Ice Queen Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 3 hours ago, WinterFox said: Let me say this. I had a frustrating evening and purposely went a little overboard to blow off some steam. But my very real issues with the current democratic leadership aside, I think Warren made a fool out of herself with this situation and demonstrated why she is not someone we need to keep around. The reading of Mrs. King's letter was a good political act. Dems have no power, and it could be a fun little talking point that not one Republican (inevitably) gave weight to it. Hell, maybe the willful disregard of such a notable source's decades old council could even make waves down the line should Sessions be a disaster. That's all good. But then McConnell doesn't even let her finish the letter!?! And nobody says a fucking word against him!?! WOW!!! Jackpot! The Republicans literally just told you they don't want to hear what the wife of an actual American icon said about a person subject to senate review. Not just that they don't care, but aren't even willing to listen. And what does Warren do? She tells us how surprised she is. Just how all the other Democrats are surprised at all of the nasty things the Republicans are allowing the world to see they stand for. Fuck that! This is who they are! Who they've been! Take 'em out to the woodshed for this crap. Don't act indignant, act enraged! Quit the session, demand press coverage, go all the way! Do something! Or tweet how you didn't see this coming. Do you think that if anyone else had done that the Reeps would have had a different reaction? No, their goal now is to silence and muzzle any dissent whatsoever. Give them time and their political opponents will start ending up dead in a gutter somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Request for the politicos here: Please point me to a reference where I can read up on what Bannon wants. (Many years ago, Cheney ran GWB, one could read the Project for a New American Century document. That’s what I’m after, or something like that.) It is important to me that the material is accurate. I’d like a presentation that Bannon would agree with, in the sense of saying, “yes, this does not misrepresent my position or motivation.” If you can furnish me with material that is critical, all the better. But if it’s from Bannon’s own side (or even his own hand): fine. I am not looking for an ill-willed presentation of his viewpoints. (Not because I find them uninteresting, but because such presentations have been easy to find and I need no more help.) A set of articles, a book, … I’m willing to invest a few hours of reading time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 http://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13222798/canadians-seeking-medical-care-us-trump-debate Quote Canada made a surprise appearance in a CNN health care debate between Senators Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz on Tuesday night. Cruz, claiming he knows a lot about Canada because he was born there, said Canadians leave their country in droves to seek out health care in the United States. This idea is often floated by critics of universal health care on both sides of the border. But the best-available research shows it’s simply not true. Canadians are not fleeing en masse to the US seeking medical care. There are "alternative facts" that people like Ted Cruz make up and then there are actual real facts. If they meet, it's pure coincidence. Moving on: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/immigrants-do-not-increase-crime-research-shows/ Quote In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump named victims who were reportedly killed by undocumented immigrants and said: “They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources…We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.” Now as president, he has signed executive orders that restrict entry of immigrants from seven countries into the U.S. and authorize the construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. He also signed an order to prioritize the removal of “criminal aliens” and withhold federal funding from “sanctuary cities.” But, what does research say about how immigration impacts crime in U.S. communities? We turned to our experts for answers. There are "Trump facts" and there are real facts. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/~/media/files/pubs/eppapers/17-1/the-great-recession-a-macroeconomic-earthquake.pdf Quote The Great Recession is having an enormous impact on macroeconomics as a discipline, in two ways. First, it is leading economists to reconsider two theories that had largely been discredited or neglected. Second, it has led the profession to find ways to incorporate the financial sector into macroeconomic theory. Quote The Great Recession has had a second important effect on the practice of macroeconomics. Before the Great Recession, there was a consensus among professional macroeconomists that dysfunction in the financial sector could safely be ignored by macroeconomic theory. Somebody got a little too carried away with the math and ignored history. I think the bellman equation is cool too, but let's not over do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 27 minutes ago, Happy Ent said: Request for the politicos here: Please point me to a reference where I can read