|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As both Sanders and the philosopher Slavoj Zizek noted after Sanders lost the primaries, left and right are in some sense outdated ideas. The new division in politics is those who favor the current global hegemony and those who are against it. Like the Hollywood heroes, right and left have been competing to become this new radical anti-status quo party. And so far, in both Europe and America, the right has won, implying that, as Arendt predicted, the powerlessness created by bourgeoisie systems of capitalist exploitation might once again implode into far right totalitarianism.
However, as we have seen, the right’s anti-feminist message is one that only provides a momentary sense of relief (“you are acting powerful by retreating into video games and the internet!”) but like scratching a mosquito bite, it ultimately causes more dissatisfaction. That is to say, the only solution they can offer is, “keep retreating!” Likewise, Trump and the mocking cruel anguish he represents is not a genuine solution to the electorate’s powerlessness, but rather, simply the one closest at hand.
An adult does not freeze in mute horror when a child throws a tantrum. Nor do we generally regard such emotional outbursts as meaningless. Likewise, the left should not be paralyzed with horror by the deplorables, but rather view them of as a symptom of a larger problem, one which only the left can truly solve.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChickenStu wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | LarryCoon wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Here is C-Span's presidential rankings from a panel of historians. Obama opens at #12. This an interesting conversation piece for history nerds. I'm a little surprised to see LBJ rank so high. Dub does not fare well.
https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall |
William Henry Harrison is ranked #40 -- talk about a null hypothesis... |
Yep. Some administrations were literally worse than death. |
I would have Polk higher. Most underrated president ever IMO. |
Polk is the Terence Stamp of Presidents. KNEEL before Polk...
http://tinyurl.com/jgpxlas
http://tinyurl.com/jsjk3eg
Zachary Taylor, the president after Polk, died in office too. They exhumed his ol bones in the early 90s to test whether he was poisoned. He got sick after consuming apples, cherries, milk, and water during a July 4th function. Whether you want to hope those items are refreshments at a future Trump rally, that's up to you.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: |
So if overly sensitive liberal 20 years olds are snowflakes, what are disillusioned 20 year old males who stubbornly promote mediocrity? Dried out turds? |
Such a misrepresentative meme. Being nearly that age, I know plenty of liberal 20 year olds and only a minority of them are sensitive snowflakes. I actually do know some slacktivists but the vast majority are not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 5234
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hate intersectionality as a tenet. I get its value; I think it's important that feminism isn't just about what white women, or wealthy women, or whatever is about. But the idea that all these progressive movements HAVE to be interrelated is a good way to stifle any bit of progress that can be made. So for it to be a foundational tenet? Gross.
An example that comes to mind is Washington (state)'s proposed carbon tax, which actually has some bipartisan support as a climate change act. Yet the leading environmental group in the state was a coalition of progressives in the state. They opposed the measure because it didn't, for example, include provisions to help out minorities who are going to be displaced by climate effects or whatever. (The carbon tax is revenue neutral, which is why conservatives like it.) The proposition failed.
It's not like, e.g. Obamacare without a public option. It's not neutering the effectiveness of the solution. It's just taking largely orthogonal issues and tackling them independently. Drives me crazy that progressives were the ones in the way of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uch. Vomit. She tried to dodge the stigma that hovers around liberal arts academia and/or feminism, saying she lacks the vocabulary, and then she gives herself away by using the words construct and vulva.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25079
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| non-player zealot wrote: |
Uch. Vomit. She tried to dodge the stigma that hovers around liberal arts academia and/or feminism, saying she lacks the vocabulary, and then she gives herself away by using the words construct and vulva. |
That writer is not a good representative of the left. She might fall on the umbrella of left same way alt-right with the right. I consider myself left or left leaning and I don't share her view of white people |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
More "Fake news":
‘IT’S A BIG ONE’: IOWA PIPELINE BURSTS AND SPILLS OVER 130,000 GALLONS OF DIESEL…
We know this can't be true, because as vlf says, the pipeline in Santa Monica is just fine.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25079
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
but there was not even 1 phone call about pipeline complaint |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoopschick29
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 12898
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515760101/when-a-politician-says-fake-news-and-a-newspaper-threatens-to-sue-back
| Quote: | A news outlet publishes a story that a Republican politician dismisses as "fake news." Sounds familiar, right?
