Dr. Pepper Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Mexal said: "I hire the best people!" Guess Fox News has it's new team member because who the fuck else would ever hire him now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Hope Melissa McCarthy rolls out Spicey just one more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denstorebog Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Spicer! NOOOOO! You were one of the OG's, one of the remaining Season 1 favorites characters, from back when the plot was still exciting, when we all thought Bannon was the genius mastermind behind it all. Now it's just a bunch of weird subplots about Russia and Bannon drinking in Priebus' office. With Spicer gone too, I don't know if I have any interest in watching anymore. EDIT: I have no idea what NDA's are in place to prevent it, but that aside, Spicer would have a HELL of a book deal waiting for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, Mexal said: "I hire the best people!" First evidence of a Trump hire having a principle. Granted, that principle was "I don't want to work for Scaramucci." and not "I don't want to outright lie to the public." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 23 minutes ago, Mexal said: "I hire the best people!" Ah, the rats are queuing up. Spicey calls the first lifeboat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, denstorebog said: EDIT: I have no idea what NDA's are in place to prevent it, but that aside, Spicer would have a HELL of a book deal waiting for him. OH YEAH! Can you say payday? I thought you could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Rule of Law? No such thing for these rats (hey we still haven't seen those tax returns, and according to this, we are never supposed to): http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/trump-is-mobilizing-for-war-against-the-rule-of-law.html Quote Trump has shown himself immune to widespread warnings that certain steps are simply not done. His hiding of tax returns, firing of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (who was investigating Russian financial crimes when he was let go), and ousting of FBI director James Comey were all steps that would seem to immolate his career. Ordering the Department of Justice to fire Mueller, or pardoning the targets of his investigations, would be an open announcement that Trump considers his financial ties to the Russian underworld and state to be beyond any legal accountability. The ominous threats emanating from the White House are that of an administration mobilizing for war against the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 53 minutes ago, Mexal said: That's what some legal scholars say. How can the President be the judge in his own case which is essentially what pardoning himself would do. For the future, I think the best course would be to do away with the Presidential pardon. Sure, some turkeys* would march to their death, but its a price we should be willing to pay to overcome executive overreach. *Not to minimize some of the cases where Presidential pardons have done good, like overturning of non-violent offences such as President Obama did. But the real solution to that is overhauling the criminal justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: For the future, I think the best course would be to do away with the Presidential pardon. Sure, some turkeys* would march to their death, but its a price we should be willing to pay to overcome executive overreach. *Not to minimize some of the cases where Presidential pardons have done good, like overturning of non-violent offences such as President Obama did. But the real solution to that is overhauling the criminal justice system. Yea but there is zero chance there would be an amendment to the Constitution removing the Presidential Pardon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 I have several friends and acquaintances as well as numerous people from my alma mater who are currently running for office. Many of them are scientists. Almost all of them have shared the same sorts of complaints about the Democratic Party and how it cultivates new blood. While their Republican counterparts find their party is looking at candidates with with certain profiles and then supporting them from the start, the Dem party tends to wait to see which candidates are raising the most money and then begins to offer support from their. Sure, politicians need to be effective fundraisers but this process could be actively harming the dem party because it pushes out people who don't come from wealthy backgrounds or don't have friends who can contribute large sums of money. One friend points out that her personal network are scientists and working class folks who can all kick in $50 while she's competing against people whose networks are lawyers and business execs who can kick in $500 or $5000. No real questions about this. More just musings and frustration. I read an article recently (Politico, I think? I can't find it now) about how there has been an increase in Democratic candidates interested in running for local or state offices. On the surface the article offers an optimistic glimpse into a possible future, but it didn't touch on the problems the dem party has with recruiting talent. How many potentially really good candidates are getting looked over because they don't come from the right backgrounds flush with money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 It's becoming more obvious with every twit that the twit in chief puts out, every interview, every demand, that all of this is about laundering dirty money (and destroying the US government and replacing it with totalitarian idiots, which also works by laundering money, as Jane Mayer's Dark Money shows). Laundering the dirty money is the tie that binds the whole bunch to each other and with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: I have several friends and acquaintances as well as numerous people from my alma mater who are currently running for office. Many of them are scientists. Almost all of them have shared the same sorts of complaints about the Democratic Party and how it cultivates new blood. While their Republican counterparts find their party is looking at candidates with with certain profiles and then supporting them from the start, the Dem party tends to wait to see which candidates are raising the most money and then begins to offer support from their. Sure, politicians need to be effective fundraisers but this process could be actively harming the dem party because it pushes out people who don't come from wealthy backgrounds or don't have friends who can contribute large sums of money. One friend points out that her personal network are scientists and working class folks who can all kick in $50 while she's competing against people whose networks are lawyers and business