|
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 July 15 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 06:41 farvacola wrote:
People who value the Constitution, as a group, do not agree with each other on anything as a matter of course, so try again. Really, people being deprived of their 4th amendment rights is a matter of dispute as to whether their society is being disrupted? I mean if we can't agree that being deprived constitutional rights doesn't constitute a disrupted society, we might as well call it a wrap.
So when people talk about the constitution and its application in law and life, the discussions are a little more nuanced than "YO, its ok to take away this right? Like why is it a right if people can take it away?" Because the answer is always "maybe, depends on the context."
|
|
|
lmao, how is he creating this stuff with his understaffed campaign.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 15 2016 07:10 biology]major wrote:lmao, how is he creating this stuff with his understaffed campaign.
Trump-level business efficiency.
|
On July 15 2016 07:10 biology]major wrote:lmao, how is he creating this stuff with his understaffed campaign.
Well history makes it probable that its copied from some forum (bonus points if its a neo-nazi board)
|
On July 15 2016 05:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:35 Mercy13 wrote:Are the people criticizing BLM for not having specific objectives familiar with Campaign Zero? www.joincampaignzero.orgThey have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence. This is poor delivery. Asking for 10 different objectives won't work. People won't read and get behind it. It needs to be 1 or 2 core issues and nothing else. The public isn't capable of being swayed by a list of demands. They/we are a bunch of low effort, low attention idiots. Cater your message accordingly or it will continue to go nowhere.
I think the messaging is more clever than you give it credit for. One thing that strikes me about the platform is that even though it was created by BLM activists who presumably believe strongly that there are racial disparities in the criminal justice system, it hardly mentions race at all. Presumably to avoid offending the tender sensibilities of white folks such as myself : ) I'm not an expert on campaigns like this, but it seems like a reasonable strategy to use massive disruptive protests to get people googling "racial disparities in the criminal justice system" which will lead them to sites like Campaign Zero with concrete proposals for them to support.
Anyway, we can quibble over whether BLM's tactics represent the *best* possible approach, but I for one wasn't broadly aware of this issue until I looked into following the Ferguson protests, and I bet many other posters can say the same.
|
On July 15 2016 07:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 07:10 biology]major wrote:lmao, how is he creating this stuff with his understaffed campaign. Trump-level business efficiency.
On July 15 2016 07:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 07:10 biology]major wrote:lmao, how is he creating this stuff with his understaffed campaign. Well history makes it probable that its copied from some forum (bonus points if its a neo-nazi board)
He says ta-may-toe, you say ta-mah-toe.
|
|
|
Am I the only one that feels wierd about this?
I could be my 'dislike' for Trump but considering the uncertainty around his VP pick this almost feels like a dodge rather then a move of sympathy.
|
On July 15 2016 09:40 Gorsameth wrote:Am I the only one that feels wierd about this? I could be my 'dislike' for Trump but considering the uncertainty around his VP pick this almost feels like a dodge rather then a move of sympathy.
The world will probably never know so I guess it just comes down to what you want to believe
I'm going to be very shocked if he does end up picking Pence though I think it's a stupid move
|
On July 15 2016 09:40 Gorsameth wrote:Am I the only one that feels wierd about this? I could be my 'dislike' for Trump but considering the uncertainty around his VP pick this almost feels like a dodge rather then a move of sympathy.
He needs his announcement to be frontpage news, cant achieve that now.
|
On July 15 2016 09:51 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 09:40 Gorsameth wrote:Am I the only one that feels wierd about this? I could be my 'dislike' for Trump but considering the uncertainty around his VP pick this almost feels like a dodge rather then a move of sympathy. He needs his announcement to be frontpage news, cant achieve that now.
Pretty much. He would not be the center of attention.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It is a pretty standard practice to delay political events as a sort of "moment of silence" for a tragedy though...
At the very least, it seems like he learned a little better about how to respond to events like this.
|
Its standard practice to delay political events until you can have the media cycle all to yourself for maximum effect. anything less would just be stupid for the campaign.
|
Norway28562 Posts
whether it's calculated because he wants more attention given to his VP or genuinely heartfelt compassion leading to him considering his VP pick temporarily irrelevant doesn't really matter in this instance imo, as his action is the same either way. there's no point in criticizing someone for doing something anyone would do just because you think their intentions were less noble than indicated by the action seen in isolation - if your impression of their intentions is correct there will be plenty other examples where the actual action as well is worthy of critique. 
|
On July 15 2016 07:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 07:10 biology]major wrote:lmao, how is he creating this stuff with his understaffed campaign. Trump-level business efficiency.
hopefully a joke
|
On July 15 2016 12:21 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 07:21 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2016 07:10 biology]major wrote:lmao, how is he creating this stuff with his understaffed campaign. Trump-level business efficiency. hopefully a joke
in what manner?
