|
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 February 14 2018 11:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 11:35 Gahlo wrote:
No tweets are loading on page for me anymore. I have to quote and copy paste to open them. Has anybody else had this issue? What browser are you using? Some browsers have some new "no track" security feature that will block all twitter embeds. Adblock or noscripts might do something similar.
Firefox. Both of my adblockers have the TL site I go through whitelisted. Guess it's the no track.
edit: Yup, that's it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 14 2018 11:49 cLutZ wrote:
All of TL should ban embedding tweets anyways.
We could certainly do with fewer Twitter spammers, yes.
|
On February 14 2018 11:50 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 11:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 14 2018 11:35 Gahlo wrote:
No tweets are loading on page for me anymore. I have to quote and copy paste to open them. Has anybody else had this issue? What browser are you using? Some browsers have some new "no track" security feature that will block all twitter embeds. Adblock or noscripts might do something similar. Firefox. Both of my adblockers have the TL site I go through whitelisted. Guess it's the no track.
I was having similar issues for weeks using firefox with ublock origin. I ended up needing to unblock one of the google apis.
|
First class passengers are safe from working class threats.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said Tuesday that the first class and military flights he takes at taxpayer expense come as a result of the “level of threat” he faces on planes.
“Unfortunately, … we’ve had some incidents on travel dating back to when I first started serving in the March-April timeframe,” he told the New Hampshire Union Leader in an interview Tuesday, during a visit to the state.
“We live in a very toxic environment politically, particularly around issues of the environment,” he continued, adding: “We’ve reached the point where there’s not much civility in the marketplace and it’s created, you know, it’s created some issues and the (security) detail, the level of protection is determined by the level of threat.”
The paper said Pruitt confirmed he’d flown first class from Washington, D.C. to Boston for the trip. CBS News’ Julianna Goldman reported later Tuesday that the outlet had learned Pruitt took an expensive Emirates business class flight — the ticket was at least $7,000, Goldman said — from Milan to Washington last June, part of $43,000 spent on travel for the trip.
That dispatch adds to one from the Washington Post, which reported Sunday that Pruitt had taken at least $90,000 worth of flights in part of June of last year, including $1,641.43 for a single first class seat to New York, from Washington D.C.
Pruitt told the Union Leader he wasn’t “involved in any of those decisions,” and that “[t]hose are all made by the (security) detail, the security assessment in addition to the chief of staff.”
The Post and CBS News had already reported on Pruitt’s expensive travel habits in September of last year.
And he’s not alone among senior Trump administration officials: Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price have received similar scrutiny for luxury, taxpayer-funded travel. Price lost his job as a result, the rest remain in their positions.
Source
|
On February 14 2018 11:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 10:23 IgnE wrote:On February 14 2018 03:17 Grumbels wrote:On February 14 2018 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2018 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2018 02:42 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2018 02:32 zlefin wrote:On February 14 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Which highlights the fact that we let parents have too much dominion over the raising of their children. The vast majority of parents do a very poor job. Shitty parenting is the reason kids choose chicken nuggets over vegetables. trying to change that, while potentially beneficial, would involve extremely politically unpopular behavior. Implementing cultural change is hard, and even harder without an agreement that it should be done so. Pushing for less parental control over child-raising wouldn't get enough agreement I think. I agree its an incredibly difficult topic to tackle. But look at child obesity rates and it is something that will need to happen before long. One might say it may well already be to late for the coming generation. there's certainly some damage already being done; it's just hard to get politicians to do politically unpopular things. And this is far harder to do than it would be in europe, given the american cultural milieu. Gettin kids to eat well starts with getting parents to eat well; a lot of people just eat poorly, and therefore, so do their kids. mohdoo, what proposals do you favor for addressing these problems? In a general sense, I advocate for child protective services having significantly more power. Parents are given a somewhat executive power when it comes to raising their children. I think that is madness. Checks and balances should ultimately allow