General US Politics

[CyborgZeta]

What is wrong with generals? Mattis and Kelly are excellent picks for the Departments they've been chosen for.

Tillerson's credentials lend credence to Trump's idea of "bringing in people who were successful in the private sector to negotiate better deals for the US"; his experience in dealing with Russia also help's with Trump's stated goal of trying to seek cooperation with Russia.

I won't comment on the rest of the picks, but I do think Zinke and Sessions are fine. The only choices that really give me pause are Mnuchin, Pruitt, and Puzder.

Personally, I was never into the "drain the swamp" because everyone has a different definition of swamp. I find hiring people from outside the Beltway to be sufficient in terms of non-swamp, but not everyone sees it that way.

I liked term limits for Congress and a ban on people working in government becoming lobbyists.

Edited December 16, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[Radiant head]

the planet is facing an existential crisis, what could possibly go wrong with putting the exxon ceo in the white house

[Moblin Major General]

The scariest nod yet goes to the U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He doesn't believe Palestine is a state and supports Jews settling Palestinian land. This would light a powder keg and split the Middle East in two.

[CyborgZeta]

the planet is facing an existential crisis, what could possibly go wrong with putting the exxon ceo in the white house

A CEO who has acknowledged that humans have an effect on climate change, and has expressed support for a carbon tax.

I don't get this complaint, since the Secretary of State is a diplomat; he does not oversee climate or energy policy.

[Radiant head]

yeah somehow i doubt any vocal support for a minuscule reform like a carbon tax will not conflict at all with the actual capitalist interests of the oil industry. not to mention, oil has always been a primary motivator of our awful role in the middle east. or even without the oil industry, no need to look further than trump himself and his stance on climate change.

it's like if goldman sachs guy who's going to be top economic advisor says there needs to be more regulation on wall street.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Radiant head

[Excellen Browning]

The impact of a carbon emissions tax is proportional to the height of it.

[Lord Raven]

Why can't anyone lose gracefully this election? All these antics are just going to come back to bite them.

The country reaps what it sows after an extremely ugly election. The only thing that would give this country pause after the election is if Johnson or Joe Exotic won. It's especially ugly when the reason Trump won was because of understandably disgruntled rust belt voters, but alt-right and fringe alt-right believe they've championed over the filthy politically correct liberals and Trump's response to those views were very much a "stop it" and what amounts to willful ignorance.

I mean, it would be one thing if his Secretary of State weren't the Exxon guy and if he didn't bring a guy from Breitbart onto the scene but he did and any protest (beyond saying the election was rigged because that shit is nonsense) is fully called for. If people who thought the moderate trump from the late 90s/early 00s was what we were going to get then it's kind of funny to look at in retrospect? I mean sure he has gone back on some things but he's definitely got a trainwreck of a transition team. I mean let's face it this election was the hammer that hit something hard and turned a crack into a fracture, and the transition team is making it worse.

I mean for all the crying that people did about the constitution in this election it sure is hilarious how future president Fuckface von Clownstick doesn't take well to the first if it's critical of him.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Rezzy]

The country reaps what it sows after an extremely ugly election. The only thing that would give this country pause after the election is if Johnson or Joe Exotic won. It's especially ugly when the reason Trump won was because of understandably disgruntled rust belt voters, but alt-right and fringe alt-right believe they've championed over the filthy politically correct liberals and Trump's response to those views were very much a "stop it" and what amounts to willful ignorance.

I mean, it would be one thing if his Secretary of State weren't the Exxon guy and if he didn't bring a guy from Breitbart onto the scene but he did and any protest (beyond saying the election was rigged because that shit is nonsense) is fully called for. If people who thought the moderate trump from the late 90s/early 00s was what we were going to get then it's kind of funny to look at in retrospect? I mean sure he has gone back on some things but he's definitely got a trainwreck of a transition team. I mean let's face it this election was the hammer that hit something hard and turned a crack into a fracture, and the transition team is making it worse.

I mean for all the crying that people did about the constitution in this election it sure is hilarious how future president Fuckface von Clownstick doesn't take well to the first if it's critical of him.

