|
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 October 31 2018 02:24 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 02:15 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2018 02:01 Plansix wrote:It is all going to depend on turn out, which isn't a good sign for Trump's base centered plan. The signs are showing that this could be the highest midterm turn out in decades. The polling is showing that 30-40% of young voters could turn out to vote, which would be a 15-25 point bump. Trumps popularity ends at his base, which was able to just barely win him a low turn out election. Voter Turnout Could Hit 50-Year Record For Midterm Elections Well, a high mid-term turnout is probably still far lower than for a presidential election? So... maybe it's Trump's base that is getting riled up and bringing up the turnout? I mean, leading up to the presidential elections there was also no chance Trump would win it, right? There's also never been a midterm that was directly preceded by 2 years with someone as stupid and harmful as Trump manning the ship. People are getting motivated, and tons of people have seen this as a wake-up call. Your vote matters, and good leadership is important.
You call it stupid and harmful. His base calls it a move in the right direction, and is getting riled up to ensure he can keep making America great (again). What exactly is turning people out is not really measured, just that people are turning out. My point thus isn't that it's clearly the case either way, but that what Plansix calls "high turnout" is actually really mediocre turnout: it's still far lower than for a presidential election. Given how Trump won the election, his base is big enough to push a lot of Republican congressmen and senators to victories too if they only turn up in the same numbers.
|
On October 31 2018 02:31 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 02:24 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 02:15 Acrofales wrote:On October 31 2018 02:01 Plansix wrote:It is all going to depend on turn out, which isn't a good sign for Trump's base centered plan. The signs are showing that this could be the highest midterm turn out in decades. The polling is showing that 30-40% of young voters could turn out to vote, which would be a 15-25 point bump. Trumps popularity ends at his base, which was able to just barely win him a low turn out election. Voter Turnout Could Hit 50-Year Record For Midterm Elections Well, a high mid-term turnout is probably still far lower than for a presidential election? So... maybe it's Trump's base that is getting riled up and bringing up the turnout? I mean, leading up to the presidential elections there was also no chance Trump would win it, right? There's also never been a midterm that was directly preceded by 2 years with someone as stupid and harmful as Trump manning the ship. People are getting motivated, and tons of people have seen this as a wake-up call. Your vote matters, and good leadership is important. You call it stupid and harmful. His base calls it a move in the right direction, and is getting riled up to ensure he can keep making America great (again). What exactly is turning people out is not really measured, just that people are turning out. My point thus isn't that it's clearly the case either way, but that what Plansix calls "high turnout" is actually really mediocre turnout: it's still far lower than for a presidential election. Given how Trump won the election, his base is big enough to push a lot of Republican congressmen and senators to victories too if they only turn up in the same numbers.
Trump was never elected by a popular majority. Meaning the majority of people didn't vote for him. Not to mention there was some small part of his vote that turned, leaving only the hardcore supporters by now. They can be outnumbered if enough people are mobilized. I'm trying to hold onto that.
|
Funny how that infallible wisdom of the forefather elders only applies to things they agree with.
|
Lol Washington's AG already threatening to sue over BRC. What an idiot. This is such an obvious bait it pains me.
|
On October 31 2018 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Lol Washington's AG already threatening to sue over BRC. What an idiot. This is such an obvious bait it pains me.
Um….someone needs to challenge the order for it to be overturned and a state AG would be the best person to do it. Completely ignoring it is not an option. Saying “Sure Trump, see you in court,” is the correct response.
|
On October 31 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Lol Washington's AG already threatening to sue over BRC. What an idiot. This is such an obvious bait it pains me. Um….someone needs to challenge the order for it to be overturned and a state AG would be the best person to do it. Completely ignoring it is not an option. Saying “Sure Trump, see you in court,” is the correct response.
I would argue waiting a week wouldn't make a difference. Fighting this before midterms is silly.
|
On October 31 2018 03:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2018 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Lol Washington's AG already threatening to sue over BRC. What an idiot. This is such an obvious bait it pains me. Um….someone needs to challenge the order for it to be overturned and a state AG would be the best person to do it. Completely ignoring it is not an option. Saying “Sure Trump, see you in court,” is the correct response. I would argue waiting a week wouldn't make a difference. Fighting this before midterms is silly.
