|
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. |
As if we wanted or needed confirmation that Trump is a fucking assclown who has no business leading our country. Blaming the Puerto Ricans for not being in better shape, and again for affecting our budget, seriously, what the fuck?
When your son breaks his arm, and you have to pay to take him to the hospital(because you live in America and your healthcare system is apocalyptically fucked up), you don't blame the kid for getting his arm broken. That's fucked up. You don't do that.
My tolerance for people continuing to defend Trump going forward is going to be at an all-time low. Don't enable this.
|
On October 04 2017 03:12 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 01:58 Reaps wrote:On October 04 2017 01:45 farvacola wrote: In other news deserving national shame, the U.S. joined Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia today as it voted against a U.N. ban on homosexuality being punishable by death.
Fucking disgraceful. What the fuck, i have no words. Its not what it seems. Other countries voted no as well. Its not as if it was just the middle east. It wasnt just for homosexuality either. Other things were listed too. It sounds like countries that have the death penalty pretty much always vote no on stuff like this. I think on the left we have to do better. This makes us an easy target for the "fake news" chants. That the resolution was broad enough to include other discriminatory applications of the death penalty doesn't really change the point of outrage, though China, Japan, and India's opposition is certainly alarming as well. Here's a rundown:
A United Nations resolution banning the death penalty for homosexuality was opposed by a total of 13 countries in the U.N. Human Rights Council. While several were in Africa and the Middle East, the U.S. surprisingly voted against the measure, as well.
Fortunately the resolution passed on Friday anyway, with 27 countries voting for the measure.
It was brought forward by eight nations—Belgium, Benin, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, and Switzerland—who have made global LGBT rights a priority. (Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, Costa Rican Vice President Ana Helena Chacón and other world leaders attended a U.N. LGBT Core Group meeting earlier in the month.)
“This is a monumental moment where the international community has publicly highlighted that these horrific laws simply must end,” said Renato Sabbadini, director of The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). “It is unconscionable to think that there are hundreds of millions of people living in states where somebody may be executed simply because of whom they love.”
Previous efforts by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Russia to block or water down the resolution failed.
The resolution doesn’t call for the end to capital punishment altogether, but asks member nations not to use it in a “discriminatory manner”—including against against minors and pregnant women, or for blasphemy and consensual same-sex relations.
The other countries who voted against the resolution were Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, China, Japan, Qatar, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (which currently has the death penalty for sodomy).
Not exactly good company.
In 2016, the U.N. appointed Vitit Muntarbhorn as an independent investigator to examine abuses against LGBT and intersex people around the world. Representatives from several African countries called for Muntarbhorn’s position to be suspended.
Source
|
|
On October 04 2017 03:11 Plansix wrote: As long as @dog_rates makes it through the downfall of twitter, I’m ok with that. Because the downfall of that garbage company is coming.
Also, in other tech company news: apparently Uber was caught destroying evidence in a lawsuit, which has gotten them in the hot water. This continues the never ending stream of tech companies destroying evidence thinking that court didn’t solve that problem back when people just burned documents. Correction.
The problem, from what I can tell, is that the former Google employees didn't delete trade secret information. The lawsuit involves Uber receiving trade secrets, and the problem is that here is no evidence that the data was deleted and destroyed, as opposed to given to another company, even though there should be records.
At least, if we're talking about the same story.
|
|
On October 04 2017 02:48 Plansix wrote: Nixon 2.0 might not fly. I would also point out Nixon prime made the public very angry and paved the way for this problem.
I think there's a more relevant (and recent) incident that paints a far better picture of what we can expect going forward. Reagan and his Iran-Contra seems *way* more likely for the current path than Nixon. Like we basically already had something bordering on Nixon 2.0 and the result of that is we elected one of the people involved to be president, didn't prosecute the president involved, and everyone else either got pardoned or had immunity.
|
On October 04 2017 03:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 03:11 Plansix wrote: As long as @dog_rates makes it through the downfall of twitter, I’m ok with that. Because the downfall of that garbage company is coming.