Yeah, that post was directed at the NC Republicans who seem to want to rewrite half the laws to keep themselves in power during the next governor's tenure. So my point was, it's bad when the Democrats do it, and it's bad when the Republicans do it. I think the Democrats trying to get the Electoral College to flip and demanding recounts with no evidence of fraud will hurt them next election, and whatever the heck the NC Republicans are doing will hurt them, but may be limited to that state, since it doesn't seem to have any national support, at least from what I've seen.

The Democrats still have filibuster power, so that should be the primary tool that they use going forward to keep any extreme measures that the Republicans try to effect. The worst of the cabinet picks still have that to overcome, but what worries me once again is precedent. The Senate Democrats did the "nuclear option" some years ago to prevent the Republicans from being able to filibuster, and now it may come back to bite them, since the Republicans can claim precedent and do the same thing. They have no one to blame but themselves for this, but it's the people who suffer.

[solrocknroll]

Literally every cabinet pick is anti-LGBT. How can anyone condone this?

In Arkansas, LGBT parents aren't even allowed to have their names on their own childrens' birth certificates. The "Family Association" wants Trump to purge LGBT allies and people from any positions of power. This is the kind of world that Trump voters have created, and they'll have to answer for this one day. Mark my words.

At the very least, Mama Ru is here for us.

[Rezzy]

Literally every cabinet pick is anti-LGBT. How can anyone condone this?

Trump has gone on record as saying he won't challenge marriage equality, for all that's worth. At least it's Trump in this department, and not say, Cruz. Trump had been considering Richard Grenell, an openly gay man for a cabinet pick at one point. As someone who lived through being a lesbian in the early 2000's, America is much better than it was then, and the Republicans today compared to last decade have come a long way.

In Arkansas, LGBT parents aren't even allowed to have their names on their own childrens' birth certificates. The "Family Association" wants Trump to purge LGBT allies and people from any positions of power. This is the kind of world that Trump voters have created, and they'll have to answer for this one day. Mark my words.

As an LB, I think a birth certificate is more of a scientific document showing which biological parents brought you into the world, or at least should be. I think adoption papers should then suffice to show the parent-child relationship, if it's not the biological mother and father. This was an issue for me a few years back, when I was trying to convince my girlfriend to adopt a kid together.

[blah the Prussian]

Literally every cabinet pick is anti-LGBT. How can anyone condone this?

In Arkansas, LGBT parents aren't even allowed to have their names on their own childrens' birth certificates. The "Family Association" wants Trump to purge LGBT allies and people from any positions of power. This is the kind of world that Trump voters have created, and they'll have to answer for this one day. Mark my words.

At the very least, Mama Ru is here for us.

Define " answer for this".

[Time the Crestfallen]

Define " answer for this".

I assume it means they're going to regret voting for him.

[blah the Prussian]

I assume it means they're going to regret voting for him.

'Answer for this' implies a sort of active punishment, though.

[solrocknroll]

'Answer for this' implies a sort of active punishment, though.

Not really. I moreso meant that when Trump eventually leaves office, they will literally have to answer as to why they would vote for that.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Voltrash

[Tryhard]

Trump has gone on record as saying he won't challenge marriage equality, for all that's worth.

So, worth nothing, then? Trump does whatever is best for Trump at the time, and will gaslight things he's demonstrably said in order to do it. Facts are simply an inconvenience.

a quote from his rally on friday:

"You people were vicious, violent, screaming, 'Where's the wall? We want the wall!' Screaming, 'Prison! Prison! Lock her up!' I mean you are going crazy. I mean, you were nasty and mean and vicious and you wanted to win, right?" Trump said Friday. "But now, you're mellow and you're cool and you're not nearly as vicious or violent, right? Because we won, right?"

And while Trump suggested that his supporters had mellowed out in their rhetoric as well -- "now you're laid back, you're cool, you're mellow, you're basking in the glory of victory," he said Friday -- the crowd broke out in "Lock her up!" chants twice.

it's very surreal

Edited December 17, 2016 by Tryhard

[Augestein]

So, worth nothing, then? Trump does whatever is best for Trump at the time, and will gaslight things he's demonstrably said in order to do it. Facts are simply an inconvenience.

a quote from his rally on friday:

"You people were vicious, violent, screaming, 'Where's the wall? We want the wall!' Screaming, 'Prison! Prison! Lock her up!' I mean you are going crazy. I mean, you were nasty and mean and vicious and you wanted to win, right?" Trump said Friday. "But now, you're mellow and you're cool and you're not nearly as vicious or violent, right? Because we won, right?"