But in this case, there's a twist. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel in Colorado is accusing state Sen. Ray Scott of defamation and threatening to sue. If filed, legal experts said it would be the first suit of its kind, potentially setting a legal definition for what is considered fake news and what is not.
|
The media needs to fight back. There is a concerted and systematic war being waged on FACTS and information in this country. And in my opinion, people in highly influential positions have crossed the line into slander and defamation. I would be really fascinated to see if this goes anywhere.
LG legal minds, where you at???
_________________
So glad we gave you your flowers while you were here, Kobe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hoopschick29 wrote: | http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515760101/when-a-politician-says-fake-news-and-a-newspaper-threatens-to-sue-back
| Quote: | A news outlet publishes a story that a Republican politician dismisses as "fake news." Sounds familiar, right?
But in this case, there's a twist. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel in Colorado is accusing state Sen. Ray Scott of defamation and threatening to sue. If filed, legal experts said it would be the first suit of its kind, potentially setting a legal definition for what is considered fake news and what is not.
|
The media needs to fight back. There is a concerted and systematic war being waged on FACTS and information in this country. And in my opinion, people in highly influential positions have crossed the line into slander and defamation. I would be really fascinated to see if this goes anywhere.
LG legal minds, where you at??? |
Love this story
Cannot wait to see it happen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been advocating for a pushback re: defamation suits to a lot of my friends. The issue with defamation is that you have to prove the person who made the statement knew, or should have known, the statement was not true when it was said and, secondly, that actual harm was caused.
This brings a few problems.
1. First, if there is anything in the story which is not 100% truthful or reflects opinion, rather than objective fact, you likely lose in Court.
2. Second, the term "fake news" is ambiguous. There isn't a definition for it and, so, a Court would have to decide how the public at large takes that term. In other words, when someone hears the term "fake news," do the majority of people automatically believe that the person using that term is saying that the source is lying or, rather, do most people simply believe that the report shows some bias rather than being completely false? If its the latter, and you can prove that's how most of the audience takes that allegation, you likely lose because suddenly you are in the realm of opinion rather than fact, and defamation cannot be based on opinions.
3. Third, and last, showing actual harm is tough. CNN recently conducted a study to determine whether Trump's attacks on CNN as "fake news" had harmed its brand at all. CNN found that its brand was just as strong as always. How will these local papers actually show that one person calling them fake news actually harmed them? There has to be a direct correlation. Can they find someone who cancelled their subscription because of that one comment? I don't know. That's an interesting element.
Its a tough standard, especially when public figures are involved. There is also a higher standard to overcome for public figures when it comes to defamation, i.e. because public figures are more susceptible to ridicule and such ridicule is, by default, viewed as more opinion based rather than fact based. So, that also creates the question of whether a newspaper would categorized as a "public figure" and then required to meet that higher standard.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | I've been advocating for a pushback re: defamation suits to a lot of my friends. The issue with defamation is that you have to prove the person who made the statement knew, or should have known, the statement was not true when it was said and, secondly, that actual harm was caused.
This brings a few problems.
1. First, if there is anything in the story which is not 100% truthful or reflects opinion, rather than objective fact, you likely lose in Court.
2. Second, the term "fake news" is ambiguous. There isn't a definition for it and, so, a Court would have to decide how the public at large takes that term. In other words, when someone hears the term "fake news," do the majority of people automatically believe that the person using that term is saying that the source is lying or, rather, do most people simply believe that the report shows some bias rather than being completely false? If its the latter, and you can prove that's how most of the audience takes that allegation, you likely lose because suddenly you are in the realm of opinion rather than fact, and defamation cannot be based on opinions.
