butterbumps!

Forum Moderators
  • Content count

    9,515
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About butterbumps!

  • Rank
    totally cromulent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. US Politics: Ask Fox News

    What's the virtue of the "state level" argument for something like this? I thought you had an issue with having to paying into a pool that offers services you don't plan to use. Isn't that still an issue at the state level, since we haven't organized into "breeders" vs "nonbreeders" by state? I know "leave it to the state" is a common refrain on the right for a number of issues, but why? (at least in cases where doing something federally would be most efficient?) As a second question, are the states -- usually red and "states rights"- leaning-- against taking federal money to help their states run? I guess my question is whether the "small federal government" people in many of these states understand that they don't pay federal taxes-- it's mostly the blue states that do-- and that they're actually receiving a ton of federal help? I suppose some do, but maybe resent having it contingent on conforming to federal standards/ regulations?
  2. US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

    I have a terrible, sinking suspicion these aren't going to be Donald Trump's returns, but another "Trump's" (one of his mouth-breather kids, a Trump organization return, etc etc).
  3. US Politics: Lock Him Up!

    Sorry I should have elaborated what I meant. I meant that Kushner is the one who's power hungry and with an ax to grind. He's also the one with an actual position in the administration (Ivanka doesn't. She's trotted out when they need a token, or to soften some gaffe). I don't know that Kushner would run for anything in his own right, or that if he did, it would be a success. But I think he's the one with the ambition to stay in politics or otherwise grab power in some capacity. and if any Trump is getting "groomed" I think it's him, by virtue of the 20,000 roles he's allegedly in charge of. Im also a little wary of assuming Repub would automatically flock to a Trump based on the current favorability ratings and how he did against Clinton. Outside of the rabid Trumpkin pop, I would imagine that most right-leaning voters would prefer a more established republican with real experience and without such a direct connection to the trump poison, wouldn't they? A Nikki Haley maybe?
  4. US Politics: Lock Him Up!

    Trump runs his businesses like a bloated mom and pop operation. She was at those meetings for family business, and because Trump seems to believe this family business model translates to running the country. And because these people are tone deaf and clueless. Is it so that she ends up in office, or because that's the stupid racket they've been running in terms of the Trump family business? She's always been portrayed as the softer, "voice of reason" Trump. Trump's been pretending to be the "in your face, hyper masculine super successful" businessman caricature for years, which captures a certain audience/ customer base, and Ivanka's been pretending to be the "having it all super successful competent businesswoman" to capture an additional customer base. Ivanka's line is literally self-described as a kind of "gateway" brand to the overall Trump empire. The idea was that women of means would start off buying Ivanka's crap, grow to love the Trump brand, which would lead into their families staying at the hotels, buying golf memberships, etc. The women in her target customer base tend to be fairly well off, educated and urban, which means they're probably not super socially conservative. Hence, her brand relies on a kind of anodyne, sort of Democratish-sounding messaging. I don't think her being a woman is nearly enough to overcome her being a Trump. ETA: it's Kushner you should be watching.
  5. US Politics: Lock Him Up!

    What leads you to believe one of his spawn will run for office, and who you believe their supporters would be? I also wonder if you might be giving Ivanka too much credit. She's been effective as a fig leaf for Trump; she enabled a bunch of already Republican-leaning white women to feel less shame voting for him by papering over his misogyny and roughness (which conversely loses her a lot a points with liberal women). But I'm not sure how much is really "there" in her own right. She comes across well (sometimes, and to some audiences) in relation to him; I don't know that people will clamor for her after this failed Trump experiment (I'm thinking the Trump name will be pretty done), and after her father is no longer around as a foil.
  6. US Politics: Everyone's Manipulating Everyone

    I thought it was exploitative too, and am baffled by what I see as Van Jone's over-the-top reaction. I'm actually really confused by the response of the mainstream media in general this morning (NYT, WaPo, etc). He merely read a fairly anodyne (yet contradictory and totally quixotic) speech off a teleprompter without soiling himself, while using human props. Why is the media falling over itself about how Trump is now "here to stay," "presidential now," "understanding gravity of the office," "two term material" (all my paraphrase)?
  7. US Politics: Everyone's Manipulating Everyone

    Most of America is fairly rural/ suburban. There aren't always a ton of ID centers or public transportation. Even if your town or city has bus access, it's not a sure bet that you will be serviced by it at both ends of your trip. You may not have a friend with a car who can make a trip to a potentially inconveniently located center, especially during business hours if that friend is holding a job. And there's a good chance that cycling there would be ludicrous. There might be a place to get food close by, but there might not be an ID location for miles. Outside of city centers, the country works a lot differently than I think you're envisioning. The Washington Post piece outlines some of the issues pretty well, and a google search will yield more explanation about this, such as how people get around this for job procurement and the like.
  8. US Politics: Everyone's Manipulating Everyone