Also, in other tech company news: apparently Uber was caught destroying evidence in a lawsuit, which has gotten them in the hot water. This continues the never ending stream of tech companies destroying evidence thinking that court didn’t solve that problem back when people just burned documents. Correction. The problem, from what I can tell, is that the former Google employees didn't delete trade secret information. The lawsuit involves Uber receiving trade secrets, and the problem is that here is no evidence that the data was deleted and destroyed, as opposed to given to another company, even though there should be records. At least, if we're talking about the same story. https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/3/16408724/waymo-uber-lewandowski-travis-kalanick
The entire thing is super shady. They admit to having the trade secrets on disk. The have emails talking about the disks. They claim to have destroyed the disks, but the place they said they destroyed them has no record of that happening. They could have just returned them, but instead they decided to destroy them and keep no evidence of destroying them. The Plaintiff doesn’t need to prove they still have the data. They only need to prove that it is more likely than not that they kept the data and the entire story about destroying it is bullshit.
This is the low grade shit I see out of so many tech companies. They do stuff like that and then try to cover it up in the dumbest way possible. It doesn’t matter if they destroyed the data or not, their behavior reeks of guilt. Use.net did this. Oculus did the same thing.
|
Hooray!
AFTER MORE THAN a century peddling vehicles that pollute the atmosphere, General Motors is ending its relationship with gasoline and diesel. This morning, the American automotive giant announced that it is working toward an all-electric, zero-emissions future. That starts with two new, fully electric models next year—then at least 18 more by 2023.
That product onslaught puts the company at the forefront of an increasingly large crowd of automakers proclaiming the age of electricity and promising to move away from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. In recent months, Volvo, Aston Martin, and Jaguar Land Rover have announced similar moves. GM’s declaration, though, is particularly noteworthy because it’s among the very largest automakers on the planet. It sold 10 million cars last year, ranging from pickups to SUVs to urban runabouts.
“General Motors believes the future is all-electric,” says Mark Reuss, the company’s head of product. “We are far along in our plan to lead the way to that future world.”
Reuss did not give a date for the death knell of the GM gas- or diesel-powered car, saying the transition will happen at different speeds in different markets and regions. The new all-electric models will be a mix of battery electric cars and fuel cell-powered vehicles.
To be sure, GM’s sudden jolt of electricity is planned with its shareholders in mind. The Trump Administration may be moving to roll back fuel efficiency requirements in the US, but the rest of the world is insisting on an electric age. France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Norway have all said they plan to ban the sale of gas and diesel cars in the coming decades. More importantly, China—the world’s largest car market—and India, a rising star, plan to join them. No automaker can compete globally without a compelling stable of electric cars.
GM intends to grab as large a slice of the Chinese market as possible. It has previously announced plans to launch 10 electric or hybrid electric cars in the country by 2020. This summer, it started selling a two-seat EV there, for just $5,300. Last year, it sold more cars in China (3.6 million) than it did in the US (3 million).
The crucial question for the American automaker will be how, exactly, to make money from all these cars. By one report, GM loses $9,000 on each Chevy Bolt it sells. Reuss’ strategy hinges on bringing costs down thanks to steadily dropping battery prices, more efficient motors, and lighter cars. Massive scale and global supply chains helps, too. “This next generation will be profitable,” he says. “End of story.”
It's not impossible. “If they’ve really been laying this groundwork, they could be closer to not just having this tech but having a profitable and high volume way of supplying it," says Karl Brauer, an auto industry analyst with Kelley Blue Book.
General Motors’ history hasn’t been especially kind to electric mobility. Its invention of the automatic starter helped kill the first wave of electric cars at the start of the 20th century. This is the company that experimented with battery power in the EV-1, only to recall the two-seater from its owners, crush them all, and pile the carcasses up in a junkyard. In the first years of the 21st century, while Toyota was making hybrids popular with the Prius, GM was hawking the Hummer.
Over the past decade, the Detroit giant has positioned itself for a different sort of future. First came the hybrid electric Chevy Volt. Then came GM’s great coup, the Chevy Bolt, the 200-mile, $30,000 electric car that hit market long before Tesla’s Model 3. GM is seriously pursuing semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars. It offers the first car on US roads with vehicle-to-vehicle communication capability. Now, it talks about its plans to eliminate vehicle pollution, congestion, and traffic deaths.
“GM has the ability to get all of us to that future so much faster,” Reuss says. Now it just has to deliver—and make enough money doing it to stick around for that future.
Source
|
On October 04 2017 03:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hooray! Show nested quote +AFTER MORE THAN a century peddling vehicles that pollute the atmosphere, General Motors is ending its relationship with gasoline and diesel. This morning, the American automotive giant announced that it is working toward an all-electric, zero-emissions future. That starts with two new, fully electric models next year—then at least 18 more by 2023.
