CSNbbs
Trump Administration - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Rice Archives (/forum-640.html)
+------ Thread: Trump Administration (/thread-797972.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-11-2017 03:47 PM

(10-11-2017 03:22 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  If somebody would like to bet me that his next SCOTUS pick (if he gets one) *won't* be a massive f-you to conservatives, please let me know.

I'll take that bet Illini. What do you propose for the wager?


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-11-2017 03:48 PM

(10-11-2017 03:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  fyi:

the reference should be the *Frito* Bandito. Famous commercials from the early 70s....

But I chose Cheeto because Trump is orange.

Cute, and inventive.

I would just note that Frito-Lay discontinued it because the "Bandito" part was deemed to be racially insensitive by liberals.

SJWs from another era? 03-wink (Sorry for the segue, in another post in another section of this BB I tutored OO what a 'SJW' was...)


RE: Trump Administration - illiniowl - 10-11-2017 04:21 PM

(10-11-2017 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:22 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  If somebody would like to bet me that his next SCOTUS pick (if he gets one) *won't* be a massive f-you to conservatives, please let me know.

I'll take that bet Illini. What do you propose for the wager?

Whatever you like. How about your house? (I'm currently renting, so that's not fair.) I mean, somebody had to tackle him and prevent him from nominating his sister with his first go-round. And that was with a backdrop of him having promised loudly and repeatedly throughout the campaign to pick from the Heritage Foundation's handmade list. He's no longer bound by that promise, is he? Not that his record on promises is inspiring to begin with.

I'm not even talking about the types of stealth liberals or SCOTUS picks gone bad that Republicans have whiffed on in the past (Souter, some would say Kennedy, Blackmun, I could keep going). I mean someone the thinking right out-and-out opposes from the get go, like Harriet Miers. Except guess what - there is no way this president will listen and respond like GWB did.

The terms of the bet are that Trump's next SCOTUS pick will be opposed by the editors of National Review, the Weekly Standard or the WSJ. Agreed? You truly believe otherwise? Or do you just like to gamble? (No judgment here - I love gambling!)


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-11-2017 04:41 PM

(10-11-2017 03:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  how did you feel about the perpetual obama campaign, Lad?

Obama's reelection campaign officially began in April 2011 when he filed his papers with the FEC, more than two years after he was inaugurated and about 1.5 yrs before the 2012 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/crisis-in-the-mideast/2010/08/25/AFR9ROXC_story.html?utm_term=.d9b124a341c3

Trump declared for reelection on the day of his inauguration.

I would love to see campaigns be relegated to only the year in which the election occurs so that law makers don't waste so much time on the campaign trail.

"officially"? Quite a qualifier.

has Trump put in his papers with the FEC? If not, then he is not officially running yet.

Fact is, people start running way before it becomes official. Usually starts with an exploratory committee, and some fund raisers.

Yes, Trump filed on Inauguration Day. That’s why I explicitly stated “officially.”


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-11-2017 04:44 PM

(10-11-2017 03:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your statement just now proves how ineffective criticisms from the opposite side of the aisle are, because supporters of Trump (or people who, at best, are OK with him), can easily brush it off as partisan politics, no matter how valid the criticism is.

Well, there is the group known as The Resistance. Kind of a dead giveaway.

I am OK with him, only because I think we are Better With Him. I think some things he has done or is doing are good, others are terrible. I have enumerated those here before.

But I find few people on the left side of the aisle who think anything he did, does or wants to do is good. Pretty much a blanket condemnation of it all. But I am listening, so if any of you want to list the positives of the Trump Administration so far or that are anticipated, feel free to speak.

And this is exactly why someone on the same side of the aisle criticizing him is so much more powerful.

Are you intentionally trying to sound like you’re disagreeing with the statement above?

That statement is just as true about Obama - liberals that’s criticized him helen more weight because it didn’t appear to Ben party politics.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-11-2017 04:48 PM

(10-11-2017 03:22 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why not someone within the Democratic party?

You're telling me that no one in the Democratic party, at the national level, hasn't already confronted Trump publicly?

