***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Belgium]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...a-job-white-house-official-idUSKBN1HV1YV?il=0
White House doctor Jackson to fight for VA job: White House official
U.S. President Donald Trump’s physician Ronny Jackson will not withdraw as the nominee to head the Veterans Affairs department and will fight allegations about his conduct that surfaced ahead of a Senate confirmation hearing, a White House official said on Tuesday.

Jackson met with Trump on Tuesday after the president said he was leaving the decision up to the physician. The White House is now preparing a defense, feeling that Jackson - well liked by administration figures from both parties - was being railroaded.

“We’re pushing back,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ronny-...ome-from-20-military-sources-jon-tester-says/
Ronny Jackson allegations come from 20 military sources, Jon Tester says

The allegations against Navy Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson — President Trump's pick to run the Department of Veterans Affairs — stem from 20 active duty and former military members, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee told NPR Tuesday. CBS News' Ed O'Keefe and Nancy Cordes first reportedDemocrats were reviewing allegations against Mr. Trump's nominee that included creating a hostile work environment, improperly handing out drugs and drinking excessively on the job.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, said these allegations began to arise as people who knew Jackson came forward, not because he and his staff sought them out. Jackson has been serving as the physician to the president, and captured Mr. Trump's attention when he offered a glowing review of the president's health before the media earlier this year.

"All I can tell you is we didn't initiate this discussion, this discussion came when we were notified by folks that work with Admiral Jackson," Tester said. "Folks in the military about behaviors that happened and we just followed up with as many leads as we could get and the leads took us to this spot."

Tester said the pills Jackson allegedly gave out were for sleeping and making people wake up, handed out while on travel. They were not opioids, Tester clarified.

"Well most of them are the ones that make you want to sleep and wake up," Tester said. "And these are basically doled out and by the way we had 20 military folks and retired military folks tell us these stories. These were doled out on overseas trips where there's a lot of time zone changes. And were pretty much doled out, as, somebody ones to go to sleep, here's a pill."

Tester also said, based on allegations that were made, that Jackson was "repeatedly drunk while on duty."

"Once again, it was on travel and he is the physician for the president," Tester said. "And in the previous administration we were told stories where he was repeatedly drunk while on duty where his main job was to take care of the most powerful man in the world. That's not acceptable."

Jackson's alleged abuse was verbal in nature, including screaming and belittling those who worked for him, Tester claimed.

"Well I think I mean some of the exact words that were used by the folks who we talked to were, abusive towards staff, very explosive personality. Belittles the folks underneath him, the staff he oversaw, screamed toward staff, basically creating an environment where the staff felt that they needed to walk around egg shells around him."

In a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Trump praised Jackson — but gave him room to withdraw his nomination.

"Oh, I would definitely stand behind him," Mr. Trump said Tuesday. "He's a fine man. I'll always stand behind him. I'd let it be his choice."

"But he is a man who has just been an extraordinary person," the president continued. "His family, extraordinary success. Great doctor. Great everything. And he has to listen to the abuse that he has to — I wouldn't if I were him. Actually, in many ways, I'd love to be him. But the fact is, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. What does he need it for? To be abused by a bunch of politicians that aren't thinking nicely about our country? I really don't think, personally, he should do it. But it's totally his — I would stand behind him — totally his decision."

The White House continued to defend Jackson Tuesday evening, although not on the record.

"Dr. Jackson's record as a White House physician is impeccable," a senior White House official said in a statement. "He has improved unit morale, received glowing reviews and promotions under Republican and Democrat presidents, and has been given a clean vet from the FBI. He has never even been the subject of an Inspector General review and he will certainly not be railroaded by a bitter ex-colleague who was removed from his job."

Jackson was nominated to replace former VA Secretary David Shulkin, whose departure was announced by Mr. Trump on Twitter last month.

 

[whywesteppin]

One of the other things that always struck me about the access Hollywood tape was how trump tricked off money on that married woman, took her shopping, “moved on her like a bish”.....and still got rejected

furniture ******* shopping

it's also funny that he was about to pay every porn star he watched shark week with.

if somebody tweeted recent crimes and presented the race of the perpetrator in each....
and somebody on this forum quoted it..
I would safely assume they are promoting the correlation of race and crime....

I know it's not where you were going with this, but that's exactly what Trump did.

and they were false stats.

his motivation was clearly racism/dog whistles.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Rumor is that Roberts maybe writing the decision for the partisan gerrymandering case. Welp, this is probably bad news.

I hope liberals realize their only hope now is to vote like crazy in the next two cycles and demand the Dems gerrymander as much as possible to fight back, and balance things out.

 

[Mr.Guy]

Rumor is that Roberts maybe writing the the decision for the partisan gettymandering case. When is bad news.

Welp, I hope liberals realize their only hope now is to vote like crazy in the next two cycles, and demand the Dems gerrymander as much as possible to fight back. And balance things

Don't worry Meek Mill is free. We will figure all of this out.

 

[equality]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

This doesn't effect me but as someone who's here on a work visa and knows how stressful not knowing where your future lies, this brings a tear. So many of them are American in every way. Some good news to go to sleep to

 

[whywesteppin]

things that make you go hmmmmmm

 

[whywesteppin]

 

[aepps20]

Rumor is that Roberts maybe writing the decision for the partisan gerrymandering case. Welp, this is probably bad news.

Welp, I hope liberals realize their only hope now is to vote like crazy in the next two cycles and demand the Dems gerrymander as much as possible to fight back, and balance things

Rumor is that Roberts maybe writing the decision for the partisan gerrymandering case. Welp, this is probably bad news.

Welp, I hope liberals realize their only hope now is to vote like crazy in the next two cycles and demand the Dems gerrymander as much as possible to fight back, and balance things

Best news I've heard All Day.

 

[IATT]

 

[niketalker23]

So much winning

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

She looks like she's deteriorating everytime I see her

 

[milestailsprowe]

 

[superblytrife]

Son looked so happy too lmao

That’s the best part. My guy diddybopped off that bus KNOWING he was blasting off in his purple polo. Nope!

 

[biggie62]

So much winning

I’m exhausted and can’t breathe. And it’s not because of playing ball tonight.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[whywesteppin]

 

[VARNELL HILL]

I'm going to pose this question in this thread because I feel I'll get better dialogue here than in the other threads it's being discussed in:

Does anyone else find it rather peculiar that multiple prominent conservative white males publicly lobbied for Meek Mill on a stance of "criminal justice reform?"

Robert Kraft and Joshua Harris are literally two of Trump's cronies. Harris was an advisor to him. How exactly did Meek Mill become the catalyst for these men to lobby on his behalf, on a stance that would seem to be such a stark departure from the perspective of their political affiliates?

Either this is some monumental step towards progress...or there's something else I'm not seeing with this entire saga.

What am I missing here? At the very least...can you admit that on the surface it seems a bit odd?

 

[rexanglorum]

I'm going to pose this question in this thread because I feel I'll get better dialogue here than in the other threads it's being discussed in:

Does anyone else find it rather peculiar that multiple prominent conservative white males publicly lobbied for Meek Mill on a stance of "criminal justice reform?"

Robert Kraft and Joshua Harris are literally two of Trump's cronies. Harris was an advisor to him. How exactly did Meek Mill become the catalyst for these men to lobby on his behalf, on a stance that would seem to be such a stark departure from the perspective of their political affiliates?

Either this is some monumental step towards progress...or there's something else I'm not seeing with this entire saga.

What am I missing here? At the very least...can you admit that on the surface it seems a bit odd?

A lot of wealthy, white, conservatives do have libertarian tendencies here and there. If you're black and famous, you become the human face of mass incarceration. People like Kraft will be sympathetic to you in that case.

The main problem with Libertarianism and race and social class is that they refuse to believe that external forces, such as History and current public policy, can affect outcomes for entire groups. If you accept that reality, you have to concede the entire premise of Libertarianism, or at least the premise of Objectivism.

 

[RustyShackleford]

^^^That

Meek is treated with a higher level of decency because he is a famous affluent black man, it is easy for affluent whites to indulge the libertarian tendencies when it is so easy. Meek got organic support to be released from prison, not only after the info about the cops came out it was easy for any affluent white person to be like "wow, he is getting a raw deal".

You will know when some has turned the corner on the issue of reforming when they:

-Want to ban private prisons to take away the profit motive for mass incarceration

-Supporting sentencing reform so non-violent crime doesn't send dudes to update to do a long time

-Cap fees we charge prisons and their families for them to say in touch and support the prison in jail

-Support probation reform so any little bump in the road doesn't perpetually trap you in the system perpetually

-Support bail reform so even getting charged with a crime doesn't ruin you financially if you are poor

-Regulate municipal fines so police forces don't plunder poor, often black communities, to fund the department and cities

-Reform the civil forfeiture system so once again police can't plunder communities

-Rolls back "super-predator" juvenile laws at condemning children to a lifetime in the system

-Are cool with the taxes increases to fund more public defenders, so more people can get actual trials instead of being squeezed for peel deals.

