|
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 August 19 2017 05:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 04:57 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:45 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:43 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:37 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 04:33 KwarK wrote:On August 19 2017 04:31 m4ini wrote:
For someone who has some trouble following this discussion, this is just about a man(-body) wanting to be called "she" and vice versa, correct?
A trans-woman (someone who identifies as female but was assigned male at birth) wanting to be treated as a woman (or the inverse), but yes. Bodies can be in various states of transition. You see, i was going to say that i don't understand the discussion because that should be simply normal, but the fact that you actively decide to be a dick about a very clear question makes me wonder if you're just out to argue whatever. :s I think you misread my post. I wasn't trying to be a dick at all. My bad then, must've misunderstood. All good. It's difficult sometimes because language isn't really up to the task. A trans-woman wouldn't say that they're a man wanting to be called a woman, even if they still have a penis. They'd say that they're a woman asking to be called a woman. That's why identifying and assigned at birth are better descriptors than man or woman. Actually, a trans would simply say "i've got the wrong body" or "i'm trapped in the wrong body". They usually don't go into lengths as to why, and personally i don't see the need to. Gib me some time to adjust, mistakes will happen at first, but as long as you respect me trying rather than blasting me for the first time i got it wrong (not saying that happens, just saying that in case that happens), all good, ima try. The reason i phrased the question like that was simple, simplicity. There's no need to go into huge discussions with big words for something (to me) rather fundamental. Although i will say, attackhelicopters, wolves, witches, wizards, fogs, and the like can fuck off. That's a mental illness. To me anyway. No need to support that, and i won't if i'd ever happen to meet one (which i doubt). I have a controversial opinion about trans people adhering to and reinforcing gender norms and that it would be healthier for many if we just collectively worked toward a society where you can still be "he" and play with dolls, wear makeup, have long hair, paint their nails, talk how they want, walk how they want, dress how they want, etc... and vice versa for "she" (especially since, if you do it "right [GI Joes, rock band, etc..)" in today's society, you can do and not feel an overwhelming sense of body dysmorphia) . There's a variety of folks this type of thought doesn't directly apply to like people with Klinefelter's or other circumstances where they may be surgically sexed at birth (this happens much less in the US now) and others. Regardless of my opinion, I'm not a dick about it like it seems some people insist should be fine?
My partner regularly wonders why men who progressed to women feel the need to dress like a bitch to feel like a woman. It's a very broad statement and based on 100% personal experience and of no statistical value.
I've seen a documentary quite some time ago about the first operations allowing the transition from male to female by this Casablancian doctor. Many of them went to become stars in Paris and iirc all of those portrayed were happy to finally have nice breasts and a pussy as well as to swagger about in high heels.
Those were the 50s after all. That's what it took to be a woman back then, right?
What is that but re-enforcing stereotypes?
Personally, I've hadn't had many acquaintances who were trans and at first I was rather stupefied that someone wanted to change his or her gender to the point of hormone therapy. And adjusting to the chosen pronoun took maybe two tries and a little (!!! Really not much) brain capacity when conversing with said person.
It's like using the name someone chooses to give themselves. Unless you're their mother or an asshole it's not your fucking business to decide what to call someone else (unless you're in love or a douche).
|
My partner regularly wonders why men who progressed to women feel the need to dress like a bitch to feel like a woman. It's a very broad statement and based on 100% personal experience and of no statistical value.
Usually they're not from my experience. I think you might've met a dragqueen/crossdresser.
|
St. Augustine, Florida (CNN)When he was 11 years old, LJ Stroud of St. Augustine, Florida, had a tooth emerge in a place where no tooth belongs: the roof of his mouth.
LJ was born with severe cleft lip and palate, which explained the strange eruption, as well as the constant ear infections that no antibiotic could remedy.
With her son in terrible pain, Meredith Stroud arranged for surgeries to fix his problems.
But just days before the procedures were to take place, the surgeons' office called to cancel them.
Like nearly half of all children in Florida, LJ is on Medicaid, which has several types of insurance plans. The state had switched LJ to a new plan, and his surgeons didn't take it.
