Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Really? In tax it is used commonly. Sort of like a synonym to "wheelhouse."

Also, the IRS organizes itself by divisions and has a break along functional lines that is referred informally to as a jurisdiction, such "Gordon was the IRS's Assistant Commissioner for dealing with Stupid question. Your issue is in his wheelhouse.

Tax lawyers are different, Part MMMCLVI.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

In the last day the Foreign Minister of Israel has advocated Israel starting to behead its citizens while the Foreign Minister of Iran has engaged in an intelligent discourse on the US constitution.

I so, so, so hope Bibi loses this election.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

The 47 Traitors stuff is getting to me. I think what they did is incredibly stupid, just like inviting Bibi to speak was stupid, and violated the spirit of the constitution and the Senate's best and traditional role in government. I think they were total asshats in the way they did it, and ignorant to boot.

But the Logan Act probably violates the first amendment and being an idiot who undermines your country's foreign policy is still protected speech. Can we just call them 47 Idiots instead?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Stopping by to post this picture for Hank, from yesterday's Hillary presser on her emails:

[ThurgreedMarshall]

This is an interesting article. I generally love Patton Oswalt and I think he gets a lot right in this piece. But there are instances where he is entirely way too inside his own experience.

The fact that he thinks humor is always more effective than outrage and shaming is colored by the fact that he's a comedian. The fact that he brushes off points about racists, anti-science types, misogynist, homophobic, ignorant assholes running things because it's so easy to laugh at them is said from a position which is not subject to the everyday oppression those assholes impose.

I also don't like this idea that every joke should be permissible, but someone's reaction to that joke should be tempered. Fuck outta here. I don't think we should be trying to keep people from joking about whole topics. But how is a truly offensive joke--made for the purpose of being offensive--any different than making an offensive slur? Go ahead and make your joke. But just like all things--even speech--there may be consequences to your actions. And I have every fucking right to call you out on your offensiveness.

Finally, his points about white men getting great late-night job offers because they are actually the most talented out there is interesting to me. Seems to me he is conflating "best" with "most successful." Those things don't always match. When it comes to those jobs, the people making the decisions are basing it on the ability to build the affluent white following that sponsors so covet. Does that mean they aren't brilliant? No. But it may mean that other types of people (women, minorities) aren't given the shot because the assumption is they aren't marketable. So, when Patton essentially says, "Why add something about how another white man is getting a great opportunity to a review about how good that white man is," I think, so what? What's the harm being done John Oliver? He is being diminished because we recognize the fact that he may have opportunities others have not? Again, that doesn't mean he shouldn't have a show or that he doesn't deserve one. But it does make you think about the issue a little more (although, I suppose the people who wouldn't take it as an insult to Oliver are already inclined to have the thought on their own).

Anyway, interesting read.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/11/salo..._peace_summit/

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The 47 Traitors stuff is getting to me. I think what they did is incredibly stupid, just like inviting Bibi to speak was stupid, and violated the spirit of the constitution and the Senate's best and traditional role in government. I think they were total asshats in the way they did it, and ignorant to boot.

But the Logan Act probably violates the first amendment and being an idiot who undermines your country's foreign policy is still protected speech. Can we just call them 47 Idiots instead?

Yes.

Is it Obama Derangement Syndrome, or is the country so polarized that they will do this under another Democratic president?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes.

Is it Obama Derangement Syndrome, or is the country so polarized that they will do this under another Democratic president?

If Hillary wins (or Warren*) it will be no different.

TM

*I wish.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I appreciate the technical stuff.

From my perspective, this goes way beyond criticism or political theater. It's an absolutely amazing example of Republicans actively undermining a sitting President. I am continually floored by how little respect they have for the office when they don't like who occupies it. It is the exact opposite of patriotism and someone should be calling them out on it again and again.

I know these assholes are small minded, but one would think that no party would want to set this type of precedent.

TM

It's not small minded. It's actual quite expansionist. The modern GOP has lost all sense of boundaries.

Somewhere, George Schultz and H.W. Bush are lamenting this letter in private conversations. This shit would never have happened in their days in office. Blame it on the internet or the volatility of the day, or whatever, but the GOP is no longer behaving like a political party. They're behaving like a political ISIS... Whatever means are necessary, none barred under any circumstances.

These are calculating nihilists. They know the demographics doom them going forward, and so are playing a nuclear hand on every issue. Total war -- exactly as McConnell swore it'd be the day Obama took office.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If Hillary wins (or Warren*) it will be no different.

TM

*I wish.

You want to know where we're going with Hillary or Jeb (one of them will win)? Start watching defense contractor stocks. Much of it's probably priced in already, but as you see them solidifying their lock on nominations, you'll see defense contractor equities moving upward quite nicely. Because whichever of the two we get, we're going to get a whole lot more interventions abroad.

