The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drain the swamp :drool:

Joshua Wright has been put in charge of transition efforts at the influential Federal Trade Commission after pulling off the rare revolving-door quadruple-play, moving from Google-supported academic work to government – as an FTC commissioner – back to the Google gravy train and now back to the government.

The Intercept has documented how Wright, as a law professor at George Mason University, received Google funding for at least four academic papers, all of which supported Google’s position that it did not violate antitrust laws when it favored its own sites in search engine requests and restricted advertisers from running ads on competitors. George Mason received $762,000 in funding from Google from 2011 to 2013.

Wright then became an FTC commissioner in January 2013, agreeing to recuse himself from Google cases for two years, because of his Google-funded research. He lasted at the FTC until August 2015, returning to George Mason’s law school (now named after Antonin Scalia). But Wright also became an “of counsel” at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Google’s main outside law firm. Wilson Sonsini has represented Google before the FTC.

Wright’s leadership position in the Trump FTC transition flips him back into government work. The FTC has two open seats on its five-member panel, and Chair Edith Ramirez’s term ends in April 2017. So Trump will be able to remake the agency, which has responsibilities over consumer protection and policing anti-competitive business practices, like the employing of monopoly power. Outside of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, no government agency is more responsible for competition policy than the FTC.
Click to expand...

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/google-gets-a-seat-on-the-trump-transition-team/
 
The Lyin' King
Grabber
The Elephant In the Room Man
Troll
The Small Hand That Rocks the Cradle
The Hand That Grabs The Pussy
 
Dwazza said:
Let's bring some fun back to this thread. I present film and TV versions of recent events in the US Political Arena, please add your own:

The Trump Supremacy
Trumpocalypse Now
Hairpieces of Liars
Hillary Clinn, President Woman
Dude, where's my Mandate?
Don's Golden Fronds
Fried Orange Deplorables
Hill and Don's Excellent Adventure
Little Hands on the Button
A Farewell to 'Bam's
Slugfest at Hillary's
Return of the Orange Guy
Trump, Actually
Click to expand...
Another Brick in The Wall
 
Donald is the world's biggest egomaniac. This moment, when he keeps everyone guessing what he'll do next and the attention he's getting is an ultimate high for him.
 
Every morning, I wake up and check the BBC news website. Every morning, I find he's done/said something ridiculous and the idea that he's not as insane as we thought gets less likely...
 
Has anyone ever had a bigger 'feck you' moment? Trump is going to be president. :lol:
 
A bit of a shitpost/rant here, but I've been trawling twitter, instagram (yes I know) and other social media outlets, and genuinely perplexed at the smug nonsense of the faux-Libertarian crowd who genuinely believe Trump winning signals some sort political revolution.

Firstly they seem convinced the US finally has a bonafide non-interventionist - "hurr durr he's not going to start any wars like Hillary, herp derp" - Yeah, that's why he's immediately surrounded himself with reasonable pacifists like John Bolton and Newt Gingrich.

Then there's the David Duke/Alt-right anti-Semite crowd - "Trump will finally crush the Jewish global conspiracy!, herp derp" - Hate to break it to you, but Trump has promised to become closer than ever to the state of Israel, while being the first president to provokingly move the embassy to Jerusalem. Oops.

Oh and let's not forget the classic "He's an outsider that understands us and rejects the political elite!, drain the swamp derp!" - Yep, and that's precisely why he's looking to appoint both a former Goldman Sachs exec and Bear Stearns chief economist to the treasury, as well as handing out nepotistic appointments to family and powerful rich friends.

The only consolation left in all this madness is knowing how stupid these cretins will soon look. But even then they're probably delusional enough to spin it into a positive.
 
Kaos said:
A bit of a shitpost/rant here, but I've been trawling twitter, instagram (yes I know) and other social media outlets, and genuinely perplexed at the smug nonsense of the faux-Libertarian crowd who genuinely believe Trump winning signals some sort political revolution.

Firstly they seem convinced the US finally has a bonafide non-interventionist - "hurr durr he's not going to start any wars like Hillary, herp derp" - Yeah, that's why he's immediately surrounded himself with reasonable pacifists like John Bolton and Newt Gingrich.

Then there's the David Duke/Alt-right anti-Semite crowd - "Trump will finally crush the Jewish global conspiracy!, herp derp" - Hate to break it to you, but Trump has promised to become closer than ever to the state of Israel, while being the first president to provokingly move the embassy to Jerusalem. Oops.

