Master Index of Archived Threads


Politics in 2017

d'Kong76 Dec 30 2016 10:56 PM

[fimg=750:3fyvajmf]http://www.kcmets.com/CPF/123016a.jpg[/fimg:3fyvajmf]

metsmarathon Jan 03 2017 03:10 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

lol. seriously. y'know, among many things that rankle me so mightily about this whole "president trump" situation is the attitude that, so what if he doesn't have a clue about, well, anything - he'll learn on the job and it'll be ok. i've long been told that potus is (among the) the most important, most challenging, and most difficult job(s) on earth. if we can elect any schmuck to the task and hope for the best, what does that say about the job? i guess the upshot is... if we can indeed just elect any schmuck to the job, hoping for the best, and not really needing to worry about disastrous consequences... well... can we stop focusing so damned hard on the electioning anymore? if anyone can do it, who cares about the process of picking someone and just get on with it. no more endless news coverage. no more mock debates. no more punditry. end it all and let us have our every (third and) fourth year back. also, good thing he backtracked on the swamp-draining thing. or the republican congress would be looking pretty bad right about now!

Lefty Specialist Jan 03 2017 03:19 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, Pence will be doing all the hard stuff. He's the one who's been taking every security briefing. Not that that gives me a better feeling as Pence is a horror show of his own. But at least he's paying attention and doesn't tweet his every bowel movement.

metsmarathon Jan 03 2017 04:18 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

well, yeah, that's true. and doesn't undermine my point one little bit. it's horrifying to think that, as a nation (of states), we have just elected to its highest office, someone who, well, if he isn't capable of doing the job, well, he wasn't going to be doing it anyway. this is so not okay. sorry, i need to accept this and find a way to move on. i need to find a way to use this to my advantage in interviews... "well, if donald trump can be our president, then surely i could do the job of division chief!"

Nymr83 Jan 03 2017 04:53 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: lol. seriously. y'know, among many things that rankle me so mightily about this whole "president trump" situation is the attitude that, so what if he doesn't have a clue about, well, anything - he'll learn on the job and it'll be ok. i've long been told that potus is (among the) the most important, most challenging, and most difficult job(s) on earth. if we can elect any schmuck to the task and hope for the best, what does that say about the job? i guess the upshot is... if we can indeed just elect any schmuck to the job, hoping for the best, and not really needing to worry about disastrous consequences... well... can we stop focusing so damned hard on the electioning anymore? if anyone can do it, who cares about the process of picking someone and just get on with it. no more endless news coverage. no more mock debates. no more punditry. end it all and let us have our every (third and) fourth year back. also, good thing he backtracked on the swamp-draining thing. or the republican congress would be looking pretty bad right about now! POTUS is certainly a tough job, whether its the toughest I don't really know - I don't buy into the idea that you have to be good at doing it all by yourself though - a more successful president, or any leader, is one who surrounds himself with people who are good at their jobs. (I don't claim Trump has overall done a good job at that)

Edgy MD Jan 03 2017 05:19 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Yeah that's part of the problem. Part of being good enough is being good to surround yourself with other good people.

Nymr83 Jan 03 2017 05:44 PM

in he clearest win for Trump's bully-style yet, Ford has announced today it will shelve plans for a new billion dollar facility in Mexico and instead invest in Michigan, the CEO directly cited Trump's expected policies as key to the decision.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 03 2017 07:20 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: in he clearest win for Trump's bully-style yet, Ford has announced today it will shelve plans for a new billion dollar facility in Mexico and instead invest in Michigan, the CEO directly cited Trump's expected policies as key to the decision. This is very good news, looking at about $700 million in investment and about 700 new jobs.

d'Kong76 Jan 03 2017 07:30 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: in he clearest win for Trump's bully-style yet, Ford has announced today it will shelve plans for a new billion dollar facility in Mexico and instead invest in Michigan, the CEO directly cited Trump's expected policies as key to the decision. I hope this daily crap doesn't last too much longer (the news of Trump doing this and doing that already, not Namor's post). I just half watched/ listened to an interview on Bloomberg TV with the Ford dude. This ain't no feather in Trump's cap, depends on where one gets their news from. We need to wind down this thread and someone make a 2017 one or two?

metsmarathon Jan 03 2017 08:10 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

i guess that'll happen when we have a need for [shudder] a trump [shudder] administration [shudder] thread [shudder]. are there really people out there who are not absolutely terrified by what this might bring?

themetfairy Jan 03 2017 08:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: i guess that'll happen when we have a need for [shudder] a trump [shudder] administration [shudder] thread [shudder]. are there really people out there who are not absolutely terrified by what this might bring? I'm definitely terrified - for my children more than for myself. D-Dad and I will get by no matter what happens, but the world we're handing our children is a frightening one indeed.

Nymr83 Jan 03 2017 08:40 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

d'Kong76 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: in he clearest win for Trump's bully-style yet, Ford has announced today it will shelve plans for a new billion dollar facility in Mexico and instead invest in Michigan, the CEO directly cited Trump's expected policies as key to the decision. I hope this daily crap doesn't last too much longer (the news of Trump doing this and doing that already, not Namor's post). I just half watched/ listened to an interview on Bloomberg TV with the Ford dude. This ain't no feather in Trump's cap, depends on where one gets their news from. We need to wind down this thread and someone make a 2017 one or two? I would assume that Bloomberg himself, who is vehemently anti-Trump, has input into the anti-trump slant going into his outlets. CNN, who are no Trump-lovers themselves, have the story towards the top of the page and the story suggests Trump's expected policies (but not an explicit "deal with Trump") was behind the decision. Of course, he specifically attacked them during the campaign so I feel it isnt unfair to blame his 'bullying' here. FOX of course has it as their lead story, but the story itself isn't much different from CNN's - proving again that media bias is as much about what you cover/how much prominence it gets as it is about the slat of the stories. are there really people out there who are not absolutely terrified by what this might bring? I didn't like him during the election - but I guess I have a higher faith in our system as a whole to 'weather the storm' as it were. I hated Obama's policies for 8 years but we're all still here. (I didn't hate Obama the man until just recently - and likewise didn't actually look forward to Trump until then)

d'Kong76 Jan 03 2017 08:55 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I don't see a lot of bias either way on Bloomberg, it's about the markets and what they're doing world-wide. 'Trump'eting that they'll add (maybe over the course of time) some 700 jobs after they've already added 28,000 in the last five years is just kinda silly news reporting imho. I'm not terrified for the future, I am warily worried and share the faith in the system that no one man or group can bring everything down in a shambles. We'll see in the 2017 thread (and subsequent ones) hahaha...

Lefty Specialist Jan 03 2017 08:57 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Nymr83 wrote: in he clearest win for Trump's bully-style yet, Ford has announced today it will shelve plans for a new billion dollar facility in Mexico and instead invest in Michigan, the CEO directly cited Trump's expected policies as key to the decision. And yet, Obama got no credit for saving GM in 2009, which was worth a whole lot more than 700 jobs. I guess he wasn't enough of a bully at the time. I've already told my son that it's his job to try and fix this broken world we're leaving him. No pressure or anything.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 03 2017 09:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Good for Michigan but it's not actually "instead of" Mexico for Ford. The plant they're not building there was intended to make more of what they were already building in Mexico, not what they're trying to build in US.

metsmarathon Jan 03 2017 09:21 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

yes, but obama was a competent grownup. i don't think the same can be said of my future boss. yes, there's a lot that the system can do to blunt the most dire impacts of his potential presidency. however, he also has the power and influence and authority to remake large swaths of that system, to push it into certain directions and make lasting changes that take decades to unmake. no, i don't think we'll find ourselves marching headlong into fascism, but instead we will undoubtedly be finding ourselves in a place where, in opposition to the past 8 years, otherness will be made increasingly untenable. i think that we will turn more into a nation of bullies when we had been seeming to make progress in the other direction. and trump, and his cohorts, and the gop itself, are pushing more and more in that direction. for a moment, put yourself in the positon of being an "other". one who is either not white, or not male, or not wealthy, or not straight, or not 'christian' in the right way, etc. one who is not lucky to have been born into the right situation. i think the next four years will be very difficult for the others. but my biggest fear, honestly, is that his special blend of unmitigated hubris and narcissism could actually lead us into a shooting war with a big bad capable of affording me the opportunity to discover what exactly the air raid sirens around here sound like, and the procedures to be followed should they alight. or perhaps, on a less catastrophic level, but not necessarily less disastrous, is that in addition to pushing back on all manner of scientific endeavor and environmental and social responsibility, he also struggles to see the value and necessity in investing lots of money into military r&d and the acquisition of future weapons. i don't doubt that he seems to want to do well by our current and past warfighters, but i really don't think he has the foresight to ensure that our future warfighters are equipped to fight in the future, with expensive, future-y weapons that are harder to procure than simply finding a cheaper factory in china that doesn't care quite as much about the health and welfare of its laborers.

Lefty Specialist Jan 03 2017 09:42 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I guess the best we can expect is incompetence. Being too incompetent to actually do the stuff he talks about in 140-character snippets would be helpful. If he's really good and works well with the Republican House and Senate to do things like eliminate health insurance for 30 million people and gut Medicare and turn Social Security into a hedge fund manager's wet dream, and tell women once and for all that the government owns their bodies, well, then we're screwed. Of course the down side of incompetence is blundering into a needless war or selling our secrets to the Russians, so it's a mixed blessing. Gonna be a tough four years.

metsmarathon Jan 05 2017 04:06 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I suppose one thing he could do is undermine the morale, efficacy, legitimacy, and security of our national intelligence corps in favor of the musings of a known enemy of the state. That's a thing he could do.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 05 2017 06:32 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: I suppose one thing he could do is undermine the morale, efficacy, legitimacy, and security of our national intelligence corps in favor of the musings of a known enemy of the state. That's a thing he could do. As things stand today, the American spy community tops my list of likely Trump assassinators. There's some real hard core I love what America stands for patriots in that group that don't put party ahead of country.

metsmarathon Jan 05 2017 01:45 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

i'm deeply uncomfortable theorizing about such a thing. i should hope that the spy community takes to heart their oath to serve the country first and foremost, and that the country is greater even than any imbecile who might lead it, particularly one who was duly elected by the people per the constitution. i'd be worried about all the aggrieved parties who rallied to his side, who so deeply believe in him, once they see him for what he truly is. jilted lovers and what not.

seawolf17 Jan 05 2017 03:16 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I can't imagine what's worse -- four years of DJT as president or whatever fallout results from his term ending early, for whatever reason.

Edgy MD Jan 05 2017 03:40 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I tend to think of the fallout of an impeachment process being triggered will be the benevolent.

Lefty Specialist Jan 05 2017 04:14 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

metsmarathon wrote: i'd be worried about all the aggrieved parties who rallied to his side, who so deeply believe in him, once they see him for what he truly is. jilted lovers and what not. And a lot of those people will be well-armed. While the security agencies are certainly pissed at Trump, I don't think we'll have an 'Air Force One' moment. But there are a lot of lunatics in America. I'm amazed that someone didn't take a pot shot at Obama for 8 years.

Edgy MD Jan 05 2017 04:27 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Plenty of people tried, but they didn't get within much range. Seven shots hit the White House back in 2011. And an ambitious knife-wielder made it into the house and up a few steps before being subdued. Even a Walking Dead actress gave it a shot.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 06 2017 10:16 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 07 2017 05:13 AM

So we know that the electoral college is no longer expected to apply the emergency brakes to a supremely unqualified elected President. It still gives disproportionate and unfair influence to the lesser populated states even though we're way more than four score and seven years ago past the idea that some or all of the slavery states might secede. And now, it turns out that more than 50 electors that voted for Trump in this year's Presidential election weren't even qualified to cast electoral votes in the first place -- and isn't that the height of voter fraud? -- but nobody's gonna do anything about that either. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... f1ef3caa81 Fine. Maybe we're better off if electors don't override the will of the people*. But then what the hell is the point of the electoral college anymore? *"Will of the people" only according to the anachronistic and absurd Rube Goldbergesque electoral college.

Lefty Specialist Jan 07 2017 01:25 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The minute the telegraph was invented, the Electoral College was no longer needed. It's unequal representation- votes in Wyoming and Montana (and Washington DC and Rhode Island) count more than votes in California, Texas and New York. But it'll be a bear to get rid of.

d'Kong76 Jan 07 2017 01:39 AM 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16. Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country. These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election!

A Boy Named Seo Jan 07 2017 02:11 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

That one's kinda lame, Kace. Who gives a crap about arbitrary county lines and square miles if those counties and square miles are populated by more deer and elk and trees than people? Even if they're sometimes concentrated in cities, of the people, by the people, for the people implies the, you know, people. And it was almost 3 million votes IIRC.

d'Kong76 Jan 07 2017 02:34 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Just busting chops, it's amusing math to me. There is some truth to not having places like NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA deciding elections. No? If anyone disagrees call your congressperson and start an anti- EC movement. Good luck with that.

Edgy MD Jan 07 2017 03:34 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Well, counting counties over people would be more electoral college than the electoral college. It would be moving further away from direct democracy. Obviously, if NYC, Boston, Chicago, and LA had decided the election, we'd have had a very different outcome.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 07 2017 04:29 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

d'Kong76 wrote: If anyone disagrees call your congressperson and start an anti- EC movement. . That movement already exists and has more than half the votes needed. Although admittedly, the remaining votes will be a bear to get, to use Lefty's wording. If passed, the movement will have the effect of completely undermining the electoral college without abolishing it. It's an agreement among participating states only, to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It's not a constitutional amendment, so if passed, it won't affect the rights of the non-participating states to continue to award their electoral votes to the winner of their respective state Presidential elections. But the agreement will have its desired effect nevertheless, even without full national participation among the states because the agreement won't take effect until the number of participating states' cumulative electoral votes are at least 270, thus guaranteeing that the winner of the popular vote in the Presidential election will be the elected President. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact

Lefty Specialist Jan 07 2017 11:33 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

It's a good idea, but I'm betting it'd be the subject of an instant lawsuit by a candidate who would have won except for this agreement.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 08 2017 12:33 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I agree. There are plenty of legal theories for and against the legality of the compact. It seems to me that the agreement is legal because the states have the express right as to how to allocate their electoral votes. Also, the electoral college set-up even allows for faithless electors, which in fact, was one of the main driving features of the EC. How could faithless electors be permitted but not this compact? But I've seen enough that I know that a Supreme Court, if determined enough, and composed of the right mix of justices, can basically do whatever the hell it wants to do. It could even reinstate Dred Scott if it desired to do so. Whether or not the other branches of government would enforce such a decision is another issue. Anyways, Nate Silver had a nice write-up on the compact two years ago on 538. Silver's against the Electoral College but acknowlwedges that this compact has a tough road to hoe. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why- ... ly-doomed/

Edgy MD Jan 08 2017 04:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Charlie Brotman, play-by-play announcer of the Washington Senators and announcer of every presidential inauguration parade since 1957 ... fired, two weeks before the 45th president's parade is to take place. Long knives.

Mets Willets Point Jan 08 2017 11:37 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: Charlie Brotman, play-by-play announcer of the Washington Senators and announcer of every presidential inauguration parade since 1957 ... fired, two weeks before the 45th president's parade is to take place. Long knives. Trump probably prefers Michael Buffer.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 09 2017 06:25 AM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

If not for all the other stuff, I'd be furious enough with the Pres-fucking-Elect for killing American presidential satire.

Lefty Specialist Jan 09 2017 12:34 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mets Willets Point wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Charlie Brotman, play-by-play announcer of the Washington Senators and announcer of every presidential inauguration parade since 1957 ... fired, two weeks before the 45th president's parade is to take place. Long knives. Trump probably prefers Michael Buffer. "LET'S GET RRRREADY TO GUT MMMMMMEDICARE!!!!!!!!!!!"

Lefty Specialist Jan 09 2017 01:16 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

This just in: Trump thinks Meryl Streep is an 'overrated actress'. And who would know better than an overrated game show host. There's some satire-killing for you right there.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2017 02:18 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lefty Specialist wrote: This just in: Trump thinks Meryl Streep is an 'overrated actress'. And who would know better than an overrated game show host. Of course, if she had praised him instead he'd be regarding her as a great actress, maybe as talented as Scott Baio. Jeez, he's so tiresome. And his tenure hasn't even officially started yet.

Edgy MD Jan 09 2017 02:26 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

C'mon, people. She was in a movie with Cher, and CHER won best actress. What more evidence do you need? O. VER. RAT. ED.

Centerfield Jan 09 2017 02:48 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Loved every second of that speech. Brilliant. Donald Trump probably thinks her time would have been better spent rambling on thanking an endless list of people who helped to make her great and paved the way for her to stand there that night. Or just, you know, lying and insulting people.

Lefty Specialist Jan 09 2017 02:49 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This just in: Trump thinks Meryl Streep is an 'overrated actress'. And who would know better than an overrated game show host. Of course, if she had praised him instead he'd be regarding her as a great actress, maybe as talented as Scott Baio. Jeez, he's so tiresome. And his tenure hasn't even officially started yet. I think Obama should get a Twitter account just to troll him and bust his balls for four years. At least HE has a sense of humor. He can take his cue from a well-known Trump impersonator.... http://www.mygorkypark.com/

d'Kong76 Jan 09 2017 03:00 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Edgy MD wrote: C'mon, people. She was in a movie with Cher, and CHER won best actress. One reason I don't put milk and sugar in my joe, screen clean- up is much easier!

Edgy MD Jan 09 2017 03:36 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I think it's genius. Pick the most unimpeachable figures and deride them as over-rated, which is a strawman fallacy, in that it can almost always be true if you narrow the context enough. [list]Gary Kasparov, one of the most over-rated grandmasters in Russia, doesn't know me but attacked last night ... Albert Einstein, one of the most over-rated theoretical physicists at Princeton, doesn't know me but attacked last night ... William Butler Yeats, one of the most over-rated romantic lyric poets in Ireland, doesn't know me but attacked last night ... Jesus of Nazereth, one of the most over-rated messiahs in Judea, doesn't know me but attacked last night ...[/list:u] It's horrifically ugly genius, of course.

Vic Sage Jan 09 2017 04:03 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

i guess it would be bad form at this point for me to acknowledge that Streep might in fact be overrated? I hate myself, but god help me, i think it's true. Not that she was WRONG, of course.

Edgy MD Jan 09 2017 04:16 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Sure she might. if you ask me, most actors are. But that's the genius. It totally seizes back the conversation, and switches it to a silly unwinnable (and unlose-able) argument, redirecting the spotlight from Donald Trump and his bullying campaign. The "over-rated" argument is always a long road to a dead end.

Fman99 Jan 09 2017 05:08 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Jeez, he's so tiresome. And his tenure hasn't even officially started yet. This. It'd be great if the media stopped reporting on his Twitter outbursts. He should be ignored, the way smart parents don't attend to a petulant child having a fit. I get that they have to cover it, in one sense, because he doesn't have press conferences or give them any other output to analyze, but enough already. Take his toys away.

Lefty Specialist Jan 09 2017 05:37 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Unfortunately, it's hard to ignore the President of the United States. He speaks (or Twitters) and markets can fall, decades of statecraft can be destroyed, and wars can start. Today he's talking about Meryl Streep, but tomorrow he could be talking about Kim Jong Un. He has a mean vindictive streak which has served him well in business but will serve him poorly running the greatest nation on earth, which was already great before he came down the golden escalator, but whose greatness will be sorely tested in coming years. He can be mocked, derided, fought, or submitted to. But he cannot be ignored. And that, children of future decades, is why you're fucked. We failed you.

Edgy MD Jan 09 2017 06:08 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

How if they just suspended him? Twitter wrote: Abusive Tweets or behavior: We may suspend an account if it has been reported to us as violating our Rules surrounding abuse. When an account engages in abusive behavior, like sending threats to others or impersonating other accounts, we may suspend it temporarily or, in some cases, permanently.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2017 06:32 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Breaking News: Trump just named his Senior White House Adviser. He's about as qualified for the position as anyone on this here forum. It's ............ Jared Kushner. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/us/po ... ition.html I guess that anti-nepotism laws don't matter to this administration either.

Ceetar Jan 09 2017 07:22 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Fman99 wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Jeez, he's so tiresome. And his tenure hasn't even officially started yet. This. It'd be great if the media stopped reporting on his Twitter outbursts. He should be ignored, the way smart parents don't attend to a petulant child having a fit. I get that they have to cover it, in one sense, because he doesn't have press conferences or give them any other output to analyze, but enough already. Take his toys away. click-bait sells. Trump's response tweet warrants maybe an afterthought mention in a story about her speech. But it's all about his angry (is it even anger at this point? the timing and text are so formulaic at this point that he might well have yawned, scheduled a tweet for the middle of the night, and went to bed) Honestly, I wouldn't put that past him either. I think his main motivation for tweeting it was that "They want me to tweet this. They want to talk about me all day because I'm me, and this is what they want. I will toss they peons their expected crumbs and what them swarm. Everyone loves talking about the Donald."

Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2017 07:30 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Maybe. Or maybe he's just a raging narcissistic asshole.

Lefty Specialist Jan 09 2017 10:42 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Breaking News: Trump just named his Senior White House Adviser. He's about as qualified for the position as anyone on this here forum. It's ............ Jared Kushner. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/us/po ... ition.html I guess that anti-nepotism laws don't matter to this administration either. He's always been on the short list for some kind of job. He'll be Trump's Haldeman- the loyalty enforcer.