That product onslaught puts the company at the forefront of an increasingly large crowd of automakers proclaiming the age of electricity and promising to move away from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. In recent months, Volvo, Aston Martin, and Jaguar Land Rover have announced similar moves. GM’s declaration, though, is particularly noteworthy because it’s among the very largest automakers on the planet. It sold 10 million cars last year, ranging from pickups to SUVs to urban runabouts.
“General Motors believes the future is all-electric,” says Mark Reuss, the company’s head of product. “We are far along in our plan to lead the way to that future world.”
Reuss did not give a date for the death knell of the GM gas- or diesel-powered car, saying the transition will happen at different speeds in different markets and regions. The new all-electric models will be a mix of battery electric cars and fuel cell-powered vehicles.
To be sure, GM’s sudden jolt of electricity is planned with its shareholders in mind. The Trump Administration may be moving to roll back fuel efficiency requirements in the US, but the rest of the world is insisting on an electric age. France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Norway have all said they plan to ban the sale of gas and diesel cars in the coming decades. More importantly, China—the world’s largest car market—and India, a rising star, plan to join them. No automaker can compete globally without a compelling stable of electric cars.
GM intends to grab as large a slice of the Chinese market as possible. It has previously announced plans to launch 10 electric or hybrid electric cars in the country by 2020. This summer, it started selling a two-seat EV there, for just $5,300. Last year, it sold more cars in China (3.6 million) than it did in the US (3 million).
The crucial question for the American automaker will be how, exactly, to make money from all these cars. By one report, GM loses $9,000 on each Chevy Bolt it sells. Reuss’ strategy hinges on bringing costs down thanks to steadily dropping battery prices, more efficient motors, and lighter cars. Massive scale and global supply chains helps, too. “This next generation will be profitable,” he says. “End of story.”
It's not impossible. “If they’ve really been laying this groundwork, they could be closer to not just having this tech but having a profitable and high volume way of supplying it," says Karl Brauer, an auto industry analyst with Kelley Blue Book.
General Motors’ history hasn’t been especially kind to electric mobility. Its invention of the automatic starter helped kill the first wave of electric cars at the start of the 20th century. This is the company that experimented with battery power in the EV-1, only to recall the two-seater from its owners, crush them all, and pile the carcasses up in a junkyard. In the first years of the 21st century, while Toyota was making hybrids popular with the Prius, GM was hawking the Hummer.
Over the past decade, the Detroit giant has positioned itself for a different sort of future. First came the hybrid electric Chevy Volt. Then came GM’s great coup, the Chevy Bolt, the 200-mile, $30,000 electric car that hit market long before Tesla’s Model 3. GM is seriously pursuing semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars. It offers the first car on US roads with vehicle-to-vehicle communication capability. Now, it talks about its plans to eliminate vehicle pollution, congestion, and traffic deaths.
“GM has the ability to get all of us to that future so much faster,” Reuss says. Now it just has to deliver—and make enough money doing it to stick around for that future. Source
So.... How long before Exxon Mobile buys GM?
(Mostly sarcastically, I think electric vehicles probably has too many players and too much momentum to be killed by buying out the companies).
|
On October 04 2017 03:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 03:12 Sadist wrote:On October 04 2017 01:58 Reaps wrote:On October 04 2017 01:45 farvacola wrote: In other news deserving national shame, the U.S. joined Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia today as it voted against a U.N. ban on homosexuality being punishable by death.
Fucking disgraceful. What the fuck, i have no words. Its not what it seems. Other countries voted no as well. Its not as if it was just the middle east. It wasnt just for homosexuality either. Other things were listed too. It sounds like countries that have the death penalty pretty much always vote no on stuff like this. I think on the left we have to do better. This makes us an easy target for the "fake news" chants. That the resolution was broad enough to include other discriminatory applications of the death penalty doesn't really change the point of outrage, though China, Japan, and India's opposition is certainly alarming as well. Here's a rundown: Show nested quote +A United Nations resolution banning the death penalty for homosexuality was opposed by a total of 13 countries in the U.N. Human Rights Council. While several were in Africa and the Middle East, the U.S. surprisingly voted against the measure, as well.
Fortunately the resolution passed on Friday anyway, with 27 countries voting for the measure.
It was brought forward by eight nations—Belgium, Benin, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, and Switzerland—who have made global LGBT rights a priority. (Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, Costa Rican Vice President Ana Helena Chacón and other world leaders attended a U.N. LGBT Core Group meeting earlier in the month.)
