Well, Rand Paul said it. So there was essentially a 70/30 shot between that and "I agreed with you right up until you said the solution was freer markets."
“In some ways, the Democrats made it much more certain that I would vote for him, by trying to destroy his character. I think to me it’s very upsetting that they didn’t choose to go after him on particular issues like civil asset forfeiture, where they might have been able to persuade someone like me,” Paul said Thursday. “They chose to go after him, and try to destroy a man’s character.”
Fuck this stupid libertarian argument. Quit trying to externalize your shitty reasoning. You didn't think he was racist or at least racist enough to destroy the DOJ, the end. Don't go around saying "I MIGHT have been persuaded if THEY hadn't been SO MEAN about it." Fuck me, take some fucking accountability for your decisions.
(I am increasingly less tolerant of whiny fucking arguments like the above paradoxically coming from the self-described principled warriors of the right who think discrimination is JUST AWFUL but could never personally commit it or view it being committed by anyone else)
“In some ways, the Democrats made it much more certain that I would vote for him, by trying to destroy his character. I think to me it’s very upsetting that they didn’t choose to go after him on particular issues like civil asset forfeiture, where they might have been able to persuade someone like me,” Paul said Thursday. “They chose to go after him, and try to destroy a man’s character.”
Fuck this stupid libertarian argument. Quit trying to externalize your shitty reasoning. You didn't think he was racist or at least racist enough to destroy the DOJ, the end. Don't go around saying "I MIGHT have been persuaded if THEY hadn't been SO MEAN about it." Fuck me, take some fucking accountability for your decisions.
(I am increasingly less tolerant of whiny fucking arguments like the above paradoxically coming from the self-described principled warriors of the right who think discrimination is JUST AWFUL but could never personally commit it or view it being committed by anyone else)
Its like they dont realize how fucking petty and childish it makes them look by basically pouting and going "I didnt like him, but the big mean lady called him names so I's voted fors him!"
“In some ways, the Democrats made it much more certain that I would vote for him, by trying to destroy his character. I think to me it’s very upsetting that they didn’t choose to go after him on particular issues like civil asset forfeiture, where they might have been able to persuade someone like me,” Paul said Thursday. “They chose to go after him, and try to destroy a man’s character.”
Fuck this stupid libertarian argument. Quit trying to externalize your shitty reasoning. You didn't think he was racist or at least racist enough to destroy the DOJ, the end. Don't go around saying "I MIGHT have been persuaded if THEY hadn't been SO MEAN about it." Fuck me, take some fucking accountability for your decisions.
(I am increasingly less tolerant of whiny fucking arguments like the above paradoxically coming from the self-described principled warriors of the right who think discrimination is JUST AWFUL but could never personally commit it or view it being committed by anyone else)
Its like they dont realize how fucking petty and childish it makes them look by basically pouting and going "I didnt like him, but the big mean lady called him names so I's voted fors him!"
Is like a lack of skill with social interactions is a requisite for becoming a libertarian or something.
The President receives a manila folder with Elliott Abrams' qualifications, meets, him, likes him, then sees that Abrams called him unfit; the hot rage and shame rises to the tips of his ears; he roars; NO! gripping a red sharpie, he draws an angry cat on the folder. NO! NO! NO!
More like he read about it in news reports outside of the information they provided.
The president overruled his secretary of state after meeting with Tillerson, Abrams, and son-in-law Jared Kushner after reading news reports about their meeting, which included references to Abrams' criticisms of Trump during last year's presidential campaign, according to people familiar with the decision. Though his staff was aware of Abrams's statements, the president was not -- until he read news reports about their meeting earlier this week.
Trump's people pushing the guy and hoping Trump doesn't notice the guy's previous criticism of Trump would have been a pretty decent plan on the part of people under him.
+8
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
The President receives a manila folder with Elliott Abrams' qualifications, meets, him, likes him, then sees that Abrams called him unfit; the hot rage and shame rises to the tips of his ears; he roars; NO! gripping a red sharpie, he draws an angry cat on the folder. NO! NO! NO!
