U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[Silver Soul]

Christianity was extremely scary in the Middle Ages, and people are still absolutely right to be afraid of it in many parts of the world today - but today, Christianity simply isn't as lethal a global force as Islam can often be.

However, there are those who use Christianity to support antithesis of actual Christians here in America such as Trump and alleged pedophile Roy Moore. The poll numbers showing how much Evangelicals voted for says a lot and it is endangering LGBT rights here in America.

 

[Scammel]

Absolutely. And yet, you're not some sort of irrational, stinking racist for thinking as much.

 

[Zora]

While I don't want to comment on all of Scammel's points, I want to say as a gay man I'm genuinely more afraid of your typical MAGA/Trump supporter than I am of your typical American Muslim--and, to clarify, I'm not afraid of the latter.

Honestly, there's something disturbing--perhaps homophobic is the word--when the right seems to only care about me as a victim of supposed Islam extremism. The Pulse night club shooting is almost impossible not to mention, but the narrative 'Muslim man kills gay people because Islamism' was accepted very uncritically--but the right happily used that narrative as a beacon of Islamphobia. Go look back at Trump's RNC speech and the only time he mentions LGBT people is in that context--and he's surprised that his base actually cared that queer people died. I don't know what instigated the Pulse night club shooting, but I'm sure as hell it's far nuanced than that simple Islamism narrative. But more to the point, that same administration just a week or two ago allowed and encouraged doctors to refuse medical treatment to queer people and the federal judges being nominated to positions is very anti-queer--and I'm supposed to believe they actually care about me? I'm sorry, but most of the time I see people relying on us queer folks as justification for Islamophobia, I can't see it as anything else other than being used.

And yes, I'm aware there's a rather high correlation between anti-gay laws and Muslim majority countries, but lest we forget American didn't shed its anti-gay laws until 15 years ago--so I'm not sure how different it really is from here. I'm honestly out of my league here, but the origins of anti-LGBT laws in Muslim majority countries seems complicated at best (e.g. why are so many of these laws relatively recent?), and while Islam may play a role it's probably one of many interlinking factors.

 

[chess-z]

I'm suspect of anyone who is ready to criticize Islam, but stops short of being critical of religious fundamentalism in general. Anecdotally speaking, I know far more radically hateful christian fundamentalists than islamic fundamentalists, and, as a transgender woman, am far more acutely aware of how destructive christian fundamentalism hurts me in my everyday life. Christian fundies have way more political power in America.

 

[Trainer Yusuf]

(e.g. why are so many of these laws relatively recent?),

That is largely due to imperialism. Many of those laws that are not dependent on Sharia are older laws brought in by colonial powers, and there was no other option, because the Islamic states were effectively invented by Western powers as geopolitical pawns. Most Caribbean and African have similar post-imperial laws, so does India.

When Western influence declined, Sharia took power because there couldn't be a rival influence*, which started with domestic laws, continuing into business law and eventually taking entire countries. You can see this gradual shift in influence in all major Islamic countries.

*South Sudan is a special case, since there was a rival influence of Christianity, but that led to the much needed, though failed partition of Sudan.

Edit: https://76crimes.com/2018/01/31/zambia-police-seek-alleged-lesbian-couple/

This probably serves as the inverse example, though. Zambia is a constitutionally Christian country, and is one of the more developed Sub-Saharan African nations.

 

[EnglishALT]

Sorry I don't have anything really to contribute to the Islamophobia discussion, but the WSJ does have a rather interesting article out about if the Democratic party really does care about passing immigration reform.

First, we had Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, stroll out of a private meeting with the president and share with the media Mr. Trump’s crude remarks about immigrant homelands. Mr. Durbin had to know that by publicizing the alleged comments, he was jeopardizing any potential deal. His intent was to sabotage the discussions, not advance them.

