Geeto67's Political Playground

[greg1647545532]

President Trump has so few fucks to give about the military that he nominated the WH physician, someone who's only administrative "qualifications" seem to be that Trump knew the guy, to run the ailing and massive VA. Upon learning that he probably won't make it through confirmation due to allegations of drinking on the job and overprescribing painkillers, Trump announced that he's leaving the choice of whether or not to drop out up to Dr. Jackson, saying (paraphrased, but not much), "I told Ronnie, 'You don't need this,'" with "this" being the shitshow media circus that he's now brought on himself.

 

Guess what fuckstick, leading the VA is a shit job. It's a massive, massive organization, for meager $150k a year plus maybe another $100k in bonuses, in one of the highest cost of living areas in the country. It's a job that would easily have a 7 figure salary with fewer headaches in any civilian counterpart. Nobody "needs" that bullshit, they do it because it's an important job that needs to be done for the country. It's a sacrifice, something Trump has never experienced.

 

Go find a VA director who will turn that ship around. Find a highly qualified human being who wants to do right by his or her country, actually vet them this time so they can get through a fucking confirmation hearing, and then fight for them, give them the tools and support they need, and hold them to their duty. Don't nominate some assclown with no experience and then not care whether or not he takes the job.

 

This should absolutely infuriate anyone who's ever worn the uniform.

[Geeto67]

I honestly don't disagree with anything said greg.

 

My only question is where do you someone that's qualified to run the VA? Right now the biggest threat to the VA is the push from the Koch brothers to privatize the VA, something DT is not opposed to in the slightest. To fight that the VA is going to need a strong advocate as well as a strong organized leader, and very few fit the bill.

[greg1647545532]

I don't really care about that, frankly large swaths of the VA probably could be privatized* and we'd all be better off. But of course, 1) congress would have to pass the legislation to allow that to happen, and 2) if that's the plan, then the secretary of VA should have ample experience privatizing government agencies.

 

In any case, the asshat has withdrawn his nomination, so Trump will have to look around the room and nominate someone else within visual range. Maybe the white house executive chef.

 

 

*Of course, I'd be for smart privatization, not political handouts to large donor corporations who will provide the same shitty service without any actual cost savings, as privatization often does.

[Geeto67]

They aren't looking for piecemeal privatization, the Koch brothers are Libertarian leaning conservatives and fund the group Concerned Veterans for America which is pushing for the expansion of veterans health care options in the private market - something I don't think anybody who receives care from the VA wants at all.

 

There is bipartisan support for piecemeal private outsourcing, the "smart privatization" that you mention, but it doesn't include some of the measures the CVA wants to implement. Trump is already friendly to the CVA having chose to rely on them for making policy decision and already considered at least one of their members for head of the VA prior to this Ronnie mess.

 

So my question to you Greg, if your choices are status quo or the CVA's version of "privatization" which will look more like political handouts than "smart", which do you prefer?

[greg1647545532]

So my question to you Greg, if your choices are status quo or the CVA's version of "privatization" which will look more like political handouts than "smart", which do you prefer?

 

You're asking if I want to get kicked in the left nut or the right?

 

Trump can't shutter the VA by himself and if Republicans can't fulfill their life's destiny of repealing Obamacare, they certainly don't stand a chance in hell of getting a sweeping VA privatization plan through congress. I don't know anything about CVA or their privatization plan, and given the political reality right now, I don't see any need to go learn myself on it.

[Geeto67]

yeah I am, which do you think will hurt less, left or right? Sometimes that is the choice that is presented.

 

The CVA has drafted several submitted bills since Jan 2017. Their most visible one is the VA Accountability act which was passed in June of last year. To be honest, I actually don't have a lot of issues with the VA Accountability act since most of it was HR related (more protection for whistle-blowers, easier to fire employees for misconduct, etc...).

 

Currently pending is the VA empowerment act, introduced in November of last year that seeks to allow veterans to bypass the VA and spend taxpayer money at private institutions. While it sounds good in theory, there is very little accountability or standards and limits on who and how those private institutions get paid. Most concerning is this phrase: “...termination of functions of the Veterans Health Administration directly related to the furnishing of hospital care, medical services, and other health care.” https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4457/text

 

The former Secretary of the VA was staunchly opposed to this and considers it one of the primary reasons he was removed from office.

