|
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 February 22 2019 01:32 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 00:48 hunts wrote:
I didn't expect there to be that many people here that would support sanders 2020, I honestly don't get why. It's not like he magically learned how to be a good politician, he's still the same one trick pony he was in 2016, except even older. And when people talk about "outside interference in the primary" I sure hope they remember that while most of the claims of "rigged in hillary's favor" are nebulous and without any proof, the one type of interference we DO have proof of, is russian interference in favor of bernie. Honestly I hope he drops out before 2020, or becomes too sick to run, I have a feeling him and his supporters will do their best to tear the party apart from the inside, again. How is he a one trick pony? At a minimum he's tangibly accomplished two tricks over the past 4 years ($15 min wage, and Medicare for all becoming a mainstream platform). He's on 2 environmental committees this session of congress and a committee for veteran affairs. He's signed/cosigned bills expanding social security, making our election day a public holiday, and a joint resolution for the US to end our involvement in Yemen and that's all just *recent* legislation. None of that is a one trick pony. He's arguably accomplished more than any other dem federal-level politician over the last 4 years since he has at least one big actual tangible leftist wins under his belt (pressuring Amazon and Disney to pay $15/hr, the Yemen joint resolution passing). It's one of the most tired lies about Sanders to call him a one trick pony.
By one trick pony I didn't mean only 1 issue. I meant he basically only has one trick he can do and that's be angry at things and make impossible promises. He has shown that he doesn't know much about what the president can and can't do. He is a one trick pony in that he is like the left version of trymp. Using outrage and promising the impossible. The other issue I have with him is that he has been very anti science or pro pseudoscience in the past. I'm on phone now so can't find links but there are write ups about his anti science history. That being said if he does manage to win? I will still vote for him in the final election unless the Republican party explodes and they manage to field an actual decent candidate but that's about as likely to happen as trump sprouting wings and flying away into the sunset away.
|
What has he promised that other, poorer, countries don't allready do?
|
Everything is impossible until it isn't. A lot of the "impossible" things that Bernie put forward in 2016 are now mainstream positions of most democratic candidates (on top of having been accomplished by almost all other first world countries). There are powerful forces fighting against what the left wants to do, which makes the fight difficult. Surrendering to those forces and their talking points isn't going to make things easier.
|
On February 22 2019 02:13 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 01:32 Logo wrote:On February 22 2019 00:48 hunts wrote:
I didn't expect there to be that many people here that would support sanders 2020, I honestly don't get why. It's not like he magically learned how to be a good politician, he's still the same one trick pony he was in 2016, except even older. And when people talk about "outside interference in the primary" I sure hope they remember that while most of the claims of "rigged in hillary's favor" are nebulous and without any proof, the one type of interference we DO have proof of, is russian interference in favor of bernie. Honestly I hope he drops out before 2020, or becomes too sick to run, I have a feeling him and his supporters will do their best to tear the party apart from the inside, again. How is he a one trick pony? At a minimum he's tangibly accomplished two tricks over the past 4 years ($15 min wage, and Medicare for all becoming a mainstream platform). He's on 2 environmental committees this session of congress and a committee for veteran affairs. He's signed/cosigned bills expanding social security, making our election day a public holiday, and a joint resolution for the US to end our involvement in Yemen and that's all just *recent* legislation. None of that is a one trick pony. He's arguably accomplished more than any other dem federal-level politician over the last 4 years since he has at least one big actual tangible leftist wins under his belt (pressuring Amazon and Disney to pay $15/hr, the Yemen joint resolution passing). It's one of the most tired lies about Sanders to call him a one trick pony. By one trick pony I didn't mean only 1 issue. I meant he basically only has one trick he can do and that's be angry at things and make impossible promises. He has shown that he doesn't know much about what the president can and can't do. He is a one trick pony in that he is like the left version of trymp. Using outrage and promising the impossible. The other issue I have with him is that he has been very anti science or pro pseudoscience in the past. I'm on phone now so can't find links but there are write ups about his anti science history. That being said if he does manage to win? I will still vote for him in the final election unless the Republican party explodes and they manage to field an actual decent candidate but that's about as likely to happen as trump sprouting wings and flying away into the sunset away.
But... I literally pointed out examples of him passing legislation, proposing legislation, and being on or leading committees. All of which are not just "be angry at things"?
|
On February 22 2019 01:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oakland, California teachers are going on strike, it is great to see the Labor force coming back in play and even starting to change the narrative it seems. This is the 3rd such strike this year I believe in the country. Show nested quote +Teachers in Oakland, California, have gone on strike demanding smaller class sizes and a 12 percent retroactive raise.
