Jump to content
Steve9347

President Donald Trump: The Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:27 PM)
So it is all coincidence that one party has pushed radically left, but total logic that the other one has pushed radically right, even though the same political undercurrents exist for both.

 

Sure, why not. If that is what it takes.

 

Democrats haven't actually pushed radically left, though. Within western democracies, they'd be a center-right party at best. They nominated Hillary Clinton just last year, for christ's sake. Globally, Republicans are a substantial outlier ideologically. There's really not a comparable ideological distribution here.

 

Really, though, whether Democrats have shifted radically left or not is beside the point. The problem is what you're ascribing that shift to. You're trying to blame Democrats for the radicalization of the right and for conservatives backing Donald Trump through the nomination and into the Presidency. Nobody is backing Trump because Democrats called Romney a conservative. Nobody on the left is backing Sanders or Warren or pushing for UHC and expansion of the social safety net because Republicans criticized Kerry or Obama.

 

There are political (economic, religion and race really) undercurrents causing these shifts in the US and abroad, but that isn't what you're arguing. You're arguing that Demcoratic political campaigns against Romney 5 years ago and McCain 9 years ago caused that shift, which is just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:33 PM)
Democrats haven't actually pushed radically left, though. Within western democracies, they'd be a center-right party at best. They nominated Hillary Clinton just last year, for christ's sake. Globally, Republicans are a substantial outlier ideologically. There's really not a comparable ideological distribution here.

 

Really, though, whether Democrats have shifted radically left or not is beside the point. The problem is what you're ascribing that shift to. You're trying to blame Democrats for the radicalization of the right and for conservatives backing Donald Trump through the nomination and into the Presidency. Nobody is backing Trump because Democrats called Romney a conservative. Nobody on the left is backing Sanders or Warren or pushing for UHC and expansion of the social safety net because Republicans criticized Kerry or Obama.

 

There are political (economic, religion and race really) undercurrents causing these shifts in the US and abroad, but that isn't what you're arguing. You're arguing that Demcoratic political campaigns against Romney 5 years ago and McCain 9 years ago caused that shift, which is just nonsense.

 

You absolutely discredited yourself with the very first sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:36 PM)
You absolutely discredited yourself with the very first sentence.

You could address the relevant argument rather than that tangent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:37 PM)
You could address the relevant argument rather than that tangent.

 

If you are oblivious to the Democratic platform and its general direction, there is no point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:39 PM)
If you are oblivious to the Democratic platform and its general direction, there is no point.

 

They've shifted left, not radically left. If the Democrats start adopting DSA platform planks, then we can talk about a radical shift.

 

Either way, how much they've shifted isn't relevant to whether or not Republican campaigns calling Obama and Kerry the most liberals to ever liberal in the history of liberalism caused that shift; same for the inverse and conservatives. If it gets you to address the core argument, fine, the Democrats are now a bunch of radical Marxists. Now explain how Republican political campaigns caused them to shift so far leftward.

 

 

 

e: or don't because this is a dumb argument and you'll always find a way to blame Democrats/liberals for the actions of Republicans and conservatives

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exclusive: Jared Kushner's personal email moved to Trump Organization computers amid public scrutiny

 

President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump moved their personal email accounts to computers run by the Trump Organization as public scrutiny intensified over their use of private emails to conduct White House business, internet registration records show.

 

The move, made just days after Kushner’s use of a personal email account first became public, came shortly after special counsel Robert Mueller asked the White House to turn over records related to his investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with Trump associates. It also more closely intertwines President Trump’s administration with his constellation of private businesses.

 

Kushner, who is a senior adviser to the president, first faced scrutiny for his private email use on Sept. 24, when his lawyer confirmed that he had occasionally used a personal email account to communicate with other White House officials. Kushner's contacts with Russians during the presidential campaign have drawn the attention of federal investigators.

 

According to internet registration records reviewed by USA TODAY and cybersecurity researchers, Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump, who is also a senior adviser, switched the location of their email accounts to a server operated by the Trump Organization on either Sept. 26 or 27, as attention from the media and lawmakers intensified.

 

This means there are now White House records that have not been subject to a classification review sitting on Trump Org servers. Lock Them Up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:41 PM)
They've shifted left, not radically left. If the Democrats start adopting DSA platform planks, then we can talk about a radical shift.

