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 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.
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.
He'll almost certainly use the Theresa May defence.
When grilled over engaging with such a loathsome figure as Trump the British PM pointed out that after meeting with Trump she got him to walk back on undermining NATO and issue an unequivocal statement reaffirming the US commitment to the alliance. To all those who said she should have spurned him she replied that instead she played him, and won.
People in power have no real incentive to insult Trump's antics when they can instead exploit them.
That would make sense. Unless the television news programs that he watches are going to start interactive educational lessons on the nuances of all the future conversations he's going to have, Trump is going to be woefully unprepared to spar with any international political figures. He doesn't do his homework and instead just watches television. In a bath robe, I hear...
On February 10 2017 04:08 biology]major wrote: 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 pregnancy
anytime 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
When you say anytime I'm unsure what that means. A sufficiently late term abortion would just be a c-section, surely? In that context I wouldn't support then killing the born infant just out of thoroughness. I'm fine with abortion by choice up to the window of viability and then delivery following that window, but it's not clear if that means I'm fine with abortion whenever, because the pregnancy can be terminated whenever, or not.
Yea so basically 22 weeks? That's where a fetus can be viable with the technology we have. I don't know how killing a viable fetus would be ethical.
Oh man. This hits home these days. I was able to feel my baby at 17 weeks (is now 22 weeks) kicking. There is nothing cooler then putting your hand on your wife's belly and feeling it kick for the first time. At 12 weeks I could even see my child wiggling around in there looking like a perfectly miniature human being. I don't how I could ever not see a fetus as a baby at any age. Call it a fetus, give it a time stamp, I can never not identify with a fetus as an actual human being with its own rights.
I do like what edit:yango said though: "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."
On February 10 2017 04:08 biology]major wrote: 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 pregnancy
anytime 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
When you say anytime I'm unsure what that means. A sufficiently late term abortion would just be a c-section, surely? In that context I wouldn't support then killing the born infant just out of thoroughness. I'm fine with abortion by choice up to the window of viability and then delivery following that window, but it's not clear if that means I'm fine with abortion whenever, because the pregnancy can be terminated whenever, or not.
Yea so basically 22 weeks? That's where a fetus can be viable with the technology we have. I don't know how killing a viable fetus would be ethical.
Oh man. This hits home these days. I was able to feel my baby at 17 weeks (is now 22 weeks) kicking. There is nothing cooler then putting your hand on your wife's belly and feeling it kick for the first time. At 12 weeks I could even see my child wiggling around in there looking like a perfectly miniature human being. I don't how I could ever not see a fetus as a baby at any age. Call it a fetus, give it a time stamp, I can never not identify with a fetus as an actual human being with its own rights.
I do like what biology said though: "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."
That wasn't me, it was theyango. Congrats on the baby :-)
On February 10 2017 04:08 biology]major wrote: 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 pregnancy
anytime 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
When you say anytime I'm unsure what that means. A sufficiently late term abortion would just be a c-section, surely? In that context I wouldn't support then killing the born infant just out of thoroughness. I'm fine with abortion by choice up to the window of viability and then delivery following that window, but it's not clear if that means I'm fine with abortion whenever, because the pregnancy can be terminated whenever, or not.
Yea so basically 22 weeks? That's where a fetus can be viable with the technology we have. I don't know how killing a viable fetus would be ethical.
Oh man. This hits home these days. I was able to feel my baby at 17 weeks (is now 22 weeks) kicking. There is nothing cooler then putting your hand on your wife's belly and feeling it kick for the first time. At 12 weeks I could even see my child wiggling around in there looking like a perfectly miniature human being. I don't how I could ever not see a fetus as a baby at any age. Call it a fetus, give it a time stamp, I can never not identify with a fetus as an actual human being with its own rights.
I do like what biology said though: "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."
That wasn't me, it was theyango. Congrats on the baby :-)
I just learned about this comedy show, where they totally rip on idiots and fake news... and this episode is all about destroying Trump and Spicer and Alex Jones. The whole episode is pretty funny, although most of the American-related/ Trump-related parts are found at 6:10-14:00 and then 18:42-21:40 where they play the game Alternative Facts and then two quick jokes around 24:05-24:50 referencing Trump's real/ fake/ who knows/ who cares Russian hooker urine scandal and then Sean Spicer's "Largest crowd. Period!" nonsense.
