Official Special Investigation Into Trump Thread

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT
 

So Trump is getting up Sessions about the two Republicans. One is Hunter. I remember his case. The other from Florida - who was he again?

trunkage:
So Trump is getting up Sessions about the two Republicans. One is Hunter. I remember his case. The other from Florida - who was he again?

Chris Collins, R-New York. He was indicted for insider trading related an an Australian biotech firm called Innate.

And for the record, this is NOT an "Obama era" investigation. It began in March of 2017 when the Office of Congressional Ethics decided to look into Collins' trades (which were alleged to have occurred in June of 2017). Then the office sent its findings and recommendations to the House Ethics panel -- the REPUBLICAN controlled House.

So it's another Trump lie, but who's even keeping count at this point?

trunkage:
So Trump is getting up Sessions about the two Republicans. One is Hunter. I remember his case. The other from Florida - who was he again?

He doesn't really give a fuck about those guys. He's just using this to turn other Republicans against Sessions so that Trump could fire him without making a big deal out of it. What an idiot.

So, even if half of this is true...

Where do you think this puts us? Like literally, if his own aides hide letters from him because his actions can harm our protection from enemies across seas...

I hope the tax cuts are worth it to some people.

ObsidianJones:
So, even if half of this is true...

Where do you think this puts us? Like literally, if his own aides hide letters from him because his actions can harm our protection from enemies across seas...

I hope the tax cuts are worth it to some people.

I mean it puts us in the exact same position that we've been in. This administration is beyond dysfunctional, and Trump should have been served with paperwork associated with the 25th amendment within the first few months of him assuming office.

Ryan, McConnell, Pence et al have been entirely disregarding their constitutional duties because they know this is likely their last chance ever for a single party Republican (in their current ideological construction at least) government. Every year, the electoral demographics are turning more and more against them in every single constituency, and the current breed of Republicans won't exist as a national power in 50 years.

Nothing matters to them other than ramming through as many permanent (eg: the tax cuts and attempted "health care plan") and semi-permanent (eg: judicial nominations especially to the Supreme Court) as possible before they're inevitably out of time. After that, they'll retire and relax in the comfort of lobbying positions for the companies they've enriched with their work; Ryan has already publicly announced his plan to do so, and numerous other Republicans have since then as well.

Avnger:
Every year, the electoral demographics are turning more and more against them in every single constituency

That's what they were saying during the Bush and Obama years. Look how that turned out.

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:
Every year, the electoral demographics are turning more and more against them in every single constituency

That's what they were saying during the Bush and Obama years. Look how that turned out.

It lead to the most progressive president we've had in decades in Obama. That, in turn, prompted the current conservative backlash. However, the overall trends are the same. Republicans can only manipulate the playing field to compensate for their losses to a certain degree, despite how good they've become at it, and the polling and elections are showing that. Demographic changes take time though, particularly when there are a number of factors working against perfect representation of citizens and their beliefs in government.

As an example, Texas actually has a decent possibility of electing a Democrat as its US Senator (current polling has Cruz up in the low single digits with one of the latest showing only a 1 point lead); no non-Republican has won a state-wide election there since 1994.[1]

Avnger:

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:
Every year, the electoral demographics are turning more and more against them in every single constituency

That's what they were saying during the Bush and Obama years. Look how that turned out.

It lead to the most progressive president we've had in decades in Obama. That, in turn, prompted the current conservative backlash.

Winning an election with Romney+population growth is not "conservative backlash". It's a profound loss of confidence in the Democratic party among those who traditionally support it because it no longer represents their interests; it's in the pockets of largely the same people, and certainly the same class, as the Republicans are. The "most progressive president we've had in decades" presided over the loss of thousands of state and national legislative seats not because he was too radical, but because he was so timid. He was elected on a wave of progressive energy during a crisis moment and proceeded to squander that energy on compromised-before-negotiations-even-began centrist half-measures that wouldn't offend his Wall Street donors.

This demographics hubris is part of what led to Trump, and may have something to do with why the Democrats have simply let the Republicans get away with voter suppression. There is a demographic trend and the Democratic Party establishment seems determined to avoid any benefit from it. Probably because they don't want those constituencies better represented; those constituencies have more radical politics than the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party's function is to squander the energy of the left, not fight the right.

