| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On June 08 2016 02:59 kwizach wrote: What exactly is supposed to be "sexist against men" about what she said? As a matter of fact, the Trump campaign proved her right today by including female judges as well. I'd call this pure gold if it wasn't so sad  | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/uEnXzj.jpg) Bad Benghazi Obstructionists! Bad! From Reddit: + Show Spoiler + The MSM kept saying that they had no affiliation with "the other La Raza" which is known to be a racist pro latino group. It's right in the name meaning, "The Race". Even BLM despite their actions have a much better name that invokes a proper level of sympathy. The Race just seems quite supremacist. "T-t-they aren't a part of the racist La Raza! They just have the same name!" Basically the MSM is full of shit again. The latest liberal lie is that the La Raza Lawyers Association is completely separate from La Raza. But on the La Raza Lawyers website, they link to La Raza on their sidebar. See for yourself: Go to http://sdlrla.com/ and look under community for "National Counsel of La Raza". What is also true (and I'm not sure Trump mentioned this on TV or not) is that Curiel was on the "2014 Scholarship Selection Committee" for the La Raza Lawyers Assocation Scholarship Fund, which primarily (if not only) awarded scholarships to immigrants, including at least one illegal immigrant. More about SDLRLA: When there was an initiative to "prohibit undocumented persons from using health care, public education, and other social services in the state, SDLRLA members were on the frontlines in battleground San Diego to oppose the measure." All this, and the law firm donating hundreds of thousands to Clinton and the judge leaking documents (as if to politically damage Trump) is more than enough to indicate a clear political bias whether or not it ends up legally recognized. Also, Curiel was appointed by Obama. The judge has received awards from La Raza, is a member of the La Raza bar, was caught giving tax payer scholarships to illegal aliens, and has made several shockingly biased decisions in the Trump U class action suit. The most glaring is that the lead plaintiff dropped out. Any other judge would have dismissed the case. The corrupt judge did not and instead allowed the plaintiff lawyers to find a new lead plaintiff. The judge also unsealed depositions for the press before both sides had had a chance to conduct their depositions. This gives the press only one side of the story. Clearly shocking. The La Raza judge is corrupt. And Mr. Trump is right to let the whole world know it. La Raza is an ethnocentric and ethnocultural focused organization dedicated solely to the advancement of a single race and culture to the exception of all others. "The Race" Their dedication to the promotion of the singular race, has resulted in a policy that supports open borders, unlimited-uncontrolled immigration, and the protection of criminal aliens.. Essentially "The Race" wishes that all immigration laws should be purposefully disregarded to achieve their parochial objectives to the detriment of the sovereignty of our nation. As poor citizens they pick and choose what democratically enacted laws they wish to observe/obey. Question: What are people that pick and choose what laws to obey to achieve their own selfish ends to the detriment of others in a society? Answer: Criminals. Archived incase they try to delete the link | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
What are the implications of this? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21945 Posts
They are still trying to pretend that the judge that Trump is attacking is a Mexican supremacist. Or some such thing. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 07 2016 13:53 oneofthem wrote: been looking up information on the place-based development methods used by clinton in the 90's, obama and a prospective hillary administration. there is a lot riding on the success of these programs. http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/march/enterprise-zone-economic-incentive-tax-subsidy-place-based-policies/ http://www.nber.org/papers/w20049.pdf seems like they are mostly not that effective, unless done in large enough magnitude. persistent housing cost increase was also observed in these zones suggesting unintended distribution of gains to landlords/outside migrants. developments linked to a high tech, high value source like research university are more successful. brad delong had something called 'new industrialism' out that emphasizes planning around big investment in science as a driver for growth. there is some role for the left to play on an issue like this, by pointing out the gap in effectiveness of the program for actual poor people and places. when you use data and evidence sincerely in developing your arguments, it will end up being more consequential than ideological politicking. this idea is mostly lost on the left though. and you are ignoring the position of enunciation of "the data" but this point is mostly lost on the third way globalists who like to claim that a rising tide lifts all ships but also preside over an era when more people are in poverty/slums than ever existed before ww2 that being said i agree w an emphasis on public investment in science and have said as much, but you are the one defending a morally indefensible rentier IP regime | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 08 2016 03:03 Toadesstern wrote: I'd call this pure gold if it wasn't so sad I mean phenomenologically speaking, he's not wrong to say a woman judge could have a possible bias against