We already know that the debate audience was stacked with donors and the like, people literally invested in anyone other than Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz winning the Republican nomination. Regardless, at the very least, no matter how moneyed and bubbled, you would expect this group to put the health of the Party above all else. Instead, the behavior of this gilded crowd of entitled crybabies was the single most self-destructive act committed yet in this election cycle.
This group is so selfish and small and corrupted, so disinterested in beating Hillary Clinton, that on Saturday night they chose to make a clown show of a high-profile Party event — no less than a presidential debate.
Frustrated, angry, and under the bizarre delusion that robotically clapping like seals at every utterance from Sen. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush would make them more palatable to voters, the GOP’s hand-picked audience did exactly that. And under this same delusion, for two full hours they booed and hissed at Donald Trump like ten year-olds watching a movie villain at a Saturday afternoon matinee.
Saturday night’s debate was a disaster, a train wreck, the dropping of our own pants in front of the entire electorate, and not because of anything any of the candidates did or said. The behavior of the audience — those who endlessly reassure the GOP Base that they are the “grown-ups” — was a humiliating frat boy spectacle, a turn-off in the extreme, the work of children sending a message that the Grand Old Party can’t govern its own debates, much less a country.
Tactically, in their never-ending quest to destroy Trump, Saturday night’s audience also proved why they have lost 5 of 6: these people have absolutely no political skills.
In the previous GOP debate, Trump’s best moment came when the audience booed him. Because he’s a very skillful politician, in front of millions of television viewers made up primarily of voters who hate the Establishment, Trump brilliantly exposed his childish booers as the Party’s elite donors and insiders.
And there was Trump, just before his New Hampshire triumph, one man against the Dreaded GOP Machine.
So what do these Exclusive Idiots do in the next round? What the GOP Establishment always does: double down on failure.
A Kentucky lawmaker has introduced a bill that would require men who are seeking erectile dysfunction drugs like Viagra to be married, to get a note of consent from their wives, and to swear on the Bible to remain faithful.
The legislation, penned by Democratic Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, is a symbolic attempt to prove a point about the government’s role in private medical decisions, she told Reuters on Monday. It has little chance of becoming law.
It comes after Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed an informed consent law that requires women to consult with a doctor before having an abortion.
“My point is to illustrate how intrusive and ridiculous it is for elected officials to be inserting themselves into private and personal medical decisions,” Marzian, 61, told the news agency. “We need to stop it, we need to allow women and men to make their own decisions with their doctor and their family.”
Rip wrote:Whatever he is or whatever he is doing is working.
Only with the lowest common denominator.
Which it seems is nearly half the country. And people wonder why compromise and bipartisanship is dead. Who wants to compromise with people who think of you as the lowest common denominator?
As for your belief that Trump's supporters are reacting to my disdain for their support of that ridiculous ass, I would simply say that I've always felt that way towards the KKK and their kind and see no reason to feel badly about it.
hepcat wrote:Trump hardly has half the country supporting him.
As for your belief that Trump's supporters are reacting to my disdain for their support of that ridiculous ass, I would simply say that I've always felt that way towards the KKK and their kind and see no reason to feel badly about it.
hepcat wrote:Trump hardly has half the country supporting him.
As for your belief that Trump's supporters are reacting to my disdain for their support of that ridiculous ass, I would simply say that I've always felt that way towards the KKK and their kind and see no reason to feel badly about it.
hepcat wrote:Trump hardly has half the country supporting him.
As for your belief that Trump's supporters are reacting to my disdain for their support of that ridiculous ass, I would simply say that I've always felt that way towards the KKK and their kind and see no reason to feel badly about it.
hepcat wrote:Trump hardly has half the country supporting him.
As for your belief that Trump's supporters are reacting to my disdain for their support of that ridiculous ass, I would simply say that I've always felt that way towards the KKK and their kind and see no reason to feel badly about it.
hepcat wrote:Trump hardly has half the country supporting him.
As for your belief that Trump's supporters are reacting to my disdain for their support of that ridiculous ass, I would simply say that I've always felt that way towards the KKK and their kind and see no reason to feel badly about it.
hepcat wrote:Trump hardly has half the country supporting him.
As for your belief that Trump's supporters are reacting to my disdain for their support of that ridiculous ass, I would simply say that I've always felt that way towards the KKK and their kind and see no reason to feel badly about it.