the state to play a much more active role in ensuring children are raised to a minimum standard and are given a minimum standard of health. If I can get even more comfortable explaining my unobtainable positions, I think having children should require a license in the same way we adopt children. We have already decided as a society that adopting a child should not be easy. But we let people just blast kids out their ass so long as they were the ones to create them. It makes no sense.Overall, we should feel more obligation to children. We should be doing more to make sure humans are given a fair shot at life and are not tragically hindered by shitty parents. Poor parenting is costing us a lottttttttttttt of money every year. This is some dystopian hand maiden’s tale in reverse shit. The key to true reform and durable progress is to not design systems that can easily be abused. If people want to address child abuse, focus on the children, not some misguided system to prevent potential bad parents from having kids. Why should it be easier to have children biologically than to adopt? Did your parents ever have “the talk” with you?  Children come from sex, which can’t be made illegal as it is private behavior. It should be easier to have children biologically. This can be explained in purely consequential terms, even ignoring "natural law," the responsibilities of the state once it becomes the guardian of a child, and other similar arguments because: 1) childbirth is hard so people with ulterior motives for adopting kids less are less likely to go through it just for that reason (ie use kids as slave labor, perverse pleasure, other nefarious economic schemes) 2) natural mothers usually have a strong biochemical bond w their offspring which naturally aligns their motives 3) typically to survive childbirth you have to be in pretty good health, of a certain age, so you are physically capable of being around long enough, and able-bodied enough to provide (this is a separate consideration obviously from really-pertaining economic conditions) and otherwise be a relatively constant and healthy parent But you know Mohdoo, Plato was thinking about this 2,400 years ago. In the Timaeus he writes: Soc. To be sure I will: the chief theme of my yesterday's discourse was the State-how constituted and of what citizens composed it would seem likely to be most perfect. Tim. Yes, Socrates; and what you said of it was very much to our mind. [...] Soc. Neither did we forget the women; of whom we declared, that their natures should be assimilated and brought into harmony with those of the men, and that common pursuits should be assigned to them both in time of war and in their ordinary life. Tim. That, again, was as you say. Soc. And what about the procreation of children? Or rather not the proposal too singular to be forgotten? for all wives and children were to be in common, to the intent that no one should ever know his own child, but they were to imagine that they were all one family; those who were within a suitable limit of age were to be brothers and sisters, those who were of an elder generation parents and grandparents, and those of a younger children and grandchildren. Tim. Yes, and the proposal is easy to remember, as you say. Soc. And do you also remember how, with a view of securing as far as we could the best breed, we said that the chief magistrates, male and female, should contrive secretly, by the use of certain lots, so to arrange the nuptial meeting, that the bad of either sex and the good of either sex might pair with their like; and there was to be no quarrelling on this account, for they would imagine that the union was a mere accident, and was to be attributed to the lot? Tim. I remember. Soc. And you remember how we said that the children of the good parents were to be educated, and the children of the bad secretly dispersed among the inferior citizens; and while they were all growing up the rulers were to be on the look-out, and to bring up from below in their turn those who were worthy, and those among themselves who were unworthy were to take the places of those who came up? What exactly was the point of this? Sorry if I missed something in reading this.
I was responding to Mohdoo's thread of posts about how the state should be more involved in parenting.
|
On February 14 2018 12:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:First class passengers are safe from working class threats. Show nested quote +EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said Tuesday that the first class and military flights he takes at taxpayer expense come as a result of the “level of threat” he faces on planes.
“Unfortunately, … we’ve had some incidents on travel dating back to when I first started serving in the March-April timeframe,” he told the New Hampshire Union Leader in an interview Tuesday, during a visit to the state.
“We live in a very toxic environment politically, particularly around issues of the environment,” he continued, adding: “We’ve reached the point where there’s not much civility in the marketplace and it’s created, you know, it’s created some issues and the (security) detail, the level of protection is determined by the level of threat.”
