I think its shameful that Dems play this game. Most (or at least, many) democrats sandbag on big issues that affect their big corp donors. They don't suddenly get stupid, they craft the only message they can given their own financial interests. And it looks stupid and nonsensical because that's all you have left when you go against the interests of your presumed base (e.g. working people).

Repubs, at least generally speaking, are more upfront about their support for big corp over working people....and concentrating power/wealth to the ruling class.

Dems are saying these things and more, but they are getting squeezed out by the coverage of the growing opposition to RyanCare from the right. Which, frankly, is a bigger story. Dems have nowhere close to the number of votes to defeat the bill in the House. If it goes down, it will be because a substantial number of conservatives opposed it.

Should it move over to the Senate, then Democratic views are more relevant to the outcome and I think you will start to see more coverage of that.

If it's going to fail, it's better if the narrative is that lack of Republican support killed it than that Democrats killed it. I don't see any long term benefit in just being the new Party of No.

There's plenty of research showing that the president's approval rating effects his party all the way down to state level races. Politically it's obvious that anything that hurts the president helps the opposition party. That's what the GOP exploited so well over the last eight years.

In the long term this is a tremendous problem, but neither party can surrender and let the other obstruct while they try to cooperate. That will only move policy towards the obstructionists.

It would get a bunch of Democrats (especially the left leaning ones who have been criticizing the moderate Dems incessantly since last year) fired up about the party if the Democrats torpedoed TrumpCare.

I'd argue that the party doesn't need more leftist Democrats coming on board to give each other hand jobs and get stuff done. We've got plenty of Democrats. What we need are moderates and centrists to align themselves with Democrats.

Start by just being the Party of Sanity and Not Doing Embarrassing Shit, then grow leftward.

The leftist fringe is just as terrifying to the average American in the center as right-wing nationalist kooks. Doubling down on the getting the fringe excited doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.

Lets not go left. Let us stay in the middle. Going left or right is what is the problem.

Find the midle ground and work fromn there.

So evidently Nigel Farage, the Trump stand-in in England, was seen leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy. That's currently the home of Julian Assange. When he was asked why he was there, as he was leaving, he said he couldn't recall. 10 days ago, Farage was in American hanging with Trump.

I sometimes feel (and kind of wish) that they know how things will look and just do it to fuck with people, but they also aren't that smart. I kind of feel like there are people behind the scenes who are just too loathsome to be elected themselves, but they vastly overestimated the competence of their public faces.

End of conspiracy rant.

I don't think it is conspiracy nor requires tinfoil to be skeptical of the political class and see that big coincidences are not coincidences.

There certainly are reasons we have wall st, big pharma, and big insurance (among a few others) paying both sides of the political establishment. And it isn't because of social issues.

The 'middle' of where the Republicans and Democrats are presently isn't the middle - its where the 'right' used to be back in the 60's ... going left now takes us back towards some semblance of sanity and looking after the populace not corporations imho.

Over the last 40+ years the right have cleverly become more extreme, relying on the lefts inclination to try and find a sensible 'compromise' between the two viewpoints ... this has allowed the political stance to be dragged continually to the right over a long period of time ...

(there is a book called 'the establishment' - its about politics in the UK which explains how this happened there ... while I don't agree with all of it, its an interesting read)

So, did Trump's handlers finally take his twitter away? If you look at his tweets since seemingly reaching peak insanity last weekend, it appears very clear he has not tweeted in his "Trump" way since then.

Yet the Tea Party has shown that doing embarrassing shit is not that much of a downside (well maybe except in some Senate races). What seems to happen is that by going to extremes, you fire up your base, which goes out to the polls in midterm elections and therefore you win because your base is more fired up than the other side's base.

Democrats tried to be the Party of Sanity and Not Doing Embarrasing Shit - it was called the Obama Administration. It was good, but look what has followed it.

I'd rather lose than take notes from Tea Party strategy. How you win is just as important as winning, as far as I'm concerned.

