US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

It's hard to say with Trump. It almost seems like a psychological crutch for Trump. He wants to portray an image of Macho Alpha Male-ness and all these military guys gives an image of Macho-Alpha-Male-ness.

I mean, Mattis talked Trump down from torture, so it can't be all that bad.

Oh I agree. I think Mattis and Kelly will probably both be effective and competent at their jobs. Flynn is dangerously crazy, but they can probably neutralize him for the most. And Petraeus has made some bad mistakes, but if he is nominated for State I think he'll do a perfectly fine job too. I don't think these guys will conspire to launch a coup or allow Trump to use the military in unconstitutional ways. My concern is that this normalizes the idea of having more and more retired generals and other former military personnel in the top ranks of the government in future administrations and at some point we do end up with folks who want to make some changes.

And even if that never happens, its also not good if things simply reach the point where the viewpoints of retired generals are crowding out everyone else's when top level decisions are being made.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

And Petraeus has made some bad mistakes, but if he is nominated for State I think he'll do a perfectly fine job too.

Hopefully it's Petraeus and not Bolton. Though pointing out the hypocrisy about information security would be fun.

[TheKitttenGuard]

This is very good news:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/keith-ellison-congress-seat-dnc-chair-232313

Ellison pledge to leave his seat if he is voted DNC chair.

Will be very pleased if Ellison can prevail.

[Fragile Bird]

Can someone please explain to me the fascination Americans have with calculating how many counties voted which way?  I am throwing up in my mouth every time I see some ass quote the misinformation about Clinton winning only 53 counties out of 3000 whatever it is.  Is there a final number yet?

[Guy Kilmore]

18 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Can someone please explain to me the fascination Americans have with calculating how many counties voted which way?  I am throwing up in my mouth every time I see some ass quote the misinformation about Clinton winning only 53 counties out of 3000 whatever it is.  Is there a final number yet?

It is just another way to either make someone seem like they have won a ton or won a little, it is a number manipulation.  Also, it is a highlight of the Rural/Urban divide.  Most Large Cities take up only a small number of counties, where as the rural area of states cover more land and, ergo, are broken up in more Counties.

[Frog Eater]

27 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Can someone please explain to me the fascination Americans have with calculating how many counties voted which way?  I am throwing up in my mouth every time I see some ass quote the misinformation about Clinton winning only 53 counties out of 3000 whatever it is.  Is there a final number yet?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trending-story-clinton-won-just-57-counties-untrue/

Clinton won 487 counties vs Trump wining 2626

 

[The Wedge]

14 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trending-story-clinton-won-just-57-counties-untrue/

Clinton won 487 counties vs Trump wining 2626

This is a red herring and always will be unless people are somehow miraculously equally distributed into each county.

Example: Cook County, Illinois with its millions of residents is one county.  Many downstate Illinois counties have populations less than ten thousand, yet each is "one county" that gets counted in this kind of post-election let's-see-how-red-the-map-is blather.

 

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, The Wedge said:

This is a red herring and always will be unless people are somehow miraculously equally distributed into each county.

Example: Cook County, Illinois with its millions of residents is one county.  Many downstate Illinois counties have populations less than ten thousand, yet each is "one county" that gets counted in this kind of post-election let's-see-how-red-the-map-is blather.

 

It does have value in that shows how geographically clustered Democrats are, which is important for redistricting purposes. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Look's like Trump's EPA Director nominee is in:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html

[Ice Queen]

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

It does have value in that shows how geographically clustered Democrats are, which is important for redistricting purposes. 

There's another way to look at that. Gerrymandering forces them into the same voting districts so they lose their voting clout in areas with more Republicans. So their votes are essentially wasted. 

 

[Commodore]

Trump knocked it out of the park with that EPA nominee

[The Anti-Targ]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Look's like Trump's EPA Director nominee is in:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html

Sell your coastal properties people.

[Dr. Pepper]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Look's like Trump's EPA Director nominee is in:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html

Aaaaannnnnd shit continues to get worse.

Seriously, I simply cannot understand why conservatives care so little for their children or other future generations.  It's unfathomable to me.  This whole "let's destroy everything as much as possible so that I personally can enjoy some luxury right now in this moment" is completely and utterly alien to me.  

[The Anti-Targ]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Aaaaannnnnd shit continues to get worse.

