|
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 May 01 2016 02:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 20:48 kwizach wrote:On April 30 2016 11:23 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2016 10:58 kwizach wrote:On April 30 2016 10:34 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote:On April 30 2016 09:29 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote:
Pretty funny seeing at least one Bernie supporter declaring they'd support Trump over Hillary. It's basically an indication you don't actually care much about policy issues (or, possibly, that you're ignorant on the subject).
Also, although he can - and should - obviously be opposed on plenty of other levels, including his absolutely terrible policy proposals, his laughable (and outright embarrassing) ignorance of the issues, and his wildly contradictory claims and positions, Trump has also clearly displayed xenophobia/racism and sexism. Saying that it's more important to criticize him on policy is one thing, but let's not pretend he hasn't made plenty of bigoted statements. Suppose for a second that any of the accusations of racism, sexism, or whatever unspecified bigotry were true - can you explain why a voter would be supposed to care? I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. A voter should care if that voter is interested in reducing, among other things, systemic discrimination, social inequality, fear of discriminatory persecution, and interpersonal racism, xenophobia and sexism in the US. A xenophobic and sexist asshole is indeed less likely to achieve progress on those fronts, and would in fact likely worsen the current situation -- for example by legitimizing racist and sexist attitudes through his own discourse, behavior and policies. I don't think it's true, which is why it's useful to suppose something for the sake of argument. It sounds like what's going on is you want to paint with a broad brush because it looks more severe. For example, if you said "Donald Trump insults presidential candidate and former CEO Carly Fiorina's appearance - another battlefield in the war on women," it would sound suspect. Many of us don't see any issue. But if you abstract and use the magic word, like in this case "sexism," it gets people to associate the worst, and you end up with these articles and rants and Guardian blogs that make the candidate sound like Ted Bundy. I know you don't think it's true. You also "had no idea" whether the woman doing as obvious a Nazi salute as can be outside a Trump rally was indeed doing a Nazi salute (spoiler alert: she was). I'm not painting with a broad brush, I am describing Trump's rhetoric. The fact that you don't like that description doesn't make it any less accurate. You're talking about the woman who isn't a Nazi again? We definitely agree that my liking or disliking your characterization of Trump's rhetoric isn't what makes it inaccurate. Yes, I am talking about that woman -- I'm not saying she was a Nazi, I'm saying she was doing a Nazi salute, which anyone with an ounce of honesty agreed was the case. She said so as well. You, on the other hand, could not even bring yourself to admit she was doing a Nazi salute. The implications of what people were trying to do with that picture (woman with Trump shirt and arm in the air) were obvious. I didn't dismiss that she could be making the gesture. She did it because people were harassing her, which was something I found likely (along with the possibility of it being a staged photo). Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 20:48 kwizach wrote:
There's nothing that makes it inaccurate, since it is perfectly accurate Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 08:55 kwizach wrote:
I don't have to suppose anything, since they are true. We know how you feel, and you seem to be aware I disagree. You're obviously not going to convince me by childish repetition. Show nested quote +On April 30 2016 14:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I cannot understand supporting someone who has incoherent policies, virtually no integrity, and constant asshole behavior. So are you not registered to vote? 
Well for one thing there are plenty of things to vote on that don't involve supporting people, and for another I actually think there are quite a few people in state and even a fair number in federal government that don't fall in the last category.
|
Norway28631 Posts
On May 01 2016 03:13 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But anyone who has even the remotest support for bernie sanders, both as a person and politician, should consider donald trump a disaster, both as a person and as a politician, and be far more concerned with the state of the world than that of the republican party. Sanders is basically a hippie, Trump is whatever the very opposite of a hippie would be. Does that mean I can't disagree with Sanders and agree with Trump on some issues?
obviously you can disagree with sanders and agree with trump? ;p It's even possible that there are certain political overlaps between the two - but 'political strategy' is not an end, it's a means, Trump and Sanders envision vastly different societies, and you cannot look at a piece of policy in isolation - only in relation to all other suggested pieces of policy. They envision vastly different societies- and by virtually every metric Hillary is situated somewhere between the two. Regarding political platform it flat out does not make sense to favor Hillary the least of the three.
|
On May 01 2016 03:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 03:13 The_Templar wrote:On May 01 2016 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But anyone who has even the remotest support for bernie sanders, both as a person and politician, should consider donald trump a disaster, both as a person and as a politician, and be far more concerned with the state of the world than that of the republican party. Sanders is basically a hippie, Trump is whatever the very opposite of a hippie would be. Does that mean I can't disagree with Sanders and agree with Trump on some issues? obviously you can disagree with sanders and agree with trump? ;p It's even possible that there are certain political overlaps between the two - but 'political strategy' is not an end, it's a means, Trump and Sanders envision vastly different societies, and you cannot look at a piece of policy in isolation - only in relation to all other suggested pieces of policy. They envision vastly different societies- and by virtually every metric Hillary is situated somewhere between the two. Regarding political platform it flat out does not make sense to favor Hillary the least of the three.
