Shryke Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: One has to wonder how long Tillerson is for this White House. He basically said that Trump is own his own. And he's not the only cabinet member to publicly criticize him. So have Mattis and Cohn. The general is safe, but I'm not so sure about the other two. These people (not just the three above, but his entire cabinet) must realize by now that they're on a sinking ship that will ruin their careers forever if they don't leave soon, right? Tillerson more seems discontent because he's been completely sidelined as Secretary of State and seems to have little liking for the job in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 30, 2017 Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Not really. At best that was a secondary reason. This had nothing to do with policy or ideology either. Yes, a few House Republicans lobbied him to roll back funding for gender reassignment surgeries in the military, but they didn't want this at all. No no no Scot, Trump's main goal was to hurt people, and he was willing to hurt a group of people he's said he doesn't have any issue with. That provides a lot of insight into what he's willing to do going forward. And that's scary AF. Kind of see this as a nod to the Fundie end of his base, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Quote Kind of see this as a nod to the Fundie end of his base, don't you? It seems to me like he's an extremely weak President. He can't afford to lose any more support. The result is he constantly has to throw some sort of red meat to the trogs. GOP plots return to temporary tax cuts\ http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/29/son-of-bush-gop-plots-return-to-temporary-tax-cuts-242154 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Just now, Martell Spy said: It seems to me like he's an extremely weak President. He can't afford to lose any more support. The result is he constantly has to throw some sort of red meat to the trogs. I don't think it's a plot. I think any semblance of doing 'strategy' with Trump is a failed way of doing theory of mind. He knows he gets responses - both heavily negative and heavily positive - when doing the red meat thing. He wants ratings. He wants big spectacle, good or bad (or both). He wants adulation, and he wants anger, but he wants people talking about him. It isn't even a thought - he just knows that he gets the value out of it, like a pavlovian response, and shitposting is his button that he pushes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I live like 5 minutes away from Travis AFB, >>good grief!<<. We're neighbors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 56 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: One has to wonder how long Tillerson is for this White House. He basically said that Trump is own his own. And he's not the only cabinet member to publicly criticize him. So have Mattis and Cohn. The general is safe, but I'm not so sure about the other two. These people (not just the three above, but his entire cabinet) must realize by now that they're on a sinking ship that will ruin their careers forever if they don't leave soon, right? Hope it's not long. He's terrible. Trump might hire someone worse but it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 30, 2017 Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: >>good grief!<<. We're neighbors! Cool beans. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 9 hours ago, Lew Theobald said: You were in inquisitorial though-police mode. Is that, like, Tom Cruise in Minority Report? If so, that's pretty cool, other than the Tom Cruise part. 9 hours ago, Lew Theobald said: Trying to ferret out thought patterns that you might point to as vaguely symptomatic of unorthodoxy. For a moment there I thought you were actually trying to engage me in conversation, and exchange ideas, like a normal person. As @IamMe90 explained, my intent was to get you to articulate what you had ominously been mentioning as broader "implications" throughout repeated posts. Yes, I suspected it was primarily the slippery slope argument, but I don't think it's out of the range of civil discourse to press your counterpart in order to get them to say what they actually mean. Note after you did explicate the slippery slope argument, I did not attack or ridicule you personally, I merely pointed out I think the argument is ridiculous. I honestly do have sympathy for conservatives that are genuinely just trying to express themselves in an environment such as these threads. But I also understand the deep suspicion many here have - this is a very large forum in which I'm sure I'm not really known to many people reading this even though I've been a (admittedly desultory) member for five years. Not to mention politics is obviously low-hanging fruit for any troll. But I think I extended you the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think I mistreated you, impugned your motives, or violated any ethics in engaging in legitimate conversation. Even joked around a bit at the end there. If you do choose to return, I'll be happy to continue to engage in the same fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 In other news, those low polling numbers don't seem to be changing anyone's minds. 