US Politics: Deep State Solution

[Sivin]

16 minutes ago, Relic said:

Look at Pence in this pic, seemingly so desperate to stay relevant. What a fucking tool.  His ugly ass suit, and those pants, make it look like he's trying to imitate 45's fashion style, too. Hilarious. 

That blue tie!!! I think I'm blind. I wish I were blind.

[Mexal]

Senate just confirmed Pruitt to the Head of EPA after the Republicans voted down a measure to extend the vote by several days so the emails that were ordered released by a judge showing Pruitt's ties to oil and gas companies could be vetted. I really wish I could not pay attention to the erosion of everything I believe in.

[The Wedge]

2 hours ago, Corvinus said:

I think the media should consider categorizing their news that comes out of the WH - rumors, facts etc.

For example this tweet, instead of saying BREAKING should say RUMOR ALERT.

They could get sponsors:

This White House Leak brought to you by Depends Undergarments. 

or

This White House Leak brought to you by AAAA Plumbing Services.

or

This White House Leak brought to you by leeks. Leeks: They're kind of like onions, but not really.

[Rippounet]

54 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think its fairly clear that this administration is far too incompetent to seriously undermine democratic institutions to that point.

On the contrary, it's wrong to assume you need much competence to weaken existing institutions (that's not what history teaches us).
And the Republican Party has already done much to undermine American elections (through a combination of gerrymandering and voter suppression laws).
There are several ways in which the Republicans can rig the next elections.

[Relic]

Just now, The Wedge said:

They could get sponsors:

This White House Leak brought to you by Depends Undergarments. 

or

This White House Leak brought to you by AAAA Plumbing Services.

or

This White House Leak brought to you by leeks. Leeks: They're kind of like onions, but not really.

Leaks brought to you by - Golden Showers. The best way to say I Love You.

http://www.davidaustinroses.com/eu/golden-showers

[Kalbear]

This is turning into a pretty good sled run

 

[Savannah]

From the previous, by Zorral I believe 

"Criticize the inequalities and violence in our own society directed toward our own citizens by so-called Christians.  This is something we can really do something about.

And as Kalbear said -- arguing in a political topic about whether Islam is the eviLest thing that ever happened and that Christians are the Greatest thing that ever happened, is a waste of all our time -- totally useless."

What does that rant have to do with anything? 

Now something completely different. Damn Pence looks hot in those pants. Yum! 

 

[Commodore]

44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Um

 

yep, Vox released it so the AP was forced to, and it's obvious why they were reluctant to

memo also confines NG role to undocumented immigrants who have committed other crimes

 

[Relic]

God bless America, and #GodBlessBoeing!!!!!

 

[Kalbear]

@Commodore, the language of 'undocumented immigrants involved in other crimes' includes crimes such as being here past the visa. It's the same language used to increase the scope of picking up immigrants earlier. It essentially means so long as there are any crimes that they have committed or are wanted for, ever - which includes things like not having proper documentation - then they can be picked up. 

As to the President not being involved  - that's such ludicrous chicanery I'm surprised even you are behind that. It's the POTUS order. What happened to the notion of personal responsibility? He'd have to sign off on it regardless, after all. 

[Commodore]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

As to the President not being involved  - that's such ludicrous chicanery I'm surprised even you are behind that. It's the POTUS order. What happened to the notion of personal responsibility? He'd have to sign off on it regardless, after all. 

there's no evidence the draft memo even made it to Sec. Kelly, much less Trump, yet the article said he was considering it

[Kalbear]

Just now, Commodore said:

there's no evidence the draft memo even made it to Sec. Kelly, much less Trump, yet the article said he was considering it

There's ample evidence it made it to Kelly - it was done by his office, and big-ass memos like this don't get written up unless you're going to actually consider doing them. You don't write a memo like this as your first action; the direction comes top-down. 

There's no evidence that Trump considered it, that's true. Other than the sources indicating that he did. Again, it doesn't matter particularly much - it is standard practice in the government for these things to be shown to the president if not immediately asked for by the president, and you either have two options: POTUS was in the loop because that's how everything typically works and thus he knew about it, or POTUS was not in the loop and the rest of the government is doing whatever the hell they want and he has no control.

Which would you prefer to think - that he's a bumbling incompetent that others ignore and work around, or he's in charge and wanting to do these sorts of things? Either works for me.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Which would you prefer to think - that he's a bumbling incompetent that others ignore and work around, or he's in charge and wanting to do these sorts of things? Either works for me.

Why Not Both?

https://www.memecenter.com/fun/250216/why-not-both

[Altherion]

9 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Just to get on the same page, what aspects of neo-liberalism are you referring to?  

