|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 30 2016 10:12 xDaunt wrote:So who's laughing now? #makeamericagreatagain Show nested quote +From the earliest days of his campaign, Donald J. Trump made keeping manufacturing jobs in the United States his signature economic issue, and the decision by Carrier, the big air-conditioner company, to move 2,000 of them from Indiana to Mexico was a tailor-made talking point for him on the stump.
On Thursday, Mr. Trump and Mike Pence, Indiana’s governor and the vice-president elect, plan to appear at Carrier’s Indianapolis plant to announce they’ve struck a deal with the company to keep a majority of the jobs in the state, according to officials with the transition team as well as Carrier.
Mr. Trump will be hard-pressed to alter the economic forces that have hammered the Rust Belt for decades, but forcing Carrier and its parent company, United Technologies, to reverse course is a powerful tactical strike that will rally his base even before he takes office.
In exchange for keeping the factory running in Indianapolis, Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence are expected to reiterate their campaign pledges to be friendlier to business by easing regulations and overhauling the corporate tax code. In addition, Mr. Trump is expected to tone down his rhetoric threatening 35 percent tariffs on companies like Carrier that shift production south of the border. Source. Now, I hope y'all don't miss that third paragraph that the NYT just couldn't help itself from inserting into the article. It's a perfect example of the bullshit media bias that we were railing against a few days ago. This should be a happy, positive story. Period.
Remember this full-throated support of Trump the next time there's bad news.
|
On December 01 2016 01:27 Incognoto wrote:
Yeah I meant development process.
Mohdoo with your definition you could get rid of the baby as long as it's unborn. ;/
I will just assume you know more about neuroscience than I do and assume that you know what you're talking about.
If it is indeed true that no consciousness is formed while in the womb, I don't technically see any problem with it. I won't deny I get a creepy "that just seems messed up" feeling, but if it is technically true, it is just me having a meaningless emotional response.
At the end of the day, when applying policy to millions of people, detachment from knee-jerk emotional responses is necessary. It is impossible to accommodate the emotional knee-jerk reactions of everyone, so we need to just defer to reason and accuracy.
If no consciousness is present, there is no real difference between killing a human and an animal. The flesh and bones happen to form a shape familiar to us which we are instinctively heavily sympathetic towards. But that doesn't make it human. It makes it something that we naturally feel sympathetic towards. But those are two very different things.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now.
I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord.
She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at.
|
On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at.
This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota.
Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent.
|
On December 01 2016 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:27 Incognoto wrote:
Yeah I meant development process.
Mohdoo with your definition you could get rid of the baby as long as it's unborn. ;/ I will just assume you know more about neuroscience than I do and assume that you know what you're talking about. If it is indeed true that no consciousness is formed while in the womb, I don't technically see any problem with it. I won't deny I get a creepy "that just seems messed up" feeling, but if it is technically true, it is just me having a meaningless emotional response. At the end of the day, when applying policy to millions of people, detachment from knee-jerk emotional responses is necessary. It is impossible to accommodate the emotional knee-jerk reactions of everyone, so we need to just defer to reason and accuracy. If no consciousness is present, there is no real difference between killing a human and an animal. The flesh and bones happen to form a shape familiar to us which we are instinctively heavily sympathetic towards. But that doesn't make it human. It makes it something that we naturally feel sympathetic towards. But those are two very different things.
It's been a while since I've seen abortion come up in this thread, and I think my opinions on it have changed over the years. To me, the common sense approach would be to bring a diverse group of experts together to decide what is a reasonable time limit, beyond which to ban abortions except for health risks to the mother. There is an amount of time after conception occurs, at which it really is just a ball of cells, where that decision can be made. As far as I'm concerned, late-stage abortions are cruel acts that are only required due to laziness and uncertainty, except when the mother is in danger.
There are a handful of very good reasons abortion should be legal, including the standards such as rape, incest, and health of the mother. For everyone else, I feel like there is a window where it is OK to make that decision, but how hard is it to, you know, not have unprotected sex? I got through my teens and early 20's, fooling around with pretty much whoever I could, and did not ever have a pregnancy scare. It's not difficult to use birth control, and the alternative is forcing yourself to end a life.
