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

[PaulBullion]

As for "Gullible"...

I haven't called you that, and don't intend to.

That said, looking for the whole story and actual facts on Reddit?

That's probably not advisable.

You still deceptively edited my post and I should report you for that. It's not the first time, and mods have deleted posts by you over this before.

[PaulBullion]

And keep in mind that I already withdrew the claim, apologized and by now have provided the source of the information.

All you are doing now is trying to convince others how dumb I am to fall for it. You seem nice.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Homeland Security To Compile A Database Of Journalists, Bloggers And Influencers

Many in the media industry did *not* like the implications. I can't help but wonder if that database will exclusively include journalists, bloggers and influencers who've been critical of a certain thin-skinned president who hates being under the microscope? This is ominous as hell.

**********

Senate Democrat Vows To Confirm Climate-Denying Coal Lobbyist As EPA No. 2

The vote, expected next week, could put Andrew Wheeler one step away from taking over the agency if embattled Administrator Scott Pruitt exits. What is that Democrat is getting out of putting another climate changing denying scumbag in that position? Meanwhile....

**********

Trump Resists Mounting Pressure To Fire Scandal-Struck EPA Chief Scott Pruitt

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has been urging the president to oust the EPA administrator. And those pleas appear to be falling on deaf ears.

**********

Madeleine Albright Sounds The Alarm On Fascism And Donald Trump

Dictators point to “Trump’s own words to justify their repressive actions,” the former secretary of state writes. Why is it people, most notably Republicans refuse to hear Albright's alarm? Because they LOVE Trump's fascism!

**********

Molly Ringwald Unloads On ‘The Breakfast Club’ In The #MeToo Era

She’s appalled now by the sexism, racism and homophobia in John Hughes’ films, but those “outsider” teen struggles still touched many.

[numberthirty]

**********

Molly Ringwald Unloads On ‘The Breakfast Club’ In The #MeToo Era

She’s appalled now by the sexism, racism and homophobia in John Hughes’ films, but those “outsider” teen struggles still touched many.

That one could almost warrant a thread of it's own in the "TV/Film" sub-forum.

She even left out something that always comes to my mind when I think of The Breakfast Club.

[Carabas]

She even left out something that always comes to my mind when I think of The Breakfast Club.

I just thought of something and I want you all to guess what it was, and I'm going to get offended if you don't get it right the first time.[/typical #30 post]

[ed2962]

That one could almost warrant a thread of it's own in the "TV/Film" sub-forum.

She even left out something that always comes to my mind when I think of The Breakfast Club.

Is it that Michael Anthony Hall's character is detention because he brought a flare gun to school to threaten people with?

[Mister Mets]

Who cares. The last President to die in office was 46

While the sudden death of a man in his 80s wouldn't be shocking, that's not the only potential problem.

What happens if a President Sanders' mental faculties start declining, and he doesn't realize it? Or what happens if he's physically not able to do his job? What if unelected advisers take advantage of either situation?

These scenarios would also be complicated by the ways in which Sanders is different from the rest of the Democratic party. If he gets a standard Democrat as a running mate, a decision to step down for health reasons would have major policy implications that wouldn't be the case with a President Joe Biden.

Oh, he "Didn't Believe..."

Let's get out the chisel, and put that in stone as a fact.

Never mind that it's interesting that this guy(or anyone who is trying to say that they knew about Sanders before most folks but didn't like all of the things they learned about him) didn't know that a guy who had been a staffer for someone he should probably be aware of had started working on Sanders' staff in 2014.

There's plenty to disagree with Sanders on that is perfectly valid. That being the case, it's hard to excuse this sort of lazy garbage.

Quoting a member of Congress is lazy garbage? The guy said he was mistaken several times, and the recent exchange was about the meaning of the mistake. It seems to have been an error made in good faith.

[numberthirty]

Quoting a member of Congress is lazy garbage?

No, and it would be very different if directly quoting that member of Congress was how it started off.

