|
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 15 2016 11:52 SK.Testie wrote:Well it certainly confirms what many assumed/knew. That she is indeed more of a hawk. But thanks for posting, was an interesting read. The video may not pertain to readers in this thread, but I'd love it if Torontonians would take a listen to this and other Canadians who really want limits on free speech. Or those students as Mizzou etc. + Show Spoiler +Yes it's from Alex Jones. No, it's not Alex Jones.
"infowars.com" .. honestly?
|
Bill Clinton returned to Appalachia this week with a familiar song ringing in his ears.
Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow) was a campaign anthem that helped the “Big Dog” win two presidential elections in the 1990s in this mountain region.
It played him off stage again in Kentucky on Thursday afternoon and by the time he arrived in the state’s hard-pressed eastern coalfields that evening, it was to serve as the theme of a speech designed to rally his wife’s campaign in 2016.
“The problem is that people think every tomorrow is going to be just like yesterday,” he told a group of miners in Prestonburg. “The question is, are we going to get back in the future business, and are you going along for the ride?”
The miners had booed when he walked on stage. These days the mountains appear instead to belong to a politician offering something more potent than hope.
Even among Republicans, Donald Trump divides opinion in many parts of the country. Not so in Appalachia, where his success in the party’s recently completed primary elections here was universal enough that it could serve as a new definition of the region’s rugged borders.
Of the 420 counties seen as sharing a culture that transcends state lines, Trump won all but 16 , including a sweep of western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio and the western uplands of Virginia with potentially profound ramifications for the general election.
Source
|
On May 15 2016 12:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 11:52 SK.Testie wrote:Well it certainly confirms what many assumed/knew. That she is indeed more of a hawk. But thanks for posting, was an interesting read. The video may not pertain to readers in this thread, but I'd love it if Torontonians would take a listen to this and other Canadians who really want limits on free speech. Or those students as Mizzou etc. + Show Spoiler + "infowars.com" .. honestly?
Give it 5 minutes of your time. This isn't Alex Jones himself ranting and raving. Nor do I listen to him. I just think that a lot of the kids I see in Toronto (and the kids in American universities) who really are not appreciating the value of free speech and are willing to capitulate on it are truly foolish. Comedians are finding American universities quite hostile to their content these days. Here's a more eloquent speaker on a similar topic but it's still two very different interviews. + Show Spoiler +
|
On May 15 2016 12:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 11:52 SK.Testie wrote:Well it certainly confirms what many assumed/knew. That she is indeed more of a hawk. But thanks for posting, was an interesting read. The video may not pertain to readers in this thread, but I'd love it if Torontonians would take a listen to this and other Canadians who really want limits on free speech. Or those students as Mizzou etc. + Show Spoiler + "infowars.com" .. honestly?
Yeah I saw the whole thing when it came out, I love Billy Corgan, hes a smart guy and to a degree hes right, but its grossly overplaying stuff. Also Ive only lived in Toronto for a year after a decade in the US and Im not sure who here wants to limit free speech, but free speech does have a limit. Particularly when its dangerous. PC kids I dont care about. Thats just coddling, but dangerous rhetoric and loco ideologies also fall under free speech so like anything else that you want to let loose, you have to be careful
As for your ranting on religion. I am pretty a religious but religion in of itself has value. All of these vile things that Testie keeps attribute to Islam or whatever other religion have alot more unifying factors than just religion itself.
A conservative mindset will remain conservative regardless of whether it has religion to support it or not.
Arguments that appeal to guys like Hitchens or god forbid.. whatshisface.. Sam Harris are just as agenda driven. They made up their minds and then they made it their lifes work to reinforce that point. Its the sort of unwavering conviction that was just as toxic as the thing they were trying to fight. Same thing you are doing. Except your kool aid is just as strong as the people doing the honour killing. Rather ironic actually.
|
Free speech has no limits. All the gamers who tell each other to kill themselves should be free to say their vitriol. Where it intersects with business, careers, and government is slightly different.. it gets tricky and ambiguous. But what you say in your own home should not be policed, remotely, at all. What Hitchens said about David Irving I think is correct. If he wants to deny the holocaust and write books on it, or talk about it, he should be free to attempt to do so.
