|
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 August 10 2017 06:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Netroots Nation, the activist left's largest annual gathering, arrives in Atlanta this year with its clearest focus in years: how to resist President Trump.
Former Vice President Gore will speak about the threats to the planet from a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax hatched in Beijing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will ring alarm bells about domestic policy. And 14 separate sessions will discuss the best ways to fight the White House and Republican Congress. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic star who narrowly lost Georgia’s special House election in June, will also show.
“The last couple of years, much of the energy nationally was focused on social justice,” said Netroots Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles. This year, the focus for nearly 3,000 attendees was back on politics: “How do we channel the energy of resistance into helping progressives win elections?”
At more than 80 panels and training sessions, activists will get updates from the “resistance” groups like Indivisible founded after the 2016 election, or those that have multiplied their membership since then, like the American Civil Liberties Union. One panel will go over ways to challenge Trump’s “xenophobic NAFTA narrative,” while another — more relevant given news from North Korea — will brainstorm ways to oppose Trump if a traumatic event causes people to rally around the flag.
[Trump’s threats to North Korea were spontaneous and not drafted by advisers, officials say]
“Hitler used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; and George W. Bush used 9/11,” reads the online description of the panel, which will feature leaders of MoveOn.org and the ACLU. “With Trump, [Stephen K.] Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.”
The conference, which began in 2006 as a spinoff from the elections-focused Daily Kos blog, transformed in the Obama years into a showcase for labor and civil rights movements. In 2007, it hosted every major Democratic candidate for president for a traditional question-and-answer session, and more than a hundred reporters swarmed the halls to see where the Democratic base was directing its energy.
But as soon as Democrats took power, an invitation to Netroots meant a decent shot of being heckled by activists who demanded results on LGBT rights, on National Security Agency spying, or the failings of the Affordable Care Act. In 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took questions, they were interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists — a scene that led to productive meetings between protesters and candidates, but unfolded awkwardly onstage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign checked off the Netroots box with a three-minute video message. WaPoIt's good to know ACLU leaders are fine on a panel that compares GWB to Hitler. You're disappointed that the ACLU aren't doing enough to limit discussions you find distasteful? That's an odd thing to be disappointed by. Do you know what they do?
It's odd that past US presidents and literal Hitler is an association you would detachedly comment on in passing. Today, the civil rights of America, tomorrow, our lawyer's leaders examine how 9/11 was comparable to the Reichstag fire.
I might echo your words at our last interaction, and say I risk explaining this as I would to a child.
|
A huge inflatable chicken with orange hair and wings in the shape of President Trump’s hands was looming near the White House on Wednesday afternoon.
The 23-foot-tall poultry prop is similar to the inflatable chicken that protesters have used to egg on Trump to release his personal tax returns during Tax Day events on April 15.
Twitter was delighted by the visual.
”Breaking news about North Korea comes to a screeching halt due to an inflatable chicken in the white house lawn…God bless the USA…, ” Geo Betus wrote on Wednesday.
”So a massive inflatable chicken showed up at the White House today. In 2017 America, this seems completely normal,” NewsRadio 570 wrote.
One Twitter user joked that it was a mascot for Trump.
Source
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:45 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Netroots Nation, the activist left's largest annual gathering, arrives in Atlanta this year with its clearest focus in years: how to resist President Trump.
Former Vice President Gore will speak about the threats to the planet from a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax hatched in Beijing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will ring alarm bells about domestic policy. And 14 separate sessions will discuss the best ways to fight the White House and Republican Congress. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic star who narrowly lost Georgia’s special House election in June, will also show.
“The last couple of years, much of the energy nationally was focused on social justice,” said Netroots Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles. This year, the focus for nearly 3,000 attendees was back on politics: “How do we channel the energy of resistance into helping progressives win elections?”
At more than 80 panels and training sessions, activists will get updates from the “resistance” groups like Indivisible founded after the 2016 election, or those that have multiplied their membership since then, like the American Civil Liberties Union. One panel will go over ways to challenge Trump’s “xenophobic NAFTA narrative,” while another — more relevant given news from North Korea — will brainstorm ways to oppose Trump if a traumatic event causes people to rally around the flag.
[Trump’s threats to North Korea were spontaneous and not drafted by advisers, officials say]
“Hitler used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; and George W. Bush used 9/11,” reads the online description of the panel, which will feature leaders of MoveOn.org and the ACLU. “With Trump, [Stephen K.] Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.”
