US Politics: OBAMAGATE - An American Story

[GrimTuesday]

Since I see it being discussed on other sites, namely twitter, I just wanted to say something about Pelosi and the calling Trump fat thing. I laughed about it at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. I don't mind when someone uses the term morbidly obese in a clinical sense, it wouldn't have bothered me had it been a doctor talking about why it is dangerous for someone with a health profile like Trump to be taking the hydroxychloroquine, that is not what this was. This was Pelosi weaponizing Trump's weight to get a cheap laugh and to insult him.

I generally keep out of the whole fatshaming thing, because I think both sides miss the point, but as a fat person, for whatever reason seeing her do that actually kind of bugged me. Granted I already have a bad faith image of Pelosi, I recognize that, but she acted so smug, almost triumphant, almost as if calling someone fat was somehow a great feat of wit. It reminded me of the assholes who would make fun of me in school, or of my abusive father who would never let an opportunity to remind me I was overweight and therefore should feel like shit about myself from a very early age. Now of course we have Trump folks getting mad and crying crocodile tears which makes legitimate criticism of how Pelosi acted a political issue. This isn't about Trump, it is about all the people out there struggling with their weight and the mental toll it takes now having one more piece of evidence that all people see when they look at them is a fat person.

[Jace, Extat]

C'mon man.

[Fragile Bird]

12 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Since I see it being discussed on other sites, namely twitter, I just wanted to say something about Pelosi and the calling Trump fat thing. I laughed about it at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. I don't mind when someone uses the term morbidly obese in a clinical sense, it wouldn't have bothered me had it been a doctor talking about why it is dangerous for someone with a health profile like Trump to be taking the hydroxychloroquine, that is not what this was. This was Pelosi weaponizing Trump's weight to get a cheap laugh and to insult him.

I generally keep out of the whole fatshaming thing, because I think both sides miss the point, but as a fat person, for whatever reason seeing her do that actually kind of bugged me. Granted I already have a bad faith image of Pelosi, I recognize that, but she acted so smug, almost triumphant, almost as if calling someone fat was somehow a great feat of wit. It reminded me of the assholes who would make fun of me in school, or of my abusive father who would never let an opportunity to remind me I was overweight and therefore should feel like shit about myself from a very early age. Now of course we have Trump folks getting mad and crying crocodile tears which makes legitimate criticism of how Pelosi acted a political issue. This isn't about Trump, it is about all the people out there struggling with their weight and the mental toll it takes now having one more piece of evidence that all people see when they look at them is a fat person.

I understand where you are coming from, but he wouldn’t hesitate saying utterly obnoxious things about women in particular and about men. He particularly likes sneering at the way women look. He shouldn’t have any problem with some sauce ladled on him, what’s good for the goose you know.

Pelosi was being blunt, let’s face it. This is the president of the US, not some chump on the street, with a profile that flashes ‘don’t take this drug’, and he’s taking it. A number of people speculated about the doctor’s letter, I think that was a CYA letter from the doctor and that he is taking the drug.

[DMC]

I think if it would have been more responsible and appropriate for someone in her position to simply use the term overweight, yes.  No reason to stoop to his level, especially when I can't see any possible political gain in doing so.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I understand where you are coming from, but he wouldn’t hesitate saying utterly obnoxious things about women in particular and about men. He particular likes sneering at the way women look. He shouldn’t have any problem with some sauce ladled on him, what good for the goose you know.

Pelosi was being blunt, let’s face it. This is the president of the US, not some chump on the street, with a profile that flashes ‘don’t take this drug’, and he’s taking it. A number of people speculated about the doctor’s letter, I think the was a CYA letter from the doctor and that he is taking the drug.

You think the doctor actually prescribed it? I'm in the placebo category myself, as no doctor in their right mind would prescribe that drug to Trump with his history of heart disease.

I think the doc talked it over with Trump, prescribed a placebo, and worded the letter the way it was written because he was counting on Trump not being smart enough to recognize what wasn't said in the letter. That's a pretty low-stakes wager imo.

ETA: Of course, Ronny Jackson was the presidential physician for a while, and that dude is nuttier than a pile of elephant shit, so...

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think if it would have been more responsible and appropriate for someone in her position to simply use the term overweight, yes.  No reason to stoop to his level, especially when I can't see any possible political gain in doing so.

I'll admit to a feel of visceral pleasure hearing her say that, but it's just another example of how we're living more in Regina George's Burn Book than an actual functioning democracy.

[DMC]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Regina George's Burn Book than an actual functioning democracy.

LOL, great reference.

[GrimTuesday]

6 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

C'mon man.

I presume this directed at me. I'm sorry you do not agree with me or feel like this is coming from anywhere disengenous. I think that a lot of people who thought this was a good thing don't realize that the things that people say have weight (no pun intended) outside of the intended target. Media constantly tells fat people that they are less worthy of love and compassion than people who are not overweight, and this is just another example of someone using someone's weight as a cudgel.

