Master Index of Archived Threads


The Presidential Cabinet

Edgy MD Nov 23 2016 03:28 PM

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has apparently been nominated to be the US ambassador to the United Nations — a position considered cabinet-level if not actually a cabinet position. In fact, I would think you should appoint a secretary of state first, as this is sort of like hiring a manager before you have a GM. Governor Haley vocally disavowed Trump during the campaign (although begrudged, after he was nominated, that she would vote for him). And then there's this: [tweet:12rxa6to]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/704751393991737345[/tweet:12rxa6to]

Frayed Knot Nov 23 2016 03:34 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I think I'd much rather be a Governor than the U.N. ambassador - even before considering the whole prospect of being independent versus working under Trump.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 23 2016 03:49 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Yeah, me too. Although maybe she's thinking that international experience will bolster her eventual presidential resume.

TransMonk Nov 23 2016 03:56 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I think this was just Trump getting Haley out of the way in SC. This move will allow South Carolina's Lt. Governor Henry McMaster (more pro-Trump than Haley) to become Governor. Haley's approval rating had been falling over the past year in South Carolina.

metsmarathon Nov 23 2016 07:19 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

i'm a wee bit concerned over his choice for SecDef, mostly for blurring the lines between civilian and military oversight. but, hey, it's not like i would expect him or his party to uphold much of anything the founding fathers believed in... note, too, that i haven't had the chance yet to look into his record or rhetoric, and reserve the right to be more concerned. but surely there's a highly regarded, high-ranking civilian who would be well suited to the position, no? i mean, not that i would expect the cheeto in chief to find one...

metsmarathon Nov 23 2016 08:30 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

oh good, a secretary of education who basically favors defunding public education. yes, i freely admit that i may be simplisticly reading into this, but please, tell me how this isn't going to be the case. and how this will benefit those who actually cast their votes for the head cheeto?

Mets Guy in Michigan Nov 23 2016 09:10 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:14 AM

avi

Lefty Specialist Nov 23 2016 09:30 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Funding private schools with public money is wrong. And I guess public schools will have to sell Amway products at fundraisers for the music department now. Coulda been worse, could have been Michelle Rhee, who cooked the books in DC to make charter school numbers look better, so there's that. But hey! Ben Carson to run HUD! Or preside over its dismantling, more likely. Hope he can stay awake.

Nymr83 Nov 24 2016 03:39 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Giving parents who can't otherwise afford it the CHOICE to send their kids to better schools and get out of a failing public system is a good thing. I was encouraged by this choice and nice to hear the first hand opinion from MGiM. The only people against school choice are the people who put the needs of public teachers unions ahead of the needs of students - namely leftist politicians.

Lefty Specialist Nov 24 2016 04:43 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I'm not against private schools. Just using tax money that should be used for the public schools going to a private school. And I've known a few teachers who have worked in charters that jumped to the public school system first chance they got, because they get treated like dirt at charters. Charter advocates would love to turn the whole system into a for-profit enterprise. People like Eva Moskowitz in New York think that schools should make a profit first and if the kids get an education, fine. They like that they're unaccountable, and yes, no unions.

Mets Guy in Michigan Nov 24 2016 04:56 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:15 AM

avi

Edgy MD Nov 24 2016 04:59 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I think the notion that charter schools are bad because teachers you've known have left them is a non-starter. At one level it's anecdotal. At another level, it demonstrates that freedom of movement/choice that is open to teachers isn't open to families and students. If you don't support the idea of vouchers, or charters, you don't. What benefits people receive from government and how they receive them is a discussion we all have a part in. But I don't think it's accurate to say it's giving money to private schools. Or funding private schools with public money. It's putting the purchasing power in the hands of families, who make their choice freely. I don't think it's any more accurate to say that allowing people to spend their SNAP allowances at supermarkets is funding private supermarket chains with public money, or allowing people to use medicaid at a public hospital is funding private hospitals with public money. It's funding people. There are reasons to oppose school voucher programs, or charter programs, or school choice initiatives that may include a combination of the two, but neither of those reasons are going to convince me.

Lefty Specialist Nov 24 2016 05:09 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Neither can public schools. There are some amazing ones, and some bad ones. Charters also get to cherry-pick their students; try getting a special-needs kid into a charter school, for instance. And the words 'for-profit' should never be attached to any school in any context. Well, I don't like removing tax dollars from public schools to give money for vouchers. My kid is finished with high school, should I stop paying property taxes so that I can decide for myself where the money should go? Of course not. It's a public good. And when money is removed from that pool it affects the public schools.

Lefty Specialist Nov 24 2016 05:24 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I've covered charter schools in Michigan since they started in 1996. There are some amazing charter schools -- some of the best schools in the state, according to Newsweek and US News and World Reports. There are some horrible ones, and many of them are soon closed. (I actually won some reporting awards for stories about the bad ones.) Technically none of the charters in Michigan are for-profit, though many of the school boards hire for-profit management companies to run the schools. And there are a bunch that are charted by school districts themselves and have unionized teachers. Charters can't be painted with the same brush. The Detroit Free Press would like to have a word. http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/m ... /77155074/ And a record number of charter schools run by for-profit companies that rake in taxpayer money and refuse to detail how they spend it, saying they’re private and not subject to disclosure laws. Michigan leads the nation in schools run by for-profits.

Mets Guy in Michigan Nov 24 2016 05:33 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:16 AM

avi

Lefty Specialist Nov 24 2016 06:57 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I understand every school district has to buy toilet paper. But the phrase 'run by for-profit companies' means 'run by' not 'they do the books' or 'we buy things from an outside supplier'. And one billion dollars is a lot of money. I'm sure you'll dispute the 'lack of supervision' part.

Edgy MD Nov 24 2016 01:19 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I tend to think education succeeds and fails based on local policy. So this isn't the appointment that I think is going to make or break the country. They could zero out No Child Left Behind and redistribute federal dollars differently, but that's not what's on the table here. And it's mandate and funding have mostly been turned over to the Every Child Succeeds Act. I think it's important to note that School Choice, School Vouchers, Charter Schools, and For-Profit Schools are related but different issues.

Lefty Specialist Nov 24 2016 01:59 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Sorry for derailing the train of thought here, but it's very personal. Now back to hating on Trump's cabinet, which is already in progress...... Ben Carson? Really? Of course, this buys him room for another 10 or so white guys. He can just say, "Look at my African-American over there!"

MFS62 Nov 24 2016 03:53 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

My wife heard an interview in which Ben Carson said he's qualified to run HUD because he 'Lived in the city". That's like Sarah Palin knowing about foreign policy because she could "see Russia from her back porch". Back to the schools issue (I'm late to this thread) for a moment. Didn't the voucher issue first arise because religious conservatives wanted to use them to send their children to religious/parochial schools? And in some areas, parents wanted to use them to send their kids to segregated private schools? To me, voucher is a code word for something that spits in the face of inclusion and equality. We now return this thread to the topic of how unfit Carson is for any position of authority. Later

Chad Ochoseis Nov 28 2016 03:57 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Given that a key issue in the elections was confidentiality and adequate protection of classified data, it makes sense that David Petraeus would be under consideration for Secretary of State.

seawolf17 Nov 28 2016 05:11 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

It's like DJT is literally trying to find the least qualified person he can find for each position. It's stunning.

Lefty Specialist Nov 28 2016 06:35 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Well, Rudy would be the least qualified for SOS, so let's see if he goes there.