The conference, which began in 2006 as a spinoff from the elections-focused Daily Kos blog, transformed in the Obama years into a showcase for labor and civil rights movements. In 2007, it hosted every major Democratic candidate for president for a traditional question-and-answer session, and more than a hundred reporters swarmed the halls to see where the Democratic base was directing its energy.
But as soon as Democrats took power, an invitation to Netroots meant a decent shot of being heckled by activists who demanded results on LGBT rights, on National Security Agency spying, or the failings of the Affordable Care Act. In 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took questions, they were interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists — a scene that led to productive meetings between protesters and candidates, but unfolded awkwardly onstage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign checked off the Netroots box with a three-minute video message. WaPoIt's good to know ACLU leaders are fine on a panel that compares GWB to Hitler. You're disappointed that the ACLU aren't doing enough to limit discussions you find distasteful? That's an odd thing to be disappointed by. Do you know what they do? It's odd that past US presidents and literal Hitler is an association you would detachedly comment on in passing. Today, the civil rights of America, tomorrow, our lawyer's leaders examine how 9/11 was comparable to the Reichstag fire. I might echo your words at our last interaction, and say I risk explaining this as I would to a child.
Which example of civil liberties and privacy being curtailed following an attack would you prefer them to compare 9/11 to?
Presumably you acknowledge that there has been an increase in surveillance of the American people by their government. And presumably you acknowledge that 9/11 was the event that caused that increase. So, if you don't doubt that it happened, are you simply upset about the parallel being drawn? And if so, which historical event would you prefer?
|
WASHINGTON/SEOUL (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis issued a stark warning to North Korea on Wednesday, telling Pyongyang that it should stop any actions that would lead to the "end of its regime and the destruction of its people."
Mattis' words, some of the strongest he has issued on North Korea, followed incendiary comments from President Donald Trump who said on Tuesday that threats to the United States from Pyongyang would be met with "fire and fury."
Trump's unexpected remarks prompted North Korea to respond by saying it was considering plans for a missile strike on the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam.
Mattis said in a statement that the United States and its allies would win any arms race or conflict with North Korea.
"The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons," Mattis said, using the acronym for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people," he added.
Source
|
On August 10 2017 07:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On August 10 2017 06:45 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Netroots Nation, the activist left's largest annual gathering, arrives in Atlanta this year with its clearest focus in years: how to resist President Trump.
Former Vice President Gore will speak about the threats to the planet from a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax hatched in Beijing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will ring alarm bells about domestic policy. And 14 separate sessions will discuss the best ways to fight the White House and Republican Congress. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic star who narrowly lost Georgia’s special House election in June, will also show.
“The last couple of years, much of the energy nationally was focused on social justice,” said Netroots Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles. This year, the focus for nearly 3,000 attendees was back on politics: “How do we channel the energy of resistance into helping progressives win elections?”
At more than 80 panels and training sessions, activists will get updates from the “resistance” groups like Indivisible founded after the 2016 election, or those that have multiplied their membership since then, like the American Civil Liberties Union. One panel will go over ways to challenge Trump’s “xenophobic NAFTA narrative,” while another — more relevant given news from North Korea — will brainstorm ways to oppose Trump if a traumatic event causes people to rally around the flag.
[Trump’s threats to North Korea were spontaneous and not drafted by advisers, officials say]
“Hitler used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; and George W. Bush used 9/11,” reads the online description of the panel, which will feature leaders of MoveOn.org and the ACLU. “With Trump, [Stephen K.] Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.”
The conference, which began in 2006 as a spinoff from the elections-focused Daily Kos blog, transformed in the Obama years into a showcase for labor and civil rights movements. In 2007, it hosted every major Democratic candidate for president for a traditional question-and-answer session, and more than a hundred reporters swarmed the halls to see where the Democratic base was directing its energy.
