General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 453

If there's anything that the last eight years have taught us, it's that R's in congress are willing to work with a Democratic president.

 

Looking at the study, one notices that the increase in gun ownership corresponds to the erosion of the white working class; it is as though, with the increasing insecurity, economic and otherwise, there's a retreat to the individual as the sole guarantor of one's place in the world. The increase in women's ownership is interesting as well, particularly if one maps the rate at which violence against women increased in that same period.

 

Millennials: Here’s what Hillary Clinton has learned from you

 

There's a bunch of Labour people who've opposed Corbyn and are trying to save face now that he'll more than likely win again, by the look of it. Smith seemingly doing it himself is a bit more egregious though

 

Clinton speaking live from Temple University

 

Owen Smith is described in this article by Owen Jones as "a decent man". It's a good article and makes lots of worthwhile points, but at this stage in the leadership contest, I find it really hard to believe that Smith has a decent bone in his body with the dirty tactics he's used against both Corbyn and Momentum. I've watched all the debates and in all honesty he seems to be nothing but an opportunistic careerist. He apparently doesn't have any fresh ideas of his own and he'll say anything if he thinks it'll win him power. I find it bizarre that there's anyone out there that finds that type of thing appealing.

 

Police Accidentally Record Themselves Conspiring to Fabricate Criminal Charges Against Protester

 

I was totally expecting this to be a broken link or to direct to a text-less white page.

 

Wish there was a "love" option for this post

 

Henry Ford once said of the direction of Ford Motor Co, "my ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this, we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business."

He was then sued by shareholders for not pursuing the utmost profits by paying less to workers and charging more for automobiles so that the wealthy shareholders could see greater returns. And 60 years later, Ford was the subject of the worst product liability case of all time, after they knowingly allowed thousands of customers to burn to death because they calculated that recalling fault gas tank arrangements would be costlier than just paying for the wrongful deaths.

Greed destroys all things.

 

if anyone wants a little catharthis, yg is out on his FDT (fuck donald trump) tour right now and had some fans on stage destroy a pinata in his likeness last night

 

"Trump aides are organizing what one Republican close to the campaign calls the First Day Project. “Trump spends several hours signing papers—and erases the Obama Presidency,” he said. Stephen Moore, an official campaign adviser who is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explained, “We want to identify maybe twenty-five executive orders that Trump could sign literally the first day in office.” The idea is inspired by Reagan’s first week in the White House, in which he took steps to deregulate energy prices, as he had promised during his campaign. Trump’s transition team is identifying executive orders issued by Obama, which can be undone. “That’s a problem I don’t think the left really understood about executive orders,” Moore said. “If you govern by executive orders, then the next President can come in and overturn them.”"

Clinton is definitely the more dangerous one.

 

And the past eight years is enough evidence for me to laugh at that idea as not only naive, but dangerous. I'd have to believe she'd sign all the same laws (I don't), propose the same bills (I don't), and vice versa for Trump (I don't), and that congress would act the same way with what they put in the bills with both (I don't), and that the last eight years of how congress governed didn't happen.

Or if Hillary is equal to Trump on some bills she would sign, but not equal on others, Trump is still more dangerous. (A != b+1) And if the idea Stein's argument is resting on is that she knows how the law works and he doesn't -- that undermines the fabric of her case of which one is dangerous.

 

I was just trying to clear up the critique, because people seem to think it is a gaffe when it is a legitimate critique to make of Clinton and is based on her record. When it comes to Trump's capabilities of getting something passed, it depends on the make-up of the Congress, as well as the extent to which elites - who despise most of his policies - will exert pressure about the republican leadership.

 

I understood the critique, but her express framing of it with "more than Trump" is why she is wrong. "Dangerous also" — sure, I'll go with that. "More than" is dangerous, naive, ignorant nonsense.

 

Hillary will have an easier time getting brutal measure through Congress than would Donald Trump. I didn't think that was really up for debate. Trump has the support of only the most vile members of one of the two parties. Clinton has unyielding support from all of the Democrats, and I dare not think that those most hateful GOP members would all turn their noses up at the prospect of "diplomatically" exploiting or crushing foreign peoples just because a Democrat suggested it-- it sure hasn't stopped them at any time before.

 

Four sentences. Every single one contains a verifiable factually wrong statement. Impressive.

 

Literally yesterday, the head of the RNC said that any GOP not supporting Trump publicly would possibly be barred from running in the future.

“Those people need to get on board,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process – of the nomination process and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them.”

It is not only factually incorrect, it is downright ignorant to purport that the only supporters in congress of Trump are "only" the most vile of the two parties. Just the ones that are public (including the speaker) is enough to show that false, let alone what would happen when the party whips votes.

 

The dismissal of Trump as just a vile nuisance or a politically inept simpleton that can't actually get anything done, won't actually have any power, and won't actually win is virtually in the definition of how he wins.

 

Another post that is catty, conclusory, and not at all substantive. Not impressive.

 

Haha, I laughed.

As the muslim ban stays on his website and he is now saying kids aren't coming in ... I shouldn't be laughing, but that was funny.