US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's most Americans JS

 

The new Treasury Secretary was an executive producer for "Batman v. Superman," and Mad Max Fury Road" Hope this comes up during his confirmation hearings.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

The new Treasury Secretary was an executive producer for "Batman v. Superman," and Mad Max Fury Road" Hope this comes up during his confirmation hearings.

This isn't really relevant, since those two movies basically cancel each other out.

[Phantom Roxas]

So do you support Hampshire college no longer flying the Flag too?

 

Stop doing this. Whenever someone points out something, you just respond "Oh, do you agree about this other separate thing too?" You're using false equivalences. What's the point? To try and trick people into revealing themselves as hypocrites? Because yes, you do go out of your way to try and frame people as hypocrites. See, at least when I try to frame you as a hypocrite (Which does in fact make me also a hypocrite, but I don't care), I just point to two things you've actually said because they contradict each other. Someone says just one thing, and you ask a question trying to bait them, when really, you don't even know what they think. People can judge things on a case by case basis, but all you do is push things to extremes by homogenizing issues. If someone believes something about one thing, then you treat them like that somehow means they must believe in these other things as well.

 

If you define an ~SJW~ as someone who tries to silence people, then that is exactly what you are when you repeatedly and unapologetically mock people for being sensitive about any issues, and even when people point out that the GOP did something wrong (For example, the bathroom discussion in the ideology thread), you just try to beat down and people and brag about how this is why we lost the election, or why that other thing is why we lost. It's just "This is why you lost, this is why you're wrong, which automatically means that I am right, and you don't really understand how this effects me because I don't care about the needs of someone else's 'kind' when my needs should take precedence over theirs" and oh just cry me a river and grow up.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This isn't really relevant, since those two movies basically cancel each other out.

My error, was actually suicide squad

 

Stop doing this. Whenever someone points out something, you just respond "Oh, do you agree about this other separate thing too?" You're using false equivalences. What's the point? To try and trick people into revealing themselves as hypocrites? Because yes, you do go out of your way to try and frame people as hypocrites. See, at least when I try to frame you as a hypocrite (Which does in fact make me also a hypocrite, but I don't care), I just point to two things you've actually said because they contradict each other. Someone says just one thing, and you ask a question trying to bait them, when really, you don't even know what they think. People can judge things on a case by case basis, but all you do is push things to extremes by homogenizing issues. If someone believes something about one thing, then you treat them like that somehow means they must believe in these other things as well.

 

If you define an ~SJW~ as someone who tries to silence people, then that is exactly what you are when you repeatedly and unapologetically mock people for being sensitive about any issues, and even when people point out that the GOP did something wrong (For example, the bathroom discussion in the ideology thread), you just try to beat down and people and brag about how this is why we lost the election, or why that other thing is why we lost. It's just "This is why you lost, this is why you're wrong, which automatically means that I am right, and you don't really understand how this effects me because I don't care about the needs of someone else's 'kind' when my needs should take precedence over theirs" and oh just cry me a river and grow up.

Not at all, Trump brought it up because of people reporting on Hampshire college. They are related issues. 

 

Ok, so about why you guys lost this election. If it wasn't, IMO, blindly going further left, what was it? 

 

The point with the bathrooms is if you're reasonable, there won't be any problem. And in the worse case, having a self-esteem so low that you need a specific bathroom to validate you, is problematic on a lot of degrees

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

My error, was actually suicide squad

This means either my previous statement stays, or he is just unfit for any authority position, depending on whether your error was in saying fury road or bvs.

 

So do you support Hampshire college no longer flying the Flag too?

I absolutely support their right to choose not to. It isn't a government institution.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This means either my previous statement stays, or he is just unfit for any authority position, depending on whether your error was in saying fury road or bvs.

 

I absolutely support their right to choose not to. It isn't a government institution.

Agreed, it's a private institution. 

 

Err I was just tryna lighten the moon by talking about one of his hobbies, he's also a banker

[Sunshine Jesse]

I just feel that unlike say criticizing a politician, burning the Flag, casts a blackmark against America as a whole. It could be stretched to be treason if you call it a call to arms against the government

 

 

Not a SJW Jesse, I don't like it, but am willing to tolerate it. Except for the fact that the same people who burn flags also tend to be rioting thugs who cause property damage 

 

Edit:

 

If I was a SJW I would be trying to silence people who talk about personally upsetting viewpoints, like pro-choicers or something like the Westboro Baptist Church. 

