TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Republican leaders told rank and file members at this morning's conference meeting that they intend to use a somewhat obscure statute -- the Congressional Review Act -- to nullify some of the most recent Obama Administration regulations, according to multiple GOP sources -- including a rule expanding who qualifies for overtime pay.
Republicans could alter their short-term funding bill, dubbed the "CR" inside the Capitol, to wipe out Obama executive orders made this year. The maneuver would allow them to reach back in the year a limited amount of time -- 60 days on the legislative calendar, which is different than a regular calendar -- to wipe out the regulations.
But to do that, they'll have to pass the measure as soon as possible -- well before the end of this calendar year.
Ryan and other top House GOP leaders told members at Thursday's Republican conference meeting that they plan to hold a vote on a CR that would fund the government just through March 31, 2017.
That means Trump would be in office for only about two months when a fresh funding bill will need to be enacted -- to avoid a government shutdown -- allowing him to implement spending priorities and reforms he advocated while a candidate.
In the American system, a President has more than 4,000 political appointments to begin filling in the crucial weeks between election and inauguration. Christie had made many trips to Washington to set up a transition, but progress had slowed as the polls seemed to indicate no such effort would ultimately be needed. It wasn’t long before the first transition to take place was Christie’s. The New Jersey governor had never been a favorite of conservatives, or of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose father Christie had sent to jail years ago for making illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and tampering with a witness. By Nov. 10, Christie had breakfast with Vice President–elect Mike Pence in New York, and it wasn’t long after that Pence had replaced Christie as transition chief. Christie could stay around with a title if he wanted, but everyone suspected his days as a member of the formal inner circle were over. Days later, even those close to Christie, like intelligence expert and former Representative Mike Rogers and Christie attorney William Palatucci, would be purged as well. Trump subsequently called Rogers, trying to bring him back. Christie was still fielding calls from Trump after the shake-up. “This thing is heading into a bridge abutment. It didn’t have to be this way,” one senior Republican involved in the transition said of the turmoil. “But it is.”
How are they that bad at this?
Oh, is it unusual for a transition team to experience purges less than a week after being initially set up?
If this is indicative of his administration, Trump's cabinet is going to involve nightmarish levels of reshuffling.
In the American system, a President has more than 4,000 political appointments to begin filling in the crucial weeks between election and inauguration. Christie had made many trips to Washington to set up a transition, but progress had slowed as the polls seemed to indicate no such effort would ultimately be needed. It wasn’t long before the first transition to take place was Christie’s. The New Jersey governor had never been a favorite of conservatives, or of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose father Christie had sent to jail years ago for making illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and tampering with a witness. By Nov. 10, Christie had breakfast with Vice President–elect Mike Pence in New York, and it wasn’t long after that Pence had replaced Christie as transition chief. Christie could stay around with a title if he wanted, but everyone suspected his days as a member of the formal inner circle were over. Days later, even those close to Christie, like intelligence expert and former Representative Mike Rogers and Christie attorney William Palatucci, would be purged as well. Trump subsequently called Rogers, trying to bring him back. Christie was still fielding calls from Trump after the shake-up. “This thing is heading into a bridge abutment. It didn’t have to be this way,” one senior Republican involved in the transition said of the turmoil. “But it is.”
How are they that bad at this?
Oh, is it unusual for a transition team to experience purges less than a week after being initially set up?
If this is indicative of his administration, Trump's cabinet is going to involve nightmarish levels of reshuffling.
We are absolutely going to be hit by another terrorist attack within the next 4 years, if only because the government is going to be staffed entirely by utter fucking imbeciles who couldn't tell a piece of chalk from a nuclear bomb.
And if the attack targets a Trump property, say a bombing of Trump Tower, his reaction is going to involve nukes. No way it doesn't
Terrorists don't seem to think like that for the most part. They tend to bomb fairly random places that have meaning only to their deranged minds.
"Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures."
I'm legit having trouble imagining this.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
When has that been said? Why would a person say that? Why would they say anything but "I take your pain very seriously and my policies will help to alleviate it"?
