The Many Faces of US Politics...

[sid waddell]

This new Comms guy sounds level headed hahahahahaha

An actual WH employee gave this interview to a journalist

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

"I'm not Steve Bannon, I'm not trying to suck my own c**k," he said, speaking of Trump's chief strategist. "I'm not trying to build my own brand off the f**king strength of the President. I'm here to serve the country." (Bannon declined to comment.)

"Reince is a f**king paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac. 'Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the f**king thing and see if I can c**k-block these people the way I c**k-blocked Scaramucci for six months.'"

"They're trying to resist me, but it's not going to work. I've done nothing wrong on my financial disclosures, so they're going to have to go f**k themselves."

You can clearly get good coke in Washington.

Scaramucci is trying to literally sniff out the truth.

[magpie seanie]

How come the media aren't reporting the riots in Minneapolis after that policeman shot the unarmed woman?

j70, Eamon and usual liberals - you must be outraged surely.

Where's Black Lives Matter on this one?

Yeah, I am outraged and feel awful for that poor woman, her fiance and her family.

You, on the other hand, see some sort of political advantage apparently, popping your head up above the parapet after weeks of silence to once again stick the boot in on black people.

That isn't the case. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals and BLM. No issue if a black police officer shoots a white person. That's totally fine. It's not racist. She came out of nowhere and the officer was defending himself. Maybe she had a spatula in her hand.
Just like Ferguson eh?
Without the robbery and the assault on the police officer. But let that slide.

Also note that there are no riots, no looting to mark the occasion. I guess those white folk don't want free stuff.

You will have to point out where liberals and BLM said that its ok for a black (or any other race of) cop to shoot a white person. I've obviously missed it.

And on your last idiotic comment, if white people had suffered at the hands of the state and the police the way black people have, there absolutely would be riots.

Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon! Ring a bell?

f**k blm.

And your little anecdote has what, exactly, to do with my comment?

BLM are responsible for their supporters killing innocent cops, you seem to endorse these knackers! Speaks volumes.

You endorse the cops who kill innocent black kids with this type of talk. You're completely deluded if you think BLM are responsible for the death of policemen. You may as well blame the Civil Rights Movement in the North for the IRA.

[J70]

How come the media aren't reporting the riots in Minneapolis after that policeman shot the unarmed woman?

j70, Eamon and usual liberals - you must be outraged surely.

Where's Black Lives Matter on this one?

Yeah, I am outraged and feel awful for that poor woman, her fiance and her family.

You, on the other hand, see some sort of political advantage apparently, popping your head up above the parapet after weeks of silence to once again stick the boot in on black people.

That isn't the case. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals and BLM. No issue if a black police officer shoots a white person. That's totally fine. It's not racist. She came out of nowhere and the officer was defending himself. Maybe she had a spatula in her hand.
Just like Ferguson eh?
Without the robbery and the assault on the police officer. But let that slide.

Also note that there are no riots, no looting to mark the occasion. I guess those white folk don't want free stuff.

You will have to point out where liberals and BLM said that its ok for a black (or any other race of) cop to shoot a white person. I've obviously missed it.

And on your last idiotic comment, if white people had suffered at the hands of the state and the police the way black people have, there absolutely would be riots.

Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon! Ring a bell?

f**k blm.

And your little anecdote has what, exactly, to do with my comment?

BLM are responsible for their supporters killing innocent cops, you seem to endorse these knackers! Speaks volumes.

Only to your deranged little mind stew.

But go ahead and expand on your thesis.

[J70]

Where did I ever say that?

Post it up if you can find it and I'll happily recant

If not the case why do you hammer Dems for it and no Republicans??!!

Oh believe me there are plenty of mega-hypocrites in the Republican Party too......just the things issues they are hypocritical about are not the main issues they attack the Democrats on.

So what's the real problem here?

That Democratic politicians advocate for progressive economic policies or that they're rich while doing so?

Neither......The issue for me is that if you want to lecture on an issue, at least let it be an issue where your and your surrogates' actions match your words. If they don't, it's just meaningless and empty empty rhetoric your using to whip low information voters up into a lather.

Eg. Donald Trump is an absolute disgrace when it comes to his treatment of women, but you then give Bill Clinton a standing ovation every time he gives a speech.

If Joe Kennedy III gave a speech about the gender pay gap I would be willing to listen...I might not agree with him, but at least I'd listen. If Hillary Clinton gave the same speech, I would not listen because her campaign and the Clinton Foundation pay their female staffers less than their male staffers. Likewise, Elizabeth Warren got paid more for teaching 2/3 classes at Harvard than the Dean of The  Medical School or the Dean of the Business School so I would not be interested in her opinions either.  I'm interested in and support her positions on numerous other topics, but they tend not to be the topics she leads with. She goes for the easy mark

1. You are supposed to be a conservative, so what is your objection to Warren being paid whatever it is she was paid by Harvard?

