Pages

Friday, January 6, 2017

The Democrat's new strategy

Donald Trump wants to make American Great again. The Democrats apparently want to make American "sick" again? To say the Democrats need a remedial course in fundamental persuasion would be an understatement.

A Picture is worth a thousand words

The reality is that the bewildered Democrats were caught flat footed by the election of Donald Trump, and do not seem able to muster even a first strategic step in how to find their way back out of the political wilderness. Some are claiming they want to work with Trump on issues important to Democrats, while others suggest that they will dig in their heels and oppose everything as a matter of principle. They fully admit that they do not have the means to prevent Trump from confirming his cabinet, but they continue to suggest that they will fight hard to "stall" the nominees as long as they can (what point does that exactly make?). Schumer has even suggested that he may try to "stall" the replacement of Justice Scalia. Of course, since they are not the majority Party, a Trump nominee will get hearings and ultimately will get a vote. The Democrats only play would be to filibuster the nominee, something that would probably not go over nearly as well (politically or strategically) as they might think.

They seem (as they did in the election) convinced that Trump will eventually implode and that his own behavior will bring himself down and (by proxy) elevate their own political standing. They are likely reading the analysis of a confused liberal media who are finding hope behind every corner and nook. (Could Obamacare "save" the Democrats) The only consistency in their strategy seems to be a willingness to accept their own political neutering, as they lend no apparent plan to accomplish anything over the next couple of years (other than obstruct, delay, and wait for Trump to screw up and for the American public to wise up and see things their way).

I look for Trump to propose policies that will be popular for both Republican an Democratic constituencies. Then force red state Democrats facing tough elections to pick a side. Either try to help make America great again, or try to obstruct in an blatant political attempt to back their own out of touch Party elites.

28 comments:

opie said...

Maybe the CIA should disclose how they made these intercepts which may appease our esteemed host to the validity of russians fucking with our election.

" U.S. intercepts said to capture Russian officials congratulating themselves on Trump win"


Like GW models and science, its still just speculation. LOL

KD, Snow Closes Schools in South Again said...

The Democrats apparently want to make American "sick" again? "

Yep, that poster has but one message. America is sick.


US Economy missed job creation last month by 30,000 jobs, unemployment up again.

Progressives do you know why the unemployment number went up and how that is a good thing?

KD said...

Progressives what are the funding sources that pay for Obamacare?

The top 6 promises are on the floor broken by your team, not one Republican Vote for ObamaCare.


We will see many Democrat Votes for ObamaCareFIX.

caliphate4vr said...

Maybe the CIA should disclose how they made these intercepts which may appease our esteemed host to the validity of russians fucking with our election.

Fatty the rooskies didn't fuck with our election, only a private entity called the DNC.

Because Podesta is so inept he fell for a phishing scam a 14 year old could have seen through. It's possible even you would have been bright enough not to fall for it, that's debatable though

Indy Voter said...

I think it's Trump's party that wants to make America sick again - by repealing Obamacare without having a replacement.

opie said...

Fatty the rookies didn't fuck with our election, only a private entity called the DNC.

Did anyone call you a consummate asshole today???? If not, let me be the first. Like trump, all you have is opinion and the only idiot is you. You bought into the Iraq invasion with no intel, and now you choose to blame the hackee rather than the hacker. Good call Pauline, siding with felons, like yourself. LOL!!!

rrb said...

Either try to help make America great again, or try to obstruct in an blatant political attempt to back their own out of touch Party elites.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

their selections for house and senate leadership basically answers that question.

it's obstruction all the way with their 'tried and true' elite coastal asshats. and i thank them for that.

opie said...

Quoting Assange and his 14 year old comment again shows your complete inability to think for yourself, drunkard salesman. Maybe you should award Jullian with an award for being duped by the ruski's to be their foil, like you are to the insurance companies. Blame the hackers, not millions who are hacked yearly. LOL

caliphate4vr said...

You bought into the Iraq invasion with no intel, and now you choose to blame the hackee rather than the hacker.


