Author Topic: The President Trump Thread  (Read 92431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2017, 01:34:35 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3785
  • Tommy Points: 692
Quote
I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

It is if you're A fan from VT


Look at the first group and then look at the second group. What's the difference? If you really can't tell, you're beyond saving.

I'll hold your hand...

The banned countries are active warzones where ISIS or ALQaida operate. Or some off shoot of those two. The last is Iran: state sponsor of terrorism.

The non-banned countries are functioning economies where war is not over taking the land. Are they necessarily free and democratic nations, no, but who are we to judge now?

What would banning non existent refugees from rich middle eastern nations do? These countries don't even allow in refugees.

Take off your tin foil hat. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.

its this type of respinses that are against the CE rules and gets these threads locked. Lets keep it civil and respectful

I'm trying to get us off the conspiracy theories and back on topic.

So, we have a president who:
- Will not reveal promised tax returns
- Will not disclose finances
- Will not divest himself from his business ownerships/interests
- Will not reveal his full business assets
- Whose "solution" to conflict of interest is to appoint his sons as managers while he is still the owner and still have his sons at political functions

How is it possible to even begin to know what is political and what is self interest? It's not much of a "conspiracy."

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2017, 01:36:38 PM »

Offline wiley

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3166
  • Tommy Points: 225
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2017, 01:51:55 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30316
  • Tommy Points: 5092
Quote
I'm reluctant to jump on Trump for this, because failed operations are going to happen and I don't want to mirror the hysteria around Benghazi. The "go after their families" campaign rhetoric makes it look especially bad, but this poor girl's brother was also killed by drone under Obama, so it's not like this sort of thing is new, sadly.

It is if you're A fan from VT


Look at the first group and then look at the second group. What's the difference? If you really can't tell, you're beyond saving.

I'll hold your hand...

The banned countries are active warzones where ISIS or ALQaida operate. Or some off shoot of those two. The last is Iran: state sponsor of terrorism.

The non-banned countries are functioning economies where war is not over taking the land. Are they necessarily free and democratic nations, no, but who are we to judge now?

What would banning non existent refugees from rich middle eastern nations do? These countries don't even allow in refugees.

Take off your tin foil hat. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams.

its this type of respinses that are against the CE rules and gets these threads locked. Lets keep it civil and respectful

I'm trying to get us off the conspiracy theories and back on topic.
I don't care what your motive was. Just don't be insulting and demeaning. Its against the rules.

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2017, 03:57:01 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2814
  • Tommy Points: 421
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2017, 04:34:04 PM »

Offline wiley

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3166
  • Tommy Points: 225
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

I appreciate this view and you may be right.  And I may be naive about the process and what's wisest.  What upsets me is that Democrats, including Obama, did not hammer Republicans adequately at the moment Republicans made it clear Garland (who many Republicans really liked) would get no hearing.
They may have tried but it wasn't enough.  And so now in week two of Trump's presidency they want to get tough and I just don't see it working out.  The Republicans will change the rules and it will get even worse. 

I think the Democrats main focus right now should be finding ways to 1. fight fake news (a very tough problem) and highlight other more subtle propaganda (such as Fox news leaving the Tweet that the Quebec attacker was Moroccan long after it was know not to be the case, such that the Canadian government had to step in and tell Fox to delete the Tweet), 2. build a bigger base and hammer Republicans on the economy, tax relief for wealthy, bigger swamp, etc.  Bernie had the formula and beat Trump in polls.  If the Democrats continue with economic policies that are Republican light, they will not garner any votes from, among others, rural whites who have lost their jobs and whose towns have crumbled.  Even though Bernie may not run again, it's still Bernie or bust policy wise. 

