In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Young African-Americans facing heavily armed police in the streets of Baltimore and Ferguson over the past year have compared their situation to that of Palestinians under Israeli fire, telling reporters that their conditions were “like Gaza.” On Tuesday, black racial-justice activists took the comparison a step further, issuing a statement linking their cause with that of Palestinians, and putting their weight behind the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.
The BDS campaign, modeled after the mass movement to isolate South Africa during the apartheid era, aims to pressure Israel through tactics of economic and cultural isolation into ending its occupation of Palestinian territories and adhering to international law in its treatment of Palestinians.
Tuesday’s statement — signed by more than 1,000 black activists, artists, scholars, politicians, students and representatives of organizations — proclaimed their “solidarity with the Palestinian struggle and commitment to the liberation of Palestine’s land and people.”
“We offer this statement first and foremost to Palestinians, whose suffering does not go unnoticed and whose resistance and resilience under racism and colonialism inspires us,” the statement said. The activists said they are committed to working through cultural, economic and political means to help the Palestinians’ cause.
Signatories included ‘60s black power icon Angela Davis; writer and philosopher Cornel West; death row inmate and journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted in 1982 for the murder of a Philadelphia police officer; rapper Talib Kweli; and Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors.
The statement called ending the occupation of Palestine a “key matter of our time,” urged the U.S. government to end diplomatic and economic aid to Israel, and said black institutions and other entities should support BDS.
A new series of Quinnipiac University polls released Thursday provided more troubling news for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — and suggested an opening for Vice President Joe Biden, should he decide to enter the presidential fray.
Biden is running about equal or better with Clinton in head-to-head matchups with potential Republican challengers in the key swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And his underlying numbers could put him in better position than Clinton heading into the general election.
Should Biden enter the race, his supporters will likely point to numbers like these to argue that the party would be better served with Biden as its nominee.
Clinton and real-estate magnate Donald Trump lead their respective primaries in the three swing states. But they're also the candidates with the worst favorability ratings, and the ones who are viewed as the least honest and trustworthy.
"Biden, who is spending his time in seclusion, contemplating whether to take on Secretary Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries for president, has some new information to consider," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
"In head-to-head matchups against the three leading contenders for the Republican nomination, he runs as well or slightly better than she does." Here's a breakdown of Florida:
Clinton still leads the Democratic primary, grabbing the vote of 48% of Florida Democrats. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) gets 15%, while Biden gets 11% as he floats a bid. Trump leads the Republican primary at 21%, trailed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) at 17% and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) at 11%. Bush leads Clinton by 11 points in the state. He leads Biden by 13 points. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) leads Clinton by 12 points. He leads Biden by six points. Trump leads Clinton by two points, while trailing Biden by three points. Clinton has a negative 37% to 55% favorability rating, and voters say by a 64-32 margin that she is not honest and trustworthy. Biden is viewed favorable by a 44-43 margin, and voters say by a 52-40 margin that he is honest and trustworthy.
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush speaks at a town hall meeting in North Las Vegas, Nevada August 12, 2015. REUTERS/David BeckerThomson ReutersRepublican presidential candidate Jeb Bush at a town hall meeting in North Las Vegas, Nevada
A look at Ohio:
Bush trails Clinton by two points in the all-important state, compared with a three-point deficit for Biden. Rubio leads Clinton by two points, while trailing Biden by one. Clinton bests Trump in the state by five points, compared with Biden's 10-point lead. Clinton is viewed unfavorably by a 36-54 margin, and 60% say she is not honest and trustworthy. Biden's favorability is split at 39-43, but 59% of voters say he is honest and trustworthy. A wild card is Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), who leads the Republican primary in his home state. But Brown suggested he'll have to broaden his appeal, as he is virtually unknown in Florida and Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania:
Bush leads Clinton by three points, compared with a one-point lead on Biden. Rubio leads Clinton by seven points, while he leads Biden by three. Clinton beats Trump by five points in the state, compared with an eight-point lead for Biden. Just 38% of voters view Clinton favorably in the state, compared with 46% for Biden; 63% say she is not honest and trustworthy. Biden, on the other hand, is viewed as honest and trustworthy by 61% of Pennsylvania voters.
Joe Biden Hillary ClintonREUTERS/Yuri GripasVice President Joe Biden with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011.
"Who gets the love? The one guy who hasn't declared," Brown said. "Vice President Joseph Biden, a Scranton boy made good, is perhaps becoming a more important player in the 2016 presidential race, with a solid grip on the 'from the gut' support of Pennsylvanians."
Though Trump also leads the horse race in all three states, his favorability and "honest and trustworthy" scores linger far behind. In the three states, he's viewed favorably by no more than 34% of voters. And a majority in all three states considers him not honest and trustworthy.
As Brown noted, no presidential candidate since 1960 has won a general election without winning at least two of these three states. Pennsylvania is increasingly coming into play as a swing state to watch in 2016, as the Cook Political Report last week moved the state from one that "leans" Democratic to a "toss-up."
