TheKitttenGuard Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 Steal what works. Make America Great For All Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 Hire Trey Parker and Matt Stone. AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! Freedom Isn't Free. It costs a buck o' five. Those guys shit slogan gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 Apes. Together. Strong! 21 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Hire Trey Parker and Matt Stone. AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! Freedom Isn't Free. It costs a buck o' five. Those guys shit slogan gold. A shame for the Democrats they're Republicans. Or at least they were the last time they cared to say anything about their political affiliations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 GRRM seemed to come up with some cool house words. At least he's sympathetic to the Democrats. Spoiler If he can't write a whole book anymore... ...he might be able to come up with 3-5 catchy words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: 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. It's in the Constitution afaik. It's mostly just a quirk of Congressional adjournment and is super easy to stop from happening so it's not really an issue. If you've got the votes to stop a real veto, you've got the ability to stop a pocket veto with even less work. How it works is if the President doesn't sign a bill in 10 days (excluding Sundays) it becomes law, unless Congress is not there to "receive it", in which case it doesn't become law. As long as you make sure someone is there to receive it at the 10 day mark, it's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 Ok, this is getting a bit bizarre, even for this administration (if they were involved.) I'm almost inclined to wonder if the news got mixed with a movie script somehow. What follows is a timeline starting with the murder of a DNC staffer a year ago that goes on to include Fox News, a private investigator, a conspiracy theory, (allegedly) direct involvement by Trump himself (dictating alterations to the private investigators testimony - sound familiar?) and then a nice lawsuit to wrap things up in. Heck, read the whole thing: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-a-timeline-of-the-explosive-lawsuit-alleging-a-white-house-link-in-the-seth-rich-conspiracy/ar-AApfNMm?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580 Additional Note: Yes, I continue to read the 'comments' sections of many political articles. Over the past few weeks, though...these comments are getting extremely ugly. Both sides resort almost immediately to obscenities and name calling - frequently entire threads worth. Given the above article, and Trumps penchant for promoting/planting (?) fake news, I am starting to wonder if some of the more aggressive Trump supporters in these threads are...'official.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 14 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). Yeah, while pretty much everyone agrees "Better Deal" sucks, when was the last time a platform slogan actually mattered? I suppose in 94 with "Contract with America" - but that was actually a specific platform which the House did actually pass much of (only to die in the Senate). As you said, there wasn't any official slogan for the GOP in 2010, or the Dems in 2006 that I can recall, but they both did alright. 12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: 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. 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. I feel it still should be emphasized Trump stole his slogan. I expect for 2020 it will be "morning again in America...again." And yep, midterms are referendums on the presidency. That means if you're in the opposition and the president is unpopular (certainly the case right now) you maintain a negative focus on him. This should not be that hard, Trump likes to keep the focus on him too. 7 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said: Remember Al Gore's campaign slogan? It's OK if you don't. It was 'The Real Deal' Strangely, that just reminds me of the (somewhat appropriately) late 90s television show Newsradio, with Phil Hartman's character a radio host with a show called "The Real Deal with Bill McNeal." 10 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: 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. The Dems have already made arrangements to stay in session to ensure Trump can't made an AG recess appointment (the GOP did this throughout the Obama administration). Again, none of this matters. 5 members of Congress total voted against the sanctions. A regular veto isn't going to help Trump, let alone a pocket veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 4 hours ago, dmc515 said: A regular veto isn't going to help Trump, let alone a pocket veto. Yeah but I'm thinking Trump likes the idea of pocket pool vetos, makes him think he's so clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 10 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said: Steal what works. Make America Great For All "Big hands for an even bigger future" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: "Big hands for an even bigger future" I like that much more than 'A better deal.