The Trump Administration

Hakkekage

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Josh Marshall has the same basic read of Booker I do:

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/819294175933906950

Though maybe we need a narcissist to combat the narcissist.

the Democrats need a young, up and coming celebrity and Booker is the closest thing the party has to one right now

And again, none of the testimonies will mean anything concrete in specific reference to Sessions unless two Republicans decide they just can't morally cast their votes, and that is in all likelihood not happening. Martin Luther King could be standing in the Chamber with them delivering "I Have a Dream" and they would still never vote against their party.

OptimusZed

enlightenedbum wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

kedinik wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

I'm the first person to criticize Cory Booker (and I'm sure that this will be literally true at some point in about two years when the primary field materializes), but I can't really find fault with him today.

Sessions is a terrible person and will be a disaster as AG. He needs called out on the fact that he's functionally a white nationalist.

There's no need to find fault with people who are currently on my side. Booker and I are both equally pumped for the incoming administration. Fighting battles against each other would be stupid when the hard work is yet to come.

Obviously I'm glad he testified; I just wish he had done a better job of it

Whereas John Lewis gave a heartfelt speech full of compelling details as to why Sessions is a dangerous candidate for the job

I find this unsurprising. John Lewis is substantially better at rhetorically fighting racists than Booker is.

And the single greatest living American (mostly, but not entirely, for that reason)

Somebody needs to follow him around and take notes for the next four years. So we have a record of how to respond to something like this if it ever happens again.

DiannaoChong

GoodKingJayIII wrote: »

TheBigEasy wrote: »

Maximum wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trump-press-conference-transcript.html?_r=0

That's the complete transcript from today, if anyone wants to read it.

If you make it through the entire thing without giving yourself an aneurysm, I commend you.

I didn't.

"They gave Hillary debate question. That was terrible."

YOU WON, YOU FUCKING, DIMWIT, MORON. HILLARY IS OUT OF THE GAME. STOP. FUCKING. TALKING. ABOUT. HER:

He's never going to stop talking about the woman to whom he lost the popular vote by 3 million.

At least not until someone equally as powerful and visible beats him at something.

Yes, he is entirely doing that because he thinks he can goad hillary or get under her skin(and ours), because its something that would get under his, and what he expects its a natural reaction from people.

ArbitraryDescriptor

Tube wrote: »

Apocalypse talk isn't any less infantile from the left than it was from the right.

To their credit, some on the right felt we should lo.

And if they thought they were going to be taken in the Rapture: they were!

Hakkekage wrote: »

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Josh Marshall has the same basic read of Booker I do:

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/819294175933906950

Though maybe we need a narcissist to combat the narcissist.

the Democrats need a young, up and coming celebrity and Booker is the closest thing the party has to one right now

And again, none of the testimonies will mean anything concrete in specific reference to Sessions unless two Republicans decide they just can't morally cast their votes, and that is in all likelihood not happening. Martin Luther King could be standing in the Chamber with them delivering "I Have a Dream" and they would still never vote against their party.

All they have to do is not vote for it. Rubio is great at not voting for shit, perhaps he'll be the surprise hero of this whole thing.

(Because if he opposes one, politically speaking, he's probably no more fucked for opposing them all. Especially since he's not up until 2022, and if he wants to run in 2020)

enlightenedbum

"Those who are committed to equal justice in our society wonder whether Sen. Sessions' call for 'law and order' will mean today what it meant in Alabama, when I was coming up back then," Lewis questioned. "The rule of law was used to violate the human and civil rights of the poor, the dispossessed, people of color," he reminded the committee.

Rep. Lewis wrote:

It took massive, well-organized, non-violent dissent for the Voting Rights Act to become law. It required criticism of this great nation and its laws to move toward a greater sense of equality in America. We had to sit in. We had to stand in. We had to march. And that’s why more than 50 years ago, a group of unarmed citizens, black and white, gathered on March 7, 1965, in an orderly peaceful non-violent fashion to walk from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to dramatize to the nation and to the world that we wanted to register to vote, wanted to become participants in the democratic process.

We were beaten, tear-gassed, left bloody, some of us unconscious. Some of us had concussions. Some of us almost died on that bridge. But the Congress responded, President Lyndon Johnson responded, and the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, and it was signed into law on August 6, 1965.

We have come a distance. We have made progress, but we are not there yet. There are forces that want to take us back to another place. We don’t want to go back. We want to go forward. As the late A. Phillip Randolph, who was the dean of the March on Washington in 1963 often said, "our foremothers and forefathers all came to this land in distant ships, but we’re all in the same boat now."

