• 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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Why do so many people want to have a beer with a sociopathic serial sexual predator though?

Was there an actual "who would you rather have a beer with" poll for this election?

I have to wonder if there's a distiction between charisma and entertaining. Not knowing what Trump would do next and starting a new drama every day made it hard to take your eyes off him, but I don't get the sense that most americans find him to be a very likable person overall. They know he's an egomaniac and a creep.

The likability vs entertainment value has been something that's bugged me on scoring the charisma category for the Keys to the White House scorecard. Allan Lichtman said Trump does not deserve a charisma key, and I think he was probably right.

Speaking of which, I maintain that Lichtman misscored the Party Mandate section by not taking the insane gerrymandering that happened between 2010 and 2014 into account which is why he missed so badly on the popular vote, and it really annoys me he's taken this election as a correct prediction when his system has absolutely no mechanics to account for the electoral college. His system is still good, but his use of it certainly is not.
 

RDreamer

Member
Oh look, someone needs to eat a bag of dicks

So, wait... Grover Norquist is saying it's a relief we didn't get a bunch of shit coastal elite liberals love taken away and instead we're cool with a tax hike in order to pay for a brick wall (plus having our healthcare taken away, etc)?

Why do so many people want to have a beer with a sociopathic serial sexual predator though?

I don't understand this at all. Trump is about the last person I would ever want to have a beer with. I could see that working with Bush, but not fucking Trump. I'd have a beer a billion times with Hillary before I'd even think about Trump. I'd have to be dying of thirst to want to drink with him.

Even politics aside the guy really doesn't seem like he'd be fun to be around at all unless you have a thing for blowing his ego.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
the most uncomfortable question at this moment is deciding where that line is where americans have to take up arms against itself. where is that line for you? before or after the internment camps?
 
Was there an actual "who would you rather have a beer with" poll for this election?

I have to wonder if there's a distiction between charisma and entertaining. Not knowing what Trump would do next and starting a new drama every day made it hard to take your eyes off him, but I don't get the sense that most americans find him to be a very likable person overall. They know he's an egomaniac and a creep.

The likability vs entertainment value has been something that's bugged me on scoring the charisma category for the Keys to the White House scorecard. Allan Lichtman said Trump does not deserve a charisma key, and I think he was probably right.

Speaking of which, I maintain that Lichtman misscored the Party Mandate section by not taking the insane gerrymandering that happened between 2010 and 2014 into account which is why he missed so badly on the popular vote, and it really annoys me he's taken this election as a correct prediction when his system has absolutely no mechanics to account for the electoral college. His system is still good, but his use of it certainly is not.

His system is terrible. If you regress 9 variables on 7 elections, you should be kicked in the face over and over again.

He got the fucking prediction wrong and his methodology is absolutely horrible. This is like the weirdest "vindication" ever.
 
Okay, so a lot of journalists are like "this is just the pretext for Trump calling for a massive crackdown on voting rights!"

And this is a super dumb idea that makes no sense.

First, Voters generally support restrictions on voting rights like voter IDs because most voters dislike poor people and most voters think there is more possible voter fraud than there. No pretext is necessary.

Second, a national voter ID would never ever pass because it's really easy to be against it as a Democrat. "Do you want your voters to be able to vote?" is not going to create strife within the party such that 8 Dems would defect and vote for closure.

Third, Trump's wild conspiracies about voter fraud are actually undermining the cause for restricting voter rights. When this bill is proposed, Schumer can say "we're not going to inconvenience a lot of people because of one of Trump's paranoid conspiracies" and now all of his Senators have good political cover. No one other than Nazis buys into these Trump conspiracies and Nazis don't need to be convinced of voter restrictions because the main goal of Nazis is to eliminate black political power!

Fourth, state parties can now bring "you're just passing these voting restrictions to try to appease Trump's conspiracies" as an argument to use against local Republican parties and it would be a pretty effective argument. Now Republicans will have to deal with the backlash of "do you believe these voter fraud conspiracies from Trump that were based on a 4th hand account from a racist German golfer and one guy on Twitter?" on the state level when they want to pass voter restrictions.

Trump's ranting and raving about voting fraud will ensure that there are fewer voting restrictions in the future than there would have been without Trump's wild conspiracies.

So liberal journalists are being fucking dumb right now.
 

Gruco

Banned
Okay, so a lot of journalists are like "this is just the pretext for Trump calling for a massive crackdown on voting rights!"

