Political Roundtable Part XIII

[sfam]

When the democrats start looking at Graham and McCain as their savior, with Jake Tapper and CNN reporting wouldn't you agree something isn't working? McCain and Graham were labeled semi-demonic warmongers up until they decided to criticize Trump.

Agreed 100%, more far-left arm flailing.

Indu, if it turns out that #45 was wrong and essentially lied when he accused Pres. Obama of ordering the wiretapping of Trump Tower would you have a problem with Trump making such a serious allegation without the evidence to back it up?

He just got caught in one of his serial lies. Really hard to hide them when you are POTUS.

You now have the Senate Intelligence committee saying there is no evidence for this. It looks like everyone will in essence say the same thing, all the while with the Trump Administration essentially providing no comment. They can only stonewall so long here, as congress is asking for the original evidence behind the charge. I would like to believe Graham and McCain will nail Trump to the wall with this, but I doubt it happens.

Clearly Trump's strategy is to try to bury this fiasco with new ones, including potentially leaking parts of his own tax returns. My guess is this probably works. It will have the lingering effect that nobody believing anything the President says moving forward.

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Second travel ban already blocked

[gtn130]

SEE YOU IN COURT!

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Can't believe how poorly this is working out for Trump considering all the 4D chess he plays

[sfam]

Read on Twitter

Second travel ban already blocked

Whether or not it ends up being legal - meaning seen as an actual travel ban and not a Muslim ban - its still horrible policy. The leaks coming out of the Intel community show reports and findings that show:

1. Country of origin is a poor predictor of extremist activity

2. Most extremists in the US radicalized well after coming here. Lone wolf attacks are the real danger. The Tsarnaev brothers behind the Boston bombing is far more representative.

3. Actions that alienate Muslim communities in the US from local and national law enforcement negatively impacts our ability to identify potential lone wolf attacks.

The Muslim ban is a campaign promise though. I do get that. But a "Travel Ban" is already different - why not instead examine the evidence and talk to experts to find out what actually works?

[Induveca]

Read on Twitter

Second travel ban already blocked

Whether or not it ends up being legal - meaning seen as an actual travel ban and not a Muslim ban - its still horrible policy. The leaks coming out of the Intel community show reports and findings that show:

1. Country of origin is a poor predictor of extremist activity

2. Most extremists in the US radicalized well after coming here. Lone wolf attacks are the real danger. The Tsarnaev brothers behind the Boston bombing is far more representative.

3. Actions that alienate Muslim communities in the US from local and national law enforcement negatively impacts our ability to identify potential lone wolf attacks.

The Muslim ban is a campaign promise though. I do get that. But a "Travel Ban" is already different - why not instead examine the evidence and talk to experts to find out what actually works?

Why did you use GDelt or GNIP?

[dckingsfan]

Exactly, false equivalence

Sorry - I missed where this is a false equivalence.

In one case you have a party that creates unsustainable programs. The other party underfunds the government and is fiscally irresponsible by cutting taxes when we have a deficit.

I guess we could leave that as separate issues and give them their own definitions.

But both parties are fiscally irresponsible.

Well again, we can go 'round and round on this, but you've already agreed above that Republicans also create unsustainable programs (the drug benefit for instance, or the Iraq War outside of entitlements). They just don't bother to even try to pay for them - Republicans spout the magical fantasy of market dynamics without any justification at this point - trickle down economics has never worked - there is no factual basis for it. Just look at brownback's Kansas failure for a clear example of conservative governance freed of factual constraints.

To me its fairly clear that Republicans' reputation for fiscal responsibility has long since lost any credibility. The two parties aren't equal there - one seems far more honest about costs and benefits than the other, even if they aren't always able to get the level of tax increases or stimulus wanted. The democrats have a recent history of creating jobs and reducing financial problems (again, you say the financial crisis was equally the responsibility of both parties - false equivalence in my terms when we're talking the end of a second Presidential term - talk about passing the buck!), whereas the Republicans in power have a recent history of losing jobs, and couldn't have been more fiscally irresponsible if they tried - unless the President is a democrat.

Let's agree that the Rs are the more fiscally imprudent of the two parties. I am actually fine with this argument.

But here is the problem. You fail to even acknowledge that the Ds are fiscally imprudent. That the programs that they have set-up are unsustainable but campaign for more of the same. That those failures lead us to the very rotations Ds then Rs then Ds that you see and hate.

You can say, "yep, but happily less so..." but it doesn't matter. Every 8 years they are back out and I am pretty sure it is hard to swallow. And then you fall back on the "but the Rs are worse" argument. Until the Ds buy into fiscal sustainability we will continue to see this trend.

And if you look at it at a micro level, you can see the real harm in unsustainable spending - just take a look at Ferguson.

[sfam]

The President finally revealed his "evidence" for Obama's worse than Watergate wiretapping

Read on Twitter

He really should have stayed quiet. What a complete crock. He flat out accused Obama of a felony for no reason whatsoever. The President of the US did that.

[sfam]

Read on Twitter

Second travel ban already blocked

Whether or not it ends up being legal - meaning seen as an actual travel ban and not a Muslim ban - its still horrible policy. The leaks coming out of the Intel community show reports and findings that show:

1. Country of origin is a poor predictor of extremist activity

2. Most extremists in the US radicalized well after coming here. Lone wolf attacks are the real danger. The Tsarnaev brothers behind the Boston bombing is far more representative.

