Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 190: Slightly Erotic Politics

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ohio police officer tases 11-year old suspected of shoplifting, tells her "This is why there aren't any grocery stores in the Black community."

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1037531438474780672
---

What an odd thing to say
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

HaRRicH posted...

I know we covered a lot of Woodward quotes the past few days, but I want to make sure this one gets seen.

It's weird. On one hand, what better proof is there of Donald's racism than to describe the time he tried to clarify Nazis were bad (which was already clarified poorly) was his worst speech and biggest fucking mistake? On the other hand, letting Bannon go later that week is weirder timing now. The pressure to let Bannon go was definitely strong, it's just worth noting to see how strong that pressure must have been to have fired him in this moment where Donald so strongly regretted attempting to be less than racist.

I'm usually not one to be at all charitable to Trump, but I think it's more likely that the primary reason he regrets it is that it was one of the very few times he actually apologized for something (which he thinks makes him look weak).

Yes, to Trump I'm pretty sure the content doesn't matter. It's the fact that he admitted he might have been wrong - Trump broke his longstanding policy of never ever admitting he is wrong no matter how obvious it is.
---

The results are in...
(btw Nick Ayers is VP45s Chief of Staff).



https://twitter.com/OMAROSA/status/1038043662775713797
---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1038111526488498176?s=19

Former Pres. Obama: "I know there are Republicans who believe government should only perform a few minimal functions, but that one of those functions should be making sure nearly 3,000 Americans don't die in a hurricane."

Oh shit.

Remember, there was NO POSSIBLE WAY they could have done any more.
---

I don't like this cop's attitude talking about the all those "idiots" in the parking lot chastising him for tasing the 11-year old girl. If his actions were proper, then they would not have complained.
---

Omarosa: Trump is 'not well'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-9YVaasdK8" data-time="

Has the President reached out to you? Are you talking to the White House still?
No, the President has called for the Justice Department to arrest me! ... I don't want to have a conversation with someone who's called me a dog.
---

OK so

I've been thinking lately it's pretty easy to assume Trump is just doing a shitty job because he's Trump and because US politics have now gone beyond House of Cards levels of absurdity. I think he's a bad president because he fails at the very first hurdle of what a leader should do (he should be a figure of inspiration but acts like a clown; he should show dignity but engages in petty feuds, etc), which means he's sort of working on a broken foundation from the start. That and the way said pettiness has helped to lower the tone even further.

But y'know, it's easy to go over the top on certain shit Trump does that really doesn't matter that much (stuff that is bad, but that shouldn't dominate the news cycle for a week).

So what do you guys think he has done well - or at least, like, stuff you can at least understand is a good idea with bad execution, or something. I've been doing a bit of very surface research but a lot of it is so partisan it's kind of difficult to nail down.

Edit: Like, for instance, the rules of engagement being relaxed under the Trump administration is being touted as a good thing and ISIS in Syria have taken heavy losses, and apparently it was previously too micromanaged, but civilian deaths have gone up as a result. I don't really see your decisions leading to more civilian deaths being a win.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

OK so

I've been thinking lately it's pretty easy to assume Trump is just doing a shitty job because he's Trump and because US politics have now gone beyond House of Cards levels of absurdity. I think he's a bad president because he fails at the very first hurdle of what a leader should do (he should be a figure of inspiration but acts like a clown; he should show dignity but engages in petty feuds, etc), which means he's sort of working on a broken foundation from the start. That and the way said pettiness has helped to lower the tone even further.

But y'know, it's easy to go over the top on certain shit Trump does that really doesn't matter that much (stuff that is bad, but that shouldn't dominate the news cycle for a week).

So what do you guys think he has done well - or at least, like, stuff you can at least understand is a good idea with bad execution, or something. I've been doing a bit of very surface research but a lot of it is so partisan it's kind of difficult to nail down.

