Donald Trump and US politics

"

pneuma wrote:

Of course it's rich coming from "shut down the government" republicans, but it doesn't change the fact that it's obstructionism.

Escalation on both sides, repeated for decades, is what got us here.

The voters weren't very happy with the GOP shutdown tactics against Clinton. My point wasn't that the democrats would be doing anything worse than what the GOP did. My point was that since the GOP is so bogged down and in disagreement with each other, the Dems could take the initiative to propose some new solutions. Take the case for improvments to the public and listen to the feedback. If the proposed ideas are good enough, they will take on a life of their own and win over congressional votes. This doesn't have to stay as Us vs Them, and can become ideas vs ideas.

Although I prefer my SCOTUS appointees to revere the Constitution, not reverse it... I gotta admit, the 2016 GOP was utterly unprecedented in terms of obstructionism. For over 11 months, Republicans blocked Obama from appointing a replacement for Scalia, when is was the President's job to appoint a replacement for Scalia. I still look back on it and wonder to myself, "how the fuck?"

And honestly, if there are some to make Gorsuch into Trump's Christmas present, well, that'd just be fit for tat. Vengeance, not justice, but still.

"

Laurium wrote:

That's one way to interpret, to say it's reflective of just how bad things are. I disagree.

The progressive leadership that has a choke-hold over the DNC could have chosen to make a stand against 1 or 2 appointments. Maybe Education and EPA. Maybe AG and EPA. Whatever combination they really felt strongly about. Most people would agree that's reasonable, in keeping with all the previous administration transitions. Most people understand that when you win, you get to appoint 90% of your dudes/dudettes.

Only one appointment went through relatively quietly.

Instead, there was shit fit over: AG

Yeah, because Trump hired a guy who the republicans in the 60s considered "too racist", at a time where relationships between the police and African-Americans are kind of a cultural flashpoint. I feel somewhat vindicated about this, given his recent statements claiming that the DoJ reports examining racial bias in the Chicago and Ferguson police departments he didn't read being "anecdotal" (they weren't).

"

Sec o State

An Exxon executive with no experience relevant for the job and massive conflicts of interest in Russia, during a time when Russian involvement in global politics is becoming increasingly worrisome. And look, the man who is pretty unqualified for the important job is not doing it very well. Who could have seen that coming?

"

EPA

The head of the EPA is a fucking climate denier.

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency denies that humans are responsible for the current warming trend.

Head of the EPA.

Denies climate science.

Head of the EPA.

'Nuff said.

"

HUD

Another person with no relevant experience or qualifications. Another person with bizarre, potentially catastrophic views that run fundamentally contrary to the department.

"

HHS

The first person on the list where simple non-partisan analysis misses the problem. Yeah, the disagreement here is a partisan one. Tom Price has spent much of the last eight years trying to kill Obamacare. Democrats don't want that. Vehemently.

"

Education

Yeah I've been over this one. I have literally no idea how anyone of sane mind could even pretend that Betsy DeVos is a good choice for secretary of education.

"

Supreme Court

Yeah, I honestly don't get it. The president gets to nominate people to the supreme court. Sure, it was rotten luck that Scalia died so soon after Trump took office, but sometimes the cards just fall like that, and a few days difference is the difference between one president picking the nominee and another.

Really don't get why dems are so upset about that. It's not like the republican party took obstruction on judicial nominees to a bold new level and refused to even consider a nominee from a democrat just for the sake of trying to run out the clock. That would be pretty gross.

Oh wait.

"

To the middle of the road Democrats they need to win in the future, it looks bad. And it's all for nothing. All the appointments went through. It's embarrassing.

Your concerns are noted. I'm not sure they're actually based on anything, but they are noted.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Although I prefer my SCOTUS appointees to revere the Constitution, not reverse it... I gotta admit, the 2016 GOP was utterly unprecedented in terms of obstructionism. For over 11 months, Republicans blocked Obama from appointing a replacement for Scalia, when is was the President's job to appoint a replacement for Scalia. I still look back on it and wonder to myself, "how the fuck?"

They had enough votes to prevent any Obama appointment, and the sole party capable of holding them responsible (the voters) chose not to/didn't care. Apparently this is the new normal.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Although I prefer my SCOTUS appointees to revere the Constitution, not reverse it... I gotta admit, the 2016 GOP was utterly unprecedented in terms of obstructionism. For over 11 months, Republicans blocked Obama from appointing a replacement for Scalia, when is was the President's job to appoint a replacement for Scalia. I still look back on it and wonder to myself, "how the fuck?"

They had enough votes to prevent any Obama appointment, and the sole party capable of holding them responsible (the voters) chose not to/didn't care. Apparently this is the new normal.

I hope it isn't. What's next — presidents who veto literally every bill that crosses their desk?

Actually, that sounds kind of good. I think I've accidentally turned myself on.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Snip

Your concerns are noted. I'm not sure they're actually based on anything, but they are noted.

You sit there in your world, completely convinced you're 100% right about everything as given by your insufferable need to deconstruct everybody's word for word reply and respond.

Bro, I never argued for or against a particular candidate. TF are you talking about?

It has nothing to do with whether an individual pick can or cannot be argued for based on your bitter and butt-hurt arbitrary standards. It has to do with the bigger picture, which you never see or seem to even consider, that speaks to a party with zero power complaining every which way and how maybe that might be negatively perceived by the larger electorate which doesn't tune into politics every second or that doesn't take the bait 100% of the time because of that gospel known as Twitter.

Twitter. Your panties are in a twist because of Twitter.

You think nation-state diplomacy is threatened over Twitter? Imagine if he had an Instagram! For every minute he Periscopes, the Doomsday Clock inches every closer to midnight. I take it all back. Please keep us updated.

It's cool dude. I'll try catching up to your infinite wisdom. Should I start with the Daily Kos or Media Matters?

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/march/09/bomb-the-shstart-out-of-them-trump-drones-yemen-more-in-one-week-than-obama-in-a-year/

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/trump-administration-teams-up-with-big-pharma-to-block-drug-pricing-transparency/



"War on Washington"

Pfft- Hahahahahahaha

Interesting analysis of political advertising shows Hillary's entire strategy was to tell people that she's not Trump lol.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

But I'd suggest it's sort of difficult to attack policies that don't exist, so it makes sense to me that the 'attack' part of Clinton's campaign was largely aimed at Trump's personal shortcomings rather than his policies'. I think the study also fails to note the closeness between Trump's 'character' and his 'policies', and how often the former embodied the latter. There is no real divorcing Trump-the-personality and Trump's policies.

I see this lie a lot, that Trump had little or no policy platform. It simply isn't true.

Now, a valid point could be made that Trump's policy platform was mostly a denial of recent policy. Repeal and replace Obamacare! Replace with what? Not so clear. Start enforcing our immigration law! Who exactly iss getting deported? Not so clear (until near the end of the campaign). Etc.

But it's important to categorize these properly: they are not personal attacks, but policy attacks. It's not like Trump's bar is solidly gray like Clinton's is. If Clinton had wanted to talk policy in response to Trump, she would have needed to defend her policies. Which, as a member of the incumbent party, was not an unreasonable expectation. Whether she couldn't or wouldn't, she didn't defend her policy platform; instead, she lashed out with the most immature form of attack ads.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Interesting analysis of political advertising shows Hillary's entire strategy was to tell people that she's not Trump lol.

Absolutely. I pointed it out at the time.

Trump harped on building a wall, banning Muslims, grabbing pussies, repealing Obamacare.

Hillary harped on Trump building a wall, banning Muslims, grabbing pussies, repealing Obamacare.



He put his message to his base.

She put his message to her base.