Ceetar Nov 28 2016 07:46 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

[youtube:2i259e9v]l_htSPGAY7I[/youtube:2i259e9v]

Edgy MD Nov 28 2016 08:07 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

MFS62 wrote: Didn't the voucher issue first arise because religious conservatives wanted to use them to send their children to religious/parochial schools? And in some areas, parents wanted to use them to send their kids to segregated private schools? No. It first arose in Northern New England in the 19th Century when towns that didn't operate private schools offered children vouchers to attend school in other towns or attend private or parochial schools. The modern movement began with Milton Friedman in the 1950s, not to facilitate white flight or segregation, but to give families choices and to allegedly unleash the power of the marketplace on schools, thus using the engine of competition to improve quality and cost effectiveness. That was and is the idea. There's certainly an argument that these programs fail to do that, but to smear advocates with a broad brush charge of racism isn't particularly fair, as the majority of targeted beneficiaries in currently proposed programs are families of color in inner city schools.

Lefty Specialist Nov 28 2016 08:25 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Part of the problem is that a significant portion of the population think that John Oliver/Trevor Noah/Steven Colbert/Bill Maher/Seth Meyers/Jimmy Kimmel/SNL and others are laughing at them. They're elitist and what they say therefore carries no weight. John Oliver is really good at dissecting this stuff. But the steel worker in Ohio never gets past the British accent (if he even has HBO). What's amazing is that Donald Trump, a gold-plated con man, DOES carry the weight. Part of it is that he knows what they fear and he plays to it relentlessly. But another part of it is that he speaks like a truck driver from Queens. (No offense to truck drivers, my dad was one for 31 years) He wallows in it. He may be the ultimate elitist, but he doesn't sound like one. The crowds loved his political incorrectness, along with the implied racism and misogyny. It's why they love Fox News, too. Now, none of this is good for democracy. An informed electorate is supposed to be the ideal. But misinformed seems to be winning the day. And we're looking at 4 years at least of stunning misinformation.

Edgy MD Nov 28 2016 11:24 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Lefty Specialist wrote: Part of the problem is that a significant portion of the population think that John Oliver/Trevor Noah/Steven Colbert/Bill Maher/Seth Meyers/Jimmy Kimmel/SNL and others are laughing at them. In many cases they are. The day we decided that we'd adopt comics as our public intellectuals was an unfortunate day.

TransMonk Nov 28 2016 11:47 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Lefty Specialist wrote: And we're looking at 4 years at least of stunning misinformation. It'll only be 4 years if we are lucky. I pray it's not more than 8.

Ceetar Nov 28 2016 11:56 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Edgy MD wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Part of the problem is that a significant portion of the population think that John Oliver/Trevor Noah/Steven Colbert/Bill Maher/Seth Meyers/Jimmy Kimmel/SNL and others are laughing at them. In many cases they are. The day we decided that we'd adopt comics as our public intellectuals was an unfortunate day. when they started being better intellectuals than the press maybe, though I'm not sure I'd describe it as unfortunate.

Edgy MD Nov 29 2016 12:19 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I would disagree with that tremendously. Bill Maher is as much of a con man as Donald Trump. And "public intellectuals" does not equal "the press."

Ceetar Nov 29 2016 11:51 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Edgy MD wrote: I would disagree with that tremendously. Bill Maher is as much of a con man as Donald Trump. And "public intellectuals" does not equal "the press." You didn't mention Maher. If you're not objecting to the idea of the comics being informants to the populace, instead of the press, then what? That people getting a laugh about current issues somehow is unfortunate?

Benjamin Grimm Nov 29 2016 12:23 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Edgy MD wrote: Bill Maher is as much of a con man as Donald Trump. Really? Wow! Do you care to elaborate on that?

Edgy MD Nov 29 2016 12:34 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Yeah, he says all sorts of things that are patently untrue (sometimes obviously so) and abuses people for not siding with him. He brags about how stupid people are and then exploits them. He's an insufferable jerk and a bully who people celebrate because they think he's a bully on their side. But the evidence that he really is is specious. There are rich bullies and there are big bullies, but there are also fast-talking bullies, and they're still bullies. And like Trump, this jerkweek public persona has gotten him fabulously successful after he failed at his first act. Bill Maher is as much of a con man as Donald Trump. I don't think there's anything wow about it. The idea of him as a public intellectual is what should get a wow. He's awful. The idea that he's a champion of a different faction (the libertarian left, I guess) doesn't change that.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 29 2016 12:49 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I'm starting to get the impression that you're not a fan of Bill Maher. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say he says things that are patently untrue, but I'll make a guess that it's his frequent criticism of the Catholic Church. I agree that he's probably personally unlikable, but I do enjoy his show and watch it faithfully. (I don't think I've missed an episode since I first started watching in 2005.) I don't see him as a con man, but we can agree to disagree. I'm not interested in launching a lengthy defense of Bill Maher. To the larger point, I don't have any problem at all with comedians commentating on the news. I know that there are some people whose only source of news is late-night comedy, and that's not a good thing. But I appreciate their voices being part of the mix. And for me, that would include Bill Maher, John Oliver, and Samantha Bee.

Edgy MD Nov 29 2016 01:22 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say he says things that are patently untrue, but I'll make a guess that it's his frequent criticism of the Catholic Church. He criticizes every religion. More particularly, he attacks people's right to practice. The only religious liberty he's interested in his own. Just like his poo-pooing of gay rights. He's happy to use these issues to bait the people he opposes, but he's more concerned with rights that effect him directly. For a guy who positions himself on the left, he has no sense of solidarity. It would hardly be very sporting or objective of me to take exception only because he's criticizing my lot. If he thinks Catholicism or any other religion is bullshit, that's fine. A lot of people do. The answer to that absolutely isn't more bullshit. And I know comparative religion and I've watched his tirades. And that's what he brings to bear. Complete fabricated bullshit, with no more credibility than a tweet crying, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." There's an honorable way to make arguments for atheism, just like there's an honorable way to be a public intellectual, and that's not it. He's a failed entertainer that has succeeded spectacularly as a public con. And the con must be on us. Because every last one of these guys was against Donald Trump—every late night host, every comic with an opinion show—and he won anywutz.

Lefty Specialist Nov 29 2016 01:29 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Not a fan of Bill Maher either. Occasionally he makes perfect sense and good points. Other times (anti-Muslim jihad, anti-vaccine BS and other things) you just want to smack him. I'm an atheist myself, but he goes way overboard in his mocking of religion. And he's entirely too smug all the time. His only redeeming feature is that he owns enough of the Mets to irritate Jeff Wilpon. Also not a fan of Tom Price, Trump's pick to Dismantle Obamacare, ahem, 'run' the Department of Health and Human Services. Totally unqualified (even though he's a doctor, he has no executive experience), but he's an ideologue who wants to kill Medicare and take away insurance from 20+ million people, so he'll fit right in with the other cartoon supervillians.

Ceetar Nov 29 2016 02:00 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Benjamin Grimm wrote: To the larger point, I don't have any problem at all with comedians commentating on the news. I know that there are some people whose only source of news is late-night comedy, and that's not a good thing. But I appreciate their voices being part of the mix. And for me, that would include Bill Maher, John Oliver, and Samantha Bee. The thing is, these people aren't watching comedians in lieu of the 'news'. (news as in the "10 oclock news" which is, and probably always was, just another television program.) It's one bias over another, one narrative over another. Sure, that happens to be 'comedy' but there are still current events in that. And maybe this was more true in 2004, but nowadays I'm willing to bet many more people who watch mostly comedy news shows are also getting news from other sources than those that watch one of the network news shows. Or read the newspapers. Because one of the reason newspapers are failing is not because no one cares about news anymore, it's because the myth that news means unbiased fact has been exposed.