Admittedly, as a straight,white,protestant,gun-owning,midwestern liberal with a good job and decent savings, I'm fairly insulated from the actual consequences of not winning...so not having to worry about getting shot/deported/arrested for most of the things that get people shot/deported/arrested for by the government (or hillbillies) provides a little less urgency about addressing injustice than it otherwise might.

.

lol

until they get bad numbers of course. Then its back to being phony

Just another three hours at the Trump White House

There's plenty to dump all over this president and his minions for, but this isn't one of them.


Maybe instead of never citing your sources, you'll actually do so from now on. Until then, you're just as bad as Trump is.

From AP:
February's jobs report was the first to cover a full month under President Donald Trump. During the presidential campaign, Trump had cast doubt on the validity of the government's jobs data, calling the unemployment rate a "hoax."

But just minutes after the report was released at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time, Trump retweeted a news report touting the job growth.

Later in the day, his spokesman, Sean Spicer, quoted Trump as saying of the jobs reports: "They may have been phony in the past, but they are very real now," a comment that incited laughter, including from Spicer himself, during a press briefing.

Calm down. I think I got it from TPM that probably got it from the AP.

Not that it changes the hypocrisy of suddenly praising what was fake last fall.

It's really easy to push a merry-go-round when someone else spent all their effort to get it going.

intruder arrested with a backpack at The White House, while Trump was there.

It took more than a week for the Trump administration to come up with a story to defend the wiretapping claims. What they settled on is Trump didn't mean wiretapping literally. What he mean was general surveillance. He also didn't mean Obama. What he mean was people in his administration.

And they used cameras in the microwaves.

Jeea. If you are really worried about it, put the damn tinfoil hat on. That is the best defense.

Oh, no. You should never use tinfoil in a microwave.

Or a camera.

Breitbart is going in hard against Paul Ryan. Interesting to see how Breitbart and the like are used to get Republicans in line behind Trump's agenda.

How about this?

I don't understand how this is news. The overwhelming majority of (R) politicians were saying the exact same thing back then, and they have predictably changed their tune.

Are Americans really that stupid?

Yes.

If Trump needs an excuse to turn on Paul Ryan he should throw Ryan under the bus for this health care bill fiasco. Trump has been trending downward in the polls the last couple days - 39% approval in Gallup and 46% in his beloved Rasmussen poll. Time to pull the plug on a bad bill and try something more popular like tax reform or infrastructure.

The knives are coming out. Lou Dobbs ran a piece calling for Ryan's resignation.

Does anyone here personally know people who have done complete 180's on Trump like our spineless political leaders?

Political disagreements aside, Rachel Maddow generally strikes me as being generally an intelligent person.

What on EARTH was she thinking????

RATINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heh. Seems AWFULLY short-sighted if that's it.

If Cay Johnston is being truthful, someone mailed him the two pages. If he went to Maddow and offered her the story she has to take it because someone else will if she doesn't. I don't have a problem with her running the story, but the hype was way overblown. That's where she was pretty clearly trying to get viewers hoping to get more than they did.

"We have two pages of Trump's 2005 return. See visual proof of why he wants to abolish the AMT." That's about all it was worth.

The hype is mainly what I was referring to. I don't watch much television, so I have no idea what MSNBC might've been doing, but she was personally hyping it on her Twitter account to make it look like they had recent/current returns: Rachel Maddow MSNBC on Twitter: "BREAKING: We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC.

(Seriously)."

Yeah, her hype definitely didn't deliver.

But eventually the job is about getting viewers, and it's hard to see how this hurts her future audience numbers.

I figure if there's ever an important tax release the details will start leaking before the story airs as a way to entice viewers.

Considering that I wasn't even sure that she still had a job until her named popped up in FB trending yesterday, I'd say you have a pretty good guess there.

You don't think the next time she hypes something people are going to be skeptical? I know I will.