It doesn’t matter whether Sen. Sessions may smile or how friendly he may be, whether he may speak to you. We need someone who will stand up and speak up and speak out for the people who need help, for people who are being discriminated against. And it doesn’t matter whether they are black or white, Latino, Asian or Native American, whether they are straight or gay, Muslim, Christian or Jews. We all live in the same house, the American house. We need someone as attorney general who is going to look for all of us, not just some of us. I ran out of time. Thank for giving me a chance to testify.

Nobeard

I was just joking. We aren't going to see the for-real apocalypse. The likely hood that the Trump admin will respond poorly to a major natural disaster leaving thousands of people without food or water is, depressingly, possible enough to warrant serious consideration. Probably not in this thread, though.

On-topic, I'm legit blown away by the reveal that there is credible evidence Trump is a... I can't think of anything to put here that does not sound crazy. "Manchurian Candidate", "Russian Plant/Puppet", and the like are not real things to me. It's make believe story stuff, not how the real world works. I guess I should not be surprised anymore. I had moved on to the acceptance phase. I expected things to be awful in the way a tire fire is, always burning and smoking and stinking to high heaven, but not changing any. Trump: he always exceeds your expectations!

Raiden333

Rubio might be a shit, but I gotta say I'm loving this speech of his.

OptimusZed

I'm gonna save any praise for Rubio until after he shows the ability to vote against his party.

Until then, it's all posturing bullshit.

enlightenedbum

I wouldn't be shocked if Tillerson doesn't get through. He's not part of the club and really every Senator who thinks themselves an expert on foreign policy (which is to say, 90 of them) wants that gig. Corker probably knows he's on the short list if they reject this nomination but he votes for it.

Sessions is part of the club and will pass easily. Every Democrat who votes in favor needs a primary challenge though.

joshofalltrades

OptimusZed wrote: »

I'm gonna save any praise for Rubio until after he shows the ability to vote against his party.

Until then, it's all posturing bullshit.

Yep. The only reason Rubio railed against Trump during the primary is because he assumed that would get him votes. Once he realized he was losing badly he got down into the mud with Trump and started making pee jokes.

enlightenedbum

Rubio thinks he's primarying Trump or Pence.

OptimusZed

If they're crazy enough to primary a sitting president, more power to them I say.

Of course, by then Trump's approval will probably be at lizardman/second term W numbers.

ArbitraryDescriptor

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Rubio thinks he's primarying Trump or Pence.

I was appalled to see that hack squirming back into government after he promised to leave; but, fuck it, I'll take him if that's what he wants to do.

E: Can you imagine how salty Trump would be if he lost the fucking primary? Holy shit. I would be laughing all the way to whatever horrible end he would try to inflict on us all.

MuddBudd

CNN has a short blurb about the whole thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory

CNN's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than Buzzfeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. The Trump team knows this. They are using Buzzfeed's decision to deflect from CNN's reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations.

We are fully confident in our reporting. It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week.
We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.

amateurhour

MuddBudd wrote: »

CNN has a short blurb about the whole thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory

CNN's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than Buzzfeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. The Trump team knows this. They are using Buzzfeed's decision to deflect from CNN's reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations.

We are fully confident in our reporting. It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week.
We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.

Kellyanne Conway will be on Fox news within the next 24 hours, guaranteed.

Elki

I was excited about the prospect of Booker breaking tradition and testifying against Sessions. And the best part of his performance was that he did that. For actual rhetoric and delivery, I think Franken expressions succinctly summed it up.

Drez

iTunesIsEvil wrote: »

https://twitter.com/colinjones/status/819230504025260036

Man, I think CNN can go piss up a rope, but jesus mary and joseph what was that bullshit? I hope they're so pissed off that they follow him like a pack of starved, howling wolves for the next 4 years asking him the most uncomfortable and awkward questions.

CNNInAction

Astaereth

The funny thing about Trump is that, although he's great at bullshitting, he's kinda terrible at the garden variety lying somebody in his position needs to do in order to keep his secrets. Things like not revealing how he really feels about "drain the swamp." Or today's press conference, where he couldn't just flatly say "These allegations are false, I didn't do it, my campaign didn't do it, this isn't credible and I'm not dignifying any further questions on it with a response."

I think it comes down to him not being secure or confident in himself. These attacks, losing the popular vote, it needles him and he wants people to like him and approve of what he does. Bush had handlers to follow him everywhere, Trump has applauders. He doesn't seem to be able to just go "I won, I can ignore you people now."

GoodKingJayIII

Elki wrote: »

I was excited about the prospect of Booker breaking tradition and testifying against Sessions. And the best part of his performance was that he did that. For actual rhetoric and delivery, I think Franken expressions succinctly summed it up.

I didn't see the testimony. Why was Booker so bad?

PantsB

OptimusZed wrote: »

If they're crazy enough to primary a sitting president, more power to them I say.

Of course, by then Trump's approval will probably be at lizardman/second term W numbers.

Trump's approval is 37 according to the Q poll.

Gundi

Knight_ wrote: »

Sleep wrote: »

Emerlmaster999 wrote: »

You know, I used to find Vinny Caravella's talks of his CA earthquake bug-out bag on the Bombcast rather... well not silly, but something close with how prepared he was trying to be.

...And here I am now, thinking that Vinny had the right idea all along.

You know one of the stealth reasons I started hitting the gym last year and lost 70ish pounds is because I could see the darkness on the horizon, and felt that being super unhealthy, overweight, and unable to lift heavy things during the collapse would be unhelpful to me. As always, I hope to be wrong, but figured getting healthy wouldn't ever be a bad thing.

when the world collapses, it won't matter how much you can lift. everyone is going to die.

shit ain't like the movies. nukes will fly.

Silly, everyone won't die. Just the overwhelming majority of Americans, French, British, Russians, and Chinese. And also large percentages of all nations bordering those nations. And then a simple majority of the rest of Earth's population during the temporary nuclear winter.

Assuming, of course, nukes ever fly.

Doctor Detroit

GONG-00 wrote: »

Go old school with Pisspot Domme.

Peepot was right there!

How about "Two Girls, One Bed"?


I don't live in Florida, but I'm half-tempted to write Rubio and tell him I'd consider supporting him in a national election if he makes a stand here.

Gaddez

MuddBudd wrote: »

CNN has a short blurb about the whole thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory

CNN's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than Buzzfeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. The Trump team knows this. They are using Buzzfeed's decision to deflect from CNN's reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations.

We are fully confident in our reporting. It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week.
We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.

What do you think the odds are that this motivaes CNN to be something other then a bullshit equivocator?

SyphonBlue

PantsB wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

If they're crazy enough to primary a sitting president, more power to them I say.

Of course, by then Trump's approval will probably be at lizardman/second term W numbers.

Trump's approval is 37 according to the Q poll.

Yeah he's already at second term W levels. He is incredibly lucky to have won the election on a technicality.

Giggles_Funsworth

Fencingsax wrote: »

"As a real estate developer I have very little debt"

That... That isn't how development works, is it?

Catching up on this (Holy shit dudes over 700 posts?!) but, anecdata, when the recession hit my cousin that has a stake in a real estate development company in SoCal was underwater tens of millions of dollars at one point. I forget the exact number, but uh, real estate people seem like they carry tremendous debt to me...

Fencingsax

If we could have somehow prevented Tillerson from getting through, think about how pissed Trump would be. It would have been glorious.

Elki

GoodKingJayIII wrote: »

Elki wrote: »

I was excited about the prospect of Booker breaking tradition and testifying against Sessions. And the best part of his performance was that he did that. For actual rhetoric and delivery, I think Franken expressions succinctly summed it up.

I didn't see the testimony. Why was Booker so bad?

He wasn't that bad. Straining passionate voice is misplaced in the setting, though, and hackneyed; in contrast to Lewis who gives the feeling that he is simply speaking (even when he is simply not) and naturally pauses, and since he does not punctuate every word he can afford to punctuate the phrases that matter. And just better writing.

Watch them both in any order, they're not that long.

Dac

You also have to remember that part of Trump's financial worth is how he feels about himself at any given time.

Since he's incapable of shame, it's only natural that he wouldn't have any debt!

ArbitraryDescriptor

Gaddez wrote: »

MuddBudd wrote: »

CNN has a short blurb about the whole thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory

CNN's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than Buzzfeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. The Trump team knows this. They are using Buzzfeed's decision to deflect from CNN's reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations.

We are fully confident in our reporting. It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week.
We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.

What do you think the odds are that this motivaes CNN to be something other then a bullshit equivocator?

Low, but with no market for Hillary BS to equivocate for, I'm hoping they continue printing what sells. With those approval numbers, what sells should be critical reporting of Trump's bullshit.

Burnage

Gaddez wrote: »

MuddBudd wrote: »

CNN has a short blurb about the whole thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory

CNN's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than Buzzfeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. The Trump team knows this. They are using Buzzfeed's decision to deflect from CNN's reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations.