Mets Guy in Michigan Nov 29 2016 02:08 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:17 AM

avi

Mets Guy in Michigan Nov 29 2016 02:11 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:17 AM

avi

Edgy MD Nov 29 2016 02:52 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I wouldn't go to the Comedy Channel for anything I'd take seriously. And it scares me that people go to the Daily Show and think of it as a real news source and not a parody. But obviously they do. These folks have positioned themselves as our public philosophers and claim to deal in fact and folks have a lot of trust placed in them. Jon Stewart was right to call Jim Cramer to account for giving people lousy investment advice and then hiding behind well-I'm-an-entertainer-and-this-is-my-shtick. But Stewart and his ilk need to be held to the same standard (which I think Stewart has grudgingly come to understand, at some level). Maher is influencing people to not vaccinate their children. And anybody disturbed by how Donald Trump's treatment of women trickles down in the culture had better rewind to see how Bill Maher treats women he disagrees with. And no, I don't think he's a good comic. Except in the sense that people laugh at bullies when they bully someone else, happy that he's singled somebody else out but left you in the circle of protection. For now. Broadcasting is a great pulpit. Perhaps the greatest ever. If you want to criticize religion and religious people, have at it. But there's a new priesthood and they deserve censure as well when they are similarly leading people astray. And now we've got a Buzzword Bingo TV personality as a president-elect, and he didn't even go through running a union and governing a state first, like Ronald Reagan did. A Face in the Crowd. As prophetic a film as was ever made.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 29 2016 02:58 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I don't think Bill Maher treats women he disagrees with any differently than men he disagrees with. He may be crude, but I don't think he's a misogynist in any way. And I don't believe he ever said people shouldn't vaccinate their children. He favors some vaccines, and doesn't buy into that whole autism thing. However, he is anti-flu shot, which I disagree with.

Vic Sage Nov 29 2016 03:49 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

TV comedians have emerged with more cultural cache (if not necessarily influence) in the sphere of political news because journalism has completely failed to hold anybody to account for the things they say and do. The news media has confused "objectivity" with "neutrality", thinking they have to give the same weight to accusations that they give to facts. Their mandate isn't to report facts neutrally, it's to uncover the truth so the public is educated enough to govern itself. That comedians have filled the vacuum left by the failure of the Fourth Estate is our culture attempting to fix itself. Because whatever we want to say about Stewart etal, their comedy (most comedy, actually) is about telling truth to power. Because somebody has to. Only the court jester gets to insult the king without being hung. As for Maher, i agree that he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and his smugness is often irritating. I also don't get much out of his panels except biased bile, one way or the other, so i can only watch occasionally. And he has some annoying pet obsessions (he hates fat people, loves marijuana, is dismissive of women, and his righteous suspicion of Big Pharma and the food industries has metastasized into... something), but he is also the only place you can get to see some interesting people whose views don't often get in front of an audience. He's been taking about climate change for longer than most, and holds all religions to account for the damage their magical thinking has done in the world. And he's NOT anti-vaccine. He hasn't (to my knowledge) been one of those people telling parents not to vaccinate their children based on either an unfounded fear of autism or on general libertarian grounds. He's just suspicious of the drug industry generally, and knows a lot of studies get funded by them to support their business model (define a disease, then sell a drug to cure it). And whether you agree with him or not on any particular issue (and i'm about 75/25 with him), and whether you like his humor (I often do) or object to his persona (I often do), I never EVER get the sense his views are a "con". He's intolerant, not insincere. He's not saying stuff for ratings. He got fired off of ABC for saying stuff he believed, he gave Obama $1million bucks for his campaign, he bought a share of the Mets... he puts his money where his mouth is. These are not the acts of a hypocrite. He may be wrong about some things, but i've never gotten the impression he's lying about them, unlike our president-elect.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 29 2016 04:00 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I agree with that last paragraph. The idea of him as a con man doesn't resonate with me at all.

Edgy MD Nov 29 2016 04:13 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

You really think he hasn't lied about anything? Because, like Trump, just because he so smug that he's convinced his lies are true, doesn't mean they're not lies—like they're mistakes or something. I've made clear this isn't about what I agree and don't agree with him (or anybody) about. So I don't need to be told "whether you agree with with him or not."

Fman99 Nov 29 2016 04:55 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I find Jon Stewart humorous but all of the rest of them seem like ten cent knock offs. I've tried watching all of them (Bee, Noah, Oliver, etc.) during this election cycle and none of them struck me as being particularly funny.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 29 2016 07:21 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 29 2016 07:58 PM

Edgy MD wrote: He criticizes every religion. More particularly, he attacks people's right to practice. I don't think Maher attacks people's right to practice their religion. Maher's beef is with religion itself, not with the right to practice it. Maher, as you would know even if you've only watched a few episodes, hates religion. He's not the only one. And like minded viewers who loathe and despise religion, who think it's the biggest drag, the biggest ball and chain on humanity that there ever was and ever will be (like, guess who?) love him for telling it like it is. Maher won't please everyone, but that's not a reasonable criticism. There's an audience for Maher, just like there's an audience for that priest who preaches all day long on that religious cable channel. And what lies has Maher told?

Mets Guy in Michigan Nov 29 2016 07:34 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Maher, as you would know even if you've only watched a few episodes, hates religion. You are assuming that he actually believes this. I think I counted 10 writers and writers assistants on the Real Time cast and crew page on the HBO site. He's probably as much in character as Colbert was on the Colbert Report. He makes his money being edgy (but not Edgy) and appealing to a certain demographic. You can't take these guys seriously. They are entertainers.

themetfairy Nov 29 2016 07:34 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

What's more, why are we holding a comedian to the same standards as we would an elected official? I don't think that Maher lies, but even if he did - so what? He has no fiduciary duty to any of us. That said, you can disagree with his views - that's a separate issue. But I haven't seen anything to suggest that he's being disingenuous.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 29 2016 07:52 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Maher, as you would know even if you've only watched a few episodes, hates religion. You are assuming that he actually believes this. I think I counted 10 writers and writers assistants on the Real Time cast and crew page on the HBO site. He's probably as much in character as Colbert was on the Colbert Report. He makes his money being edgy (but not Edgy) and appealing to a certain demographic. You can't take these guys seriously. They are entertainers. Oh, he's not playing a character like Colbert was. I have no doubt at all that he's a staunch atheist.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 29 2016 08:20 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Maher, as you would know even if you've only watched a few episodes, hates religion. You are assuming that he actually believes this. I think I counted 10 writers and writers assistants on the Real Time cast and crew page on the HBO site. He's probably as much in character as Colbert was on the Colbert Report. He makes his money being edgy (but not Edgy) and appealing to a certain demographic. You can't take these guys seriously. They are entertainers. I'm about as convinced of Maher's atheism as one could possibly be, based on not only Maher's show, but countless interviews, write-ups and comments attributed to Maher over the years, decades really. But here's something to think about: What if Maher's atheistic stance really is an act? So what? Would anything change if Maher's show was a cartoon where the animated guests were the same people that actually appear on the show and Maher himself was all the same but a fictional character?

Vic Sage Nov 29 2016 08:49 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Edgy MD wrote: You really think he hasn't lied about anything? Because, like Trump, just because he so smug that he's convinced his lies are true, doesn't mean they're not lies—like they're mistakes or something. I've made clear this isn't about what I agree and don't agree with him (or anybody) about. So I don't need to be told "whether you agree with with him or not." When i said "whether you agree or not", I didn't mean you specifically, i meant a generalized "y'all" (or whether "one" agrees or not). My apologies for the confusion. As to your question, yes i really think Maher has not lied. About anything? well, most humans lie about SOME things, but i don't have any reason to think he's lied about any specific position he's advocated on his show. Unlike Trump, there isn't an insane amount (or any) evidence (like reportage, transcripts, video and audio tapes, and witnesses who've already sworn under oath) that Maher said or did something that he then denied saying or doing. In fact, there is literally NO evidence of it... at least no evidence of which i'm aware. If you know of some, just direct me to it. Until then, you're just making entirely baseless accusations, like Trump did about the 2 million illegal voters.

