-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Is Sessions better or worse than Rudy?
shinra-bansho
Member
Flynn won't need confirmation, so that's basically a done deal.
I'm assuming Sessions can't vote for himself in confirmation hearings. Where I'm assuming he'll be asked about being a racist shithead.
There seems to be not much in terms of news stories on Mike Pompeo, but Wiki has him as opposing Guantanomo... CIA Director... Yeah....
I'm assuming Sessions can't vote for himself in confirmation hearings. Where I'm assuming he'll be asked about being a racist shithead.
There seems to be not much in terms of news stories on Mike Pompeo, but Wiki has him as opposing Guantanomo... CIA Director... Yeah....
They're both awful.
balladofwindfishes
Member
The Legion of Doom is assembling
metalslimer
Member
Jeff Sessions as AG has me literally afraid. I know foreign policy is really important but Sessions is going to crack down so hard on so many groups
He's not getting that job.
He's not getting that job.
Mitt is probably going to end up bailing out. I give him a 50/50 chance. I don't like a lot of his policies but he's, you know, a rational and educated human being.
"Close to Clinton" and "establishment" are very dependent on context. Bernie, with 35 years on the job, vs Trump would mean Bernie lost, if you're basing everything on "establishment credentials". Just like Bernie vs Clinton means people perceive Clinton as more establishment, even though Bernie's been in politics for longer, so the same could (would?) be said for Bernie vs Trump - Trump's been President for the past 4 years, but Bernie's been in politics far longer.
Another reason why talking about who's running in 2020 is pointless - Trump may make people want establishment politicians who don't cock everything up. Or they may not.
Btw, if the main Dem message in the next four years is "big money free", they're disrespecting everyone cares more about social issues than Wall Street ties. And it's not like many people care about Wall Street ties, anyways - look at how Trump painted himself as anti-Wall Street, when he's the biggest financial insider yet to run for the office.
Edit: But even if they wouldn't be disrespected, you think the Dems would be able to fight against the Koch Brothers' paycheques alone?
The Chosen One
Member
I'm fine with Mittens too. In a normal election cycle with a Republican winning, it would be between someone like Mittens or some stealth neo-con. But the potential candidates that have been suggested for Sect. of State so far have been a parade of crazies that Mittens is pretty much the only non-scary option.
But Mittens is still young enough where he can wait another cycle to make a play. I don't think he needs to jump on the Trump Train to get his last chance of glory.
But Mittens is still young enough where he can wait another cycle to make a play. I don't think he needs to jump on the Trump Train to get his last chance of glory.
Sec State Mitt sounds more like a ploy to keep him from Primarying Trump in 2020.
On the other hand, that probably still wouldn't stop Mitt from primarying Trump in 2020.
We'd also be at a streak of Sec States all being party candidates that made it to the general election (Romney, Kerry, Clinton)
On the other hand, that probably still wouldn't stop Mitt from primarying Trump in 2020.
We'd also be at a streak of Sec States all being party candidates that made it to the general election (Romney, Kerry, Clinton)
The Chosen One
Member
You're assuming Trump actually wants to be President for 8 years. He's purely a one-termer. In fact I have a side-bet they he will tap out by the mid-terms and we'll have President Pence by the start of 2020.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I'll table the "establishment" discussion for now because we are not on the same page at all.
The money free argument is more interesting. Unilateral disarmament is scary, definitely. In presidential races it's less of a issue. (Enough free press). So what about smaller races? Republicans will always get more legalized bribes. They push for deregulation and tax cuts more. So in essence Democrats are being paid to lose. See most elections in last decade despite Republicans being horrible and wrong on almost every single issue. Democrats need to be clean because they need to point the finger back and aggressively oppose gop policy. Running as gop lite validates gop stance.
You are correct to observe that Democrats have used social issues as a shield to keep liberals and progressives on their camp while compromising heavily with moneyed interests on economic issues. Look at government now and ask yourself honestly. Is this strategy working? Hell no. They need to again become a party of the people.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/799557546742808576
Letting people take pride in the Deplorables tag was the stupidest thing the Clinton campaign and the media did. Bannon let the Deplorables take pride in their tag, I think.
