Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
MrWendel
MrWendel's Journal
MrWendel's Journal
January 31, 2016
A 16-year-old from Lethbridge, Alberta, suffered horrific burns and lost some teeth after an e-cigarette exploded in his face.
Ty Greer was vaping in the car when the device exploded, according to the Lethbridge Herald.
He had first- and-second degree burns to his face, as well as injuries to his lips, tongue and throat. The force of the explosion also shattered two of his teeth.
“There was a two-foot by two-foot of flame,” Greer’s father Perry told the newspaper.
“Part of his tooth went into his tongue when it broke off,” he said.
Greer was using a Wotofo Phantom, which sells for about $55 in Canada. Selling e-cigarettes to minors is banned in much of Canada, but not in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Alberta, The Canadian Press reports.
Mechanical mod e-cigarettes, like the Phantom, are sometimes advertised as being for “advanced users” only and carry a warning that improper use “can result in serious damage to the products and potential injuries to the user.”
E-cigarette explosions are rare but can cause tremendous damage.
Last year, a 29-year-old man in Florida was hospitalized after his e-cigarette exploded in his mouth, shattering his teeth and breaking his neck as a result. Another man in California suffered burns to his mouth and had part of his index finger amputated after an explosion.
This is what happens when an e-cigarette malfunctions...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/e-cigarette-explosion-alberta#.rq3va1VJqA 16-year-old from Lethbridge, Alberta, suffered horrific burns and lost some teeth after an e-cigarette exploded in his face.
Ty Greer was vaping in the car when the device exploded, according to the Lethbridge Herald.
He had first- and-second degree burns to his face, as well as injuries to his lips, tongue and throat. The force of the explosion also shattered two of his teeth.
“There was a two-foot by two-foot of flame,” Greer’s father Perry told the newspaper.
“Part of his tooth went into his tongue when it broke off,” he said.
Greer was using a Wotofo Phantom, which sells for about $55 in Canada. Selling e-cigarettes to minors is banned in much of Canada, but not in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Alberta, The Canadian Press reports.
Mechanical mod e-cigarettes, like the Phantom, are sometimes advertised as being for “advanced users” only and carry a warning that improper use “can result in serious damage to the products and potential injuries to the user.”
E-cigarette explosions are rare but can cause tremendous damage.
Last year, a 29-year-old man in Florida was hospitalized after his e-cigarette exploded in his mouth, shattering his teeth and breaking his neck as a result. Another man in California suffered burns to his mouth and had part of his index finger amputated after an explosion.
January 31, 2016
Hillary supporters are ready to rock and roll in Iowa
There is a common wisdom swirling about, the “wisdom” that Bernie has more enthusiasm, more passion, among his supporters than Hillary. That “wisdom” is being seriously tested and seemingly put on its head, proven to be completely false, in Iowa right now.
Bernie himself suggested this meme in a very ill advised, rather arrogant, statement to the Washington Post the other day:
[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-iowa-win-within-sight-sanders-grows-more-combative-toward-clinton/2016/01/24/5f8610d0-c2c1-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?tid=a_inl|
Sanders: Clinton is running a ‘desperate’ campaign that lacks excitement]
Hillary volunteers in Iowa are taking Bernie’s undeserved slam and dismissal personally:
[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/28/at-hillary-clintons-iowa-campaign-offices-bernie-sanderss-excitement-dig-is-a-rallying-cry/|
At Hillary Clinton’s Iowa campaign offices, Bernie Sanders’s ‘excitement’ dig is a rallying cry]
All over Iowa field offices and volunteer offices Bernie’s statement was put up as a rallying cry, to illustrate how out of touch Bernie is with the reality on the ground in Iowa
much Much MUCH more in link
Enthusiasm? You want ENTHUSIASM? Iowa Hillary supporters have it in abundance
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/31/1477636/-Enthusiasm-You-want-ENTHUSIASM-Iowa-Hillary-supporters-have-it-in-abundanceHillary supporters are ready to rock and roll in Iowa
There is a common wisdom swirling about, the “wisdom” that Bernie has more enthusiasm, more passion, among his supporters than Hillary. That “wisdom” is being seriously tested and seemingly put on its head, proven to be completely false, in Iowa right now.