“This is a monumental moment where the international community has publicly highlighted that these horrific laws simply must end,” said Renato Sabbadini, director of The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). “It is unconscionable to think that there are hundreds of millions of people living in states where somebody may be executed simply because of whom they love.”
Previous efforts by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Russia to block or water down the resolution failed.
The resolution doesn’t call for the end to capital punishment altogether, but asks member nations not to use it in a “discriminatory manner”—including against against minors and pregnant women, or for blasphemy and consensual same-sex relations.
The other countries who voted against the resolution were Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, China, Japan, Qatar, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (which currently has the death penalty for sodomy).
Not exactly good company.
In 2016, the U.N. appointed Vitit Muntarbhorn as an independent investigator to examine abuses against LGBT and intersex people around the world. Representatives from several African countries called for Muntarbhorn’s position to be suspended. Source
As mentioned before though, countries who have the death penalty typically vote no for this stuff all the time anyway.
The initial posts i see on social media and by you would make it seem like that:
1) the vote was on homosexuality exclusively being punished by death 2)the US sided with theocratic muslim countries exclusively.
Per the list of countries that obstained and voted against, and the fact that it isnt homosexuality exclusively, and the historical context of how these votes go for countries that have the death penalty, things are misleading at best.
We can do better than this. We should try not to sensationalize everything. It makes people distrust things even more. You get boy who cried wolf syndrome after a while.
|
This is seriously next level embarrassing.
Also, they haven't updated the death toll in days and barely have contact with some parts of the island. All good though, not a real catastrophe.
|
On October 04 2017 03:45 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 03:18 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2017 03:12 Sadist wrote:On October 04 2017 01:58 Reaps wrote:On October 04 2017 01:45 farvacola wrote: In other news deserving national shame, the U.S. joined Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia today as it voted against a U.N. ban on homosexuality being punishable by death.
Fucking disgraceful. What the fuck, i have no words. Its not what it seems. Other countries voted no as well. Its not as if it was just the middle east. It wasnt just for homosexuality either. Other things were listed too. It sounds like countries that have the death penalty pretty much always vote no on stuff like this. I think on the left we have to do better. This makes us an easy target for the "fake news" chants. That the resolution was broad enough to include other discriminatory applications of the death penalty doesn't really change the point of outrage, though China, Japan, and India's opposition is certainly alarming as well. Here's a rundown: A United Nations resolution banning the death penalty for homosexuality was opposed by a total of 13 countries in the U.N. Human Rights Council. While several were in Africa and the Middle East, the U.S. surprisingly voted against the measure, as well.
Fortunately the resolution passed on Friday anyway, with 27 countries voting for the measure.
It was brought forward by eight nations—Belgium, Benin, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, and Switzerland—who have made global LGBT rights a priority. (Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, Costa Rican Vice President Ana Helena Chacón and other world leaders attended a U.N. LGBT Core Group meeting earlier in the month.)
“This is a monumental moment where the international community has publicly highlighted that these horrific laws simply must end,” said Renato Sabbadini, director of The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). “It is unconscionable to think that there are hundreds of millions of people living in states where somebody may be executed simply because of whom they love.”
Previous efforts by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Russia to block or water down the resolution failed.
The resolution doesn’t call for the end to capital punishment altogether, but asks member nations not to use it in a “discriminatory manner”—including against against minors and pregnant women, or for blasphemy and consensual same-sex relations.
The other countries who voted against the resolution were Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, China, Japan, Qatar, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (which currently has the death penalty for sodomy).
Not exactly good company.
In 2016, the U.N. appointed Vitit Muntarbhorn as an independent investigator to examine abuses against LGBT and intersex people around the world. Representatives from several African countries called for Muntarbhorn’s position to be suspended. Source As mentioned before though, countries who have the death penalty typically vote no for this stuff all the time anyway. The initial posts i see on social media and by you would make it seem like that: 1) the vote was on homosexuality exclusively being punished by death 2)the US sided with theocratic muslim countries exclusively. Per the list of countries that obstained and voted against, and the fact that it isnt homosexuality exclusively, and the historical context of how these votes go for countries that have the death penalty, things are misleading at best. We can do better than this. We should try not to sensationalize everything. It makes people distrust things even more. You get boy who cried wolf syndrome after a while. Yeah you're right, the resolution included pregnant women, individuals with mental disability, and bigamists, guess we ought to hold off on passing judgement relative to an affirmative international act on the part of the Trump Administration. Note that prior administrations abstained from voting on U.N. death penalty matters given our continued tolerance of it.
