Wednesday Open Thread

10 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread”

1. On the Milo Bus With the Lost Boys of America’s New Right

   What happens when a movement of gamers recognizes they’re not players, but pawns?

   This time, the same shtick fell flat as a burst tire on the freeway, and the pile-up is getting ugly. The reason it fell flat is that, for all that the American right likes to show off pet homosexuals to prove its modernity, it turns out that it still hates gays. Christian conservatives worldwide are still unconvinced that LGBT people deserve human rights, and the old false slurs — that gay men abuse children and ignore the age of consent — still hit home.

   Log in to Reply

2. CPols has not one word or thought on who should be the next DNC chair?

   And CPols are leaders and influencers within the Democratic Party in CO?

   Weird. 

   Log in to Reply

3. I'll see your Jesus and raise you a Mohammed…

   Muslims raise over $65,000 to repair desecrated Jewish cemetery

   Sarsour and El-Messidi cited the Prophet Mohammed as the reason for the show of solidarity, as well as historic partnerships between Muslims and Jews.

   “While these senseless acts have filled us with sorrow, we reflect on the message of unity, tolerance, and mutual protection found in the Constitution of Medina: an historic social contract between the Medinan Jews and the first Muslim community,” the fundraising campaign reads. “Through this campaign, we hope to send a united message from the Jewish and Muslim communities that there is no place for this type of hate, desecration, and violence in America.”

   Log in to Reply

4. Business owners in the construction trades who knowingly use undocumented workers instead of available American workers are the enemy.

   Log in to Reply

   1. E-Verify was a challenging narrative for them.  How does one pretend you're against illegal immigration whilst employing said undocumented workers – pretending you're not part of the problem – because you aren't required to verify? Ignorance is bliss (and profitable)  See how easy that is?? 

      Log in to Reply

5. Apparently, the pool of qualified (or even unqualified) Republicans that didn't trash talk Candidate Trump last year is vanishingly small.

   The White House’s deep involvement in hiring decisions across the government is frustrating some of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet secretaries, spurring early tussles between the president’s advisers and leaders of federal agencies.

   White House officials have sometimes rejected candidates who have previously criticized the president — even if they boast sterling credentials or have the endorsement of top Republicans. And they’ve often imposed their choices on agencies, according to more than a dozen people inside and close to the administration.

   So far, Trump has nominated fewer than three dozen of the 550 most important Senate-confirmed jobs, according to an analysis by the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that advised Trump officials during the presidential transition.

   Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has clashed with White House officials over top officials in his department, sources say. The White House saw some of Mnuchin’s picks as too liberal or not supportive enough of Trump, sources say. Trump has yet to name Mnuchin’s No. 2, nor has he tapped any undersecretaries or assistant secretaries at the department.

   Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has struggled with the White House to appoint his own aides, with significant pushback from the White House over deputy positions and ambassadorships. Several high-level people were delayed or scuttled because they didn't agree with Trump during the campaign or because the White House preferred someone else, including Elliott Abrams, who Tillerson wanted to be his No 2. One person said Tillerson “basically has nobody in his agency yet” to fill out the top ranks.

   At Housing and Urban Development, Shermichael Singleton, a top official, joined the department before being terminated when criticism of Trump surfaced in a final White House review.

   On the positive side, this is severely impacting Trump's ability to implement or enforce any new policies.

   Log in to Reply

   1. And people say I'm dreaming when I declare that The Screaming Yam won't make it through his term. This disarray is an arrow pointing toward resignation or impeachment.

       

      Log in to Reply

6. White House Refuses to Condemn Rise of Islamophobia as Radical Right Enters Political Mainstream

    

   MARGARET BRENNAN: Southern Poverty Law Center said that the number of anti-Muslim groups in the U.S. has tripled between 2015 and 2016, during the time of the campaign. Is this message within the administration—anti-Semitism is not allowed, xenophobia is not allowed—anti-Muslim sentiment within the administration, has the president been forceful about that particular issue?

   PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER: Well, I don’t—I think that the president, in terms of his desire to combat radical Islamic terrorism, he understands that people who want to express a peaceful position have every right in our Constitution. But if you come here or want to express views that are—seek to do our country or our people harm, he is going to fight it aggressively, whether it’s domestic acts that are going on here or attempts through people abroad to come into this country. So there’s a big difference between preventing attacks and making sure that we keep this country safe so that there is no loss of life, and allowing people to express themselves in accordance with our First Amendment. Those are two very, very different, different, different things.  

    

   I am posting this exchange so someone might help me understand just what it was he said….

   Neither the Cat nor I can figure it out.

    

   https://www.democracynow.org/2017/2/22/white_house_refuses_to_condemn_rise

    

   Log in to Reply

   1. I followed his reasoning up to "So there's a big difference…." There, Spicy seems to say that preventing attacks and keeping the country safe is "different from" (antithetical to?) (incompatible with?)allowing people to express themselves as the 1st Amendment guarantees.

      That's a dangerous position, if that's what he meant to say.  People's freedoms under the First make the country less safe. I think that's what he's implying.

      Log in to Reply

      1. If so, that would be a message straight from Steve Bannons' desk, I'm thinking….

         Log in to Reply