Again fatty, the electoral process wasn't hacked as you claimed, that was another of your many lies.

A private entity, the DNC, was hacked because of their ineptitude

try to quit lying for once

caliphate4vr said...

Quoting Assange and his 14 year old

You're right using 'password' as your password is barely above toddler menatilty

LMAO

C.H. Truth said...

I think it's Trump's party that wants to make America sick again - by repealing Obamacare without having a replacement.

Trump's Party is not the one huddled around the sign... and there is really no logical argument that getting rid of a mandatory requirement to purchase insurance will get anyone sick.

Indy, it's not hard to figure out what they are "trying" to accomplish, but the blatant misuse of the visual display in this situation is hard to ignore. Much like the election, they simply miss the boat.

rrb said...

JON KARL, ABC: So when the Chinese hacked OPM in 2015, 21+ million current and former government employees and contractors had their personal data stolen by the Chinese. Why did the White House do nothing publicly in reaction to that hack? Which in some ways, was even more widespread than what we saw here from the Russians?

JOSH EARNEST: These are two cyber incidents that are malicious in nature but materially different.

KARL: 20 million people had their personal data taken... fingerprints, social security numbers, background checks. This was a far-reaching act--

EARNEST: I'm not downplaying the significance of it, I'm just saying that it is different than seeking to interfere int he conduct of a U.S. national election. I can't speak to the steps that have been taken by the United States in response to that Chinese malicious cyber activity--

KARL: But nothing was announced. There was not a single step announced by the White House. '

EARNEST: It is true that there was no public announcement about our response, but I can't speak to what response may have been initiated in private.

KARL: But no diplomats expelled, no compounds shut down, no sanctions imposed, correct?

You don't do that stuff secretly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/03/abcs_jon_karl_grills_josh_earnest_why_was_there_no_public_response_when_china_hacked_opm.html

rrb said...

Eight Facts on the “Russian Hacks”

https://sharylattkisson.com/eight-facts-on-the-russian-hacks/

rrb said...

Anonymous Indy Voter said...
I think it's Trump's party that wants to make America sick again - by repealing Obamacare without having a replacement.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

well, before the ACA, 80+% of america was quite satisfied with what they had for insurance.

so to repeal and do nothing returning the healthcare market to it's former status gets us back to a place where the vast majority can have back what they clearly enjoyed in the first place.

for anyone, democrat or otherwise, to insist that the GOP replace the ACA with a government-based alternative is nonsense. honest legislators should accurately define those who truly need help and figure out a way to amend medicare/medicaid to help them specifically without completely ruining it for those who are clearly satisfied with what they already have.



rrb said...



The election of Donald Trump has brought unified Republican government to Washington and overturned our understanding of how politics works. Or at least it should have done so. The Democrats seem not to understand how to deal with Trump and the massive change he is about to bring to the nation’s capital. During the general election they fell for the idea that Trump can be defeated by conventional means, spending hundreds of millions of dollars in negative television advertising and relying on political consultants beholden to whatever line Politico was selling on a given day. This strategy failed Trump’s Republican primary opponents, but Democrats figured that was simply because the GOP was filled with deplorables. It was a rationalization that would cost them.

Republicans control the House, the Senate, 34 governor’s mansions, and 4,100 seats in state legislatures. But Democrats act like they run Washington. Nancy Pelosi’s speech to the 115th House of Representatives was a long-winded recitation of the same liberal agenda that has brought her party to its current low. Give her points for consistency I guess. Chuck Schumer is just being delusional.

http://freebeacon.com/columns/send-head-clowns/

rrb said...


now here's one way to drain the swamp:


House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.

The Holman Rule, named after an Indiana congressman who devised it in 1876, empowers any member of Congress to propose amending an appropriations bill to single out a government employee or cut a specific program.

The use of the rule would not be simple; a majority of the House and the Senate would still have to approve any such amendment. At the same time, opponents and supporters agree that the work of 2.1 million civil servants, designed to be insulated from politics, is now vulnerable to the whims of elected officials.