But as soon as Democrats took power, an invitation to Netroots meant a decent shot of being heckled by activists who demanded results on LGBT rights, on National Security Agency spying, or the failings of the Affordable Care Act. In 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took questions, they were interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists — a scene that led to productive meetings between protesters and candidates, but unfolded awkwardly onstage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign checked off the Netroots box with a three-minute video message. WaPoIt's good to know ACLU leaders are fine on a panel that compares GWB to Hitler. You're disappointed that the ACLU aren't doing enough to limit discussions you find distasteful? That's an odd thing to be disappointed by. Do you know what they do? It's odd that past US presidents and literal Hitler is an association you would detachedly comment on in passing. Today, the civil rights of America, tomorrow, our lawyer's leaders examine how 9/11 was comparable to the Reichstag fire. I might echo your words at our last interaction, and say I risk explaining this as I would to a child. Which example of civil liberties and privacy being curtailed following an attack would you prefer them to compare 9/11 to? Presumably you acknowledge that there has been an increase in surveillance of the American people by their government. And presumably you acknowledge that 9/11 was the event that caused that increase. So, if you don't doubt that it happened, are you simply upset about the parallel being drawn? And if so, which historical event would you prefer?
So your defense is that Hitler and the Reichstag bear surprising similarities to GWB and 9/11. Well, I suppose the ACLU does have its supporters in this behavior. I thought it a little beyond the pale, similar to saying broad swaths of America didn't vote for Obama because of racism, but you pepped up to defend that one on the basis of truth. I find it so blindingly outrageous on its face that breaking it down really is just indulging someone who chooses to be dense.
|
On August 10 2017 07:06 Nevuk wrote:
This is the reporter who broke the news about Bolling sending dick pics. Bolling is being represented by Marc Kasowitz in the matter.
Out of curiosity, how does one justify $50M in damages as the correct amount to sue for? Where exactly does that number come from?
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 07:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On August 10 2017 06:45 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Netroots Nation, the activist left's largest annual gathering, arrives in Atlanta this year with its clearest focus in years: how to resist President Trump.
Former Vice President Gore will speak about the threats to the planet from a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax hatched in Beijing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will ring alarm bells about domestic policy. And 14 separate sessions will discuss the best ways to fight the White House and Republican Congress. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic star who narrowly lost Georgia’s special House election in June, will also show.
“The last couple of years, much of the energy nationally was focused on social justice,” said Netroots Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles. This year, the focus for nearly 3,000 attendees was back on politics: “How do we channel the energy of resistance into helping progressives win elections?”
At more than 80 panels and training sessions, activists will get updates from the “resistance” groups like Indivisible founded after the 2016 election, or those that have multiplied their membership since then, like the American Civil Liberties Union. One panel will go over ways to challenge Trump’s “xenophobic NAFTA narrative,” while another — more relevant given news from North Korea — will brainstorm ways to oppose Trump if a traumatic event causes people to rally around the flag.
[Trump’s threats to North Korea were spontaneous and not drafted by advisers, officials say]
“Hitler used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; and George W. Bush used 9/11,” reads the online description of the panel, which will feature leaders of MoveOn.org and the ACLU. “With Trump, [Stephen K.] Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.”
The conference, which began in 2006 as a spinoff from the elections-focused Daily Kos blog, transformed in the Obama years into a showcase for labor and civil rights movements. In 2007, it hosted every major Democratic candidate for president for a traditional question-and-answer session, and more than a hundred reporters swarmed the halls to see where the Democratic base was directing its energy.
But as soon as Democrats took power, an invitation to Netroots meant a decent shot of being heckled by activists who demanded results on LGBT rights, on National Security Agency spying, or the failings of the Affordable Care Act. In 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took questions, they were interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists — a scene that led to productive meetings between protesters and candidates, but unfolded awkwardly onstage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign checked off the Netroots box with a three-minute video message. WaPoIt's good to know ACLU leaders are fine on a panel that compares GWB to Hitler. You're disappointed that the ACLU aren't doing enough to limit discussions you find distasteful? That's an odd thing to be disappointed by. Do you know what they do? It's odd that past US presidents and literal Hitler is an association you would detachedly comment on in passing. Today, the civil rights of America, tomorrow, our lawyer's leaders examine how 9/11 was comparable to the Reichstag fire. I might echo your words at our last interaction, and say I risk explaining this as I would to a child. Which example of civil liberties and privacy being curtailed following an attack would you prefer them to compare 9/11 to? Presumably you acknowledge that there has been an increase in surveillance of the American people by their government. And presumably you acknowledge that 9/11 was the event that caused that increase. So, if you don't doubt that it happened, are you simply upset about the parallel being drawn? And if so, which historical event would you prefer? So your defense is that Hitler and the Reichstag bear surprising similarities to GWB and 9/11. Well, I suppose the ACLU does have its supporters in this behavior. I thought it a little beyond the pale, similar to saying broad swaths of America didn't vote for Obama because of racism, but you pepped up to defend that one on the basis of truth. I find it so blindingly outrageous on its face that breaking it down really is just indulging someone who chooses to be dense.
