Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables: Now with 33% fewer memes!

Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables: Now with 33% fewer memes! (Page 4)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Experience ≠ experience. Experience could mean working for big banks for decades or having worked in regulatory agencies overseeing banks, but evidently the perspective is very different. And if you point is that, e. g. the way the banking system functions right now is against the interest of the people, then you should hire somebody who has experience and an agenda changing it for the better.
This sounds like someone who wouldn't be out-of-place in a Sanders cabinet.

If that's what he needs to do to satisfactorily drain the swamp, I stand by my assertion he can't really win.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Sarah Palin for Interior or Energy.
Why don't you and besson3c come up with a list and send it to Pence? I'm sure you two can collaborate and come up with some selections that will make the alt-left happy.
Why make anyone alt anything happy? Why not nominate good people who will be good at their jobs, for the whole country?

Palin for energy? Ah yes, drill baby drill. I remember her. She has a blog, I think? Will she quit this job too after one year? Not sure that's a safe risk.

If Hillary was elected, and nominated a environmental candidate from far left (someone who makes Stein look reasonable) I'm sure the republicans, even normal republicans, would be shocked and complain. Never mind if Hillary stocked her cabinet with those who donated tons of money to her campaign... or were married to her supporters in congress... or let her daughter sit in on meetings with foreign statesmen, or anything Trump is getting away with.

I'm not sure why you're giving Trump a pass to nominate the worst possible candidates. The only one I'm not going to complain about is Brown for V.A.... although some veterans may prefer someone who served active duty not national guard.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 01:02 PM
 
I like both Petraeus and Mattis. These are both individuals I consider us lucky to have.

There's an argument there are positions Mattis is better suited for, like JCoS, but the guy will give his all whatever position he's put in, and will likely frown upon the idea of casually using high-energy physics.

With one notable exception, Petraeus has a record which is both impeccable and brilliant.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 01:44 PM
 
And before someone mentions it, a certain former Democratic nominee has a touch more than a singular exception to a record of brilliance and impeccability.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This sounds like someone who wouldn't be out-of-place in a Sanders cabinet.

If that's what he needs to do to satisfactorily drain the swamp, I stand by my assertion he can't really win.
You are missing the point: You claimed that Trump couldn't win as his choice was supposedly either to propose someone with or without experience, and that the person with experience would necessarily be an insider. I gave you an argument why this isn't so. You mistook that as me saying that Trump should have selected someone with regulatory experience because that'd be my (or Sander's) preference.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With one notable exception, Petraeus has a record which is both impeccable and brilliant.
Petraeus is still under probation for disclosing classified information to his former lover, I think that disqualifies him for the moment imho.

Most of the names bandied about for cabinet posts would be considered subpar in a normal election. Haley has zero experience in foreign affairs. And Romney is suddenly seen as the Obi Wan Kenobi of statesmanship — his experience doesn't compare to that of Albright, Powell, Rice or Clinton. But as just the alternatives to Romney are so much worse, this makes us forget the standards we used to have.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 07:58 PM
 
It's been mentioned that a pardon would be issued if Petraeus were nominated.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It's been mentioned that a pardon would be issued if Petraeus were nominated.
And that changes the situation how? It's just unburden Petraeus from formalities, e. g. he'd no longer have to notify his parole officer in advance when he travels out of state (or perhaps out of the country).

Trump spent an inordinate amount slamming Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. Hiring someone who was actually convicted of mishandling classified information (and whose punishment amounted to a slap on the wrist) is inconsistent with Trump's campaign promises.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are missing the point: You claimed that Trump couldn't win as his choice was supposedly either to propose someone with or without experience, and that the person with experience would necessarily be an insider. I gave you an argument why this isn't so. You mistook that as me saying that Trump should have selected someone with regulatory experience because that'd be my (or Sander's) preference.
I'm saying the example given sounds like someone he would never nominate.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 09:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Hiring someone who was actually convicted of mishandling classified information (and whose punishment amounted to a slap on the wrist) is inconsistent with Trump's campaign promises.
We are well and truly in a post-even-trying-to-look-like-you-care-about-fulfilling-your-election=promises age of politics.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 10:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
And that changes the situation how? It's just unburden Petraeus from formalities, e. g. he'd no longer have to notify his parole officer in advance when he travels out of state (or perhaps out of the country).