This isn't a zero-sum game of outrage, it's one more thing on a long list of political disgrace.
|
On October 04 2017 03:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 03:45 Sadist wrote:On October 04 2017 03:18 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2017 03:12 Sadist wrote:On October 04 2017 01:58 Reaps wrote:On October 04 2017 01:45 farvacola wrote: In other news deserving national shame, the U.S. joined Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia today as it voted against a U.N. ban on homosexuality being punishable by death.
Fucking disgraceful. What the fuck, i have no words. Its not what it seems. Other countries voted no as well. Its not as if it was just the middle east. It wasnt just for homosexuality either. Other things were listed too. It sounds like countries that have the death penalty pretty much always vote no on stuff like this. I think on the left we have to do better. This makes us an easy target for the "fake news" chants. That the resolution was broad enough to include other discriminatory applications of the death penalty doesn't really change the point of outrage, though China, Japan, and India's opposition is certainly alarming as well. Here's a rundown: A United Nations resolution banning the death penalty for homosexuality was opposed by a total of 13 countries in the U.N. Human Rights Council. While several were in Africa and the Middle East, the U.S. surprisingly voted against the measure, as well.
Fortunately the resolution passed on Friday anyway, with 27 countries voting for the measure.
It was brought forward by eight nations—Belgium, Benin, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, and Switzerland—who have made global LGBT rights a priority. (Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, Costa Rican Vice President Ana Helena Chacón and other world leaders attended a U.N. LGBT Core Group meeting earlier in the month.)
“This is a monumental moment where the international community has publicly highlighted that these horrific laws simply must end,” said Renato Sabbadini, director of The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). “It is unconscionable to think that there are hundreds of millions of people living in states where somebody may be executed simply because of whom they love.”
Previous efforts by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Russia to block or water down the resolution failed.
The resolution doesn’t call for the end to capital punishment altogether, but asks member nations not to use it in a “discriminatory manner”—including against against minors and pregnant women, or for blasphemy and consensual same-sex relations.
The other countries who voted against the resolution were Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, China, Japan, Qatar, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (which currently has the death penalty for sodomy).
Not exactly good company.
In 2016, the U.N. appointed Vitit Muntarbhorn as an independent investigator to examine abuses against LGBT and intersex people around the world. Representatives from several African countries called for Muntarbhorn’s position to be suspended. Source As mentioned before though, countries who have the death penalty typically vote no for this stuff all the time anyway. The initial posts i see on social media and by you would make it seem like that: 1) the vote was on homosexuality exclusively being punished by death 2)the US sided with theocratic muslim countries exclusively. Per the list of countries that obstained and voted against, and the fact that it isnt homosexuality exclusively, and the historical context of how these votes go for countries that have the death penalty, things are misleading at best. We can do better than this. We should try not to sensationalize everything. It makes people distrust things even more. You get boy who cried wolf syndrome after a while. yeah you're right, the resolution included pregnant women, individuals with mental disability, and bigamists, guess we ought to hold off on passing judgement relative to an affirmative international act on the part of the Trump Administration. Note that prior administrations abstained from voting on U.N. death penalty matters given our continued tolerance of it.
Do you not agree though that the previous post could easily be misconstrued? Im not arguing the merits of the vote. I think its important we get away from the facebook/twitter style outrage news.
|
Trump: "I'm helping. No president before me has ever helped this much before"
He's so out of touch with the pain and suffering of people that it hurts. Literally not an empathetic bone in his body.
|
On October 04 2017 03:54 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 03:52 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2017 03:45 Sadist wrote:On October 04 2017 03:18 farvacola wrote:On October 04 2017 03:12 Sadist wrote:On October 04 2017 01:58 Reaps wrote:On October 04 2017 01:45 farvacola wrote: In other news deserving national shame, the U.S. joined Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia today as it voted against a U.N. ban on homosexuality being punishable by death.
Fucking disgraceful. What the fuck, i have no words. Its not what it seems. Other countries voted no as well. Its not as if it was just the middle east. It wasnt just for homosexuality either. Other things were listed too. It sounds like countries that have the death penalty pretty much always vote no on stuff like this. I think on the left we have to do better. This makes us an easy target for the "fake news" chants. That the resolution was broad enough to include other discriminatory applications of the death penalty doesn't really change the point of outrage, though China, Japan, and India's opposition is certainly alarming as well. Here's a rundown: A United Nations resolution banning the death penalty for homosexuality was opposed by a total of 13 countries in the U.N. Human Rights Council. While several were in Africa and the Middle East, the U.S. surprisingly voted against the measure, as well.