 

I mean, you are asking why you should care, and I would say the fact that they have flown under the radar enough to implement some of their plan is reason enough to me. To be honest I get paid to care because monitoring VA program changes is part of my actual job, but you get benefits from this and it affects you. This is the new normal of the trump administration - he makes noise and distracts the nation, and those he appoints and supports work while everyone is looking away. It's kind of important to be more diligent now, don't you think?

[greg1647545532]

I think the VA probably should get out of the business of directly providing health care.

 

I'm still on Tricare so I don't need to spend a lot of time digging into the weeds on this. I only have so much bandwidth. But what does VA related legislation have to do with Trump? His only role in all this is to execute the law, and nominating an unqualified doctor to head one of the largest bureaucracies in existence is a complete dereliction of his duty as president and commander in chief.

[Geeto67]

I think the VA probably should get out of the business of directly providing health care.

 

Maybe, and probably. I think the measure that introduces that idea should be comprehensive and have a roll out plan to as to minimize impact to veterans. Also there needs to be cost analysis done, conflict with existing laws check, budgeting to bring existing private facilities up to the same level of care that the VA was providing, there needs to be a schedule for roll out, etc....but the bill provides for none of that.

 

But what does VA related legislation have to do with Trump? His only role in all this is to execute the law, and nominating an unqualified doctor to head one of the largest bureaucracies in existence is a complete dereliction of his duty as president and commander in chief.

 

Well...his roles are:

1) Appoint cabinet members. Secretary overseeing the VA is an executive Cabinet position. The head of the department's support can make or break a bill during the legislative process.

2) Sign bills into law. That includes this bill if it makes it past both houses, which is should as long as the republican majority stiill holds out. He's already said publicly that he will sign any part of his plan that comes across his desk.

3) Submit his plan for VA reform. Although he needs congress to enact, the President is still the compass of legislative directive in this country. He drafts a plan, he socializes it with congress, and then if there aren't enough votes he works with congressmen and women to secure the votes. In this case he almost literally copied the CVA's plan, and the CVA has been writing the draft legislation that republican congressmen have been introducing (and in some cases passing) without objection from Trump (who could exercise his veto power if he didn't like the bills author).

 

This issue is the usual big government/small government argument that democrats and republicans have had for ages, with the notable exception that impacting veterans tends to sway moderate republicans away from the smaller government, free market, and privatization side. To that end Trump has a quasi 4th role - he can endorse those he sees as onboard in the upcoming midterms, and shun those that are resisting, if this becomes a big enough issue. He can also remove those in power that oppose his plan that sit in the executive branch.

 

Add on top of this that the current VA system has a 92% satisfaction rating among polled veterans, and that the overwhelming sentiment from both independent veteran groups and veterans is that there needs to be some subtle reforms but not a complete overhaul. Furthermore several independent studies have shown that the majority of VA facilities outperform their local private healthcare equivalent in the same regions, in both quality of care and cost. It's hard to make an argument for sweeping reform in the light that the system is working pretty well.

[CRed05]

Think of all the lives this will save. :dumb:

 

A few years ago, Apple was the first big emoji designer to stop rendering the "pistol" emoji as a real gun. It went from a revolver to a green squirt gun, and other companies have just started coming around.

https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/04/29/google-turning-pistol-emoji-squirt-gun/

 

 

Why am I not surprised that Apple started all this.

[Geeto67]

Why am I not surprised that Apple started all this.

 

What Apple lacks in technological innovation it more than makes up for in being ahead or at least abreast of current fashion and aesthetic design trends. I think Emoji's fit squarely in to that.

 

Anyway, who cares?

 

 

Anybody want to talk about the White House Correspondents dinner?

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/04/30/michelle-wolf-white-house-correspondents-dinner-whca-president-margaret-talev/563835002/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/04/what-happened-at-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner/559232/

 

considering how hostile this administration has been to journalists and the media in general, I think they got exactly what was coming to them and Michelle Wolf owes nobody an apology. But I'm sure others disagree.

 

I happened to watch her set for the dinner - it was hilarious.

[CRed05]

What Apple lacks in technological innovation it more than makes up for in being ahead or at least abreast of current fashion and aesthetic design trends. I think Emoji's fit squarely in to that.

 

Anyway, who cares?

 

Turning a pistol into a squirt gun has nothing to do with fashion, it's them making a political statement, and now the other tech companies are jumping on the bandwagon. It's just silly, but it's also fucking with the meaning of the emoji. I'm surprised someone isn't all worked up that the bride emoji is a female and it's promoting gender stereotypes or some shit. Political correctness out of control.

 

Anybody want to talk about the White House Correspondents dinner?

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/04/30/michelle-wolf-white-house-correspondents-dinner-whca-president-margaret-talev/563835002/

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/04/what-happened-at-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner/559232/

 

considering how hostile this administration has been to journalists and the media in general, I think they got exactly what was coming to them and Michelle Wolf owes nobody an apology. But I'm sure others disagree.

 

I happened to watch her set for the dinner - it was hilarious.

 

Speaking of PC out of control...the same people offended by the gun emoji are probably the same ones offended by what Michelle Wolf said. She didn't say anything offensive and should absolutely not apologize.

[greg1647545532]

I'm surprised someone isn't all worked up that the bride emoji is a female and it's promoting gender stereotypes or some shit. Political correctness out of control.

 

I'm sure someone is all worked up about that, I almost guarantee it. But then people are worked up about black men marrying white women because it's white genocide or something, probably 500 times as many people are in fact worked up about that, but somehow that's just noise that conservatives can ignore and people who care about the bride emoji are a sign of the end times.

[TTQ B4U]

Political correctness out of control.

 

it is or at least I used to think that. I've since found the best way around it is to just fucking ignore it. I had someone at a meeting last week try and pull some bullshit by using a neutral pronoun and out of a group of 25+ they were the only one who used it. When they spoke up stating they were just trying to be "inclusive" several of us called their BS and said, let's just keep the shit real and end the funny talk. We used him and her the rest of our meetings. No more "persons" bullshit. They complied and dealt with it. No normal people talk like that.

[CRed05]

I'm sure someone is all worked up about that, I almost guarantee it. But then people are worked up about black men marrying white women because it's white genocide or something, probably 500 times as many people are in fact worked up about that, but somehow that's just noise that conservatives can ignore and people who care about the bride emoji are a sign of the end times.

 

Me: "I'm going to donate money to breast cancer research"

You: "But what about lung cancer? Far more people get killed by lung cancer, why are you ignoring lung cancer?"

[Geeto67]

Turning a pistol into a squirt gun has nothing to do with fashion, it's them making a political statement, and now the other tech companies are jumping on the bandwagon. It's just silly, but it's also fucking with the meaning of the emoji. I'm surprised someone isn't all worked up that the bride emoji is a female and it's promoting gender stereotypes or some shit. Political correctness out of control.

 

Whether you agree with it or not...emoji's are part of fashion. Fashion can make a political statement.

 

I think the most surreal sentence I have read this morning is "fucking with the meaning of emoji". Emoji's are just a stylized graphical representation of emotions themselves. Is there a deeper meaning you are worried about?

 

So what if the other tech companies are jumping on the band wagon...it's not an abridgement of free speech so who cares. This isn't "political correctness": it's a private company making a decision about it's services in its own best interest. Nobody is forcing you to use txt messages, and despite the lack of and expectation of privacy cell service isn't exactly a "public forum" so...why are you all worked up about the political correctness that isn't there?

 

I'm sure somewhere someone is "worked up about" all sorts of things and we don't hear about it. Why do you want to take that on?

 

Speaking of PC out of control...the same people offended by the gun emoji are probably the same ones offended by what Michelle Wolf said. She didn't say anything offensive and should absolutely not apologize.

 

I'm pretty sure the people offended at Michelle's comments aren't even thinking about gun emoji's. That's a weird logic jump to make.

 

Since 1983 the WHCD has had a comedian give a Roast of the Presidential Administration and the guests. Wolf delivered exactly that - a comedic roast. Suddenly the people she roasted are all offended? get over it. They got exactly what they paid for and knew it was coming.

 

It's not political correctness, it's a bunch of butt hurt people who can't laugh at themselves or take a joke being butt hurt about jokes about themselves.

[greg1647545532]

Me: "I'm going to donate money to breast cancer research"

You: "But what about lung cancer? Far more people get killed by lung cancer, why are you ignoring lung cancer?"

 

1) phrased better that's actually a fair criticism, breast cancer gets a disproportionate amount of research dollars relative to its risk, as a society that's probably not the best use of limited funds, and

2) people who get "worked up" over breast cancer don't typically ignore, excuse, or downplay the existence of lung cancer

[Geeto67]

it is or at least I used to think that. I've since found the best way around it is to just fucking ignore it. I had someone at a meeting last week try and pull some bullshit by using a neutral pronoun and out of a group of 25+ they were the only one who used it. When they spoke up stating they were just trying to be "inclusive" several of us called their BS and said, let's just keep the shit real and end the funny talk. We used him and her the rest of our meetings. No more "persons" bullshit. They complied and dealt with it. No normal people talk like that.

 

Plenty of normal people use men for men, women for women, and persons for a group of mixed gender or a role that is available to both. That's all that is ever expected out of the feared and hated "political correctness". It's also just basic good grammar. For example political correctness when used properly doesn't require you to rename Firemen to Firepersons when referring to a group because of colloquial practice, but it does promote firefighters over firemen when referring to a group of mixed gender firefighters because according to the rules of grammar the gender neutral noun is the proper noun for that situation. If used properly it should be indistinguishable from just basic English spoken well.

 

Where "political correctness" gets its reputation is from people misusing it, sometimes with good intentions, to an extreme. But you know what? extremism is usually always funny. It's also not the norm, hence why it is called an "extreme" position - because it is a deviation from the mainstream.

 

But let's get some things clear - the mission of political correctness in the 1990's was to call attention to how many things had an obvious sexist/racist bent that were just being ignored because of tradition. It did a pretty good job in doing this but also created a backlash of traditionalists who felt their own emotions were more important than anyone else's, and they weren't going to change no way no how.

 

The funny thing is "political correctness" has had an actual benefit to society. For example people don't really use racial slurs for common things as much as they used to (see "ni**er-rigged or to Jew someone in negotiation as examples) and if they do they kind of recognize they are doing something they probably shouldn't, whereas before they were enabled because people just put up with their dumb asses.

 

The only people I ever hear talking about political correctness as a negative are the people who are afraid of being judged by others for using inappropriate language that they know better about. Most of America really doesn't care - political correctness has no real penalty other than making the people who have to listen to or read what you say think you are an asshole. And most of it can be corrected by an apology and moving on. And honestly, if you are that worried about the opinions of others, then really just don't be an asshole. And use good grammar.

[CRed05]

Whether you agree with it or not...emoji's are part of fashion. Fashion can make a political statement.

 

I think the most surreal sentence I have read this morning is "fucking with the meaning of emoji". Emoji's are just a stylized graphical representation of emotions themselves. Is there a deeper meaning you are worried about?

 

 

So what if the other tech companies are jumping on the band wagon...it's not an abridgement of free speech so who cares. This isn't "political correctness": it's a private company making a decision about it's services in its own best interest. Nobody is forcing you to use txt messages, and despite the lack of and expectation of privacy cell service isn't exactly a "public forum" so...why are you all worked up about the political correctness that isn't there?

 

I'm sure somewhere someone is "worked up about" all sorts of things and we don't hear about it. Why do you want to take that on?

 

 

Fashion? No, it's for communication, communicating emotions. You're hung up on the emoji, thinking I'm upset about the emoji changing. It's just another grain of sand in this hourglass of ridiculousness. Like the people rewatching old Simpsons episodes, trying to find everything that's offensive and kicking up dirt over it.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure the people offended at Michelle's comments aren't even thinking about gun emoji's. That's a weird logic jump to make.

