|
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. |
Even Fox News is in on the fake news:
President Trump was given a comprehensive summary of the contents of his former-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador prior to Flynn’s resignation, a source told Fox News.
Trump did not see the actual transcript of the communications, but the summary was delivered by people outside the White House. Trump has maintained that he believes Flynn did nothing wrong.
"Mike was doing his job," Trump said at a news conference Thursday. "He was calling countries and his counterparts ... I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn't doing it. I didn't direct him, but I would have directed him because that's his job."
Flynn was forced to resign Monday over discussions he had with Russian officials before Trump took office.
Flynn denied in an FBI interview last month that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with Moscow's ambassador to the United States, contradicting transcripts of intercepted communications between the two men, the Washington Post reported Thursday.
The Post reported that senior Justice Department and intelligence officials who reviewed the transcript of the December phone call said Flynn's statements were at least inappropriate because he suggested that Moscow could expect a reprieve from sanctions announced by then-President Barack Obama.
Source
|
On February 17 2017 22:32 a_flayer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 17 2017 22:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:As opposed to a Sally Boynton Brown + Show Spoiler + If we're gonna "blast white people" I'm gonna "blast some Islam" for the heck of it. Although, I suppose this also "blasts white people" considering it is basically hating on the "overtolerant left":
damn, she's brave as hell.
|
On February 17 2017 20:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 16:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 17 2017 15:56 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 17 2017 14:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:this isn't so much important as completely insane
A Florida man's alleged plot to set off homemade explosives in several East Coast Target stores — part of what investigators said was a bizarre attempt to tank the company's stock — was foiled after someone he asked for help turned him in, prosecutors said Thursday.
Mark Charles Barnett, 48, of Ocala, was charged with "possession of a firearm (destructive device) affecting commerce by a previously convicted felon" after he offered an unidentified person $10,000 to put at least 10 explosives — disguised as food items — on the shelves of Target stores in New York, Florida and Virginia, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Ocala.
"Barnett theorized that the company's stock value would plunge after the explosions, allowing him to cheaply acquire shares of Target stock before an eventual rebound in prices," the complaint said.
Barnett — a registered sex offender on probation for multiple felony kidnapping, sexual battery and grand theft counts — made the bombs at home and gave them to the individual, along with a bag of gloves, a mask and a license-plate cover, to complete the job, authorities alleged.
He showed the person 10 devices hidden in emptied-out containers of stuffing mix, breakfast bars and pasta, authorities said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-man-charged-trying-blow-target-stores-tank-company-s-n722071wouldn't it simply be easier and legal to wait for a company to have some sort of explosion/major disaster and then just buy stock there without trying to blow up Targer? This is one of the more ridiculous non Trump related things I've heard in a while. That takes a special kind of mind to come up with. You guys hear about the white supremacist who was looking to be Dylann Roof 2.0? A Conway man with a criminal record and white supremacist ties is accused of buying a pistol from an undercover FBI operative so he could launch an attack "in the spirit of Dylann Roof," according to court documents.
FBI agents arrested 29-year-old Benjamin Thomas Samuel McDowell on Wednesday, and he was booked into the J. Reuben Long Detention Center in Horry County. He faces a federal count of felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition.
McDowell invoked the name of the Emanuel AME Church shooter in describing his desire to commit an attack on "non-whites" at an unknown location in another county, authorities said. He told the undercover operative he wanted to do something on a "big scale" and write on the building "in the spirit of Dylann Roof," according to the criminal complaint filed against him.
Like Roof, McDowell reportedly expressed frustration with other white supremacists who were unwilling to take action against "ungodly people" who he believed were out to the destroy the white race, the complaint stated.
"I'm wanting to do this s----, and I got the heart to do this," the complaint quotes McDowell as saying. "I seen what Dylann Roof did and in my heart I reckon I got a little bit of hatred and I...I want to do that s----. Like, I got desire ... not for nobody else .. .it just... I want something where I can say, 'I f---ing did that' ... me personally." SourceAre we ever going to take mental health seriously in this country or we just going to let whackos run loose and cross our fingers? Of course it's not going to be labelled terrrorism and no one will start getting scared of right wing extremists. He'll surely be labeled as just another lone wolf that we should sympathize with because he's the real victim here... After all, he was probably subjected to a few seconds of Spanish after accidentally pressing "2" during an automated phone message! The horror! The broader subject of mental health/ cognitive stability (especially addressing depression properly, not trying to dismiss bullying with "just man up", and finding ways to run interference on hate groups/ hateful people through education and experience) is one of the biggest issues we have in our country and it definitely doesn't get the acknowledgement, national dialogue, and serious analysis that it so desperately needs.