A few days later, after the White House released an immigration framework detailing the president’s priorities, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected it out of hand as a “wish list” for “anti-immigration hard-liners.” Given that those hard-liners dismissed the very same White House framework as a sop to Democrats like Mr. Schumer, the senator’s criticism seems rather curious.

or are these political theatrics limited to Democrats in Washington. Progressives at the state and local levels are just as keen on undermining the Trump administration whenever possible. Last week New York Mayor Bill de Blasio described the Justice Department’s crackdown on sanctuary cities as a “racist assault on our immigrant communities” and then refused to meet with the president. Meanwhile, California’s attorney general, Xavier Becerra, has threatened to prosecute employers who help federal immigration officials identify people in the country illegally. Mr. Becerra said businesses that share employee information with immigration agents will face fines of up to $10,000. In other words, California is promising to punish people for obeying federal law.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-democrats-even-want-a-compromise-on-immigration-1517355597?mod=e2fb

I really never considered it, but with the Democrats portraying Trump's plan as "Racist" and for "anti-immigration hard-liners" if the Democrats do end up signing on to something similar to the bill, it would be hard to walk back their rhetoric in an election year.

I have heard some Republicans on political podcasts say that Democrats really do not care about immigration reform, just using the issue to garner votes. Maybe they are on to something...

 

[Excitable Boy]

it's pretty difficult to get votes from Dreamers if they're all deported

 

[Bananarama]

So now the GOP is the party of Holocaust deniers.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/h...n-3rd-congressional-district-lipinski-newman/

I'm not surprised.

 

[Silver Soul]

Sorry I don't have anything really to contribute to the Islamophobia discussion, but the WSJ does have a rather interesting article out about if the Democratic party really does care about passing immigration reform.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-democrats-even-want-a-compromise-on-immigration-1517355597?mod=e2fb

I really never considered it, but with the Democrats portraying Trump's plan as "Racist" and for "anti-immigration hard-liners" if the Democrats do end up signing on to something similar to the bill, it would be hard to walk back their rhetoric in an election year.

I have heard some Republicans on political podcasts say that Democrats really do not care about immigration reform, just using the issue to garner votes. Maybe they are on to something...

We could have gotten comprehensive immigration reform during Obama years had the House GOP passed it, while the Senate actually did. Also, which party rejected the DREAM Act, something Bush supported?

 

[EnglishALT]

We could have gotten comprehensive immigration reform during Obama years had the House GOP passed it, while the Senate actually did. Also, which party rejected the DREAM Act, something Bush supported?

The Senate passed it? I may be thinking of a different bill but I don't believe the Senate passed the 2010 DREAM act.

That being said, yes the Republicans have been against it, this is possibly the first time we have a bill that Republicans can rally around and give Democrats what they want. The question is, why aren't Democrats jumping on it?

So now the GOP is the party of Holocaust deniers.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/ho...pinski-newman/

I'm not surprised.

Wait so the views of one state senator now apply to the whole party?

 

[Daniel31]

Wait so the views of one state senator now apply to the whole party?

It's just people spreading more propaganda.

This statement was in the Chicago Tribune, btw; Illinois Republican Party Chairman Tim Schneider said in a statement: "The Illinois Republican Party and our country have no place for Nazis like Arthur Jones. We strongly oppose his racist views and his candidacy for any public office, including the 3rd Congressional District."

 

[Silver Soul]

The Senate passed it? I may be thinking of a different bill but I don't believe the Senate passed the 2010 DREAM act.

That being said, yes the Republicans have been against it, this is possibly the first time we have a bill that Republicans can rally around and give Democrats what they want. The question is, why aren't Democrats jumping on it?

Because the current President is a racist and Republicans have the 51 vote majority.

 

[Skiks]

Setting new records Trump has surpassed Obama with a Dow Jones fall of 1,175 points. Surpassing the previous record 777.68 points drop on the Dow Jones during the financial crisis in 2008.
Now this is yet another problem of his own making after claiming responsibility for the the raise in stocks previously.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/949129410208202757

 

[Trainer Yusuf]

It is still low in terms of percantage, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average
Though having two big mini-crashes in three days is an achievement.

General view seems to be that this "bloodbath" is largely due to inflation, which was only kept check due to Eurozone crisis. Either way, though, we are still not in for the next recession so don't join the anti-hype yet.

Edit: In a more general note, there probably won't be any major crash in 2018 in general.

 

[Skiks]

It is still low in terms of percantage, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average
Though having two big mini-crashes in three days is an achievement.

General view seems to be that this "bloodbath" is largely due to inflation, which was only kept check due to Eurozone crisis. Either way, though, we are still not in for the next recession so don't join the anti-hype yet.

