U.S. Politics: "Trump Is Dumber Than A Bag Of Hair"

[ding-fries-are-done]

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Actually I was asking you if you had ever taken time to criticize and condemn Breitbart (or other far-right media) before today, since you seem so quick to criticize and condemn CNN.

Because in one case you have an established behavior that has been going on for a while (actually publishing the names of "leftists" who do "bad things", therefore exposing them to danger) while in the other you have the rumor that CNN threatened to publish a name.

 

No, that isn't what you asked at all. 

[Rippounet]

7 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

No, that isn't what you asked at all. 

It really is, though I have to admit it was poorly formulated. What I meant by "supporting [her] freedom of expression" was "not being singled out by a national news organisation that would publish her name and location for everyone to know."

I'm aware this isn't exactly the same thing (one might argue that Emily Lance was willing to get the publicity, though I personally doubt it). But since CNN's behavior is denounced for possibly endangering someone, or threatening to endanger someone, I think it would be nice to keep in mind what the far-right media does on a daily basis.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

He doesn't even have any specific demands, he opposes the underlying structure and goals of the bill. He also said he wants a 60 vote threshold on the bill and any amendments, which is a bridge further than anyone has gone as far as I know (Collins has said she wants bipartisanship but hasn't said exactly what that means to her).

It's actually a really smart strategy because (1) there is no way to craft a bill that can be successful and popular without bipartisan buy in, (2) Republicans can try to blame Democrats if the bill turns out to not be effective public policy and (3) if the Democrats try to filibuster a bill, Republicans can paint them as obstructionists. 

[Week]

A significant outcome of the CNN story.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/white-house-if-cnn-bashes-trump-trump-may-block-merger.html

Quote

White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president’s animus toward CNN remains a wild card. [my emphasis]

This detail is buried 12 paragraphs into a feature on CNN’s combative relationship with Trump. Which is bizarre, given that it’s an open confession of corruption by a senior White House official. It hardly matters whether the administration follows through on its threat: The White House is extorting a news network in the pages of the New York Times. The fact that this didn’t strike the paper as headline material is a testament to how thoroughly Trump has already succeeded in eroding our expectations for good governance.

 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

But since CNN's behavior is denounced for possibly endangering someone, or threatening to endanger someone, I think it would be nice to keep in mind what the far-right media does on a daily basis.

The article gives a bit of this too -- 

Quote

Kaczynski declined to reveal the figure’s identity, but suggested that he retained the right to do so, if the shit-poster resumed his “ugly behavior on social media.”

That threat did not sit well with the alt-right, who saw it as an attempt to restrict free speech through intimidation. Thus, some Trumpists decided to express their principled opposition to such intimidation, by threatening to kill Kaczynski and his family. As BuzzFeed reports:

For now, according to a source with knowledge of the situation, Kaczynski and his family are the subject of an ongoing harassment campaign that includes the publication of personal information and death threats. And earlier today, the pro-Trump social media personality Michael Cernovich announced a protest outside Kaczynski’s New York home.

The White House is openly threatening to punish a (barely) adversarial outlet through selective regulatory enforcement. White nationalist Trump supporters are threatening to kill investigative reporters and assembling outside their homes.

Donald Trump has been president for less than six months.

/smh

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Zombie Protesters Descend on Hamburg for G20 Summit...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/06/europe/g20-zombies-protest/index.html

 

/Kinda cool little protest/art dealie

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's actually a really smart strategy because (1) there is no way to craft a bill that can be successful and popular without bipartisan buy in, (2) Republicans can try to blame Democrats if the bill turns out to not be effective public policy and (3) if the Democrats try to filibuster a bill, Republicans can paint them as obstructionists. 

The flipside of course is that you end with up with a bill that at least mainstream Democrats are fine with, which is anathema to conservative policy and thinking these days. Or you end up at point (3), but as the past eight years have shown, there is no political downside to being labeled obstructionist; especially if the other party controls everything.

I suspect Moran is hoping that calling for bipartisanship (if enough senators do it) will led to some sort of commission with various reporting deadlines and bury the issue for at least a couple years; maybe forever. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/6/2017 at 9:56 AM, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Continuing in my role of synthetic conservative^tm (this is fun),

LOL.

I just wanted to be clear, that I wasn’t accusing you or calling you that. I understand that you were just presenting what the other side might say, combining and summarizing many of their arguments, not that you believed or advocated those arguments yourself.

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/5/2017 at 3:24 PM, Ormond said:

This is very interesting to me. The way I personally react to the words, I think of someone who says they are "progressive" as being further to the left than someone who says they are "liberal."

Maybe. But, that's not my general impression of what happened. It seems to me that Democratic politicians generally started calling themselves "progressive" rather than the dreaded "liberal", which I think conservatives were successful in making in a dirty word.

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/5/2017 at 7:48 PM, Dr. Pepper said:

What the fuck is Rahm Emanuel thinking?  

Starting with the 2020 graduating class, Chicago Public Schools will withhold diplomas from students who do not have a job, college acceptance, enrolment in a gap year program, or enlistment in the military.  Sure, in theory this is a swell idea but it doesn't appear to also come with a massive injection of money in the entire educational system.  Or social safety nets.  Or health care.  Or the economy

http://jezebel.com/chicago-will-withhold-high-school-diplomas-unless-stude-1796638840

 

Agree this is a terrible idea by Emanuel.

If Rahm wants to increase people's employment or educational prospects, then fine. But, work on those things. This is a dumb way to go about things.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL.