|
On July 15 2016 02:26 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 18:18 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 23:13 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 13 2016 13:53 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 11:27 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm still looking for someone to take me up on the 1 year ban bet on the outcome. You say Hillary or Trump will win? If you read any of my posts and the basic analyses I do for the Electoral College, obviously Hillary. I didn't. I'll take the bet. Done. Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 00:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 13 2016 12:02 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 13 2016 11:46 CorsairHero wrote:On July 13 2016 11:27 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm still looking for someone to take me up on the 1 year ban bet on the outcome. if you really believe in it so much go bet on it and make some money Payout is too low with current odds for me to take the risk of betting my grad school savings. I don't value posting on LL much at all: i can keep in touch with all the relevant people with skype or discord, and in the low percentile chance Trump does win, I'll need the ban anyways to make plans for dusting off my Canadian citizenship and moving. ban-betting on Hillary vs Trump is a bit of a Pascal's wager imo. If Trump wins then it would take more than 3 months before I wanted to read about anything politics related anyway. Which is why I made the bet. I don't value posting on the forums that much anymore to boot so yeah.
I'll echo Drone here. I've posted maybe 5 times in this thread. Have read/skimmed all 4k pages. Doing mostly for my own enjoyment and to learn more about the most important politicking in the world.
Sadly, what you most often learn is that young, privileged (as in are able to post on an internet forum) american men are just as deplorable people as young, privileged people has always been, around the world. That probably includes me 15-20 years ago.
I do look forward to lenghty posts from you, however, its posters like you that keep this thread really interesting.
|
On July 15 2016 16:21 Reivax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 02:26 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 14 2016 18:18 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 23:13 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 13 2016 13:53 NukeD wrote:On July 13 2016 11:27 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm still looking for someone to take me up on the 1 year ban bet on the outcome. You say Hillary or Trump will win? If you read any of my posts and the basic analyses I do for the Electoral College, obviously Hillary. I didn't. I'll take the bet. Done. On July 15 2016 00:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 13 2016 12:02 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 13 2016 11:46 CorsairHero wrote:On July 13 2016 11:27 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm still looking for someone to take me up on the 1 year ban bet on the outcome. if you really believe in it so much go bet on it and make some money Payout is too low with current odds for me to take the risk of betting my grad school savings. I don't value posting on LL much at all: i can keep in touch with all the relevant people with skype or discord, and in the low percentile chance Trump does win, I'll need the ban anyways to make plans for dusting off my Canadian citizenship and moving. ban-betting on Hillary vs Trump is a bit of a Pascal's wager imo. If Trump wins then it would take more than 3 months before I wanted to read about anything politics related anyway. Which is why I made the bet. I don't value posting on the forums that much anymore to boot so yeah. I'll echo Drone here. I've posted maybe 5 times in this thread. Have read/skimmed all 4k pages. Doing mostly for my own enjoyment and to learn more about the most important politicking in the world. Sadly, what you most often learn is that young, privileged (as in are able to post on an internet forum) american men are just as deplorable people as young, privileged people has always been, around the world. That probably includes me 15-20 years ago. I do look forward to lenghty posts from you, however, its posters like you that keep this thread really interesting.
What sort of rhetoric would you find appropriate? Also which side do you find deplorable in this forum? Right, left or both?
|
Cleveland officials have expressed concern about the Ohio “open carry” state laws that will allow people to take guns to events organized close to the Republican party convention – but have not given assurances of how they will police the use of guns and banned objects in crowded areas, where the atmosphere is likely to be highly charged.
Guns will not be allowed into the convention itself, which is being held inside the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland and policed by the secret service, or inside a tight perimeter immediately surrounding the venue.
But in a broad space outside those inner security rings, near the arena, in a large area loosely known as the event zone, guns will be allowed in an open-carry situation and, with a valid permit, to be carried while concealed.
While guns will be allowed in that zone, toy guns are banned. The city has declared a long list of other items that are prohibited from being taken into the event zone during the convention, which begins on Monday with the GOP readying itself to anoint Donald Trump as its nominee for the White House.
Prohibited items range from glass bottles to lengths of rope and knives, and from tennis balls to lasers, gas masks, sledgehammers and drones, according to a list issued by the Cleveland authorities. Umbrellas with sharp tips are banned. So are pellet guns. But ordinary guns and bullets must be permitted if legally toted, because of an Ohio law that carrying a firearm is not prohibited.
No state license is required to possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun in Ohio, according to the National Rifle Association.
It is not clear, however, how law enforcement will be able to prevent anyone illegally possessing a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon without a valid license from getting close to the convention arena.
A request for comment sent to the Cleveland police department was not immediately returned.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