Of course not. Clearly they oppose anything and everything he does., sometimes just because it is him. But if they want him out of there, why not put up a good candidate instead of relying on Republican factions to take him down?

I think you're misunderstanding what confront means in this case. Corker isn't running against Trump, but he publicly criticized him in a way that other Republicans have been hesitant to. And the best type of criticism, the type that can actually lead to change, comes from within, which is why NewTimes hoped that other Republicans would follow Corker's lead.

Your statement just now proves how ineffective criticisms from the opposite side of the aisle are, because supporters of Trump (or people who, at best, are OK with him), can easily brush it off as partisan politics, no matter how valid the criticism is. In the end, many on that side of the aisle can, and do, distill any criticism or opposition of the Cheeto Bandito down to the left wanting to oppose everything Trump does because he is either Trump or a Republican. But if a Republican comes out and is critical of Trump, that criticism holds more weight.

And furthermore, your comment about putting up a good candidate, that just doesn't make sense. Trump isn't up for reelection until 2020, and being that it is currently 2017, there is no reason to expect Democrats to have put forward any candidates for POTUS. Just as I thought Trump was wrong for starting to campaign in 2017, I think it would be wrong for a Democrat to official start campaigning this early.

First of all, Trump supporters and no doubt Trump himself are just as impervious to and disdainful of criticism from the (establishment / intellectual) right as the left, if not more, if not *far* more. Watch Steve Bannon's 60 Minutes interview from a couple weeks ago or, frankly, read anything Bannon's ever written. Frankly, since Trump was a New York Democrat his whole life until about five minutes ago, criticism "from within" would seem to call for a Democrat to take on that job. And Trump has shown that he *responds* to criticism from the left, for Pete's sake! Within a day of saying he was ending DACA, and getting beat up as a heartless bastard, he basically said he'd preserve it if Congress doesn't. And on repealing Obamacare, he responded to Democratic criticism of that by insisting that all the popular parts (read: superficially popular, if people aren't asked what they cost) be kept. If somebody would like to bet me that his next SCOTUS pick (if he gets one) *won't* be a massive f-you to conservatives, please let me know.

Second, I hope all this banging away at keyboards calling on conservatives to "do something" about Trump is at least cathartic, because it is all going to be so ridiculously ineffectual. He is not resigning, he is not magically disappearing, he is not going to be impeached by a Republican Congress (feel free to win back the House and Senate and give it a try in 2019, though) since he hasn't, you know, actually committed treason or any other high crime and misdemeanor. I have no doubt that there are fantasies on the left about his being assassinated, and if he is, I can just about guarantee you the killer, to the extent motivated by domestic politics and not mental illness or Islamist terrorism, will have a leftist bent. He (or she) will not remind anyone of George Will, let's put it that way. So what else would you have Republicans of good conscience do? Every appointee and staffer hands in their resignation at the same time - a variation on the old "let's all drop our pencils at once" trick from grade school? Rig up a 25th Amendment proceeding to have him declared mentally incompetent when he is clearly *not* insane, just highly unlikable - a variation on tying George III to a chair and having the Prince of Wales declared regent?

By all means, continue with the criticisms of his policies, his character, his tweets, etc., because Lord knows most of it is deserved, and by all means work to see him defeated in 2020 (although good luck with that if the economy is still up). But it is a mathematical fact that the reason he is president is because of defections by a critical mass of people in a few key states who voted twice for Obama. You don't want him again in 2020, then fix your own house, from whence he came. Physician, heal thyself.

I’m really confused as to when I waded into a debate as to why Trump won, what methods could be used to remove him from office, and so on. I thought I was just commenting on why criticisms from the right held more than the left?


RE: Trump Administration - illiniowl - 10-11-2017 05:26 PM

(10-11-2017 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:22 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're telling me that no one in the Democratic party, at the national level, hasn't already confronted Trump publicly?

Of course not. Clearly they oppose anything and everything he does., sometimes just because it is him. But if they want him out of there, why not put up a good candidate instead of relying on Republican factions to take him down?