LJ wasn't alone. In the spring and summer of 2015, the state switched more than 13,000 children out of a highly respected program called Children's Medical Services, or CMS, a part of Florida Medicaid. Children on this plan have serious health problems including birth defects, heart disease, diabetes and blindness.
The state moved the children to other Medicaid insurance plans that don't specialize in caring for very sick children.
Stroud says that for her son, the consequences were devastating. Despite hours of phone calls, she says, she couldn't find surgeons on his new insurance plan willing to do the highly specialized procedures he needed. Over the next seven months, her son lost 10 pounds, quit the football team and often missed school.
"He was in pain every day," Stroud said. "I just felt so helpless. It's such a horrible feeling where you can't help your kid."
LJ filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida, and he was eventually placed back on Children's Medical Services and received the care he needed. But some Florida pediatricians worry about other children with special health care needs who, two years later, are still off the program.
The doctors aren't just worried; they're angry.
First, the data analysis the state used to justify switching the children is "inaccurate" and "bizarre," according to the researcher who wrote the software used in that analysis.
Second, the screening tool the state used to select which children would be kicked off the program has been called "completely invalid" and "a perversion of science" by top experts in children with special health care needs.
Third, in fall 2015, a state administrative law judge ruled that the Department of Health should stop using the screening tool because it was unlawful. However, even after the judge issued his decision, the department didn't automatically re-enroll the children or even reach out to the families directly to let them know that re-enrollment was a possibility.
Finally, parents and Florida pediatricians raise questions about the true reasons why Florida's Republican administration switched the children's health plans. They question whether it was to financially reward insurance companies that had donated millions of dollars to the Republican Party of Florida.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/health/florida-sick-kids-insurance-eprise/index.html
|
On August 19 2017 08:49 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +St. Augustine, Florida (CNN)When he was 11 years old, LJ Stroud of St. Augustine, Florida, had a tooth emerge in a place where no tooth belongs: the roof of his mouth.
LJ was born with severe cleft lip and palate, which explained the strange eruption, as well as the constant ear infections that no antibiotic could remedy.
With her son in terrible pain, Meredith Stroud arranged for surgeries to fix his problems.
But just days before the procedures were to take place, the surgeons' office called to cancel them.
Like nearly half of all children in Florida, LJ is on Medicaid, which has several types of insurance plans. The state had switched LJ to a new plan, and his surgeons didn't take it.
LJ wasn't alone. In the spring and summer of 2015, the state switched more than 13,000 children out of a highly respected program called Children's Medical Services, or CMS, a part of Florida Medicaid. Children on this plan have serious health problems including birth defects, heart disease, diabetes and blindness.
The state moved the children to other Medicaid insurance plans that don't specialize in caring for very sick children.
Stroud says that for her son, the consequences were devastating. Despite hours of phone calls, she says, she couldn't find surgeons on his new insurance plan willing to do the highly specialized procedures he needed. Over the next seven months, her son lost 10 pounds, quit the football team and often missed school.
"He was in pain every day," Stroud said. "I just felt so helpless. It's such a horrible feeling where you can't help your kid."
LJ filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida, and he was eventually placed back on Children's Medical Services and received the care he needed. But some Florida pediatricians worry about other children with special health care needs who, two years later, are still off the program.
The doctors aren't just worried; they're angry.
First, the data analysis the state used to justify switching the children is "inaccurate" and "bizarre," according to the researcher who wrote the software used in that analysis.
Second, the screening tool the state used to select which children would be kicked off the program has been called "completely invalid" and "a perversion of science" by top experts in children with special health care needs.
Third, in fall 2015, a state administrative law judge ruled that the Department of Health should stop using the screening tool because it was unlawful. However, even after the judge issued his decision, the department didn't automatically re-enroll the children or even reach out to the families directly to let them know that re-enrollment was a possibility.
