Fenderputty
Banned
If Wray kills 1000 babies between now and 2020 the same thing could be said. Like, I'm pretty sure the political calculus was made before voting yes on this dudes confirmation.
-
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 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
If Wray kills 1000 babies between now and 2020 the same thing could be said. Like, I'm pretty sure the political calculus was made before voting yes on this dudes confirmation.
The part about Spicer / Reince / Flynn is that Trump firing Comey could easily fit the pattern of "Trump is firing everyone because he has no fucking clue what he's doing" as much as "he's firing everyone to protect the Russia thing".
A) I think only one FBI director has actually made it 10 years since the ten year rule happened
B) It's a hell of an accusation to assume that Wray is corrupt. He worked under Comey as an assistant AG in charge of the Criminal Division (also when Comey helped Ashcroft), he won the Justice Dept's top award for public service and leadership, and got unanimous confirmation by the committee, which includes Durbin, Feinstein, Franken, and Hirono.
Also, does that mean that the GOP Senate would have been justified in not letting Clinton appoint anyone during the Starr investigation? Because Clinton was actually tried for obstructing justice, as opposed to Trump, who hasn't actually been even tried for it yet. I don't think y'all realize that these precedents you want to set would (and will) get used against us once an opportunity arises to do so.
Fenderputty
Banned
This is probably fair, but I still think the point stands that Trump might think's he's got a man, but self preservation is King. Wray can use this as an opportunity to advance himself or make buddies with the Russian stooge.
What makes you think I'm anti-mueller?
My position is fairly clear. If Harris doesn't feel this man will be a detriment to the FBI or it's investigations, then I want her to vote that way. Nor will I hold it against her unless he does kill 1000 babies or does obstruct justice.
I don't want it to be a requirement that all dems step in line just to step in line. Regardless of if the other side does it.
You're playing by different rules if you don't think the bolded is already bound to happen.
They may use the gun against us, but we don't need to go purchase it, the bullets, load it, and hand it to them beforehand. At least make them do that much work. Plus - 25 years ago this level of partisanship was inconceivable - so let's not assume the trend that started 20 or so years ago will continue to stay that way forever and ever.
We're not assuming Wray is corrupt, we're assuming Trump is corrupt and noting he chose to appoint Wray.
Why?
He deserves proper scrutiny, not a handwave.
Infinite Stars
Member
Kirblar basically nailed what I meant on that She's effectively playing the long con.
Every primary candidate is going to be judged by every vote, and she's the one who has been the strongest on the "Fuck Trump" Train. Her two votes for his cabinet was for Haley(who was unanimously yayed) and Sucker(96-4). Both of these are the least clusterfucky of the Trump Cabinet.
When the Primaries come, she's the best "Anti-Trump/GOP" candidate we've got. She's also in one of the safest States in the Union and it would continue the running theme of repeating the 1920s-1930s(Republicans are trying to tank the economy with either the debt ceiling or health care, so we've got to get a Dem from New York)
benicillin
Banned
Man, Gillibrand is going to be dangerous when she almost certainly runs in 2020.
He's going through the same scrutiny / more scrutiny that every FBI director nominee is going through. It just kind of got lost in the insanity that is the day to day chaos of the Trump administration. They had their committee hearings, they had their full hearings. Unless I'm missing something, he's going through the same scrutiny everyone else has - he just didn't have any giant red flags like Sessions / etc did.
Gillibrand voting for him would have been a shock after her voting No on everyone but Haley (which turned out to be a shrewd exception.) (edit: and Shulkin, who was an Obama admin vet and it's a nonpartisan position)
Yeah, the race thing is almost certainly an issue there.
I remember. Specifically I remember reporters being shocked at how conciliatory and deferential the senators were being given that this guy is literally being nominated to run an agency currently investigating the president.