The revival of the Holman Rule was the brainchild of Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), who is intent on increasing the powers of individual members of Congress to reassign workers as policy demands.

He favors a strategic application, likening it to a bullet from a sniper rifle rather than a shotgun. It’s unlikely — but not impossible — that members will “go crazy” and cut huge swaths of the workforce, he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-republicans-revive-obscure-rule-that-could-allow-them-to-slash-the-pay-of-individual-federal-workers-to-1/2017/01/04/4e80c990-d2b2-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?postshare=9111483655972852&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.c37ff7bb5aac



awesome.

KD, "It is OVER" Biden said...

Biden Made it Official.

Despite the best efforts after the election by Hillary/Obama and host of other out of touch losers.


Trump is the Next President, no IF and's or Butts.

rrb said...

Vice President Joe Biden on Friday shut down a Democratic challenge to the congressional certification.

"It is over," he said when the third challenge was lodged by a House Democrat, to a rousing cheer from Republicans.

Biden later gaveled down similar protests from Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. Jackson Lee stood four times to protest, but each time was shut down by Biden.

Parliamentary rules prohibit "debate in a joint session," Biden said at one point. "The objection cannot be entertained" without a senator's signature, he added.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biden-declares-it-is-over-as-he-declares-trump-the-winner/article/2611113#.WG_1Gt-X5ux.twitter

opie said...

Again fatty, the electoral process wasn't hacked

Idiot, show us all where I said that. Good one pauline, keep making stuff up, you do it so well. Just like a 6 year old. LOL!!!!

And you plagiarizing assange is priceless again showing you can't think for yourself. Being sophomoric is you only game. . Your childish comment is based on a felons word. Keep siding with an exile hiding in a london embassy and believing what he says. No wonder why you defend trump, you aren't smart enough to see through the BS. But you sure are a big, tough man!!

Roger Amick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger Amick said...

Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution

Key Judgments

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.

Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals.

Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.

Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.

We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.

Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.

We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.

Roger Amick said...

http://www.thecepblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ICA_2017_01.pdf

You want a 'smoking gun" it's not here, but the predominance of evidence is overwhelming. Most of the sources are PDF files, and I don't want to c/p to word and format it to fit, It wouldn't do any good anyway, the cognitive dissidence is over whelming. Holding two contrary thoughts, makes your comments illogical. Different thoughts contrary to each other are impossible to cure.

The deep distrust of any government efforts, leads you to discount everything that they produce. Skepticism is understandable. But total rejection because of total distrust of the government is ridiculous.

Commonsense said...

You do realize that the CIA amassed more evidence of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction than what was shown in their report on Russian hacking don't you?

You didn't find the evidence so compelling then..

rrb said...

but the predominance of evidence is overwhelming.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

no, the preponderance (that's the word you're looking for) of CLAIMS is overwhelming.

evidence?

uh, not so much.

but don't despair, rog. it looks like granny is toying with the idea of running for mayor of NYC. and considering the total mess comrade deblasio has made of things, she might have a good shot at unseating him.

maybe, even by, dare i say it...a "LANDSLIDE!!!11!

rrb said...

The deep distrust of any government efforts, leads you to discount everything that they produce.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

wrong again, o' ye of feeble mind.

it is the FAILURES, not the efforts that government produces that leads us to not discount, but abhor the machinations of government. and the soon to be previous administration has informed us well of government's ineptitude, most capable of producing very little but a myriad of unintended (at best) and disastrous (at worst) consequences.

opie said...

Blogger Commonsense said...
You do realize that the CIA amassed more evidence of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction than what was shown

You do have a link for that, especially for the time during the build up of the invasion.

Commonsense said...

A link show evidence where none exist?

Hardly. Idiot.

wphamilton said...

Blogger Commonsense said...
You do realize that the CIA amassed more evidence of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction than what was shown


I recall those claims made at the time, but it was later revealed to be untrue.