|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 17 2016 02:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the master deal-maker and negotiator can't even pick his own vice president? Or is the problem that he wasn't able to convince whomever he actually wanted to play the part?
Note that I have no idea whether Trump actually wanted Pence or not, maybe he did. Maybe he's just trying to be ambiguous about this also, to allow those who don't like Pence to have the impression that Trump doesn't either. Or maybe the song selection is just completely random, and he really had to pee. I mean, he was standing next to Palin when she did her rambling endorsement - how could this be any worse?
I think he made the decision to make a deal to work with the GOP by picking Pence.
He definitely didn't want Pence as his first choice. It was a compromise instead of going with his gut - an olive branch to the GOP. Pence has trashed his policies in the past and even endorsed Ted Cruz over him.
The fact that you take anything you can to insult the guy and view it negatively just shows anyone open-minded how biased you are.
|
On July 17 2016 02:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the master deal-maker and negotiator can't even pick his own vice president? Or is the problem that he wasn't able to convince whomever he actually wanted to play the part?
Note that I have no idea whether Trump actually wanted Pence or not, maybe he did. Maybe he's just trying to be ambiguous about this also, to allow those who don't like Pence to have the impression that Trump doesn't either. Or maybe the song selection is just completely random, and he really had to pee. I mean, he was standing next to Palin when she did her rambling endorsement - how could this be any worse?
The problem is that the Republican party is not like the Democrat party and we don't have 99.9% of our leadership and politicians willing to march in total lockstep with the party line every single time. When Jeb Bush says he thinks Trump is unqualified, he's not lying like Bernie Sanders, playing the part of controlled opposition. He's actually saying he doesn't think Trump is qualified to be President. Now, he might usually be brought under heel or convinced to support Trump anyway, but sometimes he won't be convinced.
It has nothing to do with being a master negotiator. It has everything to do with playing the game with the cards you have. A world champion poker player might get dealt two-pair against a straight flush, does that make him a bad player?
Trump's ideal VP was either someone like Marco Rubio, or someone like Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio for his Establishment cred, his youth, and his relative "popularity." Cruz for his conservative cred, his beastly ground-game/organization, and his youth.
In a normal primary, he would have blasted these guys, but it never would have devolved into personal territory. So they would have been able to sign on to him without it looking like pure opportunism and obsequiousness.
"Little Marco" and "Lyin' Ted Cruz" put an end to that. And before you blame Trump for either, remember that he was inches away from losing the nomination multiple times during that primary, and his biggest threats were Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz; both of whom had begun blistering attacks against him. He had to brand them to win, but after he brands them he can't use them.
With what he had left, Pence was the least worst choice. It's nothing more than bad luck and the natural result of playing a game against other people. The best laid schemes...
|
On July 17 2016 03:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +I do not know how to explain what I just watched.
It should be easy. Donald Trump introduced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. There it is. One sentence. Eleven words. But that doesn’t explain what happened any better than "I spent a few hours letting lysergic acid diethylamide mimic serotonin in my brain" explains an acid trip. What just happened was weird, and it was important.
Back in May, EJ Dionne wrote that the hardest thing about covering Donald Trump would be "staying shocked." Watching him, day after day, week after week, month after month, the temptation would be to normalize his behavior, "to move Trump into the political mainstream."
But today helped. Donald Trump’s introduction of Mike Pence was shocking. Forget the political mainstream. What happened today sat outside the mainstream for normal human behavior.
It began in irony. Before Pence, before Trump, there was an empty podium, and the Rolling Stones blasting through the speakers. It had been widely reported that few top Republicans were willing to serve as Trump’s running mate. It had been widely reported that Trump was unsure about Pence, that he had regretted the decision almost as soon as he made it, that he had sought ways to reverse himself. Hours before the announcement, Trump tweeted that Pence was "my first choice from the start!", which is a thing presidential candidates typically do not need to say.
