Trump Tweets (no more)

[Valky]

So Trump lose Sean Spicer and got a bigger ass kisser. Seems like a good deal for Trump.

I guess we'll lose Session next?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I would like to hear what is your idea of a worse person than Trump. Because you are giving the illusion that Trump is an average President, and I don't believe you.

Mitch McConnell.

Give me an actual challenge.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I would like to hear what is your idea of a worse person than Trump. Because you are giving the illusion that Trump is an average President, and I don't believe you.

Originally Posted by Solace

Mitch McConnell.

Give me an actual challenge.

I would go with Ted Cruz.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Blueknight78

Few, if any Republicans were carried on the President's back. Most Republican House and Senate candidates ran ahead of Trump last fall. If anything, he was a dead weight dragging them down.

In my statistical models of House election results, I see little evidence historically of a "coattails" effect. The President's margin of victory had no statistical relationship with how well his party's Congressional candidates fared. What does matter is the President's job approval rating, especially in mid-term elections like next years.

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by Solace

He's just giving a speech to some kids. Not everything he does needs to end in protest. It just weakens the effect of protesting. Pick your battles.

The amazing thing about Trump is how he can find a way to screw up even a simple speech to children. A speech to a bunch of kids shouldn't end in protest and yet he found a way. I mean the biggest problem here is that he treated the jamboree like another one of his campaign rallies. Those kids are not there to see him, he's supposed to be there to see them. He's supposed to be talking about the scouts and encouraging them... instead he can't go five minutes without railing on the media, the leaks, Clinton/obama or his personal issues. He just has to make everything about himself, even to the detriment of kids. Its just so damn disgusting...

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Few, if any Republicans were carried on the President's back. Most Republican House and Senate candidates ran ahead of Trump last fall. If anything, he was a dead weight dragging them down.

In my statistical models of House election results, I see little evidence historically of a "coattails" effect. The President's margin of victory had no statistical relationship with how well his party's Congressional candidates fared. What does matter is the President's job approval rating, especially in mid-term elections like next years.

How much does the relatively small number of seats per election factor into that? With the increasing amount of voter laws and gerrymandering, it seems like we're reaching a point where most seats stay the same except for a few "battleground" seats that determine how voting/filibustering will go for the next couple years. I've never felt that Congressmen/women serving for more than two or three terms has been a good thing for the country.

Originally Posted by Slayerx

The amazing thing about Trump is how he can find a way to screw up even a simple speech to children. A speech to a bunch of kids shouldn't end in protest and yet he found a way. I mean the biggest problem here is that he treated the jamboree like another one of his campaign rallies. Those kids are not there to see him, he's supposed to be there to see them. He's supposed to be talking about the scouts and encouraging them... instead he can't go five minutes without railing on the media, the leaks, Clinton/obama or his personal issues. He just has to make everything about himself, even to the detriment of kids. Its just so damn disgusting...

Sure, I agree. He's literally King Nothing.

[Dauerlutscher]

Originally Posted by Valky

So Trump lose Sean Spicer and got a bigger ass kisser. Seems like a good deal for Trump.

I guess we'll lose Session next?

But he doesn't want to go!?

Jeff Sessions Is Growing ‘Pissed’ at Trump, His Allies Say. And He Doesn’t Plan to Quit.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has no plans to leave office as friends say he's grown angry with President Donald Trump following a series of attacks meant to marginalize his power and, potentially, encourage his resignation.

“Sessions is totally pissed off about it,” said a Sessions ally familiar with his thinking. “It’s beyond insane. It’s cruel and it’s insane and it’s stupid.”

Sessions’ allies say the president’s criticism of the attorney general is counterproductive. Perhaps more than any other member of Trump’s cabinet, Sessions has been an uncompromising advocate for Trump’s agenda. The attorney general has worked methodically to dismantle Obama’s legacy at the Justice Department: reconsidering the department’s efforts to make troubled police departments change their practices, changing the DOJ’s stance on voter I.D. lawsuits, and rolling back former Attorney General Eric Holder’s sentencing guidelines that were aimed at reduced incarceration and balancing out drug-crime-related punishments.

Rather than quit, Sessions insiders predict that the Attorney General call Trump’s bluff. And unlike other members of Trump’s cabinet, he has political wiggle room to do so. Trump’s base of support – immigration restrictionists, rank and file law enforcement officials, and states’ rights conservatives – were Sessions’ fans before they flocked to the president. They may very well scoff at the idea that the administration would be better off without its AG. Sessions also enjoys continued support in the Senate, where he served for a decade. On Tuesday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pushed back on Trump’s attacks and called the president’s encouragement that Sessions prosecute Hillary Clinton over her email use, “highly inappropriate.”

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Solace

How much does the relatively small number of seats per election factor into that? With the increasing amount of voter laws and gerrymandering, it seems like we're reaching a point where most seats stay the same except for a few "battleground" seats that determine how voting/filibustering will go for the next couple years. I've never felt that Congressmen/women serving for more than two or three terms has been a good thing for the country.

I disagree on the last point. I think experience matters a lot when it comes to governing.

Gerrymandering doesn't really apply to the point I was making. Senate seats, being entire states, cannot be gerrymandered at all. In general Trump ran behind most states' incumbent Republican senators. The same held true in House seats I suspect, though I haven't looked at the data. (I have it so I may.) More people voted for their incumbent Republican Member of Congress or Senator than voted for Trump in the same jurisdiction.

That's not a surprising result. Trump lost support among traditional middle-class Republicans who either voted for another candidate or left the line blank. That Republican Senate candidates ran ahead of Trump just confirms that his newly-recruited Republican voters were not always sufficient in number to compensate for the loss of traditional Republicans put off by Trump's words and actions.

