The Trump Presidency

57Brave said:
yeah, withholding disaster aid is = to tearing up a speech

I don't care about Pelosi's "actions"

What I do care about is the TMZ level false equivalency you see of what she did to what Trump is doing.
That is what the media called "economic anxiety" this past election.
That a lot of people are snapping right into line over.

That poster that asked "what propaganda"
Click to expand...

Who is equating them here? I don't see a single person doing that. Calling them both wrong =/= calling them equal.

Murdering your grandma is clearly worse than stealing money from her purse. They both are wrong, but we understand one is clearly worse than the other. That doesn't mean we should condone stealing money from your grandma.
 
I am waiting for our Trump apologists or, both siders, to condemn Trumps talk this morning where he opined on the faith of his political foes, smeared a Purple Heart recipient and used profanity at the prayer breakfast.

But, "she persisted"
 
You and striker have expressed more outrage over Pelosi than you have over anything Trump has done.

That is just ****ing weird
 
striker42 said:
What good does getting "down and dirty" do? It might be cathartic but does it actually yield any real world gains? Not that I've ever seen.

Again, it's the two wrongs make a right fallacy. If it's wrong for the Republicans to engage in a certain manner, it's wrong for the Dems.
Click to expand...

It's not about 2 wrongs making a right. It's about what works right now in the modern world of politics. Being sensationalist works. Being rational doesn't. Trump broke the mold. To reset it we need a similar national referendum. Until that happens the Democrats have every right to get in the trenches if they see it fit.
 
57Brave said:
You and striker have expressed more outrage over Pelosi than you have over anything Trump has done.

That is just ****ing weird
Click to expand...

This is blatantly false, at least in my case. I've been an outspoken critic of Trump since before he won the election.
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
I am waiting for our Trump apologists or, both siders, to condemn Trumps talk this morning where he opined on the faith of his political foes, smeared a Purple Heart recipient and used profanity at the prayer breakfast.

But, "she persisted"
Click to expand...

I would never condone any of that either. Which appears to be the difference between us, that I don't condone petty and childish behavior just because a politician has a certain letter next to his name.


And before you start ripping party loyalists (which I'm not by the way), I've seen you defend Bill Clinton's actions many times, as well as the DNC in 2016 for actively trying to sabotage Sanders campaign. So please, stop acting all high and mighty.
 
Last edited:
I honestly didn't know any of that happened. But to be honest, I abhor 90% of what Trump says and does, so if you want me to post about everything, I probably wouldn't have enough time in the day.
 
Carp said:
I honestly didn't know any of that happened. But to be honest, I abhor 90% of what Trump says and does, so if you want me to post about everything, I probably wouldn't have enough time in the day.
Click to expand...

why take the time to post/opine Pelosi ripping a paper yet passing over that which you "abhor".

I corrected inaccuracies about Clinton, not defended him. As far as 2016, as a Sanders voter, he lost.

I , as I believe Sen Sanders himself, recognize HRC campaign out organized him.
 
57Brave said:
why take the time to post/opine Pelosi ripping a paper yet passing over that which you "abhor".

I corrected inaccuracies about Clinton, not defended him. As far as 2016, as a Sanders voter, he lost.

I , as I believe Sen Sanders himself, recognize HRC campaign out organized him.
Click to expand...


I post plenty about Trump's antics. Sorry I don't feel the need to critique every single one of them (or even keep up with all of them, he lies/says something stupid on an almost hourly basis).

The point about Pelosi is she should rise above it, not play into it. It makes her look petty and childish, hurts the image of the Dems, and it plays right into Trump's hand.

And I've seen you clearly condone both things. Especially the Bernie one.
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
I , as I believe Sen Sanders himself, recognize HRC campaign cheated him.
Click to expand...

FIFY

2016 Dem election was a fix that got outed. They didn't expect Bernie to do anything. Then he took an early lead and the fix started from there. Hillary's campaign was better financed and had effectively the political backing of the DNC.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

With a highlight

"When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination."
 
Carp said:
The point about Pelosi is she should rise above it, not play into it. It makes her look petty and childish, hurts the image of the Dems, and it plays right into Trump's hand.
Click to expand...

