US Politics

Charlie Foley said:
Identity politics there Raoul ;)

Didn't Bernie crush Hillary in the primary there? (Might be misremembering.) that suggests to me that a populist left candidate running in WV would garner more support than a corporate centrist. Sure they might not win the moderates but that primary suggests to me it could galvanise people who don't often vote-I think you've said in this thread that's a market to tap into. Don't forget too Trump used a lot of leftist stances (as lies) when he went to places like that, especially economically, talking about ending NAFTA. That part of the Venn diagram intersects with the populist left view, only they mean it.

If you're on the left and running there, you push it as a workers and jobs agenda surely.
Click to expand...

I believe he did do well in WVA, which was partly down to him and his unique message and partly down to the fact that right leaning states generally can't stand either of the Clintons. WVA also happens to be the state that has the highest Trump rating (61%) so I'm not surprised that Trump and Bernie would to varying degrees be competing for the same voters.
 
Raoul said:
Yep. Roberts has been trending liberal since he got the job and is now more or less in line with where Kennedy is as he's on his way out.

2560px-Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png
Click to expand...
God bless Douglas. You know the Washington Post were supporting the construction of a highway on the Potomac once. Douglas used to hike there, and got the reporters to do the hike with him. When they did, they changed their view and opposed the construction :lol:

This whole situation is so disappointing, on top of everything else it's ruining my joy at Kennedy leaving the Supreme Court.
 
Red Dreams said:
you have to hope people find decency in themselves.

This may be a temporary win for Trump but a permanent loss for Republicans.
Click to expand...

:lol:

You'd think the public will remember this long term? News and Media establishments will move on to the next "thing" in the next news cycle and all of this will be old news in a couple of days.
 
iKnowNothing said:
:lol:

You'd think the public will remember this long term? News and Media establishments will move on to the next "thing" in the next news cycle and all of this will be old news in a couple of days.
Click to expand...
Bingo.

The Trump tax fraud story is barely gaining any traction. This is the new norm, there's no going back.
 
Raoul said:
I believe he did do well in WVA, which was partly down to him and his unique message and partly down to the fact that right leaning states generally can't stand either of the Clintons. WVA also happens to be the state that has the highest Trump rating (61%) so I'm not surprised that Trump and Bernie would to varying degrees be competing for the same voters.
Click to expand...

It was also apparently the state where Obama was hated the most. Hillary first time due to the bill Clinton time was popular there it seems but 2nd time.to due to the Obama continuation thing became unpopular. I guess coal mining and epa had a major role too along with race.

Reading about it seems Bernie would have ran trump a lot closer there as you say.
 
Pexbo said:
This level of control being exerted over the FBI is very interesting and obviously very concerning.

There’s a few things at play here I’d imagine.

Firstly, Sessions and Rosenstein are both Republicans so it’s very likely that they will have supported Kavanaugh’s appointment.

Secondly, they have no good will or leverage left with Trump and have their jobs on the line.

So it’s no surprise that Trump and his staff have been able to dictate this.

That leaves the next question open though - what else have they been dictating when it comes to what the FBI can and cannot focus on?
Click to expand...
They could only dictate that because of the type of investigation it was. A background check. The White House Counsel and the Senate were the ones in charge. The White House has no command on the regular investigations that the FBI does like the Mueller probe IIRC
 
fergieisold said:
I'm assuming that if this case is proven eventually he can be removed from the Supreme Court? I'm not familiar with US politics.
Click to expand...
Senate can impeach him, but it needs 2/3 of votes, so not going to happen.

Anyway, a 36 years old rape cannot be proven unless he accepts it or his friend accepts it. It was always a lost cause, bar trying to galvanise Democrat supporters as in 'see, they put a rapist on the office, get and vote to not let it happen again'. Looking at the poll numbers, it seems to have had the opposite effect though. Republicans are much better at this us vs them mentality.
 
the unknown one. said:
Conservative Supreme Court secured for a generation.

Trump and the Republicans have truly delivered tonight. :D
Click to expand...
It's all been ideal practice for the Republican Congress. They'll know exactly what to call upon when they're protecting Trump & Co at all costs from the Mueller probe. Trump couldn't give a feck about Supreme Court Justices, but they're all still willing to help each other get what they want.
 
Last edited:
Red Dreams said:
surprise surprise...

if all this mischief does not drive Dems to teh polls I dont know what.
Click to expand...

********** FACE FACTS **********

the Dems will be out in their droves for sure - but the swing states they are all chasing, hold massive Republican leads. not all states are up for midterm elections and those that are, the vast majority are already democrat. it's 4 years time where the midterms will offer the Democrats a chance of taking the Senate.

