Page 33 of 57
Posted: 13 Feb 2017, 21:34
by seebart
vivalarevolución wrote: Okay, I agree, my argument is weak. Equating American gang-related violence with the Christmas market truck incident is errorneous. Different situations, different causes, different reactions. However, I find it fascinating that some violence is viewed as routine and non-emergency, even though it is a much more clear and present danger (for example, inner city gang violence), while low probability acts of terrorism must be stopped at all costs, including the often more destructive responses.
But that's the madness of it really isn't it!?
vivalarevolución wrote: In fact, tit-for-tat is the nature of gang violence. So acts of terrorism and violent responses to it are essentially a fight of global, militarized gangs, competing for world turf and influence, with little concern for the collateral damage on non-actors in the field of battle.
Yes, I guess you could call ISIS a global militarized gang with a religious & political agenda.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 00:32
by jacobolus
An alternative theory of Republican voters, via Reddit:
Much of America hate Michelle Obama because she is just straight up better then they are. Imagine a man realizing that he is shorter then the First Lady and likely could not beat her at arm wresting and she went to Harvard.
Or a woman thinking, she is over 50 and looks like she is 35!!!
The thing is the President and his family SHOULD be better then you. In intellect and at everything. You elect the best person to be President.
Now we have the WORST person imaginable as President and everyone around him and in his family is also the WORST.
Now everyone can think and feel they are BETTER then the President. Morally, ethically, intellectually, physically.
Literally every American and even everyone in the world has realized they are better then Trump. The only people that have not realized they are better then Trump are his most vocal supporters.
I am no fan of Ivanka Trump. But I think she probably even would rather the President and his staff shut the fuck up about Nordstrom. Maybe she even said to him, don't make a big deal about this dad. But he is incapable of not being a scum bag.
The President is literally incapable of not being a scumbag petty doucheface.
Look at Obama. He got the worst congress ever. He was maligned about his freaking birth by assholes like Trump for years. He still never lost his shit. Literally ever. Trump loses his shit because a department store stops selling Ivanka Trump clothes.
And department stores change lines and products all the time. Literally every day. In every department. Go to any store 3 or 6 months after you buy any clothes item and I freaking guarantee you they don't have the same thing anymore.
Anyway I think the right in America want a leader worse then them. Worse then them but rich and successful still.
Bob Dole and Mitt Romney and even Paul Ryan and John McCain are better then they are. Trump just isn't. W probably is in fact but people perceived him as kinda like them.
It seems the mass that vote Republican really want the President to be worse then they are. More vile, more stupid, more corrupt, more unethical. Then they can fall asleep thinking they too could be President.
While most very smart and successful people, realize they could still not be a good President and actually want someone better then they are to be the leader of the country.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 05:52
by jacobolus
Flynn is out. But seems that Trump and White House spokespeople have been lying about what they knew about Flynn’s Russia relationship for weeks. This isn’t going away anytime soon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
Even if the chickenshit congress doesn’t act, journalists are on the story, and the intelligence community is investigating (and apparently keeping the White House in the dark about what they know). Has there ever been a US President/White House which the NSA and CIA assumed were compromised by Russians, and therefore couldn’t share their intelligence with the National Security Council? It would be unimaginable 20 years ago.
http://observer.com/2017/02/donald-trum ... n-embassy/
(Yes, it’s weird that this is being published in Kushner’s paper.)
I think the GOP is going to have to work overtime to keep out of the blowback here. Even with gerrymandering, unlimited Koch Brothers money, mass-scale voter disenfranchisement, etc., being aligned with Trump is going to make the midterms pretty tough for many of them.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 14:04
by vivalarevolución
Flynn is the first victim of fake news! Lying, corrupt, vile, scummy media!
Or maybe the president has a long history of surrounding himself with questionable characters. Could be that.
I am not going to underestimate the ability of the GOP to maintain power in the next couple national elections. There are three things that basically guarantee them substantial support in any election: guns, abortion, and they aren't Democrats. I am sure that in many districts in this country, either party could put an animal or inanimate object on the ticket and still win, simply because that animal or object is not the opposing party.
As for the offhand analysis of the Republican voter, the American voter has a long history of the electing the person that they can identify with the most and appeal best to their emotions and intuitions. We don't elect leaders based on them being more intelligent, experienced, accomplished, successful or just better than us. You ain't no better than me, punk.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 14:34
by fohat
vivalarevolución wrote:
the ability of the GOP to maintain power in the next couple national elections
I maintain hope that you are wrong.
