|
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 26 2017 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 09:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2017 09:51 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2017 09:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2017 09:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Holy fuck...
The problem with this storm the is speed with which it developed and intensified. There simply wasn't enough warning and prep time. It's going to be really bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season In the Northern Atlantic Ocean, a distinct hurricane season occurs from June 1 to November 30, sharply peaking from late August through September; the season's climatological peak of activity occurs around September 10 each season. If only they could have known. You can't conflate the concept of peak hurricane season with the particularly rapid development a given storm any more than you can conflate weather with climate. How long ago was the hurricane announced? I feel like people were given enough time to prepare and to get provisions. I think it first became a hurricane yesterday. It wasn't even named until 2 or 3 days ago. It's very, very rare that a storm develops this quickly and then makes landfall.
|
On August 26 2017 09:58 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 09:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2017 09:24 IgnE wrote:so after reading that transcript you came away with: mark lilla falls apart? i just don't see how one can argue that because hillary rodham didn't use exactly the same speech as the SJWs who voted for her that she's not associated with that speech. i mean i honestly think there's a case to be made that democratic candidates' speech is closer to "liberal" identitarian shibboleths than trump's speech is to the white supremacists' hate speech in charlottesville. and yet we have national outcry about trump's essential identity with white supremacist speech. Yep. Everyone who embraces identity politics is a racist. There's a helluva lot more of that among democrats than republicans. Read the article instead of flamebaiting for once ? Also, i don't see where Mark Lilla falls apart. The "interviewer" is proving what Mark is pointing out by every word that gets out of his mouth. From the outside it is really amazing how much the discourse focus on minorities rather than the poor.
This is exaclty where Lilla falls apart. I have added Qs and Ls and bolded where Lilla has to give up on his entire premise about the Golden Age of Pre-Identity Politics. All politics is inescapably identity politics, especially when it concerns Civil Rights.
Q- And you felt that that was the case during the 1960s?
L- Well, the people who were active in the 1960s were at first appealing to that—that here we’re supposed to be a country based on equality, and African Americans are not being treated equally. Women are not being treated equally. Poor people in the country couldn’t really exercise their citizenship and be part of the country because of their poverty. So that was the tail end of this great period in American history.
Q- But in the majority of that period, we had segregation in this country, for example.
L- I’m not talking about the reality on the ground. I’m talking about the way we thought about the reality on the ground. The reason we fought in the civil rights movement isn’t because of difference. We fought for equal rights because every citizen, by virtue of being a citizen, deserves to have those rights. And so the language we employed on the left was that of equal citizenship and solidarity. When you lose that language, then you no longer have a weapon. The word we is the most important word in the Democratic lexicon. If you cannot appeal to that, you cannot rally people.
|
Speaking of pieces of shit. Ted wants federal money now.
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 26 2017 09:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 09:51 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2017 09:37 xDaunt wrote:The problem with this storm the is speed with which it developed and intensified. There simply wasn't enough warning and prep time. It's going to be really bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season In the Northern Atlantic Ocean, a distinct hurricane season occurs from June 1 to November 30, sharply peaking from late August through September; the season's climatological peak of activity occurs around September 10 each season. If only they could have known. You can't conflate the concept of peak hurricane season with the particularly rapid development a given storm any more than you can conflate weather with climate. Sure, but appointments and plans should have been in place by now. They couldn't have known that this particular storm would be a big one. They could have known that they needed to be ready for it to become a big one.
|
looks like an unjustified pardon to me; bad for rule of law too, in that it's a poor time to interfere in a prosecution; especially on such a case in such an unjustified way, it reeks of favoring his own "side" over justice.
|
On August 26 2017 10:00 ticklishmusic wrote: hurricanes are most frequent this time of the year, but its factors like warm water and the particular pressure fronts that cause a hurricane to strengthen or weaken. its more likely that there will be more powerful storms, but not more likely a particular hurricane will suddenly strengthen. people were freaking out over a cat 2 for little reason, then outta nowhere a cat 4 happened. it's like freaking out over a stray cat, and then the cat suddenly is a starved lion and then saying the initial freak out was justified.
