Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

What I don't understand is the renewed outrage every time Trump does something.  The same people that called him a fascist and a racist and a white supremecist are the same people who are like "TRUMP IS A FASCIST?  A RACIST?!?!  A WHITE SUPREMECIST?!?!" whenever he does something stupid.  He is what he is.  Blowing up online isn't going to have any impact on anything.

I'm also confused on what people want the GOP to do.  I think they're doing exactly what the Democrats are doing....letting him implode.  If impeachment is going to ever happen, it's going to have to be bi-partisan, and it's going to have to be offered up by the Democrats.  No matter what happens, the president's own party is not going to set up impeachment, and it's ridiculous to assume they will.

The problem is that the president is an idiot, the GOP is playing politics, and the DNC can't get out of their own way.  The only Democrat who's even speaking out is Bernie, and he's not even a Democrat.  I don't know if the DNC is just hiding in the woods, if they're in a coma, or if they've been ordered to stand quietly until Hillary comes back.  Whatever it is, I feel like they're as complicit as the Republicans.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

There won't be an impeachment. Despite the media reports, Trump isn't actually doing anything evil or even strange for a President. Hell, there are past Presidents who probably would have posted even worse stuff on Twitter if it existed when they were in office. The problem is that people are putting those labels on Trump, but he isn't a racist or a fascist or a white supremacist. Even if he does stuff that people legitimately disagree with, those legit concerns will be buried because they don't reach the level of all the false accusations.

I'm convinced that the people throwing around those labels simply have no clue what they're talking about, and they want an excuse for their violence.

I've had real, legitimate points of disagreement when it comes to Trump, but I'm not prepared to jump to every extreme because of it. There is no legitimate reason to discuss impeachment, except people don't like him and want him out. If that's all it took, no President would stay in office. And constantly talking about this fantasy impeachment is keeping people from discussing the actual issues... Which is fine with most people, because they don't actually know anything about politics.

The racial tension was there when Obama was in office. It gives people an excuse to do bad things and feel righteous for it, so it would have been around now no matter who won the election. This atmosphere is not Trump's creation and he is not the one feeding that monster. The part that I find funny is that Trump is being blamed for everything wrong in the world (including the inherent racism of the eclipse) by the same people who insist that we can't blame Obama for anything that happened while he was in office. Apparently it will take 50 years to see the impact of Obama, but Trump's influence picks up right after Bush left office.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Racial tension has been present in the US from day one.

Trump isn't evil, he's just incompetent.  He also lacks any real conviction about his political beliefs, which is why he's pulled a 180 on so many of the things he ran on (NATO is obsolete, or not.  China is a master currency manipulator, or not.  A federal hiring freeze is needed, or not.  We need to withdraw from NAFTA, or not.  DACA should be eliminated immediately, or not.  We should pull out of Afghanistan, or not.  And so on...)

He'll never be impeached, but he might resign.  In any event, there's not much chance of him seeking a second term.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm not worried about whether it will happen or not...I'm talking about prominent Democrats who seem to think that the Republicans should be the one to impeach Trump.  That'd just never ever happen (for either party).

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm considering reading Hillary's new book, Journey Into Senility (aka, What Happened).

I need better hobbies.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Y'know, I am no Trump lover, but the man is interesting. People think that they're being defiant by taking a knee in protest of Trump (which is really the reason at this point, rather than blm and all that), but they're helping him more than hurting him. Every time someone misquotes him or takes a quote out of context, even people who don't necessarily like Trump are forced to say "well, not exactly..." So people are now getting into the habit of "defending" Trump (really just pointing out inaccuracies about him) so often that by the time 2020 rolls around, people will be accustomed to rallying behind him on a regular basis.

None of these protests are hurting him in the least. And he knows exactly what he's doing with his "sloppy" comments.

Dude is a jerk, but he knows how to play the game that republicans usually suck at and liberals usually win.

On another topic, I watched this today!

So a gay classically liberal man interviewing a black woman who considered herself a liberal until about a year ago... It is an interesting story, because they represent stories that I've been hearing a lot lately. This woman never would have been "red pilled" if she hadn't been attacked by the extreme left. And he still consideration himself a liberal because of his beliefs, but he finds conservatives more open to his beliefs than the far left (who label him "alt-right" because... Well, they do that to everyone).

I think that the far left (Antifa activist types, but also celebrities and politicians) have gone so far to the left that they're alienating normal liberals who simply don't believe that voting for a republican makes you a Nazi. I've seen Rubin discussing issues with all kinds of conservatives that I'm sure liberals hate, but what's interesting is that despite having very, very different beliefs, those conversations tend to be really civil exchanges of ideas. There is no presumption that anyone is an evil Nazi who wants to eat babies.

