2018 Midterm Election Thread

[onejayhawk]

So in other words, you're putting him over Reagan, but not Nixon? Interesting, lol.

I meant since Reagan, but it's a valid quibble. There is a 5% overlap.

Definitely not Nixon who was the best of the 20th century. His reopening China is the Gold standard, plus he wrote the book on how to deal with Slavic strongmen. For the record, Trump seems to have read the book.

J

[B-Fly]

I meant since Reagan, but it's a valid quibble. There is a 5% overlap.

Definitely not Nixon who was the best of the 20th century. His reopening China is the Gold standard, plus he wrote the book on how to deal with Slavic strongmen. For the record, Trump seems to have read the book.

J

There's no overlap. 40 years ago was 1978 - still Carter. So all 8 years of Reagan were less than 40 years ago. That's why I was surprised by your statement, lol.

Nixon was pretty skilled at foreign policy, FWIW.

[revo]

I meant since Reagan, but it's a valid quibble. There is a 5% overlap.

Definitely not Nixon who was the best of the 20th century. His reopening China is the Gold standard, plus he wrote the book on how to deal with Slavic strongmen. For the record, Trump seems to have read the book.

J

The only books Trump has read have a lot of colorful pictures.

[Fresno Bob]

There's no overlap. 40 years ago was 1978 - still Carter. So all 8 years of Reagan were less than 40 years ago. That's why I was surprised by your statement, lol.

Nixon was pretty skilled at foreign policy, FWIW.

Nixon is 10X the foreign policy wonk than Trump, maybe 100x

[Sour Masher]

Nixon is 10X the foreign policy wonk than Trump, maybe 100x

Yeah, at this point, I don't know if people who praise Trump's intelligence/knowledge/skills are delusional about his qualifications, or are really selling short just how qualified/intelligent/knowledge most of his predecessors--left and right, and good and bad as presidents--were. Trump is by FAR the least wonkish/knolwedge/well-researched person who has ever held the office. He knows nothing and wishes to know nothing. Anything he does that some people like is because others are guiding him to those choices, or they are based on sheer instinct and gut. Trump revels in his ignorance. His fans give him way too much credit when he does things they like, as if they are well-thought out and measured by him. As one example, all those who love his SC picks--I'd bet anything he had no clue about any of the candidates before someone told him who they were and which ones he should nominate.

[baldgriff]

As one example, all those who love his SC picks--I'd bet anything he had no clue about any of the candidates before someone told him who they were and which ones he should nominate.

So you're saying he relied on people around him to provide informed opinions of those who may make good SC picks - and then he made the nominations. While I agree with some of what you are saying - it seems he acted appropriately when it came to the SCOTUS picks. He may not have known any of these folks personally or had any opinions, but it seems his Gorsuch pick is sitting well with most folks. The Kavanaugh thing is a circus, not of his doing from what I can gather.

[DMT]

So you're saying he relied on people around him to provide informed opinions of those who may make good SC picks - and then he made the nominations. While I agree with some of what you are saying - it seems he acted appropriately when it came to the SCOTUS picks. He may not have known any of these folks personally or had any opinions, but it seems his Gorsuch pick is sitting well with most folks. The Kavanaugh thing is a circus, not of his doing from what I can gather.

Yea other than the millions who know Gorsuch has no business in that seat. Laughable comment dude.

[Sour Masher]

So you're saying he relied on people around him to provide informed opinions of those who may make good SC picks - and then he made the nominations. While I agree with some of what you are saying - it seems he acted appropriately when it came to the SCOTUS picks. He may not have known any of these folks personally or had any opinions, but it seems his Gorsuch pick is sitting well with most folks. The Kavanaugh thing is a circus, not of his doing from what I can gather.

