|
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 November 03 2018 18:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Not that we are not used to Trump being a racist a-hole, but do you guys think that has any chance of hurting him at all? Show nested quote +Michael Cohen, a former Trump confidant, told Vanity Fair that the president had once told him that “black people are too stupid to vote” for him and had challenged Cohen to name “one country run by a black person that’s not a shithole”. sourceI know republicans will dismiss that as « fake news » and claim that Cohen lies, but if that doesn’t really piss a lot of people off, I don’t know what would.
Intelligent Republicans know that trump is racist. They just will choose him over a Democrat because in a two party system they simply dont want the policy of the other side.
|
Trump really wants the right to be afraid of this caravan, at least until they've voted on Tuesday. Its not really an acute issue compared to general illegal immigration, which proves that this is a pre-election scare tactic by trump.
|
Also have my doubts about what iamthedave said. Brexit indeed still has a lot of support and if a new referendum would come then it would most likely still remain a yes to brexit.
The thing with brexit I think is:it didn't have to be sold! Majority was already sick of the eu for one reason or another,immigration fears being one of them.
It was staying in the eu that had to be sold to the people. Of course the brexiteers did campaign but they didn't really have to sell their point I think. It was the pro eu vote that had to convince the people to change their mind.
Almost all big eu votes have failed. Like vote for European constitution did fail in france and the Netherlands for example. If you ask the population straight up then there would probably be a majority to leave in almost any eu country.
For many people the only reason for voting to stay would be fear for the unknown and fear for change,which could be a big enough reason.
The eu is not all that popular overall. It is popular in the Netherlands,though not as popular as it was. Maybe popular in some parts of Germany as well,but there are many aspects about the eu that people are not all that happy with.
|
On November 04 2018 11:28 pmh wrote:
Also have my doubts about what iamthedave said. Brexit indeed still has a lot of support and if a new referendum would come then it would most likely still remain a yes to brexit.
The thing with brexit I think is:it didn't have to be sold! Majority was already sick of the eu for one reason or another,immigration fears being one of them.
It was staying in the eu that had to be sold to the people. Of course the brexiteers did campaign but they didn't really have to sell their point I think. It was the pro eu vote that had to convince the people to change their mind.
Almost all big eu votes have failed. Like vote for European constitution did fail in france and the Netherlands for example. If you ask the population straight up then there would probably be a majority to leave in almost any eu country.
For many people the only reason for voting to stay would be fear for the unknown and fear for change,which could be a big enough reason.
The eu is not all that popular overall. It is popular in the Netherlands,though not as popular as it was. Maybe popular in some parts of Germany as well,but there are many aspects about the eu that people are not all that happy with.
EU needs to live for another 30 years and then the traditionalists will be in favour of it since it is all they have known. I am personally in favour of any type of union that isn't overly repressive while lessening chance for wars and improving cross border relations. The biggest problems facing humans is in most cases other humans that see them as other than themselves. I would be willing to have a much worse EU than we do currently with the above reasoning. Most negative aspects of the EU don't really effect me while the positives does.
You have the classical federalists (nationalists) vs centralists (pro-eu) playing out in a lot of ways here. Same as you do in the US where some states stand for certain things while others don't agree with it at all. The major improvement we have is that most of the EU voting isn't first past the post, which allows multiple political parties to exist. This allows me to vote for the green party instead of being forced into voting democrat since they somewhat care about the environment.
Generally this is a bit off topic if we aren't doing parallels or connections to the US political situation.
|
On November 04 2018 11:28 pmh wrote:
Also have my doubts about what iamthedave said. Brexit indeed still has a lot of support and if a new referendum would come then it would most likely still remain a yes to brexit.
The thing with brexit I think is:it didn't have to be sold! Majority was already sick of the eu for one reason or another,immigration fears being one of them.
It was staying in the eu that had to be sold to the people. Of course the brexiteers did campaign but they didn't really have to sell their point I think. It was the pro eu vote that had to convince the people to change their mind.
Almost all big eu votes have failed. Like vote for European constitution did fail in france and the Netherlands for example. If you ask the population straight up then there would probably be a majority to leave in almost any eu country.
For many people the only reason for voting to stay would be fear for the unknown and fear for change,which could be a big enough reason.
