What is "posturing" according to Leviathan?

 

You need me to define it a second time?   Ok, requoting:

 

It's an attempt to LOOK like you're solving an issue and hope people buy it.

 

Chirping about it and actually writing legislation are two different things.

 

And to say there is "zero upside to their involvement" is utterly insane.  Push the chains forward and bring something to the freakin table.  There should be a pile of bills introduced within the next month form both sides.  To prescribe a do nothing policy belies anything you said about partisanship.  Practice what you preach, brother.

 

Engaging with Republicans on this issue is the political manifestation of Nietzsche's looking into an abyss.

Edited May 19, 20197 yr by TheLeviathan

 

You need me to define it a second time?   Ok, requoting:

 

It's an attempt to LOOK like you're solving an issue and hope people buy it.

What I find interesting is that you seriously think Lindsey Graham, Trump or whomever isn't actually looking for a solution to the border crisis.  Trump is in the process of putting up a wall to fill in breaches and it's all for show.  Just "playing to his base"

 

It's stunning to me how ignorant you insist on being.  The Nietzsche reference doesn't make you smart.  They most definitely want to "solve" this problem and it comes from a selfish place.  They want THEIR PLAN (or something like it) not only to ameliorate the suffering at the border, but also to take the credit.  They want that to be part of their legacy.  If you knew anything about Nietzsche you would actually understand what I mean.

"Liberal institutions straightway cease being liberal the moment they are soundly established: Once this is attained, no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."

That is Nietzsche

 

You are more hung up on the discourse (and who owns the plan) than you are accepting a policy that works for US at this time.  Get a clue and do more on the actual topic of immigration.  I thought you lived in Arizona.  It is stunning to me how much you don't know about this particular notion.  You have your preconceived notions about it and don't even challenge them.  I have.  One year ago I did not have this view.  I chose to read and watch lots of videos on the topic.  You shrug that off as cherry picking to suit my position.  Wrong, sir.  My view on the topic was borne out of what I have learned over the last six months.

 

 

Edited May 19, 20197 yr by ewen21

 

What I find interesting is that you seriously think Lindsey Graham, Trump or whomever isn't actually looking for a solution to the border crisis.  Trump is in the process of putting up a wall to fill in breaches and it's all for show.  Just "playing to his base"

 

It's stunning to me how ignorant you insist on being.  The Nietzsche reference doesn't make you smart.  They most definitely want to "solve" this problem and it comes from a selfish place.  They want THEIR PLAN (or something like it) not only to ameliorate the suffering at the border, but also to take the credit.  They want that to be part of their legacy.  If you knew anything about Nietzsche you would actually understand what I mean.

"Liberal institutions straightway cease being liberal the moment they are soundly established: Once this is attained, no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."

That is Nietzsche

 

You are more hung up on the discourse (and who owns the plan) than you are accepting a policy that works for US at this time.  Get a clue and do more on the actual topic of immigration.  I thought you lived in Arizona.  It is stunning to me how much you don't know about this particular notion.  You have your preconceived notions about it and don't even challenge them.  I have.  One year ago I did not have this view.  I chose to read and watch lots of videos on the topic.  You shrug that off as cherry picking to suit my position.  Wrong, sir.  My view on the topic was borne out of what I have learned over the last six months.

 

You could've just said you still don't understand what posturing is again.  (Or, most clearly, how often politicians do it)

Edited May 19, 20197 yr by TheLeviathan

 

Carole, just a month ago you wouldn't even acknowledge this was an issue.

 

Where do you stand now?

I never said it wasn't an issue.

 

I’m sorta coming around (but still lukewarm) on impeachment. I mean, so many Dems voted and campaigned — and will campaign, depending on the eventual nominee— on Trump being the gravest threat to Democracy in our lifetimes. And according to the two different sets of rules the two parties play by, it seems a little “off” (for lack of a better word) that Dems would win the house in 2018 and then respond to calls for impeachment with shoulder shrug emoticon guy.

 

Perhaps the alternative is to dial back the hyperbole about his threat level and start talking about how bad his policies have been for Americans.  

 

Rising prices from his trade war, more money for the rich, rising health care costs - these things matter to Americans.  Not impeachment.  

If you want a true crisis in this country, Trump is bankrupting farmers. With multiple states having laws in place to curtail corporate farming, thousands of acres will go unplanted this year on top of the thousands and thousands of acres that will not get planted this year due to flooding that has yet to receive any federal flooding. Now further push from the President that is making it very likely that even well-positioned farmers will be making tough choices very soon on the future of their farm.

 

My brother is an editor with an agricultural publication and based in DC. This was his tweet regarding Trump's comment about compensating farmers for any losses on his newest round of tariffs:

https://twitter.com/Spencer_Chase/status/1129046634472660993

 

If you want a true crisis in this country, Trump is bankrupting farmers. With multiple states having laws in place to curtail corporate farming, thousands of acres will go unplanted this year on top of the thousands and thousands of acres that will not get planted this year due to flooding that has yet to receive any federal flooding. Now further push from the President that is making it very likely that even well-positioned farmers will be making tough choices very soon on the future of their farm.

 

My brother is an editor with an agricultural publication and based in DC. This was his tweet regarding Trump's comment about compensating farmers for any losses on his newest round of tariffs:

https://twitter.com/Spencer_Chase/status/1129046634472660993

 

Spring weather ain't helping that either.

 

I'll call it now - between the tariffs and how the season has started - farmers are VERY up for grabs for the Dems.

 

Perhaps the alternative is to dial back the hyperbole about his threat level and start talking about how bad his policies have been for Americans.  

 

Rising prices from his trade war, more money for the rich, rising health care costs - these things matter to Americans.  Not impeachment.  

Yep, add Trump's obvious unfitness and GOP hypocrisy and those are the themes the Dems should be pushing in 2020. Don't get bogged down in social or value issues.  

Because the rest of the world matters, too. Goodbye, Madame Prime Minister.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-48395905

 

Because the rest of the world matters, too. Goodbye, Madame Prime Minister.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-48395905

I'm surprised she lasted this long.

 

Because the rest of the world matters, too. 
 

 

Yup.

 

Australia’s shocking election offers a warning to Democrats

Edited May 24, 20197 yr by LaBombo

Memorial Day weekend mass shootings in Virginia and Chicago so far.

Poland elected the right wing party, I see. I get it, but don't get it.

 

Those who love freedom and aren't afraid of other people need to figure out a message, ffs.

 

Poland elected the right wing party, I see. I get it, but don't get it.

Those who love freedom and aren't afraid of other people need to figure out a message, ffs.

Your message seems to be that "right wing" people don't love freedom and are scared of other people.  What are "left wing" people according to Mike Sixel?

 

Just curious

 

Your message seems to be that "right wing" people don't love freedom and are scared of other people.  What are "left wing" people according to Mike Sixel?

 

Just curious

 

Well, given how the right wing parties talk and act, that seems to be pretty obvious. You know, removing protections from LGBTQ (Trump removed 3 last week) people, saying bad things about immigrants (which is different than wanting to fix immigration problems) like they commit more crime (they don't) and take jobs (they don't) or use welfare money disproportionally (they don't). Basically, what the right wing parties are saying, and how they are acting. 

 

You know, passing laws making it harder to vote, or saying that a free press is bad, stuff that literally the right wing parties do every day. Stuff that is anti freedom, every day. It used to be the GOP wanted a freedom, and even the right wing parties in GB and other places did. Turns out controlling the populace, using fear to get elected, and lowering taxes is all they really care about.

 

If you aren't willing to acknowledge that about the right wing parties, I don't know what to say.

 

It seems pretty clear I was talking about the parties, not "all the people" which is an exaggeration of a point, sort of the gotcha world of the internet. 

Edited May 28, 20197 yr by Mike Sixel

 

Well, given how the right wing parties talk and act, that seems to be pretty obvious. You know, removing protections from LGBTQ (Trump removed 3 last week) people, saying bad things about immigrants (which is different than wanting to fix immigration problems) like they commit more crime (they don't) and take jobs (they don't) or use welfare money disproportionally (they don't). Basically, what the right wing parties are saying, and how they are acting. 

 

You know, passing laws making it harder to vote, or saying that a free press is bad, stuff that literally the right wing parties do every day. Stuff that is anti freedom, every day. It used to be the GOP wanted a freedom, and even the right wing parties in GB and other places did. Turns out controlling the populace, using fear to get elected, and lowering taxes is all they really care about.

 

If you aren't willing to acknowledge that about the right wing parties, I don't know what to say.

 

It seems pretty clear I was talking about the parties, not "all the people" which is an exaggeration of a point, sort of the gotcha world of the internet. 

I asked you to generalize "left wing" people.

 

I guess you won't do that and that is fine.  Just figured I would ask

I asked you to generalize "left wing" people.

 

I guess you won't do that and that is fine. Just figured I would ask

You changed the topic. I'm not obligated to play the, ya but what about the other side, game.

Any thoughts on the SCOTUS basically affirming the lower court in tossing the more severe aspect of the Indiana abortion law?

 

That's a sorta good sign right?

Any thoughts on the SCOTUS basically affirming the lower court in tossing the more severe aspect of the Indiana abortion law?

 

That's a sorta good sign right?

They didn't affirm the ruling, they left it intact because it hadn't yet gone through the required appeals process to be decided by SCOTUS.

 

"The court's brief order Tuesday said it "expresses no view on the merits" of that issue. But because only one federal appeals court has ruled on the question, "we follow our ordinary practice of denying petitions insofar as they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional Courts of Appeals."

Edited May 29, 20197 yr by Mr. Brooks

Well....Mueller made it about as clear as he could that he thinks Congress should act.

 

Well....Mueller made it about as clear as he could that he thinks Congress should act.

I'm just now seeing the news.  Was this a scheduled press conference?

It was as of apparently this morning.  There wasn't much of an alert on it.

 

He was pretty dry, straight-forward, and professional.  It wasn't a bomb so much as he basically said "I wasn't allowed to charge obstruction, but even if I was that's the job of Congress"

You changed the topic. I'm not obligated to play the, ya but what about the other side, game.

What's the topic? This is "general politics"

 

It's all good Mike.

@realDonaldTrump

32m32 minutes ago

More

Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.

 

 

I think Don and I interpret this differently:

 

MUELLER: "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

 

 

It was as of apparently this morning. There wasn't much of an alert on it.

 

He was pretty dry, straight-forward, and professional. It wasn't a bomb so much as he basically said "I wasn't allowed to charge obstruction, but even if I was that's the job of Congress"

Policy is not the same as law. I'm annoyed at him implying that he "can't" charge him. Just say you don't want to or don't have enough evidence, don't tell me you can't, because there is nothing in the law that forbids it, just policy.

 

Policy is not the same as law. I'm annoyed at him implying that he "can't" charge him. Just say you don't want to or don't have enough evidence, don't tell me you can't, because there is nothing in the law that forbids it, just policy.

Barring some groundbreaking reveal there is NO WAY the senate is going to let the articles of impeachment go through.  It is a fools errand on the part of democrats to pursue this and it is stunning to me that a veteran like Nadler is going to take this all the way to zero.  He might just have a stroke if he doesn't calm down.

Policy is not the same as law. I'm annoyed at him implying that he "can't" charge him. Just say you don't want to or don't have enough evidence, don't tell me you can't, because there is nothing in the law that forbids it, just policy.

Certainly his claim has room for criticism. I find his stance driven more by a desire to avoid becoming a political football rather than anything about policy.

Freedom fuel. Of course.

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/us-department-of-energy-is-now-referring-to-fossil-fuels-as-freedom-gas/

Freedom fuel. Of course.

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/us-department-of-energy-is-now-referring-to-fossil-fuels-as-freedom-gas/

Obama was renowned for his dry sense of humor and back then it was considered a good thing.