I wasn't trying to criticize the fact that he sought outside opinions when weighing his selections. My point was that other candidates would have made the same pick. It isn't like Trump had some special knowledge of the judiciary, or any knowledge of it beyond the many times he gets sued. I'm trying to express my firm belief that there is nothing defensible about continuing to support him, or for the GOP to stand aside and let him run uncontested again in 2020. I do not get the idea of sticking with all that is bad about him, because of the aspects of his agenda that any GOP POTUS would have done.

[onejayhawk]

Nixon is 10X the foreign policy wonk than Trump, maybe 100x

That's overdoing it. If you had said Obama, then maybe. Trump is actually good at this.

Yea other than the millions who know Gorsuch has no business in that seat. Laughable comment dude.

Like the Millions who know that the Eagles had no business winning the Super Bowl. That's the way the game is played. It isn't as if the Democrats had some sort of moral high ground.

J

[DMT]

That's overdoing it. If you had said Obama, then maybe. Trump is actually good at this.


Like the Millions who know that the Eagles had no business winning the Super Bowl. That's the way the game is played. It isn't as if the Democrats had some sort of moral high ground.

J

So the Eagles cheated? Hmm, missed that. But go on justifying whatever bullshit the Republicans pull.

What the Democrats should do after they re-take power is add two more seats. I'm sure you'd be just as supportive.

[onejayhawk]

So the Eagles cheated? Hmm, missed that. But go on justifying whatever bullshit the Republicans pull. What the Democrats should do after they re-take power is add two more seats. I'm sure you'd be just as supportive.

The point was that no one cheated when Gorsuch was seated. That's the way the game is played. If there was any cheating it was with Bork 30 years ago.

What the Democrats should do with two more seats and what the Democrats would do are two very different things. That is also how the game is played. As a system, it sucks. It's just that the others suck worse.

J

[Fresno Bob]

The point was that no one cheated when Gorsuch was seated. That's the way the game is played. If there was any cheating it was with Bork 30 years ago.

What the Democrats should do with two more seats and what the Democrats would do are two very different things. That is also how the game is played. As a system, it sucks. It's just that the others suck worse.

J

if you don't think it is cheating when a sitting president doesn't get to nominate to fill an SC vacancy, then I don't know what to say

[revo]

if you don't think it is cheating when a sitting president doesn't get to nominate to fill an SC vacancy, then I don't know what to say

Or that the GOP changed the rules to the nuclear option? I get that the Dems did this before, but regardless of that, the GOP still changed the rules on SC nominations.

[onejayhawk]

if you don't think it is cheating when a sitting president doesn't get to nominate to fill an SC vacancy, then I don't know what to say

BS He did get to nominate. Say what you mean.

The question is whether holding the Senate debates til after the election was cheating. Clearly not. You can make the case that a Supreme Court Justice deserves more procedural respect than an Appeals Court Judge, or Cabinet Member, or Ambassador, or any other Presidential appointment. That's what it would be, a position in a debate. The Senate rules make no such distinction, which is why McConnell was able to do what he did.

Or that the GOP changed the rules to the nuclear option? I get that the Dems did this before, but regardless of that, the GOP still changed the rules on SC nominations.

You give the correct answer. You acknowledge that it's the correct answer. Why do you not accept that it is the correct answer?

J

[chancellor]

O

I do not get the idea of sticking with all that is bad about him, because of the aspects of his agenda that any GOP POTUS would have done.

Nope. Demonstrably wrong. On SCOTUS alone, he’s done far better (from my POV, of course) than either Bush, especially GWB. In terms of reducing federal bureaucracy, he’s done what no other GOP president has done in my lifetime. Now, while many of us disagree that tariffs are good, it’s pretty easy to recognize no GOP president would have done these to this level. Propose a space force? Nope. Get a budget done, instead of the politically easier continuing resolutions? No, no other recent GOP president did that nor would any today have tried. The admittedly still-too-limited prison reform? Heck, no.

I could keep going on, but it’s pretty clear and easy. I understand detesting him and all that, but to say another GOP president would be pushing the same agenda....LULZ.