|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On February 23 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way. You ready for the nomination bet or do you realize the results in NV and projections on SC are actually really bad news for Hillary? Sanders was never supposed to win either of them, he wasn't supposed to even be close. The narrative was basically that we would see NH like numbers in Hillary's favor in NV and SC, she may be able to hold onto a win, maybe even a big one, but it won't be the blowout she needs and has been predicted since Bernie got in the race. Not to mention her camp had to pull every dirty trick they could in both IA and NV. Both had countless reports about caucuses going astray, particularly the counting of people who weren't at the caucus at the time of the counting. You can pass it off as just quality cynicism if you'd like, but that's exactly what gets Sanders supporters fired up and ready to work.
I was actually a little unsure of Nevada, which was why I was willing to make a bet. Betting on the nomination feels like taking candy from a baby, which would feel kind of dirty. To be frank, I was more interested in a banbet so I wouldn't have to listen to your blather for a month during election season, not after.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On February 23 2016 08:19 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way. You ready for the nomination bet or do you realize the results in NV and projections on SC are actually really bad news for Hillary? Sanders was never supposed to win either of them, he wasn't supposed to even be close. The narrative was basically that we would see NH like numbers in Hillary's favor in NV and SC, she may be able to hold onto a win, maybe even a big one, but it won't be the blowout she needs and has been predicted since Bernie got in the race. Not to mention her camp had to pull every dirty trick they could in both IA and NV. Both had countless reports about caucuses going astray, particularly the counting of people who weren't at the caucus at the time of the counting. You can pass it off as just quality cynicism if you'd like, but that's exactly what gets Sanders supporters fired up and ready to work. I was actually a little unsure of Nevada, which was why I was willing to make a bet. Betting on the nomination feels like taking candy from a baby, which would feel kind of dirty. To be frank, I was more interested in a banbet so I wouldn't have to listen to your blather for a month during election season, not after.
In that case, you should do it. 
|
On February 23 2016 08:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 08:14 The_Templar wrote:On February 23 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way. You ready for the nomination bet or do you realize the results in NV and projections on SC are actually really bad news for Hillary? Sanders was never supposed to win either of them, he wasn't supposed to even be close. The narrative was basically that we would see NH like numbers in Hillary's favor in NV and SC, she may be able to hold onto a win, maybe even a big one, but it won't be the blowout she needs and has been predicted since Bernie got in the race. Not to mention her camp had to pull every dirty trick they could in both IA and NV. Both had countless reports about caucuses going astray, particularly the counting of people who weren't at the caucus at the time of the counting. You can pass it off as just quality cynicism if you'd like, but that's exactly what gets Sanders supporters fired up and ready to work. IIRC she was supposed to win by like 20 in Nevada and 30+ in SC. The latter is looking like it might be closer to that number, but not much. I don't think Sanders is particularly likely to get the nomination from this point, but it definitely remains a possibility. Pretty much on the numbers, the issue is Bernie has shown he can last through the whole process and grow support in every demo, Hillary has shown no ability to increase support in any demo, but has bled support from every single demo. Counting on maintaining a 80-20 split on black voters is a tenuous strategy, to say the least.
Are you guys worried about the low turnout so far? AFAIK, Bernie's strategy in the primary and general is to have huge numbers of previously unengaged supporters take part in the political process for the first time, but that hasn't been happening.
Edit: also, I'll take a bet on Hillary being the nominee. How about the loser has to vote for the winner's candidate in the general? : ) I'm kidding, I assume you'd prefer terms that are a bit more fair.
I wasn't confident before NV, but I don't think the entrance polls were accurate. I believe Hillary did well enough with Hispanics, and her support with the black community is solid enough, that she will carry the nomination.
|
on the Apple vs. FBI case.
insanely genius angle right there.
Apparently unable to identify a true ticking-time-bomb scenario to bring to court, the FBI settled for the next best thing: obtaining encrypted data off the workplace phone of shooter Syed Farook. The phone’s encryption is keyed to a passcode, and Apple’s software erases data after ten incorrect passcode attempts. So the government, relying on an aggressive reading of the 1789 All Writs Act, obtained an order directing Apple to “bypass or disable the auto-erase function” and make it possible to cycle through all possible passcodes.
