Politics

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote:That's pretty simplistic but we'll skip that discussion and get to the important part, which is what "things" do you think they're "sure of"?
That we're not in World War III yet.
That's quite a low bar to clear.
phuqueue wrote:This is really a cowardly answer. You're either in favor of the content of those "papers" (otherwise known as Executive Orders, those things the right shrieked about every time Obama issued one) or you're not. And if the latter, you shouldn't have to wait to see how much is actually implemented to pass judgment.
Some I agree with, some I don't.
Go on.
mean wrote:It's become increasingly clear for many years that guy doesn't live in reality, and he's effectively set himself up so that if he loses in four years he can say it was rigged, the media is covering it up and lying about it, and he actually won. I thought during the campaign maybe his detachment from reality was more about relating to similarly delusional, conspiracy-minded voters, and maybe he'd simmer down after the inauguration, but it's getting worse.
Yeah I mean the idea that "he hasn't done anything yet" except sign some Executive Orders isn't even accurate. The Executive Orders represent policy steps he's taken, but what about just the fact that the dude is obsessed with his inauguration turnout and his popular vote loss? Six days into his presidency he already has high-level aides leaking draft Executive Orders and unflattering accounts of him personally to the press left and right, which suggests that he already commands essentially zero loyalty among his own staff (or the alternative explanation that was put forth by Vox or WaPo or whoever, that because of his cable news obsession it's more effective to reach him by leaking things that will appear on there than to just speak to him face to face, which is just as bad in a different way). The man seems to be completely unhinged, and according to some of those leaks also essentially uninterested in the job itself, which seems to me like it should concern anybody, whether they support him or not, but what do I know -- I'm just the idiot who figured he would try to do everything he said he would try to do.

Apparently his EOs are just being written by Steve Bannon, who isn't even a lawyer. Like, policy aside -- and of course, the policy itself is reprehensible and completely misguided, but putting that aside -- the administration itself is just already a mess. And that's without even getting into the conflicts of interest, the cabinet picks, etc.

I dunno if it would reassure ATKC to point out that it is ok to reevaluate when new information comes in, so like a year from now if Trump has turned out to be a terrific president it's ok to say "man I was wrong about him." You should really only be waiting to pass judgment if you genuinely haven't seen enough yet to decide. Which, ok, but that boggles my mind. We've seen quite a bit already. The rest of America has seen enough to give him a record low approval rating for an incoming president.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by AllThingsKC »

phuqueue wrote:That's quite a low bar to clear.
Indeed. But look at the top two choices we had this past election.
phuqueue wrote:I dunno if it would reassure ATKC to point out that it is ok to reevaluate when new information comes in, so like a year from now if Trump has turned out to be a terrific president it's ok to say "man I was wrong about him."
Of course I can wait a year and say, "I was wrong about him." But what's wrong with waiting more than 6 days to make a judgment? My life hasn't changed that much this past week and the full impact of his executive orders are pending at this point.

We still have the Affordable Healthcare Act.
We still have ISIS.
We still have 20T in debt.

You're correct that he has taken the initial steps to make changes. But the actual changes aren't in place and the results of the changes aren't in place yet. So I want to wait longer before I make a judgement. In all honesty, I'll probably end up agreeing with you about Trump. I wasn't a fan of his before the election and I'm still not. But out of respect to the office of the presidency, I'm willing to give Trump some time before I reaffirm my opinion of him. Do I expect to be pleasantly surprised? Nope. But I'll give him more than one week. You probably already have a true and accurate opinion of him. Just give me some time to catch up and I'll meet you there, most likely.
phuqueue wrote:The rest of America has seen enough to give him a record low approval rating for an incoming president.
I wouldn't put much faith into that. His approval ratings are based on polling. I don't think I've seen an accurate poll about Trump this whole election cycle. He wasn't suppose to get to 270 electoral votes, according to polls. But, he's already in the White House, so his approval rating is irrelevant until the next election. Election results > Opinion polls. So, 2018 and 2020 will tell us plenty about his approval rating.
KC is the way to be!
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote:That's quite a low bar to clear.
Indeed. But look at the top two choices we had this past election.
Whatever other reservations people might have had about Hillary, nobody was worried about her starting World War III. But yes, through selective responses and then selective quoting, feel free to dodge the issue of what stock traders are "certain" about and what implications that has for the rest of us.
phuqueue wrote:I dunno if it would reassure ATKC to point out that it is ok to reevaluate when new information comes in, so like a year from now if Trump has turned out to be a terrific president it's ok to say "man I was wrong about him."
Of course I can wait a year and say, "I was wrong about him." But what's wrong with waiting more than 6 days to make a judgment? My life hasn't changed that much this past week and the full impact of his executive orders are pending at this point.