There is hope, however.

Avnger:
Republicans can only manipulate the playing field to compensate for their losses to a certain degree, despite how good they've become at it, and the polling and elections are showing that.

You mean gerrymandering (which both parties do -- gerrymandering favors incumbents, not necessarily Republicans)? Or is this one of those "abusing the electoral college by selling themselves in flyover country" bits?

Avnger:
As an example, Texas actually has a decent possibility of electing a Democrat as its US Senator (current polling has Cruz up in the low single digits with one of the latest showing only a 1 point lead); no non-Republican has won a state-wide election there since 1994.[1]

...and the first woman my state ever elected to US Senate was in 2014, and was really more notable for being the first Republican from my state to hold a full term in the US Senate since 1942 (roughly half the state's history). We literally went from one of the bluest states to one of the reddest in an almost painfully short time. Bill Clinton won here by a comfortable lead, Trump won this state by the largest margin in the state's history.

All it really takes is a handful of unpopular policies. And Gore and later Dems failed in that here. Then Byrd died, and no one stepped up to fill his shoes half as well as he could. Hillary guaranteed she wasn't going to win this state back the moment she said "I'm going to put a lot of coal miners out of work."

To be fair, we were deep blue because of the unions, now we're deep red because blue hates the industries our biggest unions represented. You can't really trade on race or sex here and expect to win, and that's sort of become the Dem's schtick as of late.

Schadrach:
You mean gerrymandering (which both parties do -- gerrymandering favors incumbents, not necessarily Republicans)? Or is this one of those "abusing the electoral college by selling themselves in flyover country" bits?

This is... incorrect. Gerrymandering in a two plurality winner-takes-all single-member electoral district system is generally designed to reward more seats to one party by giving them many narrow majority districts and concentrating voters of the other party in as few districts as possible; ideally, opponents get 100% wins in as few very safe districts as possible, and lose by one vote in the rest of them such that they get something like 5% of the legislative seats while receiving 60% of the total number of votes. Obviously predicting voting patterns and constituencies with such precision is difficult, so the numbers are generally not quite that lopsided. But the data isn't unknowable, so it can make a remarkable difference.

Schadrach:
All it really takes is a handful of unpopular policies. And Gore and later Dems failed in that here. Then Byrd died, and no one stepped up to fill his shoes half as well as he could. Hillary guaranteed she wasn't going to win this state back the moment she said "I'm going to put a lot of coal miners out of work."

Man, this Clinton coal gaffe pisses me off every time I see it brought up. It's bullshit. It was one of the most warped misquotes I've ever seen.

Here's the full statement by Clinton:

Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let's reunite around politics that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these under-served poor communities. So, for example, I'm the only candidate who has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce energy that we relied on.

This statement was then reported as "Clinton promises to put coal miners out of work." But that's not what she was saying, was it? She was saying "the coal industry is collapsing, we can't stop it, and I have a plan to take care of the people who are going to be hurt by it."

And she was right! All economic data available shows that the coal industry collapsed because of ordinary market forces, not because the Obama administration tried to strangle it out of some kind of weird coal hate-boner. Environmental regulations accounted for just 3-5% of the total market decline, largely by accelerating the closure of ageing coal plants. By comparison, 49% of the decline was because of a global drop in natural gas prices starting - it was cleaner than coal, more efficient than coal, and then it was cheaper than coal. (Largely thanks to fracking, ironically enough.) Who would keep using coal in those circumstances? "Well, it's dirtier, older, and it gives you less juice, but on the other hand, it'll also cost you more!" That's not a compelling sales pitch.

The Republicans knew this. The news media knew it. But "Clinton promises to put coal miners out of work" is a heck of a headline, so that was what got reported - over and over and over again, until people in your state thought that Clinton honestly just wanted to put a whole lot of coal miners out of work because she...hates them? For some reason? Meanwhile Trump puts on a hard hat and mimes shoveling coal, and suddenly he's a champion of the working class.