We are fully confident in our reporting. It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week.
We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.

What do you think the odds are that this motivaes CNN to be something other then a bullshit equivocator?

I'm going to wear my optimism on my sleeve and say "moderately high". Calling out Trump is likely to be a ratings grabber over the next few years, and if CNN were smart they'd want to be all over that especially since he just called them out specifically.

OptimusZed

PantsB wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

If they're crazy enough to primary a sitting president, more power to them I say.

Of course, by then Trump's approval will probably be at lizardman/second term W numbers.

Trump's approval is 37 according to the Q poll.

W started somewhere around 60 and ended in the low 20s. That's after hitting 90 at one point.

We could be looking at the first administration to hit single digits.

Elki

Tuned back to Tillerson, and someone mentioned the Eagle Scouts, so I guess that's still happening 6 hours later. Did I miss any nastiness?

honovere

Burnage wrote: »

Gaddez wrote: »

MuddBudd wrote: »

CNN has a short blurb about the whole thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory

CNN's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than Buzzfeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. The Trump team knows this. They are using Buzzfeed's decision to deflect from CNN's reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations.

We are fully confident in our reporting. It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week.
We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.

What do you think the odds are that this motivaes CNN to be something other then a bullshit equivocator?

I'm going to wear my optimism on my sleeve and say "moderately high". Calling out Trump is likely to be a ratings grabber over the next few years, and if CNN were smart they'd want to be all over that especially since he just called them out specifically.

Thought that when he fooled the media into covering the opening of his hotel. Didn't stick.

Taramoor

Elki wrote: »

Tuned back to Tillerson, and someone mentioned the Eagle Scouts, so I guess that's still happening 6 hours later. Did I miss any nastiness?

For some reason, being an Eagle Scout automatically makes you a good person to huge swaths of the population.

OptimusZed

If Trump keeps trying to victimize and marginalize CNN, the only real play for them is to become the Resistance Network. The media plays nice because their access depends on it. If you revoke the access and promise to never give it back, all impetus to give you rhetorical handies goes away. At that point, the move has to either be fold up or embrace the new reality. And CNN isn't just going to fold up.

kedinik

Elki wrote: »

Tuned back to Tillerson, and someone mentioned the Eagle Scouts, so I guess that's still happening 6 hours later. Did I miss any nastiness?

He was told by a few people that his vague rhetoric during the hearing did not live up to his stated goal of providing moral clarity

Aside from that, nothing caught my attention

ArbitraryDescriptor

Burnage wrote: »

Gaddez wrote: »

MuddBudd wrote: »

CNN has a short blurb about the whole thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN011117cnn-statement-trump-buzzfeed1258PMStory

CNN's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than Buzzfeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. The Trump team knows this. They are using Buzzfeed's decision to deflect from CNN's reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations.

We are fully confident in our reporting. It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week.
We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.

What do you think the odds are that this motivaes CNN to be something other then a bullshit equivocator?

I'm going to wear my optimism on my sleeve and say "moderately high". Calling out Trump is likely to be a ratings grabber over the next few years, and if CNN were smart they'd want to be all over that especially since he just called them out specifically.

They're a business first. I agree with your hypothesis, but not the assumption that their pride is going to be a factor.

Elki

OptimusZed wrote: »

If Trump keeps trying to victimize and marginalize CNN, the only real play for them is to become the Resistance Network. The media plays nice because their access depends on it. If you revoke the access and promise to never give it back, all impetus to give you rhetorical handies goes away. At that point, the move has to either be fold up or embrace the new reality. And CNN isn't just going to fold up.

I don't remember a time when a politician profited from just cutting off media access, so go Trump I guess.

enlightenedbum

OptimusZed wrote: »

If Trump keeps trying to victimize and marginalize CNN, the only real play for them is to become the Resistance Network. The media plays nice because their access depends on it. If you revoke the access and promise to never give it back, all impetus to give you rhetorical handies goes away. At that point, the move has to either be fold up or embrace the new reality. And CNN isn't just going to fold up.

This is contrary to CNN's entire history of sucking it up to people who attack them.

davidsdurions

Taramoor wrote: »

Elki wrote: »

Tuned back to Tillerson, and someone mentioned the Eagle Scouts, so I guess that's still happening 6 hours later. Did I miss any nastiness?

For some reason, being an Eagle Scout automatically makes you a good person to huge swaths of the population.

It means you take direction from your superiors well and have done community service for the express purpose of filling out your resumè.