Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I mean, the Tea Party won, but they tried to destroy the world economy in the process and they ended up winning by nominating and electing a manbaby disconnected from reality whose stupidity will destroy United States' hegemony.

So in the end, it's like... is that a win?

Okay, so (edit: most of!) you guys are way too low on the percentages for purposing a Russian land invasion. This invasion won't be approved, but let's look at why Trump might want to do it.

1. Trump is going to be the most spurned lover of all time when Putin betrays him. I mean... look at Trump, you know how he's going to feel when Putin's love wasn't real.

2. Trump wants to invade a country to take its oil because he's a low functioning psychopath. You know what Russia has? Lots and lots of oil.

Trump is actively seeking a land war with an oil rich nation and Russia will provide reason enough for (in Trump's mind because disrespect of Trump is the worst thing you can do) a war.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I mean, the Tea Party won, but they tried to destroy the world economy in the process and they ended up winning by nominating and electing a manbaby disconnected from reality whose stupidity will destroy United States' hegemony.

So in the end, it's like... is that a win?

It's what they wanted, though. It sucks for us, obviously, and if they ruin everything some of them will probably realize that what they wanted was terrible. But like, if your goal is taking away health insurance for a tax cut, it's clearly a win that poor sick people died and you kept your money.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

It's what they wanted, though. It sucks for us, obviously, and if they ruin everything some of them will probably realize that what they wanted was terrible. But like, if your goal is taking away health insurance for a tax cut, it's clearly a win that poor sick people died and you kept your money.

I mean, if the Green Tea Party ends up winning in 2020 with a Che t-shirt/healing crystals ticket that ends up passing single payer while also causing a recession deep enough to hit 25% unemployment because of defaulting on the debt, then that's not really a win overall, right?

They got their main thing to pass, but, uhh, the whole thing was not worth it.

I don't think the Tea Party would have considered it a win back in 2010 if you told them that they got a tax cut and also put the global economy and world order at the risk of total collapse while destroying United States influence.

 

[Trouble]

I mean, the Tea Party won, but they tried to destroy the world economy in the process and they ended up winning by nominating and electing a manbaby disconnected from reality whose stupidity will destroy United States' hegemony.

So in the end, it's like... is that a win?

Okay, so (edit: most of!) you guys are way too low on the percentages for purposing a Russian land invasion. This invasion won't be approved, but let's look at why Trump might want to do it.

1. Trump is going to be the most spurned lover of all time when Putin betrays him. I mean... look at Trump, you know how he's going to feel when Putin's love wasn't real.

2. Trump wants to invade a country to take its oil because he's a low functioning psychopath. You know what Russia has? Lots and lots of oil.

Trump is actively seeking a land war with an oil rich nation and Russia will provide reason enough for (in Trump's mind because disrespect of Trump is the worst thing you can do) a war.

Invading a nuclear nation is not a thing that will happen.

The only thing in that list remotely possible is China invading Taiwan, but no one really wants that, including China.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Invading a nuclear nation is not a thing that will happen.

I never asked if it would happen, just if he would propose it.

Does Trump actually know that you try to not invade nuclear powers? Absolutely not.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

There is no way that Trump proposes an invasion of Russia before Mexico. I wouldn't be surprised if he proposed that in the next week or so to try and push his "they'll pay for the wall!" BS.

Also I think the scenario of Trump saying something like that to Russia is being discussed with a little too much levity.

Let's not forget that time the Soviets went to their equivalent of Defcon 2 because of Reagan accidentally having a joke he made at a mic check broadcast ahead of an interview.

Regan: "Today I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever, we begin bombing in 5 minutes."
Kremlin: "Prepare to launch."

 

[thepotatoman]

Sam Seder had a pretty good argument against all the symbolism of the yes votes confirming Trump cabinet votes on the majority report today.

https://youtu.be/yxJsaCNo_Ww?t=6254

I'm convinced by it. Makes no since to confuse and disappoint your own base on the hopes of getting republicans to your side for later battles. It'd be shocking if there are any that don't get confined with or without this strategy.