What in the hell are you even talking about? You ignored literally everything I said.
All I did was ask you if you're upset about the parallel being drawn and if so which historical event you would prefer they use as a parallel.
|
On August 10 2017 07:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Out of curiosity, how does one justify $50M in damages as the correct amount to sue for? Where exactly does that number come from?
Pretty sure it's to bankrupt him if he's guilty and to make sure HuffPost doesn't pay for the legal fees.
|
On August 10 2017 07:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:18 Danglars wrote:On August 10 2017 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On August 10 2017 06:45 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Netroots Nation, the activist left's largest annual gathering, arrives in Atlanta this year with its clearest focus in years: how to resist President Trump.
Former Vice President Gore will speak about the threats to the planet from a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax hatched in Beijing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will ring alarm bells about domestic policy. And 14 separate sessions will discuss the best ways to fight the White House and Republican Congress. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic star who narrowly lost Georgia’s special House election in June, will also show.
“The last couple of years, much of the energy nationally was focused on social justice,” said Netroots Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles. This year, the focus for nearly 3,000 attendees was back on politics: “How do we channel the energy of resistance into helping progressives win elections?”
At more than 80 panels and training sessions, activists will get updates from the “resistance” groups like Indivisible founded after the 2016 election, or those that have multiplied their membership since then, like the American Civil Liberties Union. One panel will go over ways to challenge Trump’s “xenophobic NAFTA narrative,” while another — more relevant given news from North Korea — will brainstorm ways to oppose Trump if a traumatic event causes people to rally around the flag.
[Trump’s threats to North Korea were spontaneous and not drafted by advisers, officials say]
“Hitler used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; and George W. Bush used 9/11,” reads the online description of the panel, which will feature leaders of MoveOn.org and the ACLU. “With Trump, [Stephen K.] Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.”
The conference, which began in 2006 as a spinoff from the elections-focused Daily Kos blog, transformed in the Obama years into a showcase for labor and civil rights movements. In 2007, it hosted every major Democratic candidate for president for a traditional question-and-answer session, and more than a hundred reporters swarmed the halls to see where the Democratic base was directing its energy.
But as soon as Democrats took power, an invitation to Netroots meant a decent shot of being heckled by activists who demanded results on LGBT rights, on National Security Agency spying, or the failings of the Affordable Care Act. In 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took questions, they were interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists — a scene that led to productive meetings between protesters and candidates, but unfolded awkwardly onstage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign checked off the Netroots box with a three-minute video message. WaPoIt's good to know ACLU leaders are fine on a panel that compares GWB to Hitler. You're disappointed that the ACLU aren't doing enough to limit discussions you find distasteful? That's an odd thing to be disappointed by. Do you know what they do? It's odd that past US presidents and literal Hitler is an association you would detachedly comment on in passing. Today, the civil rights of America, tomorrow, our lawyer's leaders examine how 9/11 was comparable to the Reichstag fire. I might echo your words at our last interaction, and say I risk explaining this as I would to a child. Which example of civil liberties and privacy being curtailed following an attack would you prefer them to compare 9/11 to? Presumably you acknowledge that there has been an increase in surveillance of the American people by their government. And presumably you acknowledge that 9/11 was the event that caused that increase. So, if you don't doubt that it happened, are you simply upset about the parallel being drawn? And if so, which historical event would you prefer? So your defense is that Hitler and the Reichstag bear surprising similarities to GWB and 9/11. Well, I suppose the ACLU does have its supporters in this behavior. I thought it a little beyond the pale, similar to saying broad swaths of America didn't vote for Obama because of racism, but you pepped up to defend that one on the basis of truth. I find it so blindingly outrageous on its face that breaking it down really is just indulging someone who chooses to be dense. What in the hell are you even talking about? You ignored literally everything I said. All I did was ask you if you're upset about the parallel being drawn and if so which historical event you would prefer they use as a parallel.
