Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 330K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Haha, Trump is such a child. Dimon simply said the rumors of his endorsing Trump a few weeks back were not accurate and that he wouldn’t be publicly endorsing any candidate. Trump is so butt-hurt he has to send a post out stating he’s NOT going to be part of his administration.

Hey Donnie, I didn’t endorse you OR vote for you. Are you going to announce that I can’t be part of your administration too?
 
RFK is, in my view, the nominee most likely to get pushback from the Senate. I could see them swallowing all the other appointments but drawing the line there.

We just went through a fucking pandemic. If they create another one because of lack of vaccination, they will lose their jobs permanently. I cannot imagine anything that would be worse for the GOP brand than ushering in a huge pandemic of childhood illnesses. Maybe I'm still being too optimistic. Maybe I cannot understand the depravity.

For what it's worth, I suspect RFK's impact would be fairly mild. I don't think there are any decisions committed to the Secretary's discretion, which means that everything would be subject to APA procedures -- meaning that the policies would have be supported by substantial evidence. Obviously there is no such evidence and any attempt to weaken vaccination would likely be struck in court basically immediately.

Whether SCOTUS would agree is of course always the open question, but I continue to think that SCOTUS has no interest in the anti-vaxx shit, which is a distraction from the real business of that majority. I don't think they will destroy HHS over vaccine paranoia. But who knows.
 
superrific said:
RFK is, in my view, the nominee most likely to get pushback from the Senate. I could see them swallowing all the other appointments but drawing the line there.

We just went through a fucking pandemic. If they create another one because of lack of vaccination, they will lose their jobs permanently. I cannot imagine anything that would be worse for the GOP brand than ushering in a huge pandemic of childhood illnesses. Maybe I'm still being too optimistic. Maybe I cannot understand the depravity.

For what it's worth, I suspect RFK's impact would be fairly mild. I don't think there are any decisions committed to the Secretary's discretion, which means that everything would be subject to APA procedures -- meaning that the policies would have be supported by substantial evidence. Obviously there is no such evidence and any attempt to weaken vaccination would likely be struck in court basically immediately.

Whether SCOTUS would agree is of course always the open question, but I continue to think that SCOTUS has no interest in the anti-vaxx shit, which is a distraction from the real business of that majority. I don't think they will destroy HHS over vaccine paranoia. But who knows.
Click to expand...
That would be the rational response, but it will not happen.
 
Howard Lutnick just experienced for the first time what it feels like to be castrated by Trump. Sorry, Howard! Hope you enjoyed your balls while you had them!
 
lawtig02 said:
That would be the rational response, but it will not happen.
Click to expand...
We'll see. Anyway, I think -- though am not sure -- that the APA will make it difficult for him to meddle too much about anything actually important. It's not the same as other agencies like SecDef or DOJ
 
superrific said:
RFK is, in my view, the nominee most likely to get pushback from the Senate. I could see them swallowing all the other appointments but drawing the line there.

We just went through a fucking pandemic. If they create another one because of lack of vaccination, they will lose their jobs permanently. I cannot imagine anything that would be worse for the GOP brand than ushering in a huge pandemic of childhood illnesses. Maybe I'm still being too optimistic. Maybe I cannot understand the depravity.

For what it's worth, I suspect RFK's impact would be fairly mild. I don't think there are any decisions committed to the Secretary's discretion, which means that everything would be subject to APA procedures -- meaning that the policies would have be supported by substantial evidence. Obviously there is no such evidence and any attempt to weaken vaccination would likely be struck in court basically immediately.

Whether SCOTUS would agree is of course always the open question, but I continue to think that SCOTUS has no interest in the anti-vaxx shit, which is a distraction from the real business of that majority. I don't think they will destroy HHS over vaccine paranoia. But who knows.
Click to expand...
You have to be awfully naive at this point to think that the American people would actually blame Republicans if they caused another pandemic. Half the country would blame China, Satan, Democrats, Fauci, gays, and the Jews before they would actually blame Republicans for something they did.

RFK is probably likely to have more of a problem with the influence Big Pharma and Big Food have in Congress than with Republican Senators actually being worried about anyone's health and welfare.
 
rodoheel said:
You have to be awfully naive at this point to think that the American people would actually blame Republicans if they caused another pandemic. Half the country would blame China, Satan, Democrats, Fauci, gays, and the Jews before they would actually blame Republicans for something they did.

RFK is probably likely to have more of a problem with the influence Big Pharma and Big Food have in Congress than with Republican Senators actually being worried about anyone's health and welfare.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But I think that stuff might not work this time. It's sort of hard to a) be in control when the biggest pandemic in 100 years hit; b) completely botch the response; c) blame China; and then d) create a new epidemic of disease. People might wake up.

Are they willing to sacrifice their material standard of living for Trump? Yes. Are they going to sacrifice their children's health? Remains to be seen, but I suspect not. That will be the line they draw. Maybe.
 
superrific said:
Maybe. But I think that stuff might not work this time. It's sort of hard to a) be in control when the biggest pandemic in 100 years hit; b) completely botch the response; c) blame China; and then d) create a new epidemic of disease. People might wake up.

Are they willing to sacrifice their material standard of living for Trump? Yes. Are they going to sacrifice their children's health? Remains to be seen, but I suspect not. That will be the line they draw. Maybe.
Click to expand...
You are making the assumption here that people locked in conservative media bubbles who entirely lack critical thinking skills have any chance of ever hearing, or independently reaching the conclusion, that Trump's admin is to blame for something happening. The question isn't whether they would sacrifice their children for Trump. The question is how they would ever figure out that Trump is the reason their children are dying.
 
rodoheel said:
You are making the assumption here that people locked in conservative media bubbles who entirely lack critical thinking skills have any chance of ever hearing, or independently reaching the conclusion, that Trump's admin is to blame for something happening. The question isn't whether they would sacrifice their children for Trump. The question is how they would ever figure out that Trump is the reason their children are dying.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But that's why I think this is different. Trump voters can be deceived about a lot of things. If the economy crashes, you can blame Kamala or Soros or whoever. But if there's suddenly a nationwide outbreak of measles, occurring shortly after Trump fucked with the vaccines, I don't think they will need any information to draw the appropriate conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top