Thursday Open Thread

“A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.”

–Plato

20 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. RepealAndReplace says:

    I hope he never stops tweeting. They are a window into his mind.

  2. ParkHill says:

    WOTD: Conservatism – From Vox.com

    It turns out the liberal caricature of conservatism is correct

    Marc Thiessen, the George W. Bush speechwriter who now writes a column for the Washington Post op-ed page, is aghast at the Senate GOP’s health care bill. “Paying for a massive tax cut for the wealthy with cuts to health care for the most vulnerable Americans is morally reprehensible,” he says. 

    “If Republicans want to confirm every liberal caricature of conservatism in a single piece of legislation, they could do no better than vote on the GOP bill in its current form.”

    But at what point do we admit that this isn’t the liberal caricature of conservatism? It’s just … conservatism.

    If they would simply stop doing that, their health care problems would vanish: They could craft a bill that would rebuild the health care system around more conservative principles and do so without triggering massive coverage losses. But at some point, we need to take them at their word: This is what they believe, and they are willing to risk everything — their reputations, their congressional majorities, and Donald Trump’s presidency — to get it done.

    • Well, yeah… I know Republicans have a thing against all things Obama, but these health care bills go way beyond that; they reflect the true thinking of the majority of the party now. That, and the acquiescence to the massive dismantling going on in various departments of the government… This is a party that's bought in wholesale to the ideas that government can't do good (except when subsidizing business), that poor and disabled people are lazy mooches, and that the Laffable Curve is good all the way to the bitter end.

  3. Voyageur says:

    Trump stinks!

  4. Powerful Pear says:

    Unanimous Supreme Court decision upholds President Trumps immigration ban. 

    Kate's law is passed and Democrats vote against it. Please continue to resist.

    Thank you President Trump!

    • Voyageur says:

      It wasn't unanimous, Trump is too stupid to know what "per
      curium"  means.  Plus, he lost half the ban and may lose it all when they decide on substsnce.   Thank you, founding fathers!

      (per curium just means for the court, used on preliminary rulings like this. It doesn’t have signed opinions and dissents, being traditionally unsigned. Vote was reportedly 7-2 and 6-3

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        Thank you, Putrid Prune, for confirming that you don't know diddly-squat about constitutional law.

      • Powerful Pear says:

        Who were the judges that voted against the travel ban?

        • mamajama55 says:

          Not one judge voted "against the ban" in total. It's complicated. The court voted 9-0 to review the ban in October, and allow a very limited version of the ban to be implemented now.

          The court said the ban could not be imposed on anyone who had “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

          The only part of the travel ban which was allowed to be implemented banned adults from the 6 countries without a close personal relationship in the US.  There's going to be some haggling and back and forth about defining what such a relationship is. Right now, it excludes grandparents and grandchildren, which seems absurd and punitive.

          All of the judges  voted FOR this very limited compromise on the Muslim travel ban.  Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch were "in partial dissent," but allowed their votes to be counted in the 9-0 decision allowing that limited portion of the travel ban to be implemented until the court reviews in October.

          Per Shear and Liptak of the New York Times:

          “Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Justice Thomas wrote.

          Based on the dissent, those three justices are likely to vote in favor of the Trump administration.

          The court’s four-member liberal bloc — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — are likely to vote against it.

          That leaves the ultimate fate of the ban in the hands of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

          So you should restrain yourself from your victory lap. As the Atlantic's Garrett Epps wrote,'

          But the victory was limited in a way that anyone who has ever been 12 years old  will understand. The court didn’t say the government could never have a pony. But it didn’t say the government could have a pony either. Instead, it said, “If you still want a pony next October, we’ll see.”

          • Powerful Pear says:

            9-0, I think the victory lap is in order. Thanks for clarifying this for the others.

            • mamajama55 says:

              A historical example of what this "victory" means:

              My mother emigrated from a country with which the United States was at war. Austria, in WWII, was a federated state of Germany after the Anschluss.

              There was a religious test on refugees – only a certain quota of "Hebrew" refugees from European countries were let in to the US. Consequently, some were sent back and died in the camps. Trump's travel ban is also a "religious test" and a "country test".  That is why it has been turned back by lower courts again and again.

              Had this travel ban been in effect then, my mother would still have been allowed to pass Lady Liberty, as she had relatives here; but her grandmother would not. I would have been allowed in, as the daughter; but my children, her grandchildren, would not.

              It's pretty likely that these provisions will be litigated and overturned.

              The parts that the Court allowed to go forward are the ones your big crybaby in chief called "politically correct" and "watered down". So now, he and you want to take your little victory lap for the PC watered down travel ban, you go right ahead. 

              It's all going to be reviewed in October, anyway.

  5. Davie says:

    Republicans know as well as anyone that Trump is basically a worthless buffoon.  If they could just get his autopen, they could dispense with him altogether:

    Republicans aren’t scared of Trump — nor do they really care what he thinks

    To many congressional Republicans, Trump is Republican only in name — a figurehead to sign their legislation into law. The unspoken understanding on Capitol Hill is that Trump doesn’t really care — or understand — the policy, and that he’ll champion what they do as long as Republicans in Congress are getting something done. (That’s why health care has been such a challenge: Republicans have been struggling to get anything done.)

    Another article puts it this way:

    Congressional Republicans have learned their lesson: They don’t need to worry about Trump’s past statements because Trump doesn’t worry about his past statements.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/28/15876300/how-trumpism-died

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.