It's a pretty canny move, especially considering Gillibrand could have a pretty rough time on the policies considering her past (she was a Blue Dog democrat for many years, and then shifted when she joined the Senate, which could also be seen as "flip-flopping"). Depending on her primary opponents she needs to have a counter to the "you just do what is politically expedient and don't have core beliefs" argument that will inevitably be thrown her way. (Especially the 100% NRA rating)
That said, this is almost too nakedly a ploy for 2020, and I'm not sure that's entirely a good idea right now. I think it'd be smart to not set yourself up as the initial target for anyone thinking about running in 2020. She does run that risk.
EDIT: I suspect a big part of Wray's easy confirmation is this
By the time 2020 rolls around, I don't think this particular is going to matter, regardless of what fate Trump eventually meets.
Being anti-Trump didn't help any of Trump's Republican contenders in the primaries, and it didn't help Hillary in the general. Being able to say, "I was the MOST anti-Trump" won't be worth much years from now. ESPECIALLY if you're going up against a candidate who's done the important work: forged relationships with the Democratic coalition and provided a clear and popular vision for the the future of the Democratic Party and country.
I do think the Yes votes are unfortunate; but I also think all of the serious contenders have made the case that they are not just going to bow to Republicans or Trump's agenda.
Being anti-Trump didn't help any of Trump's Republican contenders in the primaries, and it didn't help Hillary in the general. Being able to say, "I was the MOST anti-Trump" won't be worth much years from now. ESPECIALLY if you're going up against a candidate who's done the important work: forged relationships with the Democratic coalition and provided a clear and popular vision for the the future of the Democratic Party and country.
I do think the Yes votes are unfortunate; but I also think all of the serious contenders have made the case that they are not just going to bow to Republicans or Trump's agenda.
shockthrill
Banned
Man it's crazy when you look into the so-called "heroes" that the left wing worships
people like Karl Marx, you find out that he wasn't this saint, this prophet on a mission to liberate us from capitalism, but a disgusting self hating anti-semite
you find out people like Che was a anti-black racist and murderer, that doesn't stop all the rich white kids from wearing his face on their shirts
people like Karl Marx, you find out that he wasn't this saint, this prophet on a mission to liberate us from capitalism, but a disgusting self hating anti-semite
you find out people like Che was a anti-black racist and murderer, that doesn't stop all the rich white kids from wearing his face on their shirts
That's just it, she's running for re-election in 2018 and is telling people (lying) that she has no interest in 2020. Someone really famous was telling people that in '06/'07 and she grabbed the page right from his playbook.
A lot of the other candidates are already putting themselves out there in really overt ways, and she's slowrolling despite a voting record that's clearly eyeing 2020.
This is the dumbest criticism of the left. There are many valid critiques, but this is low hanging fruit that targets voices that aren't really representative.How does this help anything?
I don't think this is really a big deal, if only because Kamala has voted for other Trump nominees before. What's she going to say, yeah I voted for X, Y, and Z, but I drew the line at Christopher Wray? It's kind of a pointless distinction now imo, and neither helps or hurts her resistance cred.Kamala:
I keep telling ya, she looks the part but she's not ready for primetime.
Gillibrand is the only one who can credibly say she worked to block as many Trump picks as possible anyway.
One more organized crime guy joins the Mueller team:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyer-exclusive-idUSKBN1AH5F9
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
If you vote for the guy that tries to cover up treason, your career is pretttty much over as a national politician.
Kamala and the rest have some terrible instincts.
shockthrill
Banned
AntraxSuicide
Banned
The former is valid criticism, but the latter isn't surprising. We still have people thinking that Trump needs to replace Sessions through a sneaky confirmation of a replacement to fire Mueller (which is wrong). Not just posters here but actual activists online!
You're not wrong.
VendettaRed07
Member
Yeah.. basically.
I mean. Come on people. Trump has said blatantly he fired the last director because he wouldn't shut down an investigation. He wants to fire Sessions because he recused himself and is now unable to obstruct justice
There is a 0% chance Christie's bridge gate attorney did not tell Trump he would do whatever he could to protect him.
Anyone who has the confidence of Trump should have the confidence of nobody else at this point. This isn't about exciting the base. I don't really give a fuck about how this makes who look in 2020. This is common sense, basic 101: how not to accidentally aid in covering up treason.
