Merrick Garland aside, how many spots in our courts and government just stayed empty because they refused to confirm anyone?
How long did Loretta Lynch have to wait on her confirmation?
Like this "seriousness and courtesy" of theirs are known things. You can look that shit up and see it for the blatant lie that it is.
Not that anyone will care. It will just be reported as "Democrats just doing what Republicans did" as if there's no substantive difference in the nominees in question.
Because Jeff Sessions and Loretta Lynch are basically the same person, so opposition would just be political payback instead of looking at Sessions and screaming "Are you out of your fucking mind!?"
I think you are overly optimistic. This will be reported as "Democrats are refusing to let the government function cos they are mad they lost".
Absolute best case scenario for the dems is "both sides are doing it so it is now OK, Dems can no longer criticize Reps for it".
I'm fine with it being reported as either so long as they do it. I see no reason for the Democrats to cave and do everything Republicans want when the latter has refused to offer any semblance of cooperation. There's nothing for Dems to gain outside of voter dissolutionment.
The problem is that voters hold democrats accountable for their actions (this is the biggest difference between party D and party R), so look forward to massive losses in the midterm and a rightward shift in the overton window and democrat policies.
Most of Dem strategy going forward is nothing but no-win scenarios. I guess if I had to pick, I'd rather go down fighting and kicking and screaming at least.
Merrick Garland aside, how many spots in our courts and government just stayed empty because they refused to confirm anyone?
How long did Loretta Lynch have to wait on her confirmation?
Like this "seriousness and courtesy" of theirs are known things. You can look that shit up and see it for the blatant lie that it is.
Not that anyone will care. It will just be reported as "Democrats just doing what Republicans did" as if there's no substantive difference in the nominees in question.
Because Jeff Sessions and Loretta Lynch are basically the same person, so opposition would just be political payback instead of looking at Sessions and screaming "Are you out of your fucking mind!?"
I think you are overly optimistic. This will be reported as "Democrats are refusing to let the government function cos they are mad they lost".
Absolute best case scenario for the dems is "both sides are doing it so it is now OK, Dems can no longer criticize Reps for it".
I'm fine with it being reported as either so long as they do it. I see no reason for the Democrats to cave and do everything Republicans want when the latter has refused to offer any semblance of cooperation. There's nothing for Dems to gain outside of voter dissolutionment.
The problem is that voters hold democrats accountable for their actions (this is the biggest difference between party D and party R), so look forward to massive losses in the midterm and a rightward shift in the overton window and democrat policies.
I don't think it's that Republicans don't hold people accountable... it's just WHO is accountable.
The Democrats do something bad, the Dem's will be all over their own.
The Republicans do something bad... and it's either on that individual person (not a party issue), or it's the fault of the Democrats.
As much as they like to talk about Democrats not taking accountability for things, they have really turned blaming others into an art form.
The singer tweeted she would "graciously accept" the invitation from the American president-elect if she can perform Strange Fruit, a song that was blacklisted in the United States.
...
The words of Strange Fruit describe the lynching of African Americans in the early 20th century: "Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze".
It's been described as one of the first great protest songs.
Rebecca wrote that the song "speaks to all the disregarded and down trodden black people" in the US and if she can sing it she will "see [Mr Trump] in Washington".
Hehehehehe.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+43
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Aside from a couple throwaway mentions of the bad stuff he has done recently, this article was basically talking about how luxurious and wonderful it is, how nice Trump is here, and how Camp David now seems obsolete.
This is going to suck for a few years, isn't it.
I am actually, truly finished with NYT after 2016. I will not give them ad hits. They will never get my money.
I'm just saying it is going to be really hard to financially support real journalism when this kind of shit ends up on the front page.
Yeah, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I guess. The NYT at least believes in facts and evidence and objective reality. That needs supporting. And anyway you can still send angry tweets to the NYT and hope to improve their paper, can't do that if they go under.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Aside from a couple throwaway mentions of the bad stuff he has done recently, this article was basically talking about how luxurious and wonderful it is, how nice Trump is here, and how Camp David now seems obsolete.
This is going to suck for a few years, isn't it.
I am actually, truly finished with NYT after 2016. I will not give them ad hits. They will never get my money.