I want to believe Trump will be a one-term president too, either because he chooses not to run, does run but loses, or resigns/is impeached (lol). However, everything I've wanted to believe about what will happen to Trump over the last 17 months was completely demolished by reality. So at this point, I just have to start prepping in the back of my head the scenario of Trump being an eight-year president...
Fragamemnon
Member
I think either candidate was a one-termer: we're going to hit a trough in the business cycle and it was going to sink either one.
I don't think Trump taps out formally but this job is hard work with often not a lot of recognition for that work. He'll delegate like crazy after the new job smell wears off.
Flynn and Pompeo are pretty much a disaster. If there is any terror attack in the domestic US by jihadists over the next two years what they will do in turn to American muslims is going to be awful.
It's not gonna happen but I wish Obama fired him.
bigwinnerx
Member
To steal from the Giant Beastcast today....."2020. A Clear Vision for America." will be someone's slogan. Cheesy, but, good.
Also, when did Ed Shultz move over to RT? I haven't paid much attention to lefty media in a long while, but, I did used to listen to his show when I had Sirius. I know he went to MSNBC at some point and got dumped. But Russia Today? Jesus.
Also, when did Ed Shultz move over to RT? I haven't paid much attention to lefty media in a long while, but, I did used to listen to his show when I had Sirius. I know he went to MSNBC at some point and got dumped. But Russia Today? Jesus.
Really? You think the Dems being able to say "We're clean but the GOP aren't" will change hearts and minds? I find that naive. You may be right, but I don't think the vast majority of voters give a damn where political money comes from. But, I think this may be anecdotal on both sides, so... *shrugs*
With regards to the bolded point, there's many who think that the GOP aren't "horrible and wrong on almost every single issue". Anti-abortion and pro-gun rights voters alone would prop-up the GOP in smaller races, and this piece on Split-Ticket Voting implies that the polarisation of politics into "Presidential Sides" is final.
I think it's dangerous to assume that "party of the people" means wide-spread economic reform in place of social issues. In addition to, yes, absolutely. But at that point you have to determine how strong a message you want to push with financial reform vs social issues. This absolutely needs finer-tuned messaging abilities in States, which is why the DNC needs to become a data driven grass-roots activist machine.
I also think that we have very different priorities, and that that is a large issue in this discussion (like with the "establishment" discussion).
shinra-bansho
Member
The Democrats should really stop running in "elections" entirely, I mean what's the point of such a pointless establishment institution. And instead just form a giant drum circle to sing about how noble they are, while women die trying to get illegal abortions.
TumblingHippo
Member
I got myself pretty mad today thinking about how I was a wee kid during the Clinton impeachment and thinking "Wow they really take this president thing very seriously" not realizing it was just a party based around hating the name Clinton.
I feel sorry for their daughter if she gets into politics :c they're going to smear her from day 1 and the worst part, as set as precedent, it will work.
I feel sorry for their daughter if she gets into politics :c they're going to smear her from day 1 and the worst part, as set as precedent, it will work.
Veritigo_X
Member
"Fiery General"? I guess the Washington Post couldn't come up with a more appropriate adjective to describe Michael Flynn?
*nods* I gave the example a few days ago of a hypothetical Texan rape victim who has to abort her attacker's child - she wouldn't give two shits about Wall Street reform in her situation.
People seem to be unable to see the wood for the trees, in a way.
RustyNails
Member
It's the 80's OTT garishness.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/799557546742808576
Letting people take pride in the Deplorables tag was the stupidest thing the Clinton campaign and the media did. Bannon let the Deplorables take pride in their tag, I think.
I was wrong about this during the campaign. I thought Hillary should have doubled down, but it clearly hurt her when she said it. It united the entire group.
Looks like Trump will settle the Trump University lawsuit by paying $20-25m: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ersity-fraud-case-article-1.2878780?cid=bitly
I still think she should've doubled-down - she should have explicitly tied Trump to every Klan member, pervert and con-man out there. Made it personal on both sides - the ones who take pride in being "Deplorable" and the ones who have been emotionally or physically scarred by the Deplorables.
But, that said, this was back when she was trying to peel off Republican voters still, so I can't argue that it was the wrong decision based on the tactics they were using at the time. I just think those tactics were themselves flawed.
shinra-bansho
Member
On the Senate Democrat's brilliant plan to cooperate with Donald Trump.
