|
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 January 10 2017 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On January 10 2017 05:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2017 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 10 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:On January 10 2017 00:37 Dan HH wrote:
How tediously predictable, his phone must be suggesting 'overrated' as soon as he types 'o' at this point The funny thing is Meryl Streep's speech itself might be the best Trump ad lately. He did not need to do anything more than retweet the speech and put an 'lol' at the end of it, maybe offer Streep a more official job as Trump surrogate. She's my current nominee for best unofficial Trump surrogate of 2017, but it will likely be a close race and the year has just started. 2016 celebrity videos at the close of the campaign definitely topped this and I expect repeat performances. Keep in mind you voted for a celebrity  . Of course Trump, who apparently can't elevate himself higher than a youtube comment section answered with a tweet shitstorm of schoolboy taunts. Really a great idea to put that dude in office. 2016, the year america lost all sense of decency. He is effectively distracting from his cabinet nominees, that much is for sure. This i the 7d chess while everyone is playing Go analogy Trump apologist normally use isn't it? Everybody is playing chess, but Trump threw the board over the wall and is taunting everyone in the meanest way he can because his attention span is 15 seconds anyway and so he doesn't want to play the game anymore.
|
On January 10 2017 01:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: He really needs to learn to just.. drop it. Pretty much all of superstardom thinks he's terrible, none of them care about Trump insulting them.. By now, he's just incentivizing celebrities to insult him, and if he's gonna spend his presidency being involved in perpetual twitter wars with every beloved american, that's really not gonna help him.
considering he attacked the actual pope on twitter during the election and nobody seemed to care. I'm not sure what he'd have to do to get his supporters to have a problem at this point.
plus this one has been easily turned into a "celebrities should shut up because its supposed to be entertainment" argument from all the people who like attacking Hollywood just because they happen to be liberal and rich. Their sort of seen as the Liberal Elite along with DC and the like. Too be fair though they do tend to be more politically involved than a lot of other groups and they don't really have a whole lot of connections with the working class viewpoint wise. There's a reason you didn't see Trump blasting people like George Karl and Steve Van Gundy after he was elected (or the nba in general during the election I think). I wonder if those people had the same argument regarding Ted Nugent going on political rants while Obama was president. I doubt it unfortunately. Personally I think any stick to entertainment argument is dumb because nobody has an obligation to shut up for your amusement no matter how much you disagree with them. They know they might alienate people and their fine with that.
but yeah long story short attacking Hollywood is always good from a conservative perspective (think a liberal attacking the Koch brothers or big oil for a liberal equivalent). I have more of a problem with him randomly attacking people like companies or Arnold for no reason and am surprised by how his supporters don't seem to care about that. It got him this far. and in the campaign it did seem to distract everyone from everything else like that Hillary had an image problem and a message problem with the rust belt, or him consistently showing he didn't properly understand foreign policy (not knowing what the nuclear triad was, not knowing diference between first strike and first use, insisting that Russia wasn't going into the Ukraine)
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 10 2017 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 05:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2017 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 10 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:The funny thing is Meryl Streep's speech itself might be the best Trump ad lately. He did not need to do anything more than retweet the speech and put an 'lol' at the end of it, maybe offer Streep a more official job as Trump surrogate. https://twitter.com/goldenglobes/status/818295979182960640She's my current nominee for best unofficial Trump surrogate of 2017, but it will likely be a close race and the year has just started. 2016 celebrity videos at the close of the campaign definitely topped this and I expect repeat performances. Keep in mind you voted for a celebrity  . Of course Trump, who apparently can't elevate himself higher than a youtube comment section answered with a tweet shitstorm of schoolboy taunts. Really a great idea to put that dude in office. 2016, the year america lost all sense of decency. He is effectively distracting from his cabinet nominees, that much is for sure. I don't expect any real battles for confirmation. Seems like people have mostly made peace with his choices.
|
also this is apparently happening. How is this supposed to work with his children running his buisnesses?
Donald Trump will name son-in-law Jared Kushner a senior advisor in his White House, multiple news outlest are reporting
Trump senior advisor Kellyanne Conway tweeted on Monday.
Kushner, a 36-year-old real-estate developer and publisher of the New York Observer, has been married to Trump's daughter, Ivanka, since 2009. When it was reported last week that Kushner and Ivanka Trump would be moving to Washington, D.C., it fed into speculation that one or both would serve as advisors in the Trump administration.