Controversy over Clinton's use of a private email server at the State Department continues to cast a shadow over her presidential campaign, providing a potential opening for Biden. Greg Valliere, the chief political strategist at the Potomac Research Group, called the results "stunning."
"She has a new problem today — Quinnipiac polls just released ... that show Joe Biden running as well if not better than Hillary in matchups with Republicans in key states," he said. "This is stunning — she's in real trouble."
Barack Obama has enough votes to get the Iran deal through the House of Representatives, despite Republican efforts to block the historic nuclear accord, the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, has said.
With a Senate vote looking increasingly secure for the president, Pelosi’s comments suggest it is now extremely unlikely that Congress will halt the deal.
Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press that she was confident House Democrats would have the votes if necessary to see the Iran deal through.
Her comments coincide with growing momentum among Democrats in favor of the agreement, struck by Iran and six world powers in July, despite a couple of high-profile defections.
On Wednesday, Joe Donnelly became the 24th Democrat in the Senate to publicly back the deal – a key gain for the Obama administration, given the Indiana senator ranks among the chamber’s most conservative Democrats and faces a tough re-election battle in 2016.
Barack Obama has enough votes to get the Iran deal through the House of Representatives, despite Republican efforts to block the historic nuclear accord, the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, has said.
With a Senate vote looking increasingly secure for the president, Pelosi’s comments suggest it is now extremely unlikely that Congress will halt the deal.
Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press that she was confident House Democrats would have the votes if necessary to see the Iran deal through.
Her comments coincide with growing momentum among Democrats in favor of the agreement, struck by Iran and six world powers in July, despite a couple of high-profile defections.
On Wednesday, Joe Donnelly became the 24th Democrat in the Senate to publicly back the deal – a key gain for the Obama administration, given the Indiana senator ranks among the chamber’s most conservative Democrats and faces a tough re-election battle in 2016.
That's huge for Obama - major policy milestone. Now we'll have to see if the deal actually does pass as expected, and how successful it becomes at stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Barack Obama has enough votes to get the Iran deal through the House of Representatives, despite Republican efforts to block the historic nuclear accord, the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, has said.
With a Senate vote looking increasingly secure for the president, Pelosi’s comments suggest it is now extremely unlikely that Congress will halt the deal.
Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press that she was confident House Democrats would have the votes if necessary to see the Iran deal through.
Her comments coincide with growing momentum among Democrats in favor of the agreement, struck by Iran and six world powers in July, despite a couple of high-profile defections.
On Wednesday, Joe Donnelly became the 24th Democrat in the Senate to publicly back the deal – a key gain for the Obama administration, given the Indiana senator ranks among the chamber’s most conservative Democrats and faces a tough re-election battle in 2016.
That's huge for Obama - major policy milestone. Now we'll have to see if the deal actually does pass as expected, and how successful it becomes at stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions.
This Iran thing reminds of the show Deal or no Deal. This thing has been going on for a decade and isnt going anywhere anytime soon.
US and Iran's trouble relationship has been going on for over 30 years. So that is the safest bet you could make. And yes, the deal won't fix everything. But the current plan won't either.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
Israel pulls enough shit to make our lives more difficult that they can deal with it. They are at the low end of reasons why this deal shouldn't go through. And the valid concerns with the deal were long ago drowned out by the purely political ones in congress. The fact that representatives kept asking an MIT nuclear physicist about EMP weapons and he if was aware of them really shows what a clown show this has been.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Ticklish, you, as they say, drew first blood by painting all opposition as idiots, liars, and ideologues. So you are quoting and criticizing the wrong person. You should be yelling at yourself.
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Ticklish, you, as they say, drew first blood by painting all opposition as idiots, liars, and ideologues. So you are quoting and criticizing the wrong person. You should be yelling at yourself.
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Ticklish, you, as they say, drew first blood by painting all opposition as idiots, liars, and ideologues. So you are quoting and criticizing the wrong person. You should be yelling at yourself.
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
I don't think I insulted anyone lol. Maybe you're reading too deep into my statement. Anyways, people have said much worse to me here, so I hardly care if someone's sensitive jimmies were rustled.
I don't care too much about non-prolif personally. The concern there is if someone who is actually crazy gets a nuke, which I find incredibly unlikely (Iran is a very rational actor in my book). We could go through the mental exercise of how on extremist group could get their hands on a nuke, but the likelihood of that is so incredibly low that it's not worth the effort of entertaining.
The lens I view this from is it resolves (or begins to resolve) one of the big problems the US has in the Middle East, lets us move towards engaging with Iran as a whole instead of as a potential, deviant nuclear state, and also towards other issues in the Middle East.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
Actually, that is just not true. It's also a good deal when it comes to encouraging the development of a more moderate Iran and of a more stable Middle East, especially on the long term.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
EPT
