StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 01:20 PM) Nah, time is on liberals side. Every year America becomes more diverse, less white. Look at the numbers, Trump did horrific with non-whites. This is your last stand, your battle of the bulge. Yes there was a setback, but liberals will still win the day eventually. http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/09/how...al-orientation/ Those graphs have to be terrifying to you, unless you think "whites no degree" are the future of the USA? Sorry. Wrong. Trumpism will dominate America for 1000 years!

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 10:40 AM) You have all convinced me with the McMullin stuff, good points there. When was last real primary of a president up for re-election? Feels like the party apparatus would shut it down, but with McMullin not currently an elected official it makes sense. Carter-Kennedy in 1980?

Dems will be lucky to just hold their ground in the Senate given where the 2018 races are, but the House could potentially be interesting if the left stays mobilized at levels anywhere near what we're seeing right now.

brett is someone's bot, right?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 08:39 AM) I do think he is a pretty qb though. GoSox Flacco

...didn't he just say yesterday that Republicans might not get around to doing anything with Obamacare until next year? e: "The list comes from Obama!" may be the worst talking point yet from Trumpists

It turns out that Trump's Putin-friendly national security advisor Flynn did talk to Russia about sanctions prior to Trump taking office. He had previously denied this. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washington...android-verizon

Increased security for the judges involved, who are receiving threats. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/jud...rder/index.html

Exclusive - In call with Putin, Trump denounced Obama-era nuclear arms treaty Dear US Visitors: Homeland Security Would Like Your Passwords, Please Trump Aide Derided Islam, Immigration And Diversity, Embraced An Anti-Semitic Past? A National Security Council staffer revealed his “America first” worldview in a March 2016 essay, written under a pseudonym.

California's been getting a ton of rain lately, and drought conditions in the state have drastically improved.

Brexit vote: Theresa May wins Commons approval to trigger Article 50 as Labour's Clive Lewis resigns

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 11:05 AM) Department of Defense looks to rent space in Trump Tower How is this legal? I heard a story on NPR last night about this. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/201...to-ethical-murk Related, he's probably still in violation of the terms of the lease for the DC Trump hotel http://www.npr.org/2017/02/08/513904816/et...ainst-conflicts If he had actually divested himself or put these things into a blind trust, the concerns would be a lot lower, but of course he didn't and he and his family will continue to profit immensely off of the office.

The President, his surrogate and his press secretary have all publicly denounced Nordstrom's dropping his daughter's made-in-China clothing line from their stores. This is full-blown banana republic territory now. e: nice stealth accusation of calling ss2k5 a liberal again

Belichick without Brady but a replacement-level QB is a perennial playoff contender and probably still grabs a few of SB appearances and maybe even a win. Brady on Jacksonville is lucky the make the playoffs a couple of times.

Judges halt NC GOP’s move to undercut governor

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 12:01 PM) It gives priority to Christians from those Muslim countries, and all the evidence on the intent on the ban is that it is intended to be a legal ban on Muslims (see Trump and Giuliani comments). This is still up on the campaign website https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases...lim-immigration I still can't believe that America elected this person.

I thought there were due process concerns as well?

He's laying the groundwork to blame the judiciary if/when there's some sort of attack.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:30 PM) I guess I'm trying to understand what the basis is beyond "they started it!" regardless if that claim is true. Even if Biden and the Democrats had successfully blocked H.W. Bush from filling a hypothetical vacancy back in 1992, I'd still think it was wrong then and wrong in 2016. brett's said before that it was because we were in "election season." I'm not sure when the earliest campaigns started, but Ted Cruz announced in March of 2015. That means that at a minimum, we were in "election season" for nearly 50% of Obama's second term. Do we really want a standard where Presidents lose their power of appointment for that long? Do we think that should only apply when the opposition holds Congress, or do the people making the "Biden rule" argument also think that Trump should be blocked from making any appointments once the 2020 campaign starts? Where are these lines where we say that a sitting President now loses their appointment powers? If this is a legitimate ideological stance rather than just grasping at whatever paper-thin justification they can for taking unprecedented actions, they should be able to answer these sorts of questions. By the way, if there is any sort of precedent for this, any sort of "rule," it's that Presidents appointing someone to the Supreme Court during an election year is fine. One-third of all U.S. presidents appointed a Supreme Court justice in an election year

Franken on DeVos

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 08:23 AM) I've spent some time in the Boundary Waters / Quetico area, where Minnesota and Ontario meet. That who section from Lake Superior to Lake of the Woods is 90% wilderness, and the border is on water. Before 9/11 ever happened, I remember remarking to people when we'd canoe across the border that if you really wanted to sneak someone or something into or out of the US, that's where you'd do it. Just need a boat, really. Unlike the desert, there's plenty of drinkable water to be had, and zero border patrol. I've probably been in BWCA/Quetico a dozen times in my life for usually a week at a shot, and I think I maybe talked to a Ranger once. And we went out of our way to talk to them. My wife and I may or may not have discussed this exact escape plan into Canada recently...

I wonder what they would have to do to actually get fired?

Even if we instantly implemented a "financial education" course and requirement today, though, you've still got tens of millions of people in this country who are already out of high school and may not have enough financial literacy to be aware of these issues and that their "adviser" they're trusting their life savings with may not have their best interests in mind. It's a common enough issue that some financial services firms even have commercials where people ask someone "how does your adviser get paid?" and the person sits there with a blank look on their face. There are already people that are held to the fiduciary standard, so I guess I'm struggling to see why this couldn't be implemented to people who now only have to meet a "suitable" standard.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 04:34 PM) Yeah, Jenks, it seems like your argument boils down to Secretary of Education being a completely unimportant position that has no possibility of creating tangible harm or tangible good. I think a lot of people in this thread respectfully disagree with that position, and have already provided a number of examples of potential tangible harm. The point here is that it doesn't need to be a doomsday scenario with schools in flames for DeVos' educational philosophy to have a really negative impact on a lot of kids and a lot of families. That is a good way of putting it. DeVos won't and doesn't have the power to completely change and destroy our public education system because a majority of it happens at the state and local level, not the federal level. But that doesn't mean that the DoEd doesn't play an important role and that the policies they implement have ways of trickling down to state level policy and of still having serious impacts to school budgets. Even with the relatively limited power she had through political financing in Michigan, her and her ideas caused a lot of demonstrable harm while enriching private actors. Now she has 4,400 employees and something like a $50B budget to implement these same policies. And as I said before, things are still worth opposing even if they don't directly impact you or your children. Really, it's those who are not in 'the middle' who are the most vulnerable and who need the most protection. Saying "sure, poor kids' schools will be run into the ground even more than they already are, but my kids' schools will be okay" is pretty callous. QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 04:38 PM) Pardon me if I am wrong, but didn't the implementation of her policies in Michigan do just that and kill schools? I thought I read it was pretty disastrous in Louisiana as well when they tried to adapt her plan Yes, and then Republican lawmakers in LA were shocked and horrified to learn that the vouchers they allowed to funnel money to Christian schools also meant money could go to Islamic schools.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 04:18 PM) Again, i'm not arguing she was a stellar choice. I just don't see the doomsday scenario. People are saying she's going to be really awful for a wide variety of reasons, both based on her stated policy goals and her apparent total ignorance of the actual job she's been chosen to do. It's hard to imagine a less qualified candidate. What do you imagine something you'd call a "doomsday scenario" for SoE would look like if you don't see why DeVos is so bad? You're right when you say that she can't single-handily destroy public education because it's mainly controlled and funded at state and local levels, but the DoEd can still have a significant impact at both the primary and secondary ed levels.