So there we were. Waiting for Trump and Pence to emerge. And what Rolling Stones song did the campaign choose? What did we all hear, over and over again, as we waited for Trump to introduce Mike Pence, his "first choice from the start!"?
"You can’t always get what you want..." Source
That this kind of thing is considered valid political criticism is part of why Trump's people hate the media so much. This is pure fluff, and it doesn't have any true relevance other than as a hit piece. It doesn't even hit him on any substantial thing either. It's pure "optics".
Blech....
|
On July 17 2016 03:12 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 02:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the master deal-maker and negotiator can't even pick his own vice president? Or is the problem that he wasn't able to convince whomever he actually wanted to play the part?
Note that I have no idea whether Trump actually wanted Pence or not, maybe he did. Maybe he's just trying to be ambiguous about this also, to allow those who don't like Pence to have the impression that Trump doesn't either. Or maybe the song selection is just completely random, and he really had to pee. I mean, he was standing next to Palin when she did her rambling endorsement - how could this be any worse? The problem is that the Republican party is not like the Democrat party and we don't have 99.9% of our leadership and politicians willing to march in total lockstep with the party line every single time. When Jeb Bush says he thinks Trump is unqualified, he's not lying like Bernie Sanders, playing the part of controlled opposition. He's actually saying he doesn't think Trump is qualified to be President. Now, he might usually be brought under heel or convinced to support Trump anyway, but sometimes he won't be convinced. It has nothing to do with being a master negotiator. It has everything to do with playing the game with the cards you have. A world champion poker player might get dealt two-pair against a straight flush, does that make him a bad player? Trump's ideal VP was either someone like Marco Rubio, or someone like Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio for his Establishment cred, his youth, and his relative "popularity." Cruz for his conservative cred, his beastly ground-game/organization, and his youth. In a normal primary, he would have blasted these guys, but it never would have devolved into personal territory. So they would have been able to sign on to him without it looking like pure opportunism and obsequiousness. "Little Marco" and "Lyin' Ted Cruz" put an end to that. And before you blame Trump for either, remember that he was inches away from losing the nomination multiple times during that primary, and his biggest threats were Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz; both of whom had begun blistering attacks against him. He had to brand them to win, but after he brands them he can't use them. With what he had left, Pence was the least worst choice. It's nothing more than bad luck and the natural result of playing a game against other people. The best laid schemes...
I think it's perfectly reasonable to "blame" Trump-if pointing out that someone is sleeping in the bed they made for themselves is blaming-for the strategy that he ended up adopting to defeat them. Unless you actually believe the only way to hold on to your primary lead in a setting with non-proportional representation rigs the delegate lead in your favor is to attack other candidates wives on Twitter and adopting slanderous nicknames for them.
Which is horrific, if it truly is the only way.
On July 17 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 03:16 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 17 2016 03:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I do not know how to explain what I just watched.
It should be easy. Donald Trump introduced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. There it is. One sentence. Eleven words. But that doesn’t explain what happened any better than "I spent a few hours letting lysergic acid diethylamide mimic serotonin in my brain" explains an acid trip. What just happened was weird, and it was important.
Back in May, EJ Dionne wrote that the hardest thing about covering Donald Trump would be "staying shocked." Watching him, day after day, week after week, month after month, the temptation would be to normalize his behavior, "to move Trump into the political mainstream."
But today helped. Donald Trump’s introduction of Mike Pence was shocking. Forget the political mainstream. What happened today sat outside the mainstream for normal human behavior.
It began in irony. Before Pence, before Trump, there was an empty podium, and the Rolling Stones blasting through the speakers. It had been widely reported that few top Republicans were willing to serve as Trump’s running mate. It had been widely reported that Trump was unsure about Pence, that he had regretted the decision almost as soon as he made it, that he had sought ways to reverse himself. Hours before the announcement, Trump tweeted that Pence was "my first choice from the start!", which is a thing presidential candidates typically do not need to say.
So there we were. Waiting for Trump and Pence to emerge. And what Rolling Stones song did the campaign choose? What did we all hear, over and over again, as we waited for Trump to introduce Mike Pence, his "first choice from the start!"?
