Political Roundtable Part XXII

[doclinkin]

It's a nice egg on face moment for Trump, but I don't have much respect for this anon source.

You don't get any credit for being part of this cluster **** and then acting all high and mighty, this person is just as much of a problem as the rest of that administration.

Oh but the delicious mischief behind it is an operatic level of tricksterism. Trolling from the inside, and watching the result. Gaslighting at ninja level trying to tip him over the edge. He's already twittering about how the traitor must be turned over for summary torture or execution, for the good of the country. The anonymous source must be smirking behind his own face watching this trembling volcano of sputtering anger.

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

Trump administration to circumvent court limits on detention of child migrants

The Trump administration took the first official step Thursday toward withdrawing from a court agreement that limits the government’s ability to hold minors in immigration jails, a move advocates say could lead to a rapid expansion of detention facilities and more time in custody for children.

The maneuver is almost certain to land the administration back in court where the U.S. District Court Judge who oversees the agreement has rejected attempts to extend the amount of time migrant children can be held with their parents beyond the limit of 20 days. The new rules would lift those restrictions and allow the government to detain migrant children until their cases have been fully adjudicated.

The changes proposed by the administration would allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to expand its family detention facilities to keep parents and children together in custody for lengthier periods. ICE has three such facilities, which it calls “family residential centers,” with a combined capacity of about 3,000 beds.

But those facilities are almost always full, and the limitations on child detention under the Flores settlement have been a disincentive to build more. The Trump administration has directed the Pentagon to identify sites where new detention centers could be added with space for 12,000 additional beds.

The Washington Post




Seems like we could find better ways to spend tax dollars than on more jails for poor, brown people.

It always amazes me how much conservatives will spend for prisons and detention centers, but refuse to divert any of that money for programs that keep people OUT of these facilities.

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

Trump admin rejected report showing refugees did not pose major security threat

The Trump administration has consistently sought to exaggerate the potential security threat posed by refugees and dismissed an intelligence assessment last year that showed refugees did not present a significant threat to the U.S., three former senior officials told NBC News.

Hardliners in the administration then issued their own report this year that several former officials and rights groups say misstates the evidence and inflates the threat posed by people born outside the U.S.

Brand's blunt veto of the intelligence assessment shocked career civil servants at the interagency meeting, which seemed to expose a bid to supplant facts and expertise with an ideological agenda. Her response also amounted to a rejection of her own department's view, as the FBI, part of the Justice Department, had contributed to the assessment.

NBC News


Nothing rallies the voting base like vilifying brown people.

[JWizmentality]

It's a nice egg on face moment for Trump, but I don't have much respect for this anon source.

You don't get any credit for being part of this cluster **** and then acting all high and mighty, this person is just as much of a problem as the rest of that administration.

Oh but the delicious mischief behind it is an operatic level of tricksterism. Trolling from the inside, and watching the result. Gaslighting at ninja level trying to tip him over the edge. He's already twittering about how the traitor must be turned over for summary torture or execution, for the good of the country. The anonymous source must be smirking behind his own face watching this trembling volcano of sputtering anger.

Whoever the "leaker" is. He shouldn't be treated as some paragon of virtue. He/She is just as complicit in the decay of gov't they are supposedly trying to save.

[Jamaaliver]

Federal judge questions which parts of Obamacare should stand, but rejects call to suspend the law

A federal judge in Texas on Wednesday rejected a request from a group of Republican-led states to suspend the Affordable Care Act, but he extensively quizzed attorneys involved in the latest challenge to the 2010 health care law about which provisions should survive.

That raised the prospect that U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, may seek to roll back at least some of the consumer protections at the core of the law, often called Obamacare.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court's four liberal justices to uphold the law, but only after concluding that the requirement could stand because it was enforced with a tax penalty.

Now in the Texas case, the 20 governors and attorneys general argue the requirement is no longer constitutional because the tax penalty has been eliminated.

And, they continue, because the requirement is so central to health care law, the whole law cannot survive without it.