I think you're misunderstanding what confront means in this case. Corker isn't running against Trump, but he publicly criticized him in a way that other Republicans have been hesitant to. And the best type of criticism, the type that can actually lead to change, comes from within, which is why NewTimes hoped that other Republicans would follow Corker's lead.

Your statement just now proves how ineffective criticisms from the opposite side of the aisle are, because supporters of Trump (or people who, at best, are OK with him), can easily brush it off as partisan politics, no matter how valid the criticism is. In the end, many on that side of the aisle can, and do, distill any criticism or opposition of the Cheeto Bandito down to the left wanting to oppose everything Trump does because he is either Trump or a Republican. But if a Republican comes out and is critical of Trump, that criticism holds more weight.

And furthermore, your comment about putting up a good candidate, that just doesn't make sense. Trump isn't up for reelection until 2020, and being that it is currently 2017, there is no reason to expect Democrats to have put forward any candidates for POTUS. Just as I thought Trump was wrong for starting to campaign in 2017, I think it would be wrong for a Democrat to official start campaigning this early.

First of all, Trump supporters and no doubt Trump himself are just as impervious to and disdainful of criticism from the (establishment / intellectual) right as the left, if not more, if not *far* more. Watch Steve Bannon's 60 Minutes interview from a couple weeks ago or, frankly, read anything Bannon's ever written. Frankly, since Trump was a New York Democrat his whole life until about five minutes ago, criticism "from within" would seem to call for a Democrat to take on that job. And Trump has shown that he *responds* to criticism from the left, for Pete's sake! Within a day of saying he was ending DACA, and getting beat up as a heartless bastard, he basically said he'd preserve it if Congress doesn't. And on repealing Obamacare, he responded to Democratic criticism of that by insisting that all the popular parts (read: superficially popular, if people aren't asked what they cost) be kept. If somebody would like to bet me that his next SCOTUS pick (if he gets one) *won't* be a massive f-you to conservatives, please let me know.

Second, I hope all this banging away at keyboards calling on conservatives to "do something" about Trump is at least cathartic, because it is all going to be so ridiculously ineffectual. He is not resigning, he is not magically disappearing, he is not going to be impeached by a Republican Congress (feel free to win back the House and Senate and give it a try in 2019, though) since he hasn't, you know, actually committed treason or any other high crime and misdemeanor. I have no doubt that there are fantasies on the left about his being assassinated, and if he is, I can just about guarantee you the killer, to the extent motivated by domestic politics and not mental illness or Islamist terrorism, will have a leftist bent. He (or she) will not remind anyone of George Will, let's put it that way. So what else would you have Republicans of good conscience do? Every appointee and staffer hands in their resignation at the same time - a variation on the old "let's all drop our pencils at once" trick from grade school? Rig up a 25th Amendment proceeding to have him declared mentally incompetent when he is clearly *not* insane, just highly unlikable - a variation on tying George III to a chair and having the Prince of Wales declared regent?

By all means, continue with the criticisms of his policies, his character, his tweets, etc., because Lord knows most of it is deserved, and by all means work to see him defeated in 2020 (although good luck with that if the economy is still up). But it is a mathematical fact that the reason he is president is because of defections by a critical mass of people in a few key states who voted twice for Obama. You don't want him again in 2020, then fix your own house, from whence he came. Physician, heal thyself.

I’m really confused as to when I waded into a debate as to why Trump won, what methods could be used to remove him from office, and so on. I thought I was just commenting on why criticisms from the right held more than the left?

Then focus on the first paragraph of my response which directly rebuts that contention, and not the second (more aimed at contentions from others earlier in the thread anyway). I maintain that the next time he acquiesces to a rightward corrective criticism will be the first. He is not FROM the right, so why would he give a flip what they think? Not dissimilar to Obama, frankly. If you are hoping to see some modulation of his behavior (akin to a leopard changing his spots, but whatever), the people who are most likely to be able to influence him are Democrats.

He has a clear weak point: He does not like being called heartless or uncaring. Which party's job is it in this country to level those charges, anyway?