We still have the Affordable Healthcare Act.
We still have ISIS.
We still have 20T in debt.
Oh of course, your life hasn't changed, so there's nothing to worry about. Forget about all the people, including green card holders who have already cleared extensive vetting to become permanent US residents, who are currently detained at airports around the country. ATKC's life hasn't changed much. Everything is fine.

By the way -- if we keep the ACA, it's only going to be because enough GOP Senators stuck to their guns on not repealing until there's a replacement plan in place, and if we only have $20T in debt, it's only going to be because essentially none of the Trump/GOP plans get enacted. Neither of these possibilities is actually likely, and the fact that Trump is advocating to dismantle ACA and pushing a plan that will add trillions of dollars to the national debt should alarm you, if these things matter to you, even if they somehow don't ultimately come to pass.
You're correct that he has taken the initial steps to make changes. But the actual changes aren't in place and the results of the changes aren't in place yet. So I want to wait longer before I make a judgement. In all honesty, I'll probably end up agreeing with you about Trump. I wasn't a fan of his before the election and I'm still not. But out of respect to the office of the presidency, I'm willing to give Trump some time before I reaffirm my opinion of him. Do I expect to be pleasantly surprised? Nope. But I'll give him more than one week. You probably already have a true and accurate opinion of him. Just give me some time to catch up and I'll meet you there, most likely.
If you separate respect for "the office of the presidency" from respect for "the person who is currently president" then all the more reason to be angry about what he's already done. I have a friend who sort of put it best, as far as "respect for the office" goes, that she was having trouble grappling with the fact that forever into the future middle school classrooms that have pictures of all the presidents on the wall are going to have a picture of this dude now too. If you respect the office you should be appalled by what he's doing to it -- unless you don't mind it or actively are in favor of it. He's already sullied the office, no matter what he does from here. Arguably even if he turns out to be a good president himself, his conflicts of interest, refusal to release his tax returns, basic disrespect for his own position, etc have harmed the office itself.
phuqueue wrote:The rest of America has seen enough to give him a record low approval rating for an incoming president.
I wouldn't put much faith into that. His approval ratings are based on polling. I don't think I've seen an accurate poll about Trump this whole election cycle. He wasn't suppose to get to 270 electoral votes, according to polls. But, he's already in the White House, so his approval rating is irrelevant until the next election. Election results > Opinion polls. So, 2018 and 2020 will tell us plenty about his approval rating.
You've seen plenty of accurate polls about Trump. I mean, Hillary actually won the popular vote by the widest margin ever for an electoral college loser. The national polls, as it turns out, were relatively accurate -- they overestimated her by 1-2 points, which is about how much (actually a little less than) they underestimated Obama in 2012. Polls aren't perfect, which is why they have a margin of error that everybody basically ignores, but Trump didn't defy the polls, he won because he eked out incredibly narrow victories in three states, and because our electoral system rewards those states with excessive influence in the final result. There was a lot of "how could this have happened???" soul searching re: the polls in the first few days after the election, but the fact is that the polls really weren't that far off, and it's quite likely that neither is his approval rating.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by AllThingsKC »

