General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 367

Not "i will for a certainly pass such and such policy", but rather "I support that exact policy 100%"....saying either of those things is generally stupid because there's no guarantee it will definitely pass, and there is all but a guarantee that the exact policy won't pass, but rather something close to it.

That being said, who's to say "I support such and such policy" isn't said? All the memo says is don't support concrete policy positions. That leaves plenty of room for the staffer or politician to say "Well, I support this, this, and this in what you just said, but I think this is an alternative idea to this, and I will fight for that on the floor".

 

Or something that is the exact opposite/watered down. But sure, okay, the memo is meaningless and is not at all reflective of the democrats tendency to advocate amorphous politics with no actual commitment to specifics, which, in actuality, are the constitutive elements of true reform. It actually reminds me of earlier elections, in which democrats advocated support for LGBTQ rights, but refused to say the word marriage; back then, the argument was, we can't advocate support for that specific policy for similar reasons that you're putting forth. The problem is, whilst they're politicking for the most votes, people are actively having their rights suppressed. But, that's party politics for you: be vague, promise nothing, deliver for the donors.

 

Honestly, this is all that matters to me:

 

And in local news:


"After hearing two hours of testimony, the city's Board of Estimates voted Wednesday to approve an increase to the city's water and sewage rates.

Comptroller Joan M. Pratt and City Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young voted against what amounts to approximately a 33 percent increase in both rates over the course of the next three years. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, interim City Solicitor David Ralph and Department of Public Works Director Rudy Chow all voted in favor."


By the way, we're looking at hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for Under Armour.

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimor...ater-bill-hike-amid-public.html?ana=e_ae_set1

 

I think the chances of a Trump victory are still about 1 in 3.

 

Minnesota Supreme Court ruling blocks $15 minimum wage, police insurance from Minneapolis' ballot

boo

 

Trump meeting with Mexican President is really disturbing.

 

This is what the rejection of democracy looks like:


Dilma Rousseff ousted by Brazil Senate impeachment vote

 

The part where we get stuck with Temer? Pretty sure that's how any vice presidency works.

 

As in her removal. But, usually, the Vice President is of the same party as the president. Impeachment doesn't empower the opposition parties in the executive branch, but I digress.

 

In my2016 election fan fic, Merrick Garland is sworn in as president on January 20th. It's the greatest long con ever played.

 

By SCOTUS Chief Justice Barack Obama

 

There's been a movement to remove her since she was re-elected by a very slim margin. She's very much unfit to be president to the point where there have been questions regarding her sanity due to her very poor understanding of Portuguese, science, and even basic math. Her decisions in terms of financial spending to finance the World Cup and then again during Olympics at the cost of poor Brazilians, our hospitals and our schools is a glaringly obvious example of where her priorities lie. She has for a long time been connected with corruption scandals involving Petrobras' involvement in politics. This is on top of all the other corruption scandals in Brazilian government, hence the fact that 60% of the senate voting in her impeachment are being investigated. No one is trusted in Brazilian government, and no one deserves to be. Hopefully her impeachment will serve as a precedent to clean house.

Also I apologize, I don't really know how to compare Brazilian politics with American. My family uses English and Portuguese to refer to both governments and the translation is never perfect.

 

I don't think she wasn't corrupt, but I think the corruption was a pretext for the right-wing parties and the oligarchs to implement harsher economic policies that will undermine whatever reforms the Workers Party implemented, since they were in office. The charges against her were flimsy at best. I won't speak to her mental state, as I'm not that familiar with her, but suffice to say, I certainly think that this line of events will make the poor, people of color in Brazil worse off, once the right begins to do its work.

 

Lol

 

Who said she'd move left for the general? Why would anyone have thought that at all?

 

Shoulda said it on stage. Woulda been the best moment.

 

"At the beginning of the conversation with Donald Trump I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall."

Trump lied.