|
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. |
Does he not realize how bad he looks making this stuff up lol
|
On February 28 2017 12:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 11:20 Plansix wrote:On February 28 2017 11:09 IyMoon wrote:On February 28 2017 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 10:31 ChristianS wrote:On February 28 2017 08:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 07:53 LegalLord wrote:
The benefit of being out of power is that nothing is your fault anymore.
Democrats still somehow manage to be widely unpopular. NBC/WSJ Poll51% media has been too critical of Trump 53% "The news media and other elites are exaggerating the problems with the Trump administration because they are uncomfortable and threatened with the kind of change that Trump represents." Meanwhile: 44 vs 48 approval rating Obamacare: Even split on good idea/bad idea Only 4% "working well the way it is" rofl 1/3 confident in GOP's ability to replace the law Travel ban 44/45 practically dead even. Pretty hilarious given all the rhetoric saying it shouldn't be close. Consensus that Russia meddled somehow and support for the investigation. I'm slowly becoming convinced Democrats are losing on purpose. The ACA is toxic and they want to defend it instead of just pushing Medicare for all, which has almost no opposition and is far more popular than either repealing or keeping the ACA. From the Indivisible GuideSHOULDN'T WE PUT FORWARD AN ALTERNATE, POSITIVE AGENDA? A defensive strategy does not mean dropping your own policy priorities or staying silent on an alternate vision for our country over the next four years. What it means is that, when you’re trying to influence your MoC, you will have the most leverage when you are focused on the current legislative priority. You may not like the idea of being purely defensive; we certainly don’t. As progressives, our natural inclination is to talk about the things we’re for—a clean climate, economic justice, health care for all, racial equality, gender and sexual equality, and peace and human rights. These are the things that move us. But the hard truth of the next four years is that we’re not going to set the agenda; Trump and congressional Republicans will, and we’ll have to respond. The best way to stand up for the progressive values and policies we cherish is to stand together, indivisible—to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. Dunno if you buy their argument, but the idea is that defending progress we've made is better strategy than offering positive alternatives as the minority party. Yeah, I'm going to call a strategy of trying to lose less pretty terrible when they couldn't even hold shit together when they had power. They need a positive agenda or to get out of the way of folks who do. This all depends on how long it takes Trump to change the ACA. If midterms are coming up and we are still in a healthcare fight, Dems could easily run on the platform of saving healthcare without actually offering a huge idea for the future. Nothing is getting through the senate. Especial something inline with what the GOP was selling, defund PP, pre-existing conditions not protected. I can see Democrats stopping something like repealing the ACA, but there's enough ""centrist Democrats" for them to get legislation voted on. Meaning there's enough Dems that won't fight everything and will allow Republicans a vote on some things. The show down will be over the Supreme Court seat and the democrats who are in states Trump carried. If they are up for election in 2018, they might cave. But I doubt it. There is nothing to gain by working with the GOP right now. Stalling out the Supreme Court poisoned the senate so no one wants to flip.
Still doubting Democrats will confirm Gorsuch?
|
I don't mind him being lazy or whatever in his off-time, those are hard qualities to judge someone by. I'm a lot more concerned about his demeanor while working, which seemed great at the start of the term where he got a lot of executive orders lined up to fire away on day one, but throughout the campaign and even now he seems pretty willfully ignorant of parts of the presidency. Like, his continued reliance on Infowars material would be a lazy approach to being an informed citizen, let alone being president. Or his non-presence at security briefings because it looks like they bore him, or his non-presence in that room when that failed mission was going on. He hasn't really defended those actions, and there are some justifications you could make up like being busy elsewhere, but it just looks like he doesn't care about those typically presidential responsibilities, which is laziness in terms of what you'd expect from the president.
Tbh, I'm just more critical of his mini-vacations at his resort because he complained about Obama going golfing. His own fault for bringing that up really.
|
On March 21 2017 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 12:14 Plansix wrote:On February 28 2017 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 11:20 Plansix wrote:On February 28 2017 11:09 IyMoon wrote:On February 28 2017 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 10:31 ChristianS wrote:On February 28 2017 08:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 07:53 LegalLord wrote:
The benefit of being out of power is that nothing is your fault anymore.