Though Republicans like to think of themselves as the party that cuts waste, fraud, and abuse, Democrats, too, propose putting the ax to programs that they'd like to see go away.
Barack Obama's fiscal year 2017 budget proposal is no exception. Though it generally offers higher levels of government spending than Republicans favor, that doesn't mean Obama loves every program the government runs. In fact, he's proposing to entirely eliminate dozens of initiatives — often small grant programs — that his team has identified as superfluous or unnecessary.
The one that's likely to get the most political attention is eliminating a $10 million-a-year grant program for abstinence-only education run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The biggest proposed elimination is the Department of Justice's $210 million State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which reimburses state and local law enforcement agencies for costs incurred detaining immigrants.
The cut most likely to provoke backlash from liberals is probably the proposed elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency's $13 million grant program for water quality research, which sounds pretty useful in light of the situation in Flint, Michigan.
...
In addition, Obama is proposing to kill a long series of small-bore research, education, and extension grants from the Department of Agriculture covering everything from alfalfa foliage to potato breeding.
I couldn't decide whether to put this in Political or Religious randomness.
Since the Pope wants to play politician I decided to put it here.
Thrusting himself into the combative 2016 presidential campaign, Pope Francis said Thursday that GOP frontrunner Donald Trump "is not Christian" if he calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants and pledges to build a wall between the United States and Mexico.
The Pope, who was traveling back to Rome from Mexico, where he urged the United States to address the "humanitarian crisis" on its southern border, declined to say whether American Catholics should vote for Trump.
But Francis left little doubt where he stood on the polarizing issue of immigration reform.
"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel," the Pope told journalists.
He might have been specifically referring to Trump (if taken literally), but metaphorically he could be talking about most of the front-runners in the GOP field. I don't see it as anti-Trump so much as pro-Kasich.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
When you build a wall against barbarian invasion 1,200 years ago (ie 800s), it's totally irrelevant. Particularly when Pope's point is about compassion and empathy.
Besides, ANYONE can walk through the front door in St. Peter's Square at any time. And millions do.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Popes criticize political positions from time to time. American Catholics have learned to live with their differences with Rome. Plenty of liberal Catholic politicians have endured veiled and even open complaints from the Vatican.
But trashing the Pope directly? That's totally unheard of.
Trump is like a dog who can't not bite. This will endear him as a tough guy to some, but a big chunk of northern white voters just realized that Sister Mary Agatha from grade school wouldn't approve...
To protect against barbarians....no. To protect it from the Muslims.
A large force set sail from Campania, landed at Porto and Ostia in 846. The Arabs struck as the Roman militia hastily retreated to the safety of the Roman walls.
The Arab raiders seem to have known about Rome's extraordinary treasures. Some basilicas, such as St. Peter and Saint Paul Outside the Walls, were outside the Aurelian walls, and thus easy targets. They were "filled to overflowing with rich liturgical vessels and with jeweled reliquaries housing all of the relics recently amassed". As a result, the raiders pillaged the surroundings of the city and the two holy shrines. Contemporary historians believe the raiders had known exactly where to look for the most valuable treasures.
Shortly after the siege Pope Leo IV built a strong wall on the right bank of the Tiber, in order to protect the Church of St. Peter. The encircled territory, defended by Castel Sant'Angelo, was named after the pope Leonine City, and was considered a separate town, with own administration. It joined the city in the sixteenth century, becoming the fourteenth rione of Rome, Borgo. In 849, another Arab raid against Rome's port, Ostia, would be repelled; the city was never again attacked by an Arab fleet.
Virginia Senate passes a bill to keep the names of police officers a secret:
Cosgrove said during an earlier subcommittee hearing that he filed the bill in response to a November court ruling allowing The Virginian-Pilot access to names, agencies and employment dates for current Virginia police officers. The newspaper is examining how often officers who got in trouble were able to find other jobs in law enforcement.
I wonder if these changes also come with new uniforms. Maybe something accented with an art-deco themed eagle motif?
Melissa Click, a professor who gained national notoriety during the protests at the University of Missouri, has been fired.
Click made headlines when a video of her pushing a reporter away from protesters went viral; she could be heard calling for “muscle” to toss out reporters trying to cover the news. The protests had paralyzed the university and forced the resignation of the system president and chancellor.