I mean - ugh, that's what really annoys me about this. Clinton comes up with a detailed, budgeted, $30 billion package to pay for the healthcare, pensions, and retraining costs of ex-miners, and people pluck one badly-worded sentence out of her pitch and turn it into a story about how the wicked witch hates coal miners. Trump just keeps making that he'd bring back coal jobs even though he couldn't (and hasn't) and everybody believes him uncritically.

Adam Jensen:

Schadrach:
I suppose the follow up question is what is the proper due process

That's what they want to get rid of. They want to be able to without any evidence simply strip those people of citizenship and deport them to a country that is not their own.

OK. I repeat, what is the correct due process then?

Your doctor or midwife has admitted to falsifying birth records for a period that includes your birthday specifically to illegally claim the citizenship of foreign born persons. Therefore, the validity of your birth certificate is suspect. What *is* the correct due process, for dealing with someone whose birth records cannot be trusted and who is either a natural born citizen or an illegal immigrant depending on whether their record is among the falsified ones?

Because as far as I can tell the article you linked talks about this specific situation, and the process they seem to have landed on is demanding seemingly random other documents to correlate against your birth record. Which is...not a good approach...but is also a far call from simply stripping people of citizenship on a whim.

Seanchaidh:

Schadrach:
You mean gerrymandering (which both parties do -- gerrymandering favors incumbents, not necessarily Republicans)? Or is this one of those "abusing the electoral college by selling themselves in flyover country" bits?

This is... incorrect. Gerrymandering in a two plurality winner-takes-all single-member electoral district system is generally designed to reward more seats to one party by giving them many narrow majority districts and concentrating voters of the other party in as few districts as possible; ideally, opponents get 100% wins in as few very safe districts as possible, and lose by one vote in the rest of them such that they get something like 5% of the legislative seats while receiving 60% of the total number of votes. Obviously predicting voting patterns and constituencies with such precision is difficult, so the numbers are generally not quite that lopsided. But the data isn't unknowable, so it can make a remarkable difference.

None of that contradicts what I wrote. The difference is that there are more than a few folks out there that pretend it's a practice only one party engages in (read who I was replying to). If you are in power when the time comes to redraw district lines, you manipulate the district lines to optimize the likelihood that you will win again, if not you specifically (though this too effects the details of where the lines end up) then your party. It's not a specifically Republican behavior, which they were saying.

bastardofmelbourne:
Man, this Clinton coal gaffe pisses me off every time I see it brought up. It's bullshit. It was one of the most warped misquotes I've ever seen.

Yes, it's a quote mine. That doesn't make it ineffective in swaying opinion, and I'm saying that it did a lot of damage here.

bastardofmelbourne:
Who would keep using coal in those circumstances? "Well, it's dirtier, older, and it gives you less juice, but on the other hand, it'll also cost you more!" That's not a compelling sales pitch.

I'm not going to say coal isn't in decline, but regulatory pressures on both mining and burning coal did it no favors.

bastardofmelbourne:
But "Clinton promises to put coal miners out of work" is a heck of a headline, so that was what got reported - over and over and over again, until people in your state thought that Clinton honestly just wanted to put a whole lot of coal miners out of work because she...hates them? For some reason?

Because opposing coal sounds good from an environmentalist perspective and has been consistently a Dem thing since ~2000 (conveniently when WV started shifting red pretty hard)?

What you have to realize is that there are a shocking number of low-education workers with lots of experience in the mines. However short sighted, they are voting in their immediate best interests by not voting for someone who promises to destroy their career and if they're lucky maybe help set them up in a lower paying alternative, after a retraining period that will probably involve losing (or refinancing under less friendly terms) their homes because of the drop in income.

Schadrach:
Yes, it's a quote mine. That doesn't make it ineffective in swaying opinion, and I'm saying that it did a lot of damage here.

Oh, okay. Sorry, I misread you.

Schadrach:
Because opposing coal sounds good from an environmentalist perspective and has been consistently a Dem thing since ~2000 (conveniently when WV started shifting red pretty hard)?

