• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.
smokeymicpot said:
Well mark down September 5th.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-says-he-ll-testify-before-panel-in-september

President Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer said he’s been summoned to appear before the House Intelligence Committee in September, as multiple investigations into possible Russian contacts by the president’s associates accelerate in Congress.

Michael Cohen said he’s been asked to testify Sept. 5 in front of the House panel, which got sidetracked in its Russia investigation after Chairman Devin Nunes, a California Republican, was forced to recuse himself because of a controversy over his handling of classified material related to the probe.

Couple of sources say the Jared/Bannon war is back -- and Jared is worried Bannon is pushing a new round of negative stories about him...

https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/874688899003625473
Click to expand...

Is Michael Cohen the 'says who' guy? I hope that session is public.
 
BlastProcessing said:
Making an unpopular bill sit in the sun for 2 weeks is absolutely a worthwhile tactic. This isn't about feeling better. It's the correct strategy and it happens to be the moral thing to do. If you aren't willing to go to the mat for 24 million people having healthcare, wtf are you even doing?
Click to expand...

That unpopular bill has already been sitting in the sun for three months. That's why it's so unpopular!

I wouldn't disagree with the moral component of your argument. But this same "correct strategy" and "worthwhile tactic" hasn't done anything to actually stop the bill. And it will continue to not do anything as long the GOP is unconcerned with public pressure and shame.
 
I can only imagine the reason the republicans are doing this is for tax cuts. There's no way this is improving their reelection chances.
 
kirblar said:
I don't know if there's an age gap here (I'm 33) but I kinda suspect there might be?

(edit: I'm cool w/ dropping it here btw - we clearly have radically different perspectives.)
Click to expand...

It's not age, I'm not that much younger than you. We just won't agree on this or many things. I don't mind arguing, but don't be surprised that I disagree, or that I disagree strongly.
 
smokeymicpot said:
This just popped up.

https://twitter.com/meghara/status/874663692863913984

Caijing just reported head of Anbang— Chinese co that was in talks w/ Kushner abt a project— has been detained. Article immediately deleted.
Click to expand...
China's been having a crazy crackdown on corruption the past few years. What has been uncertain about it is whether it is also partially a cover for removing political enemies.

Anbang is so shady, I expect the Chinese government definitely knew about it. Maybe it's just the timing.
 
nature boy said:
0% this has anything to do with Kushner
Click to expand...

Probably but still odd to see. Thought it was interesting so I shared.

DCOIavEXsAE3Szu.jpg
Click to expand...

Line outside for Sessions.

https://twitter.com/LoopEmma/status/874693218616700930
 
Blader said:
That unpopular bill has already been sitting in the sun for three months. That's why it's so unpopular!

I wouldn't disagree with the moral component of your argument. But this same "correct strategy" and "worthwhile tactic" hasn't done anything to actually stop the bill. And it will continue to not do anything as long the GOP is unconcerned with public pressure and shame.
Click to expand...

The Senate Bill is completely secret and is being sold as a completely different thing.
 
BlastProcessing said:
The Senate Bill is completely secret and is being sold as a completely different thing.
Click to expand...

By all accounts, it won't be a completely different thing at all. But, the fact that it's secret anyway means the public perception of the Republicans' healthcare plan is defined entirely by the House bill and its 23 million uninsured count.
 
Guys, if they weren't afraid of what might happen when the public gets a look at this thing they wouldn't be trying so hard to hide it. If they weren't afraid of the pressure their constitutents can bring on the issue they wouldn't be claiming that it's a ways off, that there's nothing to fight.
 
C-Span feed says that the Senators have begun debating the Iran resolution that contains the new Russia sanctions and mandates Congressional oversight.
 
Teggy said:
I can only imagine the reason the republicans are doing this is for tax cuts. There's no way this is improving their reelection chances.
Click to expand...

Their drive to push this bill into law despite its overwhelming unpopularity and objectively bad consequences reminds me of some of the early/mid-2000s defense of George W. Bush: a dedication to doing what they said they'd do, even in spite of being clearly wrong.
 
