Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 98: Riyadh It and Weep

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kenri posted...

SupremeZero posted...

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/865963547314073601

I think Roger Stone's shit has been thoroughly flipped.

lmfao

Not a fan of all the "he curtsied, lol president girly man" responses in the thread though. Calling Trump a woman is an insult to women, not Trump.

To be fair, Trump would still consider it an insult which is probably the point.
---

Mega Mana posted...

Kenri posted...

SupremeZero posted...

https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/865963547314073601

I think Roger Stone's shit has been thoroughly flipped.

lmfao

Not a fan of all the "he curtsied, lol president girly man" responses in the thread though. Calling Trump a woman is an insult to women, not Trump.

To be fair, Trump would still consider it an insult which is probably the point.

Supposedly, what he ended up doing is genuinely the saudi equivalent of a curtsy.
---

Not a fan of all the "he curtsied, lol president girly man" responses in the thread though. Calling Trump a woman is an insult to women, not Trump.

If you're the kind of person that posts in a comments section for a news story in the first place, 9 times out of 10 that means you're a shitty person to begin with. This crosses beyond party lines.
---

Mega Mana posted...

To be fair, Trump would still consider it an insult which is probably the point.

True. Same with the "Trump and Putin are gay lovers" stuff, but like, it's still dragging the very people Trump's hurting down with him. Idk it makes me uncomfortable; I'm fine with being rude as fuck (because fuck respectability politics) but this kind of stuff just seems off-target.
---

Kenri posted...

Mega Mana posted...

To be fair, Trump would still consider it an insult which is probably the point.

True. Same with the "Trump and Putin are gay lovers" stuff, but like, it's still dragging the very people Trump's hurting down with him. Idk it makes me uncomfortable; I'm fine with being rude as fuck (because fuck respectability politics) but this kind of stuff just seems off-target.

Agreed.
---

lmao the_donald didn't even make it the entire 24 hours of their "protest"

the_donald

We were planning to stay dark in protest longer but we're opening back up early because Seth Rich's killers are still not found. We are opening back up for him. No one is willing to talk about this, besides us.

ho lee shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit lol
---

An entire forum of Vlados.
---

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/865967088732704768

NEW: White House provides readout of Trump's meeting with Saudi leaders; topics included ISIS, Iran, Yemen, Syria. https://t.co/uLm4oHLP9I https://t.co/eAscqiNCmG

I wonder if our conservative friends who despise political correctness are bothered by the lack of the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism"? For all of their (and Trump's) bravado, he sure backs down quickly when he's face to face with someone.
---

Believe it or not I'm just happy he didn't cause a diplomatic incident.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

And the Democrats need to learn to listen to people like Bernie, Biden, and Tulsi, and drop deadweight like Pelosi.

On that last point, I think LotM's comment about "the left wing of the party is too radical" is extremely telling that dude has zero idea why Bernie was popular.

No offense, man, but "hey let's take care of workers, Vets, students, and the poor" should be the literal basis of the Democratic Party, not some "radical" vision.

I do understand why Bernie was popular. I just think that he didn't have good policy ideas and hated that he massively oversimplified issues and stripped them of all nuance (e.g. he may as well have been saying "rich people are evil"; I know he didn't literally say that, but that's what the average person takes away from his message).

I am for taking care of the the poor etc, which is why I'm a big supporter of stuff like the ACA. That doesn't mean that I'm not highly skeptical of many of Bernie's plans though, like free college (which is mostly a redistribution of wealth to the middle class), opposing trade deals, or single payer (which strikes me as a risky as fuck move compared to things like a public option).

Also Pelosi was a fantastic speaker. If it wasn't for her the ACA would have never passed; she even had Congresspeoples' childhood friends calling them to ask them why they were wavering on voting for the bill, convincing them to take a really unpopular vote that cost many of them their seats.
---

1- rich people are evil
2- having simplified policies as a pres candidate is a good thing, its why bernie and trump excited people and hillary did not (most people are not policy wonks, and details of policies get worked out in congress not by the pres)
3- in NO WAY is free college a redistribution of wealth. it is taxing the successful who benefited from our education system to provide the opportunity to succeed to others without putting yourself in insane amounts of debt. it isn't giving poor/middle class people money or wealth, just allowing them to take on less debt to have a chance to succeed...which is unquestionably a good thing for our economy.
4- a 'risky as fuck' move for the tens of millions without insurance under the ACA is not having single payer, and also constitutes 'taking care of the poor etc'

FFDragon posted...

lmao the_donald didn't even make it the entire 24 hours of their "protest"

the_donald

We were planning to stay dark in protest longer but we're opening back up early because Seth Rich's killers are still not found. We are opening back up for him. No one is willing to talk about this, besides us.

ho lee shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit lol

...do... they really not know that /pol/ exists?
either of them?

