Geeto67's Political Playground

[Geeto67]

because fuck-stick Obama. right or wrong many of us despise that twat. I'm okay with some of the removal of these things just to erase him from our lives.

 

Way to put your own hatred and selfishness against the good of the country and it's citizens.

 

Let's assume it's not racially motivated, removing his legacy because you don't like him as a person and don't want him to be looked at as a political success rather than actually reviewing the policies and removing the ones that harm and letting stand the ones that help is the definition of party over country. For someone who considers themselves a patriot, this is probably about the most un-patriotic thing I have heard.

 

Politicians are not your friends. Most of them are not even all that likeable in person, and very few can serve as a moral compass in living through example. They are advocates of concerns and issues that affect the American people and instruments of their solutions. The moment you put the man or woman ahead of the issue you lose the point.

 

I get that Obama isn't your guy - but to take the approach that every single thing he did is bad for American, when you probably can't recite or have researched everything he has done for America means this isn't about our country at all.

 

so if it isn't about our country, then what is it about?

 

they're the ones pushing to release the FBI Memo regarding the warrant and spying on Trump. the Dems are mainly the ones leading the way at blocking it's release to the public. them and a few swamp member republicans who don't want the people to see how the sausage is being made.

 

Slow your roll, let's get some facts straight:

 

1) The memo isn't an FBI memo (as in FBI drafted it) on the warrant or spying on trumps specifically - it's a memo drafted by the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee regarding spying abuses in the FBI.

 

2) It is not currently known if these "abuses" are specific to trump or are addressing general abuses practices. Anybody with knowledge of the contents is not saying anything, it is a small group of republicans who don't have knowledge that are ALLEGING that the memo is specific to trump

 

3) it is unclear as to whether the memo is connected to any ongoing investigation, or how accurate it is. There have been some statements made that the memo may have some factual inaccuracies as it was drafted by outsiders of the FBI who may not have had a full understanding of the practices being reviewed. Also if an investigation resulted from the memo, then as a matter of government policy it would not be discussed until after the investigation is complete - at which point it will become a matter of public record as long as it doesn't present a risk to national security.

 

So we have 1 of two situations:

 

Situation 1: The memo is a distraction. Trump supporters in government know this but also know procedurally it can't be released right now so they can benefit from speculation and spin.

 

or

 

Situation 2: The memo does actually speak to FBI handling of matters involving trump, at which point it will eventually become public when the investigation is complete, but may not be able to be released before due to government policies and procedures to prevent unfairly influencing the investigation.

 

Either way, we will know it eventually - the push to know it before Muller has completed his investigation is only to interfere with the investigation.

[CRed05]

I don't align myself with any political party, and both sides certainly have some nutters that make their party look bad...but there's a special kind of stupid, nonsensical and contradictory behavior that can be found in the Republican side. Good lord!

 

Curious to see what their reaction would be if the "G" in 5G stood for Government. Would it be "OMG GOVERMENT IS BAD" or would it be "OMG TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE SO AWESOME!"

https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html

[Geeto67]

I don't align myself with any political party, and both sides certainly have some nutters that make their party look bad...but there's a special kind of stupid, nonsensical and contradictory behavior that can be found in the Republican side. Good lord!

 

And it's fairly recent too. As in the last 10 years. You have some pretty long term moderate republican senators exiting the party or staying silent (Mitt Romney I am looking at you), leaving the tea party insurgents to pull the republicans more to the right as a whole. in 2010, 35% of republicans polled aligned with tea party ideals but post 2014 that has grown to 52%. Part of the Tea Party strategy (post 2012 losses) is to put electibility over philosophy or ideals (party over country) which is why the GOP is kind of the marketing machine it is currently - the high road is a single lane path, but the low road is a highway.

 

What's interesting is that on the HOR side of side of things, where hardcore trump supporters fearing a political loss are announcing retirement in large numbers. Since HOR slots are usually more volatile because they are geographically local - I think a lot of them are fearing that backing trump is becoming unpopular, esp in states or districts that carried trump by a very narrow margin (like NJ or MI).

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/house-retirement-tracker/index.html

[TTQ B4U]

Wait, we don't care about classified information being leaked anymore? Got it, sorry, it's hard to keep up with what Republicans care about in terms of national security on any given day.

 

The classified portions or sensitive info can easily be redacted.

[TTQ B4U]

Either way, we will know it eventually - the push to know it before Muller has completed his investigation is only to interfere with the investigation.

 

hasn't seemed to stop anyone on their side from leaking information so why not just let it all come out through process. McCabe is stepping down so that tells me the "insurance policy" discussion and details aren't just bullshit.