    It sounds like this process was super easy for you for at least 2 major reasons: 1. you already had some form of ID that could be used to verify your identity and get a new card, and 2. you had an easy means of transportation to a location where you could obtain one. Consider what the process might be like for those without easy transportation to a center, who can't afford to take off work for a burdensome process (which it becomes depending on transportation options), and who lack any other form of ID to use to verify their identity to initiate the process. ETA: this WaPo article gives an overview of the challenges
  9. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    I think it depends on what kinds of sources you're looking at. The newspapers and straightforward articles don't always mention what you bolded beyond what Milo's said about it himself, but it comes up in some opinion and news analysis pieces. And I do think we can expect a long form bio piece on him from one of the leftist mags in the next few months. ETA: @The Anti-Targ I think that's kind of the point being made by the left. And how it's definitely not about "free speech" at all (if it was, then ostensibly there's no bridge too far, right?)
  10. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    Pretty much every source I've read on this acknowledges Milo as a victim. But why would the left (or anyone) focus on that aspect of this beyond simple acknowledgement that some victims try to normalize their abuse (which I've also seen pointed out, and that's the justification he's using himself), especially in the kind of news articles reporting on this? I guess are you looking for like a long form biography piece on Milo that humanizes him, looking at potentially formative events like this, explaining how he became an abusive troll piece of shit or something? I'm sure that will be in the Atlantic next month. I'm sorry, I'm a little unclear how this relates to what I'd written. Milo was specifically discussing 13 year old boys with men mid 20's and older. I'm not questioning why anyone, right or left, would be against sex with kids and teens. I was pointing out that the left has been expressing disgust that it took something like advocating sex with 13 year olds to stop the right from giving him a hate-speech platform.
  11. US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

    I wasn't aware that the left was being overly harsh about the pedophilia revelations specifically, but rather it has been expressing disgust that this is what crossed the line for the conservatives who were more than happy to help him spread his non-child sex abuse hate speech. It's the right that's shut him out over this. How do you think the left should be reacting? This is a case where he's both victim and victimizer. I guess I'm just unclear as to what you believe an appropriately sympathetic response from the left would be about this, especially because you agree that we have to take a hard line on his statements, which is what's generally happening.
  12. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    Well, for instance, BLM isn't really about economic injustice. I'm not sure that issues like the disproportionate targeting (and killing) of black people by cops is something that socialism addresses. But isn't the assumption of the need for anti-discrimination laws already acknowledging that the solution can't simply be economic? I'm not sure if you were thinking of AA as included in that assumption, but if not, would socialism correct for disproportionate favoritism of whites in hiring and salary? Beyond that, I'm not sure that the discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community is economic in that way; does socialism deter people from refusing service to this community (or deter the disproportionate violence committed against them)?
  13. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    I think the mistake you're making is in assuming that without things like AA, the world works as a meritocracy. That's not the way it works, though. It's far from a meritocracy, and that's exactly the problem. Even with identical or nearly identical qualifications, the wrong gender, or race, or other identity factor makes it far less likely one will get the job (not to mention the same pay). And it doesn't "just work out." Everyone doesn't start out at the same starting line. Some start out ahead of it, while others yards behind. The way AA works isn't about punishing the dominant class. It's simply about not giving them automatic preference and priority at the expense of others any longer.
  14. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    I thought he was emphasizing the assertion that this would be saving taxpayers money otherwise being wasted on idle positions. Because if he brought this up to show us that the Trump administration was "draining the swamp" of unnecessary expenses taxpayers finance as a triumph, he must surely be clutching his pearls over the egregious cost to taxpayers that is the personal habits of the first family. The Obamas spent an average of $12.1m per year on family travel. Trump has nearly exceeded that in the first month for his personal weekend travel, which doesn't include the $500,000/ day* cost of guarding Trump Tower (another $15m monthly in federal taxes), all the boondoggle foreign travel his kids choose to do, or the rent he's going to charge the Defense Dept for setting up in his building. I thought by electing a billionaire we were getting a president who'd have no need to fleece taxpayers. Sad! *I thought this was costing NYC $1m daily, per other reports. Does NYC split the cost with federal taxpayers?
  15. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    What part of what you quoted is of special note to you? That he's "shaking things up", and in so doing, saving taxpayers money that was otherwise wasted with giving people "idle roles"? ("They are being shifted now to new assignments," the aide said, noting that currently the employees do not have a principal official to staff. "The difference now is they are actually doing work. We think the American taxpayer will appreciate that.")