America - The Official Thread

[huskeR32]

Really? Was it not Obama and the left that have not done anything for people of color except Muslims and Mexicans the last 8 years?

Obama took actions intended to help everybody. If it seems that Muslims and Mexicans were the only folks to benefit from that, that's a commentary on how poorly those groups were (still are) treated, and probably a bit on the latent objections that the observer has to extending equal rights to those groups - if you've been conditioned to view all Muslims as terrorists and all Mexicans as illegals, then any attempts to help them will probably stand out.

 

[Dotini]

Obama took actions intended to help everybody.

A lot of people felt betrayed - like blacks, greens, environmentalists and even the elderly. Stein, Bernie and Trump pointed this out, and Hillary paid the price. The entire staff of the DNC has just been sacked! They accepted 1.2 Billion dollars from now very angry donors, and lost to an outside amateur who spent half as much!!

 

[Scaff]

The entire staff of the DNC has just been sacked!

Slightly dramatic way of putting it given that it seems to be normal practice when a DNC chair changes.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/28/politics/dnc-tom-perez-staff-resignation-letters/

 

[huskeR32]

A lot of people felt betrayed - like blacks, greens, environmentalists and even the elderly.

You'll notice I said "intended to help everybody." I'm well aware that a lot of his efforts to do so were hindered, or outright blocked.

 

[Dotini]

Slightly dramatic way of putting it given that it seems to be normal practice when a DNC chair changes.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/28/politics/dnc-tom-perez-staff-resignation-letters/

Probably never in the history of politics has a political party turned in such a thoroughly miserable performance: spending twice the money, receiving millions more votes, basking in the near total adulation of the media/academia/intelligensia then losing the election to a complete noob!! The DNC needs a guillotine, not a sack.

 

[Scaff]

Probably never in the history of politics has a political party turned in such a thoroughly miserable performance: spending twice the money, receiving millions more votes, basking in the near total adulation of the media/academia/intelligensia then losing the election to a complete noob!! The DNC needs a guillotine, not a sack.

Very emotive, doesn't change that it seems to be normal practice for the DNC when a new chair comes on board.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Very emotive, doesn't change that it seems to be normal practice for the DNC when a new chair comes on board.

Bollacks. When "Little Miss Debbie" took over back in 2011, she didn't sack the entire party like Perez just did. If it is normal practice, then we would be seeing headlines of that happening a lot more from the Republicans (bias perception) than we would from the Democrats.

What happened here is that Perez saw that keeping anybody that came on since 2011 was a handicap and just fired them.

 

[Scaff]

Bollacks. When "Little Miss Debbie" took over back in 2011, she didn't sack the entire party like Perez just did. If it is normal practice, then we would be seeing headlines of that happening a lot more from the Republicans (bias perception) than we would from the Democrats.

What happened here is that Perez saw that keeping anybody that came on since 2011 was a handicap and just fired them.

Hence the reason i said seems to be, I'm basing that on the cited article, feel free to provide one that offers an alternative view.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Hence the reason i said seems to be, I'm basing that on the cited article, feel free to provide one that offers an alternative view.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/28/the-dnc-just-fired-its-entire-staff-heres-why/

Feel free to click the NBC News link in the article if you doubt the article's worthiness at commentary, but to bottom line it, Perez has promised to make the DNC "Trump's worst nightmare" and to make it so, he deemed everyone currently at the DNC politically expendable.

 

[Scaff]

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/28/the-dnc-just-fired-its-entire-staff-heres-why/

Feel free to click the NBC News link in the article if you doubt the article's worthiness at commentary, but to bottom line it, Perez has promised to make the DNC "Trump's worst nightmare" and to make it so, he deemed everyone currently at the DNC politically expendable.

Thanks for that, seems that its normal to see large levels of turnover at these kind of situations, this one is just a bit more so.

"Party staff routinely see major turnover with a new boss and staffers were alerted earlier to expect such a move. However, the mass resignation letters will give Perez a chance to completely remake the DNC’s headquarters from scratch. Staffing had already reached unusual lows following a round of layoffs in December."

 

[Sanji Himura]

Thanks for that, seems that its normal to see large levels of turnover at these kind of situations, this one is just a bit more so.

I would equate it to a new manager coming into town on any football club. The manager wants his people in who practices his coaching system, and would usually fire all of the previous coaches who don't go along in the new system. What is out of the ordinary is when said manager has power over personnel decisions and would, for one reason or another, put players out on loan or release them just to bring in fresh faces to the club.

