That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Except this time the Wolverines are Russian-supported paramilitaries sent out to round up internees.hepcat wrote:Well, Putin certainly invested wisely.
We'll be estranged for our former allies soon enough. And after our country rips itself apart, we can live out the original Red Dawn.
It was not until the next day, Thursday, May 25, when Trump started talking at an opening ceremony for NATO’s new Brussels headquarters, that the president’s national security team realized their boss had made a decision with major consequences – without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.
“They had the right speech and it was cleared through McMaster,” said a source briefed by National Security Council officials in the immediate aftermath of the NATO meeting. “As late as that same morning, it was the right one.”
Added a senior White House official, “There was a fully coordinated other speech everybody else had worked on”—and it wasn’t the one Trump gave. “They didn’t know it had been removed,” said a third source of the Trump national security officials on hand for the ceremony. “It was only upon delivery.”
The president appears to have deleted it himself, according to one version making the rounds inside the government, reflecting his personal skepticism about NATO and insistence on lecturing NATO allies about spending more on defense rather than offering reassurances of any sort; another version relayed to others by several White House aides is that Trump’s nationalist chief strategist Steve Bannon and policy aide Stephen Miller played a role in the deletion.
"In Soviet America, the President impeach you!"tgb wrote:I'm looking forward to the inevitable Yakov Smirnov comeback.
You are not. I find Franken to be generally be on the right side of things but he is in all out asshole when it comes to be a leader in the crusade of Us against Them and uses sophistry as a crutch for discussion or even debate and fills in the cracks with smug sarcasm. I don't like hearing him. He's gotten to the point for me where his odious nature is louder than his message. He's like Bill Maher, only with political authority.Unagi wrote:But Lordmortis isn't just holding his nose at a President Franken, I could be misremembering, but I think he has previously stated a profound distaste for him.
It really is kind of incredible given that the DOJ is trying to make the argument that Trump's statements shouldn't be taken as the reasoning for the order. So very odd.Stefan Stirzaker wrote:So many trump tweets on travel ban and abusing justice department for the watered-down version!
Do presidents usually abuse their own departments?
He was interviewed on NPR recently during a book tour for his new memoirs, Giant of the Senate. He came across as pretty dang decent, actually. Self-effacing, funny but warm...I just don't get the pure hate he gets from some. Can he be confrontational and sometimes a bit condescending in his pursuits for what he thinks is the truth? Sure. But he's still Will effing Rogers in comparison to Trump.LordMortis wrote:You are not. I find Franken to be generally be on the right side of things but he is in all out asshole when it comes to be a leader in the crusade of Us against Them and uses sophistry as a crutch for discussion or even debate and fills in the cracks with smug sarcasm. I don't like hearing him. He's gotten to the point for me where his odious nature is louder than his message. He's like Bill Maher, only with political authority.Unagi wrote:But Lordmortis isn't just holding his nose at a President Franken, I could be misremembering, but I think he has previously stated a profound distaste for him.
You could say the same thing about Chaosraven's ass after feeding him only Taco Bell for three weeks. Doesn't mean it'd be a good candidate. I like Franken but I agree with his self assessment that he would not be a good choice. We should not be comparing any potential candidates to Trump but instead be judging them by their own merits. We do not need the anti-Trump. We need a leader that can actually pull some of the shattered pieces of the nation back together. Those who voted Trump because "ABH" and those who voted HRC because "Never Trump" rather than being excited over either candidate need someone they can unite behind. Its probably me. Someone start me a superpac please.hepcat wrote:But he's still Will effing Rogers in comparison to Trump.
I agree with this message. I don't even need to be excited. I just need to not dislike, though a primary concern of mine is that they any candidate does not promote the Us against Them mentality. Even if it's clear the current Republican party pretty much needs to be slapped out of existence. You just keep on doing what's right, without having to prop yourself up on their legal and moral failings... I am not a good candidate to unite behind.Remus West wrote:You could say the same thing about Chaosraven's ass after feeding him only Taco Bell for three weeks. Doesn't mean it'd be a good candidate. I like Franken but I agree with his self assessment that he would not be a good choice. We should not be comparing any potential candidates to Trump but instead be judging them by their own merits. We do not need the anti-Trump. We need a leader that can actually pull some of the shattered pieces of the nation back together. Those who voted Trump because "ABH" and those who voted HRC because "Never Trump" rather than being excited over either candidate need someone they can unite behind. Its probably me. Someone start me a superpac please.