They are the latest in the U.S. to go on strike in recent months. Teachers in West Virginia, Denver and Los Angeles have gone on strike in over the last year.
The city’s 3,000 teachers are demanding a 12 percent retroactive raise covering 2017 to 2020 to compensate for what they say are among the lowest salaries for public school teachers in the expensive San Francisco Bay Area.
They also want the district to hire more counselors to support students and more full-time nurses.
The walkout is expected to affect 36,000 students at 86 schools. Source
“Hire more counselors” seems like a specific request. I remember my high school having basically one “counselor” for 2,500 students.
|
On February 22 2019 01:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:26 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 21 2019 23:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 21 2019 19:59 iamthedave wrote:On February 21 2019 13:40 Plansix wrote:
And we are back to the Republican filled FBI was biased against Trump from the start, despite the overwhelming evidence that the man is dripping with crime and grift. Shrug. For all the dubious thinking behind it, Daunt's right that if Trump was going down we'd almost certainly know about it at this point. The final report is likely to be as damaging to his reputation - what little remains to damage - as the Clinton e-mail report was to her. It isn't going to land him in jail or see him ousted from the Presidency. At least... not directly. The final report won’t damage Trump. To the extent that any portion of it sees the light of day beyond Barr, it will merely be a statement saying no collusion/crime or something to that effect. What has been damaging to Trump is all of speculation and innuendo that has been in the media for more than two years. That damage is not easily remedied. Yes, all that unjust damage to his reputation... Oh wait he admitted on Twitter that Jr. went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary from the Russian government. And we've had people lie infront of congress that Trump wasn't in discussions about a Trump tower in Moscow during the campaign. Not to mention all the other indictements that have already come out of the investigation. I thought we moved past "it didn't happen" unto "but it wasn't illegal". Guess we've gone back a step again. You do realize that all of the "dirt" on Trump and his team came from the Russians (as well as the NSA database, but we'll deal with that later), right? A nd you do also realize not only that Hillary paid for that information, but also that she has had business dealings (not prospective business dealings, actual business dealings) with many of the same Russians that are involved in this mess? The Trump Tower meeting is a comparative nothing burger, just as all of the indictments to come out of the investigation are nothing burgers as they pertain to Trump and his campaign. She did this personally? Did she wear one of those big coats and glasses, like in the movies? Did it come in a weird envelope that was still labeled “Super Top Secret” in Russian? If by "personally" you mean "through the Clinton Foundation and her husband's paid speaking engagements," yep. Is this the alternative reality Bizzaro Steel Dossier that is origin the foundation of the investigation(which it is not, Carter Page’s antics pre-date it by quite a while) and wasn’t paid for as opposition research by the DNC(after the RNC stopped paying for it)? Is Bizzaro Trump a good president who understands men’s fashion? I guess I wasn't addressing the dossier with my response so much as the business dealings with Russians. But on the point of the dossier, it was initially funded by Singer before the Clinton campaign took it over. As a relevant aside because you have done it twice now this morning, you have a very bad habit of inaccurately presuming that republicans are firmly supporting Trump. A large segment of the republican establishment, and potentially a majority of the big-money interests, oppose Trump.
I’m a guy that is all about actions speaking louder than words. So people can voice opposition to Trump and how he behaves all day, but until they take substantive action to limit his ability to rake in the graft, I’m not that impressed. Moderate Republican Susan Collins can voice her disapproval all she wants, but until votes to limit what the administration can do, it is just empty words.
And normally people don’t “guess” when they are addressing something in a statement. They are clear about what they are saying. And given your profession, I always take any ambiguity of exactly what you are referencing to be intentional. So when I have to guess what you are talking about, it is because you want me to guess to. So it is either be clear or have me make wild speculations with a dash of nerdy comedy about what you are referring too. Which I am totally up for, TBH.