execs who can kick in $500 or $5000. No real questions about this. More just musings and frustration. I read an article recently (Politico, I think? I can't find it now) about how there has been an increase in Democratic candidates interested in running for local or state offices. On the surface the article offers an optimistic glimpse into a possible future, but it didn't touch on the problems the dem party has with recruiting talent. How many potentially really good candidates are getting looked over because they don't come from the right backgrounds flush with money? I think that's a problem that has affected both parties and this country in an extremely important way. What you're left with is a bunch of people who are really good at fundraising, but not terribly good at much of anything else that has to do with governing. On top of that, they are constantly on that hamsterwheel. Like 75% of their time is spent fundraising. It's a Catch 22 that is strangling our system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I think that's a problem that has affected both parties and this country in an extremely important way. What you're left with is a bunch of people who are really good at fundraising, but not terribly good at much of anything else that has to do with governing. On top of that, they are constantly on that hamsterwheel. Like 75% of their time is spent fundraising. It's a Catch 22 that is strangling our system. Be thankful you don't live in Japan. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (the fakest name ever) has a stranglehold on that country's politics. That party only has one thing uniting them and that's raising enough money to keep winning elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Red Tiger said: Be thankful you don't live in Japan. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (the fakest name ever) has a stranglehold on that country's politics. That party only has one thing uniting them and that's raising enough money to keep winning elections. I don't see how we are much different at this point. About the one positive Trump has given us is he proved you can do it with less money. That said, it's all about the money at the end of the day. It absolutely rules our system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I think that's a problem that has affected both parties and this country in an extremely important way. What you're left with is a bunch of people who are really good at fundraising, but not terribly good at much of anything else that has to do with governing. On top of that, they are constantly on that hamsterwheel. Like 75% of their time is spent fundraising. It's a Catch 22 that is strangling our system. But the issue I'm point out is that it appears the GOP is doing a better job at selecting candidates based on profiles rather than just fundraising ability. For example, Friend Jane is running in X district. Three other democrats are running. They are all told that the party will look at offering support if they hit a certain fundraising threshhold by a certain date. In that same district, several new Republicans are running. The GOP is already offering support based mostly on profile with fundraising being secondary. That support isn't necessarily monetary - a tweet here by members of the party, a mention at events by more established members there, that sort of thing. While the democratic party remains completely silent as all these up and comers are worker their way through fundraising season. Yeah, the need to fundraise is a huge problem across the board. But one side looks (to me at least) like they are doing much better at getting new blood into their party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I don't see how we are much different at this point. About the one positive Trump has given us is he proved you can do it with less money. That said, it's all about the money at the end of the day. It absolutely rules our system. Nah, at least the Democratic Party has a chance to come back (plus the two parties at least have some actual policies), this is how Japanese politics looks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Councillors_(Japan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Japan) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: But the issue I'm point out is that it appears the GOP is doing a better job at selecting candidates based on profiles rather than just fundraising ability. For example, Friend Jane is running in X district. Three other democrats are running. They are all told that the party will look at offering support if they hit a certain fundraising threshhold by a certain date. In that same district, several new Republicans are running. The GOP is already offering support based mostly on profile with fundraising being secondary. That support isn't necessarily monetary - a tweet here by members of the party, a mention at events by more established members there, that sort of thing. While the democratic party remains completely silent as all these up and comers are worker their way through fundraising season. Yeah, the need to fundraise is a huge problem across the board. But one side looks (to me at least) like they are doing much better at getting new blood into their party. Yeah, I get your point and I think it's an important one. This has to be about more than just money. You could very well have an absolutely electric candidate out there that simply doesn't have the fundraising network to compete. I would think those two things should be somewhat related, but I can certainly see how that's not always going to be the case. At any rate, money has become way too important in politics. I think we can all agree on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Just thinking more on this, the dems could keep a focus on fundraising ability but just change how they calculate it. A person who can get $250 from 50 people has way more money than the one who gets $25 from 100 people. But the one who can convince twice as many people to part with their cash likely has more fundraising potential in the future as they begin to network outside of their immediate circles. I'm just annoyed. Watching shit fall apart and seeing how it falls apart is hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 56 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I don't see how we are much different at this point. About the one positive Trump has given us is he proved you can do it with less money. That said, it's all about the money at the end of the day. It absolutely rules our system. Trump received a lot of free TV time that does obscure that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: Trump received a lot of free TV time that does obscure that. Sure, but that is part and parcel as to how you beat someone who has superior funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.