Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

04-12-2017 , 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
Of Course There’s Evidence Trump Colluded with Russian Intelligence
https://www.lawfareblog.com/course-t...n-intelligence
LOL pretty stupid article. So proof of collaborating= asking them to do something they did not do. Not to mention if he had to make the request public (though the request is not to hack as stated it was to turn over what he assumes they already hacked) it does signify they do not have a secret way of making the request privately and the Russians were not going to attempt to hack anyone in government without such a request. Must have been a total misunderstanding when the attempted to hack the RNC.
04-12-2017 , 10:55 AM
Someone on the left needs to encourage the alt right and the tea party types to form their own party, then fund the crap out of them. If they can split the right wing vote it would make a lot of races easier to win.
04-12-2017 , 10:56 AM
Blue-collar billionaire

https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/852154762904653825
04-12-2017 , 11:05 AM
Unmanned missiles? Good idea.
04-12-2017 , 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
The relevance is that their mindset would have made them more apt to dismiss any early evidence that this particular race would be close.

ETA: Could be wrong, but I understood the difference in this race to be in Dem turnout rather than conservatives abandoning Trump.
Turnout was high for a special election, but not in general. The dem candidate in 2016, who lost by 31, got more total votes than the winner yesterday.
04-12-2017 , 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Unmanned missiles? Good idea.
04-12-2017 , 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycosid
Turnout was high for a special election, but not in general. The dem candidate in 2016, who lost by 31, got more total votes than the winner yesterday.
Yeah, well of course you have to judge it by that standard.
04-12-2017 , 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
Blue-collar billionaire

https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/852154762904653825
That interviewer is soaking wet. ****ing pathetic.
04-12-2017 , 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Unmanned missiles? Good idea.
Drstrangelove.jpg
04-12-2017 , 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
God damn it
04-12-2017 , 11:22 AM
You can't shake a stick without hitting a racist connected to Trump in some way

Quote:
Mort Klein, president of a major Jewish pro-Israel group, berated a Forward reporter who called to ask about a joke Klein had made about black people being good dancers in a national magazine story.

“What are you, stupid? What are you, stupid?” Klein said. “Each different peoples have different talents that everyone knows. And everyone knows that blacks are, on average, are better dancers than other people.”

Klein told the Forward that it is “simply a fact” that “blacks are much better dancers.” He added that “most people know” that Asians “are smarter on average than other people in America.”

Klein is the president of the Zionist Organization Of America, a leading right-wing pro-Israel group. He was the first Jewish leader to formally meet with the Trump administration after the inauguration.
He's got a defense though!

Quote:
Contacted by the Forward on Monday, Klein said that his joke was not racist because it invoked a positive stereotype. “That I attribute a talent that one people have over another? That’s racist? That’s a positive thing,” Klein said. “If people say that Asians are smarter on average than other people in America, that is not racist. That is simply something that most people know happens to be the case. People like you, Josh, you should really be ashamed of even calling me about this.”
See? That people think Jews have taken over the world and are greedy isn't anti Semetic, it shows Jews' ambition and industriousness.

Wait it gets better

Quote:
In the earlier call, Klein said that he attended all-black schools as a child, and that most of his childhood friends were black. “I want you to put in there that I was in Mississippi fighting for black voter rights in the ’60s,” Klein said. He said that he was jailed for a night in Mississippi as a result of his activism.

“I don’t even think about difference in colors,” Klein said. “Except I recognize that whites cannot compete with blacks in basketball… and on average, blacks are much better dancers. That’s simply a fact. That’s a positive trait.”
The Bingo card is full.


