The Swamp

I really think the key is the end. Maybe they felt it made sense from a PR standpoint to announce it on Saturday (they knew it would be controversial, and announcing it when they did ensured it wasn't the biggest story of the day) but it looked like shit to me.

Speaking of PR standpoints:

Trump acknowledges true crisis in Puerto Rico: “Billions of dollars” owed to banks

This is ultra fucked to the level of depravity.

Johnnie wrote:Speaking of PR standpoints:

Trump acknowledges true crisis in Puerto Rico: “Billions of dollars” owed to banks

This is ultra fucked to the level of depravity.

Think he knew that Puerto Ricans are American citizens?

The Sybian wrote:Social activism is great, but as a team owner, if my employee is bringing negative attention or distraction to my team for something he is doing on the field, his talent has to outweigh distractions.

How about an owner actually sign him and find out if he is a distraction from "the game" in anything other than league-mandated media time?

Johnnie wrote:Speaking of PR standpoints:

Trump acknowledges true crisis in Puerto Rico: “Billions of dollars” owed to banks

This is ultra fucked to the level of depravity.

Especially given Trump's own history of using bankruptcy court to walk away from debts owed to banks.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 3303923712

This really is my favourite part of Trumps presidency.

Trump criticizes future Trump makes me laugh every time

Joe K wrote:

The Sybian wrote:I fully support the kneeling protest, but if an owner or coach wants to prohibit a player from kneeling, I don't have a problem with that, either. They are an employee, and if the owner sees that as a negative for his team, the owner can fire the player.

I'm curious how far you'd go with this principle in the NFL context. Would you have a problem with a player getting cut for speaking out about concussions or player safety issues? What about if an owner demanded that his GM cut a player who served as the team's union rep after a contentious CBA negotiation? These questions are particularly problematic in the NFL, where contracts are not guaranteed. While I get the principle of at-will employment, it's easy to see how teams cutting guys for any form of activism or speech could be problematic for the league as a whole.

Fuck, you are really making me think and push the boundaries of my beliefs here... Are you a Constitutional Law professor?

When I said I wouldn't have a problem with an owner firing a player for kneeling, I meant that purely in a legal sense. My job is advising employers on what they can do, and I wrote that from that point of view. Morally and politically, I don't like it, but from an employment law matter, the owner can do that.

Cutting a player for speaking out about concussions is tricky, as it potentially gets into whistle blower issues. If the owner or team is violating the law somehow in lying about medical records, or violating league concussion protocol, the player may have some rights. This would totally depend on the specifics of an individual case, so I can't make a blanket statement. Sorry for the lawyerly copout on that one.

As for the union rep hypo, the NLRA provides all sorts of protection to union reps, so most instances would be illegal. Probably difficult to prove a player was cut for protected union activities and not other reasons, but illegal. On a moral/political level, I think it's crucial players have protection to engage in union activities, especially in the NFL, as the league and some owners royally fuck them over.

DSafetyGuy wrote:

The Sybian wrote:Social activism is great, but as a team owner, if my employee is bringing negative attention or distraction to my team for something he is doing on the field, his talent has to outweigh distractions.

How about an owner actually sign him and find out if he is a distraction from "the game" in anything other than league-mandated media time?

Hey, I'm rooting for someone to sign him, but I totally understand why nobody has. Didn't he get a tryout with a couple of teams?

The Sybian wrote:

Joe K wrote:

The Sybian wrote:I fully support the kneeling protest, but if an owner or coach wants to prohibit a player from kneeling, I don't have a problem with that, either. They are an employee, and if the owner sees that as a negative for his team, the owner can fire the player.

I'm curious how far you'd go with this principle in the NFL context. Would you have a problem with a player getting cut for speaking out about concussions or player safety issues? What about if an owner demanded that his GM cut a player who served as the team's union rep after a contentious CBA negotiation? These questions are particularly problematic in the NFL, where contracts are not guaranteed. While I get the principle of at-will employment, it's easy to see how teams cutting guys for any form of activism or speech could be problematic for the league as a whole.

Fuck, you are really making me think and push the boundaries of my beliefs here... Are you a Constitutional Law professor?

When I said I wouldn't have a problem with an owner firing a player for kneeling, I meant that purely in a legal sense. My job is advising employers on what they can do, and I wrote that from that point of view. Morally and politically, I don't like it, but from an employment law matter, the owner can do that.

Cutting a player for speaking out about concussions is tricky, as it potentially gets into whistle blower issues. If the owner or team is violating the law somehow in lying about medical records, or violating league concussion protocol, the player may have some rights. This would totally depend on the specifics of an individual case, so I can't make a blanket statement. Sorry for the lawyerly copout on that one.