phuqueue wrote:Whatever other reservations people might have had about Hillary, nobody was worried about her starting World War III. But yes, through selective responses and then selective quoting, feel free to dodge the issue of what stock traders are "certain" about and what implications that has for the rest of us.
Well, actually there were some people worried that Hillary start World War III due to her no fly zone over Syria. But, I digress. Stock traders are never completely "certain" of anything. But what they don't like is total uncertainty. At this point, what is certain is that Trump is president and the Dow is at all time high. The Dow being so high isn't necessarily because of the president. But if stock traders were uncertain or very worried about the future, we would likely see that in trading. Now we still might see that in trading at some point. But it's too early right now.
phuqueue wrote: By the way -- if we keep the ACA, it's only going to be because enough GOP Senators stuck to their guns on not repealing until there's a replacement plan in place, and if we only have $20T in debt, it's only going to be because essentially none of the Trump/GOP plans get enacted. Neither of these possibilities is actually likely, and the fact that Trump is advocating to dismantle ACA and pushing a plan that will add trillions of dollars to the national debt should alarm you, if these things matter to you, even if they somehow don't ultimately come to pass.
Of course they alarm me. You think I agree with everything Trump does? Yeah, I think I know what the results will be of Trump's actions. Some, if not all, of those results are alarming. But we're talking about "ifs" and "possibilities" here. Even though I'm pretty sure what the results will be, there are too many variables for me to know for sure. That is why I need to see more before I declare Trump good or bad, even though my expectations are low.
phuqueue wrote:If you separate respect for "the office of the presidency" from respect for "the person who is currently president" then all the more reason to be angry about what he's already done. I have a friend who sort of put it best, as far as "respect for the office" goes, that she was having trouble grappling with the fact that forever into the future middle school classrooms that have pictures of all the presidents on the wall are going to have a picture of this dude now too. If you respect the office you should be appalled by what he's doing to it -- unless you don't mind it or actively are in favor of it. He's already sullied the office, no matter what he does from here. Arguably even if he turns out to be a good president himself, his conflicts of interest, refusal to release his tax returns, basic disrespect for his own position, etc have harmed the office itself.
So, even if he turns out to be a good president, he will always be a bad president. Got it.
phuqueue wrote:..Trump didn't defy the polls, he won because he eked out incredibly narrow victories in three states...
...that he wasn't suppose to win, according to the polling in those states. So, as a result of those polls, Hillary ignores Wisconsin because it's "safe blue." She did have events in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but I'm not sure I saw any polls that had Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania going red. And most, if not all, of the polls for Iowa, Ohio, and Florida showed Hillary with a lead. She couldn't win Obama's states and lost states that had been blue for decades. So, forgive me if I question the accuracy of polling numbers. It's been a while since I've seen an accurate one.

As far as the electoral college, Trump has talked about getting rid of it. But that's probably because he think it's in direct competition with Trump University.
KC is the way to be!
earthling
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8519
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: milky way, orion arm

Re: Politics

Post by earthling »

ACLU is getting record level donations in a 5 day period...
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/ ... n-doing-it

More interesting will be how long it takes Trump to piss off half of the GOP to the point they pursue impeachment. And will Pence be playing a carefully orchestrated House of Cards hand to kick Trump out of the bird's nest.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote:Whatever other reservations people might have had about Hillary, nobody was worried about her starting World War III. But yes, through selective responses and then selective quoting, feel free to dodge the issue of what stock traders are "certain" about and what implications that has for the rest of us.
Well, actually there were some people worried that Hillary start World War III due to her no fly zone over Syria. But, I digress. Stock traders are never completely "certain" of anything. But what they don't like is total uncertainty. At this point, what is certain is that Trump is president and the Dow is at all time high. The Dow being so high isn't necessarily because of the president. But if stock traders were uncertain or very worried about the future, we would likely see that in trading. Now we still might see that in trading at some point. But it's too early right now.
If there's one thing we've learned about bankers over the past decade it's that they're always looking ahead with the long game in mind.
phuqueue wrote: By the way -- if we keep the ACA, it's only going to be because enough GOP Senators stuck to their guns on not repealing until there's a replacement plan in place, and if we only have $20T in debt, it's only going to be because essentially none of the Trump/GOP plans get enacted. Neither of these possibilities is actually likely, and the fact that Trump is advocating to dismantle ACA and pushing a plan that will add trillions of dollars to the national debt should alarm you, if these things matter to you, even if they somehow don't ultimately come to pass.
Of course they alarm me. You think I agree with everything Trump does? Yeah, I think I know what the results will be of Trump's actions. Some, if not all, of those results are alarming. But we're talking about "ifs" and "possibilities" here. Even though I'm pretty sure what the results will be, there are too many variables for me to know for sure. That is why I need to see more before I declare Trump good or bad, even though my expectations are low.
So you're alarmed by two of the cornerstones of his presidency but you're on the fence about whether he's a good or bad president until you see whether he accomplishes them. Got it.