Agreed. While it would be amusing to watch, Trump didn't win by chance. I believe that Republicans have a carefully crafted gerrymandered system in place that makes it artificially difficult for a Democrat to win right now. Simply putting someone up who is everything Trump isn't just won't be enough.Remus West wrote:We do not need the anti-Trump.
A big problem seems to be the polarization and separation. I think a majority of voters would fall in the middle, but the candidates are too far on either side for there to be a middle ground - and anyone in the middle is seen as a waste of votes by both sides. I have no idea how you'd get those two sides to rejoin. I believe that Democrats would be more open than Republicans, who seem to be very hard-line "Our way, or go f##k yourself."Remus West wrote:We need a leader that can actually pull some of the shattered pieces of the nation back together.
Paingod wrote:I have no idea how you'd get those two sides to rejoin.
I'd argue (unsurprisingly) that the Republicans are far more exclusive than the Democrats. They are a party of white lite nationalism and the vast majority of the ultra wealthy right now. That helps frame the several problems that define the gulf. An example problem is the Democrats don't have enough *white* support where they need it. Another issue is that the Ds also have supported the same basket of economic policies vis a vis corporate special interests as the Republicans. The policies have increased overall wealth but the Republicans have managed to make sure it stays in the hands of the very few. Especially over the last 15 years. This has caused massive destabilizing inequality to grow here. It helped create Trump's base of angry, disaffected white people. There are enough of them in the places that matter to derail the system. That is a real tough set of problems to crack with the current system. The Republicans are treacherous to a fault. And the Democrats just can't find the support they need without becoming more extreme. Time will change it but until then this ship is drifting into random icebergs and taking on water.Paingod wrote: I have no idea how you'd get those two sides to rejoin. I believe that Democrats would be more open than Republicans, who seem to be very hard-line "Our way, or go f##k yourself."
What we need is someone who can win, and what the people want more than anything these days is someone they know, preferably from teevee. Trump. Eastwood. The Governator. Reagan. We need an intelligent, progressive celebrity who might be willing. Paul Newman would be perfect if he were less dead.Remus West wrote:. We do not need the anti-Trump. We need a leader that can actually pull some of the shattered pieces of the nation back together. Those who voted Trump because "ABH" and those who voted HRC because "Never Trump" rather than being excited over either candidate need someone they can unite behind. Its probably me. Someone start me a superpac please.
Sorry but as many of the Ultra Wealthy support Democrats as Republicans.malchior wrote:I'd argue (unsurprisingly) that the Republicans are far more exclusive than the Democrats. They are a party of white lite nationalism and the vast majority of the ultra wealthy right now. That helps frame the several problems that define the gulf. An example problem is the Democrats don't have enough *white* support where they need it. Another issue is that the Ds also have supported the same basket of economic policies vis a vis corporate special interests as the Republicans. The policies have increased overall wealth but the Republicans have managed to make sure it stays in the hands of the very few. Especially over the last 15 years. This has caused massive destabilizing inequality to grow here. It helped create Trump's base of angry, disaffected white people. There are enough of them in the places that matter to derail the system. That is a real tough set of problems to crack with the current system. The Republicans are treacherous to a fault. And the Democrats just can't find the support they need without becoming more extreme. Time will change it but until then this ship is drifting into random icebergs and taking on water.Paingod wrote: I have no idea how you'd get those two sides to rejoin. I believe that Democrats would be more open than Republicans, who seem to be very hard-line "Our way, or go f##k yourself."