As for the union rep hypo, the NLRA provides all sorts of protection to union reps, so most instances would be illegal. Probably difficult to prove a player was cut for protected union activities and not other reasons, but illegal. On a moral/political level, I think it's crucial players have protection to engage in union activities, especially in the NFL, as the league and some owners royally fuck them over.

If you cut/fire/release a player for engaging in a political protest, then don't you need to do that to all players who engage in political protests, lest you open the team up to a wrongful termination suit?

Latest repeal abomination now dead.

The Sybian wrote:

DSafetyGuy wrote:

The Sybian wrote:Social activism is great, but as a team owner, if my employee is bringing negative attention or distraction to my team for something he is doing on the field, his talent has to outweigh distractions.

How about an owner actually sign him and find out if he is a distraction from "the game" in anything other than league-mandated media time?

Hey, I'm rooting for someone to sign him, but I totally understand why nobody has. Didn't he get a tryout with a couple of teams?

Nope. From back in March:

"Third, the rest (70% of teams) genuinely hate him and can't stand what he did [kneeling for the national anthem]. They want nothing to do with him. They won't move on. They think showing no interest is a form of punishment. I think some teams also want to use Kaepernick as a cautionary tale to stop other players in the future from doing what he did."

When I spoke to a handful of executives at the combine a few weeks ago, one even called him "an embarrassment to football."

-- snip --

So far, it seems he hasn't visited a single team. I can't find a quarterback-needy team that's interested.

And that lingers from over a year ago:

They seem to be far outnumbered by the members of NFL front offices who despise him. Truly, truly hate him.

"I don't want him anywhere near my team," one front office executive said. "He's a traitor."

-- snip --

One executive said he hasn't seen this much collective dislike among front office members regarding a player since Rae Carruth. Remember Rae Carruth? He's still in prison for the plot to murder his pregnant girlfriend.

-- snip --

"He has no respect for our country," one team executive said. "F--k that guy."

Another said that if an owner asked him to sign Kaepernick, he would consider resigning, rather than do it.

tennbengal wrote:Latest repeal abomination now dead.

Not to sound like Trump, but these morons had 7 years to get something prepared.

It's been said that the easiest job in the world is to be a member of the opposition party. All you have to do is say "no."

We've covered this ground a lot, but let me reiterate:

Obamacare, for the most part, is very much derived from proposals put forth by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks and scholars in the 90s. The individual mandate was eventually morphed into what now lives in the ACA, but that came out of Heritage, as a response to Universal Healthcare that was being espoused by the Clintons.

My point here, and it's probably an obvious one, is that Republicans are put in the position of repealing and replacing a law/policy that many of them supported in broad strokes for over a decade. And here I am talking about the moderate/reasonable folks that still exist in the Senate, which says nothing of the shitshow wing that now lives in both chambers to varying degrees. They can't get votes to actually pass something unless something changes radically in the numbers involved.

As we've said on here, once the ACA was passed, the GOP was fucked on this issue. UNLESS... unless they could get their collective shit together, get with the smart folks at Heritage and AEI and where ever and figure out an actual alternative to the ACA. They DO exist. They just don't blow up the current system, because, fucktards... This system is a few tweaks away from keeping MOST people (and i'm including business and industry lobbyists here) happy.

But tweaking the ACA, calling it a major victory, and moving on with life is impossible for a bunch of reasons. Mostly down to anything short of blowing the signature policy accomplishment that has the black guy's name on it is a non-starter. But also as well documented... They need to blowup the ACA (by stripping millions of poor people and veterans of their h.c. coverage) to pay for their shitty tax cuts. Oh, and a see through wall. They don't want bags of drugs landing on people's heads.


Fucking morons.

Nonlinear FC wrote:the smart folks at Heritage and AEI

Assumes facts not in evidence, Counselor...

Alex Jones summed up the NFL anthem controversy for us. The only thing out of his mouth that wasn't complete gibberish was the belch he let fly at 0:52.

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017 ... ide/218051

DaveInSeattle wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:the smart folks at Heritage and AEI

Assumes facts not in evidence, Counselor...

You can disagree with their policies, but look around... A lot of what they have been espousing is the law of the land. I'm not happy about it, but I watched those outfits up close for a long time. They are formidable, and not just because they have a lot of money. They are smart about what they are doing.

If Trump doubles the standard deduction, its just to make buying less appealing and keep more people in his shithead towers, right?

