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.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

August 21 2017 18:13 GMT

#170261

I'm personally not excited enough about the phenomenon to take time off work and go to an absurdly overcrowded event for that brief occurrence.

Trainrunnef

United States599 Posts

August 21 2017 18:14 GMT

#170262

On August 22 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote:
I'm personally not excited enough about the phenomenon to take time off work and go to an absurdly overcrowded event for that brief occurrence.

I might do an extended lunch if I was closer.

Sermokala

United States14047 Posts

August 21 2017 18:16 GMT

#170263

Its raining outside so I can't see anything.

Nixer

2774 Posts

August 21 2017 18:18 GMT

#170264

On August 22 2017 03:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
we have daytime darkness every winter here. It's not really that great.

I mean it's not really comparable :p

ZerOCoolSC2

9005 Posts

August 21 2017 18:22 GMT

#170265

I'm in Kansas City, MO. It was pretty awesome. I was maybe 10 minutes away from totality, but the drive wasn't worth it. Was at about 95% for a good 5-10 minutes.

On_Slaught

United States12190 Posts

August 21 2017 18:25 GMT

#170266

If you can get under the totality then it's 100% worth it and is one of the coolest things you can ever possibly see. If not in totality it's still worth a quick glance imo. We gotta decent one in AZ.

ZerOCoolSC2

9005 Posts

August 21 2017 18:29 GMT

#170267

I'll take 95% and not deal with half a million people in traffic. Could probably push it towards 98%

DarkPlasmaBall

United States45019 Posts

August 21 2017 18:31 GMT

#170268

Has Trump taken credit for the eclipse yet?

Dear Helios,
If Trump is unfit for the presidency, please give us some sort of ethereal sign today.

On_Slaught

United States12190 Posts

August 21 2017 18:43 GMT

#170269

Trump watching the eclipse live on the NYT stream with Sessions and Co. He looked at it without the glasses at least once. Will he go blind?!

DarkPlasmaBall

United States45019 Posts

August 21 2017 18:48 GMT

#170270

On August 22 2017 03:43 On_Slaught wrote:
Trump watching the eclipse live on the NYT stream with Sessions and Co. He looked at it without the glasses at least once. Will he go blind?!

The fact that he dismisses climate change yet happily goes out to watch the solar eclipse... what a way to hypocritically observe scientists' research and predictive power. Sigh.

Danglars

United States12133 Posts

August 21 2017 19:09 GMT

#170271

On August 22 2017 01:21 Plansix wrote:
Kwark’s joke about Nixon is in response to the very bad NR article that claims democrats hurt blacks after Jim Crow. Or that somehow Republicans would have treated them better. Which runs counter to history and our understanding of the Nixon elections and policies, all which were steeped in dog whistle racism.

I have no idea what Danglars was trying to say there with the welfare state comment. It would be easy to simply admit "Yeah, that NR article is terrible".

The most recent I only read the quoted paragraph, which didn't include Nixon and didn't really inspire a desire to read more. But if that's the context, it's good to know.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

August 21 2017 19:22 GMT

#170272

This is amazing..

Danglars

United States12133 Posts

August 21 2017 19:25 GMT

#170273

On August 22 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 22 2017 01:48 Ghostcom wrote:

On August 22 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:

On August 22 2017 01:41 Ghostcom wrote:

On August 22 2017 01:40 KwarK wrote:

On August 22 2017 01:38 Ghostcom wrote:

On August 22 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote:

On August 22 2017 01:14 Ghostcom wrote:

On August 22 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote:

On August 22 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Obligatory "if the Dems and lib republicans had not replaced them with the welfare state"

You think they'd be better off if we'd taken the fathers away and also denied welfare? Calm down Ayn Rand. This isn't a "don't feed wildlife, it'll become dependent" analogy is it?

At this point I'm unsure if all of you suffer from a reading disability and really just that bad at understanding each other - the alternative seems counterproductive to the purpose of a discussion thread.