More like he read about it in news reports outside of the information they provided.
The president overruled his secretary of state after meeting with Tillerson, Abrams, and son-in-law Jared Kushner after reading news reports about their meeting, which included references to Abrams' criticisms of Trump during last year's presidential campaign, according to people familiar with the decision. Though his staff was aware of Abrams's statements, the president was not -- until he read news reports about their meeting earlier this week.
Trump's people pushing the guy and hoping Trump doesn't notice the guy's previous criticism of Trump would have been a pretty decent plan on the part of people under him.
I'm mostly shocked he learned anything by "reading" news reports
Also, the "leak" is basically Team Neocon being butthurt that their guy wasn't chosen and going to the media to whine about it, as usual.
Then again, I don't think much of self-serving carrerists that talked a big game about how Trump was unqualified and then went to the Golden Tower to beg for a job.
"This Senate is only -- today is Friday, Saturday -- so three days away from party-line, party-line voting for this incredibly ethically challenged Secretary of the Treasury. Why? Listening to my Republican friends here, a number of them suggest they really don't much like this nominee. They didn't much like Secretary Price, a guy that did everything but sell stocks on the floor of the House, who bought and sold health care stocks while he was working on health care legislation for those companies. They didn't much like voting for him. A number of them wanted to vote against the Secretary of Education because she was maybe the least qualified Secretary of Education that's ever been nominated, but they voted for these people. Why? Because they're fearful. They're fearful of what Donald Trump will try to do to destroy their careers."
...
"There are three members of the Republican conference who ran for president against Donald Trump. There's Senator Graham, Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz. All three of them were targets of Donald Trump, of candidate Donald Trump. He insulted them. He called them names. He turned his supporters on them, [and] the other 49 senators know it could happen to them. That's why you're seeing these party-line votes for people as ethically challenged as Steve Mnuchin… I would hope that just two or three or four Republicans could break from this party line train running through this body, stand up for the right thing, stand up against the ethical challenges of this nominee, and understand that the president may call them names, may tweet about them, may try to ruin their careers. Show some courage. Show some guts. Do the right thing. Vote no on Steven Mnuchin for Secretary of the Treasury."
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Republicans are fucking cowards and they have been since the Tea Party began.
And now they're in a lose-lose situation where they're losing because of Trump, and losing because of their constituents actually holding them accountable and going to town halls and such.
Hopefully they figure out which is more important, and fast.
The Republicans are fucking cowards and they have been since the Tea Party began.
And now they're in a lose-lose situation where they're losing because of Trump, and losing because of their constituents actually holding them accountable and going to town halls and such.
Hopefully they figure out which is more important, and fast.
Yeah I want all democrats to call out the cowardice of rubber stamping shit nominees.
"Who do they represent, you or Trump?"
Like if democrats ran away from Obama who was actually well liked in the country, than god damn it maybe some republicans should be afraid of Trump.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The Republicans are fucking cowards and they have been since the Tea Party began.
And now they're in a lose-lose situation where they're losing because of Trump, and losing because of their constituents actually holding them accountable and going to town halls and such.
Hopefully they figure out which is more important, and fast.
Yeah I want all democrats to call out the cowardice of rubber stamping shit nominees.
"Who do they represent, you or Trump?"
Like if democrats ran away from Obama who was actually well liked in the country, than god damn it maybe some republicans should be afraid of Trump.
IMO, they are.
But they can't get off the tiger without being eaten.
Several leading crime experts said the data led them to the opposite conclusion: it was much too soon to call the increase in murders a trend at all, much less a permanent one. Sessions’s judgment “is not consistent with the professional judgment of, to my knowledge, anyone else in criminal justice right now,” said Thomas Abt, an expert on gun, gang and youth violence policy who worked in the Obama justice department.
Fact-checkers were quick to note that murder and violent crime rates remain close to historic lows, and that the steep uptick in 2015 has not come anywhere close to erasing the country’s two decades of gains in safety and decreases in violence.
