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, January 08, 2018

OTP 8 January 2018: Lawsuits could change the rules in North Carolina politics, balance of power in Raleigh

Jake Quinn says his main job when he umpires baseball games as a volunteer for North Asheville Little League is to ensure each team is treated fairly.

“Before the first pitch is thrown, the score is 0-0 and the team that scores the most runs during the game wins the game,” he said.

But, he says, “That’s not the way elections work. With gerrymandering, one team starts out in the lead. That’s fundamentally unfair.”

 

(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: January 08, 2018 at 07:54 AM | 2393 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: little league, off topic, politics, umpire

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 2 of 24 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: January 08, 2018 at 01:40 PM (#5602763)
Sure if all I want is a pepperoni pizza or a hamburger I want my service staff to be professional and unobtrusive. But that isn't what are on American menus right now. American menus are largely small plate menus or eclectic menus and those types of menus work best when you have a guide walking you through them. There is nothing worse than walking into a restaurant for the first time, discovering that the menus has 30 to 40 choices, and the waitstaff saying "What'll you have?". Read your customer, communicate with your customer, know your menu, and create an experience that your customer is looking for.


I dunno I find most of the "small plate" menus are pretty straightforward and exist to simplify everything from sourcing the food to preparing it to serving it. Here in Seattle, other than the $50 a head (and up) places the wait staff is basically seen a someone to take your order and even sometimes bring it to your table. With rents so high most mid tier places have a barebones staff taking menus via an iPad, pouring (but not bringing) your drink, and occasionally busing a table that the customer did not.

Personally I don't really know why I'm tipping at some of these places. Thanks for taking my order I guess behind the counter and pouring that beer.

But American restaurants mean pointless interruptions, unnecessary waits, and having to keep an eye out for your server as much as they keep an eye out for you. Ugh.


Not at millenial oriented spots, see above.
   102. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 01:41 PM (#5602764)
When I lived in England, check-ins where never needed, I never needed to search for waiters to get (more drinks/the cheque/ketchup/whatever), I knew where they were. Everything when I wanted it, nothing when I didn't. Perfect. Honestly, growing up in North America, I didn't really realize how awful restaurants are 'cause I didn't know any better, but after living in England for five years, American restaurants are almost unbearable. Now, maybe if I was going to places were I was dropping more than I spent on my first car, I wouldn't mind the service so much? But American restaurants mean pointless interruptions, unnecessary waits, and having to keep an eye out for your server as much as they keep an eye out for you. Ugh.

My wife and I generally eat at the same 6 to 10 restaurants on a regular basis, and it's been years since we've had poor service, since they generally recognize us and know we tip well. The only deal breaker for us is the noise level, which is one thing at a sports bar on game day but another thing when you'd like to be able to hear yourself think. I've read countless explanations about how bad acoustics and excess noise is necessary to create "buzz", but it's still got to be one of the dumbest developments of recent restaurant culture that I can think of.
   103. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 01:42 PM (#5602765)
So back to our book review...

Chapter 9: CPAC... or Bannon takes a victory lap over poor Reince, Jared grows suspicious, Trumpkins learn the value of method acting, and Richard Spencer gets his 15 minutes

If this isn't the Peak Bannon chapter, it's pretty darn close. The posse makes their triumphant return to CPAC - or in the case of Bannon, the Uninvited becomes the Guest of Honor and basks in it. Heavy doses of storm clouds on the horizon - Bannon is giddily dancing on Priebus' grave while Priebus sits next to him. Much of it is well-worn - anyone that happened to catch the Priebus/Bannon joint interview can pretty much figure out how the green room backstage went down. Priebus desperately trying to maintain shreds of whatever shreds of respectability and self-respect he has while Bannon smirks his way through things.

Meanwhile, other administration Trumpkins begin to learn the joys of method acting -- trying to take crowd queues when Trump speeches veer into word salad tangents giving them leave to try on different facial expressions beyond stone face.... learning when it's OK to join in the heartfelt laughter of the Trumpagentsia with their own brand of shallow, forced laughter - the slow, damning realization that the "private" Trump is actually the same Trump as the disjointed, meandering, bellowing, often decipherable public speaking Trump.

Back at the WH, the Jarvanka crew begins to realize that this Bannon really is trouble -- Jared stews over Bannon's Q&A, certain that a lot of the potshots are actually thinly disguised digs at him (he's right) - certain every time Bannon says "globalist", he means "Jared".

The big problem with the chapter is that Wolff juxtaposes it with Richard Spencer's fabulous 2017 CPAC adventure -- being escorted out of CPAC, holding his own court, constantly insisting HE - not Bannon, not anyone else - is the true spirit of Trumpism. I suppose it's mainly here to foreshadow the Charlottesville chapter, but it's clunky and was more than amply reported in real-time. I think it's a perfectly fair reading to understand why Spencer thinks Trump is his guy and he, in turn, is Trump - but of course, Spencer is actually wrong... Trump just doesn't care about anything enough to qualify.

All in all, a pretty boring chapter... Mostly useful in understanding the three -- or four* - power centers in the Trump WH beginning to truly grasp the internal civil war that has kicked off.... and probably the dawning horror of Jarvanka that Bannon has gotten a good two month headstart on winning, while Reince increasingly realizes he's nothing but a sad sack battling for scraps from the big boy's table. Of course, given the lack of any ideological or intellectual core for Trump - it also means Reince's sad state actually doesn't put him that far behind everyone else. I.e., Bannon clearly has an agenda and is clearly working double time to bring it about -- but it's all still got to pass through the Great Orange Prism... which means that Reince kind of understands that all he needs to do is stick around, bear the insults, and sometimes those table scraps can actually be pretty meaty. Jarvanka, meanwhile, are mostly concerned with managing their upper east Manhattan socialite status -- they just want daddy not to make too big a mess of their status.

*The fourth power center - if it even qualifies as that - mainly being "What have I gotten myself into?!?!" set.... the folks that, one way or another, feel like they have some purpose beyond Trump in this WH. Be it personal career advancement, ideological agendas more mainstream, or simply 'good governance' types (in their own way).

   104. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 01:45 PM (#5602767)
but after living in England for five years, American restaurants are almost unbearable.

I worked with a man from Kent in CA who told me that if his emigration request was denied and he had to eat for the rest of his life in England, he'd kill himself. He didn't even chuckle.
   105. BrianBrianson Posted: January 08, 2018 at 01:45 PM (#5602769)
I don't live in Seattle, but I live in a college town, so a lot of restaurants are necessarily oriented towards a younger crowd. Asian restaurants often do use an iPad for orders, but I haven't seen it in anything else, I don't think. Nor have I seen it travelling (again, outside of Asian restaurants, which sometimes do). Maybe you've just realised how awful the traditional restaurant experience is, and figured out how to avoid it. I apparently haven't.
   106. BDC Posted: January 08, 2018 at 01:54 PM (#5602773)
Follow you Around Recommending The Stock

I was in a used-book store in Florida last summer which featured a guy like this. His idea of a bookstore experience clearly was that every customer should spend half an hour talking with him. A Chinese woman (with fluent English) came in with two teenage Chinese-American kids (native English) and the guy cornered them; what did they want. The older woman (mother? aunt?) expressed a wish that the kids should read some good English books. You could tell she meant To Kill a Mockingbird or something in that line. (And that the kids were mostly humoring her.) The guy not only pressed them to buy Harry Potter and The Hunger Games, which the woman had no earthly intention of doing (the whole point being to avoid such junk), but also got into a long conversation about what majors the kids should choose in college and how you could make six figures right after graduation if you were bilingual. I actually ended up not buying any books lest I should get into a conversation with him :-D
   107. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 01:54 PM (#5602774)
Just the latest of developments to rally the nativists around the Dirtball in Chief:

200,000 Salvadorans may be forced to leave the U.S. as Trump ends immigration protection
In one of its most significant immigration decisions , the Trump administration said Monday that it will terminate the provisional residency permits of about 200,000 Salvadorans who have lived in the country since at least 2001, leaving them to potentially face deportation. ...

