Cas Stark Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Fez said: Although now Trump's that he won't make any announcements for the next few days and some reporters have tweeted that other sources say a decision hasn't been made yet. Two main options here: 1) Trump really hasn't decided and the people who want him to withdraw, Bannon et al, are trying to force his hand. 2) This is a trial ballon and in the end Trump will only "partially withdraw" and the media coverage will be more favorable because it'll seem like he moderated. So, far they have not shown that they have their act together enough for that kind of strategy. Trump could have changed his mind again, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: So, far they have not shown that they have their act together enough for that kind of strategy. Trump could have changed his mind again, who knows. Sure, he could change his mind, but will the change his covfefe? In the end, that's what counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: Sure, he could change his mind, but will the change his covfefe? In the end, that's what counts. LOL. That's what I'm wanting to know too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 4 hours ago, dmc515 said: From what I can tell, ME's greatest sin was making the banal point that escalation by one side leads to escalation by the other - which he then went out of his way to qualify as a disproportionate comparison. How this became an indictment on his motives is not supported by the posts made in this thread. Then again, I expect this argument goes beyond that, so I'm sure I've stepped in shit here. But from an outside observer this seems like a vendetta. Yeah, this whole conflation of what I think should just be a simple little point goes back to other instances where I have been accused of being a gaslighter, or some sort of Conservative shill for simply not fully agreeing with someone's point. I often find myself having to qualify my stance numerous times in defense of these sorts of charges. I suppose that part of the problem is my instinct to do so repeatedly, as it leaves us on this tiresome merry-go-round that leads us nowhere. I will seek to edit myself in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Trump: I'm pulling out of the Paris Agreement! Bannon: But sir, what about the covfefe? The World:.........................................? Trump: Profit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 4 hours ago, mormont said: What I've tried to do is make ME and Scot understand what I think it is people mean when they worry about 'normalising' the actions of Republicans. It's not some sort of code for 'you secretly approve of this behaviour'. It's not meant to suggest that they are condoning it or that they are intentionally doing something harmful. It's about moving the conversation in the direction of presenting an abnormal reaction (which it is fair to say would by definition not be expected) as being within the range of expected reactions. I appreciate you clarifying this, because this is often how this is taken by many posters on this board. I'm referring to the "you secretly approve of this behavior" bit. I realize that this is not your fault, but it does often set off a bit of a cascade effect from my perspective. That said, I would no more want to censor your right to say it than I would want someone else to censor my right to make (what I think dmc rightly identified) a fairly banal point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 2 hours ago, BloodRider said: Any interviews of Timothy Snyder by a non-douchebag / crypto racist / phrenology apologist? Kind of a tough order to fill. Charges of douchebaggery are pretty subjective, don't ya think? Harris can be a bit harsh in his criticisms at times, but I don't find him to be a douchebag. To the crypto racist charge, I guess you're referring to his stance on Islam? Islam is not a race, so I don't think that word qualifies. To the last bit I'm assuming you're referring to his defense of the Murray/Herrnstein book? I haven't read it, so I can't say you're necessarily wrong, but if someone with Harris's qualifications says it's not junk science, I would tend to believe him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 So I'm reading on Twitter, via Sarah Kliff, that Trump plans an HHS regulation permitting employers to apply for exemption from the mandatory birth control coverage requirement of the ACA. Obviously that's bad, but what I don't understand is, isn't that a statutory requirement of the ACA? How can HHS, or any executive agency, say "hey, don't worry about this law Congress passed, you don't have to follow it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Inigima said: So I'm reading on Twitter, via Sarah Kliff, that Trump plans an HHS regulation permitting employers to apply for exemption from the mandatory birth control coverage requirement of the ACA. Obviously that's bad, but what I don't understand is, isn't that a statutory requirement of the ACA? How can HHS, or any executive agency, say "hey, don't worry about this law Congress passed, you don't have to follow it"? I don't know for sure about the birth control mandate, but in general the ACA gives incredibly broad power to the HHS Secretary, so it wouldn't surprise me if they are able to waive it. There's a lot of other pieces of the law that the Secretary can waive or alter that are surprising. Also, if they do waive this, this makes the state birth control mandates even more important. I know New York has one; I don't know which other states do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Okay