"You can’t always get what you want..." Source That this kind of thing is considered valid political criticism is part of why Trump's people hate the media so much. This is pure fluff, and it doesn't have any true relevance other than as a hit piece. It doesn't even hit him on any substantial thing either. It's pure "optics". Blech.... The same people who think Trump is nothing but an unprofessional bully who unnecessarily uses person attacks to slander people are the same type of people sipping up shit like that like cool-aid completely oblivious to how hypocritical and biased they are.
I dunno if this is really a hit piece. It's just pointing out something that should really be absolutely hilarious no matter who you support-I would feel the same way if Clinton played that song before announcing her VP.
If anything, these reactions to the article kinda remind me of the overblown reactions on the left to some of Trump's clear attempts at humor.
|
On July 17 2016 03:16 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 03:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I do not know how to explain what I just watched.
It should be easy. Donald Trump introduced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. There it is. One sentence. Eleven words. But that doesn’t explain what happened any better than "I spent a few hours letting lysergic acid diethylamide mimic serotonin in my brain" explains an acid trip. What just happened was weird, and it was important.
Back in May, EJ Dionne wrote that the hardest thing about covering Donald Trump would be "staying shocked." Watching him, day after day, week after week, month after month, the temptation would be to normalize his behavior, "to move Trump into the political mainstream."
But today helped. Donald Trump’s introduction of Mike Pence was shocking. Forget the political mainstream. What happened today sat outside the mainstream for normal human behavior.
It began in irony. Before Pence, before Trump, there was an empty podium, and the Rolling Stones blasting through the speakers. It had been widely reported that few top Republicans were willing to serve as Trump’s running mate. It had been widely reported that Trump was unsure about Pence, that he had regretted the decision almost as soon as he made it, that he had sought ways to reverse himself. Hours before the announcement, Trump tweeted that Pence was "my first choice from the start!", which is a thing presidential candidates typically do not need to say.
So there we were. Waiting for Trump and Pence to emerge. And what Rolling Stones song did the campaign choose? What did we all hear, over and over again, as we waited for Trump to introduce Mike Pence, his "first choice from the start!"?
"You can’t always get what you want..." Source That this kind of thing is considered valid political criticism is part of why Trump's people hate the media so much. This is pure fluff, and it doesn't have any true relevance other than as a hit piece. It doesn't even hit him on any substantial thing either. It's pure "optics". Blech....
The same people who think Trump is nothing but an unprofessional bully who unnecessarily uses person attacks to slander people are the same type of people sipping up shit like that like cool-aid completely oblivious to how hypocritical and biased they are.
It's complete cuck logic to fault someone for fighting back when they're being attacked. They expect him to just play nice and take the attacks and turn the other cheek, then applaud Hillary or Obama when they go on in a speech bashing him.
Most people are just incompetent when it comes to monitoring their personal cognitive biases.
|
It's a blog. Vox is 'the media' no more than Breitbart.
|
Brietbart and Vox have more web-traffic than most "media" outlets.
|
A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the US Navy was wrongly allowed to use sonar in the nation’s oceans that could harm whales and other marine life.
The ninth circuit court of appeals reversed a lower court decision upholding approval granted in 2012 for the Navy to use low-frequency sonar for training, testing and routine operations.
The five-year approval covered peacetime operations in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea.
The appellate panel sent the matter back to the lower court for further proceedings.
A message seeking comment from representatives of the US Pacific Fleet in Honolulu was not immediately returned.
Sonar, used to detect submarines, can injure whales, seals, dolphins and walruses and disrupt their feeding and mating.
The 2012 rules adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service permitted Navy sonar use to affect about 30 whales and two dozen pinnipeds; marine mammals with front and rear flippers such as seals and sea lions, each year.
The Navy was required to shut down or delay sonar use if a marine mammal was detected near the ship. Loud sonar pulses also were banned near coastlines and in certain protected waters.
