|
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 April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:58 IyMoon wrote:On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:40 byte-Curious wrote:On April 08 2019 23:35 Wombat_NI wrote:
[quote]
Why people continually attempt to disarm Trump on the grounds that he’s strong, baffles me. Hah, that's precisely what I said when Sen. Warren started to get dragged into the mud with him on that stupid Pocahontas issue, which was a colossal fail for her. If she stuck to policies, she would rape him over the coals in the general election. Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency. As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying? Dude.... really? If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future.
Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs.
Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people.
|
On April 09 2019 22:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 19:56 Doublemint wrote:On April 09 2019 19:21 micronesia wrote:On April 09 2019 13:43 Introvert wrote:
As for me, the way I see it is that he was already elected without releasing them. This is obvious dumpster diving by the Democrats looking for dirt. Worth noting is that Trump said many times during the campaign that he would release his tax returns once he was no longer under audit for them. Once he was elected, he responded to inquiries of, "are you still under audit or are you going to release your tax returns?" with "Nobody cares about that but you." As for you, did you care about the returns before the election? Did him lying to you make you stop caring after the election? exactly that. double standards all around. Additionally there is no rule about not releasing them under audit and even if there was he could still release prior year ones. He might as well have claimed there was an IRS regulation that prevented people called Donald from releasing them.
I think this is the real problem with the whole thing. There was never a rule that he couldn't release it so him lying before and getting away with it is indication that the voters don't care.
|
On April 09 2019 23:23 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:58 IyMoon wrote:On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:40 byte-Curious wrote:
[quote]
Hah, that's precisely what I said when Sen. Warren started to get dragged into the mud with him on that stupid Pocahontas issue, which was a colossal fail for her. If she stuck to policies, she would rape him over the coals in the general election. Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency. As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying? Dude.... really? If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future. Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs. Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people.
His one skill is attracting media attention through controversy. Being a fraud actually helps him in this regard. So yes, he's just a fraud. See also his opponent getting an FBI investigation publicly opened one week before the election (guess we know why she wanted an FBI investigation on Trump  ).
|
On April 09 2019 23:23 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:58 IyMoon wrote:On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:40 byte-Curious wrote:
[quote]
Hah, that's precisely what I said when Sen. Warren started to get dragged into the mud with him on that stupid Pocahontas issue, which was a colossal fail for her. If she stuck to policies, she would rape him over the coals in the general election. Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency. As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying? Dude.... really? If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future. Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs. Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people.
Historically speaking, the number of presidents who are themselves responsible for ascending to the presidency, as opposed to being the right candidate with the right connections at the right time, is a very small number. The Fast Money Boys in Cleveland understood the importance of the latter such that they dominated the presidential scene for decades on both sides of 1900.
|
On April 09 2019 23:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 23:23 Excludos wrote:On April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:58 IyMoon wrote:On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency. As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying? Dude.... really? If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future. Occam's razor tells us that it's just as likely that he simply got lucky, compared to him playing 4d chess. He is charismatic to his base by virtue of being a bumbling buffoon who pretends to cater to their every wish/needs. Stupid people have been put in positions of power before, and they will in all likelihood be again. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for scamming people. Historically speaking, the number of presidents who are themselves responsible for ascending to the presidency, as opposed to being the right candidate with the right connections at the right time, is a very small number. The Fast Money Boys in Cleveland understood the importance of the latter such that they dominated the presidential scene for decades on both sides of 1900.
On top of that, I'm not convinced that either Trump or Hillary would have won against an actual dog if it were an option.
|
Northern Ireland23924 Posts
On April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:58 IyMoon wrote:On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:40 byte-Curious wrote:On April 08 2019 23:35 Wombat_NI wrote:
[quote]
Why people continually attempt to disarm Trump on the grounds that he’s strong, baffles me. Hah, that's precisely what I said when Sen. Warren started to get dragged into the mud with him on that stupid Pocahontas issue, which was a colossal fail for her. If she stuck to policies, she would rape him over the coals in the general election. Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency. As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying? Dude.... really? If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future.
