Donald Trump Picks Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff - DRAINS THE SWAMP OF THE ESTABLISHMEMT - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51366449]Staffing Gingrich, Christie, Giuliani are really, really uninspiring picks that make it look like that whole movement of "change" to be an even bigger lie than Obamas movement of "change.[/QUOTE] Eh, Giuliani doesn't really bother me as AG. He's a skilled attorney, and already has experience as the associate AG. I don't like him personally, but he has the skills for the job [editline]13th November 2016[/editline] Ben "the pyramids were used to store grain" Carson as Secretary of Education, on the other hand...

[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51366481]like, you can argue about trump being a fascist but Bannon has actual fascist destructive ideals coupled with anti-semetism and white nationalist views. his social views are objectively nothing like Lenin's & Lenin was not a fascist but Bannon's interpretation of the destruction of the state cannot be clearer, and now he's senior advisor to the fuckin president?? this is really really really disconcerting. people should genuinely freaking out about this.[/QUOTE] He's obviously partly being provocative, but he is also genuinely repulsive and should scare people.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51366551]He's obviously partly being provocative, but he is also genuinely repulsive and should scare people.[/QUOTE]agreed regarding the provocation. i read your post in the le pen thread about ur-fascism in the context of trump and largely agreed but this pick scares me. his values in regards to minorities and white identity are innately provocative on their own but he has seemingly put in a lot of work to fulfil his ideals and it's worked so far. now he's in an actually powerful position with influence over the most powerful position on earth, and he should not be anywhere near that position. bad shit. i worry about all trumps choices so far just because they've purely been based on loyalty to trump, it's not good.

[QUOTE=rilez;51366310]Can a single Trump supporter on this forum defend the "anti-establishment" Trump for picking the head of the Republican establishment as his Chief of Staff, the highest ranking job in the White House? [editline]13th November 2016[/editline] Serious question, I really want to know if Trump supporters are OK with this choice[/QUOTE] Been talking to Trump supporters about it today - the defense is that he needs someone with experience and sway in the now Republican dominated House and Senate to get stuff passed. To me, that reads as making use of the establishment instead of breaking it down, but they think that it's the smart way to break things down over time. They think he's going to weather the existing corruption with the tools he currently has access to.

Steven Bannon sounds like the typical Machiavellian advisor that will do anything to achieve his goal. He sounds like a dangerous fella.

In another article: [QUOTE=New York Times]During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term. After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.[/QUOTE] Obama may be helping Trump? [QUOTE=New York Times]Bannon is going to be keeper of the image of Trump as a fighter against the status quo[/QUOTE] So fucking PR [QUOTE=New York Times]He also told CBS that he is rethinking his call to have a prosecutor investigate Hillary Clinton, saying of the Clintons that “I don’t want to hurt them” and “they’re good people.”[/QUOTE] OMFG He still likes the Clintons

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51366551]He's obviously partly being provocative, but he is also genuinely repulsive and should scare people.[/QUOTE] Why should he scare people? He's not literally going to systematically murder every human being on the planet and fill the oceans with bleach, that means any criticism of him is invalid. /s

[QUOTE=wauterboi;51366846]Been talking to Trump supporters about it today - the defense is that he needs someone with experience and sway in the now Republican dominated House and Senate to get stuff passed. To me, that reads as making use of the establishment instead of breaking it down, but they think that it's the smart way to break things down over time. They think he's going to weather the existing corruption with the tools he currently has access to.[/QUOTE] That sounds like the same excuse you'd hear for anyone working with the establishment.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;51366995]That sounds like the same excuse you'd hear for anyone working with the establishment.[/QUOTE] Yeah, pretty much. I called bullshit in the chatroom. If he were to round up some of the lesser-known Republicans and sprinkled on some of his business colleagues then I would give him some lee-way, but some of these people are so knee-deep in politics with a notoriety you cannot ignore. And I'm saying that as someone who wants the guy to break down the establishment.

