|
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. |
Sitting in the miserable heat in line for Trumps rally studying for the LSAT. We got another hour before they let us in. Definitely interacting with interesting and passionate people. Should make it into the main hall. Can hear the protesters down the street. Here's to hoping.
|
I would say the anti-establishment groups are both far too naive and far too cynical. They think the establishment is so corrupt and bought by corporate interests that nothing will ever be done for the voting public.
At the same time, they think ousting the establishment is a solution, rather than a means, and that their anti-establishment representatives both have the political savvy and ability to actual enact the changes that they want, and the "altruism" (for lack of better word) not to fall into the political game.
On August 23 2017 07:13 On_Slaught wrote:
Sitting in the miserable heat in line for Trumps rally studying for the LSAT. We got another hour before they let us in. Definitely interacting with interesting and passionate people. Should make it into the main hall. Can hear the protesters down the street. Here's to hoping.
This sounds like a good starting entry to an apocalyptic log.
|
On August 23 2017 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 06:13 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2017 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).
That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend. Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money. They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling). Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this: Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism. Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare. On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like
"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES
ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?
REVOLUTION
REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape. Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise. Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.
The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact. Source but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable. Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support. Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary. Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda. I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it. Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans? If "percentage of Americans" mattered, we would have congress and the presidency. It doesn't. I hear ideas like 'increasing government benefits to the poor paid for by people that earn more than me' are incredibly possible. Or decreasing premiums without compromising your relationship with your current physician. In general, it conflates noble societal goals (which, in general, nobody stands against unless you're some hyperpartisan) with inherent rights and tradeoffs. I don't understand what you are saying here.
Merely calling something a progressive idea, does not make it one. Also, talking about ideas without either costs/responsibilities/tradeoffs can generate majority support, which don't translate into percent American support in real life because any rube can point out the costs and unintended consequences. As such, those type of polls are useless.
|
Pretty sure asking the leader of the senate to shield you from an investigation close to obstruction.
|
On August 23 2017 05:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 05:41 LegalLord wrote:On August 23 2017 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On August 23 2017 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:On August 23 2017 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:On August 23 2017 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 05:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2017 04:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
^ You see this, this is what the Democratic party stands for, and thinks. They think they lost 1000+ seats because of 70k whitish voters in the suburbs and they don't need us (until they're looking for another scapegoat for losing).
That's why I keep pointing out that Democrats don't get it and too many people are giving them a pass for reasons I can't comprehend. Do you understand how congressional district maps work? States? Counties? The purity left is going to be hard ignored next year because they keep harping on the existence of money. They are going to be hard ignored because the consultants are even more dependent on their corporate sponsors than they have been, up against a Republican party, that while representing some of the most despicable policies, still took 1000+ seats oh and the Presidency (with the least liked/trusted candidate since modern polling). Imagine a continuum of politics. It would look something like this: Socialists -- Progs(bernie) --- Dems(HRC/Booker) ------ Blue Dogs --------------------- ModReps (there are like 3 of them) ---- NormalReps --- FreedomCaucus Dems lost seats to Normal Reps and FreedomCaucus. Do you have even a lick spittle of evidence that would suggest that those voters are waiting for more socialism? What is your theory as to why voters are holding out for socialism? Have you ever met a white baby boomer? Everything you say smack of this insane alt reality where the voting population is just holding out for Bernie-approved-Socialism. Bernie's townhall in WV is some. Where a Trump delegate and a Trump voting coal miner agreed with Bernie on several issues, one big one being healthcare. On August 23 2017 05:04 Nyxisto wrote:On August 23 2017 04:59 farvacola wrote:On August 23 2017 04:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 23 2017 04:31 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
This is the biggest thing Booker has to worry about. There are going to be soooooooooooo many memes on Facebook that are basically like
"VOTED AGAINST LOWERING PRESCRIPTION PRICES
ALSO GOT MONEY FROM PHARMA?