Challenging Taziai to actually point to a minority member on Sanders' Congressional staff based on that a member of Congress "Didn't Believe..." that Sanders had any?

It's not like it was framed in "This Member Of Congress Isn't Sure Sanders Had Minority Staffers Prior To His Run." terms.

Maybe "Garbage" was just a little bit overboard, but that doesn't change that it is lazy nonsense to try accuse Sanders of not having minority staffers based on what didn't even amount to someone being incorrect about that they knew Sanders didn't have minority staffers. The most that was there to even point to the possibility was some member of Congress saying "He Believed..."

That said, the actual "Lazy Garbage" would be...

The member of Congress saying it to start with. There is no excuse for a member of Congress to be leveling an accusation liked that based on what "He Believes..." when he could have looked into it an known for certain before just tossing out an accusation.

No one should have been pointing to that as anything other than the question mark that it was.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

While the sudden death of a man in his 80s wouldn't be shocking, that's not the only potential problem.

What happens if a President Sanders' mental faculties start declining, and he doesn't realize it? Or what happens if he's physically not able to do his job? What if unelected advisers take advantage of either situation?

These scenarios would also be complicated by the ways in which Sanders is different from the rest of the Democratic party. If he gets a standard Democrat as a running mate, a decision to step down for health reasons would have major policy implications that wouldn't be the case with a President Joe Biden.


Quoting a member of Congress is lazy garbage? The guy said he was mistaken several times, and the recent exchange was about the meaning of the mistake. It seems to have been an error made in good faith.

What if? We have an incredibly elaborate line of succession in place just for that. There’s a reason the Vice President is also on the ticket.

[thwhtGuardian]

I think it's worthy of discussion as it is a logical extension of the view that many people do believe, that abortion is equivalent to murder. It forces anyone advocating for a criminalization of abortion to consider that aspect of their views.

I said I thought he was wrong yesterday.

There are a lot of flawed arguments you're making here.

I'm the one person on the board who has said so far that it was a mistake to fire Williamson, and I do subscribe to the Atlantic. I'd imagine many of the people complaining about the firing do so as well, just because they argue about politics for a living, so following current events magazines like The Atlantic and New Yorker is in their best interests.

The Atlantic is not meant to be a liberal outlet. Its motto is "Of No Party or Clique." There are plenty of explicitly left-wing magazines like The Nation, The American Prospect, Foreign Policy, and Mother Jones, which would be the equivalents of conservative magazines like National Review, City Journal, The Weekly Standard and Commentary.

If The Atlantic wants to be more left-wing and to cater to the left-wing bubble, they should be explicit about it.

It's not about catering to the left, it's about maintaining that air of credibility and balance...and giving space to a guy who's point boils down to thinking women who choose to have abortions should be justly executed harms that balance. As I said, you want to talk about specific scenarios where you believe abortions should not be carried out, how developed the fetus is before its considered alive or consent forms? That's fine, those are reasonable stances and can be discussed in a rational manner...but should abortion become illegal anyone who chooses to abort their pregnancy should be hung? There is no rational response to that. You simply cannot hold a civil discussion with someone who seriously puts forward that point of view.

[Mecegirl]

Conservative podcaster and former extra on MTV's punked, Owen Benjamin, went on a rant about David Hogg's pubic hair on twitter, got banned from it and now his tears are delicious.

So gross...

[numberthirty]

While I'm not certain this made the national news, it looks like Deerfield, IL is about to have it's recent assault weapons ban challenged in court...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...412-story.html

Lawsuit challenges Deerfield's assault weapons ban: 'It flies in the face of state law'

[Mister Mets]

What if? We have an incredibly elaborate line of succession in place just for that. There’s a reason the Vice President is also on the ticket.

The line of succession works in clear-cut cases, such as resignation or death. It doesn't address the gray areas, such as when someone is considering whether to resign for health reasons, or when people who haven't been elected abuse their access to the President's ear.

There would also be some different incentives with Sanders than with others.