If successful, the Texas suit would also eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars in federal assistance that has made it possible to extend coverage to some 20 million previously uninsured Americans through expansions to state Medicaid programs and through subsidies available to low- and middle-income Americans who buy coverage on insurance marketplaces around the country.

Scores of patient advocates, physicians and hospital groups and other health care experts have warned that such a retrenchment would be catastrophic.

Also opposing the lawsuit are leading national groups representing patients, including the American Diabetes Association, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the advocacy arm of the American Cancer Society.

LA Times

[Ruzious]

It's a nice egg on face moment for Trump, but I don't have much respect for this anon source.

You don't get any credit for being part of this cluster **** and then acting all high and mighty, this person is just as much of a problem as the rest of that administration.

Oh but the delicious mischief behind it is an operatic level of tricksterism. Trolling from the inside, and watching the result. Gaslighting at ninja level trying to tip him over the edge. He's already twittering about how the traitor must be turned over for summary torture or execution, for the good of the country. The anonymous source must be smirking behind his own face watching this trembling volcano of sputtering anger.

Whoever the "leaker" is. He shouldn't be treated as some paragon of virtue. He/She is just as complicit in the decay of gov't they are supposedly trying to save.

Otoh, that person and other like-minded accomplises might be saving us from a helluvalot more damage that would otherwise be caused by Trump's gross negligence. Hard to say either way - at this point. Now, the race is on - from ALL sides - to find out who this mystery person is.

[Ruzious]

Btw, it's fascinating how it used to be an honorable thing to be a "whistle-blower" - to be valued and protected, and now people who do the exact same thing are called leakers and demonized. Just an observation - not a value judgment.

[pancakes3]

Read on Twitter

also

Read on Twitter

[I_Like_Dirt]

Btw, it's fascinating how it used to be an honorable thing to be a "whistle-blower" - to be valued and protected, and now people who do the exact same thing are called leakers and demonized. Just an observation - not a value judgment.

When was that ever really the case in the past? The sad reality is that whistleblowers have basically always faced massive risks with very few protections or potential benefits. There seems to be a public image of whistleblowers that idolizes them and shows them as great people - you can see examples in movies, literature or any other number of artistic media. Rebels who fight for their causes. In the end, though, once context is applied, people only truly seem to actually have any interest in protecting whistle-blowers unless they see them as being on "their side," whatever that is. And there are always so many layers to the events in question that it never winds up being the case and so protections don't actually happen. Sometimes whistleblowers actually do effect legitimate change for the better, but that change almost never actually benefits them and they invariably wind up worse for it somehow, unless they're using it more as a political strategy and are playing the other side of the fence, too.

[Ruzious]

Btw, it's fascinating how it used to be an honorable thing to be a "whistle-blower" - to be valued and protected, and now people who do the exact same thing are called leakers and demonized. Just an observation - not a value judgment.

When was that ever really the case in the past? The sad reality is that whistleblowers have basically always faced massive risks with very few protections or potential benefits. There seems to be a public image of whistleblowers that idolizes them and shows them as great people - you can see examples in movies, literature or any other number of artistic media. Rebels who fight for their causes. In the end, though, once context is applied, people only truly seem to actually have any interest in protecting whistle-blowers unless they see them as being on "their side," whatever that is. And there are always so many layers to the events in question that it never winds up being the case and so protections don't actually happen. Sometimes whistleblowers actually do effect legitimate change for the better, but that change almost never actually benefits them and they invariably wind up worse for it somehow, unless they're using it more as a political strategy and are playing the other side of the fence, too.

At some point, there were rules and/or legislation put in place to protect them - showing they were valued by society, but I'm hazy as to the specifics and under which administration(s) those rules/regs were put in place.

[dckingsfan]

Interesting stuff...Kavanaugh is definitely has pro-White nationalist views as shown in the emails. There are several conversations of trying to use the law to enhance discriminatory practices. His discussion with Helgi Walker (some DC swamp creature) is pretty damning...they OPENLY talked about using racial profiling at airport security not only for the short term, but as a LONG TERM strategy:

https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing

Which parts of this do you find damning? There are some parts like...