that's weird but at least it's not "fuck the law." Thanks Fez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: We are only on page 9, it will take several days to finish this thread. A lot can happen in a Trump administration in a couple of days. Sorry. This one is the winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 39 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I appreciate you clarifying this, because this is often how this is taken by many posters on this board. I'm referring to the "you secretly approve of this behavior" bit. I realize that this is not your fault, but it does often set off a bit of a cascade effect from my perspective. That said, I would no more want to censor your right to say it than I would want someone else to censor my right to make (what I think dmc rightly identified) a fairly banal point. From many perspectives, the argument that any response to violent action committed against oneself, family and community - nation, that is physically defensive is wrong. What it comes down to is blaming the victim. It comes down to -- who started it. And in this nation our history documents who started it and it's always the same groups. Even in the labor violence of the 19th century post the War of Southern Aggression, the violence began with capital's employing thugs to force open the factories / mines and beat up the striking workers who were trying to get 3 cents more an hour and a half day off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Lulzors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Lulzors OMG read the responses to his tweet, I was rofl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 OH SHIT! Mystery solved, people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 9 hours ago, dmc515 said: What is up with you and Jackson? He is the closest (albeit obviously imperfect) analog that I can find to Trump among all of the US Presidents. 9 hours ago, dmc515 said: Regardless, there is a vast difference between the power of the executive branch and the power of the president. Many of the latter have had a hard time learning that, and it seems you have too. It's not a matter of failing to understand the difference -- it's one of believing that it should not exist. Whatever you think of a given President, he or she was at least elected by the public, can be dismissed by the public within 4 years and must leave within a maximum of 8 years. This is not the case for most of the federal bureaucracy: they are not elected and, in many cases (especially those a few tiers down from the top level), they are not easily removed. Since those people often have the power to make decisions with very real ramifications for society, the federal bureaucracy becomes a bureaucracy in the original sense of the word thus replacing democracy for a substantial set of our interactions with government. Nothing good will come of this (especially with the security agencies) so it is preferable that the President have full control of the executive branch with the exception of perhaps temporary agents appointed by Congress for specific purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Inigima said: Okay that's weird but at least it's not "fuck the law." Thanks Fez. Yeah, allowing agency interpretation is one thing, but the ACA goes way beyond that. I don't know the exact timeline of when the final pieces of the bill got added in back in 2009/10, but I believe the HHS Secretary stuff were fairly late additions. Democrats knew how difficult reopening the health care debate would be after the ACA passed (though I think its far worse than they ever imagined), so they gave the Secretary broad powers to adjust the law's implementation as necessary to respond to changes on the ground. For the most part, so long as it doesn't increase the deficit or purposefully reduce coverage or benefits, the Secretary can kind of do what they want (within reason; they can't eliminate ACA taxes and replace them with new taxes for instance). But something like the birth control mandate (and again, I don't know for sure if the Secretary can waive it; but there similar provisions that they can), there could be the possibility that a state wants to eliminate all coverage mandates and instead implement fines on insurers that don't cover them to establish a funding pool to cover those services (maybe as some sort of half-step towards single payer). Or something along those lines. And they couldn't do that if the mandates couldn't be waived. Obviously that's not what Trump and Price are seeking to do, they just don't want women to have access to birth control, but they're using powers that were meant for something else. Although because there generally is the requirement to not reduce benefits, any state that wanted to waive the mandate would need to demonstrate how it would ensure that access to birth control isn't reduced. And, if they submitted a sham plan, protests could be filed and the whole thing would end up in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I'm beginning to think #Covfefe needs its' own thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Raise your hand if you predicted that instead of laughing it off, POTUS et al would double down on it as there are no mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Raise your hand if you predicted that instead of laughing it off, POTUS et al would double down on it as there are no mistakes. Good grief. So, if only a small number of people know what it means why the hell did he tweet it to the entire planet? :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.