StrangeSox

Here's Donald Trump, Jr. Check out that tweet he 'liked'

There is likely even more horrible s*** coming down the pipe (sewage) line from Trump/Bannon on immigration. A leaked Trump order suggests he’s planning to deport more legal immigrants for using social services

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 02:46 PM) While his history is poor, here's Ted Cruz last October: Sen. Burr had this to say in October:

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 02:17 PM) I'm looking into Gorsuch now, but he doesn't seem that terrible (for a Conservative pick). http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-...al-views-234437 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...m=.e2eeae588320 There's some stuff that I don't really like in there - notably his position on RFRA and the contraception provision of the ACA, but he seems qualified to be on the Court. He's qualified, it just really sucks that the Republicans essentially stole a supreme court seat by refusing to hold hearings on President Obama's nomination. God help us if Trump gets a second pick from RGB retiring/passing. edit: the biggest possible change I think I've heard about him is that he's highly skeptical of Chevron deference.

Gorsuch told he is likely Trump's Supreme Court pick: CNN

Some of that's procedure, but it's also a fear of a motivated and activist base that will primary anyone who doesn't hold a hard line. The parties are also increasingly aligned on ideological axes in ways that they weren't in previous decades. VV Soxbadger, I think the real threat of losing power right now is if they show any sort of compromise. A lot of districts these days are blood red or deep blue, so the "real" elections are in the primaries (just like most Chicago elections). Look what happened to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. The parents/voters are

DeVos questionnaire appears to include passages from uncited sources What is it with Trump's team and plagiarism?

I think it's important to remember that this EO wasn't just about refugees, and that it doesn't really have anything at all to do with illegal immigration.

That sounds like a weird problem for an LED TV to have, and I'd be interested to hear what it ends up being.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 07:18 AM) This is where people have zero idea of history. Your mention of the "refusal to assimilate" couldn't be more normal in terms of history. Heck go all of the way back to colonial times. Religious groups struck out on their own. Ever heard of the Pligrims? How about the Quakers? The Amish? The Mormons too. Ethnic groups were no different. Indians, Africans, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Germans, over time were some of the more prominent targets. Typically these groups came here in search of something new, and met with resistance because they didn't speak English and their customs offended the people who were already assimilated. The first generations usually didn't try to blend. They stayed in their ethnic neighborhoods, spoke the old language, kept the old customs, and never really became "American's" Many even turned to crime to make their way as traditional ways were closed to these groups. Whether it was the "Irish Need Not Apply" or the redlining of entire cities to keep the undesirables in their own places such as Chinatown and Little Italy, it has been done over our whole history. But every, single, time an amazing thing happened. The second generation started to leave that behind. They spoke English outside of the house, and spoke the native tongue in it. They picked up American customs, and turned to education as their way out of the neighborhoods. By the third generations it might only be a last name that would sell out an ethnic background. By the 4th and 5th generations, the ethnic identities faded to the point they were really of the old world anymore, they were Americans first, and something else later. The incredible part of that is that it was all voluntary. It wasn't like Soviet Russia where assimilation was forced, or Nazi Germany where the undesirables were just disposed of. People became Americans because they wanted to be Americans. The greatness of America has always been that people, no matter where they came from, always turned into Americans in a matter of a couple of generations. Pretty much unless we put the boot of discrimination on their necks, the transition has been seamless. With the banning of Muslims of certain countries coming to the United States, nothing has really changed. These elements have always held power in the United States, and they have always hid under the veil of trying to save us from the latest group we should be scared of. At times, they got enough power to make lives miserable for their targets. We banned the Chinese from immigrating at times. We rounded up the Japanese and put them into interment camps. We tried to send the Africans back to Africa. Despite all of this, these groups have still turned into Americans over time. I am here today to tell you that using history as my guide, Muslims won't be any different. Give America a couple of generations with these immigrants, and while you might have a few bad apples, they will be fat and lazy Americans in two generations. To me that is the ultimate victory. Our culture and society is so incredible that it wins out, and it wins out voluntarily. If we ever get to the point where this history stops, THAT is when we quit being great. You want proof? My hometown is FULL of Syrian refugees and immigrants that haven't blown up any buildings. They haven't used a single suicide vest. Guess what, they have been coming here for over a century just for the opportunity to work. So while some want to live in fear of the latest boogeyman group, history tells me that fear is wasted. Quit being scared of immigrants. Don't live your life in fear. The ultimate in living scared is trying to hide from other cultures. You want to make American great? Learn from your history instead of being scared and wrong. A good post.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 06:44 AM) I agree. I think you just have to do basic splitting. Something like squares and rectangles, none of this free form. Districts need to have roughly the same number of people, so simple shapes don't work. There are other requirements as well to ensure minority representation. Anywhere with major cities pretty much ensures you'll have at least some funky boundaries. However, you can do what Iowa does, which is to have an independent nonpartisan committee that sets the boundaries. That at least has the boundaries drawn in ways to maximize fair and equal representation with limits on partisan gaming.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 04:09 PM) It's mainly that he has a lot of ties and support from white nationalists and saying the holocaust was not targeted to exterminating Jews specifically is a popular form of holocaust denial. To remove mentions of Jews from a holocaust Remembrance Day press release is at best showing their incompetence and at worst a sign of more to come. But of course they go out and try to clarify by actually diminishing that it was about Jews more by saying "lots of people suffered in the holocaust." Could this be a thing like people assuming saying Islamic terror will save all? Maybe, but he also didn't have to hire a guy who uses his media company to stoke white supremacy memes. Bannon's being front-and-center in his administration is what makes it a hell of a lot harder to simply dismiss as an honest mistake. When you put a white nationalist in as your chief policy adviser, you don't get the benefit of the doubt when you "forget" to mention the Jews when talking about the holocaust.

