Octopus Overlords

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:39 pm I wonder if they'll ban him after he's out of office. He must violate their TOS nearly every day.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:05 am Well...that's some take...

Defiant wrote:

disarm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 1:36 pm

Defiant wrote:

As a physician, these stories are infuriating and, in my opinion, incredibly irresponsible of the reporting site or news channel. Most people will never read beyond the sensationalistic headline and will develop false worries about safety of the vaccines.

CHUCK TODD:

A lot of people would push back at you and say, "Character is destiny." And in fact, I do -- you've used this eight-month marker. I want -- his rhetoric, incendiary rhetoric goes back far greater than just the last few weeks. Here's some examples.

[BEGIN TAPE]

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were at a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know. Proud boys, stand back and stand by.

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

You see where I’m going here. It is one of these things -- you are basically saying, “I didn't see this version of Donald Trump.” A lot of us, with all due respect, said, “Yeah, we, we saw -- this version of Donald Trump, to us, didn't change.” This was the guy we saw celebrating violence in ‘16, and it just sort of carried through to, sadly, this inevitable conclusion.

MICK MULVANEY:

Yeah. And I know it's, I know it's easy for folks now who've never liked the president or always disagreed with his policies or really disliked him as a person to say, “Why didn't everybody see this coming?” But keep in mind, so many of us that worked with him every single day didn't see him through a filter. In fairness, you saw him oftentimes -- you've had some face to face with him -- but most people saw him through the filter of a media that didn't like him very much. We saw him every single day. The reason that I wrote in The Wall Street Journal six weeks ago that I thought the president would leave presidentially is because I had evidence to that end. I had stories. I had background. I had seen that type of president, and I never thought I'd see what I saw on Wednesday. Yes, the rhetoric was very high and very fiery. You and I both know, however, that American politicians do this on a regular basis. I can pull you similar clips of Maxine Waters telling people to take to the streets. It's different though, when as you said in your entry, that people took him literally. I never thought I'd see that. I never thought I’d see a day in our country where people from any side of the political spectrum would storm the Capitol in order to intentionally stop the Constitutional transfer of power, which is part of what was happening on Wednesday. That's what's different, Chuck, that the country is different than I expected. --

CHUCK TODD:

I understand that.

MICK MULVANEY:

-- Maybe we can talk about that as well, but yeah, it's not the same as it was in those previous examples.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, I do also want to give you a chance to respond. Your predecessor, as chief of staff, laid the blame on what he called the "let Trump be Trump" mindset. Here's his explanation, John Kelly.

[BEGIN TAPE]

JOHN KELLY:

My replacement -- well, let me just say, this is what happens. Yesterday and other things he's done in the last two years comes as a result of letting Trump be Trump.

[END TAPE]

CHUCK TODD:

All right, I apologize for that. I'll read you the quote there. "My replacement - well, let me just say, this is what happens when you said let Trump be Trump.” I understand you had some audio issues there. I did too. I think the audience did hear it, for what it's worth, Mr. Mulvaney. So the "let Trump be Trump," mindset, in hindsight, do you wish you had figured out how to create more barriers, more guardrails?

MICK MULVANEY:

No. Not barriers, not guardrails. The president was the elected leader of the nation. It's not the job of the chief of staff to undo that. It's the job of trying to help the president be successful, which I think we were able to do when I -- we had tremendous successes. We had record low rates of unemployment, we had no new foreign wars for the first time in my memory during a presidential term. We had tremendous things to look back on as a success because we were able to work with the president, let him be himself, but also work together to be successful.

Keep in mind John Kelly, and I respect John, he's a tremendous American. But he didn't resign when he was the chief of staff of the president. He warned against yes men. By the way, that is a good and sound warning. And one of the things I'm afraid of is that the West Wing is different now than when John or I was there. The president used to love debate. He would love to get information from all sorts of different sides. I'm not sure that's happening now. And if there just are people there reaffirming and reamplifying what they think he wants them to say.

CHUCK TODD:

Should Donald Trump be ostracized from the Republican Party as you know it?

MICK MULVANEY:

I think it's going to happen anyway. I think the ideas will live on. The ideas of the Republican Party are bigger than one man. But I think if you have any role at all in what happened on Wednesday, that you sort of, you don't deserve to lead the party anymore. The ideas are bigger than the people. But I think, I think the voters will take that into consideration. I can't tell you, when I was elected in the, in the Tea Party wave of 2010, sort of the precursor of the Trump movement, and I can't tell you the number of people who've supported me for a decade who’s saying that Wednesday was a bridge too far. They love Trump, they love the policies, they were really pleased with the successes of the first four years, but he lost them on Wednesday. And I think that's, I think that's the right thing. I think people need to know that what happened on Wednesday is just different.