REVOLUTION
REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
How many of the "it is all the Corporations, Maaahhnn" internet hippies are marginal voters in the midwest and suburbs? HRC lost because of 70k marginal whitish voters in the suburban midwest, not because she failed to convince some urban protesters in blue states to turn up. The Democrats can be a national party without college town socialists. I get that Bernie agitators in the pacific northwest and college towns are very vocal, but because they live in pure blue areas they just aren't that important. Even further, the socialist/Bernie commentariat is shockingly weak. Mainstream Dems dominate the editorial landscape. Mixing incredibly over-reductive explanations of Hillary's loss with sloppy yellow press invective doesn't do you or your message any favors. There's plenty of ground to argue on with regards to Hillary's loss and pretending otherwise is not wise. Of all voters who cast a ballot in the general election, 25 percent were black, Hispanic, Asian, or a member of another minority group. But those voters were 42 percent of those who didn’t vote. Drilling down a little further, black voters made up 11 percent of voters who cast a ballot and 19 percent who didn’t. This disparity really hurt Clinton because black voters (by 82 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (by 40 percentage points) overwhelmingly favored her, while white voters went for Trump by a 16-point margin in the SurveyMonkey poll.
The turnout rate for black voters was substantially higher in 2012, the last time Barack Obama was on the ballot. According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,3 black Americans made up 13 percent of voters and only 9 percent of registered non-voters in 2012. In other words, black voters actually made up a larger percentage of voters who cast a ballot than those who didn’t in 2012, which is the opposite of what occurred last year. Whites, on the other hand, made up about the same percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot (74 percent) and those who didn’t (73 percent). The higher number of black non-voters in 2016 probably had a big impact. Source but African-American voters are still a pretty bad example for her loss. If I remember correctly she won that demographic more strongly than any other in the primaries (75% or something?), so comparing her disparately to Obama in this regard only makes sense if another candidate would have fared better, which is questionable. Didn't hurt you had outlets like WaPo and MSNBC pushing lies about Bernie specifically aimed to decrease his support. Not to say Bernie couldn't have done better. But the irony is his focus on economic issues as a way to address race issues is both what Democrats ridicule him for and say they want to do more of to appeal to the people Bernie got over Hillary. Lots of Republicans agree on single points from the Democratic agenda. I seem to remember a study into that with the ACA, that most people agreed on its points in isolation but the moment you put them together and called them the ACA/Obamacare they became against it. Is there some new data on the popularity of progressive ideas or are we stuck with the not-so-recent polls where all of the major ideas got support from over 50% of Americans? If "percentage of Americans" mattered, we would have congress and the presidency. It doesn't. Who is "we" exactly? democrats? "the left", I dunno, whatever you wanna call it. The large group of people running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to appear slightly unified?
Well you would be well-advised to be a little more specific on that. Because one of those is more an abstract entity than a unified party, and the other is not exactly a picture-perfect representation of a pursuit of progressive ideals. And even so, that group has a slight majority over the conservative/Republican/etc side in the country, just without sufficient organizational prowess (or adherence to those progressive ideals) to turn numbers into victory on any reliable scale.
|
In a world where integrity rules, for sure.
This one isn't that though.
|
President Donald Trump was reluctant to send more troops to Afghanistan after years of saying the war was “wasting our money.” So national security adviser H.R. McMaster used a 1972 photo of Afghan women in miniskirts to show the president that the country had once adopted Western values and to convince him to escalate the war, according to The Washington Post.
McMaster reportedly showed Trump a black-and-white snapshot of bare-legged women in Kabul to illustrate that the region might be able to embrace Western ideals again. Miniskirts were replaced by full-body burqas in the mid-1990s, when the Taliban took over Afghanistan, banned Western clothing and rolled back women’s rights. The Taliban now controls only parts of the country, but many Afghan women still choose to wear traditional burqas because it makes them feel safer from violence and judgment in a society where gender-based violence is rampant.