 

I'm not. I really do believe that Flag burning is a prelude to anarchy. But there's not much either I or Mr. Trump can do about it

You literally want it to be illegal. You literally want a form of protest to be illegal because it hurts your feelings.

 

That's the most SJW thing possible.

 

You can dress it up all you want, but you're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not my feeling. Like Hillary Clinton once proposed in a bill. I believe it promotes violence

[Tentacruel]

I mean so does me saying "We should kill the jews," but I can legally say it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean so does me saying "We should kill the jews," but I can legally say it.

Yeah, I see your point.

 

At the very least it disgusts me. I'm not quite mature enough to be able to take Justice Scalia's stance on it.

 

In the end, my one voice on the matter doesn't matter

[Sunshine Jesse]

Not my feeling. Like Hillary Clinton once proposed in a bill. I believe it promotes violence

You feel like it promotes violence. There's no evidence it actually does. You're basing this off of feelings and not facts.

 

You dress it up in the same colorful language that SJWs do and want the same kinds of things they do. You want to silence people who protest in a way you don't like.

 

That's hypocrisy. No amount of denial or goalpost-moving will change this.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No, I was wrong. Listened to Justice Scalia discuss why he supported it.

 

I'll never like or support it, but it should be legal

 

Make no mistake, I think you're disgusting if you do it.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Okay, at least you're mature enough to see it like that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/30/trumps-new-treasury-commerce-nominees-say-no-absolute-tax-cut-for-the-wealthy-predict-faster-economic-growth/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_mnuchintaxcut-wb-9am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[Phantom Roxas]

Not at all, Trump brought it up because of people reporting on Hampshire college. They are related issues. 

 

Ok, so about why you guys lost this election. If it wasn't, IMO, blindly going further left, what was it? 

 

The point with the bathrooms is if you're reasonable, there won't be any problem. And in the worse case, having a self-esteem so low that you need a specific bathroom to validate you, is problematic on a lot of degrees

So you're just parroting Trump because he's the one who said it, got it.

 

If you're just going to blame people for "blindly going further left" (Which really means nothing more than "They opposed me, and anyone who doesn't agree with me must be left-wing scum"), then I'll follow along with that and say people "blindly" default to Trump. The criticisms of him as a demagogue are spot-on, as he appealed to people's base prejudices. So unfortunately, the people devoted to discrimination overwhelmed the people who oppose it. I think other factors such as voter suppression and sabotaging the Voting Right's Act played a part in this, as people were prevented from voting. Wasn't there also gerrymandering, and the poor disparity between the popular vote (Which Hillary did win, so of course Trump had to try and undermine that by falsely claiming without any evidence that the difference was only because of illegal votes) and the Electoral College? Besides, explain how "blindly going further left" actually made us lose the election? You're only assuming a correlation, but doing nothing to prove the causation.

 

"I would like to go to a bathroom that corresponds with the gender I identify closest with" is reasonable. Whether a woman is cisgender or transgender, they prefer to use the women's restroom. No harm in that, but then North Carolina's Republican governor tried to regulate that. Oh right, I forgot. Whenever members of the GOP does anything wrong, you hardly call them out for it. The GOP was being unreasonable, but because the left dared to point that out, you just say that it's the left being unreasonable, which makes it seem like no one can ever point out something is wrong without you calling that person unreasonable. The specific bathrooms aren't a form of low self-esteem, though I'm not surprised that you're still condescending to people like the arrogant bully that you are. A transgender women just wants to use the women's restroom. Needing other restrooms is a way of trying to circumvent the unreasonable regulation imposed against them. The "problematic" aspect is entirely the right's fault.

 

Nonsense like this is why I say that you're against equality. The right enacts discriminatory laws, and you have shown absolutely no sympathy towards the people who would be affected by it. Now I can add your "low self-esteem" dismissal next to "faux outrage", crying, whining, and everything else you say to belittle people for, you know, not wanting to be discriminated against.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Tell me,what will happen if you pee on the wrong bathroom. Will you become less trans?

I'm no afraid to call out the GOP when they're wrong. Like lowering income tax for the very rich or homophobic laws. I don't see the issue here. Gay and Bi people could lose 300k in inheritance from spouses before Obergefell. I support Same Sex Marriage due to tangible downsides for LGB individuals without it, never drank the love wins koolaid becuase love isn't dictated by the govs approval

 

Michigan SOS isn't happy

 

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MISOS/bulletins/1763ed6

[VCR_CAT]

Tell me,what will happen if you pee on the wrong bathroom. Will you become less trans?

