ONTD Political

“You’re not providing for [your family], I am.”

Video posted on YouTube shows a woman at a Walmart store loudly berating a man who was paying for his groceries with food stamps.

As a child sits in the man’s shopping cart looking on, the woman complains about how she is paying for his food with her tax money.

“You know, I put in 50-60 hour weeks... trying to provide for my family,” the man says, although some of his words are unclear.

“You’re not providing for it, I am,” the woman snaps back. “The government is.”

“You’re not,” the man says.

“They take it out of my check,” the woman says. “Bullshit they don’t.”

The man suggests she complain to her lawmaker or vote Republican.

“Oh, trust me, I am not a bleeding heart fucking liberal,” the woman answers.

The rest of the clip contains a similar back-and-forth, punctuated with expletives. Both appear to be shopping with children.

“Deal with it, bitch,” the man says at one point.

At another point, the woman claims the man must be a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

“That’s exactly what you vote for, they give it to you so that you vote that way,” the woman says. “I’m not stupid. I have a degree. I’m pretty damn smart.

The footage picks up mid-argument. It’s not clear when or where it was filmed, or even if it was staged, as it was in a viral incident that took place in a Walmart parking lot late last year.

However, this argument has been going viral since being posted on YouTube last week, with more than 130,000 views to date, and there have been a number of reports of other shoppers being confronted in stores over their use of food stamps.

Ironically, the woman in the new video who is complaining about food stamps is shopping at Walmart — a retail chain where wages are so low that many workers qualify for public assistance.

A 2014 report found that Walmart costs U.S. taxpayers $6.2 billion per year in food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing and other forms of public assistance for its employees.

Much of that money eventually goes to the company: A 2013 report found nearly $1 out of every $5 in food stamp money is spent at Walmart.

By Ed Mazza, Overnight Editor, Huffington Post. 05/02/2016 11:57 pm ET.

By David Wasserman

If Donald Trump somehow falls three delegates short of reaching the magic 1,237 delegates needed for the Republican nomination, he may be haunted by an obscure outcome from the primary voting in Illinois on Tuesday. There’s clear evidence that Trump supporters in Illinois gave fewer votes to Trump-pledged delegate candidates who have minority or foreign-sounding names like “Sadiq,” “Fakroddin” and “Uribe,” potentially costing him three of the state’s 69 delegates.

This pattern appears to be a phenomenon unique to Trump’s supporters.

Illinois Republicans hold a convoluted “loophole” primary: The statewide primary winner earns 15 delegates, but the state’s other 54 delegates are elected directly on the ballot, with three at stake in each of the state’s 18 congressional districts. Each campaign files slates of relatively unknown supporters to run for delegate slots, and each would-be delegate’s presidential preference is listed beside his or her name. As a result, the top presidential candidate in each congressional district usually claims all three of the district’s delegates.

Except on Tuesday, a handful of congressional districts split their delegates in ways that cast doubt on voters’ racial motivations. Did voters have genuine personal preferences for the mostly anonymous individuals running for these slots, or was it a case of “what’s in a name?”
Read more...Collapse )


When you run for president with a shit campaign and play yourself.
The article also notes that this could really only happen in Illinois. But still, lmao.

Dr. Ben Carson, who endorsed Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy on Friday, appears less than enthusiastic about that decision. And the real reason the unsuccessful GOP presidential hopeful endorsed his former rival could be a violation of federal law.

Carson told the conservative online site NewsMax TV on Monday that he backed Trump based on a practical calculus.

“I didn’t see a path for [John] Kasich, who I like, or for [Marco] Rubio, who I like. As far as [Ted] Cruz is concerned, I don’t think he’s gonna be able to draw independents and Democrats unless has has some kind of miraculous change… Is there another scenario that I would have preferred? Yes. But that scenario isn’t available.” Pressed to clarify, Carson said he meant he’d prefer to have backed one of the other candidates.

Carson then said that Trump had promised him a role in his administration, “certainly in an advisory capacity.” Asked by NewsMax’s Steve Malzberg whether this meant a cabinet position, Carson declined to “reveal any details about it right now, because all of this is still very liquid.”

Federal law expressly prohibits candidates from directly or indirectly promising “the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy.” The penalty for violations could include fines or a year in jail — two years if the violation was willful.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a ThinkProgress inquiry about whether such an illegal offer was made to Carson. Prior to Carson’s departure from the race, Trump suggested that Carson might be “pathological,” like a “child molester.”