Maybe if democrats can stay on message and really hammer those few picks they supposedly will fight against even after confirmation, but I can't imagine them being able to keep up the pressure like that when congress and Trump himself will be keeping their hands full.

There is no way that Trump proposes an invasion of Russia before Mexico. I wouldn't be surprised if he proposed that in the next week or so to try and push his "they'll pay for the wall!" BS.

Also I think the scenario of Trump saying something like that to Russia is being discussed with a little too much levity.

Let's not forget that time the Soviets went to their equivalent of Defcon 2 because of Reagan accidentally having a joke he made at a mic check broadcast ahead of an interview.

Regan: "Today I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever, we begin bombing in 5 minutes."
Kremlin: "Prepare to launch."

It's honestly a little surprising that the worst he's done so far he's only implied threatening war without meaning to by seemingly incompetent statements, instead of directly threatening it as the ultimate "strong" position at the negotiating table.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Sam Seder had a pretty good argument against all the symbolism of the yes votes confirming Trump cabinet votes on the majority report today.

https://youtu.be/yxJsaCNo_Ww?t=6254

I'm convinced by it. Makes no since to confuse and disappoint your own base on the hopes of getting republicans to your side for later battles. It'd be shocking if there are any that don't get confined with or without this strategy.

Maybe if democrats can stay on message and really hammer those few picks they supposedly will fight against even after confirmation, but I can't imagine them being able to keep up the pressure like that when congress and Trump himself will be keeping their hands full.

There's also the fact that some of these appointments are, if not ideal for progressive causes, still people that are fit for the job and certainly not as unstable as Trump. Not all of them, obviously (Carson, Devos). But if they don't capitulate on more manageable appointments it's not like the next nominee won't be worse.

Not to mention they don't have the numbers to block any of these appointees on their own. It's going to play better down-field if they can hold them on the merits of actions and legislation instead of just trying to perform perpetual character assassinations. That narrative will get tired quickly.

Edit: The sad fact is in order for Trump to fail so hard we get a 2018 wave and then 2020, we're going to need to let him fail that hard. If we just obstruct all the time he's going to have a more legitimate scapegoat than he would otherwise.

 

[Pixieking]

There's also the fact that some of these appointments are, if not ideal for progressive causes, still people that are fit for the job and certainly not as unstable as Trump. Not all of them, obviously (Carson, Devos). But if they don't capitulate on more manageable appointments it's not like the next nominee won't be worse.

Not to mention they don't have the numbers to block any of these appointees on their own. It's going to play better down-field if they can hold them on the merits of actions and legislation instead of just trying to perform perpetual character assassinations. That narrative will get tired quickly.

Edit: The sad fact is in order for Trump to fail so hard we get a 2018 wave and then 2020, we're going to need to let him fail that hard. If we just obstruct all the time he's going to have a more legitimate scapegoat than he would otherwise.

Absolutely. It sucks hard for the general population - and there's some things that Trump and his administration will need to be fought on - but Trump won the EC vote, so the Dems should let him play the game he wants. And when you have a headline like this: "Democrats pitch $1T infrastructure plan - will Trump get on board?" on the Fox News website, it effectively defangs a section of the electorate and right-wing media. Dems acting like they want to help - at least up to a point - is how you make Trump and the GOP own everything they're doing.

 

[kirblar]

They need to pick and choose which to blow up in the media. You can't do it to all of them.

 

[Pixieking]

I feel like I'm in a political version of The Producers...


Weekly Review - Donald Trump is sworn in as president, Kellyanne Conway punches a man in the face, and journalists photograph a trash-can fire