Finally, parents and Florida pediatricians raise questions about the true reasons why Florida's Republican administration switched the children's health plans. They question whether it was to financially reward insurance companies that had donated millions of dollars to the Republican Party of Florida.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/health/florida-sick-kids-insurance-eprise/index.html
Yet another reason why Medicaid should be folded into Medicare. States like Florida cannot be trusted to competently administer a healthcare program.
|
On August 19 2017 08:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 08:49 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:St. Augustine, Florida (CNN)When he was 11 years old, LJ Stroud of St. Augustine, Florida, had a tooth emerge in a place where no tooth belongs: the roof of his mouth.
LJ was born with severe cleft lip and palate, which explained the strange eruption, as well as the constant ear infections that no antibiotic could remedy.
With her son in terrible pain, Meredith Stroud arranged for surgeries to fix his problems.
But just days before the procedures were to take place, the surgeons' office called to cancel them.
Like nearly half of all children in Florida, LJ is on Medicaid, which has several types of insurance plans. The state had switched LJ to a new plan, and his surgeons didn't take it.
LJ wasn't alone. In the spring and summer of 2015, the state switched more than 13,000 children out of a highly respected program called Children's Medical Services, or CMS, a part of Florida Medicaid. Children on this plan have serious health problems including birth defects, heart disease, diabetes and blindness.
The state moved the children to other Medicaid insurance plans that don't specialize in caring for very sick children.
Stroud says that for her son, the consequences were devastating. Despite hours of phone calls, she says, she couldn't find surgeons on his new insurance plan willing to do the highly specialized procedures he needed. Over the next seven months, her son lost 10 pounds, quit the football team and often missed school.
"He was in pain every day," Stroud said. "I just felt so helpless. It's such a horrible feeling where you can't help your kid."
LJ filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida, and he was eventually placed back on Children's Medical Services and received the care he needed. But some Florida pediatricians worry about other children with special health care needs who, two years later, are still off the program.
The doctors aren't just worried; they're angry.
First, the data analysis the state used to justify switching the children is "inaccurate" and "bizarre," according to the researcher who wrote the software used in that analysis.
Second, the screening tool the state used to select which children would be kicked off the program has been called "completely invalid" and "a perversion of science" by top experts in children with special health care needs.
Third, in fall 2015, a state administrative law judge ruled that the Department of Health should stop using the screening tool because it was unlawful. However, even after the judge issued his decision, the department didn't automatically re-enroll the children or even reach out to the families directly to let them know that re-enrollment was a possibility.
Finally, parents and Florida pediatricians raise questions about the true reasons why Florida's Republican administration switched the children's health plans. They question whether it was to financially reward insurance companies that had donated millions of dollars to the Republican Party of Florida.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/health/florida-sick-kids-insurance-eprise/index.html Yet another reason why Medicaid should be folded into Medicare. States like Florida cannot be trusted to competently administer a healthcare program.
Or, you could start and sort out the root issue, rather than trying to prevent the root issue from fucking shit up.
They question whether it was to financially reward insurance companies that had donated millions of dollars to the Republican Party of Florida.
There really shouldn't be "a question". It's common knowledge that corruption/lobbying/buying favours runs deep in the government.
|
On August 19 2017 08:36 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 08:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2017 07:17 m4ini wrote:I really don't buy this bullshit about how Bannon can do more outside the admin than within.
Actually, that might be correct. As part of the WH, he had to be to some degree careful what he said and the "level of reality" had to match at least somewhat current events. Now he can go full conspiracy shit again, which would have gotten him fired beforehand. Simply by not being in meetings, providing input and generally losing the president's ear throughout the day, he is going to lose an insane amount of influence. There is a *reason* Kelly etc pushed bannon out. On the president. Certainly not on Trumps base et cetera. Especially in regards to the GOP he can now "take the gloves off" and openly talk shit/dig skeletons (or make them up). He might've lost influence on the president, but it's completely inarguable that Bannon can do more (including damage) from the outside than from the inside where he's already basically under surveillance of Kelly etc.
Steve bannon was a nobody in American politics 2 years ago. Having the president's ear is the foundation of his entire ability to impact change.
