The New American Politics thread

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Wednesday's speakers include Kaine, Biden and Obama.

There was someone earlier in the thread that thought the lineup for this DNC was weak......I actually don't remember one this strong. Tomorrow should have some great speeches.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well, kind of. Her husband is a former president (and popular) and she had to get chewed up through the American political machine which seems incredibly broken. So yes I suppose man or woman a person could take a shot at being president, but I imagine these people are completely different after coming out the other side.

Delete your account

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Wednesday's speakers include Kaine, Biden and Obama.

There was someone earlier in the thread that thought the lineup for this DNC was weak......I actually don't remember one this strong. Tomorrow should have some great speeches.

Somewhat badly scheduled, though. You can't have the VP pick and President on the same night, they're both closers. The problem was that they had to have Bernie headline night one in order to appease his people. You could have had Kaine follow Bill, but then Kaine looks bad by comparison. Still, I'd at least have moved Biden to another night.

[JohnnyB]

Just caught the Clinton speech. Bill is a charming guy and a hell of a speaker, but that was a lot of pretty hokey bs. He is hard not to like, but even he can't successfully lend his likability to Hillary.

[Senator Clay Davis]

This ####ing guy....

Political commentator Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday defended the working conditions for the slaves who built the White House, attempting to fact-check Michelle Obama’s speech from the night before.

"Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802," said the host of Fox’s “The Factor."

“So, Michelle Obama is essentially correct in citing slaves as builders of the White House, but there were others working as well,” he continued.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4FcARwGQW

[GirlySports]

the media on both sides are so ridiculous.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by driveway

Terrified of Jefferson, Federalists would write: "Merchants, your ships will be condemned to rot in your harbors, for Jefferson will destroy the Navy. The temples of the most high will be profaned by impious orgies to the Goddess of Reason."

A Magnificent Catastrophe, Edward J. Larson.

this sounds familiar

[driveway]

Yeah, this book is really driving it home just how much the press narrative has unchanged, and in fact really moderated over time.

I mean, in 1800, you had the Sedition act, which made publishing anti-government writing punishable with prison terms, and then you had Republican (today's Democrats) newspaper publishers getting hauled in front of Federalist judges (including Supreme Court Justices) on Sedition charges, and the judges essentially directing the jury to find these people guilty. Such as George's nephew Bushrod (awesome name) Washington declaring to the jury that a newspaper was "libelous beyond even the possibility of a doubt."

Yet newspapers were still publishing things like "you who are for French notions of government (French revolution Jacobin Terror), for the sea of anarchy and misrule, for arming the poor against the rich, for the foes of God and man, go to the left."

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Him not releasing his tax returns will be a huge issue from here on out. If he was clean he would have done it by now and bragged about it. Obviously something is stinky.

Trump's reply is going to be "release your speeches" and Hillary knows it, it is likely that aside from a few jabs back and forth, nobody releases anything.

Anyways, I see this happening because of at least one of the following reasons, with #2 and #3 being most probable:

1) Trump is doing this for leverage to get Hillary to release her speeches
2) Trump isn't nearly as rich as he says
3) Trump has some questionable/shady tax dealings

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

the media on both sides are so ridiculous.

No, they aren't. People who develop this false equivalency aren't helping matters much either as it excuses bad behavior which is so icy more evident on one side of the argument. The media has always had a liberal bias, in the sense of John Locke liberalism, because they were educated and had experiential learning on their side. Getting out of the studio or newsroom and actually seeing both sides of an issue first hand informed their perspective and gave the appearance of bias to some. I will also point out that no one went out of their way to create one side of the media to have a particular bias. One developed organically through experience, and the other was created by a small group of individuals with ideological intents. Not the same.

