US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7079

We face a very serious political problem in this country, and that problem is manifested in a post written yesterday by Amber Phillips of The Washington Post. In her piece, Phillips criticizes me for lowering the state of our political discourse, because I accused the president of being a “liar.”

What should a United States senator, or any citizen, do if the president is a liar? Does ignoring this reality benefit the American people? Do we make a bad situation worse by disrespecting the president of the United States? Or do we have an obligation to say that he is a liar to protect America’s standing in the world and people’s trust in our institutions?

I happen to strongly believe in civil political discourse. The vast majority of people in Congress who hold views different than mine are not liars. It is critical we have strong, fact-based debates on the important issues facing our country and that we respect people who come to different conclusions. In a democracy people will always have honestly held different points of view.

But how does one respond to a president who has complete disregard for reality and who makes assertions heard by billions of people around the world that have no basis in fact?

In her post, Phillips reprints five tweets that I sent out yesterday as examples of “the sorry state of political discourse right now.”

On March 08 2017 14:46 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yet he's so much more popular? Perhaps the way people think of themselves doesn't quite line up with what they support. It's also a bit of a misnomer, something like universal healthcare isn't really a "far-left fantasy" it's pretty well accepted by "moderates" around the world including the US.

There's a middle to the Republicans and Democrats "left" that included things like universal healthcare, getting money out of politics, and so on. Democrats are never going to get all that they want no matter who's in charge, so what they need is someone like Bernie who can rally people to a more global center (evidenced by his message/person being more popular than anyone else's).

A U.S. judge on Tuesday ruled against Native American tribes seeking to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline as their legal options narrow weeks before oil is set to flow on the project.

Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the tribes' request for an injunction to withdraw permission issued by the Army Corps for the last link of the oil pipeline under Lake Oahe in North Dakota.

Energy Transfer Partners LP is building the $3.8 billion pipeline to move crude from the Northern Plains to the Midwest and then on to the Gulf of Mexico.

The denial of the injunction represents yet another setback to the tribes – the Standing Rock Sioux and the Cheyenne River Sioux – that have been leading the charge against the line, which runs adjacent to tribal territory in southern North Dakota.

The tribes had argued that the pipeline would render water they use for religious ceremonies spiritually impure even if the pipeline goes under Lake Oahe. They said the pipeline was reminiscent of an ancient prophesy of a Black Snake that would harm natives and that they could not use other water supplies in the region because they had been polluted by decades of mining.

Boasberg said in a written ruling that the Cheyenne tribe "remained silent as to the Black Snake prophesy and its concerns about oil in the pipeline under Lake Oahe" during two years of legal disputes against the line.

Chase Iron Eyes, lead counsel for the Lakota People's Law Project said "it is simply unacceptable that the government is allowing Energy Transfer Partners to build this pipeline through our sacred lands." The water the pipeline threatens supplies used by the Lakota and more than 17 million other people downstream, he said.

The tribes had won a reprieve from the Democratic Obama administration in early December, but the victory was short-lived as Republican President Donald Trump signed an executive order days after taking office on Jan. 20 that smoothed the path for the last permit needed.

Energy Transfer Partners needed only to cross beneath Lake Oahe, part of the Missouri River system, to connect a final gap in the 1,170-mile (1,885-km) pipeline, which will move oil from the Bakken shale formation to a terminus in Illinois.

The company said in a filing late Monday that it plans to start pumping oil through a section of the line under the Missouri River by the week of March 13.

Lisa Dillinger, a spokeswoman for the pipeline, said the company was pleased with Boasberg's decision and that it has "progressed quickly with the final piece of construction."

On March 08 2017 14:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:

24% Liberals, 32% Moderates.

On March 08 2017 06:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Its really freaking weird to be reminded that there are still republicans out there who subscribe to this idea that not everyone gets healthcare and that you have to deserve it by some weird metric. So ancient. The idea that American citizens should die from things our medicine can fix is just sad. We are so much better than that.

On March 08 2017 21:49 Velr wrote:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275


Can this guy get any more pathetic? How insecure do you have to be to give your stuff names like this?

On March 08 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:

I hate being reminded that the debate on health care is so poisoned that nobody can talk about costs, implementation, and structure without resorting to the most base emotional arguments. Some kind of holy grail religious devotion that includes an individual mandate and massive entitlement spending amounting to huge portions of GDP/federal budget. Yeah, you don't like private market plans, we get it. But don't pretend the other choice is this mixed system that kills the good parts of having a market and keeps all the bad parts of having intense government regulatory involvement. But yeah, every time the subject comes up, it's all Republicans wanna kill grandma and the homeless. Absolutely pathetic.