 

Can we not? You saying condescending crap like this is entirely unneeded. Unless you can actually come up with a legitimate response to the issue, either concede or don't say anything. All you've done here is not only assume already that your stance is in the right, but that the alternative is worse. You've done nothing to add to the conversation besides speak down on others by saying something like this. It's not only demeaning for others by just talking like they're whining children, but it adds absolutely nothing to an intelligent discussion if you aren't willing to actually address the point.

 

It's not a matter of how authentic they feel about their transition, it's about which people they feel comfortable sharing the same bathroom with them. So, they're concerned about which bathroom they go into based on what they're comfortable with. Sure, that's fine, they're transitioned and it's basically of no consequence to let them use the other bathroom as well. But no, gotta make it about yourself and speak out against it, because...? Of course, you didn't give a "Because", your response was "Suck it up and just do what we want."

 

 

I'm not afraid to call out the GOP when they're wrong. Like lowering income tax for the very rich or homophobic laws. I don't see the issue here. Gay and Bi people could lose 300k in inheritance from spouses before Obergefell. I support Same Sex Marriage due to tangible downsides for LGB individuals without it, never drank the love wins koolaid becuase love isn't dictated by the govs approval

 

It doesn't matter whether you're "afraid to" or not, because you don't beyond some rare occurrences, but even those have been more about them not doing something that could've furthered their own agenda rather than how to better others in general. Also, you will need some more clarification on that second sentence there; because the context of calling them out implies you do have issues there, but then you say you don't.

[cr47t]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/30/nancy-pelosi-is-totally-unbeatable-thats-not-a-great-thing-for-democrats/ Assessment of House dem leadership, why it probably won't change soon, and how that's bad for dems

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trump-and-andrew-jackson/508973/ How Trump is similar to and different from Andrew Jackson, nice piece of history and context here (and below) (i didn't bold anything on this reference, because it is very open to interpretation by itself)

 

Newt Gingrich has compared Trump to Jackson for some time. Rudolph Giuliani declared on election night that it was “like Andrew Jackson’s victory. This is the people beating the establishment.” That may seem a comforting comparison, since it locates Donald Trump in the American experience and makes his election seem less of a departure.

 

Is Trump’s victory really like Jackson’s? On the surface, yes: In 1828, an “outsider” candidate appealed directly to the people against elites he called corrupt. A deeper look at Jackson’s victory complicates the comparison, but still says much about America then and now.

 

...

 

Jackson, like Trump, won over many white working-class voters, who brushed aside critics who warned that he was unstable and a would-be dictator. He maintained their loyalty even though, like Trump, he was of the elite. Though not born to wealth as Trump was, Jackson made his fortune on the early American frontier. He did not clear out Washington elites so much as bring a new coalition of elites to power: New York politicians and Pennsylvania businessmen allied with Southern slaveholders. Jackson tended to their special interests. He also used political patronage to stuff the government with Jackson loyalists. There is something Jacksonian both in Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” of Washington and his early moves to refill the swamp with wealthy friends, loyal supporters, and family members.

 

...

 

For all the similarities, there’s a big difference between Jackson’s victory and Trump’s: Jackson’s greatest political achievement was the widening of democratic space. He brought new groups of voters into the political system. Expanding voting rights and a growing media perfectly coincided with his attention-grabbing campaigns, and the popular vote total tripled—tripled—between Jackson’s loss in 1824 and his victory in 1828.

 

Trump, too, aspired to widen the electorate, but with less success. It’s true that he attracted some former Democrats, and received more votes than any Republican candidate in history, slightly more than George W. Bush in 2004. But in key states his party made it harder to vote. Among those who did participate, as of this writing, Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by more than 2.3 million. While the national popular vote has no legal significance, it matters politically, as Jackson grasped in the 1820’s. It matters enough to Trump that he volunteered a conspiracy theory to explain his failure to win it.

 

Trump’s victory in the Electoral College was not a repeat of Jackson’s 1828 popular landslide. It was a repeat of 1824, a transitional year when the president was determined by the mechanics of the Constitution. In this replay of the drama, the role of Andrew Jackson does not fit Donald Trump. Rather he plays the part of John Quincy Adams, the man who benefits from the elaborate American systems designed to filter the will of the people. If Trump intends to become a Jacksonian man of the people, he will have to do something to attract the majority who voted for candidates other than him.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-washington-movers/index.html

 

President-elect Donald Trump is turning to a reliable stable of Republican and business world power brokers to fill out his administration, signaling he's looking to push his agenda using the political apparatus he famously pledged to dismantle.