Whether or not it is functionally different from an animal life is an argument I'm not really interested in, because I would be horrified to intentionally end an animal life as well.
I can't, in good conscience, actually advocate for a complete ban outside of the extreme circumstances outlined above, because I know that if something had happened in college, I would have pushed for an abortion 100%. I think people should be able to back out of life-changing mistakes, but there is also a window of time during which that decision needs to be made.
But no, the two sides of this issue always seem to be arguing for partial-birth abortions or a complete ban, so no common sense measures can be taken.
|
On December 01 2016 01:27 Incognoto wrote:
Yeah I meant development process.
Mohdoo with your definition you could get rid of the baby as long as it's unborn. ;/
I'm gonna take this to mean you do want a primer; but since I'm not sure, I'll keep it short.
some landmarks of relevance:
at conception. Some consider it murder anytime after conceptions; which means birth control systems that work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting would be murder. contraceptions that don't interfere once an egg is fertilized may be permissible (though other religious rules often forbid contraception).
Can survive outside the womb with medical assistance; changes with tech advances and is partly a pragmatic issue. currently starting ~22 weeks iirc, though it's still pretty uncertain it'll live if born that early.
Can survive outside the womb without medical assistance; possible starting ~31 weeks, though it's not good for the health of the baby and there are some common complications.
consciousness: it is not yet possible to determine at what point consciousness develops.
capacity to feel pain; it takes awhile until the nervous system has developed enough that it's possible for nerve impulses to detect pain.
I forget exactly when, something in the mid-late 20's week-wise iirc.
birth; all modern legal systems consider birth to be the point at which it's murder. details of what constitutes birth may vary by law code; some rules I know of have details of fully exiting the mother/birth canal and drawing a breath once outside. Some older codes allowed infanticide, as living in old times is harsh, and caring for a sick infant may not be affordable, and in old times it was not possible to assess the health prior to birth.
Some law codes in places where abortion is legal classify it as murder if an unlawful act causes an abortion (e.g. if you murder a pregnant women and the unborn does not survive, that's a second count of murder)
many places ban abortions in the 3rd trimester (which is ~26 weeks) except in extreme cases (severe fetal defect, or grave risk to the mother).
zasz -> very few argue in favor of partial birth abortions; that's mostly just a scare tactic. Many of the systems actually in place are measured and reasonable ones. not sure how they got that way with all the political nonsense, but it has ended up there. Late-term abortions don't happen outside of exceptional cases.
|
On December 01 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at. This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota. Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent.
running for president is exhausting. so she's very tired.
she's also might be very sad/grief-stricken. It's a major blow to her after all.
It's not like she has some other political office wherein she should be saying stuff. Bernie is still talking, but he's also still a Senator. Clinton has no office at the moment.
There's nothing terribly wrong with bowing out, gracefully or ungracefully.
|
On December 01 2016 00:15 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 00:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 30 2016 23:59 farvacola wrote:Meanwhile, in Texas... Despite emotional public hearings, roughly 35,000 comments, and major pushback from pro-choice advocates, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission finalized a new rule on Monday that would require women to bury or cremate fetal tissue after their abortion or miscarriage, rather than deposit them in sanitary sewers and medical-waste landfills.
The rule, initially drafted under the radar in July, is set to take effect on Dec. 19 (in 20 days).
During public hearings in August and November, anti-abortion activists – often using loaded and graphic language – praised the rule as a measure that promotes “dignity” and “respect” for the unborn, without pointing to any evidence of the rule’s medical necessity. Pro-choice advocates relayed their personal experiences with abortion and miscarriage and stressed the new rule would serve to shame abortion-seeking women in Texas, add financial barriers to abortion, and further restrict access. Nonpartisan medical organizations, the Texas Medical Association and the Texas Hospital Association, have questioned the rule and its cost burden. According to estimates from the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Texas, the rule could add $2,000 to the price of abortion care, and since the state has refused to pick up any of the tab, the cost burden falls on providers, and then down to patients.
