|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 22 2019 02:39 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 01:51 Plansix wrote:
She has tapped into the thing that Democrats forgot to promote since Obama’s run(and before), which is goals that promise specific results. Rather than some sense of things being “better” and presenting some vague “opportunity” that will somehow make your life better. And like Nancy Pelosi, AOC does not give a FUCK what Republican TV personalities, AKA grifters, say about her. I just realized that all of that (specific goals, does not care what the other side says about him) could also be said about Trump. Is he the right wing version of this effect?
Sort of, yes. Voters don't want to hear about how you are going to make it possible for more jobs to exist. They just want a job(assuming they do not have one). Voters don't want to hear about a tax deduction for child care. They want cheaper child care(not really sure this is a problem that can be fixed at the national scale, but you get it) Trump's promises to improve things spoke to some people. And other people just wanted to punch Washington in the face. To be fair to the Democrats, Republicans were not running on this either in 2016.
But in 2018, there was a Democrat who ran under the banner of "Fix our damn roads" and won. I want them to fix healthcare in this country, because I'm tired of having to turn down job offers that won't healthcare for 2-6 months because its fucking impossible to justify take the job financially.(don't even ask, I've do the work it so many times). I don't care what it costs or how they do it, I just want this god damn roadblock out of my way.
|
Talking about Fix our damn roads when is the Trump infrastructure plan coming? It's always the wall but fixing bridges would be easier to get billions for and that was also a campaign promise. The wall plan is pretty much dead now so why not pivot to infrastructure and get yuge wins
|
Infrastructure week could happen at any time, per the White House. I think the master plan seems to be to keep the government shut down to keep the Democrats from doing anything else.
|
United States24579 Posts
Has anyone unearthed the exact process for republican senators going over McConnell's head and allowing votes to reopen the government? If the senate has a veto-proof majority at some point to reopen the government sans wall funding, I hope there is a way to make that happen even if McConnell doesn't want to allow any votes.
|
On January 22 2019 03:24 micronesia wrote:
Has anyone unearthed the exact process for republican senators going over McConnell's head and allowing votes to reopen the government? If the senate has a veto-proof majority at some point to reopen the government sans wall funding, I hope there is a way to make that happen even if McConnell doesn't want to allow any votes.
It is the standard 60 votes to end debate. The problem is that they would need to pass the old funding bill from 2018 that the house re-passed and then shoot it up to the President to veto. And then they would need to get 20 Republicans to vote to override Trump’s veto. Until there are a strong 20 Republican senators willing to jump ship, no one is going to for McConnell’s hand.
|
|
|
How are roads even managed in the US? I would guess that most of it is on state level?
At least that how it works in, also very federal, switzerland. There are national roads, state roads and municipal roads.
|
Anyone else in this thread read up on Semion Mogilevich and how he basically owns Russia and Putin? I've been digging into him and he very well might be the most powerful mob boss in Earth. His ties to Trump seem to be all over the place. He sells nuclear material to Iran (the Iran nuclear deal us such a bad deal. The worst deal. Believe me), is in the oil business, trafficks people all over the world, and took over many mob territories in America. The more I read about him, the scarier this situation in our country is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semion_Mogilevich
|
On January 22 2019 04:27 Velr wrote:
How are roads even managed in the US? I would guess that most of it is on state level?
At least that how it works in, also very federal, switzerland. There are national roads, state roads and municipal roads.
Local roads are handled by the towns themselves. The states handle the state highways, aka, highways that mostly travel within the state. The interstate highways are mostly managed by the state with funding assistance from the federal government. This is why there are well maintained state highways that go through my home town, but my parents live on a dirt road.
|
More updates on the Donald/SCO/Buzzfeed saga. Looks like Rudy made a call to the SCO the Friday morning after the Buzzfeed article. Buzzfeed stands by its reporting, and it looks like the SCO statement was pushed out shortly after this phone call from the President's nominal lawyer. EDIT: give Rudy a few more days, he will spill the beans on what he said, and we can be confident it will be damning.
Rudy Giuliani tells CNN that Trump’s legal team reached out to the special counsel Robert Mueller’s office regarding the BuzzFeed article Friday morning. Giuliani would not offer further detail about what they said to Mueller’s office.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I doubt a phone call from Rudy changed the disposition of the SCO’s office one way or another. Most of the people working for that office are long term DOJ attorneys. The only thing a call from the president’s counsel might do is make them less likely to make a public statement.
|
Yeah, I don't see how Mueller is going to be persuaded to make such a statement by Giuliani. Unless he gave a written approval to interview Trump under oath, signed in triplicate, which I doubt.
|
The more likely explanation for the statement is that such a bombshell could easily make certain democrats start thinking about impeachment procedures, which could backfire drastically if the investigation isn't up to the point where it's a clear and shut case. Giuliani calling down wouldn't do anything, as Mueller have never seen any reason to correct anything before, despite what Trump and his silly lawyer wants.
|
On January 22 2019 05:17 Plansix wrote:
I doubt a phone call from Rudy changed the disposition of the SCO’s office one way or another. Most of the people working for that office are long term DOJ attorneys. The only thing a call from the president’s counsel might do is make them less likely to make a public statement.
+ Show Spoiler +
The special counsel, in a rare public statement, on Friday evening said a Thursday story by Buzzfeed that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen to lie to Congress about Mr. Trump’s involvement in the tower deal wasn’t accurate. Buzzfeed has said it stands by its story.