Oh this isn't even about that. I'm just throwing shade at Trump for making a big deal about nothing and having it smack his face.

 

[EnglishALT]

Looks like we may be getting another special council investigation, this one into possible DOJ and FBI corruption during the 2016 election.

Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah told reporters on Air Force One Monday that President Trump’s attorneys have already approved the idea of appointing a second special counsel to investigate the FBI and Justice Department’s actions during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to White House pool reports.

https://www.axios.com/white-house-t...sel-6edafd54-c4d7-4ae6-80b7-c7c312b8ca51.html

The public also seems to support this according to the new poll by IBD.

Some 55% of those said it was "likely" that the Obama administration "improperly surveilled the Trump campaign during the 2016 election." There was an obvious partisan split among the responses, with 87% of Republicans and 55% of independents saying the improper spying took place, but only 31% of Democrats.

On the question of whether a special counsel was needed to "investigate whether the FBI and the Department of Justice improperly surveilled the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election," 54% responded "yes," and 44% "no." Again, 74% of Republicans and 50% of independents wanted a special counsel appointed. But even 44% of Democrats thought it would be a good idea.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...p-campaign-want-special-counsel-ibdtipp-poll/

So who knows, we may see Trump announcing an investigation in the next few days...

 

[Skiks]

He's gonna have a hard time if he's basing it all on the memo. Considering the man was suppose to be a nobody in his mind and now he's a somebody? And that somebody has already been a target for survillence before he was with Trump's election campaign. Even the very article you linked made a key note:

Worth noting: Trump reportedly stated that he was in favor of releasing the Nunes memo before actually seeing it.

I'm betting he still hasn't read it since it doesn't have his name.

 

[Daniel31]

Concerning the current stock market, if people want to know what's happening, and I'll use CNN as a source.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/02/investing/why-dow-dropping/index.html?iid=EL

"Stocks have been rising pretty much in a straight line since November 2016, and that's not exactly healthy. Stock market analysts believe the stock market is long overdue for a 5% pullback or even a 10% correction.
A cooling-off period would be a good thing. It would make stocks cheaper and more attractive to investors, especially if the underlying companies are healthy, cranking out strong sales and profits.
The market finally began to come down to earth -- just a bit -- this week, and investors wonder whether this is the beginning of a correction. There could be a little groupthink taking place in the downturn."

The algorithmic (automated) trading is also responsible for this. Regardless, there’s by no means an economic meltdown nor people should be worried. The stock market just basically lost all of its gains for 2018, but the huge gains at the end of 2016 and in 2017 still remain, which were about 5000 or 6000 points I think. My belief is that the market is just correcting itself.

Oh this isn't even about that. I'm just throwing shade at Trump for making a big deal about nothing and having it smack his face.

Way to be like "certain" other people in the media who are being childish and just looking for anything to throw back in Trump’s face, regardless of the positive effect he’s had on the stock market since he was elected President. This is the kind of attitude that is selfish and it’s really starting to alienate and piss off the people who are Independent or people who don't get heavily involved in politics, but still keep an eye on things from afar.

 

[Skiks]

Way to be like "certain" other people in the media who are being childish and just looking for anything to throw back in Trump’s face, regardless of the positive effect he’s had on the stock market since he was elected President. This is the kind of attitude that is selfish and it’s really starting to alienate and piss off the people who are Independent or people who don't get heavily involved in politics, but still keep an eye on things from afar.

He is the one who touted the market as his thing. He shouldn't have and he's not really the reason the economy shifted for the better in the first place. Even you're showing me data that this market increase is just hype. It was bound to fall. Most people realized this. Our President didn't seem to think of it at all. He threw it back at himself because again he just spits anything that forms in his mind out regardless of facts or any idea if it even means something. If he wants to be treated like an adult he should act like one.

 

[Remix2]

Setting new records Trump has surpassed Obama with a Dow Jones fall of 1,175 points. Surpassing the previous record 777.68 points drop on the Dow Jones during the financial crisis in 2008.
Now this is yet another problem of his own making after claiming responsibility for the the raise in stocks previously.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/949129410208202757

Just wait unti the trump tax cut come into effect, the stock will tank harder then Kansas economy under Sam brownback.