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #65 on: February 02, 2017, 04:40:15 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3785
  • Tommy Points: 692
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

I appreciate this view and you may be right.  And I may be naive about the process and what's wisest.  What upsets me is that Democrats, including Obama, did not hammer Republicans adequately at the moment Republicans made it clear Garland (who many Republicans really liked) would get no hearing.
They may have tried but it wasn't enough.  And so now in week two of Trump's presidency they want to get tough and I just don't see it working out.  The Republicans will change the rules and it will get even worse. 

I think the Democrats main focus right now should be finding ways to 1. fight fake news (a very tough problem) and highlight other more subtle propaganda (such as Fox news leaving the Tweet that the Quebec attacker was Moroccan long after it was know not to be the case, such that the Canadian government had to step in and tell Fox to delete the Tweet), 2. build a bigger base and hammer Republicans on the economy, tax relief for wealthy, bigger swamp, etc.  Bernie had the formula and beat Trump in polls.  If the Democrats continue with economic policies that are Republican light, they will not garner any votes from, among others, rural whites who have lost their jobs and whose towns have crumbled.  Even though Bernie may not run again, it's still Bernie or bust policy wise.

Honestly, aside from building the base (always a good idea), the best thing the Dem party could do is spend all time and energy toward getting closer to "1 person 1 vote." In the vast majority of major polls, the majority of this country generally favors slightly left of center policies, and is majority left of center voting. Our governmental representatives do not reflect this because Rural votes count more than Urban votes. Honestly, I do not see why there would be logical resistance to more fair, proportionate representation.

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #66 on: February 02, 2017, 04:50:47 PM »

Offline wiley

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3166
  • Tommy Points: 225
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

I appreciate this view and you may be right.  And I may be naive about the process and what's wisest.  What upsets me is that Democrats, including Obama, did not hammer Republicans adequately at the moment Republicans made it clear Garland (who many Republicans really liked) would get no hearing.
They may have tried but it wasn't enough.  And so now in week two of Trump's presidency they want to get tough and I just don't see it working out.  The Republicans will change the rules and it will get even worse. 

I think the Democrats main focus right now should be finding ways to 1. fight fake news (a very tough problem) and highlight other more subtle propaganda (such as Fox news leaving the Tweet that the Quebec attacker was Moroccan long after it was know not to be the case, such that the Canadian government had to step in and tell Fox to delete the Tweet), 2. build a bigger base and hammer Republicans on the economy, tax relief for wealthy, bigger swamp, etc.  Bernie had the formula and beat Trump in polls.  If the Democrats continue with economic policies that are Republican light, they will not garner any votes from, among others, rural whites who have lost their jobs and whose towns have crumbled.  Even though Bernie may not run again, it's still Bernie or bust policy wise.

Honestly, aside from building the base (always a good idea), the best thing the Dem party could do is spend all time and energy toward getting closer to "1 person 1 vote." In the vast majority of major polls, the majority of this country generally favors slightly left of center policies, and is majority left of center voting. Our governmental representatives do not reflect this because Rural votes count more than Urban votes. Honestly, I do not see why there would be logical resistance to more fair, proportionate representation.

Excellent point. Certainly can't happen with Republican dominated scene of the moment.  They'd rather nominate Garland than change the electoral college.  But start the process for sure.  One day maybe it can be changed.  It certainly should be. 

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #67 on: February 02, 2017, 05:06:31 PM »

Offline wiley

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3166
  • Tommy Points: 225
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

not a knock against your argument, but interesting from Gorsuch, who seems much less partisan than Scalia.  Scalia was a highly partisan judge.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/neil-gorsuch-defended-merrick-garland_us_58920a00e4b02772c4ea822e?hjbrvlj0wockawcdi&

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #68 on: February 02, 2017, 05:29:38 PM »

Offline FatKidsDad

  • Jae Crowder
  • Posts: 349
  • Tommy Points: 40
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

When I wrote the bolded statement I knew I was being a bit pollyanna. I know it is unlikely to happen, but I still think that it has to start somewhere with someone if we are ever going to change the toxic atmosphere.
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton
   
"Live so that when your children think of fairness and integrity,they think of you." -   H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #69 on: February 02, 2017, 05:31:07 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

Except there's this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that kind of needs to be done.  It's how democracy works.