Democrats still somehow manage to be widely unpopular. NBC/WSJ Poll51% media has been too critical of Trump 53% "The news media and other elites are exaggerating the problems with the Trump administration because they are uncomfortable and threatened with the kind of change that Trump represents." Meanwhile: 44 vs 48 approval rating Obamacare: Even split on good idea/bad idea Only 4% "working well the way it is" rofl 1/3 confident in GOP's ability to replace the law Travel ban 44/45 practically dead even. Pretty hilarious given all the rhetoric saying it shouldn't be close. Consensus that Russia meddled somehow and support for the investigation. I'm slowly becoming convinced Democrats are losing on purpose. The ACA is toxic and they want to defend it instead of just pushing Medicare for all, which has almost no opposition and is far more popular than either repealing or keeping the ACA. From the Indivisible GuideSHOULDN'T WE PUT FORWARD AN ALTERNATE, POSITIVE AGENDA? A defensive strategy does not mean dropping your own policy priorities or staying silent on an alternate vision for our country over the next four years. What it means is that, when you’re trying to influence your MoC, you will have the most leverage when you are focused on the current legislative priority. You may not like the idea of being purely defensive; we certainly don’t. As progressives, our natural inclination is to talk about the things we’re for—a clean climate, economic justice, health care for all, racial equality, gender and sexual equality, and peace and human rights. These are the things that move us. But the hard truth of the next four years is that we’re not going to set the agenda; Trump and congressional Republicans will, and we’ll have to respond. The best way to stand up for the progressive values and policies we cherish is to stand together, indivisible—to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. Dunno if you buy their argument, but the idea is that defending progress we've made is better strategy than offering positive alternatives as the minority party. Yeah, I'm going to call a strategy of trying to lose less pretty terrible when they couldn't even hold shit together when they had power. They need a positive agenda or to get out of the way of folks who do. This all depends on how long it takes Trump to change the ACA. If midterms are coming up and we are still in a healthcare fight, Dems could easily run on the platform of saving healthcare without actually offering a huge idea for the future. Nothing is getting through the senate. Especial something inline with what the GOP was selling, defund PP, pre-existing conditions not protected. I can see Democrats stopping something like repealing the ACA, but there's enough ""centrist Democrats" for them to get legislation voted on. Meaning there's enough Dems that won't fight everything and will allow Republicans a vote on some things. The show down will be over the Supreme Court seat and the democrats who are in states Trump carried. If they are up for election in 2018, they might cave. But I doubt it. There is nothing to gain by working with the GOP right now. Stalling out the Supreme Court poisoned the senate so no one wants to flip. Still doubting Democrats will confirm Gorsuch?
My previous statements still holds.
There are strong arguments to stop it and strong arguments to let it go through. It isn’t going to be a question of if the party decides to hold up the nomination, but if they can keep the senators from jumping ship to avoid having to run against holding up the nomination. My personal opinion is that Trump is such a dumpser fire it will never be the focus of 2018. But that is a hard sell. And if the GOP is willing to drop the bomb. That is the other big question.
It is a high stakes game of chicken and there are so many unknowns. Today did not change my opinion.
|
On March 21 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 12:14 Plansix wrote:On February 28 2017 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 11:20 Plansix wrote:On February 28 2017 11:09 IyMoon wrote:On February 28 2017 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 10:31 ChristianS wrote:On February 28 2017 08:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 08:21 Danglars wrote:[quote] NBC/WSJ Poll51% media has been too critical of Trump 53% "The news media and other elites are exaggerating the problems with the Trump administration because they are uncomfortable and threatened with the kind of change that Trump represents." Meanwhile: 44 vs 48 approval rating Obamacare: Even split on good idea/bad idea Only 4% "working well the way it is" rofl 1/3 confident in GOP's ability to replace the law Travel ban 44/45 practically dead even. Pretty hilarious given all the rhetoric saying it shouldn't be close. Consensus that Russia meddled somehow and support for the investigation. I'm slowly becoming convinced Democrats are losing on purpose. The ACA is toxic and they want to defend it instead of just pushing Medicare for all, which has almost no opposition and is far more popular than either repealing or keeping the ACA. From the Indivisible GuideSHOULDN'T WE PUT FORWARD AN ALTERNATE, POSITIVE AGENDA? A defensive strategy does not mean dropping your own policy priorities or staying silent on an alternate vision for our country over the next four years. What it means is that, when you’re trying to influence your MoC, you will have the most leverage when you are focused on the current legislative priority. You may not like the idea of being purely defensive; we certainly don’t. As progressives, our natural inclination is to talk about the things we’re for—a clean climate, economic justice, health care for all, racial equality, gender and sexual equality, and peace and human rights. These are the things that move us. But the hard truth of the next four years is that we’re not going to set the agenda; Trump and congressional Republicans will, and we’ll have to respond. The best way to stand up for the progressive values and policies we cherish is to stand together, indivisible—to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. Dunno if you buy their argument, but the idea is that defending progress we've made is better strategy than offering positive alternatives as the minority party. Yeah, I'm going to call a strategy of trying to lose less pretty terrible when they couldn't even hold shit together when they had power. They need a positive agenda or to get out of the way of folks who do. This all depends on how long it takes Trump to change the ACA. If midterms are coming up and we are still in a healthcare fight, Dems could easily run on the platform of saving healthcare without actually offering a huge idea for the future. Nothing is getting through the senate. Especial something inline with what the GOP was selling, defund PP, pre-existing conditions not protected. I can see Democrats stopping something like repealing the ACA, but there's enough ""centrist Democrats" for them to get legislation voted on. Meaning there's enough Dems that won't fight everything and will allow Republicans a vote on some things. The show down will be over the Supreme Court seat and the democrats who are in states Trump carried. If they are up for election in 2018, they might cave. But I doubt it. There is nothing to gain by working with the GOP right now. Stalling out the Supreme Court poisoned the senate so no one wants to flip. Still doubting Democrats will confirm Gorsuch? My previous statements still holds. There are strong arguments to stop it and strong arguments to let it go through. It isn’t going to be a question of if the party decides to hold up the nomination, but if they can keep the senators from jumping ship to avoid having to run against holding up the nomination. My personal opinion is that Trump is such a dumpser fire it will never be the focus of 2018. But that is a hard sell. And if the GOP is willing to drop the bomb. That is the other big question. It is a high stakes game of chicken and there are so many unknowns. Today did not change my opinion.
