It also 100% reaffirms my belief that the only people who want to get rid of government departments and programs are, like Perry, simpletons who merely have no idea what any of them do, and that ignorance is entirely due to lack of trying.
Nah, there's also the ideologues.
Think Paul Ryan. He knows what SS and Medicare do, he wants to kill them anyway, despite what he knows the results would be. Because it's a matter of principle for him. A philosophical, almost religious, creed. A moral justice he must see made manifest.
And those people will just lie and dissemble to get into place to see their ideology enforced.
That's just a surface observation, you gotta understand why he wants to kill off SS and Medicare.
Which is an ideological belief that
Taxes are bad,
Fuck you, got mine,
Fuck the poor,
It might work in practice, but it's bad in theory.
There's nothing below the surface except insanity and evil.
Evil, yes, but not insane. How would having healthy, debt-free, well-informed, well-educated, politically active populace who aren't afraid of terrorists or domestic gun violence benefit Republican politicians at all?
Guillotine insurance. The end game of that ideology is bloody and unpleasant for everyone, especially those on top.
Modern welfare systems (and the New Deal) were intended to help people and avoid revolutions.
That would require a well-informed populace. We live in an age where our president elect can conjure millions of fraudulent voters in California with but a single tweet and where people who are getting ACA health insurance subsides are overjoyed that Obamacare is finally getting repealed.
Everything that goes wrong from this point on will be because of the "Obama Legacy", illegal immigrants and the erosion of our social values by perverts and radicals.
It does not matter how informed the populace is, at some point, they will run out of ennemies and excuses, but the consequences of their ideology will still be there.
Or the population will be starving and, well, the one with the food are going to be in trouble.
Never happens. Read a book of Twentieth century history.
20th century history is what gives you hope that that sort of thing works. Bolshevism dying not with a bang but with a whimper, or many of the bloodless revolutions of the late 20th century that toppled non-Communist dictatorships around the globe. Even dictatorships, basically, respected democracy, except that instead of 50%+1 to move policy, you needed an overwhelming public display of opposition to the regime, but you did not need armed force.
Most dictatorships fall via a bloodless coup or a so-called "people power revolution" these days, not by bombs and bullets. Qaddafi (and the attempt on Assad) is the major recent exception, along with the civil war in the CAR.
Right, somebody come up with a reason to seize Rob Bishop's land though eminent domain. Don't worry, we'll make sure he's paid according to it's value as federal land.
It also 100% reaffirms my belief that the only people who want to get rid of government departments and programs are, like Perry, simpletons who merely have no idea what any of them do, and that ignorance is entirely due to lack of trying.
Nah, there's also the ideologues.
Think Paul Ryan. He knows what SS and Medicare do, he wants to kill them anyway, despite what he knows the results would be. Because it's a matter of principle for him. A philosophical, almost religious, creed. A moral justice he must see made manifest.
And those people will just lie and dissemble to get into place to see their ideology enforced.
That's just a surface observation, you gotta understand why he wants to kill off SS and Medicare.
Which is an ideological belief that
Taxes are bad,
Fuck you, got mine,
Fuck the poor,
It might work in practice, but it's bad in theory.
There's nothing below the surface except insanity and evil.
Evil, yes, but not insane. How would having healthy, debt-free, well-informed, well-educated, politically active populace who aren't afraid of terrorists or domestic gun violence benefit Republican politicians at all?
Guillotine insurance. The end game of that ideology is bloody and unpleasant for everyone, especially those on top.
Modern welfare systems (and the New Deal) were intended to help people and avoid revolutions.
That would require a well-informed populace. We live in an age where our president elect can conjure millions of fraudulent voters in California with but a single tweet and where people who are getting ACA health insurance subsides are overjoyed that Obamacare is finally getting repealed.
Everything that goes wrong from this point on will be because of the "Obama Legacy", illegal immigrants and the erosion of our social values by perverts and radicals.
This only works for so long. To quote Philip K. Dick, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
It does not matter how informed the populace is, at some point, they will run out of ennemies and excuses, but the consequences of their ideology will still be there.
