President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

No shit Sherlock? How long have favored in-laws of presidents been using it to line their pockets?

 

They're having a whole lot of fun with it up in Jay, Vermont ...

 

Presidents, I don't know. But politicians in general? Probably about as long as it's been around.

 

The board soccer geniuses aren't giving MLS a red card despite Orlando City pulling the same thing.

 

Yeah. This story gaining traction cracks me up.

dixiehack could go to China and "hawk" these visas.

I agree that the program is basically crooked, but I'm not sure why we are criticizing those who take advantage of it, rather than those who created the law.

 

That chick on the far right end is hideous.

 

When an attorney general says separation of church and state is unconstitutional, it's time to start looking at our polity like South Africa in the '80s.
It is going to take a hell of a lot of work to clean up this mess, whenever these people see around to leaving.

 

I still think the dumbest people in DC this week were the Democrats in the House who mocked their Republican colleagues for voting for TrumpCare. They have short memories. In 2013, the GOP shut down the government, channelling their inner Bundy and satisfying their need to play militia. The move was unpopular. Pundits predicted electoral consequences. A year later, the GOP expanded its majority in the House. Maybe the Senate, too.
Now, the GOP supports a plan that only 18 percent of the country likes, and the predictions of electoral consequences again abound. People seem to have forgotten three things: 1) Republicans in the House are largely in districts gerrymandered by racist state legislatures; 2) Republicans in the House are also immune from consequence because those same racist state legislatures have taken steps to complicate minorities' voting rights; 3) Attorney General Jeffrey Beauregard Secessions III isn't going to do anything about problems 1) and 2).

 

The thing about gerrymandering is that it gives the party that does it a whole bunch of seats where they win with 55 percent, and stuffs the opposition into seats they win with 70 or more percent. That works as long as the electorate stays relatively stable. If it shifts against the gerrymanderers, they can lose a whole bunch of seats in one election.

 

To your point, gerrymandering is not new. The House flipped in 2006 in a huge anti-Bush repudiation. Since the last census, though, it has gotten more intense. Several times in a row the Democrats won the overall House vote but the Republicans kept their majority because of gerrymandering.

 

We can go back and forth regarding the importance of parental involvement in education for days. While I agree that it is vital, I also believe you are overstating it, but that isn't the point.

We are talking about educational policy here. What can policy do about such parents?

The answer has to be policies that give those students a chance s well. Despite what you seem to think, there are people in this world who succeed in spite of fucked up situations at home. Our schools need to be there for them, not push policy that makes it even harder if mom and dad have their heads up their asses. Or if they simply aren't around. Your argument seems to suggest we can't help them so we shouldn't try. Well, fuck that. Fuck it with a wooden,splintering dildo. We're supposed to do better than that.

 

Republicans mazimized a bit of good luck in that they cycled into power right when technology allowed gerrymandering to be more effective than ever. I'd like to see redistricting done by a truly nonpartisan commission (as in Iowa) combined with a jungle primary (such as in Louisiana or California).