CHUCK TODD:

Mick Mulvaney, the former White House chief of staff and budget director under President Trump, thank you for coming on and sharing your perspective with us, sir.

MICK MULVANEY:

Thanks, Chuck.

Voice of America reassigns White House reporter after she sought to question Mike Pompeo

The director of Voice of America ordered the reassignment of a reporter for the international news organization after she sought to ask questions of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a VOA-sponsored appearance on Monday, according to several people who attended the event.

Patsy Widakuswara, who covers the White House for VOA, was ordered off the beat by Director Robert Reilly after firing questions at Pompeo after his speech and a brief Q&A session conducted by Reilly.

Pompeo, who had spoken about “American exceptionalism” and criticized oppressive regimes in China, Iran and elsewhere during his appearance, ignored Widakuswara’s questions as he left VOA’s headquarters in Washington.

Reilly, a former VOA director and conservative writer, was appointed to head the government-funded agency last month by Michael Pack, who since June has headed VOA’s parent organization, the U.S. Agency for Global Media.

Pack has ignited several controversies, lawsuits and whistleblower complaints during his short tenure, during which he has attempted to reshape VOA and four other international networks. He has replaced experienced managers with loyalists and has asserted his right to influence editorial judgments, despite regulations prohibiting political influence over news produced by the agencies.

Widakuswara, who declined to comment, has been a VOA employee since 2003 and has covered the White House since mid-2018.

A VOA spokesperson declined to comment. Reilly did not respond to an email requesting comment.

Widakuswara’s reassignment — which appears to be punishment for seeking information from a prominent newsmaker — carries several layers of irony, given the themes of Pompeo’s talk and the issues surrounding his appearance.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the Voice of America news service of "demeaning America" in a speech that a watchdog group criticized as "political propaganda" and a violation of the government-funded agency's own rules.

Pompeo delivered remarks in person to a command audience of VOA staff despite the Covid pandemic, urging them to report that "this is the greatest nation the world has ever known." Pompeo did not mention the pandemic, the insurrectionist violence that rocked the Capitol last week, leaving five dead, or President Donald Trump's role in encouraging the chaos.

The speech was broadcast live, worldwide, through VOA channels in more than 40 languages in what the Government Accountability Project, a group representing VOA whistleblowers, called "a violation of law, rule and policy." No questions were allowed after the remarks or the brief on-stage conversation with VOA Director Robert Reilly that followed, giving Pompeo a chance to tout Trump administration policies unchecked.

Press Secretary Psaki wrote:Is unemployment insurance only an issue that Democrats want? Or do only Democrats want their kids to go back to schools? Do only Democrats want vaccines to be distributed across the country? We feel that package -- he feels that package is designed for bipartisan support.

I would also say we've had some positive developments on our confirmations, and our nominees. Last night, as you saw, the president's nominee, now confirmed, first female leader of the intelligence community was confirmed with a vote of 85-10, 84-10, you can check me on that, but an overwhelming vote. We've seen progress today on the nomination and hopeful confirmation of Lloyd Austin. So, there is movement supported by both sides of the aisle and members of both parties.

I think if you talk to Republicans on the Hill, which I know many of you do, they would say they are not looking for something symbolic. they are looking for engagement, they're looking to have a conversation, they're looking to have a dialogue. That's exactly what he's going to do.

Ease Up on the Executive Actions, Joe

President Biden is moving aggressively to turn the page on the Trump era.

A week into his presidency, Mr. Biden has issued a raft of executive orders and other actions. Already, he has committed to rejoining the Paris climate change agreement, ended the Muslim travel ban, canceled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, rescinded funding for and halted construction on the wall at the southern border, reaffirmed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, mandated mask-wearing on federal grounds, moved to end the federal government’s reliance on private prisons, reversed the ban on transgender military service and called for agency assessments aimed at advancing racial equity — just to name a few. The coming days will bring more such action.

These moves are being met with cheers by Democrats and others eager to see the legacy of Donald Trump’s presidency dismantled posthaste. Republicans, meanwhile, are grumbling about presidential overreach and accusing Mr. Biden of betraying his pledge to seek unity.

In other words, things are going the same way they often do in Washington. “There’s a sort of tribalism when it comes to the use of executive orders,” observes John Hudak, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “When your party’s in the White House, it’s the greatest thing on earth. When your party’s out, it’s undemocratic. It’s basically Satan’s pen.”

But this is no way to make law. A polarized, narrowly divided Congress may offer Mr. Biden little choice but to employ executive actions or see his entire agenda held hostage. These directives, however, are a flawed substitute for legislation. They are intended to provide guidance to the government and need to work within the discretion granted the executive by existing law or the Constitution. They do not create new law — though executive orders carry the force of law — and they are not meant to serve as an end run around the will of Congress. By design, such actions are more limited in what they can achieve than legislation, and presidents who overreach invite intervention by the courts.

