|
eke out posted:but right now the GND exists in the form of some resolutions recognizing the need for a green new deal, and isn't actually fully written as a spending bil;l Right, which is why I want to see the actual details. Realistically, the GND's goals are both not nearly good enough and a recipe for massive economic disruption. You can arguably make a massive environmental works project like this good for the economy in the long run, but a huge number of people will lose their jobs as entire industries are shuttered over the next decade or so. It's absolutely meaningless for Democrats to say that they're going to take "big" or "bold" action on climate change if they won't provide very specific details on their plans. 
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
tbh I'd be fine with trump living in exiled, senile disgrace for the rest of his miserable life. It's not like he will ever see the inside of a cell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Right, which is why I want to see the actual details. i'm going to assume this post is in good faith even though those are pretty much republican talking points you're posting: what the plan is is going to be heavily dependent on who is president, both warren and bernie have released many pages worth of information about the different things their plans would do (and they're, by and large, quite similar in scope, ambition, and timetable, though have different focuses) and there's even a bad biden bill that claims to do the same things but takes twenty years longer. go read those things, instead of expecting the Senate to lead on this (or anything else). they have no reason to right now when the leader of the party is in question and that person's plan will be heavily determinative of what makes it into a bill. eke out fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
eke out posted:i'm going to assume this post is in good faith even though those are pretty much republican talking points your posting: wut Like, dude, Sanders' plan calls for zero net emissions from generation and transportation by 2030. Do you know what that realistically looks like? That means no cars, no coal, no container ships, no airplanes, no natural gas, all in less than ten years. Let's loving do it, but let's not pretend that this won't eviscerate industries. It will, and that's why any kind of radical, sweeping climate bill needs to be paired with a massive amount of labor support. And yes, I'm fully aware that the GND addresses this in broad terms, but without a more concrete plan of action none of it means anything. I have no idea why you think that me saying that the GND doesn't go nearly far enough is a Republican talking point. I'm saying that we're not being realistic about the problem that we're facing. And yes, I've read all of their plans in their entirety. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:wut "we might need legislation to deal with climate change, but this will eviscerate our jobs and the dems won't tell us how they'll do it!!" unironically is a moderate (r) talking point. this is a discussion for the primary thread, all (good) candidates have ideas to address the problem you say you have, and i'm 100% certain you will find people there happy to explain what bernie would do
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
i still can't get over the fact that in tyool 2019 we get our political news from Twitter accounts that might as well be shitposting. This dystopia is not only boring, it's dumb, too
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1177941037895036928
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
eke out posted:"we might need legislation to deal with climate change, but this will eviscerate our jobs and the dems won't tell us how they'll do it!!" unironically is a moderate (r) talking point. You understand that I don't have a "problem" with the GND, right? My problem is that I won't believe that Democrats actually intend to implement any of its goals until they're willing to commit to details. I don't think you understand what I'm saying here at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
the craziest thing about them blowing their rhetorical load on this hearsay thing is that the whole point of the inquiry is that they will be doing depositions and hearings to get first hand, eyewitness evidence lol. like, they're literally already scheduled so it's an extremely easy talking point to bat down
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
eke out posted:the craziest thing about them blowing their rhetorical load on this hearsay thing is that the whole point of the inquiry is that they will be doing depositions and hearings to get first hand, eyewitness evidence lol. Well that and the Inspector General conducting their own investigation and finding the report credible
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
also the reason parts of it are hearsay is because Republicans have relentlessly blocked or ignored every attempt to collect evidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
This is literally all they got for talking points 4 days in. This is kind of pathetic honestly
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
The hearsay thing might have worked if they didn't release the transcripts to corroborate...
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:This is literally all they got for talking points 4 days in. This is kind of pathetic honestly Their goal is to scream it increasingly louder until it sticks, same as always.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Hearsay except for all the parts that have already been confirmed with more to come
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Ghetto SuperCzar posted:The hearsay thing might have worked if they didn't release the transcripts to corroborate... GOP: "The administration lies constantly, only a fool would believe them"
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Their goal is to scream it increasingly louder until it sticks, same as always. well again, to be fair it's always worked before
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Besides suck up Graham there still isn’t a Republican willing to go on record defending Trump’s actions. It’s been 3 days and they’re still all directionless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I kind of think it's a fool's game to guess at Republican strategy at this point. It's also possible Trump lied to him about what was in the transcript.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Besides suck up Graham there still isn’t a Republican willing to go on record defending Trump’s actions. It’s been 3 days and they’re still all directionless. Uh I implore you to remember McCarthy saying....something
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Webp files are the wooooorst.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Besides suck up Graham there still isn’t a Republican willing to go on record defending Trump’s actions. It’s been 3 days and they’re still all directionless. some other senate ghouls like rick scott are saying like "I haven't seen any evidence he committed a crime" but even that is a transparently weak, equivocal take. and it's like, as much support as he's getting from non-Graham people. and republicans in the house have absolutely said crazy thigns defending him already
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
I wonder what Linda Tripp is up to these days...