The paper said Pruitt confirmed he’d flown first class from Washington, D.C. to Boston for the trip. CBS News’ Julianna Goldman reported later Tuesday that the outlet had learned Pruitt took an expensive Emirates business class flight — the ticket was at least $7,000, Goldman said — from Milan to Washington last June, part of $43,000 spent on travel for the trip.
That dispatch adds to one from the Washington Post, which reported Sunday that Pruitt had taken at least $90,000 worth of flights in part of June of last year, including $1,641.43 for a single first class seat to New York, from Washington D.C.
Pruitt told the Union Leader he wasn’t “involved in any of those decisions,” and that “[t]hose are all made by the (security) detail, the security assessment in addition to the chief of staff.”
The Post and CBS News had already reported on Pruitt’s expensive travel habits in September of last year.
And he’s not alone among senior Trump administration officials: Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin and former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price have received similar scrutiny for luxury, taxpayer-funded travel. Price lost his job as a result, the rest remain in their positions. Source
"I'm fucking up everything the EPA is doing, and basically the entire reason it exists, so I have to protect myself from the proletar- I mean pleb- I mean, I faced a threat once on a normal plane. Can't imagine why."
|
On February 14 2018 09:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 09:52 Tachion wrote:On February 14 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:
They straight up confirmed that Russia set up political rallies using Facebook that thousands of people attended. They don’t give a shit who wins so long as both parties hate each other. preeeeeeeeeetttyy sure they're happy with who won. Of course. But the real goal is dysfunction. If congress doesn’t do anything and the president is weak, Russia can do whatever it wants. Time recently reported that thousands of Russians have joined ISIS in the last couple years. Sure most of them were radicalized, but I’m not naive enough to believe that Putin and his goons won’t try to “direct” where target.
Iirc there was an NPR story over a year ago about how Putin has a deep seated and personal hatred of Hillary, largely from her SoS days. I'm sure that this election disruption got a little extra umph for personal reasons as well.
|
We've reached a point that major news would be if these idiots managed to do something correctly.
WASHINGTON — The White House changed its story on Tuesday about how it handled allegations of spousal abuse against Rob Porter, the staff secretary who resigned in disgrace last week, as members of President Trump’s team conceded that as long ago as last summer the F.B.I. had told White House career officials — but not, the Trump team said, top advisers in the West Wing — about problems in Mr. Porter’s background check.
The White House revised its version of events after testimony on Capitol Hill from the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, contradicted earlier and shifting claims from the West Wing.
At a previously scheduled Senate hearing on Tuesday about threats against the United States, Mr. Wray, in response to a question about Mr. Porter, said the F.B.I. had given the White House final results in January of its background investigation into the former staff secretary. Mr. Wray’s account was directly at odds with previous assertions by Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, and other White House officials who said Mr. Porter’s background check was still underway when the domestic violence abuse allegations from his two former wives came to light last week in news reports.
Mr. Wray’s words strongly suggested that Mr. Porter had been allowed to continue serving in his influential post in the West Wing long after officials had received word of the troublesome accusations. Mr. Wray’s testimony also raised questions about the credibility of Mr. Trump’s most senior advisers and the degree of tolerance they may have shown to a colleague apparently eager to cover up a past.
According to Mr. Wray, the F.B.I. updated the White House three times in 2017 — in March, July and November — about Mr. Porter’s background check as it progressed. Mr. Wray did not disclose the information that was given to the White House at those times, but according to two people briefed on the matter, the F.B.I. first provided the White House in July with a rundown of the spousal abuse allegations the bureau had uncovered against Mr. Porter.
In November, the F.B.I. provided the White House with additional information about the allegations.
Ms. Sanders insisted Tuesday that senior West Wing officials had not learned about the allegations against Mr. Porter until they surfaced in The Daily Mail because the F.B.I. gave the information to the White House Personnel Security Office, which handles security clearances. The office is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next door to the White House and is overseen by Joe Hagin, the deputy chief of staff.
Ms. Sanders said that the security office — which she repeatedly noted was staffed by “career officials,” who would not have been appointed by Mr. Trump — had not yet made a final determination on whether Mr. Porter should receive his security clearance at the time of The Mail’s article.