Seriously, I simply cannot understand why conservatives care so little for their children or other future generations.  It's unfathomable to me.  This whole "let's destroy everything as much as possible so that I personally can enjoy some luxury right now in this moment" is completely and utterly alien to me.  

Climate change is a hoax. Remember the voter base: a lot of people who believe the universe is only 10,000 years old. Therefore evidence of climate change from environmental samples and climate data dating back hundreds of thousands of years is by definition false, as the Earth did not exist hundreds of thousands of years ago. And obviously so-called "fossil" fuels were not put there by the slow accumulation and transformation of millions of years ancient organic matter. It was placed there by God for us to extract and use it. So really, opposing fossil fuels is opposing God's will.

While they may be 100% wrong about everything, at least they are internally consistent with their own logic. If there are people opposing climate change mitigations and support increased use of fossil fuels who actually know climate change is happening and humans are a substantial cause, well I just don't know how they square this away.

[Swordfish]

Blackman writes a good piece about informal executive action...

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2016/12/06/the-problem-with-information-executive-action/

Quote

What a bizarre position for defenders of “government by blog post.” One minute, they are celebrating judicial deference to agency letters. But if the Trump administration issues a new letter, they will have to argue that it is not entitled to deference. 

Everyone should have seen this coming....

[OldGimletEye]

I'm thinkin now, that maybe I should get in on the fake news bonanza.

It looks like I'm gonna need the money for some really good air conditioning and sun tan lotion. It's gonna be a hot one.

I already sweat enough without any excessive heat. If I have to be inconvenienced with some extra perspiration, then surely conservatives can undergo the inconvenience of finding out that the penis enhancement pills they bought don't work.

[SerHaHa]

Strange that the left always throws out the "but it's to protect our children's future" when they want their way regarding any issue, yet are perfectly fine with the wholesale slaughter of children by the buckets - which oddly enough is where their remains end up after "procedures". 

Re Trump as Time's Person of the year - Titled him as the president of "The Divided States of America".  Funny how that now that the left doesn't have power any longer, that all of a sudden they've decided to realize this fact.  Had Hilary won, and been declared person of the year, do you think she would have been given the same title, president of the "Divided states".  I doubt it.  Yet, with the shoe now firmly on the other foot - at last - the left can't stop pointing out how divided we all are.  News flash, we were just as divided before the election, and in the 8 years since the last change in power, as we are now, and will be for the foreseeable future.  I guess it's ok to assign the blame for this division to Trump though, as if it didn't exist until he came along or something.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Strange that the left always throws out the "but it's to protect our children's future" when they want their way regarding any issue, yet are perfectly fine with the wholesale slaughter of children by the buckets - which oddly enough is where their remains end up after "procedures". 

Yep, I'm fine with killing some unborn. Apparently you're cool with the extinction of all of humanity. Glad we had this talk. 

6 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Re Trump as Time's Person of the year - Titled him as the president of "The Divided States of America".  Funny how that now that the left doesn't have power any longer, that all of a sudden they've decided to realize this fact.  Had Hilary won, and been declared person of the year, do you think she would have been given the same title, president of the "Divided states".  I doubt it. 

I think it would have turned out that way regardless. People have been noticing the divide for a long time, and it only grew in the Obama administration with Republicans refusing to do any kind of compromise - and getting entirely rewarded for it. 

6 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Yet, with the shoe now firmly on the other foot - at last - the left can't stop pointing out how divided we all are.  News flash, we were just as divided before the election, and in the 8 years since the last change in power, as we are now, and will be for the foreseeable future.  I guess it's ok to assign the blame for this division to Trump though, as if it didn't exist until he came along or something.

Trump wasn't responsible for the divide. He was responsible for running on it as a primary motivation for his candidacy. 

[SerHaHa]

Quote

Apparently you're cool with the extinction of all of humanity. Glad we had this talk.

No, just cool with the extinction of those who prey on the defenseless for their own convenience.

The Right now has the political power, and resolve, to do something about that now.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

No, just cool with the extinction of those who prey on the defenseless for their own convenience.

The Right now has the political power, and resolve, to do something about that now.

They don't, actually. Of the things they want to do, killing Roe v Wade would be incredibly difficult, even with another SC nom. If that is your real hope, good luck with it. It isn't something they can do even with full congressional support.