Or the population will be starving and, well, the one with the food are going to be in trouble.
They won't though. Reality will smack them in the face, yeah. But they don't ever have to actually admit why it's happening or who/what is responsible. That's the issue.
Like, they can vote Republicans in over and over again and it will fuck them over, but that never guarantees they will actually connect one thing to the other and stop.
Very long term, they won't need to. Because they won't care anymore. They will just try to get food from those who have it: rich peoples.
This is neither inevitable nor desirable.
Inevitable, yes. That's the end point of Ryan et al.'s ideology without correction. That's what caused the French and Russian revolutions, and many other uprisings.
Desirable, most certainly not, which is why this ideology is insane.
No. The truth is people will soldier on under really bad conditions. Especially when they've got stuff to lose. The end point of the GOP establishment ideology is not an America so bad the people rise up, it's a terrible America that is never really bad enough that people are willing to throw it all away and start stringing people up.
You see it in parts of the US right now. It's bad. But it's not "overthrow the government" bad and it's never really gonna get there. It's just gonna get awful and really shitty.
And this is part of the role of white supremacy - part of why they don't think they have it as bad is because there are people lower on the social ladder.
I don't even think that's the main driving factor. I think that's part of why people prop up systems that fuck them but I don't think it's the backstop on why they don't go revolutionary when the shit hits the fan.
I think the main factor is that, all in all, they don't actually have it that bad. Not "throw it all away" bad. Especially the conservative base, even the poorest and most Rust-Belt-y parts of it, are still older with families and possessions and, like, jobs and shit. They aren't anywhere near ready to really burn it all down.
It's really hard not to wish something awful happens to those people directly because of a Trump policy so they learn. I don't know how else they would, at this point, but to be able to draw a direct line between "Trump did X therefore you lost Y".
If they truly believe in his honesty or Godliness, there's obviously nothing that can be shown or told to them will do it.
It's so pointless. The money spent is beyond marginal but has enormous ROI in terms of social benefits. the government should not be in the business of generating only monetary profit. Not that it fucking matters to the Chucklefuck in Chief.
And I just have no sympathy. None at all. I don't particularly care that it makes me an elitist out of touch coastal snob. Shit wasn't going your way so you summoned the worst possible destructive force into American politics under the misguided belief that when the dust settled, you would have what you wanted. Foolishness of this sort is beyond my capacity to sympathize. You fucked up, and you should feel bad, because without that gauntlet of self-criticism and evaluation you will never learn.
#bitterpolemic
I am also so deeply angry that it has affected my personal and professional life. But we desperately need more people like this woman. We're going to need allies because the only possible bulwark against the Republican majority are voters who will show up angry to vote them out.
But that's the thing - she's not your ally. Yes, she's regretting her vote on Trump, but mainly because she realized that she was just a mark to him. All the things that got her to make that decision haven't changed.
what was really telling to me was the fact that she thought, at any point, there was a possibility that Trump would replace the ACA with something that would be better for the citizenry
such a belief would seemingly suggest an utter lack of engagement with American politics, but this is someone who claims to be engaged, so I can only conclude that it's ideologically driven--obamacare is bad, republicans are never bad, therefore they'll replace it with something better
It's so pointless. The money spent is beyond marginal but has enormous ROI in terms of social benefits. the government should not be in the business of generating only monetary profit. Not that it fucking matters to the Chucklefuck in Chief.
And I just have no sympathy. None at all. I don't particularly care that it makes me an elitist out of touch coastal snob. Shit wasn't going your way so you summoned the worst possible destructive force into American politics under the misguided belief that when the dust settled, you would have what you wanted. Foolishness of this sort is beyond my capacity to sympathize. You fucked up, and you should feel bad, because without that gauntlet of self-criticism and evaluation you will never learn.
#bitterpolemic
I am also so deeply angry that it has affected my personal and professional life. But we desperately need more people like this woman. We're going to need allies because the only possible bulwark against the Republican majority are voters who will show up angry to vote them out.
