|
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 December 17 2018 22:41 KwarK wrote:
Gotta remember that the economy did amazingly under Obama but that for an awful lot of Americans they didn’t share in the gains, and so their perception was very different. Trump’s tax changes and fucking with trade have magnified this, brokerage accounts don’t matter to a lot of his base, high paying jobs in their towns do. Saying that the economy is good, or bad, is not relevant to their perception of the economy.
Then again i just read a poll that said that 80+% of Trump voters said they were doing better than two years ago. Not that i think they are all lying, but I think people are more than ready to overlook even their personal situation when it comes to partisan tribalism.
It’s like those hardcore poor republican whi would admit a law equivalent to Obamacare would basically change their life, but would still oppose it because it was made for « those people » by the black man.
I might be wrong, but the economy that matters in election is more a question of narrative than based in the reality of people’s experience.
|
On December 17 2018 20:55 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2018 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 16 2018 21:16 iamthedave wrote:On December 16 2018 08:09 Introvert wrote:On December 16 2018 07:48 Wulfey_LA wrote:On December 16 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:On December 16 2018 06:35 farvacola wrote:In the interest of quibbling, I’d note that the common law necessarily allows for changing the rules while playing, decisional law has the potential to create new rules as a matter of course. As for federal prosecutors following their own rules, it’s true that they would almost certainly continue to adhere to them “midgame”, but federal prosecutors aren’t Trumps only worry  In the interest of being clear, I'd note that I didn't claim the rules can't be changed, but that they won't. If there were something so bad that it merited a change, he'd simply be impeached first (barring Trump actually walking onto Fifth Ave and shooting someone). Let's see what happens with the SDNY files an indictment against Donald based on the Cohen plea. I found your problem. In fact, that's the problem I've been referring to this whole time.The definition of flimsy you all seem to be using is a novel one. In fairness it's the same one Republicans use when trying to excuse the seemingly endless amounts of dodgy shit surrounding Trump. On December 16 2018 02:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 15 2018 21:36 iamthedave wrote:
99.99999% repeating is where Trump's at. If they don't run him as the official nominee he'll just run as an indepedent and win again. The only way he doesn't get the nomination in 2020 is if he decides he's already proven he's the bestest President ever and doesn't need a second term to prove it (which I could see as an outside possibility). If Trump runs as an Independent/ third-party candidate in the general election, he'll be guaranteeing a Democratic president because of the Republican votes he'll steal. Also - and this is just the mathematician in me - 99.9999 repeating % is exactly equal to 100%. That was the joke. If he ran as an independent he'd just get all the Republican votes and it'd be like he ran as the Republican nominee. Besides, I once heard that the parties can't decide who runs? Like, they just say 'I'mma run as a Republican!' and that's that, and it depends on whether or not people vote for them. I think you're both underestimating Trump's popularity and overestimating Democrat competence in the current climate. Unless Sanders runs as their nominee, the chances of a Trump double are pretty high. I don’t think so. Granted i never thought people would be stupid enough to nominate AND elect a man like that in the first place so I could be wrong again, but Trump had all the possible advantages he could get and barely pulled a win in 2016. He was running against a highly unpopular candidate, who was a woman, who had been the target of more or less artificially fabricated scandals, who ran a terrible campaign and that he could call « crooked » because apparently being horrendously dishonest in business life doesn’t mean you shouldn’t complain that your opponents are corrup. Allof those evaporate in 2020. And whole categories of voters such as union democrats and so on who might have voted for him will tell him to fuck off, and don’t forget, every year that passes sees the democratic voter base grow and the republican shrink as the country is becoming more diverse, more urban and more educated. Trump is a dead man imo. Trump will have one critical advantage going into 2020 (unless something changes): the economy will be on the rise. He can campaign relentlessly on 'I promised a better economy and look, a better economy'. There isn't much of a better vote-getter than 'I promised to make your lives better and did'. He's also far more popular as President than he was as a candidate, his actual popularity numbers aren't much worse than Obama at this point in his own tenure. Worse, outside of Sanders - who the establishment hates - the Democrats have no strong candidate to put up against him. The frontrunner at the minute seems to be Biden, who seems very very easy to attack and is likely to run on Trump's awfulness more than anything else, and that's been proven to fail.
I'm not sure how accurate that will be in two years, to be honest. If anything, this year's stock market has been disastrously volatile, losing essentially all of the steam and steepness of the past ~8 years. There are certainly a number of non-Trump factors going into the leveling off of the market, but Trump's ignorance surrounding tariffs, trade wars, and declaring a national bankruptcy points towards potential economic instability.
|
Congrats on the victory guys. Finally Paris is burning.  . He probably meant to put a 'despite' somewhere in there but this reads very strange now.
|
No, he didn't forget a 'despite'.