I just wanted to be clear, that I wasn’t accusing you or calling you that. I understand that you were just presenting what the other side might say, combining and summarizing many of their arguments, not that you believed or advocated those arguments yourself.

I appreciate this   While I am almost certainly right of you on the spectrum, I like to try to be (1) logically and internally consistent, (2) realistic about the real world, (3) cognizant of macro impacts and (4) someone with an ethical compass.  Oh, and contrary to popular belief and/or opposing counsel, I have both a heart and a conscience.   

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Fez said:

Old news. Cruz was floating that idea early last week and wasn't getting any traction than either. Vox and other news sites more keyed in than The Hill were reporting it. The problem is that it doesn't address the underlying issues the moderates have, which are mostly related to the Medicaid cuts.

The Hill, and basically any source I can think of, was reporting it last week as well.  The new news this week is (1) they have sent two version of the bill to the CBO, one with the Cruz amendment and one without it; (2) Meadows (House Freedom Caucus chair) now says he can support a bill with the Cruz amendment; and (3) apparently enough moderates are open to it that it could save the bill.  Like I said, not really I sure about that last one - guess they're using Portman's statement as a basis - but none of this was the case last week.

[mcbigski]

On 7/5/2017 at 11:57 AM, Zorral said:

These people are just waiting -- itching -- for someone to give them the signal to begin the killing.  The reason or no reason at all, they do not care. They just want to explode in unrestrained, unpunished violence.  It's a hormonal meme and they feed it among each other.  It gets stronger every day.

It has been over a week since the Scalise shooting.  Sounds like classic case of projection here to me.

On 7/5/2017 at 2:26 PM, OldGimletEye said:

LOL.

I recall telling some conservative sorts of people that I was liberal and then looking at the expressions on their faces. You weren't suppose to admit to being a liberal. You were supposed to say "progressive".

From the conservative point of view?  I dont think they thought you should say Progressive.  I thought that sort of conformity was driven by the left on which one is preferred usage for branding reasons and real conservatives would just see either term as synonymous masks for pinko.

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/6/2017 at 5:01 PM, mcbigski said:

From the conservative point of view?  I dont think they thought you should say Progressive.  I thought that sort of conformity was driven by the left on which one is preferred usage for branding reasons and real conservatives would just see either term as synonymous masks for pinko.

LOL. Yes, I can really see how conservatives allow diversity in thought, with them always saying who and who isn't a "true conservative".

And what conservatives would call a "pinko" many would call part of the reality based community.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL. Yes, I can really see how conservatives allow diversity in thought, with them always saying who and who isn't a "true conservative".

And what conservatives would call a "pinko" many would call part of the reality based community.

Right.  Because I am far to the right of center of many on the board.  But am probably a pinko as defined by a definitional "true conservative."

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

The flipside of course is that you end with up with a bill that at least mainstream Democrats are fine with, which is anathema to conservative policy and thinking these days. Or you end up at point (3), but as the past eight years have shown, there is no political downside to being labeled obstructionist; especially if the other party controls everything.

I suspect Moran is hoping that calling for bipartisanship (if enough senators do it) will led to some sort of commission with various reporting deadlines and bury the issue for at least a couple years; maybe forever. 

Fair point in the first paragraph. As to the bolded, I suspect that if the Republicans can't pass anything, they'll just have to accept that the ACA is the law of the land, make some minor tweaks and try to spin it as a win. The other two possible outcomes are to either do nothing and let the ACA fall apart to some extent or pass some Trojan horse way of destroying it like the Cruz Amendment. Either way, it will be interesting to see it unfold, except for the part where none of us get better healthcare......

[DMC]

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I suspect that if the Republicans can't pass anything, they'll just have to accept that the ACA is the law of the land, make some minor tweaks and try to spin it as a win. The other two possible outcomes are to either do nothing and let the ACA fall apart to some extent or pass some Trojan horse way of destroying it like the Cruz Amendment. Either way, it will be interesting to see it unfold, except for the part where none of us get better healthcare......

McConnell has been consistently adamant throughout, including today, that they need to do something to fix the markets.  Whether he can get enough of his caucus on board to work with Dems - not to mention actually work out a bipartisan compromise - in the event they can't get a GOP bill passed, however, is something I'll believe when I see.

[Martell Spy]

18 states, consumer groups sue DeVos over delay of student loan protections
The lawsuits accuse DeVos of illegally delaying the regulations aimed at predatory colleges.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/06/18-states-sue-devos-over-delay-of-student-loan-protections-240260

[mcbigski]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL. Yes, I can really see how conservatives allow diversity in thought, with them always saying who and who isn't a "true conservative".

And what conservatives would call a "pinko" many would call part of the reality based community.

Inelegant phrasing.  By that sort of conformity I meant only as far as preferring Progressive as a label over Liberal.  IE that's mostly a distinction without a difference to one on the right but lefties seem to find it more significant and are thus far more likely to police it in my experience.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Inelegant phrasing.  By that sort of conformity I meant only as far as preferring Progressive as a label over Liberal.  IE that's mostly a distinction without a difference to one on the right but lefties seem to find it more significant and are thus far more likely to police it in my experience.

Liberal is used far more frequently as a perjorative than progressive. For instance, the phrase 'progressive agenda' isn't nearly as marked with negative views as, say, 'liberal agenda' is .

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Liberal is used far more frequently as a perjorative than progressive. For instance, the phrase 'progressive agenda' isn't nearly as marked with negative views as, say, 'liberal agenda' is .

Give it some time.