|
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 February 10 2017 03:59 zlefin wrote:I laugh at those dumb opeds from people supporting the violence at the milo event. lots of fools in the world  I don't see a need for individualized rebuttals of each of them, unless requests such.
They are not smart articles. I've always said that law of averages pretty much assures some level of violence at Milo events. It is the crowd he attracts, both supporters and people who hate him.
|
gh I answered last page.
Where does TL stand on abortion? Assume extreme cases are allowed to be aborted.
+ Show Spoiler +Poll: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancyanytime she chooses for any reason (23) 56% up to first trimester (7) 17% up to second trimester (6) 15% never (except in extreme situations) (4) 10% late term (1) 2% 41 total votes Your vote: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancy (Vote): never (except in extreme situations)
(Vote): up to first trimester
(Vote): up to second trimester
(Vote): late term
(Vote): anytime she chooses for any reason
|
The commander of the US war in Afghanistan has requested several thousand new troops for America’s longest-ever conflict to break what he described as a stalemate.
In the first indication of the course the 15-year-old war will take under Donald Trump, army Gen John Nicholson told a Senate panel that he was facing a shortfall of troops necessary for training Afghan forces to ultimately replace their US and Nato counterparts.
“They could come from our allies as well as the United States. We have identified the requirement and the desire to advise below the corps level. It would enable us to thicken our advisory efforts across the Afghanistan mission,” Nicholson told the Senate armed services committee on Thursday.
Nicholson acknowledged that the Taliban has gained territory across the country in 2016, and that the Afghans have “tens of thousands” of absent or nonexistent Afghan soldiers on their payrolls. But he described the current situation in Afghanistan as a “stalemate.
One reason for the deadlock, Nicholson said, was the increasing spoiler role of Russia, which has been accused of aiding Trump in the election and with which Trump seeks to reconcile.
Nicholson said Russia was seeking to undermine the US and Nato in Afghanistan, adding that he was “concerned about the increasing level” of unspecified Russian support for Taliban insurgents.
Nicholson said he was not seeking additional forces for counter-terrorism operations, the other remaining mission bequeathed to Trump by Barack Obama, who initiated a troop surge and then reduced them to their present levels of 8,400.
It is unclear how Trump will respond to Nicholson’s request. Over the years, Trump has publicly advocated withdrawal from Afghanistan and characterized the war as a disaster.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 03:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 03:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's more of an electability problem. Getting the 2nd most votes in american history, and the most votes any white person has ever gotten in american history also suggests that electability was not the problem. I'm pretty sure that whoever wins the next time around will set a world record for most votes in their favor. And the next one, and the next after that. If people all vote for X then the problems with X is not electability. If X loses then X wasn't elected. Population growth doesn't change that. You were the one who suggested winners will get the most votes each year, but the opposite has been true. More voted in 04 than 08, more voted in 08 than in 16, and in 16 the winner had largest margin of votes against him. Which means your statement of population growth does not correlate with the voting trends. But please try again, with more facts this time.
You say "second most votes ever." Great job, she was favored by population growth. There are more people than ever before of voting age.
Too bad it's also true that she failed to win in the states where it actually mattered according to the actual rules of the game, an event one might describe as an electability problem.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The commander of the US war in Afghanistan has requested several thousand new troops for America’s longest-ever conflict to break what he described as a stalemate.
In the first indication of the course the 15-year-old war will take under Donald Trump, army Gen John Nicholson told a Senate panel that he was facing a shortfall of troops necessary for training Afghan forces to ultimately replace their US and Nato counterparts.
“They could come from our allies as well as the United States. We have identified the requirement and the desire to advise below the corps level. It would enable us to thicken our advisory efforts across the Afghanistan mission,” Nicholson told the Senate armed services committee on Thursday.
Nicholson acknowledged that the Taliban has gained territory across the country in 2016, and that the Afghans have “tens of thousands” of absent or nonexistent Afghan soldiers on their payrolls. But he described the current situation in Afghanistan as a “stalemate.
One reason for the deadlock, Nicholson said, was the increasing spoiler role of Russia, which has been accused of aiding Trump in the election and with which Trump seeks to reconcile.
Nicholson said Russia was seeking to undermine the US and Nato in Afghanistan, adding that he was “concerned about the increasing level” of unspecified Russian support for Taliban insurgents.
Nicholson said he was not seeking additional forces for counter-terrorism operations, the other remaining mission bequeathed to Trump by Barack Obama, who initiated a troop surge and then reduced them to their present levels of 8,400.
It is unclear how Trump will respond to Nicholson’s request. Over the years, Trump has publicly advocated withdrawal from Afghanistan and characterized the war as a disaster. Source
Guess it wasn't as easy to take Afghanistan as the US was led to believe. Oops?
|
Oh for fuck sake...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source
|
On February 10 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 03:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 03:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 03:08 LegalLord wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's more of an electability problem. Getting the 2nd most votes in american history, and the most votes any white person has ever gotten in american history also suggests that electability was not the problem. I'm pretty sure that whoever wins the next time around will set a world record for most votes in their favor. And the next one, and the next after that. If people all vote for X then the problems with X is not electability. If X loses then X wasn't elected. Population growth doesn't change that. You were the one who suggested winners will get the most votes each year, but the opposite has been true. More voted in 04 than 08, more voted in 08 than in 16, and in 16 the winner had largest margin of votes against him. Which means your statement of population growth does not correlate with the voting trends. But please try again, with more facts this time. You say "second most votes ever." Great job, she was favored by population growth. There are more people than ever before of voting age. Too bad it's also true that she failed to win in the states where it actually mattered according to the actual rules of the game, an event one might describe as an electability problem.
Electability problem is people not voting for you.
Regional disparity is a strategic problem.
"Will people vote for you?" Suggests an electability problem.
"Where should we emphasize our GOTV?" Is a strategic problem.
She was not lacking of people willing to vote for her.
Her team did lean too hard on polls and got too frisky in their GOTV because of it.
|
re: abortion, pp and the democrats.
my impression is that the dems support PP in part, because it's been attacked alot unjustifiably by the republicans, so dems are strongly pro-PP as a counterbalance. if the reps were less strongly anti-PP, then the dems wouldn't feel a need to strongly defend PP.
it often seems like republicans make a political point of targetting PP specifically, rather than health/abortion clinics in general.
|
On February 10 2017 04:08 biology]major wrote:gh I answered last page. Where does TL stand on abortion? + Show Spoiler +Poll: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancyanytime she chooses for any reason (23) 56% up to first trimester (7) 17% up to second trimester (6) 15% never (except in extreme situations) (4) 10% late term (1) 2% 41 total votes Your vote: A woman should be able to abort her pregnancy (Vote): never (except in extreme situations)
(Vote): up to first trimester
(Vote): up to second trimester
(Vote): late term
(Vote): anytime she chooses for any reason
None of those options represent my opinion.
Personally, I don't think a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any time for any reason. At the same time, I don't see progression of the pregnancy is a singularly disqualifying factor. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is something that should be discussed with an experienced medical provider who helps the woman reach a decision that brings together the woman's personal feelings, the safety of herself and her baby, and various ethical issues. I don't think it's useful to legislate a blanket restriction on abortions after a particular point in time.
This is where you and I are going to differ on principle toward legislation, because we have a similar disagreement about the Muslim ban. While we might agree on general principles, I don't think it's useful for a legislative body to draw arbitrary lines in the sand when individual circumstances vary so widely. Where there is room for a licensed professional to exercise professional judgment, this should be preferable to the government creating strict rules that have to be followed regardless of the specifics of the particular mother or immigrant in question. First/second trimester (in the case of abortion) or country of origin (in the case of Muslim immigration) are not useful as monolithic cutoff points, even though they may be useful as individual factors in a more complex process of assessment.
TL;DR: Philosophically, I'm probably closer to pro-life than pro-choice, but I also don't think it's productive for the government to legislate on it, so from a practical perspective, I'm going to support the pro-choice position because the end result is closer to what I think is right.
|
On February 10 2017 03:44 Nevuk wrote:The Daily Californian published 5 op-eds from Berkeley students defending violent riots. I agree with them and still think this is a really dumb move. Show nested quote +
The major student-run paper of UC Berkeley ran five op-eds Tuesday defending the riots on campus, and arguing that violence was an acceptable response to a speech from Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
The Daily Californian editorial board published five op-eds from five students and former students, who uniformly believed the riot was justified. Nisa Dang demanded critics “check their privilege” before condemning the riots, blaming the violence on the appearance of the police. “I don’t care what Breitbart article or liberal bullshit listicle you’ve read, or what your experiences in white suburbia might have taught you — police are violent agents of the state.”
Juan Prieto insisted the violence was justified because Yiannopoloulos could have outed illegal immigrant students: “To me, the argument should not revolve just around freedom of speech but also around the hate speech that fails to respect the humanity of undocumented people. This speaker has never provided an insightful look at conservatism nor provided intellectual debate to the arena. He has fabricated a tool to sensationalize himself with while providing a platform for white supremacists to come together.”
“These were not acts of violence. They were acts of self defense,” wrote queer activist and former columnist Neil Lawrence. “And to Yiannopoulos and all your friends who invited you and hosted you and defended your ‘right’ to speak: I recommend you learn your lesson. Our shields are raised against you. No one will protect us? We will protect ourselves.”
“The violence that forms the foundation of Yiannopoulos’ ideology is far worse than any tactic the black bloc uses,” argued Desmond Meagley. “You don’t have to like property damage, but understand that without it, Yiannopoulos would have released private and sensitive information about innocent students and encouraged assault against them. If the fireworks or the damage done to the Amazon store scared you, know that every single person in that crowd was scared too, even (if not especially) those dressed in black.”
“Yiannopoulos and his supporters have a track record of actively targeting people in their hate speech, and the ideology they peddle perpetuates ideas that urgently endanger members of our community,” argued Josh Hardman. “In short: The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/plurality-tactics-contributed-cancellation-milo-yiannopoulos-event/
Quite the arguments, indeed. Berkeley has really progressed far beyond the free speech firebrands of yesteryear.
On February 10 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol Gotta love Manchin ( R D) handing Republicans a bipartisan confirmation vote for Sessions. Now Sessions can take his total and complete ignorance about drugs and use "the laws passed by congress" to just completely mess up what little progress we've recently made. And you already know Democrats aren't going to fight on this, at best they try to use it as a "see black and brown America, we're trying to protect you" while Manchin (who already talked about ramping up the "war on drugs" just a couple months ago) and these other "real democrats" give him bipartisan cover. Like who would people like Kwiz, One, and Mag want in the Democratic party, Democrats like Manchin, or Independents like Bernie, because you're not going to be able to keep both (unless you correct people like Manchin for giving Republicans a vote they didn't even need against his party).
Manchin's home state went Trump 63% to 35%. He's up for reelection in 2018. This is simple political adjustment.
|
On February 10 2017 03:45 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 03:33 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's not a question of support, but just resistance against the other candidate. The reason she got 3 million more votes is because of Trump. I am quickly realizing, that I voted for Trump because of my disdain for HRC and the democratic platform. Maybe I rationalized my support for trump to a great extent back then because of his stance on the economy, immigration and terrorism, and let his flaws slide. Now however, as I see his loose grip with reality I realize that I only let it slide because of HRC, and if it was a more respectable individual I might have not have been so forgiving. I imagine there were many who had similar ideas. Ironically the best way to assess support for a candidate this election might actually be rally size :-) Knowing what you know now, between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, who would you pick? Trump. Although a flawed individual with some highly suspicious character traits, he had a message on those 3 issues that were important to me. Bernie is a good guy, had a strong message and I do respect him, but he is too far left, I just disagree with his ideas. HRC had no charisma, a sense of entitlement and a billion dollars on her side without a strong message. If there was someone else articulate and controlled like Cruz, with the message of Trump on those 3 issues, that would probably be my ideal candidate.
I'll check back later, we'll see how his campaign rhetoric you liked, matches up with actual policy that gets implemented and the outcomes of said policy.
I'll remind you now though that according to popular belief Bernie wouldn't have passed any of the stuff he wanted, and that's probably more true if he had the same senate result Hillary did. So when thinking about a preference, you don't have to presume Bernie would pass his agenda on immigration, the economy, and terrorism or whatever far left thing concerns you. Just whatever you think Republicans would have helped him pass.
|
On February 10 2017 04:15 zlefin wrote:
re: abortion, pp and the democrats.
my impression is that the dems support PP in part, because it's been attacked alot unjustifiably by the republicans, so dems are strongly pro-PP as a counterbalance. if the reps were less strongly anti-PP, then the dems wouldn't feel a need to strongly defend PP.
it often seems like republicans make a political point of targetting PP specifically, rather than health/abortion clinics in general.
Its almost like they named themselves specifically in order to be targeted by politicians in public in order to get more donations.
Its a cheap political football for both sides to score points on. stop trying to read so much into it.
|
Bisutopia19240 Posts
On February 10 2017 03:03 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)? Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on.
"In regards to ant-abortion being largely driven by religion" may also be less religion driven these days and instead driven by a sense of morality. Up until my mid-twenties I could careless about the issue. But now that I'm married and have a child on the way I think completely different about the issue and am completely against it (except in extreme cases). I understand both sides, but my personal view point is driven by experience instead of religion.
Several European countries have stricter laws regarding abortions too. Does that mean that Europe is heading in the right direction or the wrong one? I would love insight from Europeans on this. http://www.redstate.com/diary/Dafyd/2016/02/28/europe-better-pro-life-abortion-laws-us./
|
On February 10 2017 04:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:15 zlefin wrote:
re: abortion, pp and the democrats.
my impression is that the dems support PP in part, because it's been attacked alot unjustifiably by the republicans, so dems are strongly pro-PP as a counterbalance. if the reps were less strongly anti-PP, then the dems wouldn't feel a need to strongly defend PP.
it often seems like republicans make a political point of targetting PP specifically, rather than health/abortion clinics in general. Its almost like they named themselves specifically in order to be targeted by politicians in public in order to get more donations. Its a cheap political football for both sides to score points on. stop trying to read so much into it.
I'm not sure of the origin of their name. but it seems like the name's origin is simple: to help people plan when to become parents, and to be able to follow their plan (i.e. get pregnant when they want to, and not pregnant when they don't want to). hence planned parenthood.
it doesn't seem at all like a name chosen in order to be targeted by politicians, but a simple accurate descriptive name of the goal.
|
On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake... Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source
So he didn't even know the name of the treaty, let alone what the treaty is used for, and then when talking to Putin about the treaty he needed to basically have his aides Google search whether or not he should agree with what Putin says about the treaty... and then at the end of the day, for all the sucking up to Putin that he did during his election campaign, he decided to talk about how popular he is(n't), he says he dislikes Putin's treaty, and hangs his new (unqualified) Secretary of State out to dry for supporting the treaty. What.
And this is just Trump's first phone call with Putin.
|
On February 10 2017 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:45 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 03:33 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. It's not a question of support, but just resistance against the other candidate. The reason she got 3 million more votes is because of Trump. I am quickly realizing, that I voted for Trump because of my disdain for HRC and the democratic platform. Maybe I rationalized my support for trump to a great extent back then because of his stance on the economy, immigration and terrorism, and let his flaws slide. Now however, as I see his loose grip with reality I realize that I only let it slide because of HRC, and if it was a more respectable individual I might have not have been so forgiving. I imagine there were many who had similar ideas. Ironically the best way to assess support for a candidate this election might actually be rally size :-) Knowing what you know now, between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, who would you pick? Trump. Although a flawed individual with some highly suspicious character traits, he had a message on those 3 issues that were important to me. Bernie is a good guy, had a strong message and I do respect him, but he is too far left, I just disagree with his ideas. HRC had no charisma, a sense of entitlement and a billion dollars on her side without a strong message. If there was someone else articulate and controlled like Cruz, with the message of Trump on those 3 issues, that would probably be my ideal candidate. I'll check back later, we'll see how his campaign rhetoric you liked, matches up with actual policy that gets implemented and the outcomes of said policy. I'll remind you now though that according to popular belief Bernie wouldn't have passed any of the stuff he wanted, and that's probably more true if he had the same senate result Hillary did. So when thinking about a preference, you don't have to presume Bernie would pass his agenda on immigration, the economy, and terrorism or whatever far left thing concerns you. Just whatever you think Republicans would have helped him pass.
Sure, I think its too early into his term even though its been chaotic.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 10 2017 04:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source So he didn't even know the name of the treaty, let alone what the treaty is used for, and then when talking to Putin about the treaty he needed to basically have his aides Google search whether or not he should agree with what Putin says about the treaty... and then at the end of the day, for all the sucking up to Putin that he did during his election campaign, he decided to talk about how popular he is(n't), he says he dislikes Putin's treaty, and hangs his new (unqualified) Secretary of State out to dry for supporting the treaty.