This is a businessman who thinks "Trade is bad" enough for it to be his notes. He's basically incapable of having good ideas.
---

SupremeZero posted...

This is a businessman who thinks "Trade is bad" enough for it to be his notes. He's basically incapable of having good ideas

OK that's great and all and maybe any "success" won't really come from him (even if he takes credit for it), but that doesn't preclude the possible existence of success while he is president.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

OK so

I've been thinking lately it's pretty easy to assume Trump is just doing a shitty job because he's Trump and because US politics have now gone beyond House of Cards levels of absurdity. I think he's a bad president because he fails at the very first hurdle of what a leader should do (he should be a figure of inspiration but acts like a clown; he should show dignity but engages in petty feuds, etc), which means he's sort of working on a broken foundation from the start. That and the way said pettiness has helped to lower the tone even further.

But y'know, it's easy to go over the top on certain shit Trump does that really doesn't matter that much (stuff that is bad, but that shouldn't dominate the news cycle for a week).

So what do you guys think he has done well - or at least, like, stuff you can at least understand is a good idea with bad execution, or something. I've been doing a bit of very surface research but a lot of it is so partisan it's kind of difficult to nail down.

Edit: Like, for instance, the rules of engagement being relaxed under the Trump administration is being touted as a good thing and ISIS in Syria have taken heavy losses, and apparently it was previously too micromanaged, but civilian deaths have gone up as a result. I don't really see your decisions leading to more civilian deaths being a win.

Tax Cuts
Ending War on Coal
Stronger Immigration Enforcement
Trying to rework NAFTA
Etc
---

I honestly cannot think of a single thing Trump has done that is better than the actions of a generic president.

Are there things he could have have fucked up more? Sure. By many metrics the economy is doing quite well, for instance, but I haven't seen any compelling argument that that's due to any action on Trump's part (and indeed, most of the numbers like unemployment etc are just following the same trends they were at the end of Obama's presidency).
---

Corrik posted...

XIII_rocks posted...

OK so

I've been thinking lately it's pretty easy to assume Trump is just doing a shitty job because he's Trump and because US politics have now gone beyond House of Cards levels of absurdity. I think he's a bad president because he fails at the very first hurdle of what a leader should do (he should be a figure of inspiration but acts like a clown; he should show dignity but engages in petty feuds, etc), which means he's sort of working on a broken foundation from the start. That and the way said pettiness has helped to lower the tone even further.

But y'know, it's easy to go over the top on certain shit Trump does that really doesn't matter that much (stuff that is bad, but that shouldn't dominate the news cycle for a week).

So what do you guys think he has done well - or at least, like, stuff you can at least understand is a good idea with bad execution, or something. I've been doing a bit of very surface research but a lot of it is so partisan it's kind of difficult to nail down.

Edit: Like, for instance, the rules of engagement being relaxed under the Trump administration is being touted as a good thing and ISIS in Syria have taken heavy losses, and apparently it was previously too micromanaged, but civilian deaths have gone up as a result. I don't really see your decisions leading to more civilian deaths being a win.

Tax Cuts
Ending War on Coal
Stronger Immigration Enforcement
Trying to rework NAFTA
Etc

In terms of the question XIII asked, I will give you immigration enforcement as being a good idea in THEORY. I'll also go with the North Korea stuff IN THEORY. But the other three are either bad, or I don't really understand why NAFTA needed reworking in general.
---

NAFTA is terrible and the reworking of it won't really help it unfortunately, but it was a good try.

Tax Cuts are good but could have been done better.

Ending War on Coal is just good.
---

Coal is a dying energy source that is easier to automate than to continue paying large numbers of people to mine, and instead, we should be focusing on retraining those coal miners, perhaps in green energy sources.