Immigrant advocates, Salvadoran government officials and many others had implored Nielsen to extend the TPS designation, citing the country’s horrific gang violence and the potentially destabilizing effect of so many people being sent home.

Others urged her to consider the approximately 190,000 U.S.-born children of Salvadoran TPS recipients. Their parents must now decide whether to break up their families, take their entire families back to El Salvador, or stay in the United States and risk deportation.

Senior DHS officials told reporters Monday that the families would have to make that decision, and that the effect on American businesses, among other potential consequences of the TPS decision, were not part of Nielsen’s decision-making process. They said it is up to Congress to determine a remedy.

“Only Congress can legislate a permanent solution addressing the lack of an enduring lawful immigration status of those currently protected by TPS who have lived and worked in the United States for many years,” the DHS statement read. “The 18-month delayed termination will allow Congress time to craft a potential legislative solution.” ...

Immigrant advocates, Salvadoran government officials and many others had implored Nielsen to extend the TPS designation, citing the country’s horrific gang violence and the potentially destabilizing effect of so many people being sent home.

Others urged her to consider the approximately 190,000 U.S.-born children of Salvadoran TPS recipients. Their parents must now decide whether to break up their families, take their entire families back to El Salvador, or stay in the United States and risk deportation.

Senior DHS officials told reporters Monday that the families would have to make that decision, and that the effect on American businesses, among other potential consequences of the TPS decision, were not part of Nielsen’s decision-making process. They said it is up to Congress to determine a remedy.

“Only Congress can legislate a permanent solution addressing the lack of an enduring lawful immigration status of those currently protected by TPS who have lived and worked in the United States for many years,” the DHS statement read. “The 18-month delayed termination will allow Congress time to craft a potential legislative solution.” ...

Jaime Contreras, vice president of Local 32BJ, the largest property service local in the Service Employees International Union, called Monday’s decision “shameful.” In the Washington area, he said, TPS recipients clean Ronald Reagan National Airport, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and “every major landmark you can think of.”

“They have families here. A lot of these people own homes,” said Contreras, whose union represents about 160,000 commercial office cleaners, security officers and others nationwide. “It’s time for Congress to do the right thing.”

This Congress? He's got to be joking. This Congress is in Trump's codpiece.

OTOH maybe some of Trump's supporters will now get to take those service jobs that they say were stolen from them by immigrants.

   108. McCoy Posted: January 08, 2018 at 01:55 PM (#5602776)
I dunno I find most of the "small plate" menus are pretty straightforward and exist to simplify everything from sourcing the food to preparing it to serving it. Here in Seattle, other than the $50 a head (and up) places the wait staff is basically seen a someone to take your order and even sometimes bring it to your table. With rents so high most mid tier places have a barebones staff taking menus via an iPad, pouring (but not bringing) your drink, and occasionally busing a table that the customer did not.

Personally I don't really know why I'm tipping at some of these places. Thanks for taking my order I guess behind the counter and pouring that beer.


small plate menus generally require multiple items to be ordered and can either require different cooking times or work better in a certain order. A well trained and eager server can certainly improve your dining experience by offering advice on what to order, how much to order, and when it should come out.

I'm not saying every single server should be a guide every single time. Case in point I went to our local Chinese restaurant the other day, a place I've been to numerous times, and we ended up with a waiter who basically hovered around our table the entire time. It was disruptive and not needed. But if I was doing a top level dinner with 10 or so courses in which the food was the focus of the evening I would want the staff to be nearby ready to be of service and interjecting knowledge when needed. I think in places like high end steakhouses, small plate restaurants, high end creative restaurants the waitstaff need to be a little more involved when necessary or when wanted.
   109. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5602780)
When you back Trump you're a schmuck all the way
You're a mouth-breathing chump with your dumbth on display
When you back Trump you're be mocked you can bet
If I say you collude you just scream "NYET NYET NYET"

Your hero's a clown, he may just be retarded
You're flailing around, Mueller's just gettin' started
You'll be departed!

Here come the Trumpkins, chins covered in drool
A gaggle of dimwits genuflect to a fool
The Trumpkins are screeching, their gig's almost up
They're reaching behind to pull "Benghazi!" from their butt


The page flipped too soon after this.
   110. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5602783)
I missed #100 earlier. Very well done.
   111. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5602784)
So what do I know about damage control....

But it sure feels like pointing out what extraordinary access he had - and matter of factly stating that you were told to cooperate, even while claiming "you" personally didn't do so because you didn't trust him -- may not be the best way to undermine Wolff.
   112. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:06 PM (#5602785)
I was in a used-book store in Florida last summer which featured a guy like this. His idea of a bookstore experience clearly was that every customer should spend half an hour talking with him. A Chinese woman (with fluent English) came in with her two teenage Chinese-American kids (native English) and the guy cornered them; what did they want. The older woman (mother? aunt?) expressed a wish that the kids should read some good English books. You could tell she meant To Kill a Mockingbird or something in that line. (And that the kids were mostly humoring her.) The guy not only pressed them to buy Harry Potter and The Hunger Games, which the woman had no earthly intention of doing (the whole point being to avoid such junk), but also got into a long conversation about what majors the kids should choose in college and how you could make six figures right after graduation if you were bilingual. I actually ended up not buying any books lest I should get into a conversation with him :-D

My general impression of most of the owners like that was that they were simply starved for human contact. In some of those small town shops in particular you could be there for an hour and not see a single other customer walk in the door.

Of course then there are the rare book dealers, generally a most unpleasant lot who give you the once over as soon as you walk in, mostly to let you know that they've got their eye on you in case you're thinking of getting any five finger discounts. The rare book room at the Strand in NYC was (and probably is) exactly like that; I've been more comfortable in funeral homes. They might as well have "Kiss Up / Kick Down" as their official store motto.
   113. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:07 PM (#5602787)
certain every time Bannon says "globalist", he means "Jared"


Sigh. Globalism covers a broad swath of issues, including free trade, alliances like NATO, foreign aid, support of the UN, and military intervention. Being a globalist means that one desires to work as part of the global community.
   114. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:10 PM (#5602789)
So what do I know about damage control....

But it sure feels like pointing out what extraordinary access he had - and matter of factly stating that you were told to cooperate, even while claiming "you" personally didn't do so because you didn't trust him -- may not be the best way to undermine Wolff.


Signing your name "Sebastian Gorka" to the article may also not be the best way to establish your own credibility, especially if that's who you really are.
   115. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:15 PM (#5602791)
Just the latest of developments to rally the nativists around the Dirtball in Chief:
200,000 Salvadorans may be forced to leave the U.S. as Trump ends immigration protection

In #107, Andy posted almost the entire article, but snipped the part explaining that the affected individuals were given temporary admission, originally for 18 months then renewed, as a humanitarian measure after El Salvador was hit by earthquakes. That's some dirtball editing, Andy. These folks were never intended to be given permament residence, it was just a temporary measure to help cope with the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes that hit in 2001. Of course, Andy doesn't think the immigration laws are real laws, no need to comply, once you're in the country no matter how it's done, you're good forever. That's not how it actually works.
   116. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5602794)
In #107, Andy re-posted almost the entire article, but snipped the part explaining that the affected individuals were given temporary admission, originally for 18 months then renewed, as a humanitarian measure after El Salvador was hit by earthquakes. That's some dirtball editing, Andy. These folks were never intended to be given permament residence, it was just a temporary measure to help cope with the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes that hit in 2001. Of course, Andy doesn't think the immigration laws are real laws, no need to comply, once you're in the country no matter how it's done, you're good forever. That's not how it works.