Compare Breitbart traffic to 2 years ago. Internet followings only get you so far. The big accomplishment he had was earning Trump's ear. Bannon got defeated by the establishment. He will still have influence, I am sure, but significantly less.
|
On August 19 2017 08:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 08:36 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 08:28 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2017 07:17 m4ini wrote:I really don't buy this bullshit about how Bannon can do more outside the admin than within.
Actually, that might be correct. As part of the WH, he had to be to some degree careful what he said and the "level of reality" had to match at least somewhat current events. Now he can go full conspiracy shit again, which would have gotten him fired beforehand. Simply by not being in meetings, providing input and generally losing the president's ear throughout the day, he is going to lose an insane amount of influence. There is a *reason* Kelly etc pushed bannon out. On the president. Certainly not on Trumps base et cetera. Especially in regards to the GOP he can now "take the gloves off" and openly talk shit/dig skeletons (or make them up). He might've lost influence on the president, but it's completely inarguable that Bannon can do more (including damage) from the outside than from the inside where he's already basically under surveillance of Kelly etc. Steve bannon was a nobody in American politics 2 years ago. Having the president's ear is the foundation of his entire ability to impact change. Compare Breitbart traffic to 2 years ago. Internet followings only get you so far. The big accomplishment he had was earning Trump's ear. Bannon got defeated by the establishment. He will still have influence, I am sure, but significantly less.
Time will tell. You could be right, of course. Especially if i over/underestimate the kind of person who follows Bannon (although i disagree that he was a nobody, everyone knew what kinda person he was when it was announced that he's on the team) and cohorts.
But lately i get disappointed every single time i think "well people can't be that dumb", so i remain sceptical.
|
On August 19 2017 08:48 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +My partner regularly wonders why men who progressed to women feel the need to dress like a bitch to feel like a woman. It's a very broad statement and based on 100% personal experience and of no statistical value.
Usually they're not from my experience. I think you might've met a dragqueen/crossdresser.
I wouldn't know. It's her experience.
The only male to female I met had massive cleavage and a lot of chest hair.
The other transitionees I was talking about were from the documentary. For those interested, it's called:
I am a woman now.
Free on YouTube but I could not find one with English subtitles (languages spoken are English, French, German and Dutch)
|
Canada11370 Posts
As far as I can remember there the internal rivalry for influence was Bannon vs Pence? Is it safe to say Pence won or is this going to be an administration everybody goes and nobody stays? If we knew there was going to be this much turnover, we could had a weekly session of bingo for whomever kicks it next.
|
|
|
lol @ people who thought populist shit heads would be able to navigate a political situation they had no experience in.
|
United States43230 Posts
On August 19 2017 09:57 Mohdoo wrote:lol @ people who thought populist shit heads would be able to navigate a political situation they had no experience in.
Assuming that dumb populists wouldn't have political acumen is literally what let the Nazis take power though. The establishment thought they could bring them into the tent and then coopt their movement and redirect it to their own ends. They succeeded in a few small ways, the crushing of the socialists within the party and of the SA for example, were concessions to a concerned wealthy hereditary military establishment. But ultimately they underestimated the populists and had to resort to plotting coups.
|
On August 19 2017 09:45 Falling wrote:
As far as I can remember there the internal rivalry for influence was Bannon vs Pence? Is it safe to say Pence won or is this going to be an administration everybody goes and nobody stays? If we knew there was going to be this much turnover, we could had a weekly session of bingo for whomever kicks it next.
I think the Vice President would need to be impeached as well.
So if the bet is literally anyone else on Trump's team vs Pence, it's probably safe to bet on Pence.
|
On August 19 2017 10:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 09:45 Falling wrote:
As far as I can remember there the internal rivalry for influence was Bannon vs Pence? Is it safe to say Pence won or is this going to be an administration everybody goes and nobody stays? If we knew there was going to be this much turnover, we could had a weekly session of bingo for whomever kicks it next. I think the Vice President would need to be impeached as well.
Based on what?
Don't get me wrong, i don't think he'd be much better than Trump, but you can't just remove people willy nilly from office because you don't like their policies.