They should certainly do it, if they're simply trying to do good. But they shouldn't expect it to provide any electoral advantage if it succeeds. They will not share the spoils.
They should certainly do it, if they're simply trying to do good. But they shouldn't expect it to provide any electoral advantage if it succeeds. They will not share the spoils.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Dammit, I know they probably need the money, but I wish they'd refused to settle so this thing could have played out in court.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I'd bet the strategy is more to create a wedge between Trump and the Republican Party than anything else. It's not like Democrats are in any position of power.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I agree with that analysis. I don't really understand what else the Democrats are supposed to do. They can't block everything because they don't have the institutional power to block anything. I think it's mostly a face-saving exercise.
JetBlackPanda
Member
They are going to have to try and work with common sense republicans on stuff and oppose any batshit crazy stuff. It's all they can do
They can. The same way the republicans forced democrats to use a super majority in the senate between 2008 and 2010. Make everything require a filibuster proof majority.
shinra-bansho
Member
There's going to be so much of the latter they're going to need a lot of "common sense Republicans."
They should try to flip Collins into the independent column. She's old and probably retiring soon anyway.
Also, I am going to be curious about what Trump's approval rating is going to be upon assuming office. How much that affects the downballot during his term.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I'm not sure they'll get any opportunity to work with common sense Republicans. The extent of their power is the filibuster in the Senate, that's it.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It's starting to look like McConnell won't have the 50 votes to end the filibuster, so Democrats will have that.
They proved they could get around it with that test run of budget reconciliation they did a couple years ago to make Obama veto the ACA repeal, but I'm not sure how far they can push that.
McConnell was never going to end the filibuster.
Reconciliation will destroy the ACA, might as well take the best political move and let it get to a vote.
Otherwise it's going to be another email server. A gutted ACA will keep dribbling out bad news while the GOP swears that they are only trying to fix a bad law.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
They should.
Which means they wont. It fucking baffles me that they think that helping out Trump is some sort of master plan to get there to be infighting.
Those dumb motherfuckers dont realize that the GOP doesnt care what a Republican president passes as long as they are in power. You saw plenty of Republicans during the primary denounce trump, and what happens? They all come crawling back. And you have democrats cooperating? Then you get Republicans able to easily say "Yeah we were successful."
Its like holy shit. Dems need to grow up a ball pin of bals and obstruct everything and use that against the gop. They are not some masterminds nor are they smarter than the gop.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Then the Republicans will nuke the filibuster. The Senate holds an innate marginal Republican bias; eliminating the filibuster, on average, helps the Republicans more than it hinders them, and I imagine they know that. They won't be keen to get rid of it, but they're keener than the Democrats. So the ability of the Democrats to obstruct is limited. They get only so many shots before they push the Republicans over the line. They can't obstruct everything like the Republicans were able to do, they have to be tactical and pick their battles. If they use it only limited times, they can keep the sympathy of Republicans like Graham who will deny the filibuster-buster vote.
boiled goose
good with gravy
It is possible that Republicans propose nothing that passes senate Democrat Muster and this is just preemptive rhetoric to say they aren't being obstructionsts for partisan reasons.
Trump and gop at odds on some things so it should be interesting.
balladofwindfishes
Member
They have to drain the swamp to put in the foundation before they build this
Fragamemnon
Member
They will repeal the ACA efffective at some point down the road. Then not replace it with anything because governing is hard and Democrats won't let them get anything through.
Then we get to the point where the repeal triggers and it becomes debt-ceiling crisis time. Much hem and haw and then Congress kicks the can.
We're going to have a zombie health care law that insurers will have no idea what to plan for in the future.
No they can.
McConnell isn't saving the filibuster because he doesn't have the vote. He's keeping it because that's his only defense against the bat shit crazy house. Don't fall for this narrative that some principled GOP senators are saving the filibuster because of some ideal.
The GOP is going to try to incrementally enact a regressive agenda because the blowback will be too severe otherwise. Don't give them a inch. If they nuke the filibuster out of frustration, let's see how privatizes Medicare plays in the midterms.
The freedom caucus still exists and their agenda will destroy the GOP. Block everything and see if McConnell has the guts to give the freedom causus free reign.
- Status