Forget it, he's on a roll.
   117. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5602795)
certain every time Bannon says "globalist", he means "Jared"
I think what this meant to say was that every time Bannon says (((globalist))), he means Jared.
   118. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:24 PM (#5602798)
Zonk, #103:
...the Trumpagentsia with their own brand of shallow, forced laughter - the slow, damning realization that the "private" Trump is actually the same Trump as the disjointed, meandering, bellowing, often decipherable public speaking Trump.


No way. Can't be. Stephen Miller just spoke of his astonishment in seeing Trump routinely dictate ten brilliant paragraphs completely off the cuff in a descending "Trump Force One," and then watching him deliver the text minutes later, flawlessly, before 10,000 adoring fans.
   119. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:26 PM (#5602799)
In fact, the biggest problem with IM is that I need to maintain two accounts -- the "important" one, an address I share only with colleagues who don't abuse it and the "listed one"


Or you can work for a brokerage firm, and your employer can decide that since the archiving capability of IM is inadequate for compliance with FINRA retention regs. nobody is allowed to use IM. This pisses off many of our non-BD coworkers within our parent organization, but pleases me greatly. "You weren't online, I didn't think you were in." People hate phone calls and email that much?
   120. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:31 PM (#5602801)
Sigh. Globalism covers a broad swath of issues, including free trade, alliances like NATO, foreign aid, support of the UN, and military intervention. Being a globalist means that one desires to work as part of the global community.


Hey, don't get mad at me... I'm just providing the promised long-form book report that Ray and Clapper were so intensely demanding I provide (a quick note on scheduling and mechanics - I think I'll do 3 chapters a day... so one more tonight. That will take us through Friday).

On the topic of globalism (and Jared fearful Bannon is using it to bash him) - it's actually quite the ironic juxtaposition. To at least a limited, crude extent - with a stubborn and unyielding view of all those things you list - I think Bannon actually does understand globalism in such a context... of course - he's an avowed protectionist, thinks alliances like NATO are screw jobs, believes foreign aid is a waste, the UN is best ignored, and military intervention is just code for global cabals to make money and shed other people's blood. Conversely, Jared comes across as the eager student who WANTS to learn those things, but just isn't smart enough to grasp them and grasp much about them (beyond the fact that a rich Manhattan socialite is supposed to be "for" globalism) and certainly is incapable or unwilling to consider and develop specific opinions thereof. Hence - I think Bannon actually DOES understand "globalism" - but happily uses it as a shorthand slur; whereas I don't get the sense Jared actually does... but DOES understand Bannon's usage as a slur against him.

So - in an odd way, Bannon at least kind of recognizes a broader, wider world as it exists -- and wants to shrink it... whereas Jared only recognizes a rather small, cocooned world but one with windows that look out upon the globe.
   121. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:35 PM (#5602804)
I think what this meant to say was that every time Bannon says (((globalist))), he means Jared.


That, too. Times 10.

Whetting everyone's appetite for the next Chapter -- it's very, very, very, very much ((((((((((((((((Chapter 10))))))))))))).
   122. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:35 PM (#5602806)
Traffic rankings of cities where I've been in a vehicle on the streets during daytime hours (best to worst):

Monte Carlo
Barcelona
Victoria (B.C.)
Buffalo
Columbus (Ohio)
Orlando
Toronto
Detroit
Vancouver
Athens
San Francisco
Chicago
Rome
Montreal
Paris
London
New York
Los Angeles
Istanbul
   123. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:36 PM (#5602807)
I think in places like high end steakhouses, small plate restaurants, high end creative restaurants the waitstaff need to be a little more involved when necessary or when wanted.

Enthusiastically seconded. At the vast majority of "nice" restaurants, there are most likely going to be a good many dishes on the menu that look appealing to me (and my friends). But what we're there for, why we've selected that particular restaurant, is because we're curious about what they do there that is better than/different from other places. I love it when a server is able to tell me, out of the (say) five entrees that look good, that a lot of customers particularly like the duck, or the chef is excited about the new pasta, or that she loves the enchiladas or whatever. Help me answer the basic question: "What dishes, if we left this restaurant without having tried them, would you say we've missed out on the core of what you do?"

Of course, the servers should give genuine answers to these questions and shouldn't be trained to sell whatever dish has the highest profit margin or whatever special they need to move or the ingredients will go bad. But I would expect that most reputable places don't use such tactics...I hope?

Any server/bartender who can be my ally in trying to maximize the experience of a good restaurant is getting at least a 25-30% tip from me, and I'm glad to do it.
   124. BrianBrianson Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:40 PM (#5602811)
People hate phone calls and email that much?


Not to somehow be an old millennial grouching on my porch, if you call me on the phone and you're not literally on fire, I'll be irritated you didn't text. If you are literally on fire, dial 911. Or 0118 999 881 999 119 7253.
   125. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:42 PM (#5602813)
Milo's lawsuit against his publisher loses an attorney... and Milo is going to proceed pro se, in what I'm sure will be a great legal strategy...
   126. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:44 PM (#5602816)

n #107, Andy re-posted almost the entire article,
Twice!

Andy seems to hold the position that anyone who comes to the U.S. should just be able to stay here forever if they don't commit crimes. (Or, rather, serious crimes, since he has objected before to attempts to deport DUIers.) He has never explicitly come out and said so, but he has strongly implied it.


On that general subject, I don't understand the politics or policy objections of Democrats to Trump's request for partial funding for the wall. I mean, I understand the general objection to cooperating with Trump in any regard or giving him any sort of victory. And I understand a theoretical objection to wasting $18B on such a project -- but not coming from Democrats. But what's the real objection to a wall? It doesn't harm a single illegal immigrant in the U.S. All it does is hinder new people from coming in illegally -- something that Democrats claim to be okay with the government doing.
   127. BDC Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:47 PM (#5602817)
Traffic rankings of cities where I've been in a vehicle on the streets during daytime hours (best to worst):

Everwhere else
large gap
Boston
   128. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:48 PM (#5602818)
Being a globalist means that one desires to work as part of the global community.


To you, yes. Not to them. To them, "globalism" simply means you're part of the global Davos conspiracy of Jewish bankers.
   129. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:51 PM (#5602824)
A grand jury has been convened to consider that Burlington College land deal involving Bernie Sanders' wife. The inquiry seems to be focused on whether she, as college president, lied to the bank about pledged donations in order to secure a large loan for a new campus. Hope she didn't fib to the Feds, and will Bernie have to abstain on any conjugal visit legislation?
   130. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5602826)
And I understand a theoretical objection to wasting $18B on such a project

Isn't it a little early to be drinking this heavily? There is no way it's less than double that.


All it does is hinder new people from coming in illegally

To me, the objections are a.) financial and b.) symbolic. It wastes an ass-ton of money to make the US look - very explicitly - weak, childish, authoritarian, and stupid.


something that Democrats claim to be okay with the government doing.

In a way that's cheaper, stronger, more adult, less Wehrmacht, and smarter.
   131. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5602828)
Or you can work for a brokerage firm, and your employer can decide that since the archiving capability of IM is inadequate for compliance with FINRA retention regs. nobody is allowed to use IM. This pisses off many of our non-BD coworkers within our parent organization, but pleases me greatly. "You weren't online, I didn't think you were in." People hate phone calls and email that much?


Meh - the great usage of IM/IM-like tools is that it really does function as a quick discussion in the manner a physical office used to work.

Often times, you're working in parallel with multiple other people on a project /item... some devs are writing the services layer, other building the content supply chain, others handling the platform stack itself, etc. In such cases - a quick IM pop-up is best.... "what's the function name you used for X again?".... whatever.