3. Actions that alienate Muslim communities in the US from local and national law enforcement negatively impacts our ability to identify potential lone wolf attacks.

The Muslim ban is a campaign promise though. I do get that. But a "Travel Ban" is already different - why not instead examine the evidence and talk to experts to find out what actually works?

Why did you use GDelt or GNIP?

I used GDELT for examining tone in news reporting for increases or decreases in conflict and instability. We also used their event graph for event reporting, but its a pretty noisy dataset. I never used GNIP, but did access that data through Crimson Hexagon, a social media analytics product with full access to the twitter firehose, including deleted tweets. This is really cool for tracking extremist conversation, for instance, and they are often deleted quickly.

[sfam]

Sorry - I missed where this is a false equivalence.

In one case you have a party that creates unsustainable programs. The other party underfunds the government and is fiscally irresponsible by cutting taxes when we have a deficit.

I guess we could leave that as separate issues and give them their own definitions.

But both parties are fiscally irresponsible.

Well again, we can go 'round and round on this, but you've already agreed above that Republicans also create unsustainable programs (the drug benefit for instance, or the Iraq War outside of entitlements). They just don't bother to even try to pay for them - Republicans spout the magical fantasy of market dynamics without any justification at this point - trickle down economics has never worked - there is no factual basis for it. Just look at brownback's Kansas failure for a clear example of conservative governance freed of factual constraints.

To me its fairly clear that Republicans' reputation for fiscal responsibility has long since lost any credibility. The two parties aren't equal there - one seems far more honest about costs and benefits than the other, even if they aren't always able to get the level of tax increases or stimulus wanted. The democrats have a recent history of creating jobs and reducing financial problems (again, you say the financial crisis was equally the responsibility of both parties - false equivalence in my terms when we're talking the end of a second Presidential term - talk about passing the buck!), whereas the Republicans in power have a recent history of losing jobs, and couldn't have been more fiscally irresponsible if they tried - unless the President is a democrat.

Let's agree that the Rs are the more fiscally imprudent of the two parties. I am actually fine with this argument.

But here is the problem. You fail to even acknowledge that the Ds are fiscally imprudent. That the programs that they have set-up are unsustainable but campaign for more of the same. That those failures lead us to the very rotations Ds then Rs then Ds that you see and hate.

You can say, "yep, but happily less so..." but it doesn't matter. Every 8 years they are back out and I am pretty sure it is hard to swallow. And then you fall back on the "but the Rs are worse" argument. Until the Ds buy into fiscal sustainability we will continue to see this trend.

And if you look at it at a micro level, you can see the real harm in unsustainable spending - just take a look at Ferguson.

I believe Clinton fixed social security for another 20 years or more. I think Obama actually added to this as well but its late and I'm not checking right now. If you're asking do Democrats ever buy things on credit, yes, they have done that. They want stimulus now for economic growth later. Again, if Republicans didn't block them, they'd pay for it with taxes.

I'm not really following your last paragraph, but we both agree that if the legislative branch is not functioning, this is a problem regardless who is in power.

[AFM]

Has McCain completely lost his marbles?

[Wizardspride]

Has McCain completely lost his marbles?

How so?

[dckingsfan]

We just don't tax enough...

[dckingsfan]

The problem with the debt is the other party.

[AFM]

Has McCain completely lost his marbles?

How so?

Sen. John McCain accused fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul of “working for Vladimir Putin” on Wednesday.

The fireworks came as McCain spoke in support of a Senate unanimous consent request in support of Montenegro’s bid to join NATO. The libertarian-leaning Paul, who has often advocated for a less interventionist foreign policy, opposes the resolution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mccain-says-rand-paul-is-working-for-vladimir-putin/

[dckingsfan]

Don't listen to those that who say we need to cut anything soon... we should fight any spending cuts.

[dckingsfan]

And my last little pop to those that feel the ACA is a sustainable program. By eliminating it - the deficit will go down $337B and that includes that tax on the rich that was "supposed" to pay for it.

[AFM]

dckings is working for Putin!

[popper]

Don't listen to those that who say we need to cut anything soon... we should fight any spending cuts.

Thanks for the reality check dcking. I think many are unaware that hard times are just around the corner. We will need to raise taxes substantially and make draconian spending cuts at the same time. It's going to be a delicate balancing act to try and maintain some semblance of a semi-vibrant economy. Meanwhile the politicians that contributed to the deception, and the press that ignored it, will be out of office and drinking mai tai's on the beach.

[Zonkerbl]

Never thought I'd be posting an article from Breitbart here. This is interesting not because Breitbart is a legit news agency (it isn't) but because it does speak directly to Trump supporters, whose asses will be collectively kicked by Trumpcare (although I guess until it gets passed it is really Ryancare).

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/10/7-reasons-why-obamacare-2-0-is-all-but-guaranteed-to-impose-crushing-costs-on-voters-hurt-trumps-base-and-hand-power-back-to-the-democrats/

Ugh, I hate to do this but I may have to start reading Breitbart more, just to get a sense of what's going on over there. Bleck.