Trump has called the war in Afghanistan a “disaster” and spent his entire presidential campaign criticizing the United States’ continued involvement in it. His former top adviser, Steve Bannon, also opposed sending more troops to the region and suggested relying on private military contractors instead. But after some urging from McMaster and other top generals, Trump ultimately changed his mind and decided to escalate troop levels by roughly 4,000.
“My original instinct was to pull out, and, historically, I like following my instincts,” Trump said Monday in a televised address. “But all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”
The miniskirt photo reportedly was not the only reason Trump decided to escalate the war, but the anecdote failed to surprise anyone familiar with Trump’s long history of objectifying women.
Source
|
Fucking TSA tried to confiscate my 70$ LSAT book! Had to argue with a Secret Service agent to allow it in and after a back and forth he did. Fuckers.
|
On August 23 2017 08:31 On_Slaught wrote:
Fucking TSA tried to confiscate my 70$ LSAT book! Had to argue with a Secret Service agent to allow it in and after a back and forth he did. Fuckers.
Wait, what? Is that a joke or something?
|
On August 23 2017 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +President Donald Trump was reluctant to send more troops to Afghanistan after years of saying the war was “wasting our money.” So national security adviser H.R. McMaster used a 1972 photo of Afghan women in miniskirts to show the president that the country had once adopted Western values and to convince him to escalate the war, according to The Washington Post.
McMaster reportedly showed Trump a black-and-white snapshot of bare-legged women in Kabul to illustrate that the region might be able to embrace Western ideals again. Miniskirts were replaced by full-body burqas in the mid-1990s, when the Taliban took over Afghanistan, banned Western clothing and rolled back women’s rights. The Taliban now controls only parts of the country, but many Afghan women still choose to wear traditional burqas because it makes them feel safer from violence and judgment in a society where gender-based violence is rampant.
Trump has called the war in Afghanistan a “disaster” and spent his entire presidential campaign criticizing the United States’ continued involvement in it. His former top adviser, Steve Bannon, also opposed sending more troops to the region and suggested relying on private military contractors instead. But after some urging from McMaster and other top generals, Trump ultimately changed his mind and decided to escalate troop levels by roughly 4,000.
“My original instinct was to pull out, and, historically, I like following my instincts,” Trump said Monday in a televised address. “But all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”
The miniskirt photo reportedly was not the only reason Trump decided to escalate the war, but the anecdote failed to surprise anyone familiar with Trump’s long history of objectifying women. Source
I love how Trump's threshold for sending the military into a region is "Do you have any pictures of scantily clad native women?"
|
United States24740 Posts
They are very strict at events with the president. Anything that can be thrown can be confiscated. I saw the list of prohibited items for the speech he gave in West Virginia at the Scout Jamboree and basically don't bring anything in except for the clothes on your back.
|
On_Slaught should just promise to be Trump's next lawyer once the current one quits. ezpz.
|
On August 23 2017 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 08:31 On_Slaught wrote:
Fucking TSA tried to confiscate my 70$ LSAT book! Had to argue with a Secret Service agent to allow it in and after a back and forth he did. Fuckers. Wait, what? Is that a joke or something?
No joke in afraid. I got a spot about 50ft from where he will speak. Since I'm 6'4 it's as good as I could hope.
As I walked in they were playing "I did it my way" by Sinatra. Was surreal.
|
On August 23 2017 07:13 On_Slaught wrote:
Sitting in the miserable heat in line for Trumps rally studying for the LSAT. We got another hour before they let us in. Definitely interacting with interesting and passionate people. Should make it into the main hall. Can hear the protesters down the street. Here's to hoping.