 

[huskeR32]

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/28/the-dnc-just-fired-its-entire-staff-heres-why/

Feel free to click the NBC News link in the article if you doubt the article's worthiness at commentary, but to bottom line it, Perez has promised to make the DNC "Trump's worst nightmare" and to make it so, he deemed everyone currently at the DNC politically expendable.

From your own article:

Party staff routinely see major turnover with a new boss and staffers were alerted earlier to expect such a move.

"Routinely" is pretty important there. Which still leaves this unsubstantiated:

Bollacks. When "Little Miss Debbie" took over back in 2011, she didn't sack the entire party like Perez just did.

I've not seen any reason to think that Perez is handing this in a significantly different manner than Wasserman Schultz, or any other DNC chair in recent history.

When The Blaze, paragon of unbiased reporting though it is, goes on to say this:

However, the mass resignation letters will give Perez a chance to completely remake the DNC’s headquarters from scratch.

I'm left wondering what work "However" is meant to be doing there. If previous house-clearings weren't meant to provide a fresh start, and chance to "remake... from scratch," then what were they for?

The Blaze is trying to pick one apple out of the bunch, and tell us it's an orange. Well, it stills smells and tastes like an apple to me, so I'm going to treat it as such.

 

[Sanji Himura]

"Routinely" is pretty important there. Which still leaves this unsubstantiated:

Again, I said that "Little Miss Debbie" didn't sack EVERYONE in the entire DNC like Perez did. You are adding 2+2 and getting 5.

I've not seen any reason to think that Perez is handing this in a significantly different manner than Wasserman Schultz, or any other DNC chair in recent history.

Again, Perez is handling it like a head coach who has personnel decisions. He is firing everyone in the DNC because they have become politically expendable.

I'm left wondering what work "However" is meant to be doing there. If previous house-clearings weren't meant to provide a fresh start, and chance to "remake... from scratch," then what were they for?

I can clearly point out that before today, the same staff has been at the DNC since 2011. When Donna Brazile took over for Ms. Schultz during the election, she didn't fire anybody as the job was supposed to be temporary. In reality, that staff has been there for five years, and has cost them the White House. Time for them to go.

You have clearly taken what I have said out of context.

 

[huskeR32]

Again, I said that "Little Miss Debbie" didn't sack EVERYONE in the entire DNC like Perez did. You are adding 2+2 and getting 5.

What hasn't been established, though, is the difference between EVERYONE and however many people are usually let go. How many did Wasserman Schultz keep around? How many have most chairs kept around? If that answer is 2 or 3 people, then what practical difference does it make?

While I don't know what that number is, I'd wager it is pretty small, which is why every article I've read about this described it as routine.

This all seems like an effort by the media to make a big deal out of something that's rather predictable and normal.

Again, Perez is handling it like a head coach who has personnel decisions. He is firing everyone in the DNC because they have become politically expendable.

And again, how close to firing everyone did past chairs come? Do you have that number? Do you know that this situation is remarkably different from past situations?

I can clearly point out that before today, the same staff has been at the DNC since 2011.

What bearing does stability during the tenure of a chair have on what happens during the transition from one to another?

When Donna Brazile took over for Ms. Schultz during the election, she didn't fire anybody as the job was supposed to be temporary.

Seems like that one explains itself, and has no relation to the actions the current situation where a new chair is being installed rather than a temporary one.

In reality, that staff has been there for five years, and has cost them the White House. Time for them to go.

Okay. So we've still got the fact that with every new chair, they've decided that it was "time to go" for pretty much everyone there. I'm still left wondering why this is so different? Why should anyone get worked up about this one?

You have clearly taken what I have said out of context.

Which part?

All I see here is that The Blaze and it's ilk have implied an unnecessary importance to a predictable and mostly normal event. You seem to think they're onto something, and I disagree.

 

[Sanji Himura]

What hasn't been established, though, is the difference between EVERYONE and however many people are usually let go. How many did Wasserman Schultz keep around? How many have most chairs kept around? If that answer is 2 or 3 people, then what practical difference does it make?