The rabid right "base" will remain generally intact, even if the entire current administration was charged, tried, and convicted for being enemy combatants.
The "loyal" base would simply dismiss it as "media bias" and continue living in blissful hateful fearful ignorance.
But I still have faith in the American people, on some level, even though they often prove themselves to be painfully gullible.
The numbers that I am counting on are derived from what we saw in November:
~66M votes for the Democratic candidate
~63M votes for the Republican candidate
~95M votes flushed down the toilet ( ~103M if you put Johnson and Stein in this category, where they belong)
Even with the current horrendous levels of voter suppression and gerrymandering, even a small chunk of that bottom number could make all the difference.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 15:56
by vivalarevolución
A former co-worker of mine, also a 20-year military veteran and ordained minister, called the extreme far right "foaming-at-the-mouth conservatives.". As for the extreme far left, we just call them socialist or communist.
Sanity is for fringe groups.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 16:17
by chuckdee
fohat wrote: vivalarevolución wrote:
the ability of the GOP to maintain power in the next couple national elections
I maintain hope that you are wrong.
The rabid right "base" will remain generally intact, even if the entire current administration was charged, tried, and convicted for being enemy combatants.
The "loyal" base would simply dismiss it as "media bias" and continue living in blissful hateful fearful ignorance.
But I still have faith in the American people, on some level, even though they often prove themselves to be painfully gullible.
The numbers that I am counting on are derived from what we saw in November:
~66M votes for the Democratic candidate
~63M votes for the Republican candidate
~95M votes flushed down the toilet ( ~103M if you put Johnson and Stein in this category, where they belong)
Even with the current horrendous levels of voter suppression and gerrymandering, even a small chunk of that bottom number could make all the difference.
I don't think these terms mean what you think that they mean. Some, it is true, didn't muster the determination to vote. Others voted for candidates that were not either of those presented, because they believed in them. Others voted for none because none of the candidates put forth were amenable to their stances. That is not, by the rights set forth in our founding documents, "flushed down the toilet". As defined in 'playing the game', i.e. getting a democrat or republican in office, they would be. But in relation to the intent of the system set in place, they are not. And to denigrate those that choose that way is not in line with the intent of the founding fathers.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 18:19
by fohat
chuckdee wrote:
I don't think these terms mean what you think that they mean.
What are the terms that you imagine I don't understand?
Without even going past Federalist Papers #1 you find:
" .... that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth .... "
which, I will argue, casts an eligible voter's refusal to vote as a colossal dereliction of his duty ("a matter of the utmost moment") as a citizen. And I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers simply assumed that any rational citizen would have a "decision" to be influenced, and that your continued defense of non-voting as a "decision" is a totally lame-ass cop-out.
And my primary point was, as it has been since the election, that it was those non-voters making "non-decisions" that have forced us into this predicament.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 19:00
by chuckdee
It was not all of those voters that forced us into this predicament. That's the first thing that you seem not to understand. And you might argue such, but I don't agree with that interpretation of that excerpt. In fact, I could argue the inverse from "In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth ....", i.e. just because you see things a certain way, I should not let your certainty influence mine.
The right of the citizen to decide is never abrogated. If someone decided on Johnson or Stein, they did not, thus 'throw away' their votes. Which is the first misunderstanding.
As far as the second misunderstanding, there is a very good book, that is very much worth reading today, called "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. It is very relevant to your use of these large numbers to mean something that they did not. If everyone in California voted, it would not change the results of the election. The same with Texas. Yet you include those numbers in your argument. That's not statistically correct. And it's the same thing that happened with Gore, i.e. he lost the electoral vote, and people blamed it on the Electoral College, but did nothing in the intervening years to make sure it didn't happen again. That seems more criminal in my eyes.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 19:24
by fohat
chuckdee wrote:
And it's the same thing that happened with Gore, i.e. he lost the electoral vote, and people blamed it on the Electoral College, but did
nothing in the intervening years to make sure it didn't happen again.
On the contrary. Gore's 2000 electoral loss encouraged and energized the Republicans like nothing else, and drove redistricting and voter suppression to the top of the priority list in their efforts to remain in power. Although the country, at the national level, has swung timidly and slightly back in the Democratic direction for a couple of brief moments in the intervening years, at the state level the Republicans have maintained much tighter control, and unfortunately the Constitution placed control of the voting process squarely in the realm of "states' rights"
And about the "right to choose" - I have never attempted to claim that people do not have the right to choose just about anything - but I also reserve the right to condemn their stupid, lazy, or apathetic choices when they make them.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 20:33
by chuckdee
fohat wrote:
And my primary point was, as it has been since the election, that it was those non-voters making "non-decisions" that have forced us into this predicament.