Environmental groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco in 2012, arguing the approval violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Source
|
Norway28654 Posts
That's vox, leftists don't consider it journalism either, certainly not valid political criticism. I myself added more caveats to my previous silly forum post than that article does.
And GGTemplar, here's the thing. If he didn't want Pence, but was willing to accept him as part of extending an olive branch to the republican party (which is a perfectly fine interpretation of events seen in isolation), what's the deal with the petulancy? I've seen Trump endorse people before; he then uses language full of superlatives to install an impression that this guy is the best of the best. He's said more good things about Larry Kudlow than most people would hear in their funerals if not for being deceased. Now, he's coming off as unhappy about not getting whomever he personally really wanted.
That said, I openly admit to being extremely anti-trump, so I'm not disputing that I am biased. But I am also certain that if the only thing I knew about Trump was that he was a presidential candidate who didn't want the vice president he ended up with, who then introduced him to the sounds of 'you can't always get what you want', left the podium after a quick introduction, then I would genuinely consider this an example of 'temperament unsuitable for the most important job in the world'. (However, if I knew nothing about him - I would also think of it as 'not really significant, I am very open to changing my mind if contrasting information arises', but seeing as how I have seen tens of hours of footage of Trump talking and spent other tens of hours reading stuff Trump said, nothing about this really surprises me, and it further cements my opinion of Trump as 'comically petulant').
Also Cowboy, your explanation makes perfect sense. 
|
On July 17 2016 03:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And GGTemplar, here's the thing. If he didn't want Pence, but was willing to accept him as part of extending an olive branch to the republican party (which is a perfectly fine interpretation of events seen in isolation), what's the deal with the petulancy? I've seen Trump endorse people before; he then uses language full of superlatives to install an impression that this guy is the best of the best. He's said more good things about Larry Kudlow than most people would hear in their funerals if not for being deceased. Now, he's coming off as unhappy about not getting whomever he personally really wanted.
Doesn't what you're concerned about act as further evidence that he isn't happy about it? It seems like he begrudgingly gave the GOP this choice when he would have preferred someone else, hence the 'petulant' attitude you take note of.
If he was happy about this choice being his first choice, he would be praising him like he praises others.
Regarding the criticism that he is to be faulted for this - I think you're better than most, for one, in your admission that you do have an anti-Trump bias.
There's a fair way to criticize someone and an unfair way to criticize someone. Certain anti-Trumpers criticize Trump no matter what he does.
If he had taken say General Flynn, the criticism would be something like 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even work with his own GOP party.'
Taking who the GOP party wanted, he gets 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even convince the GOP to accept a deal of letting him pick the VP he wants.'
No matter what he does, it's cited as evidence that he would be a terrible negotiator/diplomat and hence isn't fit for the office.
You just can't win with some people. The right has people who do this to Obama/Clinton as well. I don't have any interest in this sort of circlejerking here if I want to see circlejerk politics I'll just go to the_Donald or Clinton subreddits. This was my criticism I'm sorry I didn't explain it better the first time.
|
On July 17 2016 03:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 03:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And GGTemplar, here's the thing. If he didn't want Pence, but was willing to accept him as part of extending an olive branch to the republican party (which is a perfectly fine interpretation of events seen in isolation), what's the deal with the petulancy? I've seen Trump endorse people before; he then uses language full of superlatives to install an impression that this guy is the best of the best. He's said more good things about Larry Kudlow than most people would hear in their funerals if not for being deceased. Now, he's coming off as unhappy about not getting whomever he personally really wanted.