 

Since 1983 the WHCD has had a comedian give a Roast of the Presidential Administration and the guests. Wolf delivered exactly that - a comedic roast. Suddenly the people she roasted are all offended? get over it. They got exactly what they paid for and knew it was coming.

 

It's not political correctness, it's a bunch of butt hurt people who can't laugh at themselves or take a joke being butt hurt about jokes about themselves.

 

Do you know what they are butthurt about? They are butthurt because they're claiming that she is fat shaming Sara H Sanders, among a few other things.

 

Political Correctness: the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

[Geeto67]

Fashion? No, it's for communication, communicating emotions. You're hung up on the emoji, thinking I'm upset about the emoji changing. It's just another grain of sand in this hourglass of ridiculousness.

 

I am pretty sure the entire font industry would disagree with your idea that fashion and communication cannot co-exist.

 

 

 

 

Do you know what they are butthurt about? They are butthurt because they're claiming that she is fat shaming Sara H Sanders, among a few other things.

 

Political Correctness: the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

 

Actually, they are claiming that she attacked SHS's appearance. Nowhere was fat mentioned. I watched the set - she made three jokes about SHS's total - one marginally touched her appearance (using the ashes of facts she burns to give her the perfect smokey eye). It's dumb.

 

At the heart of it though is something nefarious. A roast only works because the jokes, as mean as they are, take a character flaw to an extreme to the point of being funny. The problem with this administration is they are already in real life doing extreme things that would be comical were they themselves not so scary. So why this roast felt different - because the jokes were believable. I can't fault Michelle Wolf for that, she hit squarely on the overally lunacy that is this administration and instead of being a joke of extreme it becomes a metaphor.

 

In other words: it's not funny because it's kinda sorta true.

 

I totally believe SHS's perfect smokey eye makeup i made up of the facts she burns to ash in order replace them with lies - as a metaphor. And I will say, she does nail that smokey eye look.

[CRed05]

1) phrased better that's actually a fair criticism, breast cancer gets a disproportionate amount of research dollars relative to its risk, as a society that's probably not the best use of limited funds, and

2) people who get "worked up" over breast cancer don't typically ignore, excuse, or downplay the existence of lung cancer

 

I don't know who's downplaying or ignoring this interracial scenario you created. Has this recently came up in the news? Am I missing something?

[greg1647545532]

I don't know who's downplaying or ignoring this interracial scenario you created. Has this recently came up in the news? Am I missing something?

 

I must have missed the national news cycle about emoji guns, got any link to the AP coverage of the emoji gun scandal?

[CRed05]

I am pretty sure the entire font industry would disagree with your idea that fashion and communication cannot co-exist.

 

 

WTF is up with you and fashion? Emoji's have nothing to do with fashion. None of this has anything to do with the issue, but as a developer and designer, I am a little bit aware of the importance of Typography.

 

 

Actually, they are claiming that she attacked SHS's appearance. Nowhere was fat mentioned. I watched the set - she made three jokes about SHS's total - one marginally touched her appearance (using the ashes of facts she burns to give her the perfect smokey eye). It's dumb.

 

She compared her to Aunt Lydia in Handmaid's tale, and unattractive, overweight character. People were trying to claim that this was an attack on SHS' looks.

 

At the heart of it though is something nefarious. A roast only works because the jokes, as mean as they are, take a character flaw to an extreme to the point of being funny. The problem with this administration is they are already in real life doing extreme things that would be comical were they themselves not so scary. So why this roast felt different - because the jokes were believable. I can't fault Michelle Wolf for that, she hit squarely on the overally lunacy that is this administration and instead of being a joke of extreme it becomes a metaphor.

 

In other words: it's not funny because it's kinda sorta true.

 

I think it's funny because it is true. Like all the Bill Clinton cigar jokes. I don't think something that's true can be offensive.

[o0n8]

I happened to watch her set for the dinner - it was hilarious.

 

[greg1647545532]

Why did you quote geeto and put my name there?

[o0n8]

Why did you quote geeto and put my name there?

 

Not sure how that happened.