-
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
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
nature boy
Member
Trying to find another source, but...
nature boy
Member
Two state solution becomes (even) more difficult.
Becomes a recruiting tool for terrorists. Plus finding a way to fuck up the Iran deal and the Middle East becomes a mess.
I would say yes.
If Trump and Bibi are to have a phone call in an hour, it would make sense to announce it tomorrow.
oh shut it
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I see a consistent drop in trust of the media for the past 20 years. Not sure why you want to give Trump credit for something that has been happening for a long time.
They even mention the biggest drop was among Republicans, who never really had that much trust to begin with other than Fox News or whatever right wing source they get information from. So if Trump's goal was to make his base not trust anyone but him, I guess he "won?" But I don't really think that would be that hard to accomplish nor do I think it's particularly useful for him going forward.
Good Job Bob
Member
Two-state solution is what Israelis and Palestinians prefer, who cares what Americans think?
Because we are the ones who decide where to put the embassy (at israel's ok I imagine). They did reelect Netanyahu's party.
nature boy
Member
Americans will care when people die due to more terrorism around the world.
RustyNails
Member
Moving embassy to Jerusalem will result in Third Intifadah. Mark it down.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Nope, he already "grilled" Tillerson. That's as much as he needs to not look like a weakling. He's not going to vote against who the rest of the party is voting for.
edit: I suspect Israel will tell the US not to move the embassy to Jerusalem now but that they think it's a great idea, to stall the move because they don't want to deal with the shitstorm that would follow and not have Trump lose face.
whyamihere
Banned
lol, "alternative facts"
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Maybe that's what you see, but that's not what Gallup's poll results show. They show an average change from 1997 to 2015 of less than -1. 2015 to 2016 is -8.
I'm not sure why you think I do, but I'd guess it's for the same reason you thought you saw a consistent drop in trust.
elvisaintdead
Member
Just watched that one, her and Chuck Todd. I hadn't watched a Kellyanne interview in a good long while. All she really does is waste people's time, including mine.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Maybe not 20 years, but the article itself clearly states that there is a clear drop in trust over the past 10 years.
You said "I'm left wondering who played whom," implying that Trump "played" the media with his "masterful ability to lead the media with little stories like this." Sure sounds like that's what you were saying!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Rex Tillerson is obviously not qualified for Secretary of State, come the fuck on, Graham, McCain.
Now that Wikileaks is turning on Trump...
...when do we get the pee tape.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/823217610095558656
...when do we get the pee tape.
nature boy
Member
Pigs can fly!
Time for an avatar change?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Probably.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The average change between 2007 and 2015 was -0.75, which is still not consistent with a one-year -8 drop.
Yes, but you could be more forceful. It doesn't just "sound" like I said that. Those are direct quotes. I did say that.
But more to the point, you're the one who suggested we determine who played whom with a glorified dick-measuring competition. Trump's approval is in the low 40s. Trust in the media is in the low 30s. So by your proposed metric, Trump wins.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Meta, you voted for a manbaby and your party has fallen in line with a manbaby.
This is just pathetic wishcasting.
If Manchin votes no on Tillerson, then it is truly the case the worst Democrat now is better than the best Republican.
This is just pathetic wishcasting.
If Manchin votes no on Tillerson, then it is truly the case the worst Democrat now is better than the best Republican.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Good... and let's hope they keep using that word and stick to using it long after Trump is gone when the need arises (assuming we are alive to see it).
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Trump yesterday and every day in the last 18 months: "I want to commit war crimes and the biggest problem in Iraq is that we didn't commit enough war crimes."
Meta: Masterful
Meta: Masterful
Got the Shakes
Member
This made me laugh. To give you a little insight as to what makes the new Press Secretary tick, he's the type of guy who seems to enjoy jumping on Twitter and posting angry Dippin Dots tweets.
https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/823031720890875904
https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/823031720890875904
This onus falls more on the Democrats than the Republican on this issue. If they can't figure a way to reconcile the urban states versus the rural states during the presidential primries, a Sanderseque candidate will again divide the Democratic party against itself.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Masterful.