Hmmm... there appears to be a quote that might apply here...
And isn't that in the end what the founding fathers were fighting for, and what fueled their opposition to the crown? We can't tout freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of choice, while denigrating and condescending to those that exercise it. Strikes me as quite hypocritical. Just because you put beets and squash on the table, it doesn't mean I have to choke down either. And that choice should be respected.
Posted: 14 Feb 2017, 22:28
by jacobolus
Russians violate Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in deploying fully-operational mid-range nuclear missile launchers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/worl ... reaty.html
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 00:08
by jacobolus
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 00:15
by jacobolus
Rand Paul: “I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense.”
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 03:32
by fohat
jacobolus wrote:
Rand Paul: “I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party.”
He is clearly advocating for an independent counsel, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... nt_Counsel
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 04:18
by __red__
Rand Paul is about to get a call from his Daddy telling him not to be so stupid.
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 04:46
by jacobolus
By the way, for anyone living under a rock, the big new story is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/p ... trump.html
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 07:12
by jacobolus
Russian military jets did low flybys of a US ship in the Black Sea last week, with their comms all turned off, and US military unable to determine if they were armed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... ose-range/
They also patrolled a spy ship off the coast of Delaware.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/14/ru ... s-say.html
Obviously the Russians like doing these kinds of provocative prods and have been doing similar for decades, but we’ll see how Trump responds. During the campaign he said you should warn them and then shoot their planes down if they try again. (Yeesh.)
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 14:08
by chuckdee
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 14:17
by fohat
Soon we can start yearning for the halcyon days when accelerating climate change was the greatest threat to humanity.
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 14:20
by chuckdee
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 16:31
by vivalarevolución
Well, I'm sure Putin is enjoying this whole charade. Chaos works in his favor.
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 16:33
by seebart
vivalarevolución wrote: Well, I'm sure Putin is enjoying this whole charade. Chaos works in his favor.
I'd guess Putin is pretty upset and or nervous because he too does not know what to expect of Trump.
Trump expects Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine: White House
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN15T2IY
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 17:27
by vivalarevolución
seebart wrote: vivalarevolución wrote: Well, I'm sure Putin is enjoying this whole charade. Chaos works in his favor.
I'd guess Putin is pretty upset and or nervous because he too does not know what to expect of Trump.
Trump expects Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine: White House
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN15T2IY
Yea, that's this week's policy stance.
Posted: 15 Feb 2017, 17:33
by seebart
vivalarevolución wrote: Yea, that's this week's policy stance.
Right, next week might be different. Also there might be new staff incoming soon from what I understand.
Posted: 16 Feb 2017, 05:23
by jacobolus
Orange County Republican representative says that constituents that come to his office asking him to hold a town hall meeting are “enemies of American self-government and democracy”, after one of his staffers (accidentally?) knocked down a 2-year-old girl delivering a valentine’s note under his door.
https://thinkprogress.org/congressman-s ... 92ea1e3fa0
Posted: 16 Feb 2017, 14:15
by fohat
89 more weeks until the mid-term elections.
Posted: 16 Feb 2017, 14:33
by seebart
fohat wrote: 89 more weeks until the mid-term elections.
A LOT can happen in 89 weeks, considering how these first months are going.
Posted: 16 Feb 2017, 20:36
by vivalarevolución
Another Trump press conference today. I read it was high entertainment, as usual.
Some more fun hypocrisy news from Indiana. The GOP legislature once again shows intolerance for local government autonomy, attempting to quash the ability of local governments to decide if they want to allow AirBNB-type rentals within their jurisdiction. So states rights is okay, but not smaller units of government.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/loca ... /97908012/
Another local government would like to modify zoning laws to accommodate more affordable housing options. The Indiana GOP legislature is trying to prevent that, too:
https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/may ... gs-114161/
The Endangered Species Act
might be endangered by this Congress, despite that there is very little evidence that is
causes major regulatory burdens on doing business. I like animals and nature, so not a fan of this one.
Posted: 16 Feb 2017, 20:42
by jacobolus
This “press conference” was completely bonkers:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?424148-1/ ... conference
The guy is losing whatever mind he had in real time, in front of the world.