Edgy MD Nov 30 2016 03:46 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I'm certainly not saying he's lying about being an atheist.

themetfairy Nov 30 2016 01:46 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

So what are you saying he's lying about?

Edgy MD Nov 30 2016 02:33 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

The information he brings to bear on such subjects. His claims of comparative religious history is just plain farcical. Religulous was just plain nuts. The idea that he got to make fun of unsophisticated, indifferently educated believers was meant to make him, and his supporters, seem enlightened in contrast. But any fair examination of the facts behind his argument is just plain embarrassing. That's the game he plays. He's a bully and it's shameless.

Ceetar Nov 30 2016 04:10 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Edgy MD wrote: The information he brings to bear on such subjects. His claims of comparative religious history is just plain farcical. Religulous was just plain nuts. The idea that he got to make fun of unsophisticated, indifferently educated believers was meant to make him, and his supporters, seem enlightened in contrast. But any fair examination of the facts behind his argument is just plain embarrassing. That's the game he plays. He's a bully and it's shameless. So you're saying those indifferently educated believers were wrong in what they were saying and he was just finding things to pick at? Would a theologian have answered differently? does it really matter? The vast majority of believers (hell, people) are less educated than Maher. Maybe it's preaching to the choir, (a funny metaphor here), but perhaps it's just funny. Is he emboldening people somehow? at least it's on somewhat educated grounds. Hell (again!), people are still putting up 'keep christ in christmas bs (one on my corner) because of a rant of some mis-informed supposed 'intellectual'.

Edgy MD Nov 30 2016 04:29 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Ceetar wrote: So you're saying those indifferently educated believers were wrong in what they were saying and he was just finding things to pick at? No, of course not. Neither am I saying they were right. I'm saying what I'm saying. I've already wasted so many keystrokes that I'm annoying myself. How tiresome I am. I don't even want to sit next to myself. But for, at the end of that, to have you try and tease another meaning out of it all, and trap me into another arugment is amazing. I'm not indifferently educated or unsophisticated. I hope we're not all this broken.

themetfairy Nov 30 2016 04:58 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Edgy MD wrote: The information he brings to bear on such subjects. His claims of comparative religious history is just plain farcical. Religulous was just plain nuts. The idea that he got to make fun of unsophisticated, indifferently educated believers was meant to make him, and his supporters, seem enlightened in contrast. But any fair examination of the facts behind his argument is just plain embarrassing. That's the game he plays. He's a bully and it's shameless. This is different from lying. It's fair to say that you don't like his perspective or his methods, which is certainly your prerogative. But this isn't lying.

Vic Sage Nov 30 2016 09:15 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

which is all i'm saying, too.

Edgy MD Nov 30 2016 09:33 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I really don't want to belabor this. The information he brings to bear on such subjects. His claims of comparative religious history is just plain farcical. Religulous was just plain nuts. The idea that he got to make fun of unsophisticated, indifferently educated believers was meant to make him, and his supporters, seem enlightened in contrast. But any fair examination of the facts behind his argument is just plain embarrassing. That's the game he plays. He's a bully and it's shameless. This is different from lying. It's fair to say that you don't like his perspective or his methods, which is certainly your prerogative. But this isn't lying. I'm speaking of his information. He says things that are just plain "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive" nonsense. He just makes up facts, or happily runs with non-facts others make up. That is the exact same thing as lying. It is, more or less, the definition. OE: Don't believe me? Believe the highly reputable authority of Cracked! Let's talk about the cabinet.

themetfairy Nov 30 2016 10:18 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Highly reputable indeed. Again, I wouldn't go as far as to call him a liar based on that. Your mileage apparently differs.

Lefty Specialist Dec 02 2016 10:44 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Not sure if it's a good idea to select a Defense Secretary whose nickname is 'Mad Dog'. Maybe it's just me. Cartoon Supervillains get another member. Now hire Mike Francesa for Secretary of State; at least the cabinet meetings will be interesting.

Edgy MD Dec 05 2016 01:28 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Dr. Ben Carson who ran for president but withdrew his name from consideration for cabinet posts because he felt his lack of government experience disqualified him from running a federal department ... has been nominated to become secretary of housing and development.

MFS62 Dec 05 2016 01:37 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Edgy MD wrote: Dr. Ben Carson who ran for president but withdrew his name from consideration for cabinet posts because he felt his lack of government experience disqualified him from running a federal department ... has been nominated to become secretary of housing and development. You can't make this shit up. I guess his qualifications are that he can locate a city on a map and he has lived in a house. Later

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 05 2016 09:59 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 07 2016 01:54 PM

MFS62 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Dr. Ben Carson who ran for president but withdrew his name from consideration for cabinet posts because he felt his lack of government experience disqualified him from running a federal department ... has been nominated to become secretary of housing and development. You can't make this shit up. I guess his qualifications are that he can locate a city on a map and he has lived in a house. Later He actually grew up in subsidized housing in Detroit. There already is a school named after him in the city.

Vic Sage Dec 05 2016 10:01 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

oh, well, that's ok then. great choice!

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2016 10:45 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Vic Sage wrote: oh, well, that's ok then. great choice! /rolls eyes

Lefty Specialist Dec 06 2016 12:48 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

He probably hired Jay Pharoah and THOUGHT it was Ben Carson. We skipped over the unsafe mine operator named to be Secretary of Commerce. This may very well be the most incompetent cabinet in history. Republicans like to say government doesn't work, and this time, damned if they're not out to prove it, bigly.

A Boy Named Seo Dec 07 2016 10:50 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I legit thought WWE McMahon lady as the head of SBA was a joke. And the new Env Protection guy does not feel the environment should be protected. We are really just a Palin short of filling out the cast of the next 'American Horror Story'.

Edgy MD Dec 08 2016 03:08 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Sure. I mean ... WWE has a long and successful track record ... of grossly exploiting workers and operating a monopoly which ... crushes small businesses. Big donor to the Trump campaign AND the Trump Foundation also. DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Lefty Specialist Dec 08 2016 12:50 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

What, Vince wasn't available? Or maybe he's on the short list for Secretary of State.

Ashie62 Dec 08 2016 11:22 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I would have preferred Stephanie McMahon, Triple H 0r, The Rock, People Magazine sexiest man alive. CAN YOU SMELL WHAT THE SBA IS COOKIN!!!

Nymr83 Dec 13 2016 05:43 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Is Trump really going to nominate a [crossout:2iycq71b]Russian Mole[/crossout:2iycq71b] friend of Putin to be Secretary of State? or is this all a smokescreen to make his real choice seem sane and logical by comparison?

Lefty Specialist Dec 13 2016 11:56 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

He's just dragging this out to humiliate Mitt Romney. Boy, Vladimir sure looks to be 2016's big winner, doesn't he?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 13 2016 02:45 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Nymr83 wrote: Is Trump really going to nominate a [crossout]Russian Mole[/crossout] friend of Putin to be Secretary of State? or is this all a smokescreen to make his real choice seem sane and logical by comparison? Nope. No subterfuge. Just regular old, dumb above-ground-in-your-fucking-face-terfuge.

