POTUS Donald Trump

[PseudoSABR]

 

Obama offered Garland because he had no leverage. He thought showing obstructionism would be beneficial for Dems in the elections. Turns out people didn't really care.

He had no less leverage than any other President without a majority in the Senate that preceded him.  As no Senate has ever withheld a SCOTUS nomination for consideration.  

 

That we could anticipate McConnell would obstruct in some way, didn't really change that Obama needed to nominate a moderate as he need GOP votes.   

 

At the time, I though Obama should have nominated a liberal justice to fire up the base, rather than try to call the GOPs bluff, as I too thought obstructionism was inevitable.  Yet, Obama picked a path that did show bipartisanship and functionality than playing pure politics.  The more cynical Democrats nominates the liberal I think.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I tried to grant a broad definition of dirty tricks; but I agree using procedure or rule making powers to gum up the process or to get your way in spite of the process it the problem.   And I think the GOP opened up the floodgates for this kind of politics under Obama, and the Democrats would be fools to not utilize the same means from hear on out. 

 

For me, it all plays into this stupid "Party of Opposition" vs. "Party of Governance" framing that seems to pervade D.C.  

 

I just caution both sides - what's good for one, is good for the other.  You might be comfortable with your team breaking the rules and finding alternate routes to push their plan through.  But the other side will get their turn too and you might not like it as much when that happens.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's actually completely different.  But keep playing both sides of the fence and never offer a solution as usual Lev. 15 years of this "blame everyone" Never change

 

Well, when everyone is to blame.....

 

That's not playing both sides.  It's not playing favorites.  Right now both sides have plenty of reasons to hate.  (Though one side has a special kind of stupid at work right now, I admit)

[DaveW]

Said it better than I ever could:

this policy is deeply problematic. It reduces women to the role of temptress, blaming them for male transgressions from marital infidelity to sexual assault, while relying on the equally demeaning assumption that men are incapable of controlling their sexual impulses. It is also discriminatory in the context of the workplace, depriving female employees of critical opportunities for networking, mentoring, and face time.

Discrimination under the guise of chivalry — sometimes called “benign protectionism” — is hardly new. Women have been “protected out” of jobs and educational opportunities … well, pretty much forever. Laws against sex discrimination have eradicated some of the most blatant examples, like policies prohibiting women from entering certain professions or excluding women and girls from educational institutions. But as Pence’s “No Girls Allowed” rule shows, these archaic views about gender persist.

[D. Hocking]

 

Well, we bombed Syria.
Likely killed a bunch of civilians as well.

 

 

even prior to today, civilian deaths have increased under Trump.  At least he sent Jared to Iraq to work out a plan -- Jared and a Secretary of State with no foreign diplomatic experience -- we are in good shape for global affairs.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-war-civilian-deaths-syria-577353

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Not allowing your female employees to be in the room with you, like your male employees, is not one person's action with no impact on others.

 

Not allowing your female employees to have a drink or dinner with you, like your male employees, is not one person's action with no impact on others.

 

the list goes on and on. This impedes a woman's ability to be as successful as a man's. Without question. Pence cannot, apparently, have a 1:1 meeting with a female employee. You don't see possible issues there?

Yep. That is why he doesn't view women as PEOPLE. At that point, they become objects, either seductive lures or irresistible male hormone targets.

 

Not people. Not peers. Objects.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think that's a poor generalization of what his value system is. We talk to athletes all the time about not putting themselves in bad situations. Pence takes that to an extreme, I agree, but with all the crap that happens in those types of situations, it's hardly unreasonable to take precautions. Just look at Bill Clinton. That's the other extreme.

 

Oh, and it has nothing at all to do with the idea that women aren't people. Talk about a mis-characterization.

 

Pence is hardly an angel, but seriously, this is not his problem. Not even close.

Duddddde. Your analogy is terrible. Your analogy is akin to an athlete refusing to be alone in the same room as the head of the analytics department because she has a vag.

 

That head of the analytics department has a ****ing job to do. She needs to do it. She deserves respect, the same as any male head of the analytics department.

 

The idea behind Pence's statement is pure patriarchy nonsense. That men can't control themselves. That women aren't peers to be respected as people and are little more than objects that distract us men with their seductive... well, everything. Especially those super-seductive vags.

 

Pence has a job to do. Gender of his colleagues should be irrelevant. The fact that he believes it's not irrelevant tells me all I need to know about his worldview.

[DaveW]

 

Duddddde. Your analogy is terrible. Your analogy is akin to an athlete refusing to be alone in the same room as the head of the analytics department because she has a vag.

That head of the analytics department has a ****ing job to do. She needs to do it. She deserves respect, the same as any male head of the analytics department.

The idea behind Pence's statement is pure patriarchy nonsense. That men can't control themselves. That women aren't peers to be respected as people and are little more than objects that distract us men with their seductive... well, everything. Especially those super-seductive vags.

Pence has a job to do. Gender of his colleagues should be irrelevant. The fact that he believes it's not irrelevant tells me all I need to know about his worldview.

But he is a "so called" christian and has "so called" Chrisitan values! Thus he is a "so called" class act!