While the FBI has previously obtained warrants requiring Apple to extract unencrypted data from devices running older software, this appears to be the first time that it has sought to conscript a company to write new software to circumvent security features. If it prevails, such a precedent will govern future cases.
That makes it all the more important that the courts get the legal principles right this time around. Overlooked so far in this debate is the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech. The Supreme Court has affirmed time and again that the right to free speech includes the right not only decide what to say but also what not to say. Representative cases have upheld the right of parade organizers to bar messages they disapprove and of public employees to refuse to subsidize unions’ political speech.
Computer code can be speech: no less than video games (which the Supreme Court found to be protected), code can convey ideas and even social messages. A new encryption algorithm or mathematical technique, for example, does not lose its character as speech merely because it is expressed in a computer language instead of English prose.
via USA Today
|
Whether or not Obama will be able to push a nominee through the confirmation process in the time he has left as President is really a very close call; on one hand, there's definitely the obvious problem of getting 60 votes together in one of the most partisan Senates of all time, but as time stretches on and we start getting into the longest filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States, the cost of the act in political capital will almost certainly outweigh both the actual and perceived ideological benefits. Scalia's death, God rest his soul, could not have come at a better time for Democrats, as terrible as that is to say.
As for Doublemint's link, I really don't think a characterization of the encryption code as speech is going to prove more legally viable than a reliance on the 4th and 5th amendments. Perhaps the act of refusing to create the tools necessary itself could be afforded some 1st amendment protections. In any case, what'll be really interesting is if this does go to the Supreme Court and they end up splitting 4-4.
|
Mitch McConnell, for some reason I'll never understand, decided to pick this as a hill to die on. Maybe he thought signalling strong opposition would make Obama pick someone more moderate/ conservative? That's the only logic (albeit extremely crappy) I can see here.
|
|
|
yeah saw this on twitter. had to chuckle a bit 
though this sort of general obstructionism is just out of the ordinary.
|
Biden is just a good straight party man
|
Heard the Democract party tried something similar in 1960 as well.
|
Is there anyone else? Obama, Biden, Schumer. That's quite the list of Democratic party higher ups saying similar things over the years. Even Reid said something similar, if memory serves.
|
On February 23 2016 08:19 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way. You ready for the nomination bet or do you realize the results in NV and projections on SC are actually really bad news for Hillary? Sanders was never supposed to win either of them, he wasn't supposed to even be close. The narrative was basically that we would see NH like numbers in Hillary's favor in NV and SC, she may be able to hold onto a win, maybe even a big one, but it won't be the blowout she needs and has been predicted since Bernie got in the race. Not to mention her camp had to pull every dirty trick they could in both IA and NV. Both had countless reports about caucuses going astray, particularly the counting of people who weren't at the caucus at the time of the counting. You can pass it off as just quality cynicism if you'd like, but that's exactly what gets Sanders supporters fired up and ready to work. I was actually a little unsure of Nevada, which was why I was willing to make a bet. Betting on the nomination feels like taking candy from a baby, which would feel kind of dirty. To be frank, I was more interested in a banbet so I wouldn't have to listen to your blather for a month during election season, not after.
I think you misunderstand what the dynamic will be after the nomination. If, by hook or by crook Hillary gets the nomination, it will be all the people who don't like Hillary "told you so'ing" on all the totally accurate attacks.
The Republicans will be constantly nailing her about her history with every megaphone having no choice but to amplify the Hillary hate no matter who is running (Trump), because a lot of it will be accurate and they have to do anything they can to take the attention off how horrible their candidate is (and that they probably shat on him all nomination).
Hillary has already been breaking out some kinda dirty stuff against Bernie so far, so no question with billionaires and those campaigns it's going to be a negative campaigning shit show. By the end of it American's won't even want to vote.
As the election has gone on I think Trump could probably beat Hillary. His base is fanatic, Hillary's is "pragmatic" that's a losing equation for a general where Hillary has so little to attack Trump on. She can't hit his record because it makes him look more left leaning, can't hit his financial ties and campaign reform, he's the one of the two without the superPAC, can't hit his personal greed she's the one who thinks her speaking is worth $200k+ an hour and that $15 an hour for busting your ass at a job is unreasonable.
