Autodidact
Banned
If they've begun to panic now, even privately, an Ossoff win might actually trigger the self-preservation alarms.
-
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 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
He's referring to this story: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html
It doesn't mention the memo at all nor does the information necessarily have to originate from the memo. It specifically says "according to two people who have heard his account of the dinner" and "Mr. Comey described details of his refusal to pledge his loyalty to Mr. Trump to several people close to him on the condition that they not discuss it publicly while he was F.B.I. director."
Lawyers can get disbarred for deliberately misrepresenting facts. This is about as convincing an excuse as "he's new." They couldn't have been more plain in their original assertion and they should just take the L. They're a law firm. they're not running for election. They can and should (and have a legal duty to) admit to errors.
Are you calling Shadowbama's speechwriter a hack?
I disagree.
Trumpcare sounds clumsy and reactive and it's not even trump's thing. Further, the 30% will take it as a positive term.
Wealthcare sounds like something you can't afford. It's negative to every ear. It also nods towards the Swamp etc and reminds people the Republicans dont' give a shit about them.
I'll allow it.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Holy shit thougt news about who won in Montana pleaded guilty was the big news.
This is either literally or will be spun as, a distraction and excuse for Jared's crime. This was likely leaked by Trump camp to make it appear they are actually doing work.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Wealthcare sounds like something you want.
"Wealth" rhyming with "health" makes is cute, but it doesn't sell the point at all.
Trumpcare lets everyone know that every GOP person voting for this is aligned with Trump, who has historic low favorables.
It's not clever. But it works.
"Wealth" rhyming with "health" makes is cute, but it doesn't sell the point at all.
Trumpcare lets everyone know that every GOP person voting for this is aligned with Trump, who has historic low favorables.
It's not clever. But it works.
BobTheFork
Member
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I just found out today that shes SEVENTY SEVEN, she doesnt look nearly that old and she still speaks well.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
![RK7lhIr.png]](https://i.imgur.com/RK7lhIr.png])
Autodidact
Banned
Republican tears come from the fountain of youth.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Arguably no party in US history has pulled this off though. As much as it sucks when we have the White House, the American people generally blame everything on the current president.
No one really votes based on much else.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Fenderputty
Banned
Every shitty policy under his admin needs to be tied to him. He's been pushing just as hard for this and had a fucking party after the house vote.
It will forever and always be Trumpcare for me.
The problem is that in 2/4/6 years when he's gona, he then becomes the scapegoat for the GOP and another red wave occurs. You need to stain them as much as possible.
BlastProcessing
Member
He's new to the job he needs all this down time.
This just kind of proves my point.
There's probably nobody better at whipping votes than Nancy Pelosi. She's incredibly effective at her job, and this is indisputable. That people think her role somehow includes controlling every arm of the Democratic party and ascribe to her negative favorables shows an ignorance of what it is Nancy is actually responsible for. And that ignorance can be weaponized against anyone.
Why is this problem unique to France though? Don't all/most EU nations have rather strict labor laws that protect employees from shitty corporate practices?
Being able to fire an employee for business reasons is not a "shitty corporate practice", it's a necessity of doing business.
Similar to how the US's employment-based health care laws warp how businesses hire people on (lots of contract positions, lots of PT/"intern" postions), you see a similar unintended reaction w/ the inability to fire people.
Predictable as hell, given the content of the report and history re: the Trump Foundation.
I really have to wonder how involved Scheiderman's investigations are. Lot of power, independence, jurisdiction over any number of entities, and the ability to charges that can't be pardoned. Imagine there is already some quiet action, or perhaps if Mueller's team will pass along any info.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah I'm not at all convinced that replacing Pelosi would be a solution. Paul Ryan is just as hated.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
God, he's going nuclear. I want footage of his golfing when he waterhazards/sandtraps and he destroys his clubs in impotent rage.
Is Schneiderman less than people for attacking a Trump, or does that only go for Donald?
If the Dems had any sense *sighhhhhh...* if the Dems had any sense, they would spin it "What do you fear more? What a Dem has said, or what a GOP has done?"
Is Schneiderman less than people for attacking a Trump, or does that only go for Donald?
I love the new sailor-mouthed Democratic party.
If the Dems had any sense *sighhhhhh...* if the Dems had any sense, they would spin it "What do you fear more? What a Dem has said, or what a GOP has done?"