[Toukairin]

After this pile of crap we have seen in the Senate with GOP senators voting just enough for Mike Pence to intervene in repealing Obamacare, I'm utterly disgusted. Calling things out as they are, I say a number of senators out there should be held culpable of moral prostitution that goes against every single oath they swore since they first entered public service.

What would it take for Congress people and Senators to switch parties while they hold office? I know I have seen that happen before in Canada, and I really want that to happen in the US very soon.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I disagree on the last point. I think experience matters a lot when it comes to governing.

To a point, I agree. However I think the idea of "career politician" is inherently toxic and that sometimes more frequent turnover might not be a bad thing. There are more ways to be active in politics than to hold seats for eternity.

More people voted for their incumbent Republican Member of Congress or Senator than voted for Trump in the same jurisdiction.

I had actually forgotten about that statistic. God what a weird election. It's a relief if you think about it, that his support really is as bad as it looks, but it's a worry because that's the guy who beat a huge field of candidates and went on to become President. That suggests a pretty big disconnect somewhere.

[Valky]

It's Trump. What do you expect.

Nevermind a boy scout event. I won't be surprised if he brings up things like crowd size, obamacare, and fake news when he's attending someone's funeral.

GOP bill is one tough zombie. It's hilarious to see people voting for a bill that doesn't exist yet. Man, I'm used to see a corrupt government thanks to my government. But this is fresh.

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

But he doesn't want to go!?

Jeff Sessions Is Growing ‘Pissed’ at Trump, His Allies Say. And He Doesn’t Plan to Quit.

Wait, what? Session is growing? lol. Seriously though, will he really go against Trump? I kinda doubt it. Trump could easily fire him, unprecedented or unethical? To hell with that shit, Trump never care about such thing.

[Key Board]

I had to double check this but yes, Trump wants to remove transgender people from the military

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...93981585444864

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...96164313833472

Don't think it will stop there, either

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Valky

Trump could easily fire him, unprecedented or unethical?

The timing of Sessions's firing could matter a lot. If Sessions is fired while the Senate is in recess in late August, the President can make what's called a "recess appointment." Such appointments do not require Senate confirmation and extend until the end of the current Senate term, January 2019. In this scenario, Trump waits for the Senate to adjourn then replaces Sessions with a new Attorney General who will fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Presumably Trump then pardons everyone involved and hopes that puts an end to this Russia stuff.

Congress could appoint a special counsel of its own should Mueller be fired. That would require the support of some Republicans in both houses of Congress. Not too likely, but it's hard to know how even Republicans might react to the firing of Mueller.

Congress could initiate the creation of an independent special counsel for investigations by passing a law, as it did in 1978 with the Ethics in Government Act. The law dictated that a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, appoint the counsel.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...s-comey-2017-5

The Ethics in Government Act expired in 1999, so Congress would need to pass a new law to appoint its own counsel,.

[MrTerrorist]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/Y_lNqk5ys7I

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Ok, that is just an insult to all transgendered troops who have serve their country.

[Archon_Wing]

Pssttt..... Medical costs?

Mofo probably doesn't know what that word means.

[James Rye]

Looks like Trump lost the repeal Obamacare debate as well in the Senate. 57 Senators voted against repealing it, that's 9 Reps voting with the Dem Senators. Isn't that like the third lose in a row with the whole Obamacare stuff? Wouldn't it be better for him to let it rest and do the whole stuff later on?

[ganbaru]

It could be a smarter move, but right now he want a victory to brag about and he is too focused on that one possibility to try something else.

[The Green One]

That and Republican constituents howling at the elected officials in their respective states that campaign promises aren't being fulfilled.

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

YouTube

https://youtu.be/Y_lNqk5ys7I

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Ok, that is just an insult to all transgendered troops who have serve their country.

The rules for bathrooms and barracks for a transgender transitioning do no create a clear solution or accommodation. (That last word is key, I'll get to that in a moment). As it stands now, a person with male genitalia, but full breasts, and dresses like a female, would stay in male barracks, and shower in male open bay showers. As in an open room with multiple shower heads on the wall.
As for what gender a trans soldier is graded as on the army physical fitness test, they are to be graded as their original gender until a doctor signs off that they have completed their transition. This means that a male soldier could be taking hormone suppressors to become female, but while in transition begin failing the PT test as a male because of said hormones. And this could carry on for over year. There is no accommodation for this. The soldier would be counseled and do remedial PT for failing to meet the minimum standards.
Back to that word accommodation. The military is and has to be a highly mobile force, who's soldiers can live and operate in remote locations, with minimal creature comforts. A tent with 14 cots, port-a-pottys, shower trailers with no privacy. It cannot afford to accommodate special needs. If you have asthma, you can't serve. There's nothing bad about you. You just have a special need. And the same thing goes for someone who's transgender, and especially someone who is transitioning. It is only for those who are the most able-bodied, and can pull their own weight without help. Needing special showers and living accommodations is an impediment to operational needs.
Maybe there's room for discussion about allowing people who have FULLY transitioned to serve. But before that happens, I believe the person has far too many special needs. And paying for transition with military money is a waste. And not why the military exists.

A point I'm not certain of so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It's my understanding, gender reassignment requires a constant, lifelong daily hormonal regiment? You cannot serve, no one can, if you are prescribe a daily substance. I'm thinking diabetics here. Do you know any diabetics who serve? There is simply no guarantee that your service will be able to provide your required medications in all situations and circumstances. It's called fit for duty and I personally know many that were medically discharged after the onset of diabetes or similar constant management illnesses.

So yes, while not PC I can certainly see the reasoning behind it without leaping straight into claims of discrimination.

[The Green One]

Yeah it's not like Trump has a history of discrimination or anything......