I'm amenable to the argument that greater effort needs to be expended to make a common cause of the working class as a whole because white folks see themselves as more similar to the owners of the factories than their fellow workers but we don't need to cosplay having been shittier at this than we were so that we can take the easy way out.
Donald Trump wants to hire into his administration people who are personally responsible for murdering coal miners in order to make a buck. His plan for "expanding coal jobs" mostly involves destroying safety regulations so that a very few wealthy men can become wealthier as they kill more coal miners.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
*No* politicians say that. It's a sociological term that has been taken to heart by earnest young kids online. So you hear it quite a lot from student types and *absolutely never* from professional politicians, because they are not stupid. Honestly, from the way right-wingers talk you'd think that it was every second word out of President Obama's mouth.
+11
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Academic definitions are nice and all, but its not the way this stuff gets spread in the wilds. Academic privilege is a great idea for talking about broad sweeps of people in a clinical setting, but screaming "Check your privelige" at any individual is absolutely a thing that happens, and the vast majority of people getting yelled at have ZERO conception of academic feminist discourse. They might be "wrong", but it turns out being wrong doesn't mean they don't get to vote!
It may not have started as an insult but usage overrides definitions. Anything can be turned into perjorative, and I would argue that most peoples only interaction with the concept is someone weaponizing the idea. I had a gay friend of mine, with a 4 year college degree, express bewilderment that it had any other meaning than marginalized people lashing out at their oppressors.
Being right isn't enough, we can't just steamroll over the problems with vitrol, we have to start doing better at treating people like people, and meeting them where they live, and convince them to be better. Acknowledging that the left has perception problems is a start.
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Academic definitions are nice and all, but its not the way this stuff gets spread in the wilds. Academic privilege is a great idea for talking about broad sweeps of people in a clinical setting, but screaming "Check your privelige" at any individual is absolutely a thing that happens,
I've only ever heard this phrase used sarcastically and I hang out in some very left-wing places online. Perhaps if you are a student on a liberal campus you might hear it a lot, but it doesn't mean it is in the common parlance.
While terms like “racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other elites to ignore their problems.
Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures.
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
*No* politicians say that. It's a sociological term that has been taken to heart by earnest young kids online. So you hear it quite a lot from student types and *absolutely never* from professional politicians, because they are not stupid. Honestly, from the way right-wingers talk you'd think that it was every second word out of President Obama's mouth.
It might as well have been since they only know what goes on via their Facebook page and their talk radio.
The only place anyone throws this shit around is on like tumblr. Then right-wing media makes bank turning the idea of it into outrage porn.
Like no matter how much it would make people feel better, the answer to "how can we win more elections and mitigate the damage done by this one" is not Finally Tell Those Strident College Students What I Really Think About Them.
While terms like “racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other elites to ignore their problems.
Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures.
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Who are you explaining this to?
The thread, I guess. A lot of people here think it is a horrible thing that liberals say to make poor white people feel like shit. I was explaining what it actually meant.
"Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures."
I'm legit having trouble imagining this.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
The democrat says to that hypothetical man, we need to improve things for everyone and be an inclusive society for everyone regardless of their background. It's a platform and rhetoric that's not specifically tailored for people that live in towns with no minorities and don't plan on leaving.
Trump says hey, everyone's ignoring your dilapidated town. Their saying black lives matter, what about your life? Everyone forgot you, there's no infrastructure here since the 80s. you know what else has changed since the 80s? *dogwhistle*
Like no matter how much it would make people feel better, the answer to "how can we win more elections and mitigate the damage done by this one" is not Finally Tell Those Strident College Students What I Really Think About Them.
Student earnestness has been a thing since like, the '60s. People are never going to stop laughing at the well-meaning crazes that students get into. Most of them are very kindly meant but applied in a clumsy way by people who were legally children 2 years ago.
However, they will grow into better people because of it. The students who spend all their time talking about "white privilege" will eventually realise that this is a bad thing to say to hurt people, but will always remember the principle that their successes in life owe a lot to circumstances, and that they shouldn't be arrogant about it.
"Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures."