Bernie himself suggested this meme in a very ill advised, rather arrogant, statement to the Washington Post the other day:
[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-iowa-win-within-sight-sanders-grows-more-combative-toward-clinton/2016/01/24/5f8610d0-c2c1-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?tid=a_inl|
Sanders: Clinton is running a ‘desperate’ campaign that lacks excitement]
“What this campaign is about, and I’m seeing it every day, is an excitement and energy that does not exist and will not exist in the Clinton campaign,”
Way to dismiss the countless supporters, volunteers, canvassers, phone bankers, who are out there in the freezing cold, working their hearts out for Hillary.
Hillary volunteers in Iowa are taking Bernie’s undeserved slam and dismissal personally:
[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/28/at-hillary-clintons-iowa-campaign-offices-bernie-sanderss-excitement-dig-is-a-rallying-cry/|
At Hillary Clinton’s Iowa campaign offices, Bernie Sanders’s ‘excitement’ dig is a rallying cry]
All over Iowa field offices and volunteer offices Bernie’s statement was put up as a rallying cry, to illustrate how out of touch Bernie is with the reality on the ground in Iowa
much Much MUCH more in link
January 29, 2016
And just when you think you’re done with how backwards a state representative can be, there’s this—Benton has also introduced a bill to re-rename old streets that used to be named after Confederate veterans. This includes a stretch now named after Martin Luther King, Jr. that was once named after a KKK leader.
Tommy Benton continues to fight a war lost in the 19th century.
Georgia state representative believes KKK wasn't racist, 'made a lot of people straighten up'
By Walter Einenkel
Georgia’s Tommy Benton has helped to introduce two bills this year, HR 1179 and HR 855. The first bill protects a Confederate veteran memorial and the latter makes sure that Confederate “memorial day” and Robert E. Lee’s birthday are both public and legal holidays. Why, you might wonder, would someone want to do that? Well, the argument is something usually about not forgetting history, wah wah, we lost a racist war being a bunch of racists. Now while that is the reason, there is something else at work, and always at work, when being involved in pro-Confederate propaganda—revising the history of racism and the Southern “way of life.”
The Klan “was not so much a racist thing but a vigilante thing to keep law and order,” he said.“It made a lot of people straighten up,” he said. “I’m not saying what they did was right. It’s just the way things were.”
In state Rep. Tommy Benton’s defense, he’s kinda a racist. Benton’s comments and proposed legislation came in response to state Senator Vincent Fort’s (D-Atlanta) proposed bill that would prohibit Georgia from formally recognizing Confederate States of America holidays. Fenton feels that’s sort of like celebrating Saddam Hussein’s birthday every year—remember how much fun Saddam Hussein was? Tommy Benton does not like this proposed legislation.
“That’s no better than what ISIS is doing, destroying museums and monuments,” he said. “I feel very strongly about this. I think it has gone far enough. There is some idea out there that certain parts of history out there don’t matter anymore and that’s a bunch of bunk.”
And just when you think you’re done with how backwards a state representative can be, there’s this—Benton has also introduced a bill to re-rename old streets that used to be named after Confederate veterans. This includes a stretch now named after Martin Luther King, Jr. that was once named after a KKK leader.
The bill does not mention King, but it does set 1968 — the year of King’s assassination — as the time period from which renamings would be reversed.
Tommy Benton continues to fight a war lost in the 19th century.
January 29, 2016
By First Amendment
Lilly Ledbetter, a great champion and fighter for equal pay, for equal work, has endorsed Hillary for President! This is a very strong endorsement for Hillary!
#ImWithHer
www.washingtonpost.com/...
Lilly’s entire endorsement at the link below. I included a couple of snippets.
www.hilaryclinton.com/...