And while Trump suggested that his supporters had mellowed out in their rhetoric as well -- "now you're laid back, you're cool, you're mellow, you're basking in the glory of victory," he said Friday -- the crowd broke out in "Lock her up!" chants twice.

it's very surreal

At this point I'm not even sure what ardent supporters actually really want. Nor is Trump even sure how to actually appease the people that supported him.

[Emperor Petitt]

At this point I'm not even sure what ardent supporters actually really want. Nor is Trump even sure how to actually appease the people that supported him.

I'd be happy with no "no-fly-zone" over Syria, at least in that scenario nuclear war is avoided

[Yojinbo]

I'd be happy with no "no-fly-zone" over Syria, at least in that scenario nuclear war is avoided

The installment of a no-fly-zone over Syria is a terrible idea. In addition to helping nobody except the terrorist groups active in Syria it'd also be pretty much the equivalent to a declaration of war against Russia.

[CyborgZeta]

Not really. I moreso meant that when Trump eventually leaves office, they will literally have to answer as to why they would vote for that.

Why wait that long? Why not just ask them now?

[solrocknroll]

Why wait that long? Why not just ask them now?

Because all of his disgusting, deplorable, hateful legislation will be ripped away and we can finally return to a good time of peace.

[Emperor Petitt]

The installment of a no-fly-zone over Syria is a terrible idea. In addition to helping nobody except the terrorist groups active in Syria it'd also be pretty much the equivalent to a declaration of war against Russia.

That is why I said I would be happy without it... Edited December 17, 2016 by Emperor Petitt

[Rezzy]

That is why I said I would be happy without it...

Hillary was the one proposing the no-fly zone over Syria.

[Emperor Petitt]

Hillary was the one proposing the no-fly zone over Syria.

I know, for the final time, I voted Trump TO PREVENT THAT. I did not want the no fly zone, so I voted trump Edited December 18, 2016 by Emperor Petitt

[Tryhard]

I'd be happy with no "no-fly-zone" over Syria, at least in that scenario nuclear war is avoided

While I do think the no-fly zone in Syria was a colossally bad idea, I don't see how Trump is any more trustworthy to not cause a wartime crisis (remember, the public trust of Trump with US nuclear weapons was polled at 27%, lower than even Hillary's abysmal number). Russia was likely blowharding as a result of having nuclear weapons being left from the Soviet Union, but if they were really going to go immediately to thermonuclear war over a no-fly zone in Syria, then they are the insane ones.

And I'm puzzled by the people okay with Rex Tillerson. Let's just stop and think if Hillary Clinton had won and had filled her team with Goldman Sachs bankers and other such high ranking executives. Would you willing to be apologise for the same on principle?

No, I know that people absolutely wouldn't. They would be screaming that this was the definition of corruption, collusion and corporatism. So why is it okay when someone like Trump does the exact same thing? Double standards, in my opinion.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Tryhard

[Etrurian emperor]

While I do think the no-fly zone in Syria was a colossally bad idea, I don't see how Trump is any more trustworthy to not cause a wartime crisis (remember, the public trust of Trump with US nuclear weapons was polled at 27%, lower than even Hillary's abysmal number). Russia was likely blowharding as a result of having nuclear weapons being left from the Soviet Union, but if they were really going to go immediately to thermonuclear war over a no-fly zone in Syria, then they are the insane ones.

And I'm puzzled by the people okay with Rex Tillerson. Let's just stop and think if Hillary Clinton had won and had filled her team with Goldman Sachs bankers and other such high ranking executives. Would you willing to be apologise for the same on principle?

No, I know that people absolutely wouldn't. They would be screaming that this was the definition of corruption, collusion and corporatism. So why is it okay when someone like Trump does the exact same thing? Double standards, in my opinion.

I suspect that for all their criticism of the establishment that populist voters just don't hold their guys to nearly the same standards. Trump was probably right when he said that shooting someone in plain sight wouldn't cost him any voters, or to by more specific, those kind of voters.

For many populist voters anti establishmentism is something to strive for by virtue of it being against the establishment. As long as the establishment suffers a great deal of populist voters will be happy no matter what happens

Trump can do whatever he likes and because he's anti establishment many supporters won't mind nearly as much as when that ''evil'' establishment would have done it.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Etrurian emperor