[QUOTE=rilez;51366380]This isn't a real "job" in the White House so far as I'm aware. My guess is he'll just continue to advise Trump the same way he did in the campaign The Chief of Staff has actual responsibilities. They select and manage the rest of the White House staff. They control who talks to the President. They advise the President in the Situation Room.[/QUOTE] While the Chief of Staff has actual responsibilities, how much weight the man in that office has versus the amount of weight this "Chief Strategist" man has in terms of influence on Trump is completely up to Trump. He could put Priebus in as CoS and ignore him his entire term despite the responsibilities he has.

his 60 minutes defence was absolutely classic apparently he filled his cabinet with lobbyists and gop politicians because he wants to drain the swamp but he literally can only hire these people because the swamp is so full there is absolutely nobody in america who is qualified who is not a lobbyist or congressman. But they know his message and they're going to drain the swamp!! could not make this shit up

[QUOTE=killerteacup;51367615]his 60 minutes defence was absolutely classic apparently he filled his cabinet with lobbyists and gop politicians because he wants to drain the swamp but he literally can only hire these people because the swamp is so full there is absolutely nobody in america who is qualified who is not a lobbyist or congressman. But they know his message and they're going to drain the swamp!! could not make this shit up[/QUOTE] to paraphrase "I am not a crook, I just act like one."

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51366984]In another article: Obama may be helping Trump? So fucking PR OMFG He still likes the Clintons[/QUOTE] Honestly, Obama spending 2 months with Trump is probably one of the better ways he could spend his time. He could not only show him the ropes, but get him on-board with some of the issues once he sees more of the guts of the country.

You've been played, Trumpkins. Like a damn fiddle.

[QUOTE=rilez;51366310]Can a single Trump supporter on this forum defend the "anti-establishment" Trump for picking the head of the Republican establishment as his Chief of Staff, the highest ranking job in the White House? [editline]13th November 2016[/editline] Serious question, I really want to know if Trump supporters are OK with this choice[/QUOTE] It because he is a chaotic individual. I damn well know he wont do what he says. The thing is, he is so unpredictable that its forcing things to change. Its like throwing a hand grenade down a toilet to fix a plugged drain.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51373470]It because he is a chaotic individual. I damn well know he wont do what he says. The thing is, he is so unpredictable that its forcing things to change. Its like throwing a hand grenade down a toilet to fix a plugged drain.[/QUOTE] And then you have shit everywhere and no toilet. Does Trump really force change? Because it rather seems that after initial shock, GOP is returning to business as usual with several of its old guard being promised positions. Trump has yet to do anything as a sitting president, so his impact is still to be seen. If anything, his legacy would likely be that GOP pushes more colorful candidates. The triple victory that was in part driven by Trump does not seem like a sign of a dying party as some predicted before elections.

[QUOTE]And then you have shit everywhere and no toilet. [/QUOTE] Like I said before, Trump is the black pill option. Its a nihilistic, desperate, last ditch hope to elect someone who will burn shit down in order to force change. If it doesnt get fixed while it burns down, then it means it wasnt worth having to begin with. To me its a sign of how fucked up things are. If there is a demograph of people who believe there is no hope and the only way to fix things is elect people who can break things, is not a good sign. [QUOTE]The triple victory that was in part driven by Trump does not seem like a sign of a dying party as some predicted before elections.[/QUOTE] Didnt say it was a sign of a dying party. I said it was a last ditch hope. I am assuming you want the gop to die. Personally I think either both parties need to be reformed or destroyed to make progress. At least with Trump, the talk of reforming the DNC is underway. Which is good. The question remains what he will do with the GOP. looks like Trump is banging heads with the Republicans and is splitting it to some degree.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51373829]Like I said before, Trump is the black pill option. Its a nihilistic, desperate, last ditch hope to elect someone who will burn shit down in order to force change. If it doesnt get fixed while it burns down, then it means it wasnt worth having to begin with. To me its a sign of how fucked up things are. If there is a demograph of people who believe there is no hope and the only way to fix things is elect people who can break things, is not a good sign. Didnt say it was a sign of a dying party. I said it was a last ditch hope. I am assuming you want the gop to die. Personally I think either both parties need to be reformed or destroyed to make progress. At least with Trump, the talk of reforming the DNC is underway. Which is good. The question remains what he will do with the GOP. looks like Trump is banging heads with the Republicans and is splitting it to some degree.[/QUOTE] What exactly is it that you think is so terrible that you need to burn everything to the ground and smash stuff up in the vain hope of 'progress'

