In no particular order:
He's disavowing Milo for being a Nazi. Like, literally. (DC reporter)
He's distancing himself from Bannon.
He's selling his shares in Breitbart (to his own daughters, who are even crazier than he is).
In case you forgot, he also owes seven BILLION in back taxes. I don't think that it's a coincidence that it happened today, with the tax bill text coming out and it needing help from the 'moderate' and establishment wings.
ArcTangent on
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
I was under the impression that the IRS could attach your wages or threaten prison or something to get that money. That seems like a huge amount to me.
That middle paragraph is stunning in its lack of self awareness. I wanted to foster debate, not divisiveness! I can't believe that trolling bad-faith nazi sympathiser didn't foster productive debate! I'm shocked, shocked!
It's just such a brilliant summary of where the anti-pc crowd is. They're several steps behind the rest of us. Boo colleges don't allow free speech! Let's show them how hypocritical they are! Oh no it's backfired and now all the angry nazis I supported to prove a stupid point are causing real harm! Who could have foreseen this terrible outcome (except for those liberal colleges who are hypocrites of course)
I bet they'll just hate all of us in general for not preventing climate change
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I was under the impression that the IRS could attach your wages or threaten prison or something to get that money. That seems like a huge amount to me.
That middle paragraph is stunning in its lack of self awareness. I wanted to foster debate, not divisiveness! I can't believe that trolling bad-faith nazi sympathiser didn't foster productive debate! I'm shocked, shocked!
It's just such a brilliant summary of where the anti-pc crowd is. They're several steps behind the rest of us. Boo colleges don't allow free speech! Let's show them how hypocritical they are! Oh no it's backfired and now all the angry nazis I supported to prove a stupid point are causing real harm! Who could have foreseen this terrible outcome (except for those liberal colleges who are hypocrites of course)
That's because you are assuming the complaint is that colleges aren't a haven of free speech, rather then them hating college because it's a have of liberals and because stupid kids saying stupid things and fuck left-wingers.
Trump Vs Bush contest is like a "Who has the worst VD competition". There are only losers.
I suspect things will become clearer if Trump gets that war he's hankering for.
I'd love to read a history text book a hundred years from now to see how this whole thing reads once we're not living it.
I recommend reading about Nixon. The parallels are uncanny.
Nixon was a lot more competent and intelligent than Trump
Not a clone, but everything is still amazingly similar. It's like a writer decided to update the Watergate scandal for a modern audience, but dumb it down for ratings.
Trump Vs Bush contest is like a "Who has the worst VD competition". There are only losers.
I suspect things will become clearer if Trump gets that war he's hankering for.
I'd love to read a history text book a hundred years from now to see how this whole thing reads once we're not living it.
I recommend reading about Nixon. The parallels are uncanny.
Nixon was a lot more competent and intelligent than Trump
Not a clone, but everything is still amazingly similar. It's like a writer decided to update the Watergate scandal for a modern audience, but dumb it down for ratings.
A side effect of making it easy for smart people to get away with being corrupt is that it also makes it easier for stupid people to sort of get away with being corrupt.
I think arguing whether Bush or Trump is/was worse is an interesting, like, intellectual argument but also dumb and totally irrelevant to discussing the modern Republican party. Bush both despises Trump and was not the political architect behind the modern framework of the Republican party that led to Trump.
Also I mean Trump has been in office less than a year while Bush was in office for eight, give Trump time. (Or don't, really.)
I think arguing whether Bush or Trump is/was worse is an interesting, like, intellectual argument but also dumb and totally irrelevant to discussing the modern Republican party. Bush both despises Trump and was not the political architect behind the modern framework of the Republican party that led to Trump.
Also I mean Trump has been in office less than a year while Bush was in office for eight, give Trump time. (Or don't, really.)
Using Bush as an ally against Trump directly undercuts the more important message that the problem isn't just Trump.
I think arguing whether Bush or Trump is/was worse is an interesting, like, intellectual argument but also dumb and totally irrelevant to discussing the modern Republican party. Bush both despises Trump and was not the political architect behind the modern framework of the Republican party that led to Trump.
Also I mean Trump has been in office less than a year while Bush was in office for eight, give Trump time. (Or don't, really.)
Using Bush as an ally against Trump directly undercuts the more important message that the problem isn't just Trump.