a man (which could be good or bad for that matter) and the same goes for vice versa. Anyone is capable of being biased based on the perspective from which they view the nature of reality. There's no such thing as perfect impartiality. I haven't really followed this latest 'media Trump' scandal about how this will finally be the nail in Trump's coffin (says increasingly nervous media shill) | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 07 2016 15:41 JW_DTLA wrote: Globalism has gotten a bad rap recently. But if you want to see unions in Vietnam and Malayasia then you should support the TPP. The TPP is of course a mixed bag of half loaves as all deals are. But there are explicit mechanisms to make sure that wages and labor protections go up in a few problem countries. The cold reality is that until the global middle class catches up with America at least some of the way, then that global middle class will drain America's middle range income gains. TPP offers some mechanism to do something about that. The new Vietnam consistency plan requires that the country enact legal reforms that allow members to organize into unions, increase protections against employment discrimination, and stiffen penalties for forced labor. Vietnam will not be able to officially join the TPP until the United States has determined that the country has met the labor requirements outlined, which include allowing workers to join a union. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/tpp-mexico-labor-rights/426501/ false dilemma. you can support unions in vietnam and be opposed to tpp. its a balancing between positive and negative long term effects. are unions NOW worth solidifying long term structural adjustments in property rights etc. that secure continued capital movement from Global South to US? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
If Donald Trump turns out to be an autocratic president, running the country with pen and phone regardless of the Constitution, Congress and the courts will step in to stop him. That's the latest and perhaps most flummoxing rationale Republicans are offering these days as the party seeks to justify its support for its nominee. Even after endorsing Trump, many Republicans are finding themselves constantly forced to distance themselves from Trump's inflammatory statements. Saying they disagree is beginning to sound hollow so Republicans have taken another tack. They promise that the courts and Congress will safeguard the United States from Trump's authoritarian whims. If the New York businessman begins carrying out an agenda from the White House that looks anything like the one he's proposed on the campaign trail– like a ban on Muslims –Republicans promise the Constitution guarantees there will be a check and a balance. “I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times last week in a piece highlighting how legal scholars are growing increasingly worried about Trump's authoritarian tendencies. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania." In May, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a similar proclamation when he was asked in an interview whether he had concerns about the divisiveness Trump's message evoked even from within the Republican Party. "What protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions," McConnell told CBS News last month. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to.” Republican strategist John Feehery (who believes Trump won't be that bad) argued in a blog post that if thing got really bad, Trump could always be impeached. Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2016 03:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I mean phenomenologically speaking, he's not wrong to say a woman judge could have a possible bias against a man (which could be good or bad for that matter) and the same goes for vice versa. Anyone is capable of being biased based on the perspective from which they view the nature of reality. There's no such thing as perfect impartiality. I haven't really followed this latest 'media Trump' scandal about how this will finally be the nail in Trump's coffin (says increasingly nervous media shill) Being impartial is the job of the judge. Claiming they are biased based on zero supporting information beyond their race or gender is either sexist or racist. There is no way around it. Otherwise any black defendant in a criminal case could ask for a white judge to be removed because he might be biased against blacks. But since that is a baseless claim, it would have no merit. Much like Trump's argument on judges. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump. This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23447 Posts
On June 08 2016 00:19 Plansix wrote: Once the exit polls and numbers start being reported. Then the photoshop lords will being their tireless work. I presume your calling this photoshop? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 07 2016 17:28 Surth wrote: Romney was just dishonest, Trump is a phenomenon of showbusiness and reality TV. He literally always just says whatever is on his mind, and often what is on his mind contradicts himself (like walt whitman, he contains multitudes). Not that this is necessarily whatyou want in a president. But his flipflopping is a very different beast. In the 17th century, Puritans weren't just Christians from birth. They had to come up, at some point in their lives, with a conversion narrative, and tell everyone in church about this conversion. The elders then judged whether it was convincing or not, and only then would you be a proper Christian. These conversion narratives were a distinct genre, with distinct tropes and so on.I find it interesting how often conservatives have conversion narratives. You forgot to quote that fake-Churchill quote though: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."' I think it should almost be a pre-requisite for voting that you are younger than 50, but then, that would be equally undemocratic.  