 

...

 

Trump pledged in his campaign to "drain the swamp" in Washington, but has also repeatedly said that he will look to people who understand the capital to help him govern. His selection of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, a former congressman, as vice president and chairman of his transition and choosing long-time political powerbrokers like GOP fundraiser Betsy DeVos as secretary of Education is part of that pattern.

 

Grassroots supporters of Trump acknowledge fulfilling his legislative agenda requires Washington know-how.

 

"I think that what our people in Tea Party Patriots are seeing right now is that he's pulling from people who are committed to the promises he made on the campaign trail, and as far as 'draining the swamp' actually goes, I think the first thing and biggest thing to making that happen is to keep that contract with the American voter and turn that into a legislative reality," said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and national coordinator of the grassroots conservative Tea Party Patriots group.

 

...

 

"So much for draining the swamp. Nominating Steve Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary -- a billionaire hedge fund manager and Goldman Sachs alumnus who preyed on homeowners struggling during the recession -- is a slap in the face to voters who hoped he would shake up Washington," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Adam Hodge in a statement. "Trump is already heading into office as the most corrupt, conflicted, and unpopular president-elect in history, and now he's breaking his signature promise to the voters who elected him."

 

...

 

Democratic strategist and Obama administration alum David Axelrod, who is also a CNN commentator, said there's no way to staff an administration without people who have DC experience.

 

"The fact of the matter is he had no cadre of experienced advisers, so it was axiomatic that he was going to draw on some familiar Washington names," Axelrod said. "The fact that Mike Pence is leading the transition makes that more true, because he is a creature of Washington in many ways."

I don't think this is good news for hardcore Trump voters (yeah yeah it's cnn but it's not like i use them as a source all the time)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Can we not? You saying condescending crap like this is entirely unneeded. Unless you can actually come up with a legitimate response to the issue, either concede or don't say anything. All you've done here is not only assume already that your stance is in the right, but that the alternative is worse. You've done nothing to add to the conversation besides speak down on others by saying something like this. It's not only demeaning for others by just talking like they're whining children, but it adds absolutely nothing to an intelligent discussion if you aren't willing to actually address the point.

 

It's not a matter of how authentic they feel about their transition, it's about which people they feel comfortable sharing the same bathroom with them. So, they're concerned about which bathroom they go into based on what they're comfortable with. Sure, that's fine, they're transitioned and it's basically of no consequence to let them use the other bathroom as well. But no, gotta make it about yourself and speak out against it, because...? Of course, you didn't give a "Because", your response was "Suck it up and just do what we want."

 

 

 

It doesn't matter whether you're "afraid to" or not, because you don't beyond some rare occurrences, but even those have been more about them not doing something that could've furthered their own agenda rather than how to better others in general. Also, you will need some more clarification on that second sentence there; because the context of calling them out implies you do have issues there, but then you say you don't.

 

It's to make a point VCR.

 

They're just being as silly as the Ted Cruz types? Nothing will happen to you if you use the men's room as a trans-woman if the idea that bathroom predators don't exist is true. I agree. There's likely not people scheming to rape people in the bathrooms. 

 

You brought up that it's about what bathroom they're comfortable with, what about the other side that isn't comfortable with them? Them being a trans woman who looks quite masculine for example.

 

If you look like a guy, use the guys room, if not use the females room. The bathroom isn't a social gathering, do what you have to and get out. 

 

I think an application of common sense can go a long way w/ dealing with the Trans community

 

 

The second part is false, I have more ideological differences with the GOP that I've laid out than I do with the dems. You're again conflating my critiques of Trump with my critiques of the GOP. They are not the same. 

 

As for the 3rd part, I think marriage is a bad thing. That's really it. But the whole deal with United States v. Windsor is that you can lose a lot of money by being in a same sex relationship (which I do support)

 

So while I don't care for same sex marriage, or any marriage for that matter. I don't want people burdened on whom they choose to spend their life with. I respect and understand most people don't share my views on marriage

 

 

I don't think this is good news for hardcore Trump voters (yeah yeah it's cnn but it's not like i use them as a source all the time)

You know who else he's really similar to...Teddy Roosevelt. But it's convenient for WaPo to compare him with the guy who is like him and messed up though :)

 

Ok, and his commerce sec is a guy who's main thing is bringing steel and construction corps out of bankruptcy. Do you care more about the fact that the latter is a billionaire or the fact he can revitalize the the rust belt.

