Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
I think Whembly is actually talking about another situation.

Whembly is talking about a minor thing with Priebus, but he raised that in relation to the issue jmurph originally commented on, where he mentioned Trump receiving intel briefings. I was pointing out that the intel briefings came from a the Republican chair of the intel committee, not Comey, something that wasn't completely clear in jmurph's post and I thought might have led to some confusion on your part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that is related to the politics thread.

Rick Perry was a Republican governor, a Republican presidential candidate twice, and is now a member of Trump's cabinet. And he's talking about an election result which might be very minor, it happens to have a comical parallel to the recent presidential election. Of course it belongs in the politics thread.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

Not if they don't want to be colossal hypocrites.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

When he wouldn't shut up about the Obamas going on vacation?

Or golfing?

Or...anything, I suppose?

I expect a bit less naked hypocrisy out of my president, but I also expect a bit less corruption, bigotry, unprofessionalism, and nepotism as well.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

Not if they don't want to be colossal hypocrites.

How so? The Obama family went on many trips costing a pretty coin. Did you complain then? (ftr, I wanted Obama to vacay as much as he could to keep him away from the pen & phone )

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

Not if they don't want to be colossal hypocrites.

How so? The Obama family went on many trips costing a pretty coin. Did you complain then? (ftr, I wanted Obama to vacay as much as he could to keep him away from the pen & phone )

The point is that A) Trump and Company are racking up a much larger vacation bill already, and frequently incidentally benefiting Trump businesses (completely coincidentally, I'm sure) and B) Trump would not shut up if Obama got within five miles of a golf course. Don't you remember 'I'm going to be too busy to go on vacation'? Did all of his constant whining about the Obamas going anywhere just slip your mind, Whembly?

I'm sure we can dig up the tweets, if he hasn't deleted them

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

They cutting meals on wheels, school lunches, and large number of other programs because apparently we can't afford them, but we can afford to pay for them to enjoy themselves. I don't really care about them fething off for a while, but the hypocrisy of cutting these programs (and others such as NEA, CPB, ect to "save money") while spending millions on security in Trump Tower, Mara Largo, and for them to go skiing pisses me off to no end.

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

Not if they don't want to be colossal hypocrites.

How so? The Obama family went on many trips costing a pretty coin. Did you complain then? (ftr, I wanted Obama to vacay as much as he could to keep him away from the pen & phone )

The point is that A) Trump and Company are racking up a much larger vacation bill already, and frequently incidentally benefiting Trump businesses (completely coincidentally, I'm sure) and

Sure, and that's baked in when he ran for office. So, it's nothing new.

B) Trump would not shut up if Obama got within five miles of a golf course. Don't you remember 'I'm going to be too busy to go on vacation'? Did all of his constant whining about the Obamas going anywhere just slip your mind, Whembly?

I'm sure we can dig up the tweets, if he hasn't deleted them

This is Trump's kids vacay, not Trump himself. (although, his trip to Marlago almost every weekend stinks).

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

Not if they don't want to be colossal hypocrites.

How so? The Obama family went on many trips costing a pretty coin. Did you complain then? (ftr, I wanted Obama to vacay as much as he could to keep him away from the pen & phone )

A. They have not cost nearly as much. They have cost $90M over his entire preisdancy, Trump is looking to cost somehere in the range of $500M over his first term at current estimates and pace.

B. Obama wasn't trying to cut meals on wheels to "save money".

So why are we paying for security for his kids? THey're not public officials, nor are they children; they're grown adults. Why should the tax payers pay for their security

And yes vacations for the president is assumed, its a rough job, but when the tax dollars go straight to his coffers, and he ran on a platform critizising the former president for his vacations; its hypocritical and shady

But then again, if its done by team Red, then no harm no foul right Whem?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/02/22/trumps-family-trips-cost-taxpayers-nearly-as-much-in-a-month-as-obamas-cost-in-a-whole-year/#23b13e3636e4

Conservatism in action.

It's 'baked in' that he was going to rack up a larger taxpayer-funded vacation than the Obamas?

Well, I guess, if you operate off the assumption that he's a lying ambulatory dumpster fire. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So why are we paying for security for his kids? THey're not public officials, nor are they children; they're grown adults. Why should the tax payers pay for their security

It's done for all previous President family. I guess the argument *could* be made that they can afford their own protection (however, the SS really don't like that).

