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

[worstblogever]

I'll note the article has been updated. There are police sources who are suggesting that he faked the attack, although there is now more pushback.

https://abc7chicago.com/sources-smol...mpire/5138497/
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/02..._aCQWeha_UCYS8

If the initial reporting was flawed, and a black gay star of a show of a rival network is wrongly accused of fabricating a hate-crime, that is going to be a shitshow.

I'll note the Chicago PD put out a statement on Friday that the attack did happen. It would seem some felt the need to spread "rumors" of the attack being faked becaus they're motivated by their politics more than reality. And they'd share the rumor rather than, y'know, let reality stand and let the story play out.

Which is disgusting to do to a victim of a hate crime, but some folks just want to find new lows everyday.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" ran a profile of Ian Bayne, a failed candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives for Illinois’ 11th Congressional District in the 2014 elections. Bayne was a long shot from the start, but his odds went to the level of unlikely of navigating the Millenium Falcon through an asteroid field after he came rushing to the defense of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson after Robinson gave his now infamous screed against the gay community in GQ magazine. Because Bayne not only commended Robertson, he compared him to Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks for what he said. Maybe that sort of conservative trolling would help a guy get elected in Mississippi, but not Illinois.



In 2016, 2017, as well as in 2018, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published its profiles of Kansas State Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook, who served eight years in the Kansas House of Representatives during the Bush administration but came to our attention back in February 2015 when she introduced a bill, SB 56, which would have amended Kansas’ public morals statute by deleting an exemption that protects K-12 public, private and parochial schoolteachers from being prosecuted for presenting material deemed harmful to minors, focusing, but not limited to sex education classes. In other words, any book could result in the arrest, prosecution, and possibly jailing of teachers and librarians, if “deemed harmful to minors”. She produced this legislation after supposedly receiving a single angry letter from a parent whose child’s sex education class had a poster that acknowledged that some people try oral or anal sex. Well, nothing says “party of smaller government” like going the full Mrs. Lovejoy and trying to ban books, and arrest teachers that don’t play ball and accommodate the supposed morality you feel the need to push on everyone, eh? Intelligent people pointed out that Pilcher-Cook’s bright idea would also ban reading to students that featured any discussion of “harmful” content, but she didn’t back down, and was still threatening teachers with jail for teaching sex education. Mary Pilcher-Cook is a special, elite kind of social conservative. She once voted to place restrictions on any and all “adult entertainment" in the state, opposes the exceptions for rape and incest to exist for abortion, referring to them as “political hijinks”, wanted to pass a law to force women to report their miscarriages to the authorities, has tried to criminalize surrogate parenting (on the factually incorrect basis that those parents are "creating a child purposely that you know is not going to have a biological mother") and once had the Public Health and Awareness Committee host a meeting where they got to witness a live sonogram in the state legislature to try to justify a mandatory ultrasounds for abortions bill. And she scheduled it on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling. She compares the use of long-term birth control to eugenics, in an astounding leap of logic.

Sadly, even with Kansas starting to push back against Republicans in the state legislature for being, quite frankly, complete hyper-conservative idijts, Pilcher-Cook managed to narrowly win re-election in 2016 with 51% of the vote over Vicki Hiatt. This in spite of the fact that her own colleagues booted her off of the Senate Health and Public Committee, while she was serving as Chairwoman, because she tried to add an amendment to an unrelated bill to try and act against the Affordable Care Act, and prevent the Medicaid Expansion in Kansas. She still is doggedly obsessed with restricting abortion rights, as evidenced by a bill she co-sponsored in 2017, that would require all women seeking an abortion to be given a pamphlet that MUST have all its information to try and talk them out of getting one presented in 12 point Times New Roman font, because that’s the GOP brand of “smaller government” at work right there.