And I explicitly said that they both have supported business/corporate governance policies that favored the ultra wealthy and created the economic environment we have now. However they differ greatly on tax policy and benefits. The Republicans are the party looking to cut healthcare support for the poor in favor of the ultra wealthy. The Republicans are the party in favor of cutting taxes in favor of the ultra wealthy. They are the ultimately the party that delivers the most favor on the ultra wealthy. That the ultra wealthy have the money to split between both parties to have a voice is how this completely corrupt the system works; that isn't a reflection of whose policies they all agree with necessarily. Some of them are enlightened enough to know it isn't sustainable. But then again many don't care because they don't have to ultimately live here or among the hoi polloi.Rip wrote:Sorry but as many of the Ultra Wealthy support Democrats as Republicans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opin ... .html?_r=0
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... tic-party/
Spin it how you want but this statement is demonstrably false.malchior wrote:And I explicitly said that they both have supported business/corporate governance policies that favored the ultra wealthy and created the economic environment we have now. However they differ greatly on tax policy and benefits. The Republicans are the party looking to cut healthcare support for the poor in favor of the ultra wealthy. The Republicans are the party in favor of cutting taxes in favor of the ultra wealthy. They are the ultimately the party that delivers the most favor on the ultra wealthy. That the ultra wealthy have the money to split between both parties to have a voice is how this completely corrupt the system works; that isn't a reflection of whose policies they all agree with necessarily. Some of them are enlightened enough to know it isn't sustainable. But then again many don't care because they don't have to ultimately live here or among the hoi polloi.Rip wrote:Sorry but as many of the Ultra Wealthy support Democrats as Republicans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opin ... .html?_r=0
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... tic-party/
I'd argue (unsurprisingly) that the Republicans are far more exclusive than the Democrats. They are a party of white lite nationalism and the vast majority of the ultra wealthy right now.
The WaPo article I just read said DOJ was trying to make that argument about earlier Trump statements since most were "campaign rhetoric". They certainly can't use that defense now!stessier wrote:It really is kind of incredible given that the DOJ is trying to make the argument that Trump's statements shouldn't be taken as the reasoning for the order. So very odd.Stefan Stirzaker wrote:So many trump tweets on travel ban and abusing justice department for the watered-down version!
Do presidents usually abuse their own departments?
No actually it isn't. I've clarified it. If you want to be pedantic more power to you.Rip wrote:Spin it how you want but this statement is demonstrably false.malchior wrote:And I explicitly said that they both have supported business/corporate governance policies that favored the ultra wealthy and created the economic environment we have now. However they differ greatly on tax policy and benefits. The Republicans are the party looking to cut healthcare support for the poor in favor of the ultra wealthy. The Republicans are the party in favor of cutting taxes in favor of the ultra wealthy. They are the ultimately the party that delivers the most favor on the ultra wealthy. That the ultra wealthy have the money to split between both parties to have a voice is how this completely corrupt the system works; that isn't a reflection of whose policies they all agree with necessarily. Some of them are enlightened enough to know it isn't sustainable. But then again many don't care because they don't have to ultimately live here or among the hoi polloi.Rip wrote:Sorry but as many of the Ultra Wealthy support Democrats as Republicans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opin ... .html?_r=0
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... tic-party/
I'd argue (unsurprisingly) that the Republicans are far more exclusive than the Democrats. They are a party of white lite nationalism and the vast majority of the ultra wealthy right now.
And there are DOJ lawyers probably clinking glasses right now because they didn't want to win this one anyway.pr0ner wrote:The WaPo article I just read said DOJ was trying to make that argument about earlier Trump statements since most were "campaign rhetoric". They certainly can't use that defense now!
Anyone with enough charisma to be an effective candidate for the Democrats will also be someone that turns off some default number of voters. It's a given.ImLawBoy wrote:The issue isn't so much why many people dislike Franken and are turned off by him. The issue is that they are. The last thing the Dems need to do right now is to run a candidate who already turns off a large number of voters. They already tried that in the last election.
Well, he already has a re-election operation up and running, doesn't he? Maybe they tie it in that way?pr0ner wrote:The WaPo article I just read said DOJ was trying to make that argument about earlier Trump statements since most were "campaign rhetoric". They certainly can't use that defense now!stessier wrote:It really is kind of incredible given that the DOJ is trying to make the argument that Trump's statements shouldn't be taken as the reasoning for the order. So very odd.Stefan Stirzaker wrote:So many trump tweets on travel ban and abusing justice department for the watered-down version!
Do presidents usually abuse their own departments?
I know you're joking, but that's not the worst idea I've heard.Zarathud wrote:If the Democrats are going for their Celebrity President, go all the way and draft Oprah.