Nymr83 Jan 10 2017 02:03 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

scumbag piece of shit Congressman Lacy Clay is putting back up a painting of a police officer as a pig after it was rightfully removed. free speech? ok fine, there should be a painting depicting Lacy (who is black) as a Gorilla until he takes it down.

Edgy MD Jan 10 2017 02:45 PM Re: 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

There probably shouldn't be.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 10 2017 09:02 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I'm imagining what Trump will tweet tonight after Obama speaks. What do you guys think?

cooby Jan 10 2017 09:55 PM Re: Politics in 2017

(Shakes head) Do you think there is any possibility it's not really him? Good grief

Lefty Specialist Jan 10 2017 09:56 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Whatever it is, I'm sure it'll be dickish.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 10 2017 10:09 PM Re: Politics in 2017

cooby wrote: (Shakes head) Do you think there is any possibility it's not really him? Good grief I made that one up! Kinda like we guess what the NY Post backpage headline will be, but this jerk's tweets instead. Edit: playing with http://www.faketrumptweet.com is kinda fun.

cooby Jan 10 2017 10:11 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Whew! :D

Lefty Specialist Jan 10 2017 10:33 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Obama's speech is out, and it's NSFW. [youtube:2yk4o2aq]F3gIYgSa4qw[/youtube:2yk4o2aq]

Mets Willets Point Jan 11 2017 12:44 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Major Trump leaks reported from Russia.

Edgy MD Jan 11 2017 12:48 AM Re: Politics in 2017

We're getting really close to putting the Fifth Avenue Principle to the test.

Lefty Specialist Jan 11 2017 01:26 AM Re: Politics in 2017

So Russia has blackmail info on him and his campaign was backchannel-coordinating with Russians. In other words, nothing new.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 11 2017 01:32 AM Re: Politics in 2017

This is the least surprising thing either. Would be $$ if we could get some photos along with the just-dropped trump ALL CAPS Twitter denial

batmagadanleadoff Jan 11 2017 01:39 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: We're getting really close to putting the Fifth Avenue Principle to the test. Isn't that already moot? Trump won the election.

Lefty Specialist Jan 11 2017 01:41 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Tip for future presidents: don't get caught with hookers in Moscow hotel rooms.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 11 2017 01:46 AM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 11 2017 01:48 AM

Nothing'll come of this latest Russian development, whatever it may be. Everything goes Trump's way. All of his cabinet picks are gonna get confirmed. So will his first pick for SCOTUS judge. Kushner'll get that job despite anti-nepotism laws. Soon there'll be Federal voter suppression laws in place that are gonna eliminate millions of future Democrat votes. And the Trump's are gonna quadruple their wealth before they're done with the White House. And anyways, Mike Pence is just a different kind of dangerous and evil scumbag. I'm losing all faith in this country.

MFS62 Jan 11 2017 01:48 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: Tip for future presidents: don't get caught with hookers in Moscow hotel rooms. As the saying goes, "He couldn't find a hooker in a whore house". Glad he found them in hotel rooms. [crossout](BTW, how many of them did he marry?).[/crossout] I crossed that out because it was too easy. Later

seawolf17 Jan 11 2017 01:48 AM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nothing'll come of this latest Russian development, whatever it may be. Everything goes Trump's way. All of his cabinet picks are gonna get confirmed. So will his first pick for SCOTUS judge. Kushner'll get that job despite anti-nepotism laws. And the Trump's are gonna quadruple their wealth before they're done with the White House. And anyways, Mike Pence is just a different kind of dangerous and evil scumbag. I'm losing all faith in this country. All of this, unfortunately.

d'Kong76 Jan 11 2017 04:26 AM Re: Politics in 2017

I didn't start this thread, but that Rod Serling pic is funny!

Nymr83 Jan 11 2017 03:48 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I hope these allegations about Trump are true and provable. I hope he is impeached, Pence appoints someone normal like Rubio or Kasich as VP and then Pence gets caught up in the whole mess and resigns, Spiro Agnew style.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 11 2017 03:55 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I'm hoping for an epic press conference meltdown and subsequent resignation within the hour.

seawolf17 Jan 11 2017 04:03 PM Re: Politics in 2017

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm hoping for an epic press conference meltdown and subsequent resignation within the hour. That would really be something.

Centerfield Jan 11 2017 04:05 PM Re: Politics in 2017

The danger here is that these new allegations are unconfirmed. If confirmed, it could be very damaging to Trump. If debunked, it could give the impression that all of the Russia-related allegations are false. And that is not correct. The initial allegations are still serious and have been validated.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 11 2017 04:28 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Yep, fighting this one a bit, too. It reminds me of season 1, episode 1 of 'Black Mirror' on Netflix (the pig fucker episode) where the press ethically didn't want to touch the story, but also has a hard time ignoring it when "the internet" will press the Post Now button on any old thing. There are still loads of fake or slanted-so-far-it's-not-in-any-way-reliable news on both sides. Why BuzzFeed published it, even with all the disclaimers, is a little sketch, and runs the risk of both sides believing even less what is "reported" about their guy from the other side and sticking to their own comfortable corners of news ingestion. I can only guess that the intelligence community brought this to both Obama and Trump because there is a possibility this shit is real (and there actually were cameras in the Moscow hotel room - gross!). Some real evidence for or against something would be nice, though.

Edgy MD Jan 11 2017 04:46 PM Re: Politics in 2017

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm hoping for an epic press conference meltdown and subsequent resignation within the hour. I'm being blackballed by mediocre Sandy Alderson, World Series LOSER! Sad!

Lefty Specialist Jan 11 2017 05:34 PM Re: Politics in 2017

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Yep, fighting this one a bit, too. It reminds me of season 1, episode 1 of 'Black Mirror' on Netflix (the pig fucker episode) where the press ethically didn't want to touch the story, but also has a hard time ignoring it when "the internet" will press the Post Now button on any old thing. There are still loads of fake or slanted-so-far-it's-not-in-any-way-reliable news on both sides. Why BuzzFeed published it, even with all the disclaimers, is a little sketch, and runs the risk of both sides believing even less what is "reported" about their guy from the other side and sticking to their own comfortable corners of news ingestion. I can only guess that the intelligence community brought this to both Obama and Trump because there is a possibility this shit is real (and there actually were cameras in the Moscow hotel room - gross!). Some real evidence for or against something would be nice, though. Yeah, I'm concerned about this, too. The only truly corroborating evidence would have to come from the Russians, and that's not happening. Other things are easier to check than golden showers, though; payments to hackers and meetings between staffers and foreign governments, as well as bribes paid to the Chinese. This will be a bottomless pit of corruption. Peeing hookers are the least of it.

cooby Jan 11 2017 05:40 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Okay you guys, again...what is this story? I am not seeing any Russian hooker headlines

cooby Jan 11 2017 05:44 PM Re: Politics in 2017

okay, I just hauled off and googled it...my main Huh? is why would that hurt the Obamas? I assume they had vacated the bed by then

Edgy MD Jan 11 2017 05:49 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Not that I am ready to buy this story, but if you're a petty megalomaniac nincompoop, you probably think all your imagined enemies share your sensibilities, and so the symbolic insult would be meaningfully hurtful.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 11 2017 05:56 PM Re: Politics in 2017

This makes me want to pee on the lobby floor of the Trump Tower. Or maybe instead I can hire a hooker to do it. Is the world just getting crazier and crazier?

Mets Willets Point Jan 11 2017 06:47 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This makes me want to pee on the lobby floor of the Trump Tower. Or maybe instead I can hire a hooker to do it. I expect there's plenty of hooker pee in Trump Tower already.

themetfairy Jan 11 2017 06:55 PM Re: Politics in 2017

On the subject of pee and Trump Tower, the only good thing that Donald Trump ever did for New York was provide a decent public restroom downstairs at Trump Tower. I suspect that's no longer publicly accessible. So much for the one good thing....

Benjamin Grimm Jan 11 2017 07:22 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I wouldn't set foot in that building unless I had received a cootie shot.

Ashie62 Jan 11 2017 07:30 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I would pee off of it, for a price.

Edgy MD Jan 11 2017 07:40 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Insulting to think that Russians can leverage me w/ imbarrassing info! Everybody knows I'm shameless! SAD! NOT SMART!

metsmarathon Jan 11 2017 08:30 PM Re: Politics in 2017

And so it has come to this...

A Boy Named Seo Jan 11 2017 08:48 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Maybe, maybe not. Seems like we don't really know if #GoldenShowers is any more or less bullshit than #PizzaGate and we gotta be careful what we latch onto. We can't collectively keep going to Crazy Town on these BREAKING NEWS stories. Dude's a shit stain so some of it's prob true, but get us all some proof of something, pretty please.

MFS62 Jan 12 2017 01:25 AM Re: Politics in 2017

themetfairy wrote: On the subject of pee and Trump Tower, the only good thing that Donald Trump ever did for New York was provide a decent public restroom downstairs at Trump Tower. I suspect that's no longer publicly accessible. So much for the one good thing.... In NYC and looking for a great restroom? MMYF raves about the Ladies' Room at Bergdorf Goodman. She says its on one of the upper floors and offers a beautiful view of Central Park. Later

Nymr83 Jan 12 2017 01:31 AM Re: Politics in 2017

faketrumptweet.com is hilarious btw - great for fun at work

metsmarathon Jan 12 2017 02:48 AM Re: Politics in 2017

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Maybe, maybe not. Seems like we don't really know if #GoldenShowers is any more or less bullshit than #PizzaGate and we gotta be careful what we latch onto. We can't collectively keep going to Crazy Town on these BREAKING NEWS stories. Dude's a shit stain so some of it's prob true, but get us all some proof of something, pretty please. well, i mean that it has come to the point where our elected-president, ten days from inauguration, has to address at his first press conference in months, an intelligence report that has been shared amogst power brokers within dc for months, which alleges not only that he's in the bag for russia, but that it involves hookers, golden showers,and video. whether or not the report is true, it exists all the same, and is receiving enough attention from all the right players that it's not immediately patently false. how did we get here? good heavens. i need some pearls to clutch.

MFS62 Jan 12 2017 02:54 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Mets Willets Point wrote: Major Trump leaks reported from Russia. Not sure yet from the news stories if he was the leaker or the leakee. Later

Ceetar Jan 12 2017 03:19 AM Re: Politics in 2017

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Maybe, maybe not. Seems like we don't really know if #GoldenShowers is any more or less bullshit than #PizzaGate and we gotta be careful what we latch onto. We can't collectively keep going to Crazy Town on these BREAKING NEWS stories. Dude's a shit stain so some of it's prob true, but get us all some proof of something, pretty please. Does it really matter? He got elected on outrageous lies (And actual illegal gerrymandering) why should it take more evidence to accuse him of literally anything. See, that's the thing. He's so narcissistic that he'll address whatever it is if only to attack the person that said it. And then it becomes a thing because the media likes clicks and views. So like get a couple of people to start pushing the story that one of Trump's businesses provided the pig for David Cameron and it'll become 'breaking news'!

Edgy MD Jan 12 2017 03:24 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Because the erosion of truth to any end is a tragedy. A vast tragedy.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 12 2017 07:39 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Wait... WHY exactly is everyone hand-wringing about Buzzfeed? The veracity of the claims is besides the point, isn't it? What they published is true-- that there is this dossier, that it has been circulated among various Washington power brokers for months, and that it contains these allegations. The story is the dossier.

Lefty Specialist Jan 12 2017 11:32 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Waiting for the nine-digit lawsuit to be filed to drive Buzzfeed out of business. And while golden showers are the headline, there's an awful lot in there that's more disturbing. The line from All the President's Men was never more appropriate. Follow the money.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2017 11:44 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Wait... WHY exactly is everyone hand-wringing about Buzzfeed? The veracity of the claims is besides the point, isn't it? What they published is true-- that there is this dossier, that it has been circulated among various Washington power brokers for months, and that it contains these allegations. The story is the dossier. Isn't it frustrating to watch all these newspeople and pundits flail away at this issue, unable to phrase the thing in as simple and elegant a sentence as: "The story is the dossier"? And with all of their talent and resources and researchers working behind the scenes, you'd think the media would know how to cross-examine the supremely odious Kellyanne "Goebbels" Conway, instead of having her chew them up and spit them out night after night, obfuscating and lying her way through every daily scandal.

Edgy MD Jan 12 2017 12:36 PM Re: Politics in 2017

This happened to a lesser degree when news organizations wouldn't or didn't want to report on the John Edwards lovechild affair. They couldn't confirm the tawdry mess, and certainly didn't want to use The National Enquirer's reporting. But when the until-very-recent candidate for president had barricaded himself in a hotel bathroom rather than face the press, that was the story.

Lefty Specialist Jan 12 2017 01:25 PM Re: Politics in 2017

The law firm that was trying to explain how Trump won't have any conflicts of interest was named Russian Law Firm of the Year in 2016. Yes, really.

metsmarathon Jan 12 2017 01:52 PM Re: Politics in 2017

honestly, i think it's yet another symptom of the colossal failure that is our current media ecosystem. think about it. so much of the election was driven by the media's reaction to the media, or, at best, the media's reaction to what we the people might be reacting to about the story of the day. it hasn't been about the story, about facts and truth and actual fucking journalism for years, and it peaked this year with disastrous effect. if it was about the story, and journalism, and all that good stufff, we would have had a sober accounting of the true impacts of the hillary email scandal (in the end, not too much). if it was about the story, we would've had a sober accounting of the DNC email hacks (the story being hte hacking and leaking, not the business as usual behind the scenes politicking that looks bad when curated and shining bright under the harsh light of day but really amounts to standard operating procedure and the due course of business in such a messy game as politics). if it was about the story, we would have had a true accounting of the potential impacts of all of trump's conflicts of interest instead of everybody falling over themselves about how bad it looked that he didn't release his tax returns. instead we've turned political journalism into fucking TMZ crossbred with sports talk radio, and we are a weaker nation for it. what's the big deal about shamefully bad tales of the actions and proclivities of donald trump, that may or may not be true? the big deal is that powerful, important, and otherwise busy people are taking time out of their powerful, important, busy days to consider and investigate them, and that they have at least enough veracity that they were not immediately placed in the circular file by those who should know a thing or two about true and false stories, and that they came from a source well-enough placed and well-enough trusted as to merit their attention. that they are giving it attention is the story. why are they giving it attention? what are they looking at it for? are there parts of the dossier that are considered either more verifiable or having more veracity than others? if so, why? what was the source? how do you know it's not internet garbage? how long has the story been out there? was it investigated immediately? how much more have the attendant investigations uncovered? is any of it corroborated by other sources? how many people are working the investigation? if it were true, what are the implications? if it were verifiably false, what are the implications? what is the likelihood that it is completely untrue?

Edgy MD Jan 12 2017 02:23 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Screaming at the reporters that they're brandishing "fake news," that they're doing things done in "Nazi Germany} ... he really knows how to seize the rhetorical devices of his enemies and turn them around, doesn't he? In the end, they're utterly ineffectual (if more accurate) when used against him, because he's made them so tired and worn. Nazi Germany, I'm pretty sure, wasn't about bad reporting.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 12 2017 02:48 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Strange times, strange bedfellows; at least one prominent Fox talking head-- Shepard Smith-- spoke out on-air against Pee-TUS' CNN shutdown. That voice needs to be a chorus. That's the first tentative step on the road to state news and the like. Besides, intelligence leaks of blackmail-y dossiers? Well, that's far more of a Stasi/KGB tactic than a Nazi one. Orange should talk to his spymaster more; these kinds of errors make him look like he's got a loose grip on facts or something.

Mets Willets Point Jan 12 2017 02:58 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Over a year since the poisoning of Flint water revealed and the water in Flint is still poisoned, and fascist governor is still in power. Seems that Herr Snyder will be a great role model for Trump on how to strip entire communities of Americans of their rights and run his own Auschwitz and not have anyone give a fuck.

Centerfield Jan 12 2017 03:15 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Another moment when I am watching just wondering how it came to this.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2017 03:17 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2017 03:24 PM

Mets Willets Point wrote: Over a year since the poisoning of Flint water revealed and the water in Flint is still poisoned, and fascist governor is still in power. Seems that Herr Snyder will be a great role model for Trump on how to strip entire communities of Americans of their rights and run his own Auschwitz and not have anyone give a fuck. That state has lost its way. Trump won that state by about 10,000 votes. Yet the state threw out 75,000 ballots, all from Detroit and Flint --overwhelming Democrat-leaning cities -- claiming the ballots were unreadable. Then it stops Jill Stein from examining those ballots. Detroit complained about broken voting machines before the Presidential election, but the State wouldn't supply it with replacement machines. Of course, Detroit is bankrupt. So it's now run by an executive manager with almost no oversight who can pull this shit with total immunity. And the governor gets to hand-pick the manager, bypassing the election process. That rule allowing the governor to bypass voters was once repealed, but snuck back in by Herr Snyder. That's the same executive manager system that let the pols there poison an entire city. In another time and place, the citizens of Flint would have stormed the Governor's mansion, dragged Snyder out by his teeth, and hung him upside down by his balls in a public square. His approval rating is about negative a trillion. He should just leave. But the state is run by crooked GOP'ers whose politics are for sale. It's not even a state anymore. It's a Betsy Devos subsidiary.

Centerfield Jan 12 2017 03:22 PM Re: Politics in 2017

You paint with a pretty broad brush there. That's unfair to all the nice water-poisoners out there.

metsmarathon Jan 12 2017 03:35 PM Re: Politics in 2017

hmm. according to reuters, the spy responsible for the trump dossier is also the same guy who exposed corruption at FIFA in favor of russia. he was hired, apparently, by jeb bush, initially. eeenteresting!

themetfairy Jan 12 2017 03:49 PM Re: Politics in 2017

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Strange times, strange bedfellows; at least one prominent Fox talking head-- Shepard Smith-- spoke out on-air against Pee-TUS' CNN shutdown. That voice needs to be a chorus. That's the first tentative step on the road to state news and the like. I will say this for the record - while I am not a fan of Fox News in the slightest, I do like Shep Smith. He's the one reasonable voice over there.

Edgy MD Jan 12 2017 03:51 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I think Flint is about failure, not malice. I don't think Mets Guy would work as or for a fascist.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2017 04:00 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2017 04:04 PM

Oh please. He thinks Trump's a swell guy and he thinks the world of Betsy Devos. And he's been touting Michigan's education system like every school in the state is like Oxford -- despite significant evidence that, in fact, it's one of the worst in the nation. It's test scores are below average. It's one of only five states whose reading scores are down. It has more for-profit charter schools than any other state in the nation and those charter schools have the least oversight. The education system in Detroit -- it's largest city -- is the worst of any major American city. I'm sure his idea of what a fascist is is probably different than yours, especially if that fascist is a Republican. So you're saying that Snyder can't be a bad guy because MGIM works there? That's nuts.

Centerfield Jan 12 2017 04:02 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Trump just tweeted that people should buy from L.L. Bean, as a thanks for a large contribution to his campaign.

Fman99 Jan 12 2017 04:09 PM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Oh please. He thinks Trump's a swell guy and he thinks the world of Betsy Devos. And he's been touting Michigan's education system like every school in the state is like Oxford -- despite significant evidence that, in fact, it's one of the worst in the nation. It's test scores are below average. It's one of only five states whose reading scores are down. It has more for-profit charter schools than any other state in the nation and those charter schools have the least oversight. The education system in Detroit -- it's largest city -- is the worst of any major American city. I'm sure his idea of what a fascist is is probably different than yours, especially if that fascist is a Republican. So you're saying that Snyder can't be a bad guy because MGIM works there? That's nuts. You've really beaten this into the ground, dude. It's tiresome.