And this is a super dumb idea that makes no sense.
There has been a lot of stuff like this lately. Declarations of intent, trial balloons, distractions, Trump just wants to "win" by making liberals have a sad, etc. I've seen any number of hot takes attributing 27th dimensional Hold 'em skills to Trump, but none of them explain how anyone's actions should be meaningfully different if they were true. It's not clear to me that any of this matters. If his admin lies, call them liars. If they violate the constitution, raise hell and sue. If they do stupid shit, call it stupid. If they try to repeal the ACA, call your congressmen. None of the predictions about Trump's intentions seem to change the game plan.
 

Chumley

Banned
the most uncomfortable question at this moment is deciding where that line is where americans have to take up arms against itself. where is that line for you? before or after the internment camps?

It should be happening right now.

Trump is one terrorist attack away from the complete Muslim ban now that he's gone ahead with the refugee ban. And all anyone continues to do is get mad on Twitter.

I honestly believe even if it comes to outright internment camps there still won't be much more than more women's marches and some rioting, both amounting to nothing. The Republicans will continue to do whatever they want until a gun is literally put to their head, which will never happen, and apparently liberals will sooner allow everything to be taken from them than get out and vote.
 
Either McConnell's full of shit, or Trump's been really pissing him off. There's no way in hell he backs off from nuking the filibuster.

They have more to lose from nuking the filibuster than they have to gain from doing so. Dems are kicking themselves in the ass for doing it right now and Republicans would be in an even worse position if they nuked it in the future.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
They have more to lose from nuking the filibuster than they have to gain from doing so. Dems are kicking themselves in the ass for doing it right now and Republicans would be in an even worse position if they nuked it in the future.

How are Republicans going to be in a worse position in the future?
 
So, wait... Grover Norquist is saying it's a relief we didn't get a bunch of shit coastal elite liberals love taken away and instead we're cool with a tax hike in order to pay for a brick wall (plus having our healthcare taken away, etc)?

Sales taxes are regressive; they hit the poor and the working class far harder than the wealthy elite that Norquist cares about.
 

geomon

Member
Making the Rust Belt Rustier

Donald Trump will break most of his campaign promises. Which promises will he keep?

The answer, I suspect, has more to do with psychology than it does with strategy. Mr. Trump is much more enthusiastic about punishing people than he is about helping them. He may have promised not to cut Social Security and Medicare, or take health insurance away from the tens of millions who gained coverage under Obamacare, but in practice he seems perfectly willing to satisfy his party by destroying the safety net.

On the other hand, he appears serious about his eagerness to reverse America’s 80-year-long commitment to expanding world trade. On Thursday the White House said it was considering a 20 percent tariff on all imports from Mexico; doing so wouldn’t just pull the U.S. out of NAFTA, it would violate all our trading agreements.

Why does he want this? Because he sees international trade the way he sees everything else: as a struggle for dominance, in which you only win at somebody else’s expense.

His Inaugural Address made that perfectly clear: “For many decades we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry.” And he sees punitive tariffs as a way to stop foreigners from selling us stuff, and thereby revive the “rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape.”

Unfortunately, as just about any economist could tell him — but probably not within his three-minute attention span — it doesn’t work that way. Even if tariffs lead to a partial reversal of the long decline in manufacturing employment, they won’t add jobs on net, just shift employment around. And they probably won’t even do that: Taken together, the new regime’s policies will probably lead to a faster, not slower, decline in American manufacturing.

What a great Op-Ed from Paul Krugman yesterday.
 
How are Republicans going to be in a worse position in the future?

Because its something they'd want to use in the future, I'd imagine, and gives them an out for not having to take responsibility for everything. If they get rid of it they can't, just like the democrats are probably wishing they didn't nuke it for appointments because then they could do something about Trumps league of evil.
 

PKrockin

Member
Mr. Trump is much more enthusiastic about punishing people than he is about helping them.
This is why he's so popular with the shitty, vindictive people I know. The people in a constant state of outrage over some perceived slight or minor injustice, always finding a new person they'd love to beat the shit out of. The ones who always assume the worst of others and think nobody deserves a second chance except themselves. He thinks like them.

And there’s a further factor to consider: The world economy has gotten a lot more complex over the past three decades. These days, hardly anything is simply “made in America,” or for that matter “made in China”: Manufacturing is a global enterprise, in which cars, planes and so on are assembled from components produced in multiple countries.
This is a good point from the article btw.
 