I'm legit having trouble imagining this.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
The democrat says to that hypothetical man, we need to improve things for everyone and be an inclusive society for everyone regardless of their background. It's a platform and rhetoric that's not specifically tailored for people that live in towns with no minorities and don't plan on leaving.
Trump says hey, everyone's ignoring your dilapidated town. Their saying black lives matter, what about your life? Everyone forgot you, there's no infrastructure here since the 80s. you know what else has changed since the 80s? *dogwhistle*
Do they?
Which Democratic politician says that?
Like which Democratic politician has made this very strange and simple mistake of responding to voters asking for help by refusing to say anything about their jobs program or economic incentives or the ways they will specifically help this person and the town and the state and yea the very nation?
Because I mean if this is where we're at and the actual issue is that Democratic policymakers can't recall their own policy and repeat it back to folks when prompted we really don't have a lot of work to do.
"Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures."
I'm legit having trouble imagining this.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
The democrat says to that hypothetical man, we need to improve things for everyone and be an inclusive society for everyone regardless of their background. It's a platform and rhetoric that's not specifically tailored for people that live in towns with no minorities and don't plan on leaving.
Trump says hey, everyone's ignoring your dilapidated town. Their saying black lives matter, what about your life? Everyone forgot you, there's no infrastructure here since the 80s. you know what else has changed since the 80s? *dogwhistle*
*No* politicians say that. It's a sociological term that has been taken to heart by earnest young kids online. So you hear it quite a lot from student types and *absolutely never* from professional politicians, because they are not stupid. Honestly, from the way right-wingers talk you'd think that it was every second word out of President Obama's mouth.
There's a real issue with backlash against academic terminology in a non academic context, i.e social media and the internet. Gender studies, sociology, psychology are bastardized beyond recognition by logical fallacies and superficial understanding by both sides.
The result is people will use "triggered" as a joke/meme while deliberately triggering uneducated poor white people's existential anxiety and setting them up to get triggered whenever anyone brings up racism as a social issue.
In the American system, a President has more than 4,000 political appointments to begin filling in the crucial weeks between election and inauguration. Christie had made many trips to Washington to set up a transition, but progress had slowed as the polls seemed to indicate no such effort would ultimately be needed. It wasn’t long before the first transition to take place was Christie’s. The New Jersey governor had never been a favorite of conservatives, or of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose father Christie had sent to jail years ago for making illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and tampering with a witness. By Nov. 10, Christie had breakfast with Vice President–elect Mike Pence in New York, and it wasn’t long after that Pence had replaced Christie as transition chief. Christie could stay around with a title if he wanted, but everyone suspected his days as a member of the formal inner circle were over. Days later, even those close to Christie, like intelligence expert and former Representative Mike Rogers and Christie attorney William Palatucci, would be purged as well. Trump subsequently called Rogers, trying to bring him back. Christie was still fielding calls from Trump after the shake-up. “This thing is heading into a bridge abutment. It didn’t have to be this way,” one senior Republican involved in the transition said of the turmoil. “But it is.”
How are they that bad at this?
Oh, is it unusual for a transition team to experience purges less than a week after being initially set up?
If this is indicative of his administration, Trump's cabinet is going to involve nightmarish levels of reshuffling.
Like no matter how much it would make people feel better, the answer to "how can we win more elections and mitigate the damage done by this one" is not Finally Tell Those Strident College Students What I Really Think About Them.
Student earnestness has been a thing since like, the '60s. People are never going to stop laughing at the well-meaning crazes that students get into. Most of them are very kindly meant but applied in a clumsy way by people who were legally children 2 years ago.
However, they will grow into better people because of it. The students who spend all their time talking about "white privilege" will eventually realise that this is a bad thing to say to hurt people, but will always remember the principle that their successes in life owe a lot to circumstances, and that they shouldn't be arrogant about it.
Student earnestness has also been triggering older white people since the 60s. The ways it triggered them back then are still cultural touchstones to this day. It defines alot of how the US views itself.
Tangential shite, but the drone panic crowd is such a precious little piece of 21st century idiocy. Like it is any better if an F-16 fires the munition...
