Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, March 19, 2018

OTP 2018 March 19: Spending bill could quash Minor League Baseball players’ wage claims

A massive government spending bill that Congress is expected to consider this week could include a provision exempting Minor League Baseball players from federal labor laws, according to three congressional officials familiar with the talks.

The exemption would represent the culmination of more than two years of lobbying by Major League Baseball, which has sought to preempt a spate of lawsuits that have been filed by minor leaguers alleging they have been illegally underpaid.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 19, 2018 at 07:25 AM | 2016 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: minor league pay, minor leagues, off topic, owners, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 15 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›
   1401. tshipman Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:01 PM (#5642018)
Some crazy news stories coming out of the WH:

Sure, why not?

President Trump reportedly considered firing Chief of Staff John Kelly earlier this month and fulfilling the duties himself rather than naming a replacement.

NBC News reported Thursday that Trump suggested to others outside the White House that he would leave the chief of staff position open. He would then receive direct reports from a handful of top aides, in a set-up that would resemble how he operated the Trump Organization.


Why not represent yourself while you're at it?

“Trump is looking at this saying, I did it your way for months, now I’m ####### doing it my way,” a former West Wing official said. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)
   1402. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:11 PM (#5642020)
What are you folks getting out of the Karen McDougal story? She had an affair with a married Trump; he said he loved her; they had unprotected sex.

Anything else? Because this registers at about a 0.00 on the shocker scale.
   1403. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:16 PM (#5642021)
NBC News. Seems to be a body blow to the conspiracy hyperventilation that the Sainted McCabe was de facto fired by Trump:

FBI Director Christopher Wray — asked by NBC News in an exclusive interview broadcast Wednesday about the termination last week of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe — said he would never allow politics to affect the way he runs the agency.

"I am committed to doing things objectively and independently and by the book." Wray told NBC News' Pete Williams. "I think that has to extend not just to our investigations, our intelligence analysis, but it also has to extend to personnel decisions and disciplinary decisions."

Wray said he was not addressing the details of McCabe's termination, but maintained that he was committed to not allowing politics to be a factor in making decisions at the FBI.

"I want to be careful about what I can say about the process" of McCabe's firing, Wray said. "But I will tell you that my commitment to making sure that our process is followed, that it relies on objective input, and that most importantly, it is not based on political or partisan influence is something I am utterly unyielding on."
   1404. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:21 PM (#5642022)
Anything else? Because this registers at about a 0.00 on the shocker scale.


Nothing more than schadenfreude WRT the religious right who so famously gave Trump a one time "mulligan" over his supposed affair with Stormy Daniels, overlooking the numerous public acts of infidelity prior to that. What will be the excuse this time? Tax cuts? Hillary would be worse?

Look, people are free to support who they want to support. But religious zealots who don't give an inch on homosexual rights because of some perverse Bible interpretation continually giving a pass to a proven serial adulterer provide me with some entertainment, and more importantly, hopefully makes them more and more irrelevant.

   1405. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:27 PM (#5642023)
Nothing more than schadenfreude WRT the religious right who so famously gave Trump a one time "mulligan" over his supposed affair with Stormy Daniels, overlooking the numerous public acts of infidelity prior to that. What will be the excuse this time? Tax cuts? Hillalry would be worse?

Look, people are free to support who they want to support. But religious zealots who don't give an inch on homosexual rights because of some perverse Bible interpretation continually giving a pass to a proven serial adulterer provide me with some entertainment.


I don't know what you expected the silly Evangelicals to do. Vote for Hillary? Abstain and increase the odds that Hillary would win?

I'm beginning to think you folks just aren't capable of thinking logically about this.

As ever, you're confusing the personal failings of a candidate with policy. What matters to the religious right is whose policy they prefer. How many Playboy models Trump sleeps with is utterly irrelevant to that question. A sixth grader would be embarrassed to show the kind of logic flowchart you're using here.
   1406. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:30 PM (#5642024)
I don't know what you expected the silly Evangelicals to do. Vote for Hillary? Abstain and increase the odds that Hillary would win?

I'm beginning to think you folks just aren't capable of thinking logically about this.

As ever, you're confusing the personal failings of a candidate with policy. What matters to the religious right is whose policy they prefer. How many Playboy models Trump sleeps with is utterly irrelevant to that question. A sixth grader would be embarrassed to show the kind of logic flowchart you're using here.


I don't know why I expected a thoughtful response. Shame on me.
   1407. Jason Dean Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:32 PM (#5642025)
   1408. Jason Dean Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:33 PM (#5642026)
   1409. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:38 PM (#5642028)
My response was snide but on point.

So you expected the religious right to vote for Hillary, or abstain, or vote third party? If so, why? If not, why not?
   1410. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:39 PM (#5642030)
Guccifer 2.0, the "lone Romanian hacktivist" who passed info about the DNC data theft to Roger Stone, who in turn passed it to the Trump campaign, has been identified by U.S. investigators as a specific GRU Russian intelligence officer working out of Moscow headquarters.

Trump's abrupt firing of McMaster reportedly "upended" White House plans to announce several staff departures as a group, including David Shulkin and Ben Carson. The idea was to better "manage the optics" by combining multiple firings at once, rather than extend the process.

Steve Bannon does not remember whether or not he bought Facebook data while working with Cambridge Analytics. Bannon is more definite about Trump, who he says is gearing up and "going to war" with Robert Mueller.

China has released its list of 128 U.S. products for potential tariff retaliation, after Trump ignored his advisers and the Chamber of Commerce and imposed punitive tariffs on China. For one, China has agreed to buy more than $1 trillion in aircraft from Boeing, but that agreement is wholly subject to the Chinese government's continued goodwill. Boeing has been singlehandedly responsible for one-fourth of the Dow Jones rise-- over 1,200 points-- since December 2016.
   1411. Jay Z Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:42 PM (#5642033)
As I've mentioned before, my religious mother, 93 years old, single issue abortion voter, did not vote for Donald Trump. So yes, for some voting for the evil clown who is only doing lip service to your issue was a bridge too far.
   1412. Lassus Posted: March 22, 2018 at 11:44 PM (#5642034)
Ray & SBB, you are the two lobotomized teenage toadies that followed Tim Robbins around in Bob Roberts.