Lovett is right and this is a critique that the center-left is going to eventually have an answer to. It doesn't at the moment.

https://medium.com/@freddiedeboer/i...adequacy-of-the-democratic-party-b2b6be6c2891

The past couple years have seen a bruising fight between standard issue progressive Democrats and critics on the radical left. As tends to happen in these squabbles, things have gotten personal, and the sides have settled into trenches to the point where constructive dialogue frequently seems impossible. In particular, the great disillusionment and anger the left feels towards Democrats seems to confuse many progressive Dems, as they look to the GOP and see such a horrid alternative.

I’d like to be constructive and spell out to liberal and centrist Democrats why those to their left are so unhappy about the party, and I’d like to do so by talking about immigration.
A stock stereotype of the left is of someone saying that Republicans and Democrats are “just as bad.” I find that, while such people exist, the actual claim is much more nuanced than that, and though I have been accused of it many times, I have never made that argument myself. Immigration is a good example of why the Democrats are not just as bad as Republicans. The GOP is ruthlessly opposed to the interests of undocumented immigrants, and as the last presidential primary showed, that opposition is core to the commitments of the party’s conservative base. Republicans cheer for mass deportations and dream of a massive (and useless) border wall. The Democrats are clearly better than the GOP on this issue.

And yet it’s also clear that the Democrats are profoundly inadequate when it comes to immigration. Since the Trump presidency began, activists have been attempting to prevention deportations by standing against ICE. But mass deportation is a bipartisan commitment. The Obama administration apprehended and deported undocumented immigrants by the millions. Prominent Democrats, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer all voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a piece of legislation which dramatically expanded the militarization of our border. Democrats are quick to deny that they support amnesty and frequently work to portray a “tough on illegal immigration” stance. And generally the party, while admirably dedicated to preventing the deportation of children, does not stand up for many undocumented adults who simply want to live and work in the United States.

The closest thing that I can find to an articulation of the Democratic platform on immigration is long on admirable rhetoric but short on real policies. The most specific policy referenced is the DREAM Act. I fully support that legislation, but it’s a very targeted program and offers no protection to millions of the undocumented. The Hillary Clinton campaign document is both more comprehensive and features better policies, but it still does not seem to significantly expand legalization efforts beyond DAPA. What about the other 6 million undocumented who are not eligible? Refugees get “a fair chance to tell their stories” but it’s unclear how many of them actually get to come in. What, really, does “comprehensive immigration reform” mean in terms of widening the pipeline for legal immigration? How many more people from Latin America, West Africa, and the Middle East will be permitted to enter and stay? What, generally speaking, is the party’s attitude towards the millions of people who want to come to this country but who lack a very narrow set of skills that are coveted by our employers?

Generally, the left-of-center in this country is rightly opposed to the brutal tactics and behavior of ICE, but has not articulated a compelling moral vision for an alternative immigration policy. We’re left in this strange situation where one side is clearly more brutal, callous, impractical, and unhelpful than the other, but where the other side does not have a coherent, humane alternative policy. Short-term actions of resistance against deportations are noble and necessary, but what we need is a policy agenda that could stop the risk of deportation before it begins. And the simple and sad fact is that if Democrats got everything they wanted on immigration tomorrow, it seems that we would still face mass deportations and a militarized border. If you support broad legal immigration into this country, you have a better and worse choice, but you don’t have a good choice.

That’s part of a far broader story: Republicans have a coherent and awful vision, while Democrats have a better but confused vision. Republicans want to cut taxes all the time; Democrats want to sometimes cut some taxes and certainly aren’t committed to raising taxes on principle. Republicans want to ban all abortions; many Democrats favor certain restrictions on abortion, depending. The ur-Democratic legislation is Obamacare, which undoubtedly improved the status quo but which is a tangled mishmash of public and private and which does not offer anything like a simple and coherent policy like “Medicare for all.” Republicans are the party of small government; Democrats are the party of jury-rigged quasi-entitlements via convoluted tax credits. Is it any wonder conservatives win so often? An evil but directly and unapologetically stated policy platform beats a better but cowardly and convoluted one any day, politically.