96% of Trump voters are still okay with their vote. https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/903017204865785859 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 30, 2017 Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 Kleptocracy 101: Trump Promises Chuck Grassley One Day After Reports That Don Jr. Will Be Called Before Grassley's Committee. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/30/trump-tower-russia-meeting-chuck-grassley?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark /Ethanol is good good good. The best really. Everyone knows Chuck Grassley has the best ethanol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Quote I don't think it's a plot. I think any semblance of doing 'strategy' with Trump is a failed way of doing theory of mind. He knows he gets responses - both heavily negative and heavily positive - when doing the red meat thing. He wants ratings. He wants big spectacle, good or bad (or both). He wants adulation, and he wants anger, but he wants people talking about him. It isn't even a thought - he just knows that he gets the value out of it, like a pavlovian response, and shitposting is his button that he pushes. Perhaps, you're right. Certainly, his racism is genuine, he's left no doubt of that. It is remarkable though that he is doing exactly we he needs to maintain the low support he has. He can't afford to lose Wall Street and is doing their bidding on taxes. This an unpopular agenda which could hammer his non Wall Street support. Here's the queen of the trogs herself on Trump's new tax agenda. I'm just wondering when all the Trump redistribution to the working class is going to happen. I seem to remember it being claimed on this board many times during the election. http://www.salon.com/2017/08/30/donald-trumps-pivot-to-tax-reform-is-quickly-panned-by-his-biggest-fans-jeb-had-better-ideas/ Donald Trump’s pivot to tax reform is quickly panned by his biggest fans: “Jeb! had better ideas” Watch: Trump loses Ann Coulter before our very eyes -reform-is-quickly-panned-by-his-biggest-fans-jeb-had-better-ideas/ Ann Coulter ✔ @AnnCoulter Oh stop pretending this is about letting "families" keep more of their money. HALF OF AMERICANS DON'T PAY TAXES! This is for Wall Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Shryke said: Some people asked Trump to do something aobut the issue. Fox News and Breitbart and the like too I'm sure have said some bad shit about the issue. And so he just went all in because he's too stupid to do anything any other way. The GOP members who are going "Too far dude!" are only saying that because they think it's too extreme to fly with the voters. This makes sense with the sequence of events. That's why I think what Mattis actually ends up doing is so interesting. Is it, as you proposed upthread, that the military doesn't really want to do this - and if that's the case how does Mattis try and thread the needle to still satisfy his boss and follow orders? Or, perhaps, is this Trump's out - as in he just wanted to throw more red meat at the base and now wants Mattis to reign him in because he doesn't really care about the policy* and doesn't really want to have this fight? Or, somewhat relatedly, was this his response to far right MCs pushing him on the medical expenses, and now Trump realizes he went too far and needs Mattis to bail him out? Or is it the most simple explanation - Trump needs Mattis to provide him as much legal cover as possible to extend another bigoted policy? It could be all of these, or none of these and something we don't know. There's always a black box when trying to discern motives of politicians, but I think after the amount of discretion Trump afforded Mattis in the memo - which he was under no real obligation to do - this is an especially interesting case in being particularly....black box-y. *Granted, the only policies Trump even arguably cares about are most likely trade and immigration. And even those may not be the case, as he has a single policy interest: more Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 12 minutes ago, Kalbear said: In other news, those low polling numbers don't seem to be changing anyone's minds. 96% of Trump voters are still okay with their vote. https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/903017204865785859 That's been demonstrated as a poor indicator of future behavior. It's effectively asking people to admit they're wrong, which most respondents are loathe to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, dmc515 said: That's been demonstrated as a poor indicator of future behavior. It's effectively asking people to admit they're wrong, which most respondents are loathe to do. I'm not sure that this implies they wouldn't vote for Trump again, however; usually when someone makes a decision they don't change it a second time, for the same logical reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I'm not sure that this implies they wouldn't vote for Trump again, however; usually when someone makes a decision they don't change it