this may be more a sign that climate change is really fucking with the hurricane season so the old measures dont work as well anymore.
calling it a cat 2 from yesterday's info is a bit misleading as theyve known for a long time that it was going to stall and dump more rain than texas was prepared for
|
On August 26 2017 10:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 10:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 09:57 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2017 09:51 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2017 09:37 xDaunt wrote:The problem with this storm the is speed with which it developed and intensified. There simply wasn't enough warning and prep time. It's going to be really bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season In the Northern Atlantic Ocean, a distinct hurricane season occurs from June 1 to November 30, sharply peaking from late August through September; the season's climatological peak of activity occurs around September 10 each season. If only they could have known. You can't conflate the concept of peak hurricane season with the particularly rapid development a given storm any more than you can conflate weather with climate. How long ago was the hurricane announced? I feel like people were given enough time to prepare and to get provisions. I think it first became a hurricane yesterday. It wasn't even named until 2 or 3 days ago. It's very, very rare that a storm develops this quickly and then makes landfall. I'll give you that one, but if you read above, surely the authorities should have issued a warning just in case. Better safe than sorry.
|
Fake news in action. you do know why certain senators didn't vote for the Sandy aid bill that came up, right?
Hint: it's in the article. Think of it like a "clean debt-ceiling increase" but substitute out "debt-ceiling" and insert "disaster aid."
|
|
We really need a way to force clean bills through congress, instead of people always trying to attach stupid and irrelevant riders. or at least it seems like it' sa common problem, and havin ga fix for it might be worthwhile for the downsides such a thing might have in mitigating compromise potential.
|
On August 26 2017 10:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 09:58 Godwrath wrote:On August 26 2017 09:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2017 09:24 IgnE wrote:so after reading that transcript you came away with: mark lilla falls apart? i just don't see how one can argue that because hillary rodham didn't use exactly the same speech as the SJWs who voted for her that she's not associated with that speech. i mean i honestly think there's a case to be made that democratic candidates' speech is closer to "liberal" identitarian shibboleths than trump's speech is to the white supremacists' hate speech in charlottesville. and yet we have national outcry about trump's essential identity with white supremacist speech. Yep. Everyone who embraces identity politics is a racist. There's a helluva lot more of that among democrats than republicans. Read the article instead of flamebaiting for once ? Also, i don't see where Mark Lilla falls apart. The "interviewer" is proving what Mark is pointing out by every word that gets out of his mouth. From the outside it is really amazing how much the discourse focus on minorities rather than the poor. This is exaclty where Lilla falls apart. I have added Qs and Ls and bolded where Lilla has to give up on his entire premise about the Golden Age of Pre-Identity Politics. All politics is inescapably identity politics, especially when it concerns Civil Rights. Show nested quote + Q- And you felt that that was the case during the 1960s?
L- Well, the people who were active in the 1960s were at first appealing to that—that here we’re supposed to be a country based on equality, and African Americans are not being treated equally. Women are not being treated equally. Poor people in the country couldn’t really exercise their citizenship and be part of the country because of their poverty. So that was the tail end of this great period in American history.
Q- But in the majority of that period, we had segregation in this country, for example.
L- I’m not talking about the reality on the ground. I’m talking about the way we thought about the reality on the ground. The reason we fought in the civil rights movement isn’t because of difference. We fought for equal rights because every citizen, by virtue of being a citizen, deserves to have those rights. And so the language we employed on the left was that of equal citizenship and solidarity. When you lose that language, then you no longer have a weapon. The word we is the most important word in the Democratic lexicon. If you cannot appeal to that, you cannot rally people.
I don't see it. Except if it's the language barrier, everything he said was coherent with what he previously said, he literally says "women are not being treated equally..." in his first response that you quoted. He is speaking the whole time about the ideals and values that rallied the left during those times, not that those times were perfect and social changes happened overnight.