+4
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Academic definitions are nice and all, but its not the way this stuff gets spread in the wilds. Academic privilege is a great idea for talking about broad sweeps of people in a clinical setting, but screaming "Check your privelige" at any individual is absolutely a thing that happens,
I've only ever heard this phrase used sarcastically and I hang out in some very left-wing places online. Perhaps if you are a student on a liberal campus you might hear it a lot, but it doesn't mean it is in the common parlance.
It's a sociological term that has been taken to heart by earnest young kids online. So you hear it quite a lot from student types
Indeed I do hear it a lot from the student types, and I hear them using it to attempt to discredit an opponents position on an issue, due to the demographics of the person they are arguing against. So does the opposition. We can pretend like the academic meaning is the correct one and pat ourselves on the back for being informed, or we can acknowledge that there are leftists screaming these terms at any and all on Twitter/Tumblr/Facebook, and that those people screaming perjoratives designed to shut someone down along racial and gender lines is a PROBLEM when it comes to racking up a vote count.
While terms like “racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other elites to ignore their problems.
Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures.
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
It's also far reaching in a way that can be difficult to convey, like how you'd probably be even be worse off as a black homeless person than a white one, which you can't say without seeming to belittle the still very real poverty and social issues that people of majority groups face.
The problem seems to be that it does belittle the very real poverty problems that a lot of people face. Also, it turns racism from actions that people do, to a natural state of white people that they must make amends for. So, the fight against racism turns from getting actual results that improve the lives of minorities, to a way for middle-upper class white people to show how virtuous they are. See: The backlash against "safety pins" for being patronizing.
It's also harder to be a black cop, teacher, celebrity or president. the point is that it's far reaching.
but yeah, politically it has to be explained in a way where it's not at odds with poverty and class privilege/prejudice.
Anti-racist whites have successfully been cast as class privileged elites that look down on others using perceived racism as an excuse.
While terms like “racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other elites to ignore their problems.
Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures.
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Who are you explaining this to?
The thread, I guess. A lot of people here think it is a horrible thing that liberals say to make poor white people feel like shit. I was explaining what it actually meant.
That's the thing. It's such a toxic term, in no small part, because it is completely unhelpful. The only good that comes from it, is when a more progressive liberal, explains it to a slightly less progressive liberal. Joe center has never harassed a minority, hasn't denied one a job on the basis of their skin color, and would treat any that they met with respect. Joe Center might hold some prejudices that he should work on but isn't going to subscribe to collectivism. Telling him all about his white privilege, when he can't afford healthcare, college, or reasonable home ownership, is going to piss him off because he hasn't been handed anything. White privilege is how everyone should be treated, some people might not get that because, duh, they aren't white, and racism still exists, but that doesn't equate to Joe Center getting something extra. So talking about white privilege pisses off Joe Center who isn't our enemy anyway, and gives the alt right hard on's. It's just toxic.
Any criticism isn't really directed at you, just trying to show the issues with it.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
*No* politicians say that. It's a sociological term that has been taken to heart by earnest young kids online. So you hear it quite a lot from student types and *absolutely never* from professional politicians, because they are not stupid. Honestly, from the way right-wingers talk you'd think that it was every second word out of President Obama's mouth.
"Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures."
I'm legit having trouble imagining this.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
The democrat says to that hypothetical man, we need to improve things for everyone and be an inclusive society for everyone regardless of their background. It's a platform and rhetoric that's not specifically tailored for people that live in towns with no minorities and don't plan on leaving.
Trump says hey, everyone's ignoring your dilapidated town. Their saying black lives matter, what about your life? Everyone forgot you, there's no infrastructure here since the 80s. you know what else has changed since the 80s? *dogwhistle*
Do they?
Which Democratic politician says that?
Like which Democratic politician has made this very strange and simple mistake of responding to voters asking for help by refusing to say anything about their jobs program or economic incentives or the ways they will specifically help this person and the town and the state and yea the very nation?
Because I mean if this is where we're at and the actual issue is that Democratic policymakers can't recall their own policy and repeat it back to folks when prompted we really don't have a lot of work to do.