The NYT is complicit in normalizing fascism at this point, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if they were ever any good, but they sure as shit ain't now.
The NYT has consistently been an elitist rag that has more or less been coasting on the Pentagon Papers and Watergate since the 1970's like most other national "papers of record." Queue subsequent boomer worship about their importance.
Just recall their assumption that Aleppo was the capital of Syria while lambasting Gary Johnson's ignorance of the city. They're all David Brooks now.
If the Democrats oppose or support anything, the Republicans will destroy them in the media because they're actually a cohesive unit in terms of hating Democrats.
Merrick Garland aside, how many spots in our courts and government just stayed empty because they refused to confirm anyone?
How long did Loretta Lynch have to wait on her confirmation?
Like this "seriousness and courtesy" of theirs are known things. You can look that shit up and see it for the blatant lie that it is.
Not that anyone will care. It will just be reported as "Democrats just doing what Republicans did" as if there's no substantive difference in the nominees in question.
Because Jeff Sessions and Loretta Lynch are basically the same person, so opposition would just be political payback instead of looking at Sessions and screaming "Are you out of your fucking mind!?"
I think you are overly optimistic. This will be reported as "Democrats are refusing to let the government function cos they are mad they lost".
Absolute best case scenario for the dems is "both sides are doing it so it is now OK, Dems can no longer criticize Reps for it".
I'm fine with it being reported as either so long as they do it. I see no reason for the Democrats to cave and do everything Republicans want when the latter has refused to offer any semblance of cooperation. There's nothing for Dems to gain outside of voter dissolutionment.
The problem is that voters hold democrats accountable for their actions (this is the biggest difference between party D and party R), so look forward to massive losses in the midterm and a rightward shift in the overton window and democrat policies.
If they let Republicans nominate and place whoever they like some Dem voters will be annoyed that they did so.
If they block attempts by Republicans to nominate whoever they want without forcing at least some degree of compromise some Dem voters will be annoyed they did so.
Given either scenario results in losing some number of voters I'd rather go with the one that blocks shitty appointments.
The NYT has consistently been an elitist rag that has more or less been coasting on the Pentagon Papers and Watergate since the 1970's like most other national "papers of record." Queue subsequent boomer worship about their importance.
Just recall their assumption that Aleppo was the capital of Syria while lambasting Gary Johnson's ignorance of the city. They're all David Brooks now.
I recall them putting 4 articles on Hilary's emails on the front page after Comey's letter
Merrick Garland aside, how many spots in our courts and government just stayed empty because they refused to confirm anyone?
How long did Loretta Lynch have to wait on her confirmation?
Like this "seriousness and courtesy" of theirs are known things. You can look that shit up and see it for the blatant lie that it is.
Not that anyone will care. It will just be reported as "Democrats just doing what Republicans did" as if there's no substantive difference in the nominees in question.
Because Jeff Sessions and Loretta Lynch are basically the same person, so opposition would just be political payback instead of looking at Sessions and screaming "Are you out of your fucking mind!?"
I think you are overly optimistic. This will be reported as "Democrats are refusing to let the government function cos they are mad they lost".
Absolute best case scenario for the dems is "both sides are doing it so it is now OK, Dems can no longer criticize Reps for it".
I'm fine with it being reported as either so long as they do it. I see no reason for the Democrats to cave and do everything Republicans want when the latter has refused to offer any semblance of cooperation. There's nothing for Dems to gain outside of voter dissolutionment.
The problem is that voters hold democrats accountable for their actions (this is the biggest difference between party D and party R), so look forward to massive losses in the midterm and a rightward shift in the overton window and democrat policies.
If they let Republicans nominate and place whoever they like some Dem voters will be annoyed that they did so.
If they block attempts by Republicans to nominate whoever they want without forcing at least some degree of compromise some Dem voters will be annoyed they did so.
Given either scenario results in losing some number of voters I'd rather go with the one that blocks shitty appointments.
To put it another way, if the Democrats support Trump's nominees, the two sides truly are the same. Seriously, they are all completely unacceptable/insane.
There's a difference between obstruction for obstruction's sake and obstruction to try to prevent a catastrophe.
If the Democrats oppose or support anything, the Republicans will destroy them in the media because they're actually a cohesive unit in terms of hating Democrats.
