EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1872
| 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 | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
| ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
On November 01 2019 05:03 Ben... wrote: Calling this impeachment investigation "Soviet-style" is amusing because if it was anything resembling "Soviet-style" there would be no investigation, Trump would just disappear in the night, and mysteriously he would be conspicuously missing from pictures soon after. Nah. If this was Soviet-style, the elite's enemies would dissapear, and there'd be no investigation. Kinda like Epstein. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On November 01 2019 05:13 plated.rawr wrote: Nah. If this was Soviet-style, the elite's enemies would dissapear, and there'd be no investigation. Kinda like Epstein. I was saying if the Democrats were doing a Soviet-style investigation, which is what Scalise claimed they were doing. If it was Trump's people doing the investigating, then yeah in that scenario a bunch of Democrats would randomly disappear. | ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
they’d be stupid not to, wasn’t that one explanation? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On November 01 2019 05:03 Ben... wrote: Calling this impeachment investigation "Soviet-style" is amusing because if it was anything resembling "Soviet-style" there would be no investigation, Trump would just disappear in the night, and mysteriously he would be conspicuously missing from pictures soon after. Totally soviet style when the guys in power are held accountable and investigated by the opposition. What a bunch of clowns. | ||
|
Slydie
1898 Posts
On November 01 2019 22:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: Totally soviet style when the guys in power are held accountable and investigated by the opposition. What a bunch of clowns. Yes, it is spin at its absolute worst. Has a Soviet president ever even been investigated? Accountability by their leaders is not exactly what the USSR is known for... | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22720 Posts
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he would not back Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in a 2020 presidential match-up against President Trump. Manchin told Fox News he would “absolutely not” support Sanders’ agenda, calling it “not practical where I come from.” When Fox News’s Neil Cavuto asked whom Manchin would vote for if the Vermont progressive ended up becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Manchin responded, "Well, it wouldn’t be Bernie.” Cavuto then pressed the West Virginia senator on if he’d vote for Trump. Manchin declined to offer a specific response, stating: “Let’s just say I’m going to make decisions based on what’s best for my country and my state.” thehill.com He'll have to be replaced like every Republican in order to enact an agenda that even resembles what Bernie is planning. Also Beto finally ended his political career/presidential run. Hope the rest of the single digit candidates follow him before the next debate. | ||
|
redlightdistrict
382 Posts
In a world where Kim Kardashian of all people are setting up for a future presidential candidacy by heading to white house and freeing inmates, Hill shouldn't have to resign because they sent a nude, drank a beer, or smoked a joint | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 02 2019 07:51 redlightdistrict wrote: Katie Hill shouldn't have resigned because of peoples moralistic outcrys. They caught her smoking weed (which is legal in Washington) drinking booze (legal in all states) and allegedly having an affair. None of those things are a criminal act or could really hinder her ability to preform her position of duty in any significant manner. In a world where Kim Kardashian of all people are setting up for a future presidential candidacy by heading to white house and freeing inmates, Hill shouldn't have to resign because they sent a nude, drank a beer, or smoked a joint The issue from what I got is more that she had an affair/relationship with a staffer/subordinate, which is improper and against the code of conduct in congress, though it's not illegal per se. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/WyjYGzP.jpg) The media is afraid. Good. | ||
|
redlightdistrict
382 Posts
On November 02 2019 08:46 Nebuchad wrote: I know this isn't groundbreaking but I've seen like ten of these in the past few weeks. I should make a compilation or something. + Show Spoiler + The media is afraid. Good. Yet the media (in the US at least) is solely focused on Tulsi Gabbard even though her support is less than 2%. All Tulsi is doing at this point is poaching Warren voters. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On November 02 2019 06:41 GreenHorizons wrote: West Virginia Democrat Senator Joe Manchin would not like to see Bernie win Iowa. He's more likely to vote Trump according to a recent interview. thehill.com He'll have to be replaced like every Republican in order to enact an agenda that even resembles what Bernie is planning. Also Beto finally ended his political career/presidential run. Hope the rest of the single digit candidates follow him before the next debate. I don't really understand the progressive hate for Manchin. Manchin votes against Trump ~50% of the time. Since WV went for trump in 2016 by a 42(!!) point margin his most likely replacement would be a pure Trumpian who would vote against Trump exactly 0% of the time. Manchin's presence in the senate would not slow or frustrate a Bernie agenda, relative to his possible replacement he would be massively helping since he is way to the left of his state. If Bernie manages to turn WV into a leftist stronghold full of labour friendly activists then sure, primary out Manchin, but trying to do it while WV remains super republican is putting the cart before the horse imo. On the other hand there are people like Susan Collins and Diane Feinstein whose positions put them way to the right of their states. A progressive agenda would need to see such people replaced in order to get the most left votes possible from each state. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22720 Posts