Presently there is 8 states too close to call. 4 are leaning Dem and 4 are leaning Republican - of these only 1 "could turn democrat". there is not a chance in hell of the Dems taking the Senate. the best figures show a 21% chance of them doing anything. And in recent weeks the republicans are increasing their vote and farming states in fact turning to favour Republicans.

what we face is more media shite - which will ultimately allow people like you, me and others get pulled in to a sham election - which ultimately Trump has won before it has even started.

Don't get caught up in it.
 
A bit off topic but this whole senate thing is pretty weird, when 2 people from California have the same power as 2 people from Alaska, despite one having 40 times more population than the other.
 
maniak said:
A bit off topic but this whole senate thing is pretty weird, when 2 people from California have the same power as 2 people from Alaska, despite one having 40 times more population than the other.
Click to expand...

The point was that congress and the president were meant to be an administrative body, enforcing the constitution and overseeing borders and security.

It became the centre of political power more and more through the deminishment of states rights. California is supposed to be allowed a different politicsthrough state legislature than Alabama without federal interference, as long as the constitution and individuals rights are being upheld.
 
Drainy said:
The point was that congress and the president were meant to be an administrative body, enforcing the constitution and overseeing borders and security.

It became the centre of political power more and more through the deminishment of states rights. California is supposed to be allowed a different politicsthrough state legislature than Alabama without federal interference, as long as the constitution and individuals rights are being upheld.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in made sense back in the day.

But in let's say 1900 the states had no more than 5 million people each (maybe NY had more, I didn't bother checking) and distribution was more even between red and blue states. Nowadays the differences are brutal, it's hard to make a case for representative democracy with the current format.
 
Seems to me, looking in from the outside, that the American system places too much faith in democracy and bestows too much power on elected officials. The essential flaw is that elections can be influenced by all sorts of special interests.

Many democracies do not leave it upon elected officials or elected parliaments to appoint judges, which, whilst imperfect, somewhat increases the chances of an independent judiciary.
 
RedChip said:
Seems to me, looking in from the outside, that the American system places too much faith in democracy and bestows too much power on elected officials. The essential flaw is that elections can be influenced by all sorts of special interests.

Many democracies do not leave it upon elected officials or elected parliaments to appoint judges, which, whilst imperfect, somewhat increases the chances of an independent judiciary.
Click to expand...

Its actually a representative republic with too little faith in democracy - hence the electoral college, over-representation of "small states", gerrymandering, Delegates and even more un-democratic processes in the original Constitution that have since been removed.
 
Drifter said:
Not surprised ,she isn't up for re-election till 2022.
Click to expand...

Its also a more unique population that is going to weigh State and local issues heavier than national ones.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Its actually a representative republic with too little faith in democracy - hence the electoral college, over-representation of "small states", gerrymandering, Delegates and even more un-democratic processes in the original Constitution that have since been removed.
Click to expand...
I should rephrase and say they place too much faith in the election as a way to select public officials for, it seems to me, too many positions given how malleable elections and elected officials appear to be.
 
Interesting how Dems started to hate Repubs after the 2000 election and the Repubs started to hate them back when Obama was elected.

 
The ends do justify the means. The only people that dont believe that are people who are in a bubble of wealth whose lives arent affected by politics other than a sense of pride or contempt for the president. The closest these people get to consequences are when they take a cruise in Europe and pretend they are Canadian because drumpf is a big orange cheeto.
 
Eboue said:
Another point is that if amazon can afford to increase wages like that overnight then it is proof that wages arent tied to production in any meaningful way and there is a huge margin going to corporate leaches thst rightfully belongs to workers.
Click to expand...
What? Since when does corporate profit not belong to shareholders but the workers? :confused:

Anyway, I’m sure you’ll disagree. Let’s just disagree.
 
Adisa said:
Don't think that's ever been debatable.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but, these corporations, and executives are also largely beholden to share holders to deliver a certain ROI, if they don't meet them, then they get the axe. So it's kind of a cluster feck. Shareholders are demanding an ROI that at the same time impacts middle class and down, because one of the easiest penny pinching methods, is to keep payroll as low as possible.

I wonder how a publicly traded corporation would do if it said flat out, we're not going to push wages down to maximize profit, and in turn ROI will suffer. Would people rally behind that ethical choice or not?
 
Eboue said:
Then dont quote me when I wasnt directly talking to you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Because I strongly disagree with your post and wanted to see what the others make of your crazy thinking.

