Well I originally read this article on mobile, so I came back to doublecheck on desktop. No link as far as I can see. In retrospect, this indicates to me that they've only been told about the...
Well I originally read this article on mobile, so I came back to doublecheck on desktop. No link as far as I can see.
The spreadsheet — which I'm told originated in a senior House Republican office
In retrospect, this indicates to me that they've only been told about the spreadsheet, not that they've actually received it.
I would like to see the original data, after it has been cleaned to protect sources. I believe there is much information to be inferred by how and what was written. (Like are these just a list of...
I would like to see the original data, after it has been cleaned to protect sources. I believe there is much information to be inferred by how and what was written. (Like are these just a list of motions that have failed w/ the Republican Lead Congress, or are they also inferring things that might be more dangerous).
It is also important to see primary sources whenever possible.
That Reality Winner situation was incredible in its Op Sec failures. Mostly on Reality's part, (I mean she was Fucked as soon as she printed that out) But Publishing the Printer Water Markings is just so amazingly bad, especially for an organization that prides itself on dealing with leaked documents/information.
They certainly claimed that they've obtained it. Hell, they give nearly 20 probes from the list in the article. Teasing things out is pretty common practice when it comes to leaked info and such.
They certainly claimed that they've obtained it. Hell, they give nearly 20 probes from the list in the article.
Teasing things out is pretty common practice when it comes to leaked info and such.
As a Democrat who voted for Sanders, this whole farce makes me sick. What a waste of resources to go after Trump just to make political capital. They should be talking about the melting icecaps,...
As a Democrat who voted for Sanders, this whole farce makes me sick. What a waste of resources to go after Trump just to make political capital. They should be talking about the melting icecaps, inequality, partisan innefficiency, unaffordable health care and real issues, not Trump's idiocy. Win at any cost. We'll have integrity once we have control. Right.
The probes can be thought of as a strategy to curtail efforts to perpetuate those problems. A White House that is constantly fighting legal battles will never be able to enact policy towards its...
The probes can be thought of as a strategy to curtail efforts to perpetuate those problems. A White House that is constantly fighting legal battles will never be able to enact policy towards its ideals - and Trump's ideals are blatantly harmful at best, downright hateful at worst. The article alludes to it here:
These demands would turn the Trump White House into a 24/7 legal defense operation.
Doing both is inconsistent, something that most thinking Americans know instinctively. Politicians remind me of the cable companies, convinced that their clients are all idiots, and I hold them in...
Doing both is inconsistent, something that most thinking Americans know instinctively. Politicians remind me of the cable companies, convinced that their clients are all idiots, and I hold them in equal contempt.
I don't think that they are inconsistent at all. What seems inconsistent to me is saying "we promise a better future" without holding anyone accountable for screwing up the past.
I don't think that they are inconsistent at all. What seems inconsistent to me is saying "we promise a better future" without holding anyone accountable for screwing up the past.
This is Tildes, surely we can have higher-quality argumentation than this? "most Americans know" is a straightforward argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. Claiming they know it instinctively...
something that most thinking Americans know instinctively
This is Tildes, surely we can have higher-quality argumentation than this?
You're absolutely right, I'm so sorry. From the Chicago Tribune, Dec 11, 2017
You're absolutely right, I'm so sorry.
From the Chicago Tribune, Dec 11, 2017
A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California says 59 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of independents — and, overall, 64 percent of likely voters — agreed with the statement that America's two main parties “do such a poor job that a third major party is needed.”
Too bad our voting system basically precludes successful third parties. We have to reform the voting system if we want change, and the only way to do that is to use one of the major parties to...
Too bad our voting system basically precludes successful third parties.
We have to reform the voting system if we want change, and the only way to do that is to use one of the major parties to accomplish that action.
The title is way too editorialized, and the article lacks substance, but you can't seriously compare the offices of Trump with Obama as far as ethics and following the law are concerned. Also, it...
The title is way too editorialized, and the article lacks substance, but you can't seriously compare the offices of Trump with Obama as far as ethics and following the law are concerned.
Also, it is common for the opposition to retake the house during mid-terms, and the number of republicans who are retiring suggests this will definitely be the case this year.
God, these midterms are going to tear the country apart, again. It's great to see people passionate about politics, but these primaries have just been extremist vs. extremist. The parties no...
