Question for our resident legal eagles. Could one of the other submariners sue Saucier for possibly endangering there lives because of him taking those pictures?
Probably not. I mean you can sue for just about anything, but whether it does anywhere is another matter. While taking pictures of classified stuff is illegal and puts national security at risk, it would be nearly impossible for those sailors to equate that to putting them personally at risk, especially since people in high risk jobs are generally considered as having accepted certain risks just by having those jobs. A private can't exactly sue the Army because he was put at risk. The circumstances have to be exceptional, usually involving malicious recklessness to beat the burden and Saucier doesn't seem to have been malicious when he took those pictures. Just stupid. Really stupid. Like the kind of stupid that sues someone immune from suit for being treated unfairly under the law while holding up someone who didn't do the thing he's accused of doing as a chief example of that unfair treatment. Some spicy emails on a private server aren't the same thing as taking spicy pictures of classified technology.
Question for our resident legal eagles. Could one of the other submariners sue Saucier for possibly endangering there lives because of him taking those pictures?
Probably not. I mean you can sue for just about anything, but whether it does anywhere is another matter. While taking pictures of classified stuff is illegal and puts national security at risk, it would be nearly impossible for those sailors to equate that to putting them personally at risk, especially since people in high risk jobs are generally considered as having accepted certain risks just by having those jobs. A private can't exactly sue the Army because he was put at risk. The circumstances have to be exceptional, usually involving malicious recklessness to beat the burden and Saucier doesn't seem to have been malicious when he took those pictures. Just stupid. Really stupid. Like the kind of stupid that sues someone immune from suit for being treated unfairly under the law while holding up someone who didn't do the thing he's accused of doing as a chief example of that unfair treatment. Some spicy emails on a private server aren't the same thing as taking spicy pictures of classified technology.
Honestly that is what I figured, but you can never tell.
Y'all know how much I love loathe Ted Cruz, so this one just gives me the giggles.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/06/04/ted-cruz-18-seconds-speechless-trump-pardon-question-ebof.cnn When asked about Trump's claim that he can pardon himself, Cruz was silent for 18 seconds before answering with "That is not a constitutional issue that I've studied, so I will withhold judgment at this point."
Remember, this is the guy who is supposed to be an expert on the Constitution and is never one for keeping his opinions to himself.
he Eagles aren't going to the White House after all. They've been disinvited.
Less than 24 hours before the Super Bowl champions were set to visit the White House for a glorified photo opportunity, President Donald Trump has rescinded their invitation with the following statement:
"The Philadelphia Eagles are unable to come to the White House with their full team to be celebrated tomorrow. They disagree with their President because he insists that they proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country.
"The Eagles wanted to send a smaller delegation, but the 1,000 fans planning to attend the event deserve better. These fans are still invited to the White House to be part of a different type of ceremony - one that will honor our great country, pay tribute to the heroes who fight to protect it, and loudly and proudly play the National Anthem. I will be there at 3:00 p.m. with the United States Marine Band and the United States Army Chorus to celebrate America."
In the planning leading up to the trip, several notable Eagles, including Malcolm Jenkins, Chris Long and Brandon Graham, said they were not going to attend the White House visit. The team was planning on letting its individual players decide whether or not they wanted to attend the visit to the White House, which was supposed to be just a part of its trip to Washington D.C. The Eagles were presumably planning other parts to their trip.
You must worship at the altar of the state and praise the Glorious Leader!
Nevermind that it's the same state that can't be trusted, the bloated parasite that needs starving and removal, the overreaching tyrrany whereupon no one man can be trusted to rule limitlessly, etc.
Vaktathi wrote: You must worship at the altar of the state and praise the Glorious Leader!
Nevermind that it's the same state that can't be trusted, the bloated parasite that needs starving and removal, the overreaching tyrrany whereupon no one man can be trusted to rule limitlessly, etc.
Peregrine wrote: The problem is that some ideas just cross the line and make a person too toxic to deal with. Imagine if you're a black coworker of hers, could you honestly work with someone who has appalling racist opinions about you? It would be a massive workplace disruption even if she only expressed those opinions on twitter. You'd still know all about the whole mess, and know that she's just staying quiet at work to keep her job. Or, to give an even clearer example, imagine your coworker was a literal nazi. Nazi flag waving, Hitler saluting, "kill them all" nazi. Could you set aside that knowledge and work with them? I doubt it. I'd share your point of view if it was about things like punishing someone for being a fan of your favorite football team's rival, but some beliefs are not acceptable in society and the people who hold them are not entitled to economic success.
It's especially a problem in the case of a high-profile employee. This isn't an anonymous janitor or factory worker or whatever, it's someone with a major role as the face of a company. No matter how many PR press releases you put out saying "I don't endorse this" people are still going to believe otherwise, those awful opinions are going to be all over the news, and your other employees are going to know all about it. At that level you just don't have a private life that you can wall off and keep isolated from having any effect on your job performance.
Sure, but the thing is everyone knew Roseanne Barr was a racist, conspiracy mongering, hate filled nutter before she made the planet of the apes tweet. That doesn't mean her tweet was okay, and it doesn't mean all her previous craziness was okay, but it does show people will and are expected to work with racist, conspiracy mongering, hate filled nutter if they're unlikely enough to employed in the wrong place at the wrong time. On the day before the tweet her co-workers knew she was a racist, conspiracy mongering, hate filled nutter. None of that changed with the email that got her fired.
What got her fired wasn't her making work intolerable for co-workers, but because her tweet produced a PR mess for ABC & Disney. That's the issue to me - these sorts of firings aren't driven out of a concern for the rights of co-workers, they're driven by companies wanting a smooth, easy ride. Remember Colin Kapearnick lost his job long before Barr did, he wasn't racist, he was just making political hassle that his employers didn't want. Making offensive tweets isn't taking us towards a place where people are free from racist co-workers, it's taking us to a place where we've got as many racist co-workers as we always had, but also a place where making any kind of waves outside of your work can mean losing your job.
As a note, the freeze on the US politics thread helped my answer here, because I was going to respond by pointing out the Trumper's attempts to respond to Barr's firing first by trying to get Bill Maher fired, then switching to Samantha Bee. It was going to be some kind of answer that you have to be what power you put in moral outrage, because Trumper's and their ilk will cynically manipulate that power for their own political ends. But thinking for an extra day made me realise that answer was junk, because 'Trumper's will respond with a cynical mainpulation to try and throw this on other people' is true of basically everything. Trying to build a set of rules and standards that Trumper's won't try to use in a dishonest, self-serving way is impossible, that's just who those people are. I'm not saying anything about the ban, I'm just making an observation that sometimes it doesn't hurt to have 24 hours between reading a post and giving a reply
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: To a certain extent I can see the logic. I mean, this was a journalist who, after I asked him about this view he had, informed me that he hasn't liked a single president since Ford (and even then, he was quick to point out, this was a personality thing, not a policy thing) He had a clear understanding, in covering politics since Nixon, that there were stresses within the Office that most of us will never understand, and as such "should" respect the Presidential Office, even if we don't respect the personage holding said office.
I understand that argument, and I agree up to a point. I was no fan of GW Bush, and spent most of his 8 years critising most of what he did. But I remember at the end of the his presidency they showed before and after images, and it was clear the toll it took on the man. Any one who serves in the role is worn down by the job, and that should be respected.
However, while I think it is possible to show respect for that sacrifice, it is equally important to mock any self-seriousness or other failings of a president. I think not only can both sit side by side, they have to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: Self-interest drives many of the choices we make, and there were plenty of people who voted for Trump because they thought he'd do better than Hillary at lowering taxes, creating jobs, helping small businesses, keeping the military strong, etc. And they continue to back him because they still think he's better than the alternative. There's nothing inherently racist, sexist, delusional, or integrity-challenged about those old-school GOP positions and interests.
There isn't anything inherently racist in those positions, but there is something inherently racist and sexist in overlooking Trump's statements in order to get those things.
Think about it like this - instead of Republican candidate Trump saying a Mexico was sending their rapists and criminals, imagine the Republican candidate el Trumpo, a man proud of his Mexican heritage saying Mexican immigrants are great they are lawful people, while the local white population is full of rapists and criminals. You think a majority of white people would vote for el Trumpo, just looking past his racist abuse of white people because they're so excited about maybe getting some more tax cuts? You think a majority of white people would have voted for el Trumpo?
Of course they wouldn't have. But when Trump was saying all his racist stuff, those people might not have agreed, but it didn't bother them in a way it would have bothered them if it was leveled against their own ethnic group. Which isn't the same thing as full blown white seperatist racism, but it is still a kind of racism.
Oh, and before anyone says this is me saying only Republicans are racist, note I didn't say that in any form - that is not my point in the slightest. There is a lot of that kind of unexamined racism everywhere, including in the left. We can just look at Puerto Rico, where the death toll is now 4,600, almost entirely due to the months it took for basic services and utilities to be restored after the storm. Sure, alongside general incompetence there is likely a lot of racism in the response attempted by the Trump administration. But there's also a lot of unexamined racism in how the left has engaged with the issue, it's barely mentioned at all except as a beatstick against Trump. When people read 4,600 Puerto Ricans are dead and their first and only reaction is to use it to attack Trump, they've got some racial issues of their own to work through.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Yeah, he's been getting pretty... well, 'liberal' with his pardons. I expect him to pardon himself shortly before the impeachment just to try and muddle things more.
Credit where credit is due. You stated that on June 3rd. On June 4th Trump tweeted that he can pardon himself.
Either you truly, deeply understand the workings of the great Orange One, or Trump is reading the Dakka US politics thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: He never had 1%, it was always relatively close when taking the margin of error into account. It was basically correct in the predictions though, Clinton did get more votes, Trump just got lucky his votes happened in the right places to win.
The NYT electoral model gave Trump a very low chance of winning, I think it was 5% but maybe it was 1%, I can't quite remember. Since then various Trump supporters have been using that to claim Trump despite no-one thinking he could.
It's a junk narrative though. The NYT model was broadly criticized at the time by a bunch of other older, better credentialed electoral modelers. The NYT model was a bit simple, you see, it assumed that the difference between polling and its election say result was independent of each other state. So if Trump beat his Florida polls by 3%, that wouldn't mean he was more likely to beat his polls in other states. Following that logic, treating each state as independent, you can line up each state Trump has to beat his polls by, calculate the odds of that happening in each state, multiply it out and get a very small percentage as Trump's chance of winning.
The problem is election day results don't work like that. What actually happens is if Trump over-performs in Florida it is due in large part to a higher turn out than expected of white working class voters, which also impacts other states like Michigan. And if Michigan also has a lower than expected black turnout, that will be reflected in other states. So a good model will factor in all those correlations, and work on assumptions about various possible variations to polls among different demographics and see how that impacts turnout in various states.
But of course, that level of complexity, or the fact that most pollsters quite reasonably gave Trump a chance somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4, is ignored by goddardc. There's a reason he picks on the one bad model, and ignores all the ones that were reasonable. He wants to dismiss not just political analysts, but analysts and expertise in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Seems Trump can officially pardon himself, supposedly. But won't. Honest.
To make my own psychic prediction, before the axe drops Trump will try to pardon himself and everyone else who committed crimes. Trump will claim he is doing this not because any of them are guilty of anything, but to stop the witch hunt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: However none of it matters because the Republican "non-swamp" currently will vote through a brain-dead axe-murderer who raped, killed and ate a choirboy (but not in that precise order) as long as he wears a red tie.
At least the axe-murderer has seen the inside of a courtroom, which puts him ahead of many of Trump's judicial nominees.
So Trump decided that if you don’t act the right kind of patriotic, and can’t get your friends and coworkers to act the right kind of patriotic, you don’t get to visit the White House.
Yeah, but it's kind of a wash. Going to the White House and meeting the president isn't exactly the high honor it previously was - would you have been excited about it, if it wasn't for something related to a uniformed service?
It's not even a red team / blue team thing. I imagine there are no shortage of Republicans who wouldn't particularly want to meet Orange Foolius* and have their picture taken with him while he makes it about himself in some weird, crass way.
Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday and also retire the U.S. seeds maker’s 117 year-old name.
The German drugmaker had received all required approvals from regulatory authorities, it said in a statement on Monday.
“Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,” it said.
Bayer launched a 6 billion euro ($7 billion) rights issue on Sunday, a cornerstone of the financing package for the deal, shortly after clearing the last major antitrust hurdle in the United States.
The deal is the first of a trio of major U.S.-German merger deals to cross the finish line at a time of harsh criticism by U.S. President Donald Trump of Germany’s trade surplus with the United State
That feeling when a German company who had a major stake in the production of Zyklon B and used slave labor buys an American company that created another poison gas (Agent Orange) all the while the cheeto is complaining about the EU and Germany
Ouze wrote: Yeah, but it's kind of a wash. Going to the White House and meeting the president isn't exactly the high honor it previously was - would you have been excited about it, if it wasn't for something related to a uniformed service?
It's not even a red team / blue team thing. I imagine there are no shortage of Republicans who wouldn't particularly want to meet Orange Foolius* and have their picture taken with him while he makes it about himself in some weird, crass way.
*Or, uh, have him attend their funerals. Snicker.
I sure would not. I'd rather get another root canal without anesthesia then meet that guy.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, but it's kind of a wash. Going to the White House and meeting the president isn't exactly the high honor it previously was - would you have been excited about it, if it wasn't for something related to a uniformed service?
It's not even a red team / blue team thing. I imagine there are no shortage of Republicans who wouldn't particularly want to meet Orange Foolius* and have their picture taken with him while he makes it about himself in some weird, crass way.
*Or, uh, have him attend their funerals. Snicker.
I sure would not. I'd rather get another root canal without anesthesia then meet that guy.
Yes, because when Trump isnt sending nominees, and what people he is sending are often odiously unqualified even by GOP standards, and the WH obviously having issues with vetting, to say nothing of the fact that the GOP cant get its own house in order, its all obviously the fault of the Democrats.
Just read through the last page or so, and I have to say guys - can we just agree Trump is not the most unscrupulous person, and move on to talking about something more substantive? Again, as someone who did not (and will not) vote for him, I feel his opponents often fall into the trap of taking his bait. He controls the narrative when people do this, and the media falls for it Every Single Time. Despite popular narrative, I don't think he's stupid - he's pulling the media's strings and they play right into it!
Regarding the cake baker case, I completely agree with the result, and have yet to see Sotomayor take a moderate stance on any ruling. I love justice Kennedy's moderate positions, and the narrow ruling in this case was absolutely the right one, imo. Hopefully, they'll take on another case to make a broader ruling to avoid discrimination, but this is Not a broad ruling - it's specific to that one case, as it should be, imo.
RiTides wrote: He controls the narrative when people do this, and the media falls for it Every Single Time. Despite popular narrative, I don't think he's stupid - he's pulling the media's strings and they play right into it!
I do think the media is too busy charging after everything that happens to take stock of whether its a good idea. What I don't agree with is saying he isn't stupid, he most certainly is considering his 'policy' positions and the things he says. A smart man wouldn't wing it when it comes to NK or offend his closest allies for zero gain. Its no substance and all show, that isn't remotely smart in the position he is fulfilling. While the media might go after the more superficial part of his intellect, there really isn't much substance behind it related to the job he has now. He might be good at playing the media, but that doesn't make him smart.
RiTides wrote: Regarding the cake baker case, I completely agree with the result, and have yet to see Sotomayor take a moderate stance on any ruling. I love justice Kennedy's moderate positions, and the narrow ruling in this case was absolutely the right one, imo. Hopefully, they'll take on another case to make a broader ruling to avoid discrimination, but this is Not a broad ruling - it's specific to that one case, as it should be, imo.
I think they should have made a broader ruling though. This is leaving the door open to other types of discrimination that are only going to be resolved once another case reaches the SC. How many people in the meantime will not have the willingness or the means to carry what they feel is discrimination against their sexuality to court before the broader case does?
NBC News' Peter Alexander to Sarah Sanders: "If the White House supports the [Colorado] baker's right of free speech, why doesn't the White House support the [NFL] players' right to free speech?" (via CBS)
Sanders goes on to say that Trump doesn't believe NFL players' right to protest is a matter of free speech. He believes it's a matter of "respect."
uh huh.
... you are all sure it was just Flint's water supply was dodgy right ?
NBC News' Peter Alexander to Sarah Sanders: "If the White House supports the [Colorado] baker's right of free speech, why doesn't the White House support the [NFL] players' right to free speech?" (via CBS)
Sanders goes on to say that Trump doesn't believe NFL players' right to protest is a matter of free speech. He believes it's a matter of "respect."
uh huh.
... you are all sure it was just Flint's water supply was dodgy right ?
At this point nobody would expect anything less. No shame of course.
The current policy in the United States of separating “extremely young children” from their asylum-seeker or migrant parents along the country’s southern border “always constitutes a child rights violation”, the UN human rights office, OHCHR, said on Tuesday.
RiTides wrote: He controls the narrative when people do this, and the media falls for it Every Single Time. Despite popular narrative, I don't think he's stupid - he's pulling the media's strings and they play right into it!
I do think the media is too busy charging after everything that happens to take stock of whether its a good idea. What I don't agree with is saying he isn't stupid, he most certainly is considering his 'policy' positions and the things he says. A smart man wouldn't wing it when it comes to NK or offend his closest allies for zero gain. Its no substance and all show, that isn't remotely smart in the position he is fulfilling. While the media might go after the more superficial part of his intellect, there really isn't much substance behind it related to the job he has now. He might be good at playing the media, but that doesn't make him smart.
RiTides wrote: Regarding the cake baker case, I completely agree with the result, and have yet to see Sotomayor take a moderate stance on any ruling. I love justice Kennedy's moderate positions, and the narrow ruling in this case was absolutely the right one, imo. Hopefully, they'll take on another case to make a broader ruling to avoid discrimination, but this is Not a broad ruling - it's specific to that one case, as it should be, imo.
I think they should have made a broader ruling though. This is leaving the door open to other types of discrimination that are only going to be resolved once another case reaches the SC. How many people in the meantime will not have the willingness or the means to carry what they feel is discrimination against their sexuality to court before the broader case does?
There was no broader ruling to be made. Colorado has state laws that prohibit discrimination based upon sexuality and those laws are still valid. The ruling held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unduly discriminatory towards the baker's claim of religious freedom. The Commission's handling of the case was inconsistent with the way it handled other cases so SCOTUS ruled in the baker's favor. States can still have sexuality as a protected class and state residents still have their freedom of religion, state governments just need to enforce anti discrimination laws in a consistent lawful manner. This ruling was about the enforcement of a valid and existing anti discrimination law not the constitutionality of the anti discrimination law itself.