I find it's a great tool that just works into, well, work easily and seamlessly... if you're a touch typer (most folks in IT are), used to multiple windows, etc - it integrates far better than e-mail or the phone. It may not seem like much - say, the 30-60 seconds it takes to compose an e-mail or dial the phone -- but it adds up quickly. I've found quick little IM conversations shave a substantial bit of time off the work at hand.
   132. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5602829)
Just the latest of developments to rally the nativists around the Dirtball in Chief:
200,000 Salvadorans may be forced to leave the U.S. as Trump ends immigration protection


In #107, Andy posted almost the entire article, but snipped the part explaining that the affected individuals were given temporary admission, originally for 18 months then renewed, as a humanitarian measure after El Salvador was hit by earthquakes. That's some dirtball editing, Andy. These folks were never intended to be given permament residence, it was just a temporary measure to help cope with the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes that hit in 2001. Of course, Andy doesn't think the immigration laws are real laws, no need to comply, once you're in the country no matter how it's done, you're good forever. That's not how it actually works.

First, I didn't quote "almost the entire article". I also provided a link, and just did so again. Anytime you want me to quote entire articles, just let me know.

Second, when it comes to adjudicating whether or not it's safe to go back to El Salvador, I think I'd rely on the word of the Center for Migration Studies, and on recent reports on the ground, than I would on anyone connected with Donald Trump's DHS goons, whose only mission in life seems to be deport first, and damn the human consequences.
   133. BrianBrianson Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:54 PM (#5602830)
Indeed, a Mexican border wall is pretty pointless, so if you could get decent concessions for it, I don't see why you wouldn't do it. Sure, that one Jaguar in Arizona is never gonna get laid again, but oh well. But since he really wants it, get your (((Pound of Flesh))).

And, of course, you could just not fund it's upkeep, and knowing who Trump'd hire to build it, it'd be gone in a few years anyways ;)
   134. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5602831)
In #107, Andy posted almost the entire article, but snipped the part explaining that the affected individuals were given temporary admission, originally for 18 months then renewed, as a humanitarian measure after El Salvador was hit by earthquakes.


Granted. But it's been 17 years. Whatever the original intent, these people are about as permanent as you can get. Through both Republican and Democratic administrations. There are 190,000 people who were born here and who have spent their entire life here, who are either going to be sent to live in a country they barely know and likely have never visited, or be seperated from their parents. Call me a bleeding heart liberal all you want, but the officiousness way that you dismiss this as "It was always meant to be temporary" sounds about as callous as one can be. I realize you are required to defend every last thing a Republican administration does, but look in the mirror once in a while and ask yourself "Do I really want to come accress as this big an ####### all the time?"
   135. BDC Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5602832)
don't understand the politics or policy objections of Democrats to Trump's request for partial funding for the wall. I mean, I understand the general objection to cooperating with Trump in any regard or giving him any sort of victory. And I understand a theoretical objection to wasting $18B on such a project -- but not coming from Democrats. But what's the real objection to a wall?

I'm with you here. Give the man some of his wall funding – which can't be any worse a project than East Side Access, and is likely only to be an enhancement of the substantial walls and fences already there. DACA is far more important, and you have to give something to get something.

One of the ironies of the Wall is that it's overwhelmingly going to be built by first- or second-generation Latinos anyway. More federal jobs for the Valley! Unless thousands of West Virginians want to move to Laredo to get on the gravy train. But there's always some reason why that can't happen.

They could just, like, build a practice wall in West Virginia with that $18B, couldn't they? That would kill several birds.
   136. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:57 PM (#5602833)
Isn't it a little early to be drinking this heavily? There is no way it's less than double that.


We'll never know, because it's unlikely to happen, but I'd guess that if it ever were done, it would cost $100 billion and take 20 years.
   137. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:57 PM (#5602834)
I first encountered IPads when dining at a wine bar/restaurant in Manhattan (IIRC late 2010, outside either Bryant Park/Washington Square, can't remember, it was forgettable). It was a clusterfk. The host of our business dinner was so proud of, in his eyes, his cutting edge choice, It would've been bad form to just order a cocktail out of frustration but eventually even he relented.
   138. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:58 PM (#5602835)
Turn back the clock to 1999... The bolded part sounds just like he does now.


Is this you still trying to pretend he's not a senile moron, Ray?
   139. BrianBrianson Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:58 PM (#5602837)
Indeed, if there's an $18 billion estimate, you could certainly legislate $18 billion for it, and explicitly say "stop building rather than overrun costs".
   140. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 02:59 PM (#5602838)
A grand jury has been convened to consider that Burlington College land deal involving Bernie Sanders' wife.


Stay focused on the real issues, The Clap.
   141. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5602840)
On that general subject, I don't understand the politics or policy objections of Democrats to Trump's request for partial funding for the wall. I mean, I understand the general objection to cooperating with Trump in any regard or giving him any sort of victory. And I understand a theoretical objection to wasting $18B on such a project -- but not coming from Democrats. But what's the real objection to a wall? It doesn't harm a single illegal immigrant in the U.S. All it does is hinder new people from coming in illegally -- something that Democrats claim to be okay with the government doing.


Because in terms of the things Democrats actually WANT to fund - 18 billion is quite a lot.... more than is spent on TANF or CHIP by several billion.

Hey - if Trump actually were to actually offer up his stupid wall as a pure, free, no offsets, no games planning - but a clean dollar for dollar match.... I might be willing to take that deal. I think you're radically overlooking exactly how much of things liberals DO want to fund that 18 billion could pay for -- it's a LOT.

   142. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5602841)
I'm with you here. Give the man some of his wall funding


1. You give Trump nothing. Absolutely nothing. You step on his throat, not coddle his xenophobia with official funds.

2. There's literally no justification for "building a wall" on the Mexican border. Literally none. You'd be better off just setting the money on fire.
   143. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5602842)
I'm with you here. Give the man some of his wall funding

What's that idiot stadium you voted for costing you? 1.1B? I'm sure a wall running 2,000+ miles will come in at just 16x that.

And what Sam said about the throat.
   144. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:03 PM (#5602843)
I find it odd that no one on the OTP thread is discussing the likelihood that the Dems found their candidate for POTUS in 2020 last night.
   145. BDC Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5602844)
Well, no, you don't vote $18B for a wall just like "whatever." You link it to a fully constitutional version of DACA, and Trump signs both.
   146. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:06 PM (#5602845)
Andy seems to hold the position that anyone who comes to the U.S. should just be able to stay here forever if they don't commit crimes. (Or, rather, serious crimes, since he has objected before to attempts to deport DUIers.) He has never explicitly come out and said so, but he has strongly implied it.

Obama's EO applied to those illegals who've been in the country for five years. That's the EO I supported and would still support once Trump has been swept into history's dustbin.

On that general subject, I don't understand the politics or policy objections of Democrats to Trump's request for partial funding for the wall. I mean, I understand the general objection to cooperating with Trump in any regard or giving him any sort of victory. And I understand a theoretical objection to wasting $18B on such a project -- but not coming from Democrats. But what's the real objection to a wall? It doesn't harm a single illegal immigrant in the U.S. All it does is hinder new people from coming in illegally -- something that Democrats claim to be okay with the government doing.

I can't speak for Democrats, but my main objection to the wall is more that it's stupid and costly than anything else. Certainly the property owners along the border don't seem to want it, and I'm not sure why you'd be in favor of wholesale seizures via eminent domain.

But if in return for some sort of a wall which would actually be acceptable to the folks along the border, Trump would reinstate Obama's EO with its provisions for eventual citizenship; and if he'd restore legal immigration to its pre-Trump levels and hire Nick Gillespie** as one of his immigration gurus; then I'd be willing to think about going along with some sort of a wall.