I get that this is the perception people have-- that things will be worse for their future generations if the Obama/ Clinton* state of being were continued.  Is this a vision you also share, or are you just pointing that out as an explanation for why they seem desperate enough to vote for a charlatan like Trump?

I've written this before: the exact meaning of "neoliberalism" is debated, but it is effectively capitalism run amok or, in the terminology preferred by its proponents, freed from the shackles of government. It includes increasing the porousness of national borders, possibly to the point of non-existence (I mean not merely immigration, but also free trade, outsourcing, etc.), eliminating all manner of government regulations, reducing government spending (sometimes called "austerity" and known not to apply to bailouts) and privatization of government resources.

It's not the Obama/Clinton state so much as the Democrat-Republican game of musical chairs which, averaged over decades, results in wealth being funneled to the top. And yes, I'm fairly confident that if the game were to continue, things would get worse in short order.

9 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Did you assume that Trump would spend time forming populist policy himself without heed to the republican agenda, would appoint left-wing/ populists/ socialists to his cabinet, would totally control a republican Congress to bend to his populist will?

The chances of socialists being appointed to a Trump cabinet were and still are utterly negligible. However, it was and still is entirely possible that Trump would get Congress to pass at least some decidedly non-Republican laws mixed in with the standard Republican ones that Congress wants.

9 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

These people still do see terms like "bigot" or "sexist" or "racist" as bad.  One problem is that they refuse to accept those things when they see it; people don't want to admit a bigotry exists unless the perpetrator is, for instance, wearing a white hood.  Another issue seems to be that a lot of white people are mistaking rising equality of other groups for "reverse discrimination."   I don't think a lot of people truly acknowledge or understand just how much their white identity enabled a kind of social dominance for ages.  So they misinterpret any loss of that dominance for discrimination.  

Trump is the first politician in a long while who came in and played to their fragile white identity, promising them that they wouldn't "be discriminated against anymore," assuring them that they could get away with saying whatever potentially hurtful thing to other identity groups just like in the good old days, reinforcing the mistaken belief that rising equality means subjugating white people.  He took their racial (and gender/ religious/ sexual) anxieties, said they were being treated like second class citizens now, but that with him in power, they'd be "equal" again.   Of course this is nonsense.   He essentially promised to make all these other historically discriminated against groups second class citizens again.   Do you genuinely not see why that is deserving of moral condemnation?

There are quite a few things we disagree on here. First, you are creating the impression that white people are angry because the situation for minorities is improving, but the overwhelming fraction of minorities are members of the poor and middle class just like the overwhelming fraction of white people so both groups are subject to the same economic pressures (note that the minorities are also quite angry).

Second, "reverse discrimination" is not a term I've heard before; I suspect you're thinking of "reverse racism". And yes, the fact that discrimination against white people is legal whereas discrimination against most other groups is illegal is certainly part of this. It is true that minorities were discriminated against for a long time, but keep in mind that at this point in time, official discrimination against white people is also half a century old. Most people now alive grew up in a world where "affirmative action" and the like were well-established concepts.

What Trump did was turn identity politics against the left. In principle, identity politics is a means of dividing the population as part of a common divide-and-rule strategy and of course we would be better off without it altogether, but given that there is no way to get rid of it, I don't see Trump's actions as any worse than those of Democrats. This is probably worthy of a separate thread, but I don't believe identity politics is about justice or equality or anything of the sort. The various movements that comprise it started off as addressing clear injustices, but today, it's about fighting for a larger share of a shrinking pie. So no, I don't think Trump's actions are deserving of moral condemnation and they may even be deserving of moral admiration.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

25 minutes ago, Altherion said:

There are quite a few things we disagree on here. First, you are creating the impression that white people are angry because the situation for minorities is improving, but the overwhelming fraction of minorities are members of the poor and middle class just like the overwhelming fraction of white people so both groups are subject to the same economic pressures (note that the minorities are also quite angry).

Second, "reverse discrimination" is not a term I've heard before; I suspect you're thinking of "reverse racism". And yes, the fact that discrimination against white people is legal whereas discrimination against most other groups is illegal is certainly part of this. It is true that minorities were discriminated against for a long time, but keep in mind that at this point in time, official discrimination against white people is also half a century old. Most people now alive grew up in a world where "affirmative action" and the like were well-established concepts.hat Trump did was turn identity politics against the left. In principle, identity politics is a means of dividing the population as part of a common divide-and-rule strategy and of course we would be better off without it altogether, but given that there is no way to get rid of it, I don't see Trump's actions as any worse than those of Democrats. This is probably worthy of a separate thread, but I don't believe identity politics is about justice or equality or anything of the sort. The various movements that comprise it started off as addressing clear injustices, but today, it's about fighting for a larger share of a shrinking pie. So no, I don't think Trump's actions are deserving of moral condemnation and they may even be deserving of moral admiration.

