Jump to content

US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House


IheartIheartTesla

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Oh, now that's interesting. I hadn't read that particular twist.

Yeah. The idea that Trump is doing this to 'distract' really seems to be wishful thinking. His tweets almost precisely align with news releases. The flag burning thing, frex - that happened about 20 minutes after a Fox report on flag burning. 

We have a POTUS that will avenge slights against him by causing major damage to the company. Corporations are taking a lot of note. Do not expect  them to stand up for your rights.

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

That's just ridiculous. It's one thing to stand up to those sorts of people and answer criticism with robust debate and strong defence of one's policies. But to resort to petty bully tactics that have nothing to do with the issues is wholly unsuitable and irresponsible.

It works perfectly well if you're wanting to keep them in line and suppress any kind of organized dissent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

I agree in theory it is unbecoming, but this also rests on the assumption appointed judges are significantly different than elected justices in their aims, capabilities, or judicial philosophy.  The fact is they're not.  That being said, I do (strongly) agree that the court of last resort (i.e. SCOTUS) should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority.  After all, checking that is why primarily why they were conceived in the first place.

Well, if their decision-making is more or less the same, then why not simply apply the lowest cost and quickest method of appointment? AFAIK in all western democracies other than the USA (English-speaking ones at least) all judges are appointed, and none are elected. So I would say that, broadly-speaking an appointed judiciary appears to be international best practice, at least for countries not mired in entrenched political corruption and tyrannical rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I've got anger fatigue.  That's my message. Better enough for you? 

Yup, this.  There is only so much anger I can digest in any given day.  I have other stuff that requires my attention and I can't do it to the best of my ability when I'm sitting in a constant pile of absolute rage.  Like you, I need to let this pass and either scan the headlines or just listen to NPR or read comments here and there from trusted intelligent people (like several on this board) before I go back to going back to be extremely informed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yup, this.  There is only so much anger I can digest in any given day.  I have other stuff that requires my attention and I can't do it to the best of my ability when I'm sitting in a constant pile of absolute rage.  Like you, I need to let this pass and either scan the headlines or just listen to NPR or read comments here and there from trusted intelligent people (like several on this board) before I go back to going back to be extremely informed. 

 

Especially when all signs read "You're pretty much fucked."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

 

No I completely understand but 30 days is a sufficient mourning period.  Bright side SNL is going to see alot of Alec Baldwin.  

I'm in agreement with Pepps and LR, I'm too tired to be angry all day now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pony Queen Jace said:

I'm in agreement with Pepps and LR, I'm too tired to be angry all day now.

No shit PQJ, it's not just DJT but all kinds of awful stuff, the political and the real that wear one down to the nub. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah. The idea that Trump is doing this to 'distract' really seems to be wishful thinking. His tweets almost precisely align with news releases. The flag burning thing, frex - that happened about 20 minutes after a Fox report on flag burning. 

We have a POTUS that will avenge slights against him by causing major damage to the company. Corporations are taking a lot of note. Do not expect  them to stand up for your rights.

They (corporates) don't now and they never have.

The only rights they care about and stand up for are the rights of their shareholders to maximum value of the shareholding. And I expect corporates to continue to agitate for that right. The fortunate thing is those agitations may, for a time, align with the rights interests of individuals. The unfortunate thing is that corporates reliant to a large or great extent on govt contracts (i.e. the military-industrial complex) for maximising shareholder value may eventually decide that the cost of standing up to Trump is greater than the cost of being subject to the policies of the Trump admin. And at that point kow-towing to Trump will equate with maximising shareholder value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

 

Yes but the Republicans pulled off this hat trick by being more angry then the democrats we have to steal that trick.  

I expect there will be plenty of anger to go around with out using any 'tricks'.  I have seen my fellow Americans vote themselves into various stupidities over and over.  

"What's the matter with Kansas" is everyone's reality now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

They (corporates) don't now and they never have.

The only rights they care about and stand up for are the rights of their shareholders to maximum value of the shareholding. And I expect corporates to continue to agitate for that right. The fortunate thing is those agitations may, for a time, align with the rights interests of individuals. 

Here's where I disagree. As the Boeing stock fall illustrates, what stockholders will care about is Trump not tweeting about that company. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Your wife has a pre-existing condition.  Dismantling the ACA means she'll have a much much harder time getting insurance than even now and it will probably be much more expensive.  

Not true. It can't get any more expensive than it is already and that along with keeping "children" until the age of 26 on a family health plan are two things that PEOTUS wants to keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Here's where I disagree. As the Boeing stock fall illustrates, what stockholders will care about is Trump not tweeting about that company. 

Not clear what you disagree with. There were 2 or 3 points in the excerpt you quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Brandon Stark said:

Not true. It can't get any more expensive than it is already and that along with keeping "children" until the age of 26 on a family health plan are two things that PEOTUS wants to keep.

What on god's green earth are you talking about? Are you really asserting that if the ban on pre-existing conditions goes away, premiums for people with pre-existing conditions will fall?

And like seriously are you asserting that health care price inflation has gone up over historical averages since the ACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Here's where I disagree. As the Boeing stock fall illustrates, what stockholders will care about is Trump not tweeting about that company. 

Fall was in the short term. Boeing stock closed the day flat. If Trump cancels the contract, that'll be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Not clear what you disagree with. There were 2 or 3 points in the excerpt you quoted.

I think he's saying that CEO's will avoid the mistake that Boeing's CEO made about criticizing Trump. You say something negative about him, he Tweets doubts about your companies ability to fufill some government contract, and then your stock goes down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

What on god's green earth are you talking about? Are you really asserting that if the ban on pre-existing conditions goes away, premiums for people with pre-existing conditions will fall?

And like seriously are you asserting that health care price inflation has gone up over historical averages since the ACA.

If it is really based on free market health care than yes. And as far as inflation, it is way up. And good luck with the deductibles attached to Obamacare now. It has to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Brandon Stark said:

Not true. It can't get any more expensive than it is already and that along with keeping "children" until the age of 26 on a family health plan are two things that PEOTUS wants to keep.

You should probably try to explain why it's not true because simply saying the the Orange Shitstain said so it's any sort of evidence.

PEOTUS can say that he won't remove the ban on denying pre-existing conditions, he can say that kids can stay on their parent's plan until 26, he can say that costs won't go up.  But he's a pathological liar who doesn't understand the basics of just about anything beyond how to use Twitter.  Little of what he says is actually true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Crazydog7 said:

 

Yes but the Republicans pulled off this hat trick by being more angry then the democrats we have to steal that trick.  

Oh I'll be ready in 2 years, but there is quite literally nothing I can do right now. I do not like these petitions and recounts, they are accomplishing nothing but giving false hope, which I fear will have harmful effects in the long run.

7 minutes ago, LongRider said:

No shit PQJ, it's not just DJT but all kinds of awful stuff, the political and the real that wear one down to the nub. 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...