US Politics, December 2019: Profound procedural deficiencies

careful, you will stop the wind if you do that

Getting images of windmills stalking and hunting bald eagles until their power cable gets yanked out of the socket.
Do wonder if t sees the same world as the people he supposedly governs.

On the other hand nice to see Zaucer of Zilk returning to 2000Ad wonder if that's more what the Pres sees things like. Though maybe too much colour involved.

Just every now and then I stop and take in just how numbingly fucking stupid the guy is. One of those blowhard dickheads who blunders into a conversation and monologues to himself while everyone waits for him to leave.

nyt jumps in with a timely article:

A Trump Policy ‘Clarification’ All but Ends Punishment for Bird Deaths

WASHINGTON — As the state of Virginia prepared for a major bridge and tunnel expansion in the tidewaters of the Chesapeake Bay last year, engineers understood that the nesting grounds of 25,000 gulls, black skimmers, royal terns and other seabirds were about to be plowed under.

To compensate, they considered developing an artificial island as a safe haven. Then in June 2018, the Trump administration stepped in. While the federal government “appreciates” the state’s efforts, new rules in Washington had eliminated criminal penalties for “incidental” migratory bird deaths that came in the course of normal business, administration officials advised. Such conservation measures were now “purely voluntary.”

The state ended its island planning.

The island is one of dozens of bird-preservation efforts that have fallen away in the wake of the policy change in 2017 that was billed merely as a technical clarification to a century-old law protecting migratory birds. Across the country birds have been killed and nests destroyed by oil spills, construction crews and chemical contamination, all with no response from the federal government, according to emails, memos and other documents viewed by The New York Times. Not only has the administration stopped investigating most bird deaths, the documents show, it has discouraged local governments and businesses from taking precautionary measures to protect birds.

In one instance, a Wyoming-based oil company wanted to clarify that it no longer had to report bird deaths to the Fish and Wildlife Service. “You are correct,” the agency replied.

whoops, messed up the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/climate/trump-bird-deaths.html

if everyone can please keep their posts on this thread limited to the topic of birds for the rest of the year, i'd appreciate it

and not the big bottom, newsie wewsie type

this administration, it's for the birds. and by that i mean, viciously against the birds.

frankly surprised this hasn't been media-blasted as a major triumph. old white guys with opinions hate the protection of birds passionately, as a symbol of the bleeding-heart, business-crushing red tape that so afflicted american during the era when it ceased to be great. trump should open his rallies by strangling some obscure, endangered species of owl with his bare hands, they'd eat it up.

Ah, the old Ozzie Osborne Gambit!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7_OWYrLVOU

not too late for the DNC to take "For the Birds" as a slogan

naw bernie owns birds, they'd never touch it

Democrats the party of pajaros anyway

Who really killed Caroll Spinney

"you don't show the aspirin over here, do you"

Ozzie Osborne

B Is For Zimluss

Too many bloody marys:

You were once a US Attorney in @SDNYnews, but were never appointed US Attorney General nor served in that capacity.

Why are you misrepresenting your public service? pic.twitter.com/yxTDrxxsGs

— Alex Howard (@digiphile) December 24, 2019

generally speaking, he has been an attorney in the United States, so this is true.

Trump: [slurring] Robots are stealing white people's luggage.
Media: Trump Luggage Attack Sets Up Clash With Dems
GOP: Well, where's the Democrat plan to protect luggage?!?
Dems: [Write Luggage Protection Act, which sits on McConnell's desk]
Trump: A squirrel took my ice cream. pic.twitter.com/sDkbYZRzIr

— Seth Masket (@smotus) December 24, 2019

Being "an officer of the court" is a long way from what most people would consider a "government official", especially since his client, not the government, pays for his services.

Good morning!

ublic support for Donald Trump‘s removal from office is the highest it has ever been, according to a new poll.

Fifty-five per cent of those asked said they were in favour of the US president’s conviction by the Senate, a figure which has shot up from 48 per cent the week before.

Meanwhile, the number of people against Mr Trump’s removal has dropped to an all-time low, according to the MSN poll.

On Christmas Day, 40 per cent were opposed to the Senate voting to convict the president, who has been impeached over his dealings with Ukraine and an alleged subsequent attempt to obstruct congress.

The gap between the two views has become much wider since last week, when there was little to divide them (48 per cent in favour of Mr Trump's removal, 47 per cent against).

The percentage of respondents who neither supported nor opposed conviction also grew.

convict the motherfucker

this is why I keep saying "never overreact to one poll". I'm talking to you, Mr Cillizza

those kind of numbers are fairly unthinkable in polarized 2019, too. that's an assload of support

"an assload of support" for January title.

I wonder if poll numbers would differ depending on whether the question is framed as "Do you support Trump's conviction by the Senate?" vs. "Do you support Trump's removal from office?"

vs. "Do you support the unconstitutional Democrat Partisan Witch Hunt to cancel YOUR VOTE for President Trump?"

On Thursday night, the President retweeted an article from the Washington Examiner that names the person that Trump’s allies allege to be the whistleblower. This is the first time Trump has drawn public attention to the alleged whistleblower’s name.

Trump’s retweet came after a Twitter account associated with his 2020 campaign, @TrumpWarRoom, replied to a tweet by the whistleblower’s attorney, Mark Zaid, criticizing Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) for her attacks against the whistleblower.

“Members of Senate Whistleblower Caucus should protect #whistleblowers, not attack them,” Zaid tweeted, noting that the Director of National Intelligence’s office and the Intelligence Community Inspector General “has made it clear lawful protections exist.”

“So why is Senator @MarshaBlackburn pretending to be bi-partisan Caucus Member given her many attacks?” Zaid asked.

In response to Zaid’s tweet, the @TrumpWarRoom account defended Blackburn by replying: “It’s pretty simple. The CIA ‘whistleblower’ is not a real whistleblower!” It then linked to a Washington Examiner article that named the CIA officer who Trump’s allies allege to be the whistleblower.

Trump then retweeted that tweet.

if trump wins re-election, they're going to try to put the whistleblower on trial for treason, aren't they

the whistleblower has reportedly been assigned multiple personal bodyguards to escort them to and from work, especially during periods when president fuckface escalates his public attacks on them

So just look for the person with multiple bodyguards, duh.

O wait, Trump has multiple bodyguards. #thingsthatmakeyougohmmm

didn't they have to do the same thing for Christine Ford

if trump wins re-election, they're going to try to put the whistleblower on trial for treason, aren't they

Also it’s time for me to repeat my stance against performative “if/when Trump wins in 2020” handwringing. It’s worse than saying nothing. Every time you want to do that you just be giving another dollar to ActBlue instead, or something.

Seriously. If you're that sure Trump is gonna win, do everything you can to win Dem seats in state legislatures, which in their own way matter as much as who's President.

(You know what, also do that if you're not that sure Trump is gonna win.)

i can understand that, but thinking about possible future outcomes is a pretty basic instinct. then again, i suppose one must imagine sisyphus happy

humblebrag but i also believe it's in my capacity to worry about the future and help my favored candidates to win all at the same time, all while making coffee

final point: focusing on the positive outcomes while suppressing negative thoughts has about as much chance as the local "only GOOD news!" start-up newspaper/pamphlet that finds its way into your junk mail every 8-10 years

i guess on that final point it's a little different, because in this case it's like if the "only GOOD news!" start-up had the capability to ban the negative news :D

Also it’s time for me to repeat my stance against performative “if/when Trump wins in 2020” handwringing. It’s worse than saying nothing. Every time you want to do that you just be giving another dollar to ActBlue instead, or something.

― El Tomboto, Friday, December 27, 2019

otm`

xxxpost I don't think Tom's talking about suppressing negative thoughts, because all of us would fail at that. But rather publicly expressing the thought that 2020 is already quite possibly lost, reacting to a negative stimuli that doesn't technically exist yet.

mostly because it can actually spur some folk into hyperanxiety and frankly, if the worst possible outcome does occur, now you've suffered twice.

I think ultimately if the last three years have taught us anything, it's that our ability to predict the future, even with people who act predictably, has been somewhat below average.

though you're good people and I feel your posts are just the understandable exasperation and need to scream into the void that many in this thread feel ,myself included. :)

Only two presidents in my lifetime have lost reelection; incumbency is on his side. But every time I read Sanders, Warren, etc. assuring us "we" can win if we get POC out to vote I think of this thread and how many more times we POC have to save your fucking asses from your own despair.

I think ultimately if the last three years have taught us anything, it's that our ability to predict the future, even with people who act predictably, has been somewhat below average.

Yup, the one upside (if you can call it that) of Trump's election is that more than ever I'm convinced that basically anything is possible.

xpost because while i know those of us ITT aren't really the type, I do know a lot of people who absorb their environments and react to the nihilistic reads by saying "well, guess I shouldn't bother getting involved, it's a lost cause anyway". if enough people say "fuck it, what's the point", it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and then it's "1 for Martin, 2 for Martin"

Alfred otm. the more we embrace the fact that we CAN win, the more likely we'll be spurred to act and turn out ourselves, as well as inspiring others to do the same.

there will be no confident certainty going into election night 2020, no matter what the polls say, and in our case, that's probably for the better.

1) i didn't express anything about 2020 being quite possibly lost. actually, i strongly believe that the democrats - ANY democrat - is going to win. and if we don't, i'll fucking go ballistic and ruin the lives of everyone i know who isn't 100% against trump.

2) still, let it be decreed on ilx: no more negative thoughts about post-2020. got it everyone? we're drawing the line!

in addition, for those of you who drive: no more left turns. you're gonna have to make three right turns in a row from now on, that's just the way it is

my statements on that weren't regarding anything that you wrote, just "in general" in regards to what we often see in this suite of threads from a variety of posters.

in addition, for those of you who drive: no more left turns. you're gonna have to make three right turns in a row from now on, that's just the way it is

― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, December 27, 2019 2:26 PM bookmarkflaglink

I've seen that episode of Gary Shandling!

also: when political campaigns want to motivate their constituents, they very often bring up the possibility that their opposition is motivated, that they need your dollars now to fend off this malign threat, etc etc. in other words, they're bringing up the possibility that they could lose, and that their opponent could win. of course there's a point where it can go too far and you end up demoralizing instead of motivating. or where motivation slips into despair and apathy. but shit dude, i'm not at that point. i'm just thinking about the future, which is what a fucking cave man does