This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Trump signs a bill he calls deeply flawed.
Because getting your veto overridden makes you look weak, and vetoing a Russian sanctions bill makes you look complicit. But signing the bill while hurling insults and going off on self-aggrandizing tangents makes you look exactly the same as before.
Seriously, that last paragraph must have been written by The Onion.
Trump has reached his highest disapproval rating and lowest approval rating yet.
By which metric?
538’s average has him at 38.2% approval, lowest since early June when he was at his true low of 38.0%.
Similarly, RCP has him at 39.2% approval, lowest since mid-June when he was at his true low of 38.6%
You are correct about Trump’s approval rating. I retract that part. We regret the error.
However, you neglected to mention that Trump is in fact at his highest disapproval rating according to the two trackers you cited:
My post was not based on the Rasmussen poll; in fact, it was based on the two above trackers.
538 has just updated to show his disapproval at 56.7% and his approval at 37.8%, his highest and lowest points ever, respectively.
And now it’s down to 37.6%. Sad!
I’m righter every day.
So is Trump.
Hey, Trump gives stats now!
https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/892716219580768256
Trump is “acting sharper in meetings and even rattling off stats” now that Kelly is chief of staff
https://www.axios.com/john-kelly-closes-the-oval-office-door-2468238343.html
62.4% of people think Trump’s stats mean as much as his word.
Well isn’t this nice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.
The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”
The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.
The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minority students to university campuses.
Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.
I imagine some of our anti-affirmative action friends here might like this.
It seems that there are alot of complaints about HBO’s planned new tv show about what things would be like if the Confederacy had won. Could someone tell me why this is not acceptable but a show about what things would be like if the Nazi’s had won, was acceptable? Is there a difference that I am not seeing?
Could someone tell me why this is not acceptable but a show about what things would be like if the Nazi’s had won, was acceptable?
Is there a show like that on HBO?
No, it is not on HBO. But the show does exist and and as far as know, there are no complaints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle_(TV_series)
So am I to understand that April Reign is also against things like Roots and 12 years a slave? Couldn’t one argue they commodify the pain of African Americans for others’ enjoyment? Also if this series commodfies the pain of African Americans, doesn’t the series about the Nazis, and Schindler’s List commodify the pain of Jewish people?
Also this quote appears in the article '‘Wait and see’ is what we were told about the Trump administration." Does this show have anything to do with Trump? Do the makers of this show have anything do with Trump?
So am I to understand that April Reign is also against things like Roots and 12 years a slave? Couldn’t one argue they commodify the pain of African Americans for others’ enjoyment?
I don’t know, ask her. Make a Twitter account.
Also this quote appears in the article '‘Wait and see’ is what we were told about the Trump administration." Does this show have anything to do with Trump? Do the makers of this show have anything do with Trump?
No, it’s an “analogy.”
*sigh*
It seems that there are alot of complaints about HBO’s planned new tv show about what things would be like if the Confederacy had won. Could someone tell me why this is not acceptable but a show about what things would be like if the Nazi’s had won, was acceptable? Is there a difference that I am not seeing?
The Civil War remains controversial in the U.S. while Nazis do not. Everybody hates Nazis. The Civil War is more complicated. That’s my best guess.
No, it is not on HBO. But the show does exist and and as far as know, there are no complaints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle_(TV_series)
HBO did make a movie based on the 1992 novel Fatherland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(1994_film)
I seem to recall my dad reading the book.
Where were you in '77?
Personally I think the outrage is pretty premature. But the best I can tell there is at least one legitimate criticism of the concept (rather than the nonexistent execution). Essentially, the idea being that showing an alternate history where things are worse to some extent absolves the problems of the present (as opposed to a future story where things are worse, which would be a cautionary tale). Basically it’s a thing where you can point to it and say “look how much worse race relations could be, so don’t complain!”
The same criticism applies to the Man in High Castle though not sure why the outrage wasn’t there (probably a combination of a lot of different reasons).
It seems that there are alot of complaints about HBO’s planned new tv show about what things would be like if the Confederacy had won. Could someone tell me why this is not acceptable but a show about what things would be like if the Nazi’s had won, was acceptable? Is there a difference that I am not seeing?
The Civil War remains controversial in the U.S. while Nazis do not. Everybody hates Nazis. The Civil War is more complicated. That’s my best guess.
Alternative history, (not to be confused with alternative facts) has been a genre for decades. And I pretty sure there have been novels about where the Confederacy didn’t fall. I remember this comic book at least, although I’ve never read it.
I saw at least one person on twitter who said they’ve never watched this HBO series, which would be amazing if they did as it’s not even in production yet.
Where were you in '77?
Personally I think the outrage is pretty premature. But the best I can tell there is at least one legitimate criticism of the concept (rather than the nonexistent execution). Essentially, the idea being that showing an alternate history where things are worse to some extent absolves the problems of the present (as opposed to a future story where things are worse, which would be a cautionary tale). Basically it’s a thing where you can point to it and say “look how much worse race relations could be, so don’t complain!”
The same criticism applies to the Man in High Castle though not sure why the outrage wasn’t there (probably a combination of a lot of different reasons).
Nobody wants to wait to for a show to actually be made to get outraged anymore. If Married With Children was made today, it would be ripped on twitter based on a synopsis.
Where were you in '77?
Whereas it should be ripped based on what it ended up being.
Personally I think the outrage is pretty premature. But the best I can tell there is at least one legitimate criticism of the concept (rather than the nonexistent execution). Essentially, the idea being that showing an alternate history where things are worse to some extent absolves the problems of the present (as opposed to a future story where things are worse, which would be a cautionary tale). Basically it’s a thing where you can point to it and say “look how much worse race relations could be, so don’t complain!”
I have no idea if there is any intent whatsoever by the series creators to try to absolve the problems of the present or to say that people shouldn’t complain now. I have no idea as to what political positions the creators of the show hold.
I don’t think the Nazi takes place in an alternative future.
I am not sure understand what you are saying here
From
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/31/watch_john_oliver_take_on_alex_jones.html
This week in male privilege…
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/asia/new-zealand-jacinda-ardern-family-questions.html
Whereas it should be ripped based on what it ended up being.
Terry Rakolta, is that you? 😉
It was almost more popular in the UK than it was here. I did a double take when I once came across the Spanish remake, shot on the same set.
Where were you in '77?
Well isn’t this nice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.
The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”
The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.
The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minority students to university campuses.
Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.
I imagine some of our anti-affirmative action friends here might like this.
Hey it’s this week in white privilege!
From
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/31/watch_john_oliver_take_on_alex_jones.html
I hope you buy it.
Personally I think the outrage is pretty premature. But the best I can tell there is at least one legitimate criticism of the concept (rather than the nonexistent execution). Essentially, the idea being that showing an alternate history where things are worse to some extent absolves the problems of the present (as opposed to a future story where things are worse, which would be a cautionary tale). Basically it’s a thing where you can point to it and say “look how much worse race relations could be, so don’t complain!”
The same criticism applies to the Man in High Castle though not sure why the outrage wasn’t there (probably a combination of a lot of different reasons).
I agree with this, though I’m probably missing something because of my x privilege.