Doesn't what you're concerned about act as further evidence that he isn't happy about it? It seems like he begrudgingly gave the GOP this choice when he would have preferred someone else, hence the 'petulant' attitude you take note of. If he was happy about this choice being his first choice, he would be praising him like he praises others. Regarding the criticism that he is to be faulted for this - I think you're better than most, for one, in your admission that you do have an anti-Trump bias. There's a fair way to criticize someone and an unfair way to criticize someone. Certain anti-Trumpers criticize Trump no matter what he does. If he had taken say General Flynn, the criticism would be something like 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even work with his own GOP party.' Taking who the GOP party wanted, he gets 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even convince the GOP to accept a deal of letting him pick the VP he wants.' You just can't win with some people. The right has people who do this to Obama/Clinton as well. I don't have any interest in this sort of circlejerking here if I want to see circlejerk politics I'll just go to the_Donald or Clinton subreddits. This was my criticism I'm sorry I didn't explain it better the first time.
I was terrified that he was going to pick Flynn. Picking Pence has put my mind at ease. Watching some of the announcement they had together further confirms this belief.
|
On July 17 2016 03:52 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 03:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 17 2016 03:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And GGTemplar, here's the thing. If he didn't want Pence, but was willing to accept him as part of extending an olive branch to the republican party (which is a perfectly fine interpretation of events seen in isolation), what's the deal with the petulancy? I've seen Trump endorse people before; he then uses language full of superlatives to install an impression that this guy is the best of the best. He's said more good things about Larry Kudlow than most people would hear in their funerals if not for being deceased. Now, he's coming off as unhappy about not getting whomever he personally really wanted.
Doesn't what you're concerned about act as further evidence that he isn't happy about it? It seems like he begrudgingly gave the GOP this choice when he would have preferred someone else, hence the 'petulant' attitude you take note of. If he was happy about this choice being his first choice, he would be praising him like he praises others. Regarding the criticism that he is to be faulted for this - I think you're better than most, for one, in your admission that you do have an anti-Trump bias. There's a fair way to criticize someone and an unfair way to criticize someone. Certain anti-Trumpers criticize Trump no matter what he does. If he had taken say General Flynn, the criticism would be something like 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even work with his own GOP party.' Taking who the GOP party wanted, he gets 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even convince the GOP to accept a deal of letting him pick the VP he wants.' You just can't win with some people. The right has people who do this to Obama/Clinton as well. I don't have any interest in this sort of circlejerking here if I want to see circlejerk politics I'll just go to the_Donald or Clinton subreddits. This was my criticism I'm sorry I didn't explain it better the first time. I was terrified that he was going to pick Flynn. Picking Pence has put my mind at ease. Watching some of the announcement they had together further confirms this belief.
We still don't know who he 'wanted' to pick. It very well could have been Flynn, but it could have also been Gingrich or Christie.
Just curious, why are you so objectionable to the idea of him picking Flynn?
|
On July 17 2016 03:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 03:52 On_Slaught wrote:On July 17 2016 03:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 17 2016 03:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And GGTemplar, here's the thing. If he didn't want Pence, but was willing to accept him as part of extending an olive branch to the republican party (which is a perfectly fine interpretation of events seen in isolation), what's the deal with the petulancy? I've seen Trump endorse people before; he then uses language full of superlatives to install an impression that this guy is the best of the best. He's said more good things about Larry Kudlow than most people would hear in their funerals if not for being deceased. Now, he's coming off as unhappy about not getting whomever he personally really wanted.
Doesn't what you're concerned about act as further evidence that he isn't happy about it? It seems like he begrudgingly gave the GOP this choice when he would have preferred someone else, hence the 'petulant' attitude you take note of. If he was happy about this choice being his first choice, he would be praising him like he praises others. Regarding the criticism that he is to be faulted for this - I think you're better than most, for one, in your admission that you do have an anti-Trump bias. There's a fair way to criticize someone and an unfair way to criticize someone. Certain anti-Trumpers criticize Trump no matter what he does. If he had taken say General Flynn, the criticism would be something like 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even work with his own GOP party.' Taking who the GOP party wanted, he gets 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even convince the GOP to accept a deal of letting him pick the VP he wants.' You just can't win with some people. The right has people who do this to Obama/Clinton as well. I don't have any interest in this sort of circlejerking here if I want to see circlejerk politics I'll just go to the_Donald or Clinton subreddits. This was my criticism I'm sorry I didn't explain it better the first time. I was terrified that he was going to pick Flynn. Picking Pence has put my mind at ease. Watching some of the announcement they had together further confirms this belief. We still don't know who he 'wanted' to pick. It very well could have been Flynn, but it could have also been Gingrich or Christie. Just curious, why are you so objectionable to the idea of him picking Flynn?