This is a bad PR thing, but it's entirely a PR thing. Statistically speaking, the reason why coal is going under is because natural gas is getting cheaper. That's it; environmentalist opposition had nothing to do with it.

bastardofmelbourne:

Schadrach:
Because opposing coal sounds good from an environmentalist perspective and has been consistently a Dem thing since ~2000 (conveniently when WV started shifting red pretty hard)?

This is a bad PR thing, but it's entirely a PR thing. Statistically speaking, the reason why coal is going under is because natural gas is getting cheaper. That's it; environmentalist opposition had nothing to do with it.

Worth saying that the industry is also heavily industrializing, so a job that would take 1000 miners not too long ago only take 20 now (those giant rotating digger that literally dig out mountains). Even if coal was worth more than gold it wouldn't cause a come back to the coal miner jobs numbers of even 20 years ago.

Schadrach:

Seanchaidh:

Schadrach:
You mean gerrymandering (which both parties do -- gerrymandering favors incumbents, not necessarily Republicans)? Or is this one of those "abusing the electoral college by selling themselves in flyover country" bits?

This is... incorrect. Gerrymandering in a two plurality winner-takes-all single-member electoral district system is generally designed to reward more seats to one party by giving them many narrow majority districts and concentrating voters of the other party in as few districts as possible; ideally, opponents get 100% wins in as few very safe districts as possible, and lose by one vote in the rest of them such that they get something like 5% of the legislative seats while receiving 60% of the total number of votes. Obviously predicting voting patterns and constituencies with such precision is difficult, so the numbers are generally not quite that lopsided. But the data isn't unknowable, so it can make a remarkable difference.

None of that contradicts what I wrote. The difference is that there are more than a few folks out there that pretend it's a practice only one party engages in (read who I was replying to). If you are in power when the time comes to redraw district lines, you manipulate the district lines to optimize the likelihood that you will win again, if not you specifically (though this too effects the details of where the lines end up) then your party. It's not a specifically Republican behavior, which they were saying.

"Both parties do it" (or the extent to which they do or would) is an empirical question, not something you can just know a priori. In any case, to say that gerrymandering favors "incumbents" is an inaccuracy as legislatures include incumbents of both parties-- some of whom might lose their seats as a result of a new gerrymander. "The party with more incumbents" is closer to correct. Simply "favors incumbents" is misleading.

bastardofmelbourne:
This statement was then reported as "Clinton promises to put coal miners out of work." But that's not what she was saying, was it? She was saying "the coal industry is collapsing, we can't stop it, and I have a plan to take care of the people who are going to be hurt by it."

Here's one from a long thread of tweets about 2016 from someone who lives in coal country:

Seanchaidh:

Schadrach:

[quote="bastardofmelbourne" post="528.950467.24267422"]This statement was then reported as "Clinton promises to put coal miners out of work." But that's not what she was saying, was it? She was saying "the coal industry is collapsing, we can't stop it, and I have a plan to take care of the people who are going to be hurt by it."

Here's one from a long thread of tweets about 2016 from someone who lives in coal country:

Hum I get the feeling that this thread is supposed to be negative for Clinton, but only negative I can see from that is "why the fuck is she wasting money trying to help coal miner", which I doubt was the intent behind it. I mean:

A) She did, that's where the quote come from, she talked about it in the debate. What was she supposed to do?

B) If they don't have miner left, what's the problem? That's literally admitting that the industry is dead and has been for a long time. At this point the problem isn't the government, if the town only economic activity died a long time ago and people are staying in the town despite the complete lack of job, that's the not the government problem.

C) I don't even know, were they afraid he was going to ask for blowjob?

That kind of response really show how incredibly entitle they are, is there poverty any worse than anybody else's poverty?

Paul Manafort has agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Not sure if this will go anywhere, since Manafort didn't indicate he was going to turn on the administration, but it's still not a good turn for Trump.

Any kind of plea that involves Manafort is a grave threat to Trump and the rest of his family. For Pence as well, since Manafort is the one who selected him as Trump's VP.

