Yep. The fact that him and his father both got zero traction in their presidential runs show how much GOP voters really care about economic policy.

We are thinking of making an online database with all "verified" twitter accounts & their family/job/financial/housing relationships.

— WikiLeaks Task Force (@WLTaskForce) January 6, 2017

Because this could never be abused.

Well, Trump did say that we should target both terrorists and their families. I suppose that goes for anyone else deemed an enemy of the state, so you gotta make those links!

While we're on WikiLeaks:

WikiLeaks opposes leaking of CIA report | TheHill

Followed by:

Trump to seek probe of secret report he says was given to NBC

:lol:

Oh I like the HELL outta this one.

Didn't we have a discussion up the thread somewhere, about making employees want to leave regardless of any overwrought h.r. foolishness?

So now Trump says the U.S. is going to pay for the wall, but that Mexico is still going to pay us for it down the road, in some unspecified way.

If he is so confident, perhaps he can front some of his own money as a sign of goodwill. Shouldn't be an issue since Mexico will totally pay him back.

Oh, here's an idea.

Perhaps Mexican nationals could pay us back by offering to, I don't know, come into the country and do some work for us, perhaps in industries like agriculture or meat packing, in American communities where we have difficulty finding people to staff those jobs. I mean, it goes without saying that we'd pay them less, and we wouldn't let them have Medicare benefits and stuff, but it seems like a win all around.

Actually I'm surprised he hasn't said that Mexicans would physically build the wall.

I don't doubt that there are gov't employees who don't pull their weight. Don't doubt it at all. But you know that there would be no hesitation to identify and target some whistle-blower, or someone who burned Trump with a tweet in 2013, or posted support for xyz at some point.

edit: or even made contributions to Democratic candidates

I know you have no issue with that, but that should be chilling to the rest of us.

Only if you're one of the miscreants involved.

Political Correctness is bad, unless the politics are yours.

(royal "yours")

The 'slashing of the salary to $1' - don't federal workers have contracts or SOME sort of protection against this sort of thing? ....

Seems ludicrous if something like this can be made legal tbh, especially if there are potentially negative consequences to 'quitting a job' (I have no idea - but in England if you quit a job then its hard to get benefits than if you're made redundant or sacked).

Now the requests for names in various departments makes a lot more sense.

I make no bones about it: I don't want to simply "defeat" liberal politics/policies/liberalism in general. I want to see it become extinct.

Starving it out is a completely valid tactic afaic.

And it's like you're completely okay with using tactics you would howl about if the worm ever turned.

Wait, what am I saying? You're a Republican. Of COURSE you're cool with "okay for me but not for thee."

Jon hearts Russia.

I'm with you except for "policies". Do you mean that we should never be concerned about the environment if that liberal policy goes extinct?

For perspective, about me (this is only my 2nd post here):
Independent who currently identifies as Republican
Was liberal for most of my life

Still liberal on:
climate change
gun control
taxing the 1%
church/state

Conservative on:
rule of law
illegal immigration
first amendment per pc & college experience
strong military as deterrence
generally smaller government (esp federal)
liberal media is brainwashing many young people (seriously)

Attack conservative thinking all you want, but please don't attack me.

:laughs until beverage comes out nose:

Uh, have you two met?

Jon is also ok living in an Orwellian dystopia. (Or utopia in his view, I guess.)

If that (sarcastic/rhetorical?) comment is for me, it already feels like an attack. Maybe I'm just still sensitized from the election. I was hoping that liberals on this forum would be more serious and open-minded than the garden variety liberal on facebook. Am I wrong? (sorry, but I'm too lazy to read the previous 10 pages for an answer to that).

No, this was a hopefully-humorous slight on anyone thinking they can find any degree of bend in the principles of the particular poster to whom you appeal for mercy.

Once you reveal the slightest variation from his particular worldview, I think it's very safe that he will lump you in with the rest of us as "waste of carbon" or the like. Your list that you might think of as "6 out of 10 conservative views" likely lands you in the same circle of his hell as Nancy Pelosi.

He's just a particular sort of guy, that's all.

Thanks. It always seems difficult for me to gauge the "culture" of a message board.

Think Dick Cheney without the compassion or charm.

Speaking of defense secretaries, William Perry is my uncle. Proud of that even though it is no reflection on me.

Is he large, but not a dumb cookie?

So it looks like Republicans will defund Planned Parenthood next month as they chip away at Obamacare.

I'm amazed at how short sighted people are on this issue. By taking away the $500 million per year they receive it's going to end up costing the government billions in the long run.

I'm guessing there might be an uptick in teenage pregnancies as a result too.

Pregnancies, STDs, and women's health issues would all spike. The final cost to the government for cutting the funding will be staggering.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't an attack on you in any way.

I'm ... well, I think it's fair to say around these parts I'm famously/infamously intractable.

Quiksand explained it pretty well IMO, and did a pretty fair job of anticipating my reactions as well, although in fairness to myself I would have likely gone with the considerably softer "you're part of the problem, not the solution" rather than the frequently used "waste of oxygen" he referenced.

I don't know you well enough for the latter yet, you might still have some hope of being redeemable ;)

Working in the Medicaid industry I can tell you without a doubt that this will be a financial nightmare. This is seriously short sighted and there is already a higher than average birthrate among the Medicaid population that often creates/maintains a legacy of public assistance. I am not grouping all into this pot, but there is definitely a substantial percentage of members of this population that could potentially drive up costs, either through naivety or choice because of this.

Arizona enacted coverage for LARC effective 10-1-16, which can be provided after a delivery to prevent unplanned births for an extended period of time. I am curious if/how funding will affect this as this was seen as a positive step in reducing maternal/fetal medicine costs and easing the strain in Medicaid funds.

Gonna throw 6:30 Eastern as a pretty fair line for when Trump bashes Meryl Streep on Twitter in the morning.

CNN already has her as headline news.

I believe the time stamp shows his tweet at 3:27 pacfic.

Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn't know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes. She is a.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 9, 2017

:lol:
/thread

Joking aside, I wonder if we're going to get to a point where this becomes a constant thing as B-list celebrities realize that a great way to get in the headlines is to trash Trump publicly and enjoy the publicity benefits of his inevitable Twitter temper tantrum.

(Dola: Not saying Streep is B-list, but B-listers have enough visibility to generate headlines if they trash him, too. Rinse. Repeat.)

I'm not necessarily supporting Trump in these twitter reactions, but I will say that this election cycle has partly ruined me for watching movies that these !@#$%^*& actors are in. I might never again watch movies with Ruffalo, Sheen, Streep, Wyle, etc. To be fair, I also avoid a few conservative actors, like that drunk anti-Semite Mel Gibson. I just have a hard time "seeing" the characters; I only see the actors. I wish I knew NOTHING about these people.

Mel Gibson is the poster-boy for actors whose films I actively avoid at this point.

These actors are only heroes in their own mind. The award events for acting have kind of become like Scientology meetings. They sit in a room and pat each other on the back about how great they are, while the general public just wishes they'd shut up and focus on their job.

I only watch Kirk Cameron movies.

Only reality TV stars should be allowed to speak about politics.

Bananas?:D

Eh... no one is going to pay attention to them much for anti-Trump sentiments. People pay attention to A-list celebrities because they are A-list.

You should get out and hang out with the cows more.

But it is Trump. Any kind of reported or published slight against him, he can't help but lash out.

I'm in my office hanging out with my dog. Soon as the Doc gets here we're going to go play with the cows.

Pretty much. But that kinda adds to my confusion about this latest kerfluffle.

As you might suspect, my social media feeds had a fair bit about last night's speeches & such, and it kinda left me scratching my head (not for the first time either).

I haven't seen a Meryl Streep movie in Godonlyknowswhen. I've seen one since I've watched the Golden Globes though. I have essentially no interest in her before or after her little speech.

Thing that furrows my brow is how there's so many folks who got worked up over her (rather predictable) comments and "don't care what she thinks".

My question is essentially "why'n the hell were you watching that shit show in the first place then?"

I do not, for the very life of me, understand the need some folks have to actively hunt down things that will irritate them. Surely, SURELY there can't be so many people living lives that have a shortage of irritations. Seeking out additional ones is kinda nuts to me.

Who is Meryl Streep?