|
|
Post by forgottenlord on May 22, 2018 12:57:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on May 22, 2018 12:57:57 GMT -5
iChurchill drops bid to buy damaged line to Churchill, MB, citing lack of cooperation from Ottawa. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-omnitrax-rail-1.4672810Ottawa is adamant that the cost of repairs must be incurred by the private sector. The private sector is insistent that a profit on the line is impossible without government support. Churchill just wants to stop starving because their only land route is cut off by the damage. |
|
|
|
Post by phillippatUK on May 22, 2018 13:13:33 GMT -5
Hey, today I turn 59, having been born in 1959. |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on May 22, 2018 14:09:45 GMT -5
Per npr: Teachers who were offered grants to work in inner city schools are now finding out that DOE is converting those grants to loans, which must be paid back. One teacher would be on the hook for $30k. DOE is conducting a "top to bottom review" to find out why this happened.
So ineptitude is out of the question?? 🤡
|
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on May 22, 2018 14:32:41 GMT -5
My cousin
(Not really) 🤡
|
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on May 22, 2018 14:34:07 GMT -5
Is it me or is Cluckabee more sad looking (as in "don't wanna be here") than usual today?
|
|
DocDrama
Hive Whisperer
A Musical Note or a Shark Fin
Posts: 6,927 
Likes: 16,423
|
Post by DocDrama on May 22, 2018 14:36:33 GMT -5
EPA Blocks AP, CNN From National Summit On Harmful Water Contaminants WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency is barring The Associated Press, CNN and the environmental-focused news organization E&E from a national summit on harmful water contaminants. The EPA blocked the news organizations from attending Tuesday’s Washington meeting, convened by EPA chief Scott Pruitt. EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox told the barred organizations they were not invited and there was no space for them, but gave no indication of why they specifically were barred. Pruitt told about 200 people at the meeting that dealing with the contaminants is a “national priority.” Guards barred an AP reporter from passing through a security checkpoint inside the building. When the reporter asked to speak to an EPA public-affairs person, the security guards grabbed the reporter by the shoulders and shoved her forcibly out of the EPA building. talkingpointsmemo.com/news/epa-bars-associated-press-cnn-national-summit-water-contaminantsSee how easy it is for the EPA to make the 1st amendment inactive. Which amendment ends next? |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on May 22, 2018 14:40:47 GMT -5
EPA Blocks AP, CNN From National Summit On Harmful Water Contaminants WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency is barring The Associated Press, CNN and the environmental-focused news organization E&E from a national summit on harmful water contaminants. The EPA blocked the news organizations from attending Tuesday’s Washington meeting, convened by EPA chief Scott Pruitt. EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox told the barred organizations they were not invited and there was no space for them, but gave no indication of why they specifically were barred. Pruitt told about 200 people at the meeting that dealing with the contaminants is a “national priority.” Guards barred an AP reporter from passing through a security checkpoint inside the building. When the reporter asked to speak to an EPA public-affairs person, the security guards grabbed the reporter by the shoulders and shoved her forcibly out of the EPA building. talkingpointsmemo.com/news/epa-bars-associated-press-cnn-national-summit-water-contaminantsSee how easy it is for the EPA to make the 1st amendment inactive. Which amendment ends next? The ostensible reason for banning the reporters was that there was not enough space for all media. Banned media then began taking pictures of empty chairs. |
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on May 22, 2018 15:15:56 GMT -5
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS THAT THERE IS NO “CRISIS” Yesterday, Eugene Robinson argued that “the constitutional crisis is here.” Of course, we’ve been in a constitutional crisis, at the very least, since Trump fired FBI director James Comey under transparent pretenses, only to immediately admit that the real reason was Comey’s handling of the Russia probe. Subsequent revelations have clarified that, prior to the firing, Trump pressured Comey to order the FBI to limit its investigation. In the intervening months, Trump has repeatedly, and baselessly, attacked the investigation. His efforts have been aided and abetted by Republican lawmakers and the conservative media, such that large segments of the American right now believe that there is a “deep state” plot, orchestrated by the departed Obama administration, to mount a coup d’état against Trump. Thus, various commentators have called for “red lines,” such as the “firing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Attorney General Jeff Sessions” or “Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.” A number of