Lilly Ledbetter endorses Hillary Clinton For President
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/29/1476907/-Lilly-Ledbetter-endorses-Hillary-Clinton-For-PresidentBy First Amendment
Lilly Ledbetter, a great champion and fighter for equal pay, for equal work, has endorsed Hillary for President! This is a very strong endorsement for Hillary!
#ImWithHer
www.washingtonpost.com/...
Hillary Clinton won the endorsement Friday of the woman behind federal legislation making it easier for women to challenge their employers over unequal pay.
Lilly Ledbetter, namesake of the first law President Obama signed in 2009, said Clinton is a "fierce and uncompromising champion for women, for basic fairness, and for opportunity for everyone."
The Clinton campaign was announcing the presidential endorsement Friday, the seventh anniversary of the law loosening time limits for lawsuits over unequal pay. Clinton frequently invokes Ledbetter's story in her campaign speeches, and notes that women are typically paid roughly 20 percent less than men for the same work.
"We have got to have equal pay for equal work," Clinton said Thursday, as she campaigned in Iowa.
Lilly’s entire endorsement at the link below. I included a couple of snippets.
www.hilaryclinton.com/...
Our next president can either build on the progress we’ve made and go even further—or dismiss this important issue. Women across this country need more than rhetoric; they need action—they need a fighter in the White House.
I firmly believe Hillary Clinton will be that fighter.
Hillary has spent decades fighting to advance women’s rights and economic opportunities. We fought side by side to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which she co-sponsored in the United States Senate, and she has been a tireless champion for the Paycheck Fairness Act—legislation that would go even further to address the pay gap. And she’s put issues like equal pay, affordable child care, paid leave, and reproductive rights front and center in her campaign.
Hillary understands that these issues can’t be dismissed or pushed to the sidelines. They’re not just “social issues”—they’re fundamental to our country’s economic future, and they are at the heart of everything she’s fighting for on this campaign. For Hillary, this is about more than politics—it’s personal. She just gets it, plain and simple.
Of all the candidates in this race, she is the one we can count on to be a fierce and uncompromising champion for women, for basic fairness, and for opportunity for everyone. She’s not just a steadfast supporter of issues that affect women’s lives; she’s someone who has been there. She doesn’t just say the right things; she does the right things. And when it comes to finally closing the gender pay gap once and for all, that will make a world of difference.
January 28, 2016
Or maybe he picked the right one. For the past day or so, my Twitter feed has been popping with angry tweets about some pro-Bernie Sanders blogger at The Huffington Post slamming First Lady Michelle Obama, while arguing in favor of a Jane Sanders First Ladyship. Nobody was linking the piece, though, so it wasn’t until I saw it at Wonkette this morning that I was able to evaluate this bizarre bit of political trolling for myself.
The author of the piece, Michael Sainato, has managed to create a specimen of cliché Bernie Sanders supporter so pure, it could have been extracted from the brain stem of an Obama voter and grown in a laboratory. What’s the only thing left for a Sanders supporter to do to alienate black voters after snippily lecturing them about civil rights? How about attacking Michelle Obama, does that do it for you?
If not, he also throws in some pretty yellow trashing of Hillary Clinton’s stint as first lady, one of the most consequential in history:
He also goes after President Obama for good measure, but it was his inclusion of Michelle Obama that proved to be a red cape because she is the most beloved of all God’s first ladies. She’s very popular, and as clearly an undeserving a target as there is.
That’s probably the point, though. Sainato is a freelance writer, which is one of the suckiest ways to make a living since Ron Jeremy fired his last fluffer. Everybody wants you to work for free, and when they do pay you, they don’t want to pay you, and when they do pay you well, they think they own you. A good viral political screed can be a ticket out of that misery.
The problem is that aside from a gig in the Sanders press shop, a job posting that probably has a pretty short shelf life, where is trashing Michelle Obama supposed to get you? I don’t even think The Nation is hiring Berners who are that dead-end.
Far be it from me to blow up Sainato’s spot, though. Good luck, bro.