Trump spent an inordinate amount slamming Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. Hiring someone who was actually convicted of mishandling classified information (and whose punishment amounted to a slap on the wrist) is inconsistent with Trump's campaign promises.
Petraeus was never in prison, so he has a probation officer, not a parole officer.

Again, the key distinction between him and Clinton is he doesn't suck.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Petraeus was never in prison, so he has a probation officer, not a parole officer.
You're right, he has a probation officer, not a parole officer. Apart from that nitpick, that doesn't change any of my arguments: he's been convicted of the crime that Clinton was accused of, and took up more discussion time than all of the policy coverage combined. To now hire Petraeus despite being convicted of that same crime is hypocritical on Trump's part.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Again, the key distinction between him and Clinton is he doesn't suck.
What's your next argument: we should give convicts a second chance? Clinton isn't up for the job, and I'm just judging Trump by he expectations he raised.

Let's rewind 8 years and have a look at what has happened to Obama's campaign promises, especially those regarding a restoration of fundamental rights and cutting back privacy infringements by the bloated security apparatus. You know what the best predictor of success was? We merely had to look at the people he had hired. Even if you (the impersonal you ≠ subego) was fully on board the Trump train, you should be disappointed by Trump's choices. You earlier said that this wasn't fair, because no matter what Trump did, he couldn't make anyone happy, then I reply that he now has to lie in the bed he has made for himself.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2016, 11:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
We are well and truly in a post-even-trying-to-look-like-you-care-about-fulfilling-your-election=promises age of politics.
True. I mean, we could just throw our hands in the air and say “Well, it's Trump, so why do we even expect him to stick to what he promised?”, then we can just stop having arguments altogether. Then the damage to US democracy is truly done, if the next generation of politicians take a page from Trump's playbook as the way to success (just like many far-right politicians in other countries do now), then we are in danger of losing democracy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2016, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You're right, he has a probation officer, not a parole officer. Apart from that nitpick, that doesn't change any of my arguments: he's been convicted of the crime that Clinton was accused of, and took up more discussion time than all of the policy coverage combined. To now hire Petraeus despite being convicted of that same crime is hypocritical on Trump's part.

What's your next argument: we should give convicts a second chance? Clinton isn't up for the job, and I'm just judging Trump by he expectations he raised.

Let's rewind 8 years and have a look at what has happened to Obama's campaign promises, especially those regarding a restoration of fundamental rights and cutting back privacy infringements by the bloated security apparatus. You know what the best predictor of success was? We merely had to look at the people he had hired. Even if you (the impersonal you ≠ subego) was fully on board the Trump train, you should be disappointed by Trump's choices. You earlier said that this wasn't fair, because no matter what Trump did, he couldn't make anyone happy, then I reply that he now has to lie in the bed he has made for himself.
While not one myself, I've noticed felons consider "did/did not go to prison" to be more than a nitpick.

Petraeus gets caught, he resigns that day.

Hillary gets caught, she lies about it and deflects for a solid year.

These are not equivalent.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2016, 01:43 PM
 
Let's momentarily dispense with the question of campaign promises.

Is anyone actually arguing Petraeus is objectively a bad choice?

As someone concerned about the potential for Trump to be an apocalyptic nightmare, why wouldn't I be anything but thrilled to have a level-headed, straight-shooter like Petraeus acting as a backstop?

Turning the guns on this guy is some scorched earth level shit.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2016, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
True. I mean, we could just throw our hands in the air and say “Well, it's Trump, so why do we even expect him to stick to what he promised?”, then we can just stop having arguments altogether. Then the damage to US democracy is truly done, if the next generation of politicians take a page from Trump's playbook as the way to success (just like many far-right politicians in other countries do now), then we are in danger of losing democracy.
His own supporters are already forgiving and ignoring everything he does almost without exception. To do otherwise would mean admitting they did something stupid. And he certainly isn't going to start listening to his opponents. What kind of narcissist would that make him? A poor one.
Make no mistake, the fuse is lit and barring a miracle with the recount the damage is going to be done. Its just a question of how bad it will get.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2016, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Petraeus gets caught, he resigns that day.