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I understand where you are coming from, but he wouldn’t hesitate saying utterly obnoxious things about women in particular and about men. He particular likes sneering at the way women look. He shouldn’t have any problem with some sauce ladled on him, what good for the goose you know.

Pelosi was being blunt, let’s face it. This is the president of the US, not some chump on the street, with a profile that flashes ‘don’t take this drug’, and he’s taking it. A number of people speculated about the doctor’s letter, I think the was a CYA letter from the doctor and that he is taking the drug.

She could have said that the drug carries a higher risk factor with his health profile, she could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound like she was trying to be insulting, she could have not looked like a cat that has trapped a mouse in pointing out this fact. She didn't sound like she was being blunt to me, she sounded like she thought this was a rhetorical win for her.

Trump is going to be what Trump is going to be, he lives in the mud. The issue is that he drags everyone down into the mud with him. You don't win by jumping into the pit.

I don't care how this made Trump feel, I care about how this plays into the large media narrative as relates to fat people.

[Fragile Bird]

35 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

You think the doctor actually prescribed it? I'm in the placebo category myself, as no doctor in their right mind would prescribe that drug to Trump with his history of heart disease.

I think the doc talked it over with Trump, prescribed a placebo, and worded the letter the way it was written because he was counting on Trump not being smart enough to recognize what wasn't said in the letter. That's a pretty low-stakes wager imo.

There have been one or two doctors interviewed on CNN who know the WH doctor and who have praised him for his skills as a doctor. I cannot imagine any reputable doctor writing a prescription for a medication and substituting a placebo for the drug. Especially not after having several serious discussions about the pros and cons of the drug with the patient. That would be a pretty severe breach of ethics.

[Kalbear]

I'm obese, and I'm 100% for Pelosi calling him morbidly obese, because she WAS using it in the medically correct way, she WAS calling him out on using a drug that causes problems with hearts in people who are obese, and she WAS pointing out how incredibly irresponsible it was for him to be doing this kind of thing. 

Fuck him and fuck all that. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

There have been one or two doctors interviewed on CNN who know the WH doctor and who have praised him for his skills as a doctor. I cannot imagine any reputable doctor writing a prescription for a medication and substituting a placebo for the drug. Especially not after having several serious discussions about the pros and cons of the drug with the patient. That would be a pretty severe breach of ethics.

I do see that side of it, but I could also see practical considerations taken into account that you probably shouldn't prescribe the President something that has a decent likelihood of killing him, just because said President keeps trying to make hydroxychloroquine happen.

Perhaps the doctor came to an accommodation with Trump, saying that he won't prescribe the drug, but that he would write a letter making it sound like he prescribed it?

I do feel somewhat confident in saying that Trump is not taking it. I've been on it before to treat my RA, and even the milder side effects are no joke, and include weight loss, nausea, vomiting, lack of appetite, etc. These are fairly common symptoms too, iirc, and Trump looks as non-svelte as ever.

I'll happily eat crow if he ends up keeling over from hydroxychloroquine cardiotoxicity (you can take my use of "happily" however you like ).

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Isn’t that the tu quoque fallacy?

Actually, not.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

I presume this directed at me. I'm sorry you do not agree with me or feel like this is coming from anywhere disengenous. I think that a lot of people who thought this was a good thing don't realize that the things that people say have weight (no pun intended) outside of the intended target. Media constantly tells fat people that they are less worthy of love and compassion than people who are not overweight, and this is just another example of someone using someone's weight as a cudgel.

She could have said that the drug carries a higher risk factor with his health profile, she could have phrased it in a way that didn't sound like she was trying to be insulting, she could have not looked like a cat that has trapped a mouse in pointing out this fact. She didn't sound like she was being blunt to me, she sounded like she thought this was a rhetorical win for her.

Trump is going to be what Trump is going to be, he lives in the mud. The issue is that he drags everyone down into the mud with him. You don't win by jumping into the pit.

I don't care how this made Trump feel, I care about how this plays into the large media narrative as relates to fat people.

This seems precisely the problem with Democratic leadership. They heard somewhere that the Republicans were owning the Libs, so they're focused on owning the Republicans. Rip up a speech, clap ironically, call Trump morbidly obese. Finally, someone telling it like it is.

But the current Democratic leadership lacks vision. They have no plan except to plug up every little hole Trump creates in the dam. Republicans certainly have vision. The refusal to allow Obama to nominate a Supreme Court justice wasn't just some off-the-cuff gesture. McConnell had long term plans behind what seemed to be a hail mary pass in the off-chance Trump actually got elected. Democrats, if reversed, would have negotiated with the minority group of Republicans and allowed a Republican president to appoint someone who leans right, but isn't full on to the right. The Democrats only seem to be able to think about the moment at hand. The dam is breaking? Everyone, quick! Stick your fingers in these Republican holes. That'll show 'em. In fact, anyone who has a vision, a big plan to fixing the problems in this country long-term is derided, run into the ground, and replaced with someone who...what? Wants to make things "normal" again. You know, like 2016. We can't possibly think about big picture changes right now. 

The President talks shit, so we talk shit back. The anemic HEROES act, which would always be considered messaging bill, was gutted in the Democratic run House. 2,000 dollars for people might not go over well, let's cut that. We may lose elections! No reference to creating a monthly stimulus. Let's begin negotiations before Republicans have a chance to attack us. And despite all this, the act is still considered partisan messaging, and if the Senate even agrees to negotiate, it will be even more hollow.

Jesus Christ, Pelosi, take a fucking risk. Create a bold plan that might actually help people. The comment about morbid obesity accomplishes absolutely nothing. It doesn't stop Trump from saying he's taking a drug that he is undoubtedly not taking. It doesn't do a damned thing except allow a dejected Democratic party to say, "Zing. Got ya." The fact is, the Republicans have been owning Democrats since Obama was in office, and their vision, as awful as it is, is winning. Please, Democrats, for the love of God, look at least one move ahead. At least!

The fact that it's Pelosi out there leading the party, not Biden, is nuts. Where is he? Why doesn't he call Trump morbidly obese? 

What we've accomplished is resorting to fat shaming, because no matter how awful and incompetent Trump is, he's finding ways to win. Hell, even if Biden wins in November, this country is going to be in a hole so deep, it probably won't matter. Obama had eight years, and like him or not, he had vision. The mess Republicans handed him took eight damned years to really turn a corner. The mess the Republicans hand Democrats this time (assuming they win) is so much worse, and the guy who's supposed to lead us back to 2016 has gone MIA.

And, by the way, if you're overweight, it's a sick burn.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But no, let's weep over whether or not the local CDRs, which are playing such a role in crushing the virus in Cuba, may or may not be surveilling people's internets, when, of course FB etc. actually SELL ALL YOUR OWN DATA TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTIVELY INTERFERING WITH US ELECTIONS and to, of course, corps and banks and employers, etc.  Yet, keeping FB accounts . . . .

Zorral,

Why isn't this the Tu Quoque fallacy?  You are crictizing those who are calling out the Cuban secret services who, per Amnesty International, still imprisons dissidents and members of the political opposition for not doing the same about Facebook.  That's Tu Quoque, implying you can't criticize one thing without also criticizing everything.

Here's what Amnesty International has to say about Cuba:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/americas/cuba/

[Martell Spy]

Trump expresses opposition to extending unemployment benefits enacted in response to pandemic

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-expresses-opposition-to-extending-unemployment-benefits-enacted-in-response-to-pandemic/2020/05/19/19ae0e50-9a12-11ea-a282-386f56d579e6_story.html

Quote

 

President Trump on Tuesday privately expressed opposition to extending a weekly $600 boost in unemployment insurance for laid-off workers affected by the coronavirus pandemic, according to three officials familiar with his remarks during a closed-door lunch with Republican senators on Capitol Hill.

The increased unemployment benefits — paid by the federal government but administered through individual states — were enacted this year as part of a broader $2 trillion relief package passed by Congress. The boost expires this summer, and House Democrats have proposed extending the aid through January 2021.

But congressional Republicans have said they are concerned that some workers are making more money on unemployment insurance than if they were on a payroll and therefore have less incentive to return to work or find a new job.

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I have a question that some of you may have pondered as well:

Do the state's governors have the right to make Trump's rallies illegal?  My guess is that they do.  

The sinister place I'm heading to with this that you reader are already realizing is what happens when Trump starts holding rallies again?  Even if the Woman in Michigan won't let him he'll probably have rallies in Florida and Texas and other places.  

There was a fascinating but perhaps not surprising segment on HBO's Real Sports that focused on this one Milan football match that said it was likely a huge catalyst for the disastrous spread in Italy's Lombardia region.  A live sporting event is the worst for COVID because of the close proximity but also the shouting.  A Trump rally is presumably very similar.  

Trump loves his rallies, but the science would seem quite straight-forward that this is a massive risk to rural communities to hold a Trump rally while COVID is still out there, and barring a miracle it will be all the way to November.  

Will Trump hold rallies?  Will it depend on state-by-state decisions by governors?  

They could make large gatherings illegal for the duration of a “health emergency”.  If they target “Trump rallies” they’ll have 1st amendment speech and assembly problems.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If they target “Trump rallies” they’ll have 1st amendment speech and assembly problems.

Probably 2nd amendment problems, too.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

So if I understand it's somewhat legally murky?  

If they target any particular group and not all groups it’s highly problematic.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

But couldn't it easily just be a ruling like...same for pro sports.  No gatherings of x, y, z...

No.  Unless they have a content neutral justification for such a ban... it’s a problem.

[TrueMetis]

I mean they could always just require that he pay for the rallies up front, that'd stop them real quick.