Agreed, I don't think it's super difficult to disarm some of his strengths if people stopped being idiots
Why professional politicians who employ researchers and staff, not to mention segments of the media continue to utilise some of the exact same tactics that failed last election, absolutely baffles me. If an idiot like me with too much time and an internet connection can see this and be consistently more correct on it, why the pros either cannot, or even worse can see it and make decisions contrary to it, just odd.
He got extremely, extremely lucky last time because he continually got handed complete gift-wrapped presents all over the place, and he can get that lucky again.
As there is (as yet) nothing that's come out bar post-hoc (mis)ascribed sophistication being applied to much of his campaign, I'll remain pretty firmly in the lucky/fluke camp. I don't even think it's that implausible that he just ran to get his name out there and had no real aspiration of winning, and it just snowballed on him. I will absolutely retract that if it ever comes out that the Trump campaign had some vague actual plan of shifting the rhetoric, baiting opponents to call the electorate deplorables or w/e, and use the disenfranchisement that caused to augment an ostensible anti-establishment ticket.
There are absolutely positives from the Trump campaign though that can be appropriated by others, although I hope in a less toxic manner. You can bypass funding gaps and mainstream media coverage, social media is a great tool to use in this respect.
|
Northern Ireland23924 Posts
On April 09 2019 23:28 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 22:49 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2019 19:56 Doublemint wrote:On April 09 2019 19:21 micronesia wrote:On April 09 2019 13:43 Introvert wrote:
As for me, the way I see it is that he was already elected without releasing them. This is obvious dumpster diving by the Democrats looking for dirt. Worth noting is that Trump said many times during the campaign that he would release his tax returns once he was no longer under audit for them. Once he was elected, he responded to inquiries of, "are you still under audit or are you going to release your tax returns?" with "Nobody cares about that but you." As for you, did you care about the returns before the election? Did him lying to you make you stop caring after the election? exactly that. double standards all around. Additionally there is no rule about not releasing them under audit and even if there was he could still release prior year ones. He might as well have claimed there was an IRS regulation that prevented people called Donald from releasing them. I think this is the real problem with the whole thing. There was never a rule that he couldn't release it so him lying before and getting away with it is indication that the voters don't care.
Perhaps, that's certainly the case with a lot of people, on a lot of Trump things.
The audit thing, I'm not so sure really. I've encountered quite a lot of people to whom that was news when I told them, so at least some people are genuinely just misinformed and think that the audit thing is actually the case.
|
On April 09 2019 22:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 22:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2019 22:39 Plansix wrote:
The level of transparency in releasing their taxes has varied from presidential candidate to presidential candidate. I’m not going to sit here are argue that George Bush Sr., former director of the CIA was as transparent as someone like Jimmy Carter.
As for the concepts of Norms(which sounds more and more like some stat in an Nammoora JRPG), they are established and broken throughout US history. One could even argue all political history. There has to be some reliance on norms, as it is difficult to enforce laws on political figures. What arose in the boomer generation is that they, through political apathy, allowed many of the norms in congress to be chipped away and destroyed. This isn’t bad, per say. But it does mean that new norms have to be established.
But people should rejoice as the questioning of norms. Long abused conventions like the filibuster are now being questioned in presidential campaigns. The electoral college is being called into question. People are talking about things that would have seemed impossible to discussion 10 years ago. Because if people want big changes, ending the filibuster will do that. And it will mostly favor those who want to establish government programs, as entitlements are difficulty to take away. I’m somewhat torn on the filibuster. In theory I like aspects of it as a mechanism, as the norms governing its utilisation have shifted its completely abused. The filibuster was doomed as a practice the instant they allowed it to be used without forcing a senator to stand on the floor speaking. It was to easy to abuse after that. It was just a matter of time before we got rid of it. I would also support bringing back the rule forcing senators to truly hold the floor. That would be some good TV, TBH.
That's not the case anymore ? I seem to remember only a few years ago a senator being on his feet speaking for around 11h... I thought that was still the case, shame :-/ At least that was dedication ! How does it work now then ?
|
On April 09 2019 16:14 byte-Curious wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 13:43 Introvert wrote:On April 09 2019 12:39 JimmiC wrote:
I'm confused by the Tax return thing. From everything I read congress has the right to demand it for anyone including the president. And they now have and he is refusing despite saying he would. Does this now do go to court? What are the steps?