I'm saying you could technically put the ACLU on a panel questioning the bases for why rape is considered wrong and claim any objectors are just disappointed that their sexual moral norms can be questioned and its just a view you find distasteful, as you've done here. I'm about as prepared and willing to discuss that moral case as for why GWB used 9/11 like Hitler used the Reichstag fire. I will second my original repetition of your words, by wondering if I'm going too far in explaining this as I would to a child.
|
On August 10 2017 06:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:36 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ? Yes On race issues? Honestly? LBJ was a huge racist, but he was in a somewhat unique position to advance Civil Rights and he did, which he should deserve some credit for. It's really hard to compare someone from the 1960s to someone from the 2010s with regards to opinions on racial matters. However, while he may have been a huge racist, he was never associated with anything like the welfare reform of the 90s or ramping up the incarceration rates of blacks the way the Clintons were. Yes, that was Bill and not Hillary but they're something of a package deal. Basically in their personal life they seem less racist, but policy wise Clinton was part of the team that massively hurt the african-american community over the last 30 years. The welfare reform of the 90s is welfare that didn't even exist in LBJ's day. You can argue that the Clintons made things worse. That's winter in my metaphor. But what you're missing is that even at its coldest it was still hotter than LBJ's summer. GH has the option of insisting that it is beneath his dignity to support someone he views as being racist only because his forefathers held their nose and voted anyway. The overall upwards trend doesn't matter to him, he'd rather not participate, and in doing so weaken the engine that drives it upward. You vote for the better of the two. That puts you in the game as a likely voter. The other party then tries to tempt you. The first party then tries to keep you. The trend is upwards. But if you're too proud to play the game then as far as they're concerned you don't even have a vote. The rights that GH takes for granted today are built on people who came before him playing anyway and voting for the least bad racist. Welfare existed in LBJ's day. It'd been around for decades :
It existed in some form since 1909 at the local level (but generally not for minorities).
A few months later, on August 18, 1935, Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. It set up a federal retirement program for persons over 65, which was financed by a payroll tax paid jointly by employers and their workers. FDR believed that federal old-age pensions together with employer-paid unemployment insurance (also a part of the Social Security Act) would provide the economic security people needed during both good and bad times.
In addition to old-age pensions and unemployment insurance, the Social Security Act established a national welfare system. The federal government guaranteed one-third of the total amount spent by states for assistance to needy and dependent children under age 16 (but not their mothers). Additional federal welfare aid was provided to destitute old people, the needy blind, and crippled children. Although financed partly by federal tax money, the states could still set their own eligibility requirements and benefit levels. This part of the law was pushed by Southern states so they could control the coverage made available to their African-American population.
This is how welfare began as a federal government responsibility. Roosevelt and the members of Congress who wrote the welfare provisions into the Social Security Act thought that the need for federal aid to dependent children and poor old people would gradually wither away as employment improved and those over 65 began to collect Social Security pensions. But many Americans, such as farm laborers and domestic servants, were never included in the Social Security old-age retirement program. Also, since 1935, increasing divorce and father desertion rates have dramatically multiplied the number of poor single mothers with dependent children.
Since the Great Depression, the national welfare system expanded both in coverage and federal regulations. From its inception, the system drew critics. Some complained that the system did not do enough to get people to work. Others simply believed the federal government should not administer a welfare system. As the system grew, so did criticism of it, especially in the 1980s and '90s.
In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton, a Democrat, ran for president promising to "end welfare as we know it." In 1996, a Republican Congress passed and President Clinton signed a reform law that returned most control of welfare back to the states, thus ending 61 years of federal responsibility.
www.crf-usa.org
Just picked the first source on google for it, there may be some less biased but it's just history we're talking here.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:22 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 07:18 Danglars wrote:On August 10 2017 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On August 10 2017 06:45 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Netroots Nation, the activist left's largest annual gathering, arrives in Atlanta this year with its clearest focus in years: how to resist President Trump.
Former Vice President Gore will speak about the threats to the planet from a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax hatched in Beijing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will ring alarm bells about domestic policy. And 14 separate sessions will discuss the best ways to fight the White House and Republican Congress. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic star who narrowly lost Georgia’s special House election in June, will also show.
“The last couple of years, much of the energy nationally was focused on social justice,” said Netroots Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles. This year, the focus for nearly 3,000 attendees was back on politics: “How do we channel the energy of resistance into helping progressives win elections?”
At more than 80 panels and training sessions, activists will get updates from the “resistance” groups like Indivisible founded after the 2016 election, or those that have multiplied their membership since then, like the American Civil Liberties Union. One panel will go over ways to challenge Trump’s “xenophobic NAFTA narrative,” while another — more relevant given news from North Korea — will brainstorm ways to oppose Trump if a traumatic event causes people to rally around the flag.