Oh and let's not forget the classic "He's an outsider that understands us and rejects the political elite!, drain the swamp derp!" - Yep, and that's precisely why he's looking to appoint both a former Goldman Sachs exec and Bear Stearns chief economist to the treasury, as well as handing out nepotistic appointments to family and powerful rich friends.

The only consolation left in all this madness is knowing how stupid these cretins will soon look. But even then they're probably delusional enough to spin it into a positive.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Kaos said:
A bit of a shitpost/rant here, but I've been trawling twitter, instagram (yes I know) and other social media outlets, and genuinely perplexed at the smug nonsense of the faux-Libertarian crowd who genuinely believe Trump winning signals some sort political revolution.

Firstly they seem convinced the US finally has a bonafide non-interventionist - "hurr durr he's not going to start any wars like Hillary, herp derp" - Yeah, that's why he's immediately surrounded himself with reasonable pacifists like John Bolton and Newt Gingrich.

Then there's the David Duke/Alt-right anti-Semite crowd - "Trump will finally crush the Jewish global conspiracy!, herp derp" - Hate to break it to you, but Trump has promised to become closer than ever to the state of Israel, while being the first president to provokingly move the embassy to Jerusalem. Oops.

Oh and let's not forget the classic "He's an outsider that understands us and rejects the political elite!, drain the swamp derp!" - Yep, and that's precisely why he's looking to appoint both a former Goldman Sachs exec and Bear Stearns chief economist to the treasury, as well as handing out nepotistic appointments to family and powerful rich friends.

The only consolation left in all this madness is knowing how stupid these cretins will soon look. But even then they're probably delusional enough to spin it into a positive.
Click to expand...

You are looking at this from a logical viewpoint. Couple of things I realized with a lot of Trump voters
  • Anything negative on him is a "mainstream media" conspiracy and therefore false, lies and not worth paying attention to
    • this includes anyone directly quoted in MSM, even if it is other Republican politicians or Republican leaning media such as Fox
  • What matters to them is what Trump says that speaks to their viewpoint. If he says something they disagree with, it's like this weird twilight-zone where they never hear it.Even if it directly contradicts what he said previously they will only hear the one soundbite they agree with
    • See the distinction between Abortion and Same Sex marriage. Both Supreme court decisions, yet only one is "law of the land" and probably won't be touched
 
prateik said:
The republican chart says "Getting better" is at 50%.. and that is a change of +60.. :rolleyes:

Any people are supposed to take these news sites seriously.
Click to expand...
It's just the change in difference. So around -55 % between good and bad before and +5% after. I think there was discussion about related method for trump saying he needed to swing the poll 5% when he was 10% down.
 
Any Fox News watchers around, that can offer me some insight in to how its responding to Trump's victory? Is it falling in to line and spreading his gospel?

senorgregster said:
I don't think I can handle seeing him be sworn in. Totally surreal. For some reason the thought of him wearing pyjamas around he White House disgusts me the most :confused: I think I need an evaluation.
Click to expand...
You and many of us, right now.
 
senorgregster said:
I don't think I can handle seeing him be sworn in. Totally surreal. For some reason the thought of him wearing pyjamas around he White House disgusts me the most :confused: I think I need an evaluation.
Click to expand...

A new version of Bananas in Pyjamas.

Trump: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

Pence: "Errrr....maybe?"

Cuts to nuclear button.

Pence: "No, actually, I'm not. Unless it specifically targets gays and atheists these days. Does it do that?"
 
A few questions for those who are more knowledgeable than me:

1) Can Democrats filibuster Trump's nominees for supreme justices?

2) If (1) happens, can Republicans use nuclear options to end the filibusters (which as far as I am aware would set a precedent)?

3) Do you think that (1) and (2) will happen?
 
Revan said:
A few questions for those who are more knowledgeable than me:

1) Can Democrats filibuster Trump's nominees for supreme justices?

2) If (1) happens, can Republicans use nuclear options to end the filibusters (which as far as I am aware would set a precedent)?

3) Do you think that (1) and (2) will happen?
Click to expand...

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

Basically the Dems should have done it themselves years ago, but they were always afraid of the precedent. Which is stupid, because the GOP just got 8 years of obstruction of a Democratic president (and 6 of a Dem Senate), and now will probably lose the power anyway. It isn't even slightly implausible that this bunch of radical right wingers will just wait until the first Dem fillibuster, make a huge fuss in the media about the Dems standing against the public will, and then just abolish it. Truth stopped being a stumbling block to them long ago.
 