IT'S A FUCKING STICKY ON ONE OF THEM.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I just think that he didn't have good policy ideas and hated that he massively oversimplified issues and stripped them of all nuance (e.g. he may as well have been saying "rich people are evil"; I know he didn't literally say that, but that's what the average person takes away from his message).

this was a common complaint of him, yeah. the idea that bernie was just saying feel good things, not policy of any kind that was remotely reasonable. he gets boiled down hard to be "free shit" and "dude weed lmao" in argument and in his base. not to say that the ideas weren't without value but much of what the crazy loud guy had to people who weren't his supporters. and there's a logic to it too: if you're gonna compromise, start from beyond what you want and steadily get to what you really want. that just doesn't play so nicely with dems is all.

as for Pelosi, she did her job. she did it well.
but right now she's not helping. step aside and let someone else take the reins.


Unknown_voter posted...

in NO WAY is free college a redistribution of wealth. it is taxing the successful who benefited from our education system to provide the opportunity to succeed to others without putting yourself in insane amounts of debt

dude, we already get that you're a communist, no need to pretend a spade's a club when trying to make points.
---

Wanglicious posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

I just think that he didn't have good policy ideas and hated that he massively oversimplified issues and stripped them of all nuance (e.g. he may as well have been saying "rich people are evil"; I know he didn't literally say that, but that's what the average person takes away from his message).

this was a common complaint of him, yeah. the idea that bernie was just saying feel good things, not policy of any kind that was remotely reasonable. he gets boiled down hard to be "free shit" and "dude weed lmao" in argument and in his base. not to say that the ideas weren't without value but much of what the crazy loud guy had to people who weren't his supporters. and there's a logic to it too: if you're gonna compromise, start from beyond what you want and steadily get to what you really want. that just doesn't play so nicely with dems is all.

Yeah, and that's exactly why Hillary was a terrible terrible candidate for the current political climate.

She walked to the table going "I'll meet you here in the middle", while the GOP says "We want this wayyyyyy over here on our terms."

Even if she won, either nothing would get done or she'd have to compromise her already middle of the road ideas.

as for Pelosi, she did her job. she did it well.
but right now she's not helping. step aside and let someone else take the reins.

She did such a great job, the Democrats got beat by Donald Trump and everybody hates her.

Literally the only reason the ACA that she "worked so hard for" is still alive is because Republicans couldn't come to an agreement about how destructive they wanted to be with dismantling it.

And it's bizarre to see someone who self-refers as a Democrat, call free college "redistribution of wealth" and single payer "risky as fuck" when every other developed nation does it, and our country already spends more taxes per capita on healthcare without giving its citizens coverage.
---

Unknown_voter posted...

2- having simplified policies as a pres candidate is a good thing, its why bernie and trump excited people and hillary did not (most people are not policy wonks, and details of policies get worked out in congress not by the pres)

new transformers movies consistently excite people too, this doesn't mean they're a good thing or should run for president

in terms of strategy you're right though. it would just be better if more of the public took an interest in politics beyond sound bites and propaganda.
---

free college is distribution of wealth. it's weird to see anyone call it anything else, that's the only way it's going to be paid. whether it's a good usage of that system or not you can argue but the mechanics are pretty straight forward.
---

Wanglicious posted...

free college is distribution of wealth. it's weird to see anyone call it anything else, that's the only way it's going to be paid. whether it's a good usage of that system or not you can argue but the mechanics are pretty straight forward.

I mean literally every tax ever is technically that so
---

I feel like aiming for free college tuition is a mistake. College degrees are already becoming increasingly worthless, and they will be even more worthless if literally everyone can go to college. There is also the very legitimate complaint that taxpayers will be paying for a lot of students to go and party it up and not actually learn much. College tuitions should definitely be made more affordable, and there should be some form of current student debt relief (even if it's not all debt) but I think free tuition would be harmful in the long run.

I'm not really sure how to fix the inherent problems with colleges though. There needs to be a cultural shift away from them - not everyone needs to go to college. Trade schools and seperate specialized programs are pretty effective and don't saddle you with nearly as much debt. You can't force a cultural shift though, so...yeah.
---

It's mostly a redistribution to the middle class (much like the homeowner's tax credit) since colleges are already able to use very precise price discrimination and usually offer a lot of need based financial aid if you're poor enough.