[PseudoSABR]

The Pentagon said 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired. Fifty-nine.  One imagines how diligent they were in vetting each of those missile's target.  

 

The next headlines will be about dead Russians...

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Pentagon said 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired. Fifty-nine.  One imagines how diligent they were in vetting each of those missile's target.  

 

The next headlines will be about dead Russians...

 

Early reports seem to indicate they were diligent.  They had open communication with the Russians to divert their troops and picked a target well removed from civilians.

 

At least that's the widespread reporting at this point that I've seen.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Early reports seem to indicate they were diligent.  They had open communication with the Russians to divert their troops and picked a target well removed from civilians.

 

At least that's the widespread reporting at this point that I've seen.

(Sounds like Bannon may have been jettisoned just in time.)   Hopefully Mattis and McMaster have the main thrust of sway with Trump.  I just wish I had a better sense of the long term policy. 

 

 

Mattis, Tillerson and McMaster were with Trump at Mar-a-Lago at the time

I guess this is a better showing than alternative people present, but really--deciding to launch missles on a soveriegn power from your own resort? Link

[drjim]

Two big takeaways I see:

 

1. Lots of people really, really wanted to see Assad bombed, no matter how meaningful it was.

 

2. Seems they gave Russia a heads up, so all the people and key equipment was evacuated.

 

Question is now what? I don't see this being the end, and I don't see escalation ending well.

 

Also found it interesting that Obama had a large series of strikes lined up, but Congress wouldn't authorize. But Congress, both parties, was happy to jump on unilateral action by the President.

[nicksaviking]

 

I think this kind of stuff is almost as silly as what Pence does.

 

Look, his little rules are pretty silly.   But the "why" here matters a lot.  This isn't all that different from the idea of "I won't go in that neighborhood after 11"

 

Actually to me I'd think the comparable would be "I won't have dinner alone with a black person" which would bring out pitchforks. I'm not sure why "I won't have dinner alone with women" largely gets eye-rolls.

 

Racism = a blight on our civilization.

Misogyny = a silly thing old white guys still do but probably shouldn't. LOLs.

 

I know that wasn't your point though Levi; just how I see the situation.

[nicksaviking]

 

The Pentagon said 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired. Fifty-nine.  One imagines how diligent they were in vetting each of those missile's target.  

 

The next headlines will be about dead Russians...

 

We apparently called the Russians to get out of the way and Syria says the bombings killed six people at the base that was attacked.

 

A conspiracy nut might think 6 dead Syrian soldiers sounds a lot like the price Russia and Trump would agree might throw people off the scent of their collusion. That nut might also wonder why if Russia knew the attack was coming they too didn't warn the six dead Syrians.

 

Good thing I'm not a conspiracy nut.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Actually to me I'd think the comparable would be "I won't have dinner alone with a black person" which would bring out pitchforks. I'm not sure why "I won't have dinner alone with women" largely gets eye-rolls.

 

Racism = a blight on our civilization.

Misogyny = a silly thing old white guys still do but probably shouldn't. LOLs.

 

I know that wasn't your point though Levi; just how I see the situation.

 

Yeah, in retrospect I'm not sure there is a good analogy.  Even in yours, it's more like "I won't have dinner alone with a black person unless my one black friend is there"  

 

It's a weird and stupid rule to have, but I do think his reasons matter.  There just isn't much upside for him - at best he's an idiot.

[TheLeviathan]

 

(Sounds like Bannon may have been jettisoned just in time.)   Hopefully Mattis and McMaster have the main thrust of sway with Trump.  I just wish I had a better sense of the long term policy. 

 

 

I guess this is a better showing than alternative people present, but really--deciding to launch missles on a soveriegn power from your own resort? Link

 

This is also my hope, we have adults in the room (Mattis and McMaster) and they have influence.  In fact, Bannon's influence seems to be waning.  

 

Syria is a messy, messy situation.  I think Obama's administration struggled with a long term policy too and with good reason.

[nicksaviking]

 

Yeah, in retrospect I'm not sure there is a good analogy.  Even in yours, it's more like "I won't have dinner alone with a black person unless my one black friend is there"  

 

It's a weird and stupid rule to have, but I do think his reasons matter.  There just isn't much upside for him - at best he's an idiot.

 

It's a tough spot for any celebrity, not just politicians and I understand the idea since there are plenty of people still living in the stone age who think eating with a woman who isn't your wife is terrible, and those people are typically his base voters.

 

But at some point he and other's worried about their image need to tell those that would judge him on this BS to get lost. Because these are likely the same kinds of people who would have thought dinner alone with a black man 40 years ago was also sinful, and even guys like Pence have typically called BS on that kind of judgment in this day and age.

[drjim]

I'll throw something out:

 

I've been married 7 years. I don't think I've ever had dinner alone with another woman who wasn't in my family. I don't have a hard and fast "rule" but it has become my reality organically.

