• 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 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Armaros

Member
Abinash117 said:
Russians could finance a could candidate that is likely to win to undermine them because of money in politics. Seems like something they would do.
Click to expand...

Probably a better return for keeping power then spending their ill-gotten billions on fixing the country. Sadly enough.
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
Watts points out that Russian Twitter accounts push conspiracy theories at Trump hoping he will pick up on their fake news.

We just have a really dumb president who believes everything on the internet.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
smokeymicpot said:
Watts points out that Russian Twitter accounts push conspiracy theories at Trump hoping he will pick up on their fake news.

We just have a really dumb president who believes everything on the internet.
Click to expand...

He also said that the media pretty much helped push the fake news stories and that social media algorithms can make a fake news story popular because how they curate news to you, so that is why these fake news stories spread.

He pointed out that the social news media of labeling a certain story fake news will fail. He suggested that there should be an independent agency to put out ratings to certain websites.

Armaros said:
Probably a better return for keeping power then spending their ill-gotten billions on fixing the country. Sadly enough.
Click to expand...

Some of their problems have been there for decades. I don't think many of their leaders have the political will or a lot of resources to resolve them.
 
E

Emarv

Member
When should we start hearing early proposals for tax reform? Or are they just gonna try and whip it together last minute like last time?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Bi-partisanship is dead.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/rooting-for-failure/

Throughout the 1980s, both minority caucuses came to the conclusion that heightening the contrast with the majority caucus was a better path to winning a majority than working with the majority.

This means prioritizing politics over policy.

That effect is amplified when one party is in a minority in both houses and does not hold the White House, because that party can credibly claim it bears no responsibility for anything that happens in Washington. This dynamic helps explain why Republicans didn’t support Democratic efforts to change health care in the first two years of Bill Clinton’s presidency (an attempt that failed) or the Affordable Care Act in 2009-2010 (it eventually passed without any Republican support). It also explains why Democrats made no attempt to cooperate with Republicans in their attempt to change Social Security in 2005 or to change Obamacare through the American Health Care Act last week. Not only were these bills anathema to the minority party, but the minority party also reasoned that there was more political upside to unconditionally opposing those bills instead of trying to influence them. That means they either block the legislation if possible or, if it passes, they can say that they did not support it if problems emerge.
Click to expand...

--

Democrats don’t want Trump and the Republicans to be able to push any sort of positive narrative, which gives them a heavy incentive to do whatever is in their limited power to keep Trump’s approval rating where it is — or even to push it down further. This means denying him any success on anything.

So expect Democrats to try to hold together as an opposing bloc as Republicans consider tax reform or revisit health care. Democrats also will put the onus on Republicans to keep the government from shutting down at the end of April, and they appear poised to attempt to filibuster Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, which could force Republicans to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. (Democrats did away with it for other kinds of presidential appointments in 2013, arguing that it was necessary because of GOP obstruction.) Democrats also don’t have much incentive to provide votes for Trump proposals they may agree with, like a big infrastructure package, because they are likely to view interactions with Trump as a zero-sum game: If they help him do something that the public likes, then he gets politically stronger and they get weaker.

Above all else, they will root for failure, both for Trump and for congressional Republicans. That’s very much in keeping with how Republicans dealt with Obama, and, as Frances Lee illustrated, how both parties increasingly have coped with being out of power for the past several decades.
Click to expand...


KDK2017033001-table1.png
 
J

jmdajr

Member
New York magazine.

But, according to three people who were present, Bush gave a brief assessment of Trump's inaugural after leaving the dais: ”That was some weird shit." All three heard him say it.

maybe I'm late, but LOL

link
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
AntraxSuicide said:
This is why I've never cared about 3rd parties in the US because we basically have them anyway! What the UK calls a coalition, we call a party, and what they call a party, we call a caucus. They're isomorphic.

The HFC is just doing what any 3rd party would do if they held the votes to destroy or preserve the coalition government.