Was going to post about them doxxing the plaintiffs but that was a case in Oregon, not the case in Colorado. Got confused.a bit there
“freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”
Was apparently the thing that the commissioner said that turned the case. Not sure when that was said either during the hearings or as part of the final decision. As part of the final decision I think it should have been allowable as to an explanation why someone's Religious freedom isn't allowed to significantly impact someone else. As part of the hearings, not so much as it shows a prejudice. Though it was a minor point. Same as the police officer that shot the kneeling guy in (I think) Texas that had a saying on his gun that made it seem like he was out looking to shoot someone.
Also was that the commission had ruled in favor of three bakeries that refused to make cakes demeaning gays. Though I could see that bakeries could have a blanket rule that they won't make cakes that are intended to demean anyone. Whether that was their policy, I don't know.
Disciple of Fate wrote:He might be good at playing the media, but that doesn't make him smart.
Insert whatever word you like ("crafty" "intuitive" "manipulative" etc) but I don't think people in general, and especially the media, give Trump enough "credit" for this. He's absolutely playing them. And they fall for it over, and over, and over.
And I disagree, d-usa, that the choice is to either call him out, or ignore. Just like any "trolling" tactic, sticking to the facts and only addressing nonsense when necessary is the most effective.
If people / the media would recognize this (Trump's often repeated tactic), we could have a lot less useless outrage over petty things that he does, and more substantive focus on important issues...
Prestor Jon wrote: There was no broader ruling to be made. Colorado has state laws that prohibit discrimination based upon sexuality and those laws are still valid. The ruling held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unduly discriminatory towards the baker's claim of religious freedom. The Commission's handling of the case was inconsistent with the way it handled other cases so SCOTUS ruled in the baker's favor. States can still have sexuality as a protected class and state residents still have their freedom of religion, state governments just need to enforce anti discrimination laws in a consistent lawful manner. This ruling was about the enforcement of a valid and existing anti discrimination law not the constitutionality of the anti discrimination law itself.
While you're right, it still leaves it open for more cases. The bakery winning the case is going to embolden other who might be willing to take it all the way to the SC.
Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday and also retire the U.S. seeds maker’s 117 year-old name.
The German drugmaker had received all required approvals from regulatory authorities, it said in a statement on Monday.
“Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,” it said.
Bayer launched a 6 billion euro ($7 billion) rights issue on Sunday, a cornerstone of the financing package for the deal, shortly after clearing the last major antitrust hurdle in the United States.
The deal is the first of a trio of major U.S.-German merger deals to cross the finish line at a time of harsh criticism by U.S. President Donald Trump of Germany’s trade surplus with the United State
That feeling when a German company who had a major stake in the production of Zyklon B and used slave labor buys an American company that created another poison gas (Agent Orange) all the while the cheeto is complaining about the EU and Germany
edit: forgot source
The technical term is: synergy
RiTides wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:He might be good at playing the media, but that doesn't make him smart.
Insert whatever word you like ("crafty" "intuitive" "manipulative" etc) but I don't think people in general, and especially the media, give Trump enough "credit" for this. He's absolutely playing them. And they fall for it over, and over, and over.
And I disagree, d-usa, that the choice is to either call him out, or ignore. Just like any "trolling" tactic, sticking to the facts and only addressing nonsense when necessary is the most effective.
If people / the media would recognize this (Trump's often repeated tactic), we could have a lot less useless outrage over petty things that he does, and more substantive focus on important issues...
He's not playing them, the media in general is just a bit of a coward when it comes to Trump's antics and that benefits him (despite his goals and behaviour).
Disciple of Fate wrote:He might be good at playing the media, but that doesn't make him smart.
Insert whatever word you like ("crafty" "intuitive" "manipulative" etc) but I don't think people in general, and especially the media, give Trump enough "credit" for this. He's absolutely playing them. And they fall for it over, and over, and over.
I don't think people don't give him credit for that. Manipulating/shaping his brand is what made him appear to be successful in the first place, arguably the only part of business he is actually good at. Plenty of opponents and critics are able to name it and see through it though, while a lot of his supporters seem to genuinely believe the persona he has build. But you could say that about any run of the mill social media star in this day and age, it doesn't make them smarter then they are.
Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday and also retire the U.S. seeds maker’s 117 year-old name.
The German drugmaker had received all required approvals from regulatory authorities, it said in a statement on Monday.
“Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,” it said.
Bayer launched a 6 billion euro ($7 billion) rights issue on Sunday, a cornerstone of the financing package for the deal, shortly after clearing the last major antitrust hurdle in the United States.
The deal is the first of a trio of major U.S.-German merger deals to cross the finish line at a time of harsh criticism by U.S. President Donald Trump of Germany’s trade surplus with the United State
That feeling when a German company who had a major stake in the production of Zyklon B and used slave labor buys an American company that created another poison gas (Agent Orange) all the while the cheeto is complaining about the EU and Germany
edit: forgot source
The technical term is: synergy
The perfect poison gas to end all of our mutual suffering?
RiTides wrote: Just read through the last page or so, and I have to say guys - can we just agree Trump is not the most unscrupulous person, and move on to talking about something more substantive?
A.) What is the non-substantive thing being discussed on the last page that is problematic?
This being a day in Trump America, we have:
Trump using the White House as his personal clubhouse to disinvite the Super Bowl champion team by misrepresenting their protests
Trump claiming he can pardon himself for any crimes he may have committed
Mitch McConnell suspending a recess and lying by saying the democrats are obstructing when Trump can't be bothered to pick nominees, and the ones he picks are often clearly, abjectly unqualified
B.) Is this your personal preference or a red text moderation direction/instruction?
I would ask what we should talk about instead but that has become self apparent in the last day or so
Ouze, while I agree with you about some things, using phrases like "Trump America" is eerily similar to folks on the right who were characterizing Obama as to blame for everything going on in the country. They're the president, not America!
As for major issues, I talked about one (the Supreme Court case). I just think focusing on Trump's every tweet is both maddening for moderates like me, and weakens the case the democrats have on real policy issues...
(Regarding moderation / direction, I try to make this really clear and distinct - see my post on the prior page that used colored text / etc to make it noticeable. If it ever isn't clear, just let me know!)
I don't blame Trump for everything that goes wrong in the country. The POTUS generally has very little direct control of... well, almost anything, really, outside of warfare. It's like those guys that complained about gas prices under Bush or Obama or anyone else - it's a fundamental misunderstanding of a lot of things, and the only time the POTUS should be directly influencing gas prices, things have gone horrible, horribly wrong.
I could see an exception being taken to the current issue with the Eagles; because it's really just a meaningless thing that will be over in a day. There is a bigger concern with a large social movement being falsely presented and smeared, I think, but OK.
I'm going to have to pretty firmly disagree with some of the other things that happened on the same day as being insubstantive, though. You have a president who is claiming both directly and through his sanctioned intermediaries that he has unfettered power to do essentially whatever he wants with the only check being impeachment. This is setting up some of the biggest questions of executive power and the checks on it in my lifetime.
The fact the courts are being neglected, and the ones that are picked are abjectly unqualified - not a partisan opinion, by the way, but the finding of the bar association! is something that will have ramifications on American jurisprudence for the next 50 years, probably.
Ouze, red text tends to be red, lol. That's clearly my opinion, but your saying "Trump America" is eerily similar to folks on the right blaming Obama for everything going on in the country. They're the president, not America!
As for major issues, I talked about one (the Supreme Court case). I just think focusing on Trump's every tweet is both maddening for moderates like me, and weakens the case the democrats have on real policy issues.
Just my $0.02...
Here's the issue with your take(which, despite singling you out here is more just using it as a stepping stone to explain something I've seen expressed quite a few times):
You cannot really divorce Trump from some of these issues. It's the fact that he is in the White House emboldening some of this nonsense. It's his appointees like Pruitt doing things. I mean, did you see Betsy DeVos today? How about Mitch McConnell's nonsense?
So while focusing on his every tweet might be excessive, Trump has also now gone to court to ensure that his tweets are considered Presidential statements. It's a platform that isn't intended for important announcements that should be looked at in-depth and with much care, being used as a way for someone to throw crap out and hope it sticks.
I see what you guys are saying, but I think there's a risk of missing the forest for the trees when dealing with Trump's daily shenanigans. I also think it basically gives him power, as he can spend 30 seconds writing an inflammatory tweet, and have it amplified 1000-fold by the coverage it gets.
Some things need to be addressed / refuted / fact-checked / etc. But sometimes, and I'd say often for a while after his election, the media would almost stoop to his level. The phrase "in a mud fight everyone gets dirty" comes to mind. And it causes a lot of people to equate the two, rather than being able to see the coverage as neutral or more trustworthy.
Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday and also retire the U.S. seeds maker’s 117 year-old name.
The German drugmaker had received all required approvals from regulatory authorities, it said in a statement on Monday.
“Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,” it said.
Bayer launched a 6 billion euro ($7 billion) rights issue on Sunday, a cornerstone of the financing package for the deal, shortly after clearing the last major antitrust hurdle in the United States.
The deal is the first of a trio of major U.S.-German merger deals to cross the finish line at a time of harsh criticism by U.S. President Donald Trump of Germany’s trade surplus with the United State
That feeling when a German company who had a major stake in the production of Zyklon B and used slave labor buys an American company that created another poison gas (Agent Orange) all the while the cheeto is complaining about the EU and Germany
edit: forgot source
The technical term is: synergy
RiTides wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:He might be good at playing the media, but that doesn't make him smart.
Insert whatever word you like ("crafty" "intuitive" "manipulative" etc) but I don't think people in general, and especially the media, give Trump enough "credit" for this. He's absolutely playing them. And they fall for it over, and over, and over.
And I disagree, d-usa, that the choice is to either call him out, or ignore. Just like any "trolling" tactic, sticking to the facts and only addressing nonsense when necessary is the most effective.
If people / the media would recognize this (Trump's often repeated tactic), we could have a lot less useless outrage over petty things that he does, and more substantive focus on important issues...
He's not playing them, the media in general is just a bit of a coward when it comes to Trump's antics and that benefits him (despite his goals and behaviour).
they are not being cowards. This is a business. Trump generates outrage which is good for ratings. They love it.
Prestor Jon wrote: There was no broader ruling to be made. Colorado has state laws that prohibit discrimination based upon sexuality and those laws are still valid. The ruling held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unduly discriminatory towards the baker's claim of religious freedom. The Commission's handling of the case was inconsistent with the way it handled other cases so SCOTUS ruled in the baker's favor. States can still have sexuality as a protected class and state residents still have their freedom of religion, state governments just need to enforce anti discrimination laws in a consistent lawful manner. This ruling was about the enforcement of a valid and existing anti discrimination law not the constitutionality of the anti discrimination law itself.
While you're right, it still leaves it open for more cases. The bakery winning the case is going to embolden other who might be willing to take it all the way to the SC.
Agreed. The problem isn't with the SC's ruling. It was a very narrow ruling that pretty much only applies to this case. But too many people will simply take home the headline "the baker won" and use that to justify their bad actions. It's not like the SC could have done much else, but it is what it is.
Still better than deciding a specific case incorrectly for the sake of a larger principle, imo. There are so many cases to choose from, they can easily select one likely to apply to a wider range of cases, if they want to set a broad precedent.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Even the ruling itself said that it applied to specifics
Helpful when headlines say "bakers won their case" or "supreme court allowed shops banning cakes from gays"(pretty much straight title of one news article from local news company in Finland btw).
Misinformation spreads and facts are often taken from headlines. Forget reading about court rulings when people dont' even read news articles
As is their wont, the Democrats in California lined up in a circular firing squad, but it appears they missed. With California running jungle primaries and a crazy number of Democrats standing in a lot of competitive districts, it started to look like Democrats might split their votes, and let two of the Republican candidates finish first and second on the ballot. Despite some close scares it looks like Dems didn't manage to shut themselves out in any house seat.
On the other side, Republicans look like they'll be shut out of the senate race as Dems finished first and second, but Reps did manage to get a second place finisher in the governor's race. Having a Republican in a major state wide race will mean Republicans will still turn out in okay numbers, it avoids what might have been a catastrophe. But then, the Republican nominee John Cox is a bit of screwball candidate, I wouldn't want to be relying on his down ballot impact to get me over the line in a close race.
RiTides wrote: Just read through the last page or so, and I have to say guys - can we just agree Trump is not the most unscrupulous person, and move on to talking about something more substantive? Again, as someone who did not (and will not) vote for him, I feel his opponents often fall into the trap of taking his bait. He controls the narrative when people do this, and the media falls for it Every Single Time. Despite popular narrative, I don't think he's stupid - he's pulling the media's strings and they play right into it!
He's the president, what he says and does is substantive. It can't just be ignored. But I do agree that its important not to fall in to rehashing the debates Trump wants to keep rehashing. Figuring out how to move from one to the other is the challenge.
Regarding the cake baker case, I completely agree with the result, and have yet to see Sotomayor take a moderate stance on any ruling. I love justice Kennedy's moderate positions, and the narrow ruling in this case was absolutely the right one, imo. Hopefully, they'll take on another case to make a broader ruling to avoid discrimination, but this is Not a broad ruling - it's specific to that one case, as it should be, imo.
The most amazing thing about the cake case was how Republicans were still committed to finding a cultural grievance out of the ruling, so they made one up. It was reported as a narrow finding, because it is in the context of legal precedent a narrow ruling, but a bunch of Republicans decided that was liberal media bias, that narrow was a dishonest representation of the 7-2 margin in the ruling.
When Don Jr and professional idiot Brit Hume made that claim it's not really that interesting, they're more than dumb enough to not know what 'narrow' means in legal rulings. But Sen John Cornyn of Texas made the same complaint. He's a former state AG. He knows what narrow means. But he pretended he didn't because in the modern Republican party blatant, shameless lies are just a necessary part of keeping up the culture war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't think people don't give him credit for that. Manipulating/shaping his brand is what made him appear to be successful in the first place, arguably the only part of business he is actually good at. Plenty of opponents and critics are able to name it and see through it though, while a lot of his supporters seem to genuinely believe the persona he has build. But you could say that about any run of the mill social media star in this day and age, it doesn't make them smarter then they are.
Yep. I've made the comparison to a lonely bar fly a whole lot of times. Imagine a guy sitting on the edge of the bar, he's thirty pounds overweight, his face is the face of a 40 year old man who's spent way too many nights drinking hard liquor. His clothes are the clothes you end up in after you've spent all your wages on hard liquor for the last 20 years. But he's sitting there spinning tails about all the supermodels he's slept with, and claims he has a supermodel waiting for him back in his apartment right now.
When a couple of other drunks believe him, is that because the barfly is an amazing storyteller who should be heralded as a genius? Or is the barfly's story obvious nonsense, and the fact it was believed by anyone actually due to the believers completely suspending disbelief for their own strange and desperate reasons?
There are clever political campaigns. The 2000 GW Bush campaign did a masterful job of carrying the right message to each part of the Republican base, and then combining each component in to a singular message with very skillfully chosen language. Trump did nothing like that. All Trump did was win the GOP nomination against a field of idiots, then run against a weak Democrat in a cycle with an enormous Republican tail wind, and he still only limped over the line by shooting the moon in the swing states.
In office Trump only has one trick when faced with an issue - tell a blatant lie or change the subject by attacking someone. And he isn't even very good at that - he's only held one interview away from friendly media, and even on FOX News he's screwed up really badly a couple of times.
So no. We shouldn't be talking about Trump as intelligent or skillful in any way. We need to acknowledge Trump is habitual, shameless liar with little or no strategic or tactical sense. Because only then can start the really honest conversation about how well Trump's nonsense works anyway because of the major institutional failures in the US right now. Failures in the feckless mainstream media. Failures in the openly partisan, plainly dishonest right wing media. And failures in the Republican party, who have been captured so entirely by their president they won't even speak out when claims he can pardon himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: I see what you guys are saying, but I think there's a risk of missing the forest for the trees when dealing with Trump's daily shenanigans. I also think it basically gives him power, as he can spend 30 seconds writing an inflammatory tweet, and have it amplified 1000-fold by the coverage it gets.
Some things need to be addressed / refuted / fact-checked / etc. But sometimes, and I'd say often for a while after his election, the media would almost stoop to his level. The phrase "in a mud fight everyone gets dirty" comes to mind. And it causes a lot of people to equate the two, rather than being able to see the coverage as neutral or more trustworthy.
The media has bent over backwards to avoid calling Trump on his lies. Like a football team committing to infringe on every play expecting the ref will eventually blink and stop making calls to avoid seeming biased, Trump has committed to lying over and over again, and the media has responded by ignoring many of his lies, or using nonsense like 'mistatement' to avoid the perception of bias.
Trump still attacks the media anyway, because of course he will. So the lesson should be that in a mud fight you're going to get dirty, even if you try to stand passively on the sidelines. So you're better off sticking to your guns, saying what you know to be true and accepting that you'll get covered in mud no matter what.
Frazzled wrote: Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a gak show. They really are no different than Republicans.
Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?
Frazzled wrote: Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.
Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?
Disciple of Fate wrote:He might be good at playing the media, but that doesn't make him smart.
Insert whatever word you like ("crafty" "intuitive" "manipulative" etc) but I don't think people in general, and especially the media, give Trump enough "credit" for this. He's absolutely playing them. And they fall for it over, and over, and over.
And I disagree, d-usa, that the choice is to either call him out, or ignore. Just like any "trolling" tactic, sticking to the facts and only addressing nonsense when necessary is the most effective.
If people / the media would recognize this (Trump's often repeated tactic), we could have a lot less useless outrage over petty things that he does, and more substantive focus on important issues...
Well, I'd say that the media understands and is complict. CNN has done very, very well in the age of Trump, and it seems like half the articles on any given day are the usual outrage piece over whatever Trump has said or done lately. Cha-ching. Fox News has also obviously benefited for its own reasons.
Having a president willing to treat the office like a reality TV show has lifted all boats in the media. Sure, there are serious journalists disgusted by the current state of affairs. But serious journalism doesn't get you PAID, baby! OTOH, the clickbait outrage machine is a like printing press for making money.
The disappointing part is that the citizenry does indeed fall for the same gak over and over again, no matter how obvious and artificial it is. Perhaps it's time to stop pushing as much math as possible down our kids' gullets over worries about competing in STEM arenas, and start doing a better job with civics education and critical thinking so that our republic doesn't crumble in the meantime?