** Even I wouldn't go as far as Nick would in eliminating immigration barriers, but since he's one of the more celebrated libertarians out there I thought I'd throw his name in, in order to appeal to your better libertarian instincts.
   147. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:10 PM (#5602849)
The wall is a terrible waste of money. It is ineffective, inefficient, and everything that is wrong with government. Democrats want an efficient and effective government not a giant boondoggle.

Plus if Trump gets it built it helps Trump. It makes it look like he accomplished something and might motivate his base. Why on Earth would any Democrat want to give Trump a large win, motivate his base, and waste billions of dollars in an inefficient and ineffective boondoggle?

Seriously why? If we get something truly amazing then maybe, but otherwise he can go pound sand, especially with the 2018 mid terms coming up. It looks like Democrats will be in MUCH better negotiating position in 2019 than they are now, especially if Trump's base is not motivated because they didn't get their wall.

So yeah, screw that. I am more willing to give substantive policy concessions (that can be rolled back later) than I am to give Trump a big symbolic victory that might help the GOP in the mid terms.

As the GOP leadership planned from the start to give Obama nothing and do everything possible to make him a one term President, well just this once I am open to trying out the GOP playbook and see how it works. I am especially looking forward to the whining about how mean Democrats are being to Trump.
   148. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:12 PM (#5602850)
Andy seems to hold the position that anyone who comes to the U.S. should just be able to stay here forever if they don't commit crimes. (Or, rather, serious crimes, since he has objected before to attempts to deport DUIers.) He has never explicitly come out and said so, but he has strongly implied it.


That's his position just the same as 2+2=4.

On that general subject, I don't understand the politics or policy objections of Democrats to Trump's request for partial funding for the wall. I mean, I understand the general objection to cooperating with Trump in any regard or giving him any sort of victory. And I understand a theoretical objection to wasting $18B on such a project -- but not coming from Democrats. But what's the real objection to a wall? It doesn't harm a single illegal immigrant in the U.S. All it does is hinder new people from coming in illegally -- something that Democrats claim to be okay with the government doing.


They'll claim it's a bad look for the US. (Makes the US look racist and xenophobic, etc.) Which of course is really a pretext for their real objection, which is that it would reduce/prevent people from coming in illegally.
   149. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:14 PM (#5602851)
Not to somehow be an old millennial grouching on my porch, if you call me on the phone and you're not literally on fire, I'll be irritated you didn't text


I'm very pro text, but on a work issued phone at this BD, Texting is also 'turned off'. Again, regs. make it so. Certain providers of these messaging services have inadequate archive message retention and it is not good enough in the eyes of regulators. Rarely does a week or month go by without a firm being fined for inadequate email retention. This, along with other compliance burdens with 'communications with the public' are another reason many financial services companies are 'behind the times' in using social media with the public. In many respects, you can't use them in ways you would otherwise intend or want to use them. By the time you try to respond to somebody's tweet, or other social media post, your compliance group has had to review it, and you now have to add disclosures that kill the moment. It's a very tightrope to walk.
   150. BrianBrianson Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:15 PM (#5602852)
If Oprah wants the job, I assume she gets 532 votes in the electoral college. But it seems like so much idle chatter.
   151. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:15 PM (#5602855)
I find it odd that no one on the OTP thread is discussing the likelihood that the Dems found their candidate for POTUS in 2020 last night.


Didn't watch it. It sounds like it was impressive, but I still want an actual professional and experienced politician running the nation. Obama was near the lower end of the amount of experience I think is mandatory. Anyone without at least that level of experience* doesn't interest me, no matter how inspirational they might be.

* Comparable experience accepted. No, not running a business, but yes running a huge chunk of WWII.
   152. Ishmael Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:17 PM (#5602856)
If Oprah wants the job, I assume she gets 532 votes in the electoral college. But it seems like so much idle chatter.

I thought the US might have had its fill of billionaire celebrity anti-vaxers.
   153. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:17 PM (#5602858)
Which of course is really a pretext for their real objection, which is that it would reduce/prevent people from coming in illegally.


1. That's not the "real objection," you paranoid mouth breather.

2. Even if you built the glorious Wall Of Xenophobic White Flight, it wouldn't "reduce/prevent people from coming here illegally." Only stupid people who don't know what actual borders look like think it would.
   154. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5602859)
I find it odd that no one on the OTP thread is discussing the likelihood that the Dems found their candidate for POTUS in 2020 last night.

Hearing the chatter. Think it's a pathetic idea and it speaks well of those here who don't think it's worthy of discussion. Talk about a country of jokes at that point.
   155. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5602860)
I still want an actual professional and experienced politician running the nation. Obama was near the lower end of the amount of experience I think is mandatory. Anyone without at least that level of experience* doesn't interest me


I don't disagree with you on the merits, but we clearly live in a post-merit world.
   156. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5602861)
If Oprah wants the job, I assume she gets 532 votes in the electoral college. But it seems like so much idle chatter.

I thought the US might have had its fill of billionaire celebrity anti-vaxers.


Or perhaps more frighteningly, is just getting started in the early days -- the beta release hasn't worked out so well, so maybe the country is just refining its taste for celebrity billionaires with cringe-worthy views.

Moving towards a celebrity billionaire who actually IS self-made, who actually DID have a significant role in revolutionizing television/media, and CAN actually sound moderately intelligent would be a step up, I guess.
   157. BrianBrianson Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5602862)
I thought the US might have had its fill of billionaire celebrity anti-vaxers.


Not if our jobs program is everyone getting a free car we ain't.
   158. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5602864)

And I understand a theoretical objection to wasting $18B on such a project

Isn't it a little early to be drinking this heavily? There is no way it's less than double that.
You misunderstand. The total project would probably be quadruple that; the $18B isn't even pretended to be for more than a portion of the wall. But right now they're only asking to appropriate $18B, which is rounding error in the federal budget. (Don't get me wrong; I oppose it. But I oppose most spending. I'm talking about from the perspective of people who don't oppose most spending.)
   159. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5602865)
I find it odd that no one on the OTP thread is discussing the likelihood that the Dems found their candidate for POTUS in 2020 last night.


Kirk Douglas?
   160. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5602866)
but I still want an actual professional and experienced politician running the nation. Obama was near the lower end of the amount of experience I think is mandatory. Anyone without at least that level of experience* doesn't interest me, no matter how inspirational they might be.


Same here. I don't want the Presidency to devolve into a celebrity figurehead sinecure.
   161. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:23 PM (#5602867)
Moving towards a celebrity billionaire who actually IS self-made, who actually DID have a significant role in revolutionizing television/media, and CAN actually sound moderately intelligent would be a step up, I guess.


I agree with that too.

Still don't want her.

I assume an Oprah administration wouldn't be nealy as clownshoes as Trump's, but it still would be sub optimal.
   162. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5602870)
Andy seems to hold the position that anyone who comes to the U.S. should just be able to stay here forever if they don't commit crimes. (Or, rather, serious crimes, since he has objected before to attempts to deport DUIers.) He has never explicitly come out and said so, but he has strongly implied it.


That's his position just the same as 2+2=4.

Right, just like it's your position that illegal immigrants should just be lined up against the White House fence and shot, and then make Mexico cart them all away.
   163. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5602871)
The total project would probably be quadruple that; the $18B isn't even pretended to be for more than a portion of the wall.

I did miss that, yes, thank you, and grok the rounding error comment. Even so, you aren't letting your kids paint Ayn's portrait on one of your dress shirts, are you? It's only one shirt!
   164. Greg K Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:25 PM (#5602872)
I find it odd that no one on the OTP thread is discussing the likelihood that the Dems found their candidate for POTUS in 2020 last night.

James Franco?
   165. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:27 PM (#5602873)
I don't disagree with you on the merits, but we clearly live in a post-merit world.