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 According to Bloomberg News, Trump has in fact finally signed the sanctions bill. However, that old joy, the Presidential signing statement, has made its first (I believe) appearance of this administration. Bloomberg says they have a copy of it, but their story doesn't provide it https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-02/trump-is-said-to-add-concerns-in-signing-russia-sanctions-law , instead they just wrote: Quote President Donald Trump has signed the Russia sanctions bill Congress forced on him, and is adding a statement saying the administration will carry out the law but with reservations about its impact and the constitutionality of some provisions. The so-called signing statement, obtained by Bloomberg, lays out Trump’s concerns about the legislation, including that it encroaches on presidential authority and may hurt U.S. ability to work with allies. Trump’s statement doesn’t signal any intent to bypass or circumvent aspects of the law. Instead, the president indicates he intends for his administration to carry out the law in a way consistent with his constitutional authority, language that leaves open some room for interpretation of how the law is executed. Trump’s concerns cover four areas: encroachment on executive authority, unintentional harm to U.S. companies and business, as well as U.S. international partners, and limits on the flexibility of the administration to act in concert with allies in dealing with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, Fez said: According to Bloomberg News, Trump has in fact finally signed the sanctions bill. However, that old joy, the Presidential signing statement, has made its first (I believe) appearance of this administration. Bloomberg says they have a copy of it, but their story doesn't provide it https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-02/trump-is-said-to-add-concerns-in-signing-russia-sanctions-law , instead they just wrote: Here is the statement. https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/892766184470433793 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: "Big hands for an even bigger future" "With Liberty and Tax Returns for all" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, Mexal said: Here is the statement. https://twitter.com/abbydphillip/status/892766184470433793 There are some insane bits to this statement (though nothing that seems to impact implementation): Quote Still, the bill remains seriously flawed particularly because it encroaches on the executive branchs authority to negotiate. Congress could not even negotiate a healthcare bill after seven years of talking. By limiting the Executives flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together. The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President. This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice. Remember, this is the sanctions bill. Also, note the typo in the first sentence. It doesn't change the meaning here, but there are court decisions that under some circumstances, typos that change sentence meaning are enforceable. Almost everything the WH puts out has typos; this will eventually seriously undercut something they want to do. Other note, I have no idea what the last two sentences are trying to say. Quote I built a truly great company worth many billions of dollars. That is a big part of the reason I was elected. As President, I can make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress. OMG. I'm surprised he didn't mention how many electoral votes he received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, Fez said: There are some insane bits to this statement (though nothing that seems to impact implementation): Remember, this is the sanctions bill. Also, note the typo in the first sentence. It doesn't change the meaning here, but there are court decisions that under some circumstances, typos that change sentence meaning are enforceable. Almost everything the WH puts out has typos; this will eventually seriously undercut something they want to do. Other note, I have no idea what the last two sentences are trying to say. OMG. I'm surprised he didn't mention how many electoral votes he received. Yea, all this is from the other statement he put out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 5 hours ago, dmc515 said: Yeah, while pretty much everyone agrees "Better Deal" sucks, when was the last time a platform slogan actually mattered? I suppose in 94 with "Contract with America" - but that was actually a specific platform which the House did actually pass much of (only to die in the Senate). As you said, there wasn't any official slogan for the GOP in 2010, or the Dems in 2006 that I can recall, but they both did alright. They don't matter in the sense that they don't effect the content of the platform, but in terms of PR they can be huge. Yes We Can. Hope and Change, Make America Great Again, etc, all captured a segment of the population's attention and imagination. As incompetent as Trump is, he understands the importance of branding. It's YUGE. /Titles and names are important. I bet most of us are sick of Cop/Buddy movies or TV shows, but I would watch the living fuck out of "Spicy and the Mooch". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 He's seriously not sane. Or not grown up. Not really an either/or, I suppose. He might be an insane child. Actually, the more I think about it, that sounds right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Red Tiger said: "With Liberty and Tax Returns for all" I got you beat: "Vote for me, I'll fix traffic" #electorallandslide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I got you beat: "Vote for me, I'll fix traffic" #electorallandslide Didn't Chris Christe use that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 57 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I got you beat: "Vote for me, I'll fix traffic" #electorallandslide "Only if you're nasty" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.