Summary
Trump’s transition team is reportedly mired in infighting at Mar-a-Lago, with factions clashing over control and strategy for his return to the White House.
The Washington Post detailed heated disputes, including shouting matches, name-calling, and physical altercations.
Three key factions have emerged: one led by Donald Trump Jr. and JD Vance, another by Trump ally Susie Wiles, and a third by Linda McMahon.
High-profile confrontations involve figures like Boris Epshteyn, Elon Musk, and Vance, highlighting tensions over Cabinet picks and leaks, further fracturing the team.
Brah, I hate this part, because you’re supposed to be able to dismiss me now because I don’t have every fucking detail planned out. Just what you’re asking of me is so absurd. Im not the leader of the revolution I am the guy ringing the alarm bell. There are certainly things I would do but you don’t really care about that. You’re just fishing for another argument that you don’t like that you can dismiss and “win the conversation.”
I didn’t ask for every detail. A general overall picture would be nice. I’m not “supposed to be able” to do anything. You’re making an argument that the DNC needs to act. And now you’re getting upset that you’re being asked what actions they are supposed to take.
That’s beyond “I’m just the ideas person here” territory.
I do think the DNC should act, they should do a number of things. Prove to me that you give a shit about ideas before I waste my time educating you.
How, beyond asking you three times now including this time, am I supposed to prove that to you?
Or is that another question you’re going to refuse to answer?
There is a concept in improv called “yes and.” When you are out on stage, or practicing, doing improv, rejecting someone’s idea can be jarring for the audience and the performers. For instance, as an improv preformer you go up and say, “here we are, on the moon.” Then another preformer comes up and says, “no no no, were at a mcdonalds.” The problem with the other performer saying, “were not on the moon we are in a McDonald’s” isn’t that McDonald’s is less funny; or that being at a McDonalds in more accurate. The problem is the negative feelings needlessly brought up just because the other performer had a different idea. Then, they decided that their idea was better, or good, based only on the fact that they thought of it.
The negative feelings are just part of it. Obviously, the audience might be a bit confused but it’s improv they can suspend disbelief for a second. The performer might be jarred because they had one idea that got shit canned publicly but it was just a random thought, they can move past it. The problem is when the other preform keeps doing it, right?
"OK we’re at McDonald’s, I’m going to order a coke "
“No, this McDonald’s serves pepsi.”
You get the point.
What “yes and” does is acknowledges someone’s personhood while giving you license to be just as influential. This is called collaboration.
So now, we have two performers, one says, “here we are on the moon” and the other says, “At the McDonalds you won’t shut up about.”
That’s it.
If you wanted to know my ideas for what’s next. This is it.
We collaborate. Until we are all really fucking good at it.
Your answer to my question on what their actions should be is to “collaborate.” That’s not a political action, it’s a way to achieve it. It says nothing about what they’re supposed to do in the face of democracy being over and America becoming a fascist dictatorship in less than two months.
You are not discussing this in good faith and you clearly don’t have an actual answer, so I’m done.
Lol, there it is.