Out of curiosity, which scenario makes him a good president? The one in which crisis is averted because he fails to achieve what he plainly wants to do, or the one in which he accomplishes his goals and what you are admittedly alarmed about all comes to pass?
phuqueue wrote:If you separate respect for "the office of the presidency" from respect for "the person who is currently president" then all the more reason to be angry about what he's already done. I have a friend who sort of put it best, as far as "respect for the office" goes, that she was having trouble grappling with the fact that forever into the future middle school classrooms that have pictures of all the presidents on the wall are going to have a picture of this dude now too. If you respect the office you should be appalled by what he's doing to it -- unless you don't mind it or actively are in favor of it. He's already sullied the office, no matter what he does from here. Arguably even if he turns out to be a good president himself, his conflicts of interest, refusal to release his tax returns, basic disrespect for his own position, etc have harmed the office itself.
So, even if he turns out to be a good president, he will always be a bad president. Got it.
Well how much exactly is enough? If he completely reverses course from here (hah) and turns out to be a great president, we still have to look at what's already in the books. And with issues like the conflicts of interest, yes, he has demonstrably harmed the office itself -- because even if he turns out to be a great president in his own right, after he finishes his great presidency the norms that guided past candidates have already been destroyed for the next guy, who might not be so great.
phuqueue wrote:..Trump didn't defy the polls, he won because he eked out incredibly narrow victories in three states...
...that he wasn't suppose to win, according to the polling in those states. So, as a result of those polls, Hillary ignores Wisconsin because it's "safe blue." She did have events in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but I'm not sure I saw any polls that had Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania going red. And most, if not all, of the polls for Iowa, Ohio, and Florida showed Hillary with a lead. She couldn't win Obama's states and lost states that had been blue for decades. So, forgive me if I question the accuracy of polling numbers. It's been a while since I've seen an accurate one.

As far as the electoral college, Trump has talked about getting rid of it. But that's probably because he think it's in direct competition with Trump University.
How much polling was done in those states? That's a real question, I don't know. But I know that state-level polling, in general, can be spotty in frequency or quality or both. The ordinary battleground states get attention. States that are believed to be safe one way or another typically get polled less. Projections that Hillary would carry those states were based not only on whatever polls did come out of there, but on her overall national lead (which, again, the polls weren't off by much) and the historical composition of the electorate (which is not the electorate that turned out this time). If you followed eg 538, there was a lot of analysis based on "if she's leading by five points nationally, that pushes states x, y, and z from lean Republican to toss up," which are really just guesstimates based on demographics and past voting, but they're usually more accurate than they were this year, when Trump managed to crack a traditionally Dem constituency in blue collar labor.

But even if your point about the state-level polls is conceded, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Approval rating polling has much more in common with the national polls (which, again, were fairly accurate) than with state-level polls. It's safe to say that Trump's approval rating is, in fact, in the toilet right now.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by AllThingsKC »

phuqueue wrote: If there's one thing we've learned about bankers over the past decade it's that they're always looking ahead with the long game in mind.
Yes, a lot of investors think in the short term and make knee-jerk reactions. But the Dow hit a record high after Trump became president. Maybe that was a positive knee-jerk reactions. Either way, that doesn't suggest they're worried right now. Now, again, that will most likely change at any time. The stock market is fickle.
phuqueue wrote: So you're alarmed by two of the cornerstones of his presidency but you're on the fence about whether he's a good or bad president until you see whether he accomplishes them. Got it.

