Stevengali Bannon would have goaded Trump into a Greg Stillson decision by now.
The month's not over yet.
Stevengali Bannon would have goaded Trump into a Greg Stillson decision by now.
Choice of Miller as WH spokesman on Sunday shows yesterday - Horrible - deserving of ridicule.
LOL @ this whole mess.
=schadenfreude
Gen. Thomas feels no schadenfreude:
At a military conference Tuesday, Gen. Tony Thomas, head of the military's Special Operations Command, expressed concerns about the government's state of "turmoil." "Our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil," Thomas said. "I hope they sort it out soon because we're a nation at war." When asked about his remarks later, Thomas told The New York Times, "As a commander, I'm concerned our government be as stable as possible."
Interestingly enough, I live in a screw-em-if-they-ain't-me area that voted for Hillary Clinton.
I believe all voters to be the same. Both sides are suffering from "screw-em-all" disease.
You should also remember that Democrats are still a part of this government.
Absolutely, Democrats are part of the government structure. Who's denying that? However, Democrats aren't connected to the topic at hand, which is the Trump administration's strangely close relationship with Russia, the resignation of Flynn less than a month into his role, and the resulting grab-bag of concerns. Concerns that are cutting across partisan lines.
It seems like you're trying to take something that's getting less partisan by the day (McCain, Graham, Blunt) and reinterpret it as partisan in order to be dismissive. That doesn't seem very intellectually rigorous or honest.
Who did you like in the last election, primaries included?
Not sure how this is relevant to the conversation, but I was a Sanders supporter from the start.
I have no trouble criticizing the Democratic Party -- I do it all the time -- nor recognizing the integrity or merit of given Republicans, even though I likely don't see things the same way they do. I've voted for 3rd party candidates.
I've already given examples but if you want more casual specifics: Ben Sasse seems like a decent guy. I have way more respect for John Boehner than I do for Paul Ryan. I'm not much of a fan of either of the Clintons and think that America might be in better shape if Bill had never been President and HW had gotten a second term -- not because I agree more with HW's policy prescriptions but because I see the 90s as the beginning of the end in terms of our ability to have functional political discourse. (Yes, there were lots of other factors, namely the toxic speeding up of the news cycle and horrifying levels of gerrymandering. But, again, if this is our end state then clearly something went real wrong in the 90s. If you run something and it craters after you're in charge then you did something wrong.) I rolled my eyes at Harry Reid. I loved Tom Harkin. I think Scott Walker is a superficial dolt and is driving Wisconsin into the ground. I think John Kasich was the competent executive of a large, complex state. I lived in Louisiana at the start of Bobby Jindal's political career and had real respect for him. I now think he's a hot mess who I wouldn't trust to be my personal accountant. And on it goes.
I think the parties have become so obsessed with 'winning' the news cycle that they've lost a focus on the collaborative nature of governing. No, there was never some halcyon day when politics wasn't nasty. But it used to be far more functional. Politicians used to have at least some understanding that legislative function derived from a give-and-take that required, yes, giving. You can't always get things your way in the course of legislation. Being obstinate or recalcitrant wasn't seen as strong, it was seen as dysfunctional.
And here we are. We've created a politics in which everything is seen in a zero-sum, winner-takes-all light. Obstinance is a way to display strength. Collaboration and nuance are scorned. And, uh, we end up with Donald Trump. It's like someone drew a cartoon of our system's failings and it came to life.
I would far, far, far rather have healthy political parties capable of collaboration and rational discourse and not have 'my side' be 'in charge.' I don't understand why everyone doesn't feel this way. This isn't a team sport, it's the spine & synapses of an extraordinary national experiment that seemed to be in pretty good shape for 200+ years. It leaves me deeply depressed and genuinely bewildered.
Not sure how this is relevant to the conversation, but I was a Sanders supporter from the start.
I have no trouble criticizing the Democratic Party -- I do it all the time -- nor recognizing the integrity or merit of given Republicans, even though I likely don't see things the same way they do. I've voted for 3rd party candidates.
I've already given examples but if you want more casual specifics: Ben Sasse seems like a decent guy. I have way more respect for John Boehner than I do for Paul Ryan. I'm not much of a fan of either of the Clintons and think that America might be in better shape if Bill had never been President and HW had gotten a second term -- not because I agree more with HW's policy prescriptions but because I see the 90s as the beginning of the end in terms of our ability to have functional political discourse. (Yes, there were lots of other factors, namely the toxic speeding up of the news cycle and horrifying levels of gerrymandering. But, again, if this is our end state then clearly something went real wrong in the 90s. If you run something and it craters after you're in charge then you did something wrong.) I rolled my eyes at Harry Reid. I loved Tom Harkin. I think Scott Walker is a superficial dolt and is driving Wisconsin into the ground. I think John Kasich was the competent executive of a large, complex state. I lived in Louisiana at the start of Bobby Jindal's political career and had real respect for him. I now think he's a hot mess who I wouldn't trust to be my personal accountant. And on it goes.
I think the parties have become so obsessed with 'winning' the news cycle that they've lost a focus on the collaborative nature of governing. No, there was never some halcyon day when politics wasn't nasty. But it used to be far more functional. Politicians used to have at least some understanding that legislative function derived from a give-and-take that required, yes, giving. You can't always get things your way in the course of legislation. Being obstinate or recalcitrant wasn't seen as strong, it was seen as dysfunctional.
And here we are. We've created a politics in which everything is seen in a zero-sum, winner-takes-all light. Obstinance is a way to display strength. Collaboration and nuance are scorned. And, uh, we end up with Donald Trump. It's like someone drew a cartoon of our system's failings and it came to life.
I would far, far, far rather have healthy political parties capable of collaboration and rational discourse and not have 'my side' be 'in charge.' I don't understand why everyone doesn't feel this way. This isn't a team sport, it's the spine & synapses of an extraordinary national experiment that seemed to be in pretty good shape for 200+ years. It leaves me deeply depressed and genuinely bewildered.
McMasterthe actual back story.