MFS62 Dec 21 2016 12:07 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I'm wondering if he will name Bernie Madoff to be the head of the Social Security Administration. He'd fit right in. (OK, so he'd have to pardon him first. But still ... ) Later

metsmarathon Dec 22 2016 03:27 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

i'm convinced at this point that his entire administration is the ultimate in small-governmentalism - show that (ideally) the country can still function despite being led by the most antithetical, incompetent, underqualified grouping of persons possible, as a rationale for jettisoning whole parts of it. that's... that's hte only explanation, right? it can't just be that we're fucked, can it? can it? . . . we are so fucked.

Edgy MD Dec 22 2016 04:14 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Well, the country's 240 years old, with sound institutions that can withstand an aloof presidency from the occasional Coolidge. The problem is that forces set in motion during a Coolidge presidency created the Great Depression which came later. So extreme vigilance and regular reminders that governance will not be our deliverance is the task before us. It's not the events of the upcoming four years that I fear, so much as the trajectories of decline that will be set in motion.

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 22 2016 05:21 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:18 AM

avi

Edgy MD Dec 22 2016 05:26 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Yeah, I didn't mean to throw Coolidge under the presidential cavalcade, but rather used him as an example of an aloof presidency. I guess I'm more or less rooting for an aloof presidency from Donald Trump, seeing all the damage that can be done by rogue players as less of a threat than a fully engaged President Trump.

metsmarathon Dec 22 2016 05:36 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

yeah.. i guess the best we can hope for is that trump is that loud annoying orange orangutan in the other room that nobody tries to talk to. god, it makes me sick to my stomach to think that in less than a month, that orangutan will be my actual boss. thankfully separated by countless layers.. but still. ugh!

MFS62 Dec 23 2016 11:24 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

metsmarathon wrote: we are so fucked. A brief, but accurate, description. Later

Lefty Specialist Dec 24 2016 12:32 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

And here's a little article about what our 'Nice Republican' Education Secretary wants to do. Getting rid of those pesky public schools and spending taxpayer money on failing (yet unaccountable) private schools seems to be top of the list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ans ... a#comments

Edgy MD Dec 24 2016 03:08 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

To be fair, charter schools (what that article mostly covers) ain't private schools.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 24 2016 07:00 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Lefty Specialist wrote: And here's a little article about what our 'Nice Republican' Education Secretary wants to do. Getting rid of those pesky public schools and spending taxpayer money on failing (yet unaccountable) private schools seems to be top of the list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ans ... a#comments I've probably read at least 25 articles about Betsy Devos since she emerged as Trump's Education pick, and they're all bad. I haven't read a single positive or encouraging piece about her -- Disclaimer: I don't read Breitbart. The only reason she's relatively under the radar when it comes to critical pieces about Trump's proposed Cabinet and Administration -- emphasis on "relatively" -- is mainly a testament to the spectacular shitshow that is Trump's proposed administration.

Ashie62 Dec 25 2016 11:48 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 25 2016 10:50 PM

Charter schools are an alternative, not private.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 25 2016 10:05 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Michigan is a laughing stock in national education circles. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ans ... cce1834962 excerpt: Unqualified President-elect Donald Trump has made a number of controversial cabinet nominations already. But none seems more inappropriate, or more contrary to reason, than his choice of DeVos to lead the Department of Education. DeVos isn’t an educator, or an education leader. She’s not an expert in pedagogy or curriculum or school governance. In fact, she has no relevant credentials or experience for a job setting standards and guiding dollars for the nation’s public schools. She is, in essence, a lobbyist — someone who has used her extraordinary wealth to influence the conversation about education reform, and to bend that conversation to her ideological convictions despite the dearth of evidence supporting them.

Ashie62 Dec 25 2016 10:51 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Our Christmas troll. Congrats.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 25 2016 11:02 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Ashie62 wrote: Our Christmas troll. Congrats. What's that supposed to mean?

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 26 2016 03:07 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:18 AM

avi

batmagadanleadoff Dec 26 2016 09:36 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Michigan is a laughing stock in national education circles. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ans ... cce1834962 No, it's not. Only when hyper-partisanship is involved. Here are some columns about the secretary designee that you must have missed. Well, coming from a professional partisan. I've read and browsed a lot of Devos pieces and I'm certain that the ratio of negative to positive pieces about her is pretty close to, if not greater than, two to one. Seems to me that Michigan operates as if the Supreme Court never decided Brown v. Board. It's also one of only five states where reading scores are actually down over the last several years. And then there's Detroit -- Michigan's largest and most historically significant city. Something else I've come across that came as somewhat of a surprise: In following the extremist Tea-Party Republicans in North Carolina and the shameful legislation they passed recently during the lame duck part of outgoing Governor McCrory's term, I recently read a piece by a Global Elections expert who writes that North Carolina no longer functions as a Democracy, and that if it were a nation, it's election system would be on par with that of a banana republic and most similar to the electoral systems in place in Cuba and in Venezuela. Surprisingly though, there are a few states whose overall electoral systems rank worse than North Carolina's -- including Michigan's.

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 26 2016 10:34 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:18 AM

avi

Ashie62 Dec 26 2016 10:41 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Thats why I called him a troll.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 26 2016 11:25 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I've probably read at least 25 articles about Betsy Devos since she emerged as Trump's Education pick, and they're all bad. I've read and browsed a lot of Devos pieces and I'm certain that the ratio of negative to positive pieces about her is pretty close to, if not greater than, two to one. Which is it? Were they all bad, or was there a 2-to-1 radio? You just make stuff up and throw it out there. That's hardly a defense of Devos. She's not an academic or an intellectual or a scholar and has no graduate degree and has no working experience in public education. I mean if I had that kind of money to throw around, I could probably get rid of the DH by gifting every AL owner 10 or 15 mil. And that's essentially the Betsy Devos story. Did you literally think I meant to say that there isn't a single pro piece about her out there? I don't make stuff up. Reading scores in Michigan are down and the Detroit educational system is for the most part, a shithole that you can't offset or compensate for by pointing to a few successful schools in some lily-white exclusive suburbs.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 26 2016 11:27 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Ashie62 wrote: Thats why I called him a troll. I make stuff up? That's surprising coming from you because I didn't even know that you knew how to read.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 26 2016 11:46 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: You just make stuff up and throw it out there. Which means that if I ran for President, you'd vote for me.

Lefty Specialist Dec 27 2016 01:33 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

So are Michigan schools top-ranked in the country? Given the time, money and effort Betsy DeVos has dedicated, I'd imagine they are. Also wondering what her stance on evolution is. And if she'll ever pay that $5.3 million fine for violating Ohio election law in her effort to screw up THEIR public schools. Oh, and when decrying hyper-partisanship, never include a link from the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page. Weakens the argument somewhat.

Edgy MD Dec 27 2016 02:09 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Seems to me that Michigan operates as if the Supreme Court never decided Brown v. Board. Could say the same thing about New York, but you're welcome to file a federal lawsuit. If we're concerned about the educational opportunities of minority students, I think just about every state and every party has had a chance to show how to do it right over the last 60 years. Who is winning?

Ceetar Dec 27 2016 02:34 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Seems to me that Michigan operates as if the Supreme Court never decided Brown v. Board. Could say the same thing about New York, but you're welcome to file a federal lawsuit. If we're concerned about the educational opportunities of minority students, I think just about every state and every party has had a chance to show how to do it right over the last 60 years. Who is winning? I think the question is "who is losing less badly" at this point.