senators, including Republicans, have proclaimed “red lines,” such as firing special prosecutor Robert Mueller. But it remains unclear whether any such “red lines” exist, and for whom they matter. Indeed, the scorched-earth approach adopted by Trump and his supporters can almost certainly succeed in subverting the rule of law without actually removing those in charge of the investigation. This is, I suggest, the state of play. And it’s worse than we might realize. Consider how the Department of Justice has, for now, maneuvered to avoid a crisis over Trump’s most recent demands. Its inspector general will specifically investigate Trump’s allegations. Leading “FBI and Justice Department officials have agreed to meet with congressional leaders and ‘review’ highly classified information the lawmakers have been seeking as they scrutinize the handling of the Russia investigation.” The whole thing, as Robinson notes in his piece, amounts to highly inappropriate political interference. A number of experts agree. In his classic work, Arms and Influence, Thomas Schelling writes that: Salami tactics work by exploiting ambiguity. They involve incremental violations—of borders, political commitments, or institutional norms—that can be excused away; they always seem to fall short of inviting retaliation. Salami tactics work, in part, because responding to violations is costly. In military deterrence, those costs come in blood and treasure. During the Cold War, the cost might involve mutual annihilation. With Trump, the costs are mainly to the GOP: pushing back against Trump risks defeat in primaries, the demobilization of voters in midterms, and the loss of the ability to push the Republican political agenda. But there are also costs to Democrats, who have to worry about provoking a backlash and energizing Republican voters. As Schelling notes: We might argue that Trump is a creature of “probes” and “testing.” That’s always been the nature of his confidence game. It would follow that salami tactics are a basic part of his arsenal. But I think this misreads the situation. Trump is also a creature of impulse. Whether the issue is withdrawing American troops from the Korean peninsula or firing Mueller, we see a pattern in which his advisors and aides constantly run interference. Trump wants to do something risky, for national security or his own political survival, and those around him scramble to ‘satisfy’ him while avoiding a crisis—or preventing the crisis from, so to speak, going nuclear. Everyone involved then breathes a sigh of relief. The problem: in practice, this process produces a steady stream of “small violations” that are never enough to shift GOP elites, or provide a clear rallying cry for Democrats, and that buy even more time to propagandize the Republican base. It is possible, of course, that Trump’s handlers will fail to constrain him, or that some other dramatic event changes the dynamic. For example, Democratic control of one, or both, branches of congress might create a confrontation that ends the pattern. For now, however, the rule of law is being subverted in ways that, per Schelling, any child should be able to recognize. The crisis never comes, and thus we continue on a very dangerous path. www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/constitutional-crisis-no-crisis |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on May 22, 2018 15:18:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on May 22, 2018 15:23:14 GMT -5
So I guess the lecher graduated cum.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on May 22, 2018 15:37:14 GMT -5
|
|
DocDrama
Hive Whisperer
A Musical Note or a Shark Fin
Posts: 6,927
Likes: 16,423
|
Post by DocDrama on May 22, 2018 16:01:47 GMT -5
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS THAT THERE IS NO “CRISIS” Yesterday, Eugene Robinson argued that “the constitutional crisis is here.” Of course, we’ve been in a constitutional crisis, at the very least, since Trump fired FBI director James Comey under transparent pretenses, only to immediately admit that the real reason was Comey’s handling of the Russia probe. Subsequent revelations have clarified that, prior to the firing, Trump pressured Comey to order the FBI to limit its investigation. In the intervening months, Trump has repeatedly, and baselessly, attacked the investigation. His efforts have been aided and abetted by Republican lawmakers and the conservative media, such that large segments of the American right now believe that there is a “deep state” plot, orchestrated by the departed Obama administration, to mount a coup d’état against Trump. Thus, various commentators have called for “red lines,” such as the “firing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Attorney General Jeff Sessions” or “Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.” A number of senators, including Republicans, have proclaimed “red lines,” such as firing special prosecutor Robert Mueller. But it remains unclear whether any such “red lines” exist, and for whom they matter. Indeed, the scorched-earth approach adopted by Trump and his supporters can almost certainly succeed in subverting the rule of law without actually removing those in charge of the investigation. This is, I