I wonder if the extreme, pretty absurd left is reaching a point where the bubble will burst and the crazies will go home, and the normal, rational liberals will take their place.

Probably not. There's a lot of money to be made by keeping hate burning. But at least there are some interesting discussion taking place.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's amazing how many high-level politicians base their gun control arguments on James Bond movies. I'm sure that many people use disinformation to spread fear and outrage because a lot of people aren't actually familiar with guns and scaring them wins politicians some easy points. However, to anyone who is even a little bit familiar with these things, it makes a lot of these people sound ridiculous.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

this sort of stuff sickens me so much … execution/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I humbly request Informant grace us with his take on the Michael Flynn plea and James O'Keefe's recent effort to trick the Washington Post. I'm sure I won't agree? But no one could ever accuse Informant of not being interesting.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Honestly, I am not fully versed on either story, and I don't want to speak without knowing where I stand. I have vague ideas of opinions, but I have so busy lately that I've barely had time for headlines, much less actual news stories. I'm sure you believe that I would defend James O'Keefe to the death, whether I knew what I was talking about or not, but that's not really the case.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I believe that you know what you're talking about when you do give opinions even if the conclusions aren't the ones I'd make when facing the same facts. On the Nazis in CRISIS --

Informant wrote:

Such as Alex's  "punch a Nazi" comment, which has led to people being physically assaulted in the real world, despite the fact that they have nothing to do with Nazis? I agree. I find it disappointing that you're willing to take a bold stance against my condemnation of that call to violence, but you're silent on the call itself.

I don't know that my opinion of Alex's remarks and my opinions of the real world are the same thing. I'm going to defer to Mark Evanier, Jack Kirby's assistant and biographer, who was regularly asked: "Where would Jack Kirby, co-creator of Captain America, stand on punching Nazis?" Evanier's response: Kirby, as the artist on Captain America's comics, was regularly harassed during World War II by Nazi sympathizers. At one point, Kirby got a phone call from a Nazi saying that if Kirby dared come to the ground floor of Marvel's office building, Kirby would get his face smashed in. Kirby replied that he would come downstairs immediately. He emerged from the stairwell with two angry fists. The lobby was empty.

Kirby later joined the US Army and accepted the job of killing Nazis and proved highly proficient at the job. One assumes that if he were willing to gun down Nazis (and go down several flights of stairs to meet them), he was willing to punch them.

However, that was a time of all-out honest-to-God war and once the war was over, Kirby was not known to assault anybody, Nazi or not. In all likelihood, were Kirby to encounter Nazis on the street in peacetime, he would go home and draw some comics to express his anger and disgust and hope for a better world.

I would say that a Nazi battalion from Earth-X dropping a strike force into the middle of Central City to attack a wedding would qualify as a time of all-out honest-to-God war and these Nazis getting punched and arrowed to death were invading soldiers, not social workers. I don't see how that could apply in the real world where we're not (presently) at war with the Third Reich or its remnants.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Perhaps you aren't aware of certain events in this political climate, which make it hard for me to see that line as anything so innocent.

For the past couple of years, it has become the norm for certain people to label anyone that they disagree with or don't like as "Literally Nazis" or even "Literally Hitler". While this label is often (and baselessly) applied to Donald Trump, it has been applied to many other people as well. There are political activist websites who will take fairly benign political commentators and label them as Nazis, right along with actual white supremacists. At this point, anyone who owns a MAGA hat is labeled a Nazi by some of these sites.

At the same time that this has been happening, the "punch a Nazi" movement has been pushed on websites and social media. Basically, everyone wants to punch a Nazi, so go ahead and punch a Nazi... Which now includes random YouTube bloggers who have earned the title because they don't support Planned Parenthood or whatever. They have created an actual call to action, wherein it is acceptable to assault someone whose politics you disagree with, and as a result, real people have been injured.

Nazis, and Hitler, were very real evils in this world. Responsible for unthinkable brutality, and the deaths of millions of innocent people. "Nazi" and "Hitler" should never become generic insults that are thrown around carelessly, because that reduces the true nature of their evil. A throw-away line that links Trump to Nazis might seem innocent to you, but as someone who has been paying attention to this hostile climate, I see it as dangerous.

And I'm sorry, but Alex saying "punch a Nazi" wasn't a reference to comic book history. It was a reference to the movement that I mentioned above, in the real world. This is why she didn't say "kicking Nazi ass is as fulfilling as I thought it'd be". The term "punch a Nazi" is very specific.