Because I think it could have brought a lot of independents to Trump. Flynn seems to be much more moderate. More importantly, I fully expect violence around the world to continue through November (the Nice attack putting this back in the spotlight for example), and picking a General would have played well for him. He could easily argue that he is better suited deal with the terror attacks having a literal General as his running mate, whether true or not.
Furthermore, it helps with the whole "Law and Order Candidate" narrative.
|
Norway28654 Posts
So when he tweeted 'Mike Pence was my first choice from the start', he was just flat out lying? It's just, no matter how I interpret Trump, his statements tend to be inconsistent with something he as recently said or done. There are many public people who manage to be opinionated on multitudes of issues without me or others being able to point out discrepancies at even nearly the same frequency, it doesn't 'just happen' to Trump because of some weird intangible reason.
And honestly, in my first post where I said that maybe he was just being deliberately ambiguous, that was me trying to be as charitable as I can be- you can even choose to interpret this as a compliment, because I certainly think extending the regular policy-ambiguity to include your VP pick (under the same reasoning) would actually be very intelligent. I think it might even be a combination - where he justifies his personal petulancy through it actually being smart. But that's just my personal thought and not something I am trying to convince anyone of.
|
On July 17 2016 03:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So when he tweeted 'Mike Pence was my first choice from the start', he was just flat out lying?
I don't know. My opinion, based on his behavior and what we know about Mike Pence (Pro-TPP, called Trump's immigration proposals unconstitutional, hard social conservative vs Trump's more centrist views, endorsed Ted Cruz at a pivotal moment in the primaries, etc etc) is that he was not who Trump wanted to select as VP.
I could be wrong but it doesn't add up. Perhaps he did want Pence and the 'you can't always get what you want' was more for the voters - knowing no matter who he selected people would be left unhappy that it wasn't who they wanted selected. (underlined theory is actually what I think is the most likely motivation for the song in all worlds - they've got to be aware of the song they're going to play at a formal event like this) Maybe it was a complete accident and that song was just randomly on the shuffle of a playlist - who knows?
Maybe Mike Pence was his first choice from the start so it is more of a lie of omission that he ended up not being who he wanted to pick. In that sense it was technically true that he was the person he first started vetting as the GOP establishment pushed Pence on him, but he ended up changing his mind.
I think he would have liked to have picked Flynn, but that could be my bias just wanting to project that choice on to Trump as well since Flynn is who I wanted him to make VP.
|
On July 17 2016 03:57 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 03:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 17 2016 03:52 On_Slaught wrote:On July 17 2016 03:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 17 2016 03:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And GGTemplar, here's the thing. If he didn't want Pence, but was willing to accept him as part of extending an olive branch to the republican party (which is a perfectly fine interpretation of events seen in isolation), what's the deal with the petulancy? I've seen Trump endorse people before; he then uses language full of superlatives to install an impression that this guy is the best of the best. He's said more good things about Larry Kudlow than most people would hear in their funerals if not for being deceased. Now, he's coming off as unhappy about not getting whomever he personally really wanted.