But that's the thing - she's not your ally. Yes, she's regretting her vote on Trump, but mainly because she realized that she was just a mark to him. All the things that got her to make that decision haven't changed.
what was really telling to me was the fact that she thought, at any point, there was a possibility that Trump would replace the ACA with something that would be better for the citizenry
such a belief would seemingly suggest an utter lack of engagement with American politics, but this is someone who claims to be engaged, so I can only conclude that it's ideologically driven--obamacare is bad, republicans are never bad, therefore they'll replace it with something better
The biggest red flag for me was being willing to vote Rubio or Sanders rather than Trump or Clinton. That tells me she was willing to vote for absolutely anyone regardless of policy or how their views aligned with her because of how much she'd bought into the media narrative about Hillary being corrupt.
Peoples insistence that running the government like a business will, in any way, primarily benefit the citizenry is outrageous to me.
How often does the profitability of a business benefit its workers? Customers? Anyone but executives? If anything, the inverse is more likely to be true.
Peoples insistence that running the government like a business will, in any way, primarily benefit the citizenry is outrageous to me.
How often does the profitability of a business benefit its workers? Customers? Anyone but executives? If anything, the inverse is more likely to be true.
Also, imagine Wal-Mart but you can't leave, they don't have to sell anything and they can take as much money as they want.
Peoples insistence that running the government like a business will, in any way, primarily benefit the citizenry is outrageous to me.
How often does the profitability of a business benefit its workers? Customers? Anyone but executives? If anything, the inverse is more likely to be true.
Michigan is being run like a business with our CEO Governor. I will allow you to draw conclusions.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Peoples insistence that running the government like a business will, in any way, primarily benefit the citizenry is outrageous to me.
How often does the profitability of a business benefit its workers? Customers? Anyone but executives? If anything, the inverse is more likely to be true.
Also, imagine Wal-Mart but you can't leave, they don't have to sell anything and they can take as much money as they want.
*That* is running the government like a business.
And the wealthy customers get to walk out with a $1500 TV and instead of paying for it they got a $500 gift card.
I honestly don't know how you deal with this level of disconnect.
Yeah, the folks from Indiana there, just... what the fuuuuuuuck. Trump's a man of faith now? Really? What in the EVERLOVING FUCK would make you think that? Was it the multiple divorces or bragging about sexual assault or where the dude couldn't tell you dick shit about what's in a bible.
I honestly don't know how you deal with this level of disconnect.
Yeah, the folks from Indiana there, just... what the fuuuuuuuck. Trump's a man of faith now? Really? What in the EVERLOVING FUCK would make you think that? Was it the multiple divorces or bragging about sexual assault or where the dude couldn't tell you dick shit about what's in a bible.
He's white.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I honestly don't know how you deal with this level of disconnect.
Yeah, the folks from Indiana there, just... what the fuuuuuuuck. Trump's a man of faith now? Really? What in the EVERLOVING FUCK would make you think that? Was it the multiple divorces or bragging about sexual assault or where the dude couldn't tell you dick shit about what's in a bible.
I hate this so much. Take the best parts of the country, then give them away so that no one can use them and private interests can ruin them. What could go wrong?
I honestly don't know how you deal with this level of disconnect.
Yeah, the folks from Indiana there, just... what the fuuuuuuuck. Trump's a man of faith now? Really? What in the EVERLOVING FUCK would make you think that? Was it the multiple divorces or bragging about sexual assault or where the dude couldn't tell you dick shit about what's in a bible.
Their church told them he was a godly man, and they are simple, trusting folk so they believe what they are told by the church.
I hate this so much. Take the best parts of the country, then give them away so that no one can use them and private interests can ruin them. What could go wrong?
Not to mention that's a lot of fucking money in government controlled assets that could simply be erased
Jesus. I gotta read that rule pdf. What else "doesn’t count" as revenue / cost anymore?
Historically, when federal lands have been transferred to states, they have become less accessible. Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of its public land between 2000 and 2009. In Colorado, access has been limited the public can only use 20% of state trust land for hunting and fishing.
This is the real pressure point the Dems need to lean on. The GOP base is definitely outdoorsy, they won't like that shit any more than the left.
Jesus. I gotta read that rule pdf. What else "doesn’t count" as revenue / cost anymore?