Again, I have to point out that Donald Trump doesn't even exist within the Arrowverse. How are these references possibly to be taken as anything but real-world commentary (and call to action) from the writers?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My view on Trump is simple.  Theres's zero reason to compare him, or examine his ideology, or any of that.  He has NO ideology.  He's not a Republican.  He's not truly conservative.  He's certainly an atheist.  He's fat.  He's unhealthy.  He's selfish.  He's a compulsive liar.  He has no use for the Constitution.  He has no loyalty to anyone beyond his family, and probably none there either.  He's wreckless, and on most subjects, incredibly uneducated, ignorant, and flat out stupid.  He has no loyalty to the office or to the people of the United States.

He's only concerned by his own ego.  Unfortunately, he has followers, and those followers would eat shit from a toilet if he told them to.  They immediately call any criticism of him to be politically biased, even if it comes from the right, which in and of itself makes no sense.  He's their messiah.  Too bad he's far more Joseph Smith than J.H.C.

I would hope he resigns, or is impeached, or has a heart attack from 6 Big Mac's a day, but I suppose I won't be that lucky.  His presence has done ZERO good for the country or the world.  At this point I'd take just about any politician instead, for one simple reason.....The Cult of Trump needs to end and it needs to end NOW.  Politics driven by hate, fear, and worst of all, LIES simply has to end.  It was bad before Trump, it's just not feasible now.  We cannot exist as a civilization if the truth means absolutely nothing.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

See, that type of opinion is something that I have no problem with. I don't 100% agree, nor do I 100% disagree. On the other hand, I absolutely find the Nazi/Hitler thing to be stupid and insane, and won't even pretend to respect it as a legitimate viewpoint. The people who believe that are just uneducated about Nazis and uneducated about Trump. It is factually untrue, for so many reasons. It's like saying that he is an elephant... It's not something that can be a matter of opinion. It's either true or it's not, and in this case, it's not.

815 (edited by Grizzlor 2017-12-03 23:33:54)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The Nazi stuff is completely pointless.  The man is an utter buffoon and leading the free world down the drain, and there's plenty of non-fake news reporting that has proven that. 

In the meantime.... … e-who.html … ift-729712

By the way, slip of the tongue or not, we have ol' Chuck Grassley who, like Orrin Hatch, both drank some truth serum and admitted that if you're not inheriting millions, you're basically a lazy, perverted, drunk.  And Hatch, who claims the country can't afford to provide healthcare for children since the children are "can't lift a finger to help themselves."  Yes, ladies and gentles, the Republican Party.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

On Trump, I'm still shocked that basically no one from the Democratic Party has come out to be the face of the anti-Trump movement.  Bernie is leading a charge, but the Party can't stand him and will not allow him to be the candidate (and he's too old, I think).

All the people who were supposed to be the frontrunners: Booker, Warren, Kaine, Kamala Harris, O'Malley, Murphy....silent, for the most part.  They come out here and there, but no one is stepping up and going out of their way to be the anti-Trump voice.

Even the Democrats on social media aren't really pleading for their own party leaders to do anything.  Whenever you see someone asking for Trump to be impeached, they're directing it at Republican leaders.  If anything, the most popular person in the Democratic Party is Robert Mueller.  Maybe he'll run, but the complete lack of a voice from the Democratic Party still makes me think what I've thought all along....they're all still taking their orders from Hillary Clinton, and she'll be the nominee in 2020 with little-to-no opposition again.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The problem with the democrats is that anyone who comes out to be the face of anti-Trump is going to have to deal with being slammed by Trump for years, and there really aren't many of them who could hold up to that. Bernie is a crazy old man who can't have a serious conversation on any issue without looking like a bumbling fool.

So the democrats have anointed the media as their leader of the anti-Trump movement. Late night talk shows that used to be hosted by comedians are now propaganda commercials, making crap up and acting as though it's the truth. Kimmel even waves a baby around these days, because anyone who would dare ask questions while looking at a baby (who is in no way related to the topic that he's talking about while holding said baby) is a monster. It's ridiculous... but at least it's interesting.

I keep seeing actors or directors talking about their "timely and topical" projects that involve crazy neo-Nazis, as though we are dealing with a surge of neo-Nazis 2017. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen many of them running around.

I think the democrats are going to wait a while, and pick their man closer to the election, to limit the amount of time that Trump can tweet about him/her/ze/whatever fun new word pops up before 2020. Is this a good idea? I doubt it. They will have to pick someone like Hillary, who doesn't require much foundation building. The problem is that they will be stuck with someone like Hillary. They're banking on someone like that looking better when compared to Trump, but honestly... I'd still happily vote for Trump over Hillary.

818 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-12-14 10:27:28)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, Hillary would be a disaster...not only because polling still strongly implies that people still don't like her, but she'd embody the secret civil war going on between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters.  Bernie supporters hate Hillary so much that they'd happily vote for the next Jill Stein or sit out again.