|
|
|
On February 22 2019 02:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 02:13 hunts wrote:On February 22 2019 01:32 Logo wrote:On February 22 2019 00:48 hunts wrote:
I didn't expect there to be that many people here that would support sanders 2020, I honestly don't get why. It's not like he magically learned how to be a good politician, he's still the same one trick pony he was in 2016, except even older. And when people talk about "outside interference in the primary" I sure hope they remember that while most of the claims of "rigged in hillary's favor" are nebulous and without any proof, the one type of interference we DO have proof of, is russian interference in favor of bernie. Honestly I hope he drops out before 2020, or becomes too sick to run, I have a feeling him and his supporters will do their best to tear the party apart from the inside, again. How is he a one trick pony? At a minimum he's tangibly accomplished two tricks over the past 4 years ($15 min wage, and Medicare for all becoming a mainstream platform). He's on 2 environmental committees this session of congress and a committee for veteran affairs. He's signed/cosigned bills expanding social security, making our election day a public holiday, and a joint resolution for the US to end our involvement in Yemen and that's all just *recent* legislation. None of that is a one trick pony. He's arguably accomplished more than any other dem federal-level politician over the last 4 years since he has at least one big actual tangible leftist wins under his belt (pressuring Amazon and Disney to pay $15/hr, the Yemen joint resolution passing). It's one of the most tired lies about Sanders to call him a one trick pony. By one trick pony I didn't mean only 1 issue. I meant he basically only has one trick he can do and that's be angry at things and make impossible promises. He has shown that he doesn't know much about what the president can and can't do. He is a one trick pony in that he is like the left version of trymp. Using outrage and promising the impossible. The other issue I have with him is that he has been very anti science or pro pseudoscience in the past. I'm on phone now so can't find links but there are write ups about his anti science history. That being said if he does manage to win? I will still vote for him in the final election unless the Republican party explodes and they manage to field an actual decent candidate but that's about as likely to happen as trump sprouting wings and flying away into the sunset away. Some of the things he thought might cause cancer are pretty out there. But it was also in the 60's then the 80's which is a long time ago. His thoughts on Acupuncture and massage are not anti science, science and research support it's health benefits. There is a reason many pro athletes swear by it. It seems more like a clutching at straws kind of thing rather then him being anti science. Unless there is much more that I didn't find. https://medium.com/the-method/bernie-sanders-in-2020-here-is-his-long-history-with-pseudoscience-204afbe830d7
Yeah that's what my digging turned up as well, it didn't even seem like a serious enough accusation to warrant commenting on.
|
|
|
Personally, my biggest complaint with Sanders from 2016 was his myopic focus on economic issues and dismissing anything else as a distraction. That appears to have changed a bit, with him jumping on to the First Step act and a bit more focus on foreign policy. I would like to see him focus on election reform as well.
|
On February 22 2019 02:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On February 22 2019 01:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oakland, California teachers are going on strike, it is great to see the Labor force coming back in play and even starting to change the narrative it seems. This is the 3rd such strike this year I believe in the country. Teachers in Oakland, California, have gone on strike demanding smaller class sizes and a 12 percent retroactive raise.
They are the latest in the U.S. to go on strike in recent months. Teachers in West Virginia, Denver and Los Angeles have gone on strike in over the last year.
The city’s 3,000 teachers are demanding a 12 percent retroactive raise covering 2017 to 2020 to compensate for what they say are among the lowest salaries for public school teachers in the expensive San Francisco Bay Area.
They also want the district to hire more counselors to support students and more full-time nurses.
The walkout is expected to affect 36,000 students at 86 schools. Source “Hire more counselors” seems like a specific request. I remember my high school having basically one “counselor” for 2,500 students. Up here we don't have many counselors either, but at my wife's school they are much more aware of mental health. Even for the Grade ones they do things to help them be more mindful and present. There were mental health session at the teachers convention that is going on right now.
The school I went to when young had EQ as their theme. They had days educating and showing those type of things to students. Was 20 years ago now, so don't recall the details. Don't need a lot of counsellors if you have it as a mindset for your full staff and as part of their yearly evaluation.
|
On February 22 2019 02:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On February 22 2019 01:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oakland, California teachers are going on strike, it is great to see the Labor force coming back in play and even starting to change the narrative it seems. This is the 3rd such strike this year I believe in the country. Teachers in Oakland, California, have gone on strike demanding smaller class sizes and a 12 percent retroactive raise.
They are the latest in the U.S. to go on strike in recent months. Teachers in West Virginia, Denver and Los Angeles have gone on strike in over the last year.
The city’s 3,000 teachers are demanding a 12 percent retroactive raise covering 2017 to 2020 to compensate for what they say are among the lowest salaries for public school teachers in the expensive San Francisco Bay Area.
They also want the district to hire more counselors to support students and more full-time nurses.