Seanchaidh:

Schadrach:

Seanchaidh:

This is... incorrect. Gerrymandering in a two plurality winner-takes-all single-member electoral district system is generally designed to reward more seats to one party by giving them many narrow majority districts and concentrating voters of the other party in as few districts as possible; ideally, opponents get 100% wins in as few very safe districts as possible, and lose by one vote in the rest of them such that they get something like 5% of the legislative seats while receiving 60% of the total number of votes. Obviously predicting voting patterns and constituencies with such precision is difficult, so the numbers are generally not quite that lopsided. But the data isn't unknowable, so it can make a remarkable difference.

None of that contradicts what I wrote. The difference is that there are more than a few folks out there that pretend it's a practice only one party engages in (read who I was replying to). If you are in power when the time comes to redraw district lines, you manipulate the district lines to optimize the likelihood that you will win again, if not you specifically (though this too effects the details of where the lines end up) then your party. It's not a specifically Republican behavior, which they were saying.

"Both parties do it" (or the extent to which they do or would) is an empirical question, not something you can just know a priori. In any case, to say that gerrymandering favors "incumbents" is an inaccuracy as legislatures include incumbents of both parties-- some of whom might lose their seats as a result of a new gerrymander. "The party with more incumbents" is closer to correct. Simply "favors incumbents" is misleading.

bastardofmelbourne:
This statement was then reported as "Clinton promises to put coal miners out of work." But that's not what she was saying, was it? She was saying "the coal industry is collapsing, we can't stop it, and I have a plan to take care of the people who are going to be hurt by it."

Here's one from a long thread of tweets about 2016 from someone who lives in coal country:

So we're supposed to take this one random individual's word about what Clinton was going to do over the actual document of Clinton's plan?

Your hate for Hillary is making you ignore the facts literally right in front of your face (Bastard linked the plan only a couple posts above yours) in favor of repeating your narrative. Either you or Ms. Hill lacks the ability to read beyond page 1 of a 6 page document...

Also, when did "failed to advertise" mean sitting a couple clicks away on her campaign website and included in the very speech the gaffe is drawn from?

Edit: If your cause is as righteous and correct as you believe Sean, stop resorting to bullshit like this to advance it. It does nothing but undermine you and, by association, the cause you advocate.

thebobmaster:
Paul Manafort has agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Not sure if this will go anywhere, since Manafort didn't indicate he was going to turn on the administration, but it's still not a good turn for Trump.

He actually is cooperating. What that means, who knows, but I suspect it means testimony before the grand jury.

Silentpony:

thebobmaster:
Paul Manafort has agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Not sure if this will go anywhere, since Manafort didn't indicate he was going to turn on the administration, but it's still not a good turn for Trump.

He actually is cooperating. What that means, who knows, but I suspect it means testimony before the grand jury.

Three fun things about this:

1) Manafort forfeited 47 millions worth of asset, meaning the Mueller investigation is somehow profitable.

2) The charge can be filed at state level in the case of a pardon.

3) Giuliani put out a statement that said "Trump did nothing and Manafort will tell the truth" right before it was announced that he was cooperating, they then revise the statement to just "Trump did nothing wrong", which I think really should be the next mountain dew flavor. XD

Avnger:
So we're supposed to take this one random individual's word about what Clinton was going to do over the actual document of Clinton's plan?

She's contradicting the text of Clinton's plan how..?

Manafort's plea deal is...well, it's a big deal.

For one, it's been crafted to be as close to pardon-proof as possible, as Manafort pleads guilty to a swathe of state-level crimes that the president cannot pardon him for. For two, it means that the information exchange is done and sealed already; Manafort isn't going to speak to Mueller, he's already spoken and given Mueller the information he wants. He probably did it shortly after the guilty verdict last month. It's all done and wrapped up by now; whatever Manafort had to say is now on tape somewhere in Mueller's office.

This means Trump is as close to fucked as he was ever going to be. Mueller's basically done now; he just has to write up the report and publish it. That publication - which may even come before the November midterm elections - will either prompt the President's impeachment, or it will be ignored by an apathetic Congress.

Gonna be an interesting Christmas, I reckon.

Seanchaidh:
Here's one from a long thread of tweets about 2016 from someone who lives in coal country:

This is off-topic and all, but I find it a little silly to say that Clinton's aid package was insufficient because all the people who would benefit from it are already dead.