Ryan is without a doubt the most pathetic politician I can think of in my lifetime. Not the most evil (Hastert being a pedo is probably the most evil) but the most spineless, craven, fuckboi to ever hold office.
Click to expand...
You're not totally wrong but all political maps and diagrams in this country are significantly more boring for only having two colors.

Also hurt because somehow out more conservative party became red. What an outrage!
 
L

Lucky Forward

Member
jmdajr said:
New York magazine.

But, according to three people who were present, Bush gave a brief assessment of Trump’s inaugural after leaving the dais: “That was some weird shit.” All three heard him say it.

maybe I'm late, but LOL

link
Click to expand...

It could have been even weirder if Trump had gotten his way and had a military parade with tanks and missile carriers.
 
W

wutwutwut

Member
The HFC was elected on the premise hat they wouldn't negotiate with the executive branch.

Guess what, they refuse to negotiate with the executive branch.
 
R

Ryuuroden

Member
The Technomancer said:
I am a young person and I'll continue to be disdainful of my generation's performative politics until they actually turn out at the ballot box. 2018 is our chance to prove the "active" part of your equation
Click to expand...

So many millenials believe their vote doesn't matter it makes me wonder how so many were convinced this was the case. Are there popular youtubers pushing this, television shows? I personally know a lot of people from all walks of life, college educated and non college educated, minorities and white and I am constantly at odds with them trying to convince them otherwise. I just want to know what things have been going on convincing them of this.

The one factor I can trace at least many people who graduated with me reasons to come to this conclusion is the election of 2000 which was the first one we could vote in but there has to be more to it. Something needs to change to convince them that their vote does matter.

The argument I have the most success with is their single vote matters much more in local elections so they should vote in those and vote for national and state at the same time since they are there. When I can show candidates winning by less than 100 votes they are easier to convince that their 1 vote has an effect. This also has additional effect of helping local elections that liberals so often ignore

I say fine I'll accept that you believe your vote doesn't matter for national elections but as you can see your vote has a lot of power in local elections. I convinced them that they can they can do a lot by voting in local elections and I tell them while they're there put your voting for the national elections even if you think it won't matter cuz you're there anyways and this has worked in convincing some people
 
A

Armaros

Member
Ryuuroden said:
So many millenials believe their vote doesn't matter it makes me wonder how so many were convinced this was the case. Are there popular youtubers pushing this, television shows? I personally know a lot of people from all walks of life, college educated and non college educated, minorities and white and I am constantly at odds with them trying to convince them otherwise. I just want to know what things have been going on convincing them of this.

The one factor I can trace at least many people who graduated with me reasons to come to this conclusion is the election of 2000 which was the first one we could vote in but there has to be more to it. Something needs to change to convince them that their vote does matter.

The argument I have the most success with is their single vote matters much more in local elections so they should vote in those and vote for national and state at the same time since they are there. When I can show candidates winning by less than 100 votes they are easier to convince that their 1 vote has an effect. This also has additional effect of helping local elections that liberals so often ignore
Click to expand...

It's making preemptive excuses for not doing the bare minimum and voting even in Presidental elections.
 
B

Blader

Member
Sounds like Collins and Murkowski are likely to join in nuking the filibuster:

“There really is no justification for filibustering this individual. So another question is whether anyone on the Republican side will think that there should be some sort of negotiation,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Gang of 14 member.

“If it was another nominee that was polarizing, that was not more mainstream, maybe then this is an issue,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). “I believe very, very strongly that Neil Gorsuch needs to be confirmed. So I’m going to figure out a way to get him confirmed.”
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gangs-senate-gorsuch-236660

