That was my read as well.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Am I crazy to believe that the general public (including many republican voters) is finally convinced that Reaganomics are garbage?
I also believe his tax reform garbage is his way of getting back in the good graces of republican politicians.
I also believe his tax reform garbage is his way of getting back in the good graces of republican politicians.
KirbYuuYuu
Member
Trump on tax reform, continuing the status quo.
Random Human
They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
I bet you're right. Although I'd also bet it gets a big popularity bump if you just call it Reaganomics and don't go into detail.
And yet her follow-up statement says she "wants trump to change for the good of the country." I respect Feinstein a lot but this shit has me screaming at my monitor. YOU MENTIONED THE PARDON OF A RACIST MURDERER IN THE VERY SAME STATEMENT WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
It's time for her to retire.
Christ I hate being made to sound like one of those Justice Dem scumbags but here we are
BoogieWoogie
Banned
You're crazy because every poor person that voted Trump believes its only a matter of time until they're millionaires.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I don't believe this is true. I think far more Trump voters were motivated by "non-whites taking jobs" than "If only a republican was in charge I'd be a millionaire."
I think you're absolutely right.
The one-two punch of healthcare and tax reform pleases nobody except the sliver of the Republican party base that barely exists anymore.
and, of course, the donors.
skullmuffins
Banned
Yeah I thought that was at least a possible reading of that tweet, but.....
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/arti...0141.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop#photo-14018490
this is bullshit 'he's new at this, let's give him a chance to learn how to be a human being" garbage
Beer Monkey
Member
States prosecute politicians for crimes all the time.
If AG Schneiderman decides to let Trump and his cronies off the hook because of political fallout we might as well consider the American experiment over and end our representative democracy in favor of a monarchy/oligarchy/dictatorship. Not even slightly kidding.
Futurevoid
Member
Love how he refers to the 86 tax reform bill. Let's look back on that, shall we?
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/902969816058875904
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/902969816058875904
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Amazing. Absolutely amazing. The ads continue to write themselves.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
It's fucking crazy seeing how much more articulate he was in the past. He's still an irredeemable asshole but still.
I like when he starts talking about banks not being able to loan people money. No Donald, they just couldn't loan YOU money.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-begins/?tid=ss_tw-amp&utm_term=.7b7722e89a76
Challenges to the pardon of arpaio... is there perhaps some legal ground to this?
This is not an area of law I recall studying while at law school. And I keep hearing from the political commentators that the pardon power is unlimited and unquestionable, but whenever is something absolute under the constitution? Okay, we know impeachments are not pardonable. (and of course pardon applies to federal, not state)
But is there a pardon that can violate the constitution? Such as being pardoned for violating the constitution? It's an interesting concept to me. Because rarely are things absolute, most rights despite being stated without exception are not absolute. Freedom of speech has no exceptions explicitly stated, but it's never been interpreted as an absolute right either.
When one part of the constitution conflicts with another part, it's not always obvious which one will win out. Like the pardon power filtered through 5th+14th due process clauses. They think there might be an argument that can trump trump's pardon. This is just very interesting, and I think obviously very socially/politically motivated but very interesting question.
They are sort of saying the act of pardoning in effect is a constitutional violation of due process and thus is a violation of the constitution itself.
Challenges to the pardon of arpaio... is there perhaps some legal ground to this?
This is not an area of law I recall studying while at law school. And I keep hearing from the political commentators that the pardon power is unlimited and unquestionable, but whenever is something absolute under the constitution? Okay, we know impeachments are not pardonable. (and of course pardon applies to federal, not state)
But is there a pardon that can violate the constitution? Such as being pardoned for violating the constitution? It's an interesting concept to me. Because rarely are things absolute, most rights despite being stated without exception are not absolute. Freedom of speech has no exceptions explicitly stated, but it's never been interpreted as an absolute right either.
When one part of the constitution conflicts with another part, it's not always obvious which one will win out. Like the pardon power filtered through 5th+14th due process clauses. They think there might be an argument that can trump trump's pardon. This is just very interesting, and I think obviously very socially/politically motivated but very interesting question.
They are sort of saying the act of pardoning in effect is a constitutional violation of due process and thus is a violation of the constitution itself.
Even back then he struggled for loans. Ha. He has been shady for a long long time.
It's an interesting argument for sure. I don't know if it'll fly with the courts, but it's worth a shot.