Not just in your country. It's an issue world wide. Mental illness is simply not seen as a real illness. Yet it can be as bad or sometimes world than a 'real' illness (dunno what the word for this is lol). The scale of the problem is actually insane.
One in five working-age people in rich countries suffer from a mental condition each year.
The resulting misery is huge. Put together, mental illnesses account for more suffering and premature death in rich countries than heart disease and strokes, or than cancer (see chart 2). One study estimates that depression is 50% more disabling than angina, asthma or arthritis, as measured by a health score that combines factors such as reduced mobility and pain. Men with mental-health problems die 20 years earlier than those without, according to the British Medical Association, mostly from causes other than suicide.
Estimates from several rich countries put the economic cost of mental illness at 3-4% of GDP.
www.economist.com
|
On February 17 2017 20:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2017 16:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 17 2017 15:56 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 17 2017 14:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:this isn't so much important as completely insane
A Florida man's alleged plot to set off homemade explosives in several East Coast Target stores — part of what investigators said was a bizarre attempt to tank the company's stock — was foiled after someone he asked for help turned him in, prosecutors said Thursday.
Mark Charles Barnett, 48, of Ocala, was charged with "possession of a firearm (destructive device) affecting commerce by a previously convicted felon" after he offered an unidentified person $10,000 to put at least 10 explosives — disguised as food items — on the shelves of Target stores in New York, Florida and Virginia, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Ocala.
"Barnett theorized that the company's stock value would plunge after the explosions, allowing him to cheaply acquire shares of Target stock before an eventual rebound in prices," the complaint said.
Barnett — a registered sex offender on probation for multiple felony kidnapping, sexual battery and grand theft counts — made the bombs at home and gave them to the individual, along with a bag of gloves, a mask and a license-plate cover, to complete the job, authorities alleged.
He showed the person 10 devices hidden in emptied-out containers of stuffing mix, breakfast bars and pasta, authorities said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-man-charged-trying-blow-target-stores-tank-company-s-n722071wouldn't it simply be easier and legal to wait for a company to have some sort of explosion/major disaster and then just buy stock there without trying to blow up Targer? This is one of the more ridiculous non Trump related things I've heard in a while. That takes a special kind of mind to come up with. You guys hear about the white supremacist who was looking to be Dylann Roof 2.0? A Conway man with a criminal record and white supremacist ties is accused of buying a pistol from an undercover FBI operative so he could launch an attack "in the spirit of Dylann Roof," according to court documents.
FBI agents arrested 29-year-old Benjamin Thomas Samuel McDowell on Wednesday, and he was booked into the J. Reuben Long Detention Center in Horry County. He faces a federal count of felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition.
McDowell invoked the name of the Emanuel AME Church shooter in describing his desire to commit an attack on "non-whites" at an unknown location in another county, authorities said. He told the undercover operative he wanted to do something on a "big scale" and write on the building "in the spirit of Dylann Roof," according to the criminal complaint filed against him.
Like Roof, McDowell reportedly expressed frustration with other white supremacists who were unwilling to take action against "ungodly people" who he believed were out to the destroy the white race, the complaint stated.
"I'm wanting to do this s----, and I got the heart to do this," the complaint quotes McDowell as saying. "I seen what Dylann Roof did and in my heart I reckon I got a little bit of hatred and I...I want to do that s----. Like, I got desire ... not for nobody else .. .it just... I want something where I can say, 'I f---ing did that' ... me personally." SourceAre we ever going to take mental health seriously in this country or we just going to let whackos run loose and cross our fingers? Of course it's not going to be labelled terrrorism and no one will start getting scared of right wing extremists. He'll surely be labeled as just another lone wolf that we should sympathize with because he's the real victim here... After all, he was probably subjected to a few seconds of Spanish after accidentally pressing "2" during an automated phone message! The horror! The broader subject of mental health/ cognitive stability (especially addressing depression properly, not trying to dismiss bullying with "just man up", and finding ways to run interference on hate groups/ hateful people through education and experience) is one of the biggest issues we have in our country and it definitely doesn't get the acknowledgement, national dialogue, and serious analysis that it so desperately needs.
I think, it's not only their race that drives this double standard, but also the method of killing. Child soldiers blowing themselves up, people being drowned in cages, being beheaded, stoned (which Trump used effectively) does draw a more visceral reaction than someone who uses conventional methods.
What I'm curious about is religious extremists, are they all mentally ill? or is religious brainwashing powerful enough to make the sane man strap on a bomb vest and walk into a mall? If we were born into that environment and fed extreme propaganda from an early age, would we be capable of such acts? I think so, making it that much more dangerous.