suggest, the state of play. And it’s worse than we might realize. Consider how the Department of Justice has, for now, maneuvered to avoid a crisis over Trump’s most recent demands. Its inspector general will specifically investigate Trump’s allegations. Leading “FBI and Justice Department officials have agreed to meet with congressional leaders and ‘review’ highly classified information the lawmakers have been seeking as they scrutinize the handling of the Russia investigation.” The whole thing, as Robinson notes in his piece, amounts to highly inappropriate political interference. A number of experts agree. In his classic work, Arms and Influence, Thomas Schelling writes that: Salami tactics work by exploiting ambiguity. They involve incremental violations—of borders, political commitments, or institutional norms—that can be excused away; they always seem to fall short of inviting retaliation. Salami tactics work, in part, because responding to violations is costly. In military deterrence, those costs come in blood and treasure. During the Cold War, the cost might involve mutual annihilation. With Trump, the costs are mainly to the GOP: pushing back against Trump risks defeat in primaries, the demobilization of voters in midterms, and the loss of the ability to push the Republican political agenda. But there are also costs to Democrats, who have to worry about provoking a backlash and energizing Republican voters. As Schelling notes: We might argue that Trump is a creature of “probes” and “testing.” That’s always been the nature of his confidence game. It would follow that salami tactics are a basic part of his arsenal. But I think this misreads the situation. Trump is also a creature of impulse. Whether the issue is withdrawing American troops from the Korean peninsula or firing Mueller, we see a pattern in which his advisors and aides constantly run interference. Trump wants to do something risky, for national security or his own political survival, and those around him scramble to ‘satisfy’ him while avoiding a crisis—or preventing the crisis from, so to speak, going nuclear. Everyone involved then breathes a sigh of relief. The problem: in practice, this process produces a steady stream of “small violations” that are never enough to shift GOP elites, or provide a clear rallying cry for Democrats, and that buy even more time to propagandize the Republican base. It is possible, of course, that Trump’s handlers will fail to constrain him, or that some other dramatic event changes the dynamic. For example, Democratic control of one, or both, branches of congress might create a confrontation that ends the pattern. For now, however, the rule of law is being subverted in ways that, per Schelling, any child should be able to recognize. The crisis never comes, and thus we continue on a very dangerous path. www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/constitutional-crisis-no-crisisA great idea would be requiring anyone running for President to take a mental test. One adult-child president is enough! |
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on May 22, 2018 16:11:09 GMT -5
So I guess the lecher graduated cum. Well, you hate to be blunt, but whoever decorated that cake was kind of a moron. |
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on May 22, 2018 17:36:03 GMT -5
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS THAT THERE IS NO “CRISIS” Yesterday, Eugene Robinson argued that “the constitutional crisis is here.” Of course, we’ve been in a constitutional crisis, at the very least, since Trump fired FBI director James Comey under transparent pretenses, only to immediately admit that the real reason was Comey’s handling of the Russia probe. Subsequent revelations have clarified that, prior to the firing, Trump pressured Comey to order the FBI to limit its investigation. In the intervening months, Trump has repeatedly, and baselessly, attacked the investigation. His efforts have been aided and abetted by Republican lawmakers and the conservative media, such that large segments of the American right now believe that there is a “deep state” plot, orchestrated by the departed Obama administration, to mount a coup d’état against Trump. Thus, various commentators have called for “red lines,” such as the “firing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Attorney General Jeff Sessions” or “Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.” A number of senators, including Republicans, have proclaimed “red lines,” such as firing special prosecutor Robert Mueller. But it remains unclear whether any such “red lines” exist, and for whom they matter. Indeed, the scorched-earth approach adopted by Trump and his supporters can almost certainly succeed in subverting the rule of law without actually removing those in charge of the investigation. This is, I suggest, the state of play. And it’s worse than we might realize. Consider how the Department of Justice has, for now, maneuvered to avoid a crisis over Trump’s most recent demands. Its inspector general will specifically investigate Trump’s allegations. Leading “FBI and Justice Department officials have agreed to meet with congressional leaders and ‘review’ highly classified information the lawmakers