Poll of the Day > Imagine thinking Trump is a good President.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Greenfox111 08/29/17 11:06:33 PM #51:	more americans are working than ever before or whatever --- Don't ask. <cite>Greenfox111 posted [p:885693349] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote>more americans are working than ever before or whatever</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KevinceKostner 08/29/17 11:13:32 PM #52:	Greenfox111 posted... more americans are working than ever before or whatever Funny how Trump called the unemployment statistics fake until he became president and now he praises them <cite>KevinceKostner posted [p:885693683] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>Greenfox111 posted...</cite> <quote>more americans are working than ever before or whatever</quote> Funny how Trump called the unemployment statistics fake until he became president and now he praises them</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Bolt 08/29/17 11:15:21 PM #53:	Smarkil posted... Why not hold CNN up? CNN isn't some slapdick organization like Buzzfeed. It's been around for a very long time and up until recently was generally thought of pretty highly. By myself included. It's a pretty damning thing when one of the more respected news organizations in the country falls into blatant misinformation territory. Because he's holding it up as an example of the mainstream media, not singling it out as an exception. It's a massive difference because it implies that any media which disapproves of Trump is compromised. But yeah, shame about them being shitty. Smarkil posted... And it's not just CNN being weird but a lot of conservative media and personalities are being silenced through Google/Youtube, Twitter, etc. You wanna talk about an aspiring tyrant, why is that not part of your list? They're literally silencing people. I know they're private organizations, but when you have a market that's controlled entirely by what amounts to basically two or three different companies - it gets a little fucky when they start telling people they're not allowed to use their platforms. We're getting into a bizarre territory of oligopoly. None of those companies even hint that they're news sites. We can't hold every company that's powerful to the standards of a political entity, the way we call the media our fourth branch. They're allowed to own whatever speech they like, especially if we're gonna start bitching at them when we're offended at what they do leave up. If you don't like allowing super-rich companies move vast swaths of the world as they please, then... well... I guess it just sucks to live under capitalism? I mean I agree with you, they should totally be on the list for us to slut shame, and they're probably just as dangerous as Trump if not more so. But that's a different topic, the integrity of the media vs power limitations on businesses. --- One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master! -The Rev <cite>Lightning Bolt posted [p:885693762] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>Why not hold CNN up? CNN isn't some slapdick organization like Buzzfeed. It's been around for a very long time and up until recently was generally thought of pretty highly. By myself included. It's a pretty damning thing when one of the more respected news organizations in the country falls into blatant misinformation territory. </quote> Because he's holding it up as an example of the mainstream media, not singling it out as an exception. It's a massive difference because it implies that any media which disapproves of Trump is compromised. But yeah, shame about them being shitty. <cite>Smarkil posted...</cite> <quote>And it's not just CNN being weird but a lot of conservative media and personalities are being silenced through Google/Youtube, Twitter, etc. You wanna talk about an aspiring tyrant, why is that not part of your list? They're literally silencing people. I know they're private organizations, but when you have a market that's controlled entirely by what amounts to basically two or three different companies - it gets a little fucky when they start telling people they're not allowed to use their platforms. We're getting into a bizarre territory of oligopoly.</quote> None of those companies even hint that they're news sites. We can't hold every company that's powerful to the standards of a political entity, the way we call the media our fourth branch. They're allowed to own whatever speech they like, especially if we're gonna start bitching at them when we're offended at what they do leave up. If you don't like allowing super-rich companies move vast swaths of the world as they please, then... well... I guess it just sucks to live under capitalism? I mean I agree with you, they should totally be on the list for us to slut shame, and they're probably just as dangerous as Trump if not more so. But that's a different topic, the integrity of the media vs power limitations on businesses.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