Mary Pilcher Cook’s term lasts until 2020, and she’s spending her lame duck term in office impotently rambling about her objections to cities and communities approving LGBTQ protections in Kansas, taking out opinion editorials in local papers where she tries claiming that since you can’t truly define “sexual orientation” or “sexual identity”, you shouldn’t be able to consider it a protected status in the courts (Supreme Court kind of already has done so, Mary, in several instances). Oh, and she’s co-sponsoring resolutions within the Kansas State Senate to condemn pornography, which is probably any book that isn’t the Bible or Little House on the Prairie, in her mind, and claiming that is causes “infidelity and erectile dysfunction”.

The next two years cannot pass by fast enough until this kook leaves office.

[Malvolio]

The article says that the sub claimed he 'threatened' her.

I'm guessing that the threat was being black, in her proximity and refusing to do what she said.

In all fairness, substitute teachers are sometimes justified in being paranoid.

[Tendrin]

In all fairness, substitute teachers are sometimes justified in being paranoid.

I mean, sure. Substitutes have a lot of difficulties, but I'm gonna guess that most of them aren't in particular danger from an 11-year-old not saying the Pledge.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

5 Employees Killed, 6 Officers Injured At Illinois Factory Shooting

Suspected gunman Gary Martin, who was fatally shot by officers, was set to be terminated from the Aurora factory that day, according to police. Yet ANOTHER mass shooting by someone BORN in this country. But hey, let's obsess and declare national emergencies about imaginary killers from south of the border. Speaking of which....

**********

Ann Coulter: Trump Trying ‘To Scam The Stupidest People In His Base’

Rep. Nadler Tells Chris Cuomo That GOP Will Vote Against ‘Tyranny’ Of Trump’s Emergency

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: Previous Presidents’ National Emergencies Have Been ‘Real’

Lawsuits Against Trump’s National Emergency Declaration Start Rolling In

**********

Tax Refund Fiasco Is Political Payback For Republicans

Republicans boasted all last year that their new tax law boosted paychecks and showered bonuses on several million workers.

But now that tax season is upon us, several million Americans are getting a nasty surprise: a bill from the Internal Revenue Service that they never expected.

Beth Callori of Long Island, New York, said she was thrilled to receive about $90 more in each paycheck last year. Thanks to the new lower federal income tax rates, Callori’s employer, a financial services firm, was withholding less from her paycheck for federal tax purposes.

“I thought, ‘Wow, Trump is great, I love him,’” Callori said.

But last week Callori heard from her tax preparer that she owes the federal government more than $5,000 ― almost five times as much as she had to pay in previous years.

“I almost fell out of my chair. I could not believe it,” she said. “I voted for Trump. I thought he was going to be good for this country, but when I got that phone call, that’s it, I’m done.”

That's what happened when you voted for a liar and a conman, you get the shaft. And I'm sure this woman's story was repeated all over the country.

**********

Trump Pushes Executing Drug Dealers Amid Declaration Of National Border Emergency

“You can end the drug problem,” the president said. “You can end it a lot faster than you think.” Oh, yes, and executing killers have effectively stopped people from murdering each other. To quote the esteemed Bugs Bunny, "Wotta maroon".

**********

Donald Trump Goes Mariah Carey On Ann Coulter: ‘I Don’t Know Her’

People on Twitter immediately compared the president’s comment to the singer’s iconic diss. To which, I can only say this:

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump Border Wall Plan Won’t Stop Drug Flow, Says Top DEA Official Who Hunted ‘El Chapo’

A former top Drug Enforcement Administration official who helped hunt down Mexican drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman said President Donald Trump’s border wall wouldn’t do much to stop the flow of deadly substances into the country.

With most major drug loads coming through ports of entry rather than isolated parts of the border, former DEA Deputy Administrator Jack Riley said the government should be focusing on better manpower and screening at official channels.

“It is far too risky and expensive for any of the cartels to move high-volume drugs through those desolate, really unwalled areas,” Riley told HuffPost. “I’m a little confused as to why our guy in the White House really doesn’t understand that. ... On the drug side, we know that nearly 80 percent of all the drugs we’re dealing with ― coke, heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl and marijuana ― they come through existing ports of entry.”