Prior to the special counsel’s statement disputing the BuzzFeed report, Mr. Trump’s legal team on Friday sent Mr. Mueller a letter raising concerns about the allegations in the report, according to a person familiar with the matter. The letter—in which the lawyers said they hoped Mr. Mueller would address the report expeditiously—marked the first time Mr. Trump’s legal team has contacted the special counsel over a media report, the person said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/giuliani-says-talks-on-building-a-trump-tower-in-russia-went-on-through-2016-11548001011
Might want to take it easy on the 'I doubt a phone call from Rudy changed the disposition of the SCO’s office one way or another'. More is coming out about the response from team Donald. More is going to drip out about last Friday morning at the DOJ.
|
On January 22 2019 09:29 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2019 05:17 Plansix wrote:
I doubt a phone call from Rudy changed the disposition of the SCO’s office one way or another. Most of the people working for that office are long term DOJ attorneys. The only thing a call from the president’s counsel might do is make them less likely to make a public statement. + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +
The special counsel, in a rare public statement, on Friday evening said a Thursday story by Buzzfeed that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen to lie to Congress about Mr. Trump’s involvement in the tower deal wasn’t accurate. Buzzfeed has said it stands by its story.
Prior to the special counsel’s statement disputing the BuzzFeed report, Mr. Trump’s legal team on Friday sent Mr. Mueller a letter raising concerns about the allegations in the report, according to a person familiar with the matter. The letter—in which the lawyers said they hoped Mr. Mueller would address the report expeditiously—marked the first time Mr. Trump’s legal team has contacted the special counsel over a media report, the person said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/giuliani-says-talks-on-building-a-trump-tower-in-russia-went-on-through-2016-11548001011Might want to take it easy on the 'I doubt a phone call from Rudy changed the disposition of the SCO’s office one way or another'. More is coming out about the response from team Donald. More is going to drip out about last Friday morning at the DOJ.
None of this changes my opinion. Trumps lawyers have asked the special counsel for a lot of stuff over the two years and gotten nothing.
|
Regarding Kamala Harris, it seems the DNC, major media networks and Hollywood, given their positive coverage so far, are willing to concede her stances on Medicare and minimum wage.
Her social democratic stances (by American standards):
https://kamalaharris.org/meet-kamala/
She has the same foreign policy as Clinton:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/120012/kamala-harris/
This means she has decided to set aside the medical and pharmaceutical industrial complex and instead shore up political support from the military industrial complex. In other words, the plan is to bring back some characteristics of a pre-Clinton Democratic Party where you tweak how financial capital and social services are divvied up among the American masses to reduce social unrest exacerbated by excesses of a capitalist economy, but bombard, occupy and harvest the rest of the world to remain Leader of the Free World and Spreader of Democracy. The two groups that can encapsulate this political structure are the labour aristocracy (patriotic representatives of the nation's workers) and imperialists (representatives of the corporations, especially the arms industry).
With a bolder Russia and a richer China, it will be interesting to see how far American imperialism can go in the next decade. I don't think Bolton's dream of invading Iran would work out too well as Iran's government could just invite in Russia to protect them like with Syria. Venezuela seems to be a weak link and a juicy target for having the world's largest oil reserves, so I could see them getting toppled and having their oil industry become un-nationalised (by sheer coincidence, of course) in the next few years. People have mentioned there could be a conflict with Taiwan, but I strongly doubt this is in China's plan as they would prefer to stick with their 100-year plan of gradual economic supremacy.
|
Harris looks to be playing a tightrope strategy, compared to some others who are running. She's embraced medicare for all, as is almost required to get progressive support, but other than that she's hasn't gone whole hog lefty (yet). Her other main ideas are more about changing the tax code instead of expanding entitlements directly (seriously who makes one of their top six things cash bail reform). I think she also plans on defending her tenure as CA AG, instead of apologizing for it (which seems to be in vogue right for Democrats). Then again, it was not too long ago, so she can't really run from it.
However, neither she, nor any other Democrat, is willing to talk about the massive tax hikes required for her ideas. For all the "bravery" of this new crop of Democrats, they still can't come out and say what is needed to fund what they want. She is going to be criticized from the left for proposing ideas that will lead to less federal revenue.
+ Show Spoiler +
But I think her ultimate goal here is to pull in some portion of the economic progressives, while using her identity to shore up the minority factions. I don't think she views Booker as a threat (he comes off as really fake) and Gabbard doesn't have a foreign policy that is too popular right now. Her plan is to win CA by a lot and roll up with black voters in the South. She doesn't do that necessarily by running to the left (the latter don't vote super left and the former is her Senate state, she should be able to just play safe and win it well).
I'm curious to see how it works out because she's never really run a competitive race, and I don't find her particularly engaging as a speaker, but it would appear her and her team know how they want to play. I'd give her and Biden the best odds of making it, but I would be not at all surprised to see her sputter out and disappoint (relative the to hype).
|
Harris represents the worst of the Democrat’s desperate need to appear tough on crime because of a pathological fear that Republicans will call them “soft on crime”. Which just results in harmful policies and damage to the least fortunate. And she keeps responding to questions about her heritage with annoyance and saying she is an “American”. Which is like...worthless. I’m American too, but I tell people my families background and where we are from. I expect weak tea centrist bullshit with a touch of free market “solutions” to complex problems from her. And zero vision, because she doesn’t seem to have any.
|
United States42009 Posts
The US gov could afford single payer with the payroll taxes it currently takes in, if costs were comparable to the NHS. This idea that Single Payer will require massive tax hikes is absurd, it’s cheaper than what you already have.
|
On January 22 2019 11:12 Introvert wrote:
However, neither she, nor any other Democrat, is willing to talk about the massive tax hikes required for her ideas. For all the "bravery" of this new crop of Democrats, they still can't come out and say what is needed to fund what they want.
The other method is to just print more money, aka quantitative easing, like Reagan did to expand the military budget by almost 50%.
She is going to be criticized from the left for proposing ideas that will lead to less federal revenue.
I assume you mean the right or centre, because the left generally doesn't scaremonger over the federal deficit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