Identity politics aren't as much of a deal on many other countries by the way. Even ones with the same or higher diversity of cultures than the US. The left focuses more on the poor and working class to conflate everybody, rather than minorities. It is ultimately why it find it baffling and a self-defeating strategy.
|
On August 26 2017 10:13 Introvert wrote:Fake news in action. you do know why certain senators didn't vote for the Sandy aid bill that came up, right? Hint: it's in the article. Think of it like a "clean debt-ceiling increase" but substitute out "debt-ceiling" and insert "disaster aid." So voted down the bill because he didn't like what was in it? Think that will happen again? Think his conservative principles will hold this time? Because riders will make it on to this bill.
I think we all know the answer.
|
On August 26 2017 10:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 10:00 ticklishmusic wrote: hurricanes are most frequent this time of the year, but its factors like warm water and the particular pressure fronts that cause a hurricane to strengthen or weaken. its more likely that there will be more powerful storms, but not more likely a particular hurricane will suddenly strengthen. people were freaking out over a cat 2 for little reason, then outta nowhere a cat 4 happened. it's like freaking out over a stray cat, and then the cat suddenly is a starved lion and then saying the initial freak out was justified.
this may be more a sign that climate change is really fucking with the hurricane season so the old measures dont work as well anymore. calling it a cat 2 from yesterday's info is a bit misleading as theyve known for a long time that it was going to stall and dump more rain than texas was prepared for
rain is one set of problems, mostly expected. 100+ mph winds is another, which also compounds the former. for example, rain doesnt do this (stream of some brave stormchaser as the car wash he's sheltering in is literally torn apart by wind)
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1zqKVRbYXWWKB
|
On August 26 2017 10:19 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 10:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 26 2017 09:58 Godwrath wrote:On August 26 2017 09:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 26 2017 09:24 IgnE wrote:so after reading that transcript you came away with: mark lilla falls apart? i just don't see how one can argue that because hillary rodham didn't use exactly the same speech as the SJWs who voted for her that she's not associated with that speech. i mean i honestly think there's a case to be made that democratic candidates' speech is closer to "liberal" identitarian shibboleths than trump's speech is to the white supremacists' hate speech in charlottesville. and yet we have national outcry about trump's essential identity with white supremacist speech. Yep. Everyone who embraces identity politics is a racist. There's a helluva lot more of that among democrats than republicans. Read the article instead of flamebaiting for once ? Also, i don't see where Mark Lilla falls apart. The "interviewer" is proving what Mark is pointing out by every word that gets out of his mouth. From the outside it is really amazing how much the discourse focus on minorities rather than the poor. This is exaclty where Lilla falls apart. I have added Qs and Ls and bolded where Lilla has to give up on his entire premise about the Golden Age of Pre-Identity Politics. All politics is inescapably identity politics, especially when it concerns Civil Rights. Q- And you felt that that was the case during the 1960s?
L- Well, the people who were active in the 1960s were at first appealing to that—that here we’re supposed to be a country based on equality, and African Americans are not being treated equally. Women are not being treated equally. Poor people in the country couldn’t really exercise their citizenship and be part of the country because of their poverty. So that was the tail end of this great period in American history.
Q- But in the majority of that period, we had segregation in this country, for example.
L- I’m not talking about the reality on the ground. I’m talking about the way we thought about the reality on the ground. The reason we fought in the civil rights movement isn’t because of difference. We fought for equal rights because every citizen, by virtue of being a citizen, deserves to have those rights. And so the language we employed on the left was that of equal citizenship and solidarity. When you lose that language, then you no longer have a weapon. The word we is the most important word in the Democratic lexicon. If you cannot appeal to that, you cannot rally people.
I don't see it. Except if it's the language barrier, everything he said was coherent with what he previously said, he literally says "women are not being treated equally..." in his first response that you quoted. He is speaking the whole time about the ideals and values that rallied the left during those times, not that those times were perfect and social changes happened overnight. Identity politics aren't as much of a deal on many other countries by the way. Even ones with the same or higher diversity of cultures than the US. The left focuses more on the poor and working class to conflate everybody, rather than minorities. It is ultimately why it find it baffling and a self-defeating strategy.