Historically, when federal lands have been transferred to states, they have become less accessible. Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of its public land between 2000 and 2009. In Colorado, access has been limited the public can only use 20% of state trust land for hunting and fishing.
This is the real pressure point the Dems need to lean on. The GOP base is definitely outdoorsy, they won't like that shit any more than the left.
They will love it once they have been told to love it. I imagine they will be assured that the land will still be available for hunting; but those hippy liberal hikers and runners will be chased off.
(q) TREATMENT OF CONVEYANCES OF FEDERAL
LAND.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, for all purposes in the House, a provision in a bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.
(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:
(A) The term ‘‘conveyance’’ means any method, including sale, donation, or exchange, by which all or any portion of the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to Federal land is transferred to another entity.
(B) The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means any land owned by the United States, including the surface estate, the subsurface estate, or any improvements thereon.
(C) The term ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, or a territory (including a possession) of the United States.
Basically there's a requirement that the Government has to report when they do an action that will negatively impact the budget or deficit, and they just made it a law that they just won't count it when it happens with Federal Land. Upside is that this also applies to giving it away to First Nations tribes, downside is that they're almost definitely not going to do this. Extra downside is that even if they do give the land to tribes, it will be because the Federal Government can sell the mining/drilling rights on tribal land directly with almost no oversight, because the provisions for tribal land were specifically set up so that they could still blow the fuck out of the land they gave back to the tribes.
I honestly don't know how you deal with this level of disconnect.
It's the "Brawndo's got what plants need" voter.
Not even being satiric or exaggerating, that's pretty much what is going on.
The issue is that there are a fair group of people that just don't care about politics. Maybe they don't have enough background, maybe they are too busy worrying about their job or kids to put any time into researching it, maybe they just don't have an interest, whatever. But for whatever reason, they have decided that they have approximately 0 real time and effort to put into learning about how government and the political system works. This is not a uniquely right wing phenomena, you see it on the left too, but it has become more prominent in the past 20 or 30 years on the right.
In a perfect society, these people would either make time to become informed, or be honest with themselves and not vote, leaving the running of the country to people that are willing to take the time and effort to become informed. What actually happens is they go to church, or talk to a friend/spouse, or someone they know takes them to a Trump rally, or they get a chain mail on the internet or randomly turn on Fox, or whatever, and they grab on to that. So the preacher says Trump is a man of faith, he is a man of faith. Their friend who 'knows' about politics says he is a straight shooting outsider, that's what he his. Once someone makes a judgement, since they have 0 interest in checking or cross referencing that judgment, it is cemented until something personally happens to them to change their mind.
Jesus. I gotta read that rule pdf. What else "doesn’t count" as revenue / cost anymore?
Historically, when federal lands have been transferred to states, they have become less accessible. Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of its public land between 2000 and 2009. In Colorado, access has been limited the public can only use 20% of state trust land for hunting and fishing.
This is the real pressure point the Dems need to lean on. The GOP base is definitely outdoorsy, they won't like that shit any more than the left.
The fly fishing industry (which is admittedly probably the most left leaning part of the fishing/hunting industry) is already up in arms about this, including corporate partners.
Having trouble sleeping? Expect many restless nights in your future starting tonight? Get used to it.
I spent a fair amount of the holiday break being asked whether Donald Trump could start a nuclear war with his Twitter account. I couldn’t think of more than two ways that The Donald might get us all killed. Of course, that’s two ways too many, but count your blessings it isn’t more.
But there are plenty of conceivable Trump-triggered events that, while falling well short of a nuclear war, are still awful to contemplate. To wit: President-elect of the United States — PEOTUS, sounds like Pee-Otus — might have already Twitter-baited North Korea into testing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of delivering a nuclear warhead all the way to Washington.
OK, Donald, you tweeted us into this. Now let’s see if you can tweet us out of it.
[...]
Later in the New Year’s speech — much later — Kim went all tough-guy. He vowed, “We will continue to build up our self-defense capability, the pivot of which is the nuclear forces, and the capability for preemptive strike as long as the United States and its vassal forces keep on nuclear threat and blackmail and as long as they do not stop their war games they stage at our doorstep disguising them as annual events.”