The eu is not all that popular overall. It is popular in the Netherlands,though not as popular as it was. Maybe popular in some parts of Germany as well,but there are many aspects about the eu that people are not all that happy with.
Opinion polls now show that between 55 ans 60% of UK would now vote for staying in the EU. People have seen what a clusterfuck leaving is and seems to be regretting it.
I think you're wrong in that people didn't have to be sold on leaving in the first place. There were numerous really aggressive ads in the UK for leaving, most selling pure lies and fake promises, and often playing on people's fears (John Oliver had a really good segment on it a while back. LWT might not be anywhere near bipartisan, but he never lies and rarely makes mistakes, so his show is worth watching anyways...and it's really funny). The problem of false information and people living in their own bubbles isn't limited to just the US. Also let's not forget that Russia meddled hard in the brexit vote as well, to an extend we don't quite know yet about as new evidence seems to surface weekly.
|
I don't know,i see it different. I am not britisch but from what I hear from britisch friends I have a very different picture.
Why is it so hard to accept that things are a certain way? You make it sound a bit like brexit only got passed because of massive misinformation and aggressive adds for the leave side but that just isn't the case. It is kinda similar how the democrats are somewhat trying to blame their defeat on rusian adds.
The eu is not all that popular in many areas of the union,politicians should learn from this and change the eu so that it becomes more popular,instead of trying to blame critizism on misinformation. (and the same can be said about the democrats and hillarys defeat,instead of blaming it on everything but themselves,they should look at themselves).
It is a very annoying argument in politics,you can use it for everything. "well people only did this or that because they where misinformed". Who even decides what is misinformation,besides for the very obvious cases. Is there a court that judges this or is it just personal opinion. Am talking about all the grey areas,incomplete information,unintentional misinformation,information that can not be determined to be true or false yet (possible consequences of leaving).
About the usa: I read in the local news media that democratic congressman are planning to give trump a very hard time if they win the house,"a lame duck president". They wouldn't try to impeach trump right away,they would first wait for the results from the Mueller investigation (lol). Implying that they probably eventually will try to start an impeachment procedure.
That really is what this mid terms seems to be about,keep trump for 2 more years,possibly 6 (I think trump has a very good change to get re-elected if republicans keep the house) or get rid of him asap.
If republicans lose the house then I see no way that trump will get re-elected. Democrats will stop everything they can,probably resulting in a mess/mild depression by 2020 and I don't see trump win in that scenario.
Lots of pre votes,more then ever before. A lot of people are expected to vote. It is a very exciting election,finally we can see what the population of the usa really thinks about trump as president thus far,
|
Many people in the UK that voted 'leave' still support Brexit because they still believe in the Brexit lies. At least they claim to believe in those lies. I watched a lot of James o Brian clips on youtube where leavers would call in. It is extremely embarrassing.
The UK is fucked. Their own politicians are so bad their best bet at this point is to be voluntarily run by un-elected bureaucrats from Brussels. But that is all besides the point. I named Brexit of an example where voters en masse intentionally vote against their own short term financial self-interests. This is the US discussion after all.
As for strategy, there is a Brexit analogy here. Corbin isn't helping out May by helping her not make mistakes. No. You sit at the sidelines biding your time, counting your blessings. In the same way, Democrats should do everything to make Trump stay in office for a long as possible. If Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes president, how will they win the presidency in 2020? You want Trump to destroy the GOP and then rule the US as a one-party state for a decade or so.
But the democrats basically a false opposition group. They want to get steamrolled by the GOP. That's why they always compromise. That is why they let the GOP get away with everything. Democrats will probably help the GOP save itself from Trump because without the GOP, the Democrats have no reason to exist.
|
On November 04 2018 22:23 Panthous wrote:
Many people in the UK that voted 'leave' still support Brexit because they still believe in the Brexit lies. At least they claim to believe in those lies. I watched a lot of James o Brian clips on youtube where leavers would call in. It is extremely embarrassing.
The UK is fucked. Their own politicians are so bad their best bet at this point is to be voluntarily run by un-elected bureaucrats from Brussels. But that is all besides the point. I named Brexit of an example where voters en masse intentionally vote against their own short term financial self-interests. This is the US discussion after all.
As for strategy, there is a Brexit analogy here. Corbin isn't helping out May by helping her not make May. No. You sit at the sidelines biding your time, counting your blessings. In the same way, Democrats should do everything to make Trump stay in office for a long as possible. If Trump gets impeached and Pence becomes president, how will they win the presidency in 2020? You want Trump to destroy the GOP and then rule the US as a one-party state for a decade or so.