So you think they won't confirm him? Would you be surprised if they did?
Or are you saying you doubt they will, but it's to be expected (and shouldn't encourage pressure for primaries) when they do?
|
Norway28714 Posts
On March 21 2017 06:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Lazy is one negative quality Trump can't be attributed with. I sure as hell wish it was accurate, but he's clearly a hard worker.. Somewhat selective, sure, lacking attention span for some of the more boring and tedious aspects of being a politician (or student of anything), absolutely, but he still works hard. He doesn't go to his briefings, clearly doesn't read briefings about any of the important subjects he ought to know, watches tv half the day and tweets about it the other half. I mean come on, really? This is a man who goes into every meeting completely unprepared and forces foreign leaders, from Theresa May to Shinzo Abe to Angela Merkel to Malcolm Turnbull to educate him about the fundamentals of the discussion at hand. The job is a vanity project for Trump, nothing more. This is a man who didn't really have any kind of idea for a healthcare plan, waited too long without working on one and then defended himself by saying that nobody knew it was a complicated subject. If you were doing a group project and Trump was in your group would you really say that he's a hard worker? Because I feel like he'd never show up to the meetings, never do the research or reading and then insist upon doing the presentation on the day, only to fuck it up. He took the job for the title, when forced to do actual work he throws all the responsibility away from his person and then deflects. When he's unable to deflect he shows himself to be woefully ignorant and incompetent.
Alternatively, he's a 70 year old man with enough wealth to do several lifetimes worth of whatever leisurely activities he wants to engage in until he dies, but instead he chose to run for one of the tougher jobs in the world. And while I obviously think he's entirely unqualified, he campaigned hard. He was constantly holding rallies and meeting press.
If he was part of my group, I'd expect him to work hard towards creating a presentation nearly the opposite of what I myself wanted to present, maybe he'd start rumors about how I raped a girl during some party to make the other group members distrust me and go with his suggestions or whatever.
If Trump was 'slothy' in any way, he would not be president. If you wanna claim that travelling around the country holding rallies on a daily basis doesn't constitute hard work then well, I really disagree. He doesn't actually need to be the embodiment of all 7 deadly sins to be a bad president (and person) anyway, between 5 and 6 of those is more than sufficient.
|
There's nothing particularly wrong with xDaunt as a SCOTUS judge, I think we can all agree on that. The point of contention is really about the Republicans using a dirty tactic to deny Obama the right to make a choice. And I don't think that that's a battle worth fighting, especially because the Democrats will most likely lose.
|
On March 21 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:On March 21 2017 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 12:14 Plansix wrote:On February 28 2017 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 11:20 Plansix wrote:On February 28 2017 11:09 IyMoon wrote:On February 28 2017 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 10:31 ChristianS wrote:On February 28 2017 08:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm slowly becoming convinced Democrats are losing on purpose. The ACA is toxic and they want to defend it instead of just pushing Medicare for all, which has almost no opposition and is far more popular than either repealing or keeping the ACA. From the Indivisible GuideSHOULDN'T WE PUT FORWARD AN ALTERNATE, POSITIVE AGENDA? A defensive strategy does not mean dropping your own policy priorities or staying silent on an alternate vision for our country over the next four years. What it means is that, when you’re trying to influence your MoC, you will have the most leverage when you are focused on the current legislative priority. You may not like the idea of being purely defensive; we certainly don’t. As progressives, our natural inclination is to talk about the things we’re for—a clean climate, economic justice, health care for all, racial equality, gender and sexual equality, and peace and human rights. These are the things that move us. But the hard truth of the next four years is that we’re not going to set the agenda; Trump and congressional Republicans will, and we’ll have to respond. The best way to stand up for the progressive values and policies we cherish is to stand together, indivisible—to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. Dunno if you buy their argument, but the idea is that defending progress we've made is better strategy than offering positive alternatives as the minority party. Yeah, I'm going to call a strategy of trying to lose less pretty terrible when they couldn't even hold shit together when they had power. They need a positive agenda or to get out of the way of folks who do. This all depends on how long it takes Trump to change the ACA. If midterms are coming up and we are still in a healthcare fight, Dems could easily run on the platform of saving healthcare without actually offering a huge idea for the future. Nothing is getting through the senate. Especial something inline with what the GOP was selling, defund PP, pre-existing conditions not protected. I can see Democrats stopping something like repealing the ACA, but there's enough ""centrist Democrats" for them to get legislation voted on. Meaning there's enough Dems that won't fight everything and will allow Republicans a vote on some things. The show down will be over the Supreme Court seat and the democrats who are in states Trump carried. If they are up for election in 2018, they might cave. But I doubt it. There is nothing to gain by working with the GOP right now. Stalling out the Supreme Court poisoned the senate so no one wants to flip. Still doubting Democrats will confirm Gorsuch? My previous statements still holds. There are strong arguments to stop it and strong arguments to let it go through. It isn’t going to be a question of if the party decides to hold up the nomination, but if they can keep the senators from jumping ship to avoid having to run against holding up the nomination. My personal opinion is that Trump is such a dumpser fire it will never be the focus of 2018. But that is a hard sell. And if the GOP is willing to drop the bomb. That is the other big question. It is a high stakes game of chicken and there are so many unknowns. Today did not change my opinion. So you think they won't confirm him? Would you be surprised if they did? Or are you saying you doubt they will, but it's to be expected (and shouldn't encourage pressure for primaries) when they do?