[Trump’s threats to North Korea were spontaneous and not drafted by advisers, officials say]
“Hitler used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; and George W. Bush used 9/11,” reads the online description of the panel, which will feature leaders of MoveOn.org and the ACLU. “With Trump, [Stephen K.] Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.”
The conference, which began in 2006 as a spinoff from the elections-focused Daily Kos blog, transformed in the Obama years into a showcase for labor and civil rights movements. In 2007, it hosted every major Democratic candidate for president for a traditional question-and-answer session, and more than a hundred reporters swarmed the halls to see where the Democratic base was directing its energy.
But as soon as Democrats took power, an invitation to Netroots meant a decent shot of being heckled by activists who demanded results on LGBT rights, on National Security Agency spying, or the failings of the Affordable Care Act. In 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took questions, they were interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists — a scene that led to productive meetings between protesters and candidates, but unfolded awkwardly onstage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign checked off the Netroots box with a three-minute video message. WaPoIt's good to know ACLU leaders are fine on a panel that compares GWB to Hitler. You're disappointed that the ACLU aren't doing enough to limit discussions you find distasteful? That's an odd thing to be disappointed by. Do you know what they do? It's odd that past US presidents and literal Hitler is an association you would detachedly comment on in passing. Today, the civil rights of America, tomorrow, our lawyer's leaders examine how 9/11 was comparable to the Reichstag fire. I might echo your words at our last interaction, and say I risk explaining this as I would to a child. Which example of civil liberties and privacy being curtailed following an attack would you prefer them to compare 9/11 to? Presumably you acknowledge that there has been an increase in surveillance of the American people by their government. And presumably you acknowledge that 9/11 was the event that caused that increase. So, if you don't doubt that it happened, are you simply upset about the parallel being drawn? And if so, which historical event would you prefer? So your defense is that Hitler and the Reichstag bear surprising similarities to GWB and 9/11. Well, I suppose the ACLU does have its supporters in this behavior. I thought it a little beyond the pale, similar to saying broad swaths of America didn't vote for Obama because of racism, but you pepped up to defend that one on the basis of truth. I find it so blindingly outrageous on its face that breaking it down really is just indulging someone who chooses to be dense. What in the hell are you even talking about? You ignored literally everything I said. All I did was ask you if you're upset about the parallel being drawn and if so which historical event you would prefer they use as a parallel. I'm saying you could technically put the ACLU on a panel questioning the bases for why rape is considered wrong and claim any objectors are just disappointed that their sexual moral norms can be questioned and its just a view you find distasteful, as you've done here. I'm about as prepared and willing to discuss that moral case as for why GWB used 9/11 like Hitler used the Reichstag fire. I will second my original repetition of your words, by wondering if I'm going too far in explaining this as I would to a child.
Danglars, before you could explain what the fuck you're talking about to a child you'd have to explain it to yourself because honestly it seems you don't have a clue.
As near as I can tell, you seem to think that the ACLU questioning the surveillance state is comparable to rape apologism. Which doesn't make any sense but that really does seem to be what you're saying. I don't know why you're saying that, but I'm also pretty sure you don't know why you're saying that. You just saw the words Bush, 9/11, and ACLU and the red mist rose.
Assuming that you are okay with the ACLU discussing the decreases in civil liberties following 9/11 (which is what the ACLU are meant to be doing, that's the CL in their name), are you just upset by the historical comparison they chose? If so, what historical comparison would you prefer?
|
On August 10 2017 07:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Out of curiosity, how does one justify $50M in damages as the correct amount to sue for? Where exactly does that number come from? Pretty sure it's to bankrupt him if he's guilty and to make sure HuffPost doesn't pay for the legal fees.
