2017 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

We don't really have an Israel or Mid-East catch all thread and this didn't seem to warrant a whole new thread, but

 

Police 'likely to recommend' indictment of Benjamin Netanyahu on corruption charges

[southsider2k5]

Nope. The issue is whether or not the Republicans engaged in unprecedented obstructionism in refusing to consider Garland because the nominee was up in an election year. The burden is on you to prove they would have. Biden's speech in 1992 is not anything other than circumstantial evidence that the Dems would have refused to consider a nominee in 1992 because there was no Supreme Court vacancy at the time. Thus, you haven't met your burden, and the Judge finds in my favor.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/p...servatives.html

 

The Republican Congress floated the idea of a coverage mandate in response to Clinton's health care reform proposal. So by the Brett logic of politics, the Republicans should not be opposed to the mandate in the ACA.

 

Hey look, more support of liberal policy by Brett.

[caulfield12]

Nope. The issue is whether or not the Republicans engaged in unprecedented obstructionism in refusing to consider Garland because the nominee was up in an election year. The burden is on you to prove they would have. Biden's speech in 1992 is not anything other than circumstantial evidence that the Dems would have refused to consider a nominee in 1992 because there was no Supreme Court vacancy at the time. Thus, you haven't met your burden, and the Judge finds in my favor.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/p...servatives.html

 

The Republican Congress floated the idea of a coverage mandate in response to Clinton's health care reform proposal. So by the Brett logic of politics, the Republicans should not be opposed to the mandate in the ACA.

 

Not to mention Romney's Massachusetts health care plan was far to the left of Obama's.

 

Darned socialist...errrrr, capitalist!

[Soxbadger]

There is really no point in arguing. The reason they are against Obamacare is the "Obama" part. You had states that Obama offered federal funds to, who turned it down because it came from Obama.

 

There is simply no rational argument, its just personal dislike.

 

Say what you want about Democrats/Republicans, but if Trump/Republicans want to pass better cheaper healthcare, Ill cheer them on. I just dont think they have the capability to do it, seeing as theyve had almost 8 years to figure it out and have no plan yet.

[Kyyle23]

There is really no point in arguing. The reason they are against Obamacare is the "Obama" part. You had states that Obama offered federal funds to, who turned it down because it came from Obama.

 

There is simply no rational argument, its just personal dislike.

 

Say what you want about Democrats/Republicans, but if Trump/Republicans want to pass better cheaper healthcare, Ill cheer them on. I just dont think they have the capability to do it, seeing as theyve had almost 8 years to figure it out and have no plan yet.

 

Obama told Trump himself that if they can find a cheaper and better alternative, he would get behind it. Just don't repeal until you can replace

[Balta1701]

Donald Trump is violating U.S. Classified Document handling requirements in this AP press photo.

 

Lock him up.

[Balta1701]

Iranian born, U.S. Based doctor travels to Iran for a couple weeks a year to perform complicated surgeries on a handful of unborn Iranian babies, literally saves a couple of babies per year as his way of giving back to his homeland. Only a handful of other people on Earth know this technique, many of them trained by him. I'm sure you can see where this is going.

 

This year's 3 kids are going to die. He can't leave the country and be sure he'll be able to get back in.

 

Those babies should have known better than to be conceived Muslim.

[Balta1701]

Jeff Sessions's literal first move after becoming Attorney General is to roll back Obama Administration guidance regarding transgender students and discrimination in schools.

 

So again, who was it who said the LGBTQ community would have no issues with this administration?

[StrangeSox]

WikiLeaks isn't even trying to not look like a Russian propaganda outlet at this point

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/831468...src=twsrc%5Etfw

[StrangeSox]

DARK ESSAYS BY WHITE HOUSE STAFFER ARE THE INTELLECTUAL SOURCE CODE OF TRUMPISM

 

The article, headlined “The Flight 93 Election,” caused a minor stir when it came out. Conservatives who didn’t like Trump were aghast at its strange endorsement of the brutish candidate, while liberals thought it showed the crackpot essence of the conservative case for the reality TV star. There was also the buzz of a guessing game: Who wrote this incredible thing? Here’s how the article began:

 

2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You — or the leader of your party — may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

 

On February 2, the guessing ended when the Weekly Standard revealed Anton as the author. More crucially, the magazine also revealed that Anton had just been hired as the senior director of strategic communications at the NSC and accurately described him as “the leading conservative intellectual to argue for the election of Donald Trump.” This cast Anton’s five-month-old essay, as well as other articles he has written, in a new light — they are virtually the only attempt by a Trump insider to present a holistic explanation of what his presidency stands for and seeks to accomplish. The outing of Anton has inadvertently exposed the intellectual source code of Trumpism.