Trump is stoking fears of tribalism with an us versus them mentality, because it is effective, but at the same time I enjoy watching a counter trend against islamic apology.
|
|
|
The same why he always does it, by convincing himself that anything not going his way is due to cheating. Some award he didn't win was rigged against his tv show, millions of illegals voted, now so-called judges are being mean to him.
|
On February 17 2017 22:17 Plansix wrote:
Perez. Ellison doesn't seem to be gathering enough support.
If you're talking about what Perez has said to the press, that cuts both ways. It could also be seen as an attempt to oversell his support so as to create the impression that the race is over.
I mean I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Perez wins, it's the democratic party after all, but I don't know that it's very clear right now.
|
Can someone explain why I should prefer Perez to Ellison? I feel like the arguments made for Perez are the same arguments in favor of Clinton. The whole "Just trust me, we're so incredibly experienced and connected" thing isn't super convincing anymore.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Don't have any particular reason to want Ellison either. Just that Bernie Sanders made him known.
I'm perfectly content to let the party choose its own chairman without my input. Their leadership is their choice. If they want to make a DWS caliber mistake again, that's on them, not me.
|
On February 18 2017 00:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain why I should prefer Perez to Ellison? I feel like the arguments made for Perez are the same arguments in favor of Clinton. The whole "Just trust me, we're so incredibly experienced and connected" thing isn't super convincing anymore.
The DNC chair position is somewhat symbolic, at least in that the chair can't make the party do anything it doesn't want to (at least the majority). Pushing Perez and if they give it to them is like hiring DWS right after she resigned. It serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation.
Keith isn't a radical control freak, Perez could do the same stuff from a co-chair position that he'd be doing as head (at least as far as expanding the party). He'd be restricted in doing things like trying to make the primaries more closed, but he'd still be able to lobby state parties to do so since Democrats seem to think that's a good idea still.
|
On February 18 2017 00:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain why I should prefer Perez to Ellison? I feel like the arguments made for Perez are the same arguments in favor of Clinton. The whole "Just trust me, we're so incredibly experienced and connected" thing isn't super convincing anymore.
i mean, he has a record. and a wikipedia page. and a website. so does ellison.
i'm like 55/45 perez/ellison, so i don't really care who wins. ellison has symbolic value, but i think perez comes out a bit ahead in other respects. either will do a good job, hopefully they'll work together.
|
I don't know a whole lot about the DNC chair position or the people who are being considered, so I'm just going to ask:
Which DNC candidates are least likely to promote a super-elitist establishment face for the party? Because I agree with the vast majority of Democratic platforms (certainly over stereotypically Republican ones) and I think that a lot of the DNC is well-intentioned, but I think that they shoot themselves in the foot over and over and over again and the message of content gets overlooked and overshadowed by how they present themselves (often in an unlikable and disconnected manner, even if their ideas are noble and truly for the good of the average American).
|
On February 18 2017 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 00:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain why I should prefer Perez to Ellison? I feel like the arguments made for Perez are the same arguments in favor of Clinton. The whole "Just trust me, we're so incredibly experienced and connected" thing isn't super convincing anymore. The DNC chair position is somewhat symbolic, at least in that the chair can't make the party do anything it doesn't want to (at least the majority). Pushing Perez and if they give it to them is like hiring DWS right after she resigned. It serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation. Keith isn't a radical control freak, Perez could do the same stuff from a co-chair position that he'd be doing as head (at least as far as expanding the party). He'd be restricted in doing things like trying to make the primaries more closed, but he'd still be able to lobby state parties to do so since Democrats seem to think that's a good idea still.
My feeling is that the party failed to energize Bernie folks. I doubt Perez' ability to charm the Bernie folks. I understand the reasons the Clinton crowd would want Perez, but I just feel like it is wasted effort when the party loses such a big chunk of voters.
On February 18 2017 00:37 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 00:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain why I should prefer Perez to Ellison? I feel like the arguments made for Perez are the same arguments in favor of Clinton. The whole "Just trust me, we're so incredibly experienced and connected" thing isn't super convincing anymore. i mean, he has a record. and a wikipedia page. and a website. so does ellison. i'm like 55/45 perez/ellison, so i don't really care who wins. ellison has symbolic value, but i think perez comes out a bit ahead in other respects. either will do a good job, hopefully they'll work together.