It is always shocking to me to remember that one of these dudes was Jack Black, god that movie was a long time ago.
   1413. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 23, 2018 at 12:08 AM (#5642037)
Ray & SBB, you are the two lobotomized teenage toadies that followed Tim Robbins around in Bob Roberts.

It is always shocking to me to remember that one of these dudes was Jack Black, god that movie was a long time ago.


My friend and I went to see that on a Thursday night. We arrived, bought our ticket, grabbed some snacks/drinks, walked into the theatre, sat down...and remained the only people in the theatre for the entire showing.
We enjoyed the movie and also liked we could talk out loud and put our feet up on the seats ahead of us. An usher came in half way through (to see if someone was actually in there) and didn't bother us when he saw us with our feet up.

When we were leaving, they were taking down the movie poster (as that was the last showing, obviously) and gave it to me when I asked for it.
I probably still have it somewhere in a closet, rolled up tight.
   1414. PreservedFish Posted: March 23, 2018 at 12:09 AM (#5642039)
So you expected the religious right to vote for Hillary, or abstain, or vote third party? If so, why? If not, why not?


I think he just expects them to wince.
   1415. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 23, 2018 at 12:10 AM (#5642040)
So you expected the religious right to vote for Hillary, or abstain, or vote third party? If so, why? If not, why not?

I would have expected the religious right to support pretty much any other Republican candidate during the primary.
If they were such a powerful voting block, it seemed they got right behind Trump and made no effort to stop his nomination.
   1416. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: March 23, 2018 at 12:10 AM (#5642041)
The omnibus has stopped because of the name of a wildlife preserve in Idaho.

There has to be a post in the Trump administration for Jim Risch.
   1417. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: March 23, 2018 at 12:32 AM (#5642042)
I think he just expects them to wince.

Which rhymes with Pence. Really, if the (white) evangelicals were even the slightest bit honest in how they apply their faith to political considerations, they would have as much to gain as anyone if the current VP assumed the presidency. That goes for maintaining political dominion in 2020 as well.
   1418. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 23, 2018 at 12:37 AM (#5642044)
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) on Donald Trump:
Clarence Darrow can't save this guy, but the problem is the client. He's an overexposed client in terms of criminal liability. He should sit down in the chair, go through the examination and come clean with his relationship on Russia, and allow us to move on. He's just playing games right now, and I think it's because he's afraid to get in the chair.

...He knows if he puts himself in that chair, they are not going to come at him unprepared. They will come at him with everything they have. ...I think he's on the hook for money laundering, and what he knew about the efforts to work with Russia. And he's on the hook for obstruction of justice. ...I think the question is, did he help them because he owed them something? ...I think he owed them something, witting or unwitting. ...They invested in him. ...He's delivering and there's more goods to come for Russia.
   1419. bunyon Posted: March 23, 2018 at 12:38 AM (#5642045)
Unless they lose the trump core that way. We’re split pretty evenly. If a party loses a few percent of their voters, they lose.
   1420. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: March 23, 2018 at 12:39 AM (#5642046)
Unless they lose the trump core that way.

White evangelicals are the Trump core.

I think the question is, did he help them because he owed them something?

Blech. Trump has shown he will happily not pay his debts. Find another archetype or metaphor, or whatever this is supposed to be.
   1421. PepTech Posted: March 23, 2018 at 01:25 AM (#5642048)
My response was snide but on point.
Don't forget insulting.

As you note, your content is fine. The snideness-to-content ratio is pretty overwhelming. But hey, self-awareness is a great first step. Lord knows I need to tone it down some.
   1422. tshipman Posted: March 23, 2018 at 01:56 AM (#5642049)

I don't know what you expected the silly Evangelicals to do. Vote for Hillary? Abstain and increase the odds that Hillary would win?

I'm beginning to think you folks just aren't capable of thinking logically about this.

As ever, you're confusing the personal failings of a candidate with policy. What matters to the religious right is whose policy they prefer. How many Playboy models Trump sleeps with is utterly irrelevant to that question. A sixth grader would be embarrassed to show the kind of logic flowchart you're using here.


Generally, people expect other people to behave rationally.

If your goal is reducing abortions, you should promote birth control.
If your goal is promoting moral behavior, you should abstain from voting before voting for Trump.
If your goal is electing godly leaders, you should abstain from voting before voting for Trump.


Liberals always get annoyed with evangelicals because we expect them to act rationally according to their stated interests. They don't.

So either we have to conclude that evangelicals are irrational actors, or that their stated goals are dishonest or misleading.
   1423. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:15 AM (#5642050)
So you expected the religious right to vote for Hillary, or abstain, or vote third party? If so, why? If not, why not?
Mark 8:36.

I think I used this quote the other day: People who don't care will never understand people who do.

(And if there's anyone who epitomizes Not Caring, it's Ray.)

As ever, you're confusing the personal failings of a candidate with policy. What matters to the religious right is whose policy they prefer.
To unprincipled people, yes. The religious right used to claim that character mattered, though. Nobody is "confusing" character with policy.
   1424. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:24 AM (#5642051)
..He knows if he puts himself in that chair, they are not going to come at him unprepared. They will come at him with everything they have. ...I think he's on the hook for money laundering, and what he knew about the efforts to work with Russia. And he's on the hook for obstruction of justice. ...I think the question is, did he help them because he owed them something? .


LOL. There's the four subjects Mueller wants to ask Trump about which have leaked to the press and then there's .... that.

I'm not sure we've seen quite the mass psychic quest for a messiah that we see with Mueller since Life of Brian.
   1425. BDC Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:26 AM (#5642052)
So you expected the religious right to vote for Hillary

As others have said, some of the religious right's antipathy for Hillary comes from her condoning or even abetting her husband's adultery, which was proof that liberals have no family values, etc.

Now we see that the sexual-conduct theme was complete eyewash. We're just pointing that out.
   1426. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:29 AM (#5642053)
Liberals always get annoyed with evangelicals because we expect them to act rationally according to their stated interests. They don't.


Some "let's look within" time is very much in order. The two book reviews I've posted on Lilla's book, for example -- so, so, very, very ... rational.

So either we have to conclude that evangelicals are irrational actors, or that their stated goals are dishonest or misleading.