And so this is the story. It’s not about Republicans and Democrats being “the same” or “just as bad,” and to the degree that anyone makes that claim, they’re wrong. The real story is about the lack of a choice that is remotely adequate. When they’re not sneering about “purity” or “being a grown up,” defenders of the Democrats tell us to pull the party left through activism and the primary process. This is precisely what Sanders Democrats attempted to do, and for their trouble they were not just defeated in the election, they were branded as sexists and racists, smeared as just as bad as Trump, called useful idiots for Vladimir Putin, and generally treated like pariahs. Lesser evilists never can articulate a remotely convincing narrative about how we improve our choice from the lesser evil to the greater good. And on issues like health care, the utter inadequacy of the lesser evil has been confirmed through the needless loss of human life.

So if you’re a Democrat and you’ve been feeling bruised by these fights, I hope you’d consider these dynamics. All the left is asking for is a choice that goes beyond bad and worse. A vastly better world is possible, but when the two party system funnels everyone into terribly unappealing options, of course you’ll find yourself with a rebellion. If you want to help the Democrats win, why not try doing all you can to force them to offer better alternatives?
Click to expand...
 
whyamihere said:
It happened.

Trump hits 60% disapproval at Gallup for the first time.

36/60

Ties his all time low of a spread (-24, when it was 35/59).
Click to expand...
Nixon took 1,736 days to achieve this "milestone."

Bush I, 1,290. Bush II, 1,758.

Trump? 143.

If they ever do a Hamilton-style musical about Trump's presidency this will be the "Hamilton wrote the OTHER FIFTY-ONE" line.
 
whyamihere said:
Lovett is right and this is a critique that the center-left is going to eventually have an answer to. It doesn't at the moment.

https://medium.com/@freddiedeboer/i...adequacy-of-the-democratic-party-b2b6be6c2891
Click to expand...
Lovett sounds like he's been listening to Adam Curtis! He also sounds smart and cool because he is.

edit: wait you lied this isn't Lovett though he did share it on his Twitter feed. Still good though.

edit again: wait your post never said Lovett wrote this, my goof

Teggy said:
.
Click to expand...
amazing
 
whyamihere said:
Lovett is right and this is a critique that the center-left is going to eventually have an answer to. It doesn't at the moment.

https://medium.com/@freddiedeboer/i...adequacy-of-the-democratic-party-b2b6be6c2891
Click to expand...
I feel like the critique is forgetting that the reason the far left doesn't have the ability to pull on the center-left is because they don't have the voting bloc to seriously challenge Democrats in primaries. The Tea Party gained its power by wielding that sort of influence on Republicans.

I think it is more than clear that the choice isn't between bad and worse. The choice is between a basic thing and a really bad thing. Positing the situation this way is ceding ground to the right, not vindicating the left. Because then you start by thinking a reasonable, basic consideration is 'bad'.
 
Hmm...

Last night the committee had a meeting with Rogers, the head of the NSA.

Al Franken mentioned intercepted communications last night.

Burr explicitly warned the committee to avoid "classified material" in their questions.

I wager that they know.
 
Autodidact said:
Hmm...

Last night the committee had a meeting with Rogers, the head of the NSA.

Al Franken mentioned intercepted communications last night.

Burr explicitly warned the committee to avoid "classified material" in their questions.

I wager that they know.
Click to expand...

We know that the intercepted communications that Al Franken is speaking of are between Russians. Not exactly proof but highly probable that this meeting did happen.
 
I'm fairly confident Sessions wanted this hearing public to take more heat and attention off the health care stuff.
 
Plinko said:
I'm fairly confident Sessions wanted this hearing public to take more heat and attention off the health care stuff.
Click to expand...
Not sure id go that far.

But I do not give a single fuck about Russia until the full investigation is concluded. I kind of hate it to be honest, especially the day to day "oppo".
 
AntraxSuicide said:
Good choice of example here. As someone who doesn't believe in the concept of borders the Dems could get me even more excited if they go all in and just say "You know what, who gives a fuck how many people want to come here?"
Click to expand...

I agree with this, and this is a point Josh Barro has been making from the other direction.

The Democratic position on immigration is that they want basically open borders but don't want to say that because they think Americans hate the idea. This leaves them in an incoherent place on messaging.

I want open borders but I think a reasonable place to start is to say we should just have amnesty for all illegal immigrants. Might have to put a felony limitation in there I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
265K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
Top Bottom