This is where I disagree with you. Trump doesn't have a moral plank to stand on. The party of standing up and yelling "YOU LIE" at the president doesn't have a moral ground to stand on. It doesn't play into his hand. It plays into a game. Is it the right play? Who knows. But I mean given how outraged the Alt-Right is I think it was the perfect move.
 
zitothebrave said:
FIFY

2016 Dem election was a fix that got outed. They didn't expect Bernie to do anything. Then he took an early lead and the fix started from there. Hillary's campaign was better financed and had effectively the political backing of the DNC.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

With a highlight

"When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination."
Click to expand...

yeah, out organized :)

"politics ain't bean bag "
 
striker42 said:
Completely disagree. There is definitely a place for theatrics. Speech craft is mostly theater. But that's just a small portion of it.

Politics is deal making, at least in our system. There's not a ton any one person in government can do alone. You need to be able to make deals. You have to be able to pull the strings to get a bill out of committee, to get it brought to the floor, to get it worked on in the other house, to get it added to a larger bill, and so on. Right now it's doubly true with divided government.

So in order to make a deal, there must be a base level of trust and common ground. You can't have everyone so at each other's throats that they're more willing to let nothing get done than to give their opponent something they want. The kind of theatrics we're seeing now just erode common ground and the willingness to give the other party anything they want.

The theatrics also anger voters who tend not to take my point of view that all of it is nonsense. Instead they see their party's actions as justified while condemning the actions of the other party. This leads to angry voters who run to the fringes and elect nutters who will stoop to new lows. It's a downward spiral.
Click to expand...

The actual, stated Republican strategy during the Obama administration was pretty much a paraphrase of your bolded words above. I’ve got plenty of criticisms of Obama’s administration, but it was long on professionalism and comity, most particularly in those early days.

I agree about the banality and ultimate futility of stuff like Pelosi’s stunt. But your summation of how things get done doesn’t really float in contemporary politics, IMO. To me, the most corrosive things that have happened to our political institutions have been cold-eyed power plays—the 2000 election shenanigans, the selling of the Iraq War, the Merrick Garland SCOTUS nomination, for example—rather than stunts and silliness. Watching those events unfold is way more chilling to the belief in norms and institutions, and did the most to pave the way for Trump just sweeping aside the pretense that anything matters other than getting what you can, while you can, by whatever means necessary.
 
from the same article:

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

The party never dreamed Sanders would do as well as he did.
Still don't

2015 world, Not sure what candidate would not jump at that deal. Sanders included

Again 2015 world, HRC was at 65% approval with only a little known Senator from Vermont running
Yeah, I agree it was ****ty, but I understand how it happened.
I also understand it wont happen exactly like that again.

Sanders later campaigned for HRC. Making more appearances than the former President.

Making friends and growing his contact list.
What a lousy way to select even a dog catcher
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
from the same article:

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

The party never dreamed Sanders would do as well as he did.
Still don't

2015 world, Not sure what candidate would not jump at that deal. Sanders included

Again 2015 world, HRC was at 65% approval with only a little known Senator from Vermont running
Yeah, I agree it was ****ty, but I understand how it happened.
I also understand it wont happen exactly like that again.

Sanders later campaigned for HRC. Making more appearances than the former President.

Making friends and growing his contact list.
What a lousy way to select even a dog catcher
Click to expand...

really wish the Dems weren't afraid of Obama campaigning for them... if they weren't so gunshy on him fighting for them in 2010, 2014... we may not have lost the House and Senate, same for 2016.
 
57Brave said:
You and striker have expressed more outrage over Pelosi than you have over anything Trump has done.

That is just ****ing weird
Click to expand...

Ever think it's because I actually still believe Pelosi is capable of better behavior? When you expect someone to behave poorly and they do, it's not disappointing. You still condemn their behavior but it's not as upsetting. That's me with Trump. I long for him to actually behave like a President. I just don't expect it of him. That hope died long ago.

Pelosi is a long time member of the establishment. She knows how the sausage is made. So to see her sink to the same nonsense is disappointing.

We need an adult in the room and I don't see one.
 
Pelosi tearing up the speech during the actual speech would have been the horrible behavior she's being accused of. She waited until the liar stopped lying.

What law did she break?
 
BTW we should consider the worst aspect of Trump's presidency is the **** reign of FCC chair and Verizon shill Ajit Pai.

Just want to leave that here. That's all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top