US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7446

On May 04 2017 10:16 zlefin wrote:

dunno; I'm guessing he does it because he likes being on tv and/or gets paid to appear or something?

On May 04 2017 10:23 biology]major wrote:


That's a very reasonable explanation, but does he not realize how he appears or comes off? Maybe he just wants the money

On May 04 2017 10:23 biology]major wrote:


That's a very reasonable explanation, but does he not realize how he appears or comes off? Maybe he just wants the money

On May 04 2017 12:58 ChristianS wrote:
Jesus Christ, they're gonna pass it. Who knows what happens in the Senate, but if they're scheduling a vote they probably have the numbers in the House at least.

There's a small part of me that hopes they pass it and own every shitty outcome of it, so they can get killed in 2018. I didn't have that spiteful impulse before Trump, but hey, he brings out the worst in people. But I know people, including my girlfriend, who will get hit hard if that PEC stuff comes back.

This is fucked.

On May 04 2017 13:35 Kyadytim wrote:

You probably don't have to worry about the PEC stuff reverting to pre-ACA conditions. I'm reasonably certain that any bill doing that is dead on arrival in the Senate. The problem, of course, is that any bill including that is dead on arrival in the Senate. As Plansix already mentioned, once they pass something and send it to the Senate, they can blame the Senate when it fails. They can also claim to constituents that they upheld their promise to repeal the ACA. It's a pretty good exit from the healthcare quagmire for House Republicans.

Probably their ideal scenario is they pass this repeal bill to the Senate, the Senate kills it ASAP, and the details don't get publicity. This lets all the Republicans go back to business as usual while claiming to have upheld their campaign promises, and if you're not happy with the outcome, vote for other like-minded Republicans in House and Senate elections.


The further details of why I hold that position are a little ranty, so they're spoilered to avoid offending people's sensibilities.
+ Show Spoiler +

One factor that might be adding fuel to the campus speech wars: Colleges are more politically polarized today than they have been in more than four decades.

That is the implication of the 2016 Freshman Survey, produced by the University of California at Los Angeles’ Higher Education Research Institute and released Monday. For decades, the survey has asked first-time, full-time freshmen how they describe their political views: far left, liberal, middle of the road, conservative or far right. Last fall, the lowest share on record, 42.3 percent, identified as middle of the road.

Additionally, the highest share on record identified as far left, though it’s still a small figure (4.2 percent).

The shrinking of the middle is largely due to a recent rise in the share of women (who also represent a majority of college students) who identify as either liberal or far left. The share of female respondents, but not male respondents, who describe their political views this way was at an all-time high (41.1 percent for women, 28.9 percent for men). Left-wing views peaked for men way back in 1971, at 43.6 percent.

The Senate on Tuesday approved President Donald Trump’s choice to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, elevating a Wall Street lawyer who hopes to turn around the decline in the number of public companies over the past 20 years. Jay Clayton’s agenda could be aided by an unusual alignment of political forces that escaped the SEC’s most recent leaders. He will enter office without a checklist of regulations mandated by Congress, which passed sweeping legislation in 2010 that pinned down the SEC with an abundance of directives both audacious and picayune.

President Donald Trump has invited conservative leaders to the White House on Thursday for what they expect will be the ceremonial signing of a long-awaited—and highly controversial—executive order on religious liberty, according to multiple people familiar with the situation.

Two senior administration officials confirmed the plan, though one cautioned that it hasn’t yet been finalized, and noted that lawyers are currently reviewing and fine-tuning the draft language. Thursday is the National Day of Prayer, and the White House was already planning to celebrate the occasion with faith leaders.

The signing would represent a major triumph for Vice President Mike Pence—whose push for religious-freedom legislation backfired mightily when he served as governor of Indiana—and his allies in the conservative movement.

The original draft order, which would have established broad exemptions for people and groups to claim religious objections under virtually any circumstance, was leaked to The Nation on Feb. 1—the handiwork, many conservatives believed, of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, who have sought to project themselves as friendly to the LGBT community. Liberals blasted the draft order as government-licensed discrimination, and the White House distanced itself from the leaked document in a public statement.

Pence and a small team of conservative allies quickly began working behind the scenes to revise the language, and in recent weeks have ratcheted up the pressure on Trump to sign it. The new draft is being tightly held, but one influential conservative who saw the text said it hasn’t been dialed back much—if at all—since the February leak. “The language is very, very strong,” the source said.

On May 04 2017 22:37 Trainrunnef wrote:



Seems like much ado about nothing. Why does the original context matter? because she is white? Seems a little ridiculous to me, not to mention counter productive.

This manufactured outrage only serves to
a) Ensure that when a real line is crossed it wont be taken seriously. The Trump team can point to a history of posts like this and blame media bias to get away with whatever they want.
b) Make money/publicity for whoever is breaking the latest Trump team faux pas
c) Tire out the real public outrage on silly issues like this. the MSM needs to learn a little moderation. When Trump was elected there were marches and protests. how much energy do you think people have to sustain over 4 years and how much of it goes wasted on small potatoes. people normalize to this if it happens to often. They stop caring and it becomes just another Trumpism that they have grown to accept because you can't sustain outrage forever, its exhausting.

On May 04 2017 22:37 Trainrunnef wrote:



Seems like much ado about nothing. Why does the original context matter? because she is white? Seems a little ridiculous to me, not to mention counter productive.

This manufactured outrage only serves to
a) Ensure that when a real line is crossed it wont be taken seriously. The Trump team can point to a history of posts like this and blame media bias to get away with whatever they want.
b) Make money/publicity for whoever is breaking the latest Trump team faux pas
c) Tire out the real public outrage on silly issues like this. the MSM needs to learn a little moderation. When Trump was elected there were marches and protests. how much energy do you think people have to sustain over 4 years and how much of it goes wasted on small potatoes. people normalize to this if it happens to often. They stop caring and it becomes just another Trumpism that they have grown to accept because you can't sustain outrage forever, its exhausting.

On May 04 2017 08:03 biology]major wrote:
Btw what happens if our diplomats/leadership are kidnapped or assasinated when traveling abroad, especially to unstable countries? Would it be all out war --> nuclear catastrophe?

On May 04 2017 10:23 biology]major wrote:


That's a very reasonable explanation, but does he not realize how he appears or comes off? Maybe he just wants the money