up on what Bannon wants. (Many years ago, Cheney ran GWB, one could read the Project for a New American Century document. That’s what I’m after, or something like that.) It is important to me that the material is accurate. I’d like a presentation that Bannon would agree with, in the sense of saying, “yes, this does not misrepresent my position or motivation.” If you can furnish me with material that is critical, all the better. But if it’s from Bannon’s own side (or even his own hand): fine. I am not looking for an ill-willed presentation of his viewpoints. (Not because I find them uninteresting, but because such presentations have been easy to find and I need no more help.) A set of articles, a book, … I’m willing to invest a few hours of reading time. One article here. Another here. A third here. There is an article I'm looking for but having a hard time finding it. If this isn't what you're looking for, feel free to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 8 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: Now WTF? Senator Elizabeth Warren has been reprimanded and muzzled for reading the letter MLK's widow Coretta Scott King wrote about Jeff Sessions. http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8690414/elizabeth-warren-jeff-sessions-coretta-scott-king-hearing-mitch-mcconnell/ indirectly imputing a senator on the floor for conduct unbecoming is a violation of the rules (a bad rule imo) quoting someone else to impute Sessions is not an endaround, it's the definition of indirect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I've read that the book "The Fourth Turning" by by William Strauss and Neil Howe, which is described in Mexal's link below had a big impact on him. 17 minutes ago, Mexal said: Another here. Also, this Buzzfeed article has a transcript and a unedited audio of a talk by Skype to a " were part of a 50-minute Q&A during a conference focused on poverty hosted by the Human Dignity Institute that BuzzFeed News attended as part of its coverage of the rise of Europe’s religious right. " https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.vmYy7KWxv#.dpnR1lYB5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 The Independent is reporting that Trump approved the failed raid in Yemen because he was told "Obama wouldn't have the courage to go through with it". This raid failed to kill the main target, killed 30 civilians including an 8 year old girl, killed one Navy Seal and destroyed a $75m Osprey. From all reports, the Seals walked into a heavily fortified compound with terrible intelligence and had to fight their way through. And now Yemen has de-authorized all special forces operations on their soil. No idea on the truth as with all reporting given the anonymity of the sources but if true, ouch. Doesn't get much worse than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Just now, Mexal said: The Independent is reporting that Trump approved the failed raid in Yemen because he was told "Obama wouldn't have the courage to go through with it". This raid failed to kill the main target, killed 30 civilians including an 8 year old girl, killed one Navy Seal and destroyed a $75m Osprey. From all reports, the Seals walked into a heavily fortified compound with terrible intelligence and had to fight their way through. And now Yemen has de-authorized all special forces operations on their soil. No idea on the truth as with all reporting given the anonymity of the sources but if true, ouch. Doesn't get much worse than that. It would seem, at a minimum, it would merit a lengthy congressional investigation. I mean Republicans love America so much, why wouldn't they be for it? That's what Benghazi was all about, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 22 minutes ago, Mexal said: The Independent is reporting that Trump approved the failed raid in Yemen because he was told "Obama wouldn't have the courage to go through with it". This raid failed to kill the main target, killed 30 civilians including an 8 year old girl, ~~~~snip~~~~ 13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: It would seem, at a minimum, it would merit a lengthy congressional investigation. I mean Republicans love America so much, why wouldn't they be for it? That's what Benghazi was all about, right? From the article linked above Quote it was later revealed an eight-year-old US citizen Nawr al Awlaki, daughter of American-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al Awlaki, was also killed in the raid. So, two US citizens were killed, one Navy Seal, and child. Remember when Trump said he would kill the children of terrorists? So, I guess that applies even if they are US citizens? Crap, I really don't know what to say about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Just now, Mexal said: One article here. Another here. A third here. There is an article I'm looking for but having a hard time finding it. If this isn't what you're looking for, feel free to ignore. What's described in that politico article is truly scary. It seems these guys basically want to repeal the Enlightenment and establish some kind of ethnically pure state with an aristocracy. Themselves being the aristocracy of course. I truly can not stand Theil. It's because of guys like him, I have a real low opinion of people that call themselves "libertarians". And Moldbug. What a