Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

Well what you're essentially asking for is an independent there, someone that doesn't feel beholden to either party, which is unprecedented for us. And the risk in such a president, even if they are the ideal "great leader", is that they unite both parties against them and can't force them to do shit, nor can they advance their own agenda because they lack legislative support. They'll just be a lame duck.

What we hope for is a middle of the road kind of president who is just so gosh darn likeable and admirable to both parties that they want to work with them. Where the benefits of being seen cooperating with the president outweigh the costs. But what the parties admire are fundamentally opposed. Neither party is going to admire or work with a president who stays neutral on everything like abortion or immigration, because we're used to presidents belonging to a party and having an agenda. A president that doesn't have an agenda is essentially just telling Congress to figure it out using the majorities already in place. And I don't think a calm headed arbiter exists that can overcome pure naked self interest in politics. The embedded parts of both parties will see someone earnest who actually wants to dismantle the bullshit culture they've built up and progress in a bipartisan manner instead of either advocating for or being forced into being obstructionist....and they'll promptly bury them.

[smjjames]

They can be a Democrat or Republican and still work with the other side. The point is to not be so divisive like Trump has been and at least try to mend the divisions. What I'm trying to say is that a President who wanted to bridge the divide very well could, and should, since bridging the divide is how you deal with partianship.

A president doesn't have an agenda is essentially just telling Congress to figure it out using the majorities already in place.

*points at Trump* Well, okay, not exactly as he is still trying to dictate the agenda, but is so inept at it that Congress is basically at the whim of the Outrage of the Day now that they've exhausted what they had in their agenda and don't know what they want to do, aside from said Outrage of the Day and whatever normal day to day business they do.

[nenjin]

Oh the House still has plenty of ideas for "great legislation." I think Senate Republicans are trying to balance supporting what they think they should be and doing limited damage control on what they can't. I think if tomorrow Trump managed to seriously blow it, the proverbial smoking gun turns up for impeachment, I don't think Republicans would be unhappy. Otherwise, based on his popular support and not being impeachable, they'll continue to back him for another term and hope a Republican successor follows him up that they actually have control over.

When I picture Trump, I picture a boat on a storm tossed sea, with Trump standing one leg up on the bow, hand in vest, making long speeches. Meanwhile Republicans stand about 40 feet back, packed really closely, clapping politely while he talks and staring intently at him, waiting for the rogue wave to come and sweep him in to the sea.

[Rolan7]

Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez gave a rousing speech at, heh, the 1:39:40 mark:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?447953-2/fbi-deputy-assistant-director-peter-strzok-testifies-2016-investigations-part-2&start=5969

Basically he points out how many issues are seemingly more important to the American people, yet are not receiving hearings like this.  Partisan grandstanding, but he's not wrong.

But to my surprise at 1:42:25 he brought things back on topic for a really strong point:  Despite Strzok's supposed bias, being out to "stop" Trump, he didn't reveal the Trump investigation to the public.  That really could have changed the election (cough Clinton cough) but he didn't do it.

Heh, I guess I was surprised to hear an actual argument of any sort, instead of yet more of:

republicans mostly asking questions the guy can't answer and them smirking like that's proof of guilt and democrats using their time to grandstand against Trump and then asking questions that don't matter.

Edit: (I'd paste the nice transcripts CSPAN provide, but... this is silly...  They're in all caps.  Which I could pretty easily fix, but that'd be editing a transcript...)

[sluissa]

Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez gave a rousing speech at, heh, the 1:39:40 mark:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?447953-2/fbi-deputy-assistant-director-peter-strzok-testifies-2016-investigations-part-2&start=5969

Basically he points out how many issues are seemingly more important to the American people, yet are not receiving hearings like this.  Partisan grandstanding, but he's not wrong.

But to my surprise at 1:42:25 he brought things back on topic for a really strong point:  Despite Strzok's supposed bias, being out to "stop" Trump, he didn't reveal the Trump investigation to the public.  That really could have changed the election (cough Clinton cough) but he didn't do it.

Heh, I guess I was surprised to hear an actual argument of any sort, instead of yet more of:

republicans mostly asking questions the guy can't answer and them smirking like that's proof of guilt and democrats using their time to grandstand against Trump and then asking questions that don't matter.

Edit: (I'd paste the nice transcripts CSPAN provide, but... this is silly...  They're in all caps.  Which I could pretty easily fix, but that'd be editing a transcript...)

Oddly enough, that was specifically the instance I was referring to when I said "Democrats grandstanding and asking questions that don't matter"

I thought the best argument came from Strzok himself when he said something along the lines of: Yes, we are in fact allowed to have opinions outside of work and talk to our friends about those opinions. It's professionalism when you don't let those opinions influence the outcome of your work one way or another.

Lots of times I've dealt with a shitty client in the field of my work, but just because I didn't like them doesn't mean I did my job incorrectly to spite them.

[Folly]

It's republicans mostly asking questions the guy can't answer and them smirking like that's proof of guilt...

To clarify, he's entirely capable of answering, they just won't let him.
My favorite part was when one of the interrogators ended his speech with a question just as he ran out of time, Strzok tried to respond, but the interrogator stated that his question was rhetorical and therefore could not be responded to.
And then of course there were all the questions about active investigations that Strzok said he was not allowed to respond to, and the Republicans tried to argue that they had the authority to override the FBI and give him authorization to respond, to which the Democrats asked them to cite the rules that stated they had that authotity, to which the R's basically said, 'I don't know, shut up and answer already'.