I am saying I do not have enough information to make an informed opinion either way. There are to many factors in play and I haven't done a ton of research. I know there is a lot of talk about holding on the nomination. But until that plan is put into effect and they are truly filibustering the nomination, it is very hard to call.
Also, it depends on how long the filibuster holds. They could start out filibustering, but it starts to hurt Democrats in key states the time goes on. I bet there will be an attempt. I don't know if it will hold until 2018.
|
On March 21 2017 07:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:On March 21 2017 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 12:14 Plansix wrote:On February 28 2017 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 11:20 Plansix wrote:On February 28 2017 11:09 IyMoon wrote:On February 28 2017 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2017 10:31 ChristianS wrote:[quote] From the Indivisible Guide[quote]Dunno if you buy their argument, but the idea is that defending progress we've made is better strategy than offering positive alternatives as the minority party. Yeah, I'm going to call a strategy of trying to lose less pretty terrible when they couldn't even hold shit together when they had power. They need a positive agenda or to get out of the way of folks who do. This all depends on how long it takes Trump to change the ACA. If midterms are coming up and we are still in a healthcare fight, Dems could easily run on the platform of saving healthcare without actually offering a huge idea for the future. Nothing is getting through the senate. Especial something inline with what the GOP was selling, defund PP, pre-existing conditions not protected. I can see Democrats stopping something like repealing the ACA, but there's enough ""centrist Democrats" for them to get legislation voted on. Meaning there's enough Dems that won't fight everything and will allow Republicans a vote on some things. The show down will be over the Supreme Court seat and the democrats who are in states Trump carried. If they are up for election in 2018, they might cave. But I doubt it. There is nothing to gain by working with the GOP right now. Stalling out the Supreme Court poisoned the senate so no one wants to flip. Still doubting Democrats will confirm Gorsuch? My previous statements still holds. There are strong arguments to stop it and strong arguments to let it go through. It isn’t going to be a question of if the party decides to hold up the nomination, but if they can keep the senators from jumping ship to avoid having to run against holding up the nomination. My personal opinion is that Trump is such a dumpser fire it will never be the focus of 2018. But that is a hard sell. And if the GOP is willing to drop the bomb. That is the other big question. It is a high stakes game of chicken and there are so many unknowns. Today did not change my opinion. So you think they won't confirm him? Would you be surprised if they did? Or are you saying you doubt they will, but it's to be expected (and shouldn't encourage pressure for primaries) when they do? I am saying I do not have enough information to make an informed opinion either way. There are to many factors in play and I haven't done a ton of research. I know there is a lot of talk about holding on the nomination. But until that plan is put into effect and they are truly filibustering the nomination, it is very hard to call. Also, it depends on how long the filibuster holds. They could start out filibustering, but it starts to hurt Democrats in key states the time goes on. I bet there will be an attempt. I don't know if it will hold until 2018.
lol, there is 0 chance they hold until 2018. I doubt they even try. You have far to much faith in the Democrats and you're still basically thinking they are going to fail.