“The long-term crime decline is far from over,” Rosenfeld said. “We’re still running at homicides rates in the United States that are about one half what they were in the early 90s.”
Yeah, this is basically obvious if you even off-handedly glance at a trend line for the past couple decades. It's theoretically possible that we could be seeing a statistically significant uptick, but it takes like 4-5 years to be able to call it a trend unless the rate, like, doubles or something.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The Republicans are fucking cowards and they have been since the Tea Party began.
And now they're in a lose-lose situation where they're losing because of Trump, and losing because of their constituents actually holding them accountable and going to town halls and such.
Hopefully they figure out which is more important, and fast.
Yeah I want all democrats to call out the cowardice of rubber stamping shit nominees.
"Who do they represent, you or Trump?"
Like if democrats ran away fro,m Obama who was actually well liked in the country, than god damn it maybe some republicans should be afraid of Trump.
IMO, they are.
But they can't get off the tiger without being eaten.
Yeah, I generally think that anytime you see these guys talk about how Trump or his picks are bad, or how much they hate Cruz, or how much the Russian interference worries and angers them, or the like, they are like 100% saying what they actually believe. It's just none of it matters because no matter what they think, they will vote to protect their own seats and the party. They have zero courage or fortitude and will not stand up for their country, their ethics, their beliefs or themselves.
So basically expect anyone Trump picks that can't be fillibustered to be confirmed, no matter what they say.
Flynn's group accusing the CIA of playing politics. So I guess it's good that the media completely made up that feud between the CIA and the Trump admin, huh?
+61
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
"This Senate is only -- today is Friday, Saturday -- so three days away from party-line, party-line voting for this incredibly ethically challenged Secretary of the Treasury. Why? Listening to my Republican friends here, a number of them suggest they really don't much like this nominee. They didn't much like Secretary Price, a guy that did everything but sell stocks on the floor of the House, who bought and sold health care stocks while he was working on health care legislation for those companies. They didn't much like voting for him. A number of them wanted to vote against the Secretary of Education because she was maybe the least qualified Secretary of Education that's ever been nominated, but they voted for these people. Why? Because they're fearful. They're fearful of what Donald Trump will try to do to destroy their careers."
...
"There are three members of the Republican conference who ran for president against Donald Trump. There's Senator Graham, Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz. All three of them were targets of Donald Trump, of candidate Donald Trump. He insulted them. He called them names. He turned his supporters on them, [and] the other 49 senators know it could happen to them. That's why you're seeing these party-line votes for people as ethically challenged as Steve Mnuchin… I would hope that just two or three or four Republicans could break from this party line train running through this body, stand up for the right thing, stand up against the ethical challenges of this nominee, and understand that the president may call them names, may tweet about them, may try to ruin their careers. Show some courage. Show some guts. Do the right thing. Vote no on Steven Mnuchin for Secretary of the Treasury."
Flynn's aide being denied a clearance is hilarious.
There's a wide latitude given for people's lifestyle and actions. To get denied, especially as a relatively powerful person, implies some seriously hinky junk.
Flynn's aide being denied a clearance is hilarious.
There's a wide latitude given for people's lifestyle and actions. To get denied, especially as a relatively powerful person, implies some seriously hinky junk.
To be fair, there's probably a huge swath of the new administration that shouldn't get a security clearance given their involvement with other governments.
Flynn's aide being denied a clearance is hilarious.
There's a wide latitude given for people's lifestyle and actions. To get denied, especially as a relatively powerful person, implies some seriously hinky junk.
To be fair, there's probably a huge swath of the new administration that shouldn't get a security clearance given their involvement with other governments.
Flynn's aide being denied a clearance is hilarious.
There's a wide latitude given for people's lifestyle and actions. To get denied, especially as a relatively powerful person, implies some seriously hinky junk.
To be fair, there's probably a huge swath of the new administration that shouldn't get a security clearance given their involvement with other governments.
starting with the effing President.
Will he always have high security clearance? Like, assuming he doesn't get tossed out of office and goes his full term(s), once he's out, does he still have full clearance? Is that a thing of presidents?
