Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
We hadn't his Birth Certificate Revea, with Trump attending, to the theme of Hulk Hogan. We had his "angry black guy" speech, his Lion King "born in Africa" birth video. He always rolled with the punches.
Boy... the DNC is making the "this was a one-term president" a patriotic slogan again.
Remember during the Obama Administration when hoping the President failed, and thus working to make him a one term President, was "treason" and "unpatriotic"?
Sad to see these folks going down the same path that the Republicans went down, where the worst thing that could happen is that the President does something good for the American people, because it would go against their predetermined position that the President is the worst guy to ever get elected.
The problem (and treason) wasn't that they were trying to make him a one term President, but the part where whey were hoping that he failed.
Difference is we know Trump is a failed President and hoping he's just a one term one. Still hope that America comes out better than before.
I've never thought the president should go to the White House correspondent's dinner. It's been bad form since it started.
The press is supposed to have a working relationship with the President, and it's already bad enough that it's general unavoidable that favorable coverage guarantees continued access (as a general principle). There is no real reason to hold an event where the press fraternizes with a guy they should be investigating and keeping honest. In the great scheme of things, it's not a big deal either way, but if this ends the tradition of the President attending, I'd consider it a net positive.
Of course, it's possible to feel that way and still point out that Trump is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. He's not avoiding the journalists senior prom because it's an important principle to keep a professional distance in the interest of keeping the media honest, he's doing it because President Whiner is a big orange baby, and he knows they will hurt his feelings if he goes - he was able to pay the comedians at his roast to avoid topics, but he won't be able to do so here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/26 18:44:37
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: I've never thought the president should go to the White House correspondent's dinner. It's been bad form since it started.
The press is supposed to have a working relationship with the President, and it's already bad enough that it's general unavoidable that favorable coverage guarantees continued access (as a general principle). There is no real reason to hold an event where the press fraternizes with a guy they should be investigating and keeping honest. In the great scheme of things, it's not a big deal either way, but if this ends the tradition of the President attending, I'd consider it a net positive.
On the other hand, the president attending can be a sign that, although these people are often critical of them and are scrutinizing their every move, the president recognises the important role they play and that there are no hard feelings and at the end of the day, everyone is doing their jobs.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ouze wrote: I've never thought the president should go to the White House correspondent's dinner. It's been bad form since it started.
The press is supposed to have a working relationship with the President, and it's already bad enough that it's general unavoidable that favorable coverage guarantees continued access (as a general principle). There is no real reason to hold an event where the press fraternizes with a guy they should be investigating and keeping honest. In the great scheme of things, it's not a big deal either way, but if this ends the tradition of the President attending, I'd consider it a net positive.
On the other hand, the president attending can be a sign that, although these people are often critical of them and are scrutinizing their every move, the president recognises the important role they play and that there are no hard feelings and at the end of the day, everyone is doing their jobs.
This is my perspective. It's a reminder to everyone that the president will be grilled over all sorts of things in his term and it's important not to take it too personally. There is honest criticism and rabid partisan bias, and this is reinforces the idea that they often come in the same form from the same sources; it's important for us all to seperately what from what.
Ouze wrote: I've never thought the president should go to the White House correspondent's dinner. It's been bad form since it started.
The press is supposed to have a working relationship with the President, and it's already bad enough that it's general unavoidable that favorable coverage guarantees continued access (as a general principle). There is no real reason to hold an event where the press fraternizes with a guy they should be investigating and keeping honest. In the great scheme of things, it's not a big deal either way, but if this ends the tradition of the President attending, I'd consider it a net positive.
On the other hand, the president attending can be a sign that, although these people are often critical of them and are scrutinizing their every move, the president recognises the important role they play and that there are no hard feelings and at the end of the day, everyone is doing their jobs.
This is my perspective. It's a reminder to everyone that the president will be grilled over all sorts of things in his term and it's important not to take it too personally. There is honest criticism and rabid partisan bias, and this is reinforces the idea that they often come in the same form from the same sources; it's important for us all to seperately what from what.
Makes me wonder how my candidate would have handled it had he won.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer recently checked his aides' cell phones to ensure they weren't communicating with reporters as part of an aggressive effort to stem the recent tide of White House leaks.