Nymr83 Jan 12 2017 04:16 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Centerfield wrote: Trump just tweeted that people should buy from L.L. Bean, as a thanks for a large contribution to his campaign. You need the full context to understand, this was in response to some morons starting a campaign to try and boycott the company because a member of the board donated her own money (not even company money!) to a Trump PAC. I have no issue with Trump telling people to support a business when that business is being targeted by his opponents for a perceived aassociation with him.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2017 04:16 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Fman99 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Oh please. He thinks Trump's a swell guy and he thinks the world of Betsy Devos. And he's been touting Michigan's education system like every school in the state is like Oxford -- despite significant evidence that, in fact, it's one of the worst in the nation. It's test scores are below average. It's one of only five states whose reading scores are down. It has more for-profit charter schools than any other state in the nation and those charter schools have the least oversight. The education system in Detroit -- it's largest city -- is the worst of any major American city. I'm sure his idea of what a fascist is is probably different than yours, especially if that fascist is a Republican. So you're saying that Snyder can't be a bad guy because MGIM works there? That's nuts. You've really beaten this into the ground, dude. It's tiresome. Yeah, right. Why don't you repeat the same three stupid 3rd grade tit jokes you've been repeating for like 10 years that were barely funny the first time, let alone the 9,000th time. That's so funny. Now let me roll my eyes a million times so you get the point.

seawolf17 Jan 12 2017 04:33 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Centerfield wrote: Trump just tweeted that people should buy from L.L. Bean, as a thanks for a large contribution to his campaign. Barf.

cooby Jan 12 2017 04:36 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I kinda like their flip flops. They last for years through dozens of washings

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2017 04:36 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Centerfield wrote: Trump just tweeted that people should buy from L.L. Bean, as a thanks for a large contribution to his campaign. It was actually a contribution from one of the members of the Bean family. The retailer is desperately trying to disassociate itself from it, or at least the blowback from it.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jan 12 2017 05:13 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2017 12:58 AM

Avi.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 12 2017 05:55 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Steering this away from Nazis and back to Socialists (j/k, MGiM), I watched a cyber security webinar yesterday and it focused for a bit on Podesta and how he got phished. Was avoidable, yes, but pretty clever just the same. The hackers targeted almost 4000 Gmail users associated w/ the Hillary campaign, DNC, and government personnel. They sent Podesta emails looking like they were from Gmail informing him that someone was trying to access his account from Ukraine. He clicked on one of almost 9000 bit.ly links the hackers prepared (a shortened link, might look like --> http://www.bit.ly/ExAmPLe and masks the full url, domain name, and suffix which might give away the actual destination to the end user). It looked like this: He clicked on this fake notification to change his password and was redirected to a spoofed Google login page that looks like the below, but had pre-populated his username and even had his photo. He entered his password and the rest is sad, sad history. THE LESSON: This wouldn't have happened if mutli-factor authentication was enabled (you enter your password and the site sends a code to your cell phone that you must then enter as a sort of second password to confirm the login was actually you). MFA is available to email clients, banks, facebook, twitter, linkedin, so many places. Turn it on. One other note, many on the right have blamed the hack on the Dem's ineptitutde have circulated the bullshit story that Podesta's password was actually "password". This is not true, Gmail does not allow for many simple dictionary words to be passwords, including "password". #FAKENEWS

themetfairy Jan 12 2017 06:10 PM Re: Politics in 2017

A Boy Named Seo wrote: THE LESSON: This wouldn't have happened if mutli-factor authentication was enabled (you enter your password and the site sends a code to your cell phone that you must then enter as a sort of second password to confirm the login was actually you). MFA is available to email clients, banks, facebook, twitter, linkedin, so many places. THE LESSON, PART DEUX: If you do receive this kind of notification, NEVER click the link! Go to the website itself and check things out there. For instance, about a month ago I received several notifications from PayPal about a new credit card having been added to my account (I was slightly suspicious because these were sent to my secondary e-mail account, but they sure looked authentic). I opened up a new browser tab and went to my PayPal account and there was no illicit activity. I did forward the messages to Spoof@PayPal.com so they could investigate. I did change my password for good measure, but a month or so later haven't noticed any activity that isn't mine.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2017 06:14 PM Re: Politics in 2017

A Boy Named Seo wrote: One other note, many on the right have blamed the hack on the Dem's ineptitutde .... This insulting talking point is driving me nuts. I guess it means that if Kellyanne Conway leaves her house forgetting to lock the door, I can go in there and steal whatever I want with total impunity.

metsmarathon Jan 12 2017 06:26 PM Re: Politics in 2017

it's not so different from what we learned during the campaign. that if an attractive woman absentmindedly leaves her pussy attached, and you believe yourself powerful enough, you can grab it with total impunity.

d'Kong76 Jan 12 2017 06:49 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I got into some pussy grabbing this weekend. Well, not literally. I was in a room with about fifteen loud people ages 16-80 and getting into it with my friends step sister (a former hippy who smokes weed a few times a day) and has gone to the dark side and is a huge Trump lover for reasons too bizarre to go into right now. So as we're 'discussing' I yelled at her, "yeah, but if your fucking step father (whom she didn't get a long with) announced that he grabbed someone by the pussy you'd call him a pervert and go on how disgusting he can be but it's ok for The Donald?" "Give me a fucking break, you're a hipocrite!" It was like an E.F. Hutton commercial, everyone's jaw dropped and didn't say a word for like ten seconds... I could feel the redness in my face for five minutes but it was classikcly worth it!

Edgy MD Jan 12 2017 06:54 PM Re: Politics in 2017

That's one for the greatest hits album right there.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 12 2017 07:02 PM Re: Politics in 2017

themetfairy wrote: THE LESSON: This wouldn't have happened if mutli-factor authentication was enabled (you enter your password and the site sends a code to your cell phone that you must then enter as a sort of second password to confirm the login was actually you). MFA is available to email clients, banks, facebook, twitter, linkedin, so many places. THE LESSON, PART DEUX: If you do receive this kind of notification, NEVER click the link! Go to the website itself and check things out there. For instance, about a month ago I received several notifications from PayPal about a new credit card having been added to my account (I was slightly suspicious because these were sent to my secondary e-mail account, but they sure looked authentic). I opened up a new browser tab and went to my PayPal account and there was no illicit activity. I did forward the messages to Spoof@PayPal.com so they could investigate. I did change my password for good measure, but a month or so later haven't noticed any activity that isn't mine. This, too. Those short bit.ly links when you click them become full domain names, and sometimes they're quite long. What the hackers did as well, was buy domain names that look similar to the target, so say for example, you get an email from the CPF telling you to change your password. You click on the link in your email and your browser opens up and you see that old, dreamy picture of Shea and a place that looks just like your favorite baseball internet bullshit spot, but you may not notice that the domain name in the address bar (http://www.thecranepoel.net/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=1) is spelled slightly differently. Since the page itself looks right, most people don't even check the address, and if they quickly do, they might not notice a couple of flipped letters or a different domain suffix. So you give them your password and bam, some asshole can now go to the real http://www.thecranepool.net/ and pretend to be you talking about Ed Hearn or Daryl Boston, which would obviously be 1000x worse than the Podesta thing.

Centerfield Jan 12 2017 08:25 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Pre-Emptive Defense to Anyone Trying to Assert that Donald Trump Did Not Mock a Disabled Reporter: The defense being posited by those in the Trump camp, and his supporters, is that Trump did not mean to mock the Times reporter. You can see them in sites like this: https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-tru ... isability/ Their arguments are, effectively: 1. Trump's could not have been mocking Serge Kovalevski because his imitation is that of a spastic person. Kovalevski, though disabled, is not spastic. 2. Trump's mocking of Serge Kovalevski was not aimed to mock his disability. This is how he mocks everyone. He used those same movements to mock Ted Cruz, and another general. This is, of course, a bunch of horseshit. Let's start with #2. It is true that Trump used that spastic impersonation on others. Those within his circle say that he's done this a bunch of times. So far we are on the same page. But that doesn't mean he didn't mock the reporter with a disability. It means that Trump mocks people with disabilities all the time. With that spastic impersonation, Trump is effectively saying that his target is stupid, so stupid that he is a retard. He insults people by portraying them as "retards". This practice, in itself, is incredibly offensive. If a second grader did this, he would be reprimanded. This is the President Elect. This impersonation is that much more offensive when your victim is actually disabled. If Trump knew Kovalevski was disabled, and presumably he did since he says "You should see this guy", then to mock him at all is incredibly offensive. To mock him by portraying him as a retard, is inexcusable. And I have seen the clips where he mocks Cruz etc. The impersonation is no where near as pronounced as it is for Kovalevski. It's much more exaggerated in the latter. So, in a nutshell, Donald Trump insults his opponents by portraying them as someone with a disability. The implication being that a person with a disability equates to comical stupidity. And when his opponent is actually disabled, that's when he really commits to the impersonation and goes the extra mile. The guy is a fucking scumbag.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2017 08:42 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Centerfield wrote: The guy is a fucking scumbag. Yeah, but at least he didn't have a private e-mail server! It should be so obvious to anybody that Trump is totally vile. The fact that he won a nomination and an election is mind-boggling. I just hope it's four years (or less) and then out for Trump. My fear is that his actions and tone set the template for future presidents and that this becomes the new normal.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2017 09:01 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Got to love the fucking fake-news hipocracy bullshit of the R's original Idiot America Darling, Sarah "Gotcha Question!" Palin. I think we can draw a straight line from her ignorance to the out of control distrust of an entire generation determined only to "believe" what suits their worldview and dismiss the rest as "fake". https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... ven-there/

Lefty Specialist Jan 12 2017 09:57 PM Re: Politics in 2017

For the life of me I don't know how any woman voted for him after the "pussy incident". But tens of millions did.

Edgy MD Jan 12 2017 10:29 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Got to love the fucking fake-news hipocracy bullshit of the R's original Idiot America Darling, Sarah "Gotcha Question!" Palin. I think we can draw a straight line from her ignorance to the out of control distrust of an entire generation determined only to "believe" what suits their worldview and dismiss the rest as "fake". https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... ven-there/ Sue, sue, sue. If everybody is a reporter, than everybody should be subject to the same libel law that applies to The Chicago Tribune when they publish malicious and false information. How else do we push back?

Nymr83 Jan 13 2017 02:18 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Does anyone remember 'Dinosaurs' the TV show? prepare to crack up... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmbttoxUeE

Centerfield Jan 13 2017 03:14 PM Re: Politics in 2017

So it's good in the beginning, but you wonder how long they can stretch this for. Then you get to the wall and climate change. Wow.

Fman99 Jan 13 2017 04:26 PM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Yeah, right. Why don't you repeat the same three stupid 3rd grade tit jokes you've been repeating for like 10 years that were barely funny the first time, let alone the 9,000th time. That's so funny. Now let me roll my eyes a million times so you get the point. If we take a survey, and see how many people are entertained by my juvenile escapades, versus how many people want your keyboard to explode while you sit at it, I think, you'd find the results to be disheartening. But I could be wrong. Prolly not though. Dickhead.

Nymr83 Jan 13 2017 04:57 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Fman99 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Yeah, right. Why don't you repeat the same three stupid 3rd grade tit jokes you've been repeating for like 10 years that were barely funny the first time, let alone the 9,000th time. That's so funny. Now let me roll my eyes a million times so you get the point. If we take a survey, and see how many people are entertained by my juvenile escapades, versus how many people want your keyboard to explode while you sit at it, I think, you'd find the results to be disheartening. But I could be wrong. Prolly not though. Dickhead. i enjoy your humor. and i'll repeat again that i disagree with 90% of the people this board politically but only want one "keyboard to explode" - keep your contributions coming Fman!

batmagadanleadoff Jan 13 2017 05:47 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Fman99 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Yeah, right. Why don't you repeat the same three stupid 3rd grade tit jokes you've been repeating for like 10 years that were barely funny the first time, let alone the 9,000th time. That's so funny. Now let me roll my eyes a million times so you get the point. If we take a survey, and see how many people are entertained by my juvenile escapades, versus how many people want your keyboard to explode while you sit at it, I think, you'd find the results to be disheartening. But I could be wrong. Prolly not though. Dickhead. Doesn't change anything. They're still moronic jokes.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 13 2017 05:50 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Centerfield wrote: The guy is a fucking scumbag. Yeah, but at least he didn't have a private e-mail server! It should be so obvious to anybody that Trump is totally vile. The fact that he won a nomination and an election is mind-boggling. I just hope it's four years (or less) and then out for Trump. My fear is that his actions and tone set the template for future presidents and that this becomes the new normal. My biggest fear is the wreckage the GOP will heap on America while it controls the government, which might take decades to undo.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 13 2017 06:00 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: I think Flint is about failure, not malice. I don't think Mets Guy would work as or for a fascist. If these facts are reasonably accurate, there's no doubt that Flint was about malice. Or gross recklessness. Or a callous and insensitive disregard for the rights of other people. But something bad, definitely -- way worse than simple negligence. http://michaelmoore.com/10FactsOnFlint/ http://michaelmoore.com/ArrestGovSnyder/ Also, I can't believe that the guy that voted for Trump, an educated guy to boot, and that denies that there are extremists in the GOP has the moral high ground here, so much so according to you, that the mere fact that he works for his state government is enough to absolve Rick Snyder of everything. Only in this forum and only because I, me, myself have inserted myself into this disagreement.

Edgy MD Jan 13 2017 06:36 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I can't understand much of the running-on in that last paragraph, and those parts I understand I tend to disagree with. 1) I didn't say he has the moral high ground, Johnny Distorto. I said I don't think he's a fascist. 2) I don't agree that he denies there are extremists in the GOP. He's certainly written that there are. 3) I don't advocate for absolving Governor Snyder of responsibility for Flint. He clearly failed. And people in his employ clearly and callously and negligently dismissed a terrible problem, and some hurtfully derided people for who tried to agitate to have that problem addressed. 4) Maybe others know who he voted for, but I don't.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 14 2017 09:27 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think Mets Guy would work as or for a fascist. Why not? He voted for a fascist for President.

Edgy MD Jan 14 2017 10:52 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Yeah, you already responded to that post.

Ashie62 Jan 15 2017 12:23 AM Re: Politics in 2017

I'd like to think we don't eat our own here. Things get said, but.....

Edgy MD Jan 15 2017 12:44 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Collin McHugh, on fire last night. [tweet:2nasmzlw]https://twitter.com/Collin_McHugh/status/820332730328248320[/tweet:2nasmzlw] [tweet:2nasmzlw]https://twitter.com/Collin_McHugh/status/820333121514176512[/tweet:2nasmzlw] [tweet:2nasmzlw]https://twitter.com/Collin_McHugh/status/820400687624388608[/tweet:2nasmzlw] Sounds like Ashley wasn't the calligrapher of choice for the inauguration invites.

Lefty Specialist Jan 15 2017 03:48 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I guess that Trump automatically assumed that since John Lewis was black he represented an urban hellhole, but his district actually contains some of the nicest parts of Atlanta and surroundings. And someone who for years banged the drum saying that Obama was a Kenyan forfeits the right to complain about someone calling him illegitimate. Forever.

Ashie62 Jan 15 2017 06:35 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Probably, Lewis's district has some of the wealthiest areas in the northeast. Why would you pick on John Lewis? Begeezuz.

d'Kong76 Jan 15 2017 07:52 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Ashie62 wrote: Probably, Lewis's district has some of the wealthiest areas in the northeast. Yeah, dem dang yankees in Georgia are loaded!

Chad Ochoseis Jan 17 2017 01:16 AM Re: Politics in 2017

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.ec718a00ba40 “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” Prediction: He's going to do what his voters wanted him to do - keep the Affordable Care Act and get rid of Obamacare. The "better" plan will be to make cosmetic changes to the ACA, sit back and relax while the kinks continue to get worked out and the system improves on its own, call it "Trumpcare", and take full credit for it. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

MFS62 Jan 17 2017 11:56 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Can a mention of Donald Trump's hands be here, or should it be in the "Small Things Considered" thread? Anyhow, I just mentioned them. I'm just getting antsy waiting for Bobby Valentine to be named Ambassador to Japan. Later

Ashie62 Jan 19 2017 07:40 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Jets owner Woody Johnson has been named ambassador to the UK by Trump. [url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/jets/2017/01/19/woody-johnson-ambassador-britain-united-kingdom-new-york/96784720/

Nymr83 Jan 19 2017 08:40 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Ashie62 wrote: Jets owner Woody Johnson has been named ambassador to the UK by Trump. [url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/jets/2017/01/19/woody-johnson-ambassador-britain-united-kingdom-new-york/96784720/ Great news for the New York Jets if he isn't around meddling!

Benjamin Grimm Jan 19 2017 08:49 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Maybe he'll name Jeff Wilpon as ambassador to Antarctica.

Nymr83 Jan 19 2017 09:15 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe he'll name Jeff Wilpon as ambassador to Antarctica. Not far enough. Does he believe in life on Mars?

Benjamin Grimm Jan 19 2017 09:25 PM Re: Politics in 2017

If the National Enquirer says so.

Lefty Specialist Jan 20 2017 11:22 AM Re: Politics in 2017

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.ec718a00ba40 “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” Prediction: He's going to do what his voters wanted him to do - keep the Affordable Care Act and get rid of Obamacare. The "better" plan will be to make cosmetic changes to the ACA, sit back and relax while the kinks continue to get worked out and the system improves on its own, call it "Trumpcare", and take full credit for it. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. Mike Pence clarified that "Everybody will be able to BUY insurance." Which is quite a different thing. You'll be able to buy it, unless of course you can't afford it. Which was exactly the situation before the ACA came into existence. So 20 or 30 million people will lose their insurance because they're poor. But at least the wealthy will get a tax cut, so there's that. 'Trumpcare" will be basically the 2009 insurance market, except with huge cost increases. And don't think because you work for a company that provides insurance you'll be insulated. Your rates will be going up, too. Because Republicans will be forced to keep things the public likes (like keeping your kids on your insurance until 26, covering pre-existing conditions and other things), those costs will get passed on where they couldn't before. And ladies, no more free birth control. Teenage pregnancies fell to their lowest level ever in 2016 because of this. Watch them start to go up again, and watch right-wingers wonder why (and at the same time pass new laws to make it harder to get an abortion).

seawolf17 Jan 20 2017 02:31 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: 'Trumpcare" I'm telling you, the president should have just started calling the ACA "Trumpcare" over the past two months, and suddenly it would have become a brilliant program.

Centerfield Jan 20 2017 02:52 PM Re: Politics in 2017

seawolf17 wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: 'Trumpcare" I'm telling you, the president should have just started calling the ACA "Trumpcare" over the past two months, and suddenly it would have become a brilliant program. I have this vision of Trump explaining the difference between the two systems. I think it will be a lot like when Vanilla Ice tried to explain why his bass line was different than Under Pressure.

seawolf17 Jan 20 2017 03:40 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Centerfield wrote: seawolf17 wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: 'Trumpcare" I'm telling you, the president should have just started calling the ACA "Trumpcare" over the past two months, and suddenly it would have become a brilliant program. I have this vision of Trump explaining the difference between the two systems. I think it will be a lot like when Vanilla Ice tried to explain why his bass line was different than Under Pressure. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I remember that. Comedy GOLD.

Centerfield Jan 23 2017 02:58 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I think we saw some pretty frightening shit from the new regime this weekend. The first was when he shut down the National Park Service from tweeting unflattering posts. The second was the blatant lies and the attacks from the press secretary. We are in full fledged North Korea style propaganda mode now. The press had better roll up their sleeves and gear up for a fight. If they wuss out like CNN did on that Buzzfeed response, he is going to divide and conquer all of their credibility. They better be united and strong.

Lefty Specialist Jan 23 2017 03:11 PM Re: Politics in 2017

'Alternative facts'. That's Trumpspeak for the lies and propaganda that'll be coming out now. When Kellyanne tried that out on Chuck Todd, he nearly had an aneurysm. And if they're going to flat-out lie about something that's easily disproven, imagine what they'll be doing with things that aren't so clear-cut. I don't have a lot of faith in the press, frankly. They'll go along to avoid getting shut out entirely. Anyone who shows any initiative will get smacked down by his bosses.

Ceetar Jan 23 2017 03:16 PM Re: Politics in 2017

These people are sloppy and uncreative. Someone will always find some dirt, even if it's only like 1% of the press not simply being an aggregator bot. It's the rest of the government that needs to impeach, reject, correct, etc that I have no faith in.

cooby Jan 23 2017 04:24 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Centerfield wrote: I think we saw some pretty frightening shit from the new regime this weekend. The first was when he shut down the National Park Service from tweeting unflattering posts. The second was the blatant lies and the attacks from the press secretary. We are in full fledged North Korea style propaganda mode now. The press had better roll up their sleeves and gear up for a fight. If they wuss out like CNN did on that Buzzfeed response, he is going to divide and conquer all of their credibility. They better be united and strong. The press? I'm wondering if I should stock up on canned beans

Centerfield Jan 23 2017 09:27 PM Re: Politics in 2017

CBS reporting that he brought is own cheering section to the CIA. Unbelievable.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 23 2017 09:49 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 23 2017 10:18 PM

Centerfield wrote: CBS reporting that he brought is own cheering section to the CIA. Unbelievable. Really? I'm not surprised. I saw that speech and was appalled when I heard applause break out in response to Trump's assault on the media. My first thought was that the applause was fake and planted because no way would that particular crowd applaud those comments. What a disgrace to this country. Like ceets wrote, I hold the whole party responsible, all those enablers of this vileness.

Chad Ochoseis Jan 23 2017 10:06 PM Re: Politics in 2017

One of the lawyers in this group should be able to answer this. I haven't seen it discussed anywhere. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. So how is Trump materially in violation? True enough, he hasn't actually received consent from Congress to benefit from his foreign business partnerships. But does anyone doubt that the current Congress would give him consent if needed?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 23 2017 10:20 PM Re: Politics in 2017

One of the lawyers in this group should be able to answer this. I haven't seen it discussed anywhere. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. So how is Trump materially in violation? True enough, he hasn't actually received consent from Congress to benefit from his foreign business partnerships. But does anyone doubt that the current Congress would give him consent if needed? I think you answered your own question.

MFS62 Jan 23 2017 11:24 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Presidents receive gifts(presents) from foreign dignitaries all the time. I remember seeing a picture of President Eisenhower receiving the present of a camel from King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. Later

Benjamin Grimm Jan 23 2017 11:43 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Yes, but they accept on behalf of the United States government. Eisenhower wouldn't have been able to take the camel home as his personal property. It probably went to the National Zoo.

d'Kong76 Jan 24 2017 12:25 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It probably went to the National Zoo. That must have been quite the spectacle seeing a camel wandering the congressional floor.

MFS62 Jan 24 2017 12:30 AM Re: Politics in 2017

d'Kong76 wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: It probably went to the National Zoo. That must have been quite the spectacle seeing a camel wandering the congressional floor. Just a different kind of animal. They're used to seeing asses there. Later

Nymr83 Jan 24 2017 12:46 AM Re: Politics in 2017

One of the lawyers in this group should be able to answer this. I haven't seen it discussed anywhere. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. So how is Trump materially in violation? True enough, he hasn't actually received consent from Congress to benefit from his foreign business partnerships. But does anyone doubt that the current Congress would give him consent if needed? Before he could even potentially be in violation, the clause makes pretty clear he'd need to have accepted something from a foreign government - a gift from the CEO of a Russian private company wouldn't count and i'm guessing the degree of state control of said company would be deemed a 'political question' by the court.