2. For the THIRD time in the past day, are these Clinton female staffers getting paid less for the same work/expertise?

3. Objections to Trump go way above and beyond his attitude towards women, which you absolutely know.

[magpie seanie]

Fair play to McCain for backing the side of sense. Trump's administration has been an utter shambles to this point. Even worse that I could have imagined. Scaramucci seems to be like he looks - a two bit thug punk out of a mafia film. Foul mouthed tirades against colleagues. The whole thing is unravelling.

[J70]

This new Comms guy sounds level headed hahahahahaha

An actual WH employee gave this interview to a journalist

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon

"I'm not Steve Bannon, I'm not trying to suck my own c**k," he said, speaking of Trump's chief strategist. "I'm not trying to build my own brand off the f**king strength of the President. I'm here to serve the country." (Bannon declined to comment.)

"Reince is a f**king paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac. 'Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the f**king thing and see if I can c**k-block these people the way I c**k-blocked Scaramucci for six months.'"

"They're trying to resist me, but it's not going to work. I've done nothing wrong on my financial disclosures, so they're going to have to go f**k themselves."

You can clearly get good coke in Washington.

Scaramucci is trying to literally sniff out the truth.

I used to think, a little fearfully, that Trump would eventually pull himself together and learn how to be an effective president. But it seems we are plumbing new depths each week. Has there ever been anything like THIS week before?

He's publicly humiliating his attorney general, the one man effectively carrying out his odious agenda, purely because he didn't do what it appears Trump brought him in to do: to kill the Russia investigations. The congressional party is starting to revolt on this count.

Tillerson is apparently on the verge of walking away.

He hasn't even nominated people for most of the political appointments across the government.

And the Mooch is swanning around the national media like a coked up moron on a Saturday night, talking about administration colleagues in the most explicit, offensive terms, all apparently with Trump's blessing??

Who, in the name of christ, is going to even consider working for this freakshow now?

Oh, and the desperate attempts to kill Obamacare ("we will do it on Day One, and it's going to be tremendous!") are failing, miserably.

[J70]

And in the above, I forgot to mention the transgender military ban (which apparently he forgot to run by the military).

So much shit going on, and that's just THIS week!

[J70]

Fair play to McCain for backing the side of sense. Trump's administration has been an utter shambles to this point. Even worse that I could have imagined. Scaramucci seems to be like he looks - a two bit thug punk out of a mafia film. Foul mouthed tirades against colleagues. The whole thing is unravelling.

And it all appears to be driven by Trump's paranoia and fear of what these investigations might uncover.

[screenexile]

Fair play to McCain for backing the side of sense. Trump's administration has been an utter shambles to this point. Even worse that I could have imagined. Scaramucci seems to be like he looks - a two bit thug punk out of a mafia film. Foul mouthed tirades against colleagues. The whole thing is unravelling.

And it all appears to be driven by Trump's paranoia and fear of what these investigations might uncover.

Interesting to see what he does on the Russian sanctions Bill!

[J70]

Fair play to McCain for backing the side of sense. Trump's administration has been an utter shambles to this point. Even worse that I could have imagined. Scaramucci seems to be like he looks - a two bit thug punk out of a mafia film. Foul mouthed tirades against colleagues. The whole thing is unravelling.

And it all appears to be driven by Trump's paranoia and fear of what these investigations might uncover.

Interesting to see what he does on the Russian sanctions Bill!

He will sign it. He has no choice.

It got more than 90% support in congress. He will not want the humiliation of a massive f**k-you veto override.

[whitey]

Where did I ever say that?

Post it up if you can find it and I'll happily recant

If not the case why do you hammer Dems for it and no Republicans??!!

Oh believe me there are plenty of mega-hypocrites in the Republican Party too......just the things issues they are hypocritical about are not the main issues they attack the Democrats on.

So what's the real problem here?

That Democratic politicians advocate for progressive economic policies or that they're rich while doing so?

Neither......The issue for me is that if you want to lecture on an issue, at least let it be an issue where your and your surrogates' actions match your words. If they don't, it's just meaningless and empty empty rhetoric your using to whip low information voters up into a lather.

Eg. Donald Trump is an absolute disgrace when it comes to his treatment of women, but you then give Bill Clinton a standing ovation every time he gives a speech.

If Joe Kennedy III gave a speech about the gender pay gap I would be willing to listen...I might not agree with him, but at least I'd listen. If Hillary Clinton gave the same speech, I would not listen because her campaign and the Clinton Foundation pay their female staffers less than their male staffers. Likewise, Elizabeth Warren got paid more for teaching 2/3 classes at Harvard than the Dean of The  Medical School or the Dean of the Business School so I would not be interested in her opinions either.  I'm interested in and support her positions on numerous other topics, but they tend not to be the topics she leads with. She goes for the easy mark

1. You are supposed to be a conservative, so what is your objection to Warren being paid whatever it is she was paid by Harvard?