I've got small kids and am generally an early riser. On any given weeknight, it's about 50/50 on whether I'm still up at 9pm, and if I am up, the TV is almost never still on then. The most frequent exception to that besides sports??? Politics. Debates, convention speeches I want to see, election night returns, etc. That area is pretty much the only reason other than sports that I'm watching television at 9pm on a weeknight.

I'm fighting illness right now, so I went to bed before her show started, but had that not been the case, I'm part of the target audience for that Tweet. Odds are very high that her Tweet would have gotten me to watch her show live for the first time ever if I had been feeling well. But now, the next time she hypes something, there's zero chance that I'm staying up/turning the TV on to watch it. TV host who cried "wolf" and all that.

Relatively few people who will bother with Maddow at all are likely to be skeptical. Most will either accept or reject her out of hand & carry on. (Look no further than the different headline spins that the situation has gotten). The impact of this sort of thing would likely be very negligible

My guess is you aren't a regular viewer, so you turning it on last night was a net positive. Whether or not you'll tune in to a future hypothetical scoop is less important than getting you to tune in now. A bird in the hand and all that. Her regular audience is still going to be there regardless.

I'd also bet that this was a play to beat out O'Reilly for the week so as to use that for commercials. She was close last week and actually ahead in the 25-54 demo. One big night coupled with healthcare coverage the other nights could be enough to give her a #1 for the week, which I'm sure they'd plug the hell out of.

This is one of those times where I imagine how this thread might look were it Fox News overhyping the release of some information about a top democrat in similar fashion. I feel it would look drastically different.

News orgs do things to get viewers. I don't like it if the content is inaccurate, but hyping stories is what they all do. Eventually the business is about getting people to look at advertisements.

FYI I don't mean that your posts here would necessarily be different. I have no idea and am not trying to guess. But, if this had happened on Fox News instead of MSNBC, this thread would be a raving shitstorm this morning with way more activity from way more people.

I've been amazingly wrong about most everything Trump.

Here's something else it looks like I was wrong about. I figured that "the wall" would end up being some symbolic extensions of the fence, a lot of new border guards, and a pivot to "See, we've really reduced illegal immigration, which was always the point."

But it looks like they are spending political capital on really building an actual wall: Texans Receive First Notices of Land Condemnation for Trump's Border Wall

Threatening to use Eminent Domain to take private land away from Texans is not a costless political move.

:lol:

Its fascinating watching the ways that the Trump Administration is willing to blatantly fuck over its own base and tell them that is actually going to be fine. Its more relevant and widespread with the healthcare bill than the wall I suppose, but stories like that one are going to keep coming.

They're offering the completely fair price of roughly $2,800 per acre.

So, I'm confused by why that letter is dated January 12. Was there some cooperation between administrations? Or was there an earlier crossover date for certain staff?

We actually do some work in this space and $2,800 per acre may well be in excess of market price in some of those areas. Like 2x or so in some cases.

Hmmmmm. Today I'm seeing lefties either scratching their heads or furious at her, righties laughing at her, and those who tuned in for the first time swearing never to watch again. I don't see how this can be a zero-sum proposition. I think it's a big fail. She looks like an idiot, especially if it comes out that Team Trump had something to do with the leak.

Maybe I misread Comrade GA's post, but I thought he was saying that so few people watch Maddow in general that even a total blow up for her doesn't really move the needle on a larger scale.

I think that's what he was saying, and her ratings would suggest otherwise. I don't watch her, and probably never will, but I don't see the big hubbub here.

I'm on a different target than usual for the past couple months so I hadn't even seen her (asterisked) bump yet, just wasn't paying that much attention last week. That's on me, but that's why I was behind the curve on that. My bad, I'll own it.

That said though ...
Last week's totals have been delayed apparently but for the week ending 3/5 (i.e. Trump address to Congress week) FXNC was #6 among networks with 18-49, MSNBC was 24th. 'Nuff said on the total impact in that demo. For total viewers they were 1st & 4th in prime & total day, but with FXNC holding a more than 2:1 lead. The damage of MSNBC growth isn't to FXNC, it's to CNN who does potentially risk slipping into 2nd place status with the left.