helIy 08/29/17 11:19:25 PM #54:	imagine thinking you know the reason kids love cinnamon toast crunch --- depressed again morning comes too fast and i'm tired of the routine <cite>helIy posted [p:885693968] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote>imagine thinking you know the reason kids love cinnamon toast crunch</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil 08/30/17 3:16:05 AM #55:	Doctor Foxx posted... Not everyone can get those, unless I misunderstand the programs. Not everyone can qualify, but anyone that needs it should be able to get it. Speaking generally, medicare is for the disabled and seniors. Medicaid is generally for people who can't afford anything else. For example, when I was 20 and making 10 bucks an hour, I qualified for medicaid because I made roughly 16,000 a year. I didn't take the option because I didn't need it. I was still on my parents insurance which was eventually extended thanks to the one part of the ACA I actually liked. If you're disabled or old, you should be covered. If you're chronically poor, you should also be covered according to how it worked before. But if you're 26+ and incapable of making enough money to support yourself - then you fucked up. That's not the responsibility of the taxpayer to have to deal with. Doctor Foxx posted... 24 million aren't going to die immediately, and most of those probably will be fine without insurance. But even a few people losing coverage or being priced out and dying is a few too many. That's money over life, suffering and death that could be prevented. Perspective is a bound to be a bit different. Healthcare does not have to be treated as a commodity like a car (or paid barrier like a toll road), it can be a universal service like driving on the public road. But there's a line. Let's say you could save one guys life but you had to pay 10 trillion to do it, would you? I would wager no. And if you said yes, I would call you a liar. At this point we would just devolve into pricing out the worth of a mans life. Personally, I believe that money would be much better served going into the country's crumbling infrastructure or shit I think on the more extreme end that the money might be better spent researching cancer or other deadly diseases. Or maybe it would be better served investing in jobs for people so they didn't have to rely on the government. I don't know, I'm not an economist. My point is that there's a line and we've crossed it with the ACA. The solution should have never been give everyone socialized healthcare. We should have worked to fix the existing shitty system we have. Until then, we're just throwing money down the drain. --- If my daughter was in it, Id have to be the co-star - Deoxxys on porn <cite>Smarkil posted [p:885702342] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote>Not everyone can get those, unless I misunderstand the programs. </quote> Not everyone can qualify, but anyone that needs it should be able to get it. Speaking generally, medicare is for the disabled and seniors. Medicaid is generally for people who can't afford anything else. For example, when I was 20 and making 10 bucks an hour, I qualified for medicaid because I made roughly 16,000 a year. I didn't take the option because I didn't need it. I was still on my parents insurance which was eventually extended thanks to the one part of the ACA I actually liked. If you're disabled or old, you should be covered. If you're chronically poor, you should also be covered according to how it worked before. But if you're 26+ and incapable of making enough money to support yourself - then you fucked up. That's not the responsibility of the taxpayer to have to deal with. <cite>Doctor Foxx posted...</cite> <quote>24 million aren't going to die immediately, and most of those probably will be fine without insurance. But even a few people losing coverage or being priced out and dying is a few too many. That's money over life, suffering and death that could be prevented. Perspective is a bound to be a bit different. Healthcare does not have to be treated as a commodity like a car (or paid barrier like a toll road), it can be a universal service like driving on the public road. </quote> But there's a line. Let's say you could save one guys life but you had to pay 10 trillion to do it, would you? I would wager no. And if you said yes, I would call you a liar. At this point we would just devolve into pricing out the worth of a mans life. Personally, I believe that money would be much better served going into the country's crumbling infrastructure or shit I think on the more extreme end that the money might be better spent researching cancer or other deadly diseases. Or maybe it would be better served investing in jobs for people so they didn't have to rely on the government. I don't know, I'm not an economist. My point is that there's a line and we've crossed it with the ACA. The solution should have never been give everyone socialized healthcare. We should have worked to fix the existing shitty system we have. Until then, we're just throwing money down the drain.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 08/30/17 3:34:34 AM #56:	BlackScythe0 posted... Zeus posted... So far he's been an improvement on Obama. I know that it's a pretty low bar. And, assuming he doesn't declare a never-ending war within the next year, he'll be an improvement on GWB. HAHAHAHA! I guess it isn't surprising that you would approve of him. Again, look at the rest of my post. Molitheus posted... Zeus posted... Phantom_Nook posted... Zeus posted... So far he's been an improvement on Obama. lol no lol yes What makes you think that Trump is a good president when a lot of the Republicans don't support him and are skeptical about him being president? The only thing Trump has shown me is that he likes to run his mouth too much. Oh? Where exactly did I say he's a good president? Because all I said was that so far he's been on improvement on Obama. Generally speaking, it's much too early into his term to determine what kind of a president he'll wind up being. The camps shouting one way or the other are the same ones who were shouting that same song BEFORE he got elected. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:885702752] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>So far he's been an improvement on Obama. I know that it's a pretty low bar. And, assuming he doesn't declare a never-ending war within the next year, he'll be an improvement on GWB.</quote> HAHAHAHA! I guess it isn't surprising that you would approve of him.</quote> Again, look at the rest of my post. <cite>Molitheus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Phantom_Nook posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>So far he's been an improvement on Obama.