Pro-Bernie Sanders HuffPo Freelancer Picked the Wrong Michelle Obama to Mess With
http://www.mediaite.com/online/pro-bernie-sanders-huffpo-freelancer-picked-the-wrong-michelle-obama-to-mess-with/Or maybe he picked the right one. For the past day or so, my Twitter feed has been popping with angry tweets about some pro-Bernie Sanders blogger at The Huffington Post slamming First Lady Michelle Obama, while arguing in favor of a Jane Sanders First Ladyship. Nobody was linking the piece, though, so it wasn’t until I saw it at Wonkette this morning that I was able to evaluate this bizarre bit of political trolling for myself.
The author of the piece, Michael Sainato, has managed to create a specimen of cliché Bernie Sanders supporter so pure, it could have been extracted from the brain stem of an Obama voter and grown in a laboratory. What’s the only thing left for a Sanders supporter to do to alienate black voters after snippily lecturing them about civil rights? How about attacking Michelle Obama, does that do it for you?
The past three first ladies; Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, and Hillary Clinton all share a common insincere, yet polished, demeanor inherent with an affluent lifestyle. Senator Bernie Sanders’ wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders provides an authentic alternative to the status quo of affluence inherent in Washington D.C.
If not, he also throws in some pretty yellow trashing of Hillary Clinton’s stint as first lady, one of the most consequential in history:
In contrast to Bernie Sanders’ opponent, Hillary Clinton, her marriage to Bill Clinton has a litany of Bill’s alleged improprieties looming over it. Their relationship appears emblematic of Hillary Clinton herself; staged, pretentious and predicated on political expediency. They relate only to the country club crowds of which their combined net worth of over $100 million makes them a part of.
He also goes after President Obama for good measure, but it was his inclusion of Michelle Obama that proved to be a red cape because she is the most beloved of all God’s first ladies. She’s very popular, and as clearly an undeserving a target as there is.
That’s probably the point, though. Sainato is a freelance writer, which is one of the suckiest ways to make a living since Ron Jeremy fired his last fluffer. Everybody wants you to work for free, and when they do pay you, they don’t want to pay you, and when they do pay you well, they think they own you. A good viral political screed can be a ticket out of that misery.
The problem is that aside from a gig in the Sanders press shop, a job posting that probably has a pretty short shelf life, where is trashing Michelle Obama supposed to get you? I don’t even think The Nation is hiring Berners who are that dead-end.
Far be it from me to blow up Sainato’s spot, though. Good luck, bro.
January 21, 2016
Yesterday, presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina allegedly herded an unsuspecting group of pre-schoolers into an anti-abortion event while they were on a field trip in Des Moines, Iowa. She was hosting a “right to life” event at the botanical garden the kids were visiting and sources say she directed 15 of the children to move up to sit at the front of the room with her.
As the kids sat on the floor looking bemused, photographers snapped their picture and the former Hewlett-Packard CEO addressed the crowd with her infamous tirade against the “harvesting of organs” that she insists is done during abortion procedures. Behind the candidate and the kids, a banner with a picture of a fetus on it was displayed prominently.
Parents did not consent to having their children become scenery in Fiorina’s anti-abortion photo op and are speaking out, reports The Guardian. Chris Beck, whose four-year-old was among those wrangled into the rally, said, “The kids went there to see the plants. She ambushed my son’s field trip.”
Beck went on to point out that not only was he not asked if his child could participate in a presidential campaign event, but that the content of the event was extremely inappropriate. “I would not want my four-year-old going to that forum – he can’t fully comprehend that stuff. He likes dinosaurs, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Transformers,” he said.
Using kids as props is not a new tactic for anti-abortion activists, but it is also not one that has yielded much success. Protestors who stood outside of Two Rivers Charter School in Washington, D.C., are being sued by the school for harassing children on their way to class. The protesters are alleged to have stationed themselves outside of every entrance to the school once families began trying to sneak their children in through alternate doors. Some protestors yelled “they kill kids nearby” in reference to a Planned Parenthood being built a few doors down. Others held signs that said, “They kill babies nearby! Tell your parents to stop them!”