They will anyways. They need to have their journalists backs.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 07:31 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 06:56 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:36 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ? Yes On race issues? Honestly? LBJ was a huge racist, but he was in a somewhat unique position to advance Civil Rights and he did, which he should deserve some credit for. It's really hard to compare someone from the 1960s to someone from the 2010s with regards to opinions on racial matters. However, while he may have been a huge racist, he was never associated with anything like the welfare reform of the 90s or ramping up the incarceration rates of blacks the way the Clintons were. Yes, that was Bill and not Hillary but they're something of a package deal. Basically in their personal life they seem less racist, but policy wise Clinton was part of the team that massively hurt the african-american community over the last 30 years. The welfare reform of the 90s is welfare that didn't even exist in LBJ's day. You can argue that the Clintons made things worse. That's winter in my metaphor. But what you're missing is that even at its coldest it was still hotter than LBJ's summer. GH has the option of insisting that it is beneath his dignity to support someone he views as being racist only because his forefathers held their nose and voted anyway. The overall upwards trend doesn't matter to him, he'd rather not participate, and in doing so weaken the engine that drives it upward. You vote for the better of the two. That puts you in the game as a likely voter. The other party then tries to tempt you. The first party then tries to keep you. The trend is upwards. But if you're too proud to play the game then as far as they're concerned you don't even have a vote. The rights that GH takes for granted today are built on people who came before him playing anyway and voting for the least bad racist. Welfare existed in LBJ's day. It'd been around for decades.
The welfare state, as we imagine it today, dates from LBJ. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, 1965, 1965 and 1964 respectively. That's my point. LBJ, racist, was still a very worthwhile vote.
|
On August 10 2017 07:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:31 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:56 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:36 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ? Yes On race issues? Honestly? LBJ was a huge racist, but he was in a somewhat unique position to advance Civil Rights and he did, which he should deserve some credit for. It's really hard to compare someone from the 1960s to someone from the 2010s with regards to opinions on racial matters. However, while he may have been a huge racist, he was never associated with anything like the welfare reform of the 90s or ramping up the incarceration rates of blacks the way the Clintons were. Yes, that was Bill and not Hillary but they're something of a package deal. Basically in their personal life they seem less racist, but policy wise Clinton was part of the team that massively hurt the african-american community over the last 30 years. The welfare reform of the 90s is welfare that didn't even exist in LBJ's day. You can argue that the Clintons made things worse. That's winter in my metaphor. But what you're missing is that even at its coldest it was still hotter than LBJ's summer. GH has the option of insisting that it is beneath his dignity to support someone he views as being racist only because his forefathers held their nose and voted anyway. The overall upwards trend doesn't matter to him, he'd rather not participate, and in doing so weaken the engine that drives it upward. You vote for the better of the two. That puts you in the game as a likely voter. The other party then tries to tempt you. The first party then tries to keep you. The trend is upwards. But if you're too proud to play the game then as far as they're concerned you don't even have a vote. The rights that GH takes for granted today are built on people who came before him playing anyway and voting for the least bad racist. Welfare existed in LBJ's day. It'd been around for decades. The welfare state, as we imagine it today, dates from LBJ. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, 1965, 1965 and 1964 respectively. That's my point. LBJ, racist, was still a very worthwhile vote.
I did chuckle when you compared LBJ to someone who campaigned and voted against him as better.
|
Keep an eye out for a new piece of flagrantly absurd actual fake news being parroted soon :
The Justice Department has reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material on her private email system while she was secretary of state, and is considering offering her a plea bargain if she will agree to plead guilty to charges of breaking the law, according to a Clinton attorney.
The discussion of a plea bargain took place late last month and was offered by a high-ranking Justice Department official to the Clinton lawyer.
During the exploratory talks with the prosecutor, the Clinton attorney was told that despite former FBI Director James Comey's decision last July not to prosecute Hillary, the Justice Department has reexamined the email case and believes there are ample grounds for prosecuting Hillary on a number of counts.
Under the Justice Department's plea offer, Hillary would be required to sign a document admitting that she committed a prosecutable crime. In return, the DOJ would agree not to bring charges against Hillary in connection with the email probe.
Also as part of the agreement, the Justice Department would not proceed with an investigation of Hillary's pay to play deals with foreign governments and businessmen who contributed to the Clinton Foundation or who paid Bill Clinton exorbitant speaking fees.
The Clinton attorney cautioned that normally a plea is offered by a prosecutor only upon arraignment, and Hillary has not yet been charged with any crime.