I disagree, but I understand where you are coming from.
I think arguing whether Bush or Trump is/was worse is an interesting, like, intellectual argument but also dumb and totally irrelevant to discussing the modern Republican party. Bush both despises Trump and was not the political architect behind the modern framework of the Republican party that led to Trump.
Also I mean Trump has been in office less than a year while Bush was in office for eight, give Trump time. (Or don't, really.)
Using Bush as an ally against Trump directly undercuts the more important message that the problem isn't just Trump.
It's easier to get Trump out of office than fix the Republican party, which has spent about a hundred years fucking itself up this badly.
+1
Options
YoshisummonsYou have to let the dead vote, otherwise you'd just kill people you disagree with!Registered Userregular
Using Bush as an "ally" is a strategy that is guaranteed to fail, since Conservativism has been proven to be intellectually and moraly bankrupt. And it will bring the age-old problem of people thinking that Democrats are, as heard on this forum, craven pieces of shit.
In no particular order:
He's disavowing Milo for being a Nazi. Like, literally. (DC reporter)
He's distancing himself from Bannon.
He's selling his shares in Breitbart (to his own daughters, who are even crazier than he is).
In case you forgot, he also owes seven BILLION in back taxes. I don't think that it's a coincidence that it happened today, with the tax bill text coming out and it needing help from the 'moderate' and establishment wings.
How the hell do you go billions into debt? Like, isn't there a point where the government should simply declare you bankrupt owing to the fact that you can't realistically pay your taxes?
I completely agree, and this action in no way changes my opinion of him as a political coward without principals. What I am trying to get into is that these statements, while utterly insufficient, are at aimed at doing... something. I’m not the intended audience and I know it. But Republicans don’t fight each other in public! Its like their thing, and their unity in the face of so much obvious evil is absolutely infuriating to me. But now they are fighting in public view and I want to know what it means, to better know your enemy and all, and we can pat each other on the back and agree forever that we disagree with the GOP, or we can talk about it in more depth, which is what I am trying to do, which gets into talking about what this means to Republicans. Which needs to talk about their motivations and self image, and in no way is it meant to excuse their (both GOP leadership and base) actions or culpability for backing Trump, amongst other sins.
tldr: We can prove our liberal/progression bona fides forever, or discuss the growing divide happening within the Republican ranks, I choose the later in this thread.
Yeah, saving his legacy by retroactively make everyone forget the times he didn't do anything. If it was intended to do anything we haven't seen any developments, any breakthroughs would have be seen by the public eventually if this was his supposed aim. The point is get the GOP to turn on Trump, and until they do that they're being useless.
Hello. It appears you mistakenly misattributed Phasen's post to me (the first one there).
I'm getting the interpretation (from the correctly-attributed second quote) because of posts like, well, this one you just made. Who's talking about giving anyone a "free pass"? Nobody is suggesting that it's time to welcome Flake and McCain into the progressive wing of the Democrat party and heap upon them our praises and adoration, or even to say "hey, they're doing good here, so let's ignore all the bad shit they also do and have done."
McCain is still a Republican, and anyone who's a progressive Democrat is still going to have a negative view of him regardless of what words he wields against Trump. That'll be true overall even if he winds up taking significant action against Trump should the time come where something like impeachment becomes an actual possibility (though, he's unfortunately unlikely to be around at that point).
What I'm saying is that using these Republican words as an opportunity to throw generic partisan shade is a complete waste of everyone's time. At best you're enjoying some catharsis maybe. But the whole point of this thread is discussing the growing divide within the GOP. It's literally in the title. What exactly are you contributing with a bunch of commentary that offers little more than "it's not enough to make me happy, therefore here's three paragraphs insulting his character"?
I'm not saying you're off-topic or posting against the rules or anything (I'd hit the flag instead of reply if that was the case). I'd just like to see more perspectives and commentary about the divide, about what's happening within the Republican party. It feels like that's getting lost a bit in the self-righteous noise. Disgruntled Republicans are not going to switch sides. They won't be becoming Democrats, and they're not going to do enough to satisfy us, ever. They aren't allies. But some Republicans are going to have to turn against Trump for anything to happen there, because 2018 is not a good slate of elections for Democrats. Every division, no matter how inadequate it may feel to us, can still have an impact both in future elections and in current policy (see: healthcare).
