US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[username]

You must be skipping your daily dose of Scotch.

FTFY

[skyguy918]

The things he's been able to accomplish through appointments (cabinet and judicial) and EO's are obviously positive outcomes for people who support those positions (Bannon's 'dismantling of the administration state, trade policy, etc.). But so many of his big ideas rely on Congress, and on the courts. It's not an excuse to say the other branches aren't cooperating. Trump made those promises, and (hopefully) knew that they would entail working with other parts of government. He's 0 for 10 on the second page of his Contract with America - and he's only even 'attempted' the 1 item (repeal and replace). The first page is really the only place where he's made any progress, and that's largely due to EO's.

[Yehuda57]

Fast forward 8 years I'm voting for Ben Shapiro the guys a monster when facing the radical left. As seen here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D350lKvVF7sE&ved=0ahUKEwiPpur1-rjVAhWh1IMKHUrZC3gQwqsBCEAwCA&usg=AFQjCNGh0t7AmTTsGPlvdnBGdJnH0Y4Exg

I came to the debate biased to the conservative view, so it's no surprise I think he "won" the debate, but I thought Cenk did a great job (aside from being condescending to Ben and the audience) and more than held his own. I believe anyone with progressive leanings will feel he destroyed Ben the same way you think Ben "was a monster."

I will say it was a pretty good debate, one which highlighted actual policy differences more than any other political debate you'd see in an election.

One thing I like about Ben is his consistency.

[chevron]

If anyone had read what John Adams wrote 220 years ago.. He took issue with Thomas Payne etc for exactly this reason.

[Sport]

I came to the debate biased to the conservative view, so it's no surprise I think he "won" the debate, but I thought Cenk did a great job (aside from being condescending to Ben and the audience) and more than held his own. I believe anyone with progressive leanings will feel he destroyed Ben the same way you think Ben "was a monster."

I will say it was a pretty good debate, one which highlighted actual policy differences more than any other political debate you'd see in an election.

One thing I like about Ben is his consistency.

I've got to agree with you on this one. Other than being condescending and always seeming to be trying to land a punch Cenk did just fine.

[MrKaplan]

I came to the debate biased to the conservative view, so it's no surprise I think he "won" the debate, but I thought Cenk did a great job (aside from being condescending to Ben and the audience) and more than held his own. I believe anyone with progressive leanings will feel he destroyed Ben the same way you think Ben "was a monster."

I will say it was a pretty good debate, one which highlighted actual policy differences more than any other political debate you'd see in an election.

One thing I like about Ben is his consistency.

I wasn't referring only specifically to the debate with cenk im sure youve seen other clips of him on college campuses and/or mainstream media and not just the clickbait titles. Hence the #thuglife... In regards to the debate I agree cenk did hold his own somewhat although Ben called him a liar on numerous occasions and a pros***** to which cenk had no response... and how he threw the southern strategy back in his face put a smile on my face!

[Yehuda57]

I wasn't referring only specifically to the debate with cenk im sure youve seen other clips of him on college campuses and/or mainstream media and not just the clickbait titles. Hence the #thuglife... In regards to the debate I agree cenk did hold his own somewhat although Ben called him a liar on numerous occasions and a pros***** to which cenk had no response... and how he threw the southern strategy back in his face put a smile on my face!

He's a good debater, no doubt.=, though hot headed students generally aren't going to be good match for sharp witted intelligent people, no matter the ideologies involved. He called Cenk on specific issues, I don't believe he labeled him a "liar", and far from calling him a prostitute, he just turned Cenk's own analogy on him.

The Southern Strategy bit was interesting. It is something which is regarded as fact, and I had not even thought that there was another side to it, and maybe it wasn't so clear cut.

Either way, fun as it may be, however AWESOME!!!11!!!! Ben Shapiro PWNES!!!111!!! leftist wackos is hardly indicative of his viability as a potential candidate, which to my knowledge he's never professed interest in pursuing, nor the legitimacy of his views.

[Super Speed]

What bothers me more

He really doesn't care for others. If he wants to tweet something, he doesn't care that his whole administration will get grilled and have to cover it up for him and make it sound normal

He is forever trying to clean house but is unsuccessful. He is like a super controlling CEO that can't understand why his company has such a high employee changeover rate. It all starts at the top, unless he gets his act together there will be constant chaos

I used to think he did everything with a chesbon, not anymore

I think Kelly will bring some order to the WH.

[aygart]

I hope Kelly will bring some order to the WH.

FTFM

[mordechain]

that he's doing any of those things. The only things there that you can really say he's done is the conservative judge and trade deals. And that's not exactly accurate either. I'm not going to say he hasn't done anything good but hard to say that he's making America a leader again. The bitter pill parable is just a way of pushing off judgement until it doesn't matter anymore. I'm all for going through rough times to get to good, but there is almost no evidence that this is happening.