I think people spouting true vitriol 24/7 would be scorned anyway from society. i.e. just like the Westboro Baptist Church.
|
On May 15 2016 12:25 SK.Testie wrote:
Free speech has no limits. All the gamers who tell each other to kill themselves should be free to say their vitriol. Where it intersects with business, careers, and jobs is different. But what you say in your own home should not be policed, remotely, at all.
But what we say in our homes is not policed ? Ive never felt like that. Im not sure where that is coming from. But in the public sphere there is a responsibility to manage the freedom of speech for sure.
Yeah the point about David Irving is fine, honestly I dont care, but again thats not a threat to anyone. Its a threat to peoples feelings and that isnt a big deal for me.
People spawning true vitriol being shunned by society is not just limited to religious groups btw. And infact that presumption is not even correct in the first place. Canada is probably the only country after perhaps Australia that I have lived in where people playing on fear and divisiveness dont have people flocking to them for x,y or z reason.
But then I guess your an orange mop lover so that doesnt count as real vitriol.
|
well nothing you say in your home is being policed, minority report isn't actually happening
|
I'd argue that there's quite a bit of censorship and that it is continuously encroaching censorship that has already worked to a degree and has most definitely worked to help people distance themselves from other political ideologies.
As for Bill Clinton in Appalachia getting booed... not surprising.
|
Free speach only applies to the government. Anyone else censoring anything has nothing to do with freedoom of speech. The goverment shutting down your free speach is a problem, a college deciding to limit what people can or cannot say isn't.
|
This discussion is particularly weird to me because of how the roles have switched. During the abolitionists movement the censorship from colleges/the government was toward abolitionists. Confronting society with the illogical and immoral nature of slavery was considered inappropriate and worthy of sanctioning, now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly it's so much more clear (particularly to straight cis-white men) what's wrong with what many of them have been doing the entirety of the existence of this country. My advice would be to get aware of the other ways they are experiencing what life has always been like for marginalized groups and instead of getting indignant about it happening to them, think why they didn't do more earlier to stop it from happening to others.
|
On May 15 2016 12:50 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Free speach only applies to the government. Anyone else censoring anything has nothing to do with freedoom of speech. The goverment shutting down your free speach is a problem, a college deciding to limit what people can or cannot say isn't.
You can define the concept of "free speech" to apply only to the government and exclude everything else. You can also define it to mean pineapple, if you want. But I don't see how it follows, from that, whether colleges (which also run on public money) limiting speech is or isn't an issue.
|
Apparently, the final Democratic pledged delegate count for Nevada is 20-15 in favor of Clinton, and therefore follows her initial victory in February. It's unfortunate there were tensions at the state convention, though, but Clinton simply had more eligible delegates present.
Source
|
On May 15 2016 13:20 kwizach wrote:Apparently, the final Democratic pledged delegate count for Nevada is 20-15 in favor of Clinton, and therefore follows her initial victory in February. It's unfortunate there were tensions at the state convention, though, but Clinton simply had more delegates present. Source
Reporting out of there has been terrible, there were still delegates in line waiting to be credentialed while they voted on the rules. It was an atrocious display of democracy that no one should be proud of.
|
On May 15 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 12:50 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Free speach only applies to the government. Anyone else censoring anything has nothing to do with freedoom of speech. The goverment shutting down your free speach is a problem, a college deciding to limit what people can or cannot say isn't. You can define the concept of "free speech" to apply only to the government and exclude everything else. You can also define it to mean pineapple, if you want. But I don't see how it follows, from that, whether colleges (which also run on public money) limiting speech is or isn't an issue.
Colleges are semi public at best, as they also run on tuiton and donations, and either way its not a goverment agency limiting what you can or can't say. Freedom of speech is protection from criminal consequnces from what you say, not from anyone else judging your speech and reacting to it.If you want to say offensive shit, the government can't throw you in jail for it, your college can expel you or your boss can fire you.
|
On May 15 2016 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 13:20 kwizach wrote:Apparently, the final Democratic pledged delegate count for Nevada is 20-15 in favor of Clinton, and therefore follows her initial victory in February. It's unfortunate there were tensions at the state convention, though, but Clinton simply had more delegates present. Source Reporting out of there has been terrible, there were still delegates in line waiting to be credentialed while they voted on the rules. It was an atrocious display of democracy that no one should be proud of.
