General Politics Discussion (II) [ARCHIVED] • Page 441

Demographics isn't destiny. Absent an actual left-wing political project, some shitty libertarian that offers to legalize weed, supports gay marriage and hates welfare could win.

 

having a 401k is better than not having a 401k, the point is just that 401ks are not a good replacement for guaranteed retirement benefits

 

Seasteading: tech leaders' plans for floating city trouble French Polynesians
As always burn Silicon Valley to the ground

 

House GOP guts ethics panel - CNNPolitics.com

Guess its not actually about ethics in Congressional behavior

 

wow...

 

Not a good way to start off 2017. I felt they were the best when it came to unbiased info. #RIP

 

Man I wish there was a way to view these tweets at my work that blocks twitter. Frustrating.

 

Go off wifi

 

I can't from the computer, I do on my phone but can't have my phone out too often. Ah well.

 

Well then

 

And the news will portray him as fiercly critical of the move, so he gets to position himself as at odds with the republican congress, whilst having them on hand to do his bidding in other areas.

 

Even Trump (or someone advising him) recognizes that it won't be politically good for him to be linked to the absolute deluge of Congressional scandals that will result from this move. Especially when he has his own to deal with.

 

I know I've been all in on the "Booker is the guy in 2020", but I always forget Gavin Newsom as a darkhorse. He'll only be 2 years into a governorship at the time though, so he may not be 'ready' yet. If Trump wins in 2020 and there's still a country and a vote in 2024, that could be his year.

 

A friend asked what this decision has to do with Trump, being that it was the existing members who voted on it and he's not in for 2 weeks. Advice on how to properly respond?

 

It doesn't really have anything to do with him directly, it's just that now that he's the voice of the Republican party any scandals in Congress committed by GOP members will be linked to him by virtue of being in the same party. Whether or not he has to answer for them, of course, is another story considering he won't be giving regular press conferences and could at any moment jettison is his protective pool and decide he doesn't want them anymore. But it's mostly about optics for him, considering this is a purely Congressional issue (although, again, the man really doesn't care about how bad something makes him look, as we've seen, especially when he isn't involved or can claim he isn't involved).

 

Right. I do think he is still indirectly involved though, considering the attitude, ego, and behavior he exhibits and ignited in some of the conservative party. Would this even have come up had someone else won (Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, Bernie), let alone passed?

And to add to your last point, in a year or so after a big scandal or two erupts, he is going to get to smugly say "see, I was against this decision" and place the blame on Obama.

 

Exactly this. Just got a BREAKING NEWS ALERT: Trump objects after House GOP votes to gut ethics office

 

Ummm

 

But he never ran on loosening ethical standards (save for those applicable to himself only). They may have been emboldened by his own lack of care for ethical standards since the election (and the fact that his hypocrisy is lost on him is totally unsurprising) but he never supported anything like this that I can recall.

And as for whether this had come up if someone else had won, I think even if HRC had won it would have come up so long as the Democrats didn't take control of the House (which even the most optimistic prognosticators admitted would never have happened). These people come from the same party that just blatantly gutted the office of governor in North Carolina, after all.

And he's already claiming credit for Obama's economy/blaming Obama from the rockiness of the transition. Anything ethics-related in a year or so's time won't be the first or last time he pulls that stunt.

 

"Torches"

 

Yeah that's a gross and irresponsible over-exaggeration of what he said. He even in that very same tweet said he would support something like this, just not right now. Like, did they even read it?

 

Fair points.