The way Collins has acted at some of these hearings should show everyone that a "moderate" Republican is just as shitfaced as a conservative one.
None of them will go out of lockstep.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Dumbass.
already was ruined when they took out the solo interlude
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Here's your problem, duder: You don't listen to what people say when you're pretty sure you disagree with them politically. Instead, you filter them through an evil-supervillian construct in your brain, and then reply to the output from that construct. It's your coping mechanism for dealing with a real world that features an uncomfortable amount of nuance. Thus, abortion opponents don't care about unborn children, but just really hate sex. And that's also how you just know, deep down inside, that I am a Republican and voted for Trump, despite, you know, me openly stating that I didn't vote for many Republicans in 2014 and indicating that I would not be voting for Trump, since I don't like him, not to mention my numerous other criticisms of the man since at least last April.
TL;DR:
EDIT:
Remind me again: Who won the election?
Poodlestrike
Banned
THis is what I was saying. Barring massive public outcry (and probably a fair bit of violence), nothing is going to move the Republicans to do a single thing against Trump. You could see Trump's approval ratings drop below 20%, but that 20% is the most hardcore of the hardcore Republicans. They won't lift a finger against him. He controls their radicalized base, the only reason they have any power at all. He's their god for at least the next 4 years.
A God Emperor even.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Richard Nixon's goons breaking into Watergate and Nixon recording all of his conversations was masterful because Nixon won the election by 20 points.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Okay two things.
1. You have to be a Republican to like Clarence Thomas because Clarence Thomas is a total piece of shit.
2. 90% of Republicans voted for Trump.
So, I put the probability you voted for Trump at 90%, Meta.
1. You have to be a Republican to like Clarence Thomas because Clarence Thomas is a total piece of shit.
2. 90% of Republicans voted for Trump.
So, I put the probability you voted for Trump at 90%, Meta.
LostMyNarbles
Member
I feel like this has happened before wherein McCain said he was standing against X and then later caved and voted for it. I remember being all pissed off thinking he had a backbone at the time only to go against it.
metalslimer
Member
I had some faith Tillerson might be the one to not get confirmed but all Republicans are evil pieces of shit and it's time to never expect anything from them.
There is literally nothing democrats can do. The only positive is that getting new legislation passed is 10x more difficult
There is literally nothing democrats can do. The only positive is that getting new legislation passed is 10x more difficult
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Why wouldn't a party fall in line behind 99% of the cabinet appointees of their president? Only a drastic controversy would stop a cabinet appointee, or a vendetta (Rubio?). McCain and Graham do this all the time. Admittedly I kinda fell for it here. I'm not sure what Rubio is doing either.
I've got a lot of gripes with republicans, but then voting for a republican president's cabinet isn't one of them.
I've got a lot of gripes with republicans, but then voting for a republican president's cabinet isn't one of them.
R10Neymarfan
Member
Tillerson goes through, they all go through
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
McCain and Graham are single issue politicians and that single issue is neoconservativism.
Tillerson might be a stooge and is completely incompetent.
This is like is President Cory Booker decided to nominate an anti public schools dude (who was also really just not intelligent) for Secretary of Education and then Warren voted yes.
Or if President Booker decided to nominate a pro guns-in-school Secretary of Education and Chris Murphy voted to confirm that guy.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You silly thing. You're proving my point. I mean, just look at that last sentence. Rather than, you know, asking me if I voted for Trump (spoiler:
I didn't, and never would
elvisaintdead
Member
If the crowds reached the Washington Monument during Trump's speech, shouldn't it be relatively easy for Trump's people to find a photo of it and blast it everywhere? Regardless of the approval ratings of Trump and the media (and whether this strategy is "brilliant" by Trump), are we assuming that people's critical thinking skills are low enough to not recognize that Trump is clearly the one lying here if his people can't produce photographic proof of his claim?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked