|
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 September 14 2016 03:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
Wolf Blitzer: Is David Duke a deplorable person?
Mike Pence: I'm not in the business of name-calling, Wolf.
- Mike Pence, distinguishing himself from his running mate, 9/12/16 Why bother posting if you're going to post the most out of context garbage I've seen in this thread all week? If bad quality or misleading information should receive a warning/ban, not sure how you can get much closer.
If people don’t get banned for posting Infowars videos, I don’t think this rises to ban level.
|
On September 14 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
Regardless of what folks think about Clinton, the ways Trump just gets a pass on his statements and claims are mind boggling. He recently claimed that he helped dig people out of the rubble at 9/11. That he would destroy Iranian ships(an act of war) if they make rude hand gestures at US warships. That there was no place like a Trump rally while protesters were physical accosted by his supporters, which was caught on video. And that is all from within a week. It boggles the mind and I agree with one comedian that said “Trump isn’t even playing the same game, but you can’t disqualify him for breaking the rules.”
I don't think LegalLord has ever given Trump a free pass, and has always made it abundantly clear that he's still going to vote for Hillary in all likelihood. But at the same time, we should call a spade a spade, and should hope to aspire to be better than just "not as shitty as Trump".
|
On September 14 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
Regardless of what folks think about Clinton, the ways Trump just gets a pass on his statements and claims are mind boggling. He recently claimed that he helped dig people out of the rubble at 9/11. That he would destroy Iranian ships(an act of war) if they make rude hand gestures at US warships. That there was no place like a Trump rally while protesters were physical accosted by his supporters, which was caught on video. And that is all from within a week. It boggles the mind and I agree with one comedian that said “Trump isn’t even playing the same game, but you can’t disqualify him for breaking the rules.”
They are certainly held to a different standard, which was a very good creation by Trump.
Hillary is the I've been doing this for a while, and my decisions are based in reason going for her. Of course this kind of person needs to act like a saint, that's the whole policy they are running.
Trump is doing the I've got a vision, too many words and I've got to cut the crap speech. It's about getting people energized (look at his speeches and how he involves the crowds), and just criticizing so much about what goes on now. If you're fighting to keep the old like Hillary, you better shoe how it's amazing. Trump supporters are seem like the ones that get far less offended by the Internet. For example, Trump calling one woman a whore, slut, etc... For me fair game, she was being stupid and I don't want a PC insult. On the other hand, a feminist justice warrior will go nuts over that stuff...
So if Hillary says this, they will be quickly trying to turn other democrats against Hillary, and then the Trump supporters will jump on in the chaos and support how what Hillary did is awful.
Kind of a shitty construction for Hillary, but more and more people are viewing it that way.
|
On September 14 2016 01:31 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:57 pmh wrote:
There are rumors and speculations.
That it wont be long till Hillary gives press conference announcing she drops out,
Wonder what would happen then. There are some people talking, people like to talk you know. These people, lot's of them, they're all talking, and that many people can't be wrong can they? They're saying that trump is going to drop out before the election because he doesn't actually want to be president, but just wants to get attention. And these people talking, they're good people you know? They can't all be wrong can they?
lol.
learn to read.
|
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote:
Hillary supporters (rather than reluctant voters) are not really any better. Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them. It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate. As opposed to the denialism I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e").
We could use a little more empathy for voters whose best-of-the-worst calculation falls on Trump in this thread and in the public at large.
|
On September 14 2016 01:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 01:02 pmh wrote:
Its not a real rumor,just a thought that some people on the internet seem to entertain. It does not seem unlikely to me if it wasn't for the chaos it would create. But what if Hillary drops out 1 year in and caine becomes president,that would be pretty bad for the democratic party as well. No, it wouldn't.
It would,the Bernie supports will feel betrayed unless caine becomes an exceptional president.
A right wing leaning democrat as president who is in favor of more globalization,not exactly what people are expecting at the moment. But people have been disappointed before,obama gave so much hope and look at the situation for afro americans now and all the storys that make the media.
Hillary is the same off course but people at least think she is different and progressive. (which is a remarkable feat from the campaign,managing to paint Clinton as a somewhat progressive candidate)
|
On September 14 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
Regardless of what folks think about Clinton, the ways Trump just gets a pass on his statements and claims are mind boggling. He recently claimed that he helped dig people out of the rubble at 9/11. That he would destroy Iranian ships(an act of war) if they make rude hand gestures at US warships. That there was no place like a Trump rally while protesters were physical accosted by his supporters, which was caught on video. And that is all from within a week. It boggles the mind and I agree with one comedian that said “Trump isn’t even playing the same game, but you can’t disqualify him for breaking the rules.”
That's what makes it so bizzare to hear Trump supporters worried about Obama having a negative effect on America's reputation. Unlike Americans, the rest of the world hasn't seen Trump say garbage on tv for dedcades to become jaded to it. You'll be missing Bush if Trump becomes your global image.
|
On September 14 2016 01:49 Plansix wrote:West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gunShow nested quote +We’ve tracked countless cases here where cops were able to keep their jobs after killing unarmed people, killing people after responding to the wrong house, killing people and then lying about it . . . the list goes on.
Give the Weirton, W.Va., police chief some credit. He’s come up with a new spin on the the same problem. He just fired a cop for not killing someone.
After responding to a report of a domestic incident on May 6 in Weirton, W.Va., then-Weirton police officer Stephen Mader found himself confronting an armed man.
Immediately, the training he had undergone as a Marine to look at “the whole person” in deciding if someone was a terrorist, as well as his situational police academy training, kicked in and he did not shoot.
“I saw then he had a gun, but it was not pointed at me,” Mr. Mader recalled, noting the silver handgun was in the man’s right hand, hanging at his side and pointed at the ground.
Mr. Mader, who was standing behind Mr. Williams’ car parked on the street, said he then “began to use my calm voice.”
“I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it.
“I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and deescalate it. I knew it was a suicide-by-cop” situation.
Mader was responding to a 911 call from Williams’s girlfriend. In that call, she told police that Williams was threatening to kill himself, not anyone else.
What Mader did upon arriving at the scene is a hell of a lot braver course of action than simply opening fire when the suspect doesn’t immediately disarm. What Mader did is in fact exactly what we want cops to do when someone is in crisis. It’s also precisely what law enforcement officers say they do on a daily basis — put themselves at risk in order to save lives. Mader should have been given a medal. Unfortunately, two more cops then showed up, and quickly shot Williams dead.
As it turns out, Williams’s gun wasn’t loaded. There’s no way any of the police officers could have known that. But it does show that Mader had read Williams correctly — he wasn’t actually a threat to anyone but himself. His life could have been saved.
The Weirton police department then refused to name Williams for three days and assigned an investigator to look into the shooting . . . who then promptly left for a weeklong vacation. Then came the punchline.
Mr. Mader — speaking publicly about this case for the first time — said that when he tried to return to work on May 17, following normal protocol for taking time off after an officer-involved shooting, he was told to go see Weirton Police Chief Rob Alexander.
In a meeting with the chief and City Manager Travis Blosser, Mr. Mader said Chief Alexander told him: “We’re putting you on administrative leave and we’re going to do an investigation to see if you are going to be an officer here. You put two other officers in danger.”
Mr. Mader said that “right then I said to him: ‘Look, I didn’t shoot him because he said, ‘Just shoot me.’ ”
On June 7, a Weirton officer delivered him a notice of termination letter dated June 6, which said by not shooting Mr. Williams he “failed to eliminate a threat.”
The city mentioned two other incidents in firing Mader, but it seems clear that his failure to kill Williams was the motivation for his termination. Even the rare cop who gets fired often gets to keep his pension. Mader won’t be getting one.
After he received his termination notice, Mr. Mader sought attorneys to help him fight the city. He was told because he was still a probationary employee in an “at-will” state, he could be fired for any reason and there was no point in fighting the city.
One attorney told him the best he could hope for was to ask to resign instead of being terminated.
“But I told [the attorney] ‘Look, I don’t want to admit guilt. I’ll take the termination instead of the resignation because I didn’t do anything wrong,’ ” Mr. Mader said. “To resign and admit I did something wrong here would have ate at me. I think I’m right in what I did. I’ll take it to the grave.”
Over the weekend, the New York Times ran an article about the longstanding problem in which even the rare bad cops who do get fired are often able to quickly find work at another policy agency. Mader, who served a tour in Afghanistan and has two sons under five-years-old, told the Post-Gazette that he’s now studying for a commercial truck driving license, but he’d consider another job in law enforcement if he were offered one. I hope that happens. I hope he’s given the same second chance that corrupt, trigger-happy cops are given. My hunch is that he’ll be driving trucks. SourceWell this is depressing. That guy should receive a medal, not a pick slip.
Shoot first,ask questions later.
Something like this used to be unthinkable in Europe,but police is becoming slowly more violent and going for the hard confrontation right away here as well.
|
On September 14 2016 03:25 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
Regardless of what folks think about Clinton, the ways Trump just gets a pass on his statements and claims are mind boggling. He recently claimed that he helped dig people out of the rubble at 9/11. That he would destroy Iranian ships(an act of war) if they make rude hand gestures at US warships. That there was no place like a Trump rally while protesters were physical accosted by his supporters, which was caught on video. And that is all from within a week. It boggles the mind and I agree with one comedian that said “Trump isn’t even playing the same game, but you can’t disqualify him for breaking the rules.” That's what makes it so bizzare to hear Trump supporters worried about Obama having a negative effect on America's reputation. Unlike Americans, the rest of the world hasn't seen Trump say garbage on tv for dedcades to become jaded to it. You'll be missing Bush if Trump becomes your global image.
The idea that Trump is going to make other nations respect us is comical. I remember the international headlines when Bush won his second term and all of the EU called the US population stupid beyond measure. And it turned out they were right. The bluster Trump puts out at his rallies will have zero effect on EU leaders, but he sells it like it would work. The same with Mexico. If Trump thinks he can bully another nation just by threatening straight up end trade deals, he might be shocked to discover that businesses at home start calling their local senator/rep and to force them to oppose Trumps stupid stupid plan.
|
On September 14 2016 03:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
Wolf Blitzer: Is David Duke a deplorable person?
Mike Pence: I'm not in the business of name-calling, Wolf.
- Mike Pence, distinguishing himself from his running mate, 9/12/16 Why bother posting if you're going to post the most out of context garbage I've seen in this thread all week? If bad quality or misleading information should receive a warning/ban, not sure how you can get much closer.
Pence said he's not in the business of name calling. His running mate is in the business of name calling. Therefore, he's being hypocritical.
I made the above point sarcastically. What's the missing context from Pence's conversation with Blitzer that makes my point misleading? I'll bet you can't identify it, you were just saying "lol context" as a vague dismissal with an appearance of validity.
|
On September 14 2016 03:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Trump calling one woman a whore, slut, etc... For me fair game, she was being stupid and I don't want a PC insult.
"Acting stupid is grounds for being called a whore or slut."
- FiWiFaKi, 9/13/16
These are the things Trump has emboldened people to say. The basket of deplorables no longer has a lid when a birther is a presidential nominee.
|
It has been 347 days since the City of Flint declared its lead-tainted water unsafe to drink straight from the tap, and 250 days since Gov. Rick Snyder put the city into a state of emergency.
But the federal Environmental Protection Agency's top official on the ground in Flint doesn't expect current water restrictions to end anytime soon.
Mark Durno, deputy chief of the EPA's emergency response branch, said in an interview that barring extraordinary improvement in water quality this fall, it is likely that the city will remain on filters through at least the rest of the year.
"I wouldn't think so now," Durno said of the idea of lifting the filter restriction before another round of water testing is complete in December. "We're going to be where we are now for the rest of the calendar year" unless lead levels drop more dramatically than expected.
The uncertainty about filters is just one sign of how cloudy the end of the Flint water crisis remains.
Since fall 2015, when local and state officials acknowledged the city's water contamination and moved to change the city's water source back to Detroit's water system, Flint's water quality and lead levels have generally been improving. That's according to government testing and independent sampling by Virginia Tech professor Marc Edwards, credited with bringing widespread attention to the city's lead-contaminated water.
Source
We can wait years to stop pumping poison water in schools and homes of innocent Americans, but billions to Israel can't wait.
FOR ALL THE chatter about animosity between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Washington Post reports that “a senior Israeli official will arrive in Washington next week for a final round of negotiations involving the largest military aid package the United States has ever given any country and that will last more than a decade after President Obama leaves office.” The U.S. already transfers $3.1 billion in taxpayer money every year to Israel — more than any other country by far — but the new agreement Obama is set to sign “significantly raises” that amount, and guarantees it for 10 years.
In response to this massive windfall, Netanyahu is angry that he is not getting even more. For some time, “Netanyahu was holding out for as much as $5 billion a year.” Also, Israel has been opposed to efforts to direct more of that aid to U.S. military contractors rather than Israeli ones (so this “aid” package is as much a transfer of U.S. taxpayer money to weapons manufacturers in both countries as it is to Israel itself). Moreover, “Israelis are also said to be displeased with a U.S. position that whatever amount of money they agree on will be final and that Israel will not go to Congress requesting more money.”
Source
|
It’s almost like those are completely separate issues that cannot be quickly addressed by just shifting around the money and giving it to Flint. In fact, I don’t think that would be within the power of the executive branch to just dump a fat check onto Flint to fix the water. Or that the money would do any good, since I don’t they have a plant to fix the water supply in place yet.
|
On September 14 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:
It’s almost like those are completely separate issues that cannot be quickly addressed by just shifting around the money and giving it to Flint. In fact, I don’t think that would be within the power of the executive branch to just dump a fat check onto Flint to fix the water. Or that the money would do any good, since I don’t they have a plant to fix the water supply in place yet.
Who said anything about the executive branch?
Flint is in an emergency where significant portions of the population were/may still be getting poisoned. The fact is we just don't care enough to do much about it.
Israel however, we care enough about to hand over the largest aid package in history. Which iirc re-raises some questions about giving aid to nuclear countries that haven't signed onto the NPT as well.
|
On September 14 2016 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:
It’s almost like those are completely separate issues that cannot be quickly addressed by just shifting around the money and giving it to Flint. In fact, I don’t think that would be within the power of the executive branch to just dump a fat check onto Flint to fix the water. Or that the money would do any good, since I don’t they have a plant to fix the water supply in place yet. Who said anything about the executive branch? Flint is in an emergency where significant portions of the population were/may still be getting poisoned. The fact is we just don't care enough to do much about it. Israel however, we care enough about to hand over the largest aid package in history. Which iirc re-raises some questions about giving aid to nuclear countries that haven't signed onto the NPT as well.
Are you aware that some things take a certain amount of time to do, regardless of how much money you pump into it?
|
On September 14 2016 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:
It’s almost like those are completely separate issues that cannot be quickly addressed by just shifting around the money and giving it to Flint. In fact, I don’t think that would be within the power of the executive branch to just dump a fat check onto Flint to fix the water. Or that the money would do any good, since I don’t they have a plant to fix the water supply in place yet. Who said anything about the executive branch? Flint is in an emergency where significant portions of the population were/may still be getting poisoned. The fact is we just don't care enough to do much about it. Israel however, we care enough about to hand over the largest aid package in history. Which iirc re-raises some questions about giving aid to nuclear countries that haven't signed onto the NPT as well.
I’m pissing about Flint and thing the people in the local government should be brought up on criminal charges. However, did you expect all agreements with sovereign nations to be placed on hold because one city in US has water problems? That would likely just create more problems while fixing nothing.
|
CNN's Alisyn Camerota asked Conway on "New Day," "Will Donald Trump release anything from the IRS proving that he's under audit?"
"I'm sorry," Conway said, as Camerota repeated her question. "Are you calling him a liar?"
Conway continued, "Seriously, we're running against a Clinton, and we're going to challenge someone's veracity?"
(Conway did not later answer the question)
Nothing to hide here folks...
|
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote:
Hillary supporters (rather than reluctant voters) are not really any better. Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them. It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate. As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e). As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one.
Second consideration is the ability to effect change in a positive way. Hillary is mostly in line with her party, except on issues like trade and FP that are definitively Republican, and she might use a cross-party vote to pass shitty legislation. Trump is at odds with his party on FP and trade in a way that have really struck a nerve with a lot of people. This leads to a very bizarre situation in which neither candidate will really be in the position to pass good laws. However, I think it very likely, especially after the choice of Pence for VP, that Trump would ultimately fall in line with a traditional Republican agenda. That's a bad thing. Hillary will push a lot of the bad ideas that the Republicans have as well, though, so on this issue both are terrible. I give both candidates zero points on this issue, so it's a tie by being equally rock-bottom terrible.
Third consideration is the "voting on principle" issue. Hillary is terrible and I would very often vote for the opposition to show the Democrats that they cannot expect people to support such a bad candidate. The Republicans were pretty much stuck with Trump against their will, but they get a lot of credit for making the best of it as they could. Both are serial liars; Trump is worse on this issue. Both make the absolutely asinine "lesser of two evils" argument. I was hoping that Hillary would try to make a case for herself by making concessions towards a more well-liked progressive platform, but she has mostly nominally supported it while proving that she literally plans on changing nothing and instead hoping to win purely on anti-Trump sentiment. The choice of Kaine who is pretty much a clone of Hillary confirms this. However, ultimately Trump wins because his entire platform is about addressing the concerns of marginalized groups that Hillary has either insulted directly, or marginalized with nominal support that does not translate to policy. His policy may not be the best for carrying out the change he promises but his core base of support is not without cause (and it's not just "racists w/e" either).
So, so far things are pretty close. And we get into the fourth and final consideration: the long term game-theoretic issue. In other words, which action will lead to the best possible result in the future, keeping the near-term results in mind but focusing more on the long term? And this one is the only one for which there is a simple and not particularly nuanced answer: vote to keep the Republican Party out of office, party line if necessary, until the party realizes that it cannot stay viable under its current platform. It's not a lesser of two evils; on principle I would vote for the "greater evil" if it meant that such a vote would prevent a race to the bottom - "he offers you 20% of what you want, I offer you 21% so you should vote for me and be grateful because lesser of two evils." It's entirely about what will lead to the best outcome. We don't have a good choice this time around. In our case, the Democratic nominee is awful, and the Democratic Party itself is not particularly great. However, the Republican Party is ass-backwards and the proper choice from this perspective is to vote party-line against the Republicans until it feels the pressure enough to change course.
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
|
On September 14 2016 04:32 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +CNN's Alisyn Camerota asked Conway on "New Day," "Will Donald Trump release anything from the IRS proving that he's under audit?"
"I'm sorry," Conway said, as Camerota repeated her question. "Are you calling him a liar?"
Conway continued, "Seriously, we're running against a Clinton, and we're going to challenge someone's veracity?" Nothing to hide here folks...
Doom, can you please provide links to these? I don’t doubt you and I pull highlights from interviews. But I also provide links.
|
On September 14 2016 04:28 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 14 2016 04:10 Plansix wrote:
It’s almost like those are completely separate issues that cannot be quickly addressed by just shifting around the money and giving it to Flint. In fact, I don’t think that would be within the power of the executive branch to just dump a fat check onto Flint to fix the water. Or that the money would do any good, since I don’t they have a plant to fix the water supply in place yet. Who said anything about the executive branch? Flint is in an emergency where significant portions of the population were/may still be getting poisoned. The fact is we just don't care enough to do much about it. Israel however, we care enough about to hand over the largest aid package in history. Which iirc re-raises some questions about giving aid to nuclear countries that haven't signed onto the NPT as well. Are you aware that some things take a certain amount of time to do, regardless of how much money you pump into it?
Yeah, it took them over a year just to admit they were poisoning their population. If it were wealthy white kids/nieces/nephews/cousins spending years without access to clean running water, even if their poison water is some of the most expensive water in the country, (on top of covering up the mass poisonings) there would be heads rolling and there wouldn't be poison water running in their taps.
This "oh it's not a pressing issue" stuff always comes from those who aren't experiencing the problem themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