Gorgon, that's exactly what I was trying to say - thank you!
I have been impressed how NPR has shifted some of their coverage away from sensationalism, but they're publicly funded and not as beholden to generating pure listening/watching numbers...
The BBC also does a great job, imo, but I find most other US media outlets are caught in the "Trump outrage hamster wheel", and unable to give the kind of coverage/journalism the above two organizations (in general) do.
You can educate people on civics and critical thinking, but the bottom line is that most people just throw that overboard for what they believe in. We have intelligent people promoting the stupidest ideas because they desperately want to believe they are true. With some being ridiculously easy to discredit with even the most brief of google searches. The issue isn't that the citizens keep falling for it, its that they want to fall for it.
I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.
I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.
So we are complaining that companies that use news as a way to sell advertising slots are reporting stuff that people want to read and watch?
The vast majority of national US news, especially from cable networks, are opinion pieces and on-Air personalities telling you what they think. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing: getting people angry enough to watch and read so they can charge their advertisers for the number of people who are watching and reading.
But aside from that, POTUS saying stupid ignorant stuff matters, even if it’s happens to be Trump who says it.
As a nation we shouldn’t be expected to lower the office of POTUS to the level of the occupant, we should always demand that the occupant raises to the level of the office he chose to seek. Trump should not get a pass because he’s Trump, the president is still the president.
RiTides wrote: I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.
I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.
You can do both, for instance the NYT can report a fact -- that Trump has done blah blah blah -- and also do an opinion piece on what Trump's behaviour means, and the op ed can have a right of left slant, or a business slant or whatever. But the original fact should be presented and understood as a fact.
The problem is that in the modern world people seem to run supposed facts through their personal opinion bias filter before accepting them as facts. Then they reject the facts that don't meet their prejudices.
Some of this is due to psychological weaknesses such as confirmation bias. Thanks to science we know about those things and therefore can adjust for them. But a lot of people don't. Perhaps they don't accept confirmation bias as a fact.
I have been impressed how NPR has shifted some of their coverage away from sensationalism, but they're publicly funded and not as beholden to generating pure listening/watching numbers...
NPR? You mean that news organization that the right wants to destroy for being so liberal, unfair to conservatives, and publicly funded?
Trying quoting NPR to many right-wing politicos and see how far that gets you. You might as well site Salon.com.
Frazzled wrote: Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.
Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?
You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?
No, I'm asking what Newsom has done that puts him on the same level as someone convicted of corruption.
Presented as a fact derived from a Gallup poll, and given some analysis as to why this matters.
I said it before the election. If Trump wins then he will be the future of the Republican party and if people didn't want him to be the representative of conservative politics then they must do everything they can to ensure he doesn't win, even if that meant voting for Hillary. Nothing would have spoken louder to the Republican leadership that a lying racist was not what people wanted than their own supporters voting against them.
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
So THATS how the Emperor of Mankind came to power...
Nah, the Emperor is Obama, establishing a WORLD government, expanding the 'federal' government as much as possible throughout the galaxy and a militant atheist!
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
So THATS how the Emperor of Mankind came to power...
Nah, the Emperor is Obama, establishing a WORLD government, expanding the 'federal' government as much as possible throughout the galaxy and a militant atheist!
Not only that, but a KENYAN MUSLIM militant atheist! Those are the worst kind!
RiTides wrote: I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.
I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.
You think NPR and BBC are balanced? Mmmm...no. They may be more balanced, but they are definitely not balanced. The easy way to tell if something is balanced is to look at what articles they run and what "experts" or interviews they have.
Frazzled wrote: Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.
Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?
You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?
No, I'm asking what Newsom has done that puts him on the same level as someone convicted of corruption.
He's an epic level sleazebag, well known in Cali, particularly in SF.
The Republicans will love this. They can retire Pelosi and use him as their posterboy for why the Democrats suck balls so bad, want to take your guns and protect criminal illegal aliens and don't give a flying feth about you.* But seriously he's bad, like Mayor Daley level bad.
*Now I need to send off my bill to the RNC, for creating their new marketing campaign.
Frazzled wrote: Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.
Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?
You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?
He's asking if Newsome has been convicted.
I'd really like to know more about what it is he has supposedly done. In the age of "but her emails" it's difficult not to tune out similar noises.
RiTides wrote: I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.
I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.
You think NPR and BBC are balanced? Mmmm...no. They may be more balanced, but they are definitely not balanced. The easy way to tell if something is balanced is to look at what articles they run and what "experts" or interviews they have.
I agree that story selection and interviewees are extremely important. They don't always get it right (i.e. balanced), but are by far the best available, imo.
I have been impressed how NPR has shifted some of their coverage away from sensationalism, but they're publicly funded and not as beholden to generating pure listening/watching numbers...
NPR? You mean that news organization that the right wants to destroy for being so liberal, unfair to conservatives, and publicly funded?
Trying quoting NPR to many right-wing politicos and see how far that gets you. You might as well site Salon.com.
Only took half a dozen posts for your point to be proved
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.
This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.
Fortunately the tide of history is against them, but they are in position to do a lot of damage before they are got rid of.
I have been impressed how NPR has shifted some of their coverage away from sensationalism, but they're publicly funded and not as beholden to generating pure listening/watching numbers...
NPR? You mean that news organization that the right wants to destroy for being so liberal, unfair to conservatives, and publicly funded?
Trying quoting NPR to many right-wing politicos and see how far that gets you. You might as well site Salon.com.
Only took half a dozen posts for your point to be proved
Since it is Frazzled, I am not 100% sure it was serious.
RiTides wrote: I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.
I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.
You think NPR and BBC are balanced? Mmmm...no. They may be more balanced, but they are definitely not balanced. The easy way to tell if something is balanced is to look at what articles they run and what "experts" or interviews they have.
I agree that story selection and interviewees are extremely important. They don't always get it right (i.e. balanced), but are by far the best available, imo.
I hear you. One should also add Al Jazeera is going the TV route. Bloomberg is good for business.
Frazzled wrote: Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.
Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?
You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?
He's asking if Newsome has been convicted.
I'd really like to know more about what it is he has supposedly done. In the age of "but her emails" it's difficult not to tune out similar noises.
Newsom has always come off to me as an attention seeking and slimy looking dude and the king of bay-area-smug that leads me to intensely dislike the dude personally, but I cant confess that I've heard of him ever doing anything on the level of Blago.
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.
This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.
This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.
Frazzled wrote: Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.
Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?
You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?
He's asking if Newsome has been convicted.
I'd really like to know more about what it is he has supposedly done. In the age of "but her emails" it's difficult not to tune out similar noises.
He has been quite the figure in California.
Then you should be able to readily cite examples rather than make vague allusions to things.
That's what is being asked for. If you're going to participate in the conversation, then participate in the conversation.
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.
This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.
This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.
It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.
It also didn’t claim that GOP supporters are white supremacists. It claimed that white supremacists are more likely to support the GOP. Which is a difference.
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.
This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.
This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.
It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.
It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.
Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.
Frazzled wrote: Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.
Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?
You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?
He's asking if Newsome has been convicted.
I'd really like to know more about what it is he has supposedly done. In the age of "but her emails" it's difficult not to tune out similar noises.
He has been quite the figure in California.
Then you should be able to readily cite examples rather than make vague allusions to things.
That's what is being asked for. If you're going to participate in the conversation, then participate in the conversation.
I did. I am not going to rehash 20 year's of history that will change no one's mind. I am sure the Republicans will do that shortly.
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.
This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.
This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.
It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.
It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.
Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.
He was talking about a complete about-face on major, critical issues. That's what his claims were about, can you address that?
That's a bald faced lie Frazzled, you didn't cite specific examples. I could handle you just constantly alluding to "something" that he did, but that's a step too far. I'm sure you've got it, no one is asking for decades of history, just a few examples of how he is as bad as old mate.
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.
This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.
This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.
It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.
It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.
Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.
He was talking about a complete about-face on major, critical issues. That's what his claims were about, can you address that?
Those were part of the claims. And then there was the tangent about the Republican party being the very rich and white supremacists holding back progress.
I found this take-away from the June Primaries interesting:
Loser: Republican politicians who criticize Trump In October 2016, after the tape leaked in which GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump bragged that he liked to “grab” women “by the pussy,” Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) had had enough. She withdrew her endorsement of Trump weeks before the election, saying, “Donald Trump’s behavior makes him unacceptable as a candidate for president, and I won’t vote for him.”
But of course, Trump won. And this year, Roby, now running for a fifth term in the House, came under fire for her criticism of him. At press time, she only had about 39 percent of the vote in her GOP primary — meaning she’d head to a runoff against Bobby Bright (who, oddly enough, held the seat before Roby as a Democrat but has since switched to the GOP).
Meanwhile, up in New Jersey, longtime conservative activist Steve Lonegan hoped to secure the GOP nomination to take on Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer in the Fifth District. But Lonegan had harshly criticized Trump back in 2016 — and luckily for his opponent John McCann, there was footage of Trump firing back that he could put in his ads. (“I’ve known Lonegan for 25 years, he’s a loser!” Trump had said.) Lonegan lost.
*****
Steve Lonegan is anti-Trump and can’t beat the Democrats. He’s just an embarrassment.
Watch my latest TV ad on air TODAY in #NJ5: pic.twitter.com/K5e9xhfDr3
— John McCann (@realJohnMcCann) May 21, 2018
********
So with Lonegan losing and Roby facing a runoff, it’s a reminder that in today’s Republican Party, if you stick your neck out and criticize President Trump too much, GOP voters may very well punish you.
motyak wrote: That's a bald faced lie Frazzled, you didn't cite specific examples. I could handle you just constantly alluding to "something" that he did, but that's a step too far. I'm sure you've got it, no one is asking for decades of history, just a few examples of how he is as bad as old mate.
Your definition of lie is not grammatically correct you cute little feren devil you.
motyak wrote: That's a bald faced lie Frazzled, you didn't cite specific examples. I could handle you just constantly alluding to "something" that he did, but that's a step too far. I'm sure you've got it, no one is asking for decades of history, just a few examples of how he is as bad as old mate.
Honestly that is Frazz's MO at this point, which is extremely similar to many conspiracy theorists, "ya know the moon landing is a fake" and when pressed for details they just flutter off only to rejoin the conversation later down the road
Easy E wrote: I found this take-away from the June Primaries interesting:
Loser: Republican politicians who criticize Trump In October 2016, after the tape leaked in which GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump bragged that he liked to “grab” women “by the pussy,” Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) had had enough. She withdrew her endorsement of Trump weeks before the election, saying, “Donald Trump’s behavior makes him unacceptable as a candidate for president, and I won’t vote for him.”
But of course, Trump won. And this year, Roby, now running for a fifth term in the House, came under fire for her criticism of him. At press time, she only had about 39 percent of the vote in her GOP primary — meaning she’d head to a runoff against Bobby Bright (who, oddly enough, held the seat before Roby as a Democrat but has since switched to the GOP).
Meanwhile, up in New Jersey, longtime conservative activist Steve Lonegan hoped to secure the GOP nomination to take on Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer in the Fifth District. But Lonegan had harshly criticized Trump back in 2016 — and luckily for his opponent John McCann, there was footage of Trump firing back that he could put in his ads. (“I’ve known Lonegan for 25 years, he’s a loser!” Trump had said.) Lonegan lost.
*****
Steve Lonegan is anti-Trump and can’t beat the Democrats. He’s just an embarrassment.
Watch my latest TV ad on air TODAY in #NJ5: pic.twitter.com/K5e9xhfDr3
— John McCann (@realJohnMcCann) May 21, 2018
********
So with Lonegan losing and Roby facing a runoff, it’s a reminder that in today’s Republican Party, if you stick your neck out and criticize President Trump too much, GOP voters may very well punish you.
I wonder if this is a "real" trend, or just the vagaries of the primary since all politics is local.
That's disturbing. If the Republican Party becomes the Trump Party, and then lises in 2018 badly, then that will strengthen his position to avoid a full Democratic sweep.
Just a quick note about generalizations. As someone pointed out, criticizing a political party is a separate matter from criticizing the people who support it. I am not sure how we can have a thread about U.S. Politics if people are not allowed to post generalized criticisms of the political parties. Rule Number One is generally about people and specifically about how people actually posting on this site engage each other. Posting "the Democratic Party thrives on racism" is fine. Posting "Democrats are all racists" is not fine, because it is essentially an ad hominem attack on other posters. I get that there can be gray area ("e.g., "Democrats are supporting systemic racism by profiting from race-baiting") but in that area it is up to each poster to articulate points clearly and as politely as reasonably possible. Please PM me or any other moderator if you have questions.
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.
This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.
This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.
It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.
It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.
Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.
He was talking about a complete about-face on major, critical issues. That's what his claims were about, can you address that?
Those were part of the claims. And then there was the tangent about the Republican party being the very rich and white supremacists holding back progress.
I am really trying to get you to back up your sentiment here, but I'm not seeing it. Despite using exagerrated language what Killkrazy said is still true.
Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday and also retire the U.S. seeds maker’s 117 year-old name.
The German drugmaker had received all required approvals from regulatory authorities, it said in a statement on Monday.
“Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,” it said.
Bayer launched a 6 billion euro ($7 billion) rights issue on Sunday, a cornerstone of the financing package for the deal, shortly after clearing the last major antitrust hurdle in the United States.
The deal is the first of a trio of major U.S.-German merger deals to cross the finish line at a time of harsh criticism by U.S. President Donald Trump of Germany’s trade surplus with the United State
That feeling when a German company who had a major stake in the production of Zyklon B and used slave labor buys an American company that created another poison gas (Agent Orange) all the while the cheeto is complaining about the EU and Germany
edit: forgot source
The technical term is: synergy
The perfect poison gas to end all of our mutual suffering?
A division of the German pharmaceutical company Bayer knowingly sold blood-clotting agents infected with HIV to Asia and Latin America months after withdrawing them from Europe and the US, an American newspaper claimed yesterday.
Cutter Biological continued to dump stocks of the factor VIII blood-clotting agent for haemophiliacs on poor countries for nearly a year after introducing a safer alternative, the report in the New York Times said.
When Bayer's Cutter Laboratories realized that their blood products, Factor VIII and IX or antihemophiliac factor (AHF), were contaminated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the financial investment in the product was considered too high to destroy the inventory. Cutter misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the contaminated AHF to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America without the precaution of heat treating the product recommended for eliminating the risk. As a consequence, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS.
Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday and also retire the U.S. seeds maker’s 117 year-old name.
The German drugmaker had received all required approvals from regulatory authorities, it said in a statement on Monday.
“Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,” it said.
Bayer launched a 6 billion euro ($7 billion) rights issue on Sunday, a cornerstone of the financing package for the deal, shortly after clearing the last major antitrust hurdle in the United States.
The deal is the first of a trio of major U.S.-German merger deals to cross the finish line at a time of harsh criticism by U.S. President Donald Trump of Germany’s trade surplus with the United State
That feeling when a German company who had a major stake in the production of Zyklon B and used slave labor buys an American company that created another poison gas (Agent Orange) all the while the cheeto is complaining about the EU and Germany
edit: forgot source
The technical term is: synergy
The perfect poison gas to end all of our mutual suffering?
A division of the German pharmaceutical company Bayer knowingly sold blood-clotting agents infected with HIV to Asia and Latin America months after withdrawing them from Europe and the US, an American newspaper claimed yesterday.
Cutter Biological continued to dump stocks of the factor VIII blood-clotting agent for haemophiliacs on poor countries for nearly a year after introducing a safer alternative, the report in the New York Times said.
When Bayer's Cutter Laboratories realized that their blood products, Factor VIII and IX or antihemophiliac factor (AHF), were contaminated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the financial investment in the product was considered too high to destroy the inventory. Cutter misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the contaminated AHF to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America without the precaution of heat treating the product recommended for eliminating the risk. As a consequence, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS.
Well holy gak I didn't know it was that bad, I was just taking a metaphorical dump on two companies who have done terrible things in the past but looks like they never stopped
Frazzled wrote: Bayer is German, what relation to US politics?
Well seeing how it was posted that you have a major german company buying a major american company all the while trump is pissing and moaning about the EU and germany
In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.
Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.
The man is such a narcissistic moron.
This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.
Steelmage99 wrote: In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.
Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.
The man is such a narcissistic moron.
This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.
That and apparently he threw a literal gak fit when Brady didn't come to the Patriots white house visit
Steelmage99 wrote: In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.
Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.
The man is such a narcissistic moron.
This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.
That and apparently he threw a literal gak fit when Brady didn't come to the Patriots white house visit
Hey, at that age that is nothing to be embarrased about, it happens
Steelmage99 wrote: In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.
Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.
The man is such a narcissistic moron.
This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.
That and apparently he threw a literal gak fit when Brady didn't come to the Patriots white house visit
I would proffer it's doubtful any team will accept an invite from him going forward.
Steelmage99 wrote: In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.
Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.
The man is such a narcissistic moron.
This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.
That and apparently he threw a literal gak fit when Brady didn't come to the Patriots white house visit
I would proffer it's doubtful any team will accept an invite from him going forward.
Yeah but this is Brady his friend and who had one of his hats in his locker
d-usa wrote: If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.
You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.
This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.
This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.
It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.
It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.
Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.
He was talking about a complete about-face on major, critical issues. That's what his claims were about, can you address that?
Those were part of the claims. And then there was the tangent about the Republican party being the very rich and white supremacists holding back progress.
I am really trying to get you to back up your sentiment here, but I'm not seeing it. Despite using exagerrated language what Killkrazy said is still true.
No it really isn’t. It’s demonstrably false that the Republican Party is the party of the rich considering the plethora of extremely wealthy people that are Democratic politicians, Party members and supporters. While I believe it’s truthful that Trump has brought an openly bigoted viewpoint to the office of the presidency and his de facto leadership of the GOP it’s not true that white supremacy only taints the Republican Party. There are plenty cities with police departments frought with systemic racist attitudes and policies that have been created and fostered by Democratic leadership in those cities. Why are Democratic politicians not accountable to the blatant racial bias, favoritism and inequities that happen under their authority?
Trump is a problem yes but he isn’t the only problem. Trumps presidency is highlighting and exacerbating a host of underlying problems that have largely been ignored for decades and those problems will still plague us after his presidency is over.
"Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?
Newsom had an affair with a staffer. Exactly how bad that was is complicated, because while she was on his staff, she was in her 30s and financially independent so any claim of coercion is pretty flimsy. The woman herself says she wasn't coerced, her choice to engage in the affair came out of her own drinking and tendency towards self-destruction. So there's not really much of a Me Too element there, but it was still a gakky thing for Newsom to have done. Its not something anyone would want their governor to have done.