I seriously doubt that it is as dismal as you are making it out to be. I diged through the archives of HotAir and Google News just to see if there is any coverage of the firings that "Little Miss Debbie" made when she first stepped in as chairman oops, chairwoman of the DNC, and there is virtually no coverage of her firings. To be a bit fair though, HotAir's archives only go back to May of 2011, but the point is that firings within the major parties is something that happens when there is a new chair, fair enough, but when you have someone who is asking for EVERYONE'S resignation, then that is news worthy.

And again, how close to firing everyone did past chairs come? Do you have that number? Do you know that this situation is remarkably different from past situations?

As I have stated earlier in this post, while I do concede that firings when a new chairperson comes in do indeed happen, the scope of those firings is usually not large enough to make national news. In other words, the political parties are pretty good at keeping this in house.

What bearing does stability during the tenure of a chair have on what happens during the transition from one to another?

None. However, we do need to consider that during the interim between Wasserman-Schultz and Perez, we have had another temporary chair of the DNC.

Seems like that one explains itself, and has no relation to the actions the current situation where a new chair is being installed rather than a temporary one.

I'll just let NBC speak for me:

Immediately after Perez’s selection as party chairman in late February, an adviser to outgoing DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile, Leah Daughtry, asked every employee to submit a letter of resignation dated April 15, according to multiple sources familiar with the party’s internal workings...

Okay. So we've still got the fact that with every new chair, they've decided that it was "time to go" for pretty much everyone there. I'm still left wondering why this is so different? Why should anyone get worked up about this one?

I'm not exactly worked up about this. They have made their bed by rigging the primaries in favor of Hillary, and now they get to lie in it.

All I see here is that The Blaze and it's ilk have implied an unnecessary importance to a predictable and mostly normal event. You seem to think they're onto something, and I disagree.

As I have stated earlier, it is not every day that a major political party's leadership change is playing out on national news. Doubly so when the transition involves the resignation of virtually everyone in the party. The turkey is the fact that everything about the process is usually kept in house, and away from public accountability.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

@Scaff, I have run out of posts about Fox News, I have already shown the the network news has 6 times the viewership of Fox News.

Let me show you the kind of crap conservatives in the US have to put up with every day.

Yesterday a posted a video of a discussion on ABC's The View. It was about Trump's executive order undoing Obama's regulations concerning the environment. Look at these images the gals at The View put on the screen at the beginning of the segment.

This is LA, from the 1970's.

Lastly they show Beijing today.

CNN Said:
What is he actually reversing?
Trump's executive order takes a hammer to the moves President Barack Obama took to combat climate change.
It directs EPA to review Obama's Clean Power Plan, rescind the moratorium on coal mining on US federal lands and urge federal agencies to "identify all regulations, all rules, all policies ... that serve as obstacles and impediments to American energy independence," the official said.
It also goes directly after Obama's record, repealing at least six Obama-era executive orders aimed at addressing global warming, including a series of orders that instructed the federal government to prepare for the impacts of climate change.

The reason I posted that video, was to show how disingenuous they are. The scare tactic that they start the segment with, the then and now photos from the 70's pollution and today's is complete rubbish. Why not show photos from 2008 and today? The story is about rolling back Obama policies after all.

It was a Republican President that started the EPA in the first place.

 

[Biggles]

Thank you. Why hide it?

The birther movement as far as Republicans are concerned is a dead issue. Ted Cruz was not born in this country and only his mother was a US citizen. That is exactly what the birthers believed about Obama. You can call that racist all you want, it does not make it true.

As far as Obama being a Muslim, That is what my 79 year old pentecostal mother thinks. I personally think he is an atheist (nothing wrong with that). I think he started attending the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago to get closer to the black community. Rabble rousers need a rabble to rouse.

The Democrats are always trying to call the Republicans out as racists. The facts, however do not back that claim up.

Lincoln was a Republican. He ended slavery in this country

The first black congressmen, Hiram Revels and Joseph Rainey were both Republicans.

The first black senator, Hiram Rhodes Revels was a Republican.

In the Coushatta massacre in 1870, 6 Republicans and many freed slaves were killed by Democrats.

In the vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats.

The Senate vote:

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Ben Carson, Herman Cain...

I could go on and on.

Those who try and paint the Republicans as racist are liars.

How is that racist? You will have to explain that to me.

In the early 1990s Mexico truly was a 3rd world nation. I knew NAFTA would help bring them up, and it has.

I think now, it is time for the Mexican government to get control of it's own corruption and stand on it's own. I was in Mexico a few years ago, in Cabo San Lucas. On the way back to the airport we got pulled over for speeding, and we were. I was shocked that the cops took a bribe, (I was not driving) and let us go. That would never happen here.