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:It's also possible Trump lied to him about what was in the transcript. Would Mitch really be dumb enough to believe him?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Would Mitch really be dumb enough to believe him? Maybe this was the clear cut way to get Trump out. McConnell saw this as the least damaging way of washing their hands of him maybe? They have to know he’s a net drain on the party at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Would Mitch really be dumb enough to believe him? may be dumb enough to trust his aides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I kind of think it's a fool's game to guess at Republican strategy at this point. Everyone keeps forgetting that Mitch also fractured a shoulder a month back and might be out of his mind on painkillers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Maybe this was the clear cut way to get Trump out. McConnell saw this as the least damaging way of washing their hands of him maybe? They have to know he’s a net drain on the party at this point. Yall need to stop it with thinking Mcconnell is anywhere near ready to drop trump. Trump's approval is +16 in Kentucky. Kicking him out of the white house would all but guarantee Mitch loses re-election. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-states-where-trump-is-more-and-less-popular-than-he-should-be/
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
eke out posted:the craziest thing about them blowing their rhetorical load on this hearsay thing is that the whole point of the inquiry is that they will be doing depositions and hearings to get first hand, eyewitness evidence lol. At that point, they'll move the goalposts and Trumpkins will forget that this was the original argument at all. The final argument will be that Trump did nothing illegal or wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:It's also possible Trump lied to him about what was in the transcript.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
skylined! posted:Yall need to stop it with thinking Mcconnell is anywhere near ready to drop trump. Trump's approval is +16 in Kentucky. Kicking him out of the white house would all but guarantee Mitch loses re-election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Would Mitch really be dumb enough to believe him? If you take the view that the transcript was going to come out eventually, because it's directly referenced in the whistleblower report -- and the whistleblower report, which they are legally required to turn over to the congressional subcommittees if asked, contains all the essential facts contained in the transcript anyway -- then, under normal circumstances, it makes sense to release the transcript voluntarily before you're compelled by subpoena to release it involuntarily. At least if you put it out there, you get a chance to frame the optics around it. On paper, it's a good move; it's just that nobody expected the transcript to read as badly as it did. The difference is that the people around Trump, at this point, are so used to dealing with the tactics and mindset of a sleazy jumped-up New York landlord that they've internalized it as normal, and they don't realize that, to the rest of the world, it looks like a mob shakedown. Trumpland is like that mythical frog in a pot of water where the heat's slowly being turned up; they no longer recognize what it looks like not to be boiling alive. Now that we can look at both documents, from a pure wargaming perspective I can say that it would have gone better for them to have held back the transcript, released the whistleblower report, bluster about hearsay evidence for a week while they tried to dig up dirt on the whistleblower, and then release the transcript, but that's me as a sane person in possession of both documents. If you were not a sane person, or you'd only had the documents described to you by an insane person, it makes more sense to do it the other way. Old Kentucky Shark fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
self-impeachment going strong
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
I also expect they intended to muddy the waters between this memo and the real transcript referenced in the whistleblower report, which is why the right wing gets so pissy when you point out that the thing release isn’t the transcript. McConnel probably assumed Trump wouldn’t be stupid enough to write crimes into the released memo
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
Let's release the transcript to get ahead of the report. Oof transcript looks bad. Report comes out. oh the report accurately describes the transcript. Quick, complain that the report is based on secondhand evidence. He NEVER listened to the transcript we already know he accurately described... yes, this will work. Excellent strategy
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/davidklion/status/1177954350678921225?s=21 This is preposterous. Quid pro quo, things of that nature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
skylined! posted:Yall need to stop it with thinking Mcconnell is anywhere near ready to drop trump. Trump's approval is +16 in Kentucky. Kicking him out of the white house would all but guarantee Mitch loses re-election. maybe, but i think mitch is brazen/hubris enough to think that if he replaced trump with pence, than he could survive and than survive into a dem presidency Kavros posted:Let's release the transcript to get ahead of the report. Oof transcript looks bad. Report comes out. oh the report accurately describes the transcript. Quick, complain that the report is based on secondhand evidence. He NEVER listened to the transcript we already know he accurately described... yes, this will work. Excellent strategy and the witness will almost ceirtently get called to testify if they havent already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Kind of expecting Putin or the Saudis to troll us by saying say, here, have our transcript of our call. It'll of course be blatantly phony but Trump can't release his own transcripts to counter so 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
Phobic Nest posted:Kind of expecting Putin or the Saudis to troll us by saying say, here, have our transcript of our call. It'll of course be blatantly phony but Trump can't release his own transcripts to counter so Why would the Saudis want to troll Trump?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Rinkles posted:Why would the Saudis want to troll Trump? To stir the pot and cause chaos that they can take advantage of. There's probably a few more journalists MBS wants to murder. Here's a good read on why a broad slow impeachment process would be best. https://twitter.com/pblest/status/1177970619855577088
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:48
|
|