Lefty Specialist Jan 24 2017 01:48 AM Re: Politics in 2017

This is all about discovery. It's a wedge to get those tax returns out in the open, because THERE's where you'll see all the foreign entanglements. Not sure the case will succeed, but it'll be fun to watch them try. And there'll be other attempts, too.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 24 2017 07:50 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Retired living legend Philip Roth riffs on The Plot Against America and on Donald Trump. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/ ... s-on-trump excerpt: “I was born in 1933,” [Roth] continued, “the year that F.D.R. was inaugurated. He was President until I was twelve years old. I’ve been a Roosevelt Democrat ever since. I found much that was alarming about being a citizen during the tenures of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. But, whatever I may have seen as their limitations of character or intellect, neither was anything like as humanly impoverished as Trump is: ignorant of government, of history, of science, of philosophy, of art, incapable of expressing or recognizing subtlety or nuance, destitute of all decency, and wielding a vocabulary of seventy-seven words that is better called Jerkish than English.” [***] “My novel wasn’t written as a warning. I was just trying to imagine what it would have been like for a Jewish family like mine, in a Jewish community like Newark, had something even faintly like Nazi anti-Semitism befallen us in 1940, at the end of the most pointedly anti-Semitic decade in world history. I wanted to imagine how we would have fared, which meant I had first to invent an ominous American government that threatened us. As for how Trump threatens us, I would say that, like the anxious and fear-ridden families in my book, what is most terrifying is that he makes any and everything possible, including, of course, the nuclear catastrophe.” [fimg=444]https://pictures.abebooks.com/HENNIKERBOOKFARM/md/md8057491406.jpg[/fimg]

Vic Sage Jan 24 2017 02:57 PM Re: Politics in 2017

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. doesn't receiving the title of "president" from the Russian government count?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 24 2017 05:14 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I hope they mean it, because I've been waiting for the Dems to make this statement for a very long time: “Trump is owed the same deference from us that he paid to President Obama in the birtherism smear. Donald Trump famously threw out the political rulebook. If we are to succeed in this period, Democrats must suspend the normal rules of politics as well,” said David Brock, the Democratic strategist who organized the meeting, in his call-to-arms address to the gathered donors. “I’m sick and tired of the Republicans taking advantage of our fundamental decency — that ends today. These times require that Democrats go at the other side with both barrels." Top Democrats plot path forward after November disaster http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/d ... eat-234001

Lefty Specialist Jan 24 2017 05:25 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 24 2017 05:29 PM

Obama wasted 3 years of his presidency chasing the unicorn of bipartisanship with Republicans. They returned his olive branches singed and covered in shit. He kept trying far too long. Democrats need to treat Trump the same way. Now there's not much they can do now, but they should use every tool they have, the largest of which is public opinion. They need to trumpet what he's doing at every turn. He wants to take away insurance from millions who voted for him. He wants to gut Medicare and Medicaid, which will affect millions who voted for him. I want to see Democrats actually fight, rather than pre-compromising with themselves. If they fight the bad stuff, they'll be rewarded. But they have to FIGHT, not just issue sternly-worded press releases. By the way, I really like Eric Schneiderman; he takes crap from no one. It's why Andrew Cuomo (who's running in 2020 and would be a disaster) hates his guts and undercuts him every chance he gets.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 24 2017 05:26 PM Re: Politics in 2017

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com ... rt-nominee Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst for The New Yorker, provides some advice on how to block a Trump nominee to the SCOTUS. The piece presupposes that the GOP controlled Senate won't invoke the nuclear option at some point in the near future, or that it might not be able to muster the 51 simple majority votes to confirm Trump's nominee even if it does kill the filibuster. A few weeks ago, I saw Sen Charles Schumer making the TV cable news rounds and stating the the GOP will likely, not invoke the nuclear option in connection with upcoming SCOTUS hearings. Schumer claimed that even the GOP has a deep respect for the filibuster tradition. Me personally, I wasn't convinced. I might be comforted if I heard those words come out of the mouth of Mitch McConnell, which I haven't.

Chad Ochoseis Jan 24 2017 06:16 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: Democrats need to treat Trump the same way. Now there's not much they can do now, but they should use every tool they have, the largest of which is public opinion. They need to trumpet what he's doing at every turn. He wants to take away insurance from millions who voted for him. He wants to gut Medicare and Medicaid, which will affect millions who voted for him. This sucks. It makes me miserable to think about it. It's also 100% correct.

Ceetar Jan 24 2017 07:33 PM Re: Politics in 2017

What the democrats* need to do is exploit loopholes and technicalities and stop mucking around with 'process'. Trump says you can't hire government employees? appoint them. Have them set up a company and sign a contract with that company. They can't release information? Fine, post it on an unofficial blog and tell everyone loudly and clearly "THIS IS UNOFFICIAL WE CAN NOT OFFICIALLY RELEASE INFORMATION" and all that. Dare Trump's team to challenge it. In many cases, they probably don't know how nor have the manpower cause they didn't fucking hire anyone. And fight everything they do illegally with every avenue you have. Trump has conflicts of interest. Sue him, push for impeachment, litigate the hell out of it. *independents too, even though everyone wants there to be just two parties and a personal battle that benefits only them..

batmagadanleadoff Jan 24 2017 07:55 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: Obama wasted 3 years of his presidency chasing the unicorn of bipartisanship with Republicans. They returned his olive branches singed and covered in shit. He kept trying far too long. [fimg=555]https://media.giphy.com/media/DAAldV51KUzUA/giphy.gif[/fimg]

batmagadanleadoff Jan 25 2017 04:54 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 25 2017 05:06 PM

Trump seeks 'major investigation' into unsupported claims of voter fraud https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 5b647a7ce9 I worry that this investigation will be a trumped up rigged investigation full of alternative facts in order to justify the terrible voter ID/suppression laws that are coming for sure. Can't wait for the findings to be announced. This accusation of voter fraud is gonna be the Trump administration's Reichstag fire.

Edgy MD Jan 25 2017 05:05 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Yeah, I'm curious about who will have oversight in such an investigation. “Depending on results,” Trump tweeted, “we will strengthen up voting procedures!” "Strengthen up"? Did a Russian type that post for him? Obviously the Feds have limited authority under the Constitution to interfere in voting in federal elections, which is regulated state by state. Hopefully, the courts will remind him of this when appropriate. Hopefully, the courts will come to remind him of a lot of things.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 25 2017 05:19 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I'm curious about who will have oversight in such an investigation. “Depending on results,” Trump tweeted, “we will strengthen up voting procedures!” "Strengthen up"? Did a Russian type that post for him? Obviously the Feds have limited authority under the Constitution to interfere in voting in federal elections, which is regulated state by state. Hopefully, the courts will remind him of this when appropriate. Hopefully, the courts will come to remind him of a lot of things. I'm seriously doubting this. That well known voter ID law from the State of North Carolina that was stricken -- you know, the one where the court wrote that minorities were targeted with surgical precision? That was a lower court decision. That law was the most egregious abuse of voting rights since the Shelby County decision. The lower court found discriminatory intent -- an extremely rare finding -- most of those invalidated laws are typically struck down on grounds of discriminatory impact or effect instead of intent. But the North Carolinians were brazen -- or stupid -- about the way they went about crafting their bad law. But here's the thing: that case was eventually heard by the SCOTUS -- the post-Scalia eight judge SCOTUS. The SCOTUS gave a split 4-4 decision. And so the lower court decision remains the last word on the NC law. The 4-4 split means that J. Kennedy, the moderate Republican who is often the deciding Justice on partisan issues before the SCOTUS voted to uphold the most terrible voter id law passed post Shelby. Which means that those laws will get upheld once Trump's SCOTUS pick is confirmed.

Edgy MD Jan 25 2017 05:32 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I'm not sure what part you doubt, but I'm just expressing hope, not making a prediction. The only prediction I make is the same one Clubber Lang makes: pain.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 25 2017 05:38 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure what part you doubt, but I'm just expressing hope, not making a prediction. The only prediction I make is the same one Clubber Lang makes: pain. I hear you. My doubt is with the courts. I believe that once Trump fills the SCOTUS, that court will decide that these voter suppression laws are valid. I believe that the Trump SCOTUS, or the Scalia SCOTUS would have upheld the stricken terrible voter ID law that recently came out of North Carolina.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 25 2017 06:36 PM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: This accusation of voter fraud is gonna be the Trump administration's Reichstag fire. EXACTLY the way I thought of it.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 25 2017 07:14 PM Re: Politics in 2017

And .... they're off and running ...... House panel advances plan to reinstate Arkansas voter ID law excerpt: LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – An Arkansas House panel has backed a proposal to reinstate the state's voter ID law that was struck down more than two years ago, moving forward with the restriction months after Republicans expanded their majorities in the Legislature. The House State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee endorsed the proposal Wednesday requiring most voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot. The measure now heads to the House. The Arkansas Supreme Court in 2014 struck down the state's voter ID law as unconstitutional. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01 ... d-law.html

Chad Ochoseis Jan 26 2017 01:11 AM Re: Politics in 2017

A new PAC has been formed to support scientists running for public office. The newly inaugurated President Trump, and many of his Cabinet picks, have repeatedly cast doubt upon the reality of human-made climate change, questioned the repeatedly proven safety of vaccines. Since the inauguration, the administration has already frozen grants and contracts by the Environmental Protection Agency and gagged researchers at the US Department of Agriculture. Many scientists are asking themselves: What can I do? And the answer from a newly formed group called 314 Action is: Get elected. [url]https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/thanks-to-trump-scientists-are-planning-to-run-for-office/514229/?utm_source=fbb smg or marathon - if you guys run for office, I'm pledging a donation of at least $100.

Rockin' Doc Jan 26 2017 01:41 AM Re: Politics in 2017

I guess I'm just an ignorant North Carolinian, but I still fail to see how requiring a picture ID in order to vote is discriminatory. Anyone with a driver's license automatically qualifies as does anyone that takes the time and effort to simply register for a free (no fee) ID card through the state DMV offices (either in person or online) can attain a card. If a person could register to vote, then it should not be a problem for that individual to acquire a free ID card. There are a myriad of situations in which a photo ID is required to obtain services. A photo ID card is often needed to purchase alcohol (all ABC stores and most grocery or convenience stores) require photo IDs in order to purchase alcohol (and I believe cigarettes). Most banks still require a picture ID in order to cash a check or open an account. Most public utilities require a picture ID in order to establish service to a house or apartment. A picture ID is required to get through airport security. To name just a few examples.

Chad Ochoseis Jan 26 2017 02:07 AM Re: Politics in 2017

If it's as simple as proving residence via a lease/deed/affidavit from wherever you happen to be living, even if it's a shelter, and if the ID is free, then it probably isn't discriminatory. But I don't think it's ever that simple. Here's what the ACLU site has to say about North Carolina. I recognize that the ACLU isn't neutral on this issue. North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. I can see why a state employee ID card would be prohibited; working for the state isn't proof that you live in the state. Public assistance IDs are a different story.

Rockin' Doc Jan 26 2017 03:00 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Chad Ochoseis wrote: If it's as simple as proving residence via a lease/deed/affidavit from wherever you happen to be living, even if it's a shelter, and if the ID is free, then it probably isn't discriminatory. But I don't think it's ever that simple. The following is copy and pasted from the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles Website: There is no fee for a North Carolina ID card for an individual registered to vote in North Carolina who does not have acceptable photo identification, under North Carolina General Statute §163-166.13. To obtain a no-fee voter ID card, you must sign a declaration stating that you do not have an acceptable photo ID. If you already have an acceptable photo ID, you are not eligible to receive a no-fee voter ID. You must also be registered to vote. If you are not a registered voter, DMV will assist you in completing your voter registration application during your visit, and you will still be eligible for your no fee voter ID. As with any non-operator ID card, you must provide proof of age and identity, a valid Social Security number and proof of citizenship and residency. Chad Ochoseis wrote: Here's what the ACLU site has to say about North Carolina. I recognize that the ACLU isn't neutral on this issue. North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. I can see why a state employee ID card would be prohibited; working for the state isn't proof that you live in the state. Public assistance IDs are a different story. The same documentation that is required to apply for and receive Medicaid or other forms of public assistance, are the exact same forms used to apply for and receive a no fee voter ID card through the DMV. If a person has the documentation to receive public assistance, then they can use the same forms to obtain their free photo ID.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2017 03:48 AM Re: Politics in 2017

While I agree that seems to be a reasonable regulation, I think an additional part of the issue is that, in some states, the ID-issuing facilities are allegedly often isolated from minority communities. I won't presume to guess at whether that's true in North Carolina.

metsmarathon Jan 26 2017 03:57 AM Re: Politics in 2017

A new PAC has been formed to support scientists running for public office. The newly inaugurated President Trump, and many of his Cabinet picks, have repeatedly cast doubt upon the reality of human-made climate change, questioned the repeatedly proven safety of vaccines. Since the inauguration, the administration has already frozen grants and contracts by the Environmental Protection Agency and gagged researchers at the US Department of Agriculture. Many scientists are asking themselves: What can I do? And the answer from a newly formed group called 314 Action is: Get elected. [url]https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/thanks-to-trump-scientists-are-planning-to-run-for-office/514229/?utm_source=fbb smg or marathon - if you guys run for office, I'm pledging a donation of at least $100. as a federal employee, i am unfortunately not permitted to be a candidate in a partisan election. earlships are apparently different. otherwise y'all'd have to get used to saying president metsmarathon in 4 years, damnit.

Chad Ochoseis Jan 26 2017 03:59 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Rockin' Doc wrote: The same documentation that is required to apply for and receive Medicaid or other forms of public assistance, are the exact same forms used to apply for and receive a no fee voter ID card through the DMV. If a person has the documentation to receive public assistance, then they can use the same forms to obtain their free photo ID. Fair enough. And, I'll admit, I hadn't done much reading up on the NC decision. A quick google search shows that IDs weren't at the core of the issue, in any event. Here's the Chicago Tribune, which tends towards the center in its views. Other articles (WaPo, for example) say roughly the same thing. The emails to the North Carolina election board seemed routine at the time. "Is there any way to get a breakdown of the 2008 voter turnout, by race (white and black) and type of vote (early and Election Day)?" a staffer for the state's Republican-controlled legislature asked in January 2012. "Is there no category for 'Hispanic' voter?" a GOP lawmaker asked in March 2013 after requesting a range of data, including how many voters cast ballots outside their precinct. And in April 2013, a top aide to the Republican House speaker asked for "a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver's license number." Months later, the North Carolina legislature passed a law that cut a week of early voting, eliminated out-of-precinct voting and required voters to show specific types of photo ID - restrictions that election board data demonstrated would disproportionately affect African Americans and other minorities. [url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-north-carolina-voter-id-law-20160902-story.html You could make the case that the ID requirement does not inherently favor one class of voter over another. You can't make the case, given the e-mail trail, that Republicans in the North Carolina legislature didn't conspire to enact a suite of requirements that would reduce the number of African-Americans who would be allowed to vote.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2017 04:04 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: While I agree that seems to be a reasonable regulation, I think an additional part of the issue is that, in some states, the ID-issuing facilities are allegedly often isolated from minority communities. I won't presume to guess at whether that's true in North Carolina. In North Carolina, African-Americans were targeted. State lawmakers made specific requests for data on African-Americans' voting patterns and habits and then passed numerous laws to eliminate their polling places and their means of access to the voting booths. I'm gonna hype a little here now, but it's to make a valid point. NC lawmakers essentially got together and asked themselves: "What kind of laws can we pass to stop our ni**ers from voting?" (And then they pledged allegiance to Jefferson Davis and the Confederate flag).

Lefty Specialist Jan 26 2017 01:01 PM Re: Politics in 2017

That's pretty much how it went down. Saw this and loved it. Reminds me of all those tornado victims in Georgia who aren't getting help from FEMA right now.

Ceetar Jan 26 2017 02:19 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Rockin' Doc wrote: There is no fee for a North Carolina ID card for an individual registered to vote in North Carolina who does not have acceptable photo identification, under North Carolina General Statute §163-166.13. To obtain a no-fee voter ID card, you must sign a declaration stating that you do not have an acceptable photo ID. If you already have an acceptable photo ID, you are not eligible to receive a no-fee voter ID. You must also be registered to vote. If you are not a registered voter, DMV will assist you in completing your voter registration application during your visit, and you will still be eligible for your no fee voter ID. Those are complex requirements to get an ID card. First you have to register to vote. Then you have to sign a declaration, and this is only if you don't have photo ID, something which might not be that easy. Are they checking? If you moved from California to NC and you have an expired California license that you lost years ago, but you show up in the system somehow, will they deny you? DMV will 'help you'. sure. How many people do you know that went to the DMV and were all "that was quick and painless?" Now imagine you barely speak English. Or work two jobs and have no time. Or your household only has one car and your wife uses it to get to job and the DMV is miles and miles away. And remember, to make it no-fee, it's gotta be state-funded. So you're spending money to combat a problem that doesn't exist. And the people for whom it's hardest to complete this process are much more likely to skew Democrat politically based on polling and statistics. And this is all before we even get into the other suppression tactics about moving voting locations, understaffing them in democratic areas, etc. And the Republican response is all "meh, I figured out how to do it, if you really are a TRUE AMERICAN you should be able to figure it out to. it's your fault you have to work two jobs, etc. " all bullshit. There are probably good ways to get everyone to vote, but the fair ones put the onus on the state. I signed up for the 314 action thing. Hell, I'll run if that's what's needed at this point. I'm already fairly annoyed at how fucked local politics are (there is no Democratic party really, so Republicans elect everyone in primaries and literally take office sometimes before the General)

Nymr83 Jan 26 2017 05:08 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Getting everyone to vote is NOT a good thing. Making it possible for those who WANT to vote to do so without unnecessary hassle is. I don't want unmotivated/uninformed voters coerced into going to the polls.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2017 05:24 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Nymr83 wrote: Getting everyone to vote is NOT a good thing. Making it possible for those who WANT to vote to do so without unnecessary hassle is. I don't want unmotivated/uninformed voters coerced into going to the polls. A literacy test, maybe?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2017 05:25 PM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Getting everyone to vote is NOT a good thing. Making it possible for those who WANT to vote to do so without unnecessary hassle is. I don't want unmotivated/uninformed voters coerced into going to the polls. A literacy test, maybe? Maybe we should limit the vote to registered Republican white male property owners.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2017 05:46 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Hey Virginia -- come on down and join the Jim Crow revolution. It's sweeping the nation and climbing the charts with a bullet. Virginia voted Democrats in the last three Presidential elections. So now the GOP controlled state wants to change the way it allocates its' electoral votes in the upcoming Presidential election. Instead of winner take all, Virginia wants to apportion its electoral votes according to its districts, which have been gerrymandered to cram as many Democrat voters into as few districts as possible. The proposed system would mirror the electoral college vote of this past election, making it likely that the next Republican Presidential candidate will receive the majority of Virginia's electoral votes despite losing the state-wide popular vote to the Democrat candidate. http://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/new ... llege.html

A Boy Named Seo Jan 26 2017 06:20 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Voting batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Getting everyone to vote is NOT a good thing. Making it possible for those who WANT to vote to do so without unnecessary hassle is. I don't want unmotivated/uninformed voters coerced into going to the polls. A literacy test, maybe? Even though it would be truly horrifying to have uniformed voters with questionable motives, getting everyone to vote would be a very good thing. We are allegedly a democracy, afterall.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2017 06:41 PM Re: Politics in 2017

And creating hoops for uninformed voters is just going to come down to creating hoops for their uninformed voters. Anybody wants to get out there and register voters, inform voters, and motivate voters, get to it.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2017 06:49 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: And creating hoops for uninformed voters is just going to come down to creating hoops for their uninformed voters. Anybody wants to get out there and register voters, inform voters, and motivate voters, get to it. I don't know why NYmr would want some kind of intelligence threshold as a prerequisite to the right to vote. If we had one, the GOP would never win a Presidential election.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 26 2017 06:59 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I really don't see where he said that. He said that informed and motivated voters should not have a difficult time voting. And that if everyone voted we'd get uninformed results. So mandatory voting, for example, would be bad.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2017 07:11 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Nymr83 wrote: Getting everyone to vote is NOT a good thing. Making it possible for those who WANT to vote to do so without unnecessary hassle is. I don't want unmotivated/uninformed voters coerced into going to the polls. Benjamin Grimm wrote: I really don't see where he said that. He said that informed and motivated voters should not have a difficult time voting. And that if everyone voted we'd get uninformed results. So mandatory voting, for example, would be bad. I don't see where his post is about mandatory voting. Unless you take his first sentence hyper-literally, which I didn't. I thought his post was more about preventing some people from voting.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 26 2017 07:16 PM Re: Politics in 2017

This seems to contradict that interpretation: Making it possible for those who WANT to vote to do so without unnecessary hassle is (a good thing).