I know. Hilarious, right?
|
On February 10 2017 04:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 04:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Oh for fuck sake...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.
When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.
Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.
The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.
It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.
New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.
During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.
During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”
Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.
Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.
The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Source So he didn't even know the name of the treaty, let alone what the treaty is used for, and then when talking to Putin about the treaty he needed to basically have his aides Google search whether or not he should agree with what Putin says about the treaty... and then at the end of the day, for all the sucking up to Putin that he did during his election campaign, he decided to talk about how popular he is(n't), he says he dislikes Putin's treaty, and hangs his new (unqualified) Secretary of State out to dry for supporting the treaty. I know. Hilarious, right?
I really, really hope that Putin is asked how the call went and Putin says something politically incorrect like "Trump's a moron".
Edit: The fact that the treaty is about fucking nuclear warheads is a pretty big deal too.
|
On February 10 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:44 Nevuk wrote:The Daily Californian published 5 op-eds from Berkeley students defending violent riots. I agree with them and still think this is a really dumb move.
The major student-run paper of UC Berkeley ran five op-eds Tuesday defending the riots on campus, and arguing that violence was an acceptable response to a speech from Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
The Daily Californian editorial board published five op-eds from five students and former students, who uniformly believed the riot was justified. Nisa Dang demanded critics “check their privilege” before condemning the riots, blaming the violence on the appearance of the police. “I don’t care what Breitbart article or liberal bullshit listicle you’ve read, or what your experiences in white suburbia might have taught you — police are violent agents of the state.”
Juan Prieto insisted the violence was justified because Yiannopoloulos could have outed illegal immigrant students: “To me, the argument should not revolve just around freedom of speech but also around the hate speech that fails to respect the humanity of undocumented people. This speaker has never provided an insightful look at conservatism nor provided intellectual debate to the arena. He has fabricated a tool to sensationalize himself with while providing a platform for white supremacists to come together.”
“These were not acts of violence. They were acts of self defense,” wrote queer activist and former columnist Neil Lawrence. “And to Yiannopoulos and all your friends who invited you and hosted you and defended your ‘right’ to speak: I recommend you learn your lesson. Our shields are raised against you. No one will protect us? We will protect ourselves.”
“The violence that forms the foundation of Yiannopoulos’ ideology is far worse than any tactic the black bloc uses,” argued Desmond Meagley. “You don’t have to like property damage, but understand that without it, Yiannopoulos would have released private and sensitive information about innocent students and encouraged assault against them. If the fireworks or the damage done to the Amazon store scared you, know that every single person in that crowd was scared too, even (if not especially) those dressed in black.”
“Yiannopoulos and his supporters have a track record of actively targeting people in their hate speech, and the ideology they peddle perpetuates ideas that urgently endanger members of our community,” argued Josh Hardman. “In short: The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences.”
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/plurality-tactics-contributed-cancellation-milo-yiannopoulos-event/ Quite the arguments, indeed. Berkeley has really progressed far beyond the free speech firebrands of yesteryear. Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol Gotta love Manchin ( R D) handing Republicans a bipartisan confirmation vote for Sessions. Now Sessions can take his total and complete ignorance about drugs and use "the laws passed by congress" to just completely mess up what little progress we've recently made. And you already know Democrats aren't going to fight on this, at best they try to use it as a "see black and brown America, we're trying to protect you" while Manchin (who already talked about ramping up the "war on drugs" just a couple months ago) and these other "real democrats" give him bipartisan cover. Like who would people like Kwiz, One, and Mag want in the Democratic party, Democrats like Manchin, or Independents like Bernie, because you're not going to be able to keep both (unless you correct people like Manchin for giving Republicans a vote they didn't even need against his party). Manchin's home state went Trump 63% to 35%. He's up for reelection in 2018. This is simple political adjustment.
You know as well as anyone Trump and his supporters are going to bash Democrats over the head with "bipartisan" votes in favor of Trumps policy from the likes of Manchin. And as superficial and hollow as it is, it will be true because Democrats won't be able to keep him and others in line or have the balls to kick him to the curb and work for progressives to replace them.
You also know Manchin and the Democrats knew what he was giving Trump and what that will mean in his alternative fact driven world and to his supporters/leaners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