What's scary for Democrats is that the Bernie Bro skews young and the Hillary Bot skews old.  And if they aren't careful, they could disenfranchise an entire generation of people who are actually pretty active and interested in politics.

It'll be Hillary vs. whoever the Republicans run in 2020 (I'm not convinced Trump will be the nominee, either because he's resigned, because he chooses not to run, or someone else beats him in the primary).  And unless the Democrats get their act together, the Republicans are positioned to win again.  Which, if you're a Democrat, has to be maddening....because the map is positioned to make a Democratic president *so much* easier than a Republican one.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It'll be interesting to see if Trump runs again. I admit, I find his presidency fascinating. I do enjoy watching him and his people burn the press and expose them for what they are. I do like seeing a president call out the republicans who aren't really republicans and don't want to do anything that they promised the people who voted for them. I don't think Trump has been a total mistake or a total failure, as much as I don't like him. It's interesting.

But do I want him for a second term? I guess we'll see, but I'd still be happy to see Cruz in office.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Half of the internet is going crazy because this tax plan will only help the rich. Meanwhile, everyone I know is talking about how much money they're saving and all of the bonuses that they're getting.

For the record, I don't know any rich people.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It seems unlikely that a tax cut that hasn't been signed yet and won't take effect until next year is affecting this year's bonuses.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I wouldn't expect it either, but... … oyees.html

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I call bullshit.  Companies like that budget months ahead.  I wouldn't be 100% convinced it would affect next year's bonuses.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

You can call bullshit, but I know someone who works there and it's happening. I've seen reports from other companies as well, but I don't have any personal connections that I can use to confirm those. And these bonuses are on top of the bonuses that they were already planning on.

Lowering the taxes on these companies to rates comparable to the rest of the world is a huge deal for them, and that is going to be a huge deal for a lot of people down the line.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Paying these bonuses this year means they had the spare cash to do so under the old tax rate and chose not to until they could make political hay out of it.  There's no way a tax bill which still hasn't been signed into law yet could affect this year's bottom line.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, the bonuses won't come until the bill is signed, so if that doesn't happen by Christmas, I'm sure that the bonuses won't come before Christmas.

I don't know how the companies are doing it, but they could have money budgeted for taxes, which would be freed up. Or they could just put the bonuses into their budget going forward.

Do I think that the companies benefit from this tax cut? Yes. Of course. Everyone benefits. But I don't think it is some sort of political conspiracy on their part.

827 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-12-21 09:00:08)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I worked in the compensation department for a Fortune 500 company.  If the CEO of a company wants something, it can happen - it basically just becomes a fire drill for the people who do the grunt work (read: us).  I know from people that work compensation at retail places that, when Target announced they were taking all their employees to $15, all of them were met the following morning with "I need you to model what this would cost to implement ASAP."  It didn't matter what the cost would be - they had to keep up and they had to keep up immediately.

Unexpected costs happen all the time, and this wasn't even that unexpected.  AT&T, possibly even with help from the Republicans writing the bill, have known about their potential tax savings for a while.  It would just be a matter of doing some simple math and throwing some things on a spreadsheet.  If it could be easily incorporated into an existing budget (a fire drill for the finance folks), then it wouldn't be that much of a problem.

Even if this was dropped on AT&T yesterday and couldn't fit in the budget, it's still possible.  It'd just be a giant headache for finance/tax/FP&A/compensation and a few other departments.  But AT&T's CEO probably doesn't care - he gets goodwill from his employees, the media, shareholders, and the party in power (since he is being used as evidence that the tax bill is doing what they said it'd do).  Even if it hurts the bottom line, it's a $200 million move for a $250 billion company.  A drop in the water.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

There is almost zero chance the bill gets signed before January because of the PayGo rules.  If they don't pass a waiver (which the Dems would surely filibuster) the tax bill would cause massive cuts in medicare and other programs.  Despite GOP rhetoric, they're not actually interested in cutting spending.  That's why the bill hasn't actually been enrolled yet, let alone signed.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's been signed now. It's surprising that it happened, but I guess it surprises me whenever Republicans actually do something.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The bill does provide tax savings for EVERYONE.  That is not the primary argument.  The issue is that corporations get permanent massive tax slashing, while individuals do not.  Simply cutting taxes just doesn't trickle down very much, and got news for you, most people don't work in jobs that give bonuses.  Companies are simply going to keep these savings away from employees and customers.  What's worse, the bill does nothing to tackle student loan debt, health care costs, 21st century jobs, and more.  Instead, it will add well over a trillion to the deficit.  The wealthy/corporations did not need this tax cut, and that's what most folks pretty much agree on.  They didn't need it, and they won't pass much of it down to the rest of us.  This was a huge giveaway to the financial donors of the GOP, that's it.