That's what I'm thinking. Frankly, even if there is a silent agreement to let Pence run the show, it'll only last until Trump starts taking some real heat about whatever the policy choices are, at which point he'll blow up and start making policy himself because he knows better anyway.Originally Posted by Loki
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...on-iran-214479
For Lewk. A reminder that we're likely to end up with people in key positions who actively supported a terrorist group, one that killed Americans in the past.
Agreed. In hindsight, it was silly to worry about the lack of diplomatic experience of the people Trump will hire to man the State Department and intelligence agencies. He's not going to listen to anyone.
Hope is the denial of reality
Going by that article there are LOT of people who could end up in a major administration position for one President or another, from both parties, who have such ties.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
"With its world turned upside down in the wake of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the MeK sought to recast itself as the legitimate opposition to the Islamic Republic and endear itself to U.S. advocates of regime change in Iran. Beginning around 2003, the group was led, as it is today, from Paris by Maryam Rajavi, the wife of group founder Massoud Rajavi, who mysteriously disappeared around the time of the invasion. The MeK, whose ability to carry out attacks appeared to be sharply curtailed by the American occupation, claimed—though with scant proof—that it had long since renounced violence—and claimed, as well, to have embraced democracy. Sometime around then, it also began enlisting U.S. politicians to support its effort to have the FTO designation removed."
So if I understand correctly the group used to do terrorism, now no longer does and is trying to re brand itself as an Iranian freedom fighter organization? And apparently the re-branding worked and Obama's State Department got them off the terrorist list?
They were taken off mostly because their capacity to engage in violence was eliminated when we offed their main sponsor, Saddam Hussein. And because it's a lot like a cult, it has a lot of civilian members that we didn't want to see massacred by the new Iraqi government.
Hope is the denial of reality
It would be nice if politicians who sucked up to such groups in order to enrich themselves were occasionally punished by the voters.
Hope is the denial of reality
https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
Putin is eager to reaffirm Trump's victory.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
?
Let the recount games begin. Popcorn is fully self-serve.
Congratulations America
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm trying to figure out which of the commenters is Lewk.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
But they're not. If anything, they're more likely to get re-elected. What's up with that?
After reading each of the articles I am not certain I have come to the same conclusions you seem eager to. Even accepting the premises of each article at face value, I am not understanding why you believe they support your thesis. For instance, the first article talks mainly about the very legitimate reasons credible news outlets would be hesitant to report on the accusations. In fact, it is essentially a list of reasons *not* to report on them. I have a feeling had you read beyond your selected quote, you would have realized that.
The second article doesn't deal with why the media hasn't been reporting on Trumps many scandals, (in fact the article starts with a number of links to articles in large publications, including the New York Times about said scandals) it deals with why Hillary's scandals seem to have more play with the public. It has a minor rebuke of the media for locking the framing of the candidates in, but it hardly seems to be supporting your claim that Trump's scandals don't get media attention. It does speak to possible reasons that the media coverage doesn't resonate with the public the same way.
The third article addresses your critique head on.
I think the most telling part of these word clouds is that you are somehow surprised. The survey period for the cloud directly follows the first conclusion of the FBI report, and Clinton's subsequent bungling of the contents of that report, (something that only fed into the narrative of her being untrustworthy). Additionally, there was *another* email scandal in this same time period involving the release of the DNC's emails (which fed into the narrative of the coronation of Clinton, and the system being rigged in her favor). Again, these are reinforcing themes that continue to coalesce and have long been used against Clinton, (including by her Democratic opponents during the primary) about her as a candidate. With Trump you have an array of scandals to pick from, but they are disjointed, and many of those scandals reinforce and feed into the persona that he has established for himself. He's says he's a straight talker that isn't politically correct? Well, of course he's going to say he can grab a woman by the genitals. He appears to be the same horrible person in public and private, and for some that honesty is refreshing.And this is a good one.
Gallup Poll: "Email" Dominates What Americans Have Heard About Clinton
So, no, you really can't just write this off as an uninformed Brit talking about a country he doesn't live in. This is something a lot of people in America have been talking about since the primaries.