Hillary talked about energy policies, told Ken Bone to look at her website, and paid lip service to coal miners and coal country of the past. But Ken Bone still works in coal. who was clearly concerned about energy policy affecting coal like the end of manufacturing, like how the end of mining in the UK has depressed towns to the extent that they still haven't recovered. Promising to "create new jobs and businesses" without specifying it somewhere other than a long article on your website is a horrible way to get people to believe you give a shit about them. Praising coal miners who kept the lights on in the past and not wanting to abandon them rings hollow- there are people who have been abandoned by the neoliberal economic system, and they're still abandoned.
Trump said Ken Bone could count on keeping his keep his coal job, and there would be even more jobs for Ken's friends and family. Trump knew what Ken and his ilk really wanted to hear.
on a more literal level, no democrat says anything at all to uneducated poor rural voters because they don't bother campaigning in places with cult like devotion to republicans.
The information in this tweet makes me unspeakably angry
This is the season of CYA remember. Every losing campaign staffer is either in deep mourning or leaking bullshit to make themselves look better for their next job
But this doesn't make anyone look better in the Dem campaign.
Republican leaders told rank and file members at this morning's conference meeting that they intend to use a somewhat obscure statute -- the Congressional Review Act -- to nullify some of the most recent Obama Administration regulations, according to multiple GOP sources -- including a rule expanding who qualifies for overtime pay.
Republicans could alter their short-term funding bill, dubbed the "CR" inside the Capitol, to wipe out Obama executive orders made this year. The maneuver would allow them to reach back in the year a limited amount of time -- 60 days on the legislative calendar, which is different than a regular calendar -- to wipe out the regulations.
But to do that, they'll have to pass the measure as soon as possible -- well before the end of this calendar year.
Ryan and other top House GOP leaders told members at Thursday's Republican conference meeting that they plan to hold a vote on a CR that would fund the government just through March 31, 2017.
That means Trump would be in office for only about two months when a fresh funding bill will need to be enacted -- to avoid a government shutdown -- allowing him to implement spending priorities and reforms he advocated while a candidate.
How do they expect to get something like that passed when Obama would have to sign it?
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
This only makes sense to me from a "Trump is a huge narcissist" angle.
*twitch*
*twitch*
No, you great orange fuckhead, you need to be preparing to run the fucking country now! Stop stroking your fucking ego and step up to a challenge for once in your fucking life!
It would seem trivially true that the purpose of the primary is whatever the voters think it is.
Well a primary has a literal purpose. It ends with a result. Its a legal, government run, official electoral contest. Its not really a matter of opinion. But I also guarantee if you asked the general public or voters what the purpose of a primary is, right behind "I don't know" would be "to select a candidate" not "to push the Overton window."
This only makes sense to me from a "Trump is a huge narcissist" angle.
*twitch*
*twitch*
No, you great orange fuckhead, you need to be preparing to run the fucking country now! Stop stroking your fucking ego and step up to a challenge for once in your fucking life!
AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!
If you think his MAGA rallies ended with his nomination, then I have some bad news for you.
Republican leaders told rank and file members at this morning's conference meeting that they intend to use a somewhat obscure statute -- the Congressional Review Act -- to nullify some of the most recent Obama Administration regulations, according to multiple GOP sources -- including a rule expanding who qualifies for overtime pay.
Republicans could alter their short-term funding bill, dubbed the "CR" inside the Capitol, to wipe out Obama executive orders made this year. The maneuver would allow them to reach back in the year a limited amount of time -- 60 days on the legislative calendar, which is different than a regular calendar -- to wipe out the regulations.
But to do that, they'll have to pass the measure as soon as possible -- well before the end of this calendar year.
Ryan and other top House GOP leaders told members at Thursday's Republican conference meeting that they plan to hold a vote on a CR that would fund the government just through March 31, 2017.
That means Trump would be in office for only about two months when a fresh funding bill will need to be enacted -- to avoid a government shutdown -- allowing him to implement spending priorities and reforms he advocated while a candidate.