Actual source : www.newsmax.com
|
On August 10 2017 07:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:31 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:56 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:36 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 Nevuk wrote:On August 10 2017 06:35 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Luxury of waiting for the perfect candidate, come the fuck on. I can buy that some people are falling for the "purity" talking point but I can't buy that people are falling for that. Do you think Hillary is worse candidate than LBJ? Yes On race issues? Honestly? LBJ was a huge racist, but he was in a somewhat unique position to advance Civil Rights and he did, which he should deserve some credit for. It's really hard to compare someone from the 1960s to someone from the 2010s with regards to opinions on racial matters. However, while he may have been a huge racist, he was never associated with anything like the welfare reform of the 90s or ramping up the incarceration rates of blacks the way the Clintons were. Yes, that was Bill and not Hillary but they're something of a package deal. Basically in their personal life they seem less racist, but policy wise Clinton was part of the team that massively hurt the african-american community over the last 30 years. The welfare reform of the 90s is welfare that didn't even exist in LBJ's day. You can argue that the Clintons made things worse. That's winter in my metaphor. But what you're missing is that even at its coldest it was still hotter than LBJ's summer. GH has the option of insisting that it is beneath his dignity to support someone he views as being racist only because his forefathers held their nose and voted anyway. The overall upwards trend doesn't matter to him, he'd rather not participate, and in doing so weaken the engine that drives it upward. You vote for the better of the two. That puts you in the game as a likely voter. The other party then tries to tempt you. The first party then tries to keep you. The trend is upwards. But if you're too proud to play the game then as far as they're concerned you don't even have a vote. The rights that GH takes for granted today are built on people who came before him playing anyway and voting for the least bad racist. Welfare existed in LBJ's day. It'd been around for decades. The welfare state, as we imagine it today, dates from LBJ. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, 1965, 1965 and 1964 respectively. That's my point. LBJ, racist, was still a very worthwhile vote.
I think a lot of the disconnect from this comes from people used to the multi party systems in Europe vs the two party system in the US. In Europe it can be extremely worthwhile to vote for a 1 issue party to switch the political dialogue. When the Pirate Party got EU seats it changed the programs of 3-4 major parties, PP will likely never again have a seat due to that but it did accomplish a lot regarding the political discussion and how future laws in the area were enacted. Even if they did not get those seats but got 2% of national votes it would have been a very worthwhile vote.
In a multi party system you see the changes in party programs on specific issues from election to election when something new starts gathering votes. The green parties all across western Europe were the major shift before. Now all parties have an environmental policy as a core policy but the issue is so critical that the party is still getting elected.
|
Also, North Korea called Trump a "guy devoid of reason" a bit ago and threatens "absolute force"
|
North Korea trying to piss Trump off as much as possible.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 10 2017 08:05 Zaros wrote:
North Korea trying to piss Trump off as much as possible.
They're totally gonna get lit up on Twitter. God help those poor souls.
|
Fox News host Eric Bolling has initiated a lawsuit against the reporter behind the report that led to his suspension.
Yashar Ali, a contributing writer for HuffPost, reported on Friday that several years ago Bolling sent lewd text messages that included photographs of male genitalia to two female colleagues at Fox. The next day Bolling was suspended and Fox launched an investigation by the same law firm that handled probes into the conduct of former host Bill O'Reilly and former Fox chairman Roger Ailes.
After the initial report, Bolling said, via his lawyer, that he "recalls no such inappropriate communications, does not believe he sent any such communications, and will vigorously pursue his legal remedies for any false and defamatory accusations that are made.”
On Wednesday, Bolling filed a "summons with notice" in New York State Supreme Court against Ali, seeking $50 million in damages for defamation. Ali must respond within 20 days, demanding that Bolling file a complaint, after which Bolling will have 20 days to file his response before the suit goes forward.
"The nature of this action is for damages and injunctive relief based on defamation arising from the defendant’s efforts to injure the plaintiff’s reputation through the intentional and/or highly reckless publication of actionable false and misleading statements about the plaintiff’s conduct and character. As a result of the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff has been substantially harmed," the summons states.
Bolling is represented by Michael Bowe from the same law firm as Marc Kasowitz, who was President Donald Trump's personal attorney until last month.
"This anonymously sourced and uncorroborated story is false, defamatory, and obviously intended to destroy this good man's career and family. We will defend Eric aggressively in court, where actual facts, based on evidence, testimony, and cross-examination, will belie these anonymous accusations," Bowe said.
Ali told POLITICO he plans to fight the case.
“I stand by my reporting and will protect my sources, especially the victims, at all costs," Ali said in a statement.
“Yashar Ali is a careful and meticulous reporter. We stand by his reporting," HuffPost wrote in a statement Wednesday.
Asked for comment, a Fox News spokesperson confirmed the investigation is still ongoing.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