Hillary and Bill are seeking a legacy built around ending human rights abuses. And Jeb is-- well, he's an establishment Republican, who's owned by the defense complex.

The non-interventionists are going to hate 2016-2024.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If Hillary wins (or Warren*) it will be no different.

TM

*I wish.

I think you are likely right. But if a white male Dem won, would it be different? I think so. The hatred that they feed off would be less intense.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think you are likely right. But if a white male Dem won, would it be different? I think so. The hatred that they feed off would be less intense.

Bill Clinton might disagree with you. Not a single Republican in either the House or the Senate voted for his signature plan of 1993 (the first year of his Administration), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act; you know, the thing where taxes were raised to lower the deficit. Al Gore had to cast a vote to break a tie in the Senate. Chelsea's future mother in law had to swallow her desire for reelection for the good of the country. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnib...on_Act_of_1993

Perhaps the hate would be a bit less visceral, but the GOP would engage in the same sort of scorched earth tactics whether the next president'a first name is Hilary, Elizabeth, Martin, Joe, or Jim.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Finally, his points about white men getting great late-night job offers because they are actually the most talented out there is interesting to me. Seems to me he is conflating "best" with "most successful."
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/11/salo..._peace_summit/

Warning: Rant coming

This is not conflation, this is the core of bigotry today. Bigots today are too polite to say we don't want to hire Ordella because of her race or sex or religion. They don't hire Ordella because their customers, or their customers customers, or some other fictional universe THAT IS JUST A PROJECTION OF THEMSELVES might be uncomfortable. Because the audience advertisers crave love any number of Ellens, Oprahs, Arsenios or whatever, when they're talented, and it generally didn't matter, but people get denied the opporunity because the bigot says, gee, yes, Ordella is very talented, but she's going to have barriers to deal with that little white boy won't have, and that will make her less successful, and I'm hiring for success, so I'll take the white boy.

And this happens very politely, hopefully with people not having to say why they like the white boy, but with every room full of white men on a hiring committee magically choosing a white boy for every job from first year associate to being David Letterman. No matter what the talent pool looks like.

And bigots like this cross all kinds of lines, many are quite liberal and would be shocked that anyone's recognized their bigotry. Many of them fit into a category of people who are regularly discriminated against.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You want to know where we're going with Hillary or Jeb (one of them will win)? Start watching defense contractor stocks. Much of it's probably priced in already, but as you see them solidifying their lock on nominations, you'll see defense contractor equities moving upward quite nicely. Because whichever of the two we get, we're going to get a whole lot more interventions abroad.

Hillary and Bill are seeking a legacy built around ending human rights abuses. And Jeb is-- well, he's an establishment Republican, who's owned by the defense complex.

The non-interventionists are going to hate 2016-2024.

I agree with you in general, but I think you're missing something. Hillary, like Bill before her, will be about the little wars. Bill will tell you history validates his intervention in the Balkans and that history looks ill on his failure to intervene in Rwanda, and he has a point. Hillary will pick the little wars. But she's not going to pick the big wars. Vietnam remains a Democratic nightmare, the last bigger war we pulled the trigger on. But Iraq is our bogeyman, and Afghanistan is not popular among Dems either. So Hillary is going to be very active policing the globe, but she'll have a couple of Balkans, a Libya or two, maybe even a nice Falklands war for Bill O'Reilly.

The biggest problem the Republicans have with both Iraq wars is that they weren't big enough. Jeb is about the big war. His loser father has a legacy of hangers-on now criticizing the 47 idiots at the very time Tom Cotton's stock is rising in Republican ranks. Jeb needs to give the Rs a big one. One they've been waiting for. Jeb needs an Iran.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You want to know where we're going with Hillary or Jeb (one of them will win)? Start watching defense contractor stocks. Much of it's probably priced in already, but as you see them solidifying their lock on nominations, you'll see defense contractor equities moving upward quite nicely. Because whichever of the two we get, we're going to get a whole lot more interventions abroad.

Hillary and Bill are seeking a legacy built around ending human rights abuses. And Jeb is-- well, he's an establishment Republican, who's owned by the defense complex.

The non-interventionists are going to hate 2016-2024.

Sadly, you're right. Also TM on the Oswalt stuff.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's not small minded. It's actual quite expansionist. The modern GOP has lost all sense of boundaries.

Somewhere, George Schultz and H.W. Bush are lamenting this letter in private conversations. This shit would never have happened in their days in office. Blame it on the internet or the volatility of the day, or whatever, but the GOP is no longer behaving like a political party. They're behaving like a political ISIS... Whatever means are necessary, none barred under any circumstances.

These are calculating nihilists. They know the demographics doom them going forward, and so are playing a nuclear hand on every issue. Total war -- exactly as McConnell swore it'd be the day Obama took office.

It is not complete lockstep. http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/gr...ttons-horrific