Whereas there's no such ambiguity, nor reason to have to resort to inference, with the TDSB. They're deranged.

   1427. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:32 AM (#5642054)
Now we see that the sexual-conduct theme was complete eyewash. We're just pointing that out.


This is the type of thing you and yours believe and write on a routine basis about other people, including liberals. You really and truly have no standing to point out anything about anyone, and certainly not to be the arbiters of the political behavior of others, until this kind of thing changes. There's, unfortunately, little evidence that it's going to change any time soon:

In the new political climate we now inhabit, Duke and Lilla were contributing to the same ideological project, the former cloaked in a KKK hood, the latter in an academic gown. Both men are underwriting the whitening of American nationalism, and the re-centering of white lives as lives that matter most in the U.S. Duke is happy to own the white supremacy of his statements, while Lilla’s op-ed does the more nefarious background work of making white supremacy respectable. Again.
   1428. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:43 AM (#5642055)
This is the type of thing you and yours believe and write on a routine basis about other people, including liberals. You really and truly have no standing to point out anything about anyone, and certainly not to be the arbiters of the political behavior of others, until this kind of thing changes.


I love condescending mastabatory lectures from phony lawyers in the morning. Smells like Jergens and baloney.
   1429. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:46 AM (#5642056)
I love condescending mastabatory lectures from phony lawyers in the morning. Smells like Jergens and baloney.
Yes, but doesn't the fact that he's posted eight or ten times before the exact same thing about two sentences from some book reviews nobody -- including him -- read about a book nobody -- including him -- read prove his point?
   1430. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:56 AM (#5642059)
Yes, but doesn't the fact that he's posted eight or ten times before the exact same thing about two sentences from some book reviews nobody -- including him -- read about a book nobody -- including him -- read prove his point?

Would this have been one of the reviews of Toni Morrison's Beloved?
   1431. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:58 AM (#5642060)
I've got plenty of letters, Little Lord, both academic and otherwise.

You're the target demographic.


Me? A person who loudly and openly expresses his distaste for lawyers and the legal system at every opportunity here and everywhere else (it even gets me out of jury duty)? If there’s one thing I find wholly unimpressive it’s someone brandishing legal credentials as being innately authoritative, which is why you’re such a singularly pathetic sad-sack of a half-man in my eyes since you think claiming such an obviously unearned credential on an Internet baseball forum somehow lends credibility to your constant stupidity and harebraned commentary.

Frankly I don’t think I’ve ever commented on Neirpo....Nirp....Nerpo...####, David’s legal analysis on anything, and if I have it probably wasn’t a positive endorsement. If I’m his target for anything he’s as dumb as you are.
   1432. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:01 AM (#5642061)
Yes, but doesn't the fact that he's posted eight or ten times before the exact same thing about two sentences from some book reviews nobody -- including him -- read about a book nobody -- including him -- read prove his point?

Would this have been one of the reviews of Toni Morrison's Beloved?


Can derangement be monetized?
   1433. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:04 AM (#5642063)
If I’m his target for anything he’s as dumb as you are.


You're his target demographic. Not sure how the conditional "he would be dumb if I was" was supposed to scare anyone off that conclusion.
   1434. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:07 AM (#5642064)
I don't know what you expected the silly Evangelicals to do. Vote for Hillary? Abstain and increase the odds that Hillary would win?


What Would Jesus Do?
   1435. PreservedFish Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:08 AM (#5642065)
The worst thing about SBB is not his trolling but how repetitive he is.
   1436. PreservedFish Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:09 AM (#5642066)
Talking about #fatlogic was fun though.
   1437. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:10 AM (#5642067)
If I’m his target for anything he’s as dumb as you are.

You're his target demographic. Not sure how the conditional "he would be dumb if I was" was supposed to scare anyone off that conclusion


Well you’re exceptionally dumb.
   1438. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:12 AM (#5642069)

Can derangement be monetized?
If it could be, then FLTB would be as financially successful as he periodically pretends to be.
   1439. BDC Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:26 AM (#5642071)
I still don't know who Lilla is, though I guess I now have to disavow him. Or possibly embrace him. I can't even tell anymore.
   1440. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:27 AM (#5642072)
The worst thing about SBB is not his trolling but how repetitive he is.

Tell me about it. It's the same two words every ####### time:

1424. Larvell B Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:24 AM (#5642051)
[ Ignored Comment ]

1426. Larvell B Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:29 AM (#5642053)
[ Ignored Comment ]

1427. Larvell B Posted: March 23, 2018 at 06:32 AM (#5642054)
[ Ignored Comment ]

1432. Larvell B Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:01 AM (#5642061)
[ Ignored Comment ]

1433. Larvell B Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:04 AM (#5642063)
[ Ignored Comment ]
   1441. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:29 AM (#5642073)
Late to the party as usual, David Brooks seeing modern liberalism clearly:

Now we are at a place where it is commonly assumed that your perceptions are something that come to you through your group, through your demographic identity. How many times have we all heard somebody rise up in conversation and say, “Speaking as a Latina. …” or “Speaking as a queer person. …” or “Speaking as a Jew. …”?
Now, when somebody says that I always wonder, What does that mean? After you’ve stated your group identity, what is the therefore that follows?

...

And there are other times when collective thinking seems positively corrupting. Why are people’s views of global warming, genetically modified foods and other scientific issues strongly determined by political label? That seems ridiculous.

I’m a columnist and I’m supposed to come to a conclusion, but I’m confused.

Our whole education system is based on the idea that we train individuals to be critical thinkers. Our political system is based on the idea that persuasion and deliberation lead to compromise and toward truth. The basis of human dignity is our capacity to make up our own minds. One of the things I’ve learned in a lifetime in journalism is that people are always more unpredictable than their categories.

But the notion that group membership determines opinion undermines all that. If it’s just group against group, deliberation is a sham, beliefs are just masks groups use to preserve power structures, and democracy is a fraud. The epistemological foundation of our system is in surprisingly radical flux.


A-yup.

Wasn't Brooks a "NeverTrumper"?
   1442. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:36 AM (#5642074)
I still don't know who Lilla is, though I guess I now have to disavow him. Or possibly embrace him. I can't even tell anymore.