In the end. I think "free trade" works on paper, but when foreign workers are paid pennies on the dollar as American workers something has got to give. Like I said before, I was all for Clinton and NAFTA in the beginning, but now it has hurt the US too much. Maybe in 20 years or so we can try it again, when Mexico has risen to near the level as Canada and the US.

Edit: I edited this post to add an "s", I guess I will edit it again to add this. Johnny Rotten, on Trump.

Good lord - what a strange concoction of irrelevant facts & personal anecdotes.

1) My profile page states ... & has done, since I first signed up on GTPlanet some 12 years ago, that my "location" is Canada. It's hard to see how that is "hiding" anything.

2) I have never said "Republicans are racists". Some Republicans are racist, so are some Democrats. Back in 1860 almost everyone held racist opinions, including Abraham Lincoln & in 1964 southern Democrats were among the most racist people in the US ... but we're not looking at 1860, or 1964, we're looking at now.

3) Your mother thinks Obama is a Muslim. You think he's an atheist. What's the relevance? Obama's a "rabble rouser"? I think most people would agree that "rabble rouser" is a bizarrely inappropriate description of Obama.

4) People who work to earn money, whether they live in the US or in Mexico are, by definition, not receiving "welfare". When they receive "pennies on the dollar" for the work that they do it doesn't mean they are receiving welfare, it means that they are poor.

5) I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Johnny Rotten is not generally regarded as a sage commentator on political matters. In fact, to put it bluntly, Johnny Rotten is an idiot.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

1) My profile page states ... & has done, since I first signed up on GTPlanet some 12 years ago, that my "location" is Canada. It's hard to see how that is "hiding" anything.

I am not a guy that keeps up with other member status updates, or what ever they are called, and I rarely look at people profiles. Every post I make shows I am from the US.

2) I have never said "Republicans are racists". Some Republicans are racist, so are some Democrats. Back in 1860 almost everyone held racist opinions, including Abraham Lincoln & in 1964 southern Democrats were among the most racist people in the US ... but we're not looking at 1860, or 1964, we're looking at now.

I never said you did, I was done responding to you after the second paragraph. I could have been a little more clear. But I did say:

The Democrats are always trying to call the Republicans out as racists.

And clearly you are not a Democrat.

3) Your mother thinks Obama is a Muslim. You think he's an atheist. What's the relevance? Obama's a "rabble rouser"? I think most people would agree that "rabble rouser" is a bizarrely inappropriate description of Obama.

We're talking about a man who was elected president with more than 50% of the vote. Twice. He had plenty of support from Democrats across the board. But your theory is that he faked religious belief in order to win the trust of the black community, so that he could purposefully stoke their racial fears and resentment?

I think he started attending the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago to get closer to the black community. Rabble rousers need a rabble to rouse.

He started attending the church in 1988. He was just getting started as a community activist.

4) People who work to earn money, whether they live in the US or in Mexico are, by definition, not receiving "welfare". When they receive "pennies on the dollar" for the work that they do it doesn't mean they are receiving welfare, it means that they are poor.

I was not referring to the working people of Mexico. I was reffering to the nation as a whole.

5) I hate to be the one to break this to you, but Johnny Rotten is not generally regarded as a sage commentator on political matters. In fact, to put it bluntly, Johnny Rotten is an idiot.

I added that because when I was a kid, the Sex Pistols were the epitome of nonconformity and even anarchy. Also, I added it to that post because I was warned about double posting the other day, and no one had posted since me.

*WARNING STRONG LANGUAGE*

 

[TenEightyOne]

I added that because when I was a kid, the Sex Pistols were the epitome of nonconformity and even anarchy.

They were one of the first fully manufactured groups with a manager who carefully cultivated the "non-conformity" image to the extent that they risked being sacked if they disobeyed his careful product placement. I think you're barking up the wrong tree there...

 

[UKMikey]

I am not a guy that keeps up with other member status updates, or what ever they are called, and I rarely look at people profiles. Every post I make shows I am from the US.

I'm not sure how this equates to him hiding anything.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff, I have run out of posts about Fox News, I have already shown the the network news has 6 times the viewership of Fox News.

Which still doesn't make them marginal or address the direct question I asked you in regard to the definition of 'marginal' and how it would apply to either Fox news or the White House.