Out of curiosity, which scenario makes him a good president? The one in which crisis is averted because he fails to achieve what he plainly wants to do, or the one in which he accomplishes his goals and what you are admittedly alarmed about all comes to pass?
I'm alarmed by the possible outcomes. What I am not sure about - and the part where I want to "wait and see" - is if we get those particular outcomes. There are too many variables right now for me to say with absolute certainty that this will be a disaster. I want to see how this plays out before I make that call. I don't blame you or anyone else who is confident enough to make that call now. I just want to wait before I make the call.

If Trump fails, and we have unexpected peace because of his failures, history will view him as a success just for being president during peace time. I'm not sure history will think or even care that there was peace despite Trump.
phuqueue wrote: Well how much exactly is enough? If he completely reverses course from here (hah) and turns out to be a great president, we still have to look at what's already in the books.
I agree with you that he's not likely to change course. But let's say he does. Does that make the next 4 to 8 years bad because of his first 7-10 days? I'm not holding my breath, but there's a lot more time for him to change course than to be a total disaster.
phuqueue wrote:How much polling was done in those states? That's a real question, I don't know. But I know that state-level polling, in general, can be spotty in frequency or quality or both. The ordinary battleground states get attention. States that are believed to be safe one way or another typically get polled less. Projections that Hillary would carry those states were based not only on whatever polls did come out of there, but on her overall national lead (which, again, the polls weren't off by much) and the historical composition of the electorate (which is not the electorate that turned out this time). If you followed eg 538, there was a lot of analysis based on "if she's leading by five points nationally, that pushes states x, y, and z from lean Republican to toss up," which are really just guesstimates based on demographics and past voting, but they're usually more accurate than they were this year, when Trump managed to crack a traditionally Dem constituency in blue collar labor.
I'm sure many polls were done in each in state. There probably weren't as many in the traditional "safe" states as there were in the swing states. But there was no shortage of state-wide and nation-wide polls. Even in most national polls, Trump wasn't suppose to win. I don't think I saw a state or national poll that predicted what we saw.
KC is the way to be!
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote: If there's one thing we've learned about bankers over the past decade it's that they're always looking ahead with the long game in mind.
Yes, a lot of investors think in the short term and make knee-jerk reactions. But the Dow hit a record high after Trump became president. Maybe that was a positive knee-jerk reactions. Either way, that doesn't suggest they're worried right now. Now, again, that will most likely change at any time. The stock market is fickle.
What they're "not worried about" right now is losing money on the trades they're making -- that's it. Reading more than that into their decisions, or assuming that their decisions reflect some kind of deep insight into what's to come is baseless and silly.
phuqueue wrote: So you're alarmed by two of the cornerstones of his presidency but you're on the fence about whether he's a good or bad president until you see whether he accomplishes them. Got it.

Out of curiosity, which scenario makes him a good president? The one in which crisis is averted because he fails to achieve what he plainly wants to do, or the one in which he accomplishes his goals and what you are admittedly alarmed about all comes to pass?
I'm alarmed by the possible outcomes. What I am not sure about - and the part where I want to "wait and see" - is if we get those particular outcomes. There are too many variables right now for me to say with absolute certainty that this will be a disaster. I want to see how this plays out before I make that call. I don't blame you or anyone else who is confident enough to make that call now. I just want to wait before I make the call.