|
On March 21 2017 06:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 06:03 KwarK wrote:On March 21 2017 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Lazy is one negative quality Trump can't be attributed with. I sure as hell wish it was accurate, but he's clearly a hard worker.. Somewhat selective, sure, lacking attention span for some of the more boring and tedious aspects of being a politician (or student of anything), absolutely, but he still works hard. He doesn't go to his briefings, clearly doesn't read briefings about any of the important subjects he ought to know, watches tv half the day and tweets about it the other half. I mean come on, really? This is a man who goes into every meeting completely unprepared and forces foreign leaders, from Theresa May to Shinzo Abe to Angela Merkel to Malcolm Turnbull to educate him about the fundamentals of the discussion at hand. The job is a vanity project for Trump, nothing more. This is a man who didn't really have any kind of idea for a healthcare plan, waited too long without working on one and then defended himself by saying that nobody knew it was a complicated subject. If you were doing a group project and Trump was in your group would you really say that he's a hard worker? Because I feel like he'd never show up to the meetings, never do the research or reading and then insist upon doing the presentation on the day, only to fuck it up. He took the job for the title, when forced to do actual work he throws all the responsibility away from his person and then deflects. When he's unable to deflect he shows himself to be woefully ignorant and incompetent. Alternatively, he's a 70 year old man with enough wealth to do several lifetimes worth of whatever leisurely activities he wants to engage in until he dies, but instead he chose to run for one of the tougher jobs in the world. And while I obviously think he's entirely unqualified, he campaigned hard. He was constantly holding rallies and meeting press. If he was part of my group, I'd expect him to work hard towards creating a presentation nearly the opposite of what I myself wanted to present, maybe he'd start rumors about how I raped a girl during some party to make the other group members distrust me and go with his suggestions or whatever. If Trump was 'slothy' in any way, he would not be president. If you wanna claim that travelling around the country holding rallies on a daily basis doesn't constitute hard work then well, I really disagree. He doesn't actually need to be the embodiment of all 7 deadly sins to be a bad president (and person) anyway, between 5 and 6 of those is more than sufficient.
My theory is that rallying crowds behind his rhetoric charges and energizes him, whereas people arguing with him and questioning him drains his energy. I don't feel like he's a person who's had to deal with much adversity in life, and he's too old to adapt and change.
I wouldn't count it as laziness, but I would say he's still woefully inadequate as a president. Gut feeling is not a good way to lead a presidency, and having an ill-informed president is just mind-boggling.
|
On March 21 2017 07:28 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 06:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 21 2017 06:03 KwarK wrote:On March 21 2017 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Lazy is one negative quality Trump can't be attributed with. I sure as hell wish it was accurate, but he's clearly a hard worker.. Somewhat selective, sure, lacking attention span for some of the more boring and tedious aspects of being a politician (or student of anything), absolutely, but he still works hard. He doesn't go to his briefings, clearly doesn't read briefings about any of the important subjects he ought to know, watches tv half the day and tweets about it the other half. I mean come on, really? This is a man who goes into every meeting completely unprepared and forces foreign leaders, from Theresa May to Shinzo Abe to Angela Merkel to Malcolm Turnbull to educate him about the fundamentals of the discussion at hand. The job is a vanity project for Trump, nothing more. This is a man who didn't really have any kind of idea for a healthcare plan, waited too long without working on one and then defended himself by saying that nobody knew it was a complicated subject. If you were doing a group project and Trump was in your group would you really say that he's a hard worker? Because I feel like he'd never show up to the meetings, never do the research or reading and then insist upon doing the presentation on the day, only to fuck it up. He took the job for the title, when forced to do actual work he throws all the responsibility away from his person and then deflects. When he's unable to deflect he shows himself to be woefully ignorant and incompetent. Alternatively, he's a 70 year old man with enough wealth to do several lifetimes worth of whatever leisurely activities he wants to engage in until he dies, but instead he chose to run for one of the tougher jobs in the world. And while I obviously think he's entirely unqualified, he campaigned hard. He was constantly holding rallies and meeting press. If he was part of my group, I'd expect him to work hard towards creating a presentation nearly the opposite of what I myself wanted to present, maybe he'd start rumors about how I raped a girl during some party to make the other group members distrust me and go with his suggestions or whatever. If Trump was 'slothy' in any way, he would not be president. If you wanna claim that travelling around the country holding rallies on a daily basis doesn't constitute hard work then well, I really disagree. He doesn't actually need to be the embodiment of all 7 deadly sins to be a bad president (and person) anyway, between 5 and 6 of those is more than sufficient. My theory is that rallying crowds behind his rhetoric charges and energizes him, whereas people arguing with him and questioning him drains his energy. I don't feel like he's a person who's had to deal with much adversity in life, and he's too old to adapt and change. I wouldn't count it as laziness, but I would say he's still woefully inadequate as a president. Gut feeling is not a good way to lead a presidency, and having an ill-informed president is just mind-boggling.
In other words Donald Trump is intimidated by the job and needs his ego stroked hence his weekly Mar A Largo trips, and rallies.
|
On March 21 2017 04:54 Plansix wrote:Sure the GOP just wants this thing to end as soon as possible so they can get on to not dealing with the ACA. They really seem lost without Obama to rail against.
The GOP is what we call an 'opposition party' over here in the Netherlands, they are really good at kicked at the establishment and telling them that they are going X wrong.