You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.
If what they do works, you have to adjust in response to that.
If what they do fails, you win the next time and get to do what you want.
Repeat over and over and over.

That's the ONLY way democracy can work.  If we start denying electoral winners the right/ability to pursue their agenda, the system breaks down.  But there will still be this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that will have to be done and if it can't be done democratically, then it will eventually be done non-democratically.

There is no other way this story ends.

Yes, it burns that Republicans mindlessly obstructed President Obama and seemingly benefited form it in the short run.  But if everyone is only thinking about the short run, none of us are going to survive in the long run.

Mike

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #70 on: February 02, 2017, 05:53:42 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3785
  • Tommy Points: 692
Interesting twist on the idea of "PC"

trumps silence on radical racist terror is pc run amok

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-silence-on-radical-racist-terror-is-p-c-run-amok.html

Wonder who might be steering him away from targeting neonazi and white supremicist terrorists?

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #71 on: February 02, 2017, 05:59:56 PM »

Offline triboy16f

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18438
  • Tommy Points: 414
America 1st and ... Alone. I wonder if the US will have any friends left after 4 years

Worldwide friction continue..

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/us-planning-additional-sanctions-on-iran/index.html

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #72 on: February 02, 2017, 06:20:02 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2814
  • Tommy Points: 421
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

Except there's this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that kind of needs to be done.  It's how democracy works.

You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.
If what they do works, you have to adjust in response to that.
If what they do fails, you win the next time and get to do what you want.
Repeat over and over and over.

That's the ONLY way democracy can work.  If we start denying electoral winners the right/ability to pursue their agenda, the system breaks down.  But there will still be this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that will have to be done and if it can't be done democratically, then it will eventually be done non-democratically.

There is no other way this story ends.

Yes, it burns that Republicans mindlessly obstructed President Obama and seemingly benefited form it in the short run.  But if everyone is only thinking about the short run, none of us are going to survive in the long run.

Mike

I'm not going to stop anyone from hoping for statesmanship to magically show up. 

But statesmanship was shot, run over and burned with kerosene in this last election cycle.   It is a nice ideal, but simply not practical to wait around hoping that statesmanship is going to stick his head up out of the bunker any time soon.

The "business of running the country" very much also involves preventing bad policy just as much as it involves legislating and executing good policy.

As legislators who were voted to represent their constituents, the Democratic representatives and Senators are obligated to do anything within their legal power to prevent legislation that is against the interests of their constituents or in their opinion harmful to the state and/or it's citizens.

Quote
You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.

That's not really how it works.  There was an electoral college election to select the POTUS.  There were separate elections throughout the states to elect the members of the House and the Senate.    Within each branch, there are legislative 'elections' (votes by the members) on appointments and legislation that are within the purview of the legislative branch.

Each of those things is separate.   Winning the electoral college election doesn't guarantee the results of any of those other elections.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #73 on: February 02, 2017, 07:03:58 PM »

Online ManUp

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8226
  • Tommy Points: 247
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...

Re: The President Trump Thread
« Reply #74 on: February 02, 2017, 07:12:12 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10823
  • Tommy Points: 1208
I don't know enough about Judge Gorsuch's stand on issues to say for sure, but based on media reports it looks like he may be on the opposite side of many issues from me.

That said, he is by all accounts a brilliant and accomplished jurist who meets every requirement laid out by the Constitution.

I hope the Democrats protest the shameful and possibly unlawful display of obstructionism by the Republicans with respect to the nomination of Judge Garland by holding timely hearings and votes as required by the Constitution. The high road will show the opposition for what they are.