If Trump fails, and we have unexpected peace because of his failures, history will view him as a success just for being president during peace time. I'm not sure history will think or even care that there was peace despite Trump.
This is deeply flawed reasoning. If he pursues plainly harmful policies, he's a bad president, whether he achieves them or not.
phuqueue wrote: Well how much exactly is enough? If he completely reverses course from here (hah) and turns out to be a great president, we still have to look at what's already in the books.
I agree with you that he's not likely to change course. But let's say he does. Does that make the next 4 to 8 years bad because of his first 7-10 days? I'm not holding my breath, but there's a lot more time for him to change course than to be a total disaster.
Well because of the rest of my paragraph that you cut off, yes, he's still been bad. The badness can be mitigated to some extent by ceasing to be bad and in fact being good for the rest of his presidency, but he's already at this very moment done lasting damage. For all the attention our elementary school civics classes gave to checks and balances, we are rapidly learning just how much good governance in this country relies on the assumption that people of integrity will hold office and scrupulously execute their duties in good faith, with few formal restraints or enforcement mechanisms. Even if Trump himself suddenly turns out to be a good president, the foundation is already laid for the next guy. The only thing holding him back is what looks to be an empty threat of impeachment. The founders were well aware of the dangers of partisanship (or "factionalism") but apparently failed to foresee a time when politicians in power would put their own interests ahead of the country's.
phuqueue wrote:How much polling was done in those states? That's a real question, I don't know. But I know that state-level polling, in general, can be spotty in frequency or quality or both. The ordinary battleground states get attention. States that are believed to be safe one way or another typically get polled less. Projections that Hillary would carry those states were based not only on whatever polls did come out of there, but on her overall national lead (which, again, the polls weren't off by much) and the historical composition of the electorate (which is not the electorate that turned out this time). If you followed eg 538, there was a lot of analysis based on "if she's leading by five points nationally, that pushes states x, y, and z from lean Republican to toss up," which are really just guesstimates based on demographics and past voting, but they're usually more accurate than they were this year, when Trump managed to crack a traditionally Dem constituency in blue collar labor.
I'm sure many polls were done in each in state. There probably weren't as many in the traditional "safe" states as there were in the swing states. But there was no shortage of state-wide and nation-wide polls. Even in most national polls, Trump wasn't suppose to win. I don't think I saw a state or national poll that predicted what we saw.
As far as I'm aware that's an utterly baseless statement. Again, I don't stay plugged into the nuts and bolts of polling, but I do recall chatter on twitter or wherever else between people wondering what's going on in such and such state and then finding that the last reliable poll in that state was several weeks old. Polling -- especially good polling -- is not cheap or easy to conduct. States that are considered to be foregone conclusions get a lot less attention than those that are up in the air.

And, again, the national polls more or less predicted exactly what we saw -- they predicted Hillary Clinton winning the national vote by a few points. All the polls are meant to tell you is what percentage support each candidate has. Again, they gave her a little wider edge than she actually had, but not much (like I said before, comparable to the margin by which they underestimated Obama in 2012). What was wrong wasn't the polls, it was how the polls were interpreted and reported. Lost in the fact that she lost the overall election is that she performed much more strongly than past Dem candidates in Republican states like Texas and Georgia. National polls tell you what people nationwide are thinking, they don't tell you that her margin is made up of useless votes Dems don't usually get that she's picking up in states she's still going to lose at the expense of votes Dems usually do get that she's losing in states she could have won. None of this matters in the context of approval ratings so, again, when the polls tell you Trump's approval rating is garbage, it's probably actually garbage.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by AllThingsKC »

phuqueue wrote:What they're "not worried about" right now is losing money on the trades they're making -- that's it. Reading more than that into their decisions, or assuming that their decisions reflect some kind of deep insight into what's to come is baseless and silly.
OK.
phuqueue wrote: This is deeply flawed reasoning. If he pursues plainly harmful policies, he's a bad president, whether he achieves them or not.
OK.
phuqueue wrote: The founders were well aware of the dangers of partisanship (or "factionalism") but apparently failed to foresee a time when politicians in power would put their own interests ahead of the country's.
You think this is something new?
phuqueue wrote:As far as I'm aware that's an utterly baseless statement.
OK.
KC is the way to be!
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9862
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Politics