But certainly Maddow would crow loudly if she was #1 overall for the week. I think the hype was as much about that as anything. A week of healthcare with a crazy one night rating on Trump taxes probably gives her the edge.

Ratings | TVNewser

Based on this site, Maddow won the whole night (even beating O'Reilly) in viewers 25-54 for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Only O'Reilly beat her in total viewers on those days. Carlson beat her on Tuesday, but she's still ahead of everyone other than Carlson and O'Reilly. For some reason, they don't have last Monday's numbers.

She made a fool of herself last night. It did get a ton of buzz online so I'm guessing she'll win the ratings for that night. I never watch cable news and even I tuned in to see. After 10 minutes of her bloviating it became clear the returns probably had nothing in it so I turned back to the game.

The aggregator I usually grab them from is simply listing this week as "delayed" so I'll guess Monday's numbers are the issue.

fwiw, that's not a horribly unusual occurrence. It happens from time to time, most often seems to be some odd tech glitch that gets cleared up in a day or two. Other than delaying the various networks regular weekly attempts to spin the numbers (a thankless job that should remain deservedly thankless) nobody else gets too bent about it or anything.

Another "so called judge" strikes!

Federal judge in Hawaii freezes President Trump’s new executive order

When will Trump get tired of all this winning?

Too bad these judges are wrong.
A President has the right to ban immigrants or classes of immigrants.

And yet he keeps losing.

Liberal judges think they are law makers.

Everyone knows you just have to find the right judge to get anything you want.

I'm fascinated by your contention that a president could just close down all immigration.

It was blocked by a conservative judge too. When both judicial sides view it as unconstitutional, perhaps it's unconstitutional.

I'm sure you know more about the law than people who have spent their entire lives practicing. I mean you watch the O'Reilly Factor and they just went to law school.

Section 212(f) of the INA reads as follows:

f. Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Law is such a tricky thing isnt it?

It is.

Because the Constitution supercedes any statute. It doesn't matter what the statute says if the President's actions violate the Constitution.

What you just posted backs the decision. He has to show that they are "detrimental to the interests of the United States". The INA also states in a portion I guarantee you did not read.

An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

You aren't allowed to ban based on religion. It's simply not legal (as stated above). He is free to get the Republican Congress to change the current laws and give him the power to do so however. But even then he has to deal with the First Amendment issues of discrimination based on religion.

I think you are on to something- if trump bans classes of immigrants no one will be able to Pass the citizenship test....brilliant :D

Law is tricky though I agree. I've only watched half this season of Suits so you may be right and the guys who went to Harvard and Georgetown law don't know what the law or constitution says.

Don't worry if measles come back guys, because states rights or something.

How is this 2017?

Not measles. Mumps.

Auburn University student diagnosed with mumps | News | oanow.com

ping: Pilotman

Trumps budget begins the process of privatizing air controllers. Thoughts?

McDonald's Twitter Haxxored?

McDonald's tweets to Trump: 'You are actually a disgusting excuse of a President' | TheHill

Unlike #BoycottHawaii, #BoycottMcDonalds wouldn't even last an hour. What else are they going to eat, Hardee's?

Or a social media manager who was quitting and did this as his swan song. Either way, I will not have you guys besmirch Hardees.

Taco Bell exists so that we don't have to settle for McDonald's.

I've been Taco Bell free since September 2015. The only fast food restaurant that has made me simultaneously excrete the same thing from both my mouth and my ass.

McDonald's breakfast is heavenly.

Here is a breakdown of his budget proposal.

Trump budget cuts: U.S. federal funding 2018 - Washington Post

Hardee's should just get rid of all their food and sell only biscuits all day. So much lardy goodness.

One thing I've learned is that he really wants us to have horrific water and provide no healthcare for people who drink that water.

If I wanted to put on my tinfoil hat, I'd say they're instituting a stealth eugenics program by trying to allow as many poor people die off as possible. But I'll just chalk it up to being in big oil/coals pocket.

:+1:

I wonder if he's trying to make sure it's DOA... because there is no way in Hell that McCain and Graham (along with Collins) are going to be ok with slashing that much in the State Department's budget. Also.. doesn't the State Department's budget pay for embassy security...

I may be out of touch, but, why do people follow McDonald's on twitter? It's just a bunch of McDonald's ads.

I thought Mexico was paying for the wall.

Glad to see there is a $5B cut to the NIH. Who needs research when we can have more fighter planes. Maybe my lab can have a bake sale. Interesting thing about the NIH cuts...when we get a grant we spend all the money to hire people and buy supplies, which in turn create jobs and tax revenue.

But what do you do to keep America safe?

And coupons. That's why most people follow retail brands.

"We need higher paying American jobs!"

Makes a budget that eliminates a ton of high paying American jobs.

Yeah, but those are jobs for elite snowflake no-nothings, not for real, hard-working Americans.

The wall is going to be built with Chinese steel and foreign labor so the real hard-working Americans don't get much out of it anyway.

Amidst the predictable left/right ideological battle over the Trump "skinny" budget, there's an opportunity we are clearly going to miss here. Set aside some specific things (military buildup most notably) and this represents probably the most coherent and detailed proposal from anyone in power to really examine the proper role and footprint of our federal government. On a certain level, it's a legitimate test for the many who like to dabble with the intellectual concepts of libertarianism, or simultaneously/alternatively with a states-first anti-federalist view of government.

I think it is intellectually honest to be aggressively pro-arts, and at the same time to believe it wise to get the feds out of funding them in a major way. And on down the food chain for many, or most, of the cuts that people are going to decry as horrifying.

Alas... the chance of that debate really happening in a meaningful way is awfully slim. But might be nice to wave as it flashes by.

That would mean that person has no real knowledge of the history of art - as quite a bit of the works that we consider to be masterpieces were the result of government patronage. The 'market' has never been considered to be a great way to promote the arts, because what is popular isn't particularly that which is artistically important.

Thanks Meryl.

I'll expand on this, because my quip is exactly what I'm criticizing. And I'll state that I believe it is important to support the arts at a federal level. I think the NEA, NPR and PBS are important government initiatives.

However, dismissing a position that values the arts while honestly believing they are better supported privately as uneducated or lacks the appreciation of importance is really not helpful to the discourse and quite frankly doesn't help win elections.

This is a small example but messaging of knowing what is best for the population versus showing why policy is best is why the poor perception of liberals continues.

Like so many Trump plans the NEA cuts will hit his voters the hardest. The cuts to large, urban arts organizations will hurt, but won't kill much programming. The cuts to smaller organizations around the country, especially those in rural areas, will kill those programs.

It really is a problem of lack of education though. Why, what's your suggestion... you are right, but I like it this way. I'm sure that'll really going to win votes.

I don't actually care that much about sparing the feelings of conservative snowflakes so they think a bit better about me while they cast their vote against the arts anyway.

It's not about hurting conservatives feelings. It's about showing why it's better policy for those affected by it.

Look, I think Mick Mulvaney is a grade a jack ass, but when he goes on the morning talk shows and says things like a struggling single mother in Flint, MI shouldn't be asked to pay for the NEA or museums, that's a pretty simple and "fuck yeah" type argument. I think you have to show that the arts are pretty cool and not in a we know better than you kind of way. But showing that people in the community use these grants for all sorts of interesting things and it makes a difference. And you can use it too. Etc.

It's kind of the Obama Between two Ferns idea. Think outside the box to sell your policy.

So, yes, you can sound smart by talking about art history, and that may work on the Virginia Highlands coffee shop scene, but it doesn't really sell in a lot of places.

I fully realize that the tables are turned a bit right now and opposition and defense require a different approach, but in the end messaging is really the key and right now, outside of a pretty awesome weekend of pussy hats, Democrats suck at it.