[misko27]

Oh the House still has plenty of ideas for "great legislation." I think Senate Republicans are trying to balance supporting what they think they should be and doing limited damage control on what they can't. I think if tomorrow Trump managed to seriously blow it, the proverbial smoking gun turns up for impeachment, I don't think Republicans would be unhappy. Otherwise, based on his popular support and not being impeachable, they'll continue to back him for another term and hope a Republican successor follows him up that they actually have control over.

Oh absolutely. If Trump were ever overthrown they'd happily toss his ass out the White House and within, say, two days be off to the races saying Pence was innocent all along. Not a shred of shame either, probably be quite relieved if anything. Trump's enough of a narcissist that he might not realize (or conveniently forget to himself) how much they don't like him. They'd never say that, but they do say everything short of it. Especially when he rips up their current legislative effort, or shits on it then praises it then dumps it, or criticizes something they just did while demanding they now support something else, or, or, or...

[sluissa]

It's republicans mostly asking questions the guy can't answer and them smirking like that's proof of guilt...

To clarify, he's entirely capable of answering, they just won't let him.
My favorite part was when one of the interrogators ended his speech with a question just as he ran out of time, Strzok tried to respond, but the interrogator stated that his question was rhetorical and therefore could not be responded to.
And then of course there were all the questions about active investigations that Strzok said he was not allowed to respond to, and the Republicans tried to argue that they had the authority to override the FBI and give him authorization to respond, to which the Democrats asked them to cite the rules that stated they had that authotity, to which the R's basically said, 'I don't know, shut up and answer already'.

I was referring to the ones where the FBI said he couldn't answer. But there were a few he they didn't want to give him a chance to answer.

Oh the House still has plenty of ideas for "great legislation." I think Senate Republicans are trying to balance supporting what they think they should be and doing limited damage control on what they can't. I think if tomorrow Trump managed to seriously blow it, the proverbial smoking gun turns up for impeachment, I don't think Republicans would be unhappy. Otherwise, based on his popular support and not being impeachable, they'll continue to back him for another term and hope a Republican successor follows him up that they actually have control over.

Oh absolutely. If Trump were ever overthrown they'd happily toss his ass out the White House and within, say, two days be off to the races saying Pence was innocent all along. Not a shred of shame either, probably be quite relieved if anything. Trump's enough of a narcissist that he might not realize (or conveniently forget to himself) how much they don't like him. They'd never say that, but they do say everything short of it. Especially when he rips up their current legislative effort, or shits on it then praises it then dumps it, or criticizes something they just did while demanding they now support something else, or, or, or...

I think they'd find it harder than you're implying. Far too many candidates running have thrown their advertisement dollars in with Trump supporting. While they may or may not privately hate him. A Trump impeachment before the election would be devastating. They may be willing to allow it after November, or possibly after 2020 if he's re-elected. But "tomorrow" is hoping a little too much.

Speaking of 2020, is there even any hint of who's going to be running on the dem's side? What about the republicans, if they hate him as much as you say, any chance of the completely bonkers idea of a primary challenger from the incumbent's party?

I am curious about the dems though, as much as I don't want to start up the election season any earlier than it has to, the only name I keep hearing is Oprah... despite her continually saying "naw, not gonna." It's scary that's the only name besides a few mentions of Biden and examples of "Young up and comers" who "would be good to run in 7-10 years."

[Kagus]

"Michelle 2020" was a meme for a while, but I don't know how much traction it ever got or what her response was to the suggestion.

Pretty sure Bernie's berned out for the time being, which is a shame but doesn't really make much difference. I doubt he'd have much better luck getting nominated as the dem candidate this time around than he did last time.


At this point, it really wouldn't shock me to see a "Bill Nye the President Guy" campaign or similar...

[Lord Shonus]

There's a lot of positioning, but right now I think all of the serious contenders are waiting to see how 2018 shakes out. Not in the sense of "how do Democrats do against Republicans", but in the sense of "what kind of Democrats do well, and what kind falls on their face".

[Telgin]

"Michelle 2020" was a meme for a while, but I don't know how much traction it ever got or what her response was to the suggestion.

I'd be surprised if she went for it.  I was under the impression that she was very relieved when Obama's second term was up and all of that was behind them.  Could have been a joke though, since I think that's how Obama pitched it.

Anyway, I'm mostly hoping we don't get Hillary again.  Not because of her policies, but because it would almost certainly tank the election again.  Normally I wouldn't even consider it at this point, but I did read somewhere that she was considering it.

Also hoping for no Oprah, as I've stated before.

[Starver]

Duchess of Sussex 2020?

Should rile up a few people: Misogynists, racists, Republicans, British republicans...

[smjjames]

Real funny Starver.

We should expect a whole motley crew of people trying to run, now that Trump has shown that a total outsider non-politician can break through and become President. Although, it's going to be tough for anybody other than Trump to pull off the same strategy because Trump was filling a vacuum and the conditions were basically unique to that moment.

[Rolan7]

I'm voting for Mainiac until further notice

[Sheb]

I'm voting for Mainiac until further notice

That's a vote I can get behind.