• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

B-Dubs

No Scrubs

Conway remains a moron.

Also, any idiot should have know the follow up to

“Were we so concerned about the hours and hours and hours spent on the golf course by the current president?” she said on CNN, in reference to President Barack Obama. “I mean, presidents have a right to do things in their spare time or their leisure time. I mean nobody objects to that.”

is

Presidents don't work second jobs and his actions could be seen as a conflict of interest given his powers. Are we really supposed to believe that he won't take action to benefit himself businesswise while acting as president?

The answer to that question is the money quote since you can keep pointing back to it for the next four years to hammer Trump when his actions do benefit his businesses.
 
Romney, Guiliani, Betrayus in running for SoS


Putin publicly says no Romney


Trump picks out friend of Putin





We are really just going to roll over for this shit
 
If there are only a few nominations that we should really pick a fight over, who should be the ones under the microscope?

I know which ones NOT to spend time on: Mattis, McMahon and Chao. Munchin and Sessions would also be a waste of time.
HHS and EPA will definitely be a battle.
 
Anyone else think Trump is just nominating a ridiculous candidate in hopes that people will think the actual candidate is less bad a result? (ie. at least X isn't Rex Tillerson!)

Though I think he'll be in for a rude awakening if that's the case. Government is different than business. Ugly fights with Congress aren't going to go in his favor - not with his dismal popularity.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Romney, Guiliani, Betrayus in running for SoS


Putin publicly says no Romney


Trump picks out friend of Putin





We are really just going to roll over for this shit

Some senators are already gearing up for fights over Trump's other nominees, so there's no reason to expect they won't for this one. It's just that the fight isn't until January, until then all we can do is make noise.

I know which ones NOT to spend time on: Mattis, McMahon and Chao. Munchin and Sessions would also be a waste of time.
HHS and EPA will definitely be a battle.

Mattis should absolutely be challenged. Civilian control of the military is a rather important concept. There's a reason he needs a waiver in order to take that seat.
 
CzVfDgSXUAA1f7Y.jpg
.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
In a way, it's a shame because he's probably one of the most competent picks.

I mean, we should fight the waiver for sure. But if he gets it there's not much of an argument against him at that point.


It's just that every single appointment Trump's made is an issue and how they hell do you fight them all?
 

Wilsongt

Member
5h
JohnCornyn‏ @JohnCornyn
All this "news" of Russian hacking: it has been going on for years. Serious, but hardly news

Nothing to see here. Move along.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Anyone else think Trump is just nominating a ridiculous candidate in hopes that people will think the actual candidate is less bad a result? (ie. at least X isn't Rex Tillerson!)

Though I think he'll be in for a rude awakening if that's the case. Government is different than business. Ugly fights with Congress aren't going to go in his favor - not with his dismal popularity.

I don't think Trump would intentionally lose a nomination fight with Congress to make his next nominee look better, no. I don't think Trump would intentionally lose when playing a board game with a small child.
 

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
I mean, we should fight the waiver for sure. But if he gets it there's not much of an argument against him at that point.


It's just that every single appointment Trump's made is an issue and how they hell do you fight them all?
I would hope their strategy is choosing who they think could potentially cause the most significant damage, either from incompetence or beliefs.
 
I don't think Trump would intentionally lose a nomination fight with Congress to make his next nominee look better, no. I don't think Trump would intentionally lose when playing a board game with a small child.

Even if Trump is thinking in terms of how he runs his business? i.e. ask for the moon, "settle" for less.

(Again, I think government is different than business. Trump most assuredly does not realize this)
 
I've been phonebanking for Foster Campbell all morning. Some thoughts:

1) I love Louisiana accents

2) This is an exercise in patience when it comes to registered Ds who vote R.

I'm aware he won't win, but #50StateStrategy
 
Mattis should absolutely be challenged. Civilian control of the military is a rather important concept. There's a reason he needs a waiver in order to take that seat.
I get that, but I don't see the pragmatic benefits of doing everything to stop him/embarrass him, especially since he could be one of the decent members of the Cabinet.

It's a wrong battle to fight and one the Dems won't win.
 

thefro

Member
I get that, but I don't see the pragmatic benefits of doing everything to stop him/embarrass him, especially since he could be one of the decent members of the Cabinet.

It's a wrong battle to fight and one the Dems won't win.

The messaging should be that Trump's cabinet proves he's running a fucking scam against working people by putting corrupt Wall Street CEOs, millionaires, billionaires, Republican party hacks in charge of the government.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Even if Trump is thinking in terms of how he runs his business? i.e. ask for the moon, "settle" for less.

(Again, I think government is different than business. Trump most assuredly does not realize this)

I think he'd be fine with that behind closed doors. And if it happens he'll of course say that the first nominee was just a ploy. But he would totally flip out if the story the day after is "Senate rejects crazy Trump nominee, tells him he must do better".
 

Vixdean

Member
Pfffft Russian hacking is just an excuse. Hillary lost because of the ECONOMIC ANXIETY of white folks making $70k/year with median wealth of $144k. She should have talked more about their HORRIBLE PLIGHT instead of minorities who make half as much and have 10% of the wealth. ECONOMIC ANXIETY.
 