Sure you do -- he's the actual liberal Columbia professor who modern liberals said was pretty much just like David Duke. An NYT book review of his book -- The Once and Future Liberal -- said the book was "trolling."

Kind of puts events around here in their proper context.
   1443. BDC Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:38 AM (#5642075)
Well, I went to my lecture last night, and dang if the speaker wasn't a dead ringer for John Bolton. This was pretty surreal. He was talking about the collapse of a Bronze-Age proto-civilization in Eastern Europe. I so wanted the society in question to peak in 1979 BC, but it turns out that at that date they were still on the rise, and they didn't start declining for another century or two.

It was an interesting talk, though, paralleling some of the interpretations of these "collapses" as the non-tragic dispersal of populations over a wider territory and subsequent loss of central elite wealth. The speaker argued that if populations aren't constrained to stay in one place (physically or socially), they will tend to scatter at the first sign of trouble (famine, plague, environmental exhaustion). These Bronze-Age characters in what is now Romania had all kinds of rich marshlands to go to when their hill-towns failed.
   1444. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:42 AM (#5642076)
I still don't know who Lilla is, though I guess I now have to disavow him. Or possibly embrace him. I can't even tell anymore.
Lilla is a Columbia professor who wrote an op-ed in the NYT after the election arguing that the Dems needed to abandon identity politics to win elections. Predictably, some people who love identity politics got outraged. He then expanded that op-ed into a short (<150 p) book, garnering similar reactions. A handful of idiots, as they are wont to do, decided that it was racist to make any such argument, and blasted him. FLTB found one of these people -- a professor of gender studies, of course -- and has quoted her eleventy-billion times.

(EDIT: Note that she's not the one who discussed the book and then said it was trolling. FLTB has never read it and doesn't know whether that's accurate, but since he likes trolling he's okay with that.)
   1445. McCoy Posted: March 23, 2018 at 07:49 AM (#5642078)
Man, I remember now why I got out of collecting things. It's such a money sink. So I'm 42 cards short of having the entire MTG Ixalan set. Go to TCGPlayer to price out how much it would cost to just buy them all as singles. Comes in at something like 101 dollars and some change. So I figure I can buy some more boosters and possibly knock down the amount of cards I need to the low 30's and possibly knock down the cost to something 50 bucks. Buy 8 packs for around 24 dollars. So that's 112 cards. Now most of them are going to be commons and you're only going to get 8 rares but out of all that I get a grand total of 2 new cards and I go on TCGPlayer I find out that I've just lowered my cost to buy all 40 cards to 100 dollars. I saved a $1.33 buy spending 24 dollars. Yippee. Takes me back to the good old days of collecting baseball cards.
   1446. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:04 AM (#5642080)
The worst thing about SBB is not his trolling but how repetitive he is.
That's a consistently sad thing about the Modern Internet. I came up with BBSes and Unsenet. We had a much higher class of troll back then.

Now get the #### off my (virtual) lawn.
   1447. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:11 AM (#5642081)
“Speaking as a Latina. …” or “Speaking as a queer person. …” or “Speaking as a Jew. …”? Now, when somebody says that I always wonder, What does that mean?
"It means the group that has been in charge forever has ignored us, and as a result we developed a different context for standard thinking that those people rarely recognize unless we hammer that fact in shorthand in this very way, so it can actually (maybe, but still rarely) be understood. Think like adults and stop whining and you might not have to wonder so much."
   1448. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:19 AM (#5642082)
"It means the group that has been in charge forever has ignored us, and as a result we developed a different context for standard thinking that those people rarely recognize until we hammer it in this very way so it can actually be understood. Think like adults and stop whining and you might not have to wonder so much."


"Different context for standard thinking," huh?

Sounds quite racist.

But without going down that sinkhole yet again, even if the people were "ignored" -- they weren't, but let's assume arguendo they were -- it doesn't make the thing that follows that lead-in any more true, insightful, or valid.

As a Latina, I'm here to tell you I don't think the Holocaust actually happened.

See?

And conversely, the same statement doesn't become any less ridiculous if it's offered by a member of the so-called "non-ignored" group.

Hear me out as the white male you've always paid outsized attention to: I'm here to tell you I don't think the Holocaust actually happened.

See?

   1449. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:21 AM (#5642083)
"It means the group that has been in charge forever has ignored us, and as a result we developed a different context for standard thinking that those people rarely recognize until we hammer it in this very way, so it can actually be understood. Think like adults and stop whining and you might not have to wonder so much."


Yeah, the idea that being in a group, having experiences common to that group doesn't inform one's knowledge and opinion of the world is ignorant clap-trap. As an educated straight white middle-aged middle class male living in the upper Midwest my experiences are very different than many. Those experiences do not determine my world view, but they are a part of it.

Denying that, pretending that it doesn't matter and that females, those of another race or ethnicity, or being in the LGBTQ or anything else wouldn't yield different experiences is dumb. Or maybe they are pretending that experience doesn't influence ideas? If anything that is even dumber.
   1450. BrianBrianson Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:24 AM (#5642084)
Can derangement be monetized?


Alex Jones makes pretty good money.

Glenn Beck made a lot of money when he was off his meds.
   1451. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:30 AM (#5642085)
Sounds quite racist.

Your obsession with race was recognized by this board an easy five years ago.

And the rest of your reply wouldn't even make it out of Jr. High comp class.
   1452. Swoboda is freedom Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:31 AM (#5642086)
Real talk: Nobody here will feel the difference from McMaster to Bolton. Perhaps if you folks didn't follow politics as if you were watching sports teams you'd understand that. But you don't, so here we are.

You are 90% right. Bolton will probably not make a huge difference. But Trump now has Bolton and Pompeo giving him advice. Trump needs people around him saying put on brakes. Bolton and Pompeo are real hawks. This does increase the chance of a war. I hope not.

Trump says Iraq was a stupid war and Bolton was one of the biggest cheerleaders.
   1453. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:34 AM (#5642087)

Denying that, pretending that it doesn't matter and that females, those of another race or ethnicity, or being in the LGBTQ or anything else wouldn't yield different experiences is dumb.
No, it's not. Pretending that group membership defines individuals is racist. (...sexist, etc.) And dumb. There is no LGBTQXKAJA experience. There is no Latina experience or Jewish experience¹ or white middle-aged middle class male experience.