 

I think a lot of what he does here is generally unwritten rules within most married couples, and if a situation arises that would be *against* the rule, there is often (if not always) a diligent check in.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm with the fictional character from Tom Clancy's books on this....ryan.....when a leader does this stuff, we should kill the leader, not everyone else around him/her.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'll throw something out:

 

I've been married 7 years. I don't think I've ever had dinner alone with another woman who wasn't in my family. I don't have a hard and fast "rule" but it has become my reality organically.

 

I think a lot of what he does here is generally unwritten rules within most married couples, and if a situation arises that would be *against* the rule, there is often (if not always) a diligent check in.

 

My wife owns a 1 person business. Should she not network? Not meet with male clients for dinner? Not do an in home presentation (she sells window treatments) to a male client (or a lesbian woman)? Should she not have dinner with one of her installers, if they are all the way across town, just finished a job, and it is rush hour/dinner time?

 

It's ridiculous. 

[drjim]

My wife owns a 1 person business. Should she not network? Not meet with male clients for dinner? Not do an in home presentation (she sells window treatments) to a male client (or a lesbian woman)? Should she not have dinner with one of her installers, if they are all the way across town, just finished a job, and it is rush hour/dinner time?

 

It's ridiculous.

I have no opinion on what your wife should and should not do.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's a tough spot for any celebrity, not just politicians and I understand the idea since there are plenty of people still living in the stone age who think eating with a woman who isn't your wife is terrible, and those people are typically his base voters.

 

But at some point he and other's worried about their image need to tell those that would judge him on this BS to get lost. Because these are likely the same kinds of people who would have thought dinner alone with a black man 40 years ago was also sinful, and even guys like Pence have typically called BS on that kind of judgment in this day and age.

 

Do you think there is a touch of irony to this comment and the conversation?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm with the fictional character from Tom Clancy's books on this....ryan.....when a leader does this stuff, we should kill the leader, not everyone else around him/her.

 

While I would tend to agree in this case, there are ramifications to that process as well.  Sometimes the power void that is left in the wake of that can have consequences you can't predict or control.

 

One might even argue part of the Syrian problem is partially as a result of that.  (Domino effect from Saddam's fall)

[Mike Sixel]

 

While I would tend to agree in this case, there are ramifications to that process as well.  Sometimes the power void that is left in the wake of that can have consequences you can't predict or control.

 

One might even argue part of the Syrian problem is partially as a result of that.  (Domino effect from Saddam's fall)

 

I understand that......but I guess, well, what do we do? Just let an evil person stay in power, because the next person(s) might be more evil? I generally don't like living in the "don't do anything, because it might get even worse" world....but I admit to having no great answer to this. Hopefully people whose job this is spend more time considering this than I do/can.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I understand that......but I guess, well, what do we do? Just let an evil person stay in power, because the next person(s) might be more evil? I generally don't like living in the "don't do anything, because it might get even worse" world....but I admit to having no great answer to this. Hopefully people whose job this is spend more time considering this than I do/can.

 

I get the impression that the "what do we do?" question was one the Obama administration had no answer for either.  I'm not sure the Trump administration does either.

 

Lots and lots of thorns in this.

[drjim]

I'm usually not this cold, but if intervention doesn't come with a clear path to making the situation better, and there has not been direct attacks on the US or allies, it is best to stay out.

 

Lobbing a couple of missles from far away is generally the answer when the US wants to "do something" but has no good options.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm usually not this cold, but if intervention doesn't come with a clear path to making the situation better, and there has not been direct attacks on the US or allies, it is best to stay out.

Lobbing a couple of missles from far away is generally the answer when the US wants to "do something" but has no good options.

 

I can certainly understand this position.

 

There are days I wonder.....are we trying to fix everything at once, and so fixing nothing? What if we just concentrated (with some effort, but not much, elsewhere) on just South America, or just Africa....I know we can't ignore parts of the world, but my experience in life and business teaches that you need to focus to actually achieve things.

[Willihammer]

Just read the WaPo piece on Karen Pence. Sounds like Mike's dining policy is a mutual thing the two of them implemented. If not Karen unilaterally. Not that that makes it any better or worse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?utm_term=.465b270b553b

[TheLeviathan]

 

I can certainly understand this position.

 

There are days I wonder.....are we trying to fix everything at once, and so fixing nothing? What if we just concentrated (with some effort, but not much, elsewhere) on just South America, or just Africa....I know we can't ignore parts of the world, but my experience in life and business teaches that you need to focus to actually achieve things.

 

I tend to share this sentiment.  Every time we wade into this region of the world we seem to make things worse, not better.  Even when our intentions are good.  The time, effort, money, and manpower spent could have gone on to do so much good elsewhere.

 

But then, how long do you ignore a small cancer before it spreads?  I staunchly believe foreign policy is the most important thing about the President and it's because of issues like this.  Answers are not easy and every mis-step can have huge, long lasting effects.

[drjim]

When I get really brutal I take the position that there just isn't a non-violent solution to shaking out some of the boundaries in the Middle East, a legacy of the post-WWI maps and strategy of dividing ethnic groups and giving power to the minority group.

 

I don't think the US can solve the issue, but perhaps should strive to minimize the humanitarian crisis. But there are too many actors with too much to lose in this fight.