I appreciate the sentiment in favor of FDR-style full employment, but I doubt the oil industry is going to need that much extra-labor. Also, "nerfed our economy", lol. If only he had taken more expo's! We need more vespene gas! i like how you begin with "military" and end up with "you're lucky to be born in the USA". You have a rambling quality that is slightly reminiscent of Trump, you know. Anyway. I'll just ramble a bit too. 1. you are "sickened by riots" and would "never act violently", but the Military, which is mostly in charge of killing people, is a "necessary tool for keeping Americas interests intact". Okay. 2. I said to samizdat a few days ago about how it remains an important philosophical project to explain how all violence, including systemic violence, is bodily violence. He thought that notion to be obvious, and yet here we are, believing that "we would never act violently ... unless its a fight for survival." Guess what, you and me and our entire life is already violent. Our lives are fundamentally built on top of daily, incessant, terrible violence. Besides, I don't think you have any idea of what it means to be "born in a terrible position in the US". Since you seem to generalize about the left so much, let me make a generalization about conservatives: Somehow you all still buy into the American dream of upwards mobility. It's hogshit. You're an idiot. Well, no, you are right. Certain elements of what you term "the left" end up supporting policies that do in fact perpetuate a slave class thati s consistently dependent on welfare. To think that an actual leftist position would argue for that, is however, idiotic. In many cases, these people are second-generation immigrants from El Salvador and a few other Central and South American countries who have been criminalized under spurious gang laws. They are then deported back to their "home countries", despite being born in the US and never actually having lived in their "home countries". Often they are denied documentation by the authorities in both countries and become quasi-stateless. Under such conditions, they then prefer to return to the US (a country which they at least know, where they might at least know a few streets or blocks), where, as criminalized subjects, they will still lack any possibility of getting a job, and thus be more likely to engage in criminal activity. I can send you heaps and heaps of literature on this, if you want. Rekrul was so much more fun as a progamer than you! Now where's my ketamine? ----- I'll tell you why I'm for George McGovern. George McGovern is one of the few men in public life today any place in the world who has passion in his heart and a commitment to the very depths of his soul. And what this nation lacks, lady [sic] and gentlemen, is a sense of commitment and a sense of passion for all the people of this entire nation and the entire world. George McGovern is not satisfied that 10 million Americans go to bed hungry every night. George McGovern is not satisfied that four and a half million Americans -- families -- live in rat infested and roach encrusted houses. George McGovern is not satisfied that in this nation of ours -- in this great nation of ours -- our infant mortality is so high that we rank 21st in all the nations of the world. [...] And with George McGovern as President of the United States we wouldn't have to have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago! With George McGovern we wouldn't have a National Guard. You bet! You bet! I am sad that no one has commented on your important point about systemic violence. maybe its because your buried it in a long post. or maybe its because no one knows what you are talking about. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On June 08 2016 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I presume your calling this photoshop? https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/740236215157280768 Shaun King is not exactly the kind of person I'd trust regarding this. He's a complete joke. This only proves it. The fact that the graphics are made ahead of time is nothing new. They print thousands of shirts for both participants in the super bowl. Him using this as some sort of evidence is perhaps the low point of his joke of a career. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
If you have been watching CNN, you know Anderson Cooper has been reporting about the discovery that a sitting judge is actually a robot. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is presiding over the Trump University case. Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot. Anyway, lots of folks on Twitter are asking me why Trump would accuse the robot judge of being “Mexican” when that is obviously a racist thing to say. Did Trump make a huge mistake, or is it some sort of clever persuasion thing? Let’s dig into that. For starters, it isn’t appropriate to label people – or robots – “Mexicans” if those people or robots are created in America. For example, I have an American friend with Italian heritage who often refers to herself as “Italian,” and obviously that is a case of self-racism. I find it offensive. This problem isn’t limited to my one friend. I also know an American who calls herself Croatian and another American who calls himself Indian. I can barely stand to be in the same room with those racists. Worse yet, they seem unclear about the distinction between their ethnicity and the country where their parents grew up. It isn’t the same thing, people! But right-and-wrong aside, is it a good legal strategy for Trump to sow doubts about the objectivity of the robot judge? It seems to me that the trial can go one of two ways. 1. Trump wins in court, in which case, Trump wins. 2. Trump loses in court, in which case, Trump says Democrats rigged the system to give him an unfair trial. We’re already primed to believe it. From a legal perspective, race is not a reason to remove a judge. I haven’t heard anyone argue otherwise. But from a persuasion perspective, Trump is setting the stage for whatever is to come. So yes, it is smart, albeit offensive. Some have asked why Trump’s legal team hasn’t asked for the judge to be replaced. My guess is that they want to keep him because they expect to lose the case and they plan to pin it on the judge. That’s how I would play it. The one small problem with Trump’s strategy of questioning the robot’s objectivity is that it creates one more point of confirmation bias that Trump is a racist. Here’s what we have so far: 1. Trump wants to protect the melting pot that is America from the non-Americans who want to get into the country illegally. That’s the job of the President, and yet…it sounds a bit racist. That’s point-one of confirmation bias. 2. Trump said immigrants from Mexico are rapists. Under normal circumstances, a listener would understand him to mean that the socioeconomic circumstances of being an immigrant are correlated with higher-than-average crime rates of all types. But because you think Trump is a racist, your cognitive dissonance turned it into an accusation that all Mexican men, women, children, and unborn babies are rapists. To make things worse, Trump is pro-life. The implication is that Trump believes one-month-old fetuses from Mexico somehow escape the womb at night to do their raping. It sounds implausible, but once you know Trump is a racist who thinks every single Mexican is a rapist, you have to assume he was talking about the fetuses too. That’s a tell for confirmation bias. 3. During one CNN interview Trump did not disavow the KKK in a clear and quick fashion that viewers expected. He did disavow the KKK and David Duke before the interview, and plenty of times afterwards. But that one time on live television he didn’t hear the question (he says) and he responded inadequately. It seems implausible that a candidate for president would intentionally avoid disavowing the KKK on live TV, but once you assume Trump is a racist, confirmation bias kicks in, and you assume he did just that. 4. Trump suggested a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until we can figure out what’s going on. That sounds totally racist…unless you know that Islam is open to all ethnicities…and as practiced in many places is incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. And ISIS is trying to get terrorists into the country by posing as immigrants. Viewed in isolation, the ban on Muslim immigration is offensive and problematic. But viewed in context with all of the other confirmation bias about Trump, it turns into evidence of racism. 5. And now Trump believes a judge might be biased because his parents grew up in Mexico. On one hand, every person in the world thinks that is a legitimate risk. On the other hand, when viewed in context of all of Trump’s other confirmation bias, it looks racist as hell. I’m probably leaving out a few points of confirmation bias. But you get the point. Once you see Trump as a probable racist, you see “evidence” everywhere, even if there is none. That’s confirmation bias. Judges have bias too. Except for the robot kind like Curiel. For new readers, I endorse Hillary Clinton, but only for my my personal safety. I don’t agree with any of the candidates on policies. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145560612726/the-robot-judge | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2016 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote: I presume your calling this photoshop? https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/740236215157280768 I call that pretty easy to fake and meaningless. But it is exactly what I expected. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23447 Posts
secret-win-V2-060416 So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? On June 08 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote: I call that pretty easy to fake and meaningless. But it is exactly what I expected. It's not fake, though I'm not surprised for people to try to dismiss it as fake. It's 100% real. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 08 2016 03:35 Plansix wrote: We are totally backing the guy, but don't worry, we will also totally stop him if he tries to violate the Constitution like he claims. Please vote for Trump. This is real life. This is the GOP trying to find a good way to let go of the Tiger's tail. They're still a bunch of slaves to political correctness who don't want to get too close b/c they don't want to be labeled 'racist/sexist/homophobe' because they're more concerned with their political careers than reality. It's been the story of the entire republican primary. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2016 03:38 IgnE wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 07 2016 17:28 Surth wrote: Romney was just dishonest, Trump is a phenomenon of showbusiness and reality TV. He literally always just says whatever is on his mind, and often what is on his mind contradicts himself (like walt whitman, he contains multitudes). Not that this is necessarily whatyou want in a president. But his flipflopping is a very different beast. In the 17th century, Puritans weren't just Christians from birth. They had to come up, at some point in their lives, with a conversion narrative, and tell everyone in church about this conversion. The elders then judged whether it was convincing or not, and only then would you be a proper Christian. These conversion narratives were a distinct genre, with distinct tropes and so on.I find it interesting how often conservatives have conversion narratives. You forgot to quote that fake-Churchill quote though: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."' I think it should almost be a pre-requisite for voting that you are younger than 50, but then, that would be equally undemocratic. I appreciate the sentiment in favor of FDR-style full employment, but I doubt the oil industry is going to need that much extra-labor. Also, "nerfed our economy", lol. If only he had taken more expo's! We need more vespene gas! i like how you begin with "military" and end up with "you're lucky to be born in the USA". You have a rambling quality that is slightly reminiscent of Trump, you know. Anyway. I'll just ramble a bit too. 1. you are "sickened by riots" and would "never act violently", but the Military, which is mostly in charge of killing people, is a "necessary tool for keeping Americas interests intact". Okay. 2. I said to samizdat a few days ago about how it remains an important philosophical project to explain how all violence, including systemic violence, is bodily violence. He thought that notion to be obvious, and yet here we are, believing that "we would never act violently ... unless its a fight for survival." Guess what, you and me and our entire life is already violent. Our lives are fundamentally built on top of daily, incessant, terrible violence. Besides, I don't think you have any idea of what it means to be "born in a terrible position in the US". Since you seem to generalize about the left so much, let me make a generalization about conservatives: Somehow you all still buy into the American dream of upwards mobility. It's hogshit. You're an idiot. Well, no, you are right. Certain elements of what you term "the left" end up supporting policies that do in fact perpetuate a slave class thati s consistently dependent on welfare. To think that an actual leftist position would argue for that, is however, idiotic. In many cases, these people are second-generation immigrants from El Salvador and a few other Central and South American countries who have been criminalized under spurious gang laws. They are then deported back to their "home countries", despite being born in the US and never actually having lived in their "home countries". Often they are denied documentation by the authorities in both countries and become quasi-stateless. Under such conditions, they then prefer to return to the US (a country which they at least know, where they might at least know a few streets or blocks), where, as criminalized subjects, they will still lack any possibility of getting a job, and thus be more likely to engage in criminal activity. I can send you heaps and heaps of literature on this, if you want. Rekrul was so much more fun as a progamer than you! Now where's my ketamine? ----- I'll tell you why I'm for George McGovern. George McGovern is one of the few men in public life today any place in the world who has passion in his heart and a commitment to the very depths of his soul. And what this nation lacks, lady [sic] and gentlemen, is a sense of commitment and a sense of passion for all the people of this entire nation and the entire world. George McGovern is not satisfied that 10 million Americans go to bed hungry every night. George McGovern is not satisfied that four and a half million Americans -- families -- live in rat infested and roach encrusted houses. George McGovern is not satisfied that in this nation of ours -- in this great nation of ours -- our infant mortality is so high that we rank 21st in all the nations of the world. [...] And with George McGovern as President of the United States we wouldn't have to have Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago! With George McGovern we wouldn't have a National Guard. You bet! You bet! I am sad that no one has commented on your important point about systemic violence. maybe its because your buried it in a long post. or maybe its because no one knows what you are talking about. That's a really, really deep rabbit hole to go down. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On June 08 2016 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote: For those who may not be able to see, it says : So that was the second version of the "secret win" announcement graphic from the AP, 2 days before they made the announcement. Does that count as evidence Kwiz? Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23447 Posts
On June 08 2016 03:47 Mohdoo wrote: Secret probably because they change the permissions of the image prior and use that designation to keep track of what needs to stay hidden on their server. Every news site has articles pre-written for certain outcomes of certain events. This is perhaps the most laughable of conspiracy nonsense you've posted. Lol the graphic wasn't the AP's though. It was Hillary's. I get you all want to snap to defending her, but at least get what you're defending right. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
OSC
The PondCast
LAN Event
Replay Cast
LAN Event
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