 

Of course, Trump and his senior aides have issued a steady outpouring of startling statements and tweets about the administration’s ideas and plans. There’s also been a flurry of radical executive orders and appointments of cabinet officers whose backgrounds — as billionaires or Christian warriors or civil rights opponents — provide alarming data points. A number of officials have written crude and inflammatory books in years past, such as Michael Flynn, the retired general who heads the NSC. And, yes, there’s the case of Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart executive who is Trump’s senior adviser. But nobody in the administration has drawn up a real-time ideological blueprint to explain the intentional chaos of what’s happening under Trump — except, as it now turns out, Michael Anton, whose radical theories have been compared to those of a German philosopher named Carl Schmitt, who helped lay the legal foundations of the Nazi Party.

 

The dark value of Anton’s work is that it makes plain the bigotry of Trumpism before Trump and his supporters won the election and became a bit more careful about what they said. There’s nothing that Steve Bannon has written or said in recent years that comes close to the clarifying sweep of Anton’s essays, which are not just a product of racism but an argument for it. Gerson put his finger on this:

 

When you shift through all the hyperbole and insults of “The Flight 93 Election,” you are left with a residue of prejudice. The author refers to “tribal, sub-Third-World foes” and “the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty” who are making America “less traditionally American with every cycle.” Immigrants are typically guilty of “rape, shooting, bombing or machete attack.” Their importation is the sign of “a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die.” Trump, in contrast, would say, “I want my people to live.” Just think on that. Who exactly is “my people”?

 

The outing of Anton in the Weekly Standard was accompanied with a picture of him on the sidelines of a press briefing at the White House. He doesn’t look fearsome. He is thin, with large glasses, unfashionably wide tie, and he is holding a green notebook in one hand and two pens in the other. He looks a bit uncertain, very much the image of a middle-aged white intellectual who is more comfortable with books than the spotlight or actual struggle. His mild manner in that picture contrasts with the unforgiving belligerence of his ideas.

 

In his inaugural address, Trump used the phrase “American carnage” to describe the way things are now. Trump was wrong about the state of our nation, which is not a wasteland from coast to coast. But if Anton’s deadly Flight 93 vision comes true, carnage may well describe our future.

[bmags]

Subscribing to the WaPo was best thing I've done. Makes the tribune subscription all the more disappointing. Really find the tribune corp (la times/trib/etc) to be pretty subpar, but mainly you can just tell everyone is stretched so thin.

[BigSqwert]

Subscribed. I assume you're already subscribed to Pod Save America.

 

Finally got around to checking this one out. Good stuff.

[StrangeSox]

DARK ESSAYS BY WHITE HOUSE STAFFER ARE THE INTELLECTUAL SOURCE CODE OF TRUMPISM

 

On February 2, the guessing ended when the Weekly Standard revealed Anton as the author. More crucially, the magazine also revealed that Anton had just been hired as the senior director of strategic communications at the NSC and accurately described him as “the leading conservative intellectual to argue for the election of Donald Trump.” This cast Anton’s five-month-old essay, as well as other articles he has written, in a new light — they are virtually the only attempt by a Trump insider to present a holistic explanation of what his presidency stands for and seeks to accomplish. The outing of Anton has inadvertently exposed the intellectual source code of Trumpism.

 

Of course, Trump and his senior aides have issued a steady outpouring of startling statements and tweets about the administration’s ideas and plans. There’s also been a flurry of radical executive orders and appointments of cabinet officers whose backgrounds — as billionaires or Christian warriors or civil rights opponents — provide alarming data points. A number of officials have written crude and inflammatory books in years past, such as Michael Flynn, the retired general who heads the NSC. And, yes, there’s the case of Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart executive who is Trump’s senior adviser. But nobody in the administration has drawn up a real-time ideological blueprint to explain the intentional chaos of what’s happening under Trump — except, as it now turns out, Michael Anton, whose radical theories have been compared to those of a German philosopher named Carl Schmitt, who helped lay the legal foundations of the Nazi Party.

 

Turns out he's a big racist too, shocking I know.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-anton-is...-211930901.html

 

 

[Quin]

Kind of late on this one, but I was really disappointed by Jeremy Scahill bucking Bill Maher's show. I have long been a fan of Scahill and was really happy Maher barked back at him. If I am in Scahill's position, I would be embarrassed for myself. Scahill made his career off attacking the deep state and being a real journalist and one of the only ones left at that. He's had no problem showing up to Bill Maher's show in the past when Maher donated 1M to Pres. Obama or when Maher regularly haves neo-con guests solely because they support his anti-Islam agenda and this gay dude from Britain, who's done nothing in action, is where Scahill draws the line. Really sad.

 

Yeah, Maher and Milo are both assholes, just on opposite ends of the spectrum (and Maher doesn't like, advocate violence). It's no shock they got along and anyone dipping because of Milo is kinda meh.

[Brian]

Not disputing but what has Maher said about Muslim people that's been derogatory? I watch his show regularly and can't remember anything.

 

Milo was a tool on the overtime portion on YouTube. Said majority of sex crimes are by transgender but couldn't back up with stats or evidence.