Video at the source (he says this at around 6:40)

The major news outlets aren't reporting this yet, but I did verify that he actually said it in the video before posting the article

Almost one-third of Republican primary voters would support bombing the fictional kingdom of Agrabah, according to a report released by Public Policy Polling on Friday.

More than 530 Republican primary voters were polled this week on their support for Republican candidates and foreign policy issues including banning Muslims from entering the US, Japanese internment camps from the second world war and bombing Agrabah, the kingdom from Disney’s animated classic, Aladdin.

This is realCollapse )


Hope this post is ok!
In what is a perceived legal blow for prosecutors, the jury was hung and the judge declared a mistrial in the trial of Baltimore police officer William Porter in the case of Freddie Gray's death after sustaining injuries while in custody.

Over the past two days, the jury of four black women, three black men, three white women and two white men gave signals that they were locked in tense discussions. On Tuesday they told Judge Barry Williams that they were deadlocked and he sent them back to deliberate.

There will be an administrative hearing on Thursday to determine a new court date. The judge gave Porter the option to appear tomorrow, and Porter declined.

"You've been diligent," Williams told the jury, "thank you for your diligence." Williams dismissed the jury saying he will have more information for them in a bit.

As the first of six trials, experts say the outcome of Porter's case could have broader implications for the remaining trials.

Porter faces a maximum penalty of about 25 years.

Via NBC news

This is awful news. I was hoping for a verdict, as I think we all were.
edit: I'm giving up on embedding the video.
A 17-year-old high schooler from Virginia says she was kicked out of her prombecause the parental chaperones were worried she was inspiring “impure thoughts” among the boys in attendance. Even though her dress adhered to the “fingertip length” dress code requirement, she was asked to leave.

Clare recounts her experience in a guest post on her sister’s blog. After Clare and her boyfriend bought tickets to the Richmond Homeschool Prom, she bought a new dress that she made sure was long enough according to the event’s “fingertip length” rule. But Clare is 5’9″, and even though the hem of her dress was within the guidelines, she says her long legs led some chaperones to assume she was breaking the dress code.

After Clare and her friends hung out a little bit on the dance floor — she writes that they weren’t even dancing, just “swaying with the music and talking and enjoying ourselves” — Clare was pulled away by one of the dance’s organizers, who told her that some of the fathers chaperoning the event had complained about her. They reportedly said that her dancing was too “provocative” and she was going to “cause the young men at the prom to think impure thoughts.”Read more...Collapse )

Clare's guest blog post, which is worth reading because it contains additional details, including a comment about being "a little grossed out by all the dads on the balcony above the dance floor, ogling and talking amongst themselves."

Let's cut the crap and call this what it is: Slut shaming, with a capital S L U T. Served up with an extra dollop of "ewwww" on the side, due to those horny dads checking out the girls and complaining about one girl's dress because they were too turned on by it didn't approve of it.

P.S. Since when do teenage boys need any help to think "impure thoughts"? I didn't think even the presence of an attractive person was necessary, much less an attractive person dressed in a certain kind of attire. From what I know, most teenage boys are quite capable of generating their own (endless supply of) "impure thoughts," without any additional help at all!

P.P.S. It's been pointed out that this story is old, and I acknowledge that. I didn't realize it at the time I posted it. I was surfing around at ThinkProgress and somehow ended up on this story, after clicking from one story to another that was linked on the same page a few times. I'm not sure how I stumbled on the prom story, but I did and I didn't think to check the date before I posted it to the mod queue.

I realized the date problem shortly after posting and debated whether to asked the mods to kill the post; but before I made up my mind, the post showed up and started getting comments. In view of the comments, it seems appropriate to just leave well enough alone. Even though this story is old, it's still pertinent, and with "prom season" coming up in the next couple of months, it's even somewhat timely (in an outdated sort of way, lol).
Two bills are up for a vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, both of which could significantly impact the way the Environmental Protection Agency is allowed to use science to come up with regulations. The Secret Science Reform Act and the Science Advisory Board Reform Act both require the EPA to consider only publicly available, easily reproducible data when making policy recommendations. Scientific organizations and environmental groups, as well as a number of Democrats, disapprove of the bills, arguing that they favor industry over real science.

Over 50 scientific organizations spoke out in opposition to the Secret Science bill, noting that large-scale public health studies would be ineligible for consideration because large sample sizes could not be easily reproduced.

“I cannot support legislation that makes it easier for industry to implement their destructive playbook, because risking the health of the American people is not a game that I’m willing to play,” said Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY) last week.

