Politics First Contact

[ktchong]

20 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472952-trump-calls-trudeau-two-faced

Truly a tedious scandal.

 

[Lexx]

7 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

In Australia, the rain comes up from the ground!

Things are different in different places.

Yeah. Sure. But things in the UK could change to the US model in the future, and that would suck pretty hard... because the US model is bull****. Doesn't matter if in Australia it rains from the ground, nobody should seriously want to adapt the US healthcare model.

[Gfted1]

15 minutes ago, Lexx said:

But things in the UK could change to the US model in the future...

What gives you this impression?

And aye, the US model on almost everything is bull****. We need a 10 year, $200 million, navel gazing session to figure out if water is wet. 

[Lexx]

8 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

What gives you this impression?

Did you not read the latest news? There are strong indications that the current political party in the UK wants to get rid of the NHS who control drug prices. This paves the road to a US-style pricing system, which means everything will spiral out of control and the folks in charge will make billions while everyone else gets f'd from behind.

This is not a conspiracy, but a very real thing that could happen. Boris Johnson is pretty much the UK version of Trump and you can't trust a single word he says. At this point it's just a matter of time until everything goes down the ****ter for real.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Lexx

[Gorth]

44 minutes ago, Lexx said:

This paves the road to a US-style pricing system, which means everything will spiral out of control and the folks in charge will make billions while everyone else gets f'd from behind.

As for what that US-style pricing is, I posted a link not long ago. Just repeating it here https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/ranks-1-world-sky-high-cost-vital-medicines-191121224954634.html

 

tl;dr; medication like insulin, blood pressure regulating drugs and heart medicine is between 200% and 2000% more expensive in the US compared to most of the rest of the world (who presumably regulate prices)

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Lexx said:

Did you not read the latest news? There are strong indications that the current political party in the UK wants to get rid of the NHS who control drug prices.

Not exactly?

The indications are that the US is going to pressure the UK to drop the NHS as part of negotiations for a FTA, and Boris swears blind that that won't happen. That is absolutely standard US practice, they went after Pharmac (NZ's single payer drug buying agency) as part of the negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership- but even that supine bootlicking jelly John Key knew it would be electoral suicide to give in on that. Then again, we have a 3 year electoral cycle, not the UK's 5 year one where a lot that happens in the first year can be forgotten by the time the next election rolls around. You can pretty much guarantee any trade negotiation with the US will involve them trying to force you to buy drugs from US companies at inflated prices because, lobbyists.

The Tories have certainly systematically underfunded the NHS and are philosophically opposed to it on principle, but dismantling the NHS would be near revolution inducing and Boris knows it.

[Lexx]

As far as I am aware, they did the same with the railway - underfund it till it breaks, then point fingers and say it ain't working, then sell it off to private companies. 

 

Same reason why german railway / transport system becomes more and more garbage. The government says folk should stop using private cars because the roads are full and global warming, and at the same time the public transportation costs are rising. Job well done I guess.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Lexx

[Guard Dog]

A lot of crosstalk on whether or not the impeachment fracas was entirely political. I can prove to everyone it is. ENTIRELY political. Ready? Watch this:

 

Consider for a moment an alternate timeline. For this timeline:

• Assume for a moment everything is true. Well, because it is. The President did everything they got caught doing.
• Assume the Congress was made up exactly the same way in the alternate 2019. Same leaders, committee chairs, power splits, etc.
• Now assume the President is Hillary Clinton. 

Are we talking about impeachment right now? Of course we are not. In fact I'd be mildly surprised if the Zelensky call even made the news. So... you see? At the end of the day it has nothing to do with what the President did and everything to do with who controls what in Congress. That the President abused his office does not matter that much.  Sometimes I think we are not worth the sacrifices that people have made to this country.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Guard Dog

[ShadySands]

Is there even such a thing as a non-political impeachment though? I mean, neither party would go after their president if they controlled the House in this day and age of partisanship. There's no question that wrongdoing occurred and it's more of a question of what do we do about it. Intimating that the whole thing can be considered a farce because politicians are hypocrites doesn't sit right with me as I think we should be better than that. I know we aren't but we should be.