The world is just ripping on us so hard right now. And they're totally right to do it.
The fact that Sean Spicer didn't have a bigger, louder, angrier denial alternative fact and actually gave a straightforward answer means that Conway 100% messed up here.
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.”
Quite the arguments, indeed. Berkeley has really progressed far beyond the free speech firebrands of yesteryear.
I get routinely derided as a fascist on facebook for being in favour of individuals getting to decide for themselves whether they want to ignore Milo.
Hell, I want the biggest Milo hater to be able to hear his schtick and come up for question and answer with his or her best version of "you're doing harm to LGBT/responsible for discourse breakdown/here's why social justice is good and you're rotten." It's a very liberal campus, the room would be packed with people of opposing ideology. I think it's very valuable to hear first person what someone's all about; the debates I attended in my college days with Richard Dawkins or speeches by the Israeli ambassador, or a congressman, or NGO head were very helpful--over and beyond what seeing violent riots shut them down before a talk would've done (re: the defense of violent protest, not peaceful protest).
The issue with Milo isn't what he says, it is that he straight up attacks people. He has outed trans students before and there were concerns he was going make some claim about specific students being illegal immigrants.
On February 10 2017 04:41 TheYango wrote: From my understanding, my stance is essentially the same as the Tim Kaine "personally pro-life, but publicly pro-choice" position which got criticized for being wishy-washy by progressives and logically-inconsistent by conservatives, when from my perspective it's neither of those things and makes perfect sense.
I can't think of many pro-lifers that thought Time Kaine's position was pro-life. It's a given (unless they are incredible hypocrites) that those seeking to end abortion do not practice abortion themselves. The argument goes that it is not simply a matter of personal choice because there is another life involved, whether you want to use the English words unborn baby or if you prefer the Latin word for offspring/ young/ pregnancy: fetus.
That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable.
I don't think it's either/ or anymore. Milo is provocative, AND he's flushing out legitimately concerning group of radicals. UofT recently had conference on Fiscal Responsibility and Free Speech, which was shut down by a group of anti-fascist protestors pulling the fire alarm. You wound up in this crazy situation where white antifas are yelling 'you are white supremacists" to Asian and black conservatives. Ideology is trumping reality for a great many of these protestors. The most controversial speaker was Ezra Levant, a Jewish libertarian, who the antifas called Nazi/fascist. ??? The guy is radically free speech personal liberty and while a political gadfly, never a fascist. It's frustrating to see.
This should really be alarming and terrifying far beyond the coverage it has gotten. It's not even the nepotism or corruption here, it's that Trump believe it is his right to attack out against those that attack his brand (or in this case his daughter's brand).
There was an article around the election that pointed out this very concern. That with Trump hotels all around the world an attack on one of them would be strung together as an attack on America. The way this Ivanka thing is being handled really makes that sort of scenario much more plausible in a very scary way.
On February 10 2017 05:49 Falling wrote: I don't think it's either/ or anymore. Milo is provocative, AND he's flushing out legitimately concerning group of radicals. UofT recently had conference on Fiscal Responsibility and Free Speech, which was shut down by a group of anti-fascist protestors pulling the fire alarm. You wound up in this crazy situation where white antifas are yelling 'you are white supremacists" to Asian and black conservatives. Ideology is trumping reality for a great many of these protestors. The most controversial speaker was Ezra Levant, a Jewish libertarian, who the antifas called Nazi/fascist. ??? The guy is radically free speech personal liberty and while a political gadfly, never a fascist. It's frustrating to see.
The oppositional weaponization of public protest is nothing new, and I fail to see how its clear that this is "flushing" anything out more than merely providing these radical perspectives opportunities to disrupt that they would have otherwise never had. One of the key lessons in radical organizing, and I say this on advice from an anarchist friend who organizes in Toledo, is that giving everyone the microphone is a recipe to never figure out what you want to say or how to say it the right way.
I'll reiterate that I'm not sure what this means going forward, only that the value of these spectacle-type events is absolutely suspect.
EPT