I mean, if all these coal miners are dead already, who is it that needed help in the first place?

I've been watching a lot of Tim Heidecker On Cinema at the Cinema, and I'm up to the trial, and it's hit me that he is either deliberately parodying a low-rent version of Trump, or it's just a coincidence that his artistic study of a dysfunctional narcissist is spot on for Trump.
Either way, he is the only valid choice to play Trump when the current shit-show is all over and we can comfortably enjoy biopic movies about this nightmarish period of madness.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
Here's one from a long thread of tweets about 2016 from someone who lives in coal country:

This is off-topic and all, but I find it a little silly to say that Clinton's aid package was insufficient because all the people who would benefit from it are already dead.

I mean, if all these coal miners are dead already, who is it that needed help in the first place?

Their unemployed descendants?

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
Here's one from a long thread of tweets about 2016 from someone who lives in coal country:

This is off-topic and all, but I find it a little silly to say that Clinton's aid package was insufficient because all the people who would benefit from it are already dead.

I mean, if all these coal miners are dead already, who is it that needed help in the first place?

Their unemployed descendants?

I spent a little while trying to respond to this, and I don't think I was doing very well, so I'll boil it down: I don't think the statement "all the people who would have been helped by Clinton's 2016 aid program are already dead" is true.

I don't think that the ~40,000-50,000 coal miners who lost their jobs from 2011 onwards were all deceased by November 2016. I do not find it credible that there was a massively lethal but oddly specific die-off amongst the Appalachian coal mining population that rendered the demographic near-extinct within five years.

I do understand that this particular demographic faces mortality rates that are much higher than the national average, due to the combined scourges of drug addiction, inadequate healthcare, and the general pressure of long-term poverty. I do not believe that mortality rate is 100% over five years. These guys weren't mining asbestos. Shit, even asbestos wouldn't kill you that quickly. That's a death rate I'd expect from people mining plutonium with their bare hands.

Should the unemployed descendants of ex-miners be able to find a job and receive government support in the process of doing so? Sure! That's a great idea. But it's not really what people were asking in 2016. They were asking "find a way to help our still-living former coal miners, who have lost their jobs and healthcare and pensions." In response to that specific and disproportionately prominent political issue, Clinton provided a plan intended to support still-living former coal miners and provide them with jobs, healthcare, and pensions. It was a calculated and specific response to a specific demand coming from the electorate.

bastardofmelbourne:
They were asking "find a way to help our still-living former coal miners, who have lost their jobs and healthcare and pensions." In response to that specific and disproportionately prominent political issue, Clinton provided a plan intended to support still-living former coal miners and provide them with jobs, healthcare, and pensions. It was a calculated and specific response to a specific demand coming from the electorate.

Coal country had been in severe decline for a lot longer than five years.

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
They were asking "find a way to help our still-living former coal miners, who have lost their jobs and healthcare and pensions." In response to that specific and disproportionately prominent political issue, Clinton provided a plan intended to support still-living former coal miners and provide them with jobs, healthcare, and pensions. It was a calculated and specific response to a specific demand coming from the electorate.

Coal country had been in severe decline for a lot longer than five years.

Congrats. You've moved the goal posts. Again.

Avnger:

Seanchaidh:

bastardofmelbourne:
They were asking "find a way to help our still-living former coal miners, who have lost their jobs and healthcare and pensions." In response to that specific and disproportionately prominent political issue, Clinton provided a plan intended to support still-living former coal miners and provide them with jobs, healthcare, and pensions. It was a calculated and specific response to a specific demand coming from the electorate.

Coal country had been in severe decline for a lot longer than five years.

Congrats. You've moved the goal posts. Again.

Huh?

Noting the fact that Clinton's plan utterly failed to mobilize any enthusiasm among the populace because of its lack of adequate scope is "moving the goalposts"? What 'goalposts' even existed in the first place?

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:

Seanchaidh:

Coal country had been in severe decline for a lot longer than five years.

Congrats. You've moved the goal posts. Again.

Huh?