But the democrats basically a false opposition group. They want to get steamrolled by the GOP. That's why they always compromise. That is why they let the GOP get away with everything. Democrats will probably help the GOP save itself from Trump because without the GOP, the Democrats have no reason to exist. Or maybe Democratic voters tend to care about what happens to other people and are unwilling to sit on their hands as the GOP dismantles healthcare, welfare and regulations.
Walk up to someone who would lose everything if the ACA was removed and ask if that person is ok with waiting 6 years so you can then try and give them back what they lost? Oh wait, they will probably be dead or completely financially bankrupt and homeless long before that.
Maybe they offer compromise because they actually want to try and get something done to help people rather then sit on their asses complaining about how bad everything is.
What would the Democrats do without the GOP? I donno, how about actually govern the country? Something the Republicans seem to have very little interest in despite controlling every branch of government.
|
I don't know what you are trying to argue. The Democrats do not care for their voters and even their most loyal voters know this. It is not like they have a choice. People that dependent on ACA voted for GOP because they absolutely hated Obamacare. So what is the solution? Make the GOP kill people by first sabotaging and then repealing ACA. Then actually finally successfully frame the GOP for their failings. As it is now, Democrats took no credit for ACA. Then, Republicans sabotaged and defunded ACA. Then, Democrats got blamed for how 'bad' ACA is. And let's not forget, by international standards, ACA is objectively terrible and it was not a Democratic proposal. The US has ACA because of the GOP. If the Democrats would have actually governed the country when they had control of the presidency and the house, rather than try to be bipartisan and work with the GOP, the US would have had something to much better than ACA, much more popular than Obamacare, and this wouldn't even be an issue and the GOP would have the same position on healthcare now as the crazy right wingers in Canada.
The Democrats have no vision. The GOP do have a vision. Yes, it is an incredibly terrible one. But they at least have one. And they have the guts to put it into policy. The Democrats are only there to have a steady job. And they get funded because their funders need to have politicians willing to lose to the GOP and give the facade of a functioning democracy. The whole democratic party actually picks out softball candidates. There is a reason why there are no Democrats that will fight the GOP tooth and nail just to win and to make a point. They will always compromise. So that is even when the democrats control both the presidency and the house, you still get crappy GOP policies like ACA.
The Democrats basically also conceded that only the Republicans get to nominate candidates for the supreme court.
And what is the effect? Most of the population don't vote. Only white old people vote. This and the electoral college gives the US has huge democratic deficit. If public opinion would directly translate into politicians, the GOP would be a fringe party and there would be a party at the left of the democratic party. And this is also why you have a traitorous racist dictator admirer as a president.
The goal of the Republicans is to first make the government dysfunctional, and then get rid of that segment of the government exactly because it is dysfunctional. And it is working perfectly and extremely popular with their voter base.
|
Does this poll even exist? I don't see it anywhere, and it seems extremely unlikely to be true. Also, we've got to the point where the president bald-face lying to the public isn't even news.
|
I can't find it immediately on the official Fox polls site. I would guess he's a) displaying poll illiteracy and it's a 40% approval rate amongst Republican voters that identify as African American or b) he's displaying polling illiteracy by interpreting values without their margins of error that increase because of upweighting or c) he's displaying polling illiteracy by treating online clicker polls Fox occasionally hosts on their shows as meaningful data.
There's a first time for everything, though. There's been occasional random spikes in African American support in things like the Rasmussen tracking poll because of how their methodology works.
|
On November 05 2018 01:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:I can't find it immediately on the official Fox polls site. I would guess he's a) displaying poll illiteracy and it's a 40% approval rate amongst Republican voters that identify as African American or b) he's displaying polling illiteracy by interpreting values without their margins of error that increase because of upweighting or c) he's displaying polling illiteracy by treating online clicker polls Fox occasionally hosts on their shows as meaningful data. There's a first time for everything, though. There's been occasional random spikes in African American support in things like the Rasmussen tracking poll because of how their methodology works.