But the moment they come into power they flail around with no clue until voters kick them out again. At which point they happily go back to kicking against what they see as bad ideas.
|
On March 21 2017 07:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 07:28 Amui wrote:On March 21 2017 06:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 21 2017 06:03 KwarK wrote:On March 21 2017 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Lazy is one negative quality Trump can't be attributed with. I sure as hell wish it was accurate, but he's clearly a hard worker.. Somewhat selective, sure, lacking attention span for some of the more boring and tedious aspects of being a politician (or student of anything), absolutely, but he still works hard. He doesn't go to his briefings, clearly doesn't read briefings about any of the important subjects he ought to know, watches tv half the day and tweets about it the other half. I mean come on, really? This is a man who goes into every meeting completely unprepared and forces foreign leaders, from Theresa May to Shinzo Abe to Angela Merkel to Malcolm Turnbull to educate him about the fundamentals of the discussion at hand. The job is a vanity project for Trump, nothing more. This is a man who didn't really have any kind of idea for a healthcare plan, waited too long without working on one and then defended himself by saying that nobody knew it was a complicated subject. If you were doing a group project and Trump was in your group would you really say that he's a hard worker? Because I feel like he'd never show up to the meetings, never do the research or reading and then insist upon doing the presentation on the day, only to fuck it up. He took the job for the title, when forced to do actual work he throws all the responsibility away from his person and then deflects. When he's unable to deflect he shows himself to be woefully ignorant and incompetent. Alternatively, he's a 70 year old man with enough wealth to do several lifetimes worth of whatever leisurely activities he wants to engage in until he dies, but instead he chose to run for one of the tougher jobs in the world. And while I obviously think he's entirely unqualified, he campaigned hard. He was constantly holding rallies and meeting press. If he was part of my group, I'd expect him to work hard towards creating a presentation nearly the opposite of what I myself wanted to present, maybe he'd start rumors about how I raped a girl during some party to make the other group members distrust me and go with his suggestions or whatever. If Trump was 'slothy' in any way, he would not be president. If you wanna claim that travelling around the country holding rallies on a daily basis doesn't constitute hard work then well, I really disagree. He doesn't actually need to be the embodiment of all 7 deadly sins to be a bad president (and person) anyway, between 5 and 6 of those is more than sufficient. My theory is that rallying crowds behind his rhetoric charges and energizes him, whereas people arguing with him and questioning him drains his energy. I don't feel like he's a person who's had to deal with much adversity in life, and he's too old to adapt and change. I wouldn't count it as laziness, but I would say he's still woefully inadequate as a president. Gut feeling is not a good way to lead a presidency, and having an ill-informed president is just mind-boggling. In other words Donald Trump is intimidated by the job and needs his ego stroked hence his weekly Mar A Largo trips, and rallies.
Call it the "Winter White House." Trump does.
|
Norway28714 Posts
On March 21 2017 07:28 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 06:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 21 2017 06:03 KwarK wrote:On March 21 2017 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Lazy is one negative quality Trump can't be attributed with. I sure as hell wish it was accurate, but he's clearly a hard worker.. Somewhat selective, sure, lacking attention span for some of the more boring and tedious aspects of being a politician (or student of anything), absolutely, but he still works hard. He doesn't go to his briefings, clearly doesn't read briefings about any of the important subjects he ought to know, watches tv half the day and tweets about it the other half. I mean come on, really? This is a man who goes into every meeting completely unprepared and forces foreign leaders, from Theresa May to Shinzo Abe to Angela Merkel to Malcolm Turnbull to educate him about the fundamentals of the discussion at hand. The job is a vanity project for Trump, nothing more. This is a man who didn't really have any kind of idea for a healthcare plan, waited too long without working on one and then defended himself by saying that nobody knew it was a complicated subject. If you were doing a group project and Trump was in your group would you really say that he's a hard worker? Because I feel like he'd never show up to the meetings, never do the research or reading and then insist upon doing the presentation on the day, only to fuck it up. He took the job for the title, when forced to do actual work he throws all the responsibility away from his person and then deflects. When he's unable to deflect he shows himself to be woefully ignorant and incompetent. Alternatively, he's a 70 year old man with enough wealth to do several lifetimes worth of whatever leisurely activities he wants to engage in until he dies, but instead he chose to run for one of the tougher jobs in the world. And while I obviously think he's entirely unqualified, he campaigned hard. He was constantly holding rallies and meeting press. If he was part of my group, I'd expect him to work hard towards creating a presentation nearly the opposite of what I myself wanted to present, maybe he'd start rumors about how I raped a girl during some party to make the other group members distrust me and go with his suggestions or whatever. If Trump was 'slothy' in any way, he would not be president. If you wanna claim that travelling around the country holding rallies on a daily basis doesn't constitute hard work then well, I really disagree. He doesn't actually need to be the embodiment of all 7 deadly sins to be a bad president (and person) anyway, between 5 and 6 of those is more than sufficient. My theory is that rallying crowds behind his rhetoric charges and energizes him, whereas people arguing with him and questioning him drains his energy. I don't feel like he's a person who's had to deal with much adversity in life, and he's too old to adapt and change. I wouldn't count it as laziness, but I would say he's still woefully inadequate as a president. Gut feeling is not a good way to lead a presidency, and having an ill-informed president is just mind-boggling.