There are other countries which do offer free college, but afaik they all restrict it to people who did well in high school to avoid it becoming too huge of a cost.
---

...Man, I was kind of hoping someone would answer my question from before. =(

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Even if she won, either nothing would get done or she'd have to compromise her already middle of the road ideas.

Question 1: Middle of the road compared to what?
Question 2: Assuming you believe this, does it not follow you would also believe that "If Sanders had won, nothing would get done"?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

She did such a great job, the Democrats got beat by Donald Trump and everybody hates her.

who is everyone

Also, why does she take the blame for this? Or more specifically, is there a list of people who take the blame for this? And is there like criteria for it?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Literally the only reason the ACA that she "worked so hard for" is still alive is because Republicans couldn't come to an agreement about how destructive they wanted to be with dismantling it.

what else does this logic apply to?

do we disregard people who worked to pass the VRA because SCOTUS weakened it?
---

KamikazePotato posted...

There needs to be a cultural shift away from them - not everyone needs to go to college.

Having a minimum wage that's at least the cost of living would help.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

There are other countries which do offer free college, but afaik they all restrict it to people who did well in high school to avoid it becoming too huge of a cost.

Hmm that sounds like an alright idea. Would create some iffy scenarios though - not all high schools have the same difficulty level. I went to a private school with high standards and I scraped by good grades in a lot of scenarios (actually ended up finding college much easier). In contrast, everyone who went to the nearby public school has told me that the curriculum is very easy.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

There needs to be a cultural shift away from them - not everyone needs to go to college.

Having a minimum wage that's at least the cost of living would help.

Universal Basic Income.

i mean it's going to happen eventually given the rise of automation

but good luck with it going anywhere =(
---

BowserCuffs posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

There needs to be a cultural shift away from them - not everyone needs to go to college.

Having a minimum wage that's at least the cost of living would help.

Silly BowserCuffs. If employers have to actually pay their employees, then how will they create jobs?
---

The level of automation we're creeping towards is going to murder the economy and force a major cultural shift. I'm not looking forward to living through that era.
---

xp1337 posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

KamikazePotato posted...

There needs to be a cultural shift away from them - not everyone needs to go to college.

Having a minimum wage that's at least the cost of living would help.

Universal Basic Income.

i mean it's going to happen eventually given the rise of automation

but good luck with it going anywhere =(

That would actually be the way to wipe out poverty, really. (Just like the way to wipe out homelessness would be to give the homeless homes. And yes, I do mean give.)

But the fact of the matter is, it would take a long time to set up such a system. And there would be a lot of opposition to it based on the fact that the upper middle class and richer would be personally offended by someone being given enough money to actually survive.

The thing about safety nets is that people who don't need them get personally offended by those who do. Because they believe in the "just world" fallacy - if you are impoverished or don't have enough money to survive, it's your fault and no one should help you.

(The fact that a lot of these same people claim to be Christians, who worship a man who constantly bashed rich people and people who had plenty and refused to share with those who had none, is not an irony that is lost on me.)
---

I'm not really convinced that automation is fundamentally different than any other big technological shift that has happened over the course of human history. We need to be thinking about how to prepare people for it for sure, but I think there very well may be tons of new jobs we can't imagine at the moment that will be commonplace (just as we shifted away from being like 90% farmers back in the 1700s and didn't end up all being jobless).
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I mean literally every tax ever is technically that so

right, that's effectively what taxes are. so there's no need to pretend it's something else - you support a college tuition tax, details of which quickly become very complicated. but it's okay to call it that and be straight withit, not... something else that hides the meaning.
---

Well, yeah, that's why I said "good luck with it going anywhere." Politically, it probably makes single-payer healthcare look easy.

I do support it though and think it's genuinely the right thing to do. (And also that it'll end up happening eventually anyway.)
---

The fact that some people criticize people asking for a proper minimum wage by saying "You'll be encouraging them to switch to machines instead of paying you" is stupid anyways.

Corporations already want to switch to machines, regardless of minimum wage. They could be paying people literally pennies and would still want to switch to machines simply so they don't have to pay them pennies.

Not to mention it moves responsibility away from the corporations. How about we, you know, hold people accountable for their own actions, not the actions of others?

xp1337 posted...

Well, yeah, that's why I said "good luck with it going anywhere." Politically, it probably makes single-payer healthcare look easy.

I do support it though and think it's genuinely the right thing to do. (And also that it'll end up happening eventually anyway.)