Just my 2 pennies anyway

Edited December 6, 2019 by ShadySands

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

 

Are we talking about impeachment right now? 

yes, but precise 'cause o' the same politics issue. if a democrat President with this Congress had covered up a whistleblower complaint which accused the chief executive of using the office of the President to persuade a foreign power to investigate a political rival, such info woulda' made its way to the Senate intelligence committee. sure, the House needs do impeachment, but senate committees woulda' done extensive investigations and we would fundamental be exact where we are now, only with the house refusing to move forward with articles of impeachment.

also, am not thinking that cnn and msnbc coulda' generate the kinda core base support that fox and am radio does with trump's base. fact coming out would shock democrat public far more than facts has discouraged republicans.

also, keep in mind senate has been the folks packing the Courts since day 1 o' trump Presidency. is unprecedented what mcconnell is doing. complaints 'bout house wasting efforts on impeachment instead o' day-to-day business is complete bs when you look at what the house v. senate has actual done since the mid-term elections. business in the Senate has largely stopped to pack Courts and prepare for impeachment and for decades to come. with a democrat President, situation in senate would be complete different than it is today.

regardless, am suspecting we would largely be in almost exact same position we are today, with no articles o' impeachment or trial, but there woulda' already been a whole lotta testimony in committees which would look extreme polarized and political.

so disagreeing while agreeing from a complete 180 pov... with important recognition the democrats, who have a hard enough time getting people to vote, could never generate a base such as trump has and an observation that the Senate w/o a President from majority functions much different.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

Is there even such a thing as a non-political impeachment though? I mean, neither party would go after their president if they controlled the House in this day and age of partisanship. There's no question that wrongdoing occurred and it's more of a question of what do we do about it. Intimating that the whole thing can be considered a farce because politicians are hypocrites doesn't sit right with me as I think we should be better than that and . I know we aren't but we should be.

Just my 2 pennies anyway

You are correct. We should be better and we are not. There is an objectively correct answer to the question "Did the President do something illegal/unethical that justifies impeachment". But right now 99% of the people who answer "yes" would answer "no" if the political party of the President were reversed. And the house Republicans. whose defense of the President has strained logic, would be leading the charge against the Democrat if their roles were reversed. 

[ComradeYellow]

 

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

fact coming out would shock democrat public far more than facts has discouraged republicans.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Mostly go along with your assessment but not on this one point. The folks who favor the Dems would just convince themselves it isn't true and it's all just a Republican witchhunt. Just like the GOP leaning folks have done. And to make matters worse the Republicans will likely have made as much of a mess of it as Schiff has done. Maybe overreached a little. Maybe mixed truth with conjecture. So much so that the fact something very wrong was done would get lost just like it has here. Like I said there is an objectively correct answer here but with a few exceptions even those who came to the correct answer did not come to it correctly.

Four legs good, two legs bad. 

[Gromnir]

6 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Mostly go along with your assessment but not on this one point. The folks who favor the Dems would just convince themselves it isn't true and it's all just a Republican witchhunt. Just like the GOP leaning folks have done. And to make matters worse the Republicans will likely have made as much of a mess of it as Schiff has done. Maybe overreached a little. Maybe mixed truth with conjecture. So much so that the fact something very wrong was done would get lost just like it has here. Like I said there is an objectively correct answer here but with a few exceptions even those who came to the correct answer did not come to it correctly.

Four legs good, two legs bad. 

disagree.

from larry tribe's book 'bout impeachment:

"Many Americans who voted for Trump view themselves as belonging to a victimized, disenfranchised class that has finally discovered its champion. For some of them, Trump’s appeal is less what he will accomplish programmatically than whom he will attack personally. Were Trump removed from office by political elites in Washington, DC—even based on clear evidence that he had grossly abused power—some of his supporters would surely view the decision as an illegitimate coup. Indeed, some right-wing leaders have already denounced the campaign to remove Trump as a prelude to civil war. This rhetoric, too, escapes reality and indulges pernicious tendencies toward apocalyptic thinking about the impeachment power."

hillary, in particular, is a bad example for your example 'cause she were so unpopular at the time of the election. if she beat trump, it woulda' been by skin of teeth and she woulda' had republicans in both house and senate for first two years.  trump, 'cause o' 'bove observations, could be impotent for the first thee years o' his term and still hold onto his base. the only reason why republicans in the house and senate is standing by trump is 'cause he has gone from being an unpopular President who even people his own party reviled, to a guy who has a stranglehold on his party in spite of a historical Presidential record o' policy failures as well as abuses o' constitutional law which occur almost daily.

