POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

What did you think of Trump's odds leading up to the election? It's important to leave your personal views out of who has the best chance. McAullife would play well in a lot of the swing states where the election will be won or lost.

Your concern trolling is duly noted.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Just a horrible despicable human being. So glad we dodged that bullet.

If not being a horrible human being was the qualification for President, Scoob, you'd be.

Oh. Wait. You're a Gopher fan.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Deadspin with the apt headline.

Another contestant for this week's "Virtue Signalling of the Week" award. (Are they afraid Mr. Lee has that classic stereotypical "Hollywood Asian" accent also?)

And here I thought Mitch had VSotW all wrapped up with this.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Hillary Clinton writes in her new book that Donald Trump's attempts to "intimidate" her during the presidential debates made her "skin crawl" and she wanted to tell him to "back up, you creep."

“What would you do? Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space?” the former Democratic nominee asks in "What Happened," excerpts of which were released by MSNBC's "Morning Joe" early Wednesday.

“Or do you turn, look him in the eye and say loudly and clearly ‘Back up, you creep. Get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women, but you can’t intimidate me, so back up.’ "

She calls her experience running for president “humbling,” "exhilarating" and “infuriating.”

"Every day I was a candidate for president, I knew that millions of people were counting on me. And I couldn't bear the idea of letting them down," she writes. "But I did. I couldn't get the job done. And I'll have to live with that for the rest of my life."

Clinton's book, "What Happened," is expected to also cover Russian interference in the election and the role of former FBI director James Comey. It is set to be released Sept. 12.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...k-up-you-creep

Just a horrible despicable human being. So glad we dodged that bullet.

[dave122793]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Deadspin got it wrong here. The company approached the employee, they had a discussion, and both agreed it was probably best to move. THey didn't fire him, they didn't demote him, they didn't make a big deal out of it. They tried to quietly prevent any kind of hooplah and some right wing activist heard from a friend that they were doing this, misinterpreted it, and blew it way out of proportion.

I don't see anything wrong with what they did.

I don't either. I don't know exactly how it went down obviously, but if they went to him and asked him, "Hey, given the situation, would you want to change games? It's your call, we'll stand by it either way" and he decided to change games, seriously, what's the big ***** deal? Just something else to have fake outrage over. There's more important things to get worked up over other than who's announcing what freaking 1st week college football game.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Deadspin got it wrong here. The company approached the employee, they had a discussion, and both agreed it was probably best to move. THey didn't fire him, they didn't demote him, they didn't make a big deal out of it. They tried to quietly prevent any kind of hooplah and some right wing activist heard from a friend that they were doing this, misinterpreted it, and blew it way out of proportion.

I don't see anything wrong with what they did.

They made it a big deal. They Streisanded it.

Honestly I think that's one of the best pieces I've ever read as far as getting to the core of an issue. It's snarky of course because Gawk-- er, I mean, Deadspin, but I really think it's extremely well argued and directly on point.

I'll quote the end of the piece because I think it's great:

Which is ironic in its way, because this decision is as apolitical as decisions get. ESPN is not liberal, and it’s not conservative; it’s a massive company with no political beliefs beyond damage control. Someone had the idea of switching Lee off the UVa game not because they thought it would be offensive, but because of the prospect of some hypothetical viewer being offended by seeing an Asian-American broadcaster with a hyper-common name similar to that of the Confederate general. Whether this hypothetical viewer exists or not (they don’t) is almost beside the point; true corporate cowardice requires a bland, compulsive aversion to controversy so strong that it loses touch with reality. And as so often happens, the blowback winds up being much, much worse than the nonexistent scenario ESPN hoped to avoid.

I think ESPN deserves all the scorn it’s going to receive. This decision, at whatever level it was made, betrays total contempt for and condescension toward the movement against Confederate monuments. This decision is that of someone who can’t possibly begin to grasp what the movement is actually about, or why so many people are offended and willing to march in the streets. It’s the decision of someone who doesn’t have a strong opinion about Confederate monuments, but wants to put on a show of understanding that some do.

This type of performative leftism is red meat for, among others, the disingenuous right, whose worldview (and ability to sell gold and boner pills to old people) collapses unless it can portray all activism as performative. This story is going to be in the news for days to come, and long after will be ammunition for idiots and racists seeking to denigrate the sincerity of protestors and those who support them. Nice work, ESPN: You did more harm to this cause than even you thought you were capable of.

[Drew S.]

Deadspin got it wrong here. The company approached the employee, they had a discussion, and both agreed it was probably best to move. THey didn't fire him, they didn't demote him, they didn't make a big deal out of it. They tried to quietly prevent any kind of hooplah and some right wing activist heard from a friend that they were doing this, misinterpreted it, and blew it way out of proportion.

I don't see anything wrong with what they did.

Is he actually an employee? If you were 22 years old and had just graduated college would you have told them to go to hell?

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Cast wasn't really the right word. I think a better way of saying is they tried to cash in on Bill's popularity with Hillary and I could see them trying to cash in on Obama's popularity with Harris. It didn't work first time around and I don't see it working second time around either.

OK I see what you're saying.