Agreed, I find it entirely plausible that Oprah could end up as a nominee. As my brother has said to me (awhile ago) the Merit-Model is broken, and has been. I'm not a cheerleader of it, but those are the facts.
   166. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:27 PM (#5602874)
Hearing the chatter. Think it's a pathetic idea and it speaks well of those here who don't think it's worthy of discussion. Talk about a country of jokes at that point.


It would be a clear, clear step-up from Trump.... maybe we need to learn to walk again before we get back to running.

I don't think it's even debatable that Oprah is smarter than Trump -- by a lot. She's certainly been avalanches more successful. And if she's only 1/4 or less the loony ideas?

I mean, I'm certainly not going to be a part of any Draft Oprah movement... but come on.

Donald friggin' Trump. The only way to go is up.

   167. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5602875)
I thought the US might have had its fill of billionaire celebrity anti-vaxers.


But the Dittohead Right has lost all standing to criticize someone merely for holding indefensible scientific viewpoints. They can still presumably attack her as they did Obama - as a negro savage from the jungle. They've had some luck with that line of attack.
   168. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5602876)
I assume an Oprah administration wouldn't be nealy as clownshoes as Trump's, but it still would be sub optimal.


1. If she ran a few rallies and drew huge crowds, the Dems would entertain her in the soft primary funding, certainly.

2. If she was nominated and ran against Trump's second term, rational Americans would have to support her simply to remove the senile fckvtard from office.

I think you guys are underestimating the post-rationality, post-merit nature of the American 21st century.
   169. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5602877)

Granted. But it's been 17 years. Whatever the original intent, these people are about as permanent as you can get. Through both Republican and Democratic administrations. There are 190,000 people who were born here and who have spent their entire life here, who are either going to be sent to live in a country they barely know and likely have never visited, or be seperated from their parents.
The "anchor baby" argument by anti-immigration types is fake; immigration laws do not allow a foreigner to come to the U.S., give birth, and then use the existence of that citizen to easily gain residence. (It takes decades before such a person can sponsor his/her parents.). As a matter of law, anyway. But liberals are making the anchor baby argument true de facto, even if not de jure; even though no law actually allows such ready sponsorship, liberals argue that the existence of an American kid means that the relatives should be allowed to stay here forever,
   170. Traderdave Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5602878)
Moving towards a celebrity billionaire who actually IS self-made, who actually DID have a significant role in revolutionizing television/media, and CAN actually sound moderately intelligent would be a step up, I guess.


I agree with that too.


Still don't want her.


I assume an Oprah administration wouldn't be nealy as clownshoes as Trump's, but it still would be sub optimal.


I don't want the Presidency to devolve into a celebrity figurehead sinecure.


If we had a system with separate executive and head of state jobs, Oprah would be a prefect fit for the latter. But since we don't, I agree: No more TV presidents, even if she would be a 1000x better than Il Duce.
   171. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5602880)
But the Dittohead Right has lost all standing to criticize someone merely for holding indefensible scientific viewpoints.


You know as well as I do that they haven't based any criticism of anything on something so rational as "standing" for decades.
   172. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5602882)
I don't live in Seattle, but I live in a college town, so a lot of restaurants are necessarily oriented towards a younger crowd. Asian restaurants often do use an iPad for orders, but I haven't seen it in anything else, I don't think. Nor have I seen it travelling (again, outside of Asian restaurants, which sometimes do). Maybe you've just realised how awful the traditional restaurant experience is, and figured out how to avoid it. I apparently haven't.


Yea I'm in the bubble here and only realize it when I travel outside of Seattle. I would guess that nearly half the restaurants here, and probably about 3/4 of the "casual lunch spot" ones use a barebones front of the house setup with a clerk taking orders via iPad. Table water, condiments, etc is self served. Beer and booze is poured by the clerk and handed over a counter to you. Tables are self bused. Millenials love to eat out and I think we eat out so frequently that it's no longer an experience and mostly just a way to consume food quickly. Nobody wants a sit down experience, or at least not most of the time.

The Amazon crowd (23-40) especially the younger ones, that are looking for a "meeting place" to get drinks and consume a $15 burger and fries where you bus your own table and go at your own pace throughout the meal just dominates a lot of the restaurant scene. Tom Douglas runs such a place called "Brave Horse" that has drinks and offers things like a "pretzel bar" down in Amazon town. Obviously the scene in Bellevue is much different. Different strokes, different folks.
   173. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5602884)
liberals argue that the existence of an American kid means that the relatives should be allowed to stay here forever,


These people have been here, legally, for 17 years. We're not talking about someone sneaking accross the border, having a baby, and then demanding to stay. Is there no difference in your mind between the two? The law is the law, and that's that?
   174. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:34 PM (#5602885)
I think you guys are underestimating the post-rationality, post-merit nature of the American 21st century.


Calling something post-rational and post-merit doesn't make it so. And one data point (even a big orange one) doesn't make a trend. There are small sample size arguments and then there is Ray's "Trump got elected once so ..." idiocy.
   175. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:34 PM (#5602886)

Why on Earth would any Democrat want to give Trump a large win, motivate his base, and waste billions of dollars in an inefficient and ineffective boondoggle?

Seriously why? If we get something truly amazing
Uh, yes, that's why. Dems could get DACA in exchange. I'm not asking "Why won't Democrats support this for nothing?"; I'm saying "Why won't Democrats support this at all?" What prompted my question was that the Democratic response did not seem to be, "Yeah, we're only going to support this if we get X," but "How dare Trump try to build a wall? This is outrageous! We'll never support it! What kind of monster would build a wall?"
   176. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5602888)
You misunderstand. The total project would probably be quadruple that; the $18B isn't even pretended to be for more than a portion of the wall. But right now they're only asking to appropriate $18B, which is rounding error in the federal budget. (Don't get me wrong; I oppose it. But I oppose most spending. I'm talking about from the perspective of people who don't oppose most spending.)


Again - it's really not.... at least/especially if we're going to talk singular, specific appropriations.

Cripes - 18 billion liberals can spend free and clear and get the GOP just to "go along with it because it's really just a rounding error"? We'd hardly know where to begin.
   177. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5602890)
Moving towards a celebrity billionaire who actually IS self-made, who actually DID have a significant role in revolutionizing television/media, and CAN actually sound moderately intelligent would be a step up, I guess.

Pro-Oprah points:

---She's obviously bright and curious.
---She'd almost certainly assemble a high quality team of advisors and cabinet members.
---She'd have a damn good chance of being elected.
---She'd restore the moral stature of the United States to its pre-2017 level rather quickly.
---As a side benefit, she might cause a few million Trumpkins to renounce their citizenship as a symbolic way of expressing their anger. The only problem would be that no other country would ever want them.

Anti-Oprah points:

---Do we really need yet another celebrity president?
---And by electing yet another celebrity president, what sort of signal does that send to the countless number of non-celebrities who might be considering a career in politics?
---It just seems too ####### easy. You know there's a catch somewhere.

   178. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:39 PM (#5602891)
Uh, yes, that's why. Dems could get DACA in exchange. I'm not asking "Why won't Democrats support this for nothing?"; I'm saying "Why won't Democrats support this at all?" What prompted my question was that the Democratic response did not seem to be, "Yeah, we're only going to support this if we get X," but "How dare Trump try to build a wall? This is outrageous! We'll never support it! What kind of monster would build a wall?"


DACA plus our own 18 billion to spend as we see fit, free and clear, with no games.

   179. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:39 PM (#5602892)
This is outrageous! We'll never support it! What kind of monster would build a wall?"

Human beings should not be bargaining chips for children with power. And as stated, this makes the entire country look even worse than it already does.
   180. BrianBrianson Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:39 PM (#5602894)
I suspect most Democrats don't believe they have any hope of getting anything in exchange for it (and realpolitik probably demands heavily vilifying anything you're going to give up, to increase the value of giving it up.)
   181. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:42 PM (#5602895)
---She's obviously bright and curious.