3. Third, and last, showing actual harm is tough. CNN recently conducted a study to determine whether Trump's attacks on CNN as "fake news" had harmed its brand at all. CNN found that its brand was just as strong as always. How will these local papers actually show that one person calling them fake news actually harmed them? There has to be a direct correlation. Can they find someone who cancelled their subscription because of that one comment? I don't know. That's an interesting element.
Its a tough standard, especially when public figures are involved. There is also a higher standard to overcome for public figures when it comes to defamation, i.e. because public figures are more susceptible to ridicule and such ridicule is, by default, viewed as more opinion based rather than fact based. So, that also creates the question of whether a newspaper would categorized as a "public figure" and then required to meet that higher standard. |
To this point, I don't think that the term "fake news" always means that the story is untrue factually. As was evidenced the other night when Don Lemon shutdown Paris Dennard for saying that the discussion of the cost of Trump's security and travel was "fake news". I think Dennard's point was not that the story of the costs was factually incorrect, just that the story (in his opinion) was not really a "news" story because it is just simply the way things are and that any discussion of it in attempt to criticize the administration is not newsworthy because the costs are a necessity of doing business. I don't agree with that opinion, but it is one can argue - and there's no way to adjudicate opinion in strict legal terms.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoopschick29
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 12898
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | I've been advocating for a pushback re: defamation suits to a lot of my friends. The issue with defamation is that you have to prove the person who made the statement knew, or should have known, the statement was not true when it was said and, secondly, that actual harm was caused.
This brings a few problems.
1. First, if there is anything in the story which is not 100% truthful or reflects opinion, rather than objective fact, you likely lose in Court.
2. Second, the term "fake news" is ambiguous. There isn't a definition for it and, so, a Court would have to decide how the public at large takes that term. In other words, when someone hears the term "fake news," do the majority of people automatically believe that the person using that term is saying that the source is lying or, rather, do most people simply believe that the report shows some bias rather than being completely false? If its the latter, and you can prove that's how most of the audience takes that allegation, you likely lose because suddenly you are in the realm of opinion rather than fact, and defamation cannot be based on opinions.
3. Third, and last, showing actual harm is tough. CNN recently conducted a study to determine whether Trump's attacks on CNN as "fake news" had harmed its brand at all. CNN found that its brand was just as strong as always. How will these local papers actually show that one person calling them fake news actually harmed them? There has to be a direct correlation. Can they find someone who cancelled their subscription because of that one comment? I don't know. That's an interesting element.
Its a tough standard, especially when public figures are involved. There is also a higher standard to overcome for public figures when it comes to defamation, i.e. because public figures are more susceptible to ridicule and such ridicule is, by default, viewed as more opinion based rather than fact based. So, that also creates the question of whether a newspaper would categorized as a "public figure" and then required to meet that higher standard. |
Thank you for posting this. As you stated, there are multiple conditions that must be met for proving defamation. I can only think of a couple of cases off the top of my head in recent years where defamation/slander was proven and resulted in a victory for the plaintiff (i.e. Gilbert Arenas v. Laura Govan, and Rolling Stone Rape Case Story). But in this case, I wonder if they should proceed anyway with the goal of not necessarily victory, but getting these high profile figures to go on record in a deposition with their reckless mouths. It's one thing to give a soundbite talking about something is fake news. It's quite another to go under oath and have to answer to WHY it is fake news and what about it is untrue to make it fake news. Now it may get dismissed before it gets to the point of depositions, but I think they should push the envelopes of the courts to see how far they can get and make them have to spend some money and resources to defend their words.
_________________
So glad we gave you your flowers while you were here, Kobe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24158
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When Roger Aisles (irony alert - he was a Nixon adviser) created Fox News with the specific intention of being the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, it's been all downhill for the "truth" and "news" since then. Trump was the logical extension of this societal decay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32754
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Goldenwest wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | No, you don't hope the housing bubble blows up under Trump. A collapse in housing prices will precipitate mortgage default, which in turn will cause another banking crisis. Trump is an idiot; he's a fan of banking deregulation and in particular he hates the Basel Accord. I could see him steadfastly morphing into Herbert Hoover II by draining liquidity from the banking system, under the alt-right guise that pumping liquidity into the banking sector would be inflationary (for reference, Fox News was spreading that fear during the last banking crisis). |
Oh yes i do want the housing bubble to burst. Home prices are so far above what most people can afford right now. the housing market needs to and will adjust itself. The only thing keeping the market afloat now are investors and foreign cash. Oh there are a few desperate W-2 earners who are willing to mortgage themselves to the hilt but they don't sustain the market as it is. the safe mortgage to income ratio is 30%. right now, W-2's that buy are mortgaging themselves at 50-60%. That's risky. Also, people taking out a variable rate interest loan to 'beat' the current pricing market are only putting themselves at risk. If they go under in a housing downturn that's their responsibility.
The market as is, is simply unsustainable. A 2,000 sf fixer upper in a decent neighborhood in LA county is hovering around close to a million dollars. Home values in Compton are approaching half a million. Meanwhile, net incomes are at best holding, if not decreasing from cuts in hours due to overseas job relocations. The system just can't last. |
I suppose that's a reasonable answer, providing that you're a nihilist. A collapse of the housing bubble would be catastrophic, and as I mentioned, it would precipitate another banking crisis, a deep recession (or even depression), massive job loss, continued erosion in the faith of the dollar as the de facto international currency. But that's fine, as long as housing in Compton drops to what you feel is a reasonable level.
I have a better idea: Instead of wishing for Armageddon, let's just hope that the Federal Reserve increases interest rates at a gradual pace, which would erase much of the speculative fervor in the housing market. Unless you're advocating some crazy (self-defeating) controls over capital inflows from overseas investors, that is a much more safe and sane means of controlling speculation, and investor/homeowner stupidity through the use of ARMs.
Besides, the anecdote that you presented is absolutely unsustainable. Think through your anecdote: People are unemployed (or underemployed) and incapable of paying for housing (purchases or monthly rent). So what do you think happens next? That means housing goes unoccupied. I don't care if you're a domestic or overseas investor, you're not going to allow your property to go unoccupied, whether you have mortgage debt on it or not. You lower your rent. Now what happens if the rental income is low? The property value of the real estate declines, as the value of real estate is equal to the present value of all future rental income, net of mortgage payments, tax payments, maintenance, and any capital improvements. In other words, rental income determines property value, and if everyone is unemployed, the housing owner either has to lose money or lose the property to the bank as they cannot cover the monthly mortgage payments. So does your anecdote stand up to the passage of time? No.
Prices correct. The best way to control the speculation is to tighten interest rates. Low interest rates are a form of economic morphine: They can help buy time for economic triage, or soften a fall, but they are not a suitable vitamin for long-term, sustainable economic growth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | I hate intersectionality as a tenet. I get its value; I think it's important that feminism isn't just about what white women, or wealthy women, or whatever is about. But the idea that all these progressive movements HAVE to be interrelated is a good way to stifle any bit of progress that can be made. So for it to be a foundational tenet? Gross.
An example that comes to mind is Washington (state)'s proposed carbon tax, which actually has some bipartisan support as a climate change act. Yet the leading environmental group in the state was a coalition of progressives in the state. They opposed the measure because it didn't, for example, include provisions to help out minorities who are going to be displaced by climate effects or whatever. (The carbon tax is revenue neutral, which is why conservatives like it.) The proposition failed.
It's not like, e.g. Obamacare without a public option. It's not neutering the effectiveness of the solution. It's just taking largely orthogonal issues and tackling them independently. Drives me crazy that progressives were the ones in the way of this. |
Yeah, you might want to actually know what you're talking about before pontificating on that one. Here are a few issues you missed:
It isn't revenue neutral, but in fact revenue negative by the best estimates available. In a state saddled with a revenue problem exacerbated by a bunch of anti tax initiatives, this is a big issue. And the gulf would grow in out years.