However, claiming this makes Dems the same as Reps, as frazzled tried to do is more than a little ridiculous. Right now there is a Republican president in the White House with about 20 credible allegations of sexual assault against him. He is heading a White House that tried to cover for a man who was convicted of beating two different partners. That clearly very different to Newsom.
But frazzled wants to claim these are the same thing, for his own reasons.
I thought that phrase (by KK) was way out of line, personally. I didn't reply simply because I don't want to get into a series of back and forth name calling.
In the end, if that's what someone thinks the Republican party is, you're not going to change their mind. As an independent myself, who knows plenty of people in both parties, I try not to demonize either one. Goodness knows, whether on Fox or CNN/MSNBC, they're both busy labeling and vilifying each other, with phrases just like that...
But imo, that kind of language (using sweeping insults to classify the opposition) doesn't do anyone any good, and certainly doesn't foster constructive discussion, debate, or compromise. All of which are dearly needed in this period of extreme partisanship...
NinthMusketeer wrote: "Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.
What am I deflecting from? I never disputed that the Republican Party genuflect to rich donors or that the Trump presidency isn’t bigoted. It’s downright silly to characterize the Republican Party as the rich party when the Democratic Party loves rich people/donors just as much as the Republican Party. Likewise I’m not disputing that Trump’s racist statements/tweets are reprehensible and damage the GOP as a party but claiming that the GOP is the party of racism now implies that the election of Trump has made the Republican Party more racist than the Democratic Party since we have a 2 party system. I disagree with that valuation because while Trump talks and tweets a lot of racist gak I’m not seeing him implementing policies that are more racist and oppressive than the housing, zoning, education, development and gentrification and policing policies that have enshrined systemic racial inequities in our cities. Why do we have the BLM movement? Why were there protests against racial bias inherent in police departments in NYC, Ferguson, Cleveland and Boston before Trump was POTUS? Which party is in charge of most of our cities? This isn’t whataboutism. Disagreeing with the claim that in a comparison of Party X and Party Y that Party X is more racist because there is also racism in Party Y is on topic. If I said what about Party Z that would be whataboutism because I’m trying to bring attention to something that wasn’t part of the original discussion, it would be an attempt to distract and change the parameters of the discussion. There is ample racism in the Democrat Party that is easy to overlook because it’s not the loud overt racism of Trump amplified by the media attention given to him as POTUS.
gorgon wrote: Well, I'd say that the media understands and is complict. CNN has done very, very well in the age of Trump, and it seems like half the articles on any given day are the usual outrage piece over whatever Trump has said or done lately. Cha-ching. Fox News has also obviously benefited for its own reasons.
Having a president willing to treat the office like a reality TV show has lifted all boats in the media. Sure, there are serious journalists disgusted by the current state of affairs. But serious journalism doesn't get you PAID, baby! OTOH, the clickbait outrage machine is a like printing press for making money.
This is not quite right. People have this strange idea of journalists somehow working with the ad sales team to figure out which stories generate the most clicks and deciding to focus on those. When you stop and think about it the idea is pretty obviously silly.
What's actually happening is way more complex. There's an old line in journalism, that stories are where the journalist is. The idea being that rather than journalists just going to where the stories are, journalists are posted to locations for all sorts of reasons, and once there they write about what is happening around them. With year on year budget cuts, more and more non-Washtington, non-NY postings are being cut. So more of the national coverage ends up focusing on the one big story in DC & NY. The Trump debacle.
Of course there should be more coverage of the drugs crisis, but that'd need postings to rural areas and months given to investigative reporters to pick apart how . Media companies still do that kind of work, but with declining ad revenues that stuff gets less coverage each year, and instead more air time is given to the news teams in DC and NY to make up the gap.
Meanwhile, as everyone has been moaning about journalism focusing on Trump, journalists went and exposed the Theranos scam, and broke open the Weinstein story, leading to MeToo. They're still doing good work.
RiTides wrote: I thought that phrase (by KK) was way out of line, personally. I didn't reply simply because I don't want to get into a series of back and forth name calling.
In the end, if that's what someone thinks the Republican party is, you're not going to change their mind. As an independent myself, who knows plenty of people in both parties, I try not to demonize either one. Goodness knows, whether on Fox or CNN/MSNBC, they're both busy labeling and vilifying each other, with phrases just like that...
But imo, that kind of language (using sweeping insults to classify the opposition) doesn't do anyone any good, and certainly doesn't foster constructive discussion, debate, or compromise. All of which are dearly needed in this period of extreme partisanship...
It's important to distinguish statements about the party and statements about the people who vote fpr it. I've fallen into that trap plenty of times, unfortunately.
NinthMusketeer wrote: "Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.
What am I deflecting from? I never disputed that the Republican Party genuflect to rich donors or that the Trump presidency isn’t bigoted. It’s downright silly to characterize the Republican Party as the rich party when the Democratic Party loves rich people/donors just as much as the Republican Party. Likewise I’m not disputing that Trump’s racist statements/tweets are reprehensible and damage the GOP as a party but claiming that the GOP is the party of racism now implies that the election of Trump has made the Republican Party more racist than the Democratic Party since we have a 2 party system. I disagree with that valuation because while Trump talks and tweets a lot of racist gak I’m not seeing him implementing policies that are more racist and oppressive than the housing, zoning, education, development and gentrification and policing policies that have enshrined systemic racial inequities in our cities. Why do we have the BLM movement? Why were there protests against racial bias inherent in police departments in NYC, Ferguson, Cleveland and Boston before Trump was POTUS? Which party is in charge of most of our cities? This isn’t whataboutism. Disagreeing with the claim that in a comparison of Party X and Party Y that Party X is more racist because there is also racism in Party Y is on topic. If I said what about Party Z that would be whataboutism because I’m trying to bring attention to something that wasn’t part of the original discussion, it would be an attempt to distract and change the parameters of the discussion. There is ample racism in the Democrat Party that is easy to overlook because it’s not the loud overt racism of Trump amplified by the media attention given to him as POTUS.
Democrats didn't pass the recent tax cut; a hand out to the wealthy with paltry and temporary benefits for the rest. Democrats have not been pushing the ridiculous and long-disproved 'trickle down' as economic policy. And yes, Trump creating a racist narrative within the party does make that party more racist, suggesting otherwise is silly. The loudness and overtness and even more so the degree to which it is tolerated matters considerably. Having a few closet racists who do not speak out due to pushback they would recieve is completely different than having outspoken racists with limited pushback at all.
gorgon wrote: Well, I'd say that the media understands and is complict. CNN has done very, very well in the age of Trump, and it seems like half the articles on any given day are the usual outrage piece over whatever Trump has said or done lately. Cha-ching. Fox News has also obviously benefited for its own reasons.
Having a president willing to treat the office like a reality TV show has lifted all boats in the media. Sure, there are serious journalists disgusted by the current state of affairs. But serious journalism doesn't get you PAID, baby! OTOH, the clickbait outrage machine is a like printing press for making money.
This is not quite right. People have this strange idea of journalists somehow working with the ad sales team to figure out which stories generate the most clicks and deciding to focus on those. When you stop and think about it the idea is pretty obviously silly.
What's actually happening is way more complex. There's an old line in journalism, that stories are where the journalist is. The idea being that rather than journalists just going to where the stories are, journalists are posted to locations for all sorts of reasons, and once there they write about what is happening around them. With year on year budget cuts, more and more non-Washtington, non-NY postings are being cut. So more of the national coverage ends up focusing on the one big story in DC & NY. The Trump debacle.
Of course there should be more coverage of the drugs crisis, but that'd need postings to rural areas and months given to investigative reporters to pick apart how . Media companies still do that kind of work, but with declining ad revenues that stuff gets less coverage each year, and instead more air time is given to the news teams in DC and NY to make up the gap.
Meanwhile, as everyone has been moaning about journalism focusing on Trump, journalists went and exposed the Theranos scam, and broke open the Weinstein story, leading to MeToo. They're still doing good work.
Sometimes, though, I'm reminded of another old line in journalism: "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."
In my post, I was very specific in talking about party - how people vilify, label, and characterize them. I think all of that is extremely unhelpful for a reasoned debate, and just leads to increased "tribalism" and partisanship.
Again as an independent, I see negative ads for both parties do it, or analysts on the appropriately slanted network. But it's basically just scoring points with their base (on either end of the spectrum) and something I'm frankly tired of seeing both sides do.
It's also the kind of thing that if someone says in-person with a member of the other "side", it either just ends the conversation, or leads to a heated argument about their characterization, and any chance of a substantive discussion about the issues gets completely lost...
For me it depends on how well they distinguish between the party in general and people who are [party], and if they can manage to actually use real words.
Crap like “libtards” gets an automatic “you’re an idiot not worth talking to” from me, as an example.
RiTides wrote: I thought that phrase (by KK) was way out of line, personally. I didn't reply simply because I don't want to get into a series of back and forth name calling.
In the end, if that's what someone thinks the Republican party is, you're not going to change their mind. As an independent myself, who knows plenty of people in both parties, I try not to demonize either one. Goodness knows, whether on Fox or CNN/MSNBC, they're both busy labeling and vilifying each other, with phrases just like that...
But imo, that kind of language (using sweeping insults to classify the opposition) doesn't do anyone any good, and certainly doesn't foster constructive discussion, debate, or compromise. All of which are dearly needed in this period of extreme partisanship...
It's important to distinguish statements about the party and statements about the people who vote fpr it. I've fallen into that trap plenty of times, unfortunately.
NinthMusketeer wrote: "Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.
What am I deflecting from? I never disputed that the Republican Party genuflect to rich donors or that the Trump presidency isn’t bigoted. It’s downright silly to characterize the Republican Party as the rich party when the Democratic Party loves rich people/donors just as much as the Republican Party. Likewise I’m not disputing that Trump’s racist statements/tweets are reprehensible and damage the GOP as a party but claiming that the GOP is the party of racism now implies that the election of Trump has made the Republican Party more racist than the Democratic Party since we have a 2 party system. I disagree with that valuation because while Trump talks and tweets a lot of racist gak I’m not seeing him implementing policies that are more racist and oppressive than the housing, zoning, education, development and gentrification and policing policies that have enshrined systemic racial inequities in our cities. Why do we have the BLM movement? Why were there protests against racial bias inherent in police departments in NYC, Ferguson, Cleveland and Boston before Trump was POTUS? Which party is in charge of most of our cities? This isn’t whataboutism. Disagreeing with the claim that in a comparison of Party X and Party Y that Party X is more racist because there is also racism in Party Y is on topic. If I said what about Party Z that would be whataboutism because I’m trying to bring attention to something that wasn’t part of the original discussion, it would be an attempt to distract and change the parameters of the discussion. There is ample racism in the Democrat Party that is easy to overlook because it’s not the loud overt racism of Trump amplified by the media attention given to him as POTUS.
Democrats didn't pass the recent tax cut; a hand out to the wealthy with paltry and temporary benefits for the rest. Democrats have not been pushing the ridiculous and long-disproved 'trickle down' as economic policy. And yes, Trump creating a racist narrative within the party does make that party more racist, suggesting otherwise is silly. The loudness and overtness and even more so the degree to which it is tolerated matters considerably. Having a few closet racists who do not speak out due to pushback they would recieve is completely different than having outspoken racists with limited pushback at all.
So your contention is that Trump’s statements have damaged minorities more than decades of urban policies that have created a systemic and persistent oppression of minorities and that said policies only exist because of a few closeted racists in the Democratic Party that are afraid to overtly state their bias? In all the cities I’ve lived in or near in my life the white neighborhoods are always much better off than the black neighborhoods that are plagued by a vicious cycle of poverty and inadequate education compounded by a scarcity of resources and opportunities. I’m sure the Democratic Party machines in those cities that use those conditions to drive voter turnout and party loyalty are going to rectify that disparity any day now.
Does passing the recent tax cut and championing low taxes and trickle down supply side economics caters to the interests of the wealthy elite more so than any previous legislation proposed or passed by Democrats that benefits big businesses and the wealthy elite? Did Clinton and the Democrat’s support of NAFTA benefit American workers and stimulate wage growth and job opportunities? Was the stimulus bill passed by Obama and the Democratic supermajority in Congress effective in helping the working class overcome the Great Recession?
gorgon wrote: Well, I'd say that the media understands and is complict. CNN has done very, very well in the age of Trump, and it seems like half the articles on any given day are the usual outrage piece over whatever Trump has said or done lately. Cha-ching. Fox News has also obviously benefited for its own reasons.
Having a president willing to treat the office like a reality TV show has lifted all boats in the media. Sure, there are serious journalists disgusted by the current state of affairs. But serious journalism doesn't get you PAID, baby! OTOH, the clickbait outrage machine is a like printing press for making money.
This is not quite right. People have this strange idea of journalists somehow working with the ad sales team to figure out which stories generate the most clicks and deciding to focus on those. When you stop and think about it the idea is pretty obviously silly.
What's actually happening is way more complex. There's an old line in journalism, that stories are where the journalist is. The idea being that rather than journalists just going to where the stories are, journalists are posted to locations for all sorts of reasons, and once there they write about what is happening around them. With year on year budget cuts, more and more non-Washtington, non-NY postings are being cut. So more of the national coverage ends up focusing on the one big story in DC & NY. The Trump debacle.
Of course there should be more coverage of the drugs crisis, but that'd need postings to rural areas and months given to investigative reporters to pick apart how . Media companies still do that kind of work, but with declining ad revenues that stuff gets less coverage each year, and instead more air time is given to the news teams in DC and NY to make up the gap.
Meanwhile, as everyone has been moaning about journalism focusing on Trump, journalists went and exposed the Theranos scam, and broke open the Weinstein story, leading to MeToo. They're still doing good work.
I think you’re downplaying the effect the profit motive has on private media companies. Granted journalists are motivated by the desire to find and tell a good story but whereas freelancers can pursue whatever story they want most journalists in media companies are given assignments. Which stories are assigned, what resources are allocated, what headlines are placed on a story, how it’s promoted, what prominence it is given, the amount and duration of coverage of a story are all editorial decisions that have to be justified in terms of money spent and revenue earned. Does the #metoo movement get more coverage than the opioid crisis because it’s more important or because the sensationalistic aspects of it generate more revenue? I agree that #metoo is an important story that deserves in depth coverage but it’s undeniable that the adage (and truth) that sex sells helps drive resource allocation and coverage to it instead of other less sexy stories that are also important.
NinthMusketeer wrote: "Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.
What am I deflecting from? I never disputed that the Republican Party genuflect to rich donors or that the Trump presidency isn’t bigoted. It’s downright silly to characterize the Republican Party as the rich party when the Democratic Party loves rich people/donors just as much as the Republican Party. Likewise I’m not disputing that Trump’s racist statements/tweets are reprehensible and damage the GOP as a party but claiming that the GOP is the party of racism now implies that the election of Trump has made the Republican Party more racist than the Democratic Party since we have a 2 party system. I disagree with that valuation because while Trump talks and tweets a lot of racist gak I’m not seeing him implementing policies that are more racist and oppressive than the housing, zoning, education, development and gentrification and policing policies that have enshrined systemic racial inequities in our cities. Why do we have the BLM movement? Why were there protests against racial bias inherent in police departments in NYC, Ferguson, Cleveland and Boston before Trump was POTUS? Which party is in charge of most of our cities? This isn’t whataboutism. Disagreeing with the claim that in a comparison of Party X and Party Y that Party X is more racist because there is also racism in Party Y is on topic. If I said what about Party Z that would be whataboutism because I’m trying to bring attention to something that wasn’t part of the original discussion, it would be an attempt to distract and change the parameters of the discussion. There is ample racism in the Democrat Party that is easy to overlook because it’s not the loud overt racism of Trump amplified by the media attention given to him as POTUS.
Democrats didn't pass the recent tax cut; a hand out to the wealthy with paltry and temporary benefits for the rest. Democrats have not been pushing the ridiculous and long-disproved 'trickle down' as economic policy. And yes, Trump creating a racist narrative within the party does make that party more racist, suggesting otherwise is silly. The loudness and overtness and even more so the degree to which it is tolerated matters considerably. Having a few closet racists who do not speak out due to pushback they would recieve is completely different than having outspoken racists with limited pushback at all.
So your contention is that Trump’s statements have damaged minorities more than decades of urban policies that have created a systemic and persistent oppression of minorities and that said policies only exist because of a few closeted racists in the Democratic Party that are afraid to overtly state their bias? In all the cities I’ve lived in or near in my life the white neighborhoods are always much better off than the black neighborhoods that are plagued by a vicious cycle of poverty and inadequate education compounded by a scarcity of resources and opportunities. I’m sure the Democratic Party machines in those cities that use those conditions to drive voter turnout and party loyalty are going to rectify that disparity any day now.
Does passing the recent tax cut and championing low taxes and trickle down supply side economics caters to the interests of the wealthy elite more so than any previous legislation proposed or passed by Democrats that benefits big businesses and the wealthy elite? Did Clinton and the Democrat’s support of NAFTA benefit American workers and stimulate wage growth and job opportunities? Was the stimulus bill passed by Obama and the Democratic supermajority in Congress effective in helping the working class overcome the Great Recession?
You're implying that racial segregation within society is somehow Democrat's fault. I'm done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: In my post, I was very specific in talking about party - how people vilify, label, and characterize them. I think all of that is extremely unhelpful for a reasoned debate, and just leads to increased "tribalism" and partisanship.
Again as an independent, I see negative ads for both parties do it, or analysts on the appropriately slanted network. But it's basically just scoring points with their base (on either end of the spectrum) and something I'm frankly tired of seeing both sides do.
It's also the kind of thing that if someone says in-person with a member of the other "side", it either just ends the conversation, or leads to a heated argument about their characterization, and any chance of a substantive discussion about the issues gets completely lost...
How are we supposed to make statements about a party at all, then? Or any group for that matter? Not all generalizations are over-generalizations. To me you are coming across as saying 'I'm separate from this so I can see that all these critical statements are bad' which I'm pretty sure is not the intent.
I could agree with "not all generalizations are over-generalizations", but we were discussing one in particular, and it certainly was (in my opinion, of course). If something would be right at home in a negative attack ad, then it's probably the kind of statement that would (again) rile up the party base, but completely turn off discussion with anyone else...
That's my point - both parties do this constantly, but they're just talking to their supporters, and talking past the opposition... and I'm really tired of it lol. I say independent just to point out that this kind of language is a major turnoff to me, as someone who sees merit (and plenty of room for improvement ) in both parties.