I don't know, I'm conflicted about the whole thing. I do think Gorsuch is too far to the right to serve on the bench, but eliminating this would be a huge step toward ruining the Senate even further. And I'm not sure how Republican senators -- who know full well that their hold on the Senate and White House won't last forever -- don't see changing the rules as opening the floodgates for far-left justices to come through easy confirmation in the (near) future.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Votes don't matter on an individual level, which is why a purely rational person shouldn't vote. You need to feel like your vote matters and is important to vote, because all the utility of an individual vote is the fuzzy feelings that come from voting outweighing the costs of voting. This is why both liberalizing voting laws and creating a strong civic culture increase turnout, because it drives up the utility while lowering the costs. We can either just try to shame individuals for being rational or we can pursue systematic solutions to turn the country into Minnesota. There's also the fact that nonvoters are disproportionately nonwhite and working class, which might mean they don't think either political option is representative of them.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Bonen no Max'd said:
Votes don't matter on an individual level, which is why a purely rational person shouldn't vote. You need to feel like your vote matters and is important to vote, because all the utility of an individual vote is the fuzzy feelings that come from voting outweighing the costs of voting. This is why both liberalizing voting laws and creating a strong civic culture increase turnout, because it drives up the utility while lowering the costs. We can either just try to shame individuals for being rational or we can pursue systematic solutions to turn the country into Minnesota. There's also the fact that nonvoters are disproportionately nonwhite and working class, which might mean they don't think either political option is representative of them.
Click to expand...

That's not a rational thought at all. Individual votes do matter, just not on the national level. If all you care about is who gets to be president then your vote is one in a million, if you care about anything more local an individual vote absolutely matters.
 
J

jtb

Banned
The only remaining members of the Gang of 14 are Collins, Graham and McCain. The filibuster is dead dead dead.

Fine. Elections have consequences.

Bonen no Max'd said:
Votes don't matter on an individual level, which is why a purely rational person shouldn't vote. You need to feel like your vote matters and is important to vote, because all the utility of an individual vote is the fuzzy feelings that come from voting outweighing the costs of voting. This is why both liberalizing voting laws and creating a strong civic culture increase turnout, because it drives up the utility while lowering the costs. We can either just try to shame individuals for being rational or we can pursue systematic solutions to turn the country into Minnesota. There's also the fact that nonvoters are disproportionately nonwhite and working class, which might mean they don't think either political option is representative of them.
Click to expand...

? You're going to have to explain this one
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Blader said:
Sounds like Collins and Murkowski are likely to join in nuking the filibuster:



http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gangs-senate-gorsuch-236660

I don't know, I'm conflicted about the whole thing. I do think Gorsuch is too far to the right to serve on the bench, but eliminating this would be a huge step toward ruining the Senate even further. And I'm not sure how Republican senators -- who know full well that their hold on the Senate and White House won't last forever -- don't see changing the rules as opening the floodgates for far-left justices to come through easy confirmation in the (near) future.
Click to expand...

I'd call their bluff. McConnell has to be having second thoughts, not just about the nomination but Trump in general.
 
J

jtb

Banned
Cesare Borgia said:
I'd call their bluff. McConnell has to be having second thoughts, not just about the nomination but Trump in general.
Click to expand...

If McConnell had second thoughts, he wouldn't have bothered with the Merrick Garland stunt. I think it's way too late for him to turn back now.

A Gorsuch confirmation would immediately leave a far more lasting legacy than just about any kind of legislation Trump will try (and likely fail) to pass.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
B-Dubs said:
That's not a rational thought at all. Individual votes do matter, just not on the national level. If all you care about is who gets to be president then your vote is one in a million, if you care about anything more local an individual vote absolutely matters.
Click to expand...
Unless an election is likely to be decided by one vote, it's irrational to vote in it unless you enjoy the process of voting, either because of civic culture or because you like a candidate. We can either acknowledge that and improve things systematically by liberalizing voting and rebuilding civic culture or we can try and shame individuals.

jtb said:
The only remaining members of the Gang of 14 are Collins, Graham and McCain. The filibuster is dead dead dead.

Fine. Elections have consequences.



? You're going to have to explain this one
Click to expand...
Unless an election is decided by one vote it doesn't matter if you stay home or not.
 
H

HanShotFirst

Member
Does it really matter if Republicans nuke the filibuster for Supreme Court justices now? If Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy retire or die they'll just nuke it then anyway so they can get another Gorsuch because they'd be changing the balance of the court.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Blader said:
Sounds like Collins and Murkowski are likely to join in nuking the filibuster:



http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/gangs-senate-gorsuch-236660

I don't know, I'm conflicted about the whole thing. I do think Gorsuch is too far to the right to serve on the bench, but eliminating this would be a huge step toward ruining the Senate even further. And I'm not sure how Republican senators -- who know full well that their hold on the Senate and White House won't last forever -- don't see changing the rules as opening the floodgates for far-left justices to come through easy confirmation in the (near) future.
Click to expand...

This argument remains stupid! We don't control whether McConnell nukes the filibuster. If he wants to protect the filibuster he has to choose not to confirm Gorsuch.
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...nunes-intelligence-reports.html?_r=0&referer=

2 White House Officials Helped Give Nunes Intelligence Reports

WASHINGTON — A pair of White House officials played a role in providing Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with the intelligence reports that showed President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Mr. Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia's meddling in the last presidential election.

Several current American officials identified the White House officials as Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer who works on national security issues at the White House Counsel's Office and formerly worked on the staff of the House Intelligence Committee.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
Votes don't matter on an individual level, which is why a purely rational person shouldn't vote. You need to feel like your vote matters and is important to vote, because all the utility of an individual vote is the fuzzy feelings that come from voting outweighing the costs of voting. This is why both liberalizing voting laws and creating a strong civic culture increase turnout, because it drives up the utility while lowering the costs. We can either just try to shame individuals for being rational or we can pursue systematic solutions to turn the country into Minnesota. There's also the fact that nonvoters are disproportionately nonwhite and working class, which might mean they don't think either political option is representative of them.
Click to expand...

I mean, nonwhite working-class voters are also disproportionately likely to have financial or personal circumstances that prevent them from voting.

My default assumption is actually that every non-voter in America would vote if we made it easy enough, especially after the success of AVR in Oregon.
 
I

ivajz

Member
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
smokeymicpot said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...nunes-intelligence-reports.html?_r=0&referer=

2 White House Officials Helped Give Nunes Intelligence Reports

WASHINGTON — A pair of White House officials played a role in providing Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with the intelligence reports that showed President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Mr. Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.
Click to expand...

This is gigantic news, no?
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
pigeon said:
I mean, nonwhite working-class voters are also disproportionately likely to have financial or personal circumstances that prevent them from voting.

My default assumption is actually that every non-voter in America would vote if we made it easy enough, especially after the success of AVR in Oregon.
Click to expand...
I don't think we're disagreeing here, though I didn't realize Oregon beat Minnesota last year in turnout. My point is that reducing voting costs and increasing voting payoffs is more likely to fix turnout problems than complaining about those damn kids.

Actually it looks like a couple other states beat Minnesota this time but normally they're the best. Trump barely beat Romney's vote count by like 2k votes, it looks like it was a state where turnout actually was (almost) a real issue.
 
B

Blader

Member
BoogieWoogie said:
It begins



http://time.com/4718902/white-house-staff-katie-walsh-departure/
Click to expand...

That's actually pretty serious, because Walsh was performing a lot of the normal chief of staff responsibilities while Priebus kept himself on more personal Trump detail.

And America First Policies is like a dumping ground of ex-Trump campaign staffers.

Cesare Borgia said:
I'd call their bluff. McConnell has to be having second thoughts, not just about the nomination but Trump in general.
Click to expand...

McConnell does not seem like a second thoughts guy (e.g. eight years of Obama obstruction, 10 months of Garland obstruction) and getting Gorsuch confirmed might be the only of consequence he does over the next two years.

pigeon said:
This argument remains stupid! We don't control whether McConnell nukes the filibuster. If he wants to protect the filibuster he has to choose not to confirm Gorsuch.
Click to expand...

I know, I'm not laying the blame for it on Democrats. If the filibuster is removed it's entirely the fault of McConnell and 50-51 other Republicans. I just think the general direction this is moving in is really unfortunate.
 
J

jtb

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
Unless an election is likely to be decided by one vote, it's irrational to vote in it unless you enjoy the process of voting, either because of civic culture or because you like a candidate. We can either acknowledge that and improve things systematically by liberalizing voting and rebuilding civic culture or we can try and shame individuals.

Unless an election is decided by one vote it doesn't matter if you stay home or not.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between saying that votes have minimal worth or are unfairly/disproportionately distributed and weighted between states, which is true and makes sense, and saying that votes, unless they are the solitary decisive tipping point vote, are completely meaningless.

Voting because the benefit of having 1/100,000 influence on your state/city/etc.'s policies outweighs the cost of voting (i.e. time, postage, whatever) is rational. So obviously, we should decrease the "cost" of voting.

But the idea that there is inherently no rational benefit to voting unless the vote is decisive seems to be taking that idea to an extreme that no one actually believes, because elections are cumulative and votes are non-sequential and unsorted.

Anyways, I agree with you about encouraging voter turnout through reducing costs. I just didn't (and kinda still don't) get the whole logic/rationality argument you're proposing.
 
I

IggyChooChoo

Member
smokeymicpot said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...nunes-intelligence-reports.html?_r=0&referer=

2 White House Officials Helped Give Nunes Intelligence Reports

WASHINGTON — A pair of White House officials played a role in providing Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with the intelligence reports that showed President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Mr. Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.

Several current American officials identified the White House officials as Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer who works on national security issues at the White House Counsel’s Office and formerly worked on the staff of the House Intelligence Committee.
Click to expand...
Goddamn these people leak fast.
 
T

Totakeke

Member
smokeymicpot said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...nunes-intelligence-reports.html?_r=0&referer=

2 White House Officials Helped Give Nunes Intelligence Reports

WASHINGTON — A pair of White House officials played a role in providing Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with the intelligence reports that showed President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Mr. Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.

Several current American officials identified the White House officials as Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer who works on national security issues at the White House Counsel’s Office and formerly worked on the staff of the House Intelligence Committee.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious, even when they finally realize that they have access to the information, they still bungle up the process of a controlled leak.
 
S

sangreal

Member
I have mixed feelings about the nuclear option but it is inevitable anyway so might as well get it out of the way now. Filibuster abuse has ruined the senate
 
H

Hazzuh

Member
smokeymicpot said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...nunes-intelligence-reports.html?_r=0&referer=

2 White House Officials Helped Give Nunes Intelligence Reports

WASHINGTON — A pair of White House officials played a role in providing Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with the intelligence reports that showed President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Mr. Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.

Several current American officials identified the White House officials as Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer who works on national security issues at the White House Counsel’s Office and formerly worked on the staff of the House Intelligence Committee.
Click to expand...

C8LswT1VYAAsD8r.jpg
 
S

Surfinn

Member
smokeymicpot said:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...nunes-intelligence-reports.html?_r=0&referer=

2 White House Officials Helped Give Nunes Intelligence Reports

WASHINGTON — A pair of White House officials played a role in providing Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with the intelligence reports that showed President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies.

The revelation that White House officials assisted in the disclosure of the intelligence reports — which Mr. Nunes then discussed with President Trump — is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration while his committee is supposed to be conducting an independent investigation of Russia’s meddling in the last presidential election.

Several current American officials identified the White House officials as Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer who works on national security issues at the White House Counsel’s Office and formerly worked on the staff of the House Intelligence Committee.
Click to expand...

Nunes: The real story is.. HOW DID THEY OBTAIN THESE TWO NAMES
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
The Democrats are spineless and worthless in opposing Trump & the GOP
8 9 10 11 12
571
62K
sugarhigh4242 replied
  • Locked
This week in Trump’s America: Week 2 by ThinkProgress
8
3K
stuminus3 replied
  • Locked
Hillary Clinton retweets Slate voter guide calling her most corrupt candidate
3
4K
ModBot replied
  • Locked
Blacklist 2014 - Hollywood's most liked scripts of the year
30
6K
Sho_Nuff82 replied
Top Bottom