Fiorina’s “ambush,” to borrow Beck’s phrase, is another example of using kids as weapons in the culture war surrounding abortion. No matter where a person stands on a contentious social issue, many agree that children have no place in demonstrations that involve phrases referencing “killing kids” or “harvesting organs.”
A spokesperson for Fiorina told The Guardian that the camp was “happy that these children chose to come to Carly’s event with their adult supervisor,” so it does not appear that any type of apology to upset parents is forthcoming.
Regardless of if an apology comes, Beck, at least, seems to have made up his mind: “I do not know enough about Carly to support her and after today, she wouldn’t get my vote for sure.”
Carly Fiorina Accused of ‘Ambushing’ Pre-Schoolers for Anti-Abortion Photo Op
http://www.mediaite.com/online/carly-fiorina-accused-of-ambushing-pre-schoolers-for-anti-abortion-photo-op/Yesterday, presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina allegedly herded an unsuspecting group of pre-schoolers into an anti-abortion event while they were on a field trip in Des Moines, Iowa. She was hosting a “right to life” event at the botanical garden the kids were visiting and sources say she directed 15 of the children to move up to sit at the front of the room with her.
As the kids sat on the floor looking bemused, photographers snapped their picture and the former Hewlett-Packard CEO addressed the crowd with her infamous tirade against the “harvesting of organs” that she insists is done during abortion procedures. Behind the candidate and the kids, a banner with a picture of a fetus on it was displayed prominently.
Parents did not consent to having their children become scenery in Fiorina’s anti-abortion photo op and are speaking out, reports The Guardian. Chris Beck, whose four-year-old was among those wrangled into the rally, said, “The kids went there to see the plants. She ambushed my son’s field trip.”
Beck went on to point out that not only was he not asked if his child could participate in a presidential campaign event, but that the content of the event was extremely inappropriate. “I would not want my four-year-old going to that forum – he can’t fully comprehend that stuff. He likes dinosaurs, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Transformers,” he said.
Using kids as props is not a new tactic for anti-abortion activists, but it is also not one that has yielded much success. Protestors who stood outside of Two Rivers Charter School in Washington, D.C., are being sued by the school for harassing children on their way to class. The protesters are alleged to have stationed themselves outside of every entrance to the school once families began trying to sneak their children in through alternate doors. Some protestors yelled “they kill kids nearby” in reference to a Planned Parenthood being built a few doors down. Others held signs that said, “They kill babies nearby! Tell your parents to stop them!”
Fiorina’s “ambush,” to borrow Beck’s phrase, is another example of using kids as weapons in the culture war surrounding abortion. No matter where a person stands on a contentious social issue, many agree that children have no place in demonstrations that involve phrases referencing “killing kids” or “harvesting organs.”
A spokesperson for Fiorina told The Guardian that the camp was “happy that these children chose to come to Carly’s event with their adult supervisor,” so it does not appear that any type of apology to upset parents is forthcoming.
Regardless of if an apology comes, Beck, at least, seems to have made up his mind: “I do not know enough about Carly to support her and after today, she wouldn’t get my vote for sure.”
January 21, 2016
Reportedly, that "no-bill notification" never materialized and that's because it doesn't even exist.
We’ll continue to track this story as more details emerge.
Grand jury in Tamir Rice case never actually voted on the charges
By Kerry Eleveld
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/20/1472632/-Grand-jury-in-Tamir-Rice-case-never-actually-voted-on-the-charges
The grand jury that chose not to indict the two Cleveland officers implicated in the shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice never took a vote on whether to move forward. After "two days of calls" to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, here’s what the Cleveland Scene found out about the case involving officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback:
What actually happened in the most significant grand jury hearing in county history isn't quite clear, and the mechanism by which the grand jury "declined to indict" — in Prosecutor Timothy McGinty's own words — is equally unclear.
At the conclusion of a typical grand jury hearing, there are two possible outcomes achieved via vote: a "true bill," which results in criminal charges and a case number in the court system, or a "no bill," which is a decision not to bring charges. A "no-bill notification" is signed and stamped and kept on record at the county clerk's office.