http://forward.com/news/368721/presi...cks-arebetter/

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 04-12-2017 at 11:28 AM.
04-12-2017 , 11:30 AM
Looks like Putin is meeting with Tillerson after all. It must've been the "WHY do US taxpayers care what happens in Ukraine?" comment.
04-12-2017 , 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
That interviewer is soaking wet. ****ing pathetic.
Can we all stop pretending he is even a little intelligent. There is a mountain of evidence he is the dumbest president of all time. He literally cannot put together a single coherent sentence or thought.
04-12-2017 , 11:41 AM
He brought them into the Holocaust Centers, I understand that
He brought them into the Holocaust Centers, I understand that
He brought them into the Holocaust Centers, I understand that
He brought them into the Holocaust Centers, I understand that
He brought them into the Holocaust Centers, I understand that
He brought them into the Holocaust Centers, I understand that
He brought them into the Holocaust Centers, I understand that
04-12-2017 , 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycosid
Turnout was high for a special election, but not in general. The dem candidate in 2016, who lost by 31, got more total votes than the winner yesterday.
comparing an open seat election to an election with an incumbent running doesn't work so well either. the 2016 election was a snoozefest I'm sure.
04-12-2017 , 12:10 PM
Hey, look. The Republicans aren't in favor of market-based solutions to the student loan problem. They're just in favor of empowering lobbyists and big corporations who want to rob people blind for the right to be treated like a human being.

Betsy DeVos rescinds protections for student loan borrowers
https://thinkprogress.org/reversal-b...s-22bc2f3d2209
Quote:
On Tuesday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos reversed Obama administration directives that were supposed to make it easier for borrowers to pay back their student loans.

The guidance helped to hold student loan servicers accountable. Student loan servicers are companies that have contracts with the federal government to manage loan repayments.

Former Obama administration Secretary of Education John King put the guidance in place last June. That’s when he asked James Runcie, the chief operating officer of Federal Student Aid to examine student loan servicers’ past performance before renewing the companies’ contracts.

“Improper or abusive customer service speaks to a disregard for student and debtor needs that does not meet the standards we have set,” King’s guidance read.

Through a memorandum, DeVos withdrew that guidance, as well as a directive from former Education Department undersecretary Ted Mitchell that required servicers meet certain standards for responding to and assisting borrowers. That directive set up a single servicing platform for borrowers and provided economic incentives for servicers to ensure high-quality customer service; servicers, in turn, were expected to respond to borrowers in a timely manner, and track borrowers’ requests for assistance.
Republicans aren't in favor of solutions at all. They're in favor of lobbyists, big corporations, the Owning Class.
04-12-2017 , 12:24 PM


https://twitter.com/margbrennan/stat...84678954143746

04-12-2017 , 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
That interviewer is soaking wet. ****ing pathetic.
hmmm she did manage to easily manipulate the orange clown into demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of diplomatic protocol and into revealing his desperate need for approval.
04-12-2017 , 12:59 PM
This question probably belongs to the Obamacare thread, but since there hasn't been a post there in the past few days I'll ask it here.

I was reading the transcript of the latest Trump interview, and he said this:

Quote:
TRUMP: A hundred percent. Very soon. I see it as part, perhaps, of the health care plan, because phase two of the health care plan, in order to get the votes, I need 60 percent for that and if I put that in, the Democrats are actually going to love the infrastructure plan.
What does he mean by "phase two"? It is my understanding that the current bill is being pushed through the budget reconciliation process. Does that mean that it is not a permanent law? and that phase two is to make it permanent but to pass that bill he would need 60 votes in the senate?
04-12-2017 , 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Timon
This question probably belongs to the Obamacare thread, but since there hasn't been a post there in the past few days I'll ask it here.

I was reading the transcript of the latest Trump interview, and he said this:



What does he mean by "phase two"? It is my understanding that the current bill is being pushed through the budget reconciliation process. Does that mean that it is not a permanent law? and that phase two is to make it permanent but to pass that bill he would need 60 votes in the senate?
Supposedly they were going to try and do "healthcare reform" in multiple stages with the first stage done through budget reconciliation. The problem with the budget reconciliation process is that it can only deal with things directly related to the budget and not, say, changing regulations on private insurance which means they were limited in the things that they could fiddle with. The second part, which would have been more comprehensive, would have to go through the normal Senate process which would have to overcome a Democratic filibuster which would need 60 votes.