Bringing family members into the White House may prove difficult, though. That's because of a 1967 anti-nepotism law, inspired by another famous family, as NPR's Jim Zarroli recently reported:
The anti-nepotism law was passed by Congress in response to President John F. Kennedy's decision to appoint his brother Robert as attorney general, says Darrell West, vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "It was very controversial at the time. Lyndon Johnson in particular did not like that, and when he became president he helped shepherd this anti-nepotism law through the U.S. Congress," West says. But it's not entirely clear what that law means. Here is what the statute lays out, as NPR's Ailsa Chang reported in November:
"A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official." The question now is what exactly "agency" means, Chang reported.
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/09/508990297/trump-to-reportedly-name-son-in-law-jared-kushner-as-senior-advisor
|
The Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, which last year leaked radioactive material into groundwater near New York City, will close by April 2021, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Monday.
“For 15 years, I have been deeply concerned by the continuing safety violations at Indian Point, especially given its location in the largest and most densely populated metropolitan region in the country,” Cuomo said. “I am proud to have secured this agreement with Entergy [the plant’s operator] to responsibly close the facility 14 years ahead of schedule, to protect the safety of all New Yorkers.”
The plant has had 40 “safety events”, “operational events”, and shutdowns since 2012. The shutdowns have exposed apparent fragility in the nuclear facility’s workings: in December 2015 the plant was shut down for three days after droppings from a “large bird” caused an arc between power lines and a transmission tower. In April 2016, Entergy admitted it had found that bolts holding together the interior of one of Indian Point’s reactors were damaged and, in some cases, missing.
Entergy also came under fire in 2016 after the Guardian published a safety assessment of proposed natural gas pipelines to be built by energy pipeline company Spectra on Indian Point property. The assessment, provided to the Guardian by engineer Paul Blanch and obtained through a freedom of information act (Foia), was partly hand-drawn and did not adequately account for the damage to the plant that could result from a breach of the lines.
Local environmental groups have made the plant a nemesis, though those who work at the facility in Buchanan, New York, want it to remain open. The plant employs just under 1,000 people; Entergy’s chairman and CEO, Leo Denault, thanked Indian Point’s employees in a statement on the coming closure and said the company was “committed to treating our employees fairly and will help those interested in other opportunities to relocate within the Entergy system”.
Paul Gallay, of activist group Riverkeeper, has campaigned long and hard to have the plant closed. “Given the scope of the risk Indian Point poses, this is an essential step to a safer and more secure New York,” Gallay told the Guardian.
Gallay said that although the announcement was encouraging, the project of detoxification was just beginning. “The very first priority is to get the spent fuel out of the overpacked storage pools where it’s resided for the whole 45-year length of the operation of the facility,” he said. “This agreement requires that and must be followed by prompt and full radiological decommissioning.”
But he was pleased, he said. With Indian Point closed, “necessary cleanup work can begin in earnest”.
Source
|
On January 10 2017 06:33 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:also this is apparently happening. How is this supposed to work with his children running his buisnesses? Show nested quote +Donald Trump will name son-in-law Jared Kushner a senior advisor in his White House, multiple news outlest are reporting
Trump senior advisor Kellyanne Conway tweeted on Monday.
Kushner, a 36-year-old real-estate developer and publisher of the New York Observer, has been married to Trump's daughter, Ivanka, since 2009. When it was reported last week that Kushner and Ivanka Trump would be moving to Washington, D.C., it fed into speculation that one or both would serve as advisors in the Trump administration.
Bringing family members into the White House may prove difficult, though. That's because of a 1967 anti-nepotism law, inspired by another famous family, as NPR's Jim Zarroli recently reported:
The anti-nepotism law was passed by Congress in response to President John F. Kennedy's decision to appoint his brother Robert as attorney general, says Darrell West, vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "It was very controversial at the time. Lyndon Johnson in particular did not like that, and when he became president he helped shepherd this anti-nepotism law through the U.S. Congress," West says. But it's not entirely clear what that law means. Here is what the statute lays out, as NPR's Ailsa Chang reported in November:
"A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official." The question now is what exactly "agency" means, Chang reported. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/09/508990297/trump-to-reportedly-name-son-in-law-jared-kushner-as-senior-advisor If I remember correctly the Anti-nepotism law means that nepotism apointings can't be paid a salery for their posting. I'm sure this will discourage everyone and anyone from doing it as was their intent when they passed the law.
