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

[aja_christopher]

I didn't say anything recently about the cooperation of the Republicans, I only asked to know what specific measures the Dems were supporting.

And I didn't answer because I know you can find them online... if you want to -- if you can find random blogs about Black Panther that suit your agenda, I'm sure you can do the same with Democratic policies and measures.

My point was that it didn't matter what the Democrats did -- the Republicans wouldn't even vote on a bipartisan bill from the Senate.



Boehner said the "House would do it's job" -- and their job was to obstruct Obama by any means necessary.

[Mister Mets]

Yes. They used their majority to give us health care on a bill that there is zero way would've gotten any real Republican response because you know that the conservative position on health care was born out of their goal to make Obama a one term president. I guess starting with the RomneyCare, Heritage Foundation plan wasn't enough of an olive branch for conservatives.



A T-shirt by an unelected official is not a political position for the party or for the elected officials or a bill in the House and Senate and no bill ever considered, many of which nearly did pass during the Obama years and were often left to die in the Senate under McConnel's 'leadership' reflected an open border position.



Oh for pete's sake.



This is abject nonsense.



Garland was /widely praised/ by conservative senators. He was exactly the kind of moderate, compromise pick you'd expect a liberal justice facing a conservative Senate to pick. They didn't have to accept him. They could have rejected him with an actual frigging vote, but instead, they simply refused to do their own side of the job all together. Pretending that this is simply 'hardball' mischaracterizes the extent and intent of the malfeasance and now you're going to get what you wanted out of this, a 5-4 Federalist Society Supreme Court, so I guess the rest is explainable in some way that keeps it palatable to you, so long as you can characterize the Democrats as being at fault.



My eyes are rolling out of my head at this point.

The Deputy Chair of the DNC received major support from the members of the DNC, so it was a vote within that group. He is also an elected member of Congress, and Vice-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

This whole post makes me wonder why you even come into this thread.

Exposure to different arguments.

Your, or anyone's, understanding of Warren's background ain't got nothing to do with her policies tho. It also doesn't explain why Trump keeps bringing it up instead of what he doesn't like about her policy positions.

The idea that Trump's dad might be in the KKK isn't what I meant by heritage...But sure let's roll with it. Considering that Trump himself holds racist views,and those racist views do effect his policies, digging into what his father may have done would explain how he attained said racist views.

Trump brings it up because this is useful to do so, both as an example of a character flaw of a major critic, as well as a clear-cut example of media bias.

I had to single this out specifically -- the fact that you actually might believe something like this just further illuminates why our conversations are relatively useless in the end.

Do you honestly think the modern Republican party would pick a Democratic justice under any circumstances? Really?

You criticize Obama for allegedly "wanting to change the composition of the court" but remain hypocritically silent while Trump does exactly that as we speak -- where's your criticism when Republicans do the same -- or worse -- than the Democrats in matters of "bipartisanship" and integrity?

Rarely if ever to be found -- which is why Trump is the perfect Republican president at this point.

I wasn't criticizing Obama for wanting to change the composition of the court. I was just saying that it wasn't going to happen with a Republican Senate.

[aja_christopher]

I wasn't criticizing Obama for wanting to change the composition of the court. I was just saying that it wasn't going to happen with a Republican Senate.

Fair enough -- I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments.

I know you are replying to a lot of different people at once and I respect that you make the effort to address people's arguments individually -- even if we don't always agree, at least you give other opinions some thought.

[Tami]

Timeline: Trump’s Acts of Accommodation/Engagement with Russia, Nov. 2016-July 2018

President Donald Trump’s comments and actions in relation to Russia – and especially toward President Vladimir Putin — are strikingly conciliatory considering Moscow’s documented attacks on America’s democracy and its repeated violations of international norms and repression at home. Certainly some U.S. measures under the Trump administration have been contrary to Russian interests if not punitive, including some implementation of sanctions legislation. But Trump signed the sanctions legislation reluctantly, and overall his comments and actions have demonstrated a desire to embrace Russia.