Sorry for mistaking your posts for Phasen's.
That wasn't my intention for giving him a free pass, and even if I did he wouldn't have had to be on the progressive wing. It's not like the conservative wing is happy with Trump, either. All he'd need to do is vote Democrat. My argument was ignoring his past both pre-and post-Trump that he's a reliable challenger to Trump, where we disagree is that this is enough to make up for all of that. He said some mean words on twitter, that's hardly notable for a senator. I could do that. And that by itself is by no means a sign the ties turning within the GOP politicians that would impact him getting impeached or being fought against publicly. Which would be required for them to be useful allies. Instead, all we get is congressman who were retiring while throwing a middle finger at Trump. Feels good, but doesn't move the needle.
That is true, yet that doesn't mean what he did was actually useful. He can be someone we dislike and an ally. He's not the latter at the moment. Regarding his credibility on moving against Trump it's far too early to say this is a sign of him leading the charge against Trump in the open. Has he done anything notable against Trump the last few days to get this momentum? I haven't heard anything. This all relies on "if" and right now that "if" has not been confirmed, so why should we be optimistic what he did is going to do anything valuable?
I'm unconvinced what McCain is doing is going to shift any movement between the sides within the GOP. I'm working with context of McCain's history as a politician an his time in office while Trump has been president. Which is not favorable. Ultimately what McCain, Flake etc are doing looks like they're ceding ground to Trump, not fighting him.
His character informs the man, in this thread some people are forgetting his past so I thought I'd remind them of who exactly they were talking about. Someone does not become a nice person simply by yelling at Trump on the way out. It's good, yes, except doesn't change the status quo - instead it solidifies Trump's power base. Aside from that if McCain wanted to do something notable, now is likely not the best time to do it considering he was diagnosed with brain cancer. That's why I was irritated he didn't do something earlier in the year, when this wasn't on the table.
I think you're misreading me, I'm not expecting McCain etc to switch sides or be Dems or allies or whatever - I'm trying to see signs that they will turn on Trump for their own ends, because yes some Republicans will have to turn on Trump. Unfortunately this is not how to do it that's going to have any notable affects. It'll get tongues wagging for a while on both sides, and get McCaain, Flake's etc name in the news temporarily, where we disagree is that this is the turning point for the GOP going against Trump on their own. I disagree that any diversion is going to have big effects, you'd be right if this might be occurring in large numbers but they aren't. Retiring also runs the risk of letting pro-Trump Republicans replacing their seats, gaining him more control over the party in congress. Incidents like healthcare has been acceptable, but so far this has been the exception rather than the rule for the anti-Trump side. There's still too many Republicans refusing to shut down pro-Trump bills, that's why I'm disappointed there hasn't been more Republicans fighting back in congress, and without that we're in trouble.
It's small cracks right now. But it's cracks I'm not used to seeing in Year One for a party that controls everything.
Which is an improvement. However, that's not going to do anything to Trump unless they gather momentum to be a threat, instead they are a joke to everyone. Another disappointing feature on the Never Trump side is that they're terrible at managing counters to Trump to get the party away from his influence, and building momentum to gain power. History tells us the opposite. That's why they need to step up.
The words have the obvious goal of changing minds and recruiting more Republicans to their way of seeing things (or getting those who already do to speak out with them).
I suspect actions will be pretty limited until some inroads are made in those areas. Three Senators not running for office again can easily be marginalized by the rest of their majority party, and they will be so long as the base is substantially in opposition to them.
I can't see any reality in which Republican office-holders take any meaningful action within the next few months. Far more interesting in the short term, then, is whether the chorus of unrest grows, or if this is all it's going to amount to.
How is the anti-Trump side doing this, though? It's a nice goal but if they're unable to do it in congress or gain a following fast they're going to remain irrelevant in the GOP. Important aspects for this to happen are to hold and expand power, which they're better off doing inside congress.
The problem is this is an evergreen post in US politics, especially with respect to foreign policy.
A lack of an accurate and reasoned evaluation of an administration's failures and the scope thereof is a major contributing factor. It's how we get Schumer holding up Bush as something Trump should aspire too.
I mean, I happen to agree that Bush was not as bad, but if you think that means Schumer wouldn't be complaining about Trump if he were another Bush, you're nuts. The thing is that government under Bush at least fucking functioned.