For straight white male Bernie supporters who aren't especially keen on BLM, undocumented immigrants, gun restrictions, etc... Trump is easily the better choice. If anyone's life would be improved by a Trump presidency (besides Trump and his friends) it would be white males (aka all of Bernie's support according to media).
With most American's not being favorable, not trusting, and not wanting to vote for the two current frontrunners, it's really not about what they say, so much as which parts people choose to believe.
A while back someone mentioned how this system gets us a candidate supported by most of the country, that's just not true. ~40% of the country doesn't even vote, then a candidate typically only gets ~50% of the remaining 60%. Most of the country doesn't support a given candidate, this election is even worse.
68 percent of registered voters say they couldn’t see themselves supporting Trump, while 58 percent say the same about Clinton. Sixty-one percent of voters surveyed said they couldn’t see themselves backing Cruz.
![[image loading]](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/fW6419KawgbLwhBY3ODJGw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjAwO2g9MzAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/0e6afb2ca6f33f12196d9e0b7c1eac66)
Source
|
If straight white males come to support Trump because he will make their lives better they are delusional. The only straight white men who will actually benefit from a Trump presidency are already on top.
|
On May 01 2016 05:24 Slaughter wrote:
If straight white males come to support Trump because he will make their lives better they are delusional. The only straight white men who will actually benefit from a Trump presidency are already on top.
I think that Donald Trump will make more or less everyone's lives better.
People who think that only straight white males (or whatever stereotypes you want to create for "supposedly privileged " people, which isn't true) support Donald Trump are delusional.
Trump is getting decent support from all groups. Sure, he has a slightly higher rate of uneducated voting for him, and a slighter higher rate of men voting for him, but that doesn't mean these groups don't support him.
edit: Also to GH, someone who has complete and easy to access to vote and chooses not to vote... I don't think their opinion really matters, as that is the very least you could do if you care about the world around you. Sure, there's the 1% of people who had circumstances that made it difficult to vote, but regardless.
I think the US system is the best system in the western world in having a system that the majority likes at the expense of completely neglecting minorities. Systems and Europe and Canada have historically favored many parties, coalitions, and things getting done slowly because not wanting the leave any minority behind.
|
On May 01 2016 05:24 Slaughter wrote:
If straight white males come to support Trump because he will make their lives better they are delusional. The only straight white men who will actually benefit from a Trump presidency are already on top.
Call them what you want, but it's already working. If these primaries didn't confirm many people don't vote on reality/substance, I'm not sure what could.
|
On May 01 2016 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 05:24 Slaughter wrote:
If straight white males come to support Trump because he will make their lives better they are delusional. The only straight white men who will actually benefit from a Trump presidency are already on top. Call them what you want, but it's already working. If these primaries didn't confirm many people don't vote on reality/substance, I'm not sure what could.
Its working in the sense that the ones leading their respective packs will more or less keep the status quo going where the 1% continue to have the lions share of the capital and power. The only thing you can hope for if your a progressive is if Clinton in serving her own self interest politically will do some things to nudge the status quo.
On May 01 2016 05:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 05:24 Slaughter wrote:
If straight white males come to support Trump because he will make their lives better they are delusional. The only straight white men who will actually benefit from a Trump presidency are already on top. I think that Donald Trump will make more or less everyone's lives better. People who think that only straight white males (or whatever stereotypes you want to create for "supposedly privileged " people, which isn't true) support Donald Trump are delusional. Trump is getting decent support from all groups. Sure, he has a slightly higher rate of uneducated voting for him, and a slighter higher rate of men voting for him, but that doesn't mean these groups don't support him. edit: Also to GH, someone who has complete and easy to access to vote and chooses not to vote... I don't think their opinion really matters, as that is the very least you could do if you care about the world around you. Sure, there's the 1% of people who had circumstances that made it difficult to vote, but regardless. I think the US system is the best system in the western world in having a system that the majority likes at the expense of completely neglecting minorities. Systems and Europe and Canada have historically favored many parties, coalitions, and things getting done slowly because not wanting the leave any minority behind.
Politicians get people to support them even when its actually against their own best interests all the time so him getting some support from minorities isn't surprising.No group has a collective will, and pretty sure if you look at the greater context of the whole population his support outside whites isn't as significant as you make it out to be.
Also did you just casually dismiss the whole concept of privilege? Lol oh man. If you can't recognize the perks that certain groups have over others then you are just as delusional.
|
|
|
Seems excessive, but I wouldn't really feel sorry for anyone doing this sort of thing. Wasting taxpayer money and potentially getting people killed for a prank is pretty despicable.
|
Don't fucking SWAT. Innocent people have been injured or even killed when police have gone to a wrong house. That should be punishable. This nation has no time for idiots, don't waste our time trolling thinking it is "funny". 4chan behavior.
|
20 years is very excessive, A teenages pulling a horrible joke gets his life ended by that. Its to much.
That said, I do believe that Swatting is incredibly dangerous and that severe penalties should be the consequence (and more importantly that they actually try to find the person responsible) but there is a point between severe and life destroying.
|
i'm a soft on crime guy. i think its excessive. i'm surprised how easily u.s. police will send out the swat team.
|
While 20 years (in prison) is excessive, keep in mind they are potentially ending an innocent life. I would agree with 20 years of community service though. Of course the behavior of the police is a whole other can of worms this thread has discussed at length.
|
20 years if the pranked event results in someone's death. make it similar to drunk driving and vehicular homicide. drunk driving by itself doesn't carry the same penalty as it does when you kill 3 children while driving drunk.
|
Well 20 years in prison would be a stupid punishment, in that it wouldn't do anything but be investing millions in a future fuckwit. Realistically no one would get it, it's there to scare people like penalties for bomb threats in general. You hold it over them and make them plea to something less or defer it so if you catch them for anything illegal you can use it like a punishment bank.
Would be handy for repeat offenders and situations where cops want to diffuse responsibility for harming/killing innocent people also.
In my view it's too much when compared to other punishments though.
|
Norway28631 Posts
On May 01 2016 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 03:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 01 2016 03:13 The_Templar wrote:On May 01 2016 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But anyone who has even the remotest support for bernie sanders, both as a person and politician, should consider donald trump a disaster, both as a person and as a politician, and be far more concerned with the state of the world than that of the republican party. Sanders is basically a hippie, Trump is whatever the very opposite of a hippie would be. Does that mean I can't disagree with Sanders and agree with Trump on some issues? obviously you can disagree with sanders and agree with trump? ;p It's even possible that there are certain political overlaps between the two - but 'political strategy' is not an end, it's a means, Trump and Sanders envision vastly different societies, and you cannot look at a piece of policy in isolation - only in relation to all other suggested pieces of policy. They envision vastly different societies- and by virtually every metric Hillary is situated somewhere between the two. Regarding political platform it flat out does not make sense to favor Hillary the least of the three. For straight white male Bernie supporters who aren't especially keen on BLM, undocumented immigrants, gun restrictions, etc... Trump is easily the better choice. If anyone's life would be improved by a Trump presidency (besides Trump and his friends) it would be white males (aka all of Bernie's support according to media). With most American's not being favorable, not trusting, and not wanting to vote for the two current frontrunners, it's really not about what they say, so much as which parts people choose to believe. A while back someone mentioned how this system gets us a candidate supported by most of the country, that's just not true. ~40% of the country doesn't even vote, then a candidate typically only gets ~50% of the remaining 60%. Most of the country doesn't support a given candidate, this election is even worse. Show nested quote +68 percent of registered voters say they couldn’t see themselves supporting Trump, while 58 percent say the same about Clinton. Sixty-one percent of voters surveyed said they couldn’t see themselves backing Cruz. Source
They should never have been bernie supporters in the first place if Trump's message sounds appealing to them. Bernie has never actually been a candidate supporting 'straight white male' rights, he has a longer history of supporting progressive 'identity-policies' than like, any other american candidate?
The only way someone can jump from Bernie to Trump is if their decision is more of a visceral 'fuck the system' type of thing which is not beholden policy suggestions from either candidate. Every 'vision for america and the world' presented by the candidates however, is in diametrical opposition to that of the other.
|
The first American has died from complications related to the Zika virus, health officials with the Centers for Disease Control reported late Friday.
A Puerto Rican man in his 70s died in February from “complications related to severe thrombocytopenia”, the CDC reported in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The man, from the San Juan area, fell ill with the Zika virus and experienced symptoms including fever, rash and joint pain. After recovering from the Zika symptoms, the man then developed immune thrombocytopenic purpura, or ITP, an autoimmune disorder that has been linked to the virus. The bleeding disorder that killed him was as a side-effect of the ITP.