At a ceremony in Washington, D.C., Donald Trump, a WWE Hall of Fame inductee who has been named in at least 169 federal lawsuits, placed his hand on Abraham Lincoln's Bible, swore he would preserve the Constitution, and ascended to the presidency of the United States.[1][2][3] ”Amazingly," said Trump, ”it rained."[4] Trump delivered a sixteen-minute inaugural address, the first in American history to use the words ”bleed," ”ravages," and ”carnage."[5] Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, who swallows at least 35 sticks of cinnamon-flavored Orbit gum a day and has tweeted for five years that Dippin' Dots are ”not the ice cream of the future," said the inauguration's audience, which was smaller than the previous two inaugural crowds, was the ”largest audience ever, period."[6][7][8] The White House website published a biography of Trump that stated he had the most electoral-college votes of any Republican president since 1988, a time period encompassing only one Republican president.[9] In a speech to 400 CIA employees, Trump, who recently tweeted that the behavior of U.S. intelligence agencies made him feel he was ”living in Nazi Germany," said that he was on their ”same wavelength," prompting applause from the audience members whom Trump had brought with him to the event.[10][11][12] At an inaugural ball attended by the bounty hunter and reality-television star Duane ”Dog" Chapman, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway punched a man in the face.[13][14] In demonstrations across Washington, groups of protesters lit a limousine on fire and broke the windows of a Bank of America, a white supremacist who said ”sure" when asked whether he liked black people was punched in the face, a man marched with two alpacas and a llama to demand better trade policies, and at least 10 journalists simultaneously photographed a trash-can fire.[15][16][17][18]

(And that's only the first of three paragraphs)

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Carson especially is a known quantity. I mean, the general public knows the dude thinks the pyramids were built for grain storage, what else is there to dig out?

It's not like he's done anything terrible to anyone or anything else. He's just a harmless buffoon with very deft hands.

 

[kirblar]

Carson especially is a known quantity. I mean, the general public knows the dude thinks the pyramids were built for grain storage, what else is there to dig out?

It's not like he's done anything terrible to anyone or anything else. He's just a harmless buffoon with very deft hands.

The strongest argument for nominating him is that he knows so little about the department that he won't know what to do to hurt it.

 

[JesseEwiak]

The strongest argument for nominating him is that he knows so little about the department that he won't know what to do to hurt it.

Yup. DeVos could actually fuck up the DOE. Carson will do some photo ops, but won't be putting into action any Heritage Foundation papers he read that destroys Section 8 or something.

 

[Retromelon]

Trump is a wwe hall of fame inductee? Dude is good at getting into places businessmen are not qualified for. He can't sell a stunner for shit

 

[Pixieking]

As Dow climbs past 20,000, is this the bubble Trump called?

The Dow Jones industrial average blew past the 20,000 threshold for the first time in trading Wednesday, propelled by President Trump's calls for massive infrastructure spending, lower corporate taxes and regulatory rollbacks and the pro-business theme defining his first days in office.

U.S. markets advanced across the board Wednesday. The closely watched Standard & Poor's 500-stock index and tech-heavy Nasdaq were up less than 1 percent. And as the Dow closed at 20,068, it notched the second-fastest thousand-point gain since the dot-com bubble of 1999.

The run-up in stock prices has added about $2 trillion in market value since the presidential election to companies that make up another broad index, the Wilshire 5000. Their fast rise is ironic given Trump's proclamation last summer that stocks were in a bubble due to the Federal Reserve's policies, which has kept its benchmark interest rate near zero for years.

”If rates go up, you're going to see something that's not pretty," Trump told Fox News last August in a phone interview. ”It's all a big bubble."

In a September presidential debate, Trump reiterated: ”We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble."

”Investors hope that there are distinct differences between candidate Trump and President Trump," said Marvin McIntyre, a managing director in Morgan Stanley's wealth management group. ”It's logical to assume that his previous assertion that the market was in a bubble is no longer applicable. The promise of lowering both corporate and individual taxes, reducing or eliminating burdensome regulations, and massive infrastructure spending is positive for the market."

Former U.S. senator Peter Fitzgerald, a lifelong banker and founder of Chain Bridge Bank in McLean, cautioned that stock prices are near all-time highs based on their earnings. The rally, bubble or whatever name one attaches to the current surge could deflate rapidly if the Fed raises rates.

Interesting. For one thing, I don't see the logic in what Marvin McIntyre says. Yes, interest rates were raised last month, but how does that negate the existence of a bubble, especially when there's massive gains in the market? And what Peter Fitzgerald says is somewhat contradicted later in the piece, by two other people:

”It's the return of animal spirits," said John Canally, chief economic strategist for LPL Financial, with $502 billion under management. ”Markets don't like regulations, and Mr. Trump said he is reducing regulations. And that is helping."

