Helsing posted:

In his last year when it was time to secure his legacy and spend his political capital on hard choices that might even upset some of his own supporters Obama decided to... *drum roll* do a full court press on behalf of the Trans Pacific Partnership!

LeoMarr posted:

The blue wave isnt coming

LeoMarr posted:

The blue wave isnt coming

Uncle Wemus posted:

Office Pig posted:

Wemus I know you like this trope but try not to ‘yes I concur’ with the fash if you can help it.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Have you ever considered that maybe the real fash is u?

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Have you ever considered that maybe the real fash is u?

Office Pig posted:

Wemus I know you like this trope but try not to ‘yes I concur’ with the fash if you can help it.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

I think you will find that blue waves are going to become much more of a problem for coastal cities for the coming decades.

VitalSigns posted:

Remember that all the insane IP poo poo intended to price poor people out of medicine and basically eliminate the public domain going forward was defended as essential to getting other countries to agree, and you can't renegotiate a trade deal it's too delicate and all the horse-trading has already been done to give us the best deal that we could possibly get.

Then America dropped out and all those other countries immediately dumped all the insane IP poo poo. Turns out you can renegotiate trade deals anytime, oh and also all that insane bullshit was stuff America (well Obama's handlers) strongarmed everyone else into accepting, and not only wasn't it essential to inking the deal it actually made it less likely to go through.

Radish posted:

Yeah I was talking about that yesterday. Schumer, either because he is fantastically incompetent or because he is a mole, is way more dangerous than Trump as the leader of the opposition party. Frankly the fact that there is no way that anyone can influence Schumer's leadership posiiton meaning the party will continue to be a joke or controlled opposition is what has me the most demoralized about how useless my vote next month will be.

Condiv posted:

manchin loves hugging trump, and chuck schumer loves being humiliated by trump

Nothus posted:

The base argument for the Democratic party is that at least they won't make things worse, but they can't even do that.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

i know and it loving enrages me. like I get it, we have to work/be friends with monsters and poo poo because thats the way the world works but he is so loving open about his boner for monsters its loving sickening.

EdithUpwards posted:

They never hated Bush. If it was Bush or Nader they would have picked Bush. The sum effect of the antiwar movement was to make enough shitlibs pretend to be human that Republicans pretended to feel shame.

EdithUpwards posted:

If that's not it I have no idea what started Bush Fatigue.

Nonsense posted:

https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1052594667819323393?s=21

LeoMarr posted:

Natives love republicans becuse they benefit from rep gun laws.

Pocohohontas was a traitor btw

Der Waffle Mous posted:

Pocahontas was a pre-teen.

Lightning Knight posted:

I agree with Chuck Schumer, there’s too much emphasis on decorum and politeness and civility. In that vein, go gently caress yourself, Chuck Schumer.

Radish posted:

Stewart Lee also had a good but on political correctness a while back that was basically "not being an rear end in a top hat" and it's always been pretty accurate.

I'm not going to waste my time watching Morning Joe; does Schumer actually go into what has gone too far amongst people wanting to be treated with respect?

Uncle Wemus posted:

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1053242355157950464?s=20

quote:

OBAMA: […] The civil-rights movement happened because there was civil disobedience, because people were willing to get to go to jail, because there were events like Bloody Sunday. But it was also because the leadership of the movement consistently stayed open to the possibility of reconciliation and sought to understand the views, even views that were appalling to them of the other side.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Because there does seem to be a strain on some of these campuses of a kind of militant political correctness where you shut down the other side.

OBAMA: And I disagree with that. And, it’s interesting. You know, I’ve now got, you know, daughters who — one is about to go to college — the other one’s — you know, going to be on her way in a few years. And then we talk about this at the dinner table.

And I say to them, “Listen, if you hear somebody using a racial epithet, if you hear somebody who’s anti-Semitic, if you see an injustice, I want you to speak out. And I want you to be firm and clear and I want you to protect people who may not have voices themselves. I want you to be somebody who’s strong and sees themselves as somebody who’s looking out for the vulnerable.”

But I tell ‘em — “I want you also to be able to listen. I don’t want you to think that a display of your strength is simply shutting other people up. And that part of your ability to bring about change is going to be by engagement and understanding the viewpoints and the arguments of the other side.” And so when I hear, for example, you know, folks on college campuses saying, “We’re not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas —” you know, I think that’s a recipe for dogmatism. And I think you’re not going to be as effective. And so, but I want to be clear here ‘cause, and it’s a tough issue because, you know, there are two values that I care about.

I care about civil rights and I care about kids not being discriminated against or having swastikas painted on their doors or nooses hung — thinking it’s a joke. I think it’s entirely appropriate for — any institution, including universities, to say, “Don’t walk around in blackface. It offends people. Don’t wear a headdress and beat your chest if Native American students have said, you know, ‘This hurts us. This bothers us.” There’s nothing wrong with that.

But we also have these values of free speech. And it’s not free speech in the abstract. The purpose of that kind of free speech is to make sure that we are forced to use argument and reason and words in making our democracy work. And you know, then you don’t have to be fearful of somebody spouting bad ideas. Just out-argue ‘em, beat ’em.

Make the case as to why they’re wrong. Win over adherents. That’s how — that’s how things work in — in a democracy. And I do worry if young people start getting trained to think that if somebody says something I don’t like, if somebody says something that hurts my feelings that my only recourse is to shut them up, avoid them, push them away, call on a higher power to protect me from that. You know, and yes, does that put more of a burden on minority students or gay students or Jewish students or others in a majority that may be blind to history and blind to their hurt? It may put a slightly higher burden on them.

But you’re not going to make the kinds of deep changes in society — that those students want, without taking it on, in a full and clear and courageous way. And you know, I tell you I trust Malia in an argument. If a knucklehead on a college campus starts talking about her, I guarantee you she will give as good as she gets.