HHSC spokesperson Carrie Williams says after listening to public comment, the commission changed rule language to make clear the regulation doesn’t apply to miscarriages or abortions that occur at home. It also added language clarifying that the issuance of death and birth certificates isn’t required. However, those changes may not be enough for the anti-choice rule to withstand a constitutional challenge following the summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Legal groups argue the regulation is wholly unnecessary, fails to advance any health or safety benefit, and increases the procedure's cost, which poses an undue burden on abortion access. (Sound familiar?) The ACLU of Texas and the Center for Reproductive Rights have hinted at a potential lawsuit should the rule officially pass. State Health Department Makes Fetal Tissue Rule Final This is horrifying. I just don't get it, do those people think it's fun to abort? Women i know who went through that are marked for life by the experience. Let's damage people more by traumatizing them and adding to the guilt. I mean if you can fuck up people, whydontcha? And they are the same who say they'll get the gvt out your back. Talk of consistency. There is very little to like about the states those days :-( I don't know them that well, so it's hard to comment accurately. a few of them may think such crazy things. I can only try to give a few bits and pieces I've gleaned from waht I've heard, which may not be that reliable on their motives. Many of them consider abortion to be murder; or something similarly bad and horrific, and will use many means to try to prevent it. For awhile now, the basic plan for some of these groups, since they can't ban abortion directly, is to try to make abortion as hard as possible, generally using regulations that don't sound super-unreasonable on their face but don't actually accomplish anything other than make it hard to get an abortion. They like trying to slip them in undre the radar unnoticed as well. If you consider something to be a horrible crime, i'ts not surprising you'd go to great lengths to try to stop it.
Yeah but i have no problem with anti abortion people to try to repel Roe v Wade. That's democracy. What is sick is, once democracy, the constitution and the SC have spoken, to seek revenge and try to harass and psychologically destroy people who according to the law, have a right to abort.
In my book that's not how democracy is supposed to function. That, and it's morally indefensible.
|
On December 01 2016 01:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 00:15 zlefin wrote:On December 01 2016 00:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 30 2016 23:59 farvacola wrote:Meanwhile, in Texas... Despite emotional public hearings, roughly 35,000 comments, and major pushback from pro-choice advocates, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission finalized a new rule on Monday that would require women to bury or cremate fetal tissue after their abortion or miscarriage, rather than deposit them in sanitary sewers and medical-waste landfills.
The rule, initially drafted under the radar in July, is set to take effect on Dec. 19 (in 20 days).
During public hearings in August and November, anti-abortion activists – often using loaded and graphic language – praised the rule as a measure that promotes “dignity” and “respect” for the unborn, without pointing to any evidence of the rule’s medical necessity. Pro-choice advocates relayed their personal experiences with abortion and miscarriage and stressed the new rule would serve to shame abortion-seeking women in Texas, add financial barriers to abortion, and further restrict access. Nonpartisan medical organizations, the Texas Medical Association and the Texas Hospital Association, have questioned the rule and its cost burden. According to estimates from the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Texas, the rule could add $2,000 to the price of abortion care, and since the state has refused to pick up any of the tab, the cost burden falls on providers, and then down to patients.