Click apologized, and many professors defended her and the principle of academic freedom, but the earlier image of her became a symbol for others of attempts to muzzle freedom of speech and of a public university system in chaos.
...
Pam Henrickson, chair of the board, said in a written statement Thursday that the board had reviewed the results of an investigation into Click’s conduct which included a review of documents, video, and interviews with more than 20 witnesses. Click was interviewed twice, both times with lawyers, and wrote a response to the investigation Feb. 19.
The investigation was launched Jan. 27, when the board suspended Click days after she was charged with assault in the incident.
...
“The circumstances surrounding Dr. Click’s behavior, both at a protest in October when she tried to interfere with police officers who were carrying out their duties, and at a rally in November, when she interfered with members of the media and students who were exercising their rights in a public space and called for intimidation against one of our students, we believe demands serious action.
“The board respects Dr. Click’s right to express her views and does not base this decision on her support for students engaged in protest or their views.
“However, Dr. Click was not entitled to interfere with the rights of others, to confront members of law enforcement or to encourage potential physical intimidation against a student.”
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Under current law, states aren’t allowed to require drug screening and testing for low-income people to enroll in the food stamps program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). That’s something Wisconsin, which is fighting the issue in court, and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), who chairs the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee that administers SNAP, want to change.
...
At a subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, she questioned why drug testing would be limited to the SNAP program and not all others subsidized through the Department of Agriculture, such as farmers who get federal crop insurance and other federal subsidies. “If we’re going to look at drug testing for SNAP, we should take the entire Department of Agriculture and all those programs that provide federal subsidy to folks, and they ought to be drug tested as well,” she said.
...
Drug testing has also not proven to save states money when implemented as a requirement for welfare benefits. Over the last two years, they’ve collectively spent nearly $2 million to turn up just 321 positive tests out of hundreds of thousands of applicants.
I don't understand. Drug addicts don't need to eat? What is the rationale for not feeding poor people if they do drugs? Because drugs cost money and if you've got money you don't need food stamps, or something else?
GreenGoo wrote:I don't understand. Drug addicts don't need to eat? What is the rationale for not feeding poor people if they do drugs? Because drugs cost money and if you've got money you don't need food stamps, or something else?
Yes
Because we know from experience that poor desperate hungry drug addicts just go to a corner and wait peacefully when faced with the consequences of their own decisions.
Combustible Lemur wrote:I just noted this in another thread but it caught my attention. What exactly makes Obama very left? I don't get it, but it may be my gen-Y-ism.
He's lefty enough to seize Americans' guns and put all the Christians in FEMA camps. That's what I heard.
Combustible Lemur wrote:What exactly makes Obama very left? I don't get it, but it may be my gen-Y-ism.
It may be a matter of perspective. If some issues are very important to you, and a politician is very left on that, that may cloud you to seeing that they're not very left on many other issues. And of course, it also depends on where the politician is on the spectrum relative to you. Someone on the right is more likely to see someone as very-left than someone on the left will.
Combustible Lemur wrote:What exactly makes Obama very left? I don't get it, but it may be my gen-Y-ism.
It may be a matter of perspective. If some issues are very important to you, and a politician is very left on that, that may cloud you to seeing that they're not very left on many other issues. And of course, it also depends on where the politician is on the spectrum relative to you. Someone on the right is more likely to see someone as very-left than someone on the left will.
Sure, but then it's just silly name calling rather than a rational analysis.
Combustible Lemur wrote:
Sure, but then it's just silly name calling rather than a rational analysis.
When it comes to partisanship, sure. But when it comes to someone caring highly about certain specific issues, and finding that the candidate is very left-wing on those specific issues (regardless of their stances on other issues), I would consider that a rational analysis (if not objective). Thus, the NRA might rationally consider Hillary a lot more extreme leftwing than Sanders, even if overall that's not true.
GreenGoo wrote:I don't understand. Drug addicts don't need to eat? What is the rationale for not feeding poor people if they do drugs? Because drugs cost money and if you've got money you don't need food stamps, or something else?
I think the logic is if you can afford to buy drugs, you can afford to buy food, and I shouldn't be obligated to support your drug habit with my tax money.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