Posts
Happens all the time, see:
Terrorists don't seem to think like that for the most part. They tend to bomb fairly random places that have meaning only to their deranged minds.
So Trump will nuke... Russia?
I'm legit having trouble imagining this.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
When has that been said? Why would a person say that? Why would they say anything but "I take your pain very seriously and my policies will help to alleviate it"?
I'm amenable to the argument that greater effort needs to be expended to make a common cause of the working class as a whole because white folks see themselves as more similar to the owners of the factories than their fellow workers but we don't need to cosplay having been shittier at this than we were so that we can take the easy way out.
Donald Trump wants to hire into his administration people who are personally responsible for murdering coal miners in order to make a buck. His plan for "expanding coal jobs" mostly involves destroying safety regulations so that a very few wealthy men can become wealthier as they kill more coal miners.
No he likes Russia. He'll probably end up bombing.....I dunno, Iran or somewhere brown.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
They aren't talking policy. Its polite introductions.
*No* politicians say that. It's a sociological term that has been taken to heart by earnest young kids online. So you hear it quite a lot from student types and *absolutely never* from professional politicians, because they are not stupid. Honestly, from the way right-wingers talk you'd think that it was every second word out of President Obama's mouth.
Academic definitions are nice and all, but its not the way this stuff gets spread in the wilds. Academic privilege is a great idea for talking about broad sweeps of people in a clinical setting, but screaming "Check your privelige" at any individual is absolutely a thing that happens, and the vast majority of people getting yelled at have ZERO conception of academic feminist discourse. They might be "wrong", but it turns out being wrong doesn't mean they don't get to vote!
It may not have started as an insult but usage overrides definitions. Anything can be turned into perjorative, and I would argue that most peoples only interaction with the concept is someone weaponizing the idea. I had a gay friend of mine, with a 4 year college degree, express bewilderment that it had any other meaning than marginalized people lashing out at their oppressors.
Being right isn't enough, we can't just steamroll over the problems with vitrol, we have to start doing better at treating people like people, and meeting them where they live, and convince them to be better. Acknowledging that the left has perception problems is a start.
I've only ever heard this phrase used sarcastically and I hang out in some very left-wing places online. Perhaps if you are a student on a liberal campus you might hear it a lot, but it doesn't mean it is in the common parlance.
Who are you explaining this to?
It might as well have been since they only know what goes on via their Facebook page and their talk radio.
The only place anyone throws this shit around is on like tumblr. Then right-wing media makes bank turning the idea of it into outrage porn.
The thread, I guess. A lot of people here think it is a horrible thing that liberals say to make poor white people feel like shit. I was explaining what it actually meant.
The democrat says to that hypothetical man, we need to improve things for everyone and be an inclusive society for everyone regardless of their background. It's a platform and rhetoric that's not specifically tailored for people that live in towns with no minorities and don't plan on leaving.
Trump says hey, everyone's ignoring your dilapidated town. Their saying black lives matter, what about your life? Everyone forgot you, there's no infrastructure here since the 80s. you know what else has changed since the 80s? *dogwhistle*
Student earnestness has been a thing since like, the '60s. People are never going to stop laughing at the well-meaning crazes that students get into. Most of them are very kindly meant but applied in a clumsy way by people who were legally children 2 years ago.
However, they will grow into better people because of it. The students who spend all their time talking about "white privilege" will eventually realise that this is a bad thing to say to hurt people, but will always remember the principle that their successes in life owe a lot to circumstances, and that they shouldn't be arrogant about it.
Do they?
Which Democratic politician says that?
Like which Democratic politician has made this very strange and simple mistake of responding to voters asking for help by refusing to say anything about their jobs program or economic incentives or the ways they will specifically help this person and the town and the state and yea the very nation?
Because I mean if this is where we're at and the actual issue is that Democratic policymakers can't recall their own policy and repeat it back to folks when prompted we really don't have a lot of work to do.
'Reagan!'
WoW
Dear Satan.....
There's a real issue with backlash against academic terminology in a non academic context, i.e social media and the internet. Gender studies, sociology, psychology are bastardized beyond recognition by logical fallacies and superficial understanding by both sides.