is no way hillary develops such a base, and the only reason republicans is willing to overlook the obvious overstep o' this President is 'cause o' the popularity o' trump which complete ignores his accomplishments or any kinda facts. am not seeing democrats putting their own necks on the line for an unpopular hillary.

the only way your roles-are-reversed scenario holds is if you got a democrat President who is equal popular with a base, and maybe obama or bill clinton is that guy, and perhaps kennedy, but after he died. 

consider a different what if scenario. turn back time to september 2016 and tell us that after three years o' Presidency there would be evidence that the President colluded with a foreign state to get elected, but that 'cause there wasn't enough coordination 'tween the foreign power and the President, there weren't criminal conspiracy. same President fired the head of the fbi in part 'cause o' the investigation into election meddling and admitted to such during a televised nbc interview. furthermore, a special counsel who investigated the election meddling found at least ten instances o' possible obstruction of justice by wh and President, but because o' a department memo which states a sitting President cannot be indicted, the special counsel did not decide the merits o' those ten obstruction claims, although more than 1000 former fed prosecutors signed a letter memorializing their belief that anybody but the President would be indicted on obstruction charges. special counsel's report specific states that the President's answers to interrogatories were insufficient, misleading and in multiple instances, untruthful. furthermore, mere months after being cleared of conspiracy (but not cleared of collusion) the same President active solicited help from a foreign power to investigate a political rival, and when a whistleblower brought claims o' such to the inspector general for review, the President tried to bury the whistleblower complaint.

at the time you likely believe hillary becomes President, but maybe not. regardless, is there any doubt in your mind such President would be facing impeachment?

please.

do you realize where we are today? because o' trump, norms has been complete shattered. a Presidential candidate may now active pursue dirt on political opponents with the help o' foreign powers just so long as the coordination 'tween the foreign power and the candidate isn't too excessive. in other words, a politician can accept dirt and need not actual report such to fbi or other authorities. furthermore, if trump gets away with his most recent bit o' wacky, Presidents will have free reign to have foreign powers investigate their political rivals. investigating corruption? HA! investigating "dirt" by its very nature means you is investigating that which is either illegal or embarrassing. every such "dirt" investigation will by necessity have a corruption analogue. oh, and future Presidents will also recognize that a blanket refusal to comply with any and all Congressional oversight related to an impeachment inquiry is a valid tactictic.

wtf?

many democrats is hypocrites. we listened to 'em defend bill clinton lies. again, weren't the monica lewinsky stuff which bothers us even if it got republicans angry at the time, but lie under oath is a freaking bridge too far. perhaps if democrats had stood up to clinton lies instead o' standing with him we wouldn't be where we are today with a pathological liar in the wh who uses gaslighting and alternative facts with indifference.  am not defending democrats.

at the same time, this is not simple a if the roles were reversed situation. this is complete unprecedented and as cynical as you are, there is no way three and a half years ago you predict everything which has happened with the trump Presidency w/o assuming impeachment. no way.

HA! Good Fun!

[ComradeYellow]

3 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

"Many Americans who voted for Trump view themselves as belonging to a victimized, disenfranchised class that has finally discovered its champion. For some of them, Trump’s appeal is less what he will accomplish programmatically than whom he will attack personally.

Yet they can't seem to grasp the fact that Trump comes from a privileged and very enfranchised background and also seem to misunderstand the very nature of demagoguery.

Let's state the obvious here, it's the failure of Obama that led to Trump.  IF you study history, fascism always comes at the onset of a missed revolutionary opportunity.  Obama had a great window of opportunity from '08-'10 for economic reform and he blew it. 

[Lexx]

12 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

 

lol @ the YT comments. It always baffles me how much america is in on the "there is only black or white"-shtick. Can't see any grey. Funny thing is, this is totally reflected in american RPGs. Stuff like Oblivion, Skyrim, Mass Effect, etc. all has nothing but black and white choices.

