US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9360

Keillor spoke to the Star Tribune and said, “I put my hand on a woman’s bare back.”

This is what he claims happened:

I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.

The longtime Prairie Home Companion host joked about it being a “great distinction” that he’s getting fired, saying, “All of my heroes got fired. I only wish it could’ve been for something more heroic.”

He claims that he was the “least physically affectionate person in the building” and even goes to to actually say this:

If I had a dollar for every woman who asked to take a selfie with me and who slipped an arm around me and let it drift down below the beltline, I’d have at least a hundred dollars. So this is poetic irony of a high order. But I’m just fine. I had a good long run and am grateful for it and for everything else.

On November 30 2017 04:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Oh ffs...

On November 30 2017 04:37 Danglars wrote:

Language, my dear. It was poetic justice that Trump followed him. But to advance the appropriate follow up given Obama’s flaws, maybe you actually read why I thought it was appropriate that such a man succeeded such a predecessor?

Leave the generalization-and-scoot to ChristianS. I actually said what it was in parallels and complements that I thought highly appropriate. You don’t have to misuse the word to pretend something was left unsaid.

On November 30 2017 04:57 Nebuchad wrote:


Cool posturing. We're all here and we all know you will sling memes/campaign lines whenever you feel the need to (you have just done it in this very conversation with me trying to shift the conversation to the minority victim vs white oppressor talking point). You've also never struck me as the type not to answer talking points just because they are talking points and that's below you or something, after all this is a debate thread and you're trying to show as much moral certitude as possible, so answering a dumb talking point would be a pretty cool way to do that. My guess is the resistance comes from elsewhere.

On November 30 2017 05:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Umm, Jones publicly went on record during this campaign saying he doesn't want to change the current restrictions to late-term abortion that limit it to when the life of the mother is endangered. His statement at one point that led many to this absurd gibberish talking point was specifically against the wholesale ban (edit: with standard rape/incest life of the mother exceptions) on post-20th week abortion bill considered by the House. Great job swallowing talking points though!

I mean if you believe he's a liar who will secretly promote a completely untenable policy position at least say that and not that you believe he has a policy position he publicly said he doesn't have...

Todd: "So you wouldn't be in favor of legislation that said, ban abortion after 20 weeks or something like that?"

Jones: "I'm not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman's right and her freedom to choose. That's just the position that I've had for many years. It's a position I continue to have. But I want people to understand that once that baby is born, I’m going to be there for that child. That’s where I become a right-to-lifer."

On November 30 2017 05:48 mozoku wrote:

And this is why broad statements without defined terms like kollin made lead to horrible discussions. Words like nationalism and capitalism mean different things to different people.

Would you agree with the statement "The value of my countryman's life is worth more than a foreigner's."? Is someone immoral for doing so? Isn't the statement a form of nationalism?

How a single sentence split apart the Kentucky House Republican Caucus


“Right now, Jeff Hoover is Speaker of the House and he has the full support of the caucus,” House Majority Leader Jonathan Shell told a wall of reporters and television cameras Friday.

Those five words — full support of the caucus — were supposed to show unity behind the first Republican Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives in 96 years amid troubling allegations of a sexual harassment settlement. Instead, they set in motion a shocking Saturday for Kentucky Republicans, one that exposed several internal rifts in the party.

The governor and speaker squared off, hands on their holsters, as the Republican caucus waged its own battle of words. Every time Republican leadership attempted to create the illusion of unity, members were swift to strike it down.

Then Hoover, R-Jamestown, conceded defeat. After adamantly refusing to step down for two days as pressure mounted, Hoover resigned his leadership role Sunday.

Of all people, it was Rep. C. Wesley Morgan, R-Richmond, who first became the voice of moral authority on the matter.

A freshman Representative who had been effectively benched by leadership after a pattern of filing bills that gave the appearance of self-enrichment, he sent out a flurry of tweets late Friday night and early Saturday that called for the resignation of Hoover.

In the process, Morgan revealed that three more GOP lawmakers were accused of sexual harassment and that the House Republican Caucus chief of staff was accused of creating a hostile work environment.

As the names were made public, and with news that the governor would be holding a press conference, House leadership continued to insist that Hoover had the full support of the caucus, though they would be pursuing an independent investigation into the allegations.

So Gov. Matt Bevin weighed in. Standing in the Capitol Rotunda, he too called for Hoover to resign and with him, any other member who has settled a sexual harassment case.

“The people of Kentucky deserve better,” Bevin said. “We appropriately demand a high level of integrity from our leaders, and will tolerate nothing less in our state.”

Saturday night, the Bible-study teacher from Russell County refused to back down. He issued a statement saying it was political expediency that caused Bevin to call for his resignation, not moral authority.

“In effect, the governor seeks to be judge, jury, and executioner without hearing the evidence,” Hoover said. “One must wonder why he is so motivated to attack us unless his goal is to remove a voice that dares on occasion to disagree with him as I have done when he has made unnecessary statements attacking our teachers, state workers and retirees who are simply looking for better solutions to very serious problems facing our state.”

Until Thursday, Hoover had rarely made public statements disagreeing with the governor in a substantial way. His most scathing commentary during the drafting of the pension bill consisted of expressing his disappointment with some of the language used by Bevin when discussing the pension crisis.

Soon, eight more Republican members of the House called on Hoover and the other representatives involved to resign.

“We are shocked and angered by the allegations of sexual harassment, none of which have been denied or even disputed,” the statement said. “Contrary to what has been reported, the Representatives at issue did not have the ‘full’ support of the entire republican caucus.”

On Sunday, Hoover choked up as he officially resigned as speaker of the House.

He apologized for sending inappropriate text messages, said there were never any sexual relations and remained adamant that the relationship was never non-consensual. He said he went to mediation over the sexual harassment allegations and that neither he nor any others admitted guilt. He said there was not a culture of sexual harassment in the House of Representatives.

There are still several unanswered questions. In fact, the very same questions Hoover posed in a 2014 floor speech after sexual harassment allegations came out against a Democratic lawmaker, have not been answered.

“Who knew what? When did they know it? What action did they take?” Hoover asked in 2014.

If you take House Republican leadership’s word for it, they knew nothing of a culture that involved “verbal and physical harassment” of members of the staff.

“Our message to the people of Kentucky is that we take allegations of inappropriate conduct seriously. We must generate an independent report on the facts and make decisions regarding leadership and staffing based on those facts,” House Republican Leadership said in a joint statement Saturday. “…There will be no knee-jerk reactions, just as there will be no ignoring of the serious nature of the allegations and rumors.”

It turns out that for at least two months, serious allegations were ignored.

Mere hours after that statement was issued, a senior staffer revealed that she had brought complaints of a “toxic” work environment to Hoover in the beginning of September. Then two weeks later to the chief of staff and general counsel for the House Republican Caucus. Then to officials within the Legislative Research Commission.

The day after she took the complaints to the LRC, and as news of the scandal broke, she was effectively put on a paid suspension.

Meanwhile, a pension crisis, a budget session and a promise of tax reform linger over Frankfort. Could this lead to a larger rift within the party that could potentially derail their ability to lead?

In the weeks and months ahead, we’ll get some of those answers. In the meantime, one thing is certain: The Republican Party of election day that stood on the stage in the Galt House donning red hats as they celebrated their landslide victory is a distant memory.

As the co-host of NBC’s “Today,” Matt Lauer once gave a colleague a sex toy as a present. It included an explicit note about how he wanted to use it on her, which left her mortified.

On another day, he summoned a different female employee to his office, and then dropped his pants, showing her his penis. After the employee declined to do anything, visibly shaken, he reprimanded her for not engaging in a sexual act.


His office was in a secluded space, and he had a button under his desk that allowed him to lock his door from the inside without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees and initiate inappropriate contact while knowing nobody could walk in on him, according to two women who were sexually harassed by Lauer.

On November 30 2017 06:07 Doodsmack wrote:


To say that there is "no more appropriate" a response to Obama than Trump is a thorough endorsement of Trump. You weren't talking about "parallels," you were talking about a response. It is pretty clearly the language you used and it's impossible to square it with your lip service criticism of Trump.

On November 30 2017 06:37 KwarK wrote:

If we're talking intrinsic value of a human life then no, I wouldn't agree with that statement. If we're talking about the economic value they contribute to society then maybe, the UK is pretty high up there in terms of GDP per capita, but I suspect economic output isn't what you meant by value.

Consider the inverse. If I were to accept your proposition that Brits are more valuable that non Brits, where do I place Canadians in this equation? Are they honorary Brits? What about French Canadians? Clearly they're more valuable than the French, but how much more valuable? I'll need to construct an exchange rate. And that's before we get into relative scarcity. I'd rather kill one Australian than ten Indians, but would I rather kill all the Australians or one fifth of the Indians? The ratio is the same, but do the Australians increase in value as they get in short supply?

Nationalism leads you down some strange paths.

On November 30 2017 07:22 Danglars wrote:

Yeah ... umm not when you think Obama was pretty awful lol.

On November 30 2017 07:37 kollin wrote:

Alternatively, not when you realise that what both of them represented to people was an outsider that provided hope for change. I think that is the clearest connection between Trump and Obama - Hillary was much more a return to Bush and to Bill and to being the policeman of the world.

On November 30 2017 07:46 Danglars wrote:

Yeah, you can examine it on multiple levels. I particularly like how each uses speech with their political base.

On November 30 2017 07:15 Lmui wrote:
For the US budget, if it passes in the current state, what damage can be done by 2018? If the elections in 2018 flip Congress/Senate, what would be the implications for budgets going forward?

On another note, I'm pretty happy to be Canadian with SC justices who are the best the country has to offer, not a political appointment.

http://www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/scc-csc/nominee-candidat-eng.html

All Supreme Court Justices need to submit questionnaires to be considered for appointment, and Sheilah Martin was chosen. Reading over the answers is pretty humbling, considering the road she took to get to where she is.

On November 30 2017 07:50 kollin wrote:

Obama, of course, probably being the most articulate president since Kennedy while Trump is a slavering baboon.

On November 30 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:

What do you think budgets are? Do you think that they're somehow binding decrees that will go on for ten years at a time? The 2018 congress will create a budget for the 2019 year the same as the 2016 congress is now getting to their budget for 2018.

The numbers get made to look huge because they're projected out to ten years at a time. they almost never get there without the other party getting in power and having the opportunity to change it.


Obama had some serious speech pattern issues when he was off a teleprompter. It doesn't hurt him that trumps transcripts are literally incomprehensible.

On November 30 2017 07:59 Sermokala wrote:

What do you think budgets are? Do you think that they're somehow binding decrees that will go on for ten years at a time? The 2018 congress will create a budget for the 2019 year the same as the 2016 congress is now getting to their budget for 2018.

The numbers get made to look huge because they're projected out to ten years at a time. they almost never get there without the other party getting in power and having the opportunity to change it.