I mentioned it earlier, but here's the exact quote from Spicer where he uses the white supremacist attack on a mosque in Quebec as justification for Trump's Muslim Ban. http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000588890

That we allow politicians to draw district boundaries in almost every state is absurd. I think we're one of if not the only countries that does that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 03:47 PM) All Trump has achieved so far is to ensure that the Republican party is going to get their asses kicked in 2018. Short of some massive unprecedented wave that basically wipes out the GOP, they'll still be able to hold the Senate. A big majority of the seats up for re-election in 2018 are D, and the R seats that aren't up are pretty safe. Bigger impact could be the House and state races.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 02:06 PM) Also of note for the 2018 Midterms - control of the US house, and control of the state houses, means control over districting (gerrymandering - which both parties do all the time) in 2020. That's a big deal, because the biggest reason the US house has remained so red in the last decade is the 2010 census and redistricting efforts. The major redistricting will happen after the 2020 census, so it's the 2020 state house races that are crucial as those will determine who is in office in 2021 when the districts are being redrawn. That's why Republicans were able to make so many changes after getting beat bad in 2008 but coming back very strong in 2010.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:48 PM) virtue signalling lol I don't think democrats need this sort of concern-trolling advice.

Trump isn't "resurrecting Obama's old policies," that's nonsense spin that took them several days to try to come up with.

Spicer tried to use the incident in Quebec of a white supremacist shooting up a mosque as justification for Trump's Muslim ban. He also tried to defend their Holocaust statement that neglected to mention the Jews with "We love Israel!" and "by and large people loved our statement." Also called being held in an interrogation room for hours and being denied legal counsel "a minor inconvenience"

Rep. Tom Price Got Privileged, Discounted Offer on Biomedical Stock, Company Says Health and Human Services nominee testified before Congress that stock was offered to all investors at time behind a subscription wall, but basically Price lied to the Senate during his hearings.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 12:05 PM) Everyone realizes that this means when self-driving cars get on the road it'll require allowing rat poop in food or something like that, right? It's agency-by-agency, but it's still one of the dumbest ideas possible.

Philippine police suspend drug war to tackle corruption Head of national police force says anti-drugs units will be disbanded until 'rogue' officers have been 'cleansed'. A South Korean businessman was murdered by one of Dutert's death squads.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 12:14 PM) Looking for a little guidance here. My wife & I gathered the phone numbers of our US Senators & Representative and our state Senator & Representative. We have a list of issues that we are concerned about. The problem is, I've never made a call like this. Will somebody actually answer the phone or am I just going to leave a message? If somebody does answer, do I ask to speak to the Senator? Should I call the Washington DC phone number or the local one? How many issues should I bring up to them? Any help or info on this would be appreciated. You'll almost definitely get a staffer if you get through. For Senators, you'll probably get a voicemail box based on the volume of calls they're receiving right now. Start with the DC office, and then go down the line of local offices until you can get a person or at least a voicemail. For Reps, you're more likely to get a staffer. There are lots of call scripts out there, but the big ones are to state that "my name is X and I am a constituent of Rep. blah blah" and then go into your concerns. If you have a specific question about their stances or how they plan to vote on something, feel free to ask. If you get the answer you want, great, say thanks, if not, urge them to reconsider. They log these things and keep track of how many people call in favor of/opposed to things. edit: beaten by both balta and bmags, but don't forget to write either actual letters or emails. Not nearly as impactful as calling, but it's still something.

How the State Department looks right now: Blue X's are unfilled positions, Red X's are resignations. I'd be curious to see how the Obama, Bush and Clinton SD's looked at this point.

Something else that's not getting a lot of attention thanks to the Muslim Ban stuff is that Trump filed for candidacy in the 2020 election the day he was inaugurated. That's highly unusual, and it brings up all sorts of questions about fundraising/bribing and potentially how non-profits are allowed to go after him as President vs. as a "candidate"