Am I not understanding his point? In America welfare is given to help people in poverty. Nixon's war on the black community created a lot of poverty, and therefore a lot of need for welfare. The welfare didn't cause the problem unless you subscribe to a Randian philosophy where charity is the worst thing you can do to a human because it robs them of their freedom and their independence. Surely objections must be to the cause of the problem, Nixon, and not to the bandaid solution. I'd rather people weren't living in poverty but given that they are I certainly don't disagree with welfare.

No you are not. If you've talked with at least one conservative before in your life you would've recognized the argument that some/most of the welfare programs incentivizes absent fathers and have thus caused many problems. This isn't born out of a Randian philosophy, but from a perspective that many of the programs are shitty and removes agency from those in need.

I'm not getting dragged further into the specific discussion of welfare/Nixon as I do not share that belief (and the framing is overly simplistic) and thus have no wish to defend Danglars's argument.

What's this "if you've talked with at least one conservative before"? I am a conservative.

I'm glad your reading comprehension allowed you to take away the important part of that post.

I chose not to continue to argue over welfare and incentives because you specifically asked me not to get into that discussion with you. But I did object to the idea that I, who still have my membership card for the Conservative Party lying around somewhere, have never spoken to a conservative.

Is this the point where:
1) I point out that UK conservative =|= US conservative
2) You are still missing the point. The point is that you (and quite a few others on all parts of the political spectrum) are repeatedly mischaracterizing arguments and it's destructive to any meaningful discourse.

The difference between UK conservatives and US conservatives is largely on social policies, not economic ideology. Mostly God, guns, and gays. The subject under discussion is economic, not social, and therefore the differences between British conservative ideology and American conservative ideology is far narrower than you would like to pretend. It is absurd to pretend that I am unfamiliar with conservative economic arguments, I subscribe to them, I have no desire to seize the means of production, nor to end capitalism.

Repeating over and over that I missed the point while simultaneously saying that you're unwilling to get into a discussion of what the point is is unproductive. If you wish to discuss whether welfare hurts its recipients then do so.

You're saving me a ton of time spent arguing by alleging it's largely social policies and not economic policies. If I found a good faith UK conservative (bardtown you are missed), he could maybe argue me into the differences being both in equal measure. From my current contacts from the UK and one in the UK, we argue economics and find broad agreement elsewhere.

Karis Vas Ryaar

United States4396 Posts

August 21 2017 19:53 GMT

#170274

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

August 21 2017 19:56 GMT

#170275

Trump is getting a solid C+ right now on his presidential performance in my eyes. Would be an "okay" for sure.

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

August 21 2017 20:08 GMT

#170276

I think there are a number of people who would take issue with Bardtown arguing in good faith. I remember him getting grump when we all discussed the origins of nationalism and nations.

Sermokala

United States14047 Posts

August 21 2017 20:09 GMT

#170277

I could buy some of that but the long term view on his presidency is so bad that I couldn't really give a passing grade to him. The Russia scandal is slow cooking for now but his poll numbers make anything in 2018 a non starter for him and his agenda. Then his window in 2019 is short until the presidential election cycle starts up and he runs out of time again.

His window for getting stuff done is closing fast and he hasn't really gotten anything hard done yet.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

August 21 2017 20:18 GMT

#170278

Ate they laughing at him?

zlefin

United States7689 Posts

August 21 2017 20:21 GMT

#170279

On August 22 2017 04:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump is getting a solid C+ right now on his presidential performance in my eyes. Would be an "okay" for sure.

C+ for today only, because he's been largely silent?
nm, your answer below covers it.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

August 21 2017 20:21 GMT

#170280

Trump's greatest achievements are in the things that he has broken down or taken apart. The TPP and TTIP, perhaps by accident, were an excellent pair of decisions to scrap. I give him a fair bit of credit for that because frankly that requires much more insistence on a given position than any within the standard establishment would agree to. But it's almost by blind luck because the same kind of logic was used to get rid of Paris.

He definitely is not an effective president, but he has so far kept the lights on. There are many ready to cry foul at every single deficiency but overall we're all still in a fairly decent position. If that comes apart then maybe I will reconsider.