Anyway, I think that's probably clear now, so I'll climb down off my soapbox on this issue . It's just something that really gets me lol!
RiTides wrote: I thought that phrase (by KK) was way out of line, personally. I didn't reply simply because I don't want to get into a series of back and forth name calling.
In the end, if that's what someone thinks the Republican party is, you're not going to change their mind. As an independent myself, who knows plenty of people in both parties, I try not to demonize either one. Goodness knows, whether on Fox or CNN/MSNBC, they're both busy labeling and vilifying each other, with phrases just like that...
But imo, that kind of language (using sweeping insults to classify the opposition) doesn't do anyone any good, and certainly doesn't foster constructive discussion, debate, or compromise. All of which are dearly needed in this period of extreme partisanship...
How did this sanity get let into the US Politics thread. Burn the Witch!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: For me it depends on how well they distinguish between the party in general and people who are [party], and if they can manage to actually use real words.
Crap like “libtards” gets an automatic “you’re an idiot not worth talking to” from me, as an example.
Ouze wrote: "Sheeple" has no political connotation that I am aware of.
I mean, saying it with a straight face makes you a grade-a toolbox, but it's not associated with any party.
Yeah sheeple is right up there with woke but at least it can still be an entertaining conversation. Sheepdog is worse, I will nope right out of any discussion with somebody that earnestly refers to them self as a sheepdog.
Frazzled wrote: The Republicans will love this. They can retire Pelosi and use him as their posterboy for why the Democrats suck balls so bad, want to take your guns and protect criminal illegal aliens and don't give a flying feth about you.* But seriously he's bad, like Mayor Daley level bad.
What? He's running for governor. His relevance outside of California is almost zero.
Think about it this way - Blagojevich was an outright criminal who got caught on tape bragging about his crimes. It was the most telegenic act of corruption you're ever going to get. And he really did reflect the corruption integral to Illinois Democrat politics. And despite all that, he still didn't become the poster boy for Republican attacks on Democrats. Republicans didn't even try, because they knew Blagojevich was just a governor and governors can't be used to define national parties.
But you want to argue that Newsom will be used to define Democrats nationally, based on an affair and frazzled whisper campaign. It is not a thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.
The problem with this argument is Republican voters have moved their positions on individual issues. Support among Republicans for free trade has dropped under half, a couple of years ago it was in the high 80s. Support for Putin has gone from the teens up in to the 30s and 40s.
The dynamic you're claiming, of people who support their party while sticking to their ideals is not really how it works. Most people have little to no clue about most issues. They take cues from trusted leaders in politics and the media. So when Trump champions some issue or another and his loyalist media follows along, it impacts a lot of Republican voters downstream.
Ouze wrote: "Sheeple" has no political connotation that I am aware of.
I mean, saying it with a straight face makes you a grade-a toolbox, but it's not associated with any party.
Yeah sheeple is right up there with woke but at least it can still be an entertaining conversation. Sheepdog is worse, I will nope right out of any discussion with somebody that earnestly refers to them self as a sheepdog.
Three kinds of people:wolves, sheep and sheepdogs. Who are you going to be?
A wolf of course!
Tannhauser42 wrote: Sometimes, though, I'm reminded of another old line in journalism: "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."
Sure, there is definitely a sensationalist element to the media, and especially to their coverage of Trump, where every second tweet is apparently a death knell to US democracy.
I'm just saying that this idea that journalists are out there calculating hit counts on their individual articles, then talking to the ad sales teams about what articles will generate the most revenue is silly. Actual journalism is a lot more... bureaucratic than that.
If you care about the environment, when he was Mayor of San Francisco during that big oil spill he ran off to Hawaii instead of dealing with the crisis.
sebster wrote: I'm just saying that this idea that journalists are out there calculating hit counts on their individual articles, then talking to the ad sales teams about what articles will generate the most revenue is silly. Actual journalism is a lot more... bureaucratic than that.
It sounds like you're describing an industry in need of a moneyball-style statistical analysis.
If you care about the environment, when he was Mayor of San Francisco during that big oil spill he ran off to Hawaii instead of dealing with the crisis.
So as far as Gavin Newsom, the things that make him "bad, Mayor Daley bad" and as bad as Blajovich are that he didn't have great attendance as a Lt. Governor? That he went to Hawaii the day after being elected, and when the oil spill turned out worse than reported, he returned to San Francisco 2 days later and didn't go back to Hawaii until 2 months later?
The oil spill was November 7th. Here is is on November 12th:
RiTides wrote: In my post, I was very specific in talking about party - how people vilify, label, and characterize them. I think all of that is extremely unhelpful for a reasoned debate, and just leads to increased "tribalism" and partisanship.
I think you are working on an assumption that if we just end the tribalism then things will go back to being okay. I don't agree.
We are at a point right now where people who spent 8 years attacking Obama for unsustainable deficits won control and their only major policy was a tax cut that added $1.5tn to the budget (now costed as $1.8tn). Their voters don't love that legislation, but it hasn't caused any of them to realise the hypocrisy of the previous 8 years.
The solution to that isn't to try and be nice. You don't win by putting up a show of respect to someone who embraces such an obviously partisan, hypocritical set of political beliefs. You win by calling out that hypocrisy, and making sure that mobilizes enough voters to win next time around.
As an independent I understand you don't see it that way. As a person who's watched the Republican party very closely for a couple of decades, I can tell you it's the only way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I think you’re downplaying the effect the profit motive has on private media companies. Granted journalists are motivated by the desire to find and tell a good story but whereas freelancers can pursue whatever story they want most journalists in media companies are given assignments. Which stories are assigned, what resources are allocated, what headlines are placed on a story, how it’s promoted, what prominence it is given, the amount and duration of coverage of a story are all editorial decisions that have to be justified in terms of money spent and revenue earned.
I'm not downplaying the profit motive, I'm saying the relationship is a lot more complex than most people recognise. You're right that journalists don't pick their own stories, but the people who assign them - editors - they're also journalists, they're not ad men. You have to move a couple more layers up the chain before you get to positions where ad revenue is driving decisions. That doesn't mean the journalist is free from commercial pressures, but it does mean that pressure is very indirect, and not the main driver of what stories do and don't get picked to be targeted.
Does the #metoo movement get more coverage than the opioid crisis because it’s more important or because the sensationalistic aspects of it generate more revenue? I agree that #metoo is an important story that deserves in depth coverage but it’s undeniable that the adage (and truth) that sex sells helps drive resource allocation and coverage to it instead of other less sexy stories that are also important.
The sensationalist aspect of MeToo matters, definitely, but even that's a two sided coin. Remember what is exciting to the reader was probably also pretty exciting for the journalist.
The bigger reason MeToo gets more coverage is what I already mentioned - it's where the reporters are. Most of the major MeToo incidents have been LA and NY, which also happens to be where a lot of national journalists are based. If half the country's national reporters were based in West Virginia, the opioid epidemic would probably be the number 1 story most nights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: CA is far more relevant nationally than Illinois. CA politics does have ripple effects outside of the state.
California is a lot bigger than everything. It means the CA governor gets a higher profile, but it doesn't mean they start to define the national party, if only for the fairly obvious reason they're not even part of the national party, they're part of the CA party.
As for a few reasons as to why he's not a good choice
Not even close to the question being discussed. Frazzled said Newsom was corrupt and said this corruption would be used by Republicans to define the Democrats nationally, in a way they currently use Pelosi. Of course, frazzled failed to demonstrate any evidence of said corruption, but I didn't even bother to address that because it's just the same old Republican mudslinging lies.
What I did address was the idea that governor could be used to define a national party, because that was a really funny claim.
Now you're wading in, trying to use a poor attendance record to support frazzled's claim. I can see that ad running real well. "Mr Johnson says he'll work for you as mayor for of Grand Chute in the great state of Wisconsin, but Mr Johnson is a Democrat, the same party as Gary Newsom, and that guy had a spotty attendance record when he was Lt Governor. Can you trust Mr Johnson to reliably attend necessary events? Can you?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: It sounds like you're describing an industry in need of a moneyball-style statistical analysis.
The opposite. It needs to avoid that at all costs. Because if some bright spark consulting team starts directly linking article clicks to individual journalist performance, then we will get the click driven media that RITides was complaining about.
The good thing is most newspapers understand the halo effect. Individual stories might cost a lot more and not generate as many clicks, but people know important work when they see it. Readers want to read media sources that break major stories, and advertisers wants to be associated with serious media outlets.
Trump asks if Canada burnt down White House in call with PM
..."Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" Mr Trump reportedly asked in a call with Mr Trudeau over new tariffs.
It is not clear if the comment was intended as a joke, but CNN report that it followed an exchange in which Mr Trudeau asked how the US could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue.
The US imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from its allies - the EU, Canada and Mexico - last week.
"It is simply ridiculous to view any trade with Canada as a national security threat to the US," Mr Trudeau has said of the move...
so diplomatic!
On a more serious note, Abe is making a last ditch effort in Washington to convince Trump not to forget about Japan when talking to Kim.
Which lets admit was only luck on their part. By all odds, Canada should have ended up being part of the US. Canada lucked out that US generals rolled snake eyes during the war of 1812.
Grey Templar wrote: Which lets admit was only luck on their part. By all odds, Canada should have ended up being part of the US. Canada lucked out that US generals rolled snake eyes during the war of 1812.
The same could be said about the US War for Independence
Mick Mulvaney took yet another swipe at his consumer watchdog bureau — all but terminating an entire board of advocates who advise the agency about fair lending and underserved communities.
The 25 members of the Consumer Advisory Board, established by law as part of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were told on a conference call Wednesday that the board would not meet again until new members are appointed.
Current members were told that they would not be allowed to reapply, according to a recording of the call obtained by CNNMoney. That notice was softened on a second call, when CFPB officials suggested the members could try again in a few years.
We (the British, actually) burned the White House, therefore steel tariffs are permissible under the "national security" concerns clause in NAFTA. Makes sense to me!
Grey Templar wrote: Which lets admit was only luck on their part. By all odds, Canada should have ended up being part of the US. Canada lucked out that US generals rolled snake eyes during the war of 1812.
The same could be said about the US War for Independence
Yes and no. Really what killed the British ability to carry on the war was their crippling deficit. All the Americans really needed to do was keep fighting and the British would eventually have had to give in because they would run out of money to pay the troops.
What was touch and go was the Continental army's morale and simply keeping the troops in the fight long enough for the British to capitulate.
The British ended the war with a national debt of 250 million Pounds. Equivalent to 3.6 billion today. At the time, that was a horrendous amount to be in the hole.
Grey Templar wrote: Which lets admit was only luck on their part. By all odds, Canada should have ended up being part of the US. Canada lucked out that US generals rolled snake eyes during the war of 1812.
The same could be said about the US War for Independence
Yes and no. Really what killed the British ability to carry on the war was their crippling deficit. All the Americans really needed to do was keep fighting and the British would eventually have had to give in because they would run out of money to pay the troops.
What was touch and go was the Continental army's morale and simply keeping the troops in the fight long enough for the British to capitulate.
The British ended the war with a national debt of 250 million Pounds. Equivalent to 3.6 billion today. At the time, that was a horrendous amount to be in the hole.
At the same time, the war of 1812 ended just as Britain was about to be able to bring its full weight to bear. The US didn't manage to take Canada, that's that. What iffing is fun and all but I guess too off topic. Except in relation to tariffs, Trump is still worried about Canada even though that seems pretty silly putting the US and Canada side by side.
sebster wrote: The dynamic you're claiming, of people who support their party while sticking to their ideals is not really how it works. Most people have little to no clue about most issues. They take cues from trusted leaders in politics and the media. So when Trump champions some issue or another and his loyalist media follows along, it impacts a lot of Republican voters downstream.
Some people behave that way and others behave differently. I know this because I *actually have conversations with* Republicans who feel the way I described.
It's also important to note that this administration and Congress have secured both personal income tax cuts and a corporate tax cut, and have been pushing deregulation. These are all very mainstream GOP ideas that are supported by traditional Republicans. They might still think Trump is a buffoon, and might grit their teeth every time Trump opens his mouth or tweets. But they aren't going to *turn on their party and their party's defacto leader* because of some sparring over trade while taxes are being cut and companies are being given more freedom.
I'm sure that some things might look a certain way when you're viewing this country from 9000 miles away. However, I can assure you that there's more nuance at ground level with the GOP than it might appear, especially regionally. And bringing this back to the original point, that's why that 87% figure could be a little deceiving. All those supporters aren't of the MAGA-hat-wearing, rally-attending variety.
So, to bring politics back to a personal level, the Tariff thing is making my job a living hell. We have almost quadruple the number of price increases to process that we normally would, creating an insane amount of work for office staff, while we as a distributor then have to raise our prices for contractors who purchase from us, and our Canadian stores have no idea what they may get stuck with. I get to work nights and weekends (as an exempt employee) as a result.
And, to boot, nothing has actually even taken effect yet. Everyone is preemptively freaking out because they have no idea whats going on and theyre covering their asses before it hits, and there's no endgame, nobody knows what Trump is looking for or what trade structure differences may emerge or change, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
Our VP who literally spends half his time lobbying at the EPA for our industry, is banging his head against the wall with this administration.
I would not want to be Manafort right now. Witness tampering by itself is bad when it happens in an unrelated case, but when you do it in a case you're involved with it carries a tougher sentence iirc.
Trump being nervous about Canada because of the war of 1812 makes me smile, especially since all the Americans I know get annoyed when I point out they lost to Canadian colonials and First Nations.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Sometimes, though, I'm reminded of another old line in journalism: "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."
Sure, there is definitely a sensationalist element to the media, and especially to their coverage of Trump, where every second tweet is apparently a death knell to US democracy.
I'm just saying that this idea that journalists are out there calculating hit counts on their individual articles, then talking to the ad sales teams about what articles will generate the most revenue is silly. Actual journalism is a lot more... bureaucratic than that.
If this was 1985, you'd have a better case. But the media now encompasses a lot more than traditional journalists doing traditional journalism in print or on TV, and even the genuine news outlets heavily feature opinion pieces and obviously slanted pieces masquerading as journalism. Never mind all the ways the outrage machine targets and spoonfeeds us online.
Cripes, even an old-fashioned newspaper opinion columnist is evaluated on his/her ability to raise hackles and drive readership. Of course the media is about readership and viewership. They're for-profit organizations, at least in the U.S.
Journalists are no different from everyone else. They do not want to work that hard at their job, and will take the easy piece over the hard work anyday of the week. It is not a journalism problem but a human issue.
Crazyterran wrote: Trump being nervous about Canada because of the war of 1812 makes me smile, especially since all the Americans I know get annoyed when I point out they lost to Canadian colonials and First Nations.
Still a better track record than Australia and the Emus...
Did he actually bring it up as a reason explicitly? Afaik it coupd have been some sort of inappropriate joke. I know it's Trump and all but I don't want to jump to conclusions.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Did he actually bring it up as a reason explicitly? Afaik it coupd have been some sort of inappropriate joke. I know it's Trump and all but I don't want to jump to conclusions.
Repasting this, I don't know if it really sounds like a joke, incredibly awkward moment otherwise. His relationship with Trudeau doesn't strike me as friendly.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44394156
Trump asks if Canada burnt down White House in call with PM
..."Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" Mr Trump reportedly asked in a call with Mr Trudeau over new tariffs.
It is not clear if the comment was intended as a joke, but CNN report that it followed an exchange in which Mr Trudeau asked how the US could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue.
The US imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from its allies - the EU, Canada and Mexico - last week.
"It is simply ridiculous to view any trade with Canada as a national security threat to the US," Mr Trudeau has said of the move...
Not sure if the latest EPA/Trump thing has made it here yet but, asbestos isn't poisonous anymore, it's just a mob conspiracy (as in, the criminal mob)
Wolfblade wrote: Not sure if the latest EPA/Trump thing has made it here yet but, asbestos isn't poisonous anymore, it's just a mob conspiracy (as in, the criminal mob)
Wow, that's pretty crazy. What's next, saying its ok to start licking lead? Its a dangerous material when people don't know it there, especially in your living space.
gorgon wrote: It's also important to note that this administration and Congress have secured both personal income tax cuts and a corporate tax cut, and have been pushing deregulation. These are all very mainstream GOP ideas that are supported by traditional Republicans. They might still think Trump is a buffoon, and might grit their teeth every time Trump opens his mouth or tweets. But they aren't going to *turn on their party and their party's defacto leader* because of some sparring over trade while taxes are being cut and companies are being given more freedom.
De-regulation appears on no list of major electoral issues, its an important brand element to Republicans, but there's a reason we don't see breathless reporting about Dodd-Frank rollbacks.
Then remember Trump campaigned on raising taxes on the rich. Remember that? He said his tax changes were going to cost him a lot of money. Then after winning he passed a tax cut where 90% of the gain went to very rich people like him. Republicans voted for the Trump who said he was going to raise taxes on the very rich, and now they support Trump because he cut taxes on the very rich.
I don't want to diminish what your Republican friends have told you, but you have to remember that almost everything voters say is a post decision rationalisation often made after the fact. We make a decision, then we figure out a reason why. If later on that reason falls apart we don't admit our judgement was wrong, instead we invent a new reason why. It doesn't mean we should dismiss what people say about their votes, but it does mean we shouldn't just take it at face value either.
You mentioned tribalism in an earlier post, and that's the reality of most voting. People pick a side, often based on affinity more than any actual policy position. Then once they've picked their team they engage on issues, they won't always take their team's view on every issue, but they'll start from a position of being more open to their team's view than the opposition's view. In more partisan times this approach is stronger than normal. This is how a technical, largely abstract issue like free trade can get overwhelming support, then swing 180' in a few years because a single leader rises to the top of the party and changes the party position on that issue.
I'm sure that some things might look a certain way when you're viewing this country from 9000 miles away. However, I can assure you that there's more nuance at ground level with the GOP than it might appear, especially regionally.
Of course there's nuance. But there's also a big picture.
And bringing this back to the original point, that's why that 87% figure could be a little deceiving. All those supporters aren't of the MAGA-hat-wearing, rally-attending variety.
Reality remains that the party was near uniform in support of free trade, then switched when the party leader went in another direction. It doesn't matter how many Republicans are MAGA hat wearers and how many are quiet, sombre types, we know what they did as a whole.