"billlllllions" - ✔
"tremendous" - ✔
"disaster" - ✔
word vomit - ✔
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Uh oh, I don't think Trump's "he's a good guy" defense is going to hold up in court.
VendettaRed07
Member
I don't think so. You can't win the rust belt states on typical republicanism. Trump managed to flip it because he communicated something else.
Can't even remember how many people legitimately believed that he legitimately supported single payer, etc. he ran a fake populist campaign and isn't governing like he said he would. I don't think many of the people that voted for him would have had they known he'd just govern like a typical Ryan/McConnell republican
Yeah he did contradict himself all the time but still. The GOP base is vicious and any other cycle a republican would have been torn to shreads for communicating some of the messages he put out there. Had Romney had a tape of him going "I want everyone on healthcare and the government is going to pay for it, not a very Republican thing for me to say I know" would Have been the end of him. Staying hard right on social issues allowed him to do that without the base ripping him apart for being a Rino.
Sirpopopop
Member
Those comments lost Feinstein the election here. This seat isn't going to Republican hands, but another Democrat is going to take it. Blood's in the water.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
She's not losing, guys. She's an establishment in of herself, she'll stay until she retires.
Trump's constant drumbeat of "We have to renegotiate NAFTA, and if we don't, then we'll kill it and start over" doesn't make any sense to me. If a NAFTA renegotiation doesn't work out, then why would a completely redone deal be any more viable? That's just another renegotiation!
Eh. There are a lot of impatient rising stars in CA who want their share of the limelight. It just takes one challenger. She's not Lieberman or anything, but I don't think anyone is invulnerable in this political climate.
Plus, nobody would even be having this conversation if she wasn't already 84. This next election is basically for her de-facto last term anyways.
Journeywalker
Member
I think there's a reach-around from the invisible hand of the free market somewhere in there.
Who, actually, supports Feinstein? Nobody I know.
Beating a relatively popular long-time incumbent isn't all that easy outside a massive wave and even then it's hard.
Also, what about this political climate makes her vulnerable?
I presume the people she represents.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Prosecuting the sitting President of the United States is on a completely different order of magnitude than taking down a governor or senator. It is not at all a straightforward process and would have serious legal and political ramifications both now and down the road; I'm not even sure I would want to normalize this kind of interplay between the Executive branch and state governments (Republicans would certainly try to abuse it).
In my mind this whole fiasco is much more about how absurd the president's pardon power is than an overall failure of America's governmental structure (although as an aside I think most people probably believe that's been broken long before Trump ever hit the scene). A special prosecutor like Mueller on the federal level is exactly how this should be handled, we just kind of forgot it was always dependent on our implicit assumption that the President will 'play by the rules'.
Imagine if we were talking about a situation where none of the crimes created any jurisdiction on the state level and that it was a purely federal matter. A President acting in bad faith in this scenario could literally give himself and his officials freedom to break federal law with impunity. Just write a proactive pardon for crimes in office, then go nuts. If necessary just issue pardons after each particular occurrence or whenever they're discovered. The fact that this scenario is possible at all is fucking absurd; Congress in this scenario can't even prevent or punish the behavior, all they can do is stop it from continuing through impeachment (and imagine if they refused, there would be no judicial recourse).
I just don't think it's out of the question that we have another Dem v Dem Senate race in California in 2018. And, in that case, I think people would feel a lot more comfortable "taking a risk" on a younger, more progressive candidate than they would in a more traditional primary -> general election dynamic.
The calculus is based more on the weakness of the California GOP than anything. If you're an up and comer in California, why not roll the dice on a primary challenge? Worst case scenario, she'll only be around for another term.
I know a lot of people in California! Nobody seems to actually be a fan.
The easiest fix to this would be to take away the President's ability to pardon members of his or her own administration.
We both know that's not entirely representative.
To him, other countries will be so desperate to have it back that they'll roll over for the US. That's how he sees most diplomacy.
Resident_UA
Member
Younger Trump seems a lot more informed and a lot less insane... (still annoying though)
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Just a side note, but degenerative brain disease generally can cause those changes to speech patterns over time.
StopMakingSense
Member
Saber rattling on NAFTA is gonna go over REAL well in Texas right now.
Beer Monkey
Member
People here are not going to vote for a Republican. It's just not happening. So she'll win easily against a Republican.
As for Democratic opposition, there will be no credible Democrats challenging her. So let's say DiFi goes to the general against another Democrat. It'll just be some rando loser with no support other than being the "Not DiFi" candidate. She'll win easily.
