|
|
Post by Sternumman on Feb 7, 2017 8:42:04 GMT -5
When Devos gets confirmed today it'll show how spineless and afraid of Trump the republicans are. Really sad when someone with zero qualifications can buy a cabinet position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross on Feb 8, 2017 17:14:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Feb 8, 2017 17:51:51 GMT -5
Thought I would hoy this poignant reminder up on the one week anniversary-  |
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Feb 8, 2017 18:18:43 GMT -5
Who needs false flag operations when you can just say that an attack happened and people will believe you?
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Feb 10, 2017 9:04:57 GMT -5
Thought this was quite amusing
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 13, 2017 20:26:39 GMT -5
I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Feb 13, 2017 22:37:06 GMT -5
I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I don't. |
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Feb 13, 2017 23:35:18 GMT -5
I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. I miss George W. Bush. Surely you jest? The only person to miss him aside from Tony Blair was this bloke-  |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 14, 2017 1:13:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 14, 2017 1:45:04 GMT -5
It's difficult to think of a worse start to an administration. Trump still has plenty of time, but the warning signs have been extremely troubling. And so far, there has been no sign of letting-up.
It would seem that his "best" hope is to get his cabinet fully installed. He clearly needs more stability around him, but considering there is now a scandal, it's difficult to envision a scenario where this doesn't impede his progress for at least the next month. Also, the people around him are just not experienced enough in government.
His administration is continually shooting itself in the foot at every turn, and they're doing it over extremely simple mistakes. They're picking battles that they don't need to fight, especially with the media, with SNL, with anyone who says a disparaging word. Leaks are coming out of everywhere. No one trusts any person as far as they can throw them. Their VP has to bail out nominees for confirmation. And they can't seem to unite behind a single message, plus it feels like half his administration may be gone because he feels like it. In short, Trump needs a steady hand. He needs to be controlled. He needs a strong cabinet. The problem? This isn't a strong cabinet, even when it's confirmed it won't be a strong cabinet. There's not those three people you can point to and say, those people have done this before and they can do it again.
An armchair president that can't get out of his own way (oh my the contradiction), and a cabinet too feeble to control him and too clueless to control the situation around him.
Trump turns this around by replacing a lot of people (Kellyanne Conway shouldn't be any where near a camera. She's a pollster, not a PR person. She's not the person that should be putting a face on your policies. Spicer shouldn't be Press Secretary and Communications Director, it's too many hats for him. It's unfair to him, and it's putting him in a position to fail. Trump needs to cut bait with his daughter, and he desperately needs a Chief of Staff, probably the most powerful position to the President, that he can trust. So, not Priebus. There's too much intrigue and not enough unity, and that comes down to the Chief of Staff.). He also needs to let Republicans on the hill do their job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Feb 14, 2017 7:42:59 GMT -5
It's difficult to think of a worse start to an administration. Trump still has plenty of time, but the warning signs have been extremely troubling. And so far, there has been no sign of letting-up. It would seem that his "best" hope is to get his cabinet fully installed. He clearly needs more stability around him, but considering there is now a scandal, it's difficult to envision a scenario where this doesn't impede his progress for at least the next month. Also, the people around him are just not experienced enough in government. His administration is continually shooting itself in the foot at every turn, and they're doing it over extremely simple mistakes. They're picking battles that they don't need to fight, especially with the media, with SNL, with anyone who says a disparaging word. Leaks are coming out of everywhere. No one trusts any person as far as they can throw them. Their VP has to bail out nominees for confirmation. And they can't seem to unite behind a single message, plus it feels like half his administration may be gone because he feels like it. In short, Trump needs a steady hand. He needs to be controlled. He needs a strong cabinet. The problem? This isn't a strong cabinet, even when it's confirmed it won't be a strong cabinet. There's not those three people you can point to and say, those people have done this before and they can do it again. An armchair president that can't get out of his own way (oh my the contradiction), and a cabinet too feeble to control him and too clueless to control the situation around him. Trump turns this around by replacing a lot of people (Kellyanne Conway shouldn't be any where near a camera. She's a pollster, not a PR person. She's not the person that should be putting a face on your policies. Spicer shouldn't be Press Secretary and Communications Director, it's too many hats for him. It's unfair to him, and it's putting him in a position to fail. Trump needs to cut bait with his daughter, and he desperately needs a Chief of Staff, probably the most powerful position to the President, that he can trust. So, not Priebus. There's too much intrigue and not enough unity, and that comes down to the Chief of Staff.). He also needs to let Republicans on the hill do their job. George W. Bush had an incredibly strong cabinet. Some might say he failed regardless......(I don't say that obviously). |