“Although Zika virus–associated deaths are rare, the first identified death in Puerto Rico highlights the possibility of severe cases, as well as the need for continued outreach to raise health care providers’ awareness of complications that might lead to severe disease or death,” reports the CDC in its findings.
Thrombocytopenia is a bleeding disorder that causes deficiencies in blood platelets, as antibodies that would attack the virus turn against the platelets that help clotting.
Research so far has shown Zika itself to be a relatively mild and short-term disease, but secondary infections and transmissions have been linked to deaths and birth defects. Three people infected with Zika in Colombia who died earlier this year showed symptoms of Guillain-Barré syndrome, a neurological disorder, , and earlier this month the CDC confirmed Zika’s relation to abnormally small heads in infants.
“It’s of high public health importance that we figure this out and, as quickly as we can, design some interventions to stop it,” said Tyler Sharp, a CDC epidemiologist working in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sharp has also said that the death had not been reported earlier so that researchers could check into the man’s medical background and speak with family members.
Source
|
On May 01 2016 06:41 Gorsameth wrote:20 years is very excessive, A teenages pulling a horrible joke gets his life ended by that. Its to much.
One could argue that it's actually attempted murder. Because that horrible "joke" could end the life of an innocent person.
Sending an not-to-be-fucked-with, highly trained, questions-asked-later, massively armed special force to someones door, .. How much exactly would you get for hiring a hitman on the interwebs? I actually don't know.
20 years certainly isn't too much. There's no reason to not actually go full life-sentence. It's not something that can be excused like stealing (needed food). It's a retarded, absolutely idiotic "joke" to potentially kill someone.
It's also not punishment, but deterrent. It's something that doesn't "need" to happen. Crimes like mugging etc all have a reason other than being a retarded teenager.
|
On May 01 2016 07:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2016 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 01 2016 03:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 01 2016 03:13 The_Templar wrote:On May 01 2016 03:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But anyone who has even the remotest support for bernie sanders, both as a person and politician, should consider donald trump a disaster, both as a person and as a politician, and be far more concerned with the state of the world than that of the republican party. Sanders is basically a hippie, Trump is whatever the very opposite of a hippie would be. Does that mean I can't disagree with Sanders and agree with Trump on some issues? obviously you can disagree with sanders and agree with trump? ;p It's even possible that there are certain political overlaps between the two - but 'political strategy' is not an end, it's a means, Trump and Sanders envision vastly different societies, and you cannot look at a piece of policy in isolation - only in relation to all other suggested pieces of policy. They envision vastly different societies- and by virtually every metric Hillary is situated somewhere between the two. Regarding political platform it flat out does not make sense to favor Hillary the least of the three. For straight white male Bernie supporters who aren't especially keen on BLM, undocumented immigrants, gun restrictions, etc... Trump is easily the better choice. If anyone's life would be improved by a Trump presidency (besides Trump and his friends) it would be white males (aka all of Bernie's support according to media). With most American's not being favorable, not trusting, and not wanting to vote for the two current frontrunners, it's really not about what they say, so much as which parts people choose to believe. A while back someone mentioned how this system gets us a candidate supported by most of the country, that's just not true. ~40% of the country doesn't even vote, then a candidate typically only gets ~50% of the remaining 60%. Most of the country doesn't support a given candidate, this election is even worse. 68 percent of registered voters say they couldn’t see themselves supporting Trump, while 58 percent say the same about Clinton. Sixty-one percent of voters surveyed said they couldn’t see themselves backing Cruz. Source They should never have been bernie supporters in the first place if Trump's message sounds appealing to them. Bernie has never actually been a candidate supporting 'straight white male' rights, he has a longer history of supporting progressive 'identity-policies' than like, any other american candidate? The only way someone can jump from Bernie to Trump is if their decision is more of a visceral 'fuck the system' type of thing which is not beholden policy suggestions from either candidate. Every 'vision for america and the world' presented by the candidates however, is in diametrical opposition to that of the other.
Bernie has some implicitly nationalist views though. The "the good old times when every screw was manufactured in America" attitude can easily lead to some reactionary views in other areas. Jeremy Corbyn is in a similar situation
|
With how trigger happy police are I don't think 20 years is excessive. There's just too big of a chance someone gets shot for absolutely nothing. If that person gets shot the tax payers are going to be paying him or his family a fortune. 20 years is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