If President Joe Biden at 82 realizes that he's slipping, his Vice President would be a generic Democrat with very similar policies. A big part of Biden's appeal is his potential strength as a candidate, and the belief that he can communicate better with the rust belt, so the change in leadership wouldn't be that big a deal in terms of the policies that get implemented.

Sanders is so sui generis, that in the likely event his running mate is more centrist, the change in leadership could have big policy implications.

No, and it would be very different if directly quoting that member of Congress was how it started off.

Challenging Taziai to actually point to a minority member on Sanders' Congressional staff based on that a member of Congress "Didn't Believe..." that Sanders had any?

It's not like it was framed in "This Member Of Congress Isn't Sure Sanders Had Minority Staffers Prior To His Run." terms.

Maybe "Garbage" was just a little bit overboard, but that doesn't change that it is lazy nonsense to try accuse Sanders of not having minority staffers based on what didn't even amount to someone being incorrect about that they knew Sanders didn't have minority staffers. The most that was there to even point to the possibility was some member of Congress saying "He Believed..."

That said, the actual "Lazy Garbage" would be...

The member of Congress saying it to start with. There is no excuse for a member of Congress to be leveling an accusation liked that based on what "He Believes..." when he could have looked into it an known for certain before just tossing out an accusation.

No one should have been pointing to that as anything other than the question mark that it was.

It's spiking the football at this point to go after someone who admit to being in error several posts ago. It's not outrageous for someone who follows politics as a hobby to be mistaken on a topic where a Congressman is mistaken.

Incidentally, you're probably right about how the Congressman acted badly.

It's not about catering to the left, it's about maintaining that air of credibility and balance...and giving space to a guy who's point boils down to thinking women who choose to have abortions should be justly executed harms that balance. As I said, you want to talk about specific scenarios where you believe abortions should not be carried out, how developed the fetus is before its considered alive or consent forms? That's fine, those are reasonable stances and can be discussed in a rational manner...but should abortion become illegal anyone who chooses to abort their pregnancy should be hung? There is no rational response to that. You simply cannot hold a civil discussion with someone who seriously puts forward that point of view.

Discussions about policy are often about life and death, so we have to be able to have civil discussions that fully grapple with the implications of a viewpoint, including the idea that some people would die who would otherwise not die and that it would be a net good because more lives will be saved.

[Malvolio]

So gross...

You know, Owen Benjamin had a significant role on a sitcom a few years ago, Sullivan and Son, on TBS. Just about everyone else from that show has found work since, except for Owen Benjamin. All he has is his cute little podcast. I can't imagine why.

[thwhtGuardian]

The line of succession works in clear-cut cases, such as resignation or death. It doesn't address the gray areas, such as when someone is considering whether to resign for health reasons, or when people who haven't been elected abuse their access to the President's ear.

There would also be some different incentives with Sanders than with others.

If President Joe Biden at 82 realizes that he's slipping, his Vice President would be a generic Democrat with very similar policies. A big part of Biden's appeal is his potential strength as a candidate, and the belief that he can communicate better with the rust belt, so the change in leadership wouldn't be that big a deal in terms of the policies that get implemented.

Sanders is so sui generis, that in the likely event his running mate is more centrist, the change in leadership could have big policy implications.

It's spiking the football at this point to go after someone who admit to being in error several posts ago. It's not outrageous for someone who follows politics as a hobby to be mistaken on a topic where a Congressman is mistaken.

Incidentally, you're probably right about how the Congressman acted badly.

Discussions about policy are often about life and death, so we have to be able to have civil discussions that fully grapple with the implications of a viewpoint, including the idea that some people would die who would otherwise not die and that it would be a net good because more lives will be saved.

It's a thinly veiled threat, not a cognizant point in a civil discussion. It's a statement that says, "I think your death should be legal and just because you have a view point that is different than mine." And it's a point that highlighted by the fact that he didn't just say that he thinks the death penalty should be the punishment for abortion if it were illegal but that he specifically stated that they should be hung. There are ways to have a discourse about a divisive topic, and that isn't it.