The walkout is expected to affect 36,000 students at 86 schools. Source “Hire more counselors” seems like a specific request. I remember my high school having basically one “counselor” for 2,500 students. Up here we don't have many counselors either, but at my wife's school they are much more aware of mental health. Even for the Grade ones they do things to help them be more mindful and present. There were mental health session at the teachers convention that is going on right now.
My high school had one per grade so ~1 counselor per 200-250 students, and followed them from grade 8-12. I didn't make much use of them, but they were generalists who literally helped with anything from planning courses/changing timetables to any form of life advice/help. It made it so students had one point of contact for any problems they had about anything, whether or not it was related to school, and the counselor had the ability/training to either help directly, or find someone who could help. Students will go to anyone they trust (could literally be any teacher in the school) for advice/help, but it's best if they go to someone with the training/ability to handle problems.
This is the salary grid for my school district (pdf warning):
link
Not sure if there's a similar table available to see what they're making down there right now.
|
Yesterday two stories broke across this country. One is about a Coast Guard Lieutenant in DC planning to murder a staggering number of reporters and politicians. He had the means and weapons to follow through with this plan. The man references Nazis, white supremacy in his writings, which are troubling to read.
The other was Jussie Smollett being indicted of filing a false police report and staging a hate crime. And the Chicago PD making a very big deal out of this because, well, they are the Chicago PD.
And depressingly, one of these is getting wall to wall coverage by every news network and is being used by the President as a talking point. The other is mostly being ignored. When you want to see systematic racism in action, watch how we cover white terrorists who do not manage to kill anyone and compare the coverage to any crime, not matter how minor, committed by a black person that managed to catch national attention.
Edit: And to be clear, this problem dominates all media. From the NYT to Fox News to NPR.
|
McCabe's interviews the last few days have been chilling. Imagine being a life-long Republican. You find evidence that Trump is involved with the whole Russia counter-intelligence operation the FBI was already investigating. Your also Republican FBI boss gets fired because he refuses to fire you. Then you get to read the 4 page long rambling letter of Trump explaining why he fired Comey.
Then you get fired a day before you get retirement benefits, out of spite. And while you are fired and writing your book, you see Trump literally take orders from Putin. Parrot propaganda that is not even modern Russian propaganda but literally Soviet propaganda out of the 80's. Trump doesn't read. He can barely read because he is too lazy to attempt it. So he cannot hop unto Wikipedia or google to figure out what happened with Russia and Afghanistan. We all know that Trump gets all his info directly from Fox News. But every once in a while he starts talking about something that was not on Fox News. He starts rambling about something, and we know he literally got that from Putin.
And you, Andrew McCabe, are watching this on tv, while you write your book. You have been in the Oval Office with Trump while you suspected that he was a Russian agent. You literally talked with Rosenstein about Rosenstein going into the Oval Office with a wire to record Trump. Then, you see all these meetings between Trump and Putin (let's ignore Kim for now), for example the one in Helsinki where Trump stands next to Putin and repeats 'I believe Putin over our intel community' after he told you that in private.
I must be so surreal to be on the absolute first row of this while in unfolds in front of your eyes, and what you are learning is 10x crazier than anything in Homeland, 24, or House of Cards.
And the thing that must make it a absolutely sickening feeling for McCabe and Comey is that they intervened in the election directly. They helped out the candidate from their party. They made it so that there was a single moment in time where Trump was ahead of Clinton in the polls. And they timed it exactly so it would happen during the election. And they announced the reopening of the investigation of Clinton when they knew there was nothing and while they were extremely keen to keep absolutely secret the already worrying investigation into Russian election meddling they had already opened.
Yes, they did it because they were absolutely sure Trump would lose, and that this was the safest thing for their career. But they were deeply wrong. And they completely fucked over the country.
An Republican-led FBI assisted Putin to get Trump elected. And now they are crying all over the mainstream media about it.
User was banned for this post.