 

Either way, how much they've shifted isn't relevant to whether or not Republican campaigns calling Obama and Kerry the most liberals to ever liberal in the history of liberalism caused that shift; same for the inverse and conservatives. If it gets you to address the core argument, fine, the Democrats are now a bunch of radical Marxists. Now explain how Republican political campaigns caused them to shift so far leftward.

 

 

 

e: or don't because this is a dumb argument and you'll always find a way to blame Democrats/liberals for the actions of Republicans and conservatives

 

If there is no such influence on campaigns, why is the left still talking about Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:44 PM)
If there is no such influence on campaigns, why is the left still talking about Russia?

 

Cant speak for anyone else, but im still talking about Russia because they violated a treaty with the US when they invaded Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 03:44 PM)
If there is no such influence on campaigns, why is the left still talking about Russia?

 

Because Russia's influence over the last election, and the extent to which one of the campaign's aided or abetted that influence, is currently being investigated by a Special Counsel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:28 PM)
There is no reason there cannot be a middle ground between financial conservatism and social liberalism IMO

 

I'm just not sure what the bolded means at this point. The Republicans' economic platform, really since Reagan, has been to cut taxes to the wealthy and let it all trickle down. On the spending side, it's been either deficits don't matter (Reagan and Bush II) or slashing spending.

 

If financial conservatism means pushing government to be more efficient with its allocation of resources, I'm in favor of it! If financial conservatism means slashing budgets (except for the military) and cutting the safety net, I'm against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 05:38 PM)
I'm just not sure what the bolded means at this point. The Republicans' economic platform, really since Reagan, has been to cut taxes to the wealthy and let it all trickle down. On the spending side, it's been either deficits don't matter (Reagan and Bush II) or slashing spending.

 

If financial conservatism means pushing government to be more efficient with its allocation of resources, I'm in favor of it! If financial conservatism means slashing budgets (except for the military) and cutting the safety net, I'm against it.

 

Was about to ask what that meant as well because in the last few "conservative" economics have completely flipped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 05:28 PM)
There is no reason there cannot be a middle ground between financial conservatism and social liberalism IMO

 

That is my non-existent party right there. Out of my wallet and my bedroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:41 PM)
They've shifted left, not radically left. If the Democrats start adopting DSA platform planks, then we can talk about a radical shift.

 

Either way, how much they've shifted isn't relevant to whether or not Republican campaigns calling Obama and Kerry the most liberals to ever liberal in the history of liberalism caused that shift; same for the inverse and conservatives. If it gets you to address the core argument, fine, the Democrats are now a bunch of radical Marxists. Now explain how Republican political campaigns caused them to shift so far leftward.

 

 

 

e: or don't because this is a dumb argument and you'll always find a way to blame Democrats/liberals for the actions of Republicans and conservatives

The Democrats have been pushing to try to create a national health care system since I was -15 years old. Medicare was created in 1963. In the late 1960s Ted Kennedy nearly had a deal for an employer-mandate health care system with Richard Nixon but Kennedy turned it down thinking he could get a better deal and establish a full national health care system.

 

In 1994, an Employer mandate made up the basis of Hillary's conceptual health care system to cover everyone. The Republicans responded by stating no they wouldn't mandate employers do that, but here's an individual mandate concept.

 

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 included that Individual Mandate. No where near the universal coverage Ted Kennedy hoped to get, still would have left 10 million people uncovered and wound up with 25 million uncovered after the Supreme Court gutted the Medicaid Expansion.

 

That's a singular goal - trying to save as many people as possible from dying from no health insurance. The Republicans marched from an employer mandate to an individual mandate to "being unable to afford insurance is freedom" and the Democrats followed them by shifting to the right basically begging them to pass a bill to cover more people. The end result is our modern day Republican party - "having no health insurance will motivate poor people in Las Vegas not to get shot", and a Democratic party that is accepting of things far to the right of what they were after decades ago.

 

A Medicare-for-all plan, if ever proposed in a sensible way, would be basically where the Democrats have sat for most of any of our lives, at least on principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trumps PR trip included a meeting with PR leaders where he had some speak to praise his administration and ultimately, of course, him. I wonder how he is going to make Las Vegas about him tomorrow.

 

He also handed out so,e flashlights and told the citizens they didn't need them anymore. Power is back to almost 7% of the residents.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 06:13 PM)
Because Russia's influence over the last election, and the extent to which one of the campaign's aided or abetted that influence, is currently being investigated by a Special Counsel.

 

Because if even a quarter of the stuff that has been coming out about it turns out to be true, it dwarfs Watergate as the single largest political scandal in American history and would hypothetically set the stage for an actual trial of the century that will dictate the entire future course for the world?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:36 PM)
You absolutely discredited yourself with the very first sentence.