HHSC spokesperson Carrie Williams says after listening to public comment, the commission changed rule language to make clear the regulation doesn’t apply to miscarriages or abortions that occur at home. It also added language clarifying that the issuance of death and birth certificates isn’t required. However, those changes may not be enough for the anti-choice rule to withstand a constitutional challenge following the summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Legal groups argue the regulation is wholly unnecessary, fails to advance any health or safety benefit, and increases the procedure's cost, which poses an undue burden on abortion access. (Sound familiar?) The ACLU of Texas and the Center for Reproductive Rights have hinted at a potential lawsuit should the rule officially pass. State Health Department Makes Fetal Tissue Rule Final This is horrifying. I just don't get it, do those people think it's fun to abort? Women i know who went through that are marked for life by the experience. Let's damage people more by traumatizing them and adding to the guilt. I mean if you can fuck up people, whydontcha? And they are the same who say they'll get the gvt out your back. Talk of consistency. There is very little to like about the states those days :-( I don't know them that well, so it's hard to comment accurately. a few of them may think such crazy things. I can only try to give a few bits and pieces I've gleaned from waht I've heard, which may not be that reliable on their motives. Many of them consider abortion to be murder; or something similarly bad and horrific, and will use many means to try to prevent it. For awhile now, the basic plan for some of these groups, since they can't ban abortion directly, is to try to make abortion as hard as possible, generally using regulations that don't sound super-unreasonable on their face but don't actually accomplish anything other than make it hard to get an abortion. They like trying to slip them in undre the radar unnoticed as well. If you consider something to be a horrible crime, i'ts not surprising you'd go to great lengths to try to stop it. Yeah but i have no problem with anti abortion people to try to repel Roe v Wade. That's democracy. What is sick is, once democracy, the constitution and the SC have spoken, to seek revenge and try to harass and psychologically destroy people who according to the law, have a right to abort. In my book that's not how democracy is supposed to function. That, and it's morally indefensible.
not that I disagree with you on this topic, but consider this counter-case:
slavery.
time was Democratic legal systems determined slavery was legal, and the constitution and SC verified it. Yet some people opposed slavery anyways, and would do many things which were illegal or harsh to the owners to free slaves.
How would you feel about laws designed to harass and pysch-mess with slave owners? or make it harder for them to own/sell their slaves? even if the laws didn't really serve any practical purpose other than to make it harder to have slaves?
|
On December 01 2016 01:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 17:48 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. What could possibly have made you think that there were 3 bullets in his gun? We were talking about how Trump was always and still remains a dice roll on good policies and following through. The difference was that Clinton was a known quantity, a bad decision-maker provably over and over again. So I'd rather not pick the loaded gun playing general election roulette. That was my standpoint, but perhaps you're pure sarcasm here. Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 22:45 Slaughter wrote:On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. It's the one-two whammy. Make Goldman Sachs Great Again, Make the Establishment Great Again. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. And let me be clear: Flynn/Sessions/Pompeo are outstanding picks and I salute Trump for making them. His latest ones are awful. Everyone I hear under consideration for SoS is awful. It has all the makings of waiting four or eight years to try to get another in the White House that will get the bureaucracy under control again. On November 30 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:Courtesy of Samizdat, take a look at this wonderful picture. It says things about Trump's cabinet search that words simply cannot lol. ![[image loading]](http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/trumpromney_112916getty_0.jpg?itok=-Epz8JNo) Wait sam!dzat joins kwark posting through others? I seriously expected a third throwaway account and not this kind of tomfoolery. Wait there are people that think Flynn and Sessions are good? I don't want either of them anywhere near a government office. I broadly agree with their political positions and think they'll fight for their beliefs about how government should be run. Particularly the state of the justice department, the civil rights division, and the thrust of what it's been doing under Holder & Lynch. We had a lot of discussion about Sessions' controversial racial talk, but remember he was appointed by Reagan as US Attorney Southern District AL and had twelve years experience there. One big issue backdrop for this appointment is sanctuary cities violating federal law and deportation of criminal aliens that's been sketchy under the Obama administration. A second issue would be overseeing the conduct of DOJ investigations into police departments accused of discriminatory policing. So I'm enthusiastic about those three picks, and disgusted by Chao/Mnunchin, as well as unhappy about the names proposed thus far for the SoS position. Like LegalLord pointed out, the other option was Clinton naming people to these positions, which would mean nobody I prefer in any admin position. Conservatives don't have a lot of pressure to exert because Trump was elected on largely un-conservative policy positions, so we'll have to see how it plays out with Tea Party congressmen opposing spending proposals and if they can extract policy concessions in return.
Conservatives should be fairly happy with what Trump has done so far with his picks. Some of these appointments have been very conservative and will likely lead to a furthering of many conservative interests.
|
On December 01 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at. This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota. Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent.