[Soxbadger]

If you're saying Yiannopolous advocates violence then so does Maher. Maher is hyper critical of Muslisms and says stuff that no right wing person could ever get away and more importantly, stuff that is actually directly, specifically disrespectful to the Muslim people.

 

Yiannopolous and Maher really aren't the point though. It's just crazy to me that Scahill has the balls to coop himself up in a Yemeni hut to show that the Pres. Obama's administration murdered double digit amounts of women and children to kill one militant and then colluded with the Yemeni government to cover it up. Real, gritty and potentially career ending type journalism. Then he turns around and acts like a total p**** and cancels, on talk show that he signed himself up to do, because of someone as insignificant as Yiannopolous.

 

Scahill also refused to show up to Stop the War Coalition's annual meeting if Mother Superior Agnes Mariam de la Croix was allowed to speak. I understand, although do not agree, with the theoretical argument. That is if you give something so inane a seat at the table, it legitimizes the inanity.

[Reddy]

Yiannopolous has been legitimized by the college aged kids who tear up their campuses when someone they don't agree with comes on campus. The guy's notoriety has blown up because of young liberal's inability to allow people with differing opinions freedom of speech because the guy is, by their account, a Nazi. A "nazi" who is Jewish and brags about f***ing black guys and muslim dudes.

Right, because your people are SO GOOD with folks who have differing opinions... (see: any Donald Trump rally)

 

Give me a break with your faux outrage and your "conservatives-can-do-no-wrong" blinders.

[Soxbadger]

Yiannopolous has been legitimized by the college aged kids who tear up their campuses when someone they don't agree with comes on campus. The guy's notoriety has blown up because of young liberal's inability to allow people with differing opinions freedom of speech because the guy is, by their account, a Nazi. A "nazi" who is Jewish and brags about f***ing black guys and muslim dudes.

 

Being popular isnt the same as being legitimate. Milo is a salesman, he realized that there was a market for what he was doing and that he could make money by doing it. College aged kids are easy marks, that is why kids that age do stupid things all the time. They have poor impulse control.

[Soxbadger]

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I was waiting for you given your obsession with me.

 

Conservatives would never have me but I understand it's difficult for you to talk about politics without getting personal/bipartisan. You just call me a conservative because I'm not blindly aligned with you.

 

I think people call you Conservative because of the tone of your posts and that you seemingly insult liberals while rarely (if ever) insult conservatives in a similar fashion.

[Soxbadger]

Thanks for stating the obvious there. Interesting you directed at me though, given I am the person who called Yiannopolous insignificant. There's a lot more money being a professional victim or advocate of professional victims. Yiannopolous was an internet character until Twitter banned him and after children ripped apart their campuses by the mere thought of this guy being there.

 

The reason I responded to you is that you said he was legitimized. I dont believe that Milo is legitimate, and I dont believe being banned from twitter nor what has happened on campuses changes my opinion on that.

 

Sounds like he was just dis-invited from CPAC. Probably will sell a few more books.

[Brian]

That's Maher's shtick. He got kicked off network cable for what he has said about Muslims. He brings on Sam Harris all the time so someone with some nuanced opinions could validate Maher's extremist views.

 

He got kicked off ABC for saying the 9/11 terrorists weren't cowards and that we were for launching missiles from 2,000 miles away.

 

Can't find anything on Google either.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Brian

[GoSox05]

Imagine thinking that a majority of Americans are "authoritarian leftists".

 

 

Every time I leave the house someone has to bring how great Stalin was.

[Soxbadger]

Thankfully public opinion considers more than your own. You brought up him being on Maher legitimizing him. I brought up the fact that he was only on Maher because his notoriety was emboldened by all the socialist millenials.

 

Perhaps you should re-read my post. I said that may be why the other person did not want to appear with him but that I did not agree.

 

Scahill also refused to show up to Stop the War Coalition's annual meeting if Mother Superior Agnes Mariam de la Croix was allowed to speak. I understand, although do not agree, with the theoretical argument. That is if you give something so inane a seat at the table, it legitimizes the inanity.

 

 

 

 

[brett05]

Nope. The issue is whether or not the Republicans engaged in unprecedented obstructionism in refusing to consider Garland because the nominee was up in an election year. The burden is on you to prove they would have. Biden's speech in 1992 is not anything other than circumstantial evidence that the Dems would have refused to consider a nominee in 1992 because there was no Supreme Court vacancy at the time. Thus, you haven't met your burden, and the Judge finds in my favor.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/p...servatives.html

 

The Republican Congress floated the idea of a coverage mandate in response to Clinton's health care reform proposal. So by the Brett logic of politics, the Republicans should not be opposed to the mandate in the ACA.

Is there any precedence?

Yes your honor, our former VP advocated this policy as a per-emptive move.

Prosecutor, any rebuttal? ....*crickets*

With sincere apologies this case is dismissed.

 

[Reddy]

I think people call you Conservative because of the tone of your posts and that you seemingly insult liberals while rarely (if ever) insult conservatives in a similar fashion.

 

this