|
On February 22 2019 01:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:26 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 21 2019 23:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 21 2019 19:59 iamthedave wrote:On February 21 2019 13:40 Plansix wrote:
And we are back to the Republican filled FBI was biased against Trump from the start, despite the overwhelming evidence that the man is dripping with crime and grift. Shrug. For all the dubious thinking behind it, Daunt's right that if Trump was going down we'd almost certainly know about it at this point. The final report is likely to be as damaging to his reputation - what little remains to damage - as the Clinton e-mail report was to her. It isn't going to land him in jail or see him ousted from the Presidency. At least... not directly. The final report won’t damage Trump. To the extent that any portion of it sees the light of day beyond Barr, it will merely be a statement saying no collusion/crime or something to that effect. What has been damaging to Trump is all of speculation and innuendo that has been in the media for more than two years. That damage is not easily remedied. Yes, all that unjust damage to his reputation... Oh wait he admitted on Twitter that Jr. went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary from the Russian government. And we've had people lie infront of congress that Trump wasn't in discussions about a Trump tower in Moscow during the campaign. Not to mention all the other indictements that have already come out of the investigation. I thought we moved past "it didn't happen" unto "but it wasn't illegal". Guess we've gone back a step again. You do realize that all of the "dirt" on Trump and his team came from the Russians (as well as the NSA database, but we'll deal with that later), right? A nd you do also realize not only that Hillary paid for that information, but also that she has had business dealings (not prospective business dealings, actual business dealings) with many of the same Russians that are involved in this mess? The Trump Tower meeting is a comparative nothing burger, just as all of the indictments to come out of the investigation are nothing burgers as they pertain to Trump and his campaign. She did this personally? Did she wear one of those big coats and glasses, like in the movies? Did it come in a weird envelope that was still labeled “Super Top Secret” in Russian? If by "personally" you mean "through the Clinton Foundation and her husband's paid speaking engagements," yep. Is this the alternative reality Bizzaro Steel Dossier that is origin the foundation of the investigation(which it is not, Carter Page’s antics pre-date it by quite a while) and wasn’t paid for as opposition research by the DNC(after the RNC stopped paying for it)? Is Bizzaro Trump a good president who understands men’s fashion? I guess I wasn't addressing the dossier with my response so much as the business dealings with Russians. But on the point of the dossier, it was initially funded by Singer before the Clinton campaign took it over. As a relevant aside because you have done it twice now this morning, you have a very bad habit of inaccurately presuming that republicans are firmly supporting Trump. A large segment of the republican establishment, and potentially a majority of the big-money interests, oppose Trump.
Didn't you yourself proclaim 'The GOP is now the party of Trump' and that 'all of the dissenting voices have now been voted out of power'?
Did you mis-speak then? Or is this a specific and different part of the establishment?
On February 22 2019 02:13 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 01:32 Logo wrote:On February 22 2019 00:48 hunts wrote:
I didn't expect there to be that many people here that would support sanders 2020, I honestly don't get why. It's not like he magically learned how to be a good politician, he's still the same one trick pony he was in 2016, except even older. And when people talk about "outside interference in the primary" I sure hope they remember that while most of the claims of "rigged in hillary's favor" are nebulous and without any proof, the one type of interference we DO have proof of, is russian interference in favor of bernie. Honestly I hope he drops out before 2020, or becomes too sick to run, I have a feeling him and his supporters will do their best to tear the party apart from the inside, again. How is he a one trick pony? At a minimum he's tangibly accomplished two tricks over the past 4 years ($15 min wage, and Medicare for all becoming a mainstream platform). He's on 2 environmental committees this session of congress and a committee for veteran affairs. He's signed/cosigned bills expanding social security, making our election day a public holiday, and a joint resolution for the US to end our involvement in Yemen and that's all just *recent* legislation. None of that is a one trick pony. He's arguably accomplished more than any other dem federal-level politician over the last 4 years since he has at least one big actual tangible leftist wins under his belt (pressuring Amazon and Disney to pay $15/hr, the Yemen joint resolution passing). It's one of the most tired lies about Sanders to call him a one trick pony. By one trick pony I didn't mean only 1 issue. I meant he basically only has one trick he can do and that's be angry at things and make impossible promises. He has shown that he doesn't know much about what the president can and can't do. He is a one trick pony in that he is like the left version of trymp. Using outrage and promising the impossible. The other issue I have with him is that he has been very anti science or pro pseudoscience in the past. I'm on phone now so can't find links but there are write ups about his anti science history. That being said if he does manage to win? I will still vote for him in the final election unless the Republican party explodes and they manage to field an actual decent candidate but that's about as likely to happen as trump sprouting wings and flying away into the sunset away.
I'll accept that this seems like a fair description, but I'm not seeing anything here that makes him less electable. As you point out yourself, that's literally the game that got Trump into power. Just being angry at everything and promising the impossible. Shit, it's even been demonstrated that once you're in power, you can fail to deliver on these things and people will still believe you did them.