The people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple — and grapple now — with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented.

[JWizmentality]

Btw, it's fascinating how it used to be an honorable thing to be a "whistle-blower" - to be valued and protected, and now people who do the exact same thing are called leakers and demonized. Just an observation - not a value judgment.

Whistle Blowers are generally not anonymous and resign.

[Ruzious]

Btw, it's fascinating how it used to be an honorable thing to be a "whistle-blower" - to be valued and protected, and now people who do the exact same thing are called leakers and demonized. Just an observation - not a value judgment.

Whistle Blowers are generally not anonymous and resign.

I believe part of the point of protection is so they don't have to resign and have the option to remain anonymous.

[I_Like_Dirt]

At some point, there were rules and/or legislation put in place to protect them - showing they were valued by society, but I'm hazy as to the specifics and under which administration(s) those rules/regs were put in place.

Rules and regs, sure, but that's different. In reality, those kinds of rules and regs are almost never effective and rarely enforced even if they are. They have more to do with a show of valuing those people, when at best it's about valuing doing damage to some particular industry, regime or whatever, or finding weak spots in your own power base, not so much about the people in question. Rules or not, those people are often discarded and others move on, rationalizing how the rules weren't intended to fit in that scenario somehow.

And really, it's not easy to figure out a solution to. If 5 people conspire to commit murder, and do, and one of them gets nervous and sells the other 4 out, is the one that sold the others out really a better person than those others? Does s/he deserve protections? Does s/he deserve public praise? Where is the line drawn? And let's say we answer yes to all of those things; that sort of encourages attempted entrapment of the competition by going in together and selling them out while claiming repentance. It's always going to be an incredibly muddy situation with no clear answers no matter how hard we try to make things clear.

And for what it's worth, there is plenty of praise for whistleblowers out there, but it's incredibly subjective and entirely determined by biases and other motivations. I mean, while Trump may be calling for the head of a leak here, he certainly didn't seem to have any issues with Julian Assange during the election.

[Ruzious]

At some point, there were rules and/or legislation put in place to protect them - showing they were valued by society, but I'm hazy as to the specifics and under which administration(s) those rules/regs were put in place.

Rules and regs, sure, but that's different. In reality, those kinds of rules and regs are almost never effective and rarely enforced even if they are. They have more to do with a show of valuing those people, when at best it's about valuing doing damage to some particular industry, regime or whatever, or finding weak spots in your own power base, not so much about the people in question. Rules or not, those people are often discarded and others move on, rationalizing how the rules weren't intended to fit in that scenario somehow.

And really, it's not easy to figure out a solution to. If 5 people conspire to commit murder, and do, and one of them gets nervous and sells the other 4 out, is the one that sold the others out really a better person than those others? Does s/he deserve protections? Does s/he deserve public praise? Where is the line drawn? And let's say we answer yes to all of those things; that sort of encourages attempted entrapment of the competition by going in together and selling them out while claiming repentance. It's always going to be an incredibly muddy situation with no clear answers no matter how hard we try to make things clear.

And for what it's worth, there is plenty of praise for whistleblowers out there, but it's incredibly subjective and entirely determined by biases and other motivations. I mean, while Trump may be calling for the head of a leak here, he certainly didn't seem to have any issues with Julian Assange during the election.

Very good point.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[TGW]

Interesting stuff...Kavanaugh is definitely has pro-White nationalist views as shown in the emails. There are several conversations of trying to use the law to enhance discriminatory practices. His discussion with Helgi Walker (some DC swamp creature) is pretty damning...they OPENLY talked about using racial profiling at airport security not only for the short term, but as a LONG TERM strategy:

https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing

Which parts of this do you find damning? There are some parts like...

The people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple — and grapple now — with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented.

The fact that he's dancing around the topic of racial profiling instead of shutting it down completely is disturbing. Why even discuss the merits of unconstitutional acts?

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Yea, but didn't the Democrats do the exact same thing with wikileaks?

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19