Spicer called staff into his office last week to reiterate his frustration with the leaks, sources with knowledge of the matter said. He informed them that the use of encrypted texting apps, like Signal and Confide, was a violation of the Federal Records Act.
Has he told Trump that deleting his tweets is a violation of the Federal Records Act as well?
Then, with White House counsel Don McGahn standing by, Spicer asked his staff to provide him with their cell phones so he could ensure they were not using those apps or corresponding privately with reporters.
Spicer asked to review both his staff's government-issued and personal cell phones, the sources said.
Because that's totally normal.
He also specifically asked his staff not to leak information about the meeting or his efforts to crack down on leaks to the media, one source said.
whembly wrote: Not really. None of my desired Presidential candidates won.
'Tis why is fun to be in Calvin-Ball mode.
What does this even mean?
(Apart from being one of the spaces in the: whembly US-politics bingo.)
Uh... the fact that none of the candidates that I supported in the Primary won... thus, me not voting for Trumpo in the election.
So... zero feths given.
Giving zero feths about who is in executive control of your country just because it isn't someone you wanted is just plain dumb.
That's something one can do if the governmental changes don't affect you much. For the people whose lives are negatively affected by Trump's policies, it's not really an option. There's a reason why so many people are angry about the possibility of losing the ACA under Trump at town hall meetings all over the US.
Rosebuddy wrote:It is perfectly accurate to say that Perez was given the position over Ellison to prevent the Democratic Party from moving leftwards at all.
Yup, the people in power (in the Democratic party) would rather stay in power inside the party (and have a harder time getting into governmental power) than try to revitalise the party by addressing the poor and working class better or even acknowledge that arguments from further left could be sensible.
That's why the majority of Democrats voted for Hillary, not Sanders.
They will probably adjust the platform to address concerns of the left while remaining mostly a center-left party. Hillary lost because people she ran a horrible campaign and didnt excite a lot of people, but not because she was a center-left candidate.
On Wednesday, Rousso arrived at Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport after an 11-hour flight from Paris, en route to Texas A&M University in College Station. There, he was to speak Friday afternoon at the Hagler Institute for Advanced Study.
But things did not go according to plan: Rousso — an Egyptian-born French citizen — was “mistakenly detained” by U.S. immigration authorities, according to Richard Golsan, director of the Glasscock Center for Humanities Research at Texas A&M.
“When he called me with this news two nights ago, he was waiting for customs officials to send him back to Paris as an illegal alien on the first flight out,”
whembly wrote: Democrats are not "just the center". They're comfortably in the left, just as the GOP are comfortably in the right.
DW-Nominate is a measure on the liberal-conservative scale based on legislative roll-call voting behavior:
You've posted that before, but that graph doesn't really show anything other than that both parties are far apart. It's shows the relitive left-right split, but not the actual one. Include, say the UK, Germnay, France, Denmark, and Sweden on that graph and you might have an accurate analysis.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: Democrats are not "just the center". They're comfortably in the left, just as the GOP are comfortably in the right.
DW-Nominate is a measure on the liberal-conservative scale based on legislative roll-call voting behavior:
You've posted that before, but that graph doesn't really show anything other than that both parties are far apart. It's shows the relitive left-right split, but not the actual one. Include, say the UK, Germnay, France, Denmark, and Sweden on that graph and you might have an accurate analysis.
No... I wouldn't include any other countries.
This chart is useful in the sense that it's what Congress critters voted on...
It's not perfect since Congress critters don't always vote for ideological reasons (horse trading, etc...). But, it's still useful.
These conversations usually devolved into "hey, I'm the 'center'... everyone else is the extremist" This is nonsense. Everyone has an opinion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/26 23:58:04
Relative to the rest of the planet, someone like Sanders would be on the left side of center, Clinton a dead center, the US has no "Left" the way most other nations do in mainstream politics or actual office.
It is only relative to the GOP that any of them really appear all that "left". The US certainly has no meaningful "extreme" left in the public view that someone in say, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Russia or Italy would recognize as such.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
whembly wrote: No... I wouldn't include any other countries.
This chart is useful in the sense that it's what Congress critters voted on...
It's not perfect since Congress critters don't always vote for ideological reasons (horse trading, etc...). But, it's still useful.
These conversations usually devolved into "hey, I'm the 'center'... everyone else is the extremist" This is nonsense. Everyone has an opinion.