I would absolutely agree that the Trump FBI investigation should have received more coverage, but I believe the reason it did not are far more mundane than you do. Instead of believing the media was asleep on the job, or somehow in the bag for Trump, we might invite Occam to our discussion and suppose that there just wasn't much of anything yet to report. A new investigation that was apparently in the early stages without much to publicly report, (that subsequently didn't appear to find much) of Trump does not have the same weight as the reopening of a previously closed investigation days before the election by the director of the FBI.When we talked about the last minute Comey letter, you rightly pointed out that the media could not have known it would turn out to be a nothing when the story first broke. Likewise, when the FBI first announced it was investigating Trump's connections with Russia, they could not have known that nothing much was going to cover it.
Again, are you going to look me in the figurative eye and tell me that the last minute Trump FBI investigation got anywhere near the level of coverage the last minute Clinton one did?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-28-2016 at 09:14 PM.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...omises/508844/
On the Republican hypocrisy (or racism one might say) in claiming African Americans are responsible for their own problems while poor whites are at the mercy of powerful external sources.
Hope is the denial of reality
So which do you think is right? I'd go with everyone responsible for themselves personally.
News at 11 - politician panders...
You aren't wrong that it is hypocrisy but I would argue that most Republicans don't feel that way. Until recently most Republicans have been champions of free trade and it has been the left that has attacked it.
And yet now a majority of Republican voters oppose free trade while a majority of Democrats support it.
Hope is the denial of reality
Are you really using the presidential election results as a proxy measurement of support for free trade? You are aware of the number of people who supported their respective candidate not because of any great love for them or their policy positions, but instead because they were viewed as the lesser of two evils, right? Or those who might value either free trade or protectionism, but are not single issue voters. In short, your worrying trend of supremely lazy thinking rears its head again. You are a professor at a higher learning institution, no? Teaching political science? Would you accept this sort of simplistic analysis from a student? And that is even accepting your premise that Hillary is somehow a champion of free trade - a position she has found herself on either side of this election cycle.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-29-2016 at 02:07 AM.
Nope, using actual surveys.
The numbers have gotten more lopsided since March.
Edit - More:
Forty-seven percent of Republicans surveyed said that trade deals have hurt their communities over the last 10 years, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic voters.
Now, the POLITICO-Harvard poll shows, 85 percent of Republicans say that free trade has cost the U.S. more jobs than it has created, compared to 54 percent of Democrats.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...ump-gop-228600
The reality is that voters never cared all that much about trade. Now that the Republican president says trade is bad, most fall in line.
Hope is the denial of reality
Fair enough - Republicans *used* to be more in favor of free trade.
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/pu...ans-free-trade
And the far left has almost always been against it.
Until Daddy Trump said trade is bad. And now Daddy Trump is saying democracy is bad. Mr. Ryan, Mr. Paul, and Mr. Sasse have already fallen in line.
Hope is the denial of reality
Not true. For most of the last twenty years, the Democrats have been big on free trade. It's been the Center position and quite bipartisan. Attacks came from farther to the left AND the right. And now the country has elected a GOP nominee whose base and platform attack the idea, beating a Democrat who was part of a political group which was responsible for the Democrat's push for free trade.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Trump doesn't represent every Republican view. While he is currently the President-Elect and has the ability to dictate quite a bit I do hope the Republican congress doesn't just toe the line. Compromise where it makes sense throw a few protectionist bones if you must but on the whole I like free trade. Frankly of Trump's stated policy positions this one is what worries me the most. All the other stuff that actually gets liberals up in arms are either things I'm a fan of, not really worried about or something that would get struck down anyway.
Just like Trump didn't represent the views of most Republican on trade...before 2015.
They're falling over each other in defending his cabinet picks.
Hope is the denial of reality
They love his policies:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/29/po...sal/index.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
America, I'm not being funny or anything but your president is now referring to himself in the third person.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Maybe he's a Kruppe fan...
The world's dumbest electorate will eat this right up.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Note that bit at the end about Hillary also sponsoring legislation to ban flag-burning. It's low-price rhetoric. Trump could maybe get such legislation passed and approved after he's filled a second or third seat on the Court but it's not going to happen now, which means championing it has basically zero cost for a politician.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Well, I don't think anyone would bat an eye if he began using the pluralis majestatis.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote