|
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. |
Follow-up to the CDC banned words article:
Words banned at multiple HHS agencies include ‘diversity’ and ‘vulnerable’
The banned words thing was not just a CDC issue. Other agencies under the HHS have also come forward about this. And apparently, there is more: the ACA should be referred to as Obamacare, and Sex Education as Sexual Risk Avoidance.
That is a blatant and dangerous partisan agenda there, one that could easily run quite contrary to the goals of the HHS.
EDIT:
They even had a CDC budget analyst respond to the HHS statement that it wasn't a ban.
The CDC analyst said it was clear to participants that they were to avoid those seven words but only in drafting budget documents.
“What would you call it when you’re told not to use those words?” the person said. “If that’s not a ban, maybe I need to improve my vocabulary.”
|
On December 17 2017 15:43 Introvert wrote:I'm actually partial to the theory below. So when "no collusion" comes up, as seems more and more likely, it works even better for them. + Show Spoiler +
That has been the case since Mueller started to find things and those who praised him for his impartial view turned against him, so yes.
The greater organisation around Trump knows that firing Mueller is suicide and just wants to discredit him for long enough that the Trump voters ignore reality in the same way that Hillary was tainted by years of bullshit lies.
That doesn't stop Trump from being stupid and potentially desperate enough to try and do it anyway.
|
The irony of this and their defense couldn't be more perfectly hypocritical.
The guy who publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary's e-mails is now complaining about a legal investigation obtaining his e-mails.
Because there's nothing in them and he's totally innocent, I'm sure. We just need to accept Putin is a nicer guy than those Euro-types and move on.
In the interim, the GOP machine, still smelling of Roy Moore and nearing the dream of freeing billionaire children from government oppression, has allowed its most complicit members and its propaganda network to launch an all-out assault on the Department of Justice for the ultimate, most heinous crime, of not liking the President.
We're just in full-on Kafka and Orwell-mode and the next couple of weeks could be a real test of patriotism and loyalty to those that haven't already yet spectacularly failed.
Merry Christmas, because we believe in the Jesus.
|
On December 17 2017 13:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, when I was spending some time as an intern with the federal government I never had any ownership of any email sent using my official email. Not really sure what would make the transition team above this requirement as government contractors.
Heck, I'm not sure Trump even legally owns his tweets anymore after they declared them official government communications.
Privilege (attorney/client or executive)/classified would be another thing, but I confess I have no idea how and what the heck Trump and co mean when they talk about it.
There is no legal case for them.
This letter isn't being sent to a judiciary. It's being sent to legislators. The letter ends with a plea to have legislation passed. It's mostly a political stunt, written by a political group.
Also nonsensical is to tie any of this to Mueller or the DoJ, who have the same right as anyone to ask anyone else for anything they please. The only ones who could be accused of some general wrong-doing are the GSA, not Mueller.
But not really. They're supposed to tell the DoJ "No" on a criminal investigation? Uhhhh. Okay. Good luck with that argument. I'm sure the "Judge" Jeanine fans will eat it up.
I think this will all soon be meaningless compared to the shit-show that is coming when Trump fires Rosenstein, Mueller, and/or McCabe.
|
Right now my biggest wonder is, in the hypothetical situation where Trump fires Mueller (or fires Rosenstein and finds someone who will fire Mueller for him), will the Republican Party stand against him and support the inevitable impeachment coming from Democrats?
Half a year ago I would have expected them to do so. Now i'm not so sure anymore.
|
On December 17 2017 21:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Right now my biggest wonder is, in the hypothetical situation where Trump fires Mueller (or fires Rosenstein and finds someone who will fire Mueller for him), will the Republican Party stand against him and support the inevitable impeachment coming from Democrats?
Half a year ago I would have expected them to do so. Now i'm not so sure anymore.
The best course of action for Republicans right now is probably to get rid of Trump while not being involved in any way shape or form with the 'getting rid of Trump' part.
It's pretty clear that they'll get destroyed in 2018 with Trump so they want to avoid that, but if they're part of the process it can also reflect on them electorally with the Trump base.
|
On December 17 2017 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2017 21:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Right now my biggest wonder is, in the hypothetical situation where Trump fires Mueller (or fires Rosenstein and finds someone who will fire Mueller for him), will the Republican Party stand against him and support the inevitable impeachment coming from Democrats?
Half a year ago I would have expected them to do so. Now i'm not so sure anymore. It's pretty clear that they'll get destroyed in 2018 with Trump so they want to avoid that, but if they're part of the process it can also reflect on them electorally with the Trump base.
Very doubtful, look at Alabama. One would think that a racist, homophobe religious zealot with pending pedophile allegations is kinda unelectable. If it weren't for the considerably higher than usual black voter turnout, he would've won easily - no one "changed sides", everyone who voted republican before did so again.
|
Yes, but turnout is contagious.
|
I'm not sure how people are going to continue to believe this isn't all kabuki if Trump doesn't end up in prison or at least broke.
I don't think Mueller's getting fired, he's there to clear (relatively) Trump in the first place.
Merry Christmas, because we believe in the Jesus.
ALL HOLIDAYS MATTER! 
|
On December 17 2017 23:13 farvacola wrote:
Yes, but turnout is contagious.
That, and it was Alabama. Sure, swinging Republicans to the blue side wasn't the deciding factor, but Alabama has never been anywhere close to a swing state. The dynamic will be much different in other states.
That said, the election map looks pretty bad for Democrats next year.
|
I think I saw somewhere that D turnout in AL was in the high 90s compared to the pres election and the R turnout was about half. Would have still been a landslide of Diddler on the Horse wasn't such a a shitshow.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 17 2017 23:03 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2017 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:On December 17 2017 21:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Right now my biggest wonder is, in the hypothetical situation where Trump fires Mueller (or fires Rosenstein and finds someone who will fire Mueller for him), will the Republican Party stand against him and support the inevitable impeachment coming from Democrats?
Half a year ago I would have expected them to do so. Now i'm not so sure anymore. It's pretty clear that they'll get destroyed in 2018 with Trump so they want to avoid that, but if they're part of the process it can also reflect on them electorally with the Trump base. Very doubtful, look at Alabama. One would think that a racist, homophobe religious zealot with pending pedophile allegations is kinda unelectable. If it weren't for the considerably higher than usual black voter turnout, he would've won easily - no one "changed sides", everyone who voted republican before did so again.
Do you have stats on this? I've seen the whole 70%~ish of white folks voting Moore and 95% ~ of black people voting for Jones, bit. But what I haven't seen is a comparison of turnout and ratios from last year.
Would be interested to see how much white turnout was depressed from previous years.
|
On December 18 2017 00:09 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2017 23:03 m4ini wrote:On December 17 2017 21:27 Nebuchad wrote:On December 17 2017 21:21 Gorsameth wrote:
Right now my biggest wonder is, in the hypothetical situation where Trump fires Mueller (or fires Rosenstein and finds someone who will fire Mueller for him), will the Republican Party stand against him and support the inevitable impeachment coming from Democrats?
Half a year ago I would have expected them to do so. Now i'm not so sure anymore. It's pretty clear that they'll get destroyed in 2018 with Trump so they want to avoid that, but if they're part of the process it can also reflect on them electorally with the Trump base. Very doubtful, look at Alabama. One would think that a racist, homophobe religious zealot with pending pedophile allegations is kinda unelectable. If it weren't for the considerably higher than usual black voter turnout, he would've won easily - no one "changed sides", everyone who voted republican before did so again. Do you have stats on this? I've seen the whole 70%~ish of white folks voting Moore and 95% ~ of black people voting for Jones, bit. But what I haven't seen is a comparison of turnout and ratios from last year. Would be interested to see how much white turnout was depressed from previous years.
They are still crunching and getting data but there's this:
There was no such turnout surge in white, working-class Alabama. In fact, turnout was lower than it was in 2014 in many of Alabama’s mostly white, working-class counties. In Alabama’s least-educated, predominantly white counties, the turnout was often far lower than it was in 2014. In Fayette County, where just 13 percent of voters have a college degree, turnout landed at just 69 percent of 2014 levels.
Source
and this:
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — Alabama voters surged to the polls Tuesday, blowing through turnout estimates of 20 to 25 percent, to exceed well over 1 million votes cast, about 38 percent of the state’s registered voters.
Source
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Thanks, so at least they have SOME kind of rudimentary sense of right and wrong.
|
I'd say also, since black turnout was higher than it was for Obama and I can assure it's not because Jones was that much more liked.
White people in Alabama totally would have elected Moore if Black people in Alabama didn't stop them though.
|
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-approval-rating-fox-news-iowa-alabama-bad-really-bad-2017-12
President Donald Trump has in recent days received a wave of new, underwhelming polling numbers - many of which have come from unexpected places.
Take, for example, a Suffolk University poll from earlier this week. It found that Trump's favorability rating among people who said Fox News was their most trusted news source was 58% - a substantial drop from the outlet's surveys in June (90%) and October (74%).
Meanwhile, in Alabama - where in Tuesday's special election the Democrat Doug Jones defeated his embattled Republican challenger, Roy Moore - exit polls found that voters had a split opinion of the president.
In a state Trump carried by nearly 30 points over the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 presidential election, just 48% of voters say they approve of Trump, and 48% say they disapprove of the job he's doing.
And in Iowa, where Trump defeated Clinton by roughly 9 points, a Wednesday poll from the Des Moines Register/Mediacom found that 60% of Iowans disapproved of the job Trump is doing. Just 35% say they approve, a sharp drop from his 43% approval in the poll's July edition.
|
On December 18 2017 00:26 GreenHorizons wrote:I'd say also, since black turnout was higher than it was for Obama and I can assure it's not because Jones was that much more liked. White people in Alabama totally would have elected Moore if Black people in Alabama didn't stop them though.
Yeah, it's definitely one of those things where you can't get the same result is one side while ignoring the other.
|
President Donald Trump now claims, by way of his attorneys, that protesters at one of his 2016 campaign rallies violated his rights by protesting.
Those protesters were later allegedly battered by Trump supporters after Trump shrieked for their removal. The protesters are currently suing Trump for incitement to riot.
In legal filings made this week, Trump’s lawyers say he couldn’t have violated the protesters’ rights by calling for his supporters to assault and remove them from the venue–because those protesters violated Trump’s rights first. One motion reads, in relevant part:
In this case, Plaintiffs interfered with the Trump Campaign’s freedom to ‘choose the content of (its) own message. Thus, by interjecting this anti-Trump speech in the middle of a pro-Trump rally, they were obviously transforming the message that Mr. Trump and the Campaign wished the event to convey.
The motion was filed as part of a dismissal request made Trump’s legal team in response to a lawsuit brought by multiple protesters who were violently removed from a Trump campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky in March 2016. At that campaign rally, then-candidate Trump screamed: “Get ’em out of here!”
A federal judge allowed the protesters’ lawsuit to proceed earlier this year after Trump’s stable of attorneys unsuccessfully argued their client was protected from liability by the First Amendment.
In his April order allowing the suit, Judge David Hale wrote “It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get ’em out of here’ advocated the use of force. ‘Get ’em out of here’ is stated in the imperative; it was an order, an instruction, a command.”
Now, after their initial failure at reigning in the protesters’ claims, Trump’s attorneys are trying an even more novel tactic: arguing that two perceived wrongs can, in this case, make a right. The motion defends Trump’s incendiary order-instruction-command as necessary. It reads:
Mr. Trump had every right to call for the removal of the disruptors. Any contrary rule would destroy the right of political campaigns to express their messages at rallies without being sabotaged by intruders.
This argument relies on no known legal doctrine. lawandcrime.com
|
that follows a well known legal strategy: use your riches to bury your poorer opponents under piles of frivolous motions (while arguin them well enough that you don' get smacked down by the judge for doing that).
reminds me of SLAP suits
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