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 27 2016 02:49 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:19 AM

avi

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 27 2016 05:14 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

The insults began as usual with a no-account post from Ashie.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 27 2016 06:10 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The insults began as usual with a no-account post from Ashie. Thank you. Because the way things usually go around here, if Ashie continues to tell me to go fuck myself, eventually Edgy's gonna tell me to cool it. Unbelievable. Betsy Devos might be the most spectacularly unqualified pick for that cabinet post ever, like in the history of this country, but people gang up on me. Like I criticized Mother Teresa or something.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 27 2016 06:20 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Lefty Specialist wrote: Also wondering what her stance on evolution is. Whatever it is, I'm certain that she'll insist on it being taught in every school. Devos's position isn't on record, but her very billionaire husband is on record in favor of intelligent design which, as you know, you couldn't find one credible scientist to support that junk science.

Edgy MD Dec 27 2016 01:42 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I don't think it's an issue likely to be focused on at the federal level.

Lefty Specialist Dec 27 2016 01:50 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

It's a signal. If the Education Secretary says 'We should Teach the Controversy', putting Intelligent Design and other junk science on a par with evolution, that emboldens those who've been pushing for it. It's a detriment to us all, as it weakens scientific teaching across the board. But as depressing as Betsy DeVos is, she's about 10th on the list of upcoming cabinet disasters.

Lefty Specialist Dec 27 2016 02:39 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

The real cabinet disasters: [u:3bq1tf7x]Secretary of State Rex Tillerson[/u:3bq1tf7x] - really, an oil executive for Secretary of State. Close friend of Vladimir Putin. Lifting those Ukraine sanctions in 3...2...1... [u:3bq1tf7x]Attorney General Jeff Sessions[/u:3bq1tf7x]- the man who'll be responsible for enforcing civil rights in this country was rejected by Republicans for a federal judgeship because he was too racist. Had a habit of calling a black assistant in his office 'boy'. [u:3bq1tf7x]Energy Secretary Rick Perry[/u:3bq1tf7x]- yes, the man who in 2012 advocated getting rid of the Department of Energy....will now be running the Department of Energy. [u:3bq1tf7x]EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt[/u:3bq1tf7x]- yes, a climate change denier in the position best equipped to deal with climate change. Has sued the EPA repeatedly, and they've already been nosing around trying to find out who's working on climate studies so they can fire or reassign them the minute he gets in. Scientists are frantically copying data as we speak so that it can be saved from the oncoming shitstorm. [u:3bq1tf7x]Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson[/u:3bq1tf7x]- Well he once lived in a house, so I guess that qualifies. [u:3bq1tf7x]Labor Secretary Andrew Puzder[/u:3bq1tf7x]- the head of the Hardees fast food chain as Labor Secretary? The guy who doesn't believe in a minimum wage and is hoping for the day that all his employees can be replaced by robots? Well, alrighty then. [u:3bq1tf7x]Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price[/u:3bq1tf7x]- there's a reason Obamacare signups are going through the roof. Tom Price wants to end the program as fast as he can. Also wants to hand Social Security to Wall Street and turn Medicare into a voucher system that can gradually be cut until the program disappears altogether. Rep. Price and his family have free healthcare for life as a member of Congress, so the rest of you can go suck it. [u:3bq1tf7x]Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross[/u:3bq1tf7x]- Investment strategist who has conflicts of interest that would make Donald Trump blush, if such a thing were possible. For one, heavy stakes in the steel industry that will be directly affected by his actions. He's an equity investor with deep Russia and China ties as well. [u:3bq1tf7x]Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin[/u:3bq1tf7x]- Trump denounced Goldman Sachs for having 'total control' over Hillary Clinton. So naturally, his Treasury Secretary will be a former Goldman Sachs executive. [u:3bq1tf7x]National Security Adviser Michael Flynn[/u:3bq1tf7x]- the man Chris Christie had to calm down during a security briefing earlier this year. As Archer is fond of saying, 'a loose cannon'. [u:3bq1tf7x]Chief Strategist Steve Bannon[/u:3bq1tf7x]- when you have one of America's biggest conspiracy theorists whispering in your ear every day, hey, what can go wrong? [u:3bq1tf7x]Small Business Administration Secretary Linda McMahon[/u:3bq1tf7x]- Ha! I just threw that in there to see if you were paying attention! Wait.......what? There are more ticking time bombs, but my fingers are tired and I'm getting depressed.

Ashie62 Dec 27 2016 06:24 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Wilbur Ross is a financial genius and almost solely bailed out the Bank of Ireland when no one else would. He knows business and thats the job. I want pragmatic thinking people for the cabinet, not out of touch democratic eliists who gave up on their working class base years ago. The country is like a self cleaning oven every now and then and it happens to be now.

Ceetar Dec 27 2016 06:31 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Ashie62 wrote: Wilbur Ross is a financial genius and almost solely bailed out the Bank of Ireland when no one else would. He knows business and thats the job. I want pragmatic thinking people for the cabinet, not out of touch democratic eliists who gave up on their working class base years ago. The country is like a self cleaning oven every now and then and it happens to be now. no evidence one has been nominated yet.

Ashie62 Dec 27 2016 06:41 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Your opinion, good luck with that.

Lefty Specialist Dec 27 2016 07:15 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Ashie62 wrote: The country is like a self cleaning oven every now and then and it happens to be now. Self-cleaning ovens rely on incineration, leaving only ashes behind. Let's hope it's not an apt metaphor.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 27 2016 07:25 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Something else I've come across that came as somewhat of a surprise: In following the extremist Tea-Party Republicans in North Carolina and the shameful legislation they passed recently during the lame duck part of outgoing Governor McCrory's term, I recently read a piece by a Global Elections expert who writes that North Carolina no longer functions as a Democracy, and that if it were a nation, it's election system would be on par with that of a banana republic and most similar to the electoral systems in place in Cuba and in Venezuela. Surprisingly though, there are a few states whose overall electoral systems rank worse than North Carolina's -- including Michigan's. Here's the Perception of Electoral Integrity Study's bipartisan study. It ranks Michigan as the 41st worst state in electoral fairness. https://www.electoralintegrityproject.c ... ed-dataset

batmagadanleadoff Dec 27 2016 07:28 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

="]Ashie62" The country is like a self cleaning oven every now and then and it happens to be now.

What exactly is it that needs to be cleaned out and that the GOP is better equipped to do?

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 27 2016 08:09 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 01:19 AM