Noting the fact that Clinton's plan utterly failed to mobilize any enthusiasm among the populace because of its lack of adequate scope is "moving the goalposts"? What 'goalposts' even existed in the first place?

Because the argument went from "Clinton wasn't doing anything to help coal miners" to "all coal miners are dead so her plan to help coal miners was stupid"

CheetoDust:

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:

Congrats. You've moved the goal posts. Again.

Huh?

Noting the fact that Clinton's plan utterly failed to mobilize any enthusiasm among the populace because of its lack of adequate scope is "moving the goalposts"? What 'goalposts' even existed in the first place?

Because the argument went from "Clinton wasn't doing anything to help coal miners" to "all coal miners are dead so her plan to help coal miners was stupid"

This is a common and very predictable problem with micro-targeted policies in a region which has been hurting-- and hurting due to the coal industry having trouble-- for decades. Other victims of the poor economic climate created by the move away from coal-- extended families of miners, people whose employer's or small business's demand depended on the prosperity of mining, people who would have been able to expect a job forty years ago but now grow up in an economic wasteland, and so on-- are left out.

Understanding the problems that face West Virginia as problems that can be solved by individual worker retraining is asinine in the extreme.

Seanchaidh:

CheetoDust:

Seanchaidh:

Huh?

Noting the fact that Clinton's plan utterly failed to mobilize any enthusiasm among the populace because of its lack of adequate scope is "moving the goalposts"? What 'goalposts' even existed in the first place?

Because the argument went from "Clinton wasn't doing anything to help coal miners" to "all coal miners are dead so her plan to help coal miners was stupid"

This is a common and very predictable problem with micro-targeted policies in a region which has been hurting-- and hurting due to the coal industry having trouble-- for decades. Other victims of the poor economic climate created by the move away from coal-- extended families of miners, people whose employer's or small business's demand depended on the prosperity of mining, people who would have been able to expect a job forty years ago but now grow up in an economic wasteland, and so on-- are left out.

Understanding the problems that face West Virginia as problems that can be solved by individual worker retraining is asinine in the extreme.

So... the only solution is to keep the coal mines open? Becuase retraining is asinine...

Well, I'm convinced

You know that many civilizations have had to shift and change based on economic incentives. The mines aren't coming back. Or even if they did, robots are far more prevalent. Look at the Murray mines as an example where thousands used to be employed but now it's far reduced to a couple of hundred.

Yeah it's hard. Yeah your probably going to have to move. Yeah, your little town will cease to exist. It's called Capitalism.

Also, stop expecting people to give you a job. That's not anyone jobs especially the governments

trunkage:

Seanchaidh:

CheetoDust:
Because the argument went from "Clinton wasn't doing anything to help coal miners" to "all coal miners are dead so her plan to help coal miners was stupid"

This is a common and very predictable problem with micro-targeted policies in a region which has been hurting-- and hurting due to the coal industry having trouble-- for decades. Other victims of the poor economic climate created by the move away from coal-- extended families of miners, people whose employer's or small business's demand depended on the prosperity of mining, people who would have been able to expect a job forty years ago but now grow up in an economic wasteland, and so on-- are left out.

Understanding the problems that face West Virginia as problems that can be solved by individual worker retraining is asinine in the extreme.

So... the only solution is to keep the coal mines open? Becuase retraining is asinine...

No. Maybe take a closer look at the word 'micro-targeting'.

So there's noise that Rob Rosentein, the #2 at the DOJ and person in charge of the Mueller investigation might be getting fired soon. This could be pretty big as it would be Saturday massacre all over again.

Meiam:
So there's noise that Rob Rosentein, the #2 at the DOJ and person in charge of the Mueller investigation might be getting fired soon. This could be pretty big as it would be Saturday massacre all over again.

The amount of shit that could happen over this is substantial.

The firing of the man who denied such allegations will only be seen by Trump's opponents as Infantile Behavior that we should be wary of at best, and his newest attempt of obstruction of Justice at worst.

The only winning move for Trump is to do nothing. Anyone want to take bets* if he does or not?

*No real gambling, as I don't believe in it. Don't have the luck for it.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here