It's not up to individual parties to stop taking corporate donations. It's fine if you don't want to vote for people/organisations who accept the donations but saying one party should stop it kind of misses the point. Like trying to talk individuals out of buying assault weapons, it doesn't solve the real problem.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
Makes sure Hillary gets the Nomination
Quality post @Brwned
This thread has tumbled into circle-jerk territory, with a few posters nearly hyperactive and competing about being the most "genuinely terrified", "truly scared", "horrified" etc.
This thread has tumbled into circle-jerk territory, with a few posters nearly hyperactive and competing about being the most "genuinely terrified", "truly scared", "horrified" etc.
I tend to agree. Campaigns eat up a lot of money and it would be sheer lunacy for the Dems to surrender one of their funding streams to the where the GOP have any advantage.
Can you list a few posts that you think are in this category ?
This is seriously a non issue.
62mil people voted for Trump saying, He - a billionaire, who has for years given money to politicians to curry favor, would look out for the little guy...that, he would 'drain the swamp'. They bitched out Hillary taking money from Wall Street for giving speeches, but think it's brilliant, Trump has surrounded themselves with people from Wall Street.
The electorate is mostly stupid and only a fringe element is THAT idealistic.
Progressives need to grow up - the real world is complicated.
People that don't like the content in the thread are entitled to post stuff with substance themselves you know, rather than just complain about other posters.
Have to agree. Very little actual policy discussion in this thread relative to its size (e.g. I'm quite interested in Trump's infrastructure proposals but know little about the ramifications - but they've barely got a mention in this thread, and to be honest I wouldn't count on getting balanced answers to any specific questions I might have). The constant outrage over every little thing Trump does is getting tiresome, good luck keeping it up for four years.
Even if you have no moral problems with it(I do) or think it doesn't influence Dems' positions (I do), it can pragmatically make for better optics if they keep at least a facade of distance from corporate money while fundraising from small donors.
Just saw the article - it was a symbolic move from Obama, reversed when DWS became chair (1-2 months before Hillary announced)
Won't even bother due to the hailstorm of alerts it will bring. You can't really have been paying attention if you haven't seen them, admittedly 90% are by a few posters and one especially.
DNC Results:
Needed to win - 214
Perez 213.5
Ellison 200 votes
Needed to win - 214
Perez 213.5
Ellison 200 votes
The content of this thread is what it is: a accurate summation of the posters who post in it, and their best ability to engage with this subject. These conversations, with all their 'hysteria and drama' have occurred in every dinner table, coffee table and bar around the world since conversion began. The internet is merely a representation of the society it represents, albeit that opinion is now in public view and in realtime.
As for the same people posting 100s of times saying the same things, you have completely missed the point. Rather, people are posting the exact same response of shock and disgust to different and multiple actions Trump has taken. He consistently behaves in a way that is causing people everywhere to react in the only way they know how. Its not just this thread, its the entire planet.
If you're finding it painful, I'd ask what steps you have taken to makes the world less painful? Taking some kind of imagined intellectual high ground is how the world got itself into this mess in the first place! This is the real world in which naive and idealistic soundbites matter very little.
The only bit I think your post has merit is in critiquing the media's response. In my opinion, they still don't understand they are stuck in their echo chamber and continue preaching to the already converted. 88% of Republicans believe Trump is intelligent and 75% believe Trump over established media for important news. Until the neo liberal media overcome this, Trump's message will continue to have resonance and relevance with his 47% who got him elected.
Last edited:
Who is it ?
That's partially because his infrastructure plan can be summarised in one sentence, "Trump wants to invest lots of money in infrastructure". There haven't been any actual proposals, and when that one sentence idea was floated the democrats just said "Great, lets do actually do it this time". That obviously won't generate as much discussion as the things the white house and Trump himself are actually doing right now.
I thought its 224 to win?
That's what I thought as well. Not sure how CNN may have got the numbers wrong.
@2cents
you're right, the thread is repetitive and hyperbolic, but this guy has genuinely exceeded expectations. I didn't expect this journalist blackout or an atmosphere where individual border guards can defy a court order. Both are symptoms of something very terrifying.
And of course there is the usual Republican corruption and hypocrisy over healthcare, climate change, Wall St, etc. That's what I try to post about most, anyway.
you're right, the thread is repetitive and hyperbolic, but this guy has genuinely exceeded expectations. I didn't expect this journalist blackout or an atmosphere where individual border guards can defy a court order. Both are symptoms of something very terrifying.
And of course there is the usual Republican corruption and hypocrisy over healthcare, climate change, Wall St, etc. That's what I try to post about most, anyway.
I heard that the plans will probably be delayed due to an incompatibility with the small government mentality of the GOP.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-trump-administrations-infrastructure-plans-start-unravel
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-infrastructure-deal-democrats-234279
I'm amazed anyone is disappointed this thread is weak on policy discussions, since Trump himself is completely devoid of any details. Once Trump comes out with specifics there will be a lot of deconstructing them.
There is little about his infrastructure plans because there is little he has provided.