In the past, Just Security published a timeline called, “Russian Provocations and Dangerous Acts since January 20, 2017.” The new timeline below, which now includes developments since early June and up until July 10, 2018, chronicles publicly reported Trump comments and actions toward Russia since the 2016 U.S. presidential election—whether accommodationist or adversarial or defying easy classification. Some may view certain steps as acts of rapprochement aimed at a more cooperative relationship with Russia to fight common enemies and avoid dangerous escalation. Other observers will see the acts as incriminating evidence of a quid pro quo or a dangerous appeasement to an adversary who attacked and continues to attack America’s democratic institutions.

Are we missing anything? If so, tell us on Twitter at Just Security’s account.

[ouroboros]

And I didn't answer because I know you can find them online... if you want to -- if you can find random blogs about Black Panther that suit your agenda, I'm sure you can do the same with Democratic policies and measures.

My point was that it didn't matter what the Democrats did -- the Republicans wouldn't even vote on a bipartisan bill from the Senate.



Boehner said the "House would do it's job" -- and their job was to obstruct Obama by any means necessary.

You cited an article that made vague reference to Democrat immigration measures. If you don't want to be more explicit about those measures, and you want me to look 'em up myself, that's OK, but it seems to me that so far the board has not come close to elucidating what the Dems' immigration policies have been, except along the lines "whatever they were, they were BETTER THAN TRUMP'S."

The fact that some Republicans signed onto the cited legislation doesn't in itself prove that it was a sound or reasonable compromise. Yes, the GOP blocked a lot of stuff for no good reason but obstructionism. But in this instance, it looks to me like we're dealing not just with casual,. Obama-blocking obstructionism, but with a contravention of positions that the GOP has held long before anyone knew Obama's name.

[aja_christopher]

You cited an article that made vague reference to Democrat immigration measures. If you don't want to be more explicit about those measures, and you want me to look 'em up myself, that's OK, but it seems to me that so far the board has not come close to elucidating what the Dems' immigration policies have been, except along the lines "whatever they were, they were BETTER THAN TRUMP'S."

I didn't "want" you to do anything -- you're the one who chooses to step into the devil's advocate role every time these issues come up. I'm not here to defend Democrats because that's not my goal -- I don't even like talking politics but the Republican party has made it a matter of virtual self-defense at this point.

If it were up to me, I'd rather you take up the other posters' request to talk about music than debate the "pro-black/white guilt radicalism" behind the recent Black Panther film but as we all know by now, you will do you, as expected.

That said, if you want more info, it's out there -- my point was that Republican obstructionism was what shot down Obama's bipartisan immigration bill that had already passed the Senate.

What's the point of talking "measures" and "compromise" when the opposition won't even come to the table for a vote -- none, which is why I didn't bother.

[numberthirty]

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/st...42192616706050

Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @LACaldwellDC & @frankthorp

WTF...

What is there not to get?

While it was a goof, his guy being in the running probably did make the call easier.

[JCAll]

Hold on to your butts folks, because this one's going to blow your minds.
The new Supreme Court Justice...not a supporter of Net Neutrality...
I know, right. Surely, you're all as shocked as I am...

[ed2962]

"Ain't That a Shame" would seem more appropriate, because then we can each mean different things when we sing it.

Ok! Let's start there

[InformationGeek]

Drawn by Pia Guerra

[Tazirai]

This is why you can't have honest conversations with Conservatives, they are Snowflakes, and they can't handle a real honest debate where they can't just LIE!

Then Carol Costello plays the "Oh! Let's not be mean to them game."

[InformationGeek]

Judicial Crisis Group is fast, pushing out commercials to try and swing vote in favor of Trump's SCOTUS pick.

[Darkspellmaster]

Judicial Crisis Group is fast, pushing out commercials to try and swing vote in favor of Trump's SCOTUS pick.

Christ, why? Unless they want us to call and say vote yes. Needs to be a counter ad.

[JCAll]

Christ, why? Unless they want us to call and say vote yes. Needs to be a counter ad.

Court of public opinion. If you can get people on your side, you can get away with murder.

[Mecegirl]

Trump brings it up because this is useful to do so, both as an example of a character flaw of a major critic, as well as a clear-cut example of media bias.

Oh dear. Oh no! A woman didn't ask for a blood test in order to check up her family's verbal history! The horror!

No wonder why he always has to bring up random **** in order to keep his follower's appeased. It's all bull.