I agree with this.  The Democrats lost on the Supreme Court.  McConnell and other Republican went rogue against the whole process and I agree have poisoned it.  Repubs were even talking about not allowing any Hillary nominees in during her entire term.  That is shameful.  But the Democrats not only shouldn't but are currently too weak to do anything if a pick is basically qualified as this one is.   Time to build a better movement Dems so that you are not always so easily bullied.  That new movement should be inclusive of all people in the US, not just substantively but in belief and rhetoric.  Bernie had was a natural in that.  The Democrats need other naturals.     

Regarding the sentiment in bold expressed by FatKidsDad:  I actually disagree.

I don't believe that "The high road" will achieve anything other than to yield a lifetime appointment to the high court without any sign of resistance.   Showing the opposition for what they are?  There is plenty that has been shown already.  Those who want to believe one way or the other are not going to suddenly be shown the light of wisdom as the Dems stand proudly on the deck of a sinking ship.

I know that the politics of obstruction are distasteful.  But the practical reality is that the Tea Party and the alt-right have set the stage where they are now going to be the norm.

The Democrats have an obligation to their constituency to do anything legally in their power to prevent or at least resist the implementation of policies that goes against their platform.   If that means they have to boycott or filibuster, to delay and obstruct, then that is part of the legal arsenal and should be used.

The period from now to the mid-term elections is the window in which the Republicans are guaranteed to have the majorities and thus can act without check.    On any particular ruling, order or appointment, a delay of a couple of months or one month or even just a week or two eats into that 24 month window.    Even if the delay is just against the inevitable, that doesn't mean the delay isn't worth doing.

Except there's this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that kind of needs to be done.  It's how democracy works.

You have an election.
Sometimes, the other side wins.
They get to do what they want, often in part and rarely in whole.
If what they do works, you have to adjust in response to that.
If what they do fails, you win the next time and get to do what you want.
Repeat over and over and over.

That's the ONLY way democracy can work.  If we start denying electoral winners the right/ability to pursue their agenda, the system breaks down.  But there will still be this little thing called RUNNING THE COUNTRY that will have to be done and if it can't be done democratically, then it will eventually be done non-democratically.

There is no other way this story ends.

Yes, it burns that Republicans mindlessly obstructed President Obama and seemingly benefited form it in the short run.  But if everyone is only thinking about the short run, none of us are going to survive in the long run.

Mike

Mike -- I tend to generally agree with your sentiments.  My initial reaction to the Trump victory was that power shifts more quickly than people think -- Congressional campaigns will be in full bloom in about 18 months and this mid-term has a chance to be a powerful referendum on Trump's first 2 years in office. Trump earned his term fair and square and has every right to steer the country in his chosen direction(s).  The difference with Trump, which has become a fear for some and perhaps a curiosity for others, is his sanity.   Is his narcissism an act/game, evidence of inner strength, or evidence of a delusional and fragile character disorder?  If it is the latter, which I am not sure it isn't, the fragility behind the narcissism should scare everyone.  That is because in order to protect a fragile core, a narcissist can become quite desperate in efforts to sustain the ego and rationalize one's grandeur.   The fall from narcissism, when it occurs, is also precipitous. 

So my hope as an American is that the behavioral evidence of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder is actually a conscious fašade, and a tactic of leadership fostered to instill confidence and promote "followship".    This explanation wouldn't make me like him much better, but would at least mitigate my worry that we've elected a mentally unstable man. 

Among my biggest worries is his selection of Bannon as his chief strategist and advisor, and Bannon's quick rise in power within the administration and within the national security construct.  Bannon is just the type of brilliant manipulator who could take a narcissist, continually feed the narcissism, and coax the implementation of a democratically disruptive, nationalist, extremist agenda -- which Bannon unabashedly identifies with .

I am not worried enough yet to be among (or even all that supportive of) the protestors.  I despised the republican obstruction and I am not in favor of blind obstruction and protest. Mitch McConnell is not a role model.  But, with each seemingly uninformed, or impulsive, or grandiose-sounding decision, I get just a little more worried about this POTUS.  Which makes this power cycle a little different (possibly) than previous cycles.