More importantly, though, who cares about your personal experiences? Talking about those is for therapy, not public policy.



¹The traditional joke among Jews was "Two Jews, Three Opinions." Whereas now it's "Ten million Latinos one experience."
   1454. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:36 AM (#5642089)
There is no LGBTQXKAJA experience. There is no Latina experience or Jewish experience

This is just plain ignorant.
   1455. BDC Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:36 AM (#5642090)
Lilla is a Columbia professor who wrote an op-ed in the NYT after the election arguing that the Dems needed to abandon identity politics to win elections

Ah, OK, thanks. In other words, not a particularly "out there" argument, it's just that there were a couple of "out-there" reactions. But since I haven't disavowed these reactions that I didn't know about to the op-ed and book I didn't know about, I am a modern liberal. Guilty as charged! :)
   1456. BrianBrianson Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:37 AM (#5642091)
Denying that, pretending that it doesn't matter and that females, those of another race or ethnicity, or being in the LGBTQ or anything else wouldn't yield different experiences is dumb. Or maybe they are pretending that experience doesn't influence ideas? If anything that is even dumber.


It is dumb to pretend that such experiences are so homogeneous that anyone can speak for group X. It's true on average that your experiences are a bit more like members of your demographic than the mean experience of other demographics, but no one can speak for (men, women, whites, blacks, jews, atheists, immigrants, mutes, cripples, old money) .... maybe the Pope can speak for Catholics, but that's about it.

There is no LGBTQXKAJA experience. There is no Latina experience

This is just plain ignorant.


There are 300 million Latina experiences. There isn't one.
   1457. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:43 AM (#5642092)
There are 300 million Latina experiences. There isn't one.

The bell curve exists.
   1458. DavidFoss Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:43 AM (#5642093)
Wasn't Brooks a "NeverTrumper"?

You quote a whole essay about how group membership should not determine opinions. Then you wonder why the author would write such an article because he belonged to a certain group? How does that make any sense?

I think that was the problem people had with Lilla's op-ed/book. "The left's problem is that they are not as open-minded and free-thinking as the right." Who actually believes that? But if such an op-ed/book actually gets written, of course the right is going to jump on that train. "Yeah, that's it! You guys are not open-minded and free-thinking! You should all change your views! Or maybe give the Republican Party a try! Vote for us!"
   1459. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:43 AM (#5642094)
No, it's not. Pretending that group membership defines individuals is racist. (...sexist, etc.) And dumb. There is no LGBTQXKAJA experience. There is no Latina experience or Jewish experience¹ or white middle-aged middle class male experience.


Reading, still fundamental. Reading will always be fundamental. I did not say that "group membership defines individuals", so nice straw argument you have there. Care to reply to what I actually wrote, or are you satisfied arguing with the distortion you invented?


More importantly, though, who cares about your personal experiences? Talking about those is for therapy, not public policy.


What a weird comment. I mean I guess not reading or understanding what I wrote gives rise to comments that don't respond to what I wrote, but still this is particularly ... odd.

I write it again. Read it slowly. Ask questions if you have them. But do try to understand before commenting this time, 'k?

My experiences inform my world view, my world view informs my preferred policies and politics. If you don't understand that everyone's experiences inform (note "inform" <> "determine" or "define") one's politics then you won't understand much of the world around you and come to silly conclusions like "Libertopia would be awesome, dude!".

How much or little you care about my experiences is fabulously not the point, in a spectacular and amazing way.
   1460. BDC Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:46 AM (#5642095)
There is no … white middle-aged middle class male experience

In an ultimate existential sense, no; but this group of largely white middle-aged middle class males right here has managed to share a lot of common experience over the years. (Baseball, bourbon, Iceland.) Get enough of those experiences together, and generalizations can be meaningful, even if everyone's not identical.

True, if somebody appoints themselves spokesperson, you should probably distrust them. But if you get a bunch of people of a given demographic together and they find they have a lot in common, that's real too.
   1461. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:49 AM (#5642096)
It is dumb to pretend that such experiences are so homogeneous that anyone can speak for group X. It's true on average that your experiences are a bit more like members of your demographic than the mean experience of other demographics, but no one can speak for (men, women, whites, blacks, jews, atheists, immigrants, mutes, cripples, old money) .... maybe the Pope can speak for Catholics, but that's about it.


Yes, that would be dumb. And? I have never asked any one person to stand in for a large group like that. One person can be an example, but a stand-in and spokesperson? No, that would be dumb. (See Stretchy and his constant use of single instances and his feeble attempts to use them as stand-ins for whole groups).

It would also be dumb to pretend that there are not commonalities across groups, where members of a group tend to share similar experiences and over the years draw similar inferences. You realize in aggregate groups often vote as blocks right? That this is partly how pollsters work, is they poll a large number of respondents and then look at their finding and adjust them based on certain demographic criteria.

That criteria maps to commonly discussed identities, and the reason pollsters do this is because they have discovered over the years certain patterns in political beliefs across the groups defined by those qualities.

Did you think those patterns didn't exist? Were random? Sprang forth by magic, not based on common experiences within those groups? What exactly did you think was going on?
   1462. Traderdave Posted: March 23, 2018 at 08:59 AM (#5642098)
On the wire: Trump considers veto of omnibus bill
   1463. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:01 AM (#5642099)
On the wire: Trump considers veto of omnibus bill


Heh. Full Trump, no brakes.

There are many reasons many of all political persuasions here didn't want someone with Trump's temperament as President. Still as far as presidential tantrums go, that is not the worst one in the world. Not the best obviously (he should tweet, hold rallies and play golf - every day from now until 2020), but not the worst.
   1464. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:07 AM (#5642101)
On the wire: Trump considers veto of omnibus bill

Haven't seen that yet, just this dude: Freedom Caucus Republican: Trump should veto spending bill
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Wednesday he hopes Trump will veto the omnibus if the final bill text includes the current provisions. Jordan said the current bill contradicts the policies Trump and Republicans campaigned on.

While the legislation has not yet been finalized, GOP hardliners are saying the spending bill fails to deliver conservative wins.

"I would just say Planned Parenthood gets money, the unconstitutional Fix NICS program gets money, the Gateway project gets money, the American taxpayer gets a trillion deficit, and no money for the wall," Jordan, one of the most vocal members of the House Freedom Caucus, told reporters.