Tax cuts SOUND good in the same way ice cream for every meal SOUNDS good. It's a cheap way to pander to idiots who can't look at the world beyond "THE GUB'MINT'S TAKIN' MAH MONEY!" In reality, most tax cuts won't (and haven't) had major impacts on the majority of Americans' daily lives, they disproportionately benefit the people already rich enough to never need to worry about money in any way, shape, or form, and it starves the country of vital revenue needed to fund all aspects of life. Seriously, I cannot tell you how many times I see ads for Bob Stefanowski talking about how Ned Lamont wants to raise taxes, and true or not, it immediately makes me want to vote more for Ned Lamont, because he's being fiscally fucking responsible rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator. Christ, this country would be so much better off if George H.W. Bush hadn't been punished with a single term for doing the fiscally responsible thing and raising taxes once Reagan's trickle-down bullshit proved detrimental to the country.
---

oh Good the war on coal is over
---

war on coal lmao
---

Inviso posted...

Coal is a dying energy source that is easier to automate than to continue paying large numbers of people to mine, and instead, we should be focusing on retraining those coal miners, perhaps in green energy sources.

I mean, not really. I would like to know where you even threw something out that it is "easier" to automate something that you don't even know how it works.

Though, you did provide a last line which was a saving grace. If you wish to actively put coal workers out of jobs, then you should have guarranteed jobs of equal or higher worth to the people you are purposely trying to displace.
---

There was never a war on coal. It's old technology that is rapidly being phased out and replaced with newer, more efficient, less environmentally-damaging alternatives. This is natural and good and the most free-market thing I can imagine, so it's hard to see how supposedly-free-market-embracing conservatives are opposing it.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

There was never a war on coal. It's old technology that is rapidly being phased out and replaced with newer, more efficient, less environmentally-damaging alternatives. This is natural and good and the most free-market thing I can imagine, so it's hard to see how supposedly-free-market-embracing conservatives are opposing it.

There are laws specifically in place to attack coal jobs. And subsidies and such for other forms. It is being killed. It is not happening "naturally"
---

Tax cuts
Trade deal renegotiation
Peace with North Korea and Russia
Pressuring NATO countries to pay their fair share
Encouraging the UK to replace Theresa May
Partial repeal of Obamacare
Empowering voters to believe they can make a difference
Calling out the media for how bad they are
Appointing people with no qualifications in a field to oversee the government office in that field (this is what you should do if you are actually trying to cut that office!)
Stopping Hillary Clinton

Is that enough reasons?
---

And, here's a big one. Proving that money does not win elections. Trump won, despite getting massively outspent. Dems rail against money in politics constantly, but they ignore the one person who has done the most to show it need not be so important.
---

So, I listen to talk radio in the car and every evening on my drive home I listen to Mark Levin cause he is who is on and I laugh the whole way. I have to believe that at least 40% of what he actually says is strictly for his base and he means none of it.

Hes a smart man, I respect him however his love of Donad Trump and the Republicans and his pure loathing of Democrats is just... it confuses me sometimes.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And, here's a big one. Proving that money does not win elections. Trump won, despite getting massively outspent. Dems rail against money in politics constantly, but they ignore the one person who has done the most to show it need not be so important.

Money wins elections because it buys ad time.

But Trumps antics (and the emails) were the most covered things in 2016, so he gained from that.

Tl;dr an exception does not disprove a rule
---

Corrik posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

There was never a war on coal. It's old technology that is rapidly being phased out and replaced with newer, more efficient, less environmentally-damaging alternatives. This is natural and good and the most free-market thing I can imagine, so it's hard to see how supposedly-free-market-embracing conservatives are opposing it.

There are laws specifically in place to attack coal jobs. And subsidies and such for other forms. It is being killed. It is not happening "naturally"

Btw, less than 2,000 coal jobs have been created under Trump.

Why do people care so much about an industry employing so few?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

There was never a war on coal. It's old technology that is rapidly being phased out and replaced with newer, more efficient, less environmentally-damaging alternatives. This is natural and good and the most free-market thing I can imagine, so it's hard to see how supposedly-free-market-embracing conservatives are opposing it.

