All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Dalak]

Donald's latest tweet. Ted Lieu pointed it out best. John McCain passed away this weekend. Regardless of what you think of him, he was well-respected and viewed as a hero for his service. Just yesterday we had another mass shooting. And yet, with all of this, Trump is only thinking about himself as per usual. It surprises no one here, but it still says all that needs to be said.

Well, because the shooter was white, Trump had no reason to go ballistic and rage about murdering illegals. As for McCain, Dolt45 wasn’t about to give the late Senator the time of day since he was an adversary, the fact McCain had passed didn’t lessen Trump’s loathing for him one iota.

While this isn't verified anywhere else I can find yet, this seems exactly like what he'd do.

Pres Trump declined to answer questions at the end of the announcement. Was asked to reflect on the legacy of Sen. McCain, but declined. Sat silent and cross-armed as press pool herded out of the Oval Office.

[PaulBullion]

Flag is back at half staff.

[Kirby101]

Flag is back at half staff.

Trump is nothing if he isn't a man of NO convictions.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Flag is back at half staff.

Five will get you ten that WASN’T at Trump’s insistence.

[Tami]

Rohrabacher says Sessions should resign if he won't bend to Trump's will

Dana Rohrabacher, the embattled Orange County congressman known for his close ties to the Kremlin, said Friday that Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions should resign after showing disloyalty to President Trump by refusing to shut down the Russia investigation.

For a Republican incumbent already in danger of losing his seat in a district that favored Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016, the remarks carried the risk of serious political damage.

“The fact that Jeff Sessions has not quit is a disloyalty to this president and to the country,” Rohrabacher (R-Costa Mesa) told Fox Business Network. “The fact is, if he disagrees with what the president wants him to do, he should resign.”

The president reiterated on Fox News this week that Sessions should not have recused himself from the criminal investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the Trump campaign’s possible involvement. Sessions cited a potential conflict with his role as a top advisor to the campaign.

“He took the job” as attorney general, Trump said, “and then he said I’m going to recuse myself — I said what kind of a man is this? And by the way, he was on the campaign. You know, the only reason I gave him the job, because I felt loyalty.”

Rohrabacher attacked the media’s coverage of the Russia scandal, saying it has made it politically impossible for Trump to fire Sessions.

“The fake news has created the situation where if the president does what’s right, so that he can assume his authority as president, there would be an avalanche saying, ‘Oh, it’s part of the cover-up,’” he said. “They’ve been looking for collusion.”

This is the guy who loves Putin

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Rohrabacher says Sessions should resign if he won't bend to Trump's will





This is the guy who loves Putin

Yeah, like this clown is objective. Pathetic.

[Mister Mets]

Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive. As all of Europe can attest to. Of course conservatives love to confuse Democratic Socialism, which is what 99.9% of Democrats and Liberals are talking about, and Soviet style Socialism.

So your comment is par for the course. Because Republicans never deal with reality.

BTW, I see the tax cut you supported, reduced the deficit and raised wages as promised.

My comment was about Elizabeth Warren's view of things. She seems to view socialism and capitalism as mutually exclusive.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...ers-difference

“What’s the difference between you and Bernie Sanders?”

Just four years ago, no one would have even thought to ask. With the 2020 primary months away, it’s one of the questions Warren gets most.

The new and pressing reality facing the Massachusetts senator is this: Elizabeth Warren, once a singular power on the left, is now a name that people conflate with Bernie Sanders.

The question, by its very existence, reflects a remarkable shift in progressive power from 2008, when both senators appeared at their sleepy town hall in Montpelier, Vermont, to the four-year span that marked the end of the Obama administration and ushered in the Trump era. Even some of her biggest supporters in the progressive community admit that the energy around Warren isn’t the same as it was four years ago, when she fashioned herself as a kind of mirror to Obama. Where he avoided confrontation, she picked big public fights on economic policy. That strategy, combined with a more tactical behind-the-scenes effort to “influence incentives,” as her team would put it, is no longer quite a natural fit in the chaos of the Trump administration — leading some progressives to ask if she missed her moment by forgoing a run in 2016.

For those on the left, the difference between Warren and Sanders has less to do with policy or ideology. Really, they say, it’s a question about progressive power — about two vastly different theories of change. It’s “the preacher vs. the teacher,” as one former Sanders adviser put it.

Now, when Warren gets the question, she has her answer ready.

“He’s a socialist,” she’ll say, “and I believe in markets.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/eliz...eed-rules.html

Q: You don't think capitalists are bad people?

A: I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets. What I don't believe in is theft, what I don't believe in is cheating. That's where the difference is. I love what markets can do, I love what functioning economies can do. They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity. But only fair markets, markets with rules. Markets without rules is about the rich take it all, it's about the powerful get all of it. And that's what's gone wrong in America.

https://twitter.com/katielannan/stat...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

“I am a capitalist to my bones,” Sen. Warren tells New England Council, one of several instances this morning where she’s highlighted her belief in capitalism and markets while talking bankruptcy policy #mapoli

[Jack Dracula]

I have to agree with your reasoning. Kelly's going to side with those who served in the military over someone like Trump who publicly disrespected both McCain and a Gold Star family.

It's good of you to imagine Kelly has even that much integrity, but don't forget, he took the job on Trump's staff AFTER both of those incidents.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The same guy who claimed there wasn't a potential piece of gun control he could imagine passing before there's enough push to end the 2nd Amendment that would be worth it, ignoring the fact that should there be such a huge push they'd be able to ram through bills via a veto-proof supermajority long before they get enough Red states Blue to ratify anything.