On November 03 2019 03:01 KlaCkoN wrote: I don't really understand the progressive hate for Manchin. Manchin votes against Trump ~50% of the time. Since WV went for trump in 2016 by a 42(!!) point margin his most likely replacement would be a pure Trumpian who would vote against Trump exactly 0% of the time. Manchin's presence in the senate would not slow or frustrate a Bernie agenda, relative to his possible replacement he would be massively helping since he is way to the left of his state. If Bernie manages to turn WV into a leftist stronghold full of labour friendly activists then sure, primary out Manchin, but trying to do it while WV remains super republican is putting the cart before the horse imo. On the other hand there are people like Susan Collins and Diane Feinstein whose positions put them way to the right of their states. A progressive agenda would need to see such people replaced in order to get the most left votes possible from each state. That sounds good but I've yet to have anyone show any functional difference between having Manchin or the dreaded Republican in that seat. They usually point to a worthless procedural vote on the ACA before his last election. If Manchin won't even commit to voting for the party nominee, he should be getting all the wrath that was directed at Bernie and his supporters for the same (and then some since he won't rule out voting for Trump). Truth is half+ of the Democrats have to be replaced too if we want a remotely progressive agenda though. Manchin is more Lieberman/Ben Nelson (D) (that went on to work for the insurers whose profits they enshrined into law) than Sanders. He'll be how a 60 vote Dem majority in the senate could still not be enough to get essentially Republican legislation (The ACA was rehashed Nixoncare and presented by Democrats) passed | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6218 Posts
He'll be how a 60 vote Dem majority in the senate could still not be enough to get essentially Republican legislation (The ACA was rehashed Nixoncare and presented by Democrats) passed No, he would not be. The voters in the overwhelmingly red state that elects him would be. The options are not Manchin vs some "replacement" progressive dem. The options are Manchin vs a republican significantly to the right of his current position. Please explain how that republican is better for a progressive agenda than the existing situation. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21364 Posts
On November 03 2019 06:01 Belisarius wrote: GH's point is that considering Manchin won't vote for a progressive agenda there is no difference between Manchin and a Republican so why bother propping up a Republican running as a Democrat?No, he would not be. The voters in the overwhelmingly red state that elects him would be. The options are not Manchin vs some "replacement" progressive dem. The options are Manchin vs a republican significantly to the right of his current position. Please explain how that republican is better for a progressive agenda than the existing situation. Its not going to get worse, so why not try to make it better. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22720 Posts
On November 03 2019 06:01 Belisarius wrote: No, he would not be. The voters in the overwhelmingly red state that elects him would be. The options are not Manchin vs some "replacement" progressive dem. The options are Manchin vs a republican significantly to the right of his current position. Please explain how that republican is better for a progressive agenda than the existing situation. Yeah, he would be. As well as rallying supporters in WV of a more progressive agenda than Manchin supports. Building a progressive movement in WV (supporting his more progressive primary challenger instead of him for example) is better in practically every imaginable way than abandoning any semblance of principle to essentially back a Trump supporter that disagrees with Trump sometimes. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
Edit: kinda ninja’d by GH, but oh well | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On November 03 2019 06:09 Gorsameth wrote: GH's point is that considering Manchin won't vote for a progressive agenda there is no difference between Manchin and a Republican so why bother propping up a Republican running as a Democrat? Its not going to get worse, so why not try to make it better. But it does get a lot worse is my point. Manchin, who is from a R+42 state, votes against Trump in ~50% of votes. Contrast that with say Rick Scott (Florida), who is from a R+1 state but who still votes with Trump ~90% of the time. Manchin provides immense value since every single vote he casts for the D position is a vote that they really 'shouldnt' have. These days split ticket voting is quickly becoming a thing of the past, and a state's preference for president drives its preference for other state level offices, not the other way around. That means that if you want a progressive senator from WV you first have to convince people from WV to vote for a progressive for president. ~~ninja~~ Yeah, he would be. As well as rallying supporters in WV of a more progressive agenda than Manchin supports. Building a progressive movement in WV (supporting his more progressive primary challenger instead of him for example) is better in practically every imaginable way than abandoning any semblance of principle to essentially back a Trump supporter that disagrees with Trump sometimes. I don't think this analysis is correct. People don't vote for president because they like their senator, they vote for the president they like, and unless given overwhelming reason not to they simply pick the senator (and congressman) with the same letter. Things used to be different, but these days that's how it is. So sure, maybe Bernie or Warren can convince people from WV to back a progressive labour friendly agenda and if they succeed in that your chances or replacing Manchin way someone you like better shoot way up. But a senate campaign, no matter how perfect the candidate is not going to be the catalyst that drives a state from R+42 to D+anything. I have never seen any research or analysis that even hints at the possibility that an unpopular senator would drive down turnout among activists to the point of influencing the presidential vote. I don't think that's a mechanism that operates. Meanwhile an unpopular president can certainly bring otherwise OK senators down with him. | ||
| ||