The result is people will use "triggered" as a joke/meme while deliberately triggering uneducated poor white people's existential anxiety and setting them up to get triggered whenever anyone brings up racism as a social issue.
You mean like his campaign?
Scoodyfroody.
Student earnestness has also been triggering older white people since the 60s. The ways it triggered them back then are still cultural touchstones to this day. It defines alot of how the US views itself.
Jeezus christ.
Tangential shite, but the drone panic crowd is such a precious little piece of 21st century idiocy. Like it is any better if an F-16 fires the munition...
Indeed I do hear it a lot from the student types, and I hear them using it to attempt to discredit an opponents position on an issue, due to the demographics of the person they are arguing against. So does the opposition. We can pretend like the academic meaning is the correct one and pat ourselves on the back for being informed, or we can acknowledge that there are leftists screaming these terms at any and all on Twitter/Tumblr/Facebook, and that those people screaming perjoratives designed to shut someone down along racial and gender lines is a PROBLEM when it comes to racking up a vote count.
It's also harder to be a black cop, teacher, celebrity or president. the point is that it's far reaching.
but yeah, politically it has to be explained in a way where it's not at odds with poverty and class privilege/prejudice.
Anti-racist whites have successfully been cast as class privileged elites that look down on others using perceived racism as an excuse.
That's the thing. It's such a toxic term, in no small part, because it is completely unhelpful. The only good that comes from it, is when a more progressive liberal, explains it to a slightly less progressive liberal. Joe center has never harassed a minority, hasn't denied one a job on the basis of their skin color, and would treat any that they met with respect. Joe Center might hold some prejudices that he should work on but isn't going to subscribe to collectivism. Telling him all about his white privilege, when he can't afford healthcare, college, or reasonable home ownership, is going to piss him off because he hasn't been handed anything. White privilege is how everyone should be treated, some people might not get that because, duh, they aren't white, and racism still exists, but that doesn't equate to Joe Center getting something extra. So talking about white privilege pisses off Joe Center who isn't our enemy anyway, and gives the alt right hard on's. It's just toxic.
Any criticism isn't really directed at you, just trying to show the issues with it.
Hillary talked about energy policies, told Ken Bone to look at her website, and paid lip service to coal miners and coal country of the past. But Ken Bone still works in coal. who was clearly concerned about energy policy affecting coal like the end of manufacturing, like how the end of mining in the UK has depressed towns to the extent that they still haven't recovered. Promising to "create new jobs and businesses" without specifying it somewhere other than a long article on your website is a horrible way to get people to believe you give a shit about them. Praising coal miners who kept the lights on in the past and not wanting to abandon them rings hollow- there are people who have been abandoned by the neoliberal economic system, and they're still abandoned.
Trump said Ken Bone could count on keeping his keep his coal job, and there would be even more jobs for Ken's friends and family. Trump knew what Ken and his ilk really wanted to hear.
on a more literal level, no democrat says anything at all to uneducated poor rural voters because they don't bother campaigning in places with cult like devotion to republicans.
This only makes sense to me from a "Trump is a huge narcissist" angle.
But this doesn't make anyone look better in the Dem campaign.
It makes them look like imbeciles.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
of states he won
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
How do they expect to get something like that passed when Obama would have to sign it?
*twitch*
*twitch*
No, you great orange fuckhead, you need to be preparing to run the fucking country now! Stop stroking your fucking ego and step up to a challenge for once in your fucking life!
AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!
Well a primary has a literal purpose. It ends with a result. Its a legal, government run, official electoral contest. Its not really a matter of opinion. But I also guarantee if you asked the general public or voters what the purpose of a primary is, right behind "I don't know" would be "to select a candidate" not "to push the Overton window."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
A president for all americans
If you think his MAGA rallies ended with his nomination, then I have some bad news for you.
Fuck this Obama should veto
we got no reason to compromise
~unity~
Oh god I thought we were done with the rallys.
This is just gonna whip the base up even more.
Fuck I might need to convince my BF to get a gun.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.