General Politics Discussion (II) [ARCHIVED] • Page 708

I definitely underestimated the extent to which the upper-middle class bloc that overwhelming supports Trump could alter and even break the national consensus that we've had for about forty years.

 

As in, what else is there to do if these folks are going to win anyway, because they won't even cast a symbolic vote in opposition to terrible people?

 

I dunno why he voted that way besides that most nominees are confirmed. It's rare that it doesn't happen, especially with how the votes play out with the numbers this time. All I can think of is that some Dems still think they can, or want to, get amendments on bills, or get support for their own causes, but if they don't vote for these nominees they'll get shut out of that too. I don't think the dems have a good record of being able to message to the people why they're being obstructionists, whereas Republicans sort of expect that kind of assholeness. Dem voters believe in bi-partisianship, historically, more ... maybe this election will finally change that but I dunno.

 

But at least Russia will be on our side I guess. This is gonna get ugly and need a touch of diplomacy that Trump doesn't have.

 

It's all setting up so they have some cover later when they oppose things they can actually stop. It won't mean much but hell be able to say "see we aren't just opposing this because we're partisan, we voted to approve his appointment to ____"

We haven't gotten to the more controversial picks yet as far as public opinion goes

 

YEP. All of this.

 

Pushing the envelope? Trying to see what they can get away with?

I'll give a big hug to whoever posted that when I get to Badlands on my road trip...assuming Trump hasn't bulldozed it by then

 

it's honestly overwhelming, it's just a constant stream of horrible news that makes me scared haha

 

Wouldn't they want to make all of them controversial, though? As in, rearrange public opinion against the nominees, paint them as oligarchs and so forth? And who is more controversial, Sessions?

 

National Parks are leading the rebellion.

 

Yea, it's been tough. I almost wish I could take part in some kind of substance but I can't so I just have to press some lavender into my forehead and take deep breaths.

 

There are some protests I saw coming up, hopefully the turnouts increase

 

It is strange to me, because this hope is predicated on the notion that republicans are moderates, hoping to be bipartisan, when, in reality, they want to drag the Democrats farther right and will accept nothing but total acquiescence.

 

The most controversial ones are probably going to be DeVos, Tillerson, Price, and Sessions....my guess is in that order.

 

I guess the counter argument is that it's pretty politically exhausting to attack every single nominee (there's going to be a lot of them, and unless someone from the GOP will vote against them, they're all going to get confirmed). So you have to attack a handful only and focus on moving the public opinion on those specific candidates, to explain the non-confirmation, and so forth.

Personally I think it would send a bigger message and show solidarity if all Dems voted no together over and over again and made Trump and the GOP own this entire administration. They squeak by their nominees, and then they eat and wear everything they do and everything that happens in this admin. And they show they won't flop around on this shit, they will stand up. If the American people still don't vote or vote out all of them after this and they stood up, then whatever, we're fucked anyway.

 

Agreed.

 

I just saw a pro-Jeff Sessions commercial boasting about how he desegregated schools in Alabama and was a strong fighter for equality.

 

Is that the one that includes the false statement he admitted was false under oath? I've seen that going around.

 

Get Ready for the First Shocks of Trump’s Disaster Capitalism