It was "neutralized" in part by lowered sales tax, but also by large business tax abatements, meaning it would actually be revenue/profit positive for some polluters, who could pass on the bill and pocket the tax savings.
It created a lottery of sorts of who got taxed. Washington generates electricity by 3 means primarily (water, coal, natural gas), with some minor wind generation. Depending on where you live, you could see a steep increase in your electric bill with no alternative, since you don't get to pick.
Additionally, while there were some credits back to the poorest residents, there were many low and lower middle income families that wouldn't qualify. Basically, in addition to being revenue negative (which would result in budget cuts that always trend toward services to the poor), it was also going to be at best a net savings to some of the poorest and some of the richest, with the middle and lower middle bearing the burden.
Also, a steep gasoline component would more than offset the sales tax reduction for many above the credit zone established, and of course, transit costs would be heavily affected as well, so the state would have to go further into budget hell subsidizing this, or dramatically raise fares, and/or cut routes.
There was not a penny set aside to subsidize, incentivize, much less actually build any green infrastructure, and virtually no chance that any would be forthcoming from the legislature. So unlike the British Columbia tax, which along with being far less effective than billed was also coupled with other spending toward sustainable and clean infrastructure, this was just going to be a fairly meaningless climate related issue but a revenue nightmare.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 -- Whatever happened with WPPSS? It was all the talk back when I lived up there, but that was 30+ years ago now. I thought that some of nukes finally did come online. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | 24 -- Whatever happened with WPPSS? It was all the talk back when I lived up there, but that was 30+ years ago now. I thought that some of nukes finally did come online. |
Just one station in 83. There's a reason WPPSS is colloquially pronounced "Whoops". It reconfigured and is now focused on non nuclear stuff.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24158
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Russian Ambassador to United Nations Dies Suddenly
This is the 6th Russian diplomat to die "suddenly" in the last month. This one happened to have known Donald Trump for 30 years.
Sarah Kendzior, a political writer with particular knowledge about authoritarian regimes, wrote about Trump's connection to him this past December in this twitter thread with links to contemporaneous news articles documenting some of Trump's Russian political stances and how they evolved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29281
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link. Very interesting. My favorite quote was:
| Quote: | For this reason, the left should stop expecting Trump’s supporters to be upset when he doesn’t fulfill his promises.
Support for Trump is an acknowledgement that the promise is empty. |
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilt
LG Contributor
Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13725
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's the source for that? The article doesn't mention it.
Just wondering. I googled it, but couldn't find anything that says that.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67621
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This may be the wake up call for Donald. Calling him naive may be cold water in the face. Trump does not like being labeled.
Russian report on Trump’s psychological makeup called him ‘naive’
LINK
| Quote: | Russian strongman Vladimir Putin ordered up a dossier on President Trump’s psychological makeup to help him prepare for their first sitdown, a new report said Monday.
Its conclusions so far peg the president as someone not afraid to take risks but who can also be naive about people and issues he doesn’t understand, |
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24158
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: |
What's the source for that? The article doesn't mention it.
Just wondering. I googled it, but couldn't find anything that says that. |
It was on my twitter feed as an intro to the story -- 7th high profile Russian official since election. I can't find a compiled list either, but I bet Rachel Maddow will have one on her show tonight or tomorrow night. I can remember a few specific ones, but would have to google them individually. I'll keep my eye out for a list because I'm sure someone has been keeping track. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67621
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't position serve at the will of the president? McMaster is not a yes man. Will Donald try to upstage him or will he try to get along with him. He made a concession. He allowed him to chose his staff. | Quote: | | Trump "gave full authority for McMaster to hire whatever staff he sees fit," White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders said Monday. |
Trump appoints Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster his new national security adviser
LINK
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