Honestly if a voter says they do not support xyz policies then votes in support of them I am going to call what they say a lie in face of their actions. Maybe it's a lie that person actually believes, but if a person's words say A and their actions say B I am going to see them as having the opinion of B. A statement that says otherwise is a falsehood in my eyes, on top of showing a severe lack of integrity. And that goes regardless of the party they are voting for. I live in California so I get to see Dems elected on little more than tribalism plenty often.
@Sebster I don't want to quote the numbers exactly since it's been several months since I looked at them but I recall the tax benefits do not go 90% to the very rich, more in the 70-something percent. That doesn't undermine your point at all but I think it'd be worth double-checking before tossing out a specific number.
gorgon wrote: If this was 1985, you'd have a better case. But the media now encompasses a lot more than traditional journalists doing traditional journalism in print or on TV, and even the genuine news outlets heavily feature opinion pieces and obviously slanted pieces masquerading as journalism. Never mind all the ways the outrage machine targets and spoonfeeds us online.
Cripes, even an old-fashioned newspaper opinion columnist is evaluated on his/her ability to raise hackles and drive readership. Of course the media is about readership and viewership. They're for-profit organizations, at least in the U.S.
Of course media is driven by readership and clicks, but the relationship is nothing like you describe. When a couple of WaPo reporters were sent to cover the special senate election in Alabama, do you think there was any modelling done of what clicks their stories might uncover? When they started following up on rumours about Roy Moore, do you think they first got approval based on estimated clicks if the story could be verified? It doesn't work that way.
You mention the outrage machine, and it is a problematic part of the media. What you're missing though is that most of the people spamming sensationalist nonsense actually believe what they're saying. The real dynamic isn't journalists figuring out what rates and saying it even though they know it is manipulative or dishonest. The real dynamic is thousands of voices all giving us their opinion (maybe a little exaggerated, but still genuine), and viewers then being drawn to the most sensationalistic, resulting in those journalists being given greater platforms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Journalists are no different from everyone else. They do not want to work that hard at their job, and will take the easy piece over the hard work anyday of the week. It is not a journalism problem but a human issue.
There's also been massive cuts to reporting staff, so the same amount of copy is now produced by a fraction as many people. Needing to produce so many more stories, journalists have increasingly taken to copying from other reporting, or even copying from government/corporate press releases just to reach deadlines.
The link went weird when I clicked on it. Is it the story of Trump's architect who dropped off the planet when contacted by the media? If so, it could be something, it could be nothing. It's possible that he'd closed his business already, as his major client had moved in to politics, and so when contacted by the media it prompted him to actually shut everything down. On the other hand, it could also be the guy knows the financing was fishy, and he'd rather disappear than have to make a choice between speaking out against his former client or lying.
Wolfblade wrote: Not sure if the latest EPA/Trump thing has made it here yet but, asbestos isn't poisonous anymore, it's just a mob conspiracy (as in, the criminal mob)
Wow, that's pretty crazy. What's next, saying its ok to start licking lead? Its a dangerous material when people don't know it there, especially in your living space.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Honestly if a voter says they do not support xyz policies then votes in support of them I am going to call what they say a lie in face of their actions. Maybe it's a lie that person actually believes, but if a person's words say A and their actions say B I am going to see them as having the opinion of B. A statement that says otherwise is a falsehood in my eyes, on top of showing a severe lack of integrity. And that goes regardless of the party they are voting for. I live in California so I get to see Dems elected on little more than tribalism plenty often.
How many Republicans were terribly concerned about the deficit from 2008 until 2016? Then when Republicans win they cheer on a deficit funded tax cut without any effort to explain the reversal of position.
I agree that tribalism is just as strong with democrat and liberal voters. The difference, I think, is how much the leadership relies on manipulating that tribalism rather than just making a direct appeal to the voter's interests. Democratic leaders simply don't do on anywhere near the same scale as Republican leaders. Not because Democrats are more genuine or moral anything, but because there are more Democrat positions that are broadly popular with voters, and Democrats don't have loyalist outfits like FOX News looking to parrot their talking points.
Just to clarify, liberals have plenty of positions driven by tribalism, like the call to impeach Trump now based on... what Mueller might have? But this is grassroots liberal silliness. The contrasting rightwing silliness, like the faux outrage over kneeling athletes is driven by Republican leaders in government and in the media.
@Sebster I don't want to quote the numbers exactly since it's been several months since I looked at them but I recall the tax benefits do not go 90% to the very rich, more in the 70-something percent. That doesn't undermine your point at all but I think it'd be worth double-checking before tossing out a specific number.
The figure I use is how the bill finally settles when all the changes are in place in 2025. Everything before then is a temporary gain or loss, that 2025 final position is what it will be permanently from then on. So this means stuff like the temporary middle class benefits will have sunset.
I know Republicans claim they can be extended or made permanent if Democrats will let it happen, but if that happens then the cost of the tax cut balloons to over $2tn. As soon as Republicans talk about the tax cut costing more than $2tn, I'll talk about those middle class tax cuts being part of a long term structure.
Weird divergence in the polls, Trump's numbers are holding steady and maybe even trending up, while the Democrat lead in the generic ballot is surging. From May 22nd until June 7 Trump has gone from 11 points underwater to 10 underwater, but the generic ballot in the same time has gone from Dem +4 to Dem +8. It's the first time I've noticed a major shift in one poll that wasn't tied to a similar shift in the other. I think it is probably the result of Trump approval being an 'all voters' model, while the generic ballot surge is because they're now shifting from 'all voter' to 'likely voter' models, which is giving Dems a huge advantage in enthusiasm. Will have to see what 538 publishes in the next week or so explaining what's happened.
Not 100% sure what this means for November, but it is sign that while Trump can hurt other Republicans, he can't actually do much to help them.
whembly wrote: Frankly all tax hikes and cuts need to have sunset provisions...and make them vote for it in October right before elections.
No, because stability and long term direction really matter. Think of the corporate tax cut, for instance. The argument is it encourages investment, but who is gonna invest in a five or ten year operation in a country based on tax laws, when those tax laws might be around for another two years, or maybe not. Companies will just assume worst case, and only invest if the deal is great regardless of the tax cut. Which means no stimulus from investment encouraged in to the country due to lower taxes, which means no case for company tax cuts.
sebster wrote: No, because stability and long term direction really matter. Think of the corporate tax cut, for instance. The argument is it encourages investment, but who is gonna invest in a five or ten year operation in a country based on tax laws, when those tax laws might be around for another two years, or maybe not. Companies will just assume worst case, and only invest if the deal is great regardless of the tax cut. Which means no stimulus from investment encouraged in to the country due to lower taxes, which means no case for company tax cuts.
Aside from that aspect there's also the cost to the govt. to implement new tax changes. Formatting and printing news forms, the increased volume of phone calls and letters to the IRS, training employees to answer taxpayer questions, etc. The latest tax cuts have already made a mess of things and there's barely any increase in funding to cover it.
Everytime i see something like this it amazes me how narcissistic and narrow minded people are. They can take something about love between two other people and twist it into being about them and what they feel about something that doesnt affect them in the slightest.
Its also kind of sad - who has the time to give a gak what other people do?
Everytime i see something like this it amazes me how narcissistic and narrow minded people are. They can take something about love between two other people and twist it into being about them and what they feel about something that doesnt affect them in the slightest.
Its also kind of sad - who has the time to give a gak what other people do?
It's even more sad that they use religion to support their view when in fact if you DO believe in God and bible then by opposing gays you are easily shown to be railing against God's Decisions...
Everytime i see something like this it amazes me how narcissistic and narrow minded people are. They can take something about love between two other people and twist it into being about them and what they feel about something that doesnt affect them in the slightest.
Its also kind of sad - who has the time to give a gak what other people do?
It's even more sad that they use religion to support their view when in fact if you DO believe in God and bible then by opposing gays you are easily shown to be railing against God's Decisions...
Bah. Those guys are nuts. Forget logic with them.
Unless of course you also believe in God's neighbour having influence. The whole crazy "tornado's are a punishment from above for gay people" kind of fringe rethoric. People find a way to rationalize their hatred, religion just provides an easy excuse to point to.
Huffington Post asked all 235 Republican members of the House if they were support impeachment if Trump pardoned himself. A grand total of 1 said he would. It was Justin Amash, who represents the district of Idon'tknowI'veneverheardofhim.
Hey, you guys remember back to 2016, when people said Trump would be contained because Republicans would be just as hostile to him as Democrats? Didn't quite turn out that way, did it?
ScarletRose wrote: Aside from that aspect there's also the cost to the govt. to implement new tax changes. Formatting and printing news forms, the increased volume of phone calls and letters to the IRS, training employees to answer taxpayer questions, etc. The latest tax cuts have already made a mess of things and there's barely any increase in funding to cover it.
Good point. Adding to that there's also enormous costs to the HR and admin sections of companies, processing new rates and informing staff of the changes. Then there's the costs to everyone trying to manage their tax affairs, for instance if company tax cuts are passed by pass through trust rate reductions are dropped, millions will have to rework their structures. I'm not sure too many would weep that many tears for people running elaborate tax minimisation schemes, but it has a significant flow on cost through the economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: How are the staff going to tell which potential customers are gay in order to ban them?
In a hardware store?
"Nigel, don't pick the pink hammer, I think it's a trap."
I wonder how long it takes before they sue him over this. The article makes it sound like he mainly does it for the attention but doesn't really want legal troubles.
Crazyterran wrote: Trump being nervous about Canada because of the war of 1812 makes me smile, especially since all the Americans I know get annoyed when I point out they lost to Canadian colonials and First Nations.
"Surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto! " -President Alan Alda, USA, 1995
I fully support their right to be a complete idiot and cut off a section of their customer base. If they want to open themselves up to boycott and business failure, that’s their choice, it’s a private enterprise.
That's fine. They are free not to contract. Others are free to organize a picket line during their business everyday until they close. Freedom, ain't it great!
Russia's economy is about the size of Spain and isn't in the top 10. There is also a GATT 27 meeting which does include Russia so I would guess that takes care of them and this is just Trump being Trump. Maybe he wants a close ally so he doesn't feel so isolated against the other six.
What I see is more evidence of a Trump-Russia connection, another piece on the pile of "this man is the most blatantly corrupt POTUS in history". Kind of a shrug from me, because it's par for the course at this point.
So many people think US needs a businessman to run it. Someone who is used to making and implementing every decision themselves, requiring no approval from others, and usually has a very self-centered and egotistical attitude.
The US is not a business, and it is no surprise to me that electing one as President gets these results.
Russia's economy is about the size of Spain and isn't in the top 10. There is also a GATT 27 meeting which does include Russia so I would guess that takes care of them and this is just Trump being Trump. Maybe he wants a close ally so he doesn't feel so isolated against the other six.
Brazil sized I believe.
Weren't they in the G8 or suchand only kicked out due to Ukraine e or Ossetia?
Nostromodamus wrote: So many people think US needs a businessman to run it. Someone who is used to making and implementing every decision themselves, requiring no approval from others, and usually has a very self-centered and egotistical attitude.
The US is not a business, and it is no surprise to me that electing one as President gets these results.
We do. Trump is a reality show star, not a business man.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it's collusion with Russia. The Russians aren't interested in the G7. It's just Trump.
If he's thought about it at all, he's done it to annoy the G6.
But it's equally likely he was just flapping his jaws in a way that he thinks is presidential and business-like.
It would be interesting to see how many GOP members now support Russia as the USA's most important international partner.
He just throwing a hand grenade into the G7 to distract from the wider issue of tariffs with those members and how it is going to affect his base the most. If he can change the narrative to stigginit to Europe that's a win over "G7 teams up against America and you because you voted for Trump and the bonehead didn't think things through."
Nostromodamus wrote: So many people think US needs a businessman to run it. Someone who is used to making and implementing every decision themselves, requiring no approval from others, and usually has a very self-centered and egotistical attitude.
The US is not a business, and it is no surprise to me that electing one as President gets these results.
We do. Trump is a reality show star, not a business man.
Nostromodamus wrote: So many people think US needs a businessman to run it. Someone who is used to making and implementing every decision themselves, requiring no approval from others, and usually has a very self-centered and egotistical attitude.
The US is not a business, and it is no surprise to me that electing one as President gets these results.
We do. Trump is a reality show star, not a business man.
This of course is true.
The latter statement, sure. I'm not sure "maximizing profits" is the best way to run a government.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it's collusion with Russia. The Russians aren't interested in the G7. It's just Trump.
If he's thought about it at all, he's done it to annoy the G6.
But it's equally likely he was just flapping his jaws in a way that he thinks is presidential and business-like.
It would be interesting to see how many GOP members now support Russia as the USA's most important international partner.
He just throwing a hand grenade into the G7 to distract from the wider issue of tariffs with those members and how it is going to affect his base the most. If he can change the narrative to stigginit to Europe that's a win over "G7 teams up against America and you because you voted for Trump and the bonehead didn't think things through."
This also is true.
The average EU tariff on imports from the USA is about 3%. The reason why there's a trade imbalance is that the EU produces more stuff that Americans want to buy than the USA produces stuff that Europeans want to buy.
There's also an issue around environmental standards, like chlorine washed chicken, and that's only going to get worse as Trump shoves America's environment standards into the crapper.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it's collusion with Russia. The Russians aren't interested in the G7. It's just Trump.
If he's thought about it at all, he's done it to annoy the G6.
But it's equally likely he was just flapping his jaws in a way that he thinks is presidential and business-like.
It would be interesting to see how many GOP members now support Russia as the USA's most important international partner.
One of the things about Trump is that he has always felt left out of the “big boys” club. I think him and Kim are quite alike in that regard, with both wanting to be seen as legitimate real presidents on the world stage.
He doesn’t want Russia for any other reason other than wanting a friendly face there that will let him play “good president”.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it's collusion with Russia. The Russians aren't interested in the G7. It's just Trump.
If he's thought about it at all, he's done it to annoy the G6.
But it's equally likely he was just flapping his jaws in a way that he thinks is presidential and business-like.
It would be interesting to see how many GOP members now support Russia as the USA's most important international partner.
One of the things about Trump is that he has always felt left out of the “big boys” club. I think him and Kim are quite alike in that regard, with both wanting to be seen as legitimate real presidents on the world stage.
He doesn’t want Russia for any other reason other than wanting a friendly face there that will let him play “good president”.
Additionally, the man is senile and any action or statement shouldn't necessarily be taken as part of a greater purpose or ideology but as simply the sparks flying out of the toaster as it's dropped into the tub.
Nostromodamus wrote: So many people think US needs a businessman to run it. Someone who is used to making and implementing every decision themselves, requiring no approval from others, and usually has a very self-centered and egotistical attitude.
The US is not a business, and it is no surprise to me that electing one as President gets these results.
We do. Trump is a reality show star, not a business man.
This of course is true.
The latter statement, sure. I'm not sure "maximizing profits" is the best way to run a government.
It isn't the best way to run a business either, ironically.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it's collusion with Russia. The Russians aren't interested in the G7. It's just Trump.
If he's thought about it at all, he's done it to annoy the G6.
But it's equally likely he was just flapping his jaws in a way that he thinks is presidential and business-like.
It would be interesting to see how many GOP members now support Russia as the USA's most important international partner.
One of the things about Trump is that he has always felt left out of the “big boys” club. I think him and Kim are quite alike in that regard, with both wanting to be seen as legitimate real presidents on the world stage.
He doesn’t want Russia for any other reason other than wanting a friendly face there that will let him play “good president”.
That's exactly why I see it as another piece of evidece; Trump is reverting to Russia as a friendly face by reflex when relations between us as countries are anything but.
So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.
Dreadwinter wrote: So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.
That's about it though.
He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
Dreadwinter wrote: So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.
That's about it though.
He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?
Trumps behaviour at the G7 shows the fundamental contempt that the American Right feels toward the rest of the world. I am so angry at how he behaves at these things, I wish it were possible for the rest of us to make him face some consequences for his actions.
Dreadwinter wrote: So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.
That's about it though.
He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?
Oh yea now I remember why I don't post in this thread
Dreadwinter wrote: So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.
That's about it though.
He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?
Oh yea now I remember why I don't post in this thread
I mean, you never provide any proof of anything you claim, so until you do it is nonsensical talking points. And when asked for it you proceed to either ignore that or spout something else.
Dreadwinter wrote: So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.
That's about it though.
He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?
Dreadwinter wrote: So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.
That's about it though.
He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?
Do you dispute his points at all?
Did he actually have any? He just rattled off talking points.
Dreadwinter wrote: So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.
That's about it though.
He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?
Do you dispute his points at all?
What points? There's 0 evidence beyond Frazzled's word that what he says is true. Come on.
Yeah, gotta say I got no idea what Frazz is talking about, unless he's just making an assumption of Hollywood type = stuff he was babbling, and nothing more.
Grey Templar wrote: Umm anyone remotely familiar with Newsom would know those to be true. Weather you think those are positive or negative is the point of debate.
So instead of enlightening us with sources, actual points or anything of real sustenance you and frazz just say "if you know him you would know it is true"
Grey Templar wrote: Umm anyone remotely familiar with Newsom would know those to be true. Weather you think those are positive or negative is the point of debate.
So instead of enlightening us with sources, actual points or anything of real sustenance you and frazz just say "if you know him you would know it is true"
I’m just on my phone right now, but I will get some stuff when I get home. If you can’t wait till then, you can use google easily enough.
Grey Templar wrote: Umm anyone remotely familiar with Newsom would know those to be true. Weather you think those are positive or negative is the point of debate.
So instead of enlightening us with sources, actual points or anything of real sustenance you and frazz just say "if you know him you would know it is true"
I’m just on my phone right now, but I will get some stuff when I get home. If you can’t wait till then, you can use google easily enough.
Nah man burden of proof is on the person who brings forth the debate point
(I really hate all this burden of proof stuff. It's not like this is a scientific conference or something. It is a bunch of people shooting the gak on the internet)
Da Boss wrote: (I really hate all this burden of proof stuff. It's not like this is a scientific conference or something. It is a bunch of people shooting the gak on the internet)
That's how debates or discussions work tho. Otherwise it devolves into people yelling "NUH UH" at each other.
Da Boss wrote: (I really hate all this burden of proof stuff. It's not like this is a scientific conference or something. It is a bunch of people shooting the gak on the internet)
That's how debates or discussions work tho. Otherwise it devolves into people yelling "NUH UH" at each other.
Dreadwinter wrote: So the only thing I have found really damning about this Newsome guy is he looks like a discount Mathew McConaughey. I don't mean like 1/2 off here. This is the liquidation event Mathew McConaughey. 90% off or give Ted your best offer type of scenario.