Greg McBride, chief financial analyst with Bankrate.com, a personal finance website, said the post-election ”Trump rally" is ”based on this notion of less regulation, more infrastructure spending, tax cuts and a generally favorable environment toward business."

I will absolutely die laughing if Trump's pro-business attitude creates a boom-and-bust in the US economy. Considering how the markets have acted since November 8th, there's actually no way anyone can realistically blame any crash on Obama or his policies. And especially so since Trump is making a big song-and-dance about being the President... To then turn around and say "Oh, this crash that happened on my watch was Obama's fault"? Hah.

 

[kirblar]

Duh its a bubble.

 

[BBboy20]

Carson especially is a known quantity. I mean, the general public knows the dude thinks the pyramids were built for grain storage, what else is there to dig out?

It's not like he's done anything terrible to anyone or anything else. He's just a harmless buffoon with very deft hands.

Well...

 

[Amalthea]

In a September presidential debate, Trump reiterated: “We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble.”

Isn't he just talking about his body? A lot of person with a grandiosity-complex talk in plural person about themselves.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Well...

Link doesn't work but from the URL I'll just say OK maybe his hands aren't actually that deft.

I doubt those were intentional or driven by political motivation.

 

[mo60]

I can't help but feel less concerned about Trump at this point. It hasn't been a week and he has burned his political capitol and destroyed the WH's messaging on a daily basis with statements or tweets that are more and more unhinged. Meanwhile his WH is under staffed and ineffective. There's already and ugly power struggle going on between Conway, Bannon, and the wonder boy son-in-law who will bring peace to the Middle East. The media is upset, republican allies seem confused, protests everywhere, etc.

This is unsustainable. Remember this transition was nothing like 2009: there is no massive crisis that needs fixing. Trump could have easily rolled out an impressive agenda, got things done, and reassured people that he can do the job. Instead he's doing a million things at once while setting himself on fire.

I can't help but think Pence will be president by 2020. This is utter madness.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gets kicked out or resigns without anyone forcing him out in a year or two He's doing things at a quick pace which is abnormal and makes things disorganized for his administration plus all of the other controversial things he's saying or doing is not helping things either.

 

[BoboBrazil]

As Dow climbs past 20,000, is this the bubble Trump called?




Interesting. For one thing, I don't see the logic in what Marvin McIntyre says. Yes, interest rates were raised last month, but how does that negate the existence of a bubble, especially when there's massive gains in the market? And what Peter Fitzgerald says is somewhat contradicted later in the piece, by two other people:





I will absolutely die laughing if Trump's pro-business attitude creates a boom-and-bust in the US economy. Considering how the markets have acted since November 8th, there's actually no way anyone can realistically blame any crash on Obama or his policies. And especially so since Trump is making a big song-and-dance about being the President... To then turn around and say "Oh, this crash that happened on my watch was Obama's fault"? Hah.

Republicans blamed the recession of 08 on Obama and dumbass Republicans voters bought it.

 

[Pixieking]

Republicans blamed the recession of 08 on Obama and dumbass Republicans voters bought it.

Sure, and dumbass people are naive. But I don't think you can equate Obama's polite "keep your head down and get on with the job" attitude to Trump's "Looooook at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! I am your God!" egotism. He's so incredibly in-your-face about being President and wanting to be loved, only the dumbest and most naive of Republican voters are going to believe that he wasn't the prime mover in the creation of the crash.

I mean, that's still a sizable number of people who are going to blame Obama, sure, but still...

 

[mo60]

Bernie's former digital campaign team for the democratic primary is now providing people a direct line to the white house since people are having issues directly calling the white house.
http://mashable.com/2017/01/25/whitehouseinc-bernie-trump-phone-call-line/#ajyCe2l1qaqa

 

[Chichikov]

Honestly, I think this whole discussion about how Democrats vote for these conformations is a complete waste of time.
If there is candidate where you have a realistic chance to block a nomination it's one thing, but in cases where it's a forgone conclusion, everybody is just doing the same math - which vote might help me politically down the road. And yeah, I guess there can be a room for discussion about what is the best course of action, but being actually angry at Democrats over picking one and not the other?
And let's be a bit humble here, none of us knows for sure how any of that play it and really, I seriously doubt this will have any lasting impact on anything.