   1465. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:09 AM (#5642102)
On the wire: Trump considers veto of omnibus bill



Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded.

7:55 AM - Mar 23, 2018


   1466. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:13 AM (#5642103)
Haven't seen that yet, just this dude: Freedom Caucus Republican: Trump should veto spending bill


Trumpkins sites I monitor as research towards my investment in kool-aid and cyanide manufacturer holdings have led me to believe all week that this is a real possibility.

Trumpkins are not happy about the bill and at this point, the only real advisers he has left are angry internet people.

Is it too late for the GOPe to change this AM's Fox programming schedule? Might need some executive time to explain how awesome the bill is and why Trump would continue to be awesome by signing the awesome bill.
   1467. Spahn Insane Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:14 AM (#5642104)
the American taxpayer gets a trillion deficit, and no money for the wall,

That Jordan spoke these two phrases in succession tells you all you need to know about the Freedom Caucus's level of seriousness about fiscal conservatism.
   1468. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:15 AM (#5642105)
Yeah, the idea that being in a group, having experiences common to that group doesn't inform one's knowledge and opinion of the world is ignorant clap-trap. As an educated straight white middle-aged middle class male living in the upper Midwest


There is no such "group" and such a "group" can therefore have no members.

Do you have a membership card in the "group"?
   1469. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:16 AM (#5642106)
In an ultimate existential sense, no; but this group of largely white middle-aged middle class males right here has managed to share a lot of common experience over the years.


And yet the board is routinely filled with personal insults and bile between white middle-aged middle class males, based on entirely different perceptions of the world.

Go figure.

Now, if we have such wildly different perceptions of the world, why would we think other "groups" don't have exactly the same (or at least essentially the same)? Other than through some mechanism of white supremacy, that is?
   1470. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:18 AM (#5642107)
Thanks.

I'll admit I've been a terrible liberal and lost track of the DACA narrative. Trump is upset the Dems didn't fight his policy on them just ignored it? Is there an objective description of the way in which the Dems are ####### up DACA? (Note: I have little doubt they are actually ####### it up, but whatever description Trump or JE would come up with as to how I would be necessarily doubtful of.)
   1471. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:18 AM (#5642108)
In other words, not a particularly "out there" argument, it's just that there were a couple of "out-there" reactions


In other words, just like BTF:OTP.
   1472. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:20 AM (#5642109)
In other words, just like BTF:OTP.


But enough about your posting history.
   1473. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:24 AM (#5642111)
While it would be a disaster - with rough economic sledding already upon us thanks to Trump's trade war - I have to admit... might a veto be worth the schadenfreude of watching Trump royally screw over Ryan and McConnell?

Probably not... but you gotta find silver linings where you can.
   1474. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:24 AM (#5642112)
You quote a whole essay about how group membership should not determine opinions. Then you wonder why the author would write such an article because he belonged to a certain group? How does that make any sense?


Because that isn't why I asked the question. I asked the question because #Nevertrump-ism contributed greatly to the very problem of radical epistemological change Brooks correctly identified.
   1475. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:25 AM (#5642113)
Reading, still fundamental. Reading will always be fundamental. I did not say that "group membership defines individuals", so nice straw argument you have there. Care to reply to what I actually wrote, or are you satisfied arguing with the distortion you invented?
I know you didn't say that "group membership defines individuals," which is why I didn't say that you said that "group membership defines individuals." You did, however, say that group membership defined individuals.

My experiences inform my world view, my world view informs my preferred policies and politics.
What is the difference between "Taxes should be lowered" and "As a white middle-aged middle class male with white middle-aged middle class male experience, taxes should be lowered"?
   1476. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:26 AM (#5642114)
Now, if we have such wildly different perceptions of the world, why would we think other "groups" don't have exactly the same (or at least essentially the same)? Other than through some mechanism of white supremacy, that is?

Maybe try asking the people you've decided aren't any different from you at all and therefore shouldn't react differently to anything other than how you would. I doubt that you'd care what they say, but anything's possible.
   1477. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:28 AM (#5642115)
I think that was the problem people had with Lilla's op-ed/book. "The left's problem is that they are not as open-minded and free-thinking as the right."


The book says nothing like that.
   1478. Spahn Insane Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:29 AM (#5642116)
That's a consistently sad thing about the Modern Internet. I came up with BBSes and Unsenet. We had a much higher class of troll back then.

Blanks is no Roger Maynard.

Actually, upon a moment's reflection, they're pretty damned similar. "Modern liberal" is to SBB as "stat fans" and "sport fans" were to Maynard. Neither offers anything other than monotonous catchphrases and the same "arguments" repeated ad nauseum.

At least Blanks doesn't refer to himself by the royal "we," so there's that.
   1479. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:31 AM (#5642117)
Maybe try asking the people you've decided aren't any different from you at all and therefore shouldn't react differently to anything than the way you would. Not that you'd care, but who knows?


So I guess it's white supremecy, then. White people have common experiences and "identities" and yet wildly divergent attitudes about ... well ... everything -- but no other group anywhere has the capacities for such dualities and nuances.

Of course, that's an entirely mocking and untrue answer. Other groups everywhere do have dualities and nuances despite their superficially similar "identities," but modern liberals simply pretend otherwise because their objective isn't understanding and describing -- it's personal virtue-signaling and because they've asserted a self-proclaimed (and unwanted) protectorate over such groups.
   1480. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:32 AM (#5642118)
It would also be dumb to pretend that there are not commonalities across groups, where members of a group tend to share similar experiences and over the years draw similar inferences. You realize in aggregate groups often vote as blocks right? That this is partly how pollsters work, is they poll a large number of respondents and then look at their finding and adjust them based on certain demographic criteria.

That criteria maps to commonly discussed identities, and the reason pollsters do this is because they have discovered over the years certain patterns in political beliefs across the groups defined by those qualities.

Did you think those patterns didn't exist? Were random? Sprang forth by magic, not based on common experiences within those groups? What exactly did you think was going on?


If the institutions of white America hadn't spent the first 188 years** of its existence essentially treating all non-white people as one undifferentiated and inferior mass, with plenty of spillover of that attitude into the succeeding 54 years, maybe we wouldn't be seeing the degree of identity politics we have today. All we're seeing now is the proverbial chickens coming home to roost.

** Or 177 years or 345 years, depending on how you're counting
   1481. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:32 AM (#5642119)
If some anti-Trumpers wanted to be real evil shits, they'd be making all kinds of chicken clucking sounds right now...
   1482. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:35 AM (#5642121)
If the institutions of white America hadn't spent the first 188 years** of its existence essentially treating all non-white people as one undifferentiated and inferior mass, with plenty of spillover of that attitude into the succeeding 54 years, maybe we wouldn't be seeing the degree of identity politics we have today. All we're seeing today is the proverbial chickens coming home to roost.


Wait, but I thought white people had been playing identity politics all that time ... and yet here they are, with wildly different politics and viewpoints from one another -- as they've had for, well, forever.
   1483. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:37 AM (#5642122)
Yeah, because nothing screams "white racial solidarity" like the American Civil War, and the two World Wars.
   1484. BDC Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:37 AM (#5642123)
Other groups everywhere do have dualities and nuances despite their superficially similar "identities," but modern liberals simply pretend otherwise because their objective isn't understanding and describing -- it's personal virtue-signaling and because they've asserted a self-proclaimed (and unwanted) protectorate over such groups

What would be an example of this, as opposed to evidence based on the voices in your head? :)
   1485. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:37 AM (#5642124)
At least Blanks doesn't refer to himself by the royal "we," so there's that.
Well, no. He does refer to himself as "this space," though.
   1486. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:38 AM (#5642125)
What would be an example of this, as opposed to evidence based on the voices in your head? :)


The comments on this very thread?

If the lead-in, "As a white middle-aged middle-class male who likes baseball" can't ratify the thing that follows -- as we know it can't -- then "As a Latina" can't either.
   1487. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:43 AM (#5642130)
So I guess it's white supremecy, then. White people have common experiences and "identities" and yet wildly divergent attitudes about ... well ... everything -- but no other group anywhere has the capacities for such dualities and nuances. Of course, that's an entirely mocking and untrue answer. Other groups everywhere do have dualities and nuances despite their superficially similar "identities," but modern liberals simply pretend otherwise because their objective isn't understanding and describing -- it's personal virtue-signaling and because they've asserted a self-proclaimed (and unwanted) protectorate over such groups.

Do you actually write legal briefs like this? I'm happy to find David batshit wrong on many (many) things, but even when leading an argument with his butt, he responds to what's been written and can at least be followed.
   1488. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:46 AM (#5642132)
What is the difference between "Taxes should be lowered" and "As a white middle-aged middle class male with white middle-aged middle class male experience, taxes should be lowered"?


More words in the second one.

I know this is complex, but stick with me for a second. Not every experience a person has maps to every policy that person endorses. It makes more sense* to say** "Speaking as a Latina, the impact of the current ICE policies on the Latino community is ..." than it would to say "Speaking as a Latina, NASA needs funding for its rogue asteroid shield."

In one instance life experience very likely informs the speaker in their views. That doesn't mean they must be deferred to, of course, but it is likely they at least have some degree of relevant knowledge either directly or indirectly. In the other instance there is little or no relationship and - as stated above - it is mostly extra words, and those extra words have no or negative value.

Also note that "Speaking as a Latina ..." is NOT the same as saying "Speaking for all Latinos ...". Different words AND different meaning entirely.

* Sense for some one. Not me, but for ... you know ... an actual Latina to say.

** Speaking for myself, I actually find the phrase "Speaking as a..." to be obnoxious and annoying. The sentiment behind it is accurate but verbalizing it does irritate me. That doesn't invalidate what they are saying, or that their experience could very well give them insight I lack, but it does indicate a style preference on my part.
   1489. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:46 AM (#5642133)
I'm happy to find David batshit wrong on many (many) things, but even when leading an argument with his butt, he responds to what's been written and can at least be followed.


It's white supremacist to turn "minority" groups into products of their "identities" in ways you wouldn't do with white people. Not sure how it can be any more clear than that. Maybe the last sentence of 1486 will help.
   1490. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:47 AM (#5642134)
Do you actually write legal briefs like this?


I assume this is a rhetorical question.
   1491. BrianBrianson Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:48 AM (#5642135)
If the institutions of white America hadn't spent the first 188 years** of its existence essentially treating all non-white people as one undifferentiated and inferior mass, with plenty of spillover of that attitude into the succeeding 54 years, maybe we wouldn't be seeing the degree of identity politics we have today. All we're seeing now is the proverbial chickens coming home to roost.


I don't think the octoroons would agree with that characterization.

Nor does it work as a justification for wanting to treat them as one undifferentiated mass of color today.
   1492. DavidFoss Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:49 AM (#5642136)
Wait, but I thought white people had been playing identity politics all that time ... and yet here they are, with wildly different politics and viewpoints from one another -- as they've had for, well, forever.

I still don't get it. Every politician considers 'demographics' rather than sitting down and have a conversation which each individual voter. If you take a policy stance that hurts a particular demographic, that's going to hurt you with that group in the election. How is this a problem and how is this a problem that liberals have?

   1493. BrianBrianson Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:50 AM (#5642137)
Also note that "Speaking as a Latina ..." is NOT the same as saying "Speaking for all Latinos ...". Different words AND different meaning entirely.


In practice, people saying the former usually mean the latter. Otherwise

. It makes more sense* to say** "Speaking as a Latina, the impact of the current ICE policies on the Latino community is ..."


Would be incoherent nonsense. That sentence only makes sense if "speaking as a Latina" means "speaking for everyone in the Latino community".
   1494. -- Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:53 AM (#5642140)
In one instance life experience very likely informs the speaker in their views. That doesn't mean they must be deferred to, of course, but it is likely they at least have some degree of relevant knowledge either directly or indirectly.


It does no such thing. A Latina daughter of an upper-class family in a wealthy suburb is no more likely to have "relevant knowledge" of the impact of ICE policies on the Latino community than anyone else, simply because she's Latina. Just as I have no more relevant knowledge of how certain policies impact the Alabama cracker community than anyone else, simply because I'm white.

