UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-31-2017, 02:54 PM   #3476
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Delusional.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 03:34 PM   #3477
JustAnotherUser
Only Mostly Lurking
 
JustAnotherUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England, UK
Posts: 2,297
Send a message via Skype™ to JustAnotherUser
The Trump administration works by misdirection of media. By whipping up media people into a storm about one big thing, they can slip past a less "significant"-seeming one. This has been a tactic of theirs for months.
__________________
[JAU]
Spoiler: show
JustAnotherUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 04:05 PM   #3478
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
It's happening: Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Microsoft's Bill Gates are supporting Washington state's attorney general who, I have just learned, has apparently already set the wheels in motion for a suit against the Trump administration over the travel ban.

"Amazon has also contacted leaders in the US Houses of Congress to explore whether there are ways the order can be blocked through legislation."

Is this NOT what I said last night:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
I can buy the argument that Trump & Co. have "bought them out" for a select number of Republicans. But even Trump and his cronies are not so wealthy as to buy out literally every Republican congressman. On the contrary, Trump's pockets are so shallow (compared with titans of industry) as to make it easy for a Republican-aligned industrialist to step in and buy his own counter votes to oust Trump from office. To say nothing of Democrat-aligned titans who could easily buy Republican votes. (Who says you have to stay put on your side of the aisle?)
Looks like Amazon and Microsoft are throwing their monetary weight behind the anti-Trump movement brewing on Capitol Hill. It begins with the travel ban, but I don't expect to see it stop there.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 05:37 PM   #3479
Miror
Marsh Badge
 
Miror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
DeVos got through.
Not quite yet, as she does still have to survive the full Senate vote (this morning was just the committee vote), but yeah, making it through the committee is unfortunately a pretty good indicator of how things in the Senate will go.
__________________
Miror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 06:19 PM   #3480
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miror View Post


Not quite yet, as she does still have to survive the full Senate vote (this morning was just the committee vote), but yeah, making it through the committee is unfortunately a pretty good indicator of how things in the Senate will go.
I haven't looked into it thoroughly but I had heard that she juuuuuust made it through the committee by one vote. So maybe there's hope that it'll be too divided for her to go through. As a future teacher I think she's absolutely buns and don't want her.
__________________
phoopes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 06:32 PM   #3481
Miror
Marsh Badge
 
Miror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
I haven't looked into it thoroughly but I had heard that she juuuuuust made it through the committee by one vote. So maybe there's hope that it'll be too divided for her to go through. As a future teacher I think she's absolutely buns and don't want her.
Yeah the committee was split 12-11 but that was solely along party lines, all 12 Republicans voted for her, all 11 Democrats voted against. I guess we'll see.
__________________
Miror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 07:47 PM   #3482
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Deus lo vult!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Looks like Amazon and Microsoft are throwing their monetary weight behind the anti-Trump movement brewing on Capitol Hill. It begins with the travel ban, but I don't expect to see it stop there.
Neither are Republican-aligned industrialists, though? And Bezos is in particularly hot water because Trump has specifically targeted Amazon as a destroyer of American retail.

Liberal or centre industrialists opposing Trump does nothing except feed his narrative and voter rancor. You need someone like the Cohen Brothers to turn on him.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 08:38 PM   #3483
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Neither are Republican-aligned industrialists, though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
To say nothing of Democrat-aligned titans who could easily buy Republican votes. (Who says you have to stay put on your side of the aisle?)
--------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Liberal or centre industrialists opposing Trump does nothing except feed his narrative and voter rancor. You need someone like the Cohen Brothers to turn on him.
Not really, no? The point is that financial heavyweights can buy American policy by way of purchasing votes on Capitol Hill. This is nothing new, but I am framing it in the context of an anti-Trump movement by capitalists who are not happy with him. (E.g. Bill Gates.) I don't need the adulation of the American people to have what I argued should be happening. Nor do I need it for it take effect. Your concerns only matter if the red-blooded American public gets so upset about this that they escalate things towards a civil rift.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 09:52 PM   #3484
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
This particular move against Trump will go nowhere. You'd need at least some Republican congressional support to get anywhere, and that won't happen over Trump merely fulfilling a campaign promise like he is now. Republicans inclined to challenge him know that those people who would like their decision to stand against him would still vote for their Democratic opponents when its re-election time; meanwhile they'll face primary challenges from pro-Trump Republican candidates and pro-Trump voters who might otherwise vote for then along party lines might stay home.