True


---She'd almost certainly assemble a high quality team of advisors and cabinet members.


Debatable. I'd lean towards not.


---She'd have a damn good chance of being elected.


True


---She'd restore the moral stature of the United States to its pre-2017 level rather quickly.


Debatable. One celebrity Prez is an anomoly. 2 is a sign of something very amiss.


---As a side benefit, she might cause a few million Trumpkins to renounce their citizenship as a symbolic way of expressing their anger. The only problem would be that no other country would ever want them.


Silly and irrelevant, even if true.
   182. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:42 PM (#5602897)
Donald friggin' Trump. The only way to go is up.

No ####. At this point our slogan could be adopted with a slight variation from that old CBC parody of Joe McCarthy: "Workers of the Underworld Unite! You have no place to go but up!"
   183. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:42 PM (#5602898)
Uh, yes, that's why. Dems could get DACA in exchange. I'm not asking "Why won't Democrats support this for nothing?"; I'm saying "Why won't Democrats support this at all?" What prompted my question was that the Democratic response did not seem to be, "Yeah, we're only going to support this if we get X," but "How dare Trump try to build a wall? This is outrageous! We'll never support it! What kind of monster would build a wall?"


You and I clearly have a different idea of amazing. DACA is not, IMO, enough. Heck I think Democrats have a shot of getting DACA without it, and can certainly get something for helping keep the government open in an election year. That is how this works, right? I mean I hope Democrats play the game better than the GOP did when Obama was President, but as far as I am concerned there should be zero cooperation in an election year with Trump and the GOP without big concessions.

Heck, politically (not policy wise, but politically) Democrats are helped by not having DACA passed, so that is not enough, not nearly.

Note: I am not saying never compromise, just that it better be pretty nice. And if the GOP is not willing to offer up a nice compromise, well I can live with deadlock and try again with more leverage next year.
   184. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5602899)
In #107, Andy posted almost the entire article, but snipped the part explaining that the affected individuals were given temporary admission, originally for 18 months then renewed, as a humanitarian measure after El Salvador was hit by earthquakes. That's some dirtball editing, Andy. These folks were never intended to be given permament residence, it was just a temporary measure to help cope with the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes that hit in 2001. Of course, Andy doesn't think the immigration laws are real laws, no need to comply, once you're in the country no matter how it's done, you're good forever. That's not how it actually works.

First, I didn't quote "almost the entire article". I also provided a link, and just did so again. Anytime you want me to quote entire articles, just let me know.

Second, when it comes to adjudicating whether or not it's safe to go back to El Salvador, I think I'd rely on the word of the Center for Migration Studies, and on recent reports on the ground, than I would on anyone connected with Donald Trump's DHS goons, whose only mission in life seems to be deport first, and damn the human consequences.


It takes a bit of work, since Andy botched his cutting & pasting in the later part of the article, repeating 4 paragraphs, but it looks like Andy re-posted 7 0f 11 paragraphs, omitting paragraphs 2-5 that explained the Temporary Protective Status program, the circumstances that lead to the Salvadorians temporary admission, and the justifications offered by Homeland Security officials. Click the link in #107 for yourself. It's about the most biased presentation of the article possible - omitting basic information that didn't help the poster's agenda. Sad.
   185. BDC Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5602900)
Well, the bargaining from the GOP already seems to be The Wall plus plus plus in exchange for DACA, and ultimately that might prove too much. But a deal among Trump, DACA-inclined Republicans, and the Democratic party, straight up, $18B wall dollars for permanent, legislatively-approved DACA, seems like good sense to me. I agree with DMN here and I think it would be unnecessarily purist to pass that up.

This would be contingent on Trump actually being honest and compos mentis enough to make a deal and stand by it, which is a big "if."
   186. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5602901)
I'm not asking "Why won't Democrats support this for nothing?"; I'm saying "Why won't Democrats support this at all?" What prompted my question was that the Democratic response did not seem to be, "Yeah, we're only going to support this if we get X," but "How dare Trump try to build a wall? This is outrageous! We'll never support it! What kind of monster would build a wall?"


Perhaps they have a principled opposition to xenophobic hatred.
   187. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:46 PM (#5602902)
Good thing Comey knows a lot about the statutes for mishandling classified inforamtion.

4 of 7 memos being classified (at the secret or confidential levels according to Grassley), and 4 of 7 memos being given to Comey's professor friend, means that at least 1 of the memos given to Comey's professor friend was classified:


Is Comey’s Culpability A Simple Question of Math? Senate Presses Justice Department On Classification of Memos
January 5, 2018 jonathanturley Congress, Criminal law, Politics, Society

I have previously expressed my skepticism over the claims of James Comey that he had a right to remove memos from the FBI and leak them to the media through a friend. As I have previously written, Comey was in clear violation of FBI rules and may have knowingly removed classified material. According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, there is growing evidence to suggest that Comey not only violated FBI guidelines (which is clear) but that he violated federal law in the removal and disclosure of classified material. Indeed, it may come down to simple math. Seven of the memos that Comey removed are now believed to be classified. He reportedly gave four memos to his friend to leak to the media. That would suggest that at least one memo given to Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman was classified.

I recently wrote a column about the lack of objectivity in the media in the coverage of the Russian investigation, and specifically, the conduct of former FBI director James Comey. I have raised professional and legal concerns over Comey’s removal of memos from the U.S. Justice Department and his leaking of at least one memo to the media.


Turley.

This is why when Trump calls Comey a leaker Comey most likely is.
   188. dlf Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:47 PM (#5602903)
Pro-Oprah points:


---She'd almost certainly assemble a high quality team of advisors and cabinet members.


Anti-Oprah points:

---Do we really need yet another celebrity president?


Why would you assume that any celebrity president would "almost certainly assemble a high quality team" relevant to crafting and implementing domestic or international agenda items? This is, in my opinion, wish-casting wrapped in rooting for the laundry.

That folks are even giving this the slightest moment of thought is sign of (a) a weak D bench and (b) devolving into the same 'image is everything' that DJT sold to 60m fools and idiots.
   189. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5602907)
Well, the bargaining from the GOP already seems to be The Wall plus plus plus in exchange for DACA, and ultimately that might prove too much. But a deal among Trump, DACA-inclined Republicans, and the Democratic party, straight up, $18B wall dollars for permanent, legislatively-approved DACA, seems like good sense to me. I agree with DMN here and I think it would be unnecessarily purist to pass that up.


Disagree. And if I were negotiating I obviously wouldn't signal concessions this early and even more obviously I wouldn't do it publicly.

If the end result of the negotiations is wall for DACA I will be annoyed. It won't be the end of the world, but I flat out don't want to give Trump that big a symbolic victory and that much ammunition to rev up his base for the midterms. Screw that noise.

Let's win the House and Senate and then we can send any number of stuff forcing the GOP to filibuster or Trump to act on in some way. He can spend the last two years of his presidency knowing the only way he will get stuff done is to work with Democrats. I bet he is willing to do that, because ideology is not really his thing. I don't think on some level he cares who he is working with or what he is signing.
   190. Omineca Greg Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5602910)
Millenials love to eat out and I think we eat out so frequently that it's no longer an experience and mostly just a way to consume food quickly

My son, who is finishing up his last term of university even as we speak, is like this. Wants his food tasty, cheap, and fast, in that order. Living on his own he's gone totally Chuck Berry...

If I go buy a Cadillac convertible coupe
And all I got at home to eat is just onion soup
It's my own business, it's my own business
If I would rather ride around
In my own Cadillac convertible coupe

Berry


Except replace "Cadillac convertible coupe" with "eating out every frickin' day". If he cooks at home he lives off beans and rice.