Given that the standard response to any criticism of Trump is still "but Hillary" after 3 weeks of her disappearing from politics, speaking out would only further delay the day Trump can do any wrong in the eyes of his voters.
|
Congratulations to all of the Democrats (and the numerous Republicans) who were hoping that Pelosi would remain the minority leader in the House.
|
On December 01 2016 01:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at. This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota. Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent. running for president is exhausting. so she's very tired. she's also might be very sad/grief-stricken. It's a major blow to her after all. It's not like she has some other political office wherein she should be saying stuff. Bernie is still talking, but he's also still a Senator. Clinton has no office at the moment. There's nothing terribly wrong with bowing out, gracefully or ungracefully.
I don't at all buy the "exhausted" line, less Trump was right about her stamina.
She sure seemed set on being the leader of the Democratic party, now, not so much. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate her gtfo of politics, but she's not acting like a leader.
Whether she's got an office or not, she's got millions of people who supported her and now don't know where to turn for leadership. I'd advise instead of waiting for Hillary to tell them what to do (may never happen) they just get behind the person out there doing the work.
On December 01 2016 01:57 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at. This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota. Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent. Given that the standard response to any criticism of Trump is still "but Hillary" after 3 weeks of her disappearing from politics, speaking out would only further delay the day Trump can do any wrong in the eyes of his voters.
Who said anything about Trump? Plenty of non-Trump related things she could be speaking on. The water protectors would be one of them.
|
On December 01 2016 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:27 Incognoto wrote:
Yeah I meant development process.
Mohdoo with your definition you could get rid of the baby as long as it's unborn. ;/ I will just assume you know more about neuroscience than I do and assume that you know what you're talking about. If it is indeed true that no consciousness is formed while in the womb, I don't technically see any problem with it. I won't deny I get a creepy "that just seems messed up" feeling, but if it is technically true, it is just me having a meaningless emotional response. At the end of the day, when applying policy to millions of people, detachment from knee-jerk emotional responses is necessary. It is impossible to accommodate the emotional knee-jerk reactions of everyone, so we need to just defer to reason and accuracy. If no consciousness is present, there is no real difference between killing a human and an animal. The flesh and bones happen to form a shape familiar to us which we are instinctively heavily sympathetic towards. But that doesn't make it human. It makes it something that we naturally feel sympathetic towards. But those are two very different things.
Consciousness is not a black and white thing. It's not so that a fetus has no consciousness, it is born, and poof, it has consciousness. That's not how consciousness works. Modern science sees consciousness more in terms of degrees. An adult human is up until now the most conscious being we know of, and it is hard for us to imagine something with more consciousness than us or what that would mean (an intelligent hive mind perhaps?) However, it is quite easy to see that a dog has greater consciousness than a mosquito. Similarly, consciousness is something that develops in humans. A zygote has no consciousness, and a newborn baby has limited consciousness (for instance, a newborn baby is completely overwhelmed by sensory input, and it takes a couple of months for it to start making sense of both its own body and the world around it). I don't think anybody is okay with "aborting" newborns (aka murdering babies), despite the fact that you could make the argument that pigs are "more conscious" than newborns and we slaughter them by the millions.
|
On December 01 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote:
Congratulations to all of the Democrats (and the numerous Republicans) who were hoping that Pelosi would remain the minority leader in the House.
You sound sarcastic, but insofar as I can tell, Pelosi is doing a pretty decent job? She seems a lot more competent in her position than Reid in his. And she seems to have a working opposition, as opposed to Ryan who can barely keep the Republicans from waging full-blown political war on each other.
|
On December 01 2016 01:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:29 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 17:48 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. What could possibly have made you think that there were 3 bullets in his gun? We were talking about how Trump was always and still remains a dice roll on good policies and following through. The difference was that Clinton was a known quantity, a bad decision-maker provably over and over again. So I'd rather not pick the loaded gun playing general election roulette. That was my standpoint, but perhaps you're pure sarcasm here. On November 30 2016 22:45 Slaughter wrote:On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. It's the one-two whammy. Make Goldman Sachs Great Again, Make the Establishment Great Again. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. And let me be clear: Flynn/Sessions/Pompeo are outstanding picks and I salute Trump for making them. His latest ones are awful. Everyone I hear under consideration for SoS is awful. It has all the makings of waiting four or eight years to try to get another in the White House that will get the bureaucracy under control again. On November 30 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:Courtesy of Samizdat, take a look at this wonderful picture. It says things about Trump's cabinet search that words simply cannot lol. Wait sam!dzat joins kwark posting through others? I seriously expected a third throwaway account and not this kind of tomfoolery. Wait there are people that think Flynn and Sessions are good? I don't want either of them anywhere near a government office. I broadly agree with their political positions and think they'll fight for their beliefs about how government should be run. Particularly the state of the justice department, the civil rights division, and the thrust of what it's been doing under Holder & Lynch. We had a lot of discussion about Sessions' controversial racial talk, but remember he was appointed by Reagan as US Attorney Southern District AL and had twelve years experience there. One big issue backdrop for this appointment is sanctuary cities violating federal law and deportation of criminal aliens that's been sketchy under the Obama administration. A second issue would be overseeing the conduct of DOJ investigations into police departments accused of discriminatory policing. So I'm enthusiastic about those three picks, and disgusted by Chao/Mnunchin, as well as unhappy about the names proposed thus far for the SoS position. Like LegalLord pointed out, the other option was Clinton naming people to these positions, which would mean nobody I prefer in any admin position. Conservatives don't have a lot of pressure to exert because Trump was elected on largely un-conservative policy positions, so we'll have to see how it plays out with Tea Party congressmen opposing spending proposals and if they can extract policy concessions in return. Conservatives should be fairly happy with what Trump has done so far with his picks. Some of these appointments have been very conservative and will likely lead to a furthering of many conservative interests.
The fact that the guy who would drain the swamp and keep corrupt Hillary's goons at bay hires a former goldman sachs wall street dude (mnuchin) for treasure, and hires lobbyists like crazy (Obama banned them) seems not to be a problem for all you anti establishment (lol) people.
But let's agree than having a clean non-corrupt and non-establishment administration was always bullshit talk to trap the dummies. In fact we are getting towards one of the most corrupt administration in history, with conflicts of interest absolutely everywhere. If there were any consistency there, prople who voted for Trump should already be absolutely furious.
Meanwhile a nice article by Krugman about how many million people voted for losing their health coverage (it's 5,5 millions). Talk of shooting yourself in the face.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2016/11/29/how-many-people-just-voted-themselves-out-of-health-care/
|
I'll withhold judgment on whether Trump's administration is corrupt until he's actually in office and doing things. We're only 3 weeks past the election, and y'all are already jumping to all sorts of stupidly premature conclusions. Did you learn nothing from the campaign?
|
On December 01 2016 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:57 Dan HH wrote:On December 01 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at. This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota. Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent. Given that the standard response to any criticism of Trump is still "but Hillary" after 3 weeks of her disappearing from politics, speaking out would only further delay the day Trump can do any wrong in the eyes of his voters. Who said anything about Trump? Plenty of non-Trump related things she could be speaking on. The water protectors would be one of them.
What do you think the subject of every single question asked by reporters would be? No, thanks. I'd much rather Bernie spearheads the opposition. The sooner Hillary fades from memory the sooner Trump has to answer for anything.