There are laws specifically in place to attack coal jobs. And subsidies and such for other forms. It is being killed. It is not happening "naturally"

Btw, less than 2,000 coal jobs have been created under Trump.

Why do people care so much about an industry employing so few?

murica
---

From that list Corrik posted claiming that both the ideas and implementations were good, I am quite literally forced to conclude that he wants to destroy both the environment and the middle class in favor of giving even more money to people that aren't him

Also please quit quoting his posts, I'm better off not knowing they exist.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/

The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arbys
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Btw, less than 2,000 coal jobs have been created under Trump.

Why do people care so much about an industry employing so few?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html

Also the fact that ending the "war on coal" will have negative effects to thousands of people because of pollutants and thats coming from the EPA itself.
---

The middle class can't comprehend that people poorer than themselves rather give money to the rich than the middle class. 83% of the Trump tax cuts went to the top 1%. Well, 17% is better than nothing, which is what the Democrats offered.
---

That might be your dumbest post yet, red sox. Congrats!
---

red sox 777 posted...

The middle class can't comprehend that people poorer than themselves rather give money to the rich than the middle class. 83% of the Trump tax cuts went to the top 1%. Well, 17% is better than nothing, which is what the Democrats offered.

this is a post from somebody that doesn't know how math works
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

There was never a war on coal. It's old technology that is rapidly being phased out and replaced with newer, more efficient, less environmentally-damaging alternatives. This is natural and good and the most free-market thing I can imagine, so it's hard to see how supposedly-free-market-embracing conservatives are opposing it.

There are laws specifically in place to attack coal jobs. And subsidies and such for other forms. It is being killed. It is not happening "naturally"

Btw, less than 2,000 coal jobs have been created under Trump.

Why do people care so much about an industry employing so few?

What is "so few" to you? And I didn't say Trump was giving birth to coal jobs. I said he ended the war on coal.

And, I find it highly unlikely under 2000 coal jobs were restored. Which is clever usage of the word created there I suppose.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/

The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arbys

Another clever usage that the unknowing person wouldn't get.

It is only talking about coal mining. There is tons of things that are end of the line from coal mining itself.

Like holy skewed fucking factual support here, bro. Show me some more!
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/

The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arbys

Another clever usage that the unknowing person wouldn't get.

It is only talking about coal mining. There is tons of things that are end of the line from coal mining itself.

Like holy skewed fucking factual support here, bro. Show me some more!

...It's talking about coal mining because Trump specifically said he was helping miners/mining, ya doofus
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The middle class can't comprehend that people poorer than themselves rather give money to the rich than the middle class. 83% of the Trump tax cuts went to the top 1%. Well, 17% is better than nothing, which is what the Democrats offered.

this is a post from somebody that doesn't know how math works

I have a degree in math. Most of the electorate does not.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/

The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arbys

Another clever usage that the unknowing person wouldn't get.

It is only talking about coal mining. There is tons of things that are end of the line from coal mining itself.

Like holy skewed fucking factual support here, bro. Show me some more!

...It's talking about coal mining because Trump specifically said he was helping miners/mining, ya doofus

I cannot even believe people can sit here and talk about arguing in bad faith and disingenuous arguments when you are posting shit like this. Like holy fuck.

Literally skewing statistics to make stupid arguments that are asinine.
---

I question the legitimacy of any degree you claim to have
---

red sox 777 posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The middle class can't comprehend that people poorer than themselves rather give money to the rich than the middle class. 83% of the Trump tax cuts went to the top 1%. Well, 17% is better than nothing, which is what the Democrats offered.

this is a post from somebody that doesn't know how math works

I have a degree in math. Most of the electorate does not.

I think the problem, which I'm sure you're aware of since you wrote that blatant manipulation of figures with an express purpose, is that you're claiming that 17% of the tax cuts went to the poor because the top tier of rich people got 83%...but the implication there is that ALL 99% below the 1% are "poor".
---

oh so you're just an admitted troll that doesn't believe the things he says

wait we already knew that fuck
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/

The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arbys

Another clever usage that the unknowing person wouldn't get.