Though Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty never explicitly said the grand jury voted not to indict — nor did he utter the phrase "no bill" — in his Dec. 28 press conference, he declared that that grand jury had declined to indict.
Reportedly, that "no-bill notification" never materialized and that's because it doesn't even exist.
Tuesday, Scene spoke with Joe Frolik, the communications director for the Prosecutor's Office, who said no no-bill record exists because, "it's technically not a no-bill, because they didn't vote on charges."
He elaborated: “This was an investigative grand jury. This was kind of their role. Sometimes, a grand jury, after its investigation, will decide if there are no votes to be taken on charges.”
We’ll continue to track this story as more details emerge.
January 20, 2016
The National Archives released an announcement that the William J. Clinton Presidential Library will soon be publicly dumping almost 500 pages of information on Donald Trump. All of this has been made possible by a Freedom of Information Act request.
Some of the information will be benign. There is an autographed copy of one of Trump’s books, for instance, and a photo of Trump with Bill Clinton. It is just that relationship that makes the documents interesting, though: Republicans will be eager to get their hands on anything that links Trump to the Clintons.
As Sarah Palin mentioned last night in her speech endorsing Trump for president, his detractors are always saying he isn’t “conservative enough.” Palin scoffed at this, but Trump’s past — especially his brief presidential bid in 1999 — lends itself to the idea that his conservatism is more contrived than he wants the public to think. The documents from the Clinton Library will detail meetings held between Trump and Clinton as he got ready to run on the Reform Party’s ticket. Further, a much more recent discussion, held between the former president and the real estate mogul in 2015 just before the latter announced his candidacy, will be made public, which could be damning for the campaign, depending on what tone the conversation took on.
The offices of Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have 60 days to review the involved documents and respond to the FOIA request with either a pass for release or a request for an extension. Assuming a stay is not requested, the documents will be available at the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas in early April, becoming available online a few weeks after that.
Clinton Library Gearing Up to Release 500 Pages of Info on Trump
http://www.mediaite.com/online/clinton-library-gearing-up-to-release-500-pages-of-info-on-trump/The National Archives released an announcement that the William J. Clinton Presidential Library will soon be publicly dumping almost 500 pages of information on Donald Trump. All of this has been made possible by a Freedom of Information Act request.
Some of the information will be benign. There is an autographed copy of one of Trump’s books, for instance, and a photo of Trump with Bill Clinton. It is just that relationship that makes the documents interesting, though: Republicans will be eager to get their hands on anything that links Trump to the Clintons.
As Sarah Palin mentioned last night in her speech endorsing Trump for president, his detractors are always saying he isn’t “conservative enough.” Palin scoffed at this, but Trump’s past — especially his brief presidential bid in 1999 — lends itself to the idea that his conservatism is more contrived than he wants the public to think. The documents from the Clinton Library will detail meetings held between Trump and Clinton as he got ready to run on the Reform Party’s ticket. Further, a much more recent discussion, held between the former president and the real estate mogul in 2015 just before the latter announced his candidacy, will be made public, which could be damning for the campaign, depending on what tone the conversation took on.
The offices of Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have 60 days to review the involved documents and respond to the FOIA request with either a pass for release or a request for an extension. Assuming a stay is not requested, the documents will be available at the Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas in early April, becoming available online a few weeks after that.
January 20, 2016
Fox News’ Stacey Dash responded to #OscarsSoWhite today by saying that if people are so concerned about segregation, they should get rid of, say, BET, “where you are only awarded if you are black.”
Now, leaving aside the fact that white people have won BET awards, Dash has been getting a ton of social media blowback today. And BET ended up responding:
https://twitter.com/BET/status/689910485060288513
(Dash guest-starred on episodes of BET show The Game a few years back.)
(To set BET and Roland Martin go IN on Dash, see link)
BET Responds to Stacey Dash by Snark-Tweeting: ‘Can We Get Our Check Back?’