Trump's one actual weakness in the general in the match-up is his divisive racial/phobic/etc... remarks, but this plays into the "identity politics/PC" narrative that energizes Trumps base and alienates a lot of people (rightly or not).Add on top of that her hard pandering to the black community has her saying things that are going to make that sooooo much worse.
Hillary may get most black voters in that matchup but it would be a tiny fraction of the number of black folks who voted for Obama.
The more I think about it the more I could see a Trump v Hillary being a blowout for Trump.
|
stupid, unfoundend and i don't know question.
Is there any actual politics going on in the US or is everyone just waiting for the result of a election that is still far away?
I mean, my questions are:
Is Obama now "free" or is he forced to not make any strong moves because it could hurt the next (democratic) president?
Why are people, even well studied people, smart people, because thats what you used to encounter on TL, so engaged in this fucking drama? I do it purely for entertainment, but i can't spell a vote, in switzerland i get angy beyond belief on various stuff but we vote on the actual shit and hearing people like the actual shit tends to drive you mad? You just accept trump now? Really? REALLY? ... i hoped after bush and when Obama got elected you could kinda... grow up.
To democrats... Yes, Sanders would be awesome, but voting in a 74 year old guy as President whiteout knowing the vice president, is just suicidal (hillary is btw. also too old).
So it all ends in... Why the fuck do you just have 2 parties? wtf....
(sorry, drunk and kinda angry... never "youtube" Cern.. because instead of the stuff you wanted, you get more conspiracy theories than you can ever imagine).
|
On February 23 2016 08:27 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 08:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 08:14 The_Templar wrote:On February 23 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way. You ready for the nomination bet or do you realize the results in NV and projections on SC are actually really bad news for Hillary? Sanders was never supposed to win either of them, he wasn't supposed to even be close. The narrative was basically that we would see NH like numbers in Hillary's favor in NV and SC, she may be able to hold onto a win, maybe even a big one, but it won't be the blowout she needs and has been predicted since Bernie got in the race. Not to mention her camp had to pull every dirty trick they could in both IA and NV. Both had countless reports about caucuses going astray, particularly the counting of people who weren't at the caucus at the time of the counting. You can pass it off as just quality cynicism if you'd like, but that's exactly what gets Sanders supporters fired up and ready to work. IIRC she was supposed to win by like 20 in Nevada and 30+ in SC. The latter is looking like it might be closer to that number, but not much. I don't think Sanders is particularly likely to get the nomination from this point, but it definitely remains a possibility. Pretty much on the numbers, the issue is Bernie has shown he can last through the whole process and grow support in every demo, Hillary has shown no ability to increase support in any demo, but has bled support from every single demo. Counting on maintaining a 80-20 split on black voters is a tenuous strategy, to say the least. Are you guys worried about the low turnout so far? AFAIK, Bernie's strategy in the primary and general is to have huge numbers of previously unengaged supporters take part in the political process for the first time, but that hasn't been happening. Edit: also, I'll take a bet on Hillary being the nominee. How about the loser has to vote for the winner's candidate in the general? : ) I'm kidding, I assume you'd prefer terms that are a bit more fair. I wasn't confident before NV, but I don't think the entrance polls were accurate. I believe Hillary did well enough with Hispanics, and her support with the black community is solid enough, that she will carry the nomination.
All I can say is it wasn't from lack of trying. I was in Reno helping out with the caucus and I heard that a lot of younger folks either had night shifts the day before and slept in, or were working the day of. A lot of them don't get time off to caucus, plus it's only for 1 hour before they close the doors. I saw some people run in after the votes were made and they weren't able to vote.
The whole process is...weird. It's not like a primary where you can quietly sneak in and slide in your ballot. You have to wait in line, gather into groups, deal with obnoxious supporters that try to woo you from one side or the other, wait for the head count (which we had to repeat a couple times because people kept moving around), do the ridiculous math to determine how many delegates to assign to each camp, and then pick county delegates from the voters to go to the county convention (which almost no one wants to do).