McCain opposes him and gets called a fake war hero. The Bushes' disdain for him is well chronicled. Tillerson has called him a moron. Ryan and McConnell strive not to be seen with him in public. He is cogently opposed, prodded, corrected, ridiculed, denigrated, and more, every day, by National Review and other well-respected bastions of conservative thought that any other "Republican" in normal times would think twice before getting on the wrong side of. He is being investigated by a Republican-appointed special prosecutor. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the non-deplorable Republicans are doing our bit.


RE: Trump Administration - Owl 69/70/75 - 10-11-2017 05:34 PM

We had a discussion in class today, and my students asked if I could see any good coming out of this. I do see one possibility. Over the last 30, 40, 50, 60, or more years, there has been a significant shift in power from the legislative branch (where the founders apparently intended it to lie, since they made it the subject of Article I of the Constitution) to the executive. Could we reach a point where both democrats and republicans got so pissed off at Trump that they passed a bunch of legislation to take back a bunch of the power that they ceded?

That would be a clear positive IMO. And it's about the only one I can imagine.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-11-2017 05:46 PM

(10-11-2017 05:26 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:22 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Of course not. Clearly they oppose anything and everything he does., sometimes just because it is him. But if they want him out of there, why not put up a good candidate instead of relying on Republican factions to take him down?

I think you're misunderstanding what confront means in this case. Corker isn't running against Trump, but he publicly criticized him in a way that other Republicans have been hesitant to. And the best type of criticism, the type that can actually lead to change, comes from within, which is why NewTimes hoped that other Republicans would follow Corker's lead.

Your statement just now proves how ineffective criticisms from the opposite side of the aisle are, because supporters of Trump (or people who, at best, are OK with him), can easily brush it off as partisan politics, no matter how valid the criticism is. In the end, many on that side of the aisle can, and do, distill any criticism or opposition of the Cheeto Bandito down to the left wanting to oppose everything Trump does because he is either Trump or a Republican. But if a Republican comes out and is critical of Trump, that criticism holds more weight.

And furthermore, your comment about putting up a good candidate, that just doesn't make sense. Trump isn't up for reelection until 2020, and being that it is currently 2017, there is no reason to expect Democrats to have put forward any candidates for POTUS. Just as I thought Trump was wrong for starting to campaign in 2017, I think it would be wrong for a Democrat to official start campaigning this early.

First of all, Trump supporters and no doubt Trump himself are just as impervious to and disdainful of criticism from the (establishment / intellectual) right as the left, if not more, if not *far* more. Watch Steve Bannon's 60 Minutes interview from a couple weeks ago or, frankly, read anything Bannon's ever written. Frankly, since Trump was a New York Democrat his whole life until about five minutes ago, criticism "from within" would seem to call for a Democrat to take on that job. And Trump has shown that he *responds* to criticism from the left, for Pete's sake! Within a day of saying he was ending DACA, and getting beat up as a heartless bastard, he basically said he'd preserve it if Congress doesn't. And on repealing Obamacare, he responded to Democratic criticism of that by insisting that all the popular parts (read: superficially popular, if people aren't asked what they cost) be kept. If somebody would like to bet me that his next SCOTUS pick (if he gets one) *won't* be a massive f-you to conservatives, please let me know.

Second, I hope all this banging away at keyboards calling on conservatives to "do something" about Trump is at least cathartic, because it is all going to be so ridiculously ineffectual. He is not resigning, he is not magically disappearing, he is not going to be impeached by a Republican Congress (feel free to win back the House and Senate and give it a try in 2019, though) since he hasn't, you know, actually committed treason or any other high crime and misdemeanor. I have no doubt that there are fantasies on the left about his being assassinated, and if he is, I can just about guarantee you the killer, to the extent motivated by domestic politics and not mental illness or Islamist terrorism, will have a leftist bent. He (or she) will not remind anyone of George Will, let's put it that way. So what else would you have Republicans of good conscience do? Every appointee and staffer hands in their resignation at the same time - a variation on the old "let's all drop our pencils at once" trick from grade school? Rig up a 25th Amendment proceeding to have him declared mentally incompetent when he is clearly *not* insane, just highly unlikable - a variation on tying George III to a chair and having the Prince of Wales declared regent?