There are way more important things going on right now and we should focus our attention on them.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Honestly, I think this whole discussion about how Democrats vote for these conformations is a complete waste of time.
If there is candidate where you have a realistic chance to block a nomination it's one thing, but in cases where it's a forgone conclusion, everybody is just doing the same math - which vote might help me politically down the road. And yeah, I guess there can be a room for discussion about what is the best course of action, but being actually angry at Democrats over picking one and not the other?
And let's be a bit humble here, none of us knows for sure how any of that play it and really, I seriously doubt this will have any lasting impact on anything.

There are way more important things going on right now and we should focus our attention on them.

It's a stupid discussion, Trump should get to have his cabinet.

Concentrate fire on few nominees like DeVos, Puzder, Munchin that can do a lot of harm to Dem priorities. Not like they won't get confirmed.

The other advantage of the shit cabinet nominees is Trump and GOP will own all the crappy policies they come up with. Why stand in the way of that.

 

[Chichikov]

It's a stupid discussion, Trump should get to have his cabinet.

Concentrate fire on few nominees like DeVos, Puzder, Munchin that can do a lot of harm to Dem priorities. Not like they won't get confirmed.

The other advantage of the shit cabinet nominees is Trump and GOP will own all the crappy policies they come up with. Why stand in the way of that.

I think you pick 1 or 2 and make a fight of it, the goal here is to motivate the base and keep it engaged, give bad PR to Trump and tie congressional Republicans to a bad appointment or policies.
I hope someone is looking through vulnerable seats to see which fight can get the DNC the best bang for the buck.

The media and the public will get bored if this goes on for too long and you can't win that fight. There are fights that you can win coming up real soon, losing too many fights too early might get people demoralized.

 

[thehypocrite]

She made a statement regarding it:



http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/elizabeth-warren-ben-carson-234185

It's a case of give an inch to take two. Save the major resistance for the big positions. Playing the long game. Which is what the American left needs to focus on, lest we stay marginalized at the local level and desperately struggling for federal seats.

This is stupid. The GOP aren't "rational actors" in a traditional sense. These senators think that it's same old same. The population wants resistance not asquiescence and normalization of an opponent that's stepping on our throats.

Talk about listening to their constituents.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I think you pick 1 or 2 and make a fight of it, the goal here is to motivate the base and keep it engaged, give bad PR to Trump and tie congressional Republicans to a bad appointment or policies.
I hope someone is looking through vulnerable seats to see which fight can get the DNC the best bang for the buck.

The media and the public will get bored if this goes on for too long and you can't win that fight. There are fights that you can win coming up real soon, losing too many fights too early might get people demoralized.

Democrats will start getting the blame if government is not functioning due to no cabinet members being appointed. Imagine there is a terrorist attack on the 10th day and Dems have blocked Mattis, Kelly and Pompeo still. Who would get the shit.

This is stupid. The GOP aren't "rational actors" in a traditional sense. These senators think that it's same old same. The population wants resistance not asquiescence and normalization of an opponent that's stepping on our throats.

Talk about listening to their constituents.

The resistance is there. Blindly blocking nominees makes no sense. Do you want GOP to do the same when Dem becomes President in 2020?

 

[thehypocrite]

Democrats will start getting the blame if government is not functioning due to no cabinet members being appointed. Imagine there is a terrorist attack on the 10th day and Dems have blocked Mattis, Kelly and Pompeo still. Who would get the shit.



The resistance is there. Blindly blocking nominees makes no sense. Do you want GOP to do the same when Dem becomes President in 2020?

They already do that. They aren't interested in shared governance at all. See Merrick Garland.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

They already do that. They aren't interested in shared governance at all. See Merrick Garland.

Cabinet Nominee is not same as SC pick.

On another note, Dems should invite Mexican President to address Congress.

 

[Chichikov]

Democrats will start getting the blame if government is not functioning due to no cabinet members being appointed. Imagine there is a terrorist attack on the 10th day and Dems have blocked Mattis, Kelly and Pompeo still. Who would get the shit.