Fortunately the resolution passed on Friday anyway, with 27 countries voting for the measure.
It was brought forward by eight nations—Belgium, Benin, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, and Switzerland—who have made global LGBT rights a priority. (Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, Costa Rican Vice President Ana Helena Chacón and other world leaders attended a U.N. LGBT Core Group meeting earlier in the month.)
“This is a monumental moment where the international community has publicly highlighted that these horrific laws simply must end,” said Renato Sabbadini, director of The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). “It is unconscionable to think that there are hundreds of millions of people living in states where somebody may be executed simply because of whom they love.”
Previous efforts by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Russia to block or water down the resolution failed.
The resolution doesn’t call for the end to capital punishment altogether, but asks member nations not to use it in a “discriminatory manner”—including against against minors and pregnant women, or for blasphemy and consensual same-sex relations.
The other countries who voted against the resolution were Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, China, Japan, Qatar, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (which currently has the death penalty for sodomy).
Not exactly good company.
In 2016, the U.N. appointed Vitit Muntarbhorn as an independent investigator to examine abuses against LGBT and intersex people around the world. Representatives from several African countries called for Muntarbhorn’s position to be suspended. Source As mentioned before though, countries who have the death penalty typically vote no for this stuff all the time anyway. The initial posts i see on social media and by you would make it seem like that: 1) the vote was on homosexuality exclusively being punished by death 2)the US sided with theocratic muslim countries exclusively. Per the list of countries that obstained and voted against, and the fact that it isnt homosexuality exclusively, and the historical context of how these votes go for countries that have the death penalty, things are misleading at best. We can do better than this. We should try not to sensationalize everything. It makes people distrust things even more. You get boy who cried wolf syndrome after a while. yeah you're right, the resolution included pregnant women, individuals with mental disability, and bigamists, guess we ought to hold off on passing judgement relative to an affirmative international act on the part of the Trump Administration. Note that prior administrations abstained from voting on U.N. death penalty matters given our continued tolerance of it. Do you not agree though that the previous post could easily be misconstrued? Im not arguing the merits of the vote. I think its important we get away from the facebook/twitter style outrage news. That's a difficult question to parse; on one hand, I agree with you in terms of how offensive most outrage-based news is and continues to be now that we have an especially deplorable man as President. That said, the outrage machine appears to be alive and well and Trump tapped into it in a way that no one in US history ever has. Further, conservatives practically never engage in the practice of curating their political news; they embrace inaccuracies on the edge in a way that apparently seems far more convincing to voters than Snopes and factchecks ever will.
Thus, I think there's a balance to be struck between fighting against vague demagoguery and utilizing it in order to win elections. Whether or not the news surrounding the U.N. vote fits that bill is up in the air, though you're right in the sense that outrage here likely should surround the death penalty itself. Until Democrats figure out how to actually win important toss-up elections, I'm not sure taking the high road is going to work.
|
I understand your point and I go back and forth with the ends justify the means part of it. I think its just a dangerous path to go down. We are probably past the point of no return anyway. Thats truly the sad part
Trump/twitter/facebook/talk radio has already dragged us so far into the abyss. My hope is if we do better and look like the adults people would come to trust again.
|
Trump's day 1 speech after the storm pretty sharply contrasts with his statements now. He literally has no understanding of what is happening in Puerto Rico.
Two weeks after Hurricane Maria tore through Puerto Rico, the situation on the island remains dire: Only 5 percent of the electrical grid has been repaired, only 17 percent of cellphone towers are working, and more than half of residents don't have running water.
There's starting to be cases of Cholera, and until communication is restored it'll be pretty much impossible to determine how many deaths there are.
It's in all likelihood going to eclipse Katrina and by a fair margin too.
|
On October 04 2017 04:09 Sadist wrote:I understand your point and I go back and forth with the ends justify the means part of it. I think its just a dangerous path to go down. We are probably past the point of no return anyway. Thats truly the sad part Trump/twitter/facebook/talk radio has already dragged us so far into the abyss. My hope is if we do better and look like the adults people would come to trust again. We're definitely at the point where the abyss is staring into us, that much is tragically certain lol.
|
|
#FakeNews
Trump was complimenting on PR's ability to quickly mobilize and control the catastrophe.
|
|
|
|