Pixieking

Banned
He's probably relaxing on the beach or wherever he is instead of worrying about how the new boss of his former job is running the place.

I think both Obama and Hillary will be reading alllllllllllll the papers, to be honest. They're both people who have given over most of the lives to helping others, and making the world a better place. I imagine it's hard to close that part of your personality down, especially in times like these.
 
NY Daily News is reporting that green card holders from the seven countries are not being allowed back into the United States.

Within hours of President Trump’s executive order limiting immigration from Muslim countries, green card and visa holders were already being blocked from getting on flights to the U.S.

The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee said people who had already landed were being sequestered at airports and told they have to return to their point of origin.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a directive at 4:30 p.m. ordering the Customs and Border Protection to enforce the executive order.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-holders-airports-article-1.2957910?cid=bitly

This is basically deporting random people for no reason and it's pretty fucking horrible if this is true.
 

Pixieking

Banned
NY Daily News is reporting that green card holders from the seven countries are not being allowed back into the United States.



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-holders-airports-article-1.2957910?cid=bitly

This is basically deporting random people for no reason and it's pretty fucking horrible if this is true.

I genuinely can't imagine how ordinary people in the US affected by the last 7 days are handling all this - I'm close to tears, and I'm British for heaven's sake.

On the plus-side, the faster the US breaks down, the faster some large-scale event will occur in order to course-correct.
 

Kaban

Member
NY Daily News is reporting that green card holders from the seven countries are not being allowed back into the United States.



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-holders-airports-article-1.2957910?cid=bitly

This is basically deporting random people for no reason and it's pretty fucking horrible if this is true.

Jesus fucking Christ. I'm a green card holder from Europe, but stuff like this makes me worried about re-entering the US after traveling.
 
The order will get challenged in court Monday I presume.
Considering Trump has put zero fucks into working with or even talking to the Legislative branch of government before his extremely broad executive orders that arguably tear the checks and balances system to pieces, why would you think he'd be inclined to listen to and obey the Judicial?
 

Diablos

Member
The whole episode is a deconstruction of Simpsons as a whole and it's pretty brilliant.

Homer is a fat, lazy idiot who has a secure, well-paying job despite having no qualifications or education. Beautiful wife, three kids, owns a nice suburban home. Went to space, toured with the Smashing Pumpkins, friends with a US President. He's worked for none of this and has just bumbled through everything and it's worked and everyone loves him.

Grimey started out at the bottom, has worked hard all his life to overcome his poverty, still got screwed over many times along the way and ends up as a very overqualified worker alongside Homer after getting passed up for a lucrative executive job by Mr. Burns... for a dog. The whole episode is him dealing with the frustration of knowing that he's worked his ass off for the little he had, while Homer worked for nothing and (seemingly) has everything.

As for the election, Homer is Trump and Grimey is Clinton. The unfairness perpetuates when you consider she actually won the popular vote, but the dumb "I want someone I could have a beer with" mentality among white midwesterners screwed her over.
Oh, now I get it. I wasn't thinking about Hillary when watching it.

Either McConnell's full of shit, or Trump's been really pissing him off. There's no way in hell he backs off from nuking the filibuster.
I interpret what he said as meaning he's going to give Dems until the end of the year to face the music, and after that he'll start flirting with a rules change if he feels like it's necessary.
 
Federal court orders Wisconsin GOP to redraw State Assembly districts

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1626010

Presumably, this would also require redrawing the State Senate districts as each Senate district houses three Assembly districts.

I believe this is the case that fair districting advocates are trying to get Kennedy onboard with, as they're pushing the "efficiency clause" (i.e. How many votes are wasted in solid red or blue districts). Case in point: Wisconsin went for Trump by 1 point but carried 70% of the State Senate districts.
 

Pixieking

Banned
Considering Trump has put zero fucks into working with or even talking to the Legislative branch of government before his extremely broad executive orders that arguably tear the checks and balances system to pieces, why would you think he'd be inclined to listen to and obey the Judicial?