They were going to do that anyway.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
+6
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
No matter what the Dems do re: Trump's nominations, they'll get demonized by someone. Since they can't win anyways, they might as well stick to their principles and go down swinging. If ever there was a metaphorical hill to die on, it would be on Capitol Hill whilst blocking every toxic cabinet pick the Trump camp makes.
If the Democrats oppose or support anything, the Republicans will destroy them in the media because they're actually a cohesive unit in terms of hating Democrats.
They were going to do that anyway.
Oh, of course. But they'll at least have "something" to whine about.
It's kind of amazing what people in the GOP will do for power. They'll fuck over anyone and everything just to stay in power.
Hopefully that'll fuck 'em in the long run, but who fucking knows. I really don't want to think about what a Trump presidency might mean for the long run of our country.
No matter what the Dems do re: Trump's nominations, they'll get demonized by someone. Since they can't win anyways, they might as well stick to their principles and go down swinging. If ever there was a metaphorical hill to die on, it would be on Capitol Hill whilst blocking every toxic cabinet pick the Trump camp makes.
I think they can personally win by getting re-elected. That way they still have a job that pays a salary.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That isn't a record setting amount. That was '74 when we murdered 970 people.
It is the highest since the 90's and hopefully a one off aberration that will revert to mean again. Not that he cares about Chicago.
How many people were shot in 1974? Maybe that's the record.
Maybe, but I'm not all that willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
For the Trump campaign and his administration, everything is historic, record-setting, or "the best" when it benefits their argument to call it that. It doesn't matter if it actually is historic/record-setting/the best or if it's typical or even low.
I'm constantly confounded by the assertion that papers should be able to blatantly lie, with the assurance that people should instead be free to figure out whatever the truth is themselves. It's a laudable goal for someone I'm sure, but my question is always: why should this always end with the papers? Should politicians also be free to lie, with nothing but the freedom to search for the truth yourself? What about police? Car salesman? At what point exactly do we draw the line where lying is no longer okay, because the truth is still potentially obtainable somewhere else?
No matter what the Dems do re: Trump's nominations, they'll get demonized by someone. Since they can't win anyways, they might as well stick to their principles and go down swinging. If ever there was a metaphorical hill to die on, it would be on Capitol Hill whilst blocking every toxic cabinet pick the Trump camp makes.
I think they can personally win by getting re-elected. That way they still have a job that pays a salary.
I'm constantly confounded by the assertion that papers should be able to blatantly lie, with the assurance that people should instead be free to figure out whatever the truth is themselves. It's a laudable goal for someone I'm sure, but my question is always: why should this always end with the papers? Should politicians also be free to lie, with nothing but the freedom to search for the truth yourself? What about police? Car salesman? At what point exactly do we draw the line where lying is no longer okay, because the truth is still potentially obtainable somewhere else?
Going against reality is fine as long as people do what you want. It has been like this forever. see drug and sexuality education in school and Appeal to consequences fallacy in creationism.
No matter what the Dems do re: Trump's nominations, they'll get demonized by someone. Since they can't win anyways, they might as well stick to their principles and go down swinging. If ever there was a metaphorical hill to die on, it would be on Capitol Hill whilst blocking every toxic cabinet pick the Trump camp makes.
I think they can personally win by getting re-elected. That way they still have a job that pays a salary.
I think you completely missed my point.
I think many legislative officials miss the point
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm constantly confounded by the assertion that papers should be able to blatantly lie, with the assurance that people should instead be free to figure out whatever the truth is themselves. It's a laudable goal for someone I'm sure, but my question is always: why should this always end with the papers? Should politicians also be free to lie, with nothing but the freedom to search for the truth yourself? What about police? Car salesman? At what point exactly do we draw the line where lying is no longer okay, because the truth is still potentially obtainable somewhere else?
Pretty sure fraud and consumer protection laws aren't going to be as strong 4 years from now.
We will get a followup tweet or media mention "Oh yeah it turns out I talked to some republicans and they said we hate federal government. I keep forgetting that part so were not going to actually help"
edit: back on the conspiracy train, it would be amazing if trump would give a light plan on how to solve a problem, then immediately follow it up by "sorry forgot I was republican" for the next 8 years.