God, these midterms are going to tear the country apart, again. It's great to see people passionate about politics, but these primaries have just been extremist vs. extremist. The parties no longer appeal to the majority of Americans, and I think the greatest thing these elections will reveal is how isolated people feel. I don't think they will turn out to vote because they no longer recognize their country; they can't relate to it. That's exactly how these legal battles will be spun: as extremist politics run amok.
When both sides take extremes on the left and right, all it does is leave people in the middle alone and without a way to meaningfully engage with politics or with their country generally. They just become fodder for the extremists, and it's super depressing to think about.
The way things are now, the left in the US is the middle. There's nothing extreme about looking at the obscene costs of healthcare, comparing the US to most of the rest of the world, and saying...
When both sides take extremes on the left and right, all it does is leave people in the middle alone and without a way to meaningfully engage with politics or with their country generally.
The way things are now, the left in the US is the middle. There's nothing extreme about looking at the obscene costs of healthcare, comparing the US to most of the rest of the world, and saying 'there are other options, and we can do this for less money than we are currently paying.' It's not extreme to demand that workers be paid more in an economy where corporate profits and the wealth of the richest continue to grow unbounded while wages for most of the country remain stagnant. It's not extreme to support voting reform and fight against the blatant political gerrymandering that is going on over much of the country.
The 'both sides are too extreme' argument keeps getting talked about, but we don't even have a viable left-wing voice in the US. I want to see massive taxes on wealth, including income and property. I want to see basic income provided for everyone in the country. I want to see the oligarchy of corporations and wealthy individuals stripped of their influence, and their wealth. I don't have any party that is working towards those ends, I only have the choice between the Democrats and the Republicans in all practicality. My choices are to support Republicans, which is just voting to prolong the oligarchy, or to vote for Democrats, who might take some steps in the direction I want to see the country take.
If there was a viable option to vote for real socialist policies, I would jump on that ship. As it stands now, I can only support the actual middle ground, which is the Democratic party platform, and hope that in the future I can support some true left-wing options.
That's what I'm trying to allude to. Neither party truly resonates with the people they are meant to represent, and when that happens what is extreme and what is normal is only defined by...
I only have the choice between the Democrats and the Republicans in all practicality. My choices are to support Republicans, which is just voting to prolong the oligarchy, or to vote for Democrats, who might take some steps in the direction I want to see the country take.
That's what I'm trying to allude to. Neither party truly resonates with the people they are meant to represent, and when that happens what is extreme and what is normal is only defined by individual perspective. Without people being capable of feeling truly a part of a particular party, there are no agreed political boundaries. So everything starts to seem extreme, with the only trace of stability lying in a person's self. It is extreme to maintain a status quo which upholds practical oligarchy, while it is also extreme to mandate people and companies contribute to a UBI system for those who can't contribute themselves.
And since everything seems extreme, people may respond extremely. For some, that just means submitting a protest vote or not voting at all. For others, that means protesting. I'm worried about how far this test of the nation's confidence in itself can go - how long until seeing every little movement as extreme, and responding extremely, is normalized?
At the same time, when has there ever really been a choice? The only people we've ever been able to choose to represent us are people who think they are better than us - people who see themselves as unique and different. They've always been trespassers in our lives, serving their ideologies rather than their people. We've always just been given Sophie's choices and the only difference now is that this reality is clearer. That's the silver lining of hope I'm clinging to as we head into this next political season; nothing's really changed from before all this.
Is there a link to the spreadsheet anywhere? I don’t see one in the article.
Wait the spreadsheet was not published with the article?
Well I originally read this article on mobile, so I came back to doublecheck on desktop. No link as far as I can see.
In retrospect, this indicates to me that they've only been told about the spreadsheet, not that they've actually received it.
Yeah, so this is gossip being tarted up as NewsI would like to see the original data, after it has been cleaned to protect sources. I believe there is much information to be inferred by how and what was written. (Like are these just a list of motions that have failed w/ the Republican Lead Congress, or are they also inferring things that might be more dangerous).
It is also important to see primary sources whenever possible.
That Reality Winner situation was incredible in its Op Sec failures. Mostly on Reality's part, (I mean she was Fucked as soon as she printed that out) But Publishing the Printer Water Markings is just so amazingly bad, especially for an organization that prides itself on dealing with leaked documents/information.
They certainly claimed that they've obtained it. Hell, they give nearly 20 probes from the list in the article.
Teasing things out is pretty common practice when it comes to leaked info and such.