She either retires or dies in the seat.
Fenderputty
Banned
It's more like "when I become a millionaire I want it to be in a society ran by Republicans."
SatelliteOfLove
Member
I keep saying this: Ted. Lieu. As. Democrat's. Attack. Dog.
He's really good at quick, nasty bumper sticker assaults. He'd do what Pelosi just did all the time. Then spread the word for others to pipe up with his best haymakers.
I just don't know how a Dem could even think of doing this. Like, it's not even "it came out wrong" of trying to endure his idiocy and malignancy, that was hope...a hope that is even leaving the GOP.
More_Badass
Member
Experiencing the "moving goalposts" argument in real life is so frustrating. Was having a discussion with someone related to Trump's tax speech today that shifted into capitalism and free enterprise and how the government doesn't create or build anything, only private companies do
So I bring up DARPA, and everything they created that we use today. The counterpoint moves to "but they don't mass produce those things." Okay...that wasn't the argument. So then he moves to "but they don't build cars or phones or missiles or other things we use everyday, to make life easier". Again, that wasn't your original argument, which was that the government doesn't create or build anything. "Yeah, and they don't".
Back to square one. I left the conversation at that point. (Should be noted that the person is a hardcore conservative and consumer of right wing news)
How the hell are we going to have a semblance of honest discussion and argument for future elections and on other issues if one side only wants to delude themselves into believing they're right? I fear that the future of socioeconomic and scientific discussion in relation to politics is a lost cause
So I bring up DARPA, and everything they created that we use today. The counterpoint moves to "but they don't mass produce those things." Okay...that wasn't the argument. So then he moves to "but they don't build cars or phones or missiles or other things we use everyday, to make life easier". Again, that wasn't your original argument, which was that the government doesn't create or build anything. "Yeah, and they don't".
Back to square one. I left the conversation at that point. (Should be noted that the person is a hardcore conservative and consumer of right wing news)
How the hell are we going to have a semblance of honest discussion and argument for future elections and on other issues if one side only wants to delude themselves into believing they're right? I fear that the future of socioeconomic and scientific discussion in relation to politics is a lost cause
Autodidact
Banned
I wouldn't mind Ted Lieu as Pelosi's replacement eventually
in 2024, after she's served another few terms as Speaker and cockblocked Seth Moulton, Kathleen Rice, and Tim Ryan from any positions of influence.
HanShotFirst
Member
This keeps getting brought up but every time I go back and watch old videos of him talking about politics or economics he sounds the same as he does now.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
It's the same thing I heard from Barrack Obama and Henry Kissinger. She said that she hopes he'll be a good president because he's definitely not getting impeached. That's true. Donald Trump is not going to be impeached. And if we're stuck with him for four years, then she, and I, and you should, hope for everyone's sake that Donald Trump is a good president, not a bad one.
The definition of "good president" here is much, much looser than what you're thinking, probably. It's probably closer to "minimum competency and values required for being the executive of the country."
Autodidact
Banned
Loretta Sanchez got the youth vote locked up already. You seen that dab? Dianne better clutch that Life Alert.
This seems kind of hopeless. Why not try to find a credible Democrat to run against her and support and promote them?
Like this kind of perspective makes Bernie seem right. Maybe the primaries really are rigged!
There are no primaries. That is the problem. You effectively need someone to run a full-out GE campaign the entire time, which will only happen if you have someone w/ deep pockets backing them.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Article on McCaskill
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/30/claire-mccaskill-senate-dems-2018-215556
She's probably nicer to Trump than she can afford to be, but I think she's making all the right moves - like Obama said, even if a county will never vote for you, losing it by 20 points versus losing it by 50 points makes a huge difference. If she loses it'll simply be that she couldn't beat the state's lean.
Edit: Interesting that she jokes about her constituency watching Dancing With the Stars instead of any political news stuff - Keith Ellison made the same comparison at a town hall I went to last night. Wonder if they've been sharing talking points.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/30/claire-mccaskill-senate-dems-2018-215556
She's probably nicer to Trump than she can afford to be, but I think she's making all the right moves - like Obama said, even if a county will never vote for you, losing it by 20 points versus losing it by 50 points makes a huge difference. If she loses it'll simply be that she couldn't beat the state's lean.
Edit: Interesting that she jokes about her constituency watching Dancing With the Stars instead of any political news stuff - Keith Ellison made the same comparison at a town hall I went to last night. Wonder if they've been sharing talking points.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked