Political Roundtable Part XXII

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

If Melania wants to make a "subtle" statement, have Baron wearing shiney new Nikes whenever he's out in public.

"Be sacrifice"

[gtn130]

It truly amazes me how dumb all of these racists are on Twitter spamming things like “Welp never buying Nikes again”

These idiots really have no idea how the world works - this was a calculated move by Nike (obviously, its a business) and the the ad campaign was rigorously tested and focus grouped and market researched. Deplorables lighting their sneakers on fire is a truly hilarious self-own. Hopefully SD20 has uploaded his video already.

[gtn130]

Moreover the other truly delicious part of this Nike/Kaep campaign is that it is a fundamental rejection of deolorables in a very different way - these are the forces of capitalism at play here, not politics. Nike can do this because deplorables are irrelevant to their bottom line

[dckingsfan]

No it wouldn’t

Er - yes it would. The public had no appetite for single payer in 2008. Go look at the polls. It wasn't the Rs recalcitrance is was the Ds in power wanted to keep their seats.

There was appetite for a public option though that passed the House!

DCKings, what do you think of this plan?

https://shadowproof.com/2017/07/24/medical-insurance-care-national-single-payer-bill-mica/

Appetite by some - maybe - but less than 20% at the time. It is only now crossing to the 50/50 line.

Better but not a huge fan of this policy. First - it shouldn't be paid by employers. That is how we got into this mess in the first place and especially not as we move to a gig economy.

Second, the Part I – State Flexibility is part of the reason this isn't affordable and the same reason that Vermont and North Carolina didn't move forward with single payer. This just shifts the burden to the state (washes hands).

There is nothing that addresses the cost drivers (other than allowing immediate immigration of doctors from other countries - and you can probably see the dilemma there, let's just take all of Venezuela's doctors and call it a day and possibly Section 7).

Section 11 would be problematic - there is a reason lots of doctors no longer take Medicare.

But - at least it is going somewhat in the right direction.

[FAH1223]

Er - yes it would. The public had no appetite for single payer in 2008. Go look at the polls. It wasn't the Rs recalcitrance is was the Ds in power wanted to keep their seats.

There was appetite for a public option though that passed the House!

DCKings, what do you think of this plan?

https://shadowproof.com/2017/07/24/medical-insurance-care-national-single-payer-bill-mica/

Appetite by some - maybe - but less than 20% at the time. It is only now crossing to the 50/50 line.

Better but not a huge fan of this policy. First - it shouldn't be paid by employers. That is how we got into this mess in the first place and especially not as we move to a gig economy.

Second, the Part I – State Flexibility is part of the reason this isn't affordable and the same reason that Vermont and North Carolina didn't move forward with single payer. This just shifts the burden to the state (washes hands).

There is nothing that addresses the cost drivers (other than allowing immediate immigration of doctors from other countries - and you can probably see the dilemma there, let's just take all of Venezuela's doctors and call it a day and possibly Section 7).

Section 11 would be problematic - there is a reason lots of doctors no longer take Medicare.

But - at least it is going somewhat in the right direction.

Walker is a big proponent of going after providers more specifically hospitals who have monopolies everywhere and are charging whatever they want in so many places.

The hospital lobby is the biggest obstacle to some sort of single payer.

[closg00]

Moreover the other truly delicious part of this Nike/Kaep campaign is that it is a fundamental rejection of deolorables in a very different way - these are the forces of capitalism at play here, not politics. Nike can do this because deplorables are irrelevant to their bottom line

I love how Colin is getting the last laugh on these Trump deplorables, they thought they had economically lynched him. Colin is now the face of Nike while at the same time his case against the NFL is moving forward. Good karma.

[stilldropin20]

OMG!!!! Wizstorm!!!!! did you see this?????!!!! they finally got the rascal behind all of the collusion!!!!!!!!!!!

Nailed him!!!!!!!! and they got him good!!! 2 weeks in prison!!!!!!!!!

Read on Twitter

where's ya boy, seth???? Hope he is all over this one!!!!! Phew that collusion, though!!! Finally got those suckers!!! America can rest now...we finally got him.

well...maybe no tall of them. DOJ about ta open up a collusion can a wup ass on the DNC and HRC and Obama's #4...sure hope obama didn't direct this. but you know gotdamned well he did.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

^^^^^^^^the big collusion!!!!!!!!!

wizzy, you were right the whole time!!!!!! they were totally colluding!!!!!!!!

[stilldropin20]

so after 2 straight years of promising us collusion...CNN got the interview with the big kahuna colluder!!!!!!

.......and they are not even advertising for it? hmmmmm. odd.

Read on Twitter

[closg00]

so after 2 straight years of promising us collusion...CNN got the interview with the big kahuna colluder!!!!!!

.......and they are not even advertising for it? hmmmmm. odd.

Still following the events, I wouldn't get giddy just yet. What is very clear is that Russian's were targeting multiple Trump associates, dangling the Clinton email bait, but did any of them bite? Also, what does Manafort know? There is still a ways to go on this investigation.

[stilldropin20]

and this is the big collusion adam shxtface schiff lied to the american people about every single day!! still lies to us!!

this is your collusion narrative Wizzy!!??? this is it???? GTFOH...seriously ban yourself for at least a half decade.

MAZZETTI: So then what became, ultimately, became of your efforts to secure a meeting between Trump and Putin?

PAPADOPOULOS: As far as I remember, Ivan Timofeev basically stated to me that, you know, you are invited to come meet George, you are invited to Moscow to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where you should meet with the head of our North American division. I, of course, I have never met Ivan and I have never traveled to Russia in my life. And he then stated that, look, they’re interested, Putin would be interested in this meeting, but we need an approval from your campaign.

And as far as I remember, I sent the email to Corey Lewandowski from Ivan. He then stated that we should talk about it. That call never happened because, I think, he was traveling at the time and — then I sent, after he was fired, to Paul Manafort, where I said, look, do you want to do this or not? And apparently, Paul Manafort never was interested in this potential meeting between Trump and Putin and I had — as far as I remember, that was the last time I ever discussed it with the campaign.

poor manaforte...said he made more money than he actually did at a time when stated income was accepted to get real estate loans if your were self employed. Holy **** am i glad i never did a stated income loan...because i would have lied my ass off!! that was the whole damn point of stating your income...and not providing tax returns!!! Thats was the got damned point!!!!! And congress purposefully deregulated the process to allow self employed types that hav etax shelters and loop holes all over the place to get approved for loans ecven though they paid little to no taxes!!! What a joke!!! Facing decades in jail!!!!

all because barrack husain traitor obama spied on a political opponent!!!

^^^this crap above is garbage!! garbage!!! none of these people should be going to jail!!! none of them . and we certainly should not have a special consel for 2 years to give us this effing garbage!!!!!

[stilldropin20]

so after 2 straight years of promising us collusion...CNN got the interview with the big kahuna colluder!!!!!!

.......and they are not even advertising for it? hmmmmm. odd.

Still following the events, I wouldn't get giddy just yet. What is very clear is that Russian's were targeting multiple Trump associates, dangling the Clinton email bait, but did any of them bite? Also, what does Manafort know? There is still a ways to go on this investigation.

bruh, CNN is first running the "big get" at 10pm on friday night. with no promos!!!! that means they dont even want to show this!! They do not want their audience to see this. They're embarrassed! They PROMISED us collusion for over 12 straight months....every single day...23.5 hours per day...7 days per week...thats ALL they talked about!! And you know it.


so its time to grab your shxt and just GTFOH!!@!@!!!!!! SERIOUSLY just STFU!!!!!!!


Edit: OMG!! I'm watching this entire thing now....Tapper is struggling to keep a straight face...he knows this is all a joke!!!

[stilldropin20]

democrats are straight up disgusting. they should be ashamed of themselves. but they are not at all. not even in the slightest.

Read on Twitter

[pancakes3]

democrats are straight up disgusting. they should be ashamed of themselves. but they are not at all. not even in the slightest.

Read on Twitter

the Act you're referencing is the Community Safety and Security Act, which attempts to redefine the definition of "crimes of violence" to include crimes that are not violent. the most egregious of the rewrites imo include listing fleeing, burglary, and "coercion" as a violent crimes - which includes fraud in the inducement as an example of coercion.

there is already a mechanism to deport criminals. the proposed act doesn't do anything to change deportation laws, but rather increases the definition of what constitutes a "violent crime" so as to cast a wider net so that prosecutors can trump up charges.

there is a need to amend the definition, because this past year, the Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya deemed the current definition as unconstitutionally vague (see section (b) of the first quote below). however the proposed language in the proposed iteration (see the second quote, with bolded for emphasis) is problematic. this draft is a particularly poor draft because facially it contains language that includes nonviolent crimes, and is hard to accept that it was written in good faith. it seems unthinkable that the driving force behind this is politically motivated, so as to amend a broad criminal definition for short term gains in immigration proceedings. changing this definition will have massive, deleterious effects on the criminal justice system.

so, SD, how about you do a better job educating yourself and stop getting your news from the twitter feed of a community college dropout? and not to pile on, do you see how maybe your degree in dentistry may not have much bearing on your ability to engage in thoughtful discourse? maybe you should approach your news consumption with a more critical eye and ear? maybe you're not the smartest person on this board?

for those curious, here's the current definition:

The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

and the proposed definition:

“(a) The term ‘crime of violence’ means an offense—

“(1) (A) that—

“(i) is murder, voluntary manslaughter, assault, sexual abuse or aggravated sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, child abuse, kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, firearms use, burglary, arson, extortion, communication of threats, coercion, fleeing, interference with flight crew members and attendants, domestic violence, hostage taking, stalking, human trafficking, piracy, or a terrorism offense as described in chapter 113B (other than in section 2332d); or

“(ii) involves the unlawful possession or use of a weapon of mass destruction; or

“(B) that involves use or unlawful possession of explosives or destructive devices described in 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

“(2) that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another; or

“(3) that is an attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, solicitation to commit, or aiding and abetting any of the offenses set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2).

“(b) In this section:

“(1) The term ‘abusive sexual contact’ means conduct described in section 2244(a)(1) and (a)(2).

“(2) The terms ‘aggravated sexual abuse’ and ‘sexual abuse’ mean conduct described in sections 2241 and 2242. For purposes of such conduct, the term ‘sexual act’ means conduct described in section 2246(2), or the knowing and lewd exposure of genitalia or masturbation, to any person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

“(3) The term ‘assault’ means conduct described in section 113(a), and includes conduct committed recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally.

“(4) The term ‘arson’ means conduct described in section 844(i) or unlawfully or willfully damaging or destroying any building, inhabited structure, vehicle, vessel, or real property by means of fire or explosive.

“(5) The term ‘burglary’ means an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, including any nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation or for the ordinary carrying on of business, and, either before or after entering, the person—

“(A) forms the intent to commit a crime; or

“(B) commits or attempts to commit a crime.

“(6) The term ‘carjacking’ means conduct described in section 2119, or the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle from the immediate actual possession of a person against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence or intimidation, or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or fear of injury.

“(7) The term ‘child abuse’ means the unlawful infliction of physical injury or the commission of any sexual act against a child under fourteen by any person eighteen years of age or older.

“(8) The term ‘communication of threats’ means conduct described in section 844(e), or the transmission of any communications containing any threat of use of violence to—

“(A) demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person; or

“(B) threaten to kidnap or injure the person of another.

“(9) The term ‘coercion’ means causing the performance or non-performance of any act by another person under which such other person has a legal right to do or to abstain from doing, through fraud or by the use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear thereof, including the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence to cause harm, or threats to cause injury to the person, reputation or property of any person.

“(10) The term ‘domestic violence’ means any assault committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

“(11) The term ‘extortion’ means conduct described in section 1951(b)(2)), but not extortion under color of official right or fear of economic loss.

“(12) The term ‘firearms use’ means conduct described in section 924(c) or 929(a), if the firearm was brandished, discharged, or otherwise possessed, carried, or used as a weapon and the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime during and in relation to which the firearm was possessed, carried, or used was subject to prosecution in any court of the United States, State court, military court or tribunal, or tribal court. Such term also includes unlawfully possessing a firearm described in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (such as a sawed-off shotgun or sawed-off rifle, silencer, bomb, or machine gun), possession of a firearm in violation of sections 922(g)(1), 922(g)(2) and 922(g)(4), possession of a firearm with the intent to use such firearm unlawfully, or reckless discharge of a firearm at a dwelling.

“(13) The term ‘fleeing’ means knowingly operating a motor vehicle and, following a law enforcement officer’s signal to bring the motor vehicle to a stop—

“(A) failing or refusing to comply; or

“(B) fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer.

“(14) The term ‘force’ means the level of force capable of causing physical pain or injury or needed or intended to overcome resistance.

“(15) The term ‘hostage taking’ means conduct described in section 1203.

“(16) The term ‘human trafficking’ means conduct described in sections 1589, 1590, and 1591.

“(17) The term ‘interference with flight crew members and attendants’ means conduct described in section 46504 of title 49, United States Code.

“(18) The term ‘kidnapping’ means conduct described in section 1201(a)(1) or seizing, confining, inveigling, decoying, abducting, or carrying away and holding for ransom or reward or otherwise any person.

“(19) The term ‘murder’ means conduct described as murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree described in section 1111.

“(20) The term ‘robbery’ means conduct described in section 1951(b)(1), or the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence or intimidation, or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.

“(21) The term ‘stalking’ means conduct described in section 2261A.

“(22) The term ‘weapon of mass destruction’ has the meaning given such term in section 2332a(c).

“(23) The term ‘voluntary manslaughter’ means conduct described in section 1112(a).

“(c) For purposes of this section, in the case of any reference in subsection (b) to an offense under this title, such reference shall include conduct that constitutes an offense under State or tribal law or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, if such conduct would be an offense under this title if a circumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed.

“(d) For purposes of this section, the term ‘conspiracy’ includes any offense that is a conspiracy to commit another offense under State or Federal law, irrespective of whether proof of an overt act is required to establish commission of the conspiracy offense.”.

[stilldropin20]

^^^^^yeah i'm not seeing any reason to not further define the law not vote for that law. keep americans safe!! we dont need to import criminals. we already got enough!! Good hard working educated people ages 21-35??? absolutely and from everywhere, every country!! especially engineers and scientists!! Criminals??? phuck no!!! whats so hard about that concept??


but any way...you spent all that time on that silly law yet you still have not come up with one single way for us plebs to get our greasy hands on the gold?!! Anything!!?? you've had a week!! Come on!! give us something.

back to our current programming looks like some demagogue, self serving douchebag practically broke his arm patting himself on the back today...even though he is th eonly president since 1933 to not have one continue year with a GDP over 3%. The only guy!!!!!

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

more lies from the former liar in chief. and no one will call him out on it. biggest hypocrit we've seen in that office in my life time.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

obama fear mongering!

Read on Twitter

we had a traitor in the white house!! what a hypocrit!!

Read on Twitter

oh look...another liar...fake tough guy...straight up lied to the american people.

Read on Twitter

[montestewart]

Obama flippin' people out again. All those years of successfully denying the fact of black intelligence, smacked down by one guy. They'll never forgive him.

PS: This tweet seems intended to make Junior going to jail seem heroic

Read on Twitter

"This is how you break rules, Corey," he yelled from the other side of the plexiglass.

[dckingsfan]

Okay - guess I am going to eat shoe leather on the Nike strategy... seems to be working out quite well for them.

[montestewart]

Fox News: Obama returns to campaign trail with fiery speech; Trump counters, 'I fell asleep'

I think other outlets can use this as a template for headlines:

Obama criticizes Trump; Trump flips out but unconvincingly tweets, 'I fell asleep'
President asked about important policy matter; Trump counters, 'I fell asleep'
They were talking about something other than Trump; Trump counters, 'I fell asleep'
'Then what did you do after you grabbed p****, Mr. President?'; Trump counters, 'I fell asleep'
etc.

[dckingsfan]

I don't think it matters really - Trump die hearts are still going to vote for him. Many of the Trump supporters in the last election have lost faith and will stay home. The Ds will take the house. And the Trump jokes aren't necessary as Trump is in fact a joke.