Flynn's aide being denied a clearance is hilarious.
There's a wide latitude given for people's lifestyle and actions. To get denied, especially as a relatively powerful person, implies some seriously hinky junk.
To be fair, there's probably a huge swath of the new administration that shouldn't get a security clearance given their involvement with other governments.
starting with the effing President.
Will he always have high security clearance? Like, assuming he doesn't get tossed out of office and goes his full term(s), once he's out, does he still have full clearance? Is that a thing of presidents?
This is...a good question...
I assume no. Once a president is out of office they still retain the privilege of the secret service, but they're now private citizens and thus are privy to state-classified information. Clearances usually last 5 years before having to get renewed, but I'm not sure what the case with the president is.
Flynn's aide being denied a clearance is hilarious.
There's a wide latitude given for people's lifestyle and actions. To get denied, especially as a relatively powerful person, implies some seriously hinky junk.
To be fair, there's probably a huge swath of the new administration that shouldn't get a security clearance given their involvement with other governments.
starting with the effing President.
Will he always have high security clearance? Like, assuming he doesn't get tossed out of office and goes his full term(s), once he's out, does he still have full clearance? Is that a thing of presidents?
When the president leaves office, they lose access to security clearances unless they move into a position in the new administration or other job that may require a clearance.
Former presidents can still get intelligence briefings, if it's deemed necessary or permitted, but they don't retain any de facto clearances, if I recall
Don't ex-presidents have access to security briefings, if they want them?
Also if Trump were to be impeached for the Russian shit his access/clearance might be revoked as a result.
All the more reason to do it. I don't want that orange turd meddling in international politics after he's out of office.
The way it was explained to me is that former Presidents usually get kept in the loop to a certain degree in case they need to be utilized by the current administration for diplomatic purposes, or other tasks involving foreign policy, but have little/no power to act unless beckoned by the current President. Which is one reason why Clinton would have been amazing as President; she might have actually utilized Obama as a talented diplomat.
Don't ex-presidents have access to security briefings, if they want them?
Also if Trump were to be impeached for the Russian shit his access/clearance might be revoked as a result.
All the more reason to do it. I don't want that orange turd meddling in international politics after he's out of office.
The way it was explained to me is that former Presidents usually get kept in the loop to a certain degree in case they need to be utilized by the current administration for diplomatic purposes, or other tasks involving foreign policy, but have little/no power to act unless beckoned by the current President. Which is one reason why Clinton would have been amazing as President; she might have actually utilized Obama as a talented diplomat.
Would recommend you all check out The Presidents Club. Has some interesting post presidency tales, its been a while but I feel like it did touch on what access some of them were entitled to.
Politics aside I wonder how much President Trump will reach out to other living Presidents. Politically I don't think it'd look good for him to reach out to any for his base.
Don't ex-presidents have access to security briefings, if they want them?
Also if Trump were to be impeached for the Russian shit his access/clearance might be revoked as a result.
All the more reason to do it. I don't want that orange turd meddling in international politics after he's out of office.
The way it was explained to me is that former Presidents usually get kept in the loop to a certain degree in case they need to be utilized by the current administration for diplomatic purposes, or other tasks involving foreign policy, but have little/no power to act unless beckoned by the current President. Which is one reason why Clinton would have been amazing as President; she might have actually utilized Obama as a talented diplomat.
Would recommend you all check out The Presidents Club. Has some interesting post presidency tales, its been a while but I feel like it did touch on what access some of them were entitled to. Politics aside I wonder how much President Trump will reach out to other living Presidents. Politically I don't think it'd look good for him to reach out to any for his base.
I'm guessing zero, Trump think he knows all the answers.
I'm more worried of Trump using his access to do insider trading type of nonsense, undermine the policies of future Presidents or to shoot his mouth off about sensitive issues.
This man antagonized the Australian PM and is very likely a Russian stooge.
I do not put it beneath him.
I'm more worried of Trump using his access to do insider trading type of nonsense, undermine the policies of future Presidents or to shoot his mouth off about sensitive issues.