So what passed since Parkland? Mets was the perfect example for me. Someone listed a bunch of Democratic policies for gun control, he instantly applied it to this scenario and said none of them would have prevented it, and the discussion died lol. That's exactly the paradox your stuck in. They are going to kill all your compromise measures by pointing out all the places it would have done nothing or next to nothing. Then at the same time they are cutting off your actual arguments for being uneffective, they are going to rally their base and say "they really just want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment because that's the only way to get the outcomes they actually want" which of course they are mostly right about it. So you lose twice on it.

Oh and how loud is the Parkland student movement that was supposed to change everything right now? It isn't as loud as it used to be is it? Weird, it's like it ended up like every single other mass shooting. We all got mad for awhile, then nothing happened.

Again your point would be valid, if you weren't losing precisely because people like Mets can come out and say all the little solutions you want won't really do anything. Oh and by the way, Mets was right. Those solutions wouldn't have stopped this incident. So you are left defending making a policy pass that wouldn't have stopped this.

[Dalak]

So what passed since Parkland? Mets was the perfect example for me. Someone listed a bunch of Democratic policies for gun control, he instantly applied it to this scenario and said none of them would have prevented it, and the discussion died lol. That's exactly the paradox your stuck in. They are going to kill all your compromise measures by pointing out all the places it would have done nothing or next to nothing. Then at the same time they are cutting off your actual arguments for being uneffective, they are going to rally their base and say "they really just want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment because that's the only way to get the outcomes they actually want" which of course they are mostly right about it. So you lose twice on it.

Oh and how loud is the Parkland student movement that was supposed to change everything right now? It isn't as loud as it used to be is it? Weird, it's like it ended up like every single other mass shooting. We all got mad for awhile, then nothing happened.

Again your point would be valid, if you weren't losing precisely because people like Mets can come out and say all the little solutions you want won't really do anything. Oh and by the way, Mets was right. Those solutions wouldn't have stopped this incident. So you are left defending making a policy pass that wouldn't have stopped this.

So I assume you think all laws against murder are worthless since this guy killed people too, or that anything other than banning all theft would be successful at doing 'enough'? I've stayed away from the tournament shooting story because I don't want to see the footage and figure some view-hungry website is going to spring it on me the first chance it gets, but from the little I have heard it doesn't look like this was predictable or preventable short of there being no guns. Just like we could have prevented Trump's election by there being no lies allowed. I mean why do we even have laws against Perjury if people like Donnie will still lie, 'free speech' after all.

As for Parkland and focusing on one shooting that wouldn't have been prevented compared to many others that could have been:

Wait... are you saying the Parkland Kids failed to solve gun control before even a single election?

That... is a horrible take. Sit down.

Was the last shooting the only one you remember?
If it was, please see your personal physician or a neurologist.

E: Life isn't a video game, only rarely do you get instant rewards and/or instant solutions to complicated problems.

[Kevinroc]

So what passed since Parkland? Mets was the perfect example for me. Someone listed a bunch of Democratic policies for gun control, he instantly applied it to this scenario and said none of them would have prevented it, and the discussion died lol. That's exactly the paradox your stuck in. They are going to kill all your compromise measures by pointing out all the places it would have done nothing or next to nothing. Then at the same time they are cutting off your actual arguments for being uneffective, they are going to rally their base and say "they really just want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment because that's the only way to get the outcomes they actually want" which of course they are mostly right about it. So you lose twice on it.

Oh and how loud is the Parkland student movement that was supposed to change everything right now? It isn't as loud as it used to be is it? Weird, it's like it ended up like every single other mass shooting. We all got mad for awhile, then nothing happened.

Again your point would be valid, if you weren't losing precisely because people like Mets can come out and say all the little solutions you want won't really do anything. Oh and by the way, Mets was right. Those solutions wouldn't have stopped this incident. So you are left defending making a policy pass that wouldn't have stopped this.

Republicans still control Congress, the White House and many of the Courts.

The first step to actually seeing anyone try to pass gun control legislation of any kind is taking back the government. That means voting.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Message to female Trump Supporter - Just because someone replies to your post on a mutual friends FB , doesn't mean they want you. (I'm sure you mentally think every man who replies to you wants you I guess)

[Malvolio]

The lesson that many refuse to learn about Republican voters

http://theweek.com/articles/791802/l...ublican-voters

The article also makes a good point about how difficult it would be to impeach and remove Agent Orange.

Good points in this article. It reminds me of all the e-mails I get saying things like "You won't believe what Trump said today!" Yes I will. We have to stop wasting time being "shocked" by what Republicans in general or Trump specifically says or does. Voting them out of office is really the only way out at this point.

[numberthirty]

A couple of interesting pieces on the "Never Dull" world of Bruce Rauner...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...27-story.html#

High cancer risk in southeast DuPage County linked to company co-owned by Rauner's former firm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...27-story.html#

Rauner set to sign medical marijuana expansion bill allowing drug as painkiller alternative

[PaulBullion]

Republicans still control Congress, the White House and many of the Courts.

The first step to actually seeing anyone try to pass gun control legislation of any kind is taking back the government. That means voting.

And the main focus of the "Parkland Kids" has been registering voters. And many candidates who proudly labeled themselves "Moms Demand Action" or "Gun sense" candidates have won both primaries and special elections since.

Shitting all over the Parkland survivors' efforts is pathetic, dishonest and disgusting.