[greg1647545532]

The classified portions or sensitive info can easily be redacted.

 

So why can't Republicans release the Republican memo written by Republicans after they redact out the classified portions? It'd be a lot easier for David Nunes to do it since he knows exactly where the source material is than for Democrats to reverse engineer the thing and release it themselves.

 

Why won't David Nunes release the memo that David Nunes wrote and claims he wants to release if it's so easy?

[zeitgeist57]

So why can't Republicans release the Republican memo written by Republicans after they redact out the classified portions? It'd be a lot easier for David Nunes to do it since he knows exactly where the source material is than for Democrats to reverse engineer the thing and release it themselves.

 

Why won't David Nunes release the memo that David Nunes wrote and claims he wants to release if it's so easy?

 

 

You have to laugh in order to keep from crying.

 

I chided the Obama administration for not being as transparent as he campaigned to be. Trump stepped up that rhetoric, saying how bad Obama/Hilary are and how much better he'll act....but now there couldn't be more obfuscation in the White House.

 

I almost want to act like every other Trump supporter: be ignorant to the process, policies, and gaps/violations, just to only hear EXACTLY what you want to hear.

[Geeto67]

hasn't seemed to stop anyone on their side from leaking information so why not just let it all come out through process.

 

Leaking information is sub-optimal. It is one of those sometimes necessary but sometimes illegal paths that exist in government. Nobody wants a leaky organization, and usually how much info being leaked is a sign of how good or poor an administration's leadership structure is. You can't point to leaking information and say "well it's all going to come out anyway" when there are processes for information dissemination. Processes sometimes have timing requirements, it and whether this memo is relevant or not it certainly looks like the timing requirements in this one are being exploited.

 

 

McCabe is stepping down so that tells me the "insurance policy" discussion and details aren't just bullshit.

 

Well you are speculating and you are going to read it in the light most favorable to your position.

 

From my perspective, McCabe stepping down is just another in a long line of people scurrying to get their careers out of the way of the hurricane that is just interacting with DJT. I mean Comey was a hard line republican and Trump still fought with him over stuff that isn't even there. McCabe wasn't appointed to director position so much as he was asked to walk in a dead mans boots, Trump fought with him, and then Trump installs another Republican, Chris Wray, while continuing "the FBI is out to get me" rhetoric. If I were McCabe I would step down too just to beat the hangman out of town - esp since Wray seems to be way more conciliatory to Trump than Comey. The last thing a new director is going to tolerate is a deputy arguing with him internally.

 

Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory. Sometimes it could just be about a long term government employee wanting to keep his pension.

[greg1647545532]

they're the ones pushing to release the FBI Memo regarding the warrant and spying on Trump. the Dems are mainly the ones leading the way at blocking it's release to the public. them and a few swamp member republicans who don't want the people to see how the sausage is being made.

 

Well I see tonight that the HIC has voted to release the memo, barring any objection from Trump, on a party line vote. It's almost as if Democrats had no power after all to stop Republicans from release the Republican memo written by Republicans. Amazing. I'm sure confusion over how much power Democrats actually had to block release of this classified memo had nothing to do with the armies of Russian bots intentionally spreading misinformation around this issue on social media.

 

 

 

In completely unrelated news, I'm sure, I see it's also being reported that the US State Department has decided that the Russian sanctions passed by congress in an unprecedented display of bipartisanship (419-3, 98-2) isn't actually necessary and they won't be enforcing it.

[BStowers023]

Indians will no logo use Chief Wahoo logo on hats or uniforms.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/sports/baseball/cleveland-indians-chief-wahoo-logo.html

 

Although I think the majority of offended people are white, creating an uproar and not Native Americans, I do this the caricature portraying an American Indian is a bit much. I have no real issues with them changing the logo. I kinda like the new C logo better anyways.

[Geeto67]

Although I think the majority of offended people are white, creating an uproar and not Native Americans,...

 

Why do you think that? Native American Nations have been formally protesting this issue since the 1940's. Honestly, the US media doesn't really cover their protests anymore because they are not news given how widespread and well known, or at least not interesting it has become. You have to go to foreign based media sources usually to find anything:

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/cleveland-indians-native-americans-rally-logo-161025193242211.html

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/architect-douglas-cardinal-files-human-rights-complaint-against-use-of-cleveland-s-name-logo-1.3806662

 

I do this the caricature portraying an American Indian is a bit much. I have no real issues with them changing the logo. I kinda like the new C logo better anyways.

 

great attitude. seriously. I kinda hope everyone looks at it like this. It's gotten to the point where it's outlived it's relevance and it's time for something new.

[BStowers023]

Why do you think that? Native American Nations have been formally protesting this issue since the 1940's. Honestly, the US media doesn't really cover their protests anymore because they are not news given how widespread and well known, or at least not interesting it has become. You have to go to foreign based media sources usually to find anything:

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/cleveland-indians-native-americans-rally-logo-161025193242211.html

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/architect-douglas-cardinal-files-human-rights-complaint-against-use-of-cleveland-s-name-logo-1.3806662

 

 

great attitude. seriously. I kinda hope everyone looks at it like this. It's gotten to the point where it's outlived it's relevance and it's time for something new.

 

Although this is about the Washington Redskins and not the Cleveland Indians, I think there is some relevance to this poll.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?utm_term=.e821d82f44d8

[CRed05]

I kinda like the new C logo better anyways.

 

They have confirmed a new logo? Can someone please share it? I can't seem to find it.

[zeitgeist57]

They've committed to using their "Block C" on their hats and uniforms.

 

They'll still sell merch with Chief Wahoo through 2018. I have a feeling they'll keep an eye on public sentiment every year whether Wahoo will even be used.

 

Grown up in Cleveland, I love Chief Wahoo and understand the negative public perception around the charicature. However, Cleveland will never be able to fully distance themselves unless they just flat-out change their name from Indians to something else.

[BStowers023]

They have confirmed a new logo? Can someone please share it? I can't seem to find it.

 

By new I meant their most recent logo change.

[Geeto67]

Although this is about the Washington Redskins and not the Cleveland Indians, I think there is some relevance to this poll.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?utm_term=.e821d82f44d8

 

agree about the relevance but the polls are not without their own criticism:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_opinion_polls

 

I think Louis Gray said it best: "You wouldn't [take a poll] with any other race. You wouldn't have African-Americans vote to decide whether or not any sort of racial epithet would be offensive"

 

I have to be honest - in the realm of things America needs to atone for with the first nations people and tribes, this is kind of a non-starter for me. I would rather see people taking an interest in poverty and education initiatives that affect first nation people, substance abuse programs, eminent domain land taking (e.g. dakota pipeline), lack of access to financial institutions, housing, domestic violence, etc.... than be making a flap over the name of a sports team. That being said, if the team wants to change the name because it's no longer relevant on their own and to try to reach a broader audience - good for them.

 

 

Grown up in Cleveland, I love Chief Wahoo and understand the negative public perception around the charicature. However, Cleveland will never be able to fully distance themselves unless they just flat-out change their name from Indians to something else.

 

If the people want to still wear it, good for them. Who cares. As long as the team isn't endorsing it anymore, eventually the "wahoo generation" will die out and those that grew up with the new block letter and such will replace them. History is filled with some really ugly, awful, forgotton, discarded mascots and it didn't take all that long to get rid of them - one or two generations and people move on.

[zeitgeist57]

I have to be honest - in the realm of things America needs to atone for with the first nations people and tribes, this is kind of a non-starter for me. I would rather see people taking an interest in poverty and education initiatives that affect first nation people, substance abuse programs, eminent domain land taking (e.g. dakota pipeline), lack of access to financial institutions, housing, domestic violence, etc.... than be making a flap over the name of a sports team. That being said, if the team wants to change the name because it's no longer relevant on their own and to try to reach a broader audience - good for them.

 

Most people only want to manage that what's closest to them (i.e. NIMBY's). They may be horrified by the casual use of "Indian" caricatures used by dumb, drunk sportsfans...but not too close or too knowledgable on the social issues affective Native Americans.

 

Not everyone is educated, nor do they want to be.

[Geeto67]

Most people only want to manage that what's closest to them (i.e. NIMBY's). They may be horrified by the casual use of "Indian" caricatures used by dumb, drunk sportsfans...but not too close or too knowledgable on the social issues affective Native Americans.

 

Not everyone is educated, nor do they want to be.

 

yup, but nobody lives forever. If the fans don't see the team using it, then over time they won't use it as well. People fear change, but eventually change normalizes. It may never fully go away, but it will be another foot note like the dodgers used to play in brooklyn, the Atlanta braves used to play in Milwaukee and before that boston, or that the Milwaukee brewers used to be called the Pilots.

 

I know people get fanatical over sports teams, and they are kind of looked at as a sort of public entity where the fans feel like they have a little piece of ownership, but lets not forget they are mostly privately held for profit businesses. The owners can do whatever they want if they feel like it and are willing to put up with the consequences of public opinion. At the end of the day this is like being upset that your local walmart changed it's sign from blue to green.

[CRed05]

yup, but nobody lives forever. If the fans don't see the team using it, then over time they won't use it as well. People fear change, but eventually change normalizes. It may never fully go away, but it will be another foot note like the dodgers used to play in brooklyn, the Atlanta braves used to play in Milwaukee and before that boston, or that the Milwaukee brewers used to be called the Pilots.

 

I know people get fanatical over sports teams, and they are kind of looked at as a sort of public entity where the fans feel like they have a little piece of ownership, but lets not forget they are mostly privately held for profit businesses. The owners can do whatever they want if they feel like it and are willing to put up with the consequences of public opinion. At the end of the day this is like being upset that your local walmart changed it's sign from blue to green.

 

Exactly. In this case (as I just learned), the Indians were originally called the Blues, and when they did change their name to the Indians, the original logo was a block C.

 

Growing up in South Africa, we went through A LOT of sports logo changes in the 90s. Not because the logos were racist, but the ANC government felt that it was associated with the white government. For the most part, people were ok with the logo changes on the domestic sport teams and got use to the new team names and logos very quickly.

 

Totally different story when it came to the national rugby team logo however, since it was a matter of national pride, and that logo exists to this day. If Mandela didn't have the foresight to keep that one logo, it could have been the last straw that sparked civil war. Instead, it united the country. The movie Invictus touches on it briefly. But Mandela is dead now, and the new so called leaders have forgotten all that, talks about removing that logo comes up to this day, and white people are slaughtered in a scale that some have called genocide, with little to no press coverage...but that's a different story.

 

The Indians logo isn't a matter of national pride, so we don't need to worry about that, but the significance of sporting logos shouldn't be dismissed too quickly.

[BStowers023]

How did everyone think the SOTU went last night?

[CRed05]

I liked that me mentioned fixing our infrastructure, and he said a couple other things that I agreed with. Problem is that it costs money, and now that we're paying less taxes, not sure how it will get funded. Sounds like commie talk to me.

 

Oh, and when he emphasized "in god we trust" and Paul Ryan pointed up to the sky, it boiled my blood a little.

[Lauren]

Higher tax rate less business spending produces xxx dollars.

 

Lower taxes creating more revenue then before and increase tax dollars. Really not that hard to understand

[BStowers023]

I liked that me mentioned fixing our infrastructure, and he said a couple other things that I agreed with. Problem is that it costs money, and now that we're paying less taxes, not sure how it will get funded. Sounds like commie talk to me.

 

Oh, and when he emphasized "in god we trust" and Paul Ryan pointed up to the sky, it boiled my blood a little.

 

More people working = more people paying taxes

 

THAT is what makes your blood boil?

[greg1647545532]

Higher tax rate less business spending produces xxx dollars.

 

Lower taxes creating more revenue then before and increase tax dollars. Really not that hard to understand

 

Yes, the Laffer curve. Easy to understand, doesn't work in practice. Kansas is my cite.

 

Raise taxes, increase revenue. Also easy to understand and empirically proven to be true.

[Geeto67]

What I liked:

 

- He hired a speechwriter apparently, rehearsed his speech, and didn't do his usual "ad lib nonsense". As far as speeches go it was pretty well written. It was a lot simpler than some of the SOTU speeches from the last three presidents, and I am not sure if they did that to appeal to his base or to make it easier for him to memorize or work with.

 

- I liked the overall positive tone.

 

 

What I didn't like:

 

- The Soviet cold war era like distortion of facts to the point it is propaganda. I'm glad he hired a professional speechwriter, now he needs to hire a professional fact checker so he isn't just starting with lies and applying spin.

 

here are some good neutral reads if you want to know how accurate his statements actually were:

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jan/30/fact-checking-donald-trumps-2018-state-union-speec/

 

https://apnews.com/e37867ab28704abfbd9ac3dc8ae9612d

 

I get that every politician does spin, but at the core you have to have some kernel of objective fact. If not you are just outright lying.

 

- The other thing I didn't like is he linked the opioid crisis to immigration. yeah we all know heroin from down south is a problem...but honestly, poor mexicans crossing the border with children don't own airplanes, or go fast boats, and that is how a lot of it gets in here. Additionally 40% of the overdose population can be tied back to abuse of prescribed medicine or stolen prescriptions. over 96% of new addicts are coming into this through prescriptions through their doctor. So this idea that immigration will "fix" the opioid crisis is laughable at best. I am frankly not surprised, he doesn't have the clout to take on big pharma and he knows it, if he took this head on he'd lose so to duck it this way makes sense from a strategy standpoint. However, I am concerned in crafting this narrative that a large part of the population, esp his supporters, will buy into it and that will set back the efforts of others to work on this as well. It's not that he didn't help this situation, I actually feel he made it worse.