I do disagree a bit. If that thing is signed today, they need to file their challenge and request it by stayed right away. Political, as a state AG that isn’t up for re-election, he just said “that isn’t happening.” Which is the exact response Democrats should adopt, the full Batman “No, he won’t,” to Trumps terrible executive orders.
|
On October 31 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 03:27 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2018 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Lol Washington's AG already threatening to sue over BRC. What an idiot. This is such an obvious bait it pains me. Um….someone needs to challenge the order for it to be overturned and a state AG would be the best person to do it. Completely ignoring it is not an option. Saying “Sure Trump, see you in court,” is the correct response. I would argue waiting a week wouldn't make a difference. Fighting this before midterms is silly. I do disagree a bit. If that thing is signed today, they need to file their challenge and request it by stayed right away. Political, as a state AG that isn’t up for re-election, he just said “that isn’t happening.” Which is the exact response Democrats should adopt, the full Batman “No, he won’t,” to Trumps terrible executive orders.
From a political power perspective, I would think letting the executive order stand for a week would probably help Democrat turnout more than it would help Republicans turnout.
|
On October 31 2018 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2018 03:27 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2018 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Lol Washington's AG already threatening to sue over BRC. What an idiot. This is such an obvious bait it pains me. Um….someone needs to challenge the order for it to be overturned and a state AG would be the best person to do it. Completely ignoring it is not an option. Saying “Sure Trump, see you in court,” is the correct response. I would argue waiting a week wouldn't make a difference. Fighting this before midterms is silly. I do disagree a bit. If that thing is signed today, they need to file their challenge and request it by stayed right away. Political, as a state AG that isn’t up for re-election, he just said “that isn’t happening.” Which is the exact response Democrats should adopt, the full Batman “No, he won’t,” to Trumps terrible executive orders. From a political power perspective, I would think letting the executive order stand for a week would probably help Democrat turnout more than it would help Republicans turnout. And the ~10k babies born per day? sucks for them I guess...
|
On October 31 2018 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2018 03:27 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2018 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Lol Washington's AG already threatening to sue over BRC. What an idiot. This is such an obvious bait it pains me. Um….someone needs to challenge the order for it to be overturned and a state AG would be the best person to do it. Completely ignoring it is not an option. Saying “Sure Trump, see you in court,” is the correct response. I would argue waiting a week wouldn't make a difference. Fighting this before midterms is silly. I do disagree a bit. If that thing is signed today, they need to file their challenge and request it by stayed right away. Political, as a state AG that isn’t up for re-election, he just said “that isn’t happening.” Which is the exact response Democrats should adopt, the full Batman “No, he won’t,” to Trumps terrible executive orders. From a political power perspective, I would think letting the executive order stand for a week would probably help Democrat turnout more than it would help Republicans turnout. And the ~10k babies born per day? sucks for them I guess...
First of all, I am almost positive a week is long enough to keep anything bad from happening. Various holds and whatnot will naturally occur regardless of what democrats do or do not do. Second, 10k probably means all babies, not the babies born from non-citizens. A week isn't enough time to finish paperwork, let alone toss 10k babies over a border.
|
if there was ever going to be a point where you considered using actual people as political fodder would be crossing a line, i would kind of expect that line to be at infants and their moms.
which isn’t to say anyone needs to, hello DACA, i think i do though.
|
The Republicans are making good on their promise to fabricate sexual assault allegations for their own political gain. Problem is, they've already been found out. They paid women off to attempt to interfere in the Special Counsel investigation, by discrediting Mueller with said allegations.
An alleged scheme to pay off women to fabricate sexual-assault allegations against Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been referred to the FBI for further investigation, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office told The Atlantic. “When we learned last week of allegations that women were offered money to make false claims about the Special Counsel, we immediately referred the matter to the FBI for investigation,” the spokesman, Peter Carr, told me in an email on Tuesday.
The special counsel’s office’s attention to this scheme and its decision to release a rare statement about it indicates the seriousness with which the office is taking the purported plot to discredit Mueller in the middle of an ongoing investigation. Source
Smart.
|
On October 31 2018 04:38 NewSunshine wrote:The Republicans are making good on their promise to fabricate sexual assault allegations for their own political gain. Problem is, they've already been found out. They paid women off to attempt to interfere in the Special Counsel investigation, by discrediting Mueller with said allegations. Show nested quote +An alleged scheme to pay off women to fabricate sexual-assault allegations against Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been referred to the FBI for further investigation, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office told The Atlantic. “When we learned last week of allegations that women were offered money to make false claims about the Special Counsel, we immediately referred the matter to the FBI for investigation,” the spokesman, Peter Carr, told me in an email on Tuesday.
The special counsel’s office’s attention to this scheme and its decision to release a rare statement about it indicates the seriousness with which the office is taking the purported plot to discredit Mueller in the middle of an ongoing investigation. SourceSmart. I would LOVE for a GOP senator to get arrested for this. Would be so funny.
Probably going to be some stooge tho.
|
The interesting thing about that story is that it's not clear whether it was to smear Mueller or a Project Veritas-esque "hahahaha stupid journalists we got you to believe our fabricated sting!" style deal that fell totally flat when it came to Roy Moore.