Let me show you the kind of crap conservatives in the US have to put up with every day.

Yesterday a posted a video of a discussion on ABC's The View. It was about Trump's executive order undoing Obama's regulations concerning the environment. Look at these images the gals at The View put on the screen at the beginning of the segment.

View attachment 637852

This is LA, from the 1970's.

View attachment 637853

Lastly they show Beijing today.

View attachment 637854

The reason I posted that video, was to show how disingenuous they are. The scare tactic that they start the segment with, the then and now photos from the 70's pollution and today's is complete rubbish. Why not show photos from 2008 and today? The story is about rolling back Obama policies after all.

It was a Republican President that started the EPA in the first place.

So that doesn't happen from Conservative news sources at all does it?

I am not a guy that keeps up with other member status updates, or what ever they are called, and I rarely look at people profiles. Every post I make shows I am from the US.
I never said you did, I was done responding to you after the second paragraph. I could have been a little more clear. But I did say:
And clearly you are not a Democrat.

Which means he's not hidden it at all.

I added that because when I was a kid, the Sex Pistols were the epitome of nonconformity and even anarchy. Also, I added it to that post because I was warned about double posting the other day, and no one had posted since me.

*WARNING STRONG LANGUAGE*

As has been said a manufactured band, and one of his most recent ventures was the adverting of fake butter! Here's one example of it (he did numerous - can't have been for the money - must have been to stick it to the man).



If you want an anti-establishment punk band you go for The Clash, Stiff Little Fingers, Dead Kennedy's, etc. Not one built from the ground up to simply make money via stage managed outrage.

 

[huskeR32]

Every post I make shows I am from the US.

For the third time - what does it matter where any of us is from?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

For the third time - what does it matter where any of us is from?

He should be pleased that we are taking an interest in American politics. Surely an appreciation of the issues that affect us all is the mark of an informed citizen. Or would he prefer that we be insular and show no regard for issues that fall outside the immediate range of our senses?

 

[andrea]

This is how it begins.



Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-f...-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959?mod=e2tw

 

[IforceV8]

 

[TenEightyOne]

Presidential-size popcorn over here, please.

 

[McLaren]

2 ABC reporters say Flynn has not made that offer.

Jack Langer, Spox for Chmn Nunes at House Intel: "No, Michael Flynn has not offered to testify to HPSCI in exchange for immunity."

A House Intel Dem aide agrees: "HPSCI Dems have not received an offer to testify to the committee for immunity."

https://twitter.com/jparkABC

BREAKING: Spokespeople for both Rs and Ds on House Intel Committee disagree with @WSJ rpt, sying Flynn did NOT offer testimony for immunity.

BREAKING: Flynn apparently offered testimony to @FBI, House, Senate Intel Cmtes. Only House cmte said they've received no such offer.

https://twitter.com/JeffPohjola

There was a clip from FOX Business saying the same. It appears the WSJ is under fire for interpreting the last sentence of Kelner's letter as wanting immunity b/c it asks for assurance against an unfair prosecution. Which wouldn't surprise me. WSJ is the same publication that tried to make PewDiePie into some sort of Nazi lover.

 

[Pillo-san]

@McLaren Are you sure it is only a rouse? seems kind legit, every newspaper I have seen today have posted this. Would be a big setback for "fake news" if this turned out to be fake

 

[Chrunch Houston]

For the third time - what does it matter where any of us is from?

Only three times? Maybe you should ask me again. I'm not sure why you are so concerned why I care. Care to answer that?

I don't go reading the profiles of everyone I respond to. I think it is courteous to display your flag for others to see. Unless you have a good reason, I actually think it is a little rude not to. That was your answer.

Which means he's not hidden it at all.

I did not know where he was from until he told me.

Geez the people here will argue about anything.

So that doesn't happen from Conservative news sources at all does it?

ABC is not supposed to be Liberal, or Conservative. It is an over the air broadcast network. It's stations and affiliates are licensed by the FCC and must act in the public interest.
I don't think that The View, showing images from before the EPA ever had a chance to clean up the air, while talking about Trump rolling back recent Obama restrictions on energy, is in the public interest. It is a scare tactic, it is propaganda.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't think that The View, showing images from before the EPA ever had a chance to clean up the air, while talking about Trump rolling back recent Obama restrictions on energy, is in the public interest.

Even if it's an image that represents public fears of what might happen as a direct result of Trump's policies?