But legal limitations are not the only — or even perhaps the biggest — point of concern. Executive actions are far more ephemeral and easily discarded than legislation, which can set up a whipsaw effect, as each president scrambles to undo the work of his predecessor.

The Constitution protects people from being prosecuted twice for the same offense. “Double jeopardy” protections are also written into union contracts at workplaces like the New York Times, to assist employees facing the same complaint for a second time. All the safeguards in the world, however, won’t prevent the allegations from creating a public furor, as now-former reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr. discovered on Friday, when he resigned over a controversy that promises to reverberate through the paper’s virtual corridors.

In the summer of 2019, McNeil joined a group of students on a Times-sponsored educational excursion to Peru. In the wake of the trip, the Times received a number of complaints about the longtime science reporter’s conduct. Some of them cited allegedly racist remarks and behavior, including that McNeil had stereotyped African American youths. After an investigation, McNeil received a reprimand in September 2019.

A far more public tribunal considered the same conduct in recent weeks. The Daily Beast revealed McNeil’s 2019 reprimand on Jan. 28, prompting a Times statement that McNeil had “used bad judgment by repeating a racist slur in the context of a conversation about racist language.” Executive Editor Dean Baquet explained, “I authorized an investigation and concluded his remarks were offensive and that he showed extremely poor judgment, but it did not appear to me that his intentions were hateful or malicious.”

Then Times management pivoted after receiving a letter from 150 Times staffers. That letter, sent on Feb. 3, said, “Our community is outraged and in pain. Despite The Times’s seeming commitment to diversity and inclusion, we have given a prominent platform — a critical beat covering a pandemic disproportionately affecting people of color — to someone who chose to use language that is offensive and unacceptable by any newsroom’s standards.” It also asserted that since the controversy became public, “current and former employees have suggested that he also has shown bias against people of color in his work and in interactions with colleagues over a period of years.” The letter furnished no specific examples of that, but it requested a “renewed investigation” into the 2019 controversy.

And the letter prevailed: “We appreciate the spirit in which it was offered and we largely agree with the message,” replied Baquet, Publisher A.G. Sulzberger and chief executive Meredith Kopit Levien that same day. The trio of managers said that they were focused on “getting this right. You will see results.”

Those results surfaced Friday. In an emailed apology, the 67-year-old McNeil explained:

On a 2019 New York Times trip to Peru for high school students, I was asked at dinner by a student whether I thought a classmate of hers should have been suspended for a video she had made as a 12-year-old in which she used a racial slur. To understand what was in the video, I asked if she had called someone else the slur or whether she was rapping or quoting a book title. In asking the question, I used the slur itself.
A Friday email from Baquet and Managing Editor Joseph Kahn announced McNeil’s resignation and laid out the standard: “We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent.”

With those last three words, the Times lost its foothold for criticizing a politician for flip-flopping. In his initial assessment of the McNeil case, Baquet wrote, “It did not appear to me that his intentions were hateful or malicious.” Now, suddenly, intent means nothing.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:59 pm Yup. It's hard to know what we don't know (maybe this guy's an insensitive asshole in general), but what the Times has put out makes it look ridiculous.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:59 pm Yup. It's hard to know what we don't know (maybe this guy's an insensitive asshole in general), but what the Times has put out makes it look ridiculous.

That would be like me saying: When you say insensitive asshole, do you have personal knowledge, or are you speculating? Then I get cancelled by the asshole police.

When the conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh died on Wednesday of complications from cancer, he ended a decades-long career as one of the most malignant and sadistic figures on the right.

His contributions to contemporary conservatism encouraged members of the Republican Party base to be meaner, smaller and more vulgar. He anchored his banter with a steady stream of invective, by turns promoting xenophobia, racism, homophobia and misogyny, teeing up a ready-made audience for the cruelty politics of Donald Trump.

...

He really hit his stride when Bill Clinton ran for office. Mr. Clinton was accompanied by a feminist wife whose biography — a successful lawyer, an advocate for women’s and children’s rights, a woman who kept her own name and identity after marriage — often set off unhinged emotional outbursts from many Republicans, including Mr. Limbaugh.

Attacking Hillary Clinton in some of the ugliest terms possible became Mr. Limbaugh’s bread and butter, a guaranteed crowd-pleaser that sustained his show through three decades. He helped build a cottage industry of Hillary-hate, insisting Mrs. Clinton had a “testicle lockbox” — a theme that, during her first presidential campaign, surfaced among opportunistic vendors selling Hillary nutcrackers.

In the humorless world of Woke, the satire is never funny and the statute of limitations never expires, even when it comes to hamantaschen.