Which is the whole reason that the chart is useless. It's like saying "Republicans are far-left" because you are comparing them to the nazis. All the chart shows is the relative left-right swing of the parties, which means both parties end up about the same distance apart.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: No... I wouldn't include any other countries.
This chart is useful in the sense that it's what Congress critters voted on...
It's not perfect since Congress critters don't always vote for ideological reasons (horse trading, etc...). But, it's still useful.
These conversations usually devolved into "hey, I'm the 'center'... everyone else is the extremist" This is nonsense. Everyone has an opinion.
Which is the whole reason that the chart is useless. It's like saying "Republicans are far-left" because you are comparing them to the nazis. All the chart shows is the relative left-right swing of the parties, which means both parties end up about the same distance apart.
It shows polarizations across the liberal-conservative spectrum based on the Congress critter's voting rolls. There's not a whole lotta moderates in both parties.
Vaktathi wrote: Relative to the rest of the planet, someone like Sanders would be on the left side of center, Clinton a dead center, the US has no "Left" the way most other nations do in mainstream politics or actual office.
It is only relative to the GOP that any of them really appear all that "left". The US certainly has no meaningful "extreme" left in the public view that someone in say, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Russia or Italy would recognize as such.
This is patently incorrect. Just because a plurality of the party has moved farther left doesn't make the people already on the left the new center, it just makes the OTHER people more left wing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 01:24:30
Relative to the rest of the planet, someone like Sanders would be on the left side of center, Clinton a dead center, the US has no "Left" the way most other nations do in mainstream politics or actual office.
It is only relative to the GOP that any of them really appear all that "left". The US certainly has no meaningful "extreme" left in the public view that someone in say, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Russia or Italy would recognize as such.
This is patently incorrect. Just because a plurality of the party has moved farther left doesn't make the people already on the left the new center, it just makes the OTHER people more left wing.
You missed a bit, I've highlighted it for you as you did for Vak.
Also, define centre without it being equally between in the middle of the left/right extremes
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 01:29:20
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Relative to the rest of the planet, someone like Sanders would be on the left side of center, Clinton a dead center, the US has no "Left" the way most other nations do in mainstream politics or actual office.
It is only relative to the GOP that any of them really appear all that "left". The US certainly has no meaningful "extreme" left in the public view that someone in say, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Russia or Italy would recognize as such.
This is patently incorrect. Just because a plurality of the party has moved farther left doesn't make the people already on the left the new center, it just makes the OTHER people more left wing.
You missed a bit, I've highlighted it for you as you did for Vak.
Dunno about that... Clinton did advocate to punish the movie directors making a critical movie about her after all... 'bout as far from center you could be...
whembly wrote: Dunno about that... Clinton did advocate to punish the movie directors making a critical movie about her after all... 'bout as far from center you could be...
What does that have to do with position on the left/right scale?
As for the graph, it's worthless. It's designed on the assumption that 0.0 is halfway between the centers of the two bell curves, so saying that it proves that the democrats are as far from center as the republicans is circular logic. For it to have any value you'd have to calibrate the left/right scale against an international average. And if you do that you'd find that the democrats peak somewhere a little left of center, maybe around 0.1 to 0.25 or so, while the republicans are off around 1-1.5.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 01:40:01
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Dunno about that... Clinton did advocate to punish the movie directors making a critical movie about her after all... 'bout as far from center you could be...
What does that have to do with position on the left/right scale?
Uh... a political candidate wanting to ban a political movie during an election? That's... and extreme position.
whembly wrote: Dunno about that... Clinton did advocate to punish the movie directors making a critical movie about her after all... 'bout as far from center you could be...
What does that have to do with position on the left/right scale?
Nothing. People on both the left and right are equally capable of being vengeful arseholes and Whembly knows that, too.
whembly wrote: Dunno about that... Clinton did advocate to punish the movie directors making a critical movie about her after all... 'bout as far from center you could be...
What does that have to do with position on the left/right scale?
Uh... a political candidate wanting to ban a political movie during an election? That's... and extreme position.
But it is not an extreme position to either the left or right. Stalin punished people who said things about him he didn't like. He is a left wing extremist. Hitler also punished those who said things he didn't like. He is a right wing extremist. Castro, Mussolini. Mao, Franco. And so on.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 01:41:24
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
