaming Trump specifically for the false alarm. Maybe there's other sections of the lefty internet where the belief is more widespread, and I just haven't seen them, but for instance, I haven't seen prominent Trump critics (e.g. Josh Marshall) or top Dem leaders (e.g. Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Obama) take the position (if they have and I missed it, feel free to link it). Since you brought it up, "the right wants Chelsea Manning executed" seems like a less unfair characterization. Not, of course, that every right-leaning individual in the country wants that. But if their current president, several federal elected officials, prominent right-leaning commentators, and a popular right-wing community site have all taken the position, it seems fair to say it's a popular, if not consensus right-wing position. How crazy is it for someone to blame Trump for this mistake anyway? The tweet chain you linked even notes that for other causes of a false alarm like this, it would be a POTUS-level issue. Someone might have blamed Trump before the information came out showing it was a local issue, or not have been informed of the details later. If they're a national leader they should really be informed before they express their opinions, but for some randos on Twitter that's a less reasonable expectation. Not to mention there's the "buck stops here" angle. Do we blame Obama for Fast and Furious because he was heavily involved in the planning and implementation of that operation? Or just because he was president at the time, and we hold presidents responsible for what happens under their watch? At the very least, this was a decent opportunity for Trump to show some leadership, investigate what happened, and assure the population we'll keep this machine more secure and well-oiled in the future (along the way, this might assuage our fears a bit about him controlling the nukes). Instead he did nothing. Is that not worthy of some criticism? One exhibit does not prove the case. You may have heard of court cases where multiple are offered to support a side on the trial? It is that analogy that I draw on. You can google more to find out more vagaries of the phrase meaning. Secondly, don’t put words in my mouth. I’m perfectly capable of using Democrats, or leftists, or the radical left if that’s my meaning. I appreciate your attempts to lead me into areas you think I already believe something to be true. They’re unnecessary, but thanks anyways. If you hadn’t seen the kind of hysteria that prompted Nichols to lay out the facts, save your sanity and be glad you missed it. It wasn’t a group of randos safely ignored, and the writer was wasting his own time creating a response because nobody actually thought the things he wrote to answer anyways (duhh loser). If you’re interested enough, go for it. Thirdly, fix your quote to match what was said that I reacted to. It matters. Finally, I responded more in depth in another post on the subject of responsibility and who said what. If you find it substantially insufficient, you can quote and respond there. I find no reason to draw this to Fast and Furious and Obama (the Obama administration), when this did not happen at the federal level (and people falsely claimed it was PACOM at the time). It’s Hawaii, not a department of the federal government. States exercise authority for their own employees and agencies, so if they want to thumb their nose at something like election fraud investigations, they are well within their rights. And feel free to investigate yourself to see your proposed excuses for what might have happened/the errors that might have been made fit it with what actually happened. I saw the timeline and came to the opposite conclusion and was glad to see members of the center call out their allies on the left and put a stop to the tomfoolery. Gabbard tried a quick switch for political points. Hollywood libs reacted with trademark panicked lurchings. It was fun to watch and read. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8243 Posts
On January 17 2018 03:41 Plansix wrote: You are not the only one. It seems very strange considering what is going on. If I committed a crime with a bunch of my mates we'd probably share a lawyer too.. | ||
| ||