Lefty Specialist Jan 26 2017 07:16 PM Re: Politics in 2017

It's all about rights and privileges. Voting is a right, not a privilege. And as such it should be easier, not harder, to exercise. Voter ID laws are chasing a problem so small it virtually doesn't exist. But there has been a lot of Republican harassment of voting registration drives as well. Remember ACORN? Their biggest sin was being a very effective voter registration organization. Florida's rules were so restrictive the League of Women Voters, no Communist organization, threw up their hands and gave up. The attack on voting goes beyond ID laws. It's mysteriously cutting back voting booths in black areas, where white suburbs have more than they need. It's changing polling places at the last minute. It's cutting back on early voting and Sunday voting. It's all of a piece, and it's all designed to suppress Democratic turnout. And that's not paranoia; Republicans say it themselves. Voting should be on the weekend, or Election Day should be a holiday. Having it on a work day is idiotic. I work a long day starting early in the morning and it's a pain in the ass. I can't imagine how someone with two jobs does it. Should everyone be required to vote? No. That's what North Korea does. But should it be made as easy as possible to vote? Yes, and the trend is in the opposite direction, which is un-American.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2017 07:26 PM Re: Politics in 2017

This seems to contradict that interpretation: Making it possible for those who WANT to vote to do so without unnecessary hassle is (a good thing). What about this: Nymr83 wrote: I don't want unmotivated/uninformed voters coerced into going to the polls.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 26 2017 07:27 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Note the word "coerced".

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2017 07:31 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Note the word "coerced". I didn't think that he meant that voters were literally being coerced into voting. I see what you're getting at and if I read his post as literally as you did, my interpretation would be closer to yours.

seawolf17 Jan 26 2017 09:48 PM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hey Virginia -- come on down and join the Jim Crow revolution. It's sweeping the nation and climbing the charts with a bullet. Virginia voted Democrats in the last three Presidential elections. So now the GOP controlled state wants to change the way it allocates its' electoral votes in the upcoming Presidential election. Instead of winner take all, Virginia wants to apportion its electoral votes according to its districts, which have been gerrymandered to cram as many Democrat voters into as few districts as possible. The proposed system would mirror the electoral college vote of this past election, making it likely that the next Republican Presidential candidate will receive the majority of Virginia's electoral votes despite losing the state-wide popular vote to the Democrat candidate. http://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/new ... llege.html It's shit like this that's so terrifying, because it's quiet.

Lefty Specialist Jan 27 2017 12:16 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Luckily, Virginia has a Democratic governor who'll veto this.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 27 2017 12:52 AM Re: Politics in 2017

He's up for reelection in 2017, however.

Frayed Knot Jan 27 2017 02:59 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: He's up for reelection in 2017, however. Actually he's not, Virginia has a non-succession law for the Governor's office so Terry McAulliffe can not run in 2017.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 27 2017 04:28 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Rockin' Doc wrote: I guess I'm just an ignorant North Carolinian, but I still fail to see how requiring a picture ID in order to vote is discriminatory. Anyone with a driver's license automatically qualifies as does anyone that takes the time and effort to simply register for a free (no fee) ID card through the state DMV offices (either in person or online) can attain a card. If a person could register to vote, then it should not be a problem for that individual to acquire a free ID card. There are a myriad of situations in which a photo ID is required to obtain services. A photo ID card is often needed to purchase alcohol (all ABC stores and most grocery or convenience stores) require photo IDs in order to purchase alcohol (and I believe cigarettes). Most banks still require a picture ID in order to cash a check or open an account. Most public utilities require a picture ID in order to establish service to a house or apartment. A picture ID is required to get through airport security. To name just a few examples. The answer to your question is long and complicated and nuanced. If you're interested, you could google the 14th Amendment, "strict scrutiny" and of course "voting" to dig up information that'll put you on the right path to undestanding the issues. Perhaps, combine the search terms. To simplify things, when these voter ID/suppression laws have a discriminatory impact on African-Americans, the courts presiding over lawsuits challenging the validity of those laws require their proponents to demonstrate why the laws are needed. Under some circumstances, the courts can require that the laws use the least restrictive means possible to achieve the intended goals of the laws in question. A typical exchange between the courts and the proponents of the laws might go something like this: Q Why is this law needed? A To protect the integrity of the vote. This answer seems intuitively reasonable and to many observers, enough to settle the whole argument. After all, what's so wrong about ensuring that voters are who they claim to be and that they're entitled to cast a vote? But the court, applying strict scrutiny, the highest level of review, requires more information and might then follow up with something like this: Q And what is it about the integrity of the vote that needs to be protected? Citizens have always been casting votes in your state without these IDs or other restrictions. What has now changed? Why suddenly the need for these new obstacles? This inquiry is required because the court must determine the scope of the problem in order to decide whether the remedy is suitable. And this is always where the proponents run into trouble. They're obligated to answer this question in order to justify their voting law and so they claim voter fraud -- but have no meaningful proof of voter fraud, and in most cases, no proof at all. Voter fraud is virtually non-existent.

Nymr83 Jan 27 2017 06:00 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I don't see where his post is about mandatory voting. Unless you take his first sentence hyper-literally, which I didn't. I thought his post was more about preventing some people from voting. the post before mine said "there are probably good ways to get everyone to vote" - and yes i was responding directly to that sentiment - i dont want anyone to be at the polls who doesnt WANT to be at the polls. "getting them to vote' may be a good strategy for a candidate/party but if they arent motivated on their own i would rather they weren't there.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2017 08:35 AM Re: Politics in 2017

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-to-stop-a-trump-supreme-court-nominee Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst for The New Yorker, provides some advice on how to block a Trump nominee to the SCOTUS. The piece presupposes that the GOP controlled Senate won't invoke the nuclear option at some point in the near future, or that it might not be able to muster the 51 simple majority votes to confirm Trump's nominee even if it does kill the filibuster. A few weeks ago, I saw Sen Charles Schumer making the TV cable news rounds and stating the the GOP will likely, not invoke the nuclear option in connection with upcoming SCOTUS hearings. Schumer claimed that even the GOP has a deep respect for the filibuster tradition. Me personally, I wasn't convinced. I might be comforted if I heard those words come out of the mouth of Mitch McConnell, which I haven't. Mitch McConnell tells Trump to back off on comments about killing the SCOTUS filibuster, claiming that that's the Senate's call. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/m ... ter-234293 Interesting comments. What do they mean? Might the filibuster be safe? Was that merely a power show contest between McConnell and Trump? Does the GOP think they can get a filibuster-proof majority after the 2018 mid-terms? And if so, will the GOP be willing to keep the SCOTUS at eight justices for another two years? Me, I think the filibuster will be killed if that's what it'll take to confirm Trump's very first nominee. But no matter how this ends, what I don't see is the Democrats winning this battle. No way. No how. Fucking Hillary Clinton. First, she couldn't beat a relatively unknown Barack Obama. And then, she couldn't beat Adolf Hitler.

Lefty Specialist Jan 28 2017 11:45 AM Re: Politics in 2017

If Democrats filibuster a SCOTUS pick, they'll nuke the filibuster. They know they have a chance to lock in a majority for decades. That's worth the possible downside for them.

Ceetar Jan 28 2017 12:36 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: If Democrats filibuster a SCOTUS pick, they'll nuke the filibuster. They know they have a chance to lock in a majority for decades. That's worth the possible downside for them. thing is, I don't think most of them care about the state of American 20 years from now. They care about how long they can keep their cushy jobs. Refusing to do their jobs last year was easily about that, about defying Obama, and appealing to all their consultants that want them to defy Obama. So look at it the same way, now that a nominee _should_ be voted on according to them, if the democrats filibuster they figure that'll look bad on them and reflect well on them. "See? we're trying to get our court hole and those evil democrats just won't play ball, vote for us again!"

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 28 2017 03:43 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Yes, but even to that end, one would have to imagine a policy/confirmation win counts more with the constituents than an excused loss.

MFS62 Jan 28 2017 07:36 PM Re: Politics in 2017

The company I work for has a $2 bill with Donald Trump's face in the catalog. One caller asked if they come in a roll. Later

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2017 08:25 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Artist Steve Brodner has been in the news recently for his controversial portrayal of the Trump administration. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersr ... story.html Here's an older Brodner work:

batmagadanleadoff Jan 28 2017 08:27 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Artist Steve Brodner has been in the news recently for his controversial portrayal of the Trump administration. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersr ... story.html Here's an older Brodner work: Here's the controversial illustration -- The Court of Donald I [fimg=1111]http://www.trbimg.com/img-5883da8c/turbine/la-mfleischer-1485036229-snap-photo[/fimg]

Edgy MD Jan 29 2017 12:34 AM Re: Politics in 2017

That looks like a Mad Magazine fold-'n'-laff thingy. The Bannon caricature (or what I'm guessing is the Bannon caricature) looks a little more like Garrison Keillor. I'm also not spotting Secretary-Designate Ben Carson.

Lefty Specialist Jan 29 2017 02:24 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Trump imposes a Muslim Country ban, conveniently excluding Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 terrorists and their funding came from. Because it's okay to keep out desperate refugees fleeing terrorists, but it's NOT okay to inconvenience rich oil sheiks or The Donald's business interests. An injunction has already been slapped on this, but this is rapidly becoming an un-American America.

metsmarathon Jan 29 2017 02:56 AM Re: Politics in 2017

I actually think it's to distract us over the elevation of ban on into the upper echelon of national security, over even the joint chief of staff.

Edgy MD Jan 29 2017 03:09 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Sweet and worthy victory. A Federal Judge Just Issued A Stay Against Donald Trump's "Muslim Ban" Judge Ann M. Donnelly's ruling halted deportations, but refugees abroad remain in limbo. BEN DREYFUSS A federal judge in Brooklyn just issued an emergency stay against Donald Trump's executive order banning immigration from certain predominantly Muslim countries, temporarily allowing people who have landed in the US with a valid visa to remain. The historic ruling—a stunning first defeat for President Donald Trump coming at the end of his first week in office—protects anyone with a valid visa who arrived after the executive order (or were en route when the ruling was filed) from deportation under Trump’s order. [tweet]https://twitter.com/acluohio/status/825526828383268864[/tweet] The director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project announced the victory on twitter: [tweet]https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825520912191602689[/tweet] [tweet]https://twitter.com/dale_e_ho/status/825521534383095809[/tweet] The stay, granted by Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the US District Court, is temporary and a court will have to decide whether to make it permanent at a later date—and it only affects people who have already arrived in the United States or are currently in transit—but for now, people will not be deported because of Trump's executive order: https://twitter.com/rayajalabi/status/825526294557446144 The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU on behalf of two men detained at JFK airport in New York. The men were subsequently released.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2017 03:50 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: Trump imposes a Muslim Country ban, conveniently excluding Saudi Arabia, where the 9/11 terrorists and their funding came from. Because it's okay to keep out desperate refugees fleeing terrorists, but it's NOT okay to inconvenience rich oil sheiks or The Donald's business interests. Damn right. The order lacks any logic. It invokes the attacks of Sept. 11 as a rationale, while exempting the countries of origin of all the hijackers who carried out that plot and also, perhaps not coincidentally, several countries where the Trump family does business. The document does not explicitly mention any religion, yet it sets a blatantly unconstitutional standard by excluding Muslims while giving government officials the discretion to admit people of other faiths. The order’s language makes clear that the xenophobia and Islamophobia that permeated Mr. Trump’s campaign are to stain his presidency as well. Un-American as they are, they are now American policy. “The United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles,” the order says, conveying the spurious notion that all Muslims should be considered a threat. (It further claims to spare America from people who would commit acts of violence against women and those who persecute people on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. A president who bragged about sexually assaulting women and a vice president who has supported policies that discriminate against gay people might well fear that standard themselves.) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opin ... erous.html

Lefty Specialist Jan 29 2017 11:54 AM Re: Politics in 2017

"First they came for the Muslims...." We've traditionally donated to a lot of causes. We give money to things like Friends of the Sea Otter (and get lots of cute otter pictures). But we're revamping our donation budget this year because we have to fight bigger things than preserving kelp beds on the Pacific coast. We're focusing on the ACLU's and Planned Parenthoods of the world in 2017. The otters will have to wait a bit. A good place to go if you're feeling mad but don't know what you can do: swingleft.org . Put in your zip code and they tell you how you can help. And if you need a manual, https://www.indivisibleguide.com/ If Republicans don't denounce this stuff, they own it. And they need to be reminded of that repeatedly by ordinary citizens.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2017 09:51 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: That looks like a Mad Magazine fold-'n'-laff thingy. The Bannon caricature (or what I'm guessing is the Bannon caricature) looks a little more like Garrison Keillor. I'm also not spotting Secretary-Designate Ben Carson. [fimg=944]http://www.trbimg.com/img-5883da8c/turbine/la-mfleischer-1485036229-snap-photo[/fimg] [fimg=344]http://www.trbimg.com/img-5885007c/turbine/la-mcgarvey-1485111479-snap-photo[/fimg][fimg=344]http://www.trbimg.com/img-5885004a/turbine/la-mcgarvey-1485111429-snap-photo[/fimg]

Ashie62 Jan 29 2017 10:08 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I like that, it's cute.

Lefty Specialist Jan 30 2017 12:10 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Soooo did ya hear the one about where they kicked the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of National Intelligence and the head of the CIA off the permanent list for attending National Security Council meetings and gave a permanent pass to a white supremacist blogger who traffics in wild conspiracy theories? Hey, what could go wrong?

Mets Willets Point Jan 30 2017 12:36 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: Hey, what could go wrong? A coup.

Ceetar Jan 30 2017 02:05 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: Soooo did ya hear the one about where they kicked the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of National Intelligence and the head of the CIA off the permanent list for attending National Security Council meetings and gave a permanent pass to a white supremacist blogger who traffics in wild conspiracy theories? Hey, what could go wrong? could someone show a little backbone? Let Trump and Bannon play-act the council and just have the real adults conduct business as usual. "Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Trump, your illegal EO got lost somewhere along the chain of command and no one's doing anything? I'll look into. Right away."

Centerfield Jan 30 2017 03:24 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Hey, do we have to keep giving him a chance? Cuz he kinda sucks so far.

cooby Jan 30 2017 04:31 PM Re: Politics in 2017

The sad part is there are millions of people who smugly think he is doing just fine

Edgy MD Jan 30 2017 05:02 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I guess the US president has borne the sobriquet "Leader of the Free World" since, when? World War I? Automatically bestowed with the office. Doesn't even have to do anything. The achievement of earning an office with so much honor and authority automatically garners the title for you. And he's managed, somehow, to cede the mantle in less than 10 days. Congratulations Angela Merkel. OE: It turns out that the term dates back to the 1940s. And The Guardian suggested the role actually switched to Merkel shortly after the election.

Ashie62 Jan 30 2017 08:20 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I have a better understanding of Hugo Chavez

Centerfield Jan 30 2017 09:34 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Quebec shooter is a white nationalist. DOESN'T THIS MEAN WE GET TO DEPORT BANNON?!?!?!

cooby Jan 30 2017 09:51 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Part I Dialog Early 1970's Chicago. Starting to come around again. Those of us who care, those of them who don't. =#BF80BF]Are you optimistic 'bout the way things are going? No, I never ever think of it at all Don't you ever worry When you see what's going down? No, I try to mind my business, that is, no business at all When it's time to function as a feeling human being Will your Bachelor of Arts help you get by? I hope to study further, a few more years or so I also hope to keep a steady high Will you try to change things Use the power that you have, the power of a million new ideas? What is this power you speak of and this need for things to change? I always thought that everything was fine Don't you feel repression just closing in around? No, the campus here is very, very free Don't it make you angry the way war is dragging on? Well, I hope the President knows what he's into, I don't know Don't you ever see the starvation in the city where you live All the needless hunger all the needless pain? I haven't been there lately, the country is so fine But my neighbors don't seem hungry 'cause they haven't got the time Thank you for the talk, you know you really eased my mind I was troubled by the shapes of things to come (insert rolling eyes emoticon) Well, if you had my outlook your feelings would be numb You'd always think that everything was fine

Edgy MD Jan 31 2017 03:03 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Attorney General Sally Yates, now out of work. In a press release, the White House said Yates had “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.” It won't end well for you, Mr. President. You may do a little damage before it's over, and you may do a lot. But in the end, there won't be a single friend standing by you.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2017 03:36 AM Re: Politics in 2017

The ACLU typically receives about $4M in online donations annually. It's received $24M in online donations in just these past few days, ever since Trump signed his Executive Order banning Muslim travel and immigration. http://www.businessinsider.com/aclu-rec ... der-2017-1

metsmarathon Jan 31 2017 04:00 AM Re: Politics in 2017

So spicer used the Quebec shooting as an example of why then ban is a good and justifiable thing. Like, those Muslims all peaceably praying just made the bullets erupt out of the gun of a righteous Christian man, just to cause a ruckus. It that how it worked? Man, fuck that guy. Side note. I saw a meme today that said basically why is everyone caring so much about immigrants and refugees when there are homeless vets out on the street. Like seriously. Maybe the president could get around to writing a damned executive order to help those good people out, instead of fucking over other perfectly good people. Its not like we're forced to choose here.

Nymr83 Jan 31 2017 05:32 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: Attorney General Sally Yates, now out of work. In a press release, the White House said Yates had “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.” It won't end well for you, Mr. President. You may do a little damage before it's over, and you may do a lot. But in the end, there won't be a single friend standing by you. She deserved to be fired. also, she was quite likely to be shown the door anyway - probably did herself a huge career favor here to get the job of her choosing with a left-leaning interest group.

Lefty Specialist Jan 31 2017 10:55 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Boy, this is just a rolling clusterfuck. There's so much bad stuff going on all at once it's hard tp keep up. We're in the process of permanently damaging our reputation as a country. Whoever follows this dick is going to have an awful time fixing what he's broken. Democrats have a habit of coming in to clean up Republican messes, and I expect they'll have to do it again. Well, we haven't gone to war yet anyway. But the day's still young.

Lefty Specialist Jan 31 2017 12:26 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Ha. The Irony is strong. ****************** Monday night, acting Attorney General Sally Yates was relieved of her duties by President Donald Trump after Yates announced that the Department of Justice would not defend Trump’s executive order on refugees and travelers from various Muslim-majority countries. In cashiering Yates, Trump made it sound like Yates had been insubordinate, accusing her of “betraying” the Department of Justice. But, as it turns out, Yates did nothing more than what she said all along she would do way back at her confirmation hearing as deputy attorney general on March 24, 2015. And, in an interesting twist, she received on that occasion a word of caution from none other than Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who informed her that a time might come when she would have to stand up to the executive branch. Sessions is now Trump’s nominee for attorney general. SESSIONS: You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need to say “no” about. Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, “Well [Obama] appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that?” But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no? YATES: Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.

Ashie62 Jan 31 2017 12:30 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Coup d ''etat is not so wacky now.

Edgy MD Jan 31 2017 01:24 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Also fired was our acting director of immigration and customs enforcement Daniel Ragsdale. This is Thomas Homan, the new ICE director and, apparently, multiple winner of Curt Schilling lookalike contests across America.

Ashie62 Jan 31 2017 01:27 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Sally Yates was a holdover who should have resigned over an ideological disagreement.

Edgy MD Jan 31 2017 01:32 PM Re: Politics in 2017

No, she should have done her job. And she did.

Ashie62 Jan 31 2017 01:37 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: No, she should have done her job. And she did. She was an Obama holdover who disagreed on non-constitutional grounds and preferred to get let go. If thats doing her job so be it. She is not a patriot or martyr.

Lefty Specialist Jan 31 2017 01:38 PM Re: Politics in 2017

The Resistance is growing. Meanwhile, Democrats are going to weasel out on filibustering Trump's Supreme Court pick. I guess they're saving the filibuster for something really important.

d'Kong76 Jan 31 2017 01:45 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: Boy, this is just a rolling clusterfuck. There's so much bad stuff going on all at once it's hard tp keep up. Dizzy, I'm so dizzy my head is spinning Like a whirlpool it never ends And it's You Don makin' it spin You're making me dizzy

Ceetar Jan 31 2017 02:04 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: The Resistance is growing. Meanwhile, Democrats are going to weasel out on filibustering Trump's Supreme Court pick. I guess they're saving the filibuster for something really important. They kinda have to block it. If the government stays together, it might actually be the biggest thing they do. Of course, I'm not quite sure where that leaves us. In a back and forth in which one never gets nominated? (Until a third party candidate gets elected?) Ashie62 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: No, she should have done her job. And she did. She was an Obama holdover who disagreed on non-constitutional grounds and preferred to get let go. If thats doing her job so be it. She is not a patriot or martyr. This is the Fascist argument. "I won I get to decide how the government works now" She didn't 'disagree on non-constitutional grounds' she was respected the previously agreed upon Constitution and laws of this country.

Edgy MD Jan 31 2017 02:27 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Ashie62 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: No, she should have done her job. And she did. She was an Obama holdover who disagreed on non-constitutional grounds and preferred to get let go. If thats doing her job so be it. She is not a patriot or martyr. What exactly is a patriot, if not somebody who holds to her oath and honors the Constitution in the face of the whims of political leadership? What indeed is a patriot, if not somebody who tenders their resignation at the end of the term of the president that appointed them, but accepts the invitation to stay on until her successor has been approved? Was Attorney General Reno not a patriot when she appointed an independent prosecutor to pursue prosecution of President Clinton in the face of strong-arming, coercion, and public slandering? Was Attorney General Richardson not a patriot for taking the axe rather than fire the special prosecutor pursuing charges against President Nixon? Was Attorney General Kennedy not a patriot when he vigorously pursued prosecution of organized crime figures that supposedly helped get his brother elected? If she isn't a patriot, then nobody is.