[Senator Clay Davis]

^^#2 and #3 aren't probable, they're a guarantee. He's nowhere near as rich as he says, and pays little to no tax at all. There's also the thought his tax returns will show even more ties to Russia which won't help. I get the feeling ultimately someone will leak Trump's returns later in the race. If the media did their goddamn job maybe he would actually release them on his own.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Trump's reply is going to be "release your speeches" and Hillary knows it, it is likely that aside from a few jabs back and forth, nobody releases anything.

Anyways, I see this happening because of at least one of the following reasons, with #2 and #3 being most probable:

1) Trump is doing this for leverage to get Hillary to release her speeches
2) Trump isn't nearly as rich as he says
3) Trump has some questionable/shady tax dealings

My personal opinion (based on not much other than my own speculation) is that it's #2.

Clinton probably should be hammering this, and I expect the democrats will. However, it is a bit of a weird controversy in one sense: I have no idea why it's customary for candidates to release their tax returns, or when that started. We don't ask Canadian politicians to do this, and I can't see us starting--these are private documents, that people generally don't disclose.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

On that note, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort now says Trump will not be releasing his tax returns, because they are "under audit."

https://politicalwire.com/2016/07/27...ase-his-taxes/

And again, in every other context that would be a perfectly reasonable explanation, and if may even be true.

[troutman]

Trump tweeted yesterday "For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia." Note that he did not deny Russians may have financed his deals.

He also did not go after Bill for his infidelities, because that begs the question.

[driveway]

According to this website: http://www.taxhistory.org/www/websit...tialtaxreturns

The oldest publicly available tax return is FDR's 1913 taxes. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson did not release any returns, Nixon did (69-72), Ford didn't, but Carter and everyone since has.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by troutman

Trump tweeted yesterday "For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia." Note that he did not deny Russians may have financed his deals.

He also did not go after Bill for his infidelities, because that begs the question.

Like Michelle, he didn't go after Bill at all for the speech he gave. So the math here is simple, don't mention Trump in your speech and you won't get a Tweet about it. There's a decent amount of people who think tonight Obama will absolutely tee off on Trump, but I think that's an unwise play. Keep ignoring him, that hurts him so much worse. It makes him cry orange tears.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

Trump tweeted yesterday "For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia." Note that he did not deny Russians may have financed his deals.

He also did not go after Bill for his infidelities, because that begs the question.

That's actually a bizarrely evasive tweet, in that he is answering a completely different question than the one that people are asking.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

On that note, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort now says Trump will not be releasing his tax returns, because they are "under audit."

https://politicalwire.com/2016/07/27...ase-his-taxes/

And again, in every other context that would be a perfectly reasonable explanation, and if may even be true.

It's not though, because good old Dick Nixon released his taxes while under audit. So yeah, when even Nixon would do it...it's a total crap excuse, he just doesn't want to because it'll expose him badly. Media finally appears to be applying more pressure, but I expect they'll eat his excuses and back off again.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by New Era

No, they aren't. People who develop this false equivalency aren't helping matters much either as it excuses bad behavior which is so icy more evident on one side of the argument. The media has always had a liberal bias, in the sense of John Locke liberalism, because they were educated and had experiential learning on their side. Getting out of the studio or newsroom and actually seeing both sides of an issue first hand informed their perspective and gave the appearance of bias to some. I will also point out that no one went out of their way to create one side of the media to have a particular bias. One developed organically through experience, and the other was created by a small group of individuals with ideological intents. Not the same.

So the liberal bias in the media is acceptable because they are right?

That's a very circular argument.

If you watch MSNBC/Maddow, The Young Turks, the CBC, etc and can't see the outrageous agenda at play, then your echo chamber is very strong.

And the current iteration of the Left, and its current obsession with Thought Crime and "social justice" might be the very opposite of Classical Liberal thinking.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Buster

If you watch MSNBC/Maddow, The Young Turks, the CBC, etc and can't see the outrageous agenda at play, then your echo chamber is very strong.

what is their outrageous agenda?
Fox etc. is obvious, but what is the liberal medias agenda?