By all means, continue with the criticisms of his policies, his character, his tweets, etc., because Lord knows most of it is deserved, and by all means work to see him defeated in 2020 (although good luck with that if the economy is still up). But it is a mathematical fact that the reason he is president is because of defections by a critical mass of people in a few key states who voted twice for Obama. You don't want him again in 2020, then fix your own house, from whence he came. Physician, heal thyself.

I’m really confused as to when I waded into a debate as to why Trump won, what methods could be used to remove him from office, and so on. I thought I was just commenting on why criticisms from the right held more than the left?

Then focus on the first paragraph of my response which directly rebuts that contention, and not the second (more aimed at contentions from others earlier in the thread anyway). I maintain that the next time he acquiesces to a rightward corrective criticism will be the first. He is not FROM the right, so why would he give a flip what they think? Not dissimilar to Obama, frankly. If you are hoping to see some modulation of his behavior (akin to a leopard changing his spots, but whatever), the people who are most likely to be able to influence him are Democrats.

He has a clear weak point: He does not like being called heartless or uncaring. Which party's job is it in this country to level those charges, anyway?

McCain opposes him and gets called a fake war hero. The Bushes' disdain for him is well chronicled. Tillerson has called him a moron. Ryan and McConnell strive not to be seen with him in public. He is cogently opposed, prodded, corrected, ridiculed, denigrated, and more, every day, by National Review and other well-respected bastions of conservative thought that any other "Republican" in normal times would think twice before getting on the wrong side of. He is being investigated by a Republican-appointed special prosecutor. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the non-deplorable Republicans are doing our bit.

I also wasn't talking about the weight it holds with Trump. I can't tell what Trump actually cares about, and even if I did, I doubt anyone could get him to change or modulate his behavior.

Regardless, the original statement I was commenting on didn't say that no one on the right has criticized Trump, it's that no one has actually stood up to him, that they have been pretty wishy washy about it when they have. And the list you provide helps show that. Tillerson called Trump a moron privately, but then immediately came out to the public with his tail between his legs and denied it. Ryan and McConnell strive not to be seen with him instead of publicly stating their disagreements with the deplorable things he does. As the original post stated, Graham has come out in opposition a few times, but while Trump is absolutely bungling the response to Puerto Rico, Graham goes and tweets about playing golf with Trump.

The comment wasn't that, as you said, non-deplorable Republicans aren't trying, it's that they aren't trying hard enough. Ignoring how people feel about his policy, Trump is bungling enough things (see: travel expenses, conflicts of interest, Maria response, tweeting, etc) that elected officials from both sides should be making it clear what is/isn't acceptable.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-11-2017 05:50 PM

(10-11-2017 05:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We had a discussion in class today, and my students asked if I could see any good coming out of this. I do see one possibility. Over the last 30, 40, 50, 60, or more years, there has been a significant shift in power from the legislative branch (where the founders apparently intended it to lie, since they made it the subject of Article I of the Constitution) to the executive. Could we reach a point where both democrats and republicans got so pissed off at Trump that they passed a bunch of legislation to take back a bunch of the power that they ceded?

That would be a clear positive IMO. And it's about the only one I can imagine.

I think that would be a positive if the Legislative branch could actually get back to working together. I do hope that maybe that is another positive that comes out of this election, but I'm worried we may see things swing in the opposite direction.

I could also see a benefit being that more people are encourage involved in the political process. For example, there have been a few articles written about how scientists and engineers are running for office at greater numbers, which is encouraging because of how poor science literacy is in our legislative bodies.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-11-2017 05:50 PM

(10-11-2017 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  how did you feel about the perpetual obama campaign, Lad?

Obama's reelection campaign officially began in April 2011 when he filed his papers with the FEC, more than two years after he was inaugurated and about 1.5 yrs before the 2012 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/crisis-in-the-mideast/2010/08/25/AFR9ROXC_story.html?utm_term=.d9b124a341c3

Trump declared for reelection on the day of his inauguration.

I would love to see campaigns be relegated to only the year in which the election occurs so that law makers don't waste so much time on the campaign trail.