The actual reporting seems to point to Bernie supporters misunderstanding convention rules and being generally upset at losing even though Clinton simply had more eligible delegates. And they actually booed Barbara Boxer -- for shame.
|
On May 15 2016 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 13:20 kwizach wrote:Apparently, the final Democratic pledged delegate count for Nevada is 20-15 in favor of Clinton, and therefore follows her initial victory in February. It's unfortunate there were tensions at the state convention, though, but Clinton simply had more delegates present. Source Reporting out of there has been terrible, there were still delegates in line waiting to be credentialed while they voted on the rules. It was an atrocious display of democracy that no one should be proud of.
Affirmative. Part and parcel of caucuses however.
|
On May 15 2016 13:28 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:On May 15 2016 12:50 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Free speach only applies to the government. Anyone else censoring anything has nothing to do with freedoom of speech. The goverment shutting down your free speach is a problem, a college deciding to limit what people can or cannot say isn't. You can define the concept of "free speech" to apply only to the government and exclude everything else. You can also define it to mean pineapple, if you want. But I don't see how it follows, from that, whether colleges (which also run on public money) limiting speech is or isn't an issue. Colleges are semi public at best, as they also run on tuiton and donations, and either way its not a goverment agency limiting what you can or can't say. Freedom of speech is protection from criminal consequnces from what you say, not from anyone else judging your speech and reacting to it.If you want to say offensive shit, the government can't throw you in jail for it, your college can expel you or your boss can fire you.
Like I said, that definition isn't logically connected to whether someone being fired and sued for a tweet is a good thing.
|
On May 15 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2016 13:20 kwizach wrote:Apparently, the final Democratic pledged delegate count for Nevada is 20-15 in favor of Clinton, and therefore follows her initial victory in February. It's unfortunate there were tensions at the state convention, though, but Clinton simply had more delegates present. Source Reporting out of there has been terrible, there were still delegates in line waiting to be credentialed while they voted on the rules. It was an atrocious display of democracy that no one should be proud of. The actual reporting seems to point to Bernie supporters misunderstanding convention rules and being generally upset at losing even though Clinton simply had more eligible delegates. And they actually booed Barbara Boxer -- for shame.
Reporting also said Nina Turner was booed. The reporting has been crap. But the article you posted did at least mention this part.
Several Sanders supporters, however, put together what they called a “minority report” of 64 Sanders supporters they believe were wrongly denied delegate status. According to state party representatives, six of those were eventually allowed as delegates, and the rest were denied delegate or alternate status because either they or their records could not be located or they were not registered Democrats by the May 1 deadline.
I know in my own caucuses there has been repeated issues with the state party losing/not providing accurate delegate information. I presume that's why you said "eligible" but left out (as determined by the party which openly endorses the person denying that ineligibility flipped the results toward).
|
On May 15 2016 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:On May 15 2016 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2016 13:20 kwizach wrote:Apparently, the final Democratic pledged delegate count for Nevada is 20-15 in favor of Clinton, and therefore follows her initial victory in February. It's unfortunate there were tensions at the state convention, though, but Clinton simply had more delegates present. Source Reporting out of there has been terrible, there were still delegates in line waiting to be credentialed while they voted on the rules. It was an atrocious display of democracy that no one should be proud of. The actual reporting seems to point to Bernie supporters misunderstanding convention rules and being generally upset at losing even though Clinton simply had more eligible delegates. And they actually booed Barbara Boxer -- for shame. Reporting also said Nina Turner was booed. The reporting has been crap. But the article you posted did at least mention this part. Show nested quote +Several Sanders supporters, however, put together what they called a “minority report” of 64 Sanders supporters they believe were wrongly denied delegate status. According to state party representatives, six of those were eventually allowed as delegates, and the rest were denied delegate or alternate status because either they or their records could not be located or they were not registered Democrats by the May 1 deadline. I know in my own caucuses there has been repeated issues with the state party losing/not providing accurate delegate information. I presume that's why you said "eligible" but left out (as determined by the party which openly endorses the person denying that eligibility flipped the results toward).
Yes, here's an example of one such delegate:
So, I waited 2 hours in the Credentials Committee line (10 people in front of me) to be told I was ineligible to be seated today because I changed my registration from Democrat about three weeks ago when I went on a spur of disgust for the party.
This may sound incompetent on my end, and maybe it's common knowledge, but I didn't know I had to maintain my Democrat registration through this process past the caucuses.
Can someone verify if this is an old rule or something they just made up? They said I had to be registered Democrat by May 1st. After that point, they 'vet' each state delegate on the list to verify they are Democrats.
Rules are rules, but I'd be less disappointed if hadn't wasted 4 (total) hours attempting to fight for Bernie today, when I could have spent an hour or less finding out the same information if the party had their shit together.
Let me also quote the following sentence from the article I linked to: "eight Clinton supporters were denied delegate or alternate status for similar reasons". Nothing fishy going on here -- it's hardly the state party's fault if you don't follow the rules and/or don't reply to requests to submit the correct information.
In any case, and like I said, the final result corresponds to how the popular vote went. Hardly anything to be upset about -- to the contrary.
|
On May 15 2016 13:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2016 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2016 13:30 kwizach wrote:On May 15 2016 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2016 13:20 kwizach wrote:Apparently, the final Democratic pledged delegate count for Nevada is 20-15 in favor of Clinton, and therefore follows her initial victory in February. It's unfortunate there were tensions at the state convention, though, but Clinton simply had more delegates present. Source Reporting out of there has been terrible, there were still delegates in line waiting to be credentialed while they voted on the rules. It was an atrocious display of democracy that no one should be proud of. The actual reporting seems to point to Bernie supporters misunderstanding convention rules and being generally upset at losing even though Clinton simply had more eligible delegates. And they actually booed Barbara Boxer -- for shame. Reporting also said Nina Turner was booed. The reporting has been crap. But the article you posted did at least mention this part. Several Sanders supporters, however, put together what they called a “minority report” of 64 Sanders supporters they believe were wrongly denied delegate status. According to state party representatives, six of those were eventually allowed as delegates, and the rest were denied delegate or alternate status because either they or their records could not be located or they were not registered Democrats by the May 1 deadline. I know in my own caucuses there has been repeated issues with the state party losing/not providing accurate delegate information. I presume that's why you said "eligible" but left out (as determined by the party which openly endorses the person denying that eligibility flipped the results toward). Yes, here's an example of one such delegate: Show nested quote +So, I waited 2 hours in the Credentials Committee line (10 people in front of me) to be told I was ineligible to be seated today because I changed my registration from Democrat about three weeks ago when I went on a spur of disgust for the party.
This may sound incompetent on my end, and maybe it's common knowledge, but I didn't know I had to maintain my Democrat registration through this process past the caucuses.
Can someone verify if this is an old rule or something they just made up? They said I had to be registered Democrat by May 1st. After that point, they 'vet' each state delegate on the list to verify they are Democrats.
Rules are rules, but I'd be less disappointed if hadn't wasted 4 (total) hours attempting to fight for Bernie today, when I could have spent an hour or less finding out the same information if the party had their shit together. Let me also quote the following sentence from the article I linked to: "eight Clinton supporters were denied delegate or alternate status for similar reasons". Nothing fishy going on here -- it's hardly the state party's fault if you don't follow the rules and/or don't reply to requests to submit the correct information. In any case, and like I said, the final result corresponds to how the popular vote went. Hardly anything to be upset about, to the contrary.
So it happened 8x more frequently to Bernie supporters and there's the part where they were just wrong about at least 6 of them. But yeah, lets just presume the party does no wrong.
Even though I've seen first hand the state party "losing" information I watched them take into possession, lets just presume it's the voters fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