Relevant:

https://twitter.com/SamWangPhD/status/825287140930105344

Sam Wang Verified account
‏@SamWangPhD

On January 15th I listed bright-line indicators of authoritarian/fascist government. We've hit 3 out of 10: http://election.princeton.edu/2017/01/28/authoritarian-government-watch-week-1/

C3QCO1DWEAAHO8E.jpg
 

Diablos

Member
Federal court orders Wisconsin GOP to redraw State Assembly districts

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1626010

Presumably, this would also require redrawing the State Senate districts as each Senate district houses two Assembly districts.

I believe this is the case that fair districting advocates are trying to get Kennedy onboard with, as they're pushing the "efficiency clause" (i.e. How many votes are wasted in solid red or blue districts). Case in point: Wisconsin went for Trump by 1 point but carried 70% of the State Senate districts.
Chances of going to SCOTUS?
 
God help us:

https://www.axios.com/trump-101-what-he-reads-and-watches-2210510272.html
The president's media diet:

When Trump was in the tower, he got hard copies of the N.Y. Times and N.Y. Post (which a friend calls "the paper of record for him" — he especially studies Page Six). He "skims The Wall Street Journal," the friend said. No Washington Post, although friends assume he'll add it now. He had started skipping the other New York tab, the Daily News, because he thought it treated him shabbily.

Trump knows specific bylines in the papers and when he's interviewed by a reporter, he can recite how the reporter has treated him over the years, even in previous jobs.
Before the campaign, his aides subscribed to an electronic clipping service that flagged any mention of his name, then his staff printed out the key articles. He'll scroll through Twitter, but he doesn't surf the web himself.

With an allergy to computers and phones, he works the papers. With a black Sharpie in hand, he marks up the Times or other printed stories. When he wants action or response, he scrawls the staffers' names on that paper and either hands the clip to them in person, or has a staffer create a PDF of it — with handwritten commentary — and email it to them. An amazed senior adviser recently pulled out his phone to show us a string of the emailed PDFs, all demanding response. It was like something from the early 90s. Even when he gets worked up enough to tweet, Trump told us in our interview he will often simply dictate it, and let his staff hit "send" on Twitter.

Most mornings, Trump flicks on the TV and watches "Morning Joe," often for long periods of time, sometimes interrupted with texts to the hosts or panelists. After the 6 a.m. hour of "Joe," he's often on to "Fox & Friends" by 7 a.m., with a little CNN before or after. He also catches the Sunday shows, especially "Meet the Press." "The shows," as he calls them, often provoke his tweets. The day of our interview with him, all of his tweet topics were discussed during the first two hours of "Morning Joe."

"60 Minutes" is usually on his DVR. "He's so old-school that he thinks it's awesome to go on '60 Minutes," a friend said. "He loves being one of Barbara Walters' '10 Most Fascinating People' of the year." Before Trump ran, a staple that he watched every weeknight was Billy Bush's "Access Hollywood." Same with Time Magazine. His office and hotels are full of framed copies of him on the cover.

I can see NBC, FOX and CNN charging a premium for advertising during these shows.
 

Diablos

Member
We're trying to win Kennedy's vote, not the new Scalia.
if he even stays on the court...

I cannot imagine the pressure Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg must be feeling right now...

I really wish at least one of them would have stepped down in 2014. They have to realize how dysfunctional Congress is/how particularly obstructionist and power hungry the GOP is.

Ginsburg should have stepped down then, at the very least.
 
if he even stays on the court...

I cannot imagine the pressure Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg must be feeling right now...

I really wish at least one of them would have stepped down in 2014. They have to realize how dysfunctional Congress is/how particularly obstructionist and power hungry the GOP is.

Ginsburg should have stepped down then, at the very least.
Her reasons for not stepping down while Obama was in office was silly.
 

Crocodile

Member
I'm extremely confused what was lock-worthy about the Bill Maher thread.

I didn't see the thread but after watching the video I'm guess the thought process was that "Blah blah liberals are pussies thread #13251332" doesn't seem useful? Like I can agree that some of the examples Maher points out probably didn't require anyone to apologize but overall I feel that was a pretty meh "this is why Trump won" hot take. Also he misunderstands what cultural appropriation is.
 
if he even stays on the court...

I cannot imagine the pressure Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg must be feeling right now...

I really wish at least one of them would have stepped down in 2014. They have to realize how dysfunctional Congress is/how particularly obstructionist and power hungry the GOP is.