I can see why this would turn off the average voter. They really need to make the process simpler and more streamlined. We have all the tools to do it. Sadly that's hardly ever enough.
|
That you have elections that you can't take part in if you.. wtf... don't have "time" is like beyond any comprehension...
Waiting in line? What?
|
your Country52798 Posts
On February 23 2016 09:10 Velr wrote:
stupid, unfoundend and i don't know question.
Is there any actual politics going on in the US or is everyone just waiting for the result of a election that is still far away?
I mean, my questions are:
Is Obama now "free" or is he forced to not make any strong moves because it could hurt the next (democratic) president?
Why are people, even well studied people, smart people, because thats what you used to encounter on TL, so engaged in this fucking drama? I do it purely for entertainment, but i can't spell a vote, in switzerland i get angy beyond belief on various stuff but here? You just accept trump now? Really? REALLY?
To democrats... Yes, Sanders would be awesome, but voting in a 74 year old guy as President whiteout knowing the vice president, is just suicidal (hillary is btw. also too old).
So it all ends in... Why the fuck do you just have 2 parties? wtf....
(sorry, drunk and kinda angry... never "youtube" Cern.. because instead of the stuff you wanted, you get more conspiracy theories than you can ever imagine).
There have been debates going on for some months now and several states have voted in the primaries, so yes, we are in the election process right now.
Obama can do his usual thing and it probably won't affect the election.
I'm mostly in it because of Bernie Sanders. Trump sucks but he is very high energy.
Sanders' VP pick will definitely be important, but I think he'll pick a good one anyway.
Two parties is sorta forced, Sanders is actually independent but he had to run as a democrat to have any real chance.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On February 23 2016 09:12 Velr wrote:
That you have elections that you can't take part in if you.. wtf... don't have "time" is like beyond any comprehension...
Waiting in line? What?
The caucus system is pretty stupid, but IIRC that is only in the primaries which are only for the two parties.
|
But when these primaries decide who you can actually vote for, they are kinda just as important as the actual election? How is this a thing?
|
On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Show nested quote +Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way.
Wow, 0 love for the person who stepped up on the off chance he took NV (which was entirely feasible)
On February 23 2016 08:27 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 08:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 08:14 The_Templar wrote:On February 23 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way. You ready for the nomination bet or do you realize the results in NV and projections on SC are actually really bad news for Hillary? Sanders was never supposed to win either of them, he wasn't supposed to even be close. The narrative was basically that we would see NH like numbers in Hillary's favor in NV and SC, she may be able to hold onto a win, maybe even a big one, but it won't be the blowout she needs and has been predicted since Bernie got in the race. Not to mention her camp had to pull every dirty trick they could in both IA and NV. Both had countless reports about caucuses going astray, particularly the counting of people who weren't at the caucus at the time of the counting. You can pass it off as just quality cynicism if you'd like, but that's exactly what gets Sanders supporters fired up and ready to work. IIRC she was supposed to win by like 20 in Nevada and 30+ in SC. The latter is looking like it might be closer to that number, but not much. I don't think Sanders is particularly likely to get the nomination from this point, but it definitely remains a possibility. Pretty much on the numbers, the issue is Bernie has shown he can last through the whole process and grow support in every demo, Hillary has shown no ability to increase support in any demo, but has bled support from every single demo. Counting on maintaining a 80-20 split on black voters is a tenuous strategy, to say the least. Are you guys worried about the low turnout so far? AFAIK, Bernie's strategy in the primary and general is to have huge numbers of previously unengaged supporters take part in the political process for the first time, but that hasn't been happening.
Yes and no, it's a bit hard to tell with caucuses. NH turned out very well, even considering any advantages he may have had there.
|
On February 23 2016 09:12 Velr wrote:
That you have elections that you can't take part in if you.. wtf... don't have "time" is like beyond any comprehension...
Waiting in line? What?
You have to understand, the housing crisis is pretty big there and people regularly foreclose on their homes. A lot of people need to work on Saturdays to stay afloat. Even if they allow you time off, some of them would rather have the extra cash to pay off their bills. I totally understand from an outside perspective. We need to make it easier for them to vote, and we have all the tools (save political expediency) to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