2. For the THIRD time in the past day, are these Clinton female staffers getting paid less for the same work/expertise?

3. Objections to Trump go way above and beyond his attitude towards women, which you absolutely know.

I don't care what Harvard pays Warren.....that's their business. But when she is getting paid more than the Dean of both the School of Medicine and the School of Business to teach 2/3 classes....her outrage and grandstanding on issues such as pay inequality and college affordability are no more than empty rhetoric she uses to con her base into believing the system is rigged against them.....she is the epitome of the fvckin  system

The whole reason there is a "pay gap" nationally is that men and women do different work, but as with Elizabeth Warrens case, the Democrats use this outrage to create a false perception that the gap exists due to unfairness and misogyny....IT DOESNT....and the pay gap that exists within their own organizations is evidence of that

[J70]

Where did I ever say that?

Post it up if you can find it and I'll happily recant

If not the case why do you hammer Dems for it and no Republicans??!!

Oh believe me there are plenty of mega-hypocrites in the Republican Party too......just the things issues they are hypocritical about are not the main issues they attack the Democrats on.

So what's the real problem here?

That Democratic politicians advocate for progressive economic policies or that they're rich while doing so?

Neither......The issue for me is that if you want to lecture on an issue, at least let it be an issue where your and your surrogates' actions match your words. If they don't, it's just meaningless and empty empty rhetoric your using to whip low information voters up into a lather.

Eg. Donald Trump is an absolute disgrace when it comes to his treatment of women, but you then give Bill Clinton a standing ovation every time he gives a speech.

If Joe Kennedy III gave a speech about the gender pay gap I would be willing to listen...I might not agree with him, but at least I'd listen. If Hillary Clinton gave the same speech, I would not listen because her campaign and the Clinton Foundation pay their female staffers less than their male staffers. Likewise, Elizabeth Warren got paid more for teaching 2/3 classes at Harvard than the Dean of The  Medical School or the Dean of the Business School so I would not be interested in her opinions either.  I'm interested in and support her positions on numerous other topics, but they tend not to be the topics she leads with. She goes for the easy mark

1. You are supposed to be a conservative, so what is your objection to Warren being paid whatever it is she was paid by Harvard?

2. For the THIRD time in the past day, are these Clinton female staffers getting paid less for the same work/expertise?

3. Objections to Trump go way above and beyond his attitude towards women, which you absolutely know.

I don't care what Harvard pays Warren.....that's their business. But when she is getting paid more than the Dean of both the School of Medicine and the School of Business to teach 2/3 classes....her outrage and grandstanding on issues such as pay inequality and college affordability are no more than empty rhetoric she uses to con her base into believing the system is rigged against them.....she is the epitome of the fvckin  system

The whole reason there is a "pay gap" nationally is that men and women do different work, but as with Elizabeth Warrens case, the Democrats use this outrage to create a false perception that the gap exists due to unfairness and misogyny....IT DOESNT....and the pay gap that exists within their own organizations is evidence of that

The legitimate gripe with the pay gap is when men and women get paid differently for the same work. It's well documented that that has been a problem historically and into today. So unless you're saying that the Clintons are paying their women less than the men for the same job and expertise they bring, then you're just grandstanding and posturing like the politicians you claim to abhor.

Pending additional research, fair point on Warren and college fees.

[whitey]

Where did I ever say that?

Post it up if you can find it and I'll happily recant

If not the case why do you hammer Dems for it and no Republicans??!!

Oh believe me there are plenty of mega-hypocrites in the Republican Party too......just the things issues they are hypocritical about are not the main issues they attack the Democrats on.

So what's the real problem here?

That Democratic politicians advocate for progressive economic policies or that they're rich while doing so?

Neither......The issue for me is that if you want to lecture on an issue, at least let it be an issue where your and your surrogates' actions match your words. If they don't, it's just meaningless and empty empty rhetoric your using to whip low information voters up into a lather.

Eg. Donald Trump is an absolute disgrace when it comes to his treatment of women, but you then give Bill Clinton a standing ovation every time he gives a speech.

If Joe Kennedy III gave a speech about the gender pay gap I would be willing to listen...I might not agree with him, but at least I'd listen. If Hillary Clinton gave the same speech, I would not listen because her campaign and the Clinton Foundation pay their female staffers less than their male staffers. Likewise, Elizabeth Warren got paid more for teaching 2/3 classes at Harvard than the Dean of The  Medical School or the Dean of the Business School so I would not be interested in her opinions either.  I'm interested in and support her positions on numerous other topics, but they tend not to be the topics she leads with. She goes for the easy mark

1. You are supposed to be a conservative, so what is your objection to Warren being paid whatever it is she was paid by Harvard?