Whether or not other posters feel you're being fair on THE BERN, this should have no real affect on his electability.
|
There are few Republicans who are willing to put their distaste for Trump ahead of his ability to push their policy goals, though.
|
On February 22 2019 03:31 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:26 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 21 2019 23:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 21 2019 19:59 iamthedave wrote:On February 21 2019 13:40 Plansix wrote:
And we are back to the Republican filled FBI was biased against Trump from the start, despite the overwhelming evidence that the man is dripping with crime and grift. Shrug. For all the dubious thinking behind it, Daunt's right that if Trump was going down we'd almost certainly know about it at this point. The final report is likely to be as damaging to his reputation - what little remains to damage - as the Clinton e-mail report was to her. It isn't going to land him in jail or see him ousted from the Presidency. At least... not directly. The final report won’t damage Trump. To the extent that any portion of it sees the light of day beyond Barr, it will merely be a statement saying no collusion/crime or something to that effect. What has been damaging to Trump is all of speculation and innuendo that has been in the media for more than two years. That damage is not easily remedied. Yes, all that unjust damage to his reputation... Oh wait he admitted on Twitter that Jr. went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary from the Russian government. And we've had people lie infront of congress that Trump wasn't in discussions about a Trump tower in Moscow during the campaign. Not to mention all the other indictements that have already come out of the investigation. I thought we moved past "it didn't happen" unto "but it wasn't illegal". Guess we've gone back a step again. You do realize that all of the "dirt" on Trump and his team came from the Russians (as well as the NSA database, but we'll deal with that later), right? A nd you do also realize not only that Hillary paid for that information, but also that she has had business dealings (not prospective business dealings, actual business dealings) with many of the same Russians that are involved in this mess? The Trump Tower meeting is a comparative nothing burger, just as all of the indictments to come out of the investigation are nothing burgers as they pertain to Trump and his campaign. She did this personally? Did she wear one of those big coats and glasses, like in the movies? Did it come in a weird envelope that was still labeled “Super Top Secret” in Russian? If by "personally" you mean "through the Clinton Foundation and her husband's paid speaking engagements," yep. Is this the alternative reality Bizzaro Steel Dossier that is origin the foundation of the investigation(which it is not, Carter Page’s antics pre-date it by quite a while) and wasn’t paid for as opposition research by the DNC(after the RNC stopped paying for it)? Is Bizzaro Trump a good president who understands men’s fashion? I guess I wasn't addressing the dossier with my response so much as the business dealings with Russians. But on the point of the dossier, it was initially funded by Singer before the Clinton campaign took it over. As a relevant aside because you have done it twice now this morning, you have a very bad habit of inaccurately presuming that republicans are firmly supporting Trump. A large segment of the republican establishment, and potentially a majority of the big-money interests, oppose Trump. Didn't you yourself proclaim 'The GOP is now the party of Trump' and that 'all of the dissenting voices have now been voted out of power'? Did you mis-speak then? Or is this a specific and different part of the establishment?
No, I did not mis-speak. The GOP is effectively the party of Trump, and most of the openly Never-Trumper politicians are out of office and out of favor. There are very few republican politicians remaining who are openly hostile to Trump. However, this does not mean that there is no dissident faction. There are still huge money conservative interests who are opposed to Trump, particularly on immigration, trade, and foreign policy. These interests are powerful and exert quite a bit of influence on many important republican politicians. In short, there are still a lot of republicans who have a vested interest in getting rid of Trump notwithstanding the fact that Trump is clearly the leader of and most influential person in the republican party.