I think we both know we’ll never agree on any of this so there’s no point engaging in any debate. It’ll quickly spiral into name calling.

I’ll try to quote your post without your name in the future.
 
Raoul said:
Interesting how Dems started to hate Repubs after the 2000 election and the Repubs started to hate them back when Obama was elected.

Click to expand...


Very interesting.

One side began to dislike the other side when an election was stolen from their candidate, and the other side's dislike spiked when a black man was elected President.
 
Cal? said:
Because I strongly disagree with your post and wanted to see what the others make of your crazy thinking.

I think we both know we’ll never agree on any of this so there’s no point engaging in any debate. It’ll quickly spiral into name calling.

I’ll try to quote your post without your name in the future.
Click to expand...

Your understanding of the world is equal to that of a child. Your opinions are not based on life experiences or deeply held beliefs but on hero worship. In football, this manifests in a disturbing obsession with Ronaldo. You've proven over the last decade that you are incapable of processing different opinions and responding to them in a way that seeks to understand or counter them and instead just post the same fanboi nonsense ad nauseam. In politics, you've chosen to idolize Hillary Clinton. None of your posts in the current events forum add anything to the discussion. You don't understand your own points, let alone the points of the people you disagree with. When you are challenged on anything you go into hysterics or say "agree to disagree". You are simultaneously ignorant and extremely confident in your own abilities and it's not a good combination.
 
Raoul said:
Interesting how Dems started to hate Repubs after the 2000 election and the Repubs started to hate them back when Obama was elected.

Click to expand...


I don't think that chart is accurate at all. The hatred from Republicams started much earlier than whatever subjective metric he is using acknowledges. There was a clear, noticeable difference in rhetoric after Gingrichs election in 94 when the social conservatives really started to push liberal as a dirty word, the rise of Rush Limbaugh, the behind the scenes ruthlessness that led to Clintons impeachment despite most of Clintons policies being solidly right wing. The Clintons were the most right wing Democrats since the New Deal yet the escalated rhetoric against them false painted them as far left Che shirt wearing socialists.

Clinton pushed through racial 3 strikes crime policies leading to the private prison boom, Defense of marriage act to appease religious conservatives, stripped welfare in many ways, de-regulated financial markets wherever possible leading to 2008 crisis, and ruthlessly attacked victins of sexual misconduct that got in the way of his and his wifes ambitions. Yet the Republicans demonized him much more than Dukasis, Mondale and Carter all of whom were more progressive than Clinton.

So from what I experienced and saw in by the media, the hate of Republicans for Dems started 1992-94 and the rhetoric of impeachment of Clinton really shows this
 
Eboue said:
Your understanding of the world is equal to that of a child. Your opinions are not based on life experiences or deeply held beliefs but on hero worship. In football, this manifests in a disturbing obsession with Ronaldo. You've proven over the last decade that you are incapable of processing different opinions and responding to them in a way that seeks to understand or counter them and instead just post the same fanboi nonsense ad nauseam. In politics, you've chosen to idolize Hillary Clinton. None of your posts in the current events forum add anything to the discussion. You don't understand your own points, let alone the points of the people you disagree with. When you are challenged on anything you go into hysterics or say "agree to disagree". You are simultaneously ignorant and extremely confident in your own abilities and it's not a good combination.
Click to expand...
There we go, you just can't help yourself, can you?

You're the one who's not even living in the real world with the rhetoric about mass murder of billionaires and somehow shareholders are leeches. If it wasn't for shareholders, a lot of these workers won't even have jobs, those jobs wouldn't exist.

Funny your last line is exactly how I'd describe you. :lol:

You tag line suits you very well, I didn't want to engage with you yet again, but you just had to behave like the nasty little twerp that you are. :rolleyes:
 
Cal? said:
There we go, you just can't help yourself, can you?

You're the one who's not even living in the real world with the rhetoric about mass murder of billionaires and somehow shareholders are leeches. If it wasn't for shareholders, a lot of these workers won't even have jobs, those jobs wouldn't exist.

Funny your last line is exactly how I'd describe you. :lol:

You tag line suits you very well, I didn't want to engage with you yet again, but you just had to behave like the nasty little twerp that you are. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Put me on ignore if you don't want to engage. I'll keep calling out your bullshit whenever I see it.
 
Eboue said:
Put me on ignore if you don't want to engage. I'll keep calling out your bullshit whenever I see it.
Click to expand...
As I've pointed out numerous times on this page, I have no interest at all in your view. I'm however interested in what others make of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.