Nobody is getting blamed or credited for anything over this shit. It's a PR fight and a minor one at that.

 

[Poodlestrike]

This is stupid. The GOP aren't "rational actors" in a traditional sense. These senators think that it's same old same. The population wants resistance not asquiescence and normalization of an opponent that's stepping on our throats.

Talk about listening to their constituents.

Basically this. The best way to energize the base and maybe win some elections in 2 years is to make a very public show of being the political arm of the resistance. Vote no on EVERYTHING, and make a big deal out of doing so, while advancing stuff like the Obamacare repeal, but politically flipped. It's tricky, because unlike Obamacare repeal, if the republicans just said "yes" to most of our stuff the country would benefit and they'd get the credit, but there's gotta be something. Maybe formal abortion legalization legislation. Some piece of red meat you can safely keep hammering on even if it doesn't go anywhere.

And, yeah, no working with Republicans ever again. They've demonstrated that from the lowliest voter to the highest official, they're utterly untrustworthy. No more bipartisanship. Republicans promise universal basic income, spit in their face and filibuster like hell because you just know that shit'll be loaded with slavery relegalization or something.

 

[thehypocrite]

Cabinet Nominee is not same as SC pick.

Keep moving the goal posts.

This is an example of how the narrative of the Democrats fails.

"Guys let's play nice with an existential level threat like the GOP just so that maybe, maybe they can vote aligned to our pet legislation if Trump Twitter doesn't scare them away from doing so".


Keep drinking that kool aid. Keep putting your personal interest above everything else.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Keep moving the goal posts.

This is an example of how the narrative of the Democrats fails.

"Guys let's play nice with an existential level threat like the GOP just so that maybe, maybe they can vote aligned to our pet legislation if Trump Twitter doesn't scare them away from doing so".


Keep drinking that kool aid. Keep putting your personal interest above everything else.

But that is not what the Dems are saying at all.

One big reason people voted for Carson was that he didn't seem bat shit crazy insane, he vowed to use the equal access clause of HUD. Remember, there are GOP people who Trump can nominate that would just get rid of HUD in an instant.

 

[thehypocrite]

But that is not what the Dems are saying at all.

One big reason people voted for Carson was that he didn't seem bat shit crazy insane, he vowed to use the equal access clause of HUD. Remember, there are GOP people who Trump can nominate that would just get rid of HUD in an instant.

Keep focusing on Carson. You know that my point isn't as narrow as that, but keep fucking that chicken if it makes you climax.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Keep moving the goal posts.

One of these things actually can be filibustered (for now.)

Ergo it's not a moved goalpost, it's a different playing field.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Keep focusing on Carson. You know that my point isn't as narrow as that, but keep fucking that chicken if it makes you climax.

People that have been confirmed/voted:

Mattis
Allen
Pompeo
Haley

From committee:
Rex Tillerson (no Democrats voted for him)
Ben Carson

 

[Fergie]

That ABC transcript is chilling. Especially the bits about voter fraud.

Ridiculous rambling.

 

[Diablos]

So disappointed in the Democratic Party. They'll never learn. They have a Pres who is literally talking and acting like a fascist and they won't stand up to him enough.

 

[chadskin]

Muir asked Trump about the NYT-obtained EO draft to reopen black site prisons:

DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you about a new report that you were poised to lift a ban on so-called CIA black sites of prisons around the world that have been used in the past. Is that true?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I'll be talking about that in about two hours. So, you'll be there and you'll be able to see it for yourself.

DAVID MUIR: Are you gonna lift the ban?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: You're gonna see in about two hours.

But we didn't see in two hours, because the Homeland Security speech didn't mention this executive order specifically, or the black sites from what I could tell.

Meanwhile, before the speech Spicer responded to a question by stating that the EO draft was not a White House document, and that he didn't know where it came from.

So what the fuck is going on with this thing? Is it a document drafted before the inauguration, therefore it didn't technically come from the White House? But if that was the case, surely Spicer (or someone Spicer has access to) knows exactly where it came from. Also, why did Trump think he was going to talk about it at Homeland Security?

