Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LongRider

U.S Politics; The Price of Steele

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

There's some interesting analysis in the NYT today that says that 9% of Obama voters voted for Trump but also that 7% of Obama voters did not vote at all in 2016 and that 3% voted for another candidate (not Trump or Clinton).

This just further illustrates that you can attribute Trump getting elected to any number of things and be equally valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Don't you mean Tsar Wars?

Anything more? I have another discussion to read.

Nevermind.

In fact, sorry for even getting agitated.

Edited by TsarGrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Only the greatest hip-hop group ever.

well i guess you got dirty, meth, and cappadonna, but what about the rest? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in the US, most of us associate 'tsar' with a political policy move about some issue that in actuality whoever is naming figures to be a drug czar, housing czar, education czar does so in order to do nothing about the issues, just like appointing a committee to 'study' or 'investigate' or 'implement a policy' means sweeping it under the rug,  I would bet that most voters these days don't know anything more about tsar than that, since the habit went back to Nixon, and the mediar went as big for tsar as it did for 'gates.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, unpaid comintern said:

well i guess you got dirty, meth, and cappadonna, but what about the rest? 

Heh.  That'd be too many letters, now wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

Anything more? I have another discussion to read.

Nevermind.

In fact, sorry for even getting agitated.

Hey, don't let these bozos get you down. You're alright, I mean that. Whatever else you might be, remember that you are you and the only person who can take that away is you.

42 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Here in the US, most of us associate 'tsar' with a political policy move about some issue that in actuality whoever is naming figures to be a drug czar, housing czar, education czar does so in order to do nothing about the issues, just like appointing a committee to 'study' or 'investigate' or 'implement a policy' means sweeping it under the rug,  I would bet that most voters these days don't know anything more about tsar than that, since the habit went back to Nixon, and the mediar went as big for tsar as it did for 'gates.'

We even have football czars. I think you'd have better than 50-50 odds that a random American would know that. You might have to prompt them, jar loose some schooling, but I think most would know the basic associations of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a completely pedantic quibble, but I wouldn't expect your average American to be any more familiar with 'czar' or 'tsar' in the 'Drug Czar' context than the Russian leadership context.  In fact I'd say that a basic highschool education would make Nicholas II or Peter th Great more familiar than 'Clinton's Drug Czar'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

Anything more? I have another discussion to read.

Nevermind.

In fact, sorry for even getting agitated.

Oh, you should let that slide off you like water off a duck's back. :)  That was too good to let it pass by!

As far as I'm concerned, you explained your comment. Sitting in Finland it's pretty reasonable to say, hey that guy's entertaining. But for others closer to the situation, it's not quite as funny. 

There's a fairly recent book someone wrote about politics crossing into the realm of entertainment. Maybe someone knows the title? Trump has certainly fulfilled that prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

In fact I'd say that a basic highschool education would make Nicholas II or Peter th Great more familiar than 'Clinton's Drug Czar'.

Yeah I won't claim to have a basic education, but I definitely learned Tsar as a Russian derivative of Caesar in middle school, and I don't think I ever knew that terminology as American departmental shorthand until I started avidly following politics, in all likelihood because it's a media moniker and not an actual title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah I won't claim to have a basic education, but I definitely learned Tsar as a Russian derivative of Caesar in middle school, and I don't think I ever knew that terminology as American departmental shorthand until I started avidly following politics, in all likelihood because it's a media moniker and not an actual title.

Well fine then! Shit all over my smartypants moment. I'd hate you if you didn't wordfuck so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Shit all over my smartypants moment.

Wasn't my intention, but fear not, you'll grow to hate me in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2018 at 7:31 PM, dmc515 said:

Ha, this is some Minnesooota delusion. =

:spank:

Quote

On the other hand, the upside of the GOP's recent politicization of SCOTUS means if the Dems retake the Senate, no Trump nominee put up after January 3, 2019 will be confirmed until after the 2020 election.

Do we really want to normalize denying a president SCOUTS picks if they lack a majority in the Senate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do we really want to normalize denying a president SCOUTS picks if they lack a majority in the Senate?

It's done.  Whether I want it or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

:spank:

Do we really want to normalize denying a president SCOUTS picks if they lack a majority in the Senate?