-Supporting large-scale job programs that help ex-prisoners

I mean I could go on but there is no point, we all know about this stuff but the point is you will hardly find many affluent whites willingly to support such sweeping reforms because it would them actually be committed to justice and fairness for all black people, even the poor ones. Like MLK said in that NBC interview I posted a while back, when it cost the white community nothing it is easier to get support for an issue, but when they have to give something, then they feel people are asking for too much.

Supporting Meek cost nothing. So they support away.

 

[dacomeup]

I'm going to pose this question in this thread because I feel I'll get better dialogue here than in the other threads it's being discussed in:

Does anyone else find it rather peculiar that multiple prominent conservative white males publicly lobbied for Meek Mill on a stance of "criminal justice reform?"

Robert Kraft and Joshua Harris are literally two of Trump's cronies. Harris was an advisor to him. How exactly did Meek Mill become the catalyst for these men to lobby on his behalf, on a stance that would seem to be such a stark departure from the perspective of their political affiliates?

Either this is some monumental step towards progress...or there's something else I'm not seeing with this entire saga.

What am I missing here? At the very least...can you admit that on the surface it seems a bit odd?

It was also very low hanging fruit from a PR perspective. The story was very well known, so everyone saw how unfair the situation was. They're supporting releasing a black man for bogus non-violent crimes. If this was an assault case or an attempt murder? No chance would these guys be backing Meek. Just shows how rich white people can get stuff done in these situations all the time. They just had an interest in this specific instance. Especially with so many players being behind Meek as well it became high profile pretty quickly.

 

[equality]

The only reason meek was released is he’s rich and famous. Nothing else. Please don’t believe thesecrich white folks had intentions of improving the judicial process and system in mind. It’s an easy PR win and low to no risk.


Not believing **** until Black people stop going to prison for non violent drug offenses.

 

[Belgium]

Only the best people.
Direct quote:
“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mulvaney told the American Bankers Association, according to the New York Times's Glenn Thrush. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”
Mulvaney, to be clear, did say that his South Carolina constituents resided at the top of that hierarchy. “If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talked to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions.” He also said he “might” talk to those who gave him money.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ressman/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8f9f004d5303
Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s rumored next chief of staff, admits he sold access to lobbyists while in Congress

Points for honesty, I guess.

Mick Mulvaney, the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget and the interim head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, made a rather striking admission Tuesday. He told a conference of bankers that as a congressman he granted meetings only to lobbyists who had contributed to his campaigns.

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mulvaney told the American Bankers Association, according to the New York Times's Glenn Thrush. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

Mulvaney, to be clear, did say that his South Carolina constituents resided at the top of that hierarchy. “If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talked to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions.” He also said he “might” talk to those who gave him money.

But it's really difficult not to infer from his comments — once you get beneath that top level of the hierarchy — that access to him comes at a price. He said it was a prerequisite: Those who hadn't ponied up had no chance of seeing him. It was no guarantee of access, but it was a requirement. That's the definition of pay for play.

The comments could prove problematic for Mulvaney and his apparently rising stock in the White House. Whenever Chief of Staff John F. Kelly has been rumored to be a short-timer — which has happened with some frequency — Mulvaney's name has risen to the top of the list to fill the post. President Trump has reportedly floated Mulvaney as a replacement.

Mulvaney has displayed a tendency for saying things he perhaps shouldn't. In February, he called the budget passed by Congress and signed by President Trump “dangerous” for continuing to explode the deficit and said he “probably” would have voted against it in his former life as a tea-party-aligned congressman. He also has admitted, contrary to claims of their proponents, that the GOP's tax cuts wouldn't pay for themselves.

The latest comments may be his most impolitic and unhelpful, though. Trump as a candidate regularly decried the system of influence in Washington, casting himself as a populist. Trump said he played the game as an influencer who bought access, but he also said that setup was corrupt and pledged to “drain the swamp.”

“We sent a message straight to the media, to the lobbyists, and to the power brokers that this city doesn't belong to you,” Trump said last month at a Republican fundraiser. “It belongs to the American people.”

It's difficult to think of a more stereotypically swampy arrangement than what Mulvaney described Tuesday.