Fenderputty
Banned
Did calling it Obamacare do the same for Dems?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What's the point of whipping votes if voters hate you so much they'll never put you in power?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Yes, actually, it did.
shinra-bansho
Member
Oh we're at the arbitrarily remove Pelosi part of the weekly cycle.
I don't understand. I'm sayin Trump, like Dubya before him, will be blamed as the "real problem" and people will go back to rationalizing GOP votes.
The reason I'm worried about calling it "Trumpcare" is that once Trump is gone, that makes attacks using it less effective (and I don't expect to be running against him in 2020.)
Can we just ignore her crazy self? How do she even have the balls to print this without having or having heard the tape herself?
BlastProcessing
Member
I think Ryan is too spineless for such a bold plan. Even standing with Russia is standing for something and I don't think Ryan is capable of that.
Thought people might enjoy seeing it, knowing it's ridiculous.
The part that amazes me is the long list of replies with people going "boom!" and "thank you louise," etc. Nothing she has ever reported has been true! Why are they believing her?!
Except they do put her in power. Unless Pelosi's recently lost an election that I'm not remembering.
We really ought to stop downplaying the Republican ability to make a boogieman out of anybody. I mean, I've heard Pelosi's name more in the last month than I did all of 2016. Favorables aside, she was a non-factor until Republicans desperately needed a new uppity woman to vilify. They could do that to anyone.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
I'd also argue she could be completely incompetent at her job and would still be hated by republicans and be unpopular with the public. Congress is unpopular, which means the Speaker is unpopular and the minority leader is unpopular too. People don't know anything about House members outside of their district...all they know is that they dislike the House.
Human Resources
Member
...
to pass legislation that improves the lives of American citizens
aka her job
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
She's 77 years old, seems to ramble like McCain when she talks sometimes, has a 28% favorable ratings, and could be the sole reason Democrats do not take the back the House.
There's nothing arbitrary about it, at some point she has to step aside. The better question should be why people cling to her like she's the only person on earth that can whip votes.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think there is something to the idea that younger Democrats need to be groomed better, the leadership team is pretty old and will leave a huge vacuum behind when they're gone. But as long as Pelosi can do the job, there's no one better.
The sole reason we haven't won the House since 2008 is gerrymandering, don't be daft. We would have won it in 2012 under the old lines.
2014 and 2016 were referenda on Obama and Clinton respectively. Acting like Pelosi is the singular force causing us to lose House elections is laughable.
Fenderputty
Banned
If we have a democratic wave in 2018 and 2020 it will be because Dems are still tied to Obamacare and Trumpcare will have fucked everyone over.
I understand what you're saying. I just disagree that after one or two terms the GOP would be disassociated with the phrase. If Trumpcare caused a Dem wave it's gone in 2020 anyway.
How are they not demanding the tape? I mean, no one I've ever dealt with would even look at this story unless the person bringing it to them had the tape and at the absolute very least let them listen to it.
Fucking conspiracy theories man. The whole Russia thing is a legit investigation that's getting turned into a conspiracy theorist's wet dream.
I love Nancy Pelosi, but I have to admit--I think the name is so tainted now (similar to what happened to Hillary Clinton) that it might be a good idea to get some new blood in there that the republicans haven't been trashing for decades.
Pelosi's absolutely needed now when the Democrats need all the help they can get as an absolute minority party, but i agree that a new face will make a more compelling case to vote Democrat in 2020.
The question, again, is who? Steny Hoyer's as old as Pelosi is, and you're not going for the folks like Tim Ryan who want to do a Sanders-style downplaying of social/racial issues for poor-white appeal again, that simply isn't the party right now.
How old is Elijah Cummings?
She hasn't even heard the tape! She just has a source that says it exists. But for some reason all her followers eat it up.
ShironRedshift
Member
Irrelevant. People voting for Obama in 2008 had absolutely nothing, positive or negative, to do with Pelosi. People voting for Trump had nothing to do with Ryan. People don't vote based on who the fucking Speaker of the House will be.
AT MOST, they vote purely part line to try to make sure that a certain party controls Congress, but they'd do that regardless. Who the Speaker will or won't be has nothing to do with it.
Unless you can provide evidence that potential Speaker choices influences Congressional voting habits above and beyond the combination of party affiliation, the party of the President, and opinions of said President, this seems a completely and wholly irrelevant thing to focus on to me.
- Status