New Orleans might disagree with that sentiment.
Say what you want about Trump, but at least when Bush spied on muslim groups they didn't use sound equipment from Bush's own company. Government worked back then
The words have the obvious goal of changing minds and recruiting more Republicans to their way of seeing things (or getting those who already do to speak out with them).
I suspect actions will be pretty limited until some inroads are made in those areas. Three Senators not running for office again can easily be marginalized by the rest of their majority party, and they will be so long as the base is substantially in opposition to them.
I can't see any reality in which Republican office-holders take any meaningful action within the next few months. Far more interesting in the short term, then, is whether the chorus of unrest grows, or if this is all it's going to amount to.
How is the anti-Trump side doing this, though? It's a nice goal but if they're unable to do it in congress or gain a following fast they're going to remain irrelevant in the GOP. Important aspects for this to happen are to hold and expand power, which they're better off doing inside congress.
The problem is this is an evergreen post in US politics, especially with respect to foreign policy.
A lack of an accurate and reasoned evaluation of an administration's failures and the scope thereof is a major contributing factor. It's how we get Schumer holding up Bush as something Trump should aspire too.
I mean, I happen to agree that Bush was not as bad, but if you think that means Schumer wouldn't be complaining about Trump if he were another Bush, you're nuts. The thing is that government under Bush at least fucking functioned.
New Orleans might disagree with that sentiment.
Say what you want about Trump, but at least when Bush spied on muslim groups they didn't use sound equipment from Bush's own company. Government worked back then
And innocent old ladies tea parties.
Wasn't the company that was responsible for the iffy body scanners in airports owned by a buddy of the immediate administration(not specifically bush though)?
+2
Options
Waffles or whateverPreviously known as, I shit you not, "Waffen"Registered Userregular
edited November 2017
Not sure how reliable Salon is, but they're reporting that Betsy DeVos is going to resign relatively soon.
Posts
(BusinessWeek Reporter)
In no particular order:
He's disavowing Milo for being a Nazi. Like, literally. (DC reporter)
He's distancing himself from Bannon.
He's selling his shares in Breitbart (to his own daughters, who are even crazier than he is).
In case you forgot, he also owes seven BILLION in back taxes. I don't think that it's a coincidence that it happened today, with the tax bill text coming out and it needing help from the 'moderate' and establishment wings.
I suspect things will become clearer if Trump gets that war he's hankering for.
It's just such a brilliant summary of where the anti-pc crowd is. They're several steps behind the rest of us. Boo colleges don't allow free speech! Let's show them how hypocritical they are! Oh no it's backfired and now all the angry nazis I supported to prove a stupid point are causing real harm! Who could have foreseen this terrible outcome (except for those liberal colleges who are hypocrites of course)
I'd love to read a history text book a hundred years from now to see how this whole thing reads once we're not living it.
I recommend reading about Nixon. The parallels are uncanny.
A lot of wondering how anyone living in America could look at its history and think they were part of the good guys.
Nixon was a lot more competent and intelligent than Trump
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, they can
But rich white republican
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
That's because you are assuming the complaint is that colleges aren't a haven of free speech, rather then them hating college because it's a have of liberals and because stupid kids saying stupid things and fuck left-wingers.
Not a clone, but everything is still amazingly similar. It's like a writer decided to update the Watergate scandal for a modern audience, but dumb it down for ratings.
A side effect of making it easy for smart people to get away with being corrupt is that it also makes it easier for stupid people to sort of get away with being corrupt.
Also I mean Trump has been in office less than a year while Bush was in office for eight, give Trump time. (Or don't, really.)
Using Bush as an ally against Trump directly undercuts the more important message that the problem isn't just Trump.
(Punisher stickers don't count, right?)
I hope we still have books to read in 100 years
Can always go get a burger and a handy at Buttfuckers instead
Welcome to Costco, I love you.
I disagree, but I understand where you are coming from.
It's easier to get Trump out of office than fix the Republican party, which has spent about a hundred years fucking itself up this badly.
Although if it exactly matched what was said in a Chinese text book of the same period, that would tell us an awful lot.
How the hell do you go billions into debt? Like, isn't there a point where the government should simply declare you bankrupt owing to the fact that you can't realistically pay your taxes?