It's certainly possible that Harris would be a stinker, and Hillary showed that an identity candidate can win the nomination even if she's weak because people aren't voting for her for substantive policies or reasons like, oh I dunno, f-cking electability.

Harris could turn into a nightmare because of the portion of the Democratic coalition that has a coronary whenever you criticize a woman or a minority -- everybody not into her for whatever reasons would instantly become a "sexist" or a "racist" for the same Swarthmore bullsh-t that has infected campuses and Kos.

But Hillary survived not just because of identity politics but because of the freight train of money and power jamming her through the nomination process, and Harris doesn't have that. Nobody will have that until Chelsea completes her trans move from cromulent wallflower to whatever risible image the Clintonistas project onto her in their feverish attempt to get back to the teat of power. And hopefully by then most of them will be dead.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Deadspin with the apt headline.



And this, which are words for the ages:



And, finally, this, which is so on point Drew and Fish got a phantom heat flash the instant they were published:

Deadspin got it wrong here. The company approached the employee, they had a discussion, and both agreed it was probably best to move. THey didn't fire him, they didn't demote him, they didn't make a big deal out of it. They tried to quietly prevent any kind of hooplah and some right wing activist heard from a friend that they were doing this, misinterpreted it, and blew it way out of proportion.

I don't see anything wrong with what they did.

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Again, by removing the announcer from this particular game, they basically said:

"This area of people is so sensitive to the name Robert Lee that this announcer could trigger them into doing something foolish." I'd say that's pretty insulting to the viewers.

Only if you are such a snowflake that you read that into the actions.

The "outrage" is hilarious, and hypocritical.

[Drew S.]

That's a misreading of what happened with Hillary. They didn't try to cast her as Bill, and that was a problem. You have to realize that outside the Fox Bubble everybody still loves Bill. They just loathed Hillary.

In any case, Democrats don't have problems* with Obama -- it was only the righty loons who went apesh-t whenever they saw his picture, as they would again with Harris because oh I can't imagine why.

* There's disappointment of course that he wussed out on the wars and Gitmo. But weight for age he was still the most successful president since Eisenhower and that despite being faced by a Congress of roid rage lunatics hurling feces at him 24/7.

Cast wasn't really the right word. I think a better way of saying is they tried to cash in on Bill's popularity with Hillary and I could see them trying to cash in on Obama's popularity with Harris. It didn't work first time around and I don't see it working second time around either.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I could see democrats trying to make Harris be Obama the same way they tried to make Hillary be Bill. It would be a big mistake to go down that road again in my humble opinion.

That's a misreading of what happened with Hillary. They didn't try to cast her as Bill, and that was a problem. You have to realize that outside the Fox Bubble everybody still loves Bill. They just loathed Hillary.

In any case, Democrats don't have problems* with Obama -- it was only the righty loons who went apesh-t whenever they saw his picture, as they would again with Harris because oh I can't imagine why.

* There's disappointment of course that he wussed out on the wars and Gitmo. But weight for age he was still the most successful president since Eisenhower and that despite being faced by a Congress of roid rage lunatics hurling feces at him 24/7.

[Drew S.]

Terry McAuliffe is terrible. What he lacks in political courage he more than makes worse with poor political instincts and a complete lack of charisma. He also just smells like he has a ton of financial misconduct in his past. Early on in the Cafe's existence somebody suggested I was Terry McAuliffe (Catholic New Yorker, pro-Carter, Democrat and over-the-top Notre Dame football fan). I don't think I've ever felt more insulted.

I don't know how smart Harris is. Her academic pedigree is weak and she was a DA, both of which suggest mediocrity. Like Obama she is a hardcore political animal and scheming opportunist -- I think of her as Selina Meyer. We certainly wouldn't be getting the intellectual-professorial Obama, but that's a plus -- Pete Palooka hates intelligence (c.f. Dukakis, M.).

I could see democrats trying to make Harris be Obama the same way they tried to make Hillary be Bill. It would be a big mistake to go down that road again in my humble opinion.

[Drew S.]

Seriously, you don't have to keep proving yourself to be a fool.

What did you think of Trump's odds leading up to the election? It's important to leave your personal views out of who has the best chance. McAullife would play well in a lot of the swing states where the election will be won or lost.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Again, by removing the announcer from this particular game, they basically said:

"This area of people is so sensitive to the name Robert Lee that this announcer could trigger them into doing something foolish." I'd say that's pretty insulting to the viewers.

Deadspin with the apt headline.

What would have been nothing but a quirky screengrab (or more likely nothing—no one was going to notice, and even if they did they wouldn’t have cared, and even if they pretended to care it would have been forgotten by kickoff) is now a full-blown media controversy in the right-wing chudosphere, and ESPN finds itself rightly criticized by everyone on all sides of the political spectrum.

And this, which are words for the ages:

true corporate cowardice requires a bland, compulsive aversion to controversy so strong that it loses touch with reality.

And, finally, this, which is so on point Drew and Fish got a phantom heat flash the instant they were published:

This type of performative leftism is red meat for, among others, the disingenuous right, whose worldview (and ability to sell gold and boner pills to old people) collapses unless it can portray all activism as performative.