Doesn't what you're concerned about act as further evidence that he isn't happy about it? It seems like he begrudgingly gave the GOP this choice when he would have preferred someone else, hence the 'petulant' attitude you take note of. If he was happy about this choice being his first choice, he would be praising him like he praises others. Regarding the criticism that he is to be faulted for this - I think you're better than most, for one, in your admission that you do have an anti-Trump bias. There's a fair way to criticize someone and an unfair way to criticize someone. Certain anti-Trumpers criticize Trump no matter what he does. If he had taken say General Flynn, the criticism would be something like 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even work with his own GOP party.' Taking who the GOP party wanted, he gets 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even convince the GOP to accept a deal of letting him pick the VP he wants.' You just can't win with some people. The right has people who do this to Obama/Clinton as well. I don't have any interest in this sort of circlejerking here if I want to see circlejerk politics I'll just go to the_Donald or Clinton subreddits. This was my criticism I'm sorry I didn't explain it better the first time. I was terrified that he was going to pick Flynn. Picking Pence has put my mind at ease. Watching some of the announcement they had together further confirms this belief. We still don't know who he 'wanted' to pick. It very well could have been Flynn, but it could have also been Gingrich or Christie. Just curious, why are you so objectionable to the idea of him picking Flynn? Because I think it could have brought a lot of independents to Trump. Flynn seems to be much more moderate. More importantly, I fully expect violence around the world to continue through November (the Nice attack putting this back in the spotlight for example), and picking a General would have played well for him. He could easily argue that he is better suited deal with the terror attacks having a literal General as his running mate, whether true or not. Furthermore, it helps with the whole "Law and Order Candidate" narrative.
Oh so you were terrified of him picking Flynn because it would be better for Trump and make him more likely to win in November lol
Is it even possible for Trump to change his mind at this point? Is he legally allowed to 'fire' Pence and choose another VP running mate?
|
On July 17 2016 04:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 03:57 On_Slaught wrote:On July 17 2016 03:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 17 2016 03:52 On_Slaught wrote:On July 17 2016 03:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 17 2016 03:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And GGTemplar, here's the thing. If he didn't want Pence, but was willing to accept him as part of extending an olive branch to the republican party (which is a perfectly fine interpretation of events seen in isolation), what's the deal with the petulancy? I've seen Trump endorse people before; he then uses language full of superlatives to install an impression that this guy is the best of the best. He's said more good things about Larry Kudlow than most people would hear in their funerals if not for being deceased. Now, he's coming off as unhappy about not getting whomever he personally really wanted.
Doesn't what you're concerned about act as further evidence that he isn't happy about it? It seems like he begrudgingly gave the GOP this choice when he would have preferred someone else, hence the 'petulant' attitude you take note of. If he was happy about this choice being his first choice, he would be praising him like he praises others. Regarding the criticism that he is to be faulted for this - I think you're better than most, for one, in your admission that you do have an anti-Trump bias. There's a fair way to criticize someone and an unfair way to criticize someone. Certain anti-Trumpers criticize Trump no matter what he does. If he had taken say General Flynn, the criticism would be something like 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even work with his own GOP party.' Taking who the GOP party wanted, he gets 'see, he claims to be a good deal-maker but he can't even convince the GOP to accept a deal of letting him pick the VP he wants.' You just can't win with some people. The right has people who do this to Obama/Clinton as well. I don't have any interest in this sort of circlejerking here if I want to see circlejerk politics I'll just go to the_Donald or Clinton subreddits. This was my criticism I'm sorry I didn't explain it better the first time. I was terrified that he was going to pick Flynn. Picking Pence has put my mind at ease. Watching some of the announcement they had together further confirms this belief. We still don't know who he 'wanted' to pick. It very well could have been Flynn, but it could have also been Gingrich or Christie. Just curious, why are you so objectionable to the idea of him picking Flynn? Because I think it could have brought a lot of independents to Trump. Flynn seems to be much more moderate. More importantly, I fully expect violence around the world to continue through November (the Nice attack putting this back in the spotlight for example), and picking a General would have played well for him. He could easily argue that he is better suited deal with the terror attacks having a literal General as his running mate, whether true or not. Furthermore, it helps with the whole "Law and Order Candidate" narrative. Oh so you were terrified of him picking Flynn because it would be better for Trump and make him more likely to win in November lol Is it even possible for Trump to change his mind at this point? Is he legally allowed to 'fire' Pence and choose another VP running mate?