It is only talking about coal mining. There is tons of things that are end of the line from coal mining itself.

Like holy skewed fucking factual support here, bro. Show me some more!

...It's talking about coal mining because Trump specifically said he was helping miners/mining, ya doofus

I cannot even believe people can sit here and talk about arguing in bad faith and disingenuous arguments when you are posting shit like this. Like holy fuck.

Literally skewing statistics to make stupid arguments that are asinine.

"I'm putting miners back to work!"
"*Mining statistics*"
Corrik: You can't talk about mining statistics when he says miners!

Goodbye again
---

Do I have to spell things out every time?

Trump makes the implied argument that 17>0. The argument may have flaws, but it's very easy to understand, so that means it's on Democrats to argue why it is flawed if they want people to vote for them. If they fail to do that, then voters will accept the 17>0 reasoning. And they will feel richer and happier. Because they are winning.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/

The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arbys

Another clever usage that the unknowing person wouldn't get.

It is only talking about coal mining. There is tons of things that are end of the line from coal mining itself.

Like holy skewed fucking factual support here, bro. Show me some more!

...It's talking about coal mining because Trump specifically said he was helping miners/mining, ya doofus

I cannot even believe people can sit here and talk about arguing in bad faith and disingenuous arguments when you are posting shit like this. Like holy fuck.

Literally skewing statistics to make stupid arguments that are asinine.

"I'm putting miners back to work!"
"*Mining statistics*"
Corrik: You can't talk about mining statistics when he says miners!

Goodbye again

I can't tell if you are a literal idiot or just trolling at this point.

"President Trump made coal jobs a core of his presidential campaign, repeatedly vowing to bring back "beautiful" coal despite the industry's decades-long decline. And in pockets of the U.S. during Trump's first year in office, it may well have felt like a turnaround was underway."

Coal mining is not the only coal job. How the fuck do you think most of steel is made? Like, Jesus. Why do you think he was campaigning in Western PA so much? Why do you think he imposed steel tariffs.

Coal
Fucking
Jobs

I can't even fathom the level of stupidity that people do in gymnastics to try and say stupid shit just to make everything against the world versus Trump.

Literally make shit up as you go.

Coal mining might have less jobs than Arby's. Who the fuck knows. But industries that rely on coal I am sure have quite a bit more.

Fucking talk about arguing in bad faith and shit. Lmfao. Learn what the fuck you are talking about
---

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The middle class can't comprehend that people poorer than themselves rather give money to the rich than the middle class. 83% of the Trump tax cuts went to the top 1%. Well, 17% is better than nothing, which is what the Democrats offered.

this is a post from somebody that doesn't know how math works

I have a degree in math. Most of the electorate does not.

I think the problem, which I'm sure you're aware of since you wrote that blatant manipulation of figures with an express purpose, is that you're claiming that 17% of the tax cuts went to the poor because the top tier of rich people got 83%...but the implication there is that ALL 99% below the 1% are "poor".

This is already the case in the mind of Donald Trump. And with a few more Republican victories, it will be true in "reality."
---

Companies that use paper aren't suddenly part of the "paper industry" statistics you know

"I made them this promise, Trump said at the signing. We will put our miners back to work.

---

Corrik, how is it that you can take things completely literally and without nuance in EVERY other situation, but when Trump uses the term "coal jobs", suddenly it's up for interpretation as REALLY meaning things that USE coal? Okay, so steel then. Alright. Then why do we need coal mining at all in this country? Can't steel just import cheaper coal from China or overseas?
---

And the idea is:

Top 1%: +83
Middle class: -100
Working class: +17

If Democrats don't like this, they better start paying attention, because Republicans have embraced this model and are working on making it reality.
---