Trump, in declaring a national emergency on Friday in an attempt to reroute billions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund his border wall, dismissed the views of drug trafficking experts who say that most drugs coming over the border come through ports of entry.

“A big majority of the big drugs, the big drug loads don’t go through ports of entry,” Trump said at a White House press conference after declaring the emergency. “They can’t go through ports of entry.” He called it a lie that drugs are mostly coming through the ports of entry.

But Riley, who was the target of an assassination plot by El Chapo’s crew, said that “very little” drug trafficking takes place outside ports of entry and that more manpower and technology at those entry points would be much more efficient. Fewer than a third of vehicles coming through ports of entry are thoroughly searched, Riley said, and it was part of El Chapo’s business model to use expressways and ports of entry because those are the “most economical way” to get shipments across the border.

“If you’re El Chapo Guzman and you’re sitting in Sinaloa, you’re thinking ‘Hell, that’s damn near a 70 percent chance. I’m going to get seven of those 10 cars through.’ It’s like they say, you only had to bat .300 to get into the Baseball Hall of Fame,” Riley said.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Honestly , Trump wants the wall so he can point at as his big legacy in America. That his family can say ...look at what daddy did. The best part would be someone years later deciding to just tear it down and nickname it "Trump's folly" and a section dedicated to what a moronic idea this was in history books. You can imagine his family going ape **** as history books teach what a moron he was.

[Tami]

Honestly , Trump wants the wall so he can point at as his big legacy in America. That his family can say ...look at what daddy did. The best part would be someone years later deciding to just tear it down and nickname it "Trump's folly" and a section dedicated to what a moronic idea this was in history books. You can imagine his family going ape **** as history books teach what a moron he was.

The history books already are going to label him a moron. Trump is a developer, however he has no concept of architectural history or legacy. Buildings and structures are presertved because they have emtional symbolism to a large number of people, because they see it as a part of their history, their culture.

Trump's buildings have no such significance. In 20 or 30 years, there won't be a single building out there with the name of Trump on it. His kids won't be following his example, they don't give a you-know-what for the family name, or their father, only for the money. Trump probably won't even have a presidential library.

yet that is all he knows how ot do, build things. Things that get torn down, or go bankrupt, or have no permanence what-so-ever.

[SuperiorIronman]

That's going to be one interesting history lesson.

Teacher: And nothing worked.

Student: Nothing?

Teacher: Nothing.

Student: So why did people vote for him?

Teacher: Who says we did?

In 20 years time this is going to be looked back on as a truly bizarre point in American history

[Kirby101]

We should be reminded that the Wall was originally used by Trump's handlers for him to remember to talk about the immigration issue. He could not comprehend more complex issues, so "The Wall" was a concrete thing (pun intended) to keep him focused.

It was an earworm, not a National policy. He is such a dolt.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Honestly , Trump wants the wall so he can point at as his big legacy in America. That his family can say ...look at what daddy did. The best part would be someone years later deciding to just tear it down and nickname it "Trump's folly" and a section dedicated to what a moronic idea this was in history books. You can imagine his family going ape **** as history books teach what a moron he was.

It's more that the Wall was the central promise of his campaign and if he can get it he can say he did what he said. When you go all in on something like that, you need to come out with win. Obama had a similar issue with the ACA. He probably used up nearly all of his political capital on it and in similar fashion ended up being reduced to Executive Orders towards the end of his Presidency, but he needed the win on that or he's likely a one term President. Trump takes an L on the wall, and he has no shot of winning in 2020 and he has no big success story he can use as red meat for his supporters.