Hillary gets caught, she lies about it and deflects for a solid year.

These are not equivalent.
Petraeus also got convicted while Clinton didn't even get charged. So there was good reason why Petraeus resigned.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2016, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is anyone actually arguing Petraeus is objectively a bad choice?

As someone concerned about the potential for Trump to be an apocalyptic nightmare, why wouldn't I be anything but thrilled to have a level-headed, straight-shooter like Petraeus acting as a backstop?
He has been convicted of mishandling classified information and still on probation, that disqualifies him from the position. Just because he's the one-eyed amongst the blind, we shouldn't give him a break.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2016, 10:25 PM
 
I'm too realpolitik for this. My only concern on that front is whether he'd repeat the behavior.

I have none.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2016, 02:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Petraeus also got convicted while Clinton didn't even get charged. So there was good reason why Petraeus resigned.
Was there good reason for her to lie for a year straight?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2016, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Petraeus also got convicted while Clinton didn't even get charged. So there was good reason why Petraeus resigned.
He plead guilty to a misdemeanor. He resigned because it was revealed he had a mistress. This was three years before the guilty plea.
Former CIA Head David Petraeus to Plead Guilty - ABC News
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2016, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
He plead guilty to a misdemeanor. He resigned because it was revealed he had a mistress. This was three years before the guilty plea.
Former CIA Head David Petraeus to Plead Guilty - ABC News
That's why I wrote Petraeus got off easy with a slap on the wrist, I remember the story. That he was convicted of a misdemeanor rather than a felony doesn't change a thing for me. He isn't suited for a cabinet position, and only compares favorably because there are hopefuls which would be even worse. But nobody claimed that Trump has to choose from the pool of names that got floated to the press.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2016, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Was there good reason for her to lie for a year straight?
You are continuing along the road of false equivalences: Clinton isn't up for discussion to get a cabinet post. It would make a difference to me if Petraeus had been convicted of a crime unrelated to his job (e. g. a DUI), I could overlook that. But it was, so a conviction does matter.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2016, 12:04 PM
 
The assertion is because of what Trump said about Hillary, Trump is a hypocrite for wanting Petraeus.

But if I talk about what Hillary did that's a false equivalency because she's not up for a cabinet position.

     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2016, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That's why I wrote Petraeus got off easy with a slap on the wrist, I remember the story. That he was convicted of a misdemeanor rather than a felony doesn't change a thing for me. He isn't suited for a cabinet position, and only compares favorably because there are hopefuls which would be even worse. But nobody claimed that Trump has to choose from the pool of names that got floated to the press.
Patreaus wasn't convicted. He made a plea deal.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2016, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The assertion is because of what Trump said about Hillary, Trump is a hypocrite for wanting Petraeus.

But if I talk about what Hillary did that's a false equivalency because she's not up for a cabinet position.
It's not confusing at all, to me Petraeus pleading guilty disqualifies him from becoming Secretary of State. Trump considering him regardless makes him a hypocrite, because Trump made it a central issue to his campaign. These are two independent arguments.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2016, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Patreaus wasn't convicted. He made a plea deal.
Why are you still trying to argue semantics? Yes, Petraeus was convicted on the basis of a plea deal, just like in 95 % of all federal cases. In the eyes of the law, he has been convicted of the crime at sentencing, independently of how the court reached the decision (in this case a plea deal was proposed).
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Dec 5, 2016 at 02:07 AM. Reason: Fixed url tags)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 01:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Trusting the polls has little to do with it. I was the one who stuck with Nate.
Nate was wrong.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I did not expect what amounts to half the country giving him more benefit of the doubt than that. As pivotal as they were in securing the electoral college, the WWF are only a small slice of this overall group.
They're the only group who weren't regular GOP voters.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
There are better avenues of attack against Trump and his cabinet than holding him to an invented metric for a meaningless slogan.
So you've joined the chorus of "What Trump says doesn't matter."


Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
He is a no win situation with his appointments.
It's one of his own making. Much like Obama getting harangued for all the Wall Street picks he made after running on change.

Then again, maybe we're giving Trump shit because he nominated a guy who's company foreclosed on a 90 year-old woman's home when she made a payment error of 27¢.

But hey, let's not pretend the outrage over Trump's picks is limited to liberals.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 01:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let's momentarily dispense with the question of campaign promises.

Is anyone actually arguing Petraeus is objectively a bad choice?

As someone concerned about the potential for Trump to be an apocalyptic nightmare, why wouldn't I be anything but thrilled to have a level-headed, straight-shooter like Petraeus acting as a backstop?

Turning the guns on this guy is some scorched earth level shit.
Is it impossible to be ok with Petraeus while pointing out his nomination contradicts the right's concern with the integrity of how people handle classified info?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Nate was wrong.
Bullshit.gif
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So you've joined the chorus of "What Trump says doesn't matter."
I'm saying what Trump says, what Republicans hear, and then what Democrats think Republicans should be hearing is an example of "the telephone game".
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm saying what Trump says, what Republicans hear, and then what Democrats think Republicans should be hearing is an example of "the telephone game".
No, it's not a game of telephone where Republicans listen to what Trump says, and then report to Democrats which then have a distorted view of what Trump has said because they have to rely on their GOP friends telling them what Trump has said. What Trump says is on tape or on Twitter, and if we can easily find many clips of him, say, promising a special prosecutor to look into Hillary Clinton's emails or that he'll drain the swap and rid Washington of e. g. the influence of Wallstreet, then you don't need any translation in between. He is breaking his campaign promises without breaking a sweat, and he should be criticized for lying when he is. Trump should be measured by the same yardstick we use for other politicians.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 03:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is it impossible to be ok with Petraeus while pointing out his nomination contradicts the right's concern with the integrity of how people handle classified info?
Hillary: [puts hand in cookie jar]
Republicans: Your hand is in the cookie jar!
Hillary: No it isn't!
Republicans: Look... right there... hand... cookie jar.
Hillary: I have no idea what you're talking about. [turns on gaslight]
Republicans: What? This is insanity.
Hillary: VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!
Republicans: Okay... if that's how you're gonna play it.
Hillary: Abuela make cookie not take cookie.
FBI: She had her hand in the cookie jar
Hillary: Y U SO COOKIE JAR OBSESSED?!?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 04:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, it's not a game of telephone where Republicans listen to what Trump says, and then report to Democrats which then have a distorted view of what Trump has said because they have to rely on their GOP friends telling them what Trump has said. What Trump says is on tape or on Twitter, and if we can easily find many clips of him, say, promising a special prosecutor to look into Hillary Clinton's emails or that he'll drain the swap and rid Washington of e. g. the influence of Wallstreet, then you don't need any translation in between. He is breaking his campaign promises without breaking a sweat, and he should be criticized for lying when he is. Trump should be measured by the same yardstick we use for other politicians.
Can an argument be made appointing someone like Mnuchin (I'm sure no one ever made fun of that name) is breaking a campaign promise? Sure.

I still stand behind my assertion what a Republican thinks draining the swamp means is distinct from both what Democrats think that means, and what Democrats think Republicans think it means.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Can an argument be made appointing someone like Mnuchin (I'm sure no one ever made fun of that name) is breaking a campaign promise? Sure.
Some of the infighting is done out in the open: Conway was slamming Romney publicly while he was being considered for Secretary of State. So I don't think this is a theoretical question.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I still stand behind my assertion what a Republican thinks draining the swamp means is distinct from both what Democrats think that means, and what Democrats think Republicans think it means.
I think we have to separate two groups here, and both are part of the Republican voter base: those Trump voters (“Trumpians”) who actually bought into his rhetoric (e. g. building the wall, draining the swamp, limiting free trace, etc.) and the ones who held their noses and voted for Trump because the R was next to his name and they didn't want to vote for Clinton. The latter part is happy that Trump is changing his tune, because they never were on board the Trump train when it came to in this case draining the swamp. They are happy when Trump hires “Washington insiders” because what they really want is a President from the mold of more traditional Republican politicians. And I reckon they are content if Trump chooses a one-eyed over a bunch of blinds (to continue a metaphor from an earlier post).

