EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 167
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On May 04 2018 06:53 Plansix wrote: I'm not sure anyone was talking about voters minds being changed. Also I would need to check, but NPR played a story last month individual Democratic candidates are raising money just fine, keeping pace with the Republicans in most states. And that small money, direct donations are up. Historically, I'm not sure if national fund raising it a large part of the mid terms. Wulfey definitely was but I'm not sure who else might be operating under the (possibly unwitting) presumption that it would. That's why I asked if anyone actually believed Trump wouldn't finish his term. Otherwise I don't really see how this investigation doesn't peter out and the 'verdict' is left to the voters. The same voters whose opinion sits basically where it was when he got elected. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On May 04 2018 13:05 Plansix wrote: I guess we will have to wait and see. I don’t really discuss the investigation for any other reason than it interests me. You do notice that your perspective is pretty unique among many in liberal circles, and you're finding yourself caught between the progressive and the neoliberal wings of the Democratic party? Noticeably closer to the progressive side than the neoliberal over the last few months. I mean it's not 50%+ of Rachel Maddow's (highest rated and fastest growing liberal cable program) because it's a human interest story (or rather that's almost all it is, though described in quite different context). Every night is a big reveal and breaking news because they are selling as hard as they can the idea that you can't change the channel or think/talk about almost anything else because after the commercial the bombshell is dropping and Trump is going down... but we can't tell you until we sell you some useless shit first. What I predict will be an utter failure of the system to hold anyone seriously accountable is going to be turned into some partisan trash talking points and none of the underlying problems are going to be touched. That's one reason I don't get the constant fascination. It feels like a distraction and the value we could be getting from recognizing why it's going to fail is almost never the substance of the discussion. That's why if so often there will be speculation on what the latest leak from the Mueller investigation is and what it means for Trump I wonder what's the expected end game and how any of whatever comes up changes that. Mostly what I hear is that no one knows but they have blind faith the system will work to their satisfaction. Also while they can't speculate on what happens regarding the republic, they thoroughly enjoy speculating and gossiping about what it means to the reality show part of this whole sideshow. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And your skepticism in institutions isn’t that surprising. This well trodden ground. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On May 04 2018 13:40 Plansix wrote: I don’t really have any grand insights about other liberals desires and don’t really to pontificate that broad population’s views. And your skepticism in institutions isn’t that surprising. This well trodden ground. What that response lacks in volume it makes up for in emptiness imo. I suppose we'll continue the melodrama gossip and collectively act surprised at the outcome as if it wasn't right in front of us the whole time. Hopefully you guys get to rub in my face how wrong I am about all this come mid terms and 2020, but considering the recent revelation of Bill Clinton giving a clear command to Tom Perez to freeze out progressives and that the party doesn't think primaries should be anything more than for show, I'm not confident that you guys are going to be right on this one or that your lack of skepticism is fitting on this either. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And it’s not really gossip either. I work at a law firm and hav worked in the courts. I taught civics. The twists and turns of a water gate level investigation was always going to interest me. Sometimes people just discuss these things because they are interesting, rather than to win an argument. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On May 04 2018 14:01 Plansix wrote: This isn’t an attempt to argue. You have always been skeptical of institutions. It would be weird if you sudden had faith in them. And it’s not really gossip either. I work at a law firm and hav worked in the courts. I taught civics. The twists and turns of a water gate level investigation was always going to interest me. Sometimes people just discuss these things because they are interesting, rather than to win an argument. I get it for lawyers or people generally in the field why the minutia would be of interest, and that critique wasn't particularly aimed at your recent posts on the topic, but this isn't the 'minutia of US constitutional law megathread' (as much as you, farv, and xDaunt might like that) and most of the participants aren't in the legal field. So what transpires here isn't an informed discussion on the legal precedents and particulars of related legal theory by people adding substantive and knowledgeable insight. What happens is most people post summary tweets/discuss them and demonstrate little personal comprehension of the context beyond what they read in the tweet thread or some article they barely got past the headline on. That's not to say discussion on the legal minutia can't be relevant or even interesting to a layman sometimes, but what's happening here and in almost every major media outlet is something else entirely and the longer we wait to look introspectively about what that means, the worse it's going to get. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On May 04 2018 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote: I get it for lawyers or people generally in the field why the minutia would be of interest, and that critique wasn't particularly aimed at your recent posts on the topic, but this isn't the 'minutia of US constitutional law megathread' (as much as you, farv, and xDaunt might like that) and most of the participants aren't in the legal field. So what transpires here isn't an informed discussion on the legal precedents and particulars of related legal theory by people adding substantive and knowledgeable insight. What happens is most people post summary tweets/discuss them and demonstrate little personal comprehension of the context beyond what they read in the tweet thread or some article they barely got past the headline on. That's not to say discussion on the legal minutia can't be relevant or even interesting to a layman sometimes, but what's happening here and in almost every major media outlet is something else entirely and the longer we wait to look introspectively about what that means, the worse it's going to get. The investigation gets covered because it is big news. The president is under investigation by the FBI, as is everyone around him, 5 of whom have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the FBI. The story has legs. Just because you think all institutions should be burned to the ground doesn't mean that stories in which they appear are not worthy of discussion. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On May 04 2018 14:59 Doodsmack wrote: The investigation gets covered because it is big news. The president is under investigation by the FBI, as is everyone around him, 5 of whom have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the FBI. The story has legs. Just because you think all institutions should be burned to the ground doesn't mean that stories in which they appear are not worthy of discussion. You're misunderstanding if you think I don't find them worthy of discussion. The quoted post mentions even the legal minutia can be interesting. The point is the type of discussion and the lack of substance to it or relevance to the bigger picture, both here and in the media, though each with their own specific critiques beyond that. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On May 04 2018 15:20 GreenHorizons wrote: You're misunderstanding if you think I don't find them worthy of discussion. The quoted post mentions even the legal minutia can be interesting. The point is the type of discussion and the lack of substance to it or relevance to the bigger picture, both here and in the media, though each with their own specific critiques beyond that. People don't like Trump. People want Trump gone. This investigation is the only possible way that can happen. Ergo, people are interested in the investigation. It's not rocket science. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On May 04 2018 17:18 iamthedave wrote: People don't like Trump. People want Trump gone. This investigation is the only possible way that can happen. Ergo, people are interested in the investigation. It's not rocket science. Nor is my argument I thought. My argument is that by all appearances this investigation isn't going to get them that. Sometimes they disagree, sometimes they don't, but that's what I think is both more interesting on it's own merit, and the vastly more important topic (with the aforementioned caveats). | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21671 Posts
On May 04 2018 12:34 Doodsmack wrote: A severe case of tribalism.It's really amazing to see the degree to which Republicans have attached themselves to Trump in his fight against the FBI and DOJ. Fox News is fully in on it and so are traditionally respectable outlets like the Federalist. The Federalist is all in against Comey and the entire Mueller investigation. People like Devin Nunes and Mark Meadows have managed to successfully propagandize otherwise reasonable and respectable Republicans into believing that the FBI investigation of Trump and his campaign is not validly predicated. I mean, people who are otherwise intelligent and reasonable have allowed themselves to believe that the fact that the dossier was used to help get a FISA warrant on Carter Page means the overall investigation was not validly predicated to begin with. It really is a startling attack on career law enforcement agents - all for the sake of politically defending Donald Trump. I mean, if in candid moments you admit that Donald Trump is a walking talking clown, you really shouldn't be engaging in this anti-law enforcement political campaign. Instead you should be letting it play out. What we're seeing right now is people running interference. Trump's allies in Congress are even engaging in "oversight" of the investigation for the obvious purpose of passing on intel about the investigation of the White House (this is what Rosenstein and others have come to believe of Nunes, Meadows et al). What I don't understand is how Republicans who in their honest moments will admit that Donald Trump is, by any reasonable measure, an abject clown, will still fall prey to the political agenda against the FBI investigation of Donald Trump - even though Donald Trump has made it clear for decades that he is fundamentally a con man. The feeling that you must stand by your side, no matter their position, to defend them from the 'enemy' or that 'enemy' will come for you next. Party over Country, victory at any cost. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On May 04 2018 18:19 ShoCkeyy wrote: That’s your opinion while others have theirs on the investigation. If you believe nothing will come out of it that’s just you. Others have faith that something will happen. Let’s just leave it at that. I don't know why people keep repeating that as if I haven't incorporated it into my position long ago. I used to think it was obstinance, but I'm starting to think I really didn't communicate it clearly. I get they have opinions, and that they are different than mine, what I was trying to understand is what the reasoning was. I've realized it's mostly emotional and human interest and not political. That has long been my suspicion, now I have confirmed it to some degree. Maybe some others have some reasoning they are keeping secret, but I've seen now where people are on this and why they talk about it so much. So unless someone wants to bring some new information to that equation, I'd agree we should let it go. Which also means no more "yeah, but you're wrongs" "but like that's just your opinion man" unless they want to substantiate them. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
It’s also quite obvious that if she had been reportedly perving in young men dressing rooms for years, and bragged about grabbing them by the dick, she would have done 2%, regardless her party. You guys are gonna jump again, but we hold men and women to very, very, very different standards, at all level of private and public life (and it’s not about Hillary, mind you, but about what we tolerate from people depending of their gender). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On May 04 2018 18:41 Biff The Understudy wrote: Reading about the Stormy Daniel scandal’s latest developments and am still wondering how conservatives, or actually anyone here would have reacted if president Hillary Clinton had had an affair with a male pornstar just after her baby’s birth, had paid hish money to cover it and lied publicly about it in every possible way. I mean, just imagine the shitstorm. It’s also quite obvious that if she had been perving in young men dressing rooms, and bragged about grabbing them by the dick, she would have done 2%, regardless her party. You guys are gonna jump again, but we hold men and women to very, very, very different standards, at all level of private and public life (and it’s not about Hillary, mind you, but about what we tolerate from people depending of their gender). I could see conservatives finding a way to contort themselves into supporting pretty much anyone if what they say aligns with their ideology. Donald Trump was uniquely situated to capitalize on a variety of circumstances so that imitating his performance specifically would be hard for any politician on either side of the aisle regardless of gender. I could also see the progressive wing of the Democrat party but more so the far left being fine with most of that other than the hush money and deception (if there was any among the women/Trump) Reasonably sure most of Hillary's backers would have defended pretty much all of that or in the context of Trump still being Trump, that it wasn't as bad as him (which would have some truth to it). The part I fully agree with is that conservatives/Republicans would have lost their minds, even if she was up against Trump as their representative. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35144 Posts
On May 04 2018 18:41 Biff The Understudy wrote: Reading about the Stormy Daniel scandal’s latest developments and am still wondering how conservatives, or actually anyone here would have reacted if president Hillary Clinton or any other woman at that level of politics had had an affair with a male pornstar just after her baby’s birth, had paid hush money to cover it and lied publicly about it in every possible way. I mean, just imagine the shitstorm. It’s also quite obvious that if she had been reportedly perving in young men dressing rooms for years, and bragged about grabbing them by the dick, she would have done 2%, regardless her party. You guys are gonna jump again, but we hold men and women to very, very, very different standards, at all level of private and public life (and it’s not about Hillary, mind you, but about what we tolerate from people depending of their gender). Trump is also an anomaly in that regard. Extramarital dealings tend to get scolding criticism and blowback. I don't think we've ever seen anything like Trump in this regard | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7888 Posts
I think the « men will be men » mentality, though, is a big part of how he could get away with shit like that without burning in the polls. But maybe you guys are right and mindless partisanship is the main thing here. The standards americans and especially conservatives now expect from their politicians is really bad news for the future of the country’s democratic institutions. By the way, 79% of republicans still think that Trump says the truth all or most of the time and the ones who don’t still overwhelmingly suport him. If people either don’t have the clarity of mind or the moral standard to live in a democracy, we are a bit screwed. | ||
| ||