Still, pressed on whether senior officials — including John F. Kelly, the chief of staff; Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel; and Mr. Hagin — could have been unaware as far back as last summer that such a significant issue had been raised about one of the president’s closest aides, she conceded she could not be certain.
“Not that I’m aware of,” Ms. Sanders said. “I can’t say with 100 percent certainty.”
According to the two people briefed on the matter, the White House security office reviewed the allegations about Mr. Porter in July and saw that the F.B.I. had interviewed Mr. Porter’s two former wives but not Mr. Porter himself. The office asked the F.B.I. to go back and do so, said the two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.
In November, the F.B.I. provided another report to the security office, the two people said, adding that at that point, a final review began to determine whether to grant Mr. Porter a security clearance. As part of that review, three officials in the personnel office, including its head, were supposed to come to their own conclusions about whether to grant the clearance, the people said.
By the time The Mail published its article last week, only one of those officials had made a determination, the two people said, although it is not clear what the official had concluded.
In late November last year, a distraught girlfriend of Mr. Porter’s contacted Mr. McGahn and told him Mr. Porter had been unfaithful to her by dating Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, and had anger problems, according to several people familiar with the discussion. Mr. McGahn, who knew Mr. Porter’s girlfriend, at that point suggested to Mr. Porter he should consider leaving the White House, the people said. But Mr. McGahn did not follow up on the matter.
One former White House official, Anthony Scaramucci, who lasted 10 days last year as White House communications director before being removed by Mr. Kelly, weighed in on Tuesday on Mr. Wray’s testimony. Mr. Scaramucci posted on Twitter that Mr. Kelly “almost certainly knew about credible allegations of domestic abuse against Rob Porter at least 6 months ago - then recently forced others to lie about that timeline.”
“Inexcusable,” Mr. Scaramucci added. “Kelly must resign.”
Ms. Sanders said Mr. Trump maintained confidence in Mr. Kelly, who told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that he had no regrets about how Mr. Porter’s case was handled, adding that “it was all done right.”
Mr. Porter, who as staff secretary handled all of the documents that made their way to the president, had in the weeks before the allegations been seeking an expanded portfolio in the West Wing, where experienced aides who can bring order to a chaotic operation are in short supply.
Mr. Trump’s aides initially said they had no inkling of the accusations against Mr. Porter until the reports in The Mail, and said they acted swiftly to terminate him when they discovered them. In fact, the White House spent the first hours after learning of the accusations — including the publication of photographs of one of Mr. Porter’s former wives with a black eye she said he had given her — defending Mr. Porter against the allegations and insisting that he was not being dismissed.
Even after Mr. Kelly changed his stance, calling the allegations vile and orchestrating Mr. Porter’s swift departure, the president has stuck up for Mr. Porter publicly, telling reporters that the situation had been “tough” and “sad” for Mr. Porter. The president insisted that Mr. Porter had denied the accusations, and wished him a successful career. On Tuesday, asked by reporters at a White House event with sheriffs if he had a message for victims of abuse, Mr. Trump declined to answer.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers in both parties criticized how the White House had handled the episode.
“A lot of us are concerned about what has come to light in terms of these background checks — how long they take, how long somebody can be in an interim status and still have access to classified material,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona. He said the scandal had exacerbated a generational divide that was already plaguing the party.
“Young people who have been walking away from the party are in a gallop right now, especially with what happened last week and just siding with the abuser,” Mr. Flake said. “That’s deadly.”
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Mr. Trump, who dispatched Ms. Sanders yesterday to denounce domestic violence but has not addressed the matter himself, had missed an opportunity.
“I haven’t heard the president say something directly about how bad domestic abuse is,” he told reporters on Tuesday. “You know, to have a spokesperson get out and say something is not good enough.”