And sure enough, looks like it's a Rasmussen poll that got quoted in a Fox opinion piece. Is there anyone ITT who knows enough about polling to answer what the hell is going on at Rasmussen? My understanding from reading 538 was that they're a pretty rigorous pollster, but with a pretty strong house effect. Correct for that and their polls are pretty high quality. But how do you wind up with 40% African-American approval? It doesn't even look like much of an outlier for them.
|
Hes turning the lies up to 100 in the run up to the election. Apparently he feels that's the most effective way to earn the support of his voters.
|
From what I remember Rasmussen does two kinds of polls, tracking polls (presidential opinion is one such poll) and non-tracking polls. The non-tracking polls are okay to good, but the way tracking polls work means small changes in rare groups can cause large variations in some key groups. One college African American Trump supporter was sending their tracking poll seriously out of whack running up to the election, for example, and is a large part of why their polls varied from Trump +3 to Clinton +2 in the week before the 2016 election.
It's also important to keep in mind Rasmussen's has a weird definition of net favorability and has consistently overestimated Trump's approval by 5-10 versus virtually every other presidential opinion poll.
|
Canada11370 Posts
Well, at least one of Kavanagh's accusers was lying.
Below is the Munro-Leighton Referral- I don't think I can upload the pdf directly, but the Washington Times is hosting the pdf in the hyperlink: "revealed the fraud in LETTER" www.washingtontimes.com
When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the “Jane Doe” from Oceanside
California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: “No, no, no. I did that as a way
to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of
the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”
She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she “just wanted to get attention”;
(2) “it was a tactic”; and (3) “that was just a ploy.” She told Committee investigators that she had
called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process – including prior to the time
Dr. Ford’s allegations surfaced – to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault
allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: “I was angry, and I sent it out.”
When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said:
“Oh Lord, no.”
In short, during the Committee’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge
Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee
resources. When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a “ploy,” and
a “tactic.” She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Who knows about the rest, but the nasty thing in the court of public opinion, is I think typically when one accusation comes out from one person, most people think, well maybe, but we'll see. But once a number comes out, it becomes well, they haven't been tried yet, but probably guilty as sin (Cosby prior to trial and our own Canadian Jian Ghomeshi). But if, (regardless of the veracity of the first accusation), these pile-ons after that are fake become a thing... that isn't good.
It's such a bad tactic because if you really want to be believed, be believable. If you want to take someone down because they are terrible, only the truth should take them down. Mixing in lies is awful- awful if you fail because it blows up in your face and doesn't help the potential legitimate ones. And awful if you win because they being punished (in part) for what they didn't do. Not good. Not good at all.
|
On November 04 2018 21:16 pmh wrote:
I don't know,i see it different. I am not britisch but from what I hear from britisch friends I have a very different picture.
Why is it so hard to accept that things are a certain way? You make it sound a bit like brexit only got passed because of massive misinformation and aggressive adds for the leave side
I am British and I can assure you that's exactly why the leave vote won. You forget that the Daily Mail had been running an anti-EU disinformation campaign for YEARS.
Think about it this way. In the public information sphere, there was a relentless anti-EU campaign. Daily stories - grossly exaggerated in most cases - with an anti-immigrant and anti-EU bias often front page of the nation's most read papers, and nothing that was pro-EU. Nobody felt the need to speak up for the institution. So the negative attacks had all the airspace until the actual referendum.
And despite that, despite the huge amounts of misinformation and outright lies, the leave vote won by 2%, 51-49.
I sincerely doubt if we held another vote on the matter today, that leave would win. They won when they were saying it would take 'the stroke of a pen' and we would take 'full control over our borders' and other complete fucking nonsense. There were people who legitimately thought that after the leave vote, everyone who was black was going to be deported!
|
On November 05 2018 03:43 Falling wrote:Well, at least one of Kavanagh's accusers was lying. Below is the Munro-Leighton Referral- I don't think I can upload the pdf directly, but the Washington Times is hosting the pdf in the hyperlink: "revealed the fraud in LETTER" www.washingtontimes.comShow nested quote +When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the “Jane Doe” from Oceanside
California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: “No, no, no. I did that as a way
to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of
the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.” Show nested quote +She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she “just wanted to get attention”;
(2) “it was a tactic”; and (3) “that was just a ploy.” She told Committee investigators that she had
called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process – including prior to the time
Dr. Ford’s allegations surfaced – to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault
allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: “I was angry, and I sent it out.”
When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said:
“Oh Lord, no.”