|
On December 01 2016 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:48 zlefin wrote:On December 01 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at. This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota. Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent. running for president is exhausting. so she's very tired. she's also might be very sad/grief-stricken. It's a major blow to her after all. It's not like she has some other political office wherein she should be saying stuff. Bernie is still talking, but he's also still a Senator. Clinton has no office at the moment. There's nothing terribly wrong with bowing out, gracefully or ungracefully. I don't at all buy the "exhausted" line, less Trump was right about her stamina. She sure seemed set on being the leader of the Democratic party, now, not so much. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate her gtfo of politics, but she's not acting like a leader. Whether she's got an office or not, she's got millions of people who supported her and now don't know where to turn for leadership. I'd advise instead of waiting for Hillary to tell them what to do (may never happen) they just get behind the person out there doing the work. Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:57 Dan HH wrote:On December 01 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at. This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota. Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent. Given that the standard response to any criticism of Trump is still "but Hillary" after 3 weeks of her disappearing from politics, speaking out would only further delay the day Trump can do any wrong in the eyes of his voters. Who said anything about Trump? Plenty of non-Trump related things she could be speaking on. The water protectors would be one of them.
I don't understand, you know this is what the losing candidate does every single time, right? She didn't want to be the leader of the Democratic Party, she wanted to be the leader of the United States. She lost. Now you don't hear from her for the same reason you didn't hear from Mitt Romney for almost 4 years - because now you're forever known as that person who lost that one time. Your party needs to move on, so if you're in elected office you go back to quietly doing your job, and if you're not, you stfu. This is so completely not grounds to criticize her leadership abilities.
|
On December 01 2016 02:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'll withhold judgment on whether Trump's administration is corrupt until he's actually in office and doing things. We're only 3 weeks past the election, and y'all are already jumping to all sorts of stupidly premature conclusions. Did you learn nothing from the campaign?
The problem for a lot of people harping on the conflicts is that they know that all there will be is "the appearance" because there will be no practical way to get hard evidence. Annnnd they just spent the last year arguing that "the appearance" of impropriety, does not corruption make.
Unfortunately for them, it's not quite as easy for them to slough off as it is for Republicans who spent that same year asserting the opposite.
On December 01 2016 02:14 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2016 01:48 zlefin wrote:On December 01 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at. This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota. Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent. running for president is exhausting. so she's very tired. she's also might be very sad/grief-stricken. It's a major blow to her after all. It's not like she has some other political office wherein she should be saying stuff. Bernie is still talking, but he's also still a Senator. Clinton has no office at the moment. There's nothing terribly wrong with bowing out, gracefully or ungracefully. I don't at all buy the "exhausted" line, less Trump was right about her stamina. She sure seemed set on being the leader of the Democratic party, now, not so much. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate her gtfo of politics, but she's not acting like a leader. Whether she's got an office or not, she's got millions of people who supported her and now don't know where to turn for leadership. I'd advise instead of waiting for Hillary to tell them what to do (may never happen) they just get behind the person out there doing the work. On December 01 2016 01:57 Dan HH wrote:On December 01 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 01 2016 01:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 01 2016 01:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now. I certainly don't expect that she would walk away by her own accord. She won't have another run at president, that I'm pretty sure of. Probably best for her to find more unelected office positions since that seems to be what she's better at. This is one of many reasons I didn't vote for her. Since her presidential aspirations ended so has her willingness to speak out (at least so far), meanwhile Bernie's the only one of the three talking about the American government sanctioned savagery happening in North Dakota. Hard to see how if Hillary really cared she could be silent. Given that the standard response to any criticism of Trump is still "but Hillary" after 3 weeks of her disappearing from politics, speaking out would only further delay the day Trump can do any wrong in the eyes of his voters. Who said anything about Trump? Plenty of non-Trump related things she could be speaking on. The water protectors would be one of them. I don't understand, you know this is what the losing candidate does every single time, right? She didn't want to be the leader of the Democratic Party, she wanted to be the leader of the United States. She lost. Now you don't hear from her for the same reason you didn't hear from Mitt Romney for almost 4 years - because now you're forever known as that person who lost that one time. Your party needs to move on, so if you're in elected office you go back to quietly doing your job, and if you're not, you stfu. This is so completely not grounds to criticize her leadership abilities.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. She certainly did want to lead the Democratic party (that you would suggest otherwise is confounding). Hillary didn't just appear at the top of the dem ticket. A lot of people worked to get her there and were counting on her leadership, which has evaporated.
You're free not to assess her leadership by looking at what's she's doing for the people who followed her, but I will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