So we will find out I guess.
|
On January 10 2017 05:10 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 04:51 xDaunt wrote:On January 10 2017 04:44 Nyxisto wrote:On January 10 2017 04:39 xDaunt wrote:On January 10 2017 04:37 Nyxisto wrote: do we really need to do this again? The wall, racial profiling, threats of torture, bossing around business and other forms of protectionism, his threats of religious controls and surveillance, stop and frisk, immigration, freedom of the press etc.. Like take a list of everything he has said and pick a dozen things. What has he actually planned or said that is not in one form or another authoritarian? Like I said, this is an issue of semantics. It depends upon how you want to define authoritarian and use it. It's hard to have a civilized discussion when someone keeps using inconsistent terminology. so you don't agree that those things are unambiguously authoritarian? Curbing civil liberties and limiting freedom of movement is what then? If you want to use the the gradient and relative version authoritarian, sure, I'll agree that some Trump policies move in an authoritarian direction. What I reject is the use of authoritarian as a slur for dictator or autocrat as it pertains to Trump. As for @danglars I did not see a reason to namedrop Altemeyer, but I saw every reason to defend his work from being offhandedly dismissed without researched. Simberto and Nyxisto addressed the matter better than I could. It was actually the response train from Acrofales I quoted, in which you were dismissive and disingenuous to common-sense objections. You tried tried to generalize to an unlike situation. Re-read my post for the details. If you want to bring up/draw from relevant articles from experts and defend their conclusions intelligently, I have no issue.
|
On January 10 2017 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On January 10 2017 05:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2017 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 10 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:The funny thing is Meryl Streep's speech itself might be the best Trump ad lately. He did not need to do anything more than retweet the speech and put an 'lol' at the end of it, maybe offer Streep a more official job as Trump surrogate. https://twitter.com/goldenglobes/status/818295979182960640She's my current nominee for best unofficial Trump surrogate of 2017, but it will likely be a close race and the year has just started. 2016 celebrity videos at the close of the campaign definitely topped this and I expect repeat performances. Keep in mind you voted for a celebrity  . Of course Trump, who apparently can't elevate himself higher than a youtube comment section answered with a tweet shitstorm of schoolboy taunts. Really a great idea to put that dude in office. 2016, the year america lost all sense of decency. He is effectively distracting from his cabinet nominees, that much is for sure. This i the 7d chess while everyone is playing Go analogy Trump apologist normally use isn't it?
Lol I might actually be endorsing the 7D chess argument in this case. The Republicans have stacked the media schedule this week with a bunch of stuff going on. Trump has unconventional cabinet nominees, including people with all sorts of business ties to the industries and countries they're going to be involved with. Reportedly, these people have not finished providing all paperwork and the people involved in reviewing their paperwork are overworked because of the unusual nature of these nominees.
On the other hand, Trump's tweet would also appear to be run of the mill Trump narcissism. So I'm not too sure.
But what I do know is that the 24 hour news media does not have enough space to fit in all the Trump stories that are out there. Or if nothing else, they spend too much time on the more dramatic ones.
|
On January 10 2017 05:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 10 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:The funny thing is Meryl Streep's speech itself might be the best Trump ad lately. He did not need to do anything more than retweet the speech and put an 'lol' at the end of it, maybe offer Streep a more official job as Trump surrogate. https://twitter.com/goldenglobes/status/818295979182960640She's my current nominee for best unofficial Trump surrogate of 2017, but it will likely be a close race and the year has just started. 2016 celebrity videos at the close of the campaign definitely topped this and I expect repeat performances. Keep in mind you voted for a celebrity  . Of course Trump, who apparently can't elevate himself higher than a youtube comment section answered with a tweet shitstorm of schoolboy taunts. Really a great idea to put that dude in office. 2016, the year america lost all sense of decency. America is beta testing its way back to a cure, and I salute the Trump voters that looked at the whole package and judged it better than the competition.
