EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 796
| 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 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 03 2018 23:57 Gorsameth wrote: It resonates well with insecure white males which is Trump's main demographic. Well, they won’t be deciding a lot of these close House races. Trump isn't doing himself any favors with congress. | ||
brian
United States9643 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On October 04 2018 00:55 brian wrote: it seems worth remembering at this juncture that over 50% of white women voted for Trump, self admitted pussy grabber. it seems a little like counting chickens before they hatch to imply they’re hurting for women’s votes. Being the party of sexual assault defenders weighs on people. Women are pissed with the party and a lot of recent polling confirms this (just wait to see what happens when they confirm Kavanaugh and people hear about Trumps latest comments). Just Google 'women polling and Republican party' and you'll find a dozen+ articles from just this week talking about polls showing women leaving the Republican party or, at least, showing much more disapproval than they had before. This is a problem not just for Nov but for the party as a whole going forward. Here is one for reference: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/651439266/married-women-may-be-moving-away-from-the-gop | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Also, much of what Trump said last night was inaccurate. | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
On October 04 2018 01:16 On_Slaught wrote: Being the party of sexual assault defenders weighs on people. Women are pissed with the party and a lot of recent polling confirms this (just wait to see what happens when they confirm Kavanaugh and people hear about Trumps latest comments). Just Google 'women polling and Republican party' and you'll find a dozen+ articles from just this week talking about polls showing women leaving the Republican party or, at least, showing much more disapproval than they had before. This is a problem not just for Nov but for the party as a whole going forward. Here is one for reference: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/651439266/married-women-may-be-moving-away-from-the-gop i’m not trying to discount what you’re saying, and i certainly hope this is true. i’m just doing a little expectations management here, because you could’ve easily found the same polls for the 2016 election. so i’m certainly not holding my breath. specifically as you mention how tiring it is to defend sexual assault, that clearly didn’t resonate with voters in 2016. perhaps it wasn’t necessarily ‘defended,’ but it was certainly voted into presidential office... certainly the culture around sexual abuse has seen some changes in the media and i think whether that translates to votes remains to be seen in November. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On October 04 2018 01:25 Plansix wrote: Graham is really starting to weird me out when it comes to Ford. He and Grassley seem fixed on discrediting her and anyone who goes after Kavanaugh. I think he truly might not believe women when they come forward to report sexual assault years after the fact. Also, much of what Trump said last night was inaccurate. https://twitter.com/robpegoraro/status/1047504990011572229 You do know this is out of context, right? And that should be obvious because most people should know this is a James Carville quote, him of Clinton fame. I assume the person who tweeted this has done the right thing and corrected it. edit:, oh, it was actually in the tweet thread, you left it out, not him. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On October 04 2018 02:18 Introvert wrote: You do know this is out of context, right? And that should be obvious because most people should know this is a James Carville quote, him of Clinton fame. I assume the person who tweeted this has done the right thing and corrected it. edit:, oh, it was actually in the tweet thread, you left it out, not him. Are you going to post your part? Or just say his is bad? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2018 02:18 Introvert wrote: You do know this is out of context, right? And that should be obvious because most people should know this is a James Carville quote, him of Clinton fame. I assume the person who tweeted this has done the right thing and corrected it. edit:, oh, it was actually in the tweet thread, you left it out, not him. Yeah, I just caught up on the context and I will retract suspicion that it was done out of malice. I think Graham totally ham fisted this one, however. You can tell from the video because even the crowd reacts to what he said and he has to respond to them saying “You folks are too young to remember” and then talks about Carville. Maybe lead with that context before dropping that terrible line. But Graham’s first mistake was talking about Bill Clinton and his staff in relation to sexual assault in the year of our lord 2018. That was 20 years ago and people actively don’t want to hear it. And the line: “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find.” Was shit in 1996 and its still shit now. I get that folks in Washington have kept that Bill Clinton hate flame alive for like 20 years, but the country didn’t. And I don't get why they keep referencing Clinton, since they felt his behavior was so important in the 1990s, but have managed to ignore similar behavior from Trump. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 04 2018 02:18 Introvert wrote: You do know this is out of context, right? And that should be obvious because most people should know this is a James Carville quote, him of Clinton fame. I assume the person who tweeted this has done the right thing and corrected it. edit:, oh, it was actually in the tweet thread, you left it out, not him. The context doesn't seem to help. He's still implying Ford is lying. Bringing up that a democrat said something terrible previously doesn't really seem that impactful especially when you're also kind of implying it applies to current events. It's barely different from when Trump does one of his "I'm not going to call so and so a fat ugly piece of crap" type insults. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