We will get a followup tweet or media mention "Oh yeah it turns out I talked to some republicans and they said we hate federal government. I keep forgetting that part so were not going to actually help"
edit: back on the conspiracy train, it would be amazing if trump would give a light plan on how to solve a problem, then immediately follow it up by "sorry forgot I was republican" for the next 8 years.
Republicans love the federal government. They're only against "big government" when they don't control it.
Posts
The problem is that voters hold democrats accountable for their actions (this is the biggest difference between party D and party R), so look forward to massive losses in the midterm and a rightward shift in the overton window and democrat policies.
I don't think it's that Republicans don't hold people accountable... it's just WHO is accountable.
The Democrats do something bad, the Dem's will be all over their own.
The Republicans do something bad... and it's either on that individual person (not a party issue), or it's the fault of the Democrats.
As much as they like to talk about Democrats not taking accountability for things, they have really turned blaming others into an art form.
Thank God Bezos hates Trump, otherwise he'd be completely irredeemable.
It was actually the first question addressed to him during his company-wide Q&A last summer.
I am actually, truly finished with NYT after 2016. I will not give them ad hits. They will never get my money.
What election did you watch?
This makes perfect sense.
Yeah, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I guess. The NYT at least believes in facts and evidence and objective reality. That needs supporting. And anyway you can still send angry tweets to the NYT and hope to improve their paper, can't do that if they go under.
The NYT is complicit in normalizing fascism at this point, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if they were ever any good, but they sure as shit ain't now.
Just recall their assumption that Aleppo was the capital of Syria while lambasting Gary Johnson's ignorance of the city. They're all David Brooks now.
I am pretty sure that is not how it works.
If they let Republicans nominate and place whoever they like some Dem voters will be annoyed that they did so.
If they block attempts by Republicans to nominate whoever they want without forcing at least some degree of compromise some Dem voters will be annoyed they did so.
Given either scenario results in losing some number of voters I'd rather go with the one that blocks shitty appointments.
I recall them putting 4 articles on Hilary's emails on the front page after Comey's letter
To put it another way, if the Democrats support Trump's nominees, the two sides truly are the same. Seriously, they are all completely unacceptable/insane.
There's a difference between obstruction for obstruction's sake and obstruction to try to prevent a catastrophe.
They were going to do that anyway.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
That isn't a record setting amount. That was '74 when we murdered 970 people.
It is the highest since the 90's and hopefully a one off aberration that will revert to mean again. Not that he cares about Chicago.
How many people were shot in 1974? Maybe that's the record.
Hopefully that'll fuck 'em in the long run, but who fucking knows. I really don't want to think about what a Trump presidency might mean for the long run of our country.
I think they can personally win by getting re-elected. That way they still have a job that pays a salary.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
When only half of the public votes, of course problems arise.
At the presidential level as well as the state and local level.
How do you solve a problem of such widespread voter apathy and lack of care for civic issues?
Maybe, but I'm not all that willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
For the Trump campaign and his administration, everything is historic, record-setting, or "the best" when it benefits their argument to call it that. It doesn't matter if it actually is historic/record-setting/the best or if it's typical or even low.
Vote by mail.
Washington and Oregon had huge turnout percentage relative to the rest of the country.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
That's never going to happen, because the people who have won right now want to keep conditions like they are, right now.
I wonder if he is gearing up to take on sanctuary cities or just trumping around.
That is not what he said. The words he did say are in the quote tree. Those words are objectively wrong. Because he does not care.
I think you completely missed my point.
Going against reality is fine as long as people do what you want. It has been like this forever. see drug and sexuality education in school and Appeal to consequences fallacy in creationism.
I think many legislative officials miss the point
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Pretty sure fraud and consumer protection laws aren't going to be as strong 4 years from now.
We will get a followup tweet or media mention "Oh yeah it turns out I talked to some republicans and they said we hate federal government. I keep forgetting that part so were not going to actually help"
edit: back on the conspiracy train, it would be amazing if trump would give a light plan on how to solve a problem, then immediately follow it up by "sorry forgot I was republican" for the next 8 years.
Republicans love the federal government. They're only against "big government" when they don't control it.
He's bringing it up because it was the subject of a 60 Minutes piece last night.
I wouldn't read too deeply into it.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow