Nancy Pelosi just broke the record for the longest speech given in the House of Representatives in over 100 years, speaking for 8 hours and 7 minutes about DACA.
My dad did the comb-over and it looked so dumb. I said if I ever start going bald, I would just shave it off. And that's what I do.
Not surprised about Trump rocking the comb-over to fake that he has hair. After all, he's a fake patriot with his five medical deferments for bone spurs and when asked he can't remember which leg is supposed to have them. He's a fake businessman with seven bankruptcies he just played a successful businessman on a reality TV show. And he's a con-man who ran a scam university and has been in business with unsavory people. Fake hair? Yep seems like something he'd do.
The California Supreme Court has decided that a baker is entitled to decline the order of a wedding cake by a gay couple. The basis for this decision is that the cake is not just a cake, but an artistic expression and therefore protected by free speech rights which over-ride anti-discrimination legislation. The judgement warned that shops selling standard retail items such as tires would not be covered by this precedent, but I imagine that there will be more people arguing about how artistic their goods are in future.
The California Supreme Court has decided that a baker is entitled to decline the order of a wedding cake by a gay couple. The basis for this decision is that the cake is not just a cake, but an artistic expression and therefore protected by free speech rights which over-ride anti-discrimination legislation. The judgement warned that shops selling standard retail items such as tires would not be covered by this precedent, but I imagine that there will be more people arguing about how artistic their goods are in future.
How can the cake be an artistic choice of the baker if the couple is telling them what they want it to look like?? That's like saying me following the instruction sheet to put a bookshelf together results in "art". At BEST, the artistry of a wedding cake would be a collaborative effort between the couple and the baker.
This just gets dumber and dumber. If you want to own or operate a public business, then serve the public, which doesn't give a shit about your belief in ancient myths. Or don't, and find something else to do with your life. This holier than thou situational morality is so tiresome. Do your job and shut up like 99% of the population.
I don't think the combover or a toupee is really any different from all the other arbitrary things we do to alter our appearance. We look in the mirror every day, we adjust things, we pick and poke at things and fuss over tiny details, we manipulate our hair in all kinds of ways, to the extent that we hire people whose entire career is to make hair look different, we mix-and-match clothes until they get a slight tear or stain and we stop wearing them in public, and about half of us wear makeup every time we leave the house. And politicians wear makeup whenever they give speeches.
Everyone wears a mask. It's no more fake than the clothes we wear.
I'm curious. I got to thinkin on this a bit (not the easiest at times as of late). What if we take the same-sex issue out of the equation and replace it with another scenario, say, something one despises with a passion and thinks is wrong (most of us can think of something probably). You own the business and look at it as more than just a job (many small business owners do, I did at least). No some may not care, as might be only about making a dollar. That's fine, but not me. Would you still do/make/provide it? I ask everyone to really think on it for a minute. Ex. If asked to build a slaughterhouse, as a vegan, would I agree to build it? No. And I should have that right. If I were the customer I would just go somewhere else that would.
If I were a baker and asked to design cakes (or a building for that matter) and provide refreshments for a hate group (I can imagine some crazy stuff with that one) would I want to do it? Probably not. And I should have that right.
I have been denied service before myself, and it does hurt, I agree, but after learning someone did not care for me I sure as heck would not want to do business with them regardless, esp. given I know someone else would. I am not sure where a happy medium is here but we should have some choices as business owners. I don't see everything as 'It's all good", and I'm sure everyone else does not as well. And just to be clear here, the same sex issue did not bother me with building houses for folks.
So, does this issue of providing everyone with anything extend to all issues, or just some? Do I feel someone else or the state/fed has the right to tell me what is morally right regarding everything? No. Where does it stop, when we are all automatons and have no individuality and no different beliefs? I'm just asking the question and trying to look at the issue from a different (imagined) perspective.
If the owners of the bakery don't want to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, its their right. I don't agree with it, but as providers of non-essential goods, I think they should have that right. Their are groups that I don't agree with, and if I owned a business, I would deny them access to my services.
This is what so many people continue to fail to understand about life in the real world: we have the *right* to be jerks to each other. We don't *have* to like each other, approve of other's people's opinions, choices, beliefs, etc. If I walk in your store and you decide that I should leave then because it is your store I have to leave. You are making an economic decision, though--my money and my word of mouth will leave with me and I will try to negatively impact your business in the eyes of others. No, you probably won't go out of business but at least I won't have to put up with your personality by going elsewhere.
caveat: just because we have the right to be jerks to each other doesn't give anyone license to go around being rude or insensitive to people on purpose. I said "jerk", not "jackass".
Couldn't we consider "baker" to be a sort of contractor who makes edible constructions? If you contact a house contractor and that person decides they don't want your business they can tell you "no" or give you a ridiculously high estimate for the work being proposed in an effort to get you to go elsewhere.
Just because you are a potential paying customer doesn't mean that you can *force* someone to do a job for you.
The legal distinction being drawn is between the supply of standard retail goods and specific services. A contractor supplies services and has no obligation to do so to any particular individual. A retailer, however, is subject to anti-discrimination law. Thus, while he would have the right to kick someone out of the store who was making a nuisance of themself, he does not have the right to refuse to sell to someone based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.
In the bakery case the baker would not have been able to legally refuse to supply goods on display in his shop cabinet to the same-sex couple. However, he successfully argued that in making a cake he would have been supplying a specific service rather than retail goods. The plaintiffs tried to argue that first amendment rights didn't apply as the cake included no message, but the judge ruled that even so the cake involved artistic expression and that was protected by free speech.
This is what so many people continue to fail to understand about life in the real world: we have the *right* to be jerks to each other. We don't *have* to like each other, approve of other's people's opinions, choices, beliefs, etc. If I walk in your store and you decide that I should leave then because it is your store I have to leave. You are making an economic decision, though--my money and my word of mouth will leave with me and I will try to negatively impact your business in the eyes of others. No, you probably won't go out of business but at least I won't have to put up with your personality by going elsewhere.
caveat: just because we have the right to be jerks to each other doesn't give anyone license to go around being rude or insensitive to people on purpose. I said "jerk", not "jackass".
Couldn't we consider "baker" to be a sort of contractor who makes edible constructions? If you contact a house contractor and that person decides they don't want your business they can tell you "no" or give you a ridiculously high estimate for the work being proposed in an effort to get you to go elsewhere.
Just because you are a potential paying customer doesn't mean that you can *force* someone to do a job for you.
Except businesses require licensing that comes from (I would assume) a State Government. Which I also assume is supposed to serve all citizens and residents of that state. And hey, I can't speak for others, but as that golden combination of white, straight and male, I have never been denied service for a single thing. When I went to a drag show at a gay bar on a date, I wasn't denied drinks because I was straight (as an aside, drag shows are exceptionally entertaining no matter what your sexual orientation is).
Theoretically, they might have assumed you were gay, @jjstraka34. When I went to a gay bar in China and started dancing with some guy, he probably didn't guess I was actually straight.
He certainly couldn't have guessed it from my dancing. I'm white; I have an excuse for being a bad dancer.
The people that are saying they don't want to bake cakes for gay people are the modern versions of people who said they don't want to bake cakes for black people.
Theoretically, they might have assumed you were gay, @jjstraka34. When I went to a gay bar in China and started dancing with some guy, he probably didn't guess I was actually straight.
He certainly couldn't have guessed it from my dancing. I'm white; I have an excuse for being a bad dancer.
On the one hand, I was hit on, which was oddly flattering. On the other hand, I was sitting in the same booth with the same woman for 90% of the evening. I have no idea really. Point being, the atmosphere and friendliness was better than all but a handful of regular bars I've been to. The music was better, the conversation was better, etc etc etc. And since it was a yearly show, there was a much bigger, mor diverse crowd than unsual.
The people that are saying they don't want to bake cakes for gay people are the modern versions of people who said they don't want to bake cakes for black people.
As I have said before, if we don't let the bigots be bigots then we will never figure out who they are. You can't tell that someone is a bigot by looking at them; instead, you can figure it out only from their actions.
Although I maintain that as a business owner I have the right to refuse service to anyone, if I am running a business then there is no doubt I will accept any and all paying customers--my livelihood depends upon it, especially if I am a small business owner. Being a successful small business owner is *difficult*--the average time to failure for small business is about 6 months. Those who are turning away business for religious reasons (or whatever reason) are economically crippling themselves.
The stock market plummeted for the 3rd day out of the last 4. As @Mathsorcerer has speculated, rich individuals and companies may have been artificially inflating certain stocks in anticipation of the tax cut (especially capital gains). Now that it is here, they are cashing out on the scam. Regardless, Donald Trump has tied his Presidency to the success of the stock market more than any President in history. That may prove to be a monumentally short-sighted blunder.
The people that are saying they don't want to bake cakes for gay people are the modern versions of people who said they don't want to bake cakes for black people.
That analogy isn't quite apples to apples. There isn't any religion I know of that calls being black a sin.
The people that are saying they don't want to bake cakes for gay people are the modern versions of people who said they don't want to bake cakes for black people.
That analogy isn't quite apples to apples. There isn't any religion I know of that calls being black a sin.
A better analogy would be a bakery refusing to serve women who wear pants. (Yes, and actual religious requirement in some sects).
As I have said before, if we don't let the bigots be bigots then we will never figure out who they are. You can't tell that someone is a bigot by looking at them; instead, you can figure it out only from their actions.
That's is all well and good to let bigots out themselves but at some point you have to step in and stop. Let me explain.
A problem black people had (have) was they would not be served. They would be sent away, spit on, beat up, given "separate but equal" treatment. That's why we had the Civil rights movement. Ancestors of these people said they wouldn't serve black people just like their descendents are saying they won't serve gays. It wasn't just one guy whole towns, whole states did this. And even if you did serve them as a white person you were a race traitor and in jeopardy yourself. There's a lot of states in the south especially where these attitudes are rampant.
Brown v. Board of Education brought. It came to be that the government had to force schools at gunpoint to let black people go to the same school as white people.
The problem is its not one or two bakers. It's hundreds of them and not just bakers. Other people besides bakers are looking for any excuse as well - take the tire maker example. I imagine Mike Pence doesn't want to allow any gay people in government either, right?
What happens when the scale is tipped towards the discriminators? When they are loud enough and they control enough of the market that they can enforce and set the policy for others. Let's say the cake supplies company decides they won't sell supplies to any baker that sells to gay couples.
Letting bigots reveal themselves is too simplistic. It isn't enough to overcome accepted or institutionalized discrimination.
Also, before anyone panics about members of other branches criticizing the courts... let's all remember that President Roosevelt constantly called justices on the Supreme Court senile and ordered his allies in the New York press to refer to four Supreme Court justices with whom he disagreed as "The Four Horseman" (as in, of the Apocalypse)
Comparing the GOP to FDR in terms of government overreach or respect for democratic norms is not a compliment. I admired FDR for other reasons, but he was an extremely devious politician who would gladly resort to bold-faced lies (he promised during a campaign that he would stay out of World War 2) and shameless power grabs (his "court packing" scheme) to advance his own agenda.
If the GOP is making quasi-legal power grabs that are even half as shameless as FDR's, that represents a very serious threat to American democracy.
@semiticgod I'm not making the comparison to make light of the conflict, just to point out (as I said right after) that it is not unprecedented.
The California Supreme Court has decided that a baker is entitled to decline the order of a wedding cake by a gay couple. The basis for this decision is that the cake is not just a cake, but an artistic expression and therefore protected by free speech rights which over-ride anti-discrimination legislation. The judgement warned that shops selling standard retail items such as tires would not be covered by this precedent, but I imagine that there will be more people arguing about how artistic their goods are in future.
How can the cake be an artistic choice of the baker if the couple is telling them what they want it to look like?? That's like saying me following the instruction sheet to put a bookshelf together results in "art". At BEST, the artistry of a wedding cake would be a collaborative effort between the couple and the baker.
This just gets dumber and dumber. If you want to own or operate a public business, then serve the public, which doesn't give a shit about your belief in ancient myths. Or don't, and find something else to do with your life. This holier than thou situational morality is so tiresome. Do your job and shut up like 99% of the population.
Is the reproduction of a written work then no longer speech? by that logic you have a right to produce a written work, but not a right to copy it for mass consumption.
I think this also gives very short thrift to the actual creative energy that goes into making a cake. If I tell a calligrapher what to write, I am still not the artist.
The distinction should not turn on that. It should come down to whether or not the cake was custom or a pre-existing design (as it was in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case).
Though, to be honest, I think free expression is the wrong context to decide this case. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has botched Free Exercise Clause cases so badly that this case is being decided under the Free Speech Clause.
As a free exercise issue the real distinction would be the religious ceremony (a wedding) as opposed to other cases of discrimination that are based on characteristics of the customer (such as the civil rights era cases).
The problem is its not one or two bakers. It's hundreds of them and not just bakers. Other people besides bakers are looking for any excuse as well - take the tire maker example.
It really isn't hundreds of bakers. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case there were dozens of bakers within 5 square miles of Masterpiece that would have baked the cake.
Under the law the analysis would be different if there were hundreds of bakers. Courts, when adjudicating the right to free speech, require the state to show a compelling interest for the regulation. Ensuring that same sex couples can purchase A wedding cake would likely be considered a compelling state interest, meaning that if there were indeed hundreds of bakers in an area who feel it violates their conscious to be forced into this sort of expression the state would be still able to compel them to bake the cake.
However, ensuring that a gay couple force a particular baker to do so, when they have alternatives who would willingly bake them a cake for the same price, the state's interest in combating discrimination is reduced.
It also appears that the White House has known about the domestic abuse allegations against Porter (again, Kelly's right-hand man) since NOVEMBER. The FBI informed them.
This proves that General Kelly was not the "Trump Whisperer" many of us hoped he would be. Any dreams that he could curb Trump's excesses are gone.
Also, of course the White House knew! The guys job was to decide what papers came before Trump's desk (all without a defense clearance)! That job requires an extensive background check. This is shameful, and a real scandal.
It also appears that the White House has known about the domestic abuse allegations against Porter (again, Kelly's right-hand man) since NOVEMBER. The FBI informed them.
This proves that General Kelly was not the "Trump Whisperer" many of us hoped he would be. Any dreams that he could curb Trump's excesses are gone.
Also, of course the White House knew! The guys job was to decide what papers came before Trump's desk (all without a defense clearance)! That job requires an extensive background check. This is shameful, and a real scandal.
I agree, and I've never bought into Kelly as the moderating force, at least since the dust-up with the war widow and the Congresswoman from Florida. I actually think on immigration, Kelly is a pushing Trump FURTHER to the right, and since he is the one who always has final access.
The can't get a single story straight about Rob Porter. They knew the guy was a domestic abuser, and he was one of the most important people in the White House. They just didn't care. Is there ANY line they won't cross?? Pedophile, wife-beater....the only thing left is a straight-up murderer.
It also appears that the White House has known about the domestic abuse allegations against Porter (again, Kelly's right-hand man) since NOVEMBER. The FBI informed them.
This proves that General Kelly was not the "Trump Whisperer" many of us hoped he would be. Any dreams that he could curb Trump's excesses are gone.
If what we are seeing is the effects of a Trump whisperer then we need a new one because this one sucks.
Also, of course the White House knew! The guys job was to decide what papers came before Trump's desk (all without a defense clearance)! That job requires an extensive background check. This is shameful, and a real scandal.
Deciding what papers come in front of Trump is also complicated by the fact that Trump can't be bothered to focus and read more than one page briefings. Apparently, the ten page Democratic Rebuttal to Nunez' memo is going to be quite an ordeal for Trump to deal with. Not kidding there.
John Kelly had this: Q. Has the president read the Democratic memo? Kelly: “He has it. It’s pretty lengthy.” Q. Has he read the whole thing? Kelly: “No, no, I just gave it to him.” Q. He’ll read it after this? Kelly: “Oh, of course, yeah. We’ll get some people down to brief him on it.”
The New York Times similarly reported that “staff members are now being told to keep papers [for Trump] to a single page, with lots of graphics and maps.”
I find it somewhat ironic. Funny? What's the word?
Rand Paul (R) is going to shut down the government over spending when he happily signed the tax scam giving a 1.5 Trillion dollar hair cut annually to the US treasury.
Maybe there wouldn't be deficits so big if we didn't keep rigging the system in favor of big corporations and the 1%?
"I favor the biggest, boldest tax cut that Congress can pass. I’m 100 percent with President Trump in advocating for a 15 percent corporate rate to keep jobs in America."
The stock market plummeted for the 3rd day out of the last 4. As @Mathsorcerer has speculated, rich individuals and companies may have been artificially inflating certain stocks in anticipation of the tax cut (especially capital gains). Now that it is here, they are cashing out on the scam. Regardless, Donald Trump has tied his Presidency to the success of the stock market more than any President in history. That may prove to be a monumentally short-sighted blunder.
i've been watching the markets very closely lately, and what i think actually happened, is that all the fish and sheep that are people dumped in huge amounts of cash into the market ( especially the pot stocks ) so what happened, was since there was so much surplus cash, values were getting over inflated and stocks were being priced higher than they should have been
so after that big bull market everyone started getting scared that stocks were getting so high that everyone and their dog and their dog's fleas started selling hard, and then that caused a huge drop
so now, the markets are just trying to stabilize from all the craziness that has been happening, and they are trying to get rid of all the over inflated pricing and bring the pricing down to a non inflated level
Rand Paul (R) is going to shut down the government over spending when he happily signed the tax scam giving a 1.5 Trillion dollar hair cut annually to the US treasury.
Rand Paul is a "starve the beast" guy. He explicitly wants to slash both taxes and government services. It's a bad opinion, but it's more coherent and honest than most other Senate Republicans, who want to have their cake and eat it too by pretending that their tax cuts will be consequence-free.
Rand Paul (R) is going to shut down the government over spending when he happily signed the tax scam giving a 1.5 Trillion dollar hair cut annually to the US treasury.
Rand Paul is a "starve the beast" guy. He explicitly wants to slash both taxes and government services. It's a bad opinion, but it's more coherent and honest than most other Senate Republicans, who want to have their cake and eat it too by pretending that their tax cuts will be consequence-free.
This has been going on for almost 40 years. It's an unbroken cycle during that time. If you understand this basic analysis, you're well on your way to understanding everything. It's why Republicans (especially now) don't seem to care about being seen or called out as hypocrites. The hypocrisy is the ENTIRE PLAN.
And I have to remind myself of that last part multiple times a week. I still fall victim to that trap. I still end up posting and arguing about hypocritical acts and/or positions. And I really shouldn't even bother. You may or may not agree with Democrats on the issues, but they do very much care how they are perceived. At the very least, the idea that they would be seen or exposed as hypocritical is something that would bother or worry them. This was exemplified most recently during the Al Franken scandal. Whether or not most Democrats wanted him gone or not was beside the point. They knew the PERCEPTION of hypocrisy while Roy Moore was running his Senate campaign in Alabama could shift the race. Screaming about hypocrisy to any modern Republican politician is like screaming into the void. They don't care. They know it doesn't matter. And since it doesn't matter, they simply use it as a tool. It is VERY hard to defeat.
Most of the Beltway media has bought into this trap hook, line and sinker. And what you will find, if you examine political coverage over decades, is that only Democrats are perceived to have agency. Everyone knows the game Republicans are playing, so why call them out for something they are doing on purpose as a tactic?? You see it even now, when Democrats hold ZERO power in Washington, yet somehow managed to be blamed for 50% or more of a recent government shutdown. When and if a Democrat replaces Trump, the INSTANT that person is sworn in, Republicans will start talking about deficits. It will start that afternoon, before anyone has had a chance to pick out their desks in the West Wing.
Comments
Not surprised about Trump rocking the comb-over to fake that he has hair. After all, he's a fake patriot with his five medical deferments for bone spurs and when asked he can't remember which leg is supposed to have them. He's a fake businessman with seven bankruptcies he just played a successful businessman on a reality TV show. And he's a con-man who ran a scam university and has been in business with unsavory people. Fake hair? Yep seems like something he'd do.
This just gets dumber and dumber. If you want to own or operate a public business, then serve the public, which doesn't give a shit about your belief in ancient myths. Or don't, and find something else to do with your life. This holier than thou situational morality is so tiresome. Do your job and shut up like 99% of the population.
Everyone wears a mask. It's no more fake than the clothes we wear.
No some may not care, as might be only about making a dollar. That's fine, but not me.
Would you still do/make/provide it?
I ask everyone to really think on it for a minute.
Ex. If asked to build a slaughterhouse, as a vegan, would I agree to build it? No. And I should have that right.
If I were the customer I would just go somewhere else that would.
If I were a baker and asked to design cakes (or a building for that matter) and provide refreshments for a hate group (I can imagine some crazy stuff with that one) would I want to do it? Probably not. And I should have that right.
I have been denied service before myself, and it does hurt, I agree, but after learning someone did not care for me I sure as heck would not want to do business with them regardless, esp. given I know someone else would.
I am not sure where a happy medium is here but we should have some choices as business owners. I don't see everything as 'It's all good", and I'm sure everyone else does not as well.
And just to be clear here, the same sex issue did not bother me with building houses for folks.
So, does this issue of providing everyone with anything extend to all issues, or just some? Do I feel someone else or the state/fed has the right to tell me what is morally right regarding everything? No.
Where does it stop, when we are all automatons and have no individuality and no different beliefs?
I'm just asking the question and trying to look at the issue from a different (imagined) perspective.
caveat: just because we have the right to be jerks to each other doesn't give anyone license to go around being rude or insensitive to people on purpose. I said "jerk", not "jackass".
Couldn't we consider "baker" to be a sort of contractor who makes edible constructions? If you contact a house contractor and that person decides they don't want your business they can tell you "no" or give you a ridiculously high estimate for the work being proposed in an effort to get you to go elsewhere.
Just because you are a potential paying customer doesn't mean that you can *force* someone to do a job for you.
In the bakery case the baker would not have been able to legally refuse to supply goods on display in his shop cabinet to the same-sex couple. However, he successfully argued that in making a cake he would have been supplying a specific service rather than retail goods. The plaintiffs tried to argue that first amendment rights didn't apply as the cake included no message, but the judge ruled that even so the cake involved artistic expression and that was protected by free speech.
He certainly couldn't have guessed it from my dancing. I'm white; I have an excuse for being a bad dancer.
Although I maintain that as a business owner I have the right to refuse service to anyone, if I am running a business then there is no doubt I will accept any and all paying customers--my livelihood depends upon it, especially if I am a small business owner. Being a successful small business owner is *difficult*--the average time to failure for small business is about 6 months. Those who are turning away business for religious reasons (or whatever reason) are economically crippling themselves.
A problem black people had (have) was they would not be served. They would be sent away, spit on, beat up, given "separate but equal" treatment. That's why we had the Civil rights movement. Ancestors of these people said they wouldn't serve black people just like their descendents are saying they won't serve gays.
It wasn't just one guy whole towns, whole states did this. And even if you did serve them as a white person you were a race traitor and in jeopardy yourself. There's a lot of states in the south especially where these attitudes are rampant.
Brown v. Board of Education brought. It came to be that the government had to force schools at gunpoint to let black people go to the same school as white people.
The problem is its not one or two bakers. It's hundreds of them and not just bakers. Other people besides bakers are looking for any excuse as well - take the tire maker example. I imagine Mike Pence doesn't want to allow any gay people in government either, right?
What happens when the scale is tipped towards the discriminators? When they are loud enough and they control enough of the market that they can enforce and set the policy for others. Let's say the cake supplies company decides they won't sell supplies to any baker that sells to gay couples.
Letting bigots reveal themselves is too simplistic. It isn't enough to overcome accepted or institutionalized discrimination.
I think this also gives very short thrift to the actual creative energy that goes into making a cake. If I tell a calligrapher what to write, I am still not the artist.
The distinction should not turn on that. It should come down to whether or not the cake was custom or a pre-existing design (as it was in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case).
Though, to be honest, I think free expression is the wrong context to decide this case. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has botched Free Exercise Clause cases so badly that this case is being decided under the Free Speech Clause.
As a free exercise issue the real distinction would be the religious ceremony (a wedding) as opposed to other cases of discrimination that are based on characteristics of the customer (such as the civil rights era cases).
Under the law the analysis would be different if there were hundreds of bakers. Courts, when adjudicating the right to free speech, require the state to show a compelling interest for the regulation. Ensuring that same sex couples can purchase A wedding cake would likely be considered a compelling state interest, meaning that if there were indeed hundreds of bakers in an area who feel it violates their conscious to be forced into this sort of expression the state would be still able to compel them to bake the cake.
However, ensuring that a gay couple force a particular baker to do so, when they have alternatives who would willingly bake them a cake for the same price, the state's interest in combating discrimination is reduced.
Also, of course the White House knew! The guys job was to decide what papers came before Trump's desk (all without a defense clearance)! That job requires an extensive background check. This is shameful, and a real scandal.
The can't get a single story straight about Rob Porter. They knew the guy was a domestic abuser, and he was one of the most important people in the White House. They just didn't care. Is there ANY line they won't cross?? Pedophile, wife-beater....the only thing left is a straight-up murderer.
John Kelly had this:
Q. Has the president read the Democratic memo?
Kelly: “He has it. It’s pretty lengthy.”
Q. Has he read the whole thing?
Kelly: “No, no, I just gave it to him.”
Q. He’ll read it after this?
Kelly: “Oh, of course, yeah. We’ll get some people down to brief him on it.”
The New York Times similarly reported that “staff members are now being told to keep papers [for Trump] to a single page, with lots of graphics and maps.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/us/politics/national-security-council-turmoil.html
Rand Paul (R) is going to shut down the government over spending when he happily signed the tax scam giving a 1.5 Trillion dollar hair cut annually to the US treasury.
Maybe there wouldn't be deficits so big if we didn't keep rigging the system in favor of big corporations and the 1%?
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/357211-sen-paul-lets-pass-big-and-bold-tax-cuts-now
"I favor the biggest, boldest tax cut that Congress can pass. I’m 100 percent with President Trump in advocating for a 15 percent corporate rate to keep jobs in America."
so after that big bull market everyone started getting scared that stocks were getting so high that everyone and their dog and their dog's fleas started selling hard, and then that caused a huge drop
so now, the markets are just trying to stabilize from all the craziness that has been happening, and they are trying to get rid of all the over inflated pricing and bring the pricing down to a non inflated level
This has been going on for almost 40 years. It's an unbroken cycle during that time. If you understand this basic analysis, you're well on your way to understanding everything. It's why Republicans (especially now) don't seem to care about being seen or called out as hypocrites. The hypocrisy is the ENTIRE PLAN.
And I have to remind myself of that last part multiple times a week. I still fall victim to that trap. I still end up posting and arguing about hypocritical acts and/or positions. And I really shouldn't even bother. You may or may not agree with Democrats on the issues, but they do very much care how they are perceived. At the very least, the idea that they would be seen or exposed as hypocritical is something that would bother or worry them. This was exemplified most recently during the Al Franken scandal. Whether or not most Democrats wanted him gone or not was beside the point. They knew the PERCEPTION of hypocrisy while Roy Moore was running his Senate campaign in Alabama could shift the race. Screaming about hypocrisy to any modern Republican politician is like screaming into the void. They don't care. They know it doesn't matter. And since it doesn't matter, they simply use it as a tool. It is VERY hard to defeat.
Most of the Beltway media has bought into this trap hook, line and sinker. And what you will find, if you examine political coverage over decades, is that only Democrats are perceived to have agency. Everyone knows the game Republicans are playing, so why call them out for something they are doing on purpose as a tactic?? You see it even now, when Democrats hold ZERO power in Washington, yet somehow managed to be blamed for 50% or more of a recent government shutdown. When and if a Democrat replaces Trump, the INSTANT that person is sworn in, Republicans will start talking about deficits. It will start that afternoon, before anyone has had a chance to pick out their desks in the West Wing.