This man antagonized the Australian PM and is very likely a Russian stooge.
I do not put it beneath him.
He'll try, but he isn't smart enough to utilize that to the maximum. The stock market is way ahead of using him for their own ends IIRC. Trump's no Dick Cheney.
So, the USDA keeps records of people and facilities that violate law like the animal welfare act, and which are cited for violations by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Previously those records were filed in reports that were available on the USDA website, now they've been scrubbed clean. This causes a lot of problems both for the industry and for consumers. For instance, you can no longer search the records to find out if the breeder you are buying a pet from has any violations themselves or sources their animals from puppy mills.
Joe Watson, the CEO of Petland, which sells puppies at about 80 stores nationwide, said his company requires commercial breeders to have two years of clean USDA inspection records and depended on the database. He said Petland will now have to ask breeders to supply the reports.
Dan Ashe, the president and chief executive of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, said in an interview that the removal “creates an impression that licensees by the Department of Agriculture have something to hide.” The organization Speaking of Research, which defends the use of animals in research, said the change means “researchers must devote even more resources to combating the public perception that they are not transparent.”
This appears to be, at least in large part, due to the Trump Administration's USDA transition team. The previous head of the USDA had been briefed on the option, but said no due to not being able to verify the problems created by removing the records.
Former Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack said Tuesday that his senior staff informed him toward the end of his term that the agency division responsible for enforcing the Horse Protection and Animal Welfare acts was recommending pulling the records from the website and instead making them available via Freedom of Information Act requests. He said one rationale was that doing so would reduce staff time spent on the documents. Litigation was also a factor, he added, though he could not recall a specific court case.
But Vilsack did not sign off on the recommendation — not because he disagreed with it but because he believed it had major implications that he didn’t have time to consider fully, he said. “There was not enough time for us to properly vet the recommendation, and I was concerned about transparency,” he explained.
So why did USDA change its mind? Marty Irby, the Senior Director of Rural Outreach and Equine Protection for the Humane Society of the United States in Washington, D.C., and the former president of the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders and Exhibitors Association...
...
“They can’t win in the court of public opinion, so they have tried to influence legislators instead.”
The turning point, Irby believes, came when the Trump administration hired Brian Klippenstein to lead the USDA transition team. Klippenstein is the executive director of Protect the Harvest, a Columbia, Missouri–based pro-agriculture group that has supported Right to Farm bills, which protect the agriculture industry from certain lawsuits and regulations, including those involving animal welfare. The group has also opposed restrictions on large-scale dog breeding operations—sometimes referred to as “puppy mills”-- which are regulated under the Animal Welfare Act. USDA’s decision to remove documents relating to violations of both the Horse Protection Act and Animal Welfare Act would be consistent with Protect the Harvest’s policy goals, Irby notes.
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, Rand Paul said it. So there was essentially a 70/30 shot between that and "I agreed with you right up until you said the solution was freer markets."
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Racism is over, didnt you get the memo when the supreme court ruined the voting rights act?
Fuck this stupid libertarian argument. Quit trying to externalize your shitty reasoning. You didn't think he was racist or at least racist enough to destroy the DOJ, the end. Don't go around saying "I MIGHT have been persuaded if THEY hadn't been SO MEAN about it." Fuck me, take some fucking accountability for your decisions.
(I am increasingly less tolerant of whiny fucking arguments like the above paradoxically coming from the self-described principled warriors of the right who think discrimination is JUST AWFUL but could never personally commit it or view it being committed by anyone else)
NNID: Hakkekage
Its like they dont realize how fucking petty and childish it makes them look by basically pouting and going "I didnt like him, but the big mean lady called him names so I's voted fors him!"
Is like a lack of skill with social interactions is a requisite for becoming a libertarian or something.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/elliott-abrams-no-deputy-secretary-of-state-234908 Trump's people pushing the guy and hoping Trump doesn't notice the guy's previous criticism of Trump would have been a pretty decent plan on the part of people under him.