And yes vacations for the president is assumed, its a rough job, but when the tax dollars go straight to his coffers, and he ran on a platform critizising the former president for his vacations; its hypocritical and shady

It's Trump.

But then again, if its done by team Red, then no harm no foul right Whem?

Nah... I don't like the expenses he incurs... especially his 'frequent trips to Maralago'. But, *this* is his Ivanka/Hubby and their kids.

Again, I will stress, I'm "fine" with the cost (I wish we could put, say a $50M year cap or something on it because that is a more than reasonable amount, and just have him pay if he wants more, but that's not my real concern). The problem is tossing programs like Meals on Wheels, Head Start, NEA, NEH, CPB, LCS, ect to "save costs" when his secruity costs are so high, to the point where he's problely costing more than all of those programs combined.

If its his kids, then they can pay for their own protection. They're well off enough.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think Whembly is actually talking about another situation.

Whembly is talking about a minor thing with Priebus, but he raised that in relation to the issue jmurph originally commented on, where he mentioned Trump receiving intel briefings. I was pointing out that the intel briefings came from a the Republican chair of the intel committee, not Comey, something that wasn't completely clear in jmurph's post and I thought might have led to some confusion on your part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that is related to the politics thread.

Rick Perry was a Republican governor, a Republican presidential candidate twice, and is now a member of Trump's cabinet. And he's talking about an election result which might be very minor, it happens to have a comical parallel to the recent presidential election. Of course it belongs in the politics thread.

I look forward to your many comical posts about leftwing politicians then. yea that will happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

When he wouldn't shut up about the Obamas going on vacation?

Or golfing?

Or...anything, I suppose?

I expect a bit less naked hypocrisy out of my president, but I also expect a bit less corruption, bigotry, unprofessionalism, and nepotism as well.

Golfing is a waste of a good walk. And this is from someone who did it for years and had a hole in one (and a trophy yeee hah).

Now we talking actual golf or mini-golf fraz, I know you think getting the hole-in-one in the mini Alamo hole is impressive.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Now we talking actual golf or mini-golf fraz, I know you think getting the hole-in-one in the mini Alamo hole is impressive.

Real golf, par 4.

Speaking of fun and games, have you considered thermonuclear war? Because the nuke is about to launch as soon as the Dem's do this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-to-focus-today-on-testimony-from-friends-foes/2017/03/23/14d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.879e2dbd1789

Its important this happens so we can give up the charade that Democrats and Republicans are going to do anything but vote party line any more.

What incentive does either side have to compromise anymore? The GOP has proven for 6 years of Obama's presidency that if you act like petulant children, dont play nice, and stamp your feet in defiance about anything; you actually get rewarded.

The Dems have to apparently fight fire with fire now.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What incentive does either side have to compromise anymore? The GOP has proven for 6 years of Obama's presidency that if you act like petulant children, dont play nice, and stamp your feet in defiance about anything; you actually get rewarded.

The Dems have to apparently fight fire with fire now.

Except shooting yourself is generally not a good strategy. The Repubs will employ the 51 rule and that is that.

Did we really expect anything else? And it's not like the D's can do anything else, they are using this for politics. I, personally don't think they should though.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well this is ironic
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rick-perry-the-man-in-charge-of-americas-nukes-weighs-in-on-texas-am-student-election-145825577.html

Perry’s complaint was about the process by which Bobby Brooks, who would become the first openly gay student president in the university’s history, won the election last month. Brooks finished 750 votes behind Robert McIntosh, the son of a prominent GOP fundraiser, but McIntosh was disqualified after he was found to violate a campaign finance rule over some glow sticks used in a campaign video. But “Brooks did not win the election,” wrote Perry. “He finished second by more than 750 votes to one Mr. Robert McIntosh.

Not seeing how that is related to the politics thread.

If you can't see it then I feel bad for you

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What incentive does either side have to compromise anymore? The GOP has proven for 6 years of Obama's presidency that if you act like petulant children, dont play nice, and stamp your feet in defiance about anything; you actually get rewarded.

The Dems have to apparently fight fire with fire now.

Except shooting yourself is generally not a good strategy. The Repubs will employ the 51 rule and that is that.

So they have two choices, let the R's confirm him, or make some noise then let the R's confirm him? Seems like one, no matter how gakky it might be, is better politics.

Yup.

Sad state with the Senate really. Allowing a minority to block bad ideas can be meaningful and ought to be cherished more.

Alas, that's over...

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Now we talking actual golf or mini-golf fraz, I know you think getting the hole-in-one in the mini Alamo hole is impressive.

Real golf, par 4.

Speaking of fun and games, have you considered thermonuclear war? Because the nuke is about to launch as soon as the Dem's do this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-to-focus-today-on-testimony-from-friends-foes/2017/03/23/14d21116-0fc7-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.879e2dbd1789

Its important this happens so we can give up the charade that Democrats and Republicans are going to do anything but vote party line any more.

Considering the "hardline questions" that Republicans asked, such as one Republicans' enlightening question from their kid( ) that was a rip from a comedy special...

I think it's more important to give up the charade that Republicans are doing anything beyond lining their own pockets and trying to create a theological utopia.

Also, this was yet another nominee who lied on the stand.

"I don't get involved in politics". Rooooooooooooooooofl.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well this is ironic
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rick-perry-the-man-in-charge-of-americas-nukes-weighs-in-on-texas-am-student-election-145825577.html

Perry’s complaint was about the process by which Bobby Brooks, who would become the first openly gay student president in the university’s history, won the election last month. Brooks finished 750 votes behind Robert McIntosh, the son of a prominent GOP fundraiser, but McIntosh was disqualified after he was found to violate a campaign finance rule over some glow sticks used in a campaign video. But “Brooks did not win the election,” wrote Perry. “He finished second by more than 750 votes to one Mr. Robert McIntosh.

Not seeing how that is related to the politics thread.

If you can't see it then I feel bad for you

You really are just a troll aren't you. Putting you on Ignore.

I think the Dems should stick to the (relatively) high road for two more years at least. I strongly suspect it's about to pay off. Of course that's assuming we put basic decency and respect for their offices aside but i think we can agree that largely died off some time ago.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
What incentive does either side have to compromise anymore? The GOP has proven for 6 years of Obama's presidency that if you act like petulant children, dont play nice, and stamp your feet in defiance about anything; you actually get rewarded.

The Dems have to apparently fight fire with fire now.

Except shooting yourself is generally not a good strategy. The Repubs will employ the 51 rule and that is that.

So they have two choices, let the R's confirm him, or make some noise then let the R's confirm him? Seems like one, no matter how gakky it might be, is better politics.

Obama had two candidates confirmed for SCOTUS. From this point onward SCOTUS candidates shouldn't even show up. Have the vote and be done with the farce.

 whembly wrote:
Yup.

Sad state with the Senate really. Allowing a minority to block bad ideas can be meaningful and ought to be cherished more.

Alas, that's over...

Because YOUR precious Republican Party behaved in the same way that a two year old does when denied candy at the checkout counter.

Stop pretending this is anything other than the Republicans' fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the Dems should stick to the (relatively) high road for two more years at least. I strongly suspect it's about to pay off. Of course that's assuming we put basic decency and respect for their offices aside but i think we can agree that largely died off some time ago.

I doubt it. Trump voters are living in a separate reality than the rest of us. They're fed news from places like Fox or Breitbart, where anything and everything is the fault of the Democrats and the Republicans are the plucky underdogs of the story.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the Dems should stick to the (relatively) high road for two more years at least. I strongly suspect it's about to pay off. Of course that's assuming we put basic decency and respect for their offices aside but i think we can agree that largely died off some time ago.

The problem is that they need to energize their base... especially since they're on the defensive in the '18 Senate race. So, Co'tor might be right in that the better political calculus for Democrats is to vote 'No' and dare the Turtle to nuke the filibuster option. Then, use the '18 elections to try to win back the Senate (oh no, if RBG retires we don't want the GOP to fill that seat!)

 whembly wrote:
Yup.

Sad state with the Senate really. Allowing a minority to block bad ideas can be meaningful and ought to be cherished more.

Alas, that's over...

I'm wonder how far the arms race will go. I just can't wait until one party or other starts trying lock the minority party out of meetings and such.