@Wulfey lets compare MLK and his monument to Malcolm X. why is one revered by the left and the right while the other is ignored whenever possible?
or let's compare the "i have a dream" speech to BLM events. do i need to dig up the text myself to make the point?
|
|
On August 26 2017 10:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 10:13 Introvert wrote:Fake news in action. you do know why certain senators didn't vote for the Sandy aid bill that came up, right? Hint: it's in the article. Think of it like a "clean debt-ceiling increase" but substitute out "debt-ceiling" and insert "disaster aid." So voted down the bill because he didn't like what was in it? Think that will happen again? Think his conservative principles will hold this time? Because riders will make it on to this bill. I think we all know the answer.
if memory serves the sandy bill was especially egregious. either way that tweet is so warped I'm surprised they went with it.
|
Okay, to Introvert, regarding the pardon of Arpaio. Is it legal? Yes. Am I okay with a mid 80s person being pardoned? In abstract, yes. As a few people have mentioned, Arpaio is responsible for some serious human rights violations. If that was the end of it, though, I'd still be able to say that Trump pardoning Arpaio, while distasteful, is fine. The problem is that Trump made it into a political action by making a big deal out of it. The message this sends is that Trump is willing to pardon political allies to protect them from offenses that he finds acceptable or useful.
There was an article written in May titled "How to Build an Autocracy published in The Atlantic that I keep finding myself looking at again. A quote that really stands out to me:
What has happened in Hungary since 2010 offers an example—and a blueprint for would-be strongmen. Hungary is a member state of the European Union and a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights. It has elections and uncensored internet. Yet Hungary is ceasing to be a free country.
The transition has been nonviolent, often not even very dramatic. Opponents of the regime are not murdered or imprisoned, although many are harassed with building inspections and tax audits. If they work for the government, or for a company susceptible to government pressure, they risk their jobs by speaking out. Nonetheless, they are free to emigrate anytime they like. Those with money can even take it with them. Day in and day out, the regime works more through inducements than through intimidation. The courts are packed, and forgiving of the regime’s allies. Friends of the government win state contracts at high prices and borrow on easy terms from the central bank. Those on the inside grow rich by favoritism; those on the outside suffer from the general deterioration of the economy. As one shrewd observer told me on a recent visit, “The benefit of controlling a modern state is less the power to persecute the innocent, more the power to protect the guilty.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/
Pardoning Joe Arpaio looks very much like protection of someone who broke the laws simply because he backed Trump.
There's also this tweet thread on this article https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/carl-icahns-failed-raid-on-washington
As with Arpaio, Trump is legally allowed to pardon Icahn of any crimes he is found to have committed. Should he?
What about broadly pardoning everyone close to him that Mueller might want to talk to concerning questionable financial transactions. Let's just pretend that there is no collusion with Russia, but Trump did break some laws regarding financial stuff. If Kushner, Manafort, et al. get pardoned in the face of that investigation, is that something the American people should accept?
So anyway, at the moment, Trump's pardon of Arpaio is not the end of the USA as we know it. But it sends a message that Trump wouldn't have a problem if it was, and also expresses a willingness to undermine the foundations of the US government to reward loyalty. He might not go any farther than this, but it is a cause for concern.
|
also that slate transcript misses out on a lot of Lilla's more interesting points from the podcast
|
On August 26 2017 10:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 10:22 Plansix wrote:On August 26 2017 10:13 Introvert wrote:Fake news in action. you do know why certain senators didn't vote for the Sandy aid bill that came up, right? Hint: it's in the article. Think of it like a "clean debt-ceiling increase" but substitute out "debt-ceiling" and insert "disaster aid." So voted down the bill because he didn't like what was in it? Think that will happen again? Think his conservative principles will hold this time? Because riders will make it on to this bill. I think we all know the answer. if memory serves the sandy bill was especially egregious. either way that tweet is so warped I'm surprised they went with it. His voting record is his voting record. And the people who needed that aid ASAP in 2013 didn't give a shit about his conservative principles about clean bills. His own party called him out on that one.
|
hmm, I wonder what changes should be made to the pardon so it won't be abused as much next time; since we can't guarantee obviously unfit people won't be elected (which you'd really hope would be enough), we'll have to figure out what safeguards are best to put in. nothing obvious strikes me as a way around cases like this.
|
|
|
|