Ginsburg should have stepped down then, at the very least.
I don't understand? What would have been the point of that? Considering what happened with Scalia's seat, what would have been any different with Ginsburg's, should she have decided to step down? The GOP would have pulled the same exact stunt, and Trump would have had two picks instead of one, since 2014 was already after the point where the Tea Party sprung up and went completely nuts about that kinda thing, right? Or am I getting something mixed up? I mean, had Reid actually fully nuked the filibuster when he had the chance, it might have been one thing, but since he opted not to there would have been no point.

In any case, while I understand the frustration, I just really don't like this talk of Ginsburg and the focus on her mortality. It's really morbid and super fucked up. I understand why people are doing it and why people are concerned, but that doesn't change how fucked up it is all the same. RBG is a fully grown woman whose still competent and really enjoys her career and that being the case, she should be able to continue doing it and shouldn't be judged for that or not retiring at a specific point because people are concerned over when she may or may not die. Especially since this situation isn't something anyone actually saw coming at all and the idea that she should have stepped down in like 2014 because "what if something like Trump happens" and give up a career she enjoys, and is fully qualified and competent to keep doing... it's just super messed up and wrong, even if I get where people are coming from on there.

I just don't like the implications of that kinda of mindset. It just feels really super off to me and I hate it.
 

Diablos

Member
I don't understand? What would have been the point of that? Considering what happened with Scalia's seat, what would have been any different with Ginsburg's, should she have decided to step down? The GOP would have pulled the same exact stunt, and Trump would have had two picks instead of one, since 2014 was already after the point where the Tea Party sprung up and went completely nuts about that kinda thing, right? Or am I getting something mixed up? I mean, had Reid actually fully nuked the filibuster when he had the chance, it might have been one thing, but since he opted not to there would have been no point.

In any case, while I understand the frustration, I just really don't like this talk of Ginsburg and the focus on her mortality. It's really morbid and super fucked up. I understand why people are doing it and why people are concerned, but that doesn't change how fucked up it is all the same. RBG is a fully grown woman whose still competent and really enjoys her career and that being the case, she should be able to continue doing it and shouldn't be judged for that or not retiring at a specific point because people are concerned over when she may or may not die. Especially since this situation isn't something anyone actually saw coming at all and the idea that she should have stepped down in like 2014 because "what if something like Trump happens" and give up a career she enjoys, and is fully qualified and competent to keep doing... it's just super messed up and wrong, even if I get where people are coming from on there.

I just don't like the implications of that kinda of mindset. It just feels really super off to me and I hate it.
Democrats had a majority in the Senate. Reid would have killed the filibuster and voted on her replacement if need be. But I'm confident in 2014 they would have got enough votes without doing that especially because it was before Scalia died.
 
The order will get challenged in court Monday I presume.

It is already lawsuits against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/polit...d-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/index.html?adkey=bn

Lawyers for two Iraqis who had been granted visas to enter the US have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and the US government after they were detained when they arrived in New York Friday.
The lawsuit could represent the first legal challenge to Trump's controversial executive order, which indefinitely suspends admissions for Syrian refugees and limits the flow of other refugees into the United States by instituting what the President has called "extreme vetting" of immigrants

I expect much more lawsuits and not just from this order. This administration is going to be stumped with all the lawsuits it will get.
 
I don't understand? What would have been the point of that? Considering what happened with Scalia's seat, what would have been any different with Ginsburg's, should she have decided to step down? The GOP would have pulled the same exact stunt, and Trump would have had two picks instead of one, since 2014 was already after the point where the Tea Party sprung up and went completely nuts about that kinda thing, right? Or am I getting something mixed up? I mean, had Reid actually fully nuked the filibuster when he had the chance, it might have been one thing, but since he opted not to there would have been no point.

In any case, while I understand the frustration, I just really don't like this talk of Ginsburg and the focus on her mortality. It's really morbid and super fucked up. I understand why people are doing it and why people are concerned, but that doesn't change how fucked up it is all the same. RBG is a fully grown woman whose still competent and really enjoys her career and that being the case, she should be able to continue doing it and shouldn't be judged for that or not retiring at a specific point because people are concerned over when she may or may not die. Especially since this situation isn't something anyone actually saw coming at all and the idea that she should have stepped down in like 2014 because "what if something like Trump happens" and give up a career she enjoys, and is fully qualified and competent to keep doing... it's just super messed up and wrong, even if I get where people are coming from on there.

I just don't like the implications of that kinda of mindset. It just feels really super off to me and I hate it.
The Democrats controlled the Senate in 2014.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom