• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Roughly 3 weeks into Trump as PEOTUS...

EatLeadCommie said:
The one thing I will give Trump is he seems to have an incredible work ethic and doesn't seem like the kind of guy who takes a lot of plays off. People like that expect people who work for them to show a similar work ethic.
Click to expand...

He is eschewing intelligence briefings and meeting with Kanye.
 
Strickland33 said:
Were the email and Benghazi hearings partisan hackery, too? Why are pubs suddenly so scared of the very accountability measure that they have promoted and abused on the tax payers' dime for the last eight years?
Click to expand...

cogent point, that
 
Strickland33 said:
I feel like a lot of posters have discussed him and his career on here already. What is your more rounded view of his career, Wrangor?



Partisan hackery?
Click to expand...

Calling that article partisan infers I am scared? Sorry, I don't see it that way.

If you want a rounded view look it up and report back. I feel pretty good it will amount to more than simply being a racist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I will add that he seems to be putting people in positions of power who have long complained about federal overreach, whether it be into the states or business. I'm guessing that he will make them put their money where their mouth is and come up with plans to stem that overreach or they will be out on their ass. The one thing I will give Trump is he seems to have an incredible work ethic and doesn't seem like the kind of guy who takes a lot of plays off. People like that expect people who work for them to show a similar work ethic.
Click to expand...

Eh, that's not the impression I'm getting from his mania. It's more like: yes he's quite active, but is he being productively active?
 
Wrangor said:
Calling that article partisan infers I am scared? Sorry, I don't see it that way.

If you want a rounded view look it up and report back. I feel pretty good it will amount to more than simply being a racist.
Click to expand...

We've discussed Jeff Sessions a lot on here. What's your take, beyond accusing everybody that doesn't agree with you of being a partisan hack. A lot of the controversy around Sessions seems to involve the fact that his reputation doesn't exactly match his resume when it comes to his career as a legislator.
 
Seems to me he is well respected during his tenure in DC for a variety of sources. I have some liberal alabama friends that hate him but that is mainly for partisan reasons.

I don't like his stance on drugs but that is pretty much standard for republicans. I think he is qualified for the job. Asked on his experience and should probably be confirmed. I dont have a lot of intimate knowledge of his policy positions outside of immigration and drug, both of which he is very conservative in his views.

What about you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What's the difference between "partisan reasons" and general disagreement with his views?
 
PhDeac said:
What's the difference between "partisan reasons" and general disagreement with his views?
Click to expand...

The same difference in mitt romney disagreeing with you and Ted Cruz disagreeing with you.

Or perhaps a better example is John boehner or Eric cantor.

One is a disagreement based in dialogue and respect and the other is disagreement with the intent to shame and grab power from the target.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Deacsfan27 said:
Wonder where "not taking daily intelligent briefing reports" falls.
Click to expand...

Into the political bloviating category. The government is full of redundancy, and a daily intel briefing would appear to be unnecessary barring a change of circumstances. It's great to point to if there's an attack on American soil as the reason for the attack, but if he sat through 2 or 3 of these things that were all the same and decided they weren't necessary, well fuck, that's something we'd all like to do where we work, is it not?
 
Wrangor said:
Seems to me he is well respected during his tenure in DC for a variety of sources. I have some liberal alabama friends that hate him but that is mainly for partisan reasons.

I don't like his stance on drugs but that is pretty much standard for republicans. I think he is qualified for the job. Asked on his experience and should probably be confirmed. I dont have a lot of intimate knowledge of his policy positions outside of immigration and drug, both of which he is very conservative in his views.

What about you?
Click to expand...

I agree with you that he is qualified for the job. I am very much against his immigration and drug policy for obvious reasons, but I also think that his positions on the Voting Rights Act, VAWA, and civil rights more generally are quite concerning given the amount of power that he is about to receive.

Here is an op-ed by a law professor at UCI that moves beyond the 1986 hearings to point out some concerning areas of his resume that I think we should all, at the very least, consider:

As a senator, Sessions has had an abysmal record on civil rights. He was one of nine senators who voted against the bipartisan Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” of any prisoner of the United States. How could we entrust upholding the rule of law, the core responsibility of the attorney general, to someone who sees no problem with subjecting prisoners to “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment”? Sessions voted “yes” for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage, no on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes, and no against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing laws prohibiting race discrimination in voting, employment, housing and policing. Nothing in Sessions’ career offers hope that he would be other than a disaster in doing so.

The Justice Department, through its Environment and Natural Resources Division, plays a key role in enforcing federal environmental laws. Here, too, Sessions has a terrible record. He repeatedly has called into question the relationship between fossil fuels and climate change. In a speech on the floor of the Senate in 2014, he said, “I don’t know we know enough now to answer this question conclusively either way, but there’s been a lot of exaggeration, there’s been a lot of hype, and people are feeling the crunch already in their electric bills ... in our effort to stop storms that don’t seem to be going down, or to stop temperatures that don’t seem to be rising.” Sessions voted to amend the Clean Air Act to eliminate EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but the bill failed in the Senate.

Jeff Sessions as the enforcer of federal civil rights and environmental laws is truly an oxymoron. Senators can and should block his confirmation. This has happened previously. For example, in 1989, the Senate rejected the nomination of John Tower to secretary of Defense. In 1987, Ronald Reagan withdrew Robert Gates’ nomination to be CIA director amid bipartisan opposition because of Gates’ role in the Iran-Contra affair. In 2009, President Obama withdrew the nomination of former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle to be Health and Human Services Secretary after issues were raised about his unpaid taxes.
Click to expand...

Simply put, his reputation as a reformed legislator on civil rights issues doesn't match reality and that, to me, justifies some sort of hearing, similar to those cited at the end of the quotation above. This is the tip of the iceberg, however, and after a string of (rightfully) criticized AG's, I think we should be a bit more critical than chalking up any criticism to "partisan hackery."
 
"The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald Trump's Energy Department transition team for the names of people who have worked on climate change and the professional society memberships of lab workers."

"This feels like the first draft of an eventual political enemies list," a Department of Energy employee, who asked not to be identified because he feared a reprisal by the Trump transition team, had told Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-idUSKBN1421V0
 
WakeForestRanger said:
"The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald Trump's Energy Department transition team for the names of people who have worked on climate change and the professional society memberships of lab workers."

"This feels like the first draft of an eventual political enemies list," a Department of Energy employee, who asked not to be identified because he feared a reprisal by the Trump transition team, had told Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-idUSKBN1421V0
Click to expand...

#DrillBabyDrill
 
Demonwolverine said:
Eh, that's not the impression I'm getting from his mania. It's more like: yes he's quite active, but is he being productively active?
Click to expand...

How much more productive do you want him to be? Emperor of the world? Supreme leader of the galaxy?

Give em a little time, eh?
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Into the political bloviating category. The government is full of redundancy, and a daily intel briefing would appear to be unnecessary barring a change of circumstances. It's great to point to if there's an attack on American soil as the reason for the attack, but if he sat through 2 or 3 of these things that were all the same and decided they weren't necessary, well fuck, that's something we'd all like to do where we work, is it not?
Click to expand...

If I were president-elect I think I would want a daily briefing on people who intend to kill Americans and their allies. This isn't daily briefings that the shipping department still has 100 trucks and they are all running....
 
Last edited:
Strickland33 said:
I agree with you that he is qualified for the job. I am very much against his immigration and drug policy for obvious reasons, but I also think that his positions on the Voting Rights Act, VAWA, and civil rights more generally are quite concerning given the amount of power that he is about to receive.

Here is an op-ed by a law professor at UCI that moves beyond the 1986 hearings to point out some concerning areas of his resume that I think we should all, at the very least, consider:



Simply put, his reputation as a reformed legislator on civil rights issues doesn't match reality and that, to me, justifies some sort of hearing, similar to those cited at the end of the quotation above. This is the tip of the iceberg, however, and after a string of (rightfully) criticized AG's, I think we should be a bit more critical than chalking up any criticism to "partisan hackery."
Click to expand...

Good post. That is not hackery. The Rolling Stones article was. That was my original point. I have always appreciated your point of view even though it is often different than mine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TownieDeac said:
0 chance publishers will let that happen

there are permanent data repositories with redundant backup for this stuff for a reason
Click to expand...

0 percent chance that NASA and NOAA data could become unavailable or less available?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top