The only thing Trump accomplished was the Gorsuch nomination. Except that it wasn't an accomplishment. Gorsuch is an entirely qualified middle of the road mainstream conservative. There was every reason to confirm him unanimously. Going nuclear to confirm him just means that the next (democratic) president won't even try  for bipartisan support. We'll be have to deal with hardline ideological liberal appointees. Basically, he traded a queen for a pawn.

[aygart]

The only thing Trump accomplished was the Gorsuch nomination. Except that it wasn't an accomplishment. Gorsuch is an entirely qualified middle of the road mainstream conservative. There was every reason to confirm him unanimously. Going nuclear to confirm him just means that the next (democratic) president won't even try  for bipartisan support. We'll be have to deal with hardline ideological liberal appointees. Basically, he traded a queen for a pawn.

So how do you propose that ANY nominee should have gotten confirmed? What do you propose to do when the Dems refuse to confirm someone who they concede to be qualified?

[mordechain]

So how do you propose that ANY nominee should have gotten confirmed? What do you propose to do when the Dems refuse to confirm someone who they concede to be qualified?

To be fair, this was more McConnell's fault than Trump. But patience, maybe aknowledging the wrongdoing of sitting on Merrick Garland, and dealing a little, even waiting a few months on the Gorsuch nomination would have prevented the need to go nuclear. The inevitable degradation of the Supreme Court is the result.

[mordechain]

At any rate, it's certainly nothing for any conservative to be proud of, or even satisfied with.

[aygart]

To be fair, this was more McConnell's fault than Trump. But patience, maybe aknowledging the wrongdoing of sitting on Merrick Garland, and dealing a little, even waiting a few months on the Gorsuch nomination would have prevented the need to go nuclear. The inevitable degradation of the Supreme Court is the result.

Do you feel they should or should not have allowed Garland to be confirmed? Had they not used the nuclear option do yuo think the Dems would have hesitated to use it when there is a Dem President?

[aygart]

I came to the debate biased to the conservative view, so it's no surprise I think he "won" the debate, but I thought Cenk did a great job (aside from being condescending to Ben and the audience) and more than held his own. I believe anyone with progressive leanings will feel he destroyed Ben the same way you think Ben "was a monster."

I will say it was a pretty good debate, one which highlighted actual policy differences more than any other political debate you'd see in an election.

One thing I like about Ben is his consistency.

I found that even on topics which I am more liberal about Cenk missed the boat and did not really discuss the core of any issues at all but instead skirted around them to try and score points rather than explain positions.

[good sam]

MSM has heeded Trump's call to discuss the rising stock market. Lol.

"Dow sets record, Trump no longer warning of bubble"

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/08/02/lead-kosik-dow-close-new-highs-live.cnn

[mordechain]

Do you feel they should or should not have allowed Garland to be confirmed? Had they not used the nuclear option do yuo think the Dems would have hesitated to use it when there is a Dem President?

1. Garland wasn't that much different than Gorsuch. Yes, he should have been confirmed.
2. For 200 years, both Democrat and Republican majorities have stuck with the traditional bipartisanship on many issues. The ones who started this intransigence happened to have been Republican, and they own the blame for the damage they've  inflicted. I have no great love for Schumer, but the claim that "well he's so bad  he would have anyway" just sounds infantile.
There's plenty of blame to go around on all sides. My point is, that the forced vote on Gorsuch is no achievement at all. If that's the main crowing point for the Trump crowd, they're celebrating nothing.

[good sam]

1. Garland wasn't that much different than Gorsuch.

Agreed, both salt and pepper, though Garland is a bit to the gray side.

[aygart]

1. Garland wasn't that much different than Gorsuch. Yes, he should have been confirmed.
2. For 200 years, both Democrat and Republican majorities have stuck with the traditional bipartisanship on many issues. The ones who started this intransigence happened to have been Republican, and they own the blame for the damage they've  inflicted. I have no great love for Schumer, but the claim that "well he's so bad  he would have anyway" just sounds infantile.
There's plenty of blame to go around on all sides. My point is, that the forced vote on Gorsuch is no achievement at all. If that's the main crowing point for the Trump crowd, they're celebrating nothing.

To call them the same is ridiculous.

I can't say your second point was very clear but apparently you feel the republicans started something. What was it and when did they start it.

[zh cohen]

1. Garland wasn't that much different than Gorsuch. Yes, he should have been confirmed

In order to make this statement you would have to know absolutely nothing about either of their judicial philosophies.

2. The ones who started this intransigence happened to have been Republican, and they own the blame for the damage they've  inflicted.

In order to make this statment, you would have to know nothing about history. Do you know where the term "Borked" came from? Ever wonder why Trump was able to get his administration appointments confirmed with 50 votes?

(Anyone sensing a pattern?)