2. For the THIRD time in the past day, are these Clinton female staffers getting paid less for the same work/expertise?

3. Objections to Trump go way above and beyond his attitude towards women, which you absolutely know.

I don't care what Harvard pays Warren.....that's their business. But when she is getting paid more than the Dean of both the School of Medicine and the School of Business to teach 2/3 classes....her outrage and grandstanding on issues such as pay inequality and college affordability are no more than empty rhetoric she uses to con her base into believing the system is rigged against them.....she is the epitome of the fvckin  system

The whole reason there is a "pay gap" nationally is that men and women do different work, but as with Elizabeth Warrens case, the Democrats use this outrage to create a false perception that the gap exists due to unfairness and misogyny....IT DOESNT....and the pay gap that exists within their own organizations is evidence of that

The legitimate gripe with the pay gap is when men and women get paid differently for the same work. It's well documented that that has been a problem historically and into today. So unless you're saying that the Clintons are paying their women less than the men for the same job and expertise they bring, then you're just grandstanding and posturing like the politicians you claim to abhor.

Pending additional research, fair point on Warren and college fees.

Nice attempts at deflection....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/15/politifact-sheet-gender-pay-gap/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#4e1043cf2596

"But the White House and others who promote the myth are manipulating statistics in a way to convince women that they are the victims of systematic societal discrimination, and, therefore, stand to benefit from further government action."

"Women's groups and politicians, including Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, continue to tell women they are making almost a quarter less than men and use this statistic to call for legislation enacting further government intervention in employer and employee relationships, such as the Paycheck Fairness Act."

[J70]

Where did I ever say that?

Post it up if you can find it and I'll happily recant

If not the case why do you hammer Dems for it and no Republicans??!!

Oh believe me there are plenty of mega-hypocrites in the Republican Party too......just the things issues they are hypocritical about are not the main issues they attack the Democrats on.

So what's the real problem here?

That Democratic politicians advocate for progressive economic policies or that they're rich while doing so?

Neither......The issue for me is that if you want to lecture on an issue, at least let it be an issue where your and your surrogates' actions match your words. If they don't, it's just meaningless and empty empty rhetoric your using to whip low information voters up into a lather.

Eg. Donald Trump is an absolute disgrace when it comes to his treatment of women, but you then give Bill Clinton a standing ovation every time he gives a speech.

If Joe Kennedy III gave a speech about the gender pay gap I would be willing to listen...I might not agree with him, but at least I'd listen. If Hillary Clinton gave the same speech, I would not listen because her campaign and the Clinton Foundation pay their female staffers less than their male staffers. Likewise, Elizabeth Warren got paid more for teaching 2/3 classes at Harvard than the Dean of The  Medical School or the Dean of the Business School so I would not be interested in her opinions either.  I'm interested in and support her positions on numerous other topics, but they tend not to be the topics she leads with. She goes for the easy mark

1. You are supposed to be a conservative, so what is your objection to Warren being paid whatever it is she was paid by Harvard?

2. For the THIRD time in the past day, are these Clinton female staffers getting paid less for the same work/expertise?

3. Objections to Trump go way above and beyond his attitude towards women, which you absolutely know.

I don't care what Harvard pays Warren.....that's their business. But when she is getting paid more than the Dean of both the School of Medicine and the School of Business to teach 2/3 classes....her outrage and grandstanding on issues such as pay inequality and college affordability are no more than empty rhetoric she uses to con her base into believing the system is rigged against them.....she is the epitome of the fvckin  system

The whole reason there is a "pay gap" nationally is that men and women do different work, but as with Elizabeth Warrens case, the Democrats use this outrage to create a false perception that the gap exists due to unfairness and misogyny....IT DOESNT....and the pay gap that exists within their own organizations is evidence of that

The legitimate gripe with the pay gap is when men and women get paid differently for the same work. It's well documented that that has been a problem historically and into today. So unless you're saying that the Clintons are paying their women less than the men for the same job and expertise they bring, then you're just grandstanding and posturing like the politicians you claim to abhor.

Pending additional research, fair point on Warren and college fees.

Nice attempts at deflection....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/15/politifact-sheet-gender-pay-gap/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#4e1043cf2596

"But the White House and others who promote the myth are manipulating statistics in a way to convince women that they are the victims of systematic societal discrimination, and, therefore, stand to benefit from further government action."

Where's the deflection?

Your Forbes link doesn't work, while the other one acknowledges that the gap exists, even once you go past the broad, overall gap which doesn't account for the type of work. It even says female nurses, of all professions, get paid less FFS.

But assuming you are correct, you must have stats then that show that women earn the same or even outearn men for the same work and experience level?

[whitey]

Forbes link does work on 3 of my devices and I have pulled 2 quotes off it for good measure

if you want to deny they are creating false outrage about a non issue....that's on you