 

Trump supporters don't care what the Clinton News Network says when Trump is 3/3 in bring companies back so far

 

Connecticut certifies its results: Clinton 897,572 (54.6%), Trump 673,215 (40.9%), Others 74,133 (4.5%).

Rhode Island certifies its results: Clinton 252,525 (54.4%), Trump 180,543 (38.9%), Others 31,076 (6.7%).

Texas certifies: Trump 4,685,047 (52.2%), Clinton 3,877,868 (43.2%), Others 406,311 (4.5%).

[cr47t]

You know who else he's really similar to...Teddy Roosevelt. But it's convenient for WaPo to compare him with the guy who is like him and messed up though :)

The one about Trump and Jackson was an Atlantic article... >_<

 

Trump supporters don't care what the Clinton News Network says when Trump is 3/3 in bring companies back so far

The thing is I rarely read CNN articles because I know they are partisan -- seriously before this when was the last time i posted a CNN article

 

and I try not to put up ones from huffpo anymore if you haven't noticed

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The one about Trump and Jackson was an Atlantic article... >_

 

 

The thing is I rarely read CNN articles because I know they are partisan -- seriously before this when was the last time i posted a CNN article

 

and I try not to put up ones from huffpo anymore if you haven't noticed

Not blaming you, I just find it funny that they're ragging on him for the matter when

 

1) Ford isn't moving plants

2) Apple looking into bringing them back

3) Carrier not moving them either now

 

Yeh, he put a goldman sachs guy as his treasury sec, but that's in line with him wanting to dismantle dodd-frank and work against TPP and the rest

 

It's a clever use of perception to make thing to seem worse than they are

[cr47t]

It's a clever use of perception to make thing to seem worse than they are

But why would anyone do that in terms of the state of their presidential administration?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

But why would anyone do that in terms of the state of their presidential administration?

The same reason republican trash heaps are re-tweeting Ralph funking Nader and other bashing Trump

 

They're egos are hurt that a guy who's a repudiation of them won

 

Only breed of politican I hate more than a Bernie style Democrat, is an anti-Trump republican. 

 

Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see GOP kiss the ring. Nothing gave me greater pleasure than watching both Heck and Ayotte lose their Nevada and New Hampshire senate seats after Trump supporters refused to vote for them. You don't backstab Trump and then get our votes.

 

Watching the scheming Media burn itself down is pretty sweet too

[cr47t]

The same reason republican trash heaps are re-tweeting Ralph f***ing Nader and other bashing Trump

 

Source, please.

 

They're egos are hurt that a guy who's a repudiation of them won

 

Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to see GOP kiss the ring, and the media burn itself down

 

Yeah I get it you were one of his backers.

 

Also, let me comment on the media thing;

• Media coverage pre-election; "THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DESTROYED!!" "WHO WILL BE LEFT STANDING WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?!" "IT'S OPEN WARFARE WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!"
• Media coverage post-election; "THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS DESTROYED!!" "WHO WILL BE LEFT STANDING WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?!" "IT'S OPEN WARFARE WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!"

The point is that the media seems to like to make everything seem dramatic because it gives them clickbait.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Source, please.

 

 

Yeah I get it you were one of his backers.

 

Also, let me comment on the media thing;

• Media coverage pre-election; "THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DESTROYED!!" "WHO WILL BE LEFT STANDING WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?!" "IT'S OPEN WARFARE WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!"
• Media coverage post-election; "THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS DESTROYED!!" "WHO WILL BE LEFT STANDING WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?!" "IT'S OPEN WARFARE WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!"

The point is that the media seems to like to make everything seem dramatic because it gives them clickbait.

https://twitter.com/allahpundit?lang=en

 

This funker for one. 

 

The Dems actually got schlonged result wise, and 2018 looks awful for them. But I see your point

 

OK Carrier got a WHOLE $700,000 in tax credits to save 1000 jobs from a guy who promised Tax credits and lower regulations to corporations...these people love to make fools of themselves

 

Edit

 

I just really think it's cute y'all think I have any form of Loyalty to the GOP...how y'all came to that conclusion still baffles me. I funking despise Neo-cons lol