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Feb 14, 2017 8:12:53 GMT -5
☑️Michael Flynn
🔲Betsy DeVos
🔲Sean Spicer
🔲Kellyanne Conway
🔲Reince Priebus
🔲Stephen Miller
🔲Steve Bannon
🔲Donald Trump
|
|
|
|
Post by As You Built The Moon on Feb 14, 2017 9:04:24 GMT -5
☑️Michael Flynn 🔲Betsy DeVos 🔲Sean Spicer 🔲Kellyanne Conway 🔲Reince Priebus 🔲Stephen Miller 🔲Steve Bannon 🔲Donald Trump Lock him up. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 14, 2017 12:06:28 GMT -5
As it's illegal for a private citizen to conduct diplomacy before the outgoing administration had left, it raises suspicions that Trump himself was complicit in this too. In which case he would have to be impeached. He hasn't even been President for a month and it's been an endless stream of disasters, whether it's gross incompetency, extremist (and downright dangerous) policy and just general fuckwittery of the highest order. Trump likes to act all Billy Big Bollocks but him and his cronies are the weakest bunch of simpletons to ever grace the White House. So yes all you folk who back Trump (and you know who you are), you can back a fraudulent racist sexual predator all you want (and in doing so condone racism, rape, corruption, etc), but it doesn't hide the fact he's the weakest and most vulnerable President ever. And to Trump and his supporters, that's probably the most offensive insult you could give as it is completely undermines all that macho braggado. But, hey, at least he's not Clinton. She'd have done much worse.....right?  |
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Feb 14, 2017 12:35:22 GMT -5
As it's illegal for a private citizen to conduct diplomacy before the outgoing administration had left, it raises suspicions that Trump himself was complicit in this too. In which case he would have to be impeached. He hasn't even been President for a month and it's been an endless stream of disasters, whether it's gross incompetency, extremist (and downright dangerous) policy and just general fuckwittery of the highest order. But, hey, at least he's not Clinton. She'd have done much worse, right? Donald Trump is the absolute nadir of democratically elected politics but Hilary Clinton to my mind was still a piss poor choice of candidate and was there purely to carry on a dynasty of the sort that rather ironically the Anti-Federalist and Imperialist movements of the earlier USA had sought to oppose, specifically fearing a President would evolve into a monarchy under a different title- Bush, Clinton and Kennedy are three families which prove to me that they were not totally inaccurate with that line of thought. The thought of making double history by following a black President with a woman may have also been on certain Democrat minds, which whilst in itself not a negative thought, for me took the attention away from what was needed to counter the campaign of lies, populism and slogans of Donald Trump with others seeming convinced Hilary Clinton would win the election no matter what- a dangerous mindset in itself which could be held up as one of the reasons amongst others that such a man as Trump currently holds the role. Going back to Donald Trump it's been interesting to me to see the thirty five mental health professionals who broke the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 Goldwater Rule on evaluating public figures to write an open letter to the New York Times regarding the man- Given that commentators on both sides of the political debate have been questioning his mental health openly, and it should be fairly obvious at this point that a high narcissistic personality at minimum is present then I cannot see how he can go on much longer without being removed, as his behaviour is far more dangerous, unmanageable and unpredictable than say that of the late Ronald Reagan who was rumoured to have been suffering from Alzheimer's even during his Presidency. The question then is who takes over in office on what grounds and do they if part of Donald Trump's current set up carry on as we have seen, do the brakes come on with some common sense prevailing or is there to be a new election for example? I myself need to do some more reading on the possible implications of a successful impeachment under such circumstances, but wonder if any of our other posters have knowledge or thoughts on these matters? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 14, 2017 13:26:39 GMT -5
As it's illegal for a private citizen to conduct diplomacy before the outgoing administration had left, it raises suspicions that Trump himself was complicit in this too. In which case he would have to be impeached. He hasn't even been President for a month and it's been an endless stream of disasters, whether it's gross incompetency, extremist (and downright dangerous) policy and just general fuckwittery of the highest order. But, hey, at least he's not Clinton. She'd have done much worse, right? Donald Trump is the absolute nadir of democratically elected politics but Hilary Clinton to my mind was still a piss poor choice of candidate and was there purely to carry on a dynasty of the sort that rather ironically the Anti-Federalist and Imperialist movements of the earlier USA had sought to oppose, specifically fearing a President would evolve into a monarchy under a different title- Bush, Clinton and Kennedy are three families which prove to me that they were not totally inaccurate with that line of thought. The thought of making double history by following a black President with a woman may have also been on certain Democrat minds, which whilst in itself not a negative thought, for me took the attention away from what was needed to counter the campaign of lies, populism and slogans of Donald Trump with others seeming convinced Hilary Clinton would win the election no matter what- a dangerous mindset in