[Maedhros]

It's a human thing, not only an American one. Though having a two-party system will of course give nourishment to the dichotomus way of thinking.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Maedhros

[Guard Dog]

@Gromnir interesting question. Going back to Nov 2 2016 with full foreknowledge of everything that was going to happen but not who was going to do it, I could not say which candidate won. Both were more than capable. I'd probably go with Trump as the winner because Clinton, who has no moral compass or sense of ethics either, would have been smart enough to use intermediaries for this kind of thing. The US State Dept was doing favors for Clinton Foundation donations for years and no one could prove the connection. Some eels are slipperier than others. As for Trump, he just doesn't know any better. That is what got him in trouble here. He did not know he COULDN'T do this and he won't listen to the people who do know. 

You do not need to sell me on the necessity of impeaching Trump. I'm there. I am just saying if he were a Democrat it would not have happened. Maybe Clinton was a poor choice or too specific an example. The Republicans turned on Nixon. They might turn on Trump.  Doubt it but you never know. But the Democrats NEVER eat their own. No matter what they did. If Trump were a Democrat it would be a scandal but it would blow over. 

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

You do not need to sell me on the necessity of impeaching Trump. I'm there. I am just saying if he were a Democrat it would not have happened. Maybe Clinton was a poor choice or too specific an example. The Republicans turned on Nixon. They might turn on Trump.  Doubt it but you never know. But the Democrats NEVER eat their own. No matter what they did. If Trump were a Democrat it would be a scandal but it would blow over. 

I don't know about that. Al Franken was a very popular democrat and ended up stepping away after a fairly minor controversy. John Edwards disappeared off the face of the planet after his election fund controversy. It seems like there are less democrat examples, for sure. I'm not sure why that would count against them.

[Guard Dog]

18 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I don't know about that. Al Franken was a very popular democrat and ended up stepping away after a fairly minor controversy. John Edwards disappeared off the face of the planet after his election fund controversy. It seems like there are less democrat examples, for sure. I'm not sure why that would count against them.

In neither case was the balance of power changed. Looking at Franken since he is the far more recent example. A Democrat resigning, replaced by a Democrat in a state Democrats never lose. Had Franken's resignation caused the Senate to flip you had better believe it would not have happened. That story would have been buried by any means up to and including "suiciding" Leann Tweeden.

[Raithe]

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

In neither case was the balance of power changed. Looking at Franken since he is the far more recent example. A Democrat resigning, replaced by a Democrat in a state Democrats never lose. Had Franken's resignation caused the Senate to flip you had better believe it would not have happened. That story would have been buried by any means up to and including "suiciding" Leann Tweeden.

So really you are saying Dem voters are more loyal to the party than the individual. 

[Guard Dog]

26 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

So really you are saying Dem voters are more loyal to the party than the individual. 

No not at all. I'm saying the Dem party will look past anything so long as they can hold onto power. They have demonstrated that on numerous occasions. Whatever ethics they have are situational at best. And no we can say the Republicans are exactly the same. House member after house member has defended actions they know were wrong. And, very shortly, the Senate will do likewise and acquit. If Trump were a democrat the democrat controlled house would not hazard losing the Executive Branch no matter what the President did. Same as the Republicans in the Senate next month.

[HoonDing]

At this point I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat.

[Gromnir]

political self-preservation is kinda a given, but the belief that the democrats woulda' defended hillary to the death is ridiculous. at least 1/3 of the party believed/believes hillary stole the 2016 nomination from bernie sanders. the public were always ambivalent 'bout hillary as were highlighted by exit polls which showed less than half democrats actual approved of hillary as a candidate. hillary never had fox news and breitbart and am radio championing her cause. 

as soon as public sentiment turned 'gainst hillary, which likely woulda' happened immediate after getting into office and facing a republican house and senate, individual democrats woulda' shifted into self-preservation mode. add a impeachment scandal?

again, hillary didn't have a base like trump. sure, in california and new york there is folks who are as obtuse pro-hillary as there is pro-trump folks. we have met such folks, and is disconcerting to hear 'em defend hillary no matter what the issue and regardless o' any evidence put before them. those folks is a minority w/i the party. democrat politicians, save in those peculiar pockets o' resistance where their constituents is still die-hard pro-clinton, would not sacrifice their own political futures to defend an unpopular hillary.

the trump situation is unique and has nothing to do with party. trump has a deathgrip on his base and republicans know it. is no way hillary faces same impeachment scandal as trump and manages similar base support. hillary wouldn't even come close to managing nixon level o' support. 

HA! Good Fun!