have been seeking as they scrutinize the handling of the Russia investigation.” The whole thing, as Robinson notes in his piece, amounts to highly inappropriate political interference. A number of experts agree. In his classic work, Arms and Influence, Thomas Schelling writes that: Salami tactics work by exploiting ambiguity. They involve incremental violations—of borders, political commitments, or institutional norms—that can be excused away; they always seem to fall short of inviting retaliation. Salami tactics work, in part, because responding to violations is costly. In military deterrence, those costs come in blood and treasure. During the Cold War, the cost might involve mutual annihilation. With Trump, the costs are mainly to the GOP: pushing back against Trump risks defeat in primaries, the demobilization of voters in midterms, and the loss of the ability to push the Republican political agenda. But there are also costs to Democrats, who have to worry about provoking a backlash and energizing Republican voters. As Schelling notes: We might argue that Trump is a creature of “probes” and “testing.” That’s always been the nature of his confidence game. It would follow that salami tactics are a basic part of his arsenal. But I think this misreads the situation. Trump is also a creature of impulse. Whether the issue is withdrawing American troops from the Korean peninsula or firing Mueller, we see a pattern in which his advisors and aides constantly run interference. Trump wants to do something risky, for national security or his own political survival, and those around him scramble to ‘satisfy’ him while avoiding a crisis—or preventing the crisis from, so to speak, going nuclear. Everyone involved then breathes a sigh of relief. The problem: in practice, this process produces a steady stream of “small violations” that are never enough to shift GOP elites, or provide a clear rallying cry for Democrats, and that buy even more time to propagandize the Republican base. It is possible, of course, that Trump’s handlers will fail to constrain him, or that some other dramatic event changes the dynamic. For example, Democratic control of one, or both, branches of congress might create a confrontation that ends the pattern. For now, however, the rule of law is being subverted in ways that, per Schelling, any child should be able to recognize. The crisis never comes, and thus we continue on a very dangerous path. www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/constitutional-crisis-no-crisisA great idea would be requiring anyone running for President to take a mental test. One adult-child president is enough! So I know your suggestion was earnest but you do know there's a massive racial history issue with that idea, right? |
|
DocDrama
Hive Whisperer
A Musical Note or a Shark Fin
Posts: 6,927
Likes: 16,423
|
Post by DocDrama on May 22, 2018 18:49:43 GMT -5
A great idea would be requiring anyone running for President to take a mental test. One adult-child president is enough! So I know your suggestion was earnest but you do know there's a massive racial history issue with that idea, right? And the logical idea of 'No More Trumps' overrides any other issues. |
|
|
|
Post by doddeb on May 22, 2018 20:54:55 GMT -5
Stacy Abrams (D-Ga) will be the first African American woman to be a gubernatorial candidate of a major party in U.S. history. nyti.ms/2Llc0Ji |
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on May 22, 2018 21:15:59 GMT -5
So I know your suggestion was earnest but you do know there's a massive racial history issue with that idea, right? And the logical idea of 'No More Trumps' overrides any other issues. As someone who is very much not black talking to someone who is very much not black, I can assure you that neither of us will be listened to when people start objecting. |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on May 22, 2018 21:29:02 GMT -5
And the logical idea of 'No More Trumps' overrides any other issues. As someone who is very much not black talking to someone who is very much not black, I can assure you that neither of us will be listened to when people start objecting. I'm listening though 😊 Asking a potential president to go through a mental skills test is not something I would have an objection to. This is far more different than a poll tax or, based on skin pigmentation, having to take a test to vote. A president must show proficiency in understanding world and national events. If this person cannot do this adequately regardless of party s/he has no reason to be running the country. Yet here we are. |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on May 22, 2018 21:31:46 GMT -5
I just caught the Spy vs. Spy and Boris Badanov references 😋 |
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on May 22, 2018 21:44:50 GMT -5
So a comment by 538 that I pose here: what would you think about Superdelegates only becoming active if no single candidate has a majority of pledged delegates (remember, no candidate may be nominated until an actual majority is reached - plurality is no sufficient) This would make them the first line of free agents to try and determine the will of the Democratic electorate in the case of a brokered convention.
|
|