Streep is that special type that reminds us why a Trump vote was absolutely necessary (Have you learned nothing from 2016, Hollywood? Trump's the special type that can't see all he needed to do was retweet the video to his large audience, no commentary needed. She might as well have been a 2020 Trump campaign ad.
|
Norway28672 Posts
Karis, I think a lot of people were willing to deal with Trump during the campaign as it just being part of the campaign. 'He did what he had to do to win' - and hey, he did win. People defending him are saying that we need to look at his policy, not just blast him for what might have been empty campaign promises. Personally, I think this is totally fair (although I also think the argument 'his cabinet picks speak volumes of the policies we're gonna get' is valid).
However, I think people, even large swaths of the ones who voted for him, will grow really, really tired of that same behavior from the actual president. He has his loyal fanclub, those won't care, maybe they'll even appreciate him 'sticking it to the overrated hollywood phonies' or whatever. But all the people who voted Trump because they hated Hillary's face or because they were staunch republicans concerned with the direction of the country and they saw SCOTUS as incredibly important etc, all the upstanding conservatives who are genuinely very concerned with displaying proper, moral behavior, who want the president to be a good role model for their own children etc.. They're gonna get fed up with this. Republicans also like hollywood movies, and they also like some Hollywood actors. At this pace, there will be very few he has not insulted on twitter after the next two years of golden globe and oscar ceremonies.
|
The Freedom Caucus might still have outsized influence in a Republican controlled government.
The most conservative and often rebellious congressional political faction within the Republican Party is headed in a new, policy-oriented direction this year – and it’s starting with Obamacare, says the North Carolina congressman who helped found the House Freedom Caucus.
In the first days of the 115th Congress, U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows – now chairman of the caucus – signaled he and other conservatives may tangle with Republican Party leaders over the timing of replacing the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare.
The band of nearly 40 conservative lawmakers in the Freedom Caucus will meet Monday to decide whether they’ll oppose mainstream Republican efforts to immediately repeal Obamacare without a replacement.
If the group is successful, the push could put Meadows and the Freedom Caucus on the front line of shaping an overhaul to the nation’s health care policy.
Source
|
On January 10 2017 06:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: Karis, I think a lot of people were willing to deal with Trump during the campaign as it just being part of the campaign. 'He did what he had to do to win' - and hey, he did win. People defending him are saying that we need to look at his policy, not just blast him for what might have been empty campaign promises. Personally, I think this is totally fair (although I also think the argument 'his cabinet picks speak volumes of the policies we're gonna get' is valid).
However, I think people, even large swaths of the ones who voted for him, will grow really, really tired of that same behavior from the actual president. He has his loyal fanclub, those won't care, maybe they'll even appreciate him 'sticking it to the overrated hollywood phonies' or whatever. But all the people who voted Trump because they hated Hillary's face or because they were staunch republicans concerned with the direction of the country and they saw SCOTUS as incredibly important etc, all the upstanding conservatives who are genuinely very concerned with displaying proper, moral behavior, who want the president to be a good role model for their own children etc.. They're gonna get fed up with this. Republicans also like hollywood movies, and they also like some Hollywood actors. At this pace, there will be very few he has not insulted on twitter after the next two years of golden globe and oscar ceremonies.
yeah long term people will probably get sick of it especially if he continues it. short term though I don't expect people's minds to change that much. Most of the rust belt probably doesn't care about anything but his economic policies (there was some article about people in West Virginia who admitted he was a maniac but voted for him solely because he promised to bring back coal jobs.)
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's amazing to me just how much news attention this apparent spat between Trump and Hollywood seems to get.
|
On January 10 2017 06:58 LegalLord wrote: It's amazing to me just how much news attention this apparent spat between Trump and Hollywood seems to get.
Would you say its...
*takes off sunglasses*
Dramatic 
But really though, people care about celebrities more than anything. I know more people crying when celebraties died than they did when politicians lose. Its dumbfounding.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Here's an actually pretty good article from WaPo concerning Tillerson and possible Exxon conflicts of interest.
When Ashti Hawrami, the oil minister from Iraq’s largely autonomous Kurdistan region, unfurled a map of untapped oil fields for a team of ExxonMobil officials in the spring of 2011, they saw possibility and profit.
The minister pointed to the blocks that had already been taken by other foreign firms as Iraqi Kurdistan, long at odds with the country’s central government over oil and territory, raced to establish itself as a player on world oil markets. He also showed them the fields that were still up for grabs. Tell me what you want, and we can start negotiating, Hawrami said, according to one former Exxon official who attended the meeting.