"officially"? Quite a qualifier.

has Trump put in his papers with the FEC? If not, then he is not officially running yet.

Fact is, people start running way before it becomes official. Usually starts with an exploratory committee, and some fund raisers.

Yes, Trump filed on Inauguration Day. That’s why I explicitly stated “officially.”

So:
constant campaign mode early with filing == bad.
constant campaign mode early without filing == okay.

Got it.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-11-2017 05:58 PM

(10-11-2017 05:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  how did you feel about the perpetual obama campaign, Lad?

Obama's reelection campaign officially began in April 2011 when he filed his papers with the FEC, more than two years after he was inaugurated and about 1.5 yrs before the 2012 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/crisis-in-the-mideast/2010/08/25/AFR9ROXC_story.html?utm_term=.d9b124a341c3

Trump declared for reelection on the day of his inauguration.

I would love to see campaigns be relegated to only the year in which the election occurs so that law makers don't waste so much time on the campaign trail.

"officially"? Quite a qualifier.

has Trump put in his papers with the FEC? If not, then he is not officially running yet.

Fact is, people start running way before it becomes official. Usually starts with an exploratory committee, and some fund raisers.

Yes, Trump filed on Inauguration Day. That’s why I explicitly stated “officially.”

So:
constant campaign mode early with filing == bad.
constant campaign mode early without filing == okay.

Got it.

Well, one of those is literally, like, your opinion, man.

Unless you can point me to an article that describes an Obama reelection campaign rally, I think there is a difference. The POTUS will always do some campaigning early in their presidency, but it's normally for things like increasing support for a legislative agenda, or for the party ahead of a midterm election. But you don't really see unapologetic and explicit reelection campaigns.

If you can point me towards an obvious, explicit reelection campaign rally that Obama held before he filed with the FEC, then I'll agree with you that he started actually campaigning before he filed. But until you do, it's your opinion, and I do think filing FEC reelection paperwork is important.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-11-2017 06:08 PM

(10-11-2017 04:21 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:22 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  If somebody would like to bet me that his next SCOTUS pick (if he gets one) *won't* be a massive f-you to conservatives, please let me know.

I'll take that bet Illini. What do you propose for the wager?

Whatever you like. How about your house? (I'm currently renting, so that's not fair.) I mean, somebody had to tackle him and prevent him from nominating his sister with his first go-round. And that was with a backdrop of him having promised loudly and repeatedly throughout the campaign to pick from the Heritage Foundation's handmade list. He's no longer bound by that promise, is he? Not that his record on promises is inspiring to begin with.

I'm not even talking about the types of stealth liberals or SCOTUS picks gone bad that Republicans have whiffed on in the past (Souter, some would say Kennedy, Blackmun, I could keep going). I mean someone the thinking right out-and-out opposes from the get go, like Harriet Miers. Except guess what - there is no way this president will listen and respond like GWB did.

The terms of the bet are that Trump's next SCOTUS pick will be opposed by the editors of National Review, the Weekly Standard or the WSJ. Agreed? You truly believe otherwise? Or do you just like to gamble? (No judgment here - I love gambling!)

I look at his appellate picks and they have been out of this world good for this evil Heritager Foundationite.

His next pick will either replace Kennedy (retiring) or Ginsburg (via the proverbial 'no way will he replace me until cold dead hands'). He picks a 'bad' pick on either of those slots he is toast politically.

So I will take the conditions, with clarification. You win if Trump's next SCOTUS pick is opposed either by a full opposition (i.e. signed "the editors" or "the editorial staff") or a majority of individual editor opinions of one of: a) WSJ, or b) National Review. (Nixing Weekly Standard as being too Internet-ish). This way a single Jonah Goldberg whine will not count as being determinative.... 03-wink

I'll PM you my info and the proposed bet amount.


RE: Trump Administration - tanqtonic - 10-11-2017 06:17 PM

(10-11-2017 05:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 05:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Obama's reelection campaign officially began in April 2011 when he filed his papers with the FEC, more than two years after he was inaugurated and about 1.5 yrs before the 2012 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/crisis-in-the-mideast/2010/08/25/AFR9ROXC_story.html?utm_term=.d9b124a341c3

Trump declared for reelection on the day of his inauguration.