 To the first bit, that's not an impression. It has been borne out over decades. It was essentially the cornerstone of the Southern Strategy. The economic class of the minority has little or nothing to do with it. If you don't believe that this sort of racism still exists, I don't know what to tell you.

To the second bit, while there are some problems with affirmative action, if you truly consider this to be some form of discrimination against white people, you are making excuses for yourself. There is no one as privileged as a white male in our society. To point at affirmative action as something that is holding you down is a copout of the highest degree.

  

 

  

[Free Northman Reborn]

Rumors that Trump may attend tomorrow's SpaceX maiden Falcon 9 Space Station resupply launch and attempted landing at the historic LC39 pad, famously used for the Apollo moon missions.

Nothing confirmed, just something that was apparently overheard on an open microphone at the SpaceX press briefing a few minutes ago.

[Ormond]

14 minutes ago, Altherion said:

 

Second, "reverse discrimination" is not a term I've heard before; I suspect you're thinking of "reverse racism".

I know this is tangential -- but I am just amazed that you don't remember ever having heard the term "reverse discrimination" before. There's a Wikipedia article on it, for gosh sakes, which includes nine footnotes referencing different academic articles with the term in their titles, the oldest going back to 1975:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination

Wikipedia is only the starting point for researching any topic, of course, but I think it's a pretty good bet this is a well-used term if there's a Wikipedia article with that many references. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I know this is tangential -- but I am just amazed that you don't remember ever having heard the term "reverse discrimination" before. There's a Wikipedia article on it, for gosh sakes, which includes nine footnotes referencing different academic articles with the term in their titles, the oldest going back to 1975:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination

Wikipedia is only the starting point for researching any topic, of course, but I think it's a pretty good bet this is a well-used term if there's a Wikipedia article with that many references. 

I think that despite Altherion's protestations regarding "identity politics" he's trying to hijack a bit of the Left's hyperbole here. Why call it discrimination when you can jump straight to racism?

[Altherion]

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To the first bit, that's not an impression. It has been borne out over decades. It was essentially the cornerstone of the Southern Strategy. The economic class of the minority has little or nothing to do with it. If you don't believe that this sort of racism no longer exists, I don't know what to tell you.

My point had nothing to do with the opinion of white people; it was simply that the vast majority of minority citizens are in the same economic position as white people and thus are also not doing too well.

17 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To the second bit, while there are some problems with affirmative action, if you truly consider this to be some form of discrimination against white people, you are making excuses for yourself. There is no one as privileged as a white male in our society. To point at affirmative action as something that is holding you down is a copout of the highest degree.

There are certainly privileged white males in our society and they constitute a majority of privileged citizens, but there are also those of the working class and you're going to have a really hard time convincing them that they're privileged. And affirmative action most certainly is discrimination against white people; I don't think there is any doubt about that.

12 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I know this is tangential -- but I am just amazed that you don't remember ever having heard the term "reverse discrimination" before. There's a Wikipedia article on it, for gosh sakes, which includes nine footnotes referencing different academic articles with the term in their titles, the oldest going back to 1975:

Seriously? No, I honestly had not heard it before and it doesn't make any sense to me. Unlike "racism", "discrimination" is a very old word which has kept a similar meaning throughout and it can be used in this context without making up new terms simply by specifying for or against whom it is directed. But you're right -- it's even in the online dictionary. Oh well, at least I learned something new. Thanks.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

The chances of socialists being appointed to a Trump cabinet were and still are utterly negligible. However, it was and still is entirely possible that Trump would get Congress to pass at least some decidedly non-Republican laws mixed in with the standard Republican ones that Congress wants.

Wishful thinking in the extreme, I'd say. A guy intending to implement a bunch of progressive economic policies doesn't go out and hire Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore, and then a bunch of rich billionaire guys for policy advice.

Most of Trumps stuff seems to be:"By helping the rich guy out, you help yourself!" I think we've been there and done that. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, it just doesn't seem to ever pan out.

Now it would seem that people like Bannon and Navaaro have this dream that we can go back to the 1950s with lots of people working good paying manufacturing jobs (but a lot of those good paying jobs were because of unions, which Republicans despise anyway).

But those days are done. Manufacturing as share of employment has been in decline in about every industrialized country to include Germany, which seems to be held up as some kind of model by Navarro.

I think there some long term issues that we are going to have figure out. But, there are some things that we could do right now to help people out that are struggling. That would include raising the minimum wage and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and continuing to make sure people have access to adequate health insurance. And making sure Wall Street doesn't blow up again (the Democratic Party should have never taken out the goal of full employment from its platform by the way).But, none of this is going to happen under Trump or the Republicans.