creep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 39 minutes ago, Commodore said: indirectly imputing a senator on the floor for conduct unbecoming is a violation of the rules (a bad rule imo) quoting someone else to impute Sessions is not an endaround, it's the definition of indirect Pretty stupid rule when you're debating whether a sitting Senator should become an Attorney General (or any Cabinet position). If you're not allowed to use the words of someone who was directly affected by his actions, then might as well close down the debate and vote since dissent against him is clearly not allowed. That rule has also been selectively enforced like everything with these Republicans. Ted Cruz has called McConnell a liar on the Senate floor and was never censored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said: http://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13222798/canadians-seeking-medical-care-us-trump-debate There "alternative facts" that people like Ted Cruz make and then there are actually real facts. If they meet, it's pure coincidence. I didn't watch the debate, but the post-debate factor checks are not looking good for Cruz. Here's one example: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/health-care-debate-fact-check/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 46 minutes ago, Mexal said: The Independent is reporting that Trump approved the failed raid in Yemen because he was told "Obama wouldn't have the courage to go through with it". This raid failed to kill the main target, killed 30 civilians including an 8 year old girl, killed one Navy Seal and destroyed a $75m Osprey. From all reports, the Seals walked into a heavily fortified compound with terrible intelligence and had to fight their way through. And now Yemen has de-authorized all special forces operations on their soil. No idea on the truth as with all reporting given the anonymity of the sources but if true, ouch. Doesn't get much worse than that. But my friend, have you heard that KKKlinton personally told Benjamin Ghazi to kill Americans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 22 minutes ago, Mexal said: Pretty stupid rule when you're debating whether a sitting Senator should become an Attorney General (or any Cabinet position). If you're not allowed to use the words of someone who was directly affected by his actions, then might as well close down the debate and vote since dissent against him is clearly not allowed. That rule has also been selectively enforced like everything with these Republicans. Ted Cruz has called McConnell a liar on the Senate floor and was never censored. I think the issue is they were not discussing Sessions, but DeVos. Didn't this happen during the all nighter the Dem's did just be for the DeVos vote and the all nighter was to focus on DeVos? It sounds like McConnell used this rule to shut her up because the subject was to be DeVos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Just now, Nasty LongRider said: I think the issue is they were not discussing Sessions, but DeVos. Didn't this happen during the all nighter the Dem's did just be for the DeVos vote and the all night was to focus on DeVos? It sounds like McConnell used this rule to shut her up because the subject was to be DeVos. No, don't think so. It happened last night which was after the DeVos vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mexal said: No, don't think so. It happened last night which was after the DeVos vote. You're correct, my bad, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Wasn't the letter read into the record originally when he was up for the judgeship? If Warren was reading from the record, could that be a difference? And while Sessions is still technically a Senator, that protection shouldn't be a factor in this debate. And apparently another, male, Senator was able to read the letter in full without being stopped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Commodore said: indirectly imputing a senator on the floor for conduct unbecoming is a violation of the rules (a bad rule imo) quoting someone else to impute Sessions is not an endaround, it's the definition of indirect Yes, Commodore, we know the style of your bullshit, and Republican bullshit for that matter, just the way you quoted the authority Trump had to invoke his Muslim ban without mentioning the other laws that contradicted that side of the story. Every Parliament and legislature has similar rules, but this one is virtually never used, insults are hurled in the Senate without the rule ever being invoked. Marco Rubio called O'Connell a liar in 2015 without the rule ever being used. The Washington Post had to go back to 1979 to find a threat to use the rule. The use of the rule only stands up if it's a rule used all the time. In Canadian and British parliaments it's probably used a couple of times a year, not once in a half century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Here is another Senator reading the letter in full without anyone stopping him. The backlash last night must have been so much they decided not to fight it every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 V. interesting polling data from Chatham House. Whatever their leaders say, there is strong evidence Europeans support Trump's Muslim ban. https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.