You're turning Latinos into an undifferentiated mass, just as I noted -- in ways you would never do for white people. That's racist. Like really, actually racist -- not the phony version you and yours routinely peddle.
   1495. Count Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:54 AM (#5642142)
re 1470:

I'll admit I've been a terrible liberal and lost track of the DACA narrative. Trump is upset the Dems didn't fight his policy on them just ignored it? Is there an objective description of the way in which the Dems are ####### up DACA? (Note: I have little doubt they are actually ####### it up, but whatever description Trump or JE would come up with as to how I would be necessarily doubtful of.)


Democrats proposed DACA for border security a few months ago, which Trump had initially wanted. Trump rejected the deal, however, after immigration hardliners got his ear (Cotton, Miller) and demanded significant changes to immigration policy (including drastic reduction in legal immigration and limiting "chain migration" - keep this in mind when people claim that the GOP is only against illegal immigration) in exchange for passing DACA which Democrats won't agree to. That's where it left off a month or two ago. Since the last shutdown Democrats have dropped their demand that DACA be tied to a big spending bill. Trump repeatedly lies in his tweets about DACA and blames Democrats for not caring about it, as part of a strategy where Trump and the GOP say they want protection for the Dreamers to pass yet are demanding major concessions for it instead of just, you know, passing something.
   1496. Morty Causa Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:54 AM (#5642143)
If the institutions of white America hadn't spent the first 188 years** of its existence essentially treating all non-white people as one undifferentiated and inferior mass, with plenty of spillover of that attitude into the succeeding 54 years, maybe we wouldn't be seeing the degree of identity politics we have today. All we're seeing today is the proverbial chickens coming home to roost.

Do you know of any country in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, that didn't think its kind special? And that's white and non-white? The US and the West were in the forefront bringing changes about, changes that many of your brown and black countries still having gotten around to implementing seriously.

But those changes weren't enough; they didn't satiate. The faux liberals couldn't help doing what they continue to do all the time, which is to do their utmost to stigmatize the White race, to brand it as if it's flaws and failures nullified all accomplishment, and were unique and deserved special never-ending punishment. That's what has come home to roost for those faux liberals who weren't satisfied with mere equality in law but had to deform the political structures, processes, and institutions, had to knock Whiteys dick in the dirt and keep doing it for nigh on sixty years. Whites are, in that faux liberal mind, preternaturally, eternally, and forever guilty. It's a white-hot branding of the White race, making that its original sin and the faux liberal ain't giving that up easily. It's the teat that keeps on giving. Catering to special classes may be all this sort of fake liberalism has left. And there are more and more Whites that are waking up to this fact that they are some people's villain forever. So they're writing you off, and like the guy in the movie Network, they're not taking it anymore.
   1497. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: March 23, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5642146)
Just glancing at the numbers -

Looks like they'd need to find 1 or 2 votes in the Senate - but need a good 30+ in the House to override a Trump veto... but those margins all came while the WH - sans Trump - was publicly backing the bill. Any override would require Dem votes, of course - and Dem majorities in both chambers voted for it (39-8 in the Senate; 111-74 in the House).

My bet is that they bleed a pretty fair number of GOP votes - particularly in the house - in case of an veto override.... it would probably be close. My guess is that enough Dems would flip just to embarrass Trump with an override but it's hard to be sure.

   1498. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: March 23, 2018 at 10:01 AM (#5642148)
My understanding is that WH staffers are now planning to present the bill to Trump, but tell him it's the cable news subscription renewal bill so he needs to sign it or no more Fox News.
   1499. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 23, 2018 at 10:01 AM (#5642149)
In practice, people saying the former usually mean the latter. Otherwise


I disagree. Groups of people have broadly similar experiences, share a culture, and communicate often and closely with other members of that group - thus getting a window into the groups experiences even when one does not directly experience them.

There is a reason various demographics vote essentially as blocks. African Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. That doesn't mean, however, that EVERY AA votes Democrat. When someone says "Speaking as an 'X' ..." they are referring to their perception of the common experiences of 'X'. But common doesn't mean universal and their perception may not be accurate.

On the other hand pretending "Speaking as an 'X' ..." means "Speaking for every member of 'X' ..." suggests a weird megalomania and complete an utter misunderstanding of how the world works. I mean in a world where Trump is President and you read Stretchy posts all day long I get how one could maybe believe that. Yes their are some speakers who may use the phrase as you do, but I think it is a strong minority.

But as I said up thread I do think it an obnoxious turn of phrase. Not evil or pernicious though, and usually not megalomaniacal, but still annoying.
   1500. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 23, 2018 at 10:05 AM (#5642151)
Flip
Page 15 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
tshipman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-18-2018
(25 - 12:35am, Jul 20)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogOTP 2018 July 16: Why Does President Trump Balk At Attending Baseball Games?
(1093 - 12:14am, Jul 20)
Last: Ray (CTL)

NewsblogIndians deal for ace reliever Brad Hand
(25 - 12:05am, Jul 20)
Last: Walt Davis

Gonfalon CubsLooking Forward
(40 - 11:47pm, Jul 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogIs one game really worth an OMNCHATTER! for July 19, 2018
(110 - 11:41pm, Jul 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(802 - 11:39pm, Jul 19)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(3470 - 11:33pm, Jul 19)
Last: this is normal 57i66135. move on, find a new slant

Newsblog10 Years Ago, Two Trades Broke The Mold For MLB Deadline Deals
(18 - 10:33pm, Jul 19)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-19-2018
(35 - 8:43pm, Jul 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogRob Manfred: Mike Trout limits his popularity because he won't market himself
(94 - 8:21pm, Jul 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogManny Machado blockbuster makes Dodgers the NL's team to beat
(16 - 8:11pm, Jul 19)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(3245 - 6:01pm, Jul 19)
Last: Sean Forman

NewsblogIs Chase Utley a Hall of Famer?
(71 - 2:17pm, Jul 19)
Last: this is normal 57i66135. move on, find a new slant

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (let's call it July 2018)
(587 - 12:09pm, Jul 19)
Last: stig-tossled,hornswoggled gef the talking mongoose

NewsblogAaron Judge — Huge Talent, Phenomenal Trade Bait
(11 - 12:05pm, Jul 19)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Page rendered in 0.7227 seconds
46 querie(s) executed