So is it Mercer that personally owes this bill, or is it his hedge fund?
Not sure, but try this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-27/dispute-over-mercer-hedge-fund-taxes-moves-to-irs-appeals-office
This was something the firm did, but some of the phrasing makes it sounds like the human entities may be the ones on the hook?
Yeah, saving his legacy by retroactively make everyone forget the times he didn't do anything. If it was intended to do anything we haven't seen any developments, any breakthroughs would have be seen by the public eventually if this was his supposed aim. The point is get the GOP to turn on Trump, and until they do that they're being useless.
Sorry for mistaking your posts for Phasen's.
That wasn't my intention for giving him a free pass, and even if I did he wouldn't have had to be on the progressive wing. It's not like the conservative wing is happy with Trump, either. All he'd need to do is vote Democrat. My argument was ignoring his past both pre-and post-Trump that he's a reliable challenger to Trump, where we disagree is that this is enough to make up for all of that. He said some mean words on twitter, that's hardly notable for a senator. I could do that. And that by itself is by no means a sign the ties turning within the GOP politicians that would impact him getting impeached or being fought against publicly. Which would be required for them to be useful allies. Instead, all we get is congressman who were retiring while throwing a middle finger at Trump. Feels good, but doesn't move the needle.
That is true, yet that doesn't mean what he did was actually useful. He can be someone we dislike and an ally. He's not the latter at the moment. Regarding his credibility on moving against Trump it's far too early to say this is a sign of him leading the charge against Trump in the open. Has he done anything notable against Trump the last few days to get this momentum? I haven't heard anything. This all relies on "if" and right now that "if" has not been confirmed, so why should we be optimistic what he did is going to do anything valuable?
I'm unconvinced what McCain is doing is going to shift any movement between the sides within the GOP. I'm working with context of McCain's history as a politician an his time in office while Trump has been president. Which is not favorable. Ultimately what McCain, Flake etc are doing looks like they're ceding ground to Trump, not fighting him.
His character informs the man, in this thread some people are forgetting his past so I thought I'd remind them of who exactly they were talking about. Someone does not become a nice person simply by yelling at Trump on the way out. It's good, yes, except doesn't change the status quo - instead it solidifies Trump's power base. Aside from that if McCain wanted to do something notable, now is likely not the best time to do it considering he was diagnosed with brain cancer. That's why I was irritated he didn't do something earlier in the year, when this wasn't on the table.
I think you're misreading me, I'm not expecting McCain etc to switch sides or be Dems or allies or whatever - I'm trying to see signs that they will turn on Trump for their own ends, because yes some Republicans will have to turn on Trump. Unfortunately this is not how to do it that's going to have any notable affects. It'll get tongues wagging for a while on both sides, and get McCaain, Flake's etc name in the news temporarily, where we disagree is that this is the turning point for the GOP going against Trump on their own. I disagree that any diversion is going to have big effects, you'd be right if this might be occurring in large numbers but they aren't. Retiring also runs the risk of letting pro-Trump Republicans replacing their seats, gaining him more control over the party in congress. Incidents like healthcare has been acceptable, but so far this has been the exception rather than the rule for the anti-Trump side. There's still too many Republicans refusing to shut down pro-Trump bills, that's why I'm disappointed there hasn't been more Republicans fighting back in congress, and without that we're in trouble.
Which is an improvement. However, that's not going to do anything to Trump unless they gather momentum to be a threat, instead they are a joke to everyone. Another disappointing feature on the Never Trump side is that they're terrible at managing counters to Trump to get the party away from his influence, and building momentum to gain power. History tells us the opposite. That's why they need to step up.
How is the anti-Trump side doing this, though? It's a nice goal but if they're unable to do it in congress or gain a following fast they're going to remain irrelevant in the GOP. Important aspects for this to happen are to hold and expand power, which they're better off doing inside congress.
And innocent old ladies tea parties.
Wasn't the company that was responsible for the iffy body scanners in airports owned by a buddy of the immediate administration(not specifically bush though)?
https://www.salon.com/2017/11/06/officials-expect-devos-to-resign-from-trump-administration_partner/
A woefully unprepared, spoiled rich person is frustrated that they don't have god-like power in their public servant role, you say?
pleasepaypreacher.net
(Although I will grant you that DeVos has the first two covered already.)