That's about it though.
He's a gun confiscator, illegal criminal alien hugger and the rpitomy of SF nannystate cronyism.
So...just your usual nonsensical talking points then?
Do you dispute his points at all?
"That which is presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
I thought Trump was against NAFTA, TTIP and the EU.
Is he now in favour of them?
What does it all mean?
It means Trump panders to whatever audience is in front of him, nothing more.
I think the key quote in that link was "No tariffs, no barriers. That's the way it should be. And no subsidies. I even said, 'no tariffs'," (emphasis mine); Boeing et al have always hated the way strategic industries are supported in Europe and Canada (no matter that they get equivalent support through tax breaks, etc.). So I guess this will turn into the USA offering to remove tariffs if the rest of the G7 stop subsidising key industries.
BaronIveagh wrote: Speaking of proof and evidence, a court has ruled that the EPA must present the science which shows that humans are NOT causing climate change.
Don't worry, I'm sure the Trump administration will treat this as an order to manufacture some "science" to support the party position and it will be done as efficiently and honestly as anything else associated with Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yeah, when I read that bit about "no subsidies", I pictured quite a lot of American farmers suddenly turning very pale and worried.
No no, we're talking about socialism and obstacles to the free market, not the proper rewards for the hard-working farmers of America who truly embody everything that is good about our country (and reliably press 'R' every year).
He's basically conflating the NRA with mass shooters, and admits he's gonna come grabbing for our guns. He's basically saying the NRA causes mass shootings, even though no NRA member has ever committed such a crime.
So I’d challenge him for proof rather than dismissing him off the bat.
And here from Whembly's other post, he is pro-sanctuary city. Which, just so its out there, is quite illegal. Illegal immigrants have committed a Felony by crossing the US border. Sanctuary Citys are breaking the law by Aiding and Abetting a fugitive from federal justice.
This is on top of him being flaky and irresponsible. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the guy was Mayor during the big San Francisco oil spill and he want on vacation to Hawaii instead of staying and dealing with the situation. And he couldn't even show up to work most of the time when he was Lt Governor.
Grey Templar wrote: Sanctuary Citys are breaking the law by Aiding and Abetting a fugitive from federal justice.
No. Remember, sanctuary cities aren't providing any active assistance to immigrants in evading federal justice, they are merely refusing to provide assistance to the federal government. Or are you now going to make the argument that state and local police departments are under the authority of the federal government and must provide work (without financial compensation for their labor) as directed by the federal government? Shall we extend this principle to individuals too, and charge anyone who does not provide full cooperation and answer every question the police ask with aiding and abetting a fugitive? Are the police allowed to declare that you are now an unpaid slave of the police department and order you to perform whatever labor they require? I'm sure this won't produce any issues with a police state...
Wait Canada is flooding the US with cars? I can't even name a Canadian car manufacturer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yeah, when I read that bit about "no subsidies", I pictured quite a lot of American farmers suddenly turning very pale and worried.
In my own experience, farmers are habitually in denial how dependent what they do is on government money. Something about bootstraps and such and those damn city folk always giving out money to minorities or something. SO I wouldn't be remotely shocked if they maintained that line right into the financial grave.
He's basically conflating the NRA with mass shooters, and admits he's gonna come grabbing for our guns. He's basically saying the NRA causes mass shootings, even though no NRA member has ever committed such a crime.
Is this the same guy who made that comment so stupid it made even Trump look smart? The one where he ranted about how Trump was pardoning Jack Johnson of "trafficking women" and such?
He's basically conflating the NRA with mass shooters, and admits he's gonna come grabbing for our guns. He's basically saying the NRA causes mass shootings, even though no NRA member has ever committed such a crime.
So I’d challenge him for proof rather than dismissing him off the bat.
And here from Whembly's other post, he is pro-sanctuary city. Which, just so its out there, is quite illegal. Illegal immigrants have committed a Felony by crossing the US border. Sanctuary Citys are breaking the law by Aiding and Abetting a fugitive from federal justice.
This is on top of him being flaky and irresponsible. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the guy was Mayor during the big San Francisco oil spill and he want on vacation to Hawaii instead of staying and dealing with the situation. And he couldn't even show up to work most of the time when he was Lt Governor.
Holy crap the leaps in logic. Okay, saying something causes something and saying something commits something are two wildly different things. A sanctuary city does not aid illegal immigrants, nor does it harm them. A Sanctuary City is neutral ground. The city does not punish you, but it also doesn't protect you from the people whose job it is to actually enforce FEDERAL law.
Your final point about the oil spill has been disproved as another poster has already provded a link with evidence about him cutting his trip to Hawaii short to come back and deal with the issue. So here you are pulling a Whembly.
So yeah, do you actually have anything of substance on the guy or what? This goes for Frazzled as well as Whembly.
Frazzled wrote: Oh yea now I remember why I don't post in this thread
Come on, man. You've been here a long time. What you did here was say that Newsom was "Mayor Daley corrupt" and so on. When people asked you what specifically you meant, you threw a smoke grenade and disappeared like Batman. Now you're floating some vague, undefined evil about him again.
Grey Templar did pretty much the same thing, and then when asked to explain, he threw out some really weak sauce about how he had poor attendance, and was on vacation for 2 days during an oil spill (and omitted that he cut the vacation short to deal with the spill!)
You guys can't throw around these charges of deep corruption and then bring nothing to the table, and then get butthurt when people are dubious of your claims when you're throwing them out there and then backing into the bushes instead of explaining them.
So far as sanctuary cities I definitely don't agree with them in either concept or execution; but I also think that prosecutorial discretion does come into play, and ultimately illegal immigration is the sole purview of the federal government. I don't think the state or local police can be forced to do ICE's legwork, but if the federal government decided to withhold highway funds or various other kinds of federal assistance as a result I sure wouldn't cry a bitter tear, either. You're either on the same page or you aren't.
GT lives in California. When people ask you to explain what you mean, it's a reasonable request, we're going to assume you know more than we do as a sort of local. If you make these claims and then produce nothing we're kind of forced to assume bad faith.
Grey Templar wrote: Sanctuary Citys are breaking the law by Aiding and Abetting a fugitive from federal justice.
No. Remember, sanctuary cities aren't providing any active assistance to immigrants in evading federal justice, they are merely refusing to provide assistance to the federal government. Or are you now going to make the argument that state and local police departments are under the authority of the federal government and must provide work (without financial compensation for their labor) as directed by the federal government? Shall we extend this principle to individuals too, and charge anyone who does not provide full cooperation and answer every question the police ask with aiding and abetting a fugitive? Are the police allowed to declare that you are now an unpaid slave of the police department and order you to perform whatever labor they require? I'm sure this won't produce any issues with a police state...
You'll maybe recall Garcia Zarate. The guy that was arrested in San Francisco on a lesser charge, and then when San Francisco authorities heard that ICE was coming to pick him up released him. He then later "accidentally" killed that women with a handgun.
That was pretty blatant obstruction of federal immigration enforcement by releasing him before they could get there. And it cost a women her life. How he got acquitted of that murder charge I don't understand.
IMO, that is blatant assistance given to an illegal alien.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yeah, when I read that bit about "no subsidies", I pictured quite a lot of American farmers suddenly turning very pale and worried.
In my own experience, farmers are habitually in denial how dependent what they do is on government money. Something about bootstraps and such and those damn city folk always giving out money to minorities or something. SO I wouldn't be remotely shocked if they maintained that line right into the financial grave.
[/size]
Look no further than the Ethanol Mandate™ or the Sugar Subsidy.
The USA is fond of telling the rest of the world that it is a democracy with government for the people, of the people and by the people. The people of the USA are culpable in the behaviour of their democratically elected leader, certainly more so than the people of Afghanistan or Iraq were in their autocratic leaders. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan were collectively punished by the US for their leaders actions and I do not recall much in the way of upset about that, only upset about how it might impact "the troops". So I do not have sympathy anymore for the argument that the people of the US should not be held responsible for the actions of their government.
As to the system of international organisation, I dunno. I want us all to stop kowtowing to the US, it is humiliating and inappropriate.
Kilkrazy wrote: The people of the USA didn't elect Trump. He lost the popular vote.
We elected him. Popular vote or not, he won the election by the methods we have set. I am absolutely on board with the US suffering the downsides because we as a people need to have it drilled through our heads that like it or not we are one country. The whole 'not my president' is the sort of us vs them mentality that got us the craphole of politics we have.
I go back to my classic example of the guy jumping into the cactus. Maybe one arm and leg tried to stop him, but the other arm and leg still dragged him into a thorney doom while the torso sat there and said 'they're both bad'.
I don't believe it is necessary to bring the western world crashing down to convince Trumpists that they are wrong, and actually I"m not sure they wouldn't find a way to blame someone else when it happened.
For now, concentrate on the mid-term elections. Then concentrate on stopping Trump from a second term.
Kilkrazy wrote: The people of the USA didn't elect Trump. He lost the popular vote.
Incorrect.
We have 50 popular votes... not 1 popular vote.
The fact that we don't directly elect the POTUS doesn't mean "the people" didn't elect Trump. "The people" in those 50 states certainly did.
Also, speaking of the G7, I find this picture illuminating:
David Mack ✔ @davidmackau 15h Angela Merkel's office has released this photo taken today at the G7, which tells you a lot about how things went. pic.twitter.com/IXX6K3ayys
BOTH sides can claim what they want when they see here....
When people say "He lost the popular vote" they mean when votes are counted on an individual basis, he got fewer votes than his opponent, and you know that.
Also, I would dispute that there are only 2 sides present in that photo.
Da Boss wrote: When people say "He lost the popular vote" they mean when votes are counted on an individual basis, he got fewer votes than his opponent, and you know that.
...and I mean it's meaningless to belabor that point. This is not unique in our country.
Also, I would dispute that there are only 2 sides present in that photo.
Dunno... on the left it looks like Merkel is admonishing Trump and Trump is smirking like a teenager ready to talk smack...
So to compound his general obnoxiousness, Trump has decided, on behalf of all Americans, to give the United States' closest and most trusted allies the finger and flounce off to try and cosy up with a dictator who would happily seek our destruction.
Trump isn't the USA, but while he's in charge there isn't any point in being on the same side, because you probably won't be for more than a couple of hours.
Trump has shown he will agree a statement and then rip it up by tweet on his way to the airport.
Grey Templar wrote: You'll maybe recall Garcia Zarate. The guy that was arrested in San Francisco on a lesser charge, and then when San Francisco authorities heard that ICE was coming to pick him up released him. He then later "accidentally" killed that women with a handgun.
That was pretty blatant obstruction of federal immigration enforcement by releasing him before they could get there. And it cost a women her life. How he got acquitted of that murder charge I don't understand.
IMO, that is blatant assistance given to an illegal alien.
Your opinion is wrong. San Francisco is not obligated to provide free labor to the federal government or free storage space for people the federal government wants to arrest. ICE may request cooperation, but the state/local government is not required to provide it. The DA declined to prosecute him on the charges he was being held for, so he was released just like any other person would be. There is no evidence that the San Francisco government, say, helped to sneak him over the border or provided him with fake documentation to prove himself a legitimate immigrant. The only thing they did is decline to provide a requested service to the federal government, and I don't think you want to live in a police state where refusing to answer to every whim of every federal employee is a crime.
Also, using this single case as a policy argument is a terrible position to hold. Zarate's immigration status had nothing to do with the shooting and there was no information, at the time of his release, that he was about to commit a crime (other than continuing to stay in the US). Arguing that we should jail people indefinitely just in case they commit a crime would never work if they're US citizens, so why should it work for illegal immigrants? The responsibility for the victim's death that you're trying to assign to San Francisco would never be applied in any other situation, so it shouldn't be applied here.
How he got acquitted of that murder charge I don't understand.
Because the case was weak. The prosecution's only motive was "he decided to shoot into a crowd just for fun", which seems like a pretty poor explanation when he only fired a single shot instead of aiming for more kills like a typical mass shooter. And in US criminal cases the standard of proof is "reasonable doubt", not "someone is dead and the killer must pay".
Kilkrazy wrote: The people of the USA didn't elect Trump. He lost the popular vote.
We elected him. Popular vote or not, he won the election by the methods we have set. I am absolutely on board with the US suffering the downsides because we as a people need to have it drilled through our heads that like it or not we are one country. The whole 'not my president' is the sort of us vs them mentality that got us the craphole of politics we have.
I go back to my classic example of the guy jumping into the cactus. Maybe one arm and leg tried to stop him, but the other arm and leg still dragged him into a thorney doom while the torso sat there and said 'they're both bad'.
We elected what we deserved.
I've got to agree. Even if Trump hadn't been elected, there mere fact that a clown like him was in contention would have been chilling in itself.
Kilkrazy wrote: The people of the USA didn't elect Trump. He lost the popular vote.
We elected him. Popular vote or not, he won the election by the methods we have set. I am absolutely on board with the US suffering the downsides because we as a people need to have it drilled through our heads that like it or not we are one country. The whole 'not my president' is the sort of us vs them mentality that got us the craphole of politics we have.
I go back to my classic example of the guy jumping into the cactus. Maybe one arm and leg tried to stop him, but the other arm and leg still dragged him into a thorney doom while the torso sat there and said 'they're both bad'.
We elected what we deserved.
The more I think about it, the more I disagree with the underlined part. The "not my president" mentality of the people is the inevitable result of the "you're not my voter" mentality of the politicians. For too long, politicians have only represented their party first, but they're supposed to represent the people of their district/state, including the ones who didn't vote for them.
Unfortunately I think this is an unavoidable consequence of a political system where the only electoral position that matters is first place. There is no mechanism or means in US politics for the losers of elections to exert any meaningful influence beyond social pressure (something inherently limited when you lose). We'd have to completely restructure the state and electoral systems to avoid this problem, and the common solutions (mandates, coalitions, etc) have their own problems.
Not even it's own at this point. On the up side, they've finally remembered that elections have consequences, and, choosing a known con man for be President was probably a bad move. I'm sure there are die hard Trump fans out there, I had one telling me Friday that we had to allow Israel to butcher all the people they wanted to, even if they killed all of Europe, so that Christ would return and bring salvation to the Jews, and annihilate the Muslims.
This was at work. I work for the US government. Do you understand how scary the level of crazy has gotten? When *I* am the voice of reason and moderation?
Grey Templar wrote: You'll maybe recall Garcia Zarate. The guy that was arrested in San Francisco on a lesser charge, and then when San Francisco authorities heard that ICE was coming to pick him up released him. He then later "accidentally" killed that women with a handgun.
That was pretty blatant obstruction of federal immigration enforcement by releasing him before they could get there. And it cost a women her life. How he got acquitted of that murder charge I don't understand.
IMO, that is blatant assistance given to an illegal alien.
Your opinion is wrong. San Francisco is not obligated to provide free labor to the federal government or free storage space for people the federal government wants to arrest. ICE may request cooperation, but the state/local government is not required to provide it. The DA declined to prosecute him on the charges he was being held for, so he was released just like any other person would be. There is no evidence that the San Francisco government, say, helped to sneak him over the border or provided him with fake documentation to prove himself a legitimate immigrant. The only thing they did is decline to provide a requested service to the federal government, and I don't think you want to live in a police state where refusing to answer to every whim of every federal employee is a crime.
Also, using this single case as a policy argument is a terrible position to hold. Zarate's immigration status had nothing to do with the shooting and there was no information, at the time of his release, that he was about to commit a crime (other than continuing to stay in the US). Arguing that we should jail people indefinitely just in case they commit a crime would never work if they're US citizens, so why should it work for illegal immigrants? The responsibility for the victim's death that you're trying to assign to San Francisco would never be applied in any other situation, so it shouldn't be applied here.
How he got acquitted of that murder charge I don't understand.
Because the case was weak. The prosecution's only motive was "he decided to shoot into a crowd just for fun", which seems like a pretty poor explanation when he only fired a single shot instead of aiming for more kills like a typical mass shooter. And in US criminal cases the standard of proof is "reasonable doubt", not "someone is dead and the killer must pay".
I guarantee you that if he had been wanted on some other charge, like capital murder or something, San Francisco would have held him. They let him go only because they want to stick it to ICE.
Grey Templar wrote: I guarantee you that if he had been wanted on some other charge, like capital murder or something, San Francisco would have held him. They let him go only because they want to stick it to ICE.
Yes and, and "kinda"?
Yes if he was wanted on capital murder, they would have held him, because their policy was to hold anyone wanted to a violent felony present or past.
I can only go "kinda" on the "the only reason they left him go is to stick it to ICE, because they let him go because of the above guidelines. But the whole point of the sanctuary cities is sort of to stick it to ICE, so you're not 100% wrong, either.
The whole thing is a little dumb honestly and I have a super hard time defending sanctuary cities in any but the most high-level reasons, i.e. you shouldn't be able to compel the state to do the federal government's legwork.
It seems like pretty poor governance though. If you're in the country illegally generally speaking I feel like if you get picked up by the cops, you should be sent home, but I really would like to see immigration liberalized in general because legal immigration in the US is absolutely bonkers.
I also don't buy that illegal immigrants are this huge threat to jobs as they are painted to be. As Louis CK once said, if someone can come here not knowing anyone and not knowing the language and take your job, maybe you were just really gak at your job.
Sorry that was a kind of grab bag of random thoughts, re-reading that.
I agree we should expand legal immigration because we need their labor, but that shouldn’t be an excuse to let illegals off the hook.
The real threat from illegals is the unknown. They haven’t been screened by immigration to ensure they aren’t a security threat. Illegals provide cover for the smuggling of drugs and other illicit items into the country. And frankly it’s surprising we haven’t had any terrorists and other terrorist related stuff get smuggled across down there.
The other thing that grinds my gears is people claiming that illegal immigrants somehow have a right to be in this country.
Kilkrazy wrote: The people of the USA didn't elect Trump. He lost the popular vote.
We elected him. Popular vote or not, he won the election by the methods we have set. I am absolutely on board with the US suffering the downsides because we as a people need to have it drilled through our heads that like it or not we are one country. The whole 'not my president' is the sort of us vs them mentality that got us the craphole of politics we have.
I go back to my classic example of the guy jumping into the cactus. Maybe one arm and leg tried to stop him, but the other arm and leg still dragged him into a thorney doom while the torso sat there and said 'they're both bad'.
We elected what we deserved.
The more I think about it, the more I disagree with the underlined part. The "not my president" mentality of the people is the inevitable result of the "you're not my voter" mentality of the politicians. For too long, politicians have only represented their party first, but they're supposed to represent the people of their district/state, including the ones who didn't vote for them.