Kentonio said:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

Basically the Dems should have done it themselves years ago, but they were always afraid of the precedent. Which is stupid, because the GOP just got 8 years of obstruction of a Democratic president (and 6 of a Dem Senate), and now will probably lose the power anyway. It isn't even slightly implausible that this bunch of radical right wingers will just wait until the first Dem fillibuster, make a huge fuss in the media about the Dems standing against the public will, and then just abolish it. Truth stopped being a stumbling block to them long ago.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that would also mean that the next Democrat senate, can finish all the filibusters for Supreme Justices. If you look in the Bush's administration, the Republican senate didn't use the nuclear option despite threatening to do so, and instead they made a deal with some Democrat senators (Gang of 14?) to appoint just some of the judges, with the promise that the Democrats won't filibuster them. And well, it wasn't for Supreme Justices in the first place, which will be an even bigger precedent.

I think it all depends on how comfortable the Republicans are on maintaining the Senate on 2 years, and of course Trump getting reelected. Because if they use the nuclear option and lose both the presidency and the senate in a few years, then it will be quite bad for them. But then, it isn't like Republicans are afraid of setting precedents, and also thinking too much about the future.

I guess we all can hope that Trump chooses a moderate conservative for Scalia's seat, and none of the liberal justices (and Kennedy) retire/die in the next 2 years. It will be more important than ever for Democrats to regain the majority on the senate in a couple of years.
 
Revan said:
Yes, but that would also mean that the next Democrat senate, can finish all the filibusters for Supreme Justices. If you look in the Bush's administration, the Republican senate didn't use the nuclear option despite threatening to do so, and instead they made a deal with some Democrat senators (Gang of 14?) to appoint just some of the judges, with the promise that the Democrats won't filibuster them. And well, it wasn't for Supreme Justices in the first place, which will be an even bigger precedent.

I think it all depends on how comfortable the Republicans are on maintaining the Senate on 2 years, and of course Trump getting reelected. Because if they use the nuclear option and lose both the presidency and the senate in a few years, then it will be quite bad for them. But then, it isn't like Republicans are afraid of setting precedents, and also thinking too much about the future.

I guess we all can hope that Trump chooses a moderate conservative for Scalia's seat, and none of the liberal justices (and Kennedy) retire/die in the next 2 years. It will be more important than ever for Democrats to regain the majority on the senate in a couple of years.
Click to expand...
That'll be reeeeal tough. Though I suppose if Trump's an obvious disaster there's a chance.
 
Revan said:
I don't like Chomsky that much, but it is hard to disagree with him there. Especially about the global warming.
Click to expand...
Yeah it was Trump's take on global warming that quickly turned this from mildly amusing to a feckin terrifying turn of events.

But again who can blame the populist in him when the majority of Americans don't believe humans are to blame for global warming and believe its some Liberal elite conspiracy to elicit control and keep the globalisation dream alive. And even out of those who acknowledge it don't consider an issue because Christ will save us all in a few decades anyway :wenger:

No disrespect to the sound American guys and girls here, but your country is literally a breeding ground for imbeciles.
 
The mainstream media freakout about Trump not informing them of his whereabouts is quite hilarious. As if they have some sort of right to be with him all the time. If anything, this past cycle has taught us that they are increasingly irrelevant middlemen at a time when candidates can communicate with the world directly via social media.
 
langster said:
:lol: I'm loving the replies to that. The solitary idiot voter saying the sources are all left wing media etc
Click to expand...

I imagine they're all like us when United stories are leaked - "it's just the NYT", followed by intense guesses as to who is behind the leak.
 
Kaos said:
Yeah it was Trump's take on global warming that quickly turned this from mildly amusing to a feckin terrifying turn of events.

But again who can blame the populist in him when the majority of Americans don't believe humans are to blame for global warming and believe its some Liberal elite conspiracy to elicit control and keep the globalisation dream alive. And even out of those who acknowledge it don't consider an issue because Christ will save us all in a few decades anyway :wenger:

No disrespect to the sound American guys and girls here, but your country is literally a breeding ground for imbeciles.
Click to expand...
I think that the majority of Americans think that humanity is the main reason for the global warming, and support some type of background check when it comes to getting weapons.

It is just that the people who voted Trump are a bit special.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.