TransMonk Jan 31 2017 02:41 PM Re: Politics in 2017

100% what Edgy said.

Nymr83 Jan 31 2017 03:47 PM Re: Politics in 2017

a stopped clock like Trump is is right twice a day. does anyone actually disagree with the changes to H1B visas introduced in the House? [url]http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/h-1b-visa-bill-introduced-in-us-minimum-pay-more-than-doubled/ar-AAmrdMz A legislation has been introduced in the US House of Representatives which among other things calls for more than doubling the minimum salary of H-1B visa holders to $130,000, making it difficult for firms to use the programme to replace American employees with foreign workers, including from India. The High-Skilled Integrity and Fairness Act of 2017 introduced by California Congressman Zoe Lofgren prioritises market based allocation of visas to those companies willing to pay 200 per cent of a wage calculated by survey, eliminates the category of lowest pay, and raises the salary level at which H-1B dependent employer are exempt from non-displacement and recruitment attestation requirements to greater than $130,000. This is more than double of the current H-1B minimum wage of $60,000 which was established in 1989 and since then has remained unchanged. "My legislation refocuses the H-1B programme to its original intent - to seek out and find the best and brightest from around the world, and to supplement the US workforce with talented, highly-paid, and highly-skilled workers who help create jobs here in America, not replace them," said Lofgren. "It offers a market-based solution that gives priority to those companies willing to pay the most. This ensures American employers have access to the talent they need, while removing incentives for companies to undercut American wages and outsource jobs," he said. I think this exactly what H1B SHOULD BE - and remember this isnt the entire immigration system. also, they were finally smart enough - unlike with AMT - to make it so new legislation wont be needed in the future - it now changes the numbers every year based on median income - if Trump allows the agency who calculates those numbers to release them of course! [zing!]

cooby Jan 31 2017 03:53 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Okay I am tired of trying to figure out what is real and what is not. Is that true?

Ceetar Jan 31 2017 04:13 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Nymr83 wrote: a stopped clock like Trump is is right twice a day. does anyone actually disagree with the changes to H1B visas introduced in the House? [url]http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/h-1b-visa-bill-introduced-in-us-minimum-pay-more-than-doubled/ar-AAmrdMz A legislation has been introduced in the US House of Representatives which among other things calls for more than doubling the minimum salary of H-1B visa holders to $130,000, making it difficult for firms to use the programme to replace American employees with foreign workers, including from India. The High-Skilled Integrity and Fairness Act of 2017 introduced by California Congressman Zoe Lofgren prioritises market based allocation of visas to those companies willing to pay 200 per cent of a wage calculated by survey, eliminates the category of lowest pay, and raises the salary level at which H-1B dependent employer are exempt from non-displacement and recruitment attestation requirements to greater than $130,000. This is more than double of the current H-1B minimum wage of $60,000 which was established in 1989 and since then has remained unchanged. "My legislation refocuses the H-1B programme to its original intent - to seek out and find the best and brightest from around the world, and to supplement the US workforce with talented, highly-paid, and highly-skilled workers who help create jobs here in America, not replace them," said Lofgren. "It offers a market-based solution that gives priority to those companies willing to pay the most. This ensures American employers have access to the talent they need, while removing incentives for companies to undercut American wages and outsource jobs," he said. I think this exactly what H1B SHOULD BE - and remember this isnt the entire immigration system. also, they were finally smart enough - unlike with AMT - to make it so new legislation wont be needed in the future - it now changes the numbers every year based on median income - if Trump allows the agency who calculates those numbers to release them of course! [zing!] I'm not sure I understand it enough to comment about agreement or disagreement. I get that it allows companies to seek out talent overseas, as it should, but I don't get why raising the minimum matters? Couldn't they have offered $130k to begin with if they were really bidding on the services of a talented individual? Isn't that how salary negotiations works? And why would raising it prevent a company from outsourcing, especially if now they can't even pay a H1B employee 75k?

Chad Ochoseis Jan 31 2017 06:28 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I think that's the point. The H1B is meant to bring workers with unique talents to the US, not to save employers money. But if the threshold is only $60K, a company can use it to pay a good - but not necessarily unique - junior engineer from a lower-wage country $60K instead of paying an equally qualified American $90K. The idea, if I understand it correctly, is that once you get above a certain level ($130K right now), you're in a realm where skills are more specialized, and you're more likely to hire a foreign worker because that worker is unique, not just as a way to save salary. I don't know how much it will matter. My last employer before I went off on my own established "centers of excellence" in India and China for outsourcing. I think that's become standard operating procedure among large corporations. No need for employees to be here in the US and go through that messy visa process now that Al Gore has invented the Internet for us.

Edgy MD Jan 31 2017 06:32 PM Re: Politics in 2017

You know, right or wrong, I'm not giving President Broken Clock any credit either way. If the policy is debated in the legislature, and voted on by law, rather than instituted arbitrarily by decree, then I guess we have important issues being decided by democratic processes.

Centerfield Jan 31 2017 06:48 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: You know, right or wrong, I'm not giving President Broken Clock any credit either way. If the policy is debated in the legislature, and voted on by law, rather than instituted arbitrarily by decree, then I guess we have important issues being decided by democratic processes. That's the tough thing right? Personally, I also value safety too. Extreme Islamic terrorism is definitely a problem, and from what I read, it's worse in Europe. So one has to be careful and take every measure that they can. And if a well-intended President felt that refugee screening needed to be tightened up, I'd be behind that. But it is dangerous to suggest even moderate, reasonable measures, or else this insane administration, and the insane people backing it, will take that as weakness, or justification for their actions. People say "There were no protests when Obama halted refugees from Iraq." Obama had, well credibility. He genuinely had the security of the nation in mind, and weighed it against the civil liberties of its residents. His temporary ban was not grounded in hate and xenophobia. Trump supporters ask, why they don't get the benefit of the doubt. Well, because you stripped the rights of "legals". And also you don't get the benefit of the doubt when you call Mexicans "rapists", finger-point and scapegoat minorities in general, share fake news, lie compulsively, ridicule and attack anyone who speaks out against you, brag about sexually assaulting women, fail to pay taxes, oppose gun control, insinuate that Christian lives are more valuable, and oh yeah, have your whole administration run by a white supremacist.

Ceetar Jan 31 2017 06:52 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Centerfield wrote: People say "There were no protests when Obama halted refugees from Iraq." Obama had, well credibility. He genuinely had the security of the nation in mind, and weighed it against the civil liberties of its residents. His temporary ban was not grounded in hate and xenophobia. Well yeah. We were paying less attention as a country because every other word out of Obama's mouth wasn't hatred and vitriol without a second thought. There's plenty 'wrong' that Obama did, but we can't really compare a temporary ban of issuing new Visas that was put into place with at least a second thought and with notifications and preparation to an overnight all of a sudden "FUCK IT BLOCK EVERYONE FROM COMING HERE NOW EVEN LEGAL RESIDENTS AND HOLD THEM IN DETENTION LIKE COMMON CRIMINALS WHO CARES IF THEY'RE ILL OR BABIES OR WORKING ON A CURE FOR DISEASE"

metsmarathon Jan 31 2017 07:28 PM Re: Politics in 2017

as a point of fact, obama's, ahem, "ban" was because, "oh shit, something slipped through the cracks. lets hold up and fix this right and fast." it did not preclude all iraqi refugees, immigrants, tourists, green card holders from gaining entry into the united states. at most, it slowed in-process visa applications while new processes were put in place. it also did not haphazardly include other nations unrelated to the initial incident, and was not implemented for the explicit or implicit purpose of curbing the level of muslim immigration into the united states. --- this ban is absurd, particularly in that it targets refugees. i mean, if the goal were truly to inhibit the influx of terrorists, then, sure, clamp down on visas and shit like that. wanna come visit the us, well, good luck, and get in line, and all that. but for the refugee program to be included is preposterous. a prospective terrorist would have to be, well, a really effective sleeper agent to go that route. and if his spycraft is so good, wouldn't it just be easier for him to, say, hop on over to saudi arabia, spread around some cash, and get in the usual way? --- also worth noting... had this ban been in place in 2000-2001, it would've done jack shit in preventing 9-11. --- but hey, it's cool and all. let's keep calling our allies and strategic partners 'terrorists'. surely the generals on the ground in iraq like that. you know, the iraqi generals who are actually leading and winning the fight against isis. let's turn those guys against us. that'll totes help squash out terrorism!

metsmarathon Jan 31 2017 07:32 PM Re: Politics in 2017

and while i'm ranting and raving... if i see one more trumpist post on facebook about how "celebrities don't speak for me" and "celebrities should shut the fuck up" i might just explode, as the president of the goddamned united states is a reality tv celebrity more than anything else, and the ideal republican president was a former hollywood actor.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 31 2017 07:39 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Yeah, it's okay when Clint Eastwood or Charlton Heston or Scott Baio speak up...

Edgy MD Jan 31 2017 07:49 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Well, frankly, it would be terrifying if Charlton Heston spoke up.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 31 2017 07:53 PM Re: Politics in 2017

It always was!

Edgy MD Jan 31 2017 08:00 PM Re: Politics in 2017

metsmarathon wrote: also worth noting... had this ban been in place in 2000-2001, it would've done jack shit in preventing 9-11. The crazy part is that, people are so willing to gobble up the propaganda, that if an IED goes off tomorrow in downtown St. Louis tomorrow, the president can use it to demonstrate how necessary and effective his policy is. If no extremist strikes hit us for the next two years, the president can use it to demonstrate how necessary and effective his policy is. Nuance and critical use of reason are for elitist fruitcakes. All that matters is whether or not you buy the bully's brand. We thought we had problems with our political conversation before, but it was nothing compared to this. And people all over the world have had to live like this every day of their lives, where simply citing the truth could at any moment make you an enemy, or a criminal, or worse. The trauma on the psyche must be profound. Think of our press corps. They've lived on the existential edge professionally for a decade, more or less. Now they have to contend with the notion that if they do their job honorably, they can get hit by a presidentially led, alternative-fact smear campaign, and strangers start leaving them threatening calls, telling them know that we know your address and your children's names. FFS, this is what totalitarianism looks like.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 31 2017 08:18 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I know. I've read about this kind of stuff in other countries but never really thought it would happen here. (I've always known it could, but never thought it would.) I realize that the immediate challenge is to get through these next four years (minus eleven days) but my longer-term fear is that Trump is setting the template for what future presidents will be like. I hope that he's seen as an anomaly that ends up in history's dustbin, rather than the first of many. Because if he gets away with this crap, others will too.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 31 2017 08:22 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I think the Rs will take him out, but only after they have him do the dirty work. 2 months? maybe after tonight's nightmare is concluded.

Ceetar Jan 31 2017 09:14 PM Re: Politics in 2017

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think the Rs will take him out, but only after they have him do the dirty work. 2 months? maybe after tonight's nightmare is concluded. I've been having this fear about the Super Bowl bringing things to a head somehow.

themetfairy Jan 31 2017 09:15 PM Re: Politics in 2017

All we had today was some tiny, adorable sleet -

Benjamin Grimm Jan 31 2017 09:17 PM Re: Politics in 2017

themetfairy wrote: All we had today was some tiny, adorable sleet - I know that this is the Politics thread, but that post is way too political!

themetfairy Jan 31 2017 09:20 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: themetfairy wrote: All we had today was some tiny, adorable sleet - I know that this is the Politics thread, but that post is way too political! Oops - I was aiming for the Winter 2017 thread. Sorry for the divisive post, and feel free to delete!

Nymr83 Jan 31 2017 10:15 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Trump announced today that Obama's EO regarding discrimination in the workplace against gays will remain in place. This is just a friendly announcement and reminder to criticize him (and others) for what they actually do (like the refugee ban) and not for some media caricature of them allegedly hating everyone no exactly like them.

Edgy MD Jan 31 2017 10:21 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I'm certain that I don't need that reminder.

Centerfield Jan 31 2017 10:25 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I think Trump has given more than enough reasons to criticize him that no one has to make anything up. I'm glad he didn't roll back LGBT rights. But since when does that warrant praise? "Honey, I know you're upset that I slept with my co-worker and my secretary, and the office manager, but there were many women at the office I didn't sleep with. Don't I get credit for that?"

batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2017 10:41 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Nymr83 wrote: Trump announced today that Obama's EO regarding discrimination in the workplace against gays will remain in place. This is just a friendly announcement and reminder to criticize him (and others) for what they actually do (like the refugee ban) and not for some media caricature of them allegedly hating everyone no exactly like them. I think that for every dumb post you write in this thread, you should have to delete two of your older dumb posts that you wrote in this thread.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2017 11:26 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 31 2017 11:53 PM

Lefty Specialist wrote: Meanwhile, Democrats are going to weasel out on filibustering Trump's Supreme Court pick. I guess they're saving the filibuster for something really important. Sad. What the hell are the Dem senators worried about? Their re-election campaigns? That the GOP will go nuclear? They'll do it anyway if need be. Maybe the Dems are willing to go along with a competent/qualified conservative nominee fearing that if they try to filibuster that nominee, Trump, out of spite and revenge, will replace that nominee with the most extreme judge the SCOTUS has ever seen and then have the GOP ram that judge in with the nuclear option. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself with all these possibilities. Let's first see who Trump nominates later tonight.

Nymr83 Jan 31 2017 11:32 PM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Trump announced today that Obama's EO regarding discrimination in the workplace against gays will remain in place. This is just a friendly announcement and reminder to criticize him (and others) for what they actually do (like the refugee ban) and not for some media caricature of them allegedly hating everyone no exactly like them. I think that for every dumb post you write in this thread, you should have to delete two of your older dumb posts that you wrote in this thread. if you deleted 2 posts for every one dumb thing you've posted, you'd have no posts left. Edgy MD wrote: I'm certain that I don't need that reminder. yes, YOU certainly don't. Centerfield wrote: I think Trump has given more than enough reasons to criticize him that no one has to make anything up. and yet, they make stuff up anyway.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2017 11:42 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Nymr83 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Trump announced today that Obama's EO regarding discrimination in the workplace against gays will remain in place. This is just a friendly announcement and reminder to criticize him (and others) for what they actually do (like the refugee ban) and not for some media caricature of them allegedly hating everyone no exactly like them. I think that for every dumb post you write in this thread, you should have to delete two of your older dumb posts that you wrote in this thread. if you deleted 2 posts for every one dumb thing you've posted, you'd have no posts left. Good comeback. We would've also accepted "I'm rubber and you're glue."

batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2017 11:45 PM Re: Politics in 2017

cooby wrote: The sad part is there are millions of people who smugly think he is doing just fine So true. Lotsa Americans who come from places where there probably aren't more than three traffic lights and who probably never got within 50 feet of a real live Muslim are worried about terrorist attacks and approve of Trump's EO Muslim ban. http://time.com/4654829/donald-trump-im ... s-support/

Nymr83 Jan 31 2017 11:46 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Would you accept "you're an idiot and you'd be doing everyone a favor if you unplugged your internet"?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2017 12:03 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Meanwhile, Democrats are going to weasel out on filibustering Trump's Supreme Court pick. I guess they're saving the filibuster for something really important. Sad. What the hell are the Dem senators worried about? Their re-election campaigns? That the GOP will go nuclear? They'll do it anyway if need be. Maybe the Dems are willing to go along with a competent/qualified conservative nominee fearing that if they try to filibuster that nominee, Trump, out of spite and revenge, will replace that nominee with the most extreme judge the SCOTUS has ever seen and then have the GOP ram that judge in with the nuclear option. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself with all these possibilities. Let's first see who Trump nominates later tonight. The Manchinurian Senator strikes again: Manchin 'not going to filibuster’ Trump’s Supreme Court nominee http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3171 ... us-nominee

Lefty Specialist Feb 01 2017 01:28 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Nominates Gorsuch. Eminently filibusterable. Hide your ovaries, ladies. He's pretty clear they're not your own.

Nymr83 Feb 01 2017 01:48 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Trump nominates the eminently qualified Neil Gorsuch - confirmed to the 10th circuit 10 years ago on a "voice vote" as he was not considered controversial - but now Democrats will start lying about his qualifications. Just be honest guys. say "we were not going to vote for any nominee of Trump no matter what"

Benjamin Grimm Feb 01 2017 01:57 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Unless it was Merrick Garland, that is.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2017 01:59 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Nymr83 wrote: Trump nominates the eminently qualified Neil Gorsuch - confirmed to the 10th circuit 10 years ago on a "voice vote" as he was not considered controversial - but now Democrats will start lying about his qualifications. Just be honest guys. say "we were not going to vote for any nominee of Trump no matter what" If you have a problem with this approach, then why didn't you advocate for Merrick Garland's confirmation? I see that Grimm beat me to it. Slow internet connection!

Nymr83 Feb 01 2017 02:03 AM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Trump nominates the eminently qualified Neil Gorsuch - confirmed to the 10th circuit 10 years ago on a "voice vote" as he was not considered controversial - but now Democrats will start lying about his qualifications. Just be honest guys. say "we were not going to vote for any nominee of Trump no matter what" If you have a problem with this approach, then why didn't you advocate for Merrick Garland's confirmation? I see that Grimm beat me to it. Slow internet connection! Find me where I said I approved of the Republican approach to Garland OR where I said he wasn't qualified? you'll find neither. I have a problem with any Democrats who claim Gorsuch isnt qualified. If they want to go the "say no to everything approach" then I feel the same way as when the Republicans did it. From a strategy standpoint though, it makes much less sense for them than it did for the Republicans as they dont have an election on the horizon and 2018 could stack very poorly against them as well.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2017 02:15 AM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Feb 01 2017 02:28 AM

What's the difference how the GOP went about blocking Garland? It wouldn't have made a difference to me if they went through the motions of hearing Garland and then using their Senate majority to vote "No". I'd view either method as purely partisan. Nymr83 wrote: From a strategy standpoint though, it makes much less sense for them than it did for the Republicans as they dont have an election on the horizon and 2018 could stack very poorly against them as well. Now here's something we could agree on. The thing is, that from my faraway perspective, I don't know whether the GOP'll go nuclear. If I know that the GOP doesn't go nuke, I'd hope for a filibuster and take my chances on the tough mid-term map. I would guess that under no circumstances would the GOP gain eight seats and besides, in that time, I'd count on more and more outrageous and historical events coming out of the White House that would be damaging to the GOP.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2017 02:21 AM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What's the difference how the GOP went about blocking Garland? It wouldn't have made a difference to me if they went through the motions of hearing Garland and then using their Senate majority to vote "No". I'd view either method as purely partisan. Nymr83 wrote: Just be honest guys. OE -- One can just as easily say that the GOP should have been honest and come out and say that they would've only confirmed an Obama nominee that was unambiguously conservative and that they could've adopted that partisan stance because their majority in the Senate allowed them to do so. The GOP's stance that a lame duck President shouldn't make that nomination in the last year of his term was condescending pretext -- and bullshit.

Nymr83 Feb 01 2017 02:27 AM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What's the difference how the GOP went about blocking Garland? It wouldn't have made a difference to me if they went through the motions of hearing Garland and then using their Senate majority to vote "No". I'd view either method as purely partisan. Nymr83 wrote: From a strategy standpoint though, it makes much less sense for them than it did for the Republicans as they dont have an election on the horizon and 2018 could stack very poorly against them as well. Now here's something we could agree on. The thing is, that from my faraway perspective, I don't know whether the GOP'll go nuclear. If I knew that the GOP doesn't go nuke, I'd hope for a filibuster and take my chances on the tough mid-term map. I would guess that under no circumstances would the GOP gain eight seats and besides, in that time, I'd count on more and more outrageous findings and events of a historical level coming out of the White House and damaging to the GOP. I think given that they are 4 years from a Presidential election and the Senate election in 2 years doesn't favor them they would have been better off toning down the rhetoric and trying to work with Trump in all the areas where he doesn't really hold typical conservative views instead of ratcheting it up a notch and pushing Trump further into bed with the far right. the GOP needs to go nuclear, otherwise what was the end-game of blocking Garland? OE -- One can just as easily say that the GOP should have been honest and come out and say that they would've only confirmed an Obama nominee that was unambiguously conservative and that they could've adopted that partisan stance because their majority in the Senate allowed them to do so. The GOP's stance that a lame duck President shouldn't make that nomination in his last year was condescending pretext -- and bullshit. yes, they should have.

Lefty Specialist Feb 01 2017 01:02 PM Re: Politics in 2017

To be honest, there shouldn't have been a Supreme Court announcement last night. So if it was okay for Republicans to block Garland, it's certainly okay for Democrats to do what they can to block Gorsuch. If Republicans nuke the filibuster, fine. They're going to do it anyway; they're counting on spineless Democrats not to force their hand (cough, Joe Manchin, cough). Republicans are getting all the goodies they can from Trump while they can. He's historically unpopular, and only getting more so. He'll be toxic by next year and Republicans will be running on their 'independence'. They'll have an ally in this, strangely, in Steve Bannon, who's rapidly emerging as the strongman in the White House. He despises conventional Republicans and wants to destroy them. They can use that hatred to say, "Hey, we're not like Trump!" They'll be assisted by a compliant media. It's up to Democrats to hold their feet to the fire for all the bad stuff that has already happened and will happen in the interim, all of which is aided and abetted by 'good Republicans'.