There's no way he can do that after saying Pence was his first choice all along. It would really taint the tattered remnants of his "honest, straightforward non-slave to the establishment" narrative to a degree that would be absurd.
|
On July 17 2016 04:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I could be wrong but it doesn't add up. Perhaps he did want Pence and the 'you can't always get what you want' was more for the voters - knowing no matter who he selected people would be left unhappy that it wasn't who they wanted selected. (underlined theory is actually what I think is the most likely motivation for the song in all worlds - they've got to be aware of the song they're going to play at a formal event like this) Maybe it was a complete accident and that song was just randomly on the shuffle of a playlist - who knows?
For me the song can be compared to the david star crooked Hillary tweet. Likely just an incompetent media team who did not properly think through what music they were playing.
|
ST. LOUIS – Hillary Clinton committed Saturday to introducing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision within her first 30 days in office, if she’s elected president.
The announcement will come in a video during the closing keynote of the progressive Netroots Nation conference this afternoon, and it’s yet another attempt to adopt the positions of her vanquished primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders.
“The amendment would allow Americans to establish common sense rules to protect against the undue influence of billionaires and special interests and to restore the role of average voters in elections,” a Clinton spokesman said in statement.
Last fall as the primary season ramped up and Sanders gained momentum, Clinton called for the 2010 Citizens United v FEC decision, which spawned the creation of super PACS, to be overturned. She also said she wanted more stringent political spending disclosure rules, and a new public matching regime so that presidential and congressional campaigns could more easily solicit small donations.
In addition to this constitutional amendment, the Clinton spokesman said, she will sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose their shareholders’ spending, while also pushing “for federal legislation to require effective public disclosure of political spending.” The candidate, if elected, will also, “promote SEC rulemaking requiring publicly traded companies to disclose all political spending to their shareholders,” the spokesman said.
Source
|
On July 17 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 03:16 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 17 2016 03:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I do not know how to explain what I just watched.
It should be easy. Donald Trump introduced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. There it is. One sentence. Eleven words. But that doesn’t explain what happened any better than "I spent a few hours letting lysergic acid diethylamide mimic serotonin in my brain" explains an acid trip. What just happened was weird, and it was important.
Back in May, EJ Dionne wrote that the hardest thing about covering Donald Trump would be "staying shocked." Watching him, day after day, week after week, month after month, the temptation would be to normalize his behavior, "to move Trump into the political mainstream."
But today helped. Donald Trump’s introduction of Mike Pence was shocking. Forget the political mainstream. What happened today sat outside the mainstream for normal human behavior.
It began in irony. Before Pence, before Trump, there was an empty podium, and the Rolling Stones blasting through the speakers. It had been widely reported that few top Republicans were willing to serve as Trump’s running mate. It had been widely reported that Trump was unsure about Pence, that he had regretted the decision almost as soon as he made it, that he had sought ways to reverse himself. Hours before the announcement, Trump tweeted that Pence was "my first choice from the start!", which is a thing presidential candidates typically do not need to say.
So there we were. Waiting for Trump and Pence to emerge. And what Rolling Stones song did the campaign choose? What did we all hear, over and over again, as we waited for Trump to introduce Mike Pence, his "first choice from the start!"?
"You can’t always get what you want..." Source That this kind of thing is considered valid political criticism is part of why Trump's people hate the media so much. This is pure fluff, and it doesn't have any true relevance other than as a hit piece. It doesn't even hit him on any substantial thing either. It's pure "optics". Blech.... The same people who think Trump is nothing but an unprofessional bully who unnecessarily uses person attacks to slander people are the same type of people sipping up shit like that like cool-aid completely oblivious to how hypocritical and biased they are. It's complete cuck logic to fault someone for fighting back when they're being attacked. They expect him to just play nice and take the attacks and turn the other cheek, then applaud Hillary or Obama when they go on in a speech bashing him. Most people are just incompetent when it comes to monitoring their personal cognitive biases.
Your little "lol psychology cognitive bias" argument is really stupid. I get that you think the media is liberal, but you don't need to overreact and disbelieve everything that might be negative to Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