Before or after the people overthrow the government?
---

universal basic income has an unusual amount of support from both right and left for different reasons.
the right loves it as a means to get rid of almost every entitlement program.
the left loves it as a means to get people money to survive.

somewhere in the middle you also have helathcare lovers in favor of it, since you can then tax that income and have it part of what funds it.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm not really convinced that automation is fundamentally different than any other big technological shift that has happened over the course of human history. We need to be thinking about how to prepare people for it for sure, but I think there very well may be tons of new jobs we can't imagine at the moment that will be commonplace (just as we shifted away from being like 90% farmers back in the 1700s and didn't end up all being jobless).

If automation doesn't do it, artificial intelligence will finish the job!

Seriously though, I imagine that both of those will cause such a massive paradigm shift that it's hard to imagine how it all ends up. Personally, I don't think it'll be comparable to things in the past like the Industrial Revolution.

But, for better or worse, we'll probably see. It's honestly probably not all that far off.
---

why are we giving saudi $100+ billion in weapons

when saudi is going to turn around and spin profit selling to isis

you'd think we'd learn to stop arming the people we're going to end up fighting
---

FFDragon posted...

why are we giving saudi $100+ billion in weapons

when saudi is going to turn around and spin profit selling to isis

you'd think we'd learn to stop arming the people we're going to end up fighting

Because Trump knows he can blame it on Obama or Hillary and people will believe him?
---

Not nearly as big a deal as the fact that people were fucking dying in his jail, but Sheriff Clarke adds another name to the list of people Trump hired or wanted to hire that were plagiarists: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/05/politics/sheriff-clarke-plagiarism/
---

FFDragon posted...

why are we giving saudi $100+ billion in weapons

when saudi is going to turn around and spin profit selling to isis

you'd think we'd learn to stop arming the people we're going to end up fighting

Because geopolitics continues to dictate that since Russia is aligned with Iran, we MUST support a strong Saudi state.

Nevermind that the saudi state is a joke that has been backbiting us for decades.

Nevermind that the Saudis prop up Wahabism which is the source of radicalized islam

Nevermjnd that the Saudi state is in a really unstable state so giving them lots of weapons is just an awful idea.

Nevermind that Iran just re elected a reform minded president who WANTS a closer relationship with the US.

We should just double down on how wevr always done things.
---

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/20/trump-radical-islamic-terrorism-hr-mcmaster-238640

Why can't the President say the magic words?!


bonus:
---

https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/866100749167718400

lol Bannon
---

LapisLazuli posted...

https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/866100749167718400

lol Bannon

THEY'RE SURROUNDING YOU STEVE

GET OUT of the administration WHILE YOU STILL CAN
---

OMG he looks so skittish

Speaking of people who don't like Muslims

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/866071311730319362

That's not nice
---

I... feel like that is definitely illegal.
---

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/865914872219004929

Should be more, but progress nonetheless!
---

that is most definitely illegal.
"i was out of the country making deals!"
---

FFDragon posted...

I... feel like that is definitely illegal.

It is.

It also, I believe, means the court can just say "Okay, Muslim ban dead, thanks."
---

Wasn't the whole "point" of the ban to be for 90 days so Trump could get a better grasp on things coming in?

It's well past the timeframe it was supposed to be in effect for, so what does it really matter at this point?
---

FFDragon posted...

Wasn't the whole "point" of the ban to be for 90 days so Trump could get a better grasp on things coming in?

It's well past the timeframe it was supposed to be in effect for, so what does it really matter at this point?

Those "" are important, yknow.
---

This was a change election. Voters didn't want nuance, they wanted to believe that some change is possible. They figured, if someone is promising the moon, maybe we'll get a little bit of change. Hillary promised staying the course and was believed.
---

red sox 777 posted...

This was a change election. Voters didn't want nuance, they wanted to believe that some change is possible. They figured, if someone is promising the moon, maybe we'll get a little bit of change. Hillary promised staying the course and was believed.

...

A lot of Trump voters make it extremely clear that they do NOT want change, except in the case of things that were previously changed, which they simply want changed BACK.
---

My guess is the judge's order to turn over the memo will be overturned on appeal. Giuliani's an attorney right? Sounds like fairly standard privileged and confidential attorney/client communications/work product.
---

SupremeZero posted...

red sox 777 posted...

This was a change election. Voters didn't want nuance, they wanted to believe that some change is possible. They figured, if someone is promising the moon, maybe we'll get a little bit of change. Hillary promised staying the course and was believed.

...

A lot of Trump voters make it extremely clear that they do NOT want change, except in the case of things that were previously changed, which they simply want changed BACK.

Yup, changing back is change.
---