It was the start of months of hurried talks blessed by ExxonMobil’s chief executive, Rex Tillerson, and other senior executives back in Dallas. The company was making a high-stakes gamble that new agreements would pay off handsomely if the northern region held billions of barrels of accessible oil.
But the deal overseen by Tillerson, whose confirmation hearings to become secretary of state begin Wednesday, defied U.S. foreign policy aims, placing the company’s financial interests above the American goal of creating a stable, cohesive Iraq. U.S. diplomats had asked Exxon and other firms to wait, fearing that such deals would undermine their credibility with Iraqi authorities and worsen ethnic tensions that had led Iraq to the brink of civil war. A law governing nationwide oil investments was tied up in parliament, and Iraqi officials were rejecting the Kurdistan regional government’s authority to export oil or cut its own deals.
When word of Exxon’s partnership with the Kurds reached Washington, the State Department chided the oil firm: “When Exxon has sought our advice about this, we asked them to wait for national legislation. We told them we thought that was the best course of action,” then-spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. Source
|
On January 10 2017 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:The Freedom Caucus might still have outsized influence in a Republican controlled government. Show nested quote +The most conservative and often rebellious congressional political faction within the Republican Party is headed in a new, policy-oriented direction this year – and it’s starting with Obamacare, says the North Carolina congressman who helped found the House Freedom Caucus.
In the first days of the 115th Congress, U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows – now chairman of the caucus – signaled he and other conservatives may tangle with Republican Party leaders over the timing of replacing the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare.
The band of nearly 40 conservative lawmakers in the Freedom Caucus will meet Monday to decide whether they’ll oppose mainstream Republican efforts to immediately repeal Obamacare without a replacement.
If the group is successful, the push could put Meadows and the Freedom Caucus on the front line of shaping an overhaul to the nation’s health care policy. Source
Many FC members come from heavily Trump districts, they will be busy navigating their own politics for most of this presidency. When it comes time for the 1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill we'll see what they are made of.
|
On January 10 2017 06:58 LegalLord wrote: It's amazing to me just how much news attention this apparent spat between Trump and Hollywood seems to get.
the Oscars are going to be fun. But yeah I personally had more of an issue with him attacking Arnold (who actually told people to stop whining after the election), Lockheed, and the union head guy than him getting in a feud with someone like this (anyone remember him and Bill Maher?).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 10 2017 07:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 06:58 LegalLord wrote: It's amazing to me just how much news attention this apparent spat between Trump and Hollywood seems to get. the Oscars are going to be fun. But yeah I personally had more of an issue with him attacking Arnold (who actually told people to stop whining after the election), Lockheed, and the union head guy than him getting in a feud with someone like this (anyone remember him and Bill Maher?). It annoys a lot of us, though, because policies of our new president are more important than his spat with this or that person.
|
On January 10 2017 07:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 07:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On January 10 2017 06:58 LegalLord wrote: It's amazing to me just how much news attention this apparent spat between Trump and Hollywood seems to get. the Oscars are going to be fun. But yeah I personally had more of an issue with him attacking Arnold (who actually told people to stop whining after the election), Lockheed, and the union head guy than him getting in a feud with someone like this (anyone remember him and Bill Maher?). It annoys a lot of us, though, because policies of our new president are more important than his spat with this or that person. Yeah well policy is not what America votes for anymore it seems.
You might not have voted for him yourself but this is the country a (slight) minority seems to want. Better get used to it. Its going to be 4 years of Trump's weekly Twitter spat updates.
|
On January 10 2017 07:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2017 07:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On January 10 2017 06:58 LegalLord wrote: It's amazing to me just how much news attention this apparent spat between Trump and Hollywood seems to get. the Oscars are going to be fun. But yeah I personally had more of an issue with him attacking Arnold (who actually told people to stop whining after the election), Lockheed, and the union head guy than him getting in a feud with someone like this (anyone remember him and Bill Maher?). It annoys a lot of us, though, because policies of our new president are more important than his spat with this or that person.
personally I'd prefer to talk policy but since there hasn't been any actually done yet and its mostly speculation people don't seem to want to from my experiences in the thread.
|
|
|
|