That's basically what it comes down to. You can't scream "Wall" for over 2 years and then come out without a wall. That's just not how it goes down

[PwrdOn]

It's more that the Wall was the central promise of his campaign and if he can get it he can say he did what he said. When you go all in on something like that, you need to come out with win. Obama had a similar issue with the ACA. He probably used up nearly all of his political capital on it and in similar fashion ended up being reduced to Executive Orders towards the end of his Presidency, but he needed the win on that or he's likely a one term President. Trump takes an L on the wall, and he has no shot of winning in 2020 and he has no big success story he can use as red meat for his supporters.

That's basically what it comes down to. You can't scream "Wall" for over 2 years and then come out without a wall. That's just not how it goes down

The situations aren't really comparable though. Obama simply miscalculated the level of racism inherent in the GOP and went out of his way to try and reach a compromise when in hindsight it was obvious that the Republicans were never going to support anything he put forward simply because they were so dang mad the black guy won. Trump on the other hand is facing a pretty pliant Democratic opposition that is just dying for some kind of bipartisan solution, and could probably have gotten everything he wanted by now if he just threw them a few bones, but decided to overplay his hand and pissed off everyone so much that it forced the Democratic leadership to stiffen their resolve and push back harder.

The funny thing is, Trump's legacy would be far uglier if the wall were ever actually built, because it will almost certainly become one of those things that's too expensive to maintain, but also not worth the cost of tearing down. So the wall will just be this sort of permanent scar on the landscape that acts as a constant reminder of the worst president in history and all the nonsense we had to put up with before we grew a pair and threw him out. As it is, he still has a slight chance of slipping through the cracks and just being one of those people everyone pretends never existed, but if he were to do anything that causes permanent damage to the country like building his silly wall then that goes out the window as well.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The situations aren't really comparable though. Obama simply miscalculated the level of racism inherent in the GOP and went out of his way to try and reach a compromise when in hindsight it was obvious that the Republicans were never going to support anything he put forward simply because they were so dang mad the black guy won. Trump on the other hand is facing a pretty pliant Democratic opposition that is just dying for some kind of bipartisan solution, and could probably have gotten everything he wanted by now if he just threw them a few bones, but decided to overplay his hand and pissed off everyone so much that it forced the Democratic leadership to stiffen their resolve and push back harder.

The funny thing is, Trump's legacy would be far uglier if the wall were ever actually built, because it will almost certainly become one of those things that's too expensive to maintain, but also not worth the cost of tearing down. So the wall will just be this sort of permanent scar on the landscape that acts as a constant reminder of the worst president in history and all the nonsense we had to put up with before we grew a pair and threw him out. As it is, he still has a slight chance of slipping through the cracks and just being one of those people everyone pretends never existed, but if he were to do anything that causes permanent damage to the country like building his silly wall then that goes out the window as well.

They are pretty comparable. They were both designed to be the hallmark achievment of each Presidency. Each President was willing to go all out to make it happen and use all political capital. Trump went to a national emergency when his first negotiation failed. Obama went to the reconciliation process after the most liberal state in the country killed his super majority largely over it. They both went to a second option that pissed the opposition off. They put their party on the line with it. But it's probably worth it for them because the win at a cost will be less disasterous than taking a loss.

The Democrats really aren't going to give Trump the wall. The Republicans really just weren't going to give Obama the ACA.

The Wall will likely be a huge albatross for Trump financially and will probably become a symbol to his opponents the same way the ACA ended up being a campaigning tool for Republicans that undercut Obama's agenda. But ultimately you can't lose your base. And Trump guarantees he maintains the base with the wall and that's all that matters in the end.

Now obviously the substance of the Wall vs the ACA is different. But what they meant going forward for each President is not.

[Tami]

The only emergency is if Trump doesn't get bacon with his omelet.

[Dalak]

The Democrats really aren't going to give Trump the wall. The Republicans really just weren't going to give Obama anything.

Fixed that for you, since the resistance to anything he tried was against all reason and tied to hate of the person and not the actual policies involved for the most part (Remember Romneycare?). Unless you are going to deny there were actual factual reasons to resist the Wall, the Tax Cuts, his SCOTUS nominees, etc then there really is no basis for comparison.