Secondly to the people on the right. Why are you ok with this? Is it complete and utter faith in him? If so why consider he is not exactly honest. Or do you think there might be something damning in there and you want to protect him? Or some other reason I have not though of. Because if I was his supporter and thought hevwas awesome Id want him to show them all how clean he is and how well he has done. As for me, the way I see it is that he was already elected without releasing them. This is obvious dumpster diving by the Democrats looking for dirt. You're right, what business is it of the American people to find out in which ways the POTUS benefits financially from being POTUS? Can't they just trust him? Personally, I resent the implication that just because Trump has screwed over everyone he's ever worked with, including the American people, he would continue doing so as POTUS. After all, haven't the founders always feared the office would imbue the POTUS with too much dignity? ![[image loading]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/144A5/production/_86890138_86889447.jpg) User was warned for this post.
The clear and convincing evidence that Trump is using his private businesses (Trump Hotel DC & Mar-a-Logo) for profit deriving from the government is the quintessential example of a need for Congressional oversight. As a matter of the balance of powers Congress should be given the tax returns.
|
On April 09 2019 23:53 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 16:14 byte-Curious wrote:On April 09 2019 13:43 Introvert wrote:On April 09 2019 12:39 JimmiC wrote:
I'm confused by the Tax return thing. From everything I read congress has the right to demand it for anyone including the president. And they now have and he is refusing despite saying he would. Does this now do go to court? What are the steps?
Secondly to the people on the right. Why are you ok with this? Is it complete and utter faith in him? If so why consider he is not exactly honest. Or do you think there might be something damning in there and you want to protect him? Or some other reason I have not though of. Because if I was his supporter and thought hevwas awesome Id want him to show them all how clean he is and how well he has done. As for me, the way I see it is that he was already elected without releasing them. This is obvious dumpster diving by the Democrats looking for dirt. You're right, what business is it of the American people to find out in which ways the POTUS benefits financially from being POTUS? Can't they just trust him? Personally, I resent the implication that just because Trump has screwed over everyone he's ever worked with, including the American people, he would continue doing so as POTUS. After all, haven't the founders always feared the office would imbue the POTUS with too much dignity? User was warned for this post. The clear and convincing evidence that Trump is using his private businesses (Trump Hotel DC & Mar-a-Logo) for profit deriving from the government is the quintessential example of a need for Congressional oversight. As a matter of the balance of powers Congress should be given the tax returns.
Balance of power? What kind of libcuck concept is that? GEOTUS or GTFOTUS.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 09 2019 23:47 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 23:28 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On April 09 2019 22:49 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2019 19:56 Doublemint wrote:On April 09 2019 19:21 micronesia wrote:On April 09 2019 13:43 Introvert wrote:
As for me, the way I see it is that he was already elected without releasing them. This is obvious dumpster diving by the Democrats looking for dirt. Worth noting is that Trump said many times during the campaign that he would release his tax returns once he was no longer under audit for them. Once he was elected, he responded to inquiries of, "are you still under audit or are you going to release your tax returns?" with "Nobody cares about that but you." As for you, did you care about the returns before the election? Did him lying to you make you stop caring after the election? exactly that. double standards all around. Additionally there is no rule about not releasing them under audit and even if there was he could still release prior year ones. He might as well have claimed there was an IRS regulation that prevented people called Donald from releasing them. I think this is the real problem with the whole thing. There was never a rule that he couldn't release it so him lying before and getting away with it is indication that the voters don't care. Perhaps, that's certainly the case with a lot of people, on a lot of Trump things. The audit thing, I'm not so sure really. I've encountered quite a lot of people to whom that was news when I told them, so at least some people are genuinely just misinformed and think that the audit thing is actually the case.
I'd love to see some change that officials cannot lie to you about such things, especially extending to law enforcement, but the reality is that will never happen.
|
On April 09 2019 23:50 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 22:59 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 22:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2019 22:39 Plansix wrote:
The level of transparency in releasing their taxes has varied from presidential candidate to presidential candidate. I’m not going to sit here are argue that George Bush Sr., former director of the CIA was as transparent as someone like Jimmy Carter.
As for the concepts of Norms(which sounds more and more like some stat in an Nammoora JRPG), they are established and broken throughout US history. One could even argue all political history. There has to be some reliance on norms, as it is difficult to enforce laws on political figures. What arose in the boomer generation is that they, through political apathy, allowed many of the norms in congress to be chipped away and destroyed. This isn’t bad, per say. But it does mean that new norms have to be established.
But people should rejoice as the questioning of norms. Long abused conventions like the filibuster are now being questioned in presidential campaigns. The electoral college is being called into question. People are talking about things that would have seemed impossible to discussion 10 years ago. Because if people want big changes, ending the filibuster will do that. And it will mostly favor those who want to establish government programs, as entitlements are difficulty to take away. I’m somewhat torn on the filibuster. In theory I like aspects of it as a mechanism, as the norms governing its utilisation have shifted its completely abused. The filibuster was doomed as a practice the instant they allowed it to be used without forcing a senator to stand on the floor speaking. It was to easy to abuse after that. It was just a matter of time before we got rid of it. I would also support bringing back the rule forcing senators to truly hold the floor. That would be some good TV, TBH. That's not the case anymore ? I seem to remember only a few years ago a senator being on his feet speaking for around 11h... I thought that was still the case, shame :-/ At least that was dedication ! How does it work now then ?
They made a rule that the leadership of the minority or majority could bypass the whole standing for hours things and just “filibuster” without creating the floor show. Any senator can filibuster, but they have to do the whole standing and talking without bathroom breaks if they can’t get the leadership to agree with them.
Personally, I could lose the first part, but keep the second. I love the idea of one senator holding up everything because they give a shit about something, but being limited by their bladder and ability to stand for hours while talking. It amuses me and is one of the purest representation of political protest in action that we have within government. It also creates political theater that I think it beneficial to government. Easy to digest narratives that get people talking about whatever issue the senator has decided is a hill worth dying on. Nothing gets the news media talking about policy then a good old fashion filibuster. Because the rules for cards have never been compelling. Plus we get to comment on the choice of reading materials that the senator chooses .
|
On April 09 2019 23:45 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:58 IyMoon wrote:On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:40 byte-Curious wrote:
[quote]
Hah, that's precisely what I said when Sen. Warren started to get dragged into the mud with him on that stupid Pocahontas issue, which was a colossal fail for her. If she stuck to policies, she would rape him over the coals in the general election. Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency. As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying? Dude.... really? If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future. Agreed, I don't think it's super difficult to disarm some of his strengths if people stopped being idiots Why professional politicians who employ researchers and staff, not to mention segments of the media continue to utilise some of the exact same tactics that failed last election, absolutely baffles me. If an idiot like me with too much time and an internet connection can see this and be consistently more correct on it, why the pros either cannot, or even worse can see it and make decisions contrary to it, just odd. He got extremely, extremely lucky last time because he continually got handed complete gift-wrapped presents all over the place, and he can get that lucky again. As there is (as yet) nothing that's come out bar post-hoc (mis)ascribed sophistication being applied to much of his campaign, I'll remain pretty firmly in the lucky/fluke camp. I don't even think it's that implausible that he just ran to get his name out there and had no real aspiration of winning, and it just snowballed on him. I will absolutely retract that if it ever comes out that the Trump campaign had some vague actual plan of shifting the rhetoric, baiting opponents to call the electorate deplorables or w/e, and use the disenfranchisement that caused to augment an ostensible anti-establishment ticket. There are absolutely positives from the Trump campaign though that can be appropriated by others, although I hope in a less toxic manner. You can bypass funding gaps and mainstream media coverage, social media is a great tool to use in this respect. Some of the people around Trump definitely knew what they were doing and were a big boost to his campaign, see the work Cambridge Analytics did for example.
|
I don't think Trump is particularly intelligent or educated, but you don't have to be intellectual to have good instincts, which he has showcased multiple times.
Hillary basically served him the election on a silver platter, but considering how much the deck was stacked against him it's still pretty impressive. If Trump was any good the outsider private person triumphing over the vice president with a huge political career who had 1.5x as much money for her campaign and massive popular support from many politicians and celebs would make a wonderful underdog story.