The Science Advisory Board (SAB) Reform Act would change the structure of the SAB, the board of scientists and economists that review EPA risk assessments. The bill would give industry scientists more opportunities to join the panel, while preventing academic scientists from discussing their own research, ostensibly to avoid conflict of interest. What it actually does is “turn the idea of conflict of interest on its head,” according to Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy.
Read more...Collapse )
GOP lawmaker flunks Anatomy 101

When it comes to Republicans, anatomy, biology, and reproductive health, the last few years have not been kind. Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly been confused, for example, about the basics of birth control. Former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), during his failed Senate campaign, had a certain “shut that whole thing down” incident.

But as Rachel noted on the show last night, the latest GOP misstep is a doozy.

An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.

The question Monday from Republican state Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.

Dr. Julie Madsen was testifying in opposition to the bill when Barbieri asked the question. Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.

To appreciate the absurdity of the situation, watch the video below to hear the laughter in the committee room following the exchange.

Barbieri, who has a history of far-right views and activism, sits on the board of a so-called “crisis pregnancy center,” which tries to dissuade women from terminating pregnancies. Presumably, the Republican state lawmaker should be a little more familiar with human anatomy, particularly in the area of reproductive health.

The unfortunate exchange occurred during a hearing on legislation intended to “ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine” – a practice that does not currently exist in Idaho. The state committee approved the bill on a party-line vote in the Republican-dominated legislature, and it now heads to the state House floor.

For his part, Barbieri told the Spokesman-Review late yesterday, “[Dr. Julie Madsen] made the point that you could swallow a camera and from thousands of miles away, you could detect the state of that colonoscopy…. My question was then, are you saying that you can swallow a camera and get the same results? Which is of course rhetorical. But she responded that of course you can’t swallow a pill and have it end up in your vagina. So my point was made.

I will confess that I don’t know what this explanation means.

By Steve Benen. 02/24/15 08:00 AM. Updated 02/24/15 08:19 AM.

Talk about poking a tiger. Steve Emerson, a so-called ‘terrorism expert’, got slightly more publicity than he intended after claiming on Fox News that Birmingham was “totally Muslim” and a “no-go zone” for non-Muslims.

In no great surprise to anyone, the Twittersphere rose up and amusingly proceeded to educate him (and Fox News) with the hashtag #foxnewsfacts.

Read moreCollapse )

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/foxnewsfacts-twitter-users-react-with-aplomb-to-news-that-birmingham-is-a-nogo-zone-for-nonmuslims-9971829.html

OP: If you do only one thing today, click on the source and see Faux News being taken apart in the most glorious was possible. We'd laugh these jokers into the North Sea.

PS, may I suggest "wankery" as a tag?
This is of interest to me as a District resident. Also, this is why DC needs full voting Congressional representation.

There’s nothing that congressional budget negotiators love more than kicking around the local government of Washington, D.C. It is their favorite thing to do, and they’re allowed to. No voting members of Congress represent the District, but the voting members who represent Kentucky and Maryland and every other state possess final say on all local D.C. laws, which is insane. The Enlightenment was several hundred years ago, for Christ’s sake.

I admit I had been fooled into thinking that the patronizing anti-pot-in-D.C. faction of Congress mostly consisted of Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, who was looking for some cultural issue over which to posture ahead of the elections. That whatever amendment he got placed inside a House appropriations bill would ultimately be weeded out of the final appropriations package in negotiations with the Senate. Because who cares? Why is it so important to thwart the will of the District on “the reefer” in a $1.1 trillion omnibus appropriations package? How could this be more a focus of controversy than the tens of billions of dollars just sort of thrown in for further Middle East empire building, or Mitch McConnell’s rider to further erode campaign finance limits?

Because it’s D.C., and D.C. is punchable.

The early word from budget negotiations yesterday morning was that a deal had been struck to block the marijuana legalization ballot measure that 69 percent of District voters approved on Election Day. That legalized possession of “small amounts” of marijuana. (“Small amounts” in ironiquotes because it means up to two ounces, which is a lot of weed.) The incoming mayor and members of the D.C. Council were preparing work on a matching measure to tax and regulate sales, so that legalized possession might be met with a legal market. Revenue from the sales could go towards funding education or fixing potholes or building soccer stadiums or streetcars of little utility, etc etc, whatever.

More at Salon
This page was loaded Aug 28th 2016, 8:46 am GMT.