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51373829]Like I said before, Trump is the black pill option. Its a nihilistic, desperate, last ditch hope to elect someone who will burn shit down in order to force change. If it doesnt get fixed while it burns down, then it means it wasnt worth having to begin with. To me its a sign of how fucked up things are. If there is a demograph of people who believe there is no hope and the only way to fix things is elect people who can break things, is not a good sign. [/quote] More than anything, it's a sign of people buying the fearful rhetoric, assuming things are worse than they actually are, forgoing use of their more constructive instincts and pushing the panic button. US is nowhere near the point that burning it all down is the best option; Syria is and Venezuela is approaching that. But you're just being an alarmist. [QUOTE=Guriosity;51373829] Didnt say it was a sign of a dying party. I said it was a last ditch hope. I am assuming you want the gop to die. Personally I think either both parties need to be reformed or destroyed to make progress. At least with Trump, the talk of reforming the DNC is underway. Which is good. The question remains what he will do with the GOP. looks like Trump is banging heads with the Republicans and is splitting it to some degree.[/QUOTE] Like I said, [I]some predicted[/I]. I have no wish for GOP to die, so stop assuming that. On the contrary I'm saying that after some struggle the GOP seems quite fit and capable of pulling voters in all elections that matter. It does not seem to need and most likely won't go through a major reform. So yeah, things aren't that bad and they likely aren't going to change that much. With all the vacillating Trump does, his actions might amount to nothing. I strongly disagree that he is [I]bound[/I] to change something. Trump does not seem to be interested in running the GOP itself and is unlikely to directly affect any change.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51373865]What exactly is it that you think is so terrible that you need to burn everything to the ground and smash stuff up in the vain hope of 'progress'[/QUOTE] Ask the voters. Alot here talk about so much about empathy and compassion but prove over and over again they know no one outside their echo chamber. Seek them out and ask them whats up and HELP THEM. Not that big of a concept. Personally, Im just one dude. I don't know what is on the mind of the millions who got Trump elected.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51373900]Ask the voters. Alot here talk about so much about empathy and compassion but prove over and over again they know no one outside their echo chamber. Seek them out and ask them whats up and HELP THEM. Not that big of a concept. Personally, Im just one dude. I don't know what is on the mind of the millions who got Trump elected.[/QUOTE] I don't talk about empathy and compassion. I'm an evil establishment conservative who thinks that 'ordinary people' are wrong at least as much as they are right. 'A lot of people think stuff is wrong' isn't an argument. What is so wrong that we need to smash everything up?

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51373924]I don't talk about empathy and compassion. I'm an evil establishment conservative who thinks that 'ordinary people' are wrong at least as much as they are right. 'A lot of people think stuff is wrong' isn't an argument. What is so wrong that we need to smash everything up?[/QUOTE] That the best answer I can come up with. Thats for people who are being honest with themselves and who didnt buy into Trump's rhetoric. Its also the answer for those who are not bigoted. For those who are not bigoted and honest why they voted for Trump, I am going to assume its because there is a large demography that swings and has no one to represent them. So no one is listening to them, so I guess its an attempt to grab attention to get their needs met. To fix this, they need a new ideal which represents them and their values 100 percent. They need an identity that isnt left nor right. They need something outside this dichotomy to represent them. For those who did buy into the rhetoric: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/12/west-virginia-donald-trump-supporters-mcdowell-county-poverty-video[/url]

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51373942]For those who are not bigoted and honest why they voted for Trump, I am going to assume its because there is a large demography that swings and has no one to represent them. So no one is listening to them, so I guess its an attempt to grab attention to get their needs met. To fix this, they need a new ideal which represents them and their values 100 percent. They need an identity that isnt left nor right. They need something outside this dichotomy to represent them. [/QUOTE] Going by that what they really need is a multi-party system.

[QUOTE=Vlevs;51373954]Going by that what they really need is a multi-party system.[/QUOTE] That is not going happen.. One the people who can change it are not going to because they benefit from the status quo.