But I don't think this gives you the whole picture. The people who got Trump elected are of a different opinion, and if you want a taste, just click on one of the Breitbart articles on one of the “insider nominees” (I picked Mnuchin), and scroll down to the comments. (Please don't spend too much time perusing Breitbart comments, though, that could cause permanent damage. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Bullshit.gif
Oh really?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hillary: [puts hand in cookie jar]
Republicans: Your hand is in the cookie jar!
Hillary: No it isn't!
Republicans: Look... right there... hand... cookie jar.
Hillary: I have no idea what you're talking about. [turns on gaslight]
Republicans: What? This is insanity.
Hillary: VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!
Republicans: Okay... if that's how you're gonna play it.
Hillary: Abuela make cookie not take cookie.
FBI: She had her hand in the cookie jar
Hillary: Y U SO COOKIE JAR OBSESSED?!?
You gonna answer the question?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm saying what Trump says, what Republicans hear, and then what Democrats think Republicans should be hearing is an example of "the telephone game".
We're twisting his words?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Oh really?
Yes. Really.

What was he wrong about?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
We're twisting his words?
All good campaign slogans are like Rorschach tests. They have no real meaning on their own. They mean whatever the listener wants them to mean.

Drain the Swamp fits in this category.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
All good campaign slogans are like Rorschach tests. They have no real meaning on their own. They mean whatever the listener wants them to mean.

Drain the Swamp fits in this category.
"Make America Great Again" has a vague feel-goody meaning. "Drain the Swamp" is a specific phrase with a specific history and meaning.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You gonna answer the question?
What I'm saying is if one makes false denial after false denial, they're going to get dogged, and it's not the dog's fault it happened.

By all means, compare the behavior of Clinton and Petraeus, but not at the cost of ignoring the vastly different contexts involved.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes. Really.

What was he wrong about?
The outcome. I addressed this before: being less wrong does not make you right. Further, he couldn't be right because the data he was using, the polls, were wrong.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
"Make America Great Again" has a vague feel-goody meaning. "Drain the Swamp" is a specific phrase with a specific history and meaning.
I'm only familiar with the meaning D.C. is built on an actual, physical swamp.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
All good campaign slogans are like Rorschach tests. They have no real meaning on their own. They mean whatever the listener wants them to mean.

Drain the Swamp fits in this category.
I think there's pretty broad bipartisan consensus among the electorate as to what it meant otherwise we wouldn't be seeing Trump voters who feel hoodwinked.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I'm saying is if one makes false denial after false denial, they're going to get dogged, and it's not the dog's fault it happened.

By all means, compare the behavior of Clinton and Petraeus, but not at the cost of ignoring the vastly different contexts involved.
You're still comparing them when I'm calling out the hypocrisy of their campaign rhetoric. I didn't see any asterisks about what type of mishandling of classified info is ok. Something tells me if Bill handed off classified info to a mistress biographer it would be decidedly not ok.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The outcome. I addressed this before: being less wrong does not make you right. Further, he couldn't be right because the data he was using, the polls, were wrong.
He predicted a much higher chance for Trump to win than everyone else. That was wrong how?

Silver considered the polls to be doing a bad job of registering swing voters, so he changed the volatility of his model. Again, this is wrong how? He's just as wrong as HuffPo, because they used the same polls?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're still comparing them when I'm calling out the hypocrisy of their campaign rhetoric. I didn't see any asterisks about what type of mishandling of classified info is ok. Something tells me if Bill handed off classified info to a mistress biographer it would be decidedly not ok.
How does the rhetoric "if it were up to me, I'd throw 'em in the can!" square-up with someone who pled guilty and accepted the punishment?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I think there's pretty broad bipartisan consensus among the electorate as to what it meant otherwise we wouldn't be seeing Trump voters who feel hoodwinked.
I honestly don't feel like spending the day in TD, which is what it would take to find out for sure.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
If you've done something that wouldn't get you past the security clearance at WalMart HR, you've got no business being in a presidential cabinet.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:04 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,