Sometimes the only way to claim your winning is by pointing to someone else losing harder then you.
|
That is winning for Trump and always has been. Everything is a zero sum game for him, so for America to be successful other nations must fail.
|
On December 17 2018 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2018 22:41 KwarK wrote:
Gotta remember that the economy did amazingly under Obama but that for an awful lot of Americans they didn’t share in the gains, and so their perception was very different. Trump’s tax changes and fucking with trade have magnified this, brokerage accounts don’t matter to a lot of his base, high paying jobs in their towns do. Saying that the economy is good, or bad, is not relevant to their perception of the economy. Then again i just read a poll that said that 80+% of Trump voters said they were doing better than two years ago. Not that i think they are all lying, but I think people are more than ready to overlook even their personal situation when it comes to partisan tribalism. It’s like those hardcore poor republican whi would admit a law equivalent to Obamacare would basically change their life, but would still oppose it because it was made for « those people » by the black man. I might be wrong, but the economy that matters in election is more a question of narrative than based in the reality of people’s experience.
Well, some crazy proportion of them loooove the ACA and are pro Medicaid/ Medicaid expansion. They just hate that dang Obamacare and want the government to get their hands off their healthcare.
|
United States42004 Posts
France is America’s oldest ally. If Paris were burning, which it isn’t, it’s hard to see why that would be an American victory.
|
On December 17 2018 23:24 KwarK wrote:
France is America’s oldest ally. If Paris were burning, which it isn’t, it’s hard to see why that would be an American victory.
Trump doesn’t believe in allies and he has convinced a section of America that it is our allies that are holding us back.
One of the most informative moments about Trump you will ever see is when he is at Puerto Rico working talking with a woman about bottled water she is handing out. She is part of some local network of people making sure everyone has clean drinking water after the storm. Trump low key asks her what her angle is, because he can’t understand why this woman would be helping give away water for free. That there must be some benefit for her down the line he is not aware of, because that is the only reason she would act that way.
Having a 200 year old relationship with France is nothing to Trump because he won’t see the benefits of keeping it for another 200 years. He doesn’t understand a world beyond his life span.
|
On December 17 2018 22:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2018 20:55 iamthedave wrote:On December 16 2018 22:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 16 2018 21:16 iamthedave wrote:On December 16 2018 08:09 Introvert wrote:On December 16 2018 07:48 Wulfey_LA wrote:On December 16 2018 06:56 Introvert wrote:On December 16 2018 06:35 farvacola wrote:In the interest of quibbling, I’d note that the common law necessarily allows for changing the rules while playing, decisional law has the potential to create new rules as a matter of course. As for federal prosecutors following their own rules, it’s true that they would almost certainly continue to adhere to them “midgame”, but federal prosecutors aren’t Trumps only worry In the interest of being clear, I'd note that I didn't claim the rules can't be changed, but that they won't. If there were something so bad that it merited a change, he'd simply be impeached first (barring Trump actually walking onto Fifth Ave and shooting someone). Let's see what happens with the SDNY files an indictment against Donald based on the Cohen plea. I found your problem. In fact, that's the problem I've been referring to this whole time.The definition of flimsy you all seem to be using is a novel one. In fairness it's the same one Republicans use when trying to excuse the seemingly endless amounts of dodgy shit surrounding Trump. On December 16 2018 02:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 15 2018 21:36 iamthedave wrote:
99.99999% repeating is where Trump's at. If they don't run him as the official nominee he'll just run as an indepedent and win again. The only way he doesn't get the nomination in 2020 is if he decides he's already proven he's the bestest President ever and doesn't need a second term to prove it (which I could see as an outside possibility). If Trump runs as an Independent/ third-party candidate in the general election, he'll be guaranteeing a Democratic president because of the Republican votes he'll steal. Also - and this is just the mathematician in me - 99.9999 repeating % is exactly equal to 100%. That was the joke. If he ran as an independent he'd just get all the Republican votes and it'd be like he ran as the Republican nominee. Besides, I once heard that the parties can't decide who runs? Like, they just say 'I'mma run as a Republican!' and that's that, and it depends on whether or not people vote for them. I think you're both underestimating Trump's popularity and overestimating Democrat competence in the current climate. Unless Sanders runs as their nominee, the chances of a Trump double are pretty high. I don’t think so. Granted i never thought people would be stupid enough to nominate AND elect a man like that in the first place so I could be wrong again, but Trump had all the possible advantages he could get and barely pulled a win in 2016. He was running against a highly unpopular candidate, who was a woman, who had been the target of more or less artificially fabricated scandals, who ran a terrible campaign and that he could call « crooked » because apparently being horrendously dishonest in business life doesn’t mean you shouldn’t complain that your opponents are corrup. Allof those evaporate in 2020. And whole categories of voters such as union democrats and so on who might have voted for him will tell him to fuck off, and don’t forget, every year that passes sees the democratic voter base grow and the republican shrink as the country is becoming more diverse, more urban and more educated. Trump is a dead man imo. Trump will have one critical advantage going into 2020 (unless something changes): the economy will be on the rise. He can campaign relentlessly on 'I promised a better economy and look, a better economy'. There isn't much of a better vote-getter than 'I promised to make your lives better and did'. He's also far more popular as President than he was as a candidate, his actual popularity numbers aren't much worse than Obama at this point in his own tenure. Worse, outside of Sanders - who the establishment hates - the Democrats have no strong candidate to put up against him. The frontrunner at the minute seems to be Biden, who seems very very easy to attack and is likely to run on Trump's awfulness more than anything else, and that's been proven to fail. I'm not sure how accurate that will be in two years, to be honest. If anything, this year's stock market has been disastrously volatile, losing essentially all of the steam and steepness of the past ~8 years. There are certainly a number of non-Trump factors going into the leveling off of the market, but Trump's ignorance surrounding tariffs, trade wars, and declaring a national bankruptcy points towards potential economic instability.