itself which could be held up as one of the reasons amongst others that such a man as Trump currently holds the role. Going back to Donald Trump it's been interesting to me to see the thirty five mental health professionals who broke the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 Goldwater Rule on evaluating public figures to write an open letter to the New York Times regarding the man- Given that commentators on both sides of the political debate have been questioning his mental health openly, and it should be fairly obvious at this point that a high narcissistic personality at minimum is present then I cannot see how he can go on much longer without being removed, as his behaviour is far more dangerous, unmanageable and unpredictable than say that of the late Ronald Reagan who was rumoured to have been suffering from Alzheimer's even during his Presidency. The question then is who takes over in office on what grounds and do they if part of Donald Trump's current set up carry on as we have seen, do the brakes come on with some common sense prevailing or is there to be a new election for example? I myself need to do some more reading on the possible implications of a successful impeachment under such circumstances, but wonder if any of our other posters have knowledge or thoughts on these matters? In my opinion, there's no 'but' about the choice that was on offer. I absolutely agree that Clinton was not a great candidate and that has more to do with the gross complacency (and lack of worthwhile candidates) of the DNC as opposed to a threatening mock monarchy (Bernie Sanders was not the man to win either as he would have been comprehensively thumped, and had a more blotted voting history than Clinton by the way). For all the legitimate criticisms of Clinton, she had a record of which much was bad, but where much was also very good. In sum, her voting record suggested what she said she always was: a liberal with a centrist tinge. And for all the bad press, her voting records with all the good and the bad as a senator are there for all to see across the internet and un-spun from all media agendas, in black and white. Again, because people couldn't be bothered to do their homework and lazily slurped up everything they read, this lead to the 'false equivalency' narrative that was pursued in the media and amongst folk who sighed 'they're both as bad as each other'. People have to be realistic in their choices. When one choice threatens the securities and heightens the sense of victimisation of ethnic minorities or people who can't get health insurance (amongst many other examples), only a fool would refuse to vote Clinton because she didn't adhere to somebody's utopian vision. When the choice is as stark against a raving lunatic like Trump, there's no time or place for sanctimony with regards to Clinton. The point remains that this would never ever have happened under Clinton - and that's why people should have voted for her. |
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Feb 14, 2017 13:43:52 GMT -5
In my opinion, there's no 'but' about the choice that was on offer. I absolutely agree that Clinton was not a great candidate and that has more to do with the gross complacency (and lack of worthwhile candidates) of the DNC as opposed to a threatening mock monarchy (Bernie Sanders was not the man to win either as he would have been comprehensively thumped, and had a more blotted voting history than Clinton by the way). For all the legitimate criticisms of Clinton, she had a record of which much was bad, but where much was also very good. In sum, her voting record suggested what she said she always was: a liberal with a centrist tinge. And for all the bad press, her voting records as a senator are there for all to see all over the internet, un-spun from all media agendas, in black and white. Again, because people couldn't be bothered to do their homework and lazily slurped up everything they read, this lead to the 'false equivalency' narrative that was pursued in the media and amongst folk who sighed 'they're both as bad as each other'. People have to be realistic in their choices. When one choice threatens the securities and heightens the sense of victimisation of ethnic minorities or people who can't get health insurance (amongst many other examples), only a fool would refuse to vote Clinton because she didn't adhere to somebody's utopian vision. When the choice is as stark as a stark raving lunatic like Trump, there's no time or place for sanctimony with regards to Clinton. The point remains that this would never ever have happened under Clinton - and that's why people should have voted for her. Whilst I understand your point of view matt the problem I have with this "People should have voted for her" is that she did make statements regarding miners futures and a "basket of deplorables" for example, which she did not bother to clarify or correct and in the case of a majority who unfortunately aren't going to go in depth into politics as much as you or I might then she is going to turn those sort of people against her no matter how you or I may feel about it being a petty decision- This is how unfortunately the masses react with it has to be said help from the mainstream media sources. The election of Donald Trump whilst blatantly obvious to those of us politically engaged was always going to be disastrous in many ways was as much about idiots believing his slogans, not looking at the implications, being openly prejudice and putting a distrust of 'establishment' figures ahead of the grim reality, even with Trump as I have said before through his own business and political circles not being the 'outsider' his supporters got it into his head that he was. Bernie Sanders I absolutely agree would have been easily thrashed, but I am still struggling that Hilary Clinton was the best person for the election fight- Perhaps she was, but that says more to me about the current state of