</quote> lol no</quote> lol yes</quote> What makes you think that Trump is a good president when a lot of the Republicans don't support him and are skeptical about him being president? The only thing Trump has shown me is that he likes to run his mouth too much.</quote> Oh? Where exactly did I say he's a good president? Because all I said was that so far he's been on improvement on Obama. Generally speaking, it's much too early into his term to determine what kind of a president he'll wind up being. The camps shouting one way or the other are the same ones who were shouting that same song BEFORE he got elected.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 08/30/17 3:43:01 AM #57:	BlackScythe0 posted... But he has spectacularly failed due to his own refusal to work and refusal/inability to learn about the bills he wants to pass and campaign those bills to get support for them to pass. No, his problems are largely because the Freedom Caucus and similar factions make it impossible to do much of anything within his own party. It's the same group that gave Obama so much trouble. These are people who would sooner shut down the government than fund the ACA. And, at the same time, he's faced tremendous obstructionism from Democrats who have filibustered almost every single nomination he's made including his SCOTUS nominee (even after making a big show of protesting Merrick Garland's treatment). Lightning Bolt posted... Krazy_Kirby posted... take the supreme court nomination for example. democrats didnt have a problem with his canidate when he was appointed to his previous position. suddenly they did That's because Republicans stalled and blocked Obama's nomination until the election, starting in February. They just kinda let the Supreme Court run with an empty seat for nearly a year, saying that "the next president should choose the nominee". They didn't really give a reason, they just had the power to block one of Obama's decisions, and saying the words "block Obama" is the fastest way to get Republicans hard. Trust me, I've tested. Trump had no right to appoint anyone, and it doesn't matter who he chose. Anyone that would take that stolen seat would be hated. He actually has every right to appoint somebody. That's the role of the president. It's the role that Obama had when he appointed Merrick Garland. More importantly, it's certainly not the first time we saw a tactic like this nor will it be the last. Welcome to the new face of politics. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:885702946] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>But he has spectacularly failed due to his own refusal to work and refusal/inability to learn about the bills he wants to pass and campaign those bills to get support for them to pass.</quote> No, his problems are largely because the Freedom Caucus and similar factions make it impossible to do much of anything within his own party. It's the same group that gave Obama so much trouble. These are people who would sooner shut down the government than fund the ACA. And, at the same time, he's faced tremendous obstructionism from Democrats who have filibustered almost every single nomination he's made including his SCOTUS nominee (even after making a big show of protesting Merrick Garland's treatment). <cite>Lightning Bolt posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Krazy_Kirby posted...</cite> <quote>take the supreme court nomination for example. democrats didnt have a problem with his canidate when he was appointed to his previous position. suddenly they did</quote> That's because Republicans stalled and blocked Obama's nomination until the election, starting in February. They just kinda let the Supreme Court run with an empty seat for nearly a year, saying that "the next president should choose the nominee". They didn't really give a reason, they just had the power to block one of Obama's decisions, and saying the words "block Obama" is the fastest way to get Republicans hard. Trust me, I've tested. Trump had no right to appoint anyone, and it doesn't matter who he chose. Anyone that would take that stolen seat would be hated.</quote> He actually has every right to appoint somebody. That's the role of the president. It's the role that Obama had when he appointed Merrick Garland. More importantly, it's certainly not the first time we saw a tactic like this nor will it be the last. Welcome to the new face of politics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 08/30/17 3:49:51 AM #58:	Zeus posted... BlackScythe0 posted... But he has spectacularly failed due to his own refusal to work and refusal/inability to learn about the bills he wants to pass and campaign those bills to get support for them to pass. No, his problems are largely because the Freedom Caucus and similar factions make it impossible to do much of anything within his own party. It's the same group that gave Obama so much trouble. They're the group that would sooner shut down the government than fund the ACA. And, at the same time, he's faced tremendous obstructionism from Democrats who have filibustered almost every single nomination he's made including his SCOTUS nominee (even after making a big show of protesting Merrick Garland's treatment). One of the jobs of president is to be a salesman. To get behind a plan and campaign on it to get support. He was not willing to do so and was not willing to learn the things he needed to in order to do so. Last I was aware only one of his nominees did not get approved, and that was because he was a shitlord even Republicans didn't like. Might be more, but I can't recall hearing about it which is odd since the media likes stories of Trump failing. The issue is not democrats filibustering, but him not being able to find people to nominate because no one is willing to work for someone so horrifically incompetent. In some cases his lack of nominees seems intentional as he has no interest in the government functioning properly. (See the state department and thanking Putin for saving him money after expelling US diplomats) Trump is staggeringly incompetent and lazy. You can't shift the blame to democrats. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:885703075] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>But he has spectacularly failed due to his own refusal to work and refusal/inability to learn about the bills he wants to pass and campaign those bills to get support for them to pass.</quote> No, his problems are largely because the Freedom Caucus and similar factions make it impossible to do much of anything within his own party. It's the same group that gave Obama so much trouble. They're the group that would sooner shut down the government than fund the ACA. And, at the same time, he's faced tremendous obstructionism from Democrats who have filibustered almost every single nomination he's made including his SCOTUS nominee (even after making a big show of protesting Merrick Garland's treatment).</quote> One of the jobs of president is to be a salesman. To get behind a plan and campaign on it to get support. He was not willing to do so and was not willing to learn the things he needed to in order to do so. Last I was aware only one of his nominees did not get approved, and that was because he was a shitlord even Republicans didn't like. Might be more, but I can't recall hearing about it which is odd since the media likes stories of Trump failing. The issue is not democrats filibustering, but him not being able to find people to nominate because no one is willing to work for someone so horrifically incompetent. In some cases his lack of nominees seems intentional as he has no interest in the government functioning properly. (See the state department and thanking Putin for saving him money after expelling US diplomats) Trump is staggeringly incompetent and lazy. You can't shift the blame to democrats.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wwinterj25 08/30/17 4:04:12 AM #59:	Trump is love, Trump is life. --- One who knows nothing can understand nothing. http://psnprofiles.com/wwinterj - http://i.imgur.com/kDysIcd.gif <cite>wwinterj25 posted [p:885703377] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote>Trump is love, Trump is life.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 08/30/17 4:55:45 AM #60:	BlackScythe0 posted... Zeus posted... BlackScythe0 posted... But he has spectacularly failed due to his own refusal to work and refusal/inability to learn about the bills he wants to pass and campaign those bills to get support for them to pass. No, his problems are largely because the Freedom Caucus and similar factions make it impossible to do much of anything within his own party. It's the same group that gave Obama so much trouble. They're the group that would sooner shut down the government than fund the ACA. And, at the same time, he's faced tremendous obstructionism from Democrats who have filibustered almost every single nomination he's made including his SCOTUS nominee (even after making a big show of protesting Merrick Garland's treatment). One of the jobs of president is to be a salesman. To get behind a plan and campaign on it to get support. He was not willing to do so and was not willing to learn the things he needed to in order to do so. Last I was aware only one of his nominees did not get approved, and that was because he was a shitlord even Republicans didn't like. Might be more, but I can't recall hearing about it which is odd since the media likes stories of Trump failing. The issue is not democrats filibustering, but him not being able to find people to nominate because no one is willing to work for someone so horrifically incompetent. In some cases his lack of nominees seems intentional as he has no interest in the government functioning properly. (See the state department and thanking Putin for saving him money after expelling US diplomats) Trump is staggeringly incompetent and lazy. You can't shift the blame to democrats. Which is a funny comment to make when you spent the last 8 years blaming Republicans whenever something went wrong. That aside, Trump has a far greater challenge than Obama ever did given that he has much (if not most) of the ideological opposition Obama faced in addition to having heavy opposition from the Democrats. But otherwise sure, it is ultimately down to the president even when the other side explicitly refuses to work with them. However, at the same time, we're a little over 7 months into Trump's presidency so there's still a lot of time for things to change, particularly given that his nominations were filibustered so he didn't have a lot of relevant seats filled. Keep in mind that at this point in Obama's presidency, other than passing the ACA (which, by the way, was a total disaster; it makes Trump's early months look good by comparison even if he couldn't repeal it -- after all, it's a lot easier to add an entitlement than remove one) some of his most newsworthy things involved calling Kanye West a jackass and inflaming race relations by siding against the police without any context leading to the infamous Beer Summit, --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:885704245] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>But he has spectacularly failed due to his own refusal to work and refusal/inability to learn about the bills he wants to pass and campaign those bills to get support for them to pass.</quote> No, his problems are largely because the Freedom Caucus and similar factions make it impossible to do much of anything within his own party. It's the same group that gave Obama so much trouble. They're the group that would sooner shut down the government than fund the ACA. And, at the same time, he's faced tremendous obstructionism from Democrats who have filibustered almost every single nomination he's made including his SCOTUS nominee (even after making a big show of protesting Merrick Garland's treatment).