r'hllor's red lobster

u.s. politics: is this purity test covered under my obamacare?

408 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

last thread over 400

Edited by r'hllor's red lobster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Commodore, weren't you a conservative?

fairly certain he still is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Kind of feel like it's also meant to conjure up remembrance of "The New Deal" as well. I don't know, it's just bad in any case.

 

 

It's a bit a both, but the emphasis feels like it's focused on Trump's deal making skills, or more importantly, lack thereof. 

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These press conferences are becoming brutal to watch"

Press Corps: We've caught you in a lie.

SHS: We're the most honest people ever.

Press Corps: Look, we'll walk you through the series of lies we've caught you telling.

SHS: The President is the most honest person in the country.

*Press Corps collectively glares at SHS*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have thought after their advertising misfires during the election, Democrats would've at least temporarily dropped their reliance on focus-testing while they figure out what they're doing wrong in their process. Apparently not.

Still, for a midterm, I don't think a platform slogan will make much difference. It would be helpful if they could get some easy-to-remember catch phrases though (a la the GOP's "Death Panels!" in 2010).

Also, as some politicos on Twitter have pointed out, someone really should consider hiring the random protester quoted in this article as a speechwriter:

Quote

“They don’t know what it’s like to go to the bank and hit ‘balance.’ They just hit ‘withdraw,’”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's a bit a both, but the emphasis feels like it's focused on Trump's deal making skills, or more importantly, lack thereof. 

The fact that even people who pay attention to politics and the democratic machine can't even really say what it means speaks volumes.

HIlary's slogans were ineffective because they were equal parts pandering to the far left (at the exclusion of the center) and  'I'm not Trump', which is a bad strategy, apparently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

fairly certain he still is

The butters av made me think you were Commodore with a different name, my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politico posted the WSJ interview transcript with Trump. As you'd expect, this guy is nuts. I'm genuinely surprised that there is a person who actually is like this in real life and disturbed beyond belief that he leads the United States.

Some gems:

Quote

WSJ: I thought it was an interesting speech in the context of the Boy Scouts.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Right.

WSJ: They seemed to get a lot of feedback from former scouts and –

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Did they like it?

WSJ: It seemed mixed.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: They loved it. (Laughter.) It wasn’t – it was no mix. That was a standing –

WSJ: In the – you got a good – you got a good reaction in –

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I mean, you know, he writes mostly negative stuff. But that was a standing ovation –

WSJ: You got a good reaction inside the arena, that’s right.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: – from the time I walked out on the stage – because I know. And by the way, I’d be the first to admit mixed. I’m a guy that will tell you mixed. There was no mix there. That was a standing ovation from the time I walked out to the time I left, and for five minutes after I had already gone. There was no mix.

WSJ: Yeah, there was a lot of supporters in the arena.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful. So there was – there was no mix.

Here is the Boy Scouts official apologizing for the political rhetoric after the speech.

Here is Trump answering a question about working with Democrats on infrastructure:

Quote

WSJ: Can I ask on that? I mean, are you confident? When you say the Democrats are obstructionists, and obviously they’re looking ahead to the midterms next year, it doesn’t seem like politically for Democrats there’s a lot of incentive, even on a bipartisan thing like infrastructure, that might be popular – (inaudible). How tough a road is it going to be? In any case it’s hard –

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, they tried – they tried it with me. She spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads. She didn’t do a positive ad, virtually. And she lost easily, you know, 306 to 223 I think, right – 223, something like that. That’s a lot. And she – they tried it.

I mean, honestly, they – the ads were coming at me. Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of negative ads. And when people went into the voter booth, they didn’t know what she stood for. I always said that. I said if I can take this onslaught personally, it’s going to be a great thing because nobody knew what she stood for. So now they’re trying to change their message a little bit, you know. I mean, it’s – it’s one of those things, but now they’re trying to change their message and we’ll see what happens.

But I think that we’re doing very well. Every indication is that in every one of our swing states we’re substantially up, like Ohio. Tonight I’m going to Ohio – Youngstown, Ohio – and we’ll be up – we’re way up. You know, I won the state by nine or 10 or something, by nine or 10 points, without any governor support, OK? So you have the governor of Ohio not supporting you and you win by almost 10 points, which is pretty good because Ohio’s not – if you remember, you guys were always saying you have to win Ohio, right? There is –

MR. BAKER: No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.

Here is what Trump is most proud of including a random crowd size comment and implying Obama banned farming?