Jared Kushner Voted As a Woman, Accoeding To His Registration

Say it with me....

LOCK.

HER.

UP.

Ho.Lee.Fuck. Part 3 of an ongoing Dutch documentary following the money trail between Russia and Trump. The Dutch team is working with reporters from McClatchy and several other countries to follow the trail. Hopefully they donate their time and findings to speed up Mueller's investigation. I need to go back and watch the first 2 parts, but this is some detailed shit. Sad that US "news" channels can't do shit like this rather than rushing to air sensationalized bullshit, and bickering between a panel of partisan hacks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... qesw5kwEow


ETA: Watching Parts 1 and 2, worth watching them first

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiE1pe-25BE

Well. If it's going duTch it's only half accurate anyway.

American tv doesn't think their audience has the patience to listen to that. They'll turn the channel to bickering.

degenerasian wrote:American tv doesn't think their audience has the patience to listen to that. They'll turn the channel to bickering.

I'm sorry, but for this to be true, you'd need to accept that the American televised news media wants to provide journalism like this.

They're run by the billionaire boys club. They have zero interest in providing us truth.

EnochRoot wrote:

degenerasian wrote:American tv doesn't think their audience has the patience to listen to that. They'll turn the channel to bickering.

I'm sorry, but for this to be true, you'd need to accept that the American televised news media wants to provide journalism like this.

They're run by the billionaire boys club. They have zero interest in providing us truth.

Cable news has gone off the rails but do you think shows like 60 minutes, 20/20, Dateline and 48 Hours are doing the appropriate job?
And there's always PBS.

degenerasian wrote:

EnochRoot wrote:

degenerasian wrote:American tv doesn't think their audience has the patience to listen to that. They'll turn the channel to bickering.

I'm sorry, but for this to be true, you'd need to accept that the American televised news media wants to provide journalism like this.

They're run by the billionaire boys club. They have zero interest in providing us truth.

Cable news has gone off the rails but do you think shows like 60 minutes, 20/20, Dateline and 48 Hours are doing the appropriate job?
And there's always PBS.

I don't doubt their merit. I wonder why they're required to do the heavy lifting the mainstream outlets should be doing in the first place.

Johnnie wrote:Jared Kushner Voted As a Woman, Accoeding To His Registration

Say it with me....

LOCK.

HER.

UP.

We all know who wears the trousers in that relationship

Kinda wish the left had a fake news machine so stories about transgendered Jared would be flooding the internet.

P.D.X. wrote:Kinda wish the left had a fake news machine so stories about transgendered Jared would be flooding the internet.

We have the Onion and Clickhole, and I've sure seen a lot of Conservatives get fired up arguing against their articles.

Johnnie wrote:What's it going to take for this mother fucker to lose his clearance?

An indictment or divorcing daddy's little girl. That's all I got.

brian wrote:

Johnnie wrote:What's it going to take for this mother fucker to lose his clearance?

An indictment or divorcing daddy's little girl. That's all I got.

Although divorcing Ivanka would free up her time to dote on Daddy. I heard some Fox pundits saying it's a simple rookie mistake, Jared is new at this government stuff, so he should get a pass. Afterall, how could he have possibly known not to use a private e-mail account. It's not like anyone ever discussed prior government officials using private e-mail accounts or servers, right?

His foreign contacts alone should have disqualified him. It's batshit insane that I can lose my clearance for a fuck of a lot less than this asshole. But I'm not rich or married to Ivanka, so fuck me.

Johnnie wrote:His foreign contacts alone should have disqualified him. It's batshit insane that I can lose my clearance for a fuck of a lot less than this asshole. But I'm not rich or married to Ivanka, so fuck me.

Terrible pick up line.

A_B wrote:

Johnnie wrote:His foreign contacts alone should have disqualified him. It's batshit insane that I can lose my clearance for a fuck of a lot less than this asshole. But I'm not rich or married to Ivanka, so fuck me.

Terrible pick up line.

Worked on Maria.

That, my wit and humor, and big black cock.

Tom Price resigns as HHS Secretary.

So. Much. Winning.

Well at least I got to watch 12,000 Ossoff and Handel commercials because of him, so it wasn't a total waste.

He's a truly deplorable human being (even by "typical" mainstream GOP standards) so hell, it's a good day I guess.

So what's happening with his executive lunchroom?

Our fearless leader one day after reminding us that PR is surrounded by "Big water. Ocean water" has now taken on the mayor of San Juan accusing her of being told to be nasty to him by the Democrats, and said that the Puerto Ricans aren't doing enough to help themselves.

Every week he sets a new low for himself