All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Mecegirl]

Catherine Deneuve's take on #MeToo.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ha...ed-men-n836361

It's odd, she seems to be conflating courtship with coercion. And while I understand the concern over not wanting to see the whole thing turn into a witch-hunt, the idea that the movement is anti-men is disappointing.

That may be because some aspects of traditional courtship are coercion. Especially with how courtship can be portrayed in film. I hope she is ready for the responses she's gonna get though. After all she believes in the "right to pester."

[Iron Maiden]

Aw man, I wanted to see him crushed by an opponent.

He's pretty wealthy so he's happy with the new Tax Plan.

[JBatmanFan05]

Clever idea. I wish we could crowdfund a reward for finding Amelia Earhart's sunken Lockheed Electra around Howland Island (in the Pacific midway between Hawaii and Australia).

Malaysia signed a deal on Wednesday to pay a U.S. seabed exploration firm up to $70 million if it finds the [2014] missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft MH370 within 90 days of embarking on a new search in the Southern Indian ocean.

Australia, China and Malaysia ended a fruitless A$200-million ($157 million) search of a 120,000 sq. km area in January last year, despite investigators urging the search be extended to a 25,000-square-km area further to the north.

Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said a Houston-based private firm, Ocean Infinity, would search for MH370 in that 25,000-sq-km priority area on a “no-cure, no-fee” basis, meaning it will only get paid if it finds the plane.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-idUSKBN1EZ0OA

[ZombieHavoc]

Here is probably my favorite snopes to date (also, we are a dumb country).

Did Chelsea Clinton Tweet 'Happy New Year' to the Church of Satan?
https://www.snopes.com/chelsea-clint...MDkyM2RjIn0%3D

To this, I say, throw up the horns:

[PaulBullion]

He's pretty wealthy so he's happy with the new Tax Plan.

Men like him have a hole inside their souls that all the money in the world can't fill. They get off on power and admiration. On the thrill of victories.

[PaulBullion]

Considering the GOP holds both Houses of Congress, the presidency and pretty much the Supreme Court now, what could Trump possibly be talking about?



Other than the end of the rule of law, of checks and balances?

I'm troubled.

[ZombieHavoc]

I mean, he's right about the world laughing at the stupidity they are witnessing...though, not in the way he means.

[Malvolio]

the 'Luke and Laura' storyline did start with Luke raping her (this was the late 70s) and I believe the characters were married in 1980 or 1981

I think it was 1981. The writers of General Hospital were trying to cash in on the popularity of the British Royal Wedding of that year. But, hehe, we know how that turned out, right?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Considering the GOP holds both Houses of Congress, the presidency and pretty much the Supreme Court now, what could Trump possibly be talking about?



Other than the end of the rule of law, of checks and balances?

I'm troubled.

That's the problem. There is no rule of law, nor any checks and balances in Trumpworld. Only the daily rantings and ravings of an unstable, thinskinned and unhinged demagogue who flaunts, if not trashes convention at every turn because he sees himself as above everything and everybody. Meanwhile, his party continues kissing his orange ass and enabling him 24/7 because they need to keep him fat, dumb and happy which, in turn, keeps his base happy, vital for a 2020 re-election bid.

[Iron Maiden]

That's the problem. There is no rule of law, nor any checks and balances in Trumpworld. Only the daily rantings and ravings of an unstable, thinskinned and unhinged demagogue who flaunts, if not trashes convention at every turn because he sees himself as above everything and everybody. Meanwhile, his party continues kissing his orange ass and enabling him 24/7 because they need to keep him fat, dumb and happy which, in turn, keeps his base happy, vital for a 2020 re-election bid.

And we know that Paul Ryan and McConnell are playing this to their advantage. As soon as he becomes expendable, they'll find a way to get Mike Pence in there to take over.

[TheDarman]

I respect that opinion, though I think the polarization starts during Clinton's tenure.

Political polarization began with Ronald Reagan actually. Before Reagan there wasn't an ideological test to be a Republican or a Democrat. Hence, we still had conservative Democrats, many from the South, and liberal Republicans, many from the North. After Reagan there was a consolidation of ideological purity around the Republican Party. Given Reagan's success, Democrats ran candidates like Bill Clinton that trended more towards the positions the American public actually held (fiscal restraint with social care). When it became more difficult to make the debate about actual policy, given Clinton's popularity and policy positions being generally in line with the public's (H.W. Bush and Clinton are actually probably as close as two presidents can be given they came from two different parties at the exact same period of time), personal attacks had to become the norm. For this, and a combination of other reasons, Democrats then began to trend towards becoming ideologically "pure", just as Republicans had, during the Bush Administration. Many political scientists think it probably relates back to the fact that meeting Republicans halfway hadn't really been beneficial politically. This continued during the Obama Administration where many people, upset with the most liberal president since Kennedy, wanted a more progressive future. Hence, polarization is at the highest level it has ever been.