I have never heard anyone talk about how Breaking Bad sucks in a 'Vince Gilligan is the GOAT' thread, it's always brushed aside
shockthrill
Banned
You and I, we're pioneers.
I think that vote is actually far worse.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
AntraxSuicide
Banned
It's fine to criticize Wray's nomination for optics, but the whole "now there might be someone in charge who obstructs justice" thing is as wrong as those calls to arms about sneaky Sessions replacement hearings. If Trump wants someone in charge to obstruct he doesn't need to confirm anyone, he can just keep firing down the chain until an acting director agrees with him. Confirming these jobs is actually just a political norm. There's virtually no difference between an acting director or a confirmed one.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that these posts are genuine, academics don't engage in hero worship around these topics. Marx himself is irrelevant to Marxism.
Almost every academic will tell you that virtually any person born long enough ago is problematic, to say the least. A lot of them deserve hell even! But their political ideas are judged without them. To do otherwise is a logical fallacy.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that these posts are genuine, academics don't engage in hero worship around these topics. Marx himself is irrelevant to Marxism.
Almost every academic will tell you that virtually any person born long enough ago is problematic, to say the least. A lot of them deserve hell even! But their political ideas are judged without them. To do otherwise is a logical fallacy.
VendettaRed07
Member
Dude no.
The worst offense Ben can commit right now is what.. sleeping on the job? What does he even have the authority to do ?
We are allowing a man who fired the previous FBI director because he refused to shut down an investigation in to treason and colluding with a foreign government to destabilize our political system, to pick his own replacement. Who I am sure only got the confidence of the nomination because he said he would do what the previous one would not
I think that there are somewhat rational arguments that Wray could be seen as qualified. There is no basis for thinking Carson is even remotely qualified, and his (public!) views today are horrific with respect to the position he holds.
shockthrill
Banned
that is false, their have been strong critiques in the past about the religious nature of Marxism and the sort of religious metaphors to Marxism
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I don't understand what you mean here. Yes, people do obsess over political figures and academics will write about that obsession. That does not mean academics obsess themselves. Again, to do so is a logical fallacy. If you're talking about the merits of Marxism, the person who wrote it isn't relevant.
jack_package_200
Banned
That TYT has some interesting partners
timetokill
Banned
I have a feeling you could prank call Trump extremely easily by just saying you're from (whoever he talked to recently) and you want to tell him how great he is.
whyamihere
Banned
What did Kamala do, exactly? I know she didn't prosecute Mnuchin's bank and has a shitty history on criminal rights (the latter she is attempting to rectify) but like, she was a generally decent AG and doesn't really have a voting record.
EDIT: Is this the donor article? We all realize that the Observer is owned by Kushner, yes?
EDIT: Is this the donor article? We all realize that the Observer is owned by Kushner, yes?
RastaMentality
Banned
Ben Carson fucking sucks but let's not act like that position has literally any power. Literally the last guy in there was a Castro brother being propped up.
I dunno but i'm seeing this shit bleed over today as she seems to be becoming a new punching bag for a certain toxic segment. (and quickly.)
jack_package_200
Banned
Its because she likely dares to run in 2020 without kissing the ring.
Funny enough this is their way of clearing the field.
RastaMentality
Banned
The 2020 white male liberal wing vs. black voter base infighting is gonna be fascinating (and likely gross) to see play out.
Tax dollars at work!
Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/...n-universities.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/...n-universities.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
BlastProcessing
Member
This truly infuriates me. This gaudy motherfucker. I can't wait to see his fucking Yelp review of his prison cell.
BlastProcessing
Member
After every event Hope Hicks goes into an empty conference room, puts on a fake mustache, and calls trump to thank him for coming and tell him it was the best event ever. She does the same voice every time, an impression that can be best described as halfhearted Mario.
Widdle Puppy
Banned
tucker posing as an investigative journalist interviewing ms13 members is probably the most pathetic thing ever
- Status