Post by flyingember »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote: The founders were well aware of the dangers of partisanship (or "factionalism") but apparently failed to foresee a time when politicians in power would put their own interests ahead of the country's.
You think this is something new?
ex. Aaron Burr.
They didn't have to foresee something that was already happening.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote: The founders were well aware of the dangers of partisanship (or "factionalism") but apparently failed to foresee a time when politicians in power would put their own interests ahead of the country's.
You think this is something new?
Can I ask you what the point is of excising an entire paragraph to reply to one sentence from it out of any other context? I mean I guess I actually know the point of it but I just want to highlight here that you do it all the time.

Of course politicians who are more concerned with their own interests than the country's are not new. What does have few precedents, especially in modern times, is the combination of an executive who is openly hostile to constitutional restraints on his power with a legislature uninterested in asserting itself to rein him in because this conflicts with their own interest in seeking reelection. Man and it's almost like this conversation has actually been about Trump and that the reference to Congressional Republicans was made in that context and was not a separate tangent about the imaginary halcyon days of selfless politicians acting purely out of love of country, but you wouldn't know that from your habit of selectively quoting single sentences and then replying to what you think they say when they stand on their own.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by AllThingsKC »

phuqueue wrote:Can I ask you what the point is of excising an entire paragraph to reply to one sentence from it out of any other context?
Sure. I assure you it's not to take anything you say out of context. Since the full context of your statements usually appear just one post above my response, it's not like I'm trying to secretly twist your words around. Your words can be easily viewed in full context prior to my response. I certainly don't mean to take anything out of context.

Also, your paragraphs can be lengthy sometimes. For example, this is one sentence in a paragraph of yours:
phuqueue wrote:Man and it's almost like this conversation has actually been about Trump and that the reference to Congressional Republicans was made in that context and was not a separate tangent about the imaginary halcyon days of selfless politicians acting purely out of love of country, but you wouldn't know that from your habit of selectively quoting single sentences and then replying to what you think they say when they stand on their own.
So, because you sometimes have multiple points in one sentence, let alone one paragraph, I'll trim the quote for clarification purposes. I promise it's not meant to take your words out of context. If I have question about something you've said, I'll ask or comment.
KC is the way to be!
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

I'm not saying that you have questions you aren't asking, I'm saying you just ignore the point and respond to something that's actually not the point instead. I mean above I tried to make the point that, even if he magically becomes a great president from here on out, Trump has already done genuine damage to the office, but you quoted and responded to a single sentence that you construed as my Pollyannaish misconception that the current crop of GOP lawmakers were the first politicians ever to put themselves ahead of their responsibilities. It's basically just a strawman. Sometimes I'll go down these tangents with you anyway but it does still merit calling out from time to time.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by AllThingsKC »

Sounds good to me.
KC is the way to be!
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

Back to the main topic though, I totally agree that it's too early to pass any judgment on this adminis--

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/u ... flynn.html
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/u ... trump.html
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/u ... house.html
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by AllThingsKC »

It's not too early to pass "any judgement" on this administration.
KC is the way to be!
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

Sorry, I should have used more precise language, I just meant to express that I also need more time before I make a judgment one way or the oth-- https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/u ... flynn.html
mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11233
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

What's the point in posting those links? Everyone knows that the failing NY Times is fake news, dude. FAKE NEWS! Also CNN, NPR, MSNBC, and anything except Breitbart, Fox News, and /pol. I don't understand why you cucks hate winning so much. #MAGA

...and the far right has literally become a parody of itself. I hope the reasonable, sane people on the right disavow this nonsense. Even if they get called cucks.
User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9352
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by AllThingsKC »

It's not too early to "make a judgment" one way or the other.
KC is the way to be!
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12625
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Politics

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Is it too early to talk about the 2018 election cycle?
Dems take over the Senate?
Dems take over the House?
Both?
State offices start the swing back to the Dems?
What happens to Obamacare?
What other cabinet officer is forced to resign? Or resigns because of Trump?
Post Reply