In reality, the budget reconciliation process was always going to destroy healthcare and then they were hoping against hope either people really were small government Conservatives who really wanted to get rid of healthcare connected with the government or that they could cajole Democrats into supporting something, because if they didn't, healthcare would burn and, again supposedly, people would blame the Democrats while Republicans could use the reduced revenue from the phase 1 budget reconciliation to give long term tax cuts to the rich. If that sounds convoluted and confusing that's why they couldn't get anything off the ground.
04-12-2017 , 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Supposedly they were going to try and do "healthcare reform" in multiple stages with the first stage done through budget reconciliation. The problem with the budget reconciliation process is that it can only deal with things directly related to the budget and not, say, changing regulations on private insurance which means they were limited in the things that they could fiddle with. The second part, which would have been more comprehensive, would have to go through the normal Senate process which would have to overcome a Democratic filibuster which means he'd need 60 votes.

In reality, the budget reconciliation process was always going to destroy healthcare and then they were hoping against hope that they could cajole Democrats into supporting something ,because if they didn't, healthcare would burn and, again supposedly, people would blame the Democrats while Republicans could use the reduced revenue from the phase 1 budget reconciliation to give long term tax cuts to the rich.
Thanks for the explanation
04-12-2017 , 01:22 PM
Quote:
In reality, the budget reconciliation process was always going to destroy healthcare and then they were hoping against hope that they could cajole Democrats into supporting something because if they didn't healthcare would burn and, again supposedly, people would blame the Democrats while using the reduced revenue from the phase 1 budget reconciliation to give long term tax cuts to the rich.
Which was also a stupid plan from the beginning.
04-12-2017 , 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Timon
This question probably belongs to the Obamacare thread, but since there hasn't been a post there in the past few days I'll ask it here.

I was reading the transcript of the latest Trump interview, and he said this:



What does he mean by "phase two"? It is my understanding that the current bill is being pushed through the budget reconciliation process. Does that mean that it is not a permanent law? and that phase two is to make it permanent but to pass that bill he would need 60 votes in the senate?
There is no phase 2, there is no phase 3


Phase 1 was the dump from last month
04-12-2017 , 01:38 PM
The government is moving forward with attempting to convict over 200 people of felony rioting based on the evidence of their attire and being near the riot

Quote:
The government claims that First Amendment protections don't apply in the J20 cases because property damage began "from the jump" (i.e. immediately). The indictment states that protesters "did not exercise multiple opportunities to leave the Black Bloc," and cheered and chanted "**** it up", "**** capitalism" and "whose streets?" (Slogans that have peppered most every protest I've attended, from Occupy to environmental marches to Black Lives Matter.)
Quote:
At a pretrial status hearing I attended in March at the high modernist D.C. Superior Court building, assistant United States attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff told the court that the government had collected more than 600 hours of video footage and data pulled from more than 100 cell phones taken from the arrestees. She said that each defendant would be shown individuated evidence of their participation in the riot and its incitement. But on a late-March conference call with 15 other lawyers representing J20 clients, Goldstone learned that for a number of defendants this alleged evidence amounted to no more than, as he put it, "Here's your client at the beginning of the march, wearing black clothes and goggles, your client could have left but did not, and here is your client at the end, in the police kettle."
The political implications

Quote:
Government action, like the mass J20 arrest, could make the tired "good protester/bad protester" narrative obsolete, if presence, proximity and chanting are sufficient to "bad protester" make. While radical leftists would banish the "bad protester" label to collapse the dichotomy, the state seems keen to erase the concept of "good" protest. In recent weeks, as the preliminary hearings J20 defendants began, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states introduced legislation to increase the severity of charges for traditionally non-violent protest tactics, like blocking highways.

The government has already proven its willingness to set what Goldstone called "a monstrous trap" for protesters, by leveraging high risk trials against paper-thin cases.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...bilityoverride

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 04-12-2017 at 01:43 PM.

      
m