I would love to see campaigns be relegated to only the year in which the election occurs so that law makers don't waste so much time on the campaign trail.

"officially"? Quite a qualifier.

has Trump put in his papers with the FEC? If not, then he is not officially running yet.

Fact is, people start running way before it becomes official. Usually starts with an exploratory committee, and some fund raisers.

Yes, Trump filed on Inauguration Day. That’s why I explicitly stated “officially.”

So:
constant campaign mode early with filing == bad.
constant campaign mode early without filing == okay.

Got it.

Well, one of those is literally, like, your opinion, man.

Unless you can point me to an article that describes an Obama reelection campaign rally, I think there is a difference. The POTUS will always do some campaigning early in their presidency, but it's normally for things like increasing support for a legislative agenda, or for the party ahead of a midterm election. But you don't really see unapologetic and explicit reelection campaigns.

If you can point me towards an obvious, explicit reelection campaign rally that Obama held before he filed with the FEC, then I'll agree with you that he started actually campaigning before he filed. But until you do, it's your opinion, and I do think filing FEC reelection paperwork is important.

The most important aspect of filing at this point is the effect on opposition ads and opposition funding of those ads.

If Trump is "explicit[ly]" running a "re-election campaign" perhaps you can point out any specific re-election banners in his apparent "explicit reelection campaign rallies"? Or perhaps point out any phrases in the speeches that refer to the not-so-soon election of 2020?

I'll grant you Trump used the filing to do the first point in the post. But I dont see a hide's hair of difference between Trump and Obama first year rallies, one that is seemingly so clear to you.

I think both are rather grotesque, but you seemingly see a very stark and obvious difference.


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-11-2017 06:30 PM

(10-11-2017 06:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 05:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 05:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 04:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 03:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "officially"? Quite a qualifier.

has Trump put in his papers with the FEC? If not, then he is not officially running yet.

Fact is, people start running way before it becomes official. Usually starts with an exploratory committee, and some fund raisers.

Yes, Trump filed on Inauguration Day. That’s why I explicitly stated “officially.”

So:
constant campaign mode early with filing == bad.
constant campaign mode early without filing == okay.

Got it.

Well, one of those is literally, like, your opinion, man.

Unless you can point me to an article that describes an Obama reelection campaign rally, I think there is a difference. The POTUS will always do some campaigning early in their presidency, but it's normally for things like increasing support for a legislative agenda, or for the party ahead of a midterm election. But you don't really see unapologetic and explicit reelection campaigns.

If you can point me towards an obvious, explicit reelection campaign rally that Obama held before he filed with the FEC, then I'll agree with you that he started actually campaigning before he filed. But until you do, it's your opinion, and I do think filing FEC reelection paperwork is important.

The most important aspect of filing at this point is the effect on opposition ads and opposition funding of those ads.

If Trump is "explicit[ly]" running a "re-election campaign" perhaps you can point out any specific re-election banners in his apparent "explicit reelection campaign rallies"? Or perhaps point out any phrases in the speeches that refer to the not-so-soon election of 2020?

I'll grant you Trump used the filing to do the first point in the post. But I dont see a hide's hair of difference between Trump and Obama first year rallies, one that is seemingly so clear to you.

I think both are rather grotesque, but you seemingly see a very stark and obvious difference.

Trump talking about his re-election slogan he was thinking of (prior to his inauguration even): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/18/donald-trumps-new-2020-campaign-slogan-is-very-well-donald-trump/?utm_term=.e8bd3b0f5fc6

Trump has held re-election campaign fundraisers: https://apnews.com/a416461c199547ee9cd75e3cbf0aab3e/Trump-to-host-Trump-re-election-fundraiser-at-Trump-hotel

His re-election campaign has been taking in donations already ($7 mil as of the end of January): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/31/president-trump-has-already-socked-away-more-than-7-million-for-his-2020-reelection/?utm_term=.8f5fc7c8ba62

The Trump re-election campaign is paying for his rallies, because they are re-election rallies: http://time.com/4676011/donald-trump-melbourne-florida-rally/

The re-election campaign is already paying for ads supporting Trump: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/01/trump-ad-buy-100-days-237830

I could keep going, but maybe you should look at the Trump 2020 campaign wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2020#Early_campaign_developments

All of those things are possible because he filed with the FEC. Had he not, he wouldn't be able to raise money for a re-election, which means he wouldn't be able to fund those rallies, pay for ads, etc.


