Headlines that reinforce your love of life

On a lighter, decidedly tongue-in-cheek note...

Bono Suffers a 'Complete Loss of Voice,' Prompting U2 to End Concert

chrondog wrote:This is respectability politics, pure and simple, and I'm having none of it. This is "trying to show respect to the other side so they show respect to us"

Not really. But whatever.

I just don't know where you draw the line then. Are we to celebrate the eventual death of Obama because of war crimes committed in Yemen during his Presidency?

WP64 wrote:I just don't know where you draw the line then. Are we to celebrate the eventual death of Obama because of war crimes committed in Yemen during his Presidency?

A "friend" of mine recently said that Trump is a better person than FDR. Because Japanese internment camps. Which were inexcusable. Even for a person widely considered one of the greatest U.S. presidents. But things were different then. And as much of a shitty copout as that may be, it's the god damned truth.

I say this: if in the context of the moment, a president's actions were widely accepted and seen as sane (yes, even that bush bullshit with invading iraq probably counts), then don't immediately condemn that person to hell. Feel free to condemn him or her, but only him since america hates women, as a president, but not as a person. And I only now realize that you never mentioned condemning anybody to hell, but I'm drunk and I haven't posted in ages so let it slide. I'd never celebrate Obama's death. I like that guy.

Duff... wrote:

chrondog wrote:This is respectability politics, pure and simple, and I'm having none of it. This is "trying to show respect to the other side so they show respect to us"

Not really. But whatever.

I find the criticism of "respectability politics" to be really strange, honestly. I see so many people invoking this as a criticism, but they are often the same individuals are are (understandably and rightly) frustrated and angered when Trump uses words like retarded.

More to the point, it isn't so much that I am offended by the celebration of this man's death, although it certainly isn't my taste, I just don't really don't understand the point. Jacobin, for example, ran a bunch of editorial pieces about how John McCain isn't a hero immediately after his death that I just found weird and off-putting. It is just a really flimsy and immature conception of justice based purely on retribution, pain, and suffering.

I realize that my comment literally five days prior about how excited I am going to be when Donald finally kicks the bucket is a direct contradiction of everything that I am saying here, but there is something about his cartoonish excesses and total disregard for decency, compassion, or empathy that really is beyond the fucking pale.

zappo wrote:John McCain, senator and former presidential candidate, dies at 81

I don't remember if I downvoted this.

If I did, I'm sorry. I didn't know about this until today.

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins

Wasn't he just stating the obvious? Neither party is ever going to willingly approve an opposition party's candidate again, barring vast structural changes to how the parties work / branches interact. Thomas will be the last.

Hope y'all are enjoying Jon Kyl tho. indeed!

Nah, man, that guys sucks!

raj gibson wrote:Wasn't he just stating the obvious? Neither party is ever going to willingly approve an opposition party's candidate again, barring vast structural changes to how the parties work / branches interact. Thomas will be the last.

Hope y'all are enjoying Jon Kyl tho. indeed!

How do you feel your Merrick Garland take that the Democrats shouldn't seek nuclear options and respect the sanctity and independence of the court has aged given the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh proceedings?

chrondog wrote:How do you feel your Merrick Garland take that the Democrats shouldn't seek nuclear options and respect the sanctity and independence of the court has aged given the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh proceedings?

Are you quoting a particular post? It would depend on what exactly I said. I think my general point was more that the escalation of the process has a price for both sides and the Garland delay shouldn't have surprised any Dems given what came before (and to the degree Republicans believe the timing of the letter leak was purely tactical, they should really not be so shocked about that either). But I can speak more specifically if I spot my older post.

This story must be getting a ton of clicks because it hasn’t fallen off the top of the homepage since this morning: https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/oumuamua-alien-probe-harvard-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/11/24/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-trolls-fox-news-spanish/?utm_term=.9a7e3cf858a3

D’Angelo Fucking Loves Playing Red Dead Redemption 2

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/dangelo-red-dead-redemption-2-767748/

What a strange and brilliant man. I love that he is in his 40s and has the same sleeping patterns that I kept as a teenager.

techno raj wrote:

chrondog wrote:How do you feel your Merrick Garland take that the Democrats shouldn't seek nuclear options and respect the sanctity and independence of the court has aged given the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh proceedings?

Are you quoting a particular post? It would depend on what exactly I said. I think my general point was more that the escalation of the process has a price for both sides and the Garland delay shouldn't have surprised any Dems given what came before (and to the degree Republicans believe the timing of the letter leak was purely tactical, they should really not be so shocked about that either). But I can speak more specifically if I spot my older post.

I can't remember all the details, I just recall that you argued for something akin to "respecting institutional norms" and rejected the idea the Dems should use procedural tricks (like a recess appointment) to install Garland because it would come back to bite them. My argument was something akin to "Republicans are bad faith actors and you should use every trick in the book because they always will".

Not sure what thread this discussion was in. Either way I was basically taking a cheap shot by implying "See what happens when Dems play nice? You get catastrophically fucked in the courts for decades." Always respect your pragmatic views though bro! They're important debates for the left to have.

This headline is wonderful and the roasting was well deserved, but I almost feel bad for this racist jackwad who probably has an IQ south of 70. Made me smile all the same:


Boxer wears 'America 1st' wall shorts against Mexican fighter, gets soundly beaten

chrondog wrote:

techno raj wrote:

chrondog wrote:How do you feel your Merrick Garland take that the Democrats shouldn't seek nuclear options and respect the sanctity and independence of the court has aged given the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh proceedings?

Are you quoting a particular post? It would depend on what exactly I said. I think my general point was more that the escalation of the process has a price for both sides and the Garland delay shouldn't have surprised any Dems given what came before (and to the degree Republicans believe the timing of the letter leak was purely tactical, they should really not be so shocked about that either). But I can speak more specifically if I spot my older post.

I can't remember all the details, I just recall that you argued for something akin to "respecting institutional norms" and rejected the idea the Dems should use procedural tricks (like a recess appointment) to install Garland because it would come back to bite them. My argument was something akin to "Republicans are bad faith actors and you should use every trick in the book because they always will".

Not sure what thread this discussion was in. Either way I was basically taking a cheap shot by implying "See what happens when Dems play nice? You get catastrophically fucked in the courts for decades." Always respect your pragmatic views though bro! They're important debates for the left to have.

Every trick has to be weighed by how much its actually going to achieve. Like a recess appointment buys you what, a year or so of Garland? Then the senate gets to flip it back? What does that really do? Just to put off (not even really avoid) a few decisions like Janus or Hawaii v. Trump? Is that worth the massive headache, expenditure of time/energy, damage to Garland's career, negative press, etc.?

So sure there might be some room for Democrats to get some wins on the margins with tricks, but that's ultimately just tactics, and if it's not in support of a clear judicial strategy (which the GOP has had for 40-50 years while the Dems haven't) it doesn't accomplish much.

A year of incumbency can make a tremendous difference. Showing real gumption and political muscle inspires voters and can flip the electoral script. Tactically, I think Democrats have continually miscalculated by assuming they know what the outcome of taking a strong stand will be and sitting on their hands instead.

The massive headache, damage to Garland's career, and negative press around getting your balls chopped off by Mitch McConnell AGAIN that then resulted in two extremely conservative and young Supreme Court justices being appointed was basically the worst outcome possible.

I agree though that it's a lot to expect the Democrats to be able to maneuver tactically when they don't even have an overarching strategy. The Left needs more solidarity BADLY.

chrondog wrote:two extremely conservative and young Supreme Court justices being appointed was basically the worst outcome possible

This is where we diverge, I think there were vastly worse possibilities of truly Trumpian justices as opposed to a couple of Federalist Society favorites that easily could have been picked by John Kasich or any other Republican president. This might be another area where I consider Trump to be dramatically worse than any baseline conservative politician while a lot of other people don't.

If a judge was truly "Trumpian", i.e. cared more about the optics of "winning" than any policy orthodox, IMO that would actually be better for something like Roe v. Wade. There's a chance a Trumpian Supreme Court justice could do something to help the Left.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh may be traditional incrementalists who have some respect for precedent and institutions, but they'll never contribute to anything except steady judicial outcomes that I don't support.

I think you're right that they're the kind of judges we would've gotten with a President Romney or Rubio, but that's no comfort because they're horrible!

Further, I don't see how Senate Republicans would have gotten behind a Trumpian nominee. The detente between Trump and Mitch McConnell, to me, seems entirely based on the notion that Trump will give orthodox Republicans exactly what they want on a number of issues: taxes, judges, etc. If Trump started freelancing with the judiciary, I think you'd see McConnell et al jump ship pretty quickly and demand that he send them a more straightforward nominee.

To me, an American "baseline conservative" is hard hard hard right and that will never be acceptable.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-fbi-ag-evidence-crimes-trump-golf-20181228-story.html

Seems legit.

All living former presidents refute Trump's claim they privately voiced support for border wall

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/all-living-former-presidents-refute-trump-s-claim-they-privately-voiced-support-for-border-wall/ar-BBRWzur?ocid=ob-fb-enus-280