Cheebo

Banned
lol @ Mitt. Trump played him like the chump that he is. Made him grovel like that spineless coward that he is.
I honestly believe Romney did it for earnest reasons. To try to have some sanity in the room. Romney did the right thing in meeting with Trump.

Same reason Gore met to talk climate change. You do what you can.
 

royalan

Member
I honestly believe Romney did it for earnest reasons. To try to have some sanity in the room. Romney did the right thing in meeting with Trump.

Same reason Gore met to talk climate change. You do what you can.

There's doing what you can, and then there's being fucking dumb.

Romney? Gore? Fucking dumb. Dumb. As. Shit. if they thought they were going to be able to forge any sway with Trump and the men he's surrounded himself with.

"You do what you can" is opposing Trump on literally everything, at every point, at every turn. You scream your fucking head off at everything, no exceptions. THAT'S doing what you can. That's having a spine and doing the right thing. Not trying to get yourself a cushy job or see reason in a brick wall.
 
I honestly believe Romney did it for earnest reasons. To try to have some sanity in the room. Romney did the right thing in meeting with Trump.

Same reason Gore met to talk climate change. You do what you can.

And then after he met up with Al Gore, he appoints a climate change denier as the head of the EPA.
 

tuxfool

Banned
I honestly believe Romney did it for earnest reasons. To try to have some sanity in the room. Romney did the right thing in meeting with Trump.

Same reason Gore met to talk climate change. You do what you can.

Doing what you can isn't bending your neck, wondering if the other person is going to Knight you or chop off your head.
 
This is an even worst situation that I imagined, truly scary times we are living. Democrats can't be going gently into the night.


Obama, is necessary to put Garland or an equally qualified liberal on the Supreme court, this is key to fight back on gerrymandering. Stop cooperation with the transition team and create some blind cell in the CIA to investigate if president Trump is a Russian asset with sufficient freedom.

This isn't an usual situation, tradition isn't worth enabling these criminals.
 
This is an even worst situation that I imagined, truly scary times we are living. Democrats can't be going gently into the night.


Obama, is necessary to put Garland or an equally qualified liberal on the Supreme court, this is key to fight back on gerrymandering. Stop cooperation with the transition team and create some blind cell in the CIA to investigate if president Trump is a Russian asset with sufficient freedom.

This isn't an usual situation, tradition isn't worth enabling these criminals.

As I've thought since the election, this is not a normal problem, we cannot wait for a normal solution.
 

mo60

Member
This is an even worst situation that I imagined, truly scary times we are living. Democrats can't be going gently into the night.


Obama, is necessary to put Garland or an equally qualified liberal on the Supreme court, this is key to fight back on gerrymandering. Stop cooperation with the transition team and create some blind cell in the CIA to investigate if president Trump is a Russian asset with sufficient freedom.

This isn't an usual situation, tradition isn't worth enabling these criminals.

I hate to say this but Obama should just play nice with trump until trump gets sworn in and then fight against him unless something explosive pops up between now and january 20th. I do agree that the democrats should fight against any gerrymandering the republicans try in the future. I do expect the gerrymandering to backfire against republicans in the future.
 
I hate to say this but Obama should just play nice with trump until trump gets sworn in and then fight against him unless something explosive pops up between now and january 20th. I do agree that the democrats should fight against any gerrymandering the republicans try in the future. I do expect the gerrymandering to backfire against republicans in the future.
No. We should try to aggravate Trump at every opportunity. We cannot reason with him, Gore, Obama, Hillary, Mittens, the press, even DiCaprio. That didn't work. The opposite now is the only option. We need to force him to self destruct. If you can't beat something, maybe driving it to beat himself is the most viable strategy. The same extends to the GOP and the Tea Party.

We shouldn't be here thinking on how we can work with them. That's too fucking nice. We need to consider how we can enable them to self destruct in the short term in order to have a future at all.
 
No. We should try to aggravate Trump at every opportunity. We cannot reason with him, Gore, Obama, Hillary, Mittens, the press, even DiCaprio. That didn't work. The opposite now is the only option. We need to force him to self destruct. If you can't beat something, maybe driving it to beat himself is the most viable strategy. The same extends to the GOP and the Tea Party.

We shouldn't be here thinking on how we can work with them. That's too fucking nice. We need to consider how we can enable them to self destruct in the short term in order to have a future at all.
We tried baiting him into self-destructing before the election. His "self-destructions" ended up doing nothing to harm him.
 

mo60

Member
No. We should try to aggravate Trump at every opportunity. We cannot reason with him, Gore, Obama, Hillary, Mittens, the press, even DiCaprio. That didn't work. The opposite now is the only option. We need to force him to self destruct. If you can't beat something, maybe driving it to beat himself is the most viable strategy. The same extends to the GOP and the Tea Party.

We shouldn't be here thinking on how we can work with them. That's too fucking nice. We need to consider how we can enable them to self destruct in the short term in order to have a future at all.

I'm not saying to work with the guy but to wait until January 20th to figure out a way to oppose whatever the republican party is planning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom