|
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 January 20 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 04:57 crms wrote:On January 20 2017 04:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2017 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2017 03:54 Nevuk wrote:On January 20 2017 03:52 crms wrote:
What are the chances of trumps appointments being confirmed? So far all the hearings seem to have been mostly disasters. There is absolutely noway Devos could be confirmed, right? They're at about 100%. The only way Devos won't be confirmed is if her name is withdrawn, as she's a major GOP donor. Agreed, sadly. Senate confirms these nominees with a simple majority, and the Republicans have a majority of the seats. A few Republicans (3 or so?) would have to flip their vote, which probably won't happen. I expect Rubio, McCain, and Graham to huff and puff about Russia, realize Tillerson isn't really a Russian shill, and get on board, a few Democrats to huff and puff about Sessions but fail to convince any Republicans to break rank, while all the others pass without any fanfare. That's such a sad state of affairs. Some of these appointments, politics aside, are wildly unfit. :/ Why is it a sad state of affairs? Despite all of the nonsense to the contrary from his political opponents, Trump had some very clear policy planks to his campaign and his nominations are in furtherance of those polices. What was it that Obama said? Something along the lines of "Elections have consequences"? To his credit (and I wasn't sure that he'd do this), Trump actually appears to be following through on his campaign promises. Let's see where it goes.
Yes you're right and that's the biggest problem of this whole election result, the Obama administration was pretty smooth without any major scandal over eight years and generally qualified candidates. Now you have this man appointing people to the highest offices of the United States
|
But Obama wasn't an option this election. We had two candidates, each of whom the majority of the nation hates, and we had to choose one.
|
And the choice was done poorly 
also, we should switch to a system which would do a better job at providing better choices.
|
On January 20 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 04:57 crms wrote:On January 20 2017 04:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2017 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2017 03:54 Nevuk wrote:On January 20 2017 03:52 crms wrote:
What are the chances of trumps appointments being confirmed? So far all the hearings seem to have been mostly disasters. There is absolutely noway Devos could be confirmed, right? They're at about 100%. The only way Devos won't be confirmed is if her name is withdrawn, as she's a major GOP donor. Agreed, sadly. Senate confirms these nominees with a simple majority, and the Republicans have a majority of the seats. A few Republicans (3 or so?) would have to flip their vote, which probably won't happen. I expect Rubio, McCain, and Graham to huff and puff about Russia, realize Tillerson isn't really a Russian shill, and get on board, a few Democrats to huff and puff about Sessions but fail to convince any Republicans to break rank, while all the others pass without any fanfare. That's such a sad state of affairs. Some of these appointments, politics aside, are wildly unfit. :/ Why is it a sad state of affairs? Despite all of the nonsense to the contrary from his political opponents, Trump had some very clear policy planks to his campaign and his nominations are in furtherance of those polices. What was it that Obama said? Something along the lines of "Elections have consequences"? To his credit (and I wasn't sure that he'd do this), Trump actually appears to be following through on his campaign promises. Let's see where it goes.
Watch the DeVos hearing, don't read a partisan write-up, just simply listen for yourself. If this woman can be 'confirmed' after going through this 'screening process', the system is completely broken. It's not functioning as a measure of fitness for a position, it's just a silly song and dance.
|
On January 20 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
I don't like many of his nominees, but they seem to be exactly what he was promising, so he has that going for him.
Except for the "the best people" part considering how poor a lot of their answers are.
Even if you agree with the policies/stances some of the things said are really bone headed. Devos said it's best for states to decide about guns in schools, then almost immediately followed it up by saying she supports Trump in banning schools from being gun-free zones AND sandwiched that with the infamous Grizzly Bear comment.
|
United States24328 Posts
On January 20 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 04:57 crms wrote:On January 20 2017 04:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2017 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2017 03:54 Nevuk wrote:On January 20 2017 03:52 crms wrote:
What are the chances of trumps appointments being confirmed? So far all the hearings seem to have been mostly disasters. There is absolutely noway Devos could be confirmed, right? They're at about 100%. The only way Devos won't be confirmed is if her name is withdrawn, as she's a major GOP donor. Agreed, sadly. Senate confirms these nominees with a simple majority, and the Republicans have a majority of the seats. A few Republicans (3 or so?) would have to flip their vote, which probably won't happen. I expect Rubio, McCain, and Graham to huff and puff about Russia, realize Tillerson isn't really a Russian shill, and get on board, a few Democrats to huff and puff about Sessions but fail to convince any Republicans to break rank, while all the others pass without any fanfare. That's such a sad state of affairs. Some of these appointments, politics aside, are wildly unfit. :/ Why is it a sad state of affairs? Despite all of the nonsense to the contrary from his political opponents, Trump had some very clear policy planks to his campaign and his nominations are in furtherance of those polices. What was it that Obama said? Something along the lines of "Elections have consequences"? To his credit (and I wasn't sure that he'd do this), Trump actually appears to be following through on his campaign promises. Let's see where it goes.
If you think DeVos or Perry are "the best people", you may need to reexamine some things.
|
Trump promised to appoint "the best people" in his own eyes. There is nothing Trump rates more highly than doing no research ahead of time, flying by the seat of your pants, and blustering your way through. Thus most of his appointments are really the best people to him.
|
On January 20 2017 05:38 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
I don't like many of his nominees, but they seem to be exactly what he was promising, so he has that going for him. Except for the "the best people" part considering how poor a lot of their answers are.
He is a businessman. I fully believe that he thinks these are the best people.
I don't expect the country will be better than it was when he started, but hopefully the Democrats will pull their collective heads out of their asses and nominate someone who isn't Hillary Clinton. Maybe he will fix relations with Russia but in the end I expect the status quo "Russia and the US are almost at war" relations to resurface. He will probably sink the trade deals which I would prefer to do - even if it's not that easy to do.
|
On January 20 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 05:38 Logo wrote:On January 20 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
I don't like many of his nominees, but they seem to be exactly what he was promising, so he has that going for him. Except for the "the best people" part considering how poor a lot of their answers are. He is a businessman. I fully believe that he thinks these are the best people. I don't expect the country will be better than it was when he started, but hopefully the Democrats will pull their collective heads out of their asses and nominate someone who isn't Hillary Clinton. Maybe he will fix relations with Russia but in the end I expect the status quo "Russia and the US are almost at war" relations to resurface. He will probably sink the trade deals which I would prefer to do - even if it's not that easy to do.
Yeah but you don't just give his nominees a pass because he believes they're the best people when they clearly aren't.
Even if you want the Trump policies you should be mad at how poor some of his choices like Devos are and be demanding he find better best people. But that seems incredibly unlikely to happen because a lot of his base wants to win and be right more than they seem to care about anything positive happening.
|
Meh, these seem very status quo for Republicans. That's part of the problem here.
|
On January 20 2017 05:51 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2017 05:38 Logo wrote:On January 20 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
I don't like many of his nominees, but they seem to be exactly what he was promising, so he has that going for him. Except for the "the best people" part considering how poor a lot of their answers are. He is a businessman. I fully believe that he thinks these are the best people. I don't expect the country will be better than it was when he started, but hopefully the Democrats will pull their collective heads out of their asses and nominate someone who isn't Hillary Clinton. Maybe he will fix relations with Russia but in the end I expect the status quo "Russia and the US are almost at war" relations to resurface. He will probably sink the trade deals which I would prefer to do - even if it's not that easy to do. Yeah but you don't just give his nominees a pass because he believes they're the best people when they clearly aren't. Even if you want the Trump policies you should be mad at how poor some of his choices like Devos are and be demanding he find better best people. But that seems incredibly unlikely to happen because a lot of his base wants to win and be right more than they seem to care about anything positive happening. That will only last until their benefits get slashed and they gotta figure out a way to pay the remaining 8k outstanding on their private school bill funded half-assedly by voucher programs like those given support by DeVos and her ilk. The pain is gonna come, and once it starts to hurt, folks like xDaunt are gonna have to turn into Simone Biles in order to keep painting a pretty picture.
|
United States24328 Posts
On January 20 2017 05:53 LegalLord wrote:
Meh, these seem very status quo for Republicans. That's part of the problem here.
Sorta, Tillerson is a bit over the top even for Republicans, and DeVos is the single worst person nominated for that post in at least 50 years by either side. She is uniquely bad and unqualified, without consideration of the political stuff.
|
|
|
On the other hand, Mnuchin's discussion of tax reform was not altogether that bad, though to what extent Trump will allow him to do anything "off-message" remains to be seen.
|
On January 20 2017 05:59 dr3am_b3ing wrote:
MERRY TRUMPMAS EVE
I'm going skiing for the weekend - a fitting way to commemorate the start of winter for American government.
In all seriousness the next few years are probably going to be tough. But we should survive, unless no one explained to Trump why we can't use nuclear weapons when we have them.
|
On January 20 2017 05:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On January 20 2017 04:57 crms wrote:On January 20 2017 04:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2017 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2017 03:54 Nevuk wrote:On January 20 2017 03:52 crms wrote:
What are the chances of trumps appointments being confirmed? So far all the hearings seem to have been mostly disasters. There is absolutely noway Devos could be confirmed, right? They're at about 100%. The only way Devos won't be confirmed is if her name is withdrawn, as she's a major GOP donor. Agreed, sadly. Senate confirms these nominees with a simple majority, and the Republicans have a majority of the seats. A few Republicans (3 or so?) would have to flip their vote, which probably won't happen. I expect Rubio, McCain, and Graham to huff and puff about Russia, realize Tillerson isn't really a Russian shill, and get on board, a few Democrats to huff and puff about Sessions but fail to convince any Republicans to break rank, while all the others pass without any fanfare. That's such a sad state of affairs. Some of these appointments, politics aside, are wildly unfit. :/ Why is it a sad state of affairs? Despite all of the nonsense to the contrary from his political opponents, Trump had some very clear policy planks to his campaign and his nominations are in furtherance of those polices. What was it that Obama said? Something along the lines of "Elections have consequences"? To his credit (and I wasn't sure that he'd do this), Trump actually appears to be following through on his campaign promises. Let's see where it goes. Yes you're right and that's the biggest problem of this whole election result, the Obama administration was pretty smooth without any major scandal over eight years and generally qualified candidates. Now you have this man appointing people to the highest offices of the United States
Scandal free? According to who?