Are you trolling here? Doing anything else will result in Republicans repeatedly kicking us in the balls and taking control of the SC the next 50 years. Of course the court is likely already lost for a generation, but I'm not sure why we would give up what small chances we have left. I mean, you can accept that this is how things are now, or create a system where Democratic Presidents get blocked by the opposite party in the Senate and Republicans do not.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Have the public schools in Michigan gotten better?

Betsy DeVos: I don’t know. Overall, I– I can’t say overall that they have all gotten better.

Lesley Stahl: The whole state is not doing well.

Betsy DeVos: Well, there are certainly lots of pockets where this– the students are doing well and–

Lesley Stahl: No, but your argument that if you take funds away that the schools will get better, is not working in Michigan where you had a huge impact and influence over the direction of the school system here.

Betsy DeVos: I hesitate to talk about all schools in general because schools are made up of individual students attending them.

Lesley Stahl: The public schools here are doing worse than they did.

Betsy DeVos: Michigan schools need to do better. There is no doubt about it.

(c) DeVos admitting that she hasn’t bothered to visit any failing schools.

Lesley Stahl: Have you seen the really bad schools? Maybe try to figure out what they’re doing?

Betsy DeVos: I have not– I have not– I have not intentionally visited schools that are underperforming.

Lesley Stahl: Maybe you should.

Betsy DeVos: Maybe I should. Yes.

 


Quiz: What’s the Worst Part of This Betsy DeVos Exchange?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/quiz-whats-the-worst-part-of-this-betsy-devos-exchange.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2018 at 2:56 AM, Mudguard said:

 

Since both of you posted a similar response, I'll answer both here.  According to exit polling, only 27% of Republican voters said that Supreme Court appointments was the most important factor for their vote (versus 19% Democrats), 48% of Republicans thought SC appointments was an important factor (49% for Democrats), and 22% of Republicans thought SC appointments was either a minor factor or not a factor (29% for Democrats).  That means 73% of Republican voters thought that some other issue was the most important issue.

In a different poll, the % of registered Republican voters said that the following issues were "very important" to their vote in 2016 was as follows: Economy (90%), Terrorism (89%), Immigration (79%), Foreign Policy (79%), Health Care (77%), Gun Policy (71%), and Supreme Court Appointments (70%).  

The data clearly suggests to me that although most Republicans thought SC nominations was an important factor, it wasn't the most important issue to them. I still don't think the election turned on SC appointments.  Democrats weren't that far behind Republicans in considering SC nominations a very important factor (62% to 70% from the second poll I listed).

As for Republicans not liking Trump, his approval ratings since taking office has consistently been in the 80's among Republicans.  The vast majority of Republicans approve of the way that Trump is handling his job as President.  

Your own numbers betray you. 2016 was a close election, essentially decided by 70,000 voters. Twenty-seven  percent of 63 million voters is a much larger number, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

And now he seems poised to become President Donald Trump’s next national security adviser, which would have significant — and frightening — implications for the future of Trump’s foreign policy.

This rumor has been circulating in earnest since at least last week, when NBC reported that current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, whom Trump has never particularly liked, was looking for a way out of the White House. But speculation really escalated on Tuesday afternoon, when Bolton came to the White House and met with the president in the Oval Office. It seemed less like a normal meeting and more like a “job interview,” as Mieke Eoyang, the vice president for foreign policy at the center-left think tank Third Way, put it in a phone call.

 

John Bolton, the ultrahawk rumored to be Trump’s next national security adviser, explained
Bolton has long had President Trump’s ear. He might soon have a top job in his White House.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/12/17091772/john-bolton-trump-national-security-adviser-war-iran-north-korea
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory Booker is a Trekkie. I think that should move him up to one of the top contenders for the 2020 nomination.

He also happens to be a fairly solid progressive (with the caveat about the pharma bill, but bygones)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It's done.  Whether I want it or not. 

Better bet in that Dem controlled Senate scenario: Give the nominee the hearings to expose how bad they would be, then vote them down.  Repeat until a suitable candidate for the bench is nominated. If that takes years, then it takes years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

By the enormous range of ignorance she displays here, a betting type of person might well be willing to bet she doesn't know czar is derived from caesar . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×