Gross. So many things are wrong with this.
|
Good ol' Phoenix. A wonderful place to burn alive in the summer.
|
The US government has backed away from an effort to obtain personal information about 1.3m visitors to an anti-Trump website, following a public outcry over what was widely perceived as a “fishing expedition” for political dissidents. Federal prosecutors on Tuesday substantially narrowed the scope of a search warrant seeking information related to a website, www.disruptj20.org, that was used to coordinate protests during Donald Trump’s inauguration. The original warrant sought every piece of information possessed by website-hosting company DreamHost related to the site, including the IP addresses of the site’s 1.3m visitors. The revised warrant excludes the IP addresses of visitors as well as unpublished blog posts or other media. “The government has now withdrawn entirely its unlawful and highly problematic request for any data relating to the visitors of the website and any unpublished data subject to the Privacy Protection Act,” DreamHost attorney Raymond Aghaian said by email. “This is a tremendous win for DreamHost, its users and the public.” DreamHost publicized the existence of the warrant on 14 August when it announced its intention to challenge the government in court. Chris Ghazarian, general counsel for DreamHost, called the warrant “pure prosecutorial overreach by a highly politicized department of justice” and argued that allowing the government to obtain such information would have a chilling effect on Americans’ freedom of association. In the court filing seeking to modify the search warrant, however, federal prosecutors said they were unaware that DreamHost possessed so much information when they obtained the warrant. Paul Alan Levy, an attorney for consumer rights group Public Citizen, called it a “tremendous victory for the right to read anonymously online” – but said the government’s explanation as to why it included a request for individual IP addresses in the original warrant “defies belief”. “That any competent prosecutor could think that any web host would somehow not retain such sensitive and personal information and therefore would not be included in its search warrant, is disingenuous at best,” he said. “The government values and respects the first amendment right of all Americans to participate in peaceful political protests and to read protected political expression online,” prosecutors Jennifer Kerkhoff and John Borchert wrote in the new filing. “Contrary to DreamHost’s claims, the warrant was not intended to be used, and will not be used, to ‘identify the political dissidents of the current administration.’” The government brief was filed in advance of a hearing on Thursday over the disputed warrant. DreamHost said in a blog post that it still plans to challenge certain “first and fourth amendment issues raised by the warrant” at the hearing. The warrant is just one aspect of the aggressive prosecution of inauguration day protesters that have raised concerns for advocates of civil liberties. The US attorney’s office in Washington DC charged more than 200 people swept up in mass arrests with identical crimes, including felony rioting. “Despite narrowing the warrant, you can’t get away from the fact that what the department of justice is investigating is a website that was dedicated to planning and organizing a political protest,” said Mark Rumold, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “They’re still trying to get what I think most people would describe as core, first amendment-protected speech.” “It was a dragnet and a witch hunt before,” Rumold added. “Not it just seems like a witch hunt.”
Source
|
On August 23 2017 09:04 LegalLord wrote:
Good ol' Phoenix. A wonderful place to burn alive in the summer.
Have you seen their housing prices though? For $270,000, you get a downright fucking amazing house. Makes the idea of working at the Intel fab down there sound pretty appetizing. And then I'm wait "Oh wait, Phoenix lol"
|
On August 23 2017 09:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 07:13 On_Slaught wrote:
Sitting in the miserable heat in line for Trumps rally studying for the LSAT. We got another hour before they let us in. Definitely interacting with interesting and passionate people. Should make it into the main hall. Can hear the protesters down the street. Here's to hoping. Gross. So many things are wrong with this.
yeah like why are you studying for the LSAT? law school is not a good decision
|
Is a law degree still the lowest return on investment? It was in like 2010.
|
On August 23 2017 09:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2017 09:04 LegalLord wrote:
Good ol' Phoenix. A wonderful place to burn alive in the summer. Have you seen their housing prices though? For $270,000, you get a downright fucking amazing house. Makes the idea of working at the Intel fab down there sound pretty appetizing. And then I'm wait "Oh wait, Phoenix lol"
It actually is a very good city, heat and all. But not a place you want to be outside in at any time during the summer. Waiting in line downtown in a long line at the convention center certainly sounds like an adventure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