democracy that these two were the candidates and she somehow lost to a narcissist whose own delusions of grandeur are fast becoming a nightmarish reality. The 'Mock Monarch' piece was a partial reference to her being in the candidate position from my point of view in the first place, and not a reason people voted against her for clarification  There are multiple reasons for her defeat, although for what it's worth (very little if anything I know) I agree with you in that seeing her win would have been preferential every time to the current lunatic and his 'chaos unleashed' style of 'leadership'. The only option at this point aside from continuing protest action is that his clear mental health issues become to dangerous or obvious to ignore and impeachment happens rather swiftly- where this will leave the USA at that point I don't know but I would think it would at least put the brakes on his policies until new leadership is resolved and with common sense they move quickly away from this highly damaging, destructive and divisive chapter in US history. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 14, 2017 13:58:14 GMT -5
In my opinion, there's no 'but' about the choice that was on offer. I absolutely agree that Clinton was not a great candidate and that has more to do with the gross complacency (and lack of worthwhile candidates) of the DNC as opposed to a threatening mock monarchy (Bernie Sanders was not the man to win either as he would have been comprehensively thumped, and had a more blotted voting history than Clinton by the way). For all the legitimate criticisms of Clinton, she had a record of which much was bad, but where much was also very good. In sum, her voting record suggested what she said she always was: a liberal with a centrist tinge. And for all the bad press, her voting records as a senator are there for all to see all over the internet, un-spun from all media agendas, in black and white. Again, because people couldn't be bothered to do their homework and lazily slurped up everything they read, this lead to the 'false equivalency' narrative that was pursued in the media and amongst folk who sighed 'they're both as bad as each other'. People have to be realistic in their choices. When one choice threatens the securities and heightens the sense of victimisation of ethnic minorities or people who can't get health insurance (amongst many other examples), only a fool would refuse to vote Clinton because she didn't adhere to somebody's utopian vision. When the choice is as stark as a stark raving lunatic like Trump, there's no time or place for sanctimony with regards to Clinton. The point remains that this would never ever have happened under Clinton - and that's why people should have voted for her. Whilst I understand your point of view matt the problem I have with this "People should have voted for her" is that she did make statements regarding miners futures and a "basket of deplorables" for example, which she did not bother to clarify or correct and in the case of a majority who unfortunately aren't going to go in depth into politics as much as you or I might then she is going to turn those sort of people against her no matter how you or I may feel about it being a petty decision- This is how unfortunately the masses react with it has to be said help from the mainstream media sources. The election of Donald Trump whilst blatantly obvious to those of us politically engaged was always going to be disastrous in many ways was as much about idiots believing his slogans, not looking at the implications, being openly prejudice and putting a distrust of 'establishment' figures ahead of the grim reality, even with Trump as I have said before through his own business and political circles not being the 'outsider' his supporters got it into his head that he was. Bernie Sanders I absolutely agree would have been easily thrashed, but I am still struggling that Hilary Clinton was the best person for the election fight- Perhaps she was, but that says more to me about the current state of democracy that these two were the candidates and she somehow lost to a narcissist whose own delusions of grandeur are fast becoming a nightmarish reality. The 'Mock Monarch' piece was a partial reference to her being in the candidate position from my point of view in the first place, and not a reason people voted against her for clarification There are multiple reasons for her defeat, although for what it's worth (very little if anything I know) I agree with you in that seeing her win would have been preferential every time to the current lunatic and his 'chaos unleashed' style of 'leadership'. The only option at this point aside from continuing protest action is that his clear mental health issues become to dangerous or obvious to ignore and impeachment happens rather swiftly- where this will leave the USA at that point I don't know but I would think it would at least put the brakes on his policies until new leadership is resolved and with common sense they move quickly away from this highly damaging, destructive and divisive chapter in US history. I think Joe Biden was the ideal choice and certainly with regards to polling data a year before the election he was comfortably more electable than both Clinton and Sanders, but the hierarchy within the DNC were too loved up with Hillary to really push that agenda. It would have been a lot more difficult to form a negative narrative for Biden than Clinton who carried a lot of baggage that was exploited to the nth degree by the Trump team. As for any impeachment for Trump, the constitutional law does not permit another election until 2020 - by which Mike Pence would be President. That's not an improvement, but the fact that he's got as much charisma as an ironing board means he won't be able to spoon feed the Trump followers, which in turn hopefully leads to annihilation at the next election. |
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Feb 14, 2017 18:59:15 GMT -5