avi

batmagadanleadoff Dec 27 2016 08:21 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Something else I've come across that came as somewhat of a surprise: In following the extremist Tea-Party Republicans in North Carolina and the shameful legislation they passed recently during the lame duck part of outgoing Governor McCrory's term, I recently read a piece by a Global Elections expert who writes that North Carolina no longer functions as a Democracy, and that if it were a nation, it's election system would be on par with that of a banana republic and most similar to the electoral systems in place in Cuba and in Venezuela. Surprisingly though, there are a few states whose overall electoral systems rank worse than North Carolina's -- including Michigan's. Here's the Perception of Electoral Integrity Study's bipartisan study. It ranks Michigan as the 41st worst state in electoral fairness. https://www.electoralintegrityproject.c ... ed-dataset This is the group that ranked the US as a whole last among western nations. I'm not going to get into it with you any more. As Monk said, it's a mistake to engage. You're not interested in having a good discussion, and I'm not going to waste time with insults. Insults? You know what's an insult? Donald Trump. And your idea that he's a swell guy. He's a national disgrace and you should know better.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 27 2016 08:36 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Something else I've come across that came as somewhat of a surprise: In following the extremist Tea-Party Republicans in North Carolina and the shameful legislation they passed recently during the lame duck part of outgoing Governor McCrory's term, I recently read a piece by a Global Elections expert who writes that North Carolina no longer functions as a Democracy, and that if it were a nation, it's election system would be on par with that of a banana republic and most similar to the electoral systems in place in Cuba and in Venezuela. Surprisingly though, there are a few states whose overall electoral systems rank worse than North Carolina's -- including Michigan's. Here's the Perception of Electoral Integrity Study's bipartisan study. It ranks Michigan as the 41st worst state in electoral fairness. https://www.electoralintegrityproject.c ... ed-dataset This is the group that ranked the US as a whole last among western nations. I'm not going to get into it with you any more. As Monk said, it's a mistake to engage. You're not interested in having a good discussion, and I'm not going to waste time with insults. The USA deserves to rank so poorly and you could make a damn good intelligent argument for why the USA ranks so poorly. In two words. Electoral and College. You want two other words? How about Bush and Gore. Or Bush v. Gore? Of course, you won't admit how absurd and outdated the EC is because you're a professional partisan and you took some oath and you're probably not allowed to speak your political mind unless it's good for the GOP, never mind if it's good for the country. What other country has a cockamie election system in place where the loser of the election turns out to be the actual winner? And the most galling thing about the EC is that it doesn't even do what it was supposed to do in the first place --- override the will of the people when they choose a supremely unqualified person for President. Today's electors are mostly rank partisan party hacks who rubber stamp the vote. It's gotten so bad that the emergence of just one faithless elector is an internatioanal controversy. So we have this 200+ year old anachronistic EC that doesn't even function as it was intended to function. Not that I'd expect you to concede the spectacular flaws of this know-nothing psychopath that you voted for for President. You're not allowed to. And if you're not allowed to, what makes you credible? You wouldn't criticize the EC either because it and a partisan Supreme Court gave the GOP its last two Presidents -- both losers of the popular vote. And what other Western country allows the partisan politicians to draw their own congressional district lines? In North Carolina, for example, the GOP controls 70% of all state congressional seats and has a supermajority veto proof majority even though it received only 48 % of the vote. How's that for representation and fairness? And when did I ever insult you? Never. You take it out on me when I point out the problems with your beloved state of Michigan, a GOP controlled state that's trending righter and righter with each passing day. Tell me, does Michigan now suddenly have a voter fraud problem too? Or just a problem with too many minorities voting for Democrats?

Edgy MD Dec 27 2016 09:04 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What other country has a cockamie election system in place where the loser of the election turns out to be the actual winner? Well, in most parliamentary systems, the head of government isn't directly elected, so it's a tough comparison. batmagadanleadoff wrote: And what other Western country allows the partisan politicians to draw their own congressional district lines? The UK, for starters, if you change "congressional" to "parliamentary."

Ashie62 Dec 27 2016 09:29 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="]Ashie62" The country is like a self cleaning oven every now and then and it happens to be now. What exactly is it that needs to be cleaned out and that the GOP is better equipped to do?

For starters, you.

Edgy MD Dec 27 2016 09:37 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Gentlemen, please!

batmagadanleadoff Dec 28 2016 02:44 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Something else I've come across that came as somewhat of a surprise: In following the extremist Tea-Party Republicans in North Carolina and the shameful legislation they passed recently during the lame duck part of outgoing Governor McCrory's term, I recently read a piece by a Global Elections expert who writes that North Carolina no longer functions as a Democracy, and that if it were a nation, it's election system would be on par with that of a banana republic and most similar to the electoral systems in place in Cuba and in Venezuela. Surprisingly though, there are a few states whose overall electoral systems rank worse than North Carolina's -- including Michigan's. Here's the Perception of Electoral Integrity Study's bipartisan study. It ranks Michigan as the 41st worst state in electoral fairness. https://www.electoralintegrityproject.c ... ed-dataset This is the group that ranked the US as a whole last among western nations. I'm not going to get into it with you any more. As Monk said, it's a mistake to engage. You're not interested in having a good discussion, and I'm not going to waste time with insults. I don't agree with you. I haven't set out to ever insult you. What I do that apparently bothers you is post articles whose findings you disagree with. So you take it out on me and characterize the whole exchange as an insult. What you don't do is address the merits of those pieces in an intelligent manner, exactly what you then accuse me of doing. Or you hide behind I don't know what and suddenly claim that you're not allowed to respond and then delete your posts. Like that bipartisan global election study, for example, that ranks Michigan as having one of the worst electoral systems in the USA. You simply dismiss that study because the USA's ranking isn't to your liking and then insult me by telling me that I don't want to engage in intelligent discussions, even though it's plainly obvious to any rational thinking person that the Electoral College is an absurd, broken down anachronism. I mean, is it stlll necessary to placate the slavery states (and then, by extension, all of the less populous states) by granting them a disproportionately unfair influence over Presidential elections? Do we still worry that South Carolina might secede? You take it out on me because the New York Times and Washington Post, the nation's most important and prestigious newspapers, have been panning Betsy Devos ever since her name emerged as Trump's pick? Then some other poster decides to hurl numerous gratuitous and unprovoked personal insults at me in the span of a day and a half, and when I finally respond, you're all over me? What was that all about? And then you drag Transmonk into this? When did he ever write those negative things about me? I don't remember that post. Was that a private message? OE -- Here's that article by the global elections expert, if you're interested. North Carolina is no longer classified as a democracy http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op- ... 93759.html

TransMonk Dec 28 2016 03:51 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Yeah, I'm confused. MGIM is right, I've been doing my best not to engage in this discussion during the transition (at least not in the CPF), but I've got no beef (and don't think I ever have) with batmags. As an aside to show how messed up politics is right now, I just got back from my family Christmas where no fewer than three loud and aggressive "discussions" broke out about the future of America - and NO ONE attending my family's Christmas even voted for Trump. The arguments were over the varying degrees of worry over what was going to happen to American government over the next five to ten years.

Ceetar Dec 28 2016 04:46 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

TransMonk wrote: As an aside to show how messed up politics is right now, I just got back from my family Christmas where no fewer than three loud and aggressive "discussions" broke out about the future of America - and NO ONE attending my family's Christmas even voted for Trump. The arguments were over the varying degrees of worry over what was going to happen to American government over the next five to ten years. Some of the discussion on the non-Trump "side" seems to be awfully similar to conspiracy theorists. It goes so overboard and paints with such broad brushes that it's not helpful, perhaps detrimental, to keeping the country on the right path, something that IS possible despite an idiot in the White House. My favorite bits are how some of the media push the idea that Trump is only tweeting the completely inane to distract from other things as if the media itself wasn't lapping up the insane stuff as good copy and ignoring the stuff that actually needs to be investigated. And seem completely incapable of grasping that it's that path of least resistance coverage that got him elected in the first place.

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 28 2016 05:03 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Apologies to Monk. Just went back and read through the thread. It was Lefty who told me "The mistake was in engaging."

batmagadanleadoff Dec 28 2016 05:13 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Apologies to Monk. Just went back and read through the thread. It was Lefty who told me "The mistake was in engaging." Lefty said it was a mistake to engage with me? I don't remember that post either. Oh ... and here's your Trump voters. Irrational beyond hope and out of their fucking minds. No wonder this maniac is gonna be our next President. Because as usual, the GOP wouldn't exist without ignorant people to con and prey upon. Cash strapped people living paycheck to paycheck, if they even get a check, voting for the party that'll reduce taxes on the wealthy and destroy the social safety net. Nearly 50% of Donald Trump voters believe Hillary Clinton is involved in pedophilia ring: poll http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2926098

A Boy Named Seo Dec 28 2016 06:11 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

A friend of a friend (I now am questioning that link some) is a full-on Trumper who also loves to gnaw on those conspiracy bones. I already knew the guy believes the earth is flat and the moon walking thing was COMPLETE BULLSHIT, but now learned that he believed (believes?) the Hillary pizza-pedo thing and (this was new to me), joins a shit-ton of other morons who believe our First Lady is a trans woman (I don't even wanna google that one). Man, there's a lot of stupid motherfuckers participating in society.