My daughter though, who is 3 years older at 25 and in her career, she likes the luxury of good restaurant service and being pampered. Makes it feel like she's accomplished something by her and her boyfriend working in IT, because Vancouver is an expensive city to live in. They could be back in the Omineca working any job and living a similar lifestyle to the one they have now. That's not fair, they save a #### tonne of money so they can afford a condo one day, but otherwise for people who make so much cash, they have a fairly stripped down lifestyle. So little luxuries matter to them, as a reward for doing what they're doing.

Worst traffic:

Kathmandu. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it.
   191. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5602911)
Well, the bargaining from the GOP already seems to be The Wall plus plus plus in exchange for DACA, and ultimately that might prove too much. But a deal among Trump, DACA-inclined Republicans, and the Democratic party, straight up, $18B wall dollars for permanent, legislatively-approved DACA, seems like good sense to me. I agree with DMN here and I think it would be unnecessarily purist to pass that up.


Even if every last DACA recipient in turn got a proportional (population-wise) slice of every last TANF, CHIP, Pell grant, et al dollar under the sun -- we're still talking about billions upon billions that the Trump and his morons are getting to waste on something stupid.

No deal.

If people want to make the case that Trumpkins have the majority so they get 18 billion to waste - and 'we' don't get as much... fine, make it 15 billion we can sequester on whatever we want without offsets, without even having to bother making the case as it being money well-spent.

No friggin way the party of so-called fiscal responsibility and watchdogs over wasteful government spending get 18 billion to just light on fire.

Or - #### it - they can have 10 billion and we get 8 billion.

Simply getting CHIP re-authorized - without strings attached, without amputational offsets, and which costs about 5 billion LESS than outlay - is like pulling teeth.

So no, #### that.

We're getting a big check, too, to spend as we see fit or they can go #### themselves.
   192. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5602912)
Good thing Comey knows a lot about the statutes for mishandling classified inforamtion.


<yawn>

Random speculation designed to cast shade. But hey the GOP can investigate it in any number of ways and get to the bottom of it and even prosecute if warranted. Until it goes further than uninformed speculation I am not interested.
   193. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:55 PM (#5602914)
This is outrageous! We'll never support it! What kind of monster would build a wall?"

Human beings should not be bargaining chips for children with power.
I don't really understand what that means, or what the origin of this "should" is. To say, "I think X is such a moral imperative to have that I won't bargain for it" is nonsensical.
And as stated, this makes the entire country look even worse than it already does.
In what way? With whom? Which people are going to look down on the country for trying to keep people from sneaking in? Every single country in the world does that.
   194. BrianBrianson Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:57 PM (#5602915)
In practice, building the wall won't cost any reputation that wasn't already lost by electing Trump.
   195. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5602918)

You and I clearly have a different idea of amazing. DACA is not, IMO, enough.
Well, I think it's rather odd how "Ending DACA is immoral and inhumane; we have to allow these people to stay" has suddenly morphed into "Yawn; we don't really care that much about it." But that misses the point anyway. If it costs DACA plus something else, then fine. I was responding to the reaction I was seeing of "No, never, we will never agree to a wall ever; it's horrible and we won't stand for it!"

Heck, politically (not policy wise, but politically) Democrats are helped by not having DACA passed, so that is not enough, not nearly.
"Let's have lots of children that we think should be allowed to stay here because it will help us get reelected!"
   196. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:00 PM (#5602919)
That folks are even giving this the slightest moment of thought is sign of (a) a weak D bench and (b) devolving into the same 'image is everything' that DJT sold to 60m fools and idiots.


I think the weak bench stuff is well, weak sauce... I know it's (one of) Clapper's favorite concern troll maneuvers - but let's be realistic here... Was the 2016 GOP bench 'weak'?

It's your latter point that is more germane... and the simple (sad!) fact is that the Democrats could have an FDR v2.0, resurrected JFK, and a charismatic Chicagoan named Arack Bobama all ready to go - and Oprah would surely be trouncing them in the early polls.

   197. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:02 PM (#5602921)
---She'd almost certainly assemble a high quality team of advisors and cabinet members.

Debatable. I'd lean towards not.


Given that she'd have ridiculously easy access to Obama and pretty much every major sane political and organizational figure in the country, I can't see any particular reason for that POV. In terms of her hiring preferences regarding qualifications and temperament, she'd be the anti-Trump.

---She'd restore the moral stature of the United States to its pre-2017 level rather quickly.

Debatable. One celebrity Prez is an anomoly. 2 is a sign of something very amiss.


It would be, and that's why I made a similar comment in my "anti-Oprah points". But I don't see what that would have to do with not raising the moral stature of the country, which couldn't possibly sink any lower in the political realm than it is today.
   198. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5602923)
Random speculation designed to cast shade. But hey the GOP can investigate it in any number of ways and get to the bottom of it and even prosecute if warranted. Until it goes further than uninformed speculation I am not interested.


What "uninformed speculation?" Grassley reviewed the memos.
   199. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:11 PM (#5602926)
Pro-Oprah points:


---She'd almost certainly assemble a high quality team of advisors and cabinet members.


Anti-Oprah points:

---Do we really need yet another celebrity president?


Why would you assume that any celebrity president would "almost certainly assemble a high quality team" relevant to crafting and implementing domestic or international agenda items? This is, in my opinion, wish-casting wrapped in rooting for the laundry.


Why would you assume that someone with Oprah's inclusive worldview, obvious intelligence, and easy access to the best minds available, would go on some sort of erratic tear and wind up being as egocentric and disconnected from reality as Trump in terms of making appointments? Other than that they're both products of Celebrity World, they've got virtually nothing in common. Non-traditional candidates don't necessarily have to be racist buffoons.

Again, that doesn't mean she'd be my first choice for president, not by a long shot. I'm only pushing back on those specific arguments.

EDIT: Or to put it another way: Trump is a talker who listens to virtually nobody but himself, whereas one of Oprah's most noticeable traits is that she's a listener.
   200. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5602927)
If Oprah wants the job, I assume she gets 532 votes in the electoral college.

Someone who has never gone beyond short softball interviews on her political views is going to win the largest presidential landslide in American history? Are you offering "under" bets?
Page 2 of 24 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  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
Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 Apr 23: The Dominant-Sport Theory of American Politics
(404 - 2:26pm, Apr 24)
Last: Larvell B

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-24-2018
(26 - 2:25pm, Apr 24)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogShe's got legs that go all the way up to her OMNICHATTER! for April 24, 2018
(1 - 2:24pm, Apr 24)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogOT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition)
(2541 - 2:23pm, Apr 24)
Last: f_cking sick and tired of being 57i66135

NewsblogForget that one call; Sean Manaea deserves our full attention
(15 - 2:22pm, Apr 24)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018)
(210 - 2:21pm, Apr 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogBrandon Belt sets MLB record, sees 21 pitches in AB before lining out
(19 - 2:20pm, Apr 24)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(1557 - 1:59pm, Apr 24)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(763 - 1:44pm, Apr 24)
Last: This is going to be state of the art wall

Gonfalon CubsRiding the Rails of Mediocrity
(15 - 1:38pm, Apr 24)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogESPN's top 50 players
(72 - 1:00pm, Apr 24)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-20-2018
(41 - 12:49pm, Apr 24)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogLong-Term Battery Combiniations
(3 - 12:35pm, Apr 24)
Last: PepTech, Bane of Epistemological Foundations

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-23-2018
(18 - 2:06am, Apr 24)
Last: Hank G.

NewsblogDidn't come up here to read. Came up here to OMNICHATTER, for April 23, 2018.
(64 - 11:30pm, Apr 23)
Last: Dale Sams

Page rendered in 0.7405 seconds
47 querie(s) executed