Which is a valid point; citizens did not simply generate that attitude on their own. However at the same time we did decide to vote for politicians who supported that mindset. I don't mean to suggest that politicians aren't at fault, far from it, but I'm sick of US citizens playing the victim and ignoring that these are elected politicians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't believe it is necessary to bring the western world crashing down to convince Trumpists that they are wrong, and actually I"m not sure they wouldn't find a way to blame someone else when it happened.
For now, concentrate on the mid-term elections. Then concentrate on stopping Trump from a second term.
I'm optimistic about the long term impact, which certainly factors into my opinion. At any rate it's not so much about teaching the depusional but rather teaching the massive number of people who stayed home because this just wasn't important enough for them to spend a day of their time on.
The real threat from illegals is the unknown. They haven’t been screened by immigration to ensure they aren’t a security threat. Illegals provide cover for the smuggling of drugs and other illicit items into the country. And frankly it’s surprising we haven’t had any terrorists and other terrorist related stuff get smuggled across down there.
Unfortunately I think this is an unavoidable consequence of a political system where the only electoral position that matters is first place. There is no mechanism or means in US politics for the losers of elections to exert any meaningful influence beyond social pressure (something inherently limited when you lose). We'd have to completely restructure the state and electoral systems to avoid this problem, and the common solutions (mandates, coalitions, etc) have their own problems.
Grey Templar wrote: I agree we should expand legal immigration because we need their labor, but that shouldn’t be an excuse to let illegals off the hook.
The real threat from illegals is the unknown. They haven’t been screened by immigration to ensure they aren’t a security threat. Illegals provide cover for the smuggling of drugs and other illicit items into the country. And frankly it’s surprising we haven’t had any terrorists and other terrorist related stuff get smuggled across down there.
You know who else provides cover for the smuggling of drugs and other illicit items into the country? Officials(law enforcement and customs) that have been paid off. Legitimate businesses that look the other way in exchange for payments.
Let's stop pretending that cartels run strictly off of illegal immigration and smuggling associated with it, shall we? You'd do well to educate yourself.
The other thing that grinds my gears is people claiming that illegal immigrants somehow have a right to be in this country.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because that's an argument that gets made honestly.
So, in the end, what will happen with the g7 ? Did the USA actually sign or not at the G7 ? It's really confusing.
Wonder what will happen with the NK submit now. I'm kinda expecting another tweet rant from Trump after the meeting, once he's not there anymore and saying the opposite that was established then. * sighs *
And yeah, USA will be blamed for that, not just Trump. Americans are involved, even if they don't agree. That's how politics work - actions and consequences. That's the only bright side - reality has to be faced no matter how hard you try to avoid it.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't believe it is necessary to bring the western world crashing down to convince Trumpists that they are wrong, and actually I"m not sure they wouldn't find a way to blame someone else when it happened.
For now, concentrate on the mid-term elections. Then concentrate on stopping Trump from a second term.
I'm optimistic about the long term impact, which certainly factors into my opinion. At any rate it's not so much about teaching the depusional but rather teaching the massive number of people who stayed home because this just wasn't important enough for them to spend a day of their time on.
I think you do have to think about the so-called "delusionals".
To ignore their concerns and win by mobilising the opposition will only entrench the divisive attitudes that seem to have gripped the USA in recent decades.
I'm not saying you should give in to them, but I think you do have to engage with them and try to persuade them that their ideas are not working.
You have to reach out and persuade people who think climate change is a swizz, or that the Laffer Curve works, or that trickle-down economics make the poor better off.
It shouldn't be too hard to get these points over because reality increasingly obviously is on your side. But it's a potentially humiliating climb-down for a lot of people who need to un-nail their colours from those various masts. You can help get them through that by not trying to humiliate them.
I mean these people are often accused of being stupid, but they aren't stupid. They've got something else pushing their views, and part of it probably is resentment at the way the the other side talks about them.
I guarantee you that if he had been wanted on some other charge, like capital murder or something, San Francisco would have held him. They let him go only because they want to stick it to ICE.
ICE is the US Gestapo so any city or state sticking it to ICE is to be applauded.
The other thing that grinds my gears is people claiming that illegal immigrants somehow have a right to be in this country.
They are on balance no better or worse than you, and you get to live in the US, so there's no reason to deny them the inherent right to live in the same enormous country that you do. People should have the freedom of movement.
The other thing that grinds my gears is people claiming that illegal immigrants somehow have a right to be in this country.
You must never had ICE stop you and card you leaving your workplace. I'm a Native American. If they want to question MY right to be here, then their white assess need to get back on the fething boat.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't believe it is necessary to bring the western world crashing down to convince Trumpists that they are wrong, and actually I"m not sure they wouldn't find a way to blame someone else when it happened.
For now, concentrate on the mid-term elections. Then concentrate on stopping Trump from a second term.
I'm optimistic about the long term impact, which certainly factors into my opinion. At any rate it's not so much about teaching the depusional but rather teaching the massive number of people who stayed home because this just wasn't important enough for them to spend a day of their time on.
I think you do have to think about the so-called "delusionals".
To ignore their concerns and win by mobilising the opposition will only entrench the divisive attitudes that seem to have gripped the USA in recent decades.
I'm not saying you should give in to them, but I think you do have to engage with them and try to persuade them that their ideas are not working.
You have to reach out and persuade people who think climate change is a swizz, or that the Laffer Curve works, or that trickle-down economics make the poor better off.
It shouldn't be too hard to get these points over because reality increasingly obviously is on your side. But it's a potentially humiliating climb-down for a lot of people who need to un-nail their colours from those various masts. You can help get them through that by not trying to humiliate them.
I mean these people are often accused of being stupid, but they aren't stupid. They've got something else pushing their views, and part of it probably is resentment at the way the the other side talks about them.
It's been tried. A lot. Sometimes in a poorly done snarky way sometimes in an honest try-to-help-the-country way. It hasn't worked, and more than that it has shown no signs that it will. At some point one needs to recognize that effort is better spent on people willing to be convinced. The nature of delusion is that their opinion is not logically based on the evidence at hand, meaning that trying to appeal using the evidence at hand is an uphill battle from the start. Look at certain posters in this thread that have had the same concepts broken down for them repeatedly yet they simply refuse to change their position. In face of that it's irresponsible NOT to focus on other people.
Take anti-vaxxers, for example. Medical psychologists have found that they resist the approach based on showing there is nothing wrong with vaccines.
Instead, the anti-vaxxers were given a lot of information about how bad measles can be for their children. This was found to be a much more effective approach.
I guarantee you that if he had been wanted on some other charge, like capital murder or something, San Francisco would have held him. They let him go only because they want to stick it to ICE.
ICE is the US Gestapo so any city or state sticking it to ICE is to be applauded.
The other thing that grinds my gears is people claiming that illegal immigrants somehow have a right to be in this country.
They are on balance no better or worse than you, and you get to live in the US, so there's no reason to deny them the inherent right to live in the same enormous country that you do. People should have the freedom of movement.
Wow, calling them the Gestapo is so far off base. When they’re herding people into gas chambers is when you can make that comparison.
And no, you do not have a right to enter other countries. That is a privilege that is granted at whim from each country’s immigration forces. The only people with a right to live in any particular country are that country’s citizens.
I don’t have the right to go live in Sweden, just like you don’t have the right to come live in the US. We could petition to become citizens and gain that right, but it’s not a default position.
I guarantee you that if he had been wanted on some other charge, like capital murder or something, San Francisco would have held him. They let him go only because they want to stick it to ICE.
ICE is the US Gestapo so any city or state sticking it to ICE is to be applauded.
The other thing that grinds my gears is people claiming that illegal immigrants somehow have a right to be in this country.
They are on balance no better or worse than you, and you get to live in the US, so there's no reason to deny them the inherent right to live in the same enormous country that you do. People should have the freedom of movement.
Wow, calling them the Gestapo is so far off base. When they’re herding people into gas chambers is when you can make that comparison.
And no, you do not have a right to enter other countries. That is a privilege that is granted at whim from each country’s immigration forces. The only people with a right to live in any particular country are that country’s citizens.
I don’t have the right to go live in Sweden, just like you don’t have the right to come live in the US. We could petition to become citizens and gain that right, but it’s not a default position.
Gunna correct you a bit there it was the Einsatzgruppen and Death Heads that were responsible for the rounding up and killing of people. The Gestapo just arrested them and were a secret police force, so the comparison is more apt than you are falsely leading people to believe
Unaccountable secret agents who track people down and wisk them and their children away to camps with not even the same standards and oversight of prisons because they're considered racially undesireable. The US seems to be pretty rapidly transition from the Weimar phase to the "we weren't told about camps" phase.
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t have the right to go live in Sweden, just like you don’t have the right to come live in the US. We could petition to become citizens and gain that right, but it’s not a default position.
You have the same right to live here as anyone else does. There's nothing mystical about this geographical position that only allows for certain people to live here. Not like the Finns only live in Finland because they're magically repelled by the border line, like someone hit a tennis ball against a wall.
And no, you do not have a right to enter other countries. That is a privilege that is granted at whim from each country’s immigration forces.
Ehh..... No, we have a treaty with both the US and Canada that basically says we have that right. Further, most of Europe actually DOES have that right, IIRC, as members of the EU.
So, I'll say that this is more unique to the US then you might think.
And the Gestapo thing is actually a bit correct with ICE. Remember that US immigration law was, and still is in some cases, pretty racist AND classist. Remember, a white billionaire can become a us citizen in 1/25th the time that it takes a Mexican computer programmer. In fact, if you're poor, or, apparently, fleeing slavery at the hands of terrorists (an actual case where US courts SENT THEM BACK, as being unwilling slaves was 'providing material aid to terrorists'), you need not apply.
So much for 'your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.'.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So Trump's economic advisor Navarro just said on TV that there is a special place in hell for Trudeau. Top notch diplomacy in action.
How dare Trudeau do whatever he did to the leader of this great Christian nation! Call the Pope! Lets get the inquisition involved!
Disciple of Fate wrote: So Trump's economic advisor Navarro just said on TV that there is a special place in hell for Trudeau. Top notch diplomacy in action.
How dare Trudeau do whatever he did to the leader of this great Christian nation! Call the Pope! Lets get the inquisition involved!
Trump's already on his Holiness' gak list. No help coming from Christ on this one.
What do you mean? Wasn't it funny when Trump joked if the Vatican got attacked by ISIS he would let the Pope rot for mocking him? Surely just light jesting amongst friends
I guarantee you that if he had been wanted on some other charge, like capital murder or something, San Francisco would have held him. They let him go only because they want to stick it to ICE.
Well yes, of course that was the reason. But having a reason doesn't make it criminal obstruction or aiding a fugitive.
Take anti-vaxxers, for example. Medical psychologists have found that they resist the approach based on showing there is nothing wrong with vaccines.
Instead, the anti-vaxxers were given a lot of information about how bad measles can be for their children. This was found to be a much more effective approach.
Hm, I'm not sure how well that would work given that it isn't a single compartmentalized issue, nor is it as simple a cause-and-effect. How would one go about it? I'm also still left questioning how much responsibility there is to put the effort into delusional parties when the same effort spent on apathetic parties could do more to help the country.
Unaccountable secret agents who track people down and wisk them and their children away to camps with not even the same standards and oversight of prisons because they're considered racially undesireable. The US seems to be pretty rapidly transition from the Weimar phase to the "we weren't told about camps" phase.
Grey Templar wrote: I don’t have the right to go live in Sweden, just like you don’t have the right to come live in the US. We could petition to become citizens and gain that right, but it’s not a default position.
You have the same right to live here as anyone else does. There's nothing mystical about this geographical position that only allows for certain people to live here. Not like the Finns only live in Finland because they're magically repelled by the border line, like someone hit a tennis ball against a wall.
They are under the jurisdiction of and are accountable to DHS. Not every agency reports directly to congress,."you guys" are trying to pretend they are some rogue agency doing whatever they want and reporting to noone and thats just not true.
thekingofkings wrote: "you guys" are trying to pretend they are some rogue agency doing whatever they want and reporting to noone and thats just not true.
Well, being a government employee who's had ot deal with them, yes. While they might not be answerable to congress, they most certainly are answerable to courts. Or should be, but DHS has refused to reign them in, no matter what judges rule.
If by 'you guys' you mean those of us who keep YOUR personal data private, yes, we do think that of them, what with demanding information that can only be released by A) act of Congress or B) a warrant, they can go fly a kite until I see one of those two things.
thekingofkings wrote: "you guys" are trying to pretend they are some rogue agency doing whatever they want and reporting to noone and thats just not true.
Well, being a government employee who's had ot deal with them, yes. While they might not be answerable to congress, they most certainly are answerable to courts. Or should be, but DHS has refused to reign them in, no matter what judges rule.
If by 'you guys' you mean those of us who keep YOUR personal data private, yes, we do think that of them, what with demanding information that can only be released by A) act of Congress or B) a warrant, they can go fly a kite until I see one of those two things.
By "you guys" I mean folks on the thread. I rely on the Chinese to safeguard my data since the OPM has done such a wonderful job of protecting it so far.
Grey Templar wrote:The real threat from illegals is the unknown. They haven’t been screened by immigration to ensure they aren’t a security threat. Illegals provide cover for the smuggling of drugs and other illicit items into the country. And frankly it’s surprising we haven’t had any terrorists and other terrorist related stuff get smuggled across down there.
Doesn't the same apply to every US citizen too? Every one of them could be an unknown threat. Or were you all screened and confirmed to not be a security threat to the US? What makes US citizen so special that they can't commit those (or other) crimes? Shouldn't all of them be screened? You know, just to be on the safe side as you seem to be very concerned about security and terrorism.
Da Boss wrote: Trumps behaviour at the G7 is fething unacceptable. I hope we treat the US with the same contempt it has shown us, in future.
No, treat TRUMP that way, please. The rest of us don't deserve it.
Elections have consequences. I've said it before, the US cannot survive without the rest of the world, but the rest of the world can survive without the US, and that's a lesson that some people need to learn.
By "you guys" I mean folks on the thread. I rely on the Chinese to safeguard my data since the OPM has done such a wonderful job of protecting it so far.
Oh, you think I'm with OPM! ROFL.
I work for SSA. Believe me, we know more about you than OPM would ever, in it's wildest dreams, know about you, your children, your parents, grand parents, great gransparents, if you've had a job in the US, we know about you.
Our office has never had a breach. Because you'd have to physically get in here. 300 feet under ground, with armed round the clock security. and one big assed door. A Vault Tech, eat your heart out, big assed door, that can take a direct 10 megaton hit.
By "you guys" I mean folks on the thread. I rely on the Chinese to safeguard my data since the OPM has done such a wonderful job of protecting it so far.
Oh, you think I'm with OPM! ROFL.
I work for SSA. Believe me, we know more about you than OPM would ever, in it's wildest dreams, know about you, your children, your parents, grand parents, great gransparents, if you've had a job in the US, we know about you.
Our office has never had a breach. Because you'd have to physically get in here. 300 feet under ground, with armed round the clock security. and one big assed door. A Vault Tech, eat your heart out, big assed door, that can take a direct 10 megaton hit.[/quote
Didnt know who you worked for (really none of my business) but OPM are the folks who lost all my stuff (along with a LOT of other peoples)
Da Boss wrote: Trumps behaviour at the G7 is fething unacceptable. I hope we treat the US with the same contempt it has shown us, in future.
No, treat TRUMP that way, please. The rest of us don't deserve it.
Elections have consequences. I've said it before, the US cannot survive without the rest of the world, but the rest of the world can survive without the US, and that's a lesson that some people need to learn.
Part of me does hope that the next President's first international address is simply "So....shall we just pretend that didn't happen?" And almost everyone nods and looks relieved.
A significant chunk of the population elected Trump because he promised that “feth you world, ‘Murica forever” would be his foreign policy. So we are really getting what he promised.
Da Boss wrote: Trumps behaviour at the G7 is fething unacceptable. I hope we treat the US with the same contempt it has shown us, in future.
No, treat TRUMP that way, please. The rest of us don't deserve it.
Elections have consequences. I've said it before, the US cannot survive without the rest of the world, but the rest of the world can survive without the US, and that's a lesson that some people need to learn.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't believe it is necessary to bring the western world crashing down to convince Trumpists that they are wrong, and actually I"m not sure they wouldn't find a way to blame someone else when it happened.
For now, concentrate on the mid-term elections. Then concentrate on stopping Trump from a second term.
I'm optimistic about the long term impact, which certainly factors into my opinion. At any rate it's not so much about teaching the depusional but rather teaching the massive number of people who stayed home because this just wasn't important enough for them to spend a day of their time on.
I think you do have to think about the so-called "delusionals".
To ignore their concerns and win by mobilising the opposition will only entrench the divisive attitudes that seem to have gripped the USA in recent decades.
I'm not saying you should give in to them, but I think you do have to engage with them and try to persuade them that their ideas are not working.
You have to reach out and persuade people who think climate change is a swizz, or that the Laffer Curve works, or that trickle-down economics make the poor better off.
It shouldn't be too hard to get these points over because reality increasingly obviously is on your side. But it's a potentially humiliating climb-down for a lot of people who need to un-nail their colours from those various masts. You can help get them through that by not trying to humiliate them.
I mean these people are often accused of being stupid, but they aren't stupid. They've got something else pushing their views, and part of it probably is resentment at the way the the other side talks about them.
It's been tried. A lot. Sometimes in a poorly done snarky way sometimes in an honest try-to-help-the-country way. It hasn't worked, and more than that it has shown no signs that it will. At some point one needs to recognize that effort is better spent on people willing to be convinced. The nature of delusion is that their opinion is not logically based on the evidence at hand, meaning that trying to appeal using the evidence at hand is an uphill battle from the start. Look at certain posters in this thread that have had the same concepts broken down for them repeatedly yet they simply refuse to change their position. In face of that it's irresponsible NOT to focus on other people.
This is something that the Democratic party has been questioning for awhile. Clinton's (Hillary and Bill's) approach was to be moderate and hopefully get some swing republicans. But looking at the some of the primaries, the democrats look to stop trying to convince moderate republicans (because its looking more like they will vote R regardless) and try to actually please their base. Its hard for democrats to be willing to compromise when the other side threw out the rulebook (Full obstruction during the Obama years, SCOTUS Nomination, Nunes blatant covering of possible Trump issues , etc.) We will see if this works.
) in both parties.