I largely agree with this. I just don't think you have to do stuff you don't enjoy doing to qualify as non-lazy (not that you argued the contrary point).
|
Mark Cuban had a good explanation of Trump if you've seen any of the his interviews. He's got good presence and knows how to work crowds and the like. But he has no depth of policy knowledge and no desire to actually understand. Ergo why he keeps supporting policies that are other people's (the budget is basically a copy of the heritage foundation). If you asked him to describe what was wrong with the healthcare policy and how the new bill fixes it he'd only be able to give you the same talking points about it being a disaster and it's forcing people to get health insurance. See the campaign. no knowledge of nuclear triad. Constant foreign policy blunders ("Russia's not going into Ukraine").
Trump needs to be in front of a crowd and needs to be liked (by at least someone). Because that's who he is. He also has no impulse control in terms of tweeting and claiming things. I don't necessarily blame him for that (if you've gotten where you are by doing something you're unlikely to change because you've never needed to.)
I see him as kind of a less likable Arnold with worse policies. Arnold had a ton of charisma and a ton of great ideas (Climate change, after school programs, redistricting.) But Arnold couldn't deal with the problems of Managing California's budget among other things.
I don't understand the people who still support him because they think he's actually capable of passing any substantial meaningful legislation. He's done 0 up to this point to make you think he has any chance of that. At best we're going to get the same trickle down stuff that just doesn't work.
|
In-depth and fascinating (at least to me) look at judicial nominations- in particular, election year nominations.
The Garland Precedent Should Not Stop Gorsuch
Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns. Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee.
Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election:
In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it.
By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety.
Read the rest (a period by period break down) here
|
|
|
United States43275 Posts
On March 21 2017 06:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2017 06:03 KwarK wrote:On March 21 2017 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Lazy is one negative quality Trump can't be attributed with. I sure as hell wish it was accurate, but he's clearly a hard worker.. Somewhat selective, sure, lacking attention span for some of the more boring and tedious aspects of being a politician (or student of anything), absolutely, but he still works hard. He doesn't go to his briefings, clearly doesn't read briefings about any of the important subjects he ought to know, watches tv half the day and tweets about it the other half. I mean come on, really? This is a man who goes into every meeting completely unprepared and forces foreign leaders, from Theresa May to Shinzo Abe to Angela Merkel to Malcolm Turnbull to educate him about the fundamentals of the discussion at hand. The job is a vanity project for Trump, nothing more. This is a man who didn't really have any kind of idea for a healthcare plan, waited too long without working on one and then defended himself by saying that nobody knew it was a complicated subject. If you were doing a group project and Trump was in your group would you really say that he's a hard worker? Because I feel like he'd never show up to the meetings, never do the research or reading and then insist upon doing the presentation on the day, only to fuck it up. He took the job for the title, when forced to do actual work he throws all the responsibility away from his person and then deflects. When he's unable to deflect he shows himself to be woefully ignorant and incompetent. Alternatively, he's a 70 year old man with enough wealth to do several lifetimes worth of whatever leisurely activities he wants to engage in until he dies, but instead he chose to run for one of the tougher jobs in the world. And while I obviously think he's entirely unqualified, he campaigned hard. He was constantly holding rallies and meeting press. If he was part of my group, I'd expect him to work hard towards creating a presentation nearly the opposite of what I myself wanted to present, maybe he'd start rumors about how I raped a girl during some party to make the other group members distrust me and go with his suggestions or whatever. If Trump was 'slothy' in any way, he would not be president. If you wanna claim that travelling around the country holding rallies on a daily basis doesn't constitute hard work then well, I really disagree. He doesn't actually need to be the embodiment of all 7 deadly sins to be a bad president (and person) anyway, between 5 and 6 of those is more than sufficient.
But Trump doesn't work hard trying to create an informed conservative counterargument to liberal arguments, or even work hard trying to mimic existing ones. He watches opinion pieces Fox and Friends and whatever they happened to say that morning becomes his opinion. It's not just that I disagree with Trump's ideological stance, it's that I'm not sure he even knows what his ideological stance is day to day because he never bothered to learn. I don't think that the United States should be trying to enter a new nuclear arms race with Russia. Trump doesn't represent a coherent ideological alternative to that explaining why we should. Trump is an individual who isn't entirely sure what nuclear weapons are if Marco Rubio isn't on hand to explain it to him. His contribution isYou know what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons like lots of things are done with uranium including some bad things. When asked "Which part of the nuclear triad, the bombers, the missiles or the subs, you most believe needs to be fixed?" he has no idea what the components of the triad are.