His infrastructure 'plan' is something I actually support. The country obviously needs it and it if done the right way, will provide a lot of jobs. All things, any American should welcome, regardless of party affiliation.
But - the plan broadly speaks of figures that might go as high as $1Trillion. No way would the republican congress put through something like that, without making MASSIVE cuts to federal programs - but, cuts from where? As it is...there will be cuts made to balance out the tax cuts that'll be coming.
Not to mention, Trump and the Republicans have now decided to push any potential Infrastructure bill back to mid 2018 - they'll try to use it for the mid term elections.
Oh and this is why I fear even something as positive as major infrastructure overhaul is going to end up helping his buddies and not the people he speaks so much about
Last edited:
What's the deal with the half person?
Admittedly it doesn't help that the only decent posts in support of Trump have come from someone impersonating a hypothetical sensible Trump poster.
Tbf @Fener1907's better at spinning his policies than the people the white house hires to do it so that's an unfair comparison 
Thanks for making the point so clearly.
We can all only work with the material we're given, and frankly speaking tRump is an ass and gives us little more than that!
I'd love to debate some genuine economic or political policy initiative and its impact on USA and the world, but all 45 is giving us to work with is his very narrow minded prism of 21st century wannabe fascism. Even that is not a very sophisticated version of that, so not much else one can do expect say 'ARG' and 'uffff'.
Last edited:
There is a lot of policy discussion here, as the outline of his policies are shooting from the hip and trying to find half-assed ways to come good on campaign promises. Any in-depth critique would require actual policy implementation plans.
And we kept this up with W for two terms. Four years is no problem.
Trump himself is completely illogical and demagogic, so its stands to reason that anyone who supports him would make similar arguments.
Didn't see this till now. If true why isn't it being ran on CNN instead of the boring Democrats picking a leader shindig.
The main thing is that whoever wins, it's a big improvement on DWS. I know Sanders supporters will be annoyed if it's not Ellison but really, that Tom Perez is the "establishment" guy is a sign that the arguments are shifting their way.
Apart from the fact that many of them are not politically mature (and could be easy pickings for the correct right-wing approach), there is a substantial difference on funding (which I discovered after reading the article you posted).
The Dems need to understand, once again, the importance of a symbolic concession, especially since the youth vote (and I'm repeating) is their biggest asset and problem.
Nothing wrong with the establishment. I know people want to scream revolution and everyone just saw what Trump did, but people aren't taking into account
- when it came down to it...Republicans stood by Trump and voted for a Republican
- Hillary did get more votes
I still believe the Democrats are fine when it comes to presidential elections - the party and Perez need to concentrate on local elections. The party has not been this 'small' in a long, long time.
Because Rachel Maddow's team got it first. Why does it have to be on a particular outlet?
Many of Trump's observations have alot of merit: in my visits to US before the elections it was clear to me that USA was a country in decline. Cities like New York look like cities from the last century when you compare them to Singapore, Shanghai, Dubai and even London. Even places like Delhi or Bangkok are making more forward progress than many US cities. USA public facilities like subways, hospitals and airports are in disrepair and unbecoming of the worlds richest and most powerful country. And it is embarrassing for such a wealthy country not to provide adequate healthcare or jobs for people with genuine skills who want to work.
But these issues were already a core part of the Obama doctrine: lets not forget how tough Obama was on illegal immigrants, how committed he was to create American jobs for people in the Rust belt and how determined he was to defeat ISIS. Do we really think Obama didn't want 'America to be great again'? I admire Trump for making it sound like he had an epiphany that no one else realised.
If he'd been allowed, Obama would have won a third term; I'll never believe Trump 'won' rather it was Hilary's appalling inability to connect that caused her to lose in the most embarrassing political defeat in living memory.
So Trump does have an infrastructure agenda: its called 'Obama 101'. The problem is that he will never have the intellect, charisma or leadership skills to unite bipartisan support to deliver such an agenda. Indeed he is so polarising that he creates armies of people to work against the best interests of the republic.
Last edited:
But how do you explain that someone like Michael Smith voted for Trump, he seems smart enough to not do it. I'm forced to believe that a very large part of Trump voters didn't vote for Trump but against Clinton which would explain why only the not so smart are vocally supporting Trump, the others voted for Trump but don't support him.
Who is Michael Smith ?
Good thread
Last edited:
The alleged experts who was fighting with Gorka the other day.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/24/51708...tian-gorka-threatens-legal-action-over-tweets
I think it just has to be someone who can get the Dems back on track and not be so fragmented. There are still an awful lot of Hillary fans who absolutely hate Bernie and vice versa. Both are constantly blaming each other for losing the election, they just need to get over it and come together again and focus on what they have in common and not their differences. The main priority after that is ensuring people actually get out and vote. The Republicans are imploding at the moment, Trump doing his thing and the chaos at the town hall events and the fury and real fear over Obamacare being repealed, it's the perfect time for an organised Democratic party with a message that resonates to everyone to come and start appealing to independent voters again and maybe even some disillusioned Republicans too.
- Status