|
On February 22 2019 03:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 03:31 iamthedave wrote:On February 22 2019 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:26 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 21 2019 23:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 21 2019 19:59 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
Shrug. For all the dubious thinking behind it, Daunt's right that if Trump was going down we'd almost certainly know about it at this point. The final report is likely to be as damaging to his reputation - what little remains to damage - as the Clinton e-mail report was to her. It isn't going to land him in jail or see him ousted from the Presidency. At least... not directly. The final report won’t damage Trump. To the extent that any portion of it sees the light of day beyond Barr, it will merely be a statement saying no collusion/crime or something to that effect. What has been damaging to Trump is all of speculation and innuendo that has been in the media for more than two years. That damage is not easily remedied. Yes, all that unjust damage to his reputation... Oh wait he admitted on Twitter that Jr. went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary from the Russian government. And we've had people lie infront of congress that Trump wasn't in discussions about a Trump tower in Moscow during the campaign. Not to mention all the other indictements that have already come out of the investigation. I thought we moved past "it didn't happen" unto "but it wasn't illegal". Guess we've gone back a step again. You do realize that all of the "dirt" on Trump and his team came from the Russians (as well as the NSA database, but we'll deal with that later), right? A nd you do also realize not only that Hillary paid for that information, but also that she has had business dealings (not prospective business dealings, actual business dealings) with many of the same Russians that are involved in this mess? The Trump Tower meeting is a comparative nothing burger, just as all of the indictments to come out of the investigation are nothing burgers as they pertain to Trump and his campaign. She did this personally? Did she wear one of those big coats and glasses, like in the movies? Did it come in a weird envelope that was still labeled “Super Top Secret” in Russian? If by "personally" you mean "through the Clinton Foundation and her husband's paid speaking engagements," yep. Is this the alternative reality Bizzaro Steel Dossier that is origin the foundation of the investigation(which it is not, Carter Page’s antics pre-date it by quite a while) and wasn’t paid for as opposition research by the DNC(after the RNC stopped paying for it)? Is Bizzaro Trump a good president who understands men’s fashion? I guess I wasn't addressing the dossier with my response so much as the business dealings with Russians. But on the point of the dossier, it was initially funded by Singer before the Clinton campaign took it over. As a relevant aside because you have done it twice now this morning, you have a very bad habit of inaccurately presuming that republicans are firmly supporting Trump. A large segment of the republican establishment, and potentially a majority of the big-money interests, oppose Trump. Didn't you yourself proclaim 'The GOP is now the party of Trump' and that 'all of the dissenting voices have now been voted out of power'? Did you mis-speak then? Or is this a specific and different part of the establishment? No, I did not mis-speak. The GOP is effectively the party of Trump, and most of the openly Never-Trumper politicians are out of office and out of favor. There are very few republican politicians remaining who are openly hostile to Trump. However, this does not mean that there is no dissident faction. There are still huge money conservative interests who are opposed to Trump, particularly on immigration, trade, and foreign policy. These interests are powerful and exert quite a bit of influence on many important republican politicians. In short, there are still a lot of republicans who have a vested interest in getting rid of Trump notwithstanding the fact that Trump is clearly the leader of and most influential person in the republican party.
Who are they? I'm not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious.
I'd have thought Trump would enthusiastically call these people out if they were undermining him. He sure doesn't spare anyone else.
|
On February 22 2019 03:59 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 03:31 iamthedave wrote:On February 22 2019 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:46 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 01:26 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2019 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 22 2019 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 21 2019 23:50 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The final report won’t damage Trump. To the extent that any portion of it sees the light of day beyond Barr, it will merely be a statement saying no collusion/crime or something to that effect. What has been damaging to Trump is all of speculation and innuendo that has been in the media for more than two years. That damage is not easily remedied. Yes, all that unjust damage to his reputation... Oh wait he admitted on Twitter that Jr. went to the meeting to get dirt on Hillary from the Russian government. And we've had people lie infront of congress that Trump wasn't in discussions about a Trump tower in Moscow during the campaign. Not to mention all the other indictements that have already come out of the investigation. I thought we moved past "it didn't happen" unto "but it wasn't illegal". Guess we've gone back a step again. You do realize that all of the "dirt" on Trump and his team came from the Russians (as well as the NSA database, but we'll deal with that later), right? A nd you do also realize not only that Hillary paid for that information, but also that she has had business dealings (not prospective business dealings, actual business dealings) with many of the same Russians that are involved in this mess? The Trump Tower meeting is a comparative nothing burger, just as all of the indictments to come out of the investigation are nothing burgers as they pertain to Trump and his campaign. She did this personally? Did she wear one of those big coats and glasses, like in the movies? Did it come in a weird envelope that was still labeled “Super Top Secret” in Russian? If by "personally" you mean "through the Clinton Foundation and her husband's paid speaking engagements," yep. Is this the alternative reality Bizzaro Steel Dossier that is origin the foundation of the investigation(which it is not, Carter Page’s antics pre-date it by quite a while) and wasn’t paid for as opposition research by the DNC(after the RNC stopped paying for it)? Is Bizzaro Trump a good president who understands men’s fashion? I guess I wasn't addressing the dossier with my response so much as the business dealings with Russians. But on the point of the dossier, it was initially funded by Singer before the Clinton campaign took it over. As a relevant aside because you have done it twice now this morning, you have a very bad habit of inaccurately presuming that republicans are firmly supporting Trump. A large segment of the republican establishment, and potentially a majority of the big-money interests, oppose Trump. Didn't you yourself proclaim 'The GOP is now the party of Trump' and that 'all of the dissenting voices have now been voted out of power'? Did you mis-speak then? Or is this a specific and different part of the establishment? No, I did not mis-speak. The GOP is effectively the party of Trump, and most of the openly Never-Trumper politicians are out of office and out of favor. There are very few republican politicians remaining who are openly hostile to Trump. However, this does not mean that there is no dissident faction. There are still huge money conservative interests who are opposed to Trump, particularly on immigration, trade, and foreign policy. These interests are powerful and exert quite a bit of influence on many important republican politicians. In short, there are still a lot of republicans who have a vested interest in getting rid of Trump notwithstanding the fact that Trump is clearly the leader of and most influential person in the republican party. Who are they? I'm not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious. I'd have thought Trump would enthusiastically call these people out if they were undermining him. He sure doesn't spare anyone else.