Sadly he's an idiot.
|
On April 10 2019 00:25 Archeon wrote:
I don't think Trump is particularly intelligent or educated, but you don't have to be intellectual to have good instincts, which he has showcased multiple times.
Hillary basically served him the election on a silver platter, but considering how much the deck was stacked against him it's still pretty impressive. If Trump was any good the outsider private person triumphing over the vice president with a huge political career who had 1.5x as much money for her campaign and massive popular support from many politicians and celebs would make a wonderful underdog story.
Sadly he's an idiot.
Let’s not limit the blame to Hilary. Let’s bring in the majority Democratic party and everyone else who acted like there was no way he could win or elections didn’t matter.
|
On April 10 2019 00:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 23:45 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 09 2019 23:19 Nouar wrote:On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:58 IyMoon wrote:On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency. As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying? Dude.... really? If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision. I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this. He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not. As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future. Agreed, I don't think it's super difficult to disarm some of his strengths if people stopped being idiots Why professional politicians who employ researchers and staff, not to mention segments of the media continue to utilise some of the exact same tactics that failed last election, absolutely baffles me. If an idiot like me with too much time and an internet connection can see this and be consistently more correct on it, why the pros either cannot, or even worse can see it and make decisions contrary to it, just odd. He got extremely, extremely lucky last time because he continually got handed complete gift-wrapped presents all over the place, and he can get that lucky again. As there is (as yet) nothing that's come out bar post-hoc (mis)ascribed sophistication being applied to much of his campaign, I'll remain pretty firmly in the lucky/fluke camp. I don't even think it's that implausible that he just ran to get his name out there and had no real aspiration of winning, and it just snowballed on him. I will absolutely retract that if it ever comes out that the Trump campaign had some vague actual plan of shifting the rhetoric, baiting opponents to call the electorate deplorables or w/e, and use the disenfranchisement that caused to augment an ostensible anti-establishment ticket. There are absolutely positives from the Trump campaign though that can be appropriated by others, although I hope in a less toxic manner. You can bypass funding gaps and mainstream media coverage, social media is a great tool to use in this respect. Some of the people around Trump definitely knew what they were doing and were a big boost to his campaign, see the work Cambridge Analytics did for example.
Cambridge Analytica was amazing. By far the most significant messages and slogans of the Trump campaign came from them, and are still highly used today. I respect them like I do a good bond villain.
|
This hearing on addressing White Supremacy on social media is turning out to be everything I expected. And by that I mean deeply embarrassing.
Edit: Candace Owens just told congress the Southern Strategy is a myth, which is weird considering the Republicans apologized for it and admitted it was racist over 10 years ago. I love that the House floor has been turned into a place where lies and white nationalist propaganda are given this much air time.
|
From The Guardian (quoting Propublica). "Taxpayers first", lol. They intend (after intense lobbying) to legally forbid the IRS from implementing a way for taxpayers to file taxes for free. I don't even have words. You know, a government website to file your taxes ? Like most countries do ? Well, nope. You will have to go through a third party. I mean, it is already the case, but it's closing the door to even the most remote possibility.
"it would threaten the industry’s profits", they say.
Congress is moving towards passing legislation that would make it illegal for the IRS from creating a system to allow Americans to file their taxes for free. Pro Publica reports: Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., passed the Taxpayer First Act, a wide-ranging bill making several administrative changes to the IRS that is sponsored by Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Mike Kelly, R-Pa. In one of its provisions, the bill makes it illegal for the IRS to create its own online system of tax filing. Companies like Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, and H&R Block have lobbied for years to block the IRS from creating such a system. If the tax agency created its own program, which would be similar to programs other developed countries have, it would threaten the industry’s profits. “This could be a disaster. It could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of the IRS ever being able to create its own program,” said Mandi Matlock, a tax attorney who does work for the National Consumer Law Center.
I did not know this was the case, and honestly, having to provide my tax and revenue information to a third-party, and not having a choice doing so... gives me shivers.
|
Bless Pro Publica for reporting on this. And one of the bills sponsors is from my state too. Time to break out my fancy paper and write someone who isn't my local city counsel about not repair roads and shitty treatment of high school kids by the local police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