As a Democrat who voted for Sanders, this whole farce makes me sick. What a waste of resources to go after Trump just to make political capital. They should be talking about the melting icecaps, inequality, partisan innefficiency, unaffordable health care and real issues, not Trump's idiocy. Win at any cost. We'll have integrity once we have control. Right.
The probes can be thought of as a strategy to curtail efforts to perpetuate those problems. A White House that is constantly fighting legal battles will never be able to enact policy towards its ideals - and Trump's ideals are blatantly harmful at best, downright hateful at worst. The article alludes to it here:
Doing both is inconsistent, something that most thinking Americans know instinctively. Politicians remind me of the cable companies, convinced that their clients are all idiots, and I hold them in equal contempt.
I don't think that they are inconsistent at all. What seems inconsistent to me is saying "we promise a better future" without holding anyone accountable for screwing up the past.
This is Tildes, surely we can have higher-quality argumentation than this?
"most Americans know" is a straightforward argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.
Claiming they know it instinctively bypasses any need to provide evidence to back up the assertion.
And saying "thinking Americans" implies (hopefully unintentionally) that people who disagree with your position are less capable of thinking.
You're absolutely right, I'm so sorry.
From the Chicago Tribune, Dec 11, 2017
Too bad our voting system basically precludes successful third parties.
We have to reform the voting system if we want change, and the only way to do that is to use one of the major parties to accomplish that action.
I worry about the alternative. Although to be honest the relative complacency of the population has probably just emboldened politicians more.
The title is way too editorialized, and the article lacks substance, but you can't seriously compare the offices of Trump with Obama as far as ethics and following the law are concerned.
Also, it is common for the opposition to retake the house during mid-terms, and the number of republicans who are retiring suggests this will definitely be the case this year.
God, these midterms are going to tear the country apart, again. It's great to see people passionate about politics, but these primaries have just been extremist vs. extremist. The parties no longer appeal to the majority of Americans, and I think the greatest thing these elections will reveal is how isolated people feel. I don't think they will turn out to vote because they no longer recognize their country; they can't relate to it. That's exactly how these legal battles will be spun: as extremist politics run amok.
When both sides take extremes on the left and right, all it does is leave people in the middle alone and without a way to meaningfully engage with politics or with their country generally. They just become fodder for the extremists, and it's super depressing to think about.
The way things are now, the left in the US is the middle. There's nothing extreme about looking at the obscene costs of healthcare, comparing the US to most of the rest of the world, and saying 'there are other options, and we can do this for less money than we are currently paying.' It's not extreme to demand that workers be paid more in an economy where corporate profits and the wealth of the richest continue to grow unbounded while wages for most of the country remain stagnant. It's not extreme to support voting reform and fight against the blatant political gerrymandering that is going on over much of the country.
The 'both sides are too extreme' argument keeps getting talked about, but we don't even have a viable left-wing voice in the US. I want to see massive taxes on wealth, including income and property. I want to see basic income provided for everyone in the country. I want to see the oligarchy of corporations and wealthy individuals stripped of their influence, and their wealth. I don't have any party that is working towards those ends, I only have the choice between the Democrats and the Republicans in all practicality. My choices are to support Republicans, which is just voting to prolong the oligarchy, or to vote for Democrats, who might take some steps in the direction I want to see the country take.
If there was a viable option to vote for real socialist policies, I would jump on that ship. As it stands now, I can only support the actual middle ground, which is the Democratic party platform, and hope that in the future I can support some true left-wing options.
That's what I'm trying to allude to. Neither party truly resonates with the people they are meant to represent, and when that happens what is extreme and what is normal is only defined by individual perspective. Without people being capable of feeling truly a part of a particular party, there are no agreed political boundaries. So everything starts to seem extreme, with the only trace of stability lying in a person's self. It is extreme to maintain a status quo which upholds practical oligarchy, while it is also extreme to mandate people and companies contribute to a UBI system for those who can't contribute themselves.
And since everything seems extreme, people may respond extremely. For some, that just means submitting a protest vote or not voting at all. For others, that means protesting. I'm worried about how far this test of the nation's confidence in itself can go - how long until seeing every little movement as extreme, and responding extremely, is normalized?
At the same time, when has there ever really been a choice? The only people we've ever been able to choose to represent us are people who think they are better than us - people who see themselves as unique and different. They've always been trespassers in our lives, serving their ideologies rather than their people. We've always just been given Sophie's choices and the only difference now is that this reality is clearer. That's the silver lining of hope I'm clinging to as we head into this next political season; nothing's really changed from before all this.