In other words: If the United States doesn’t make nice and suspend military exercises with South Korea we can expect more missile and nuclear tests. That’s actually fairly mundane stuff the North Koreans say all the time. You can read it as leaving the door open a crack for diplomacy, or you can see it as justifying the tests that the North Koreans are planning anyway. But it still doesn’t amount to a new threat.
[...]
That isn’t what got reported of course. “North Korea Will Test Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, Kim Says,” blared the New York Times. The headline was a heck of a lot less careful than the story, by Choe Sang-Hun. Eventually, the editors toned down the headline, but too late. By that time, the damage was done. Kim’s speech wound its way through the news and social media, cut up and condensed into 140-character snippets like a modern-day game of telephone. In the end, his bland speech had been transformed into a “grim promise” to test “a missile to reach U.S.”
Enter The Donald. “It won’t happen!” he tweeted.
In typical Trumpian fashion, he left the details for others to fill in. And the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, America’s finest military planners, soon concluded that the United States should shoot down any North Korean ICBM missile test with “ship-based” missile defenses in the region.
There’s just one problem: They can’t. I tried to explain all this in a big tweet-storm, but the short version is that the interceptors on U.S. Aegis destroyers are designed for much shorter-range missiles. The United States does have an interceptor in development that might have a shot at a North Korea ICBM, but it’s never been tested against a target. Even if we thought now was the time, we’d have to get the North Koreans to tell us in advance about their launch and agree to do it in a way so that the ships could have a shot at it. Which doesn’t seem very likely to me.
[...]
And then Charles Krauthammer jumped into the fray, affirming that the United States should shoot down any ICBM test and adding if that wasn’t possible, it was probably the fault of Democrats. Which was news to me, since I recall House Democrats trying to shift funding to ship-based missile-defense systems during the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration replacing Bush’s European missile defense architecture with a shore-based version of the Aegis system. But whatever, Chuck has his shtick.
And God forbid we shoot and miss. You can go ahead and imagine the panicked reactions in Washington, Tokyo, Seoul, and Pyongyang if we took a shot at the ICBM test and whiffed.
The whole policy debate has been an absurd carnival of panic, bellicosity, and partisanship. I can’t help but think that Trump and his childish Twitter tantrums may not be the president I want, but he’s the one we deserve.
As I said, Kim didn’t promise to test an ICBM in 2017. If anything, he left that point ambiguous to see what offer Trump might make him. (The Art of the Deal, right?) But after all the manly-man talk in America about shooting down ICBMs, North Korea dutifully responded in kind, warning, “The ICBM will be launched anytime and anywhere determined by the supreme headquarters of the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea].” The article ended with a little shot at Trump: “Anyone who wants to deal with the DPRK would be well advised to secure a new way of thinking after having clear understanding of it.”
So, you know, that went really well.
[...]
Here is the bad news. I don’t think a diplomatic agreement is going to result in North Korea abandoning its nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles. As I have argued, the North Korean program is too far along and too important to the country’s propaganda to roll back for promises of better relations with the United States. But that doesn’t mean the United States doesn’t have an interest in freezing the program or just slowing it down. North Korea hasn’t tested an ICBM. Its solid-fueled missile program is just getting going, and we aren’t facing a North Korean-staged thermonuclear device — yet. It can get so much worse.
So how about a timeout?
What if the incoming Trump administration offered to reduce in scope some military exercises in 2017 — in exchange for North Korea agreeing not to test long-range missiles of any kind, including space launchers, or conduct nuclear explosions? North Korea has long complained about U.S.-South Korean military exercises — and not entirely without reason. (Ask a Georgian how Russia’s Kavkaz-2008 exercise ended.) As the Clinton administration neared a nuclear deal with North Korea, it suspended the old, annual Team Spirit exercise that so irritated North Korea. The United States continued other exercises, however, and, over time and as the relationship soured again, those exercises have grown larger and more … interesting. Today, it is not unusual for Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercises to include the appearance of nuclear-capable bombers, something that was intended to irritate North Korea, and certainly succeeded.
