4 minutes ago, Vee said:

Read this - it is fùcking insane.

 

He is a deeply disturbed man - he seems to need to punish and hurt people in a way that is pathological. This is something that many were mocked for when they tried to point it out during the election. I wish that voters had listened. 

He's treating it like one of his shady business deals - intimidate and throw tantrums until he gets his way. It's not working.

 

But wait, there's more.

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

I don't see how Democrats can stop him, and I'm not sure it's worth the battle in this particular case. I'd rather save the filibuster for something worse coming down the line. 

 

No, I'm sorry, but I refuse to pick battles with Trump.  In my mind, picking battles means compromising.  That's something that, quite frankly, we cannot afford to do with this dictator-in-waiting, on anything.

 

It isn't about Gorsuch and it isn't even about payback for Merrick Garland.  It's about not giving into Trump, win or lose, now or ever.  Because if the Democrats give in even once, they will never stop.

 

59 minutes ago, marceline said:

Having Trump name Scalia's replacement with yet another Scalia sucks, especially after the disrespect of Merrick Garland but having him name a replacement for Kennedy or Ginsburg? That's the hill to die on. That's the time to pull out all the stops. Especially if the resistance can get stronger and more organized in the meantime.

 

Okay.  But don't be surprised if we get to that point and the Democrats don't have anything, not even their precious filibuster, to stop him, because they've compromised away everything and basically handed the rest of the country over to fascism.  Don't be surprised if this opening gambit on Trump's part to dupe the Democrats (with a Scalia replacement, something that, on the surface, doesn't seem like a big deal) leads ultimately to the right AND the left lookin' gobsmacked as Trump and Bannon have duped them right into a totalitarian regime where they, and they alone, control everything and neither the Dems nor the GOP have a hand in anything.

 

(You know how much I love y'all...but I'm just gonna have to disagree here.)

 

Frankly, I say, take away the damn filibuster.  It's the difference between fighting with something to lose and fighting with nothing to lose.  Maybe it won't change anything in the end, but maybe it'll stop the Democrats from being cautious and willing to give Trump an inch on anything he does.  Who knows?  Without things like filibusters to fall back on, they might be forced to work a little harder in getting more voices on their side.  (It's a thought anyway.)

11 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

No, I'm sorry, but I refuse to pick battles with Trump.  In my mind, picking battles means compromising.  That's something that, quite frankly, we cannot afford to do with this dictator-in-waiting, on anything.

 

It isn't about Gorsuch and it isn't even about payback for Merrick Garland.  It's about not giving into Trump, win or lose, now or ever.  Because if the Democrats give in even once, they will never stop.

 

In theory I agree, but honestly at this point it doesn't matter if Democrats say no to everything - they aren't in power. They aren't going to win most fights. The confirmation battle over Betsy DeVos, where she is thisclose to being the first nominee rejected by a President's party in Congress since 1925, shows what happens when battles are picked IMO. To me Gorsuch isn't worth the distraction when so much worse is here and is coming. But that's just me.

The Nation claims it has the much rumored anti-gay/women's rights Religious Freedom Order.

3 minutes ago, Vee said:

The Nation claims it has the much rumored anti-gay/women's rights Religious Freedom Order.

 

I'd say the courts would block that but it seems like that doesn't matter anymore...

41 minutes ago, Vee said:

Read this - it is fùcking insane.

 

How the f*ck has this president and his administration survived for almost two weeks?!?!?  This is crazy shiit

 

 

2 hours ago, Vee said:

Speaking of Little Marco:

 

I guess I'm like one of those "radical left-wing extremists," lol.  

 

I don't want Congress to "work with" Trump and his goons, just as I didn't want to "wait and see" about what he'd do once in office or "give him a chance."  And I don't want to hold off on fighting him HERE because I think it'd be more to the left's advantage to fight him THERE.

 

I want the liberals and moderates to fight Trump HERE and THERE and everywhere else.  I want them all to block (or try to block) the crap out of everything he even THINKS of doing, regardless of whatever some think it'll cost them; and when and where they can't block, I want them to make it known to all who are paying attention that they couldn't block him AND WHY.

 

In short, I want the Democrats and everyone else on their side to say "No."  Every. Damn. Time.  No exceptions, no excuses.

 

Like I said before, this is not politics as usual.  This is war against the forces of fascism, and it's being fought in the WH, on Capitol Hill and across this country.  

 

The Democrats didn't bring the war, the GOP did.  But if it's war the GOP wanted back in 2008, it's war they should have now.  And if it all ends with the Democratic Party dead and American democracy gone and forgotten, then I, for one, want to know that the party I sided with once I DID choose a side fought the good fight.

32 minutes ago, Vee said:

He's treating it like one of his shady business deals - intimidate and throw tantrums until he gets his way. It's not working.

 

But wait, there's more.

 

Another WTF.

 

This is exhausting.  Surely, we can't do this everyday until 2020

 

 

That report of his conversation with Turnbull is nutty.  Obviously, we should honor the agreement, but I wonder why Australia doesn't want these refugees? Not saying it's even relevant my curiosity is just peeked.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/liberals-on-the-edge-of-a-nervous-breakdown-214727

 

 

 

Source familiar with Trump foreign leader calls says the POTUS convos are turning faces "white" inside the WH.

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) February 2, 2017

As long as the faces are white, that should make his voters happy. 

Like Dorothy Parker said when Calvin Coolidge died: "How can they tell?"

Edited February 2, 20178 yr by Khan

^ You two  

 

Really though, the way he is talking to these leaders is pretty scary. Threatening to send troops into Mexico? Heaven help us all.