Trump's remarks are not helping anyone on the BK side, given the allegations are all falling apart. I think Mrs. Ford is a troubled woman and therefore shouldn't be mocked, but nothing she says can be comprobated, nor is it even coherent at this point. None the less, I'm just an evil republican cause it really cracked me up. | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On October 04 2018 02:32 GoTuNk! wrote: So according to her ex-boyfriend letter, under perjury penalty, Mrs. Ford LIED REPEATEDLY on her testimony. Trump's remarks are not helping anyone on the BK side, given the allegations are all falling apart. I think Mrs. Ford is a troubled woman and therefore shouldn't be mocked, but nothing she says can be comprobated, nor is it even coherent at this point. None the less, I'm just an evil republican cause it really cracked me up. the cognitive dissonance of this post knocked me out of my chair, impressive. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 04 2018 02:35 crms wrote: the cognitive dissonance of this post knocked me out of my chair, impressive. What part? I can point out that the president's remarks aren't strategically smart, but still pretty damn funny. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Also, if someone signs a letter under the pains and penalties of perjury, they will still be placed under oath to testify to the same information again. Signing a letter under oath only signals a willingness to testify to the same information in court/to congress. On October 04 2018 02:38 GoTuNk! wrote: What part? I can point out that the president's remarks aren't strategically smart, but still pretty damn funny. For losing the House in November? Because the threat is now that a lot of angry women show up in November to vote their disapproval of Trump. And polling shows they don’t like the attacks on Ford. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
(1) Trump says something awful and undefendable on the merits (2) but a Democrat aligned person who never stood for election said something bad 20 years ago that the party of today would never accept! (3) Thus what Trump says is okay without addressing the substance of what Trump said This form of defense is a concession that what Trump said was awful and undefendable. Graham is reduced to analogizing the statements of the present President to something bad someone Graham hates said in the past. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 04 2018 02:42 Wulfey_LA wrote: So Graham was doing the classical line of: (1) Trump says something awful and undefendable on the merits (2) but a Democrat aligned person who never stood for election said something bad 20 years ago that the party of today would never accept! (3) Thus what Trump says is okay without addressing the substance of what Trump said This form of defense is a concession that what Trump said was awful and undefendable. Graham is reduced to analogizing the statements of the present President to something bad someone Graham hates said in the past. I think at this point we just need to bring up Nixon every time Clinton is brought up. Or Strom Thurmond. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On October 04 2018 02:41 Plansix wrote: I’m sure the FBI will ask that boyfriend questions and see if his claims are creditable. But that letter seems to be making the rounds. Also, if someone signs a letter under the pains and penalties of perjury, they will still be placed under oath to testify to the same information again. Signing a letter under oath only signals a willingness to testify to the same information in court/to congress. For losing the House in November? Because the threat is now that a lot of angry women show up in November to vote their disapproval of Trump. And polling shows they don’t like the attacks on Ford. Unlikely. NBC reporting that more than 40 people have tried to give the FBI info about Kavanaugh, with at least 20 having info directly related to Ramirez's or Ford's allegation, and have been ignored. Doesnt seem like they care much for being thorough at this point. Though if it is something that could help Kavanaugh the SJC will probably try and force them to look into it while these other people are ignored. Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna916146 | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 04 2018 02:41 Plansix wrote: I’m sure the FBI will ask that boyfriend questions and see if his claims are creditable. But that letter seems to be making the rounds. Also, if someone signs a letter under the pains and penalties of perjury, they will still be placed under oath to testify to the same information again. Signing a letter under oath only signals a willingness to testify to the same information in court/to congress. For losing the House in November? Because the threat is now that a lot of angry women show up in November to vote their disapproval of Trump. And polling shows they don’t like the attacks on Ford. The actual imitation, is you know, funny to some people. You know, like watching the damn video and laughing a bit. I also laughed my ass off at Booker's "I'm spartacus" clip, Linda Sarsour screaming while being draged out protesting the hearings, and a whole lot of other stuff that is simply ridiculous and funny to watch. Not everything is life and death, it's ok to laugh about stuff. | ||
| ||