[...]
The proposal doesn’t have to be detailed. The Trump administration can start by endorsing the basic framework, then presenting it to the North Koreans.
In a tweet maybe.
Thanks, Bush 2, for letting the genie out of this bottle. And thank you to voters who voted for a candidate that didn't even exist.
Look, as long as we cut a lot of beneficial programs that don't actually add up to anything significant in the overall budget, it will seem like we're being fiscally responsible... as we begin on the most expensive boondoggle of a construction project in centuries.
This is not true and is misleading. I don't like what the House did but don't misrepresent what they did.
It's essentially true - the House is requiring its own budgetary process to treat Federal land as essentially valueless. It's not the same thing as actually declaring the land worthless, but it's a perfectly accurate summation of what they've done.
+17
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
You can't talk to these people. A guy I know from high school is the die hard conservative with a serious hate on for Obama and Clinton, but insists that he approaches everything objectively and that he's merely being critical in the spirited tradition of American politics.
Of course he ignores the fact that the information he uses to criticize is at best incorrect, at worst conspiracy nonsense. But that doesn't really bother him. He's happy to be wrong as long as it feels right to him.
It only applies if transferring the land to state or tribal (hah! like the GOP is gonna give land to the tribes) governments. It's a blatant ploy to massively increase the state's effective power by hugely increasing states' revenues at the expense of the federal government's, but it's not like they're directly giving away the land to nefarious corporations.
Now the states, if they get all this new land? Yeah they can do some pretty terrible shit.
My point is: It's bad but it's important to be very accurate when describing it because otherwise criticisms of it can be easily brushed aside.
Posts
20th century history is what gives you hope that that sort of thing works. Bolshevism dying not with a bang but with a whimper, or many of the bloodless revolutions of the late 20th century that toppled non-Communist dictatorships around the globe. Even dictatorships, basically, respected democracy, except that instead of 50%+1 to move policy, you needed an overwhelming public display of opposition to the regime, but you did not need armed force.
Most dictatorships fall via a bloodless coup or a so-called "people power revolution" these days, not by bombs and bullets. Qaddafi (and the attempt on Assad) is the major recent exception, along with the civil war in the CAR.
.....
Right, somebody come up with a reason to seize Rob Bishop's land though eminent domain. Don't worry, we'll make sure he's paid according to it's value as federal land.
By recognizing that these people still think it's impolitic to talk about why they voted for him. Or hell, they don't even know on a conscious level.
I don't even think that's the main driving factor. I think that's part of why people prop up systems that fuck them but I don't think it's the backstop on why they don't go revolutionary when the shit hits the fan.
I think the main factor is that, all in all, they don't actually have it that bad. Not "throw it all away" bad. Especially the conservative base, even the poorest and most Rust-Belt-y parts of it, are still older with families and possessions and, like, jobs and shit. They aren't anywhere near ready to really burn it all down.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If they truly believe in his honesty or Godliness, there's obviously nothing that can be shown or told to them will do it.
Time for Zuck and Gates to step up and pull a Rockefeller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller_Jr.
what was really telling to me was the fact that she thought, at any point, there was a possibility that Trump would replace the ACA with something that would be better for the citizenry
such a belief would seemingly suggest an utter lack of engagement with American politics, but this is someone who claims to be engaged, so I can only conclude that it's ideologically driven--obamacare is bad, republicans are never bad, therefore they'll replace it with something better
The story at the end is the most important part of how the GOP went crazy.
the party of fiscal responsibility!
The biggest red flag for me was being willing to vote Rubio or Sanders rather than Trump or Clinton. That tells me she was willing to vote for absolutely anyone regardless of policy or how their views aligned with her because of how much she'd bought into the media narrative about Hillary being corrupt.
How often does the profitability of a business benefit its workers? Customers? Anyone but executives? If anything, the inverse is more likely to be true.
Also, imagine Wal-Mart but you can't leave, they don't have to sell anything and they can take as much money as they want.
*That* is running the government like a business.