Then again, the GOP isn't above trying to do both those things at once.
|
5930 Posts
On October 31 2018 05:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The interesting thing about that story is that it's not clear whether it was to smear Mueller or a Project Veritas-esque "hahahaha stupid journalists we got you to believe our fabricated sting!" style deal that fell totally flat when it came to Roy Moore.
Then again, the GOP isn't above trying to do both those things at once.
It’s a smear. Jacob Wohl, kid who really freaking loves Trump, has already been busted as a perpetrator because kid can’t stop himself from using personal email addresses with his name in them and his mum’s phone number to register the relevant websites peddling this garbage.
To think this asshole might end up in jail not for securities fraud but for the shortest smear campaign in the history of the internet.
|
On October 31 2018 04:38 NewSunshine wrote:The Republicans are making good on their promise to fabricate sexual assault allegations for their own political gain. Problem is, they've already been found out. They paid women off to attempt to interfere in the Special Counsel investigation, by discrediting Mueller with said allegations. Show nested quote +An alleged scheme to pay off women to fabricate sexual-assault allegations against Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been referred to the FBI for further investigation, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office told The Atlantic. “When we learned last week of allegations that women were offered money to make false claims about the Special Counsel, we immediately referred the matter to the FBI for investigation,” the spokesman, Peter Carr, told me in an email on Tuesday.
The special counsel’s office’s attention to this scheme and its decision to release a rare statement about it indicates the seriousness with which the office is taking the purported plot to discredit Mueller in the middle of an ongoing investigation. SourceSmart.
They are some of the dumbest criminals alive. They couldn't make a Cohen Brothers move about these brain trusts because no one would believe it.
|
The only weird part about it being a smear is that some of the (non-Wohl) people involved were super eager to tell journalists that they were paying women to falsify stories, even when the trail on the woman tipping them off they were trying to falsify stories trail totally went cold. I guess that just speaks to the general incompetence.
Which would make more sense if they were supposed to do this *after* the stories were run by rush-to-the-phone journalists.
|
5930 Posts
On October 31 2018 05:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only weird part about it being a smear is that some of the (non-Wohl) people involved were super eager to tell journalists that they were paying women to falsify stories, even when the trail on the woman tipping them off they were trying to falsify stories trail totally went cold. I guess that just speaks to the general incompetence.
Which would make more sense if they were supposed to do this *after* the stories were run by rush-to-the-phone journalists.
They appearly did actually contact at least one woman to see if she would take some money to act as an assault victim. It’s in that Atlantic article that got updated.
Looking at the timeline, it looks like you are right that they did try to do a stupid “gotcha” game with the media but they didn’t bite. So they tried another tact where they tried to spread rumours of a possible assault victim, making the media actually report on those rumours but they still didn’t bite because they already knew said woman/women Wohl is talking about don’t exist.
|
On October 31 2018 00:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 00:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if they'll actually have a competent draft of their first EO or they'll make a very stupid overreach/misunderstanding again-the only way this has even a shred of "not already been ruled on" is if it is written very clearly that it only applies to children of undocumented people and is built around a "the only 'people' in the Constitution are citizens and lawful residents and visitors,' and even then it's on shaky legal ground. If they want to end birthright citizenship, there's a lot of ways they can do it. They could even just dismantle the offices that handle it and do some kinda disabling thing to just make it not happen.
Even if you somehow could do that, any judge orders them made a citizen instantly because the constitution says so directly. This isn't an implied power, it is outright stated and you can't shut down the part of the government that handles it and then think you don't have to do it.
The law is the law and this one has no wiggle room.
|
On October 31 2018 07:10 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 00:54 Mohdoo wrote:On October 31 2018 00:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if they'll actually have a competent draft of their first EO or they'll make a very stupid overreach/misunderstanding again-the only way this has even a shred of "not already been ruled on" is if it is written very clearly that it only applies to children of undocumented people and is built around a "the only 'people' in the Constitution are citizens and lawful residents and visitors,' and even then it's on shaky legal ground. If they want to end birthright citizenship, there's a lot of ways they can do it. They could even just dismantle the offices that handle it and do some kinda disabling thing to just make it not happen. Even if you somehow could do that, any judge orders them made a citizen instantly because the constitution says so directly. This isn't an implied power, it is outright stated and you can't shut down the part of the government that handles it and then think you don't have to do it. The law is the law and this one has no wiggle room.
Well, the law and how it is implemented are two different things. If it's only Jeanine in a dusty office somewhere in DC who is empowered to grant citizenship to people born in the US, then technically, the law is being implemented, but in practice there's a waiting period piling up... and what is a judge going to do? Tell the executive branch how to do their job? How about that for overreach? You expect the current, conservative SC to order that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