Fast and furious, Bengazi, Solyndra, Iran deal?
He was even involved in the email server scandal.
|
On January 20 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 05:38 Logo wrote:On January 20 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
I don't like many of his nominees, but they seem to be exactly what he was promising, so he has that going for him. Except for the "the best people" part considering how poor a lot of their answers are. He is a businessman. I fully believe that he thinks these are the best people. I don't expect the country will be better than it was when he started, but hopefully the Democrats will pull their collective heads out of their asses and nominate someone who isn't Hillary Clinton. Maybe he will fix relations with Russia but in the end I expect the status quo "Russia and the US are almost at war" relations to resurface. He will probably sink the trade deals which I would prefer to do - even if it's not that easy to do.
and hopefully the republicans will pull their heads out of their asses and do better than Trump
also, the nomination of hillary is nowhere near as bad as the nomination of trump anyways. so I feel it's unbalanced that you're putting onus on the dems when the reps have more blame.
|
On January 20 2017 06:49 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2017 05:38 Logo wrote:On January 20 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
I don't like many of his nominees, but they seem to be exactly what he was promising, so he has that going for him. Except for the "the best people" part considering how poor a lot of their answers are. He is a businessman. I fully believe that he thinks these are the best people. I don't expect the country will be better than it was when he started, but hopefully the Democrats will pull their collective heads out of their asses and nominate someone who isn't Hillary Clinton. Maybe he will fix relations with Russia but in the end I expect the status quo "Russia and the US are almost at war" relations to resurface. He will probably sink the trade deals which I would prefer to do - even if it's not that easy to do. and hopefully the republicans will pull their heads out of their asses and do better than Trump also, the nomination of hillary is nowhere near as bad as the nomination of trump anyways. so I feel it's unbalanced that you're putting onus on the dems when the reps have more blame.
I've criticized Republicans plenty. But they get credit for winning bigly despite everything.
|
On January 20 2017 06:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 06:49 zlefin wrote:On January 20 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2017 05:38 Logo wrote:On January 20 2017 05:12 LegalLord wrote:
I don't like many of his nominees, but they seem to be exactly what he was promising, so he has that going for him. Except for the "the best people" part considering how poor a lot of their answers are. He is a businessman. I fully believe that he thinks these are the best people. I don't expect the country will be better than it was when he started, but hopefully the Democrats will pull their collective heads out of their asses and nominate someone who isn't Hillary Clinton. Maybe he will fix relations with Russia but in the end I expect the status quo "Russia and the US are almost at war" relations to resurface. He will probably sink the trade deals which I would prefer to do - even if it's not that easy to do. and hopefully the republicans will pull their heads out of their asses and do better than Trump also, the nomination of hillary is nowhere near as bad as the nomination of trump anyways. so I feel it's unbalanced that you're putting onus on the dems when the reps have more blame. I've criticized Republicans plenty. But they get credit for winning bigly despite everything.
I don't give anyone credit for winning with trump, I think that's more of a penalty than a credit. It means you put your own partisanship ahead of the good of the country.
and we're in that confusing and silly realm of arguing about the particulars of word choices the dispute is over how much you attack republicans vs attacks on democrats. and also you making a particular unjustified jab at dems, when on that spceific issues the reps did worse, and therefore any calling out of the dems o nthat instance should have called out the reps as well. ah, balance.
|
On January 20 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2017 04:57 crms wrote:On January 20 2017 04:27 LegalLord wrote:On January 20 2017 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 20 2017 03:54 Nevuk wrote:On January 20 2017 03:52 crms wrote:
What are the chances of trumps appointments being confirmed? So far all the hearings seem to have been mostly disasters. There is absolutely noway Devos could be confirmed, right? They're at about 100%. The only way Devos won't be confirmed is if her name is withdrawn, as she's a major GOP donor. Agreed, sadly. Senate confirms these nominees with a simple majority, and the Republicans have a majority of the seats. A few Republicans (3 or so?) would have to flip their vote, which probably won't happen. I expect Rubio, McCain, and Graham to huff and puff about Russia, realize Tillerson isn't really a Russian shill, and get on board, a few Democrats to huff and puff about Sessions but fail to convince any Republicans to break rank, while all the others pass without any fanfare. That's such a sad state of affairs. Some of these appointments, politics aside, are wildly unfit. :/ Why is it a sad state of affairs? Despite all of the nonsense to the contrary from his political opponents, Trump had some very clear policy planks to his campaign and his nominations are in furtherance of those polices. What was it that Obama said? Something along the lines of "Elections have consequences"? To his credit (and I wasn't sure that he'd do this), Trump actually appears to be following through on his campaign promises. Let's see where it goes.
Out of curiosity, do you think Betsy DeVos is qualified to be Secretary of Education? (And did you watch her hearing/ hear her answers?) Because I hear responses like "She was nominated because she agrees with Trump" and that may be true, but that's very different than her being qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