Source
|
|
|
Just before the election.
|
Yes, I am sure that lawyer just forked over well over 100K and will never seek reimbursement. Ever. That it totally a thing that happens all the time. Literally no way that cam from campaign funds and their attempts to cover it up make it far worse.
|
On February 14 2018 13:41 Plansix wrote:
Yes, I am sure that lawyer just forked over well over 100K and will never seek reimbursement. Ever. That it totally a thing that happens all the time. Literally no way that cam from campaign funds and their attempts to cover it up make it far worse.
I can believe that someone in his position is extremely loyal. 100k is also probably not a lot of money for him. His net worth being reported as 10m probably means it's a lot more lol. I think Cohen makes more money working for Trump than he would anyone else. If 100k allows Cohen to be Trump's lawyer for even 1 more year, it is worth it.
|
|
|
On February 14 2018 13:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 13:41 Plansix wrote:
Yes, I am sure that lawyer just forked over well over 100K and will never seek reimbursement. Ever. That it totally a thing that happens all the time. Literally no way that cam from campaign funds and their attempts to cover it up make it far worse. I can believe that someone in his position is extremely loyal. 100k is also probably not a lot of money for him. His net worth being reported as 10m probably means it's a lot more lol. I think Cohen makes more money working for Trump than he would anyone else. If 100k allows Cohen to be Trump's lawyer for even 1 more year, it is worth it.
I'll take his word for it when he is under oath and licence is on the line.
|
That and doesn't this put his law firm in the spotlight? And not a very good one at that.
|
Why did she ever take a job in that administration if she has such a low opinion of both of them?
In the event that Trump does get impeached, while it would probably streamline the Republican policy push quite a bit, it would also probably get rid of the distraction engine that is President Trump, forcing Republicans to spend more time actually talking about what they're doing with the government.
Given that impeachment would almost certainly require some Republican Senators (and I'd hope that in the case of a real impeachment case against him more Congressional Republicans than just a few Senators would vote for it), it might also cause some strife in the Republican party.
Seeing as Republicans are getting a lot of their goals accomplished with Trump, I'd probably trade a couple of years of Pence for some long term damage to the Republican coalition and allowing Democrats to run against Congressional Republicans on policy more easily.
|
Not too worried about this. If Trump goes down it's likely only in the wake of every other member of his campaign having been taken down, or at least severely tarnished, first.
|
I think you really have to view this in the proper context.
I could have probably brought people out to protest at a public restroom in the days after the election of Trump by shitting in such a way that it kind of sounded like "Trump sucks" as I farted through my poops.
The fact that "Russia got people to attend a protest" isn't really all that impressive or noteworthy in this case.
|
On February 14 2018 15:01 On_Slaught wrote:Not too worried about this. If Trump goes down it's likely only in the wake of every other member of his campaign having been taken down, or at least severely tarnished, first.
There's really no chance Pence gets taken down if Donny goes. Republicans aren't going to get rid of Trump, they damn sure aren't getting rid of Pence. Trump is a complete idiot, one of the dumbest humans to be breathing air. But Pence is calculating evil. Trump is a wild card but he can barely get anything done, Pence will have no problem getting things done with precision and efficiency. So, you've got a real conundrum. A guy who is incompetent but might get the planet nuked, or a guy who will absolutely pass every single god awful backwards wet dream Republicans can come up with and set the clock back 50 years for the poor and every minority? Oh, and probably start half a dozen wars to boot.
|
On February 14 2018 13:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2018 13:41 Plansix wrote:
Yes, I am sure that lawyer just forked over well over 100K and will never seek reimbursement. Ever. That it totally a thing that happens all the time. Literally no way that cam from campaign funds and their attempts to cover it up make it far worse. I can believe that someone in his position is extremely loyal. 100k is also probably not a lot of money for him. His net worth being reported as 10m probably means it's a lot more lol. I think Cohen makes more money working for Trump than he would anyone else. If 100k allows Cohen to be Trump's lawyer for even 1 more year, it is worth it.
Yeah, but can you imagine that guy not going to Trump "Hey, i paid that pornstar you fucked 130k in hush money, can i get that money back?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