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bet-responds-to-stacey-dash-by-snark-tweeting-can-we-get-our-check-back/Fox News’ Stacey Dash responded to #OscarsSoWhite today by saying that if people are so concerned about segregation, they should get rid of, say, BET, “where you are only awarded if you are black.”
Now, leaving aside the fact that white people have won BET awards, Dash has been getting a ton of social media blowback today. And BET ended up responding:
Soooooo @REALStaceyDash can we get our check back... or nah?
https://twitter.com/BET/status/689910485060288513
(Dash guest-starred on episodes of BET show The Game a few years back.)
(To set BET and Roland Martin go IN on Dash, see link)
January 20, 2016
After the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act in 2012, it seemed “Obamacare” was safe from legal challenges intended to tear down the law. Those assumptions, of course, were wrong: the ACA went back to the high court last year, and prevailed once more.
But just as House Republicans have voted 62 times to repeal the reform law, litigious conservatives aren’t satisfied with two Supreme Court defeats. The justices themselves, however, don’t seem especially interested in keeping this going. The L.A. Times reported yesterday:
We could discuss in detail what this bizarre case was all about – it stems from a strange interpretation of the Constitution’s Origination Clause – but let’s just not bother since it’s now a moot point anyway.
What is worth appreciating, however, is how excited Republicans were, largely behind the scenes, about the promise of this case. It didn’t get a lot of attention, but several GOP senators, including presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, urged the Supreme Court to use this case as a vehicle to tear down “Obamacare” altogether.
At least one prominent Republican pundit singled out this case as an important opportunity – and proof that the ACA is “doomed.”
So much for that idea.
Given the justices’ lack of interest, Obamacare proponents can probably breathe a little easier about the ACA’s legal stability. There’s little doubt more cases will be filed, but there’s no reason to believe the Supreme Court wants another bite at the apple.
Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra noted in a press release, “It is hardly surprising that the Court has refused to hear this case…[T]he ultimate outcome of challenges like this one aren’t in doubt. They are simply meritless. The Court upheld the ACA for the second time just last June, with Chief Justice Roberts picking up a sixth vote to send a clear signal that he’s had enough of what has become a blatant ideological crusade. One questions whether anti-Obamacare legal activists have gotten the message.”
Latest (Completely Pathetic) ACA legal challenge comes up far short
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/latest-aca-legal-challenge-comes-far-shortAfter the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act in 2012, it seemed “Obamacare” was safe from legal challenges intended to tear down the law. Those assumptions, of course, were wrong: the ACA went back to the high court last year, and prevailed once more.
But just as House Republicans have voted 62 times to repeal the reform law, litigious conservatives aren’t satisfied with two Supreme Court defeats. The justices themselves, however, don’t seem especially interested in keeping this going. The L.A. Times reported yesterday:
The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to take a third swing at the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. It was the right call because the case – Sissel vs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – was built on a fanciful vision of how Congress should operate.
We could discuss in detail what this bizarre case was all about – it stems from a strange interpretation of the Constitution’s Origination Clause – but let’s just not bother since it’s now a moot point anyway.
What is worth appreciating, however, is how excited Republicans were, largely behind the scenes, about the promise of this case. It didn’t get a lot of attention, but several GOP senators, including presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, urged the Supreme Court to use this case as a vehicle to tear down “Obamacare” altogether.
At least one prominent Republican pundit singled out this case as an important opportunity – and proof that the ACA is “doomed.”
So much for that idea.
Given the justices’ lack of interest, Obamacare proponents can probably breathe a little easier about the ACA’s legal stability. There’s little doubt more cases will be filed, but there’s no reason to believe the Supreme Court wants another bite at the apple.
Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra noted in a press release, “It is hardly surprising that the Court has refused to hear this case…[T]he ultimate outcome of challenges like this one aren’t in doubt. They are simply meritless. The Court upheld the ACA for the second time just last June, with Chief Justice Roberts picking up a sixth vote to send a clear signal that he’s had enough of what has become a blatant ideological crusade. One questions whether anti-Obamacare legal activists have gotten the message.”
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jul 22, 2015, 02:19 PMNumber of posts: 1,881