It's not about ideology. There are no shortage of people who can string a coherent and logical argument together that disagrees with my own world view. But not only is Trump not one of them, he doesn't even listen to them.
If Trump is working hard at something it sure as hell isn't related to the actual job of running the country.
|
I think the Democrats should try to block Gorsuch for as long as possible, unless opinion starts going heavily against the strategy. They should explain that they are doing it because Obama's opportunity to nominate Scalia's replacement was stolen, and because a majority of the voting public wanted a Democrat to choose the next Supreme Court justice.
At the same time, they should propose a list of center-right candidates for the seat. They shouldn't demand a liberal, but they can argue that a compromise candidate should be put forward. Someone like Merrick Garland, though on the other side of the political spectrum.
They can make the case that they are doing it to ensure that the person who gets the seat won't overturn Roe, believes in the separation between church and state, will protect gay marriage, and supports other causes that the public generally is behind.
If this effort is successful the Republicans would probably just end the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, but it would allow the Democrats to score some points with their base, and perhaps also with moderates who generally seem disgusted with the Republican's behavior in respect to Garland.
|
On March 21 2017 08:03 Introvert wrote:In-depth and fascinating (at least to me) look at judicial nominations- in particular, election year nominations. Show nested quote +The Garland Precedent Should Not Stop Gorsuch
Election-year Supreme Court nominations are always governed by partisan concerns. Neil Gorsuch is a careful judge, a lively writer, and a brilliant legal scholar. He’s received the highest possible rating from the left-leaning American Bar Association and the support of a number of liberals who have worked with him over the years. There’s nothing bad you can say about Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee.
Nothing, that is, except that Gorsuch is (1) a conservative who (2) was nominated by Donald Trump to (3) fill the same seat as Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee to whom Senate Republicans refused to give a vote, or even a hearing. Arch-partisan Democrats regard the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia as stolen, and Trump’s election as illegitimate, and they think these are reasons enough to vote against any Trump nominee to replace Scalia. As a result, the Gorsuch nomination will largely be a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the Senate’s rejection of the Garland nomination.
The Supreme Court confirmation process has been badly broken over the past three decades, and both parties have had a role in that. But the Garland nomination was a rare event in the modern Senate, because he was nominated in a presidential-election year by a president whose party did not control the Senate. Only once in U.S. history (in 1888) has the Senate acted before Election Day to confirm a justice who was nominated in the last year of a presidential term by a president of the opposing party. Three others (in 1845, 1880, and 1957) were confirmed only after the election:
In February 1845, outgoing president John Tyler (elected as a Whig but by then a man without a party) had nominations pending for two open seats. The Democrats had won control of both the presidency and the Senate in the 1844 elections. The lame-duck Whig Senate confirmed one of Tyler’s two nominees (Samuel Nelson, a Democrat, Tyler’s sixth nomination for that seat in 13 months), and left the other seat open for the incoming president after rejecting three efforts by Tyler to fill it.
In December 1880, a vacancy opened after Election Day. Republicans had won the presidential election as well as enough Senate seats to deadlock the Senate. The lame-duck Democratic Senate confirmed William Woods, a Republican nominated by outgoing Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, but when a second vacancy opened in January, they left that seat open for the incoming president (James Garfield, another Republican).
In October 1956, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan, a liberal Democrat. Eisenhower went on to win a landslide reelection, and in January, the Democratic Senate confirmed Brennan.
By contrast, the Scalia vacancy was the seventh time that the Senate has held a Supreme Court vacancy open rather than confirm an election-year nominee. Besides Obama, and the Tyler and Hayes cases mentioned above, this happened to John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Lyndon Johnson. In all these cases but Hayes’s, the failure to confirm meant that a president of a different party would make the nomination; in all but LBJ’s and Tyler’s, the incoming president would be from the same party that controlled the outgoing Senate. The Republican Congress went even further when Andrew Johnson was president: It eliminated Supreme Court seats as they became vacant, then restored them to be filled by the next Republican president. Johnson had made one nomination to a vacant seat, but the new law nullified it.
By contrast, nine election-year nominees and five post–Election Day nominees have been confirmed by the Senate when its majority was of the same party as the president. Only one president, Lyndon Johnson, has had a nominee rejected in this situation. In other words, as you’d expect, election-year nominations to the Court have usually been resolved on sharply partisan lines. So the Senate’s refusal to act on Garland is well within historical norms, and any Democratic effort to obstruct Gorsuch as payback would break new ground and possibly trigger the end of the judicial filibuster in its entirety. Read the rest (a period by period break down) here
The court's been activist for much longer than three decades, so the post-Bork era should just be regarded as a logical continuation of a partisan court.
But good article nonetheless on the precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