So far, as far as i can tell, Pence did a good job of not rushing into the spotlight. There's no legal reason to impeach him with what we know so far.
edit:
To be clear, when Bill Clinton was in office, nobody called for Al Gores head either afaik. Makes kinda sense, the entire reason to have a VP in the first place is to have someone in case the president flops over for some reason or another.
|
On August 19 2017 10:55 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 10:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 09:45 Falling wrote:
As far as I can remember there the internal rivalry for influence was Bannon vs Pence? Is it safe to say Pence won or is this going to be an administration everybody goes and nobody stays? If we knew there was going to be this much turnover, we could had a weekly session of bingo for whomever kicks it next. I think the Vice President would need to be impeached as well. Based on what? Don't get me wrong, i don't think he'd be much better than Trump, but you can't just remove people willy nilly from office because you don't like their policies. So far, as far as i can tell, Pence did a good job of not rushing into the spotlight. There's no legal reason to impeach him with what we know so far. edit: To be clear, when Bill Clinton was in office, nobody called for Al Gores head either afaik. Makes kinda sense, the entire reason to have a VP in the first place is to have someone in case the president flops over for some reason or another.
I think the point was that Pence cannot be got rid of by any means short of impeaching him. Not that I know anything about it.
|
On August 19 2017 10:59 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 10:55 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 10:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 09:45 Falling wrote:
As far as I can remember there the internal rivalry for influence was Bannon vs Pence? Is it safe to say Pence won or is this going to be an administration everybody goes and nobody stays? If we knew there was going to be this much turnover, we could had a weekly session of bingo for whomever kicks it next. I think the Vice President would need to be impeached as well. Based on what? Don't get me wrong, i don't think he'd be much better than Trump, but you can't just remove people willy nilly from office because you don't like their policies. So far, as far as i can tell, Pence did a good job of not rushing into the spotlight. There's no legal reason to impeach him with what we know so far. edit: To be clear, when Bill Clinton was in office, nobody called for Al Gores head either afaik. Makes kinda sense, the entire reason to have a VP in the first place is to have someone in case the president flops over for some reason or another. I think the point was that Pence cannot be got rid of by any means short of impeaching him. Not that I know anything about it.
Guess i misunderstood then, obviously you can't get rid of him without impeachment. That's not gonna happen though, nobody should get his hopes up on that one - republicans might be already tired of Trump, but Pence is a different flavour of crazy. The (i assume, according to republicans) good kind of crazy. Zealotry, that kinda stuff.
|
On August 19 2017 11:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 10:59 Aquanim wrote:On August 19 2017 10:55 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 10:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 09:45 Falling wrote:
As far as I can remember there the internal rivalry for influence was Bannon vs Pence? Is it safe to say Pence won or is this going to be an administration everybody goes and nobody stays? If we knew there was going to be this much turnover, we could had a weekly session of bingo for whomever kicks it next. I think the Vice President would need to be impeached as well. Based on what? Don't get me wrong, i don't think he'd be much better than Trump, but you can't just remove people willy nilly from office because you don't like their policies. So far, as far as i can tell, Pence did a good job of not rushing into the spotlight. There's no legal reason to impeach him with what we know so far. edit: To be clear, when Bill Clinton was in office, nobody called for Al Gores head either afaik. Makes kinda sense, the entire reason to have a VP in the first place is to have someone in case the president flops over for some reason or another. I think the point was that Pence cannot be got rid of by any means short of impeaching him. Not that I know anything about it. Guess i misunderstood then, obviously you can't get rid of him without impeachment. That's not gonna happen though, nobody should get his hopes up on that one - republicans might be already tired of Trump, but Pence is a different flavour of crazy. The (i assume, according to republicans) good kind of crazy. Zealotry, that kinda stuff.
Yeah, Falling was saying Pence won out against Bannon. Since there's basically no way to get rid of Pence, it's a pretty lopsided "fight".
|
On August 19 2017 11:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 11:02 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 10:59 Aquanim wrote:On August 19 2017 10:55 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 10:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 09:45 Falling wrote:
As far as I can remember there the internal rivalry for influence was Bannon vs Pence? Is it safe to say Pence won or is this going to be an administration everybody goes and nobody stays? If we knew there was going to be this much turnover, we could had a weekly session of bingo for whomever kicks it next. I think the Vice President would need to be impeached as well. Based on what? Don't get me wrong, i don't think he'd be much better than Trump, but you can't just remove people willy nilly from office because you don't like their policies. So far, as far as i can tell, Pence did a good job of not rushing into the spotlight. There's no legal reason to impeach him with what we know so far. edit: To be clear, when Bill Clinton was in office, nobody called for Al Gores head either afaik. Makes kinda sense, the entire reason to have a VP in the first place is to have someone in case the president flops over for some reason or another. I think the point was that Pence cannot be got rid of by any means short of impeaching him. Not that I know anything about it. Guess i misunderstood then, obviously you can't get rid of him without impeachment. That's not gonna happen though, nobody should get his hopes up on that one - republicans might be already tired of Trump, but Pence is a different flavour of crazy. The (i assume, according to republicans) good kind of crazy. Zealotry, that kinda stuff. Yeah, Falling was saying Pence won out against Bannon. Since there's basically no way to get rid of Pence, it's a pretty lopsided "fight".
Again, my bad - trying to get my Goliaths under control in another tab, starting to wonder if they got even dumber, only skimmed the posting.
edit:
That's actually fitting i think, arguing trump must be like controlling a 200/200 army of goliaths through a minefield.
|
Trump is most definitely a single Dragoon. He can't get off the ramp without getting stuck all over the place and when he initiates his firing animation, he stops randomly and then he needs to move somewhere else, with the only accomplishment losing precious effective DPS.
|
On August 19 2017 11:30 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 11:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 11:02 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 10:59 Aquanim wrote:On August 19 2017 10:55 m4ini wrote:On August 19 2017 10:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 09:45 Falling wrote:
As far as I can remember there the internal rivalry for influence was Bannon vs Pence? Is it safe to say Pence won or is this going to be an administration everybody goes and nobody stays? If we knew there was going to be this much turnover, we could had a weekly session of bingo for whomever kicks it next. I think the Vice President would need to be impeached as well. Based on what? Don't get me wrong, i don't think he'd be much better than Trump, but you can't just remove people willy nilly from office because you don't like their policies. So far, as far as i can tell, Pence did a good job of not rushing into the spotlight. There's no legal reason to impeach him with what we know so far. edit: To be clear, when Bill Clinton was in office, nobody called for Al Gores head either afaik. Makes kinda sense, the entire reason to have a VP in the first place is to have someone in case the president flops over for some reason or another. I think the point was that Pence cannot be got rid of by any means short of impeaching him. Not that I know anything about it. Guess i misunderstood then, obviously you can't get rid of him without impeachment. That's not gonna happen though, nobody should get his hopes up on that one - republicans might be already tired of Trump, but Pence is a different flavour of crazy. The (i assume, according to republicans) good kind of crazy. Zealotry, that kinda stuff. Yeah, Falling was saying Pence won out against Bannon. Since there's basically no way to get rid of Pence, it's a pretty lopsided "fight". Again, my bad - trying to get my Goliaths under control in another tab, starting to wonder if they got even dumber, only skimmed the posting. edit: That's actually fitting i think, arguing trump must be like controlling a 200/200 army of goliaths through a minefield.
Maybe with some dragoons and reaver scarabs thrown in for good measure? 
To Pence's credit, he's stayed out of the media limelight/ scandal spotlight and out of the Trump vs. Republicans-In-Congress showdowns pretty well (probably because everyone around him spontaneously combusts so easily), so there doesn't seem to be too much intel on how vocal Pence is being. I would think if Pence was internally fighting frequently with Bannon or other Trump advisors/ appointees, we would hear about it in some tweets or some other form. I think he's just biding his time, which is probably the best thing he could do, and it's probably good for Pence (who is arguably more establishment than Trump) that Bannon is gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