I think Joe Biden was the ideal choice and certainly with regards to polling data a year before the election he was comfortably more electable than both Clinton and Sanders, but the hierarchy within the DNC were too loved up with Hillary to really push that agenda. It would have been a lot more difficult to form a negative narrative for Biden than Clinton who carried a lot of baggage that was exploited to the nth degree by the Trump team. As for any impeachment for Trump, the constitutional law does not permit another election until 2020 - by which Mike Pence would be President. That's not an improvement, but the fact that he's got as much charisma as an ironing board means he won't be able to spoon feed the Trump followers, which in turn hopefully leads to annihilation at the next election. Thanks for your interesting thoughts and the information on the constitutional law matt - The Joe Biden part did make me think of a Huffington Post article from last month that I have been able to track down by Peter van Buren Lessons for 2020: Biden Would Have Beaten TrumpThe author if you are interested also wrote a book I recommend called We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (American Empire Project) which is a dark humoured, scathing attack on the US military and State Department attempts to rebuild Iraq following the invasion and is based on his own illuminating experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 14, 2017 19:18:18 GMT -5
I think Joe Biden was the ideal choice and certainly with regards to polling data a year before the election he was comfortably more electable than both Clinton and Sanders, but the hierarchy within the DNC were too loved up with Hillary to really push that agenda. It would have been a lot more difficult to form a negative narrative for Biden than Clinton who carried a lot of baggage that was exploited to the nth degree by the Trump team. As for any impeachment for Trump, the constitutional law does not permit another election until 2020 - by which Mike Pence would be President. That's not an improvement, but the fact that he's got as much charisma as an ironing board means he won't be able to spoon feed the Trump followers, which in turn hopefully leads to annihilation at the next election. Thanks for your interesting thoughts and the information on the constitutional law matt - The Joe Biden part did make me think of a Huffington Post article from last month that I have been able to track down by Peter van Buren Lessons for 2020: Biden Would Have Beaten TrumpThe author if you are interested also wrote a book I recommend called We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (American Empire Project) which is a dark humoured, scathing attack on the US military and State Department attempts to rebuild Iraq following the invasion and is based on his own illuminating experiences. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and co in the DNC must be having sleepless nights for not encouraging Biden. But let's be honest, the DNC had been priming Clinton for the top job ever since she lost to Obama in 2008 - to have such tunnel vision without comprehending the changing political landscape in those 8 years is incompetency of the highest level. |
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Feb 15, 2017 10:47:56 GMT -5
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and co in the DNC must be having sleepless nights for not encouraging Biden. But let's be honest, the DNC had been priming Clinton for the top job ever since she lost to Obama in 2008 - to have such tunnel vision without comprehending the changing political landscape in those 8 years is incompetency of the highest level. Well said. In an election cycle where everyone and everything was so populist and anti-establishment, they shoehorned in a candidate who is the definition of establishment. And she happened to run a terrible campaign. ------------------------------------ By the way, if this was Hillary dealing with all of this Russian crap, Republicans would be calling for public executions. But as always with the right, party over country. |
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Feb 16, 2017 2:41:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 16, 2017 12:26:18 GMT -5
A president's most important time in office is the first 100 days. A lot of Presidents don't pass major legislation in that time, but they do form a good deal of the groundwork for their most expansive legislation, and do most of the selling of that legislation, in that period.
Currently, what major piece of legislation have on his plate? I don't know. They've been chasing their own tail lately.
It feels like the House GOP is really doing all they can to keep him afloat. The power of the Executive Branch has continually grown, with one "minor" setback during Reagan. I think we're starting to see a rollback of those powers to more of the legislative side, where we're seeing a lot more of the policy making happening on the hill.
Like, does anyone really know Trump's top priority? Because I don't. But the House GOP's top priority is clearly trying to find something to do with Obamacare/ACA. However, Trump can still put his own party in a bind, like when he suggested a simultaneous repeal and pass bill. He killed all GOP momentum toward repeal that they'r now trying to restart.
At the moment, this is a tug of war. Mostly, the House GOP is winning, but sometimes Trump is the kid at the back of the class who wakes up and then shouts nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 16, 2017 13:36:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Feb 16, 2017 13:59:03 GMT -5
Whoever sent Trump out to do this Press conference should be fired. They needed to calm Washington and the greater public, and this has only opened up more instability.
The guy clearly has mental issues.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5