Ceetar Feb 01 2017 02:08 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Should I point out the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be partisan? ... It's perfectly okay for the Democrats to block this idiot that will do a lot to keep the country from moving forward for..decades. They won't though, because they don't care, because a lot of the things we're worried about, like body autonomy, etc, aren't really pressing issues for the most of the elected. They're looking to compromise while the other side is just yelling and screaming until they get their way. Like, if the roles had been reversed with Scalia, the Republicans would've nominated an extreme and after the Democrats didn't vote on it, they would've shoved him through through executive order and moved on. The Democrats would've whined a bit but wouldn't have done anything about it, just like they won't now.

Frayed Knot Feb 01 2017 02:42 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Ceetar wrote: Should I point out the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be partisan? ... How are we defining "partisan" here, other than just containing guys you don't like? Like, if the roles had been reversed with Scalia, the Republicans would've nominated an extreme and after the Democrats didn't vote on it, they would've shoved him through through executive order and moved on. That's absurd.

Ceetar Feb 01 2017 02:54 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Should I point out the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be partisan? ... How are we defining "partisan" here, other than just containing guys you don't like? How about not being completely at the whim of democrats and republicans jockeying for power (again, it'd be nice to have a third+ party) Like, if the roles had been reversed with Scalia, the Republicans would've nominated an extreme and after the Democrats didn't vote on it, they would've shoved him through through executive order and moved on. That's absurd. Less absurd than most of the things that have happened lately. I'd definitely be behind a "after 120 days if no clear and obvious reason to reject the judge has been presented and a confirmation vote has not been conducted, said judge will be be considered confirmed" law, or executive order, or whatever we're calling the "I'll do whatever I want because you won't do anything to stop me and the federal employee lackeys will do whatever their boss says, which is me"

Edgy MD Feb 01 2017 03:09 PM Re: Politics in 2017

That's not much of a law.

Frayed Knot Feb 01 2017 03:18 PM Re: Politics in 2017

And, as usual, I'm now more confused by what you're saying than I was before I responded. makes note to self about lessons not learned I'll leave the partisan thing alone for now since my point there was mainly to say that many folks operate under the banner that there are only two conditions: non-partisan vs partisan in favor of the other side, which leaves us in the position where half the people are going to see it as partisan no matter what the makeup. On the executive order nonsense, you start out by bitching that the Republicans would simply 'shove their guy through' via EO (which isn't remotely possible - hence the "absurd" part) and then follow that up by saying that you'd be in favor of either side being able to do exactly that, a condition which would then lead to even more partisan choices since no one would ever again have to worry about how the other half thought.

Ceetar Feb 01 2017 03:35 PM Re: Politics in 2017

And, as usual, I'm now more confused by what you're saying than I was before I responded. makes note to self about lessons not learned I'll leave the partisan thing alone for now since my point there was mainly to say that many folks operate under the banner that there are only two conditions: non-partisan vs partisan in favor of the other side, which leaves us in the position where half the people are going to see it as partisan no matter what the makeup. On the executive order nonsense, you start out by bitching that the Republicans would simply 'shove their guy through' via EO (which isn't remotely possible - hence the "absurd" part) and then follow that up by saying that you'd be in favor of either side being able to do exactly that, a condition which would then lead to even more partisan choices since no one would ever again have to worry about how the other half thought. No, just read. And keep in mind the Republicans just confirmed guys by literally voting without the Dems present before you throw around absurd for what seems like a reasonable idea. This isn't so different than an executive order unilaterally deciding things. Assuming that all branches of government are on the same team, the president nominates a justice. It should be assumed that this guy or gal is 'the guy' like when a boss hires a new employee and has the team interview him first to make sure it's a "cultural fit". Congress then votes on the guy, interviews him, makes sure he is indeed a good fit. Isn't not about the majority party getting who they want and the minority party (Again, it'd be nice of there was no such thing) grasping at any power they can by avoiding the vote or manipulating the system. What Congress did was basically not open the email and leave it as marked unread even though they could read the contents in the preview. _that_ is absurd. do your job. The ball was in their court, and I see no reason why a time frame for them to do so would be absurd. Congress would be able to ask for an extension, but at the very least then they have to reengage with the process, actively spout bs about why they're avoiding voting. etc. But the job is to approve the selection, and if they can't find a reason to deny in the time frame, then he's confirmed.

Frayed Knot Feb 01 2017 04:05 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Sorry, but I don't understand a single point you're making there.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 01 2017 04:08 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I think he's saying that unless the Senate rejects a nominee within a certain amount of time, that nominee should be considered as having been confirmed.

Frayed Knot Feb 01 2017 05:46 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Which is something that would have "solved" (by some definition anyway) the Garland mess last year, but it's also something which would require a major redefinition of the Senate's 'advice and consent' powers awarded to them by the constitution. But changing those rules going forward -- I'd be against it but your milage may vary -- is a lot different from claiming that, had the roles been reversed last year during l'affair de Garland, the Repubs could have and would have simply EO'd their guy onto the bench while everyone else sat around and meekly accepted it.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2017 06:06 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lefty Specialist wrote: If Republicans nuke the filibuster, fine. They're going to do it anyway; they're counting on spineless Democrats not to force their hand (cough, Joe Manchin, cough). Yeah, this is the way to go, I would think. It makes little sense for the Dems to avoid filibustering Gorsuch out of fear that the GOP would then nuke Gorsuch onto the SCOTUS. Force the GOP's hand. Trump might get to fill another vacancy before his term's up anyways. I don't want to get all ghoulish and play actuarial roulette but if I were to get ghoulish and start playing actuarial roulette, I'd note the advanced ages of Kennedy - a conservative leaning centrist, and Ginsburg and Breyer - staunch liberals -- all born in the 1930's. Besides, the research that's emerging on Gorsuch is making him out to be an extremist -- even more to the right than Scalia.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2017 06:21 PM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Hey Virginia -- come on down and join the Jim Crow revolution. It's sweeping the nation and climbing the charts with a bullet. Virginia voted Democrats in the last three Presidential elections. So now the GOP controlled state wants to change the way it allocates its' electoral votes in the upcoming Presidential election. Instead of winner take all, Virginia wants to apportion its electoral votes according to its districts, which have been gerrymandered to cram as many Democrat voters into as few districts as possible. The proposed system would would likely yield a result that mirrors the electoral college vote of this past election, with the next Republican Presidential candidate receiving the majority of Virginia's electoral votes despite losing the state-wide popular vote to the Democrat candidate. http://www.chesterfieldobserver.com/new ... llege.html FiveThirtyEight examines the possible effects of Virginia's proposed electoral vote change, which other states have considered and are considering. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/und ... till-lost/

Edgy MD Feb 01 2017 06:53 PM Re: Politics in 2017

By the way, didn't the wording of that press release about the AG's firing read like it was written by a spurned teenager?

Ceetar Feb 01 2017 07:21 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: By the way, didn't the wording of that press release about the AG's firing read like it was written by a spurned teenager? They rushed that one so they didn't have time to really clean up Trump's dictation.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 01 2017 07:32 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2017 03:05 AM

Betsy Devos's Cabinet confirmation is suddenly no sure thing, as GOP Senators Collins and Murkowski say they will likely vote against her. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/s ... ion-234497 Boy, I've come to loathe and depsise this cabinet pick more than any of the others. I think someone like Sessions, for example, is a far more dangerous pick than Devos. And if some magic genie granted me the chance to kill one cabinet nomination which I'd get to replace, it'd probably be Sessions. But at least I have some respect -grudging though it is- for Sessions. He has a graduate law degree; he was the top law guy in his home state at the Federal level; he was nominated for a Federal judgeship and he's been a US Senator for about 20 years. Those accomplishments require considerable talent. But Devos, she's just an empty extreme ideologue promoting dangerous and somewhat hidden agendas whose only apparent skill was to be born into a fortune and then marrying into an even bigger one - and then using that money to get her way like Vito Corleone used machine guns to get his way.

Ceetar Feb 01 2017 07:37 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Sessions damage could galvanize liberals into voting/ousting him. Devos damage lowers the overall education level of the country, making more conservatives. I think that's way more damaging.

metsmarathon Feb 01 2017 09:44 PM Re: Politics in 2017

sessions would find himself in exactly the right spot to either enforce or push against the stripping of rights of american citizens. that's kindof a big deal. devos, on the other hand, could strip away the fundamental ability of the public school system to properly function, crippling it for a generation of schoolchildren, perhaps irreparably so. so... uh... they're both potentially pretty bad.

Edgy MD Feb 01 2017 10:08 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I don't believe for a minute that lowering education levels makes people conservative. I think it may make certainly people vulnerable to demagoguery. But nobody has cornered the market on that. Not yet.

Ceetar Feb 01 2017 10:15 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: I don't believe for a minute that lowering education levels makes people conservative. I think it may make certainly people vulnerable to demagoguery. But nobody has cornered the market on that. Not yet. I mean, there are plenty of graphs and studies that suggest education is linked to voting Democrat, at least in the presidential election. [url]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/educational-divide-in-vote-preferences-on-track-to-be-wider-than-in-recent-elections/

Edgy MD Feb 01 2017 11:19 PM Re: Politics in 2017

"I mean..."? I don't think I said anything unreasonable to trigger your condescension. A correlation between higher education and folks voting for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, with a sample size of one election, does not mean poorly educated or un-educated are going to become conservative. I know this because of my higher education.

Ceetar Feb 02 2017 12:36 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: "I mean..."? I don't think I said anything unreasonable to trigger your condescension. A correlation between higher education and folks voting for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, with a sample size of one election, does not mean poorly educated or un-educated are going to become conservative. I know this because of my higher education. well, you could try reading. It goes back quite a few elections, and even more so among white people. Either way, this data is certainly more suggestive than what you believe.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 02 2017 12:45 AM Re: Politics in 2017

From the Department of Alternating Tears and Laughs, DJT's full remarks today regarding Black History Month. Last month, we celebrated the life of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose incredible example is unique in American history. You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago when somebody said I took the statue out of my office. It turned out that that was fake news. Fake news. The statue is cherished, it’s one of the favorite things in the—and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson, and we have Dr. Martin Luther King. But they said the statue, the bust of Martin Luther King, was taken out of the office. And it was never even touched. So I think it was a disgrace, but that’s the way the press is. Very unfortunate. I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I noticed. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.

MFS62 Feb 02 2017 12:54 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Has someone mentioned to President Trump that Frederick Douglass (who he said" is doing an amazing job") is deceased, and has been for a long time? Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 02 2017 02:30 AM Re: Politics in 2017

I'm about 75% sure he thinks Douglass is still alive. I'm 100% sure he has no idea what "job" Douglass did. I'm not sure whether it's worse that he skips the reading/homework... or that he's proud of it.

metsmarathon Feb 02 2017 02:51 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Fuck me. Even gee-dubs was a masterful orator compared to this.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2017 02:54 AM Re: Politics in 2017

This Australia story is jaw dropping too

metsmarathon Feb 02 2017 02:55 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Our president is a tantrumming toddler.

Edgy MD Feb 02 2017 03:17 AM Re: Politics in 2017

On this St. Patrick's Day, I'd like to congratulate the Irish on their independence. And I'd like to take a moment to salute all the Irish heroes: ... Bono ... John Wayne in The Quiet Man ... great film by the way ... they don't make films like that anymore ... and the ones they make are over-rated ... Meryl Street is tired ... somebody should shut ... And I'd also like to give a shouty-ho to all the Irish in Ireland, and thank them for their contributions to America ... Guinness, Sean Connery ... such great contributions. I don't drink.

Lefty Specialist Feb 02 2017 12:55 PM Re: Politics in 2017

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: This Australia story is jaw dropping too This was quite amazing. He went out of his way to piss off one of America's strongest allies. The Aussies are beside themselves. The call was supposed to last an hour, but he hung up after 25 minutes. I'm beginning to think we need a 'shadow cabinet' like they have in the UK. A cast of Democrats who are very clear and coherent on the alternative they offer to this buffoon and his cronies. Asking too much, I know, but there needs to be a competing message, and fast. People need to understand that there'll be someone willing to fix everything he's breaking.

Fman99 Feb 02 2017 01:20 PM Re: Politics in 2017

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: From the Department of Alternating Tears and Laughs, DJT's full remarks today regarding Black History Month. Last month, we celebrated the life of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose incredible example is unique in American history. You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago when somebody said I took the statue out of my office. It turned out that that was fake news. Fake news. The statue is cherished, it’s one of the favorite things in the—and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson, and we have Dr. Martin Luther King. But they said the statue, the bust of Martin Luther King, was taken out of the office. And it was never even touched. So I think it was a disgrace, but that’s the way the press is. Very unfortunate. I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I noticed. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact. I think it's great that he's letting the Onion write all of his public remarks. Why fight it?

Ceetar Feb 02 2017 02:00 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I'm about 75% sure he thinks Douglass is still alive. I'm 100% sure he has no idea what "job" Douglass did. I'm not sure whether it's worse that he skips the reading/homework... or that he's proud of it. But at least his VP is..oh wait, hold on.. [tweet]https://twitter.com/VP/status/826973464078716935[/tweet] Lincoln was, as you may know, a vampire hunter. but a white one. Nor did it really end slavery (he might be surprised to learn we were at war) and especially not racism and isn't really what black history month is about. Apparently it is actually a National Freedom Day thanks to Truman though, so at least he's not just making up things there.

Edgy MD Feb 02 2017 02:15 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Hundreds of Australians have died fighting beside the US in the War on Terror. They weren't even bound by the NATO pact as other partner states were. They joined us after taking the initiative themselves to invoke the half-century-old ANZUS pact which binds Australia, New Zealand, and the US in Pacific military matters. Obviously the 9/11 attack wasn't a Pacific matter, and they therefore weren't particularly bound to invoke the pact and join us, but fuck, they did. And now this.

MFS62 Feb 02 2017 03:25 PM Re: Politics in 2017

What's the over/under on days until he's impeached? Can someone please call a Mulligan (he thinks its one of the great Irish contributions to America) on the election? Later

Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2017 03:28 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I don't think he's anywhere close to being impeached.

Ceetar Feb 02 2017 03:31 PM Re: Politics in 2017

MFS62 wrote: What's the over/under on days until he's impeached? Can someone please call a Mulligan (he thinks its one of the great Irish contributions to America) on the election? Later [url]http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=2657726 2017 is the favorite. Don't see individual month/date bets though.

Centerfield Feb 02 2017 03:32 PM Re: Politics in 2017

So far he has not strayed enough from the Republican party to instigate impeachment. His behavior may be problematic but he has not done anything that the McConnel/Ryan contingent aren't secretly applauding themselves. In fact, because he's done what he's done, they are allowed to sit back and just watch it happen. A few awkward press conferences are a small price to pay. Impeachment won't happen until and unless he starts straying from Republican interests. He shows no signs of doing that so far.

metsmarathon Feb 02 2017 03:38 PM Re: Politics in 2017

see, here's the problem with impeachment... it's unclear to me how much pence is in the fold on the whole nascent-dictatorship thing. if he's not, and he's just a regular old repugnant woman- and minority- and civil rights- hater, then impeachment would be a good thing, as we would once again have an somewhat mature, if dead-wrong, person at the head of our country. however, if he's also on the bandwagon, then we'd be even more fucked, as a competent adult would have the reigns of the burgeoning fascist regime. The only hope really is that congressional republicans realize their greivous error, and start working to restore dignity to our nation. but this is bad. very bad. remember when our biggest looming constitutional crisis was when there was a concern some bullshit email scandal threatened to lock up a leading presidential candidate? i think we'll be facing a much, much greater constitution crisis when it becomes readily apparent to all branches of the federal government that the upper echelon of the executive branch needs to be deposed to save the union.

Edgy MD Feb 02 2017 03:41 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Oh, he's strayed from Republican interests. He's just got Republicans so alternately cowed and mesmerized that they just change what their avowed interests are to align with his arbitrary craziness. I have no problem with an impeachment bringing Mike Pence into the presidency. None.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2017 03:47 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Me neither. I'm no fan of Pence, but at least he'd be bad in the conventional way, rather than in the damaging way that Trump is. I know that there's a provision, other than impeachment, for the removal of a President if he's unable to carry out his duties. Like, for example, if he's recklessly insane. Whose job is it to make that determination? It's the Cabinet, isn't it? Do we have to rely on people like Ben Carson to appreciate that the President doesn't know what he's doing?

TransMonk Feb 02 2017 03:53 PM Re: Politics in 2017

[tweet:wf4jg60w]https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/827169996866347008[/tweet:wf4jg60w] Arnold answers DJT's insult from the National Prayer Breakfast this morning regarding TV ratings. Kinda bad ass, no?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 02 2017 03:55 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Guarantee that Bannon ends up on the street along with his nominal boss, and we can talk about impeachment.

Frayed Knot Feb 02 2017 04:00 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I know that there's a provision, other than impeachment, for the removal of a President if he's unable to carry out his duties. Like, for example, if he's recklessly insane. Whose job is it to make that determination? It's the Cabinet, isn't it? Do we have to rely on people like Ben Carson to appreciate that the President doesn't know what he's doing? Amendment 25, Section 4 Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Edgy MD Feb 02 2017 04:06 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Me neither. I'm no fan of Pence, but at least he'd be bad in the conventional way, rather than in the damaging way that Trump is. I know that there's a provision, other than impeachment, for the removal of a President if he's unable to carry out his duties. Like, for example, if he's recklessly insane. Whose job is it to make that determination? It's the Cabinet, isn't it? Do we have to rely on people like Ben Carson to appreciate that the President doesn't know what he's doing? Yes, and as a brain surgeon, he'd probably be best qualified, if not the most willing. What you're speaking about appears to be Section 4 of the 25th amendment. Basically, a majority of the official cabinet (the ones who go through Congressional Approval and run departments and stuff, not the president's senior advisors/children/propganda ministers) plus the vice president have to submit a letter that says the veep is taking over. Congress has to agree, and agree fast. Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. It seems to me that this is much more likely to be triggered by a situation like President Kennedy surviving his shot to the brain, but lingering on incapacitated, rather than a slowly and gradually deteriorating mental condition that we may or may not be confronted by now.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2017 04:15 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I didn't realize that it was in an amendment, and not part of the original Constitution. I see that the 25th was enacted in February 1967, which means it wasn't in effect when Woodrow Wilson has his stroke, or when Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were lingering after they had been shot. (Lincoln didn't survive for very long, but Garfield hung in there for a while, as did McKinley.) I agree that the amendment was aimed at the more likely scenario of a president being injured or ill, but it would also apply to a president who's mad, but since that's more of a judgment call, and a call that has to be made by a group of people hand-picked by the president, it seems very unlikely to happen.

Lefty Specialist Feb 02 2017 04:16 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Centerfield wrote: So far he has not strayed enough from the Republican party to instigate impeachment. His behavior may be problematic but he has not done anything that the McConnel/Ryan contingent aren't secretly applauding themselves. In fact, because he's done what he's done, they are allowed to sit back and just watch it happen. A few awkward press conferences are a small price to pay. Impeachment won't happen until and unless he starts straying from Republican interests. He shows no signs of doing that so far. This. He's giving them all the goodies they wanted and fast. He won't be impeached, but if the goodies stop flowing they'll be happy to cut him off and pretend they don't know him if it means their getting re-elected.

Ceetar Feb 02 2017 04:19 PM Re: Politics in 2017

The first step is to actually start the impeachment proceedings. He's violated various different laws that warrant it at least, whether or not it'd actually happen is a different question, but... impeachment is serious and is something that would move to the forefront of the discussion. It might also serve to distract Trump from various shenanigans. The Republicans might look to save face, position themselves as the 'rescuers' of the union, etc. Pence is also a disaster, but at least the 'establishment' Republicans have, sometimes, some kind of professional courtesy regarding the opposition. They won't say, deport green card holders, they'll just pass laws to suppress their vote and help prevent them from getting ahead in life, relying on the idea that America is (usually) still better than their alternative so they don't notice or don't fight as hard against the discrimination. Of course, you could use that same argument for the people and a Pence presidency. It's not the dystopia that Trump was, so we lose some motivation to fight.

Edgy MD Feb 02 2017 04:31 PM Re: Politics in 2017

The 25th was also invoked in Air Force One, proposing that in a scenario where a president is taken hostage (or has had his family taken hostage) has had his capacity to act rationally as Commander in Chief severely compromised. Vice President Glenn Close was painted as heroic for refusing to sign off on the takeover. I think she should have.

Edgy MD Feb 02 2017 04:34 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Watching footage from the National Prayer Breakfast (disastrous, of course), I think his hands have been taken hostage.

Lefty Specialist Feb 02 2017 04:46 PM Re: Politics in 2017

If Hillary had done so much in the first two weeks of her presidency, Fox News would already have an Impeachment Countdown Clock.

Frayed Knot Feb 02 2017 04:57 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I didn't realize that it was in an amendment, and not part of the original Constitution. I see that the 25th was enacted in February 1967, which means it wasn't in effect when Woodrow Wilson has his stroke, or when Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were lingering after they had been shot. (Lincoln didn't survive for very long, but Garfield hung in there for a while, as did McKinley.) I agree that the amendment was aimed at the more likely scenario of a president being injured or ill, but it would also apply to a president who's mad, but since that's more of a judgment call, and a call that has to be made by a group of people hand-picked by the president, it seems very unlikely to happen. Yeah, I think it's meant to at least put up some kind of framework around which to base such a decision. The one time I remember it being discussed was after Reagan's shooting about whether or not GHWB should have named himself President during the time Reagan was under anesthesia since the same amendment also provides the VP to undo his action if and when the condition no longer exists. IIRC, GHWB was out of town that day so it never happened and led to the famous "I'm in charge here" declaration by Sec of State Haig which sent so many into a tizzy.