Quote

MR. BAKER: What are you most proud of in the first six months?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: A lot of things. I think I’m proud of the Supreme Court choice. And that’s not just a nomination, that’s getting him through. I’m very proud of opening up regulations. One of the reasons you see optimism is because people can actually use their land. They can farm their land. I’ve had tremendous and tremendous – look, I had 45,000 people there yesterday. It’s the biggest crowd they’ve ever had, and they were – they were going wild yesterday in West Virginia. But people can actually use their land and they can build.

And I think one of the things that I have to be very proud of is the VA. I think we have a great, great administrator, OK –

There are so many more. It's unbelievable that he's actually considered sane. And poor job by the WSJ for actually following up on answers. It's clear they chose not to release the transcript because of how poor he answered the actual questions they asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's in mental decline. This admin is some combination of Reagan and GWB, but stupider this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

He's in mental decline. This admin is some combination of Reagan and GWB, but stupider this time.

Many of his closest friends before he got into politics predicted that he would have a mental breakdown before his first term in office. Trump, at the end of the day, just wants to be loved by everyone, and denying him that is how you inflict the most pain upon him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

The fact that even people who pay attention to politics and the democratic machine can't even really say what it means speaks volumes.

HIlary's slogans were ineffective because they were equal parts pandering to the far left (at the exclusion of the center) and  'I'm not Trump', which is a bad strategy, apparently. 

Yeah, plus she had a hard time getting a consistent message across. For all of Trump's flaws, he does know how to market and he had a slogan that was effective for the times, despite it being a total be slogan.

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Still, for a midterm, I don't think a platform slogan will make much difference. It would be helpful if they could get some easy-to-remember catch phrases though (a la the GOP's "Death Panels!" in 2010).

True. Also, from my experience (though it might not be true in general), you need to go negative in the midterms, especially if you're the party out of power, and positive and optimistic in the Presidential cycles. Despite Trump's general doomsday theme, his core message/slogan that was easy to convey and did have a positive theme, plus it specifically targeted a "diverse" set of constituents. 

Also, it didn't hurt that he shamelessly lied and over-promised on every single issue. However, that will come back to bite him in 2020, assuming he's still in office (an increasingly fair assumption that he won't be). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

/Click in for comments. Many are saying that this won't work as the Dems are blocking a pocket veto by staying in session. Supposed to pass if he doesn't sign after 10 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

49 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

/Click in for comments. Many are saying that this won't work as the Dems are blocking a pocket veto by staying in session. Supposed to pass if he doesn't sign after 10 days.

Either Trump (or his advisers) don't understand that a pocket veto can't occur when the Senate is session, he/they don't understand that a bill becoming law without the President's signature has just has much force as one that is signed, or the House not being in session actually is enough for a pocket veto.

I'm pretty sure its one of the first two, but it may the third one. In which case, this will not improve relations with Congress.

ETA: Fourth option is that that tweet is unreliable. For instance, a Democratic party activist is unlikely to have WH sources currently.

Edited by Fez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Either Trump (or his advisers) don't understand that a pocket veto can't occur when the Senate is session, he/they don't understand that a bill becoming law without the President's signature has just has much force as one that is signed, or the House not being in session actually is enough for a pocket veto.

I'm pretty sure its one of the first two, but it may the third one. In which case, this will not improve relations with Congress.

ETA: Fourth option is that that tweet is unreliable. For instance, a Democratic party activist is unlikely to have WH sources currently.

I don't know how true this is, but it is mentioned in the comments that Congress can designate a member to receive the signed sanctions even if the House is not in session, which effectively kills the opportunity for a pocket veto. It seems that the Dems have done this, and the Republicans haven't opposed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I just read that Joe Arpaio has been convicted of contempt of court. I wonder how he will look in pink? 

Edited by maarsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Triggered by the lower case "us", but I guess at least the thread title is consistently lowercase throughout.

So do I take it from posts here that there is a way for the president to veto a veto-busting majority? That sort of shit really shouldn't even be theoretically possible. If you can get almost all Democrats and Republicans to agree on something, then it should not be possible for one person to veto that vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now THIS is some RED MEAThttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html?smid=tw-share

 

Quote

 

The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maarsen said:

I just read that Joe Arpaio has been convicted of contempt of court. I wonder how he will look in pink? 

Gotta save those 70,000 dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Al Gore's campaign slogan?  It's OK if you don't.  It was 'The Real Deal' and as a campaign slogan it was 'Real Stupid' 'Real Awkward and Clumsy' and 'Really Forgettable'.    Hillary's 'Stronger Together' is the same slogan for my credit union.  Doesn't really work for them either.  'Better Deal' is really not better, for as Arya Stark might say 'That's just stupid' and she'd be right.

I don't have any suggestions, but Jeebus, when it comes to sloganeering, the Demo's suck.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.