Pretty much any of the republican billionaires. Trump doesn't openly antagonize these people because most of these people don't openly antagonize him. So what we see is temporary alliance of convenience where each side tries to get what it can out of the other. But when you actually talk with the people in the know in the big money political circles, there is a ton of animosity for Trump. What surprises me is that a lot of it is irrational. I certainly understand the people who oppose Trump because Trump's policies threaten their economic interests. What I don't understand is the class of Never Trumper who loathes Trump and seeks to undermine him for reasons unrelated to policy, even when these very same people purport to be champions and advocates of conservative policy (which Trump has delivered more of than any president since Reagan).
|
On February 22 2019 02:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2019 02:13 hunts wrote:On February 22 2019 01:32 Logo wrote:On February 22 2019 00:48 hunts wrote:
I didn't expect there to be that many people here that would support sanders 2020, I honestly don't get why. It's not like he magically learned how to be a good politician, he's still the same one trick pony he was in 2016, except even older. And when people talk about "outside interference in the primary" I sure hope they remember that while most of the claims of "rigged in hillary's favor" are nebulous and without any proof, the one type of interference we DO have proof of, is russian interference in favor of bernie. Honestly I hope he drops out before 2020, or becomes too sick to run, I have a feeling him and his supporters will do their best to tear the party apart from the inside, again. How is he a one trick pony? At a minimum he's tangibly accomplished two tricks over the past 4 years ($15 min wage, and Medicare for all becoming a mainstream platform). He's on 2 environmental committees this session of congress and a committee for veteran affairs. He's signed/cosigned bills expanding social security, making our election day a public holiday, and a joint resolution for the US to end our involvement in Yemen and that's all just *recent* legislation. None of that is a one trick pony. He's arguably accomplished more than any other dem federal-level politician over the last 4 years since he has at least one big actual tangible leftist wins under his belt (pressuring Amazon and Disney to pay $15/hr, the Yemen joint resolution passing). It's one of the most tired lies about Sanders to call him a one trick pony. By one trick pony I didn't mean only 1 issue. I meant he basically only has one trick he can do and that's be angry at things and make impossible promises. He has shown that he doesn't know much about what the president can and can't do. He is a one trick pony in that he is like the left version of trymp. Using outrage and promising the impossible. The other issue I have with him is that he has been very anti science or pro pseudoscience in the past. I'm on phone now so can't find links but there are write ups about his anti science history. That being said if he does manage to win? I will still vote for him in the final election unless the Republican party explodes and they manage to field an actual decent candidate but that's about as likely to happen as trump sprouting wings and flying away into the sunset away. Some of the things he thought might cause cancer are pretty out there. But it was also in the 60's then the 80's which is a long time ago. His thoughts on Acupuncture and massage are not anti science, science and research support it's health benefits. There is a reason many pro athletes swear by it. It seems more like a clutching at straws kind of thing rather then him being anti science. Unless there is much more that I didn't find. https://medium.com/the-method/bernie-sanders-in-2020-here-is-his-long-history-with-pseudoscience-204afbe830d7
The studies I've seen found no benefit to acupuncture, and I have not seen any credible peer reviewed studies that showed any benefit to accupuncture. Furthermore I recall Bernie being anti GMOs, and pro other homeopathic medicine.
About the impossible things I don't mean universal healthcare, that's obviously possible with enough votes and Republicans kept out of power. But wanting to break up all the big banks without knowing how that would even work or that as president he wouldn't have the power. Changing universal minimum wage to $15 by itself will not do anything to change the shitty situation for the minimum wage employees as cost of living will just go up as well, without some legislation that limits that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