I'll but a big caveat and say I'm not sure of that either. Who knows how badly Brexit will fuck with the world markets when it finally happens? For all we know it'll be the trigger for another depression.
But assuming that doesn't happen, assuming Trump either wins, or comes out even enough in the trade war that he can believably get away with claiming to have won, which I think is reasonably possible, he's going to have a rock solid base to go into 2020 with.
People are still locked in 'how can we have a President this awful?', and not realising that now you have, it doesn't matter anymore.
|
A base that was not able to get him the popular vote or allow him to keep the House. I do not understand this undying obsession with Trump’s base when he barely won the election in 2016. They are but one part of the US and not enough to hold on to power. Trump’s election caused one of the largest shifts in congressional power in US history.
|
On December 18 2018 03:52 Plansix wrote:
A base that was not able to get him the popular vote or allow him to keep the House. I do not understand this undying obsession with Trump’s base when he barely won the election in 2016. They are but one part of the US and not enough to hold on to power. Trump’s election caused one of the largest shifts in congressional power in US history.
And the "no way such a 'not very qualified' person is elected president" mentality has already failed...
And not just once. But in fact, the US electorate always makes sure to double down on it and proof all the "they will surely learn from this... next time" sayers wrong.
|
The US allready went for Reagen, I fail to see the big diffrence. You also had Nixon/Watergate and the Reps whent out nearly unhurt. Clinton scandal, axis of evil Bush... American politics are laughable since decades, Obama was actually the strange one.
|
The Trump Foundation, run by Trumps family, has been forced to shut down and the criminal investigation continues. This is yet another sign that the Mueller investigation is just a tiny fraction of Trumps worries. And everyone is flipping on him because they have zero reason to be loyal to Trump.
|
Flynn is likely going to get jail time if he is sentenced today. One of the problems for the people who work for Trump is that Trump wants to make it seem like none of this matters to the public. That causes Judges to have to consider if the sentence affirms the President’s assertion or refutes it.
|
So, it's treason then.
Feels like the judge kind of ignored Mueller's go-easy-on-him memo. Or maybe this is going easy.
|
|
|
On December 19 2018 02:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
So, it's treason then.
Feels like the judge kind of ignored Mueller's go-easy-on-him memo. Or maybe this is going easy.
Flynn's attorney filing that motion saying he was tricked by the FBI after the plea agreement feels like malpractice at this point. Live and learn, Fox New's audience is not the Judge that decides your fate after all, General Flynn.
|
Judge changed his mind pretty fast according to that same twitter feed. Apologized and no treason. Weird stuff.
|
Nah, that sort of thing happens somewhat frequently; Judges, particularly at sentencing, have broad leeway to issue comments relative to the crime at hand, but they are also keenly aware of appellate review and the issue of whether they have taken into sentencing consideration matters that are improper or irrelevant to the convicted conduct. Judge Sullivan is pissed, but wants his sentence to stick when it comes down.
|
Sentencing is the one moment when the Judge is able to making their views on the case, counsels and parties involved known. In this case, it seems like the Judge was interested in making Flynn aware that he should strongly consider assisting the FBI as much as possible if he wanted to avoid jail time. And the Judge raised the point that Flynn could have been acting as a foreign agent while serving as National Security Adviser, which as serious as it comes.
Edit: Fav beat me to it.
Edit 2:Fav, so Flynn’s attorneys are not the brightest bunch, are they? That sentencing memo might go down as classic example of critically misreading the Judge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