Challenging Trump over something people knew he was going to do when they voted for him will only lose Republican politicians votes no matter how much money otherwise liberal-leaning billionaires throw behind them, and they know it so they won't do it. Not to mention the recent polling that suggests a majority of Americans support this start to Muslim immigration banning (source The Independent, can't easily link from phone). The loud furore over it isn't evidence of popular/majority opposition, its evidence of extreme partisanship.

If you want Republican politicians on board with standing against Trump, he needs to do something that not only pisses said politicians off but also alienates at least a good portion of his previous supporters. Nothing that was a campaign pledge - like this was - matters in that regard. Any political fallout from this is merely the same Democrats vs Republicans hyper-partisanship we've been seeing for many years. Plus for many Republicans control of both houses is a chance to pass things they've wanted for a long time and that are more important to them to than the rights of green card holders. Why risk tilting at Trump, failing and pissing him off enough to veto all the things you care about when it's easier just to sit quiet and get him to sign the things you want him to sign?

Talon you wondered why Republican politicians weren't lining up to be seen as the guy who brought down the biggest American tyrant since King George; because they wouldn't be seen that way and they know it. Those who might agree with that viewpoint will still vote against them in favour of the Democratic candidate come election day because American partisanship is that bad. Meanwhile a large portion of your population would be furious at the elitism inherent in a career politician bringing down a populist "screw the establishment", democratically elected leader for the grievous crime of doing exactly what he promised he would to get elected in the first place. It's a complete nonstarter.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 01-31-2017 at 10:15 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 10:32 PM   #3485
Heather
Naga's Voice
 
Heather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
Polling the American people is a dead art, firstly. Secondly, while this technically does fulfill one campaign promise in a hilariously broken fashion, Trump said he was going to defeat ISIS. Generally, one does not defeat ISIS or any other such group by making political moves that directly buff their recruitment like this did. But this is the administration of Alternative Facts (registrered trademark 2017) so of course that will either be swept under the rug or, more likely, get a Hillary done on it by Steve Bannon (i.e. lying through his teeth as per usual).
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post
Quoth the Honchkrow (nevermore!).
Fizzy Member Post: Catherine Park
Heather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 07:40 AM   #3486
Connor
Flashbacker
 
Connor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 9,068
I am fairly sure as much as it is despicable placing a ban of travel on Muslim people was one of Trump's rallying career promises alongside the wall.

I also want to point out that polling was fucked for 2016 because so many people were scared or worried about voicing support for Trump/Brexit. Polling in the aftermath is most likely going to be at least a little more indicative - if people are saying they are behind the travel ban they are probably behind the travel ban. Saying you are gains you nothing, whereas if you are and you say you don't you stand to not lose face among peers. Polling itself isn't a dead art, it was the mindset of those polled and the political atmosphere which just skewed it briefly (albeit wildly).
Connor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 09:02 AM   #3487
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
--------------------------------------------
Sorry, my bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Not really, no? The point is that financial heavyweights can buy American policy by way of purchasing votes on Capitol Hill. This is nothing new, but I am framing it in the context of an anti-Trump movement by capitalists who are not happy with him. (E.g. Bill Gates.) I don't need the adulation of the American people to have what I argued should be happening. Nor do I need it for it take effect. Your concerns only matter if the red-blooded American public gets so upset about this that they escalate things towards a civil rift.
If the financial heavyweights really had as much power as you say, they would have thrown more money into the election, where they had a clear line toward Trump and didn't have to go through untrustworthy proxies like Congressmen. Now, it's arguable the rich liberals didn't believe this outcome was possible, but 2017 isn't the Gilded Age. "buying out" federal politicians is hard, and even if you can, it's hard to get away with it.

Why I say this is because political science makes a very basic, empirically supported assumption: all politicians with unlimited term limits will do everything in their power to maximize their chances of being reelected. This means pork barrel, this means gerrymandering, this means mudslinging. Politicians who have been in power for a long time have some control over their voting blocks, which opens them up a bit more to lobbying, but too much maverick behaviour will incite rancor from the political party. No matter who the Senator or Representative is, their name-brand recognition usually falls short of the "Democrat" or "Republican" label. If they're dismissed from the party for being disloyal, that forcibly ends their political career.

Lobbying is powerful, but its influence diminishes the higher you go in the political system. Big money can have a lot of influence on a city-wide election, but you could spend billions and still lose the presidency.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 09:06 AM   #3488
Mozz
Golden Wang of Justice
 
Mozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
There's a much higher ROI for billionaires in

* buying newspapers (WaPo, NYT)
* creating astroturfed networks (Soros)
* steering other forms of media (Google, Facebook)

than just saying "here's a million dollars, get me more H1B slaves, Pelosi". In-kind donations are much easier, less risky, and can be pivoted at will.
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website.
Mozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:18 AM   #3489
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor View Post
I am fairly sure as much as it is despicable placing a ban of travel on Muslim people was one of Trump's rallying career promises alongside the wall.

I also want to point out that polling was fucked for 2016 because so many people were scared or worried about voicing support for Trump/Brexit. Polling in the aftermath is most likely going to be at least a little more indicative - if people are saying they are behind the travel ban they are probably behind the travel ban. Saying you are gains you nothing, whereas if you are and you say you don't you stand to not lose face among peers. Polling itself isn't a dead art, it was the mindset of those polled and the political atmosphere which just skewed it briefly (albeit wildly).
Polling wasn't fucked, though, it just didn't account for distribution. The final results of the election came out to being something like 48% to 46% in favor of Hillary. The problem is that the states that mattered were so close that in some cases the votes between the two were off by just a slight amount, while in California and other blue states, the Hillary voters crushed Trump in numbers by over-performing (historically speaking). So it was really skewed. But overall, for the whole country, 48% to 46% or so was about what polls had been saying for a while - the electoral college rules just ended her chances
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:22 AM   #3490
Mozz
Golden Wang of Justice
 
Mozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Polling wasn't fucked, though, it just didn't account for distribution. The final results of the election came out to being something like 48% to 46% in favor of Hillary. The problem is that the states that mattered were so close that in some cases the votes between the two were off by just a slight amount, while in California and other blue states, the Hillary voters crushed Trump in numbers by over-performing (historically speaking). So it was really skewed. But overall, for the whole country, 48% to 46% or so was about what polls had been saying for a while - the electoral college rules just ended her chances
Pretty sure the reason that 538 thought Hillary was 75%+ to ship it was due to state polls, not nationals.
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website.
Mozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:27 AM   #3491
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
Interesting note here; Nate Silver thinks that James Comey (or at least, a surprising push from late-deciders) probably cost Hillary the Presidency.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:38 AM   #3492
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Disclaimer: that's a preliminary hypothesis, Nate is still searching for tweaks to his model to better fit the political reality.

Trump didn't win by razor thin margins in swing states, and he didn't win by only a few swing states. He won by sizable amounts in ALL swing states, so there's a heavy burden to prove that Comey letter had a swaying impact for that many voters in spite of so many geographic (as a proxy for other) differences. Nate doens't go that far, obviously, he merely shows that there's evidence and offers simple (non-transformed) evidence by his standards.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 11:28 AM   #3493
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Bannon is scum, this is not new.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 12:19 PM   #3494
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Bannon is scum, this is not new.
Then why did Glorious Ruler tap him as his chief strategist and get him set up to attend NSC briefings? Someone as dangerous and scummy as this, saying "we'll be at war with China in a few years" (paraphrasing), and giving speeches on the Vatican saying that another crusade is coming, should not be in the ear of the President and constantly by his side, let alone in the White House.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 12:26 PM   #3495
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Remember when being shocked about Trump picking him was fearmongering? Emi remembers.

It literally wouldn't surprise me if Bannon was actually the President at this point in time.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 12:32 PM   #3496
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
You're not the only one thinking along those lines.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 12:39 PM   #3497
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
So far his administration has: kicked out the inspectors general, fired all foreign ambassadors, fired all top employees in the state department (which is unprecedented), told 900 of their employees to 'get with the program or leave', fired the acting attorney general for her interpretation of constitutional law, got rid of ethics watchdogs and oversight, kicked the joint chiefs of staff out of NSC briefings, called all media that slightly opposes him 'fake news' and said they should 'keep their mouths shut', gagged the EPA, issued an order with the eventual intent to end 75% of federal regulations including food and drug restrictions, and tried to convince the public there were millions of illegal voters in the election with zero evidence.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 02:27 PM   #3498
JustAnotherUser
Only Mostly Lurking
 
JustAnotherUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England, UK
Posts: 2,297
Send a message via Skype™ to JustAnotherUser
It's almost like he's trying to instill power in a way that he and his circle have absolutely all the control.
__________________
[JAU]
Spoiler: show
JustAnotherUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 02:35 PM   #3499
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
BORKED
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 04:38 PM   #3500
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
You can add "threatened to invade Mexico to the Mexican President" to my list from earlier...

...I feel so fucking depressed right now....
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.