In short, during the Committee’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge
Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee
resources. When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a “ploy,” and
a “tactic.” She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Who knows about the rest, but the nasty thing in the court of public opinion, is I think typically when one accusation comes out from one person, most people think, well maybe, but we'll see. But once a number comes out, it becomes well, they haven't been tried yet, but probably guilty as sin (Cosby prior to trial and our own Canadian Jian Ghomeshi). But if, (regardless of the veracity of the first accusation), these pile-ons after that are fake become a thing... that isn't good. It's such a bad tactic because if you really want to be believed, be believable. If you want to take someone down because they are terrible, only the truth should take them down. Mixing in lies is awful- awful if you fail because it blows up in your face and doesn't help the potential legitimate ones. And awful if you win because they being punished (in part) for what they didn't do. Not good. Not good at all. Ive seen it float around, often without mentioned the name so the reader can pretend its talking about Ford. And predictably a bunch of Republicans latch on to just that.
This wasn't one of the 3? public accusers and a name I have never seen before this piece. But someone knowingly making false statements should be prosecuted.
|
Republicans are going to hold the house,possibly even win big. Calling it now.
Economy is booming,taxes got cut and the population overall likes his immigration policy.
How will republicans lose this,i don't see it there is no way.
|
On November 05 2018 05:16 pmh wrote:
Republicans are going to hold the house,possibly even win big. Calling it now.
Economy is booming,taxes got cut and the population overall likes his immigration policy.
How will republicans lose this,i don't see it there is no way.
Because we are in the midst of a culture war where one side just recently suffered a defeat they were completely unprepared for? and now they're pissed. If the GOP holds, it will because the undecideds and independents like the economy (also the lack of a coherent immigration philosophy by Democrats could help, if Trump doesn't overdo it.)
Since the jobs numbers came out we've seen more talk of that than immigration, thank heavens. Time to win the people who haven't made up their minds. a lot of these seats have repub leaning indies, time for them to come home.
but they prob will lose. rn i think the Democrats gain ~29 to end at 222 seats. but I think they could win about 60, or as few as 20. in the senate, gop just needs to have about to 53 seats to be safe next cycle, and I think that's about there it will end up. though we'll see cause NV is prob gone. so that's a flip right there, though ND offsets that.
|
On November 05 2018 04:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2018 03:43 Falling wrote:Well, at least one of Kavanagh's accusers was lying. Below is the Munro-Leighton Referral- I don't think I can upload the pdf directly, but the Washington Times is hosting the pdf in the hyperlink: "revealed the fraud in LETTER" www.washingtontimes.comWhen directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the “Jane Doe” from Oceanside
California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: “No, no, no. I did that as a way
to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of
the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.” She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she “just wanted to get attention”;
(2) “it was a tactic”; and (3) “that was just a ploy.” She told Committee investigators that she had
called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process – including prior to the time
Dr. Ford’s allegations surfaced – to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault
allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: “I was angry, and I sent it out.”
When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said:
“Oh Lord, no.”
In short, during the Committee’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge
Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee
resources. When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a “ploy,” and
a “tactic.” She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Who knows about the rest, but the nasty thing in the court of public opinion, is I think typically when one accusation comes out from one person, most people think, well maybe, but we'll see. But once a number comes out, it becomes well, they haven't been tried yet, but probably guilty as sin (Cosby prior to trial and our own Canadian Jian Ghomeshi). But if, (regardless of the veracity of the first accusation), these pile-ons after that are fake become a thing... that isn't good. It's such a bad tactic because if you really want to be believed, be believable. If you want to take someone down because they are terrible, only the truth should take them down. Mixing in lies is awful- awful if you fail because it blows up in your face and doesn't help the potential legitimate ones. And awful if you win because they being punished (in part) for what they didn't do. Not good. Not good at all. Ive seen it float around, often without mentioned the name so the reader can pretend its talking about Ford. And predictably a bunch of Republicans latch on to just that. This wasn't one of the 3? public accusers and a name I have never seen before this piece. But someone knowingly making false statements should be prosecuted.
The language is the letter is odd too. She refers to the false claim as a “tactic” and “ploy”. And it claims she “wanted attention”. It is language out of a Fox News show. It is a regurgitation our of fear mongering about false rape claims. I’ll see if other news agencies pick it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