That makes sense, but the notion that there's so much animus towards Franken that it would be tough to choose between him and Trump just drives me absolutely f'ing bonkers. Senator Franken is an educated center-left moderate. If he were president - and it genuinely appears that he has no interest in pursuing that - policy-wise you'd basically get another Obama administration. It wouldn't be all that much different than (say) President Biden.ImLawBoy wrote:The issue isn't so much why many people dislike Franken and are turned off by him. The issue is that they are. The last thing the Dems need to do right now is to run a candidate who already turns off a large number of voters. They already tried that in the last election.
Yep. It makes my brain explode.El Guapo wrote:. There's no intelligent life here worth saving.
And you may as well be rip making everything about Trump into something about Clinton or Obama when you post this. It's not a question of if you don't like Franken then you must like Trump better. Quite frankly, you are exemplifying the exact kind of sophistry that Fanken employs that I hate so much. Franken inspires this sort of dishonest discussion. You love it. I hate it.El Guapo wrote:Just the fact that people don't like his style makes it a tough choice between him and Trump makes me think that we should just blow up the planet and get it over with. There's no intelligent life here worth saving.
Sure, but Franken turns off more than that default number of voters for whatever reason. Any Dem with a chance of winning will turn off x number of voters (just like any Rep will turn off a number of voters). Hillary turned off x + y number of voters to make it such that even Trump with his a + b turn off rates could win. Franken probably doesn't turn off quite as many additional voters beyond x as Hillary did, but he's definitely materially above baseline. (Obama, by comparison, was probably at baseline or pretty close to it.) The Dems should try to start at baseline rather than already in the hole.gilraen wrote:Anyone with enough charisma to be an effective candidate for the Democrats will also be someone that turns off some default number of voters. It's a given.ImLawBoy wrote:The issue isn't so much why many people dislike Franken and are turned off by him. The issue is that they are. The last thing the Dems need to do right now is to run a candidate who already turns off a large number of voters. They already tried that in the last election.
I'm not disagreeing with this, but politics makes people weird.El Guapo wrote:That makes sense, but the notion that there's so much animus towards Franken just drives me absolutely f'ing bonkers. Senator Franken is an educated center-left moderate. If he were president - and it genuinely appears that he has no interest in pursuing that - policy-wise you'd basically get another Obama administration. It wouldn't be all that much different than (say) President Biden.ImLawBoy wrote:The issue isn't so much why many people dislike Franken and are turned off by him. The issue is that they are. The last thing the Dems need to do right now is to run a candidate who already turns off a large number of voters. They already tried that in the last election.
Just the fact that people don't like his style makes it a tough choice between him and Trump makes me think that we should just blow up the planet and get it over with. There's no intelligent life here worth saving.
LordMortis wrote:And you may as well be rip making everything about Trump into something about Clinton or Obama when you post this. It's not a question of if you don't like Franken then you must like Trump better. Quite frankly, you are exemplifying the exact kind of sophistry that Fanken employs that I hate so much. Franken inspires this sort of dishonest discussion. You love it. I hate it.El Guapo wrote:Just the fact that people don't like his style makes it a tough choice between him and Trump makes me think that we should just blow up the planet and get it over with. There's no intelligent life here worth saving.
Fitzy wrote:I've watched Franken speak. I've seen him in committees.
I despise Trump. I think he is the worst president we've had.
I'd have a hard time choosing between Trump and Franken.
The central issue has not been the FAA’s stewardship of aviation safety, but rather a decade of harsh criticism from within the government and from several major airlines over its handling of the NextGen project.
Although elements of the program have come online, reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Transportation Department’s inspector general have portrayed the modernization effort as bogged down in bureaucracy.
The FAA also has been hamstrung by government shutdowns, sequestration and the failure to reauthorize its funding.
...
Burnley and Dorgan produced the 63-page study that says creating an independent nonprofit corporation that could be funded through airline and airport fees, escaping the uncertainty of federal funding.
...
The two men said that the Canadian air traffic control system, which was privatized 20 years ago, had seen fees drop by one-third over that time span.
It's not a new idea...Canada, Australia and other major countries have a privatized system with government oversight, seems to work okay. Not to say that there isn't a potential for the US to royally screw it up, but in theory it's not necessarily a "Trumpian" thing.Ralph-Wiggum wrote:So the first part of Trump's infrastructure plan is to privatize air traffic control. Am I bonkers or is that an insanely terrible idea?