Michigan is being run like a business with our CEO Governor. I will allow you to draw conclusions.
I really like the Trump in their heads. Whatta guy. Sounds a fuck of a lot like Obama actually.
That is some hard to break code.
Either "Not white enough" or "Not sane enough." Pick based on your personal prejudices.
And the wealthy customers get to walk out with a $1500 TV and instead of paying for it they got a $500 gift card.
Por que no los dos?
Yeah, the folks from Indiana there, just... what the fuuuuuuuck. Trump's a man of faith now? Really? What in the EVERLOVING FUCK would make you think that? Was it the multiple divorces or bragging about sexual assault or where the dude couldn't tell you dick shit about what's in a bible.
He's white.
Just like Jesus was!
I hate this so much. Take the best parts of the country, then give them away so that no one can use them and private interests can ruin them. What could go wrong?
Dean Heller actually represents his constituents, seems frustrated with Mnuchin. Rightfully. Probably votes to confirm anyway.
Their church told them he was a godly man, and they are simple, trusting folk so they believe what they are told by the church.
The Republicans prey on simple folk.
Not to mention that's a lot of fucking money in government controlled assets that could simply be erased
I wonder how many girlfriends he has "persuaded" to get abortions.
Fuuuuuuuuuuck
Jesus. I gotta read that rule pdf. What else "doesn’t count" as revenue / cost anymore?
This is the real pressure point the Dems need to lean on. The GOP base is definitely outdoorsy, they won't like that shit any more than the left.
They will love it once they have been told to love it. I imagine they will be assured that the land will still be available for hunting; but those hippy liberal hikers and runners will be chased off.
Page35
Basically there's a requirement that the Government has to report when they do an action that will negatively impact the budget or deficit, and they just made it a law that they just won't count it when it happens with Federal Land. Upside is that this also applies to giving it away to First Nations tribes, downside is that they're almost definitely not going to do this. Extra downside is that even if they do give the land to tribes, it will be because the Federal Government can sell the mining/drilling rights on tribal land directly with almost no oversight, because the provisions for tribal land were specifically set up so that they could still blow the fuck out of the land they gave back to the tribes.
Fuck these guys.
It's the "Brawndo's got what plants need" voter.
Not even being satiric or exaggerating, that's pretty much what is going on.
The issue is that there are a fair group of people that just don't care about politics. Maybe they don't have enough background, maybe they are too busy worrying about their job or kids to put any time into researching it, maybe they just don't have an interest, whatever. But for whatever reason, they have decided that they have approximately 0 real time and effort to put into learning about how government and the political system works. This is not a uniquely right wing phenomena, you see it on the left too, but it has become more prominent in the past 20 or 30 years on the right.
In a perfect society, these people would either make time to become informed, or be honest with themselves and not vote, leaving the running of the country to people that are willing to take the time and effort to become informed. What actually happens is they go to church, or talk to a friend/spouse, or someone they know takes them to a Trump rally, or they get a chain mail on the internet or randomly turn on Fox, or whatever, and they grab on to that. So the preacher says Trump is a man of faith, he is a man of faith. Their friend who 'knows' about politics says he is a straight shooting outsider, that's what he his. Once someone makes a judgement, since they have 0 interest in checking or cross referencing that judgment, it is cemented until something personally happens to them to change their mind.
The fly fishing industry (which is admittedly probably the most left leaning part of the fishing/hunting industry) is already up in arms about this, including corporate partners.
Thanks, Bush 2, for letting the genie out of this bottle. And thank you to voters who voted for a candidate that didn't even exist.
Sleep tight!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's essentially true - the House is requiring its own budgetary process to treat Federal land as essentially valueless. It's not the same thing as actually declaring the land worthless, but it's a perfectly accurate summation of what they've done.
Of course he ignores the fact that the information he uses to criticize is at best incorrect, at worst conspiracy nonsense. But that doesn't really bother him. He's happy to be wrong as long as it feels right to him.
Now the states, if they get all this new land? Yeah they can do some pretty terrible shit.
My point is: It's bad but it's important to be very accurate when describing it because otherwise criticisms of it can be easily brushed aside.