a second time, for the same logical reason. Well, if people never changed their minds a second time (or 3rd/4th/5th) on incumbents that slices off a large subfield of political behavior and a lot of people could all go home. Obviously some do, and the point is that survey item is a bad indicator of discerning whether and which respondents have changed their minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Just now, dmc515 said: Well, if people never changed their minds a second time (or 3rd/4th/5th) on incumbents that slices off a large subfield of political behavior and a lot of people could all go home. Obviously some do, and the point is that survey item is a bad indicator of discerning whether and which respondents have changed their minds. For the most part, incumbents do have a pretty easy road, one way or another, and that includes presidents. It also makes a lot of sense why few presidents are 1-term wonders, but few parties are able to hold on past one POTUS and they often switch. At the very least I think you can agree that this survey does not point out any positive indications that Trump supporters are defecting or changing their minds in droves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 31, 2017 Author Share Posted August 31, 2017 District Judge Refuses to Throw Out Arpaio Conviction Without Oral Argument http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/district-judge-wont-throw-out-arpaio-conviction-without-oral-agrument?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: That is from 2015, before she was allowed. Now things are normal - or were, before two weeks ago. Now-now, she's not sure what's going to happen. I'm trying to find the broadcast NPR interview with her. http://www.npr.org/2015/06/27/416015320/embraced-yet-forbidden-staff-sergeant-comes-out-as-transgender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 16 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I'm not sure that this implies they wouldn't vote for Trump again, however; usually when someone makes a decision they don't change it a second time, for the same logical reason. Right now, according to the coverage of orange thing in Tejas, the Texans are adoring him, he's not making any of the errors that bush did with katrina, everything is going really well, and dumpster loads of money is going to be poured out of the federal coffers for them for years and years -- "Just like we (meaning Texans) voted to do for Sandy." Which is such a lie, just for starters, as everyone who suffered in Sandy knows . Evidently we're much nicer coz all the politicos here are saying hells ya we'll give Texas money because we're much nicer people than Cruz. I'd applaud their compassion -- except -- I know Texas big oil, big bidness and politicos all too well. I also already know how the dumpster loads of Katrina moola mostly ended up in the accounts of them that's already got, who just happened to be, a lot of them, Texas developers (as well as rebuilding the Jefferson Davis "presidental library" and all the casino boats in Mississippi, for instance) -- one wonder just how much of the billions it will take will go to the majority of people who have lost their homes. And lets not forget 1) the height of the hurricane season is just getting going; 2) all that money that those who are suffering form wild fires are supposed to get, and how much has already been spent trying to contain; 3) this is just one year and this is how it is, ya know, but 4) TAX CUTS! TAX REFORM! FOR THE GOUGED CORPS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 13 minutes ago, Kalbear said: For the most part, incumbents do have a pretty easy road, one way or another, and that includes presidents. It also makes a lot of sense why few presidents are 1-term wonders, but few parties are able to hold on past one POTUS and they often switch. Of course there is a huge incumbency advantage for MCs. And many of those advantages are shared by incumbent presidents. But I'm not ready to say there's a clear cut trend that reflects any causality based on the fact no president has lost reelection in the past 24 years. It's a small n, which is a shitty problem for all analyses based on presidential elections (since there's only good data since Truman). And you could easily take the 24 years preceding that as counterexample: from 1968-1972, the incumbent lost three times (Ford, Carter, Bush), and Johnson would have if he ran in 68. That's either 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 6 incumbents losing depending on if you want to count Johnson. I do agree that it's very difficult for one party to hold the presidency over three cycles (or past 8 years), but that only emphasizes the fact that there's a significant and even crucial proportion of the electorate that does frequently change their minds. 22 minutes ago, Kalbear said: At the very least I think you can agree that this survey does not point out any positive indications that Trump supporters are defecting or changing their minds in droves. Haven't looked at the survey beyond the tweet you provided, but I trust you're correct in that assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.