Close. Newt Gingrich's rise as a leader in the House was where the partisan bulls*** from the GOP went into overdrive. Newt trying to weaponize C-SPAN against Tip O'Neill and Democrats in the 1980s. Clinton arriving gave him a target.

I think Newt Gingrich was a kind of shepherd into the modern political era--though a lot of the blame does lie with Ronald Reagan, which is ironic given the fact he was probably the last Republican president who wasn't punished by his own electorate for working with the opposition.

Easy: I vote for the candidate who hasn't denied HIV/AIDS funding. I vote for the candidate who didn't - AT BEST - turn a blind eye to his boss selling America up the river while trying to convince us that he is the most pious man in America. I vote for the ccandidate who isn't terrified to be in a room with a woman who isn't his wife. I vote for the candidate who doesn't believe that I deserve to die/be tortured into 'changing'/be denied healthcare or a job or a house because of my sexuality.

If that means voting for a celebrity who gave a platform to anti-vaxxers and pseudoscientific asshats while also helping legions of under-appreciated middle aged women, people of color, and other minorities all over the world feel like they matter, so be it.

Oprah doesn't want me dead or tortured in the name of Jesus until I wish I was. Oprah doesn't appear to want to deny me healthcare, work, a home, a family, etc. Pence has made very clear that he does. That's kind of a firm, hard line for me. Unreasonably partisan of me, I know....

I basically second this. I understand where a lot of people were coming from regarding the decision to vote for Trump over Clinton likewise though (at least at first in the election--before a lot of the more horrendous personal stuff came out). However, I think that it entered onto a whole new level of double-standards being employed regarding using Clinton's husband's sexual assault allegations when they weren't using the same line of attack against their own candidate. Trump was a personally flawed candidate in many ways that I don't think Oprah quite is. So, I think that drawing analogies isn't quite apt here, even if I understand the argument being laid out.

Definitely agree, you think Trump dominated a 24/7 news cycle? The second we had Oprah announce her candidacy we'd be blitzed with coverage non stop until she either dropped out or election day, and sadly it is readily apparent that to the average voter the bigger name wins more often than not, qualifications be damned. That would be the worst case scenario in my mind, if the Dems actually put someone of merit out there and they got crushed under Oprah coverage.

This frightens me because I definitely agree with it. The media cycle clings to celebrities and celebrity gossip by extension. I just don't see another candidate being able to capture that level of attention. Republicans learned the hard way how difficult it was to combat Trump with the media cycle. Oprah would be an unmitigated disaster for anyone else's campaign.

Exactly. The eight years of near unrelenting hatred and bigotry towards Barack Obama would amateur night in Dixie compared to the shitstorm that would hit Oprah. I don't give a flying fuck about how Oprah would dominate the conversation, the media and everything else, I absolutely do NOT want the presidency of the United States of America reduced to being a mindless popularity contest where the loudest mouth with the biggest name, the biggest ego and the biggest bankroll can make it to the Oval Office, political qualifications be damned. We're already seeing what a mess the country's become under Donald Trump, the last thing we need is a repeat performance under another Hollywood spawned Pied Piper. ENOUGH ALREADY!!

Again, this hits the nail on the head. I'm very concerned about the continued erosion of political discourse where celebrities have an advantage over legitimate political opponents. I'm fine with them entering at the proper levels--starting off in their respective states or even representing their state at a national level (Senator or Representative) but I don't like that there is this egotistical attitude that has permeated throughout celebrity culture that his vilified ideas of self-importance.

I'd prefer the Democrats nurture their own, like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, etc. I think Trump would be especially vulnerable to a female opponent. He almost lost his mind in a couple of the debates with Hillary. He still can't get over how she really beat him in the popular vote. He was bragging again about his electoral votes yesterday.

I definitely agree with that sentiment. I think that having qualified women going up against Trump is a better way to hit Trump where he is weak. Especially since many of these women, with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren, would probably do better than Clinton did in terms of likability.

and it looks like pardoned racist ex sheriff Joe Arpaio is going to run for Jeff Flakes Senate seat

This is very concerning. I can only hope that if he makes it to the general, which I'm not discounting out of hand given the primary electorate's support for Donald Trump (he pardoned Arpaio), that he gets beat by a more qualified and less abhorrent human being.

Considering the GOP holds both Houses of Congress, the presidency and pretty much the Supreme Court now, what could Trump possibly be talking about?



Other than the end of the rule of law, of checks and balances?

I'm troubled.

I think that a lot of what Trump says is just a ton of immature venting on the platform. I sincerely believe that he doesn't actually know what exactly he is saying and what that entails.

[ZombieHavoc]

I think Newt Gingrich was a kind of shepherd

A pumpkin shepherd?

[Carabas]

A pumpkin shepherd?

He had his fairy godmother turn that thing into a presidential candidate, didn't he?

[worstblogever]

Issa retiring from Congress: report

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/36...ongress-report

This is unfair. How many Christmas presents is WBE gonna keep getting?!

[PaulBullion]

Did we mention that Senator Feinstein is a hero and a patriot yet today?