- 13,391
- 12,278
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
Guess ninjas mom is on her way out
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Guess ninjas mom is on her way out
"There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice (Stephen) Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That's a debate that we are going to have."
I think this country needs to visit the issue of naturalized citizens who are receiving government assistance.
GOP had no problem doing it from 2014 to this past election. I say fight until the next midterms.I'm not so sure GOP needs to go nuclear. What happens if they don't budge?
The filibuster means senate is gridlocked, how long would dems actually do that? No budget? Gov shutdown?
If this were a short term play I could see where it could work, but the term just started.
Who's "you all"?Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, and Sessions has legit outrage though.
The SCOTUS pick is whatever though, we knew he was going to pick a conservative judge. At least he's experienced and is qualified for the job whether or not we like his ideology.
No it had had initial outrage for a few days. Then you all moved onto something else. Her name is only being mentioned again because she made it out of committee.
If it weren't for the immigration ban, the media would have kept focused on the cabinet choices, especially Betsy DeVos. People been angry of the nomination since she was announced.
Who's "you all"?
If it weren't for the immigration ban, the media would have kept focused on the cabinet choices, especially Betsy DeVos. People been angry of the nomination since she was announced.
I'm not so sure GOP needs to go nuclear. What happens if they don't budge?
The filibuster means senate is gridlocked, how long would dems actually do that? No budget? Gov shutdown?
If this were a short term play I could see where it could work, but the term just started.
https://thinkprogress.org/thousands...oppose-her-appointment-c1e8a50a972#.r7yq6uilw
Rico doesn't know what he is talking about. People didn't move on.
Melania would have got deported years ago if it was implemented when she first entered the US
https://thinkprogress.org/thousands...oppose-her-appointment-c1e8a50a972#.r7yq6uilw
Rico doesn't know what he is talking about. People didn't move on.
Except I do. That article was written 9 hrs ago. That just proves my point that no cared about her anymore after her gaffes during her testimony. The muslim ban was what took center stage. The only reason people are talking about her again is that she cleared committee...today.
I'm not so sure GOP needs to go nuclear. What happens if they don't budge?
The filibuster means senate is gridlocked, how long would dems actually do that? No budget? Gov shutdown?
If this were a short term play I could see where it could work, but the term just started.
-You can go nuclear on a SCTUS pick and keep in place for regular bills.
-The GOP doesn't need to beat a filllibuster to past a budget this year. Plus the Density are generally against shutting down the government
Media doesn't always represent the people's general sentiment.Who's "you all"?
If it weren't for the immigration ban, the media would have kept focused on the cabinet choices, especially Betsy DeVos. People been angry of the nomination since she was announced.
Exactly! That's what I'm saying. This SCOTUS pick is only going to be news for a couple days. People will be outraged about it. Media will fuel the flames. Then Trump will do something else and that'll draw the public's attention. And while that's being ad nauseum Neil is going to skate through with little public scrutiny.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's chief spokeswoman on Tuesday demanded that Fox News channel in the United States either retract or update a tweet that a gunman who killed six people at a Quebec mosque was of Moroccan origin because the suspect is in fact French-Canadian.
The White House did not respond in time to a request for comment.
The lack of a paper trail documenting the decision-making process is also troubling, the intelligence official said. For example, under previous administrations, after a principals or deputies meeting of the National Security Council, the discussion, the final agreement, and the recommendations would be written up in what’s called a “summary of conclusions” — or SOC in government-speak.
“Under [President George W. Bush], the National Security Council was quite strict about recording SOCs,” said Matthew Waxman, a law professor at Columbia University who served on Bush’s National Security Council. “There was often a high level of generality, and there may have been some exceptions, but they were carefully crafted.”
These summaries also provided a record to refer back to, especially important if a debate over an issue came up again, including among agencies that needed to implement the conclusions reached.
If someone thought the discussion was mischaracterized, he or she would call for a correction to be issued to set the record straight, said Loren DeJonge Schulman, who previously served in former President Barack Obama’s administration as a senior advisor to National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Schulman is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
“People took the document seriously,” she said.
During the first week of the Trump administration, there were no SOCs, the intelligence official said. In fact, according to him, there is surprisingly very little paper being generated, and whatever paper there is, the NSC staff is not privy to it. He sees this as a deterioration of transparency and accountability.
“It would worry me if written records of these meeting were eliminated, because they contribute to good governance,” Waxman said.
It is equally important that NSC staff be the ones drafting the issue papers going into meetings, too, said Schulman. “The idea is to share with everyone a fair and balanced take on the issue, with the range of viewpoints captured in that document,” she said.
If those papers are now being generated by political staff, she added, it corrupts the whole process.
It could also contribute to Bannon’s centralization of power.
What were journalists going to report on between the hearings and the committee vote? People care, and they can multitask.
Media doesn't always represent the people's general sentiment.
From what I seen other than wapost and nytimes, people have been like w/e about the scotus pick
Outside the Islamic world, the 21st century is not an era of ideology. The grand utopian visions of the 19th century have passed out of fashion. The nightmare totalitarian projects of the 20th have been overthrown or have disintegrated, leaving behind only outdated remnants: North Korea, Cuba. What is spreading today is repressive kleptocracy, led by rulers motivated by greed rather than by the deranged idealism of Hitler or Stalin or Mao. Such rulers rely less on terror and more on rule-twisting, the manipulation of information, and the co-optation of elites.
Civil unrest will not be a problem for the Trump presidency. It will be a resource. Trump will likely want not to repress it, but to publicize it—and the conservative entertainment-outrage complex will eagerly assist him. Immigration protesters marching with Mexican flags; Black Lives Matter demonstrators bearing antipolice slogans—these are the images of the opposition that Trump will wish his supporters to see. The more offensively the protesters behave, the more pleased Trump will be.
... Trump told the audience. “And I don’t like that. I’m totally against that. By the way, I hate some of these people, but I’d never kill them. I hate them. No, I think, no—these people, honestly—I’ll be honest. I’ll be honest. I would never kill them. I would never do that. Ah, let’s see—nah, no, I wouldn’t. I would never kill them. But I do hate them.”
The rulers of backsliding democracies resent an independent press, but cannot extinguish it. They may curb the media’s appetite for critical coverage by intimidating unfriendly journalists, as President Jacob Zuma and members of his party have done in South Africa. Mostly, however, modern strongmen seek merely to discredit journalism as an institution, by denying that such a thing as independent judgment can exist.
Yet there’s also something incongruous and even absurd about applying the sinister label of fascist to Donald Trump. He is so pathetically needy, so shamelessly self-interested, so fitful and distracted. Fascism feti****es hardihood, sacrifice, and struggle—concepts not often associated with Trump.
Those citizens who fantasize about defying tyranny from within fortified compounds have never understood how liberty is actually threatened in a modern bureaucratic state: not by diktat and violence, but by the slow, demoralizing process of corruption and deceit. And the way that liberty must be defended is not with amateur firearms, but with an unwearying insistence upon the honesty, integrity, and professionalism of American institutions and those who lead them. We are living through the most dangerous challenge to the free government of the United States that anyone alive has encountered. What happens next is up to you and me. Don’t be afraid. This moment of danger can also be your finest hour as a citizen and an American.