At a certain point, it becomes apparent that you're telling lies thanks to disorganization more than anything else. If they had figured out a consistent way to lie they might have been able to get more people to believe that the NYT report was bogus, but this is just ridiculous.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/...t-national-security-trump-administration.html

 

[thehypocrite]

One of these things actually can be filibustered (for now.)

Ergo it's not a moved goalpost, it's a different playing field.

And we were the shared governance sentiment there?

 

[Diablos]

Trump doesn't know what he's doing, clearly, and the GOP is trying to keep a lid on it. Doesn't even know what a high risk pool is (if true) tells me a lot along with, well, everything else.

Really amazing watching the Obama WH archive and comparing that to who's in there now. Hasn't even been a full week. Doesn't seem real.

 

[nature boy]

All because Ryan wants his fucking tax breaks.

 

[Diablos]

All because Ryan wants his fucking tax breaks.

And the complete-as-possible dismantling of the safety net and various regulations...

 

[shinra-bansho]

And we were the shared governance sentiment there?

I'm not sure what you're asking?

There is little significance and nothing to be gained from the votes for Mattis, Haley, Kelly, and Pompeo. For the most part, no one cares if you vote for or against the confirmation of the CIA Director or the UN Ambassador.

When Carson comes up for HUD there will be Democratic votes for him.
Because why fight over Carson? It's not a battle worth fighting, and for an already lost cause, other calculations come into play.

I'm basically of the same view as Chichikov, a couple to a few big ticket nominees should essentially garner next to no Democratic support. Tillerson. Puzder. DeVos. Make these the fights. Not Nikki Haley.

 

[thehypocrite]

I'm not sure what you're asking?

There is little significance and nothing to be gained from the votes for Mattis, Haley, Kelly, and Pompeo. For the most part, no one cares if you vote for or against the confirmation of the CIA Director or the UN Ambassador.

When Carson comes up for HUD there will be Democratic votes for him.
Because why fight over Carson? It's not a battle worth fighting, and for an already lost cause, other calculations come into play.

I'm basically of the same view as Chichikov, a couple to a few big ticket nominees should essentially garner next to no Democratic support. Tillerson. Puzder. DeVos. Make these the fights. Not Nikki Haley.

You say there's little significance to it, however public reactions prove that you and chichikov are wrong about this. So are they. This isn't the time for empty gestures. It's time for absolute resistance. Way to miss the plot. Then people wonder why Hillary lost. This fucking complacency and appeasement was tired 4 years ago. Heck, look at Obama and what he got from trying to be decent towards them.

As I said, keep fucking that chicken. It's like there's no self awareness of the existential threat that the GOP represents to all non-whites and the environment at large.

Signalling it's important. People want resistance, they want their representatives to resist, to be with them in the trenches, to have something, someone to rally around, while they are busy playing nice and courteous with the enemy.

There's no conciliation to be had. The GOP wants to erase all that opposes them.

 

[UberTag]

The federal Dems have deferred the act of spearheading the resistance to the states and major metropolitan mayors.

They don't seem to want to fight. They don't even want to present the perception that they're even interested in fighting. The DNC chair candidates (outside of Pete Buttigieg) felt it was a better use of their time to go to a donor retreat instead of marching with millions of outraged citizens on Saturday. Hollywood had to step in and be the voice of the Democrats in their absence. Props to the celebrities. Shame we can't vote for them.

 

[Wilsongt]

Listening on NPR about rich people becoming survivalist and buildin doomsday ranches...

....Uuuuuuuuhhhh...

 

[shinra-bansho]

What public reaction? Histrionics on here? Abstract "people"?

"People" don't care that Mattis was confirmed with some Democratic votes. I don't even know how many. I doubt anybody does without looking it up right now. Nor do people remember that 40 or whatever GOP Senators confirmed that evil monster murderer Hillary to be Secretary of State.

Three of these votes have been on the vanilla ice cream of GOP Cabinet-level posts.

I'm perfectly aware of the damage Trump can and will do.

Trying and failing to keep his Cabinet nominations in committee forever isn't going to do anything to prevent that. Voting no on the more reasonable of the nominees isn't going to prevent that.