Could you give a few reasons with you think the Democrats have moved "radically left?" I'm genuinely curious. You've said it a few times, but haven't actually said why you think that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exclusive: Russian-linked Facebook ads targeted Michigan and Wisconsin

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/rus...nsin/index.html

 

CNN)A number of Russian-linked Facebook ads specifically targeted Michigan and Wisconsin, two states crucial to Donald Trump's victory last November, according to four sources with direct knowledge of the situation.

 

Some of the Russian ads appeared highly sophisticated in their targeting of key demographic groups in areas of the states that turned out to be pivotal, two of the sources said. The ads employed a series of divisive messages aimed at breaking through the clutter of campaign ads online, including promoting anti-Muslim messages, sources said.

It has been unclear until now exactly which regions of the country were targeted by the ads. And while one source said that a large number of ads appeared in areas of the country that were not heavily contested in the elections, some clearly were geared at swaying public opinion in the most heavily contested battlegrounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 06:08 PM)
That is my non-existent party right there. Out of my wallet and my bedroom.

 

 

The "listen I don't mind if your gay, but if you can't afford healthcare I think you should die party".

Edited by GoSox05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 08:11 AM)
What was the purpose of Trump's trip to Puerto Rico?

It might have been too early given how slow any response to this one has been, but Presidents heading to disaster areas in this country to both speak to the local politicians and actually see things for themselves is not a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 08:50 AM)
It might have been too early given how slow any response to this one has been, but Presidents heading to disaster areas in this country to both speak to the local politicians and actually see things for themselves is not a bad thing.

Yes, but this particular person seems to make it a public relations thing about him. His "speaking to the local politicians" was a joke. It was a replay of the cabinet meeting where they all say something nice about him.

 

God bless the mayor of San Juan who called it what it was, a publicity stunt. With other presidents, even the ones I didn't particularly care for, there always was some good in these trips. Not with this guy. It's always about him. Just save the taxpayers money and keep Air Force One in DC. And he is out of touch. Tossing paper towels to needy people? Telling people to have a good time? Giving people flashlights but saying they don't need them anymore when less than 7% of the island has had its electricity restored? "joking" about what this natural disaster will do to his budget? Calling Katrina a real catastrophe, implying this one wasn't based on the current death count, which by the way has now doubled?

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 08:55 AM)
Yes, but this particular person seems to make it a public relations thing about him. His "speaking to the local politicians" was a joke. It was a replay of the cabinet meeting where they all say something nice about him.

 

God bless the mayor of San Juan who called it what it was, a publicity stunt. With other presidents, even the ones I didn't particularly care for, there always was some good in these trips. Not with this guy. It's always about him. Just save the taxpayers money and keep Air Force One in DC.

It's always 75% public relations. That's not a bad thing! Public relations is not a bad thing! People need to feel like the government is paying attention during these things. You've also got an entire island that is basically going to be dealing with PTSD - just having the tiniest bit of emotional support will help. The government needs to be compelled to pay attention during these things. I don't care if it is about him and he is a totalitarian racist jerk, our population put this racist in charge of the government and the government needs to function. People are hurt if the government can't do normal things, and yes that even includes press releases. Air Force One isn't that expensive - buy one less F-35 and it's basically free. Don't be penny wise, pound foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 08:59 AM)
It's always 75% public relations. That's not a bad thing! Public relations is not a bad thing! People need to feel like the government is paying attention during these things. You've also got an entire island that is basically going to be dealing with PTSD - just having the tiniest bit of emotional support will help. The government needs to be compelled to pay attention during these things. I don't care if it is about him and he is a totalitarian racist jerk, our population put this racist in charge of the government and the government needs to function. People are hurt if the government can't do normal things, and yes that even includes press releases. Air Force One isn't that expensive - buy one less F-35 and it's basically free. Don't be penny wise, pound foolish.

His comments prove he is not paying attention. Send someone else with a clue. And one less F-35 doesn't make it free. That's money that could be spent on something that actually mattered, not that our government is capable of doing that, but at least potentially it is.

 

I just wonder when he goes to Las Vegas today how much it will help the loved ones of those killed and the wounded when he takes credit for the police response, and then goes on about how now is not the time to bring up gun control. I'm sure there are people in hospitals with Obamacare, and he's doing everything he can to make it go away. Maybe he will spin personal bankruptcy can be very lucrative.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×