I'm mostly shocked he learned anything by "reading" news reports
NNID: Hakkekage
Then again, I don't think much of self-serving carrerists that talked a big game about how Trump was unqualified and then went to the Golden Tower to beg for a job.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's what they should keep doing too.
The Republicans are fucking cowards and they have been since the Tea Party began.
And now they're in a lose-lose situation where they're losing because of Trump, and losing because of their constituents actually holding them accountable and going to town halls and such.
Hopefully they figure out which is more important, and fast.
Yeah I want all democrats to call out the cowardice of rubber stamping shit nominees.
"Who do they represent, you or Trump?"
Like if democrats ran away from Obama who was actually well liked in the country, than god damn it maybe some republicans should be afraid of Trump.
pleasepaypreacher.net
IMO, they are.
But they can't get off the tiger without being eaten.
Yeah, this is basically obvious if you even off-handedly glance at a trend line for the past couple decades. It's theoretically possible that we could be seeing a statistically significant uptick, but it takes like 4-5 years to be able to call it a trend unless the rate, like, doubles or something.
Yeah, I generally think that anytime you see these guys talk about how Trump or his picks are bad, or how much they hate Cruz, or how much the Russian interference worries and angers them, or the like, they are like 100% saying what they actually believe. It's just none of it matters because no matter what they think, they will vote to protect their own seats and the party. They have zero courage or fortitude and will not stand up for their country, their ethics, their beliefs or themselves.
So basically expect anyone Trump picks that can't be fillibustered to be confirmed, no matter what they say.
Drama ensues
Flynn's group accusing the CIA of playing politics. So I guess it's good that the media completely made up that feud between the CIA and the Trump admin, huh?
Brown calling them out like the cowards they are
I love it
There's a wide latitude given for people's lifestyle and actions. To get denied, especially as a relatively powerful person, implies some seriously hinky junk.
Pure politics! NEED EXTREME VETTING!
To be fair, there's probably a huge swath of the new administration that shouldn't get a security clearance given their involvement with other governments.
starting with the effing President.
Will he always have high security clearance? Like, assuming he doesn't get tossed out of office and goes his full term(s), once he's out, does he still have full clearance? Is that a thing of presidents?
This is...a good question...
I assume no. Once a president is out of office they still retain the privilege of the secret service, but they're now private citizens and thus are privy to state-classified information. Clearances usually last 5 years before having to get renewed, but I'm not sure what the case with the president is.
When the president leaves office, they lose access to security clearances unless they move into a position in the new administration or other job that may require a clearance.
As president they are privy to literally everything in the IC. That's...a lot of shit to hold in your head.
Also if Trump were to be impeached for the Russian shit his access/clearance might be revoked as a result.
All the more reason to do it. I don't want that orange turd meddling in international politics after he's out of office.
The way it was explained to me is that former Presidents usually get kept in the loop to a certain degree in case they need to be utilized by the current administration for diplomatic purposes, or other tasks involving foreign policy, but have little/no power to act unless beckoned by the current President. Which is one reason why Clinton would have been amazing as President; she might have actually utilized Obama as a talented diplomat.
Would recommend you all check out The Presidents Club. Has some interesting post presidency tales, its been a while but I feel like it did touch on what access some of them were entitled to.
Politics aside I wonder how much President Trump will reach out to other living Presidents. Politically I don't think it'd look good for him to reach out to any for his base.
I'm guessing zero, Trump think he knows all the answers.
This man antagonized the Australian PM and is very likely a Russian stooge.
I do not put it beneath him.
He'll try, but he isn't smart enough to utilize that to the maximum. The stock market is way ahead of using him for their own ends IIRC. Trump's no Dick Cheney.
This appears to be, at least in large part, due to the Trump Administration's USDA transition team. The previous head of the USDA had been briefed on the option, but said no due to not being able to verify the problems created by removing the records.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/02/09/usda-animal-welfare-records-purge-may-have-been-triggered-by-horse-industry-lawsuit/?utm_term=.c83051362211
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/usda-scrubbing-animal-records-may-have-been-sparked-horse-lawsuit