RE: Trump Administration - JustAnotherAustinOwl - 10-12-2017 07:43 AM

Now he's telling Puerto Rico (most of which still doesn't have power as I understand it) he might pull back hurricane aid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/12/trump-warns-puerto-rico-we-cannot-keep-fema-the-military-the-first-responders-forever/?utm_term=.a942e30d7763

I "joked" a while back in this thread that it's like Trump just found out Puerto Ricans are citizens and is really pissed about it. But I'm beginning to think that's actually what's going on.


RE: Trump Administration - JustAnotherAustinOwl - 10-12-2017 08:17 AM

(10-11-2017 03:22 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Second, I hope all this banging away at keyboards calling on conservatives to "do something" about Trump is at least cathartic, because it is all going to be so ridiculously ineffectual. He is not resigning, he is not magically disappearing, he is not going to be impeached by a Republican Congress (feel free to win back the House and Senate and give it a try in 2019, though) since he hasn't, you know, actually committed treason or any other high crime and misdemeanor. I have no doubt that there are fantasies on the left about his being assassinated, and if he is, I can just about guarantee you the killer, to the extent motivated by domestic politics and not mental illness or Islamist terrorism, will have a leftist bent. He (or she) will not remind anyone of George Will, let's put it that way. So what else would you have Republicans of good conscience do? Every appointee and staffer hands in their resignation at the same time - a variation on the old "let's all drop our pencils at once" trick from grade school? Rig up a 25th Amendment proceeding to have him declared mentally incompetent when he is clearly *not* insane, just highly unlikable - a variation on tying George III to a chair and having the Prince of Wales declared regent?

I don't think he has to be literally "insane" to be declared unfit for office. I'm not predicting it happens, but it's clearly more than just "highly unlikable". A sitting Senator of his own party essentially said he is unfit and incapable, needing "adult day care". The leaks that come from WH aides invariable make him sound like an out of control toddler or someone with a serious mood disorder. A story in today's WP has a quote that he "threw a fit" over the Iran deal. Yesterday it was implied that Mattis and Kelly have contingency plans for what to do if Trump orders a nuclear first strike. Etc.

BTW, here is our exchange from last year:

(11-22-2016 12:14 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  
(11-22-2016 09:10 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I have friends on both sides of the aisle who seem convinced that by the time 2020 rolls around (and possibly even the midterms) we'll be talking about President Pence.

I just don't see it. Trump would have to resign or be removed from office by the republican congress.

I predicted before the election that whoever won would ultimately be hounded from office in disgrace before his or her term was up. I stand by that prediction.

I hope I was wrong and you were correct, because Trump has turned out to be even more dangerous and destructive than I thought.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 10-12-2017 08:43 AM

You asked for it


RE: Trump Administration - RiceLad15 - 10-12-2017 08:49 AM

(10-12-2017 08:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You asked for it

Bueno.

Trump's comments about silencing the media who is not slandering or libeling him is really disconcerting.


RE: Trump Administration - OptimisticOwl - 10-12-2017 09:24 AM

(10-12-2017 08:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 08:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You asked for it

Bueno.

Trump's comments about silencing the media who is not slandering or libeling him is really disconcerting.

I like Sasse, although I have seen him only a few times and have not delved into his positions yet. I wonder if he is running for 2020? Oh wait, he hasn't filed. So, no. But if he changes his mind, I would strongly consider him. I still think when all is said and done, Trump will not run again in 2020. JMHO.


There are far more people who dislike everything about Trump than there are people who like everything about him.

What do you like so far? Surely he has done or said something you like? I don't like much of what he has done and said, yet I still think we are Better With Him.