I suppose I would argue we've been shown the value of experience and how that compares to symbolic value. We can't lose track of the fact that symbolism beat experience against some pretty crazy odds and circumstances.
|
On February 18 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 00:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain why I should prefer Perez to Ellison? I feel like the arguments made for Perez are the same arguments in favor of Clinton. The whole "Just trust me, we're so incredibly experienced and connected" thing isn't super convincing anymore. The DNC chair position is somewhat symbolic, at least in that the chair can't make the party do anything it doesn't want to (at least the majority). Pushing Perez and if they give it to them is like hiring DWS right after she resigned. It serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation. Keith isn't a radical control freak, Perez could do the same stuff from a co-chair position that he'd be doing as head (at least as far as expanding the party). He'd be restricted in doing things like trying to make the primaries more closed, but he'd still be able to lobby state parties to do so since Democrats seem to think that's a good idea still. My feeling is that the party failed to energize Bernie folks. I doubt Perez' ability to charm the Bernie folks. I understand the reasons the Clinton crowd would want Perez, but I just feel like it is wasted effort when the party loses such a big chunk of voters. Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 00:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 00:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain why I should prefer Perez to Ellison? I feel like the arguments made for Perez are the same arguments in favor of Clinton. The whole "Just trust me, we're so incredibly experienced and connected" thing isn't super convincing anymore. i mean, he has a record. and a wikipedia page. and a website. so does ellison. i'm like 55/45 perez/ellison, so i don't really care who wins. ellison has symbolic value, but i think perez comes out a bit ahead in other respects. either will do a good job, hopefully they'll work together. I suppose I would argue we've been shown the value of experience and how that compares to symbolic value. We can't lose track of the fact that symbolism beat experience against some pretty crazy odds and circumstances.
It's not just the Bernie folks either, it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt and other key areas Hillary lost to Trump.
Picking Perez means they want to lose or they are too dense to get out of their own way. Like I said, there's nothing to be gained with Perez as the head of the DNC. Nothing.
Hell, the DNC membership could just ignore Ellison and only do what Perez told them and that would still be smarter than picking Perez.
|
if the bernie folks can be persuasive enough to get ellison elected then good for them. but if their chosen candidate isnt picked and they sit out the process and continue to let the country get further screwed by republicans, then that's their choice too.
|
On February 18 2017 00:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
if the bernie folks can be persuasive enough to get ellison elected then good for them. but if their chosen candidate isnt picked and they sit out the process and continue to let the country get further screwed by republicans, then that's their choice too.
Bernie folks aren't in for the R v D games. If that's the only way the Democrats can operate they're going to continue to lose. They are going to have to present a message that doesn't center around things like "stopping Republicans".
If Trump manages to make it 4 years, the "But we have to stop Trump" argument is going to fall even flatter than it did in 16. Not to mention, if he doesn't, I guarantee you that Democrats lose the messaging fight and the majority ends up giving Republicans credit for stopping Trump if it comes to that.
But let's be real, Democrats are busy endorsing Linda McMahon, they couldn't stop Trump if they lead pipes and ski-masks.
|
|
|
Not sure who to believe right now given that Sean Spicer denied they were going to implement such a policy. I mean it is Spicer, but I'd be careful with jumping the gun on this one.
|
Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish.
|
On February 18 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 00:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain why I should prefer Perez to Ellison? I feel like the arguments made for Perez are the same arguments in favor of Clinton. The whole "Just trust me, we're so incredibly experienced and connected" thing isn't super convincing anymore. The DNC chair position is somewhat symbolic, at least in that the chair can't make the party do anything it doesn't want to (at least the majority). Pushing Perez and if they give it to them is like hiring DWS right after she resigned. It serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation. Keith isn't a radical control freak, Perez could do the same stuff from a co-chair position that he'd be doing as head (at least as far as expanding the party). He'd be restricted in doing things like trying to make the primaries more closed, but he'd still be able to lobby state parties to do so since Democrats seem to think that's a good idea still. My feeling is that the party failed to energize Bernie folks. I doubt Perez' ability to charm the Bernie folks. I understand the reasons the Clinton crowd would want Perez, but I just feel like it is wasted effort when the party loses such a big chunk of voters. Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 00:37 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2017 00:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain why I should prefer Perez to Ellison? I feel like the arguments made for Perez are the same arguments in favor of Clinton. The whole "Just trust me, we're so incredibly experienced and connected" thing isn't super convincing anymore. i mean, he has a record. and a wikipedia page. and a website. so does ellison. i'm like 55/45 perez/ellison, so i don't really care who wins. ellison has symbolic value, but i think perez comes out a bit ahead in other respects. either will do a good job, hopefully they'll work together. I suppose I would argue we've been shown the value of experience and how that compares to symbolic value. We can't lose track of the fact that symbolism beat experience against some pretty crazy odds and circumstances.
The tough part is that anyone in that position has to straddle both. Even if Ellison got the job, he needs to help the centrist democrats that come from the middle of the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