Lefty Specialist Dec 28 2016 06:16 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Um, I didn't tell nobody nuthin'. I want no part of that food fight. I do agree that this country is headed for hell in a handbasket and it's just my hope that we can salvage things four years hence. I have lots of nervous relatives, too. Yes, there's a shit-ton of morons out there. And they're feeling empowered these days.

TransMonk Dec 28 2016 07:12 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Ceetar wrote: Some of the discussion on the non-Trump "side" seems to be awfully similar to conspiracy theorists. It goes so overboard and paints with such broad brushes that it's not helpful, perhaps detrimental, to keeping the country on the right path, something that IS possible despite an idiot in the White House. I can certainly understand this point of view, but it is also all relative. A year ago, I thought an eventual Trump presidency an impossibility. Most of his campaign went overboard and painted with broad brushes that it was not helpful, perhaps detrimental, to keeping the country on the right path. Where do we go from there? My first step is now admitting I know far less about the US electorate than I thought I did. It is in my best interest to learn the most I can about both Trump and the people who elected him. But while I can hope for the best (which I still can't see as any more than multiple steps backwards from my point of view), I'm also preparing my mind for the worst.

Ashie62 Dec 28 2016 10:45 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

This thread has become vile. Checking out. God bless all.

Ceetar Dec 28 2016 11:21 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

TransMonk wrote: Ceetar wrote: Some of the discussion on the non-Trump "side" seems to be awfully similar to conspiracy theorists. It goes so overboard and paints with such broad brushes that it's not helpful, perhaps detrimental, to keeping the country on the right path, something that IS possible despite an idiot in the White House. I can certainly understand this point of view, but it is also all relative. A year ago, I thought an eventual Trump presidency an impossibility. Most of his campaign went overboard and painted with broad brushes that it was not helpful, perhaps detrimental, to keeping the country on the right path. Where do we go from there? My first step is now admitting I know far less about the US electorate than I thought I did. It is in my best interest to learn the most I can about both Trump and the people who elected him. But while I can hope for the best (which I still can't see as any more than multiple steps backwards from my point of view), I'm also preparing my mind for the worst. Don't doubt yourself, Hillary was the choice, even if reluctantly, of a rather impressive percentage of voters. What she lost was a game rooted in racism between two political parties that increasingly properly represent the actual Americans less and less.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 08 2017 08:15 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

McConnell: Democrats need to ‘grow up’ and let Trump nominees get confirmed https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... f4e89271cc Being a Republican President-Elect means never having to have your cabinet picks go through Senate confirmation hearings. With Ali McGraw as Kellyanne "Goebbels" Conway and Ryan O'Neal as the Republican President-Elect.

Ceetar Jan 09 2017 02:07 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

McConnell: Democrats need to ‘grow up’ and let Trump nominees get confirmed https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... f4e89271cc Being a Republican President-Elect means never having to have your cabinet picks go through Senate confirmation hearings. With Ali McGraw as Kellyanne "Goebbels" Conway and Ryan O'Neal as the Republican President-Elect. McConnell is such a high-level idiot that if there were any accountability at all he'd be out of a job years ago.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2017 03:43 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Good reading: Letter from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who sits on the Senate Education committee, to Trump Education pick Betsy Devos: http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/docu ... Letter.pdf

batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2017 03:57 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

How Betsy Devos uses the weight of her money to get what she wants: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/po ... hools.html excerpt: Even charter school supporters now criticize Detroit as one of the most unregulated markets in the country. About 80 percent of the state’s charters are operated for profit, far higher than anywhere else. In 2011, the DeVoses and the Great Lakes project lobbied successfully to lift a cap on the number of charter schools, fighting off a provision that would have kept failing schools from expanding.... Most charters have failed to improve on the dismal performance of the traditional public schools. High-performing national charter networks have stayed away [from Michigan] because of the instability of the market. The Walton Family Foundation, which has committed $1 billion over the next five years to expanding charters and choice, similarly withdrew its money from Detroit earlier this year.

Vic Sage Jan 09 2017 04:00 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Good reading: Letter from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who sits on the Senate Education committee, to Trump Education pick Betsy Devos: http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/docu ... Letter.pdf I am sexually aroused by Elizabeth Warren, and i'm not ashamed to say it. the only thing we have to look forward to over the next 4 (8?) years will be Warren's consistent bashing of the radical right agenda and its henchmen (and women), using stuff like "facts" to point out their corrupt ugliness and deceit.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2017 04:16 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Vic Sage wrote: Good reading: Letter from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who sits on the Senate Education committee, to Trump Education pick Betsy Devos: http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/docu ... Letter.pdf I am sexually aroused by Elizabeth Warren, and i'm not ashamed to say it. the only thing we have to look forward to over the next 4 (8?) years will be Warren's consistent bashing of the radical right agenda and its henchmen (and women), using stuff like "facts" to point out their corrupt ugliness and deceit. So long as Curt Schilling doesn't put Warren on the unemployment line in two years.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2017 09:02 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Eight year old email demonstrates what a hypocrite and outright liar Mitch McConnell is in connection with his present stance on rushing Trump's picks through the Senate. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconne ... t-nominees [fimg=777:2vmabcw9]https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/302/32067055492_3f927fb2da_b.jpg[/fimg:2vmabcw9]

batmagadanleadoff Jan 10 2017 12:28 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Eight year old email demonstrates what a hypocrite and outright liar Mitch McConnell is in connection with his present stance on rushing Trump's picks through the Senate. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconne ... t-nominees [fimg=777]https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/302/32067055492_3f927fb2da_b.jpg[/fimg] Great stuff. Here's Chuck Schumer's response to Mitch McConnell's rush-em-through tactic:

Lefty Specialist Jan 10 2017 12:49 AM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Vic Sage wrote: Good reading: Letter from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who sits on the Senate Education committee, to Trump Education pick Betsy Devos: http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/docu ... Letter.pdf I am sexually aroused by Elizabeth Warren, and i'm not ashamed to say it. the only thing we have to look forward to over the next 4 (8?) years will be Warren's consistent bashing of the radical right agenda and its henchmen (and women), using stuff like "facts" to point out their corrupt ugliness and deceit. I think it's inappropriate for you to be sexually aroused by my long-time secret (even to her) girlfriend. I wish there were hundreds of Elizabeth Warrens. I'm betting Betsy DeVos will bluster and bullshit for the 15 minutes the Republicans will allow for Warren to ask her questions, and she'll be confirmed by a 52-48 vote.

Nymr83 Jan 11 2017 10:32 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

Rubio put a smack down on Tillerson today - he isnt getting through the Senate. next!

Edgy MD Jan 11 2017 10:43 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I'm not sure that nomination is dead. Besides, he broke with Trump (at least) three different ways. By the standard of his weird slew of plutocrat nominations, it seems that we can do worse than Rex Tillerson.

MFS62 Jan 12 2017 02:31 PM Re: The Presidential Cabinet

I give Donald credit for one selection - David Shuklin to become Secretary of Veteran's Affairs. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/01/11/ ... s-affairs/ He seems qualified and hopefully, given the proper resources, will clean up the mess that is now VA medical care. Of course, most of the mess was caused when [crossout]Goebbels and Himler[/crossout] Cheney and Rove sent soldiers to war in Iraq and then drastically cut back on funding for the VA hospitals. Later