Mets Willets Point Feb 02 2017 05:05 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I expect Amendment 25, Section 4 will be invoked after Trump goes on a rant about missing strawberries from the White House kitchen.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2017 05:17 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Mets Willets Point wrote: I expect Amendment 25, Section 4 will be invoked after Trump goes on a rant about missing strawberries from the White House kitchen.

metsmarathon Feb 02 2017 06:33 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Edgy MD wrote: Watching footage from the National Prayer Breakfast (disastrous, of course), I think his hands have been taken hostage. Nothing like an interfaith prayer breakfast to make your case for the annihilation of a religion unless they bow to your will and acquiesce to assimilation into Christianity.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2017 06:46 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Fuck it, I'm fighting for Australia.

metsmarathon Feb 02 2017 07:18 PM Re: Politics in 2017

so... wouldn't it be patently ridiculous for private businesses to refuse to serve customers who were adulterers, divorcees, and parentsw of children born out of wedlock, on ht basis of the strength of their religious faith? wouldn't it also be patently ridiculous for private businesses to refuse health care to adulterers, divorcees, parents of children born out of wedlock, and the like, on the basis of the strength of their religious faith? why then is it ok for them to discriminate against the lgbtq community, or reproductive health, on the same basis?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2017 07:26 PM Re: Politics in 2017

metsmarathon wrote: so... wouldn't it be patently ridiculous for private businesses to refuse to serve customers who were adulterers, divorcees, and parentsw of children born out of wedlock, on ht basis of the strength of their religious faith? wouldn't it also be patently ridiculous for private businesses to refuse health care to adulterers, divorcees, parents of children born out of wedlock, and the like, on the basis of the strength of their religious faith? why then is it ok for them to discriminate against the lgbtq community, or reproductive health, on the same basis? It's all crazy. That a corporation could have religious beliefs. That a person could impose his religious beliefs on a third person. What's gonna happen when, on religious grounds, some devout religion believing doctor refuses to treat an LGBT person in the throes of a dangerous asthma attack or some other life threatening but easily treatable condition? Once upon a time, people thought that the world was flat, too. But I don't really wanna go there.

metsmarathon Feb 02 2017 07:42 PM Re: Politics in 2017

i think if we allow corporations to impose their religious beliefs onto others, they should be required to strictly impose all of their religious requirements on others, and themselves. want to deny wedding cakes to gays, well, you damned well better not be delivering cakes on sundays. or comsuming meats on fridays. or making cakes for any second marriages, and also for ensuring that anyone desiring a wedding cake is going into that marriage with the desire and intent and capability of making children, and will not be using any contraceptives. and that the bride is a virgin, of course, and doesn't color her hair or have any tattoos. and that the groom never masturbates, and doesn't at all fancy the maid of honor. and so on and so forth. there should really be tests, and lengthy applications, and interviews, references, and inspections of prospective clients to ensure that they meet only the strictest of morality standards.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2017 07:52 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2017 08:02 PM

Ceetar wrote: Sessions damage could galvanize liberals into voting/ousting him. Devos damage lowers the overall education level of the country, making more conservatives. I think that's way more damaging. Don't get me wrong. I think that Devos is catastrophically dangerous and I wasn't trying to minimize that in the least. But that there are other cabinet picks that I consider even worse is not a nod to Devos, but an indication of how abominable Trump's proposed cabinet is.

Edgy MD Feb 02 2017 08:01 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: "I mean..."? I don't think I said anything unreasonable to trigger your condescension. A correlation between higher education and folks voting for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, with a sample size of one election, does not mean poorly educated or un-educated are going to become conservative. I know this because of my higher education. well, you could try reading. It goes back quite a few elections, and even more so among white people. Either way, this data is certainly more suggestive than what you believe. I could try reading? Really? I think it's time I invited you to my house and you can try talking to me that way. "Among white people" is sort of late-coming qualifier that disqualifies your argument. I know that because of my reading skills. If you need my address, pm me. If you want to present your case like a gentleman, I'm all for that too.

Ceetar Feb 02 2017 08:26 PM Re: Politics in 2017

never professed to be a gentleman. it's an archaic term. My argument is sound. At least, it's a reasonable takeaway from the facts that I presented, whether or not it's 100% concrete and definite. I don't know where you're seeing condescension in 'I mean..' when all I was doing was presenting information to support my statement, something you rudely dismissed with your "i don't believe that". You clearly didn't read it though, because you've falsely represented it based on my summary twice now.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2017 08:27 PM Re: Politics in 2017 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 02 2017 10:05 PM

Can anyone here explain the logic of this idea that I heard on Greta Van Susteren's show yesterday and also, in several print pieces? The idea is that the Democrats might not filibuster Gorsuch in order to preserve the filibuster in case Trump gets to nominate yet another SCOTUS justice down the line. Isn't that absurd, or am I missing something? Becsause if the GOP could go nuke on Trump's potential second nomination, it can go nuke for Gorsuch just the same, right?

Edgy MD Feb 02 2017 08:33 PM Re: Politics in 2017

So, I guess ceets isn't coming to my house.

Lefty Specialist Feb 02 2017 09:52 PM Re: Politics in 2017

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Can anyone here explain the logic of this idea that I heard on Greta Van Sustern's show yesterday and also, in several print pieces? The idea is that the Democrats might not filibuster Gorsuch in order to preserve the filibuster in case Trump gets to nominate yet another SCOTUS justice down the line. Isn't that absurd, or am I missing something? Becsause if the GOP could go nuke on Trump's potential second nomination, it can go nuke for Gorsuch just the same, right? The faulty logic goes like this: Gorsuch is just replacing Scalia, so the ideological tilt of the court won't change. You save the filibuster for the inevitable second seat that'll be coming up either through death or retirement. The clock is ticking a lot louder for Breyer and RBG than it is for the Republicans on the court. It's stupid because Gorsuch is 30 years younger than Scalia, and whether they nuke the filibuster now or later is really irrelevant. Democrats need to force their hand. This is a stolen seat, so they should at least put up a fight even though they will inevitably lose.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2017 10:04 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Can anyone here explain the logic of this idea that I heard on Greta Van Susteren's show yesterday and also, in several print pieces? The idea is that the Democrats might not filibuster Gorsuch in order to preserve the filibuster in case Trump gets to nominate yet another SCOTUS justice down the line. Isn't that absurd, or am I missing something? Becsause if the GOP could go nuke on Trump's potential second nomination, it can go nuke for Gorsuch just the same, right? The faulty logic goes like this: Gorsuch is just replacing Scalia, so the ideological tilt of the court won't change. You save the filibuster for the inevitable second seat that'll be coming up either through death or retirement. The clock is ticking a lot louder for Breyer and RBG than it is for the Republicans on the court. It's stupid because Gorsuch is 30 years younger than Scalia, and whether they nuke the filibuster now or later is really irrelevant. Democrats need to force their hand. This is a stolen seat, so they should at least put up a fight even though they will inevitably lose. This is exactly how I see it, especially the part about forcing the GOP's hand. Let them go ahead and nuke the filibuster, which they'll probably do. If they'll do it in case of a 2nd Trump nomination, they'll do it now. I don't agree with this part of the equation either: "The faulty logic goes like this: Gorsuch is just replacing Scalia, so the ideological tilt of the court won't change. " You have to ignore the Garland blockade and the what if to see it that way. Also, the current eight judge bench favors progressives and liberals. So Gorsuch will change the court's tilt. I realize that the SCOTUS is always one judge short just before a vacancy is filled and that's supposed to be a temporary makeup, but this court will have been at eight judges for more than a year by the time the next judge is confirmed, and that's on the Garland blockade, not to mention that it'd be a liberal majority court if Obama got to pick the next judge, which he should have.

Nymr83 Feb 03 2017 01:38 AM Re: Politics in 2017

I think the responses to your original question are conflating strategy with morality/ethics/etc so what is the strategic answer to "The idea is that the Democrats might not filibuster Gorsuch in order to preserve the filibuster in case Trump gets to nominate yet another SCOTUS justice down the line."? I would start from the premise that Gorsuch WILL be on the Supreme Court*, so do you gain more strategically from the 'nuclear option' being invoked to get him there vs not? The Negatives to forcing the nuke: -By playing along with the process you get longer hearings, you might even dig up the dirt you need to nix him and force Trump to wait a few more months while another candidate gets vetted and approved. if you force the REps to go nuclear, they probably move more quickly. -the more time you spend on this now, the less time Trump has to do other things that you presumably wont like (they cant hold hearings on Gorsuch and confirm Davos and eliminate the EPA and give tax cuts to Donald's businesses all at once. -the biggest reason: you don't know what the future holds. if the rules change now they arent changing back later, so if this battle is already lost why make it easier for Trump next time? why not force their hand when they haven't just won an election and instead do it when they are staring at a new election? What are the positive? the only one i can think of is to create anger by forcing the Republicans to 'break tradition' - but i'd say given that Harry Reid already did it for lower court seats and that you are far away from elections this is a very minimal benefit - the only people who will care enough to hold this against Republicans in 4 years are the people who were never voting Republican anyway. Your PR results among actual swing voters may be far better if the next vacancy comes in 2020. do you see other positives? (again, strategically positive) *or someone equally Conservative if he somehow wasn't vetted well and turns out to a tax-evading womanizer - only Trump is allowed to do that.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2017 02:34 AM Re: Politics in 2017

This depends. Are you assuming that Gorsuch will get confirmed only because the GOP goes nuclear? Because maybe there's a chance that the GOP won't go nuclear. The Dems will never surely know how much leverage they have here unless they filibuster and force the issue. If the unofficial 60 vote threshold for confirming SCOTUS judges remains, then the Dems have considerable sway in the selection of the SCOTUS judge that will fill Scalia's open seat. They won't know without filibustering. And if it turns out that the GOP is willing to go nuclear right now for Gorsuch, then so what? I don't see the strategy in giving in to an extremist pick just to preserve a filibuster that's probably doomed anyway -- the filibuster'll surely be gone if Trump gets to fill a second seat. The party that has to rely on a filibuster will always be at the mercy of the party that can repeal that filibuster because the filibustering party is by definition, the minority party. Your strategy essentially allows the GOP to ram their SCOTUS pick in even if it doesn't have 60 votes and even if it doesn't go nuclear.

Nymr83 Feb 03 2017 03:00 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Well yes, as I said my opening premise is that they will go nuclear now if needed. If you have any doubt about that, then it changes the strategy. But what is your end game? You aren't getting a liberal nominee, not even a moderate liberal like Garland no matter what you do. Are you holding out for a Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor? I suppose that might be a viable strategy too, but that probably only works if you indicate that's the plan - tell the moderate republicans like McCain, Collins etc that your vote for that person RIGHT NOW if only Trump would nominate them. That offer probably needed to have been made before the nomination though.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2017 03:59 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Either the GOP is willing to go nuclear, or it isn't. If the GOP isn't willing to go nuclear, then it's in the Dems' interests to find that out sooner rather than later so that they can, perhaps, turn back Gorsuch and use their leverage to force a more moderate pick. If the GOP doesn't go nuclear, the Dems have as much leverage as the GOP does in determining the next SCOTUS judge, so long as it can retain 41 Senators to go along with its filibuster. Why save this leverage for the potential second vacancy that Trump might get to fill, but not the first? If the GOP is willing to go nuclear, then I don't see the difference whether they do it now or later on when and if Trump gets to fill a second seat. Your hypothetical assumes that the GOP will go nuclear for Gorsuch. But I don't know if that's a given in the real world. I don't know how much reasonable doubt there is (emphasis, of course, on the word "reasonable") on the GOP going nuclear. I wonder just how complicated this decision to go nuclear really is, and whether or not it might depend on what kind of judge is up for confirmation. Obviously, if the Dems took the position that the only judge they'd vote for would be a staunch liberal, that would make it likelier that the GOP would go nuclear. It seems to me that there are several variables in determining the likelihood of the nuclear option. We can both come up with these variables and plug them all in, generating exponential permutations. But if I were to simplify things, I'd say that it doesn't matter to me when the GOP goes nuclear. And if it doesn't matter, I'm all for a Gorsuch filibuster. I know for sure that Trump will exert as much pressure as he can muster for the nuclear option if it's needed because his ego won't allow for Gorsuch to get voted down. But who knows? Maybe this is a nuanced strategy by Trump where the end game is to pull Gorsuch and ram in Pryor through the nuclear option as a show of force. You can go a little crazy thinking of all the possibilities. OE -- It seems that what you're really asking is what should the Dems do if they knew in advance for sure that the GOP would invoke the nuclear option in support of Gorsuch's nomination, right?

Lefty Specialist Feb 03 2017 04:05 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I say force their hand now. There are a few Republican senators that are a little wishy-washy about getting rid of the filibuster entirely, as they know some day it'll come back to bite them. I think in the end they'll go nuclear, but if they do it now they were going to do it anyway. No sense in giving Gorsuch the free pass.

Nymr83 Feb 03 2017 04:37 PM Re: Politics in 2017

IRAN IS PLAYING WITH FIRE - THEY DON'T APPRECIATE HOW KIND PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS TO THEM. NOT ME! Yeah, on Twitter. Seriously.

TransMonk Feb 03 2017 04:40 PM Re: Politics in 2017

As an aside, @trumpdraws is one of my favorite follows on Twitter. [tweet]https://twitter.com/TrumpDraws/status/826542931112660992[/tweet]

Lefty Specialist Feb 03 2017 05:13 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Nymr83 wrote: IRAN IS PLAYING WITH FIRE - THEY DON'T APPRECIATE HOW KIND PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS TO THEM. NOT ME! Yeah, on Twitter. Seriously. I wish somebody would take away his phone and delete his Twitter account. If we go to war it'll be because of goddamn Twitter.

Edgy MD Feb 03 2017 07:11 PM Re: Politics in 2017

He's also been, at least up until a few days ago, reportedly tweeting from an unsecured phone, which kind of undermines his main criticism of Secretary Clinton. #lockhimuplockhimup

d'Kong76 Feb 03 2017 08:19 PM Re: Politics in 2017

It is kinda hilarious that he didn't want to give up his account and is/was tweety-birding as prez on a phone about national and world issues. Important issues. Too funny.

Lefty Specialist Feb 03 2017 08:34 PM Re: Politics in 2017

It'd be funny if I didn't have a 21-year-old who'd be eligible to be drafted if Trump declares war on China or Iran or Australia.

d'Kong76 Feb 03 2017 08:41 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Lighten up, he's not gonna declare war on China or Australia. We've been at war with that other region for like thirty years now. I'm sorry if I seem flip over some of this, but I really don't see him staying in office for a long period of time unless he takes his side-show nonsense down about 500%. Please don't judge me personally, people deal with the news their own ways and if you liked me a half year ago I hope you still will.

Ceetar Feb 03 2017 08:54 PM Re: Politics in 2017

d'Kong76 wrote: Lighten up, he's not gonna declare war on China or Australia. We've been at war with that other region for like thirty years now. I'm sorry if I seem flip over some of this, but I really don't see him staying in office for a long period of time unless he takes his side-show nonsense down about 500%. Please don't judge me personally, people deal with the news their own ways and if you liked me a half year ago I hope you still will. No, it's much more likely he gets a bunch of immigrants killed and radicalizes their family and gets us bombed without a war.

d'Kong76 Feb 03 2017 08:57 PM Re: Politics in 2017

We've been bombed before by radicals; sure, it's likely to happen again.

Lefty Specialist Feb 03 2017 09:02 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Anything with his name in big gold letters is a terrorist target right now.

d'Kong76 Feb 03 2017 09:07 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Statue of Liberty too... from all sides LOL...

d'Kong76 Feb 03 2017 09:10 PM Re: Politics in 2017

And what!?! If you don't have a picture of Jimmy Carter in your wallet you can't chime in this thread from time to time? I really didn't say anything to get you all riled up. Jesus dildos!!

A Boy Named Seo Feb 03 2017 10:33 PM Re: Politics in 2017

d'Kong76 wrote: And what!?! If you don't have a picture of Jimmy Carter in your wallet you can't chime in this thread from time to time? I really didn't say anything to get you all riled up. Jesus dildos!! I just googled Jesus dildos. So should everyone.

d'Kong76 Feb 03 2017 10:35 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Wasn't referring to whatever you googled for sure. I don't get the hate here, I didn't do anything. I certainly didn't vote Trump.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 03 2017 10:52 PM Re: Politics in 2017

d'Kong76 wrote: Wasn't referring to whatever you googled for sure. I don't get the hate here, I didn't do anything. I certainly didn't vote Trump. I know that wasn't what you were referring to but when I read it I thought, "I wonder?" but before I even finished the thought, I answered myself "well of course they do" and had to google 'jesus dildos' to confirm their existence. "Blaspheme! No, blaspheme HARDER!" ™ (not a real slogan) I've disagreed with politicians plenty of times before, but never felt like a dude was as reckless and dangerous as this guy, in both the shit that he says and the people he surrounds himself with. It's scarier than just disagreeing with Obama on healthcare or Bush on taxes and I think that's where the anger comes through. But I ain't mad at ya, Kace. Jimmy Carter wallet pic, or no.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 03 2017 11:12 PM Re: Politics in 2017

I have a picture of Millard Fillmore in my wallet. What does that get me?

MFS62 Feb 04 2017 12:05 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have a picture of Millard Fillmore in my wallet. What does that get me? A seat in a rubber room? Later

metsmarathon Feb 04 2017 12:15 AM Re: Politics in 2017

On the one hand, American saber rattling is pretty good for business where I am. On the other hand, it's certainly conceivable that theres a bullseye on the roof over my desk. Recklessness is not leadership, and it is not strength. This buffoon is going to get many many people killed. ... so this Yemen thing... If went south fast, a navy seal was killed, many injured, a helicopter lost, more civilians than militants killed, possibly including an American girl - a terrorists kid, sure, but that's not her fault. And not only was the pres alseep upstairs instead of in the situation room while the op he authorized is going down, but apparently the excuse from some on the right is that, well, it was an op that Obama planned in the first place so is his fault. And all I can think is, fuck,man if that's your best defense, there's really no more damning criticism of team trump, is t it? Wasn't Trump supposed to be a military genius with all of the best plans? And all of the best people? And if this was an Obama planned op, and it was, then why weren't the geniuses smart enough to figure out that it was flawed? That there wasn't enough ground support and not enough intelligence on the ground? Instead instead there comically bad excuse is that oh well it was already planned so we just went ahead and did it? Even though it was a bad plan…? Really? No. Instead they rushed half cocked into an operation they didn't fully understand, and used their lack of understanding as the excuse for it going south. They basically admitted it, didn't say by blaming the failure on it being it was an Obama op. If every word out of your mouth is superlatives about how good and great and smart and wise and wonderful and tremendous and super and excellent and waiting for and Bigly your plans are, then they better motherfucking work. Benghazi my ass. Where are all the military geniuses on the right, now?

cooby Feb 04 2017 12:21 AM Re: Politics in 2017

My take is that every thing he has done so far is directly related to spiting the Obama (and prior Dem) administrations. So sad about the little girl. She didn't deserve this life. Like so many innocents before her taken in the name of power

Ceetar Feb 04 2017 12:48 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have a picture of Millard Fillmore in my wallet. What does that get me? admission to the University at Buffalo

d'Kong76 Feb 04 2017 01:06 AM Re: Politics in 2017

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Jimmy Carter wallet pic, or no. I shoulda went with Walter Mondale, Jimmy turned out to be a pretty cool dude in his post presidency.

d'Kong76 Feb 04 2017 01:07 AM Re: Politics in 2017

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have a picture of Millard Fillmore in my wallet. What does that get me? We'd need visual evidence before deciding!

Lefty Specialist Feb 04 2017 12:04 PM Re: Politics in 2017

A new PPP poll found that a full 40 percent of voters say they support impeaching the newly-minted president – up from 35 percent last week. Meanwhile, pollsters found that a 52 percent majority would prefer Obama to be back in his White House role. (43 percent prefer Trump and 5 percent are uncertain.) http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... obama.html

Edgy MD Feb 04 2017 02:49 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Well, Public Policy Polling is not only Democratic leaning, but definitely prone to unscientific methodology and silly-assed polls.

d'Kong76 Feb 04 2017 03:01 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Gallup is at 43% approval. Impeachment would be bad for everyone... the markets, the economy, everything. I'm very intrigued by the 25th Amendment route, 2-3 more really stupid things and I hope the whispers of it get louder. I'm going to be around Trumpsters tomorrow, I may have to pre-game in the afternoon with a couple high octane bloody mary's.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 04 2017 05:59 PM Re: Politics in 2017

Politico counterpoint - Donald Trump might be more popular than you think The gist: “I think you’re getting two things,” said John McLaughlin, a Republican pollster who worked for Trump during the campaign. “One, the online surveys, people are more likely to put in an honest answer because they’re not speaking to a human being.” Trump voters who don't want to openly admit to other humans that they are cool with Trump are still very cool with Trump. Kong - careful the pre-gaming. I went to an inauguration party masquerading as a regular bday party that was hosted by a Trump family (complete w/ 'Proud Deplorable' t-shirts, Hillary Clinton toilet paper, blaring FOX News coverage so everyone could see what Melania was wearing, and a big ol' American flag cake). The booze made shit waaaaaay testier.