</quote> One of the jobs of president is to be a salesman. To get behind a plan and campaign on it to get support. He was not willing to do so and was not willing to learn the things he needed to in order to do so. Last I was aware only one of his nominees did not get approved, and that was because he was a shitlord even Republicans didn't like. Might be more, but I can't recall hearing about it which is odd since the media likes stories of Trump failing. The issue is not democrats filibustering, but him not being able to find people to nominate because no one is willing to work for someone so horrifically incompetent. In some cases his lack of nominees seems intentional as he has no interest in the government functioning properly. (See the state department and thanking Putin for saving him money after expelling US diplomats) Trump is staggeringly incompetent and lazy. You can't shift the blame to democrats.</quote> Which is a funny comment to make when you spent the last 8 years blaming Republicans whenever something went wrong. That aside, Trump has a far greater challenge than Obama ever did given that he has much (if not most) of the ideological opposition Obama faced in addition to having heavy opposition from the Democrats. But otherwise sure, it is ultimately down to the president even when the other side explicitly refuses to work with them. However, at the same time, we're a little over 7 months into Trump's presidency so there's still a lot of time for things to change, particularly given that his nominations were filibustered so he didn't have a lot of relevant seats filled. Keep in mind that at this point in Obama's presidency, other than passing the ACA (which, by the way, was a total disaster; it makes Trump's early months look good by comparison even if he couldn't repeal it -- after all, it's a lot easier to add an entitlement than remove one) some of his most newsworthy things involved calling Kanye West a jackass and inflaming race relations by siding against the police without any context leading to the infamous Beer Summit,</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RIP_Supa 08/30/17 5:51:38 AM #61:	KevinceKostner posted... Close your eyes and cover your eyes and just think of the wall. oh my god it's beautiful --- getting laid is easy lmao just post dank memes -PaddysPub <cite>RIP_Supa posted [p:885705185] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>KevinceKostner posted...</cite> <quote>Close your eyes and cover your eyes and just think of the wall.</quote> oh my god it's beautiful</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OmegaM 08/30/17 10:06:43 AM #62:	Not sure this is the perfect topic for this article, but I thought it made good points: https://www.lawfareblog.com/its-time-congress-needs-open-formal-impeachment-inquiry They say that there's precedent for looking into impeachment even if Trump hasn't broken a specific law. <cite>OmegaM posted [p:885712018] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote>Not sure this is the perfect topic for this article, but I thought it made good points: https://www.lawfareblog.com/its-time-congress-needs-open-formal-impeachment-inquiry They say that there's precedent for looking into impeachment even if Trump hasn't broken a specific law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 08/30/17 10:10:00 AM #63:	Zeus posted... BlackScythe0 posted... Zeus posted... BlackScythe0 posted... But he has spectacularly failed due to his own refusal to work and refusal/inability to learn about the bills he wants to pass and campaign those bills to get support for them to pass. No, his problems are largely because the Freedom Caucus and similar factions make it impossible to do much of anything within his own party. It's the same group that gave Obama so much trouble. They're the group that would sooner shut down the government than fund the ACA. And, at the same time, he's faced tremendous obstructionism from Democrats who have filibustered almost every single nomination he's made including his SCOTUS nominee (even after making a big show of protesting Merrick Garland's treatment). One of the jobs of president is to be a salesman. To get behind a plan and campaign on it to get support. He was not willing to do so and was not willing to learn the things he needed to in order to do so. Last I was aware only one of his nominees did not get approved, and that was because he was a shitlord even Republicans didn't like. Might be more, but I can't recall hearing about it which is odd since the media likes stories of Trump failing. The issue is not democrats filibustering, but him not being able to find people to nominate because no one is willing to work for someone so horrifically incompetent. In some cases his lack of nominees seems intentional as he has no interest in the government functioning properly. (See the state department and thanking Putin for saving him money after expelling US diplomats) Trump is staggeringly incompetent and lazy. You can't shift the blame to democrats. Which is a funny comment to make when you spent the last 8 years blaming Republicans whenever something went wrong. That aside, Trump has a far greater challenge than Obama ever did given that he has much (if not most) of the ideological opposition Obama faced in addition to having heavy opposition from the Democrats. But otherwise sure, it is ultimately down to the president even when the other side explicitly refuses to work with them. However, at the same time, we're a little over 7 months into Trump's presidency so there's still a lot of time for things to change, particularly given that his nominations were filibustered so he didn't have a lot of relevant seats filled. Keep in mind that at this point in Obama's presidency, other than passing the ACA (which, by the way, was a total disaster; it makes Trump's early months look good by comparison even if he couldn't repeal it -- after all, it's a lot easier to add an entitlement than remove one) some of his most newsworthy things involved calling Kanye West a jackass and inflaming race relations by siding against the police without any context leading to the infamous Beer Summit, No filibustering has blocked any of his appointments! He just hasn't nominated anyone. I know worshiping Trump is your gimmick but at least learn to read. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:885712145] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>But he has spectacularly failed due to his own refusal to work and refusal/inability to learn about the bills he wants to pass and campaign those bills to get support for them to pass.</quote> No, his problems are largely because the Freedom Caucus and similar factions make it impossible to do much of anything within his own party. It's the same group that gave Obama so much trouble. They're the group that would sooner shut down the government than fund the ACA. And, at the same time, he's faced tremendous obstructionism from Democrats who have filibustered almost every single nomination he's made including his SCOTUS nominee (even after making a big show of protesting Merrick Garland's treatment).</quote> One of the jobs of president is to be a salesman. To get behind a plan and campaign on it to get support. He was not willing to do so and was not willing to learn the things he needed to in order to do so. Last I was aware only one of his nominees did not get approved, and that was because he was a shitlord even Republicans didn't like. Might be more, but I can't recall hearing about it which is odd since the media likes stories of Trump failing. The issue is not democrats filibustering, but him not being able to find people to nominate because no one is willing to work for someone so horrifically incompetent. In some cases his lack of nominees seems intentional as he has no interest in the government functioning properly. (See the state department and thanking Putin for saving him money after expelling US diplomats) Trump is staggeringly incompetent and lazy. You can't shift the blame to democrats.</quote> Which is a funny comment to make when you spent the last 8 years blaming Republicans whenever something went wrong. That aside, Trump has a far greater challenge than Obama ever did given that he has much (if not most) of the ideological opposition Obama faced in addition to having heavy opposition from the Democrats. But otherwise sure, it is ultimately down to the president even when the other side explicitly refuses to work with them. However, at the same time, we're a little over 7 months into Trump's presidency so there's still a lot of time for things to change, particularly given that his nominations were filibustered so he didn't have a lot of relevant seats filled. Keep in mind that at this point in Obama's presidency, other than passing the ACA (which, by the way, was a total disaster; it makes Trump's early months look good by comparison even if he couldn't repeal it -- after all, it's a lot easier to add an entitlement than remove one) some of his most newsworthy things involved calling Kanye West a jackass and inflaming race relations by siding against the police without any context leading to the infamous Beer Summit,</quote> No filibustering has blocked any of his appointments! He just hasn't nominated anyone. I know worshiping Trump is your gimmick but at least learn to read.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lightning Bolt 08/30/17 10:55:33 AM #64:	OmegaM posted... They say that there's precedent for looking into impeachment even if Trump hasn't broken a specific law. "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history." - Gerald Ford /shrug Zeus posted... He actually has every right to appoint somebody. That's the role of the president. It's the role that Obama had when he appointed Merrick Garland. More importantly, it's certainly not the first time we saw a tactic like this nor will it be the last. Welcome to the new face of politics. You know, I'm not sure they did. Republicans made it pretty clear that they weren't rejecting Obama's particular nomination, they were rejecting his power to make the appointment. It was totally unprecedented. But yeah, there were people arguing that it was technically legal. And Trump himself obviously had zilch to do with the obstruction. --- One day dude, I'm just gonna get off the bus, and I'm gonna run in the woods and never come back, and when I come back I'm gonna be the knife master! -The Rev <cite>Lightning Bolt posted [p:885714267] in Imagine th... [t:75721233]...</cite> <quote><cite>OmegaM posted...</cite> <quote>They say that there's precedent for looking into impeachment even if Trump hasn't broken a specific law.</quote> "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history." - Gerald Ford /shrug <cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>He actually has every right to appoint somebody. That's the role of the president. It's the role that Obama had when he appointed Merrick Garland. More importantly, it's certainly not the first time we saw a tactic like this nor will it be the last. Welcome to the new face of politics.</quote> You know, I'm not sure they did. Republicans made it pretty clear that they weren't rejecting Obama's particular nomination, they were rejecting his power to make the appointment. It was totally unprecedented. But yeah, there were people arguing that it was technically legal. And Trump himself obviously had zilch to do with the obstruction.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Imagine thinking Trump is a good President. (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Imagine thinking Trump is a good President.