|
On January 06 2019 00:57 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 00:38 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 21:34 iamthedave wrote:On January 05 2019 12:54 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2019 12:45 Danglars wrote:
They’re shaped like bells. I’ve grown them in the past. Ugh bad food opinions everywhere. Back to politics though. Yes, lets do that. I'm sure you guys can find a food thread if you want to continue. Of course if you look at the main thread, agreeing on how you’re just the worst qualifies as political discussion. And that’s the putatively well-moderated one. 2019 and people are still mad at criticism of the Democratic Party and mainstream candidates from the left. Some things never change. As American politics is, so this forum has become. This is the thread where everyone dumps on the Dems, that one's the thread where everyone dumps on the Repubs. You're deluded if you think this thread is 'better' than that one. They're the same with different participants, and so different flavours. Haha zero responsibility taken. Yeah, you’re better off staying in that thread. The little two minutes of hate by name on GH flies over there, and maybe so does this lame excuse that it’s just what politics has become. And here I thought you wanted people to own Trumps behavior, and you can’t even own your own. Deluded. I'm not even engaging with this. You said you were 'done' with me. Stay done. The posters over there don't like GH, I do and I've never been shy about saying it. We disagree on plenty of things, but I don't hold him in any disregard because of it. The context of the post I think you're thinking of was me pointing out why I was cross-posting. However, I do feel his hatred of the Democrats is a little clouding at times.
I don't really hate Democrats so much as don't find where they are leading remotely acceptable.
Clearly partisanship is so blinding the other thread literally can't tolerate criticism of Democrats to the point where they couldn't even find some to make me look foolish (which they love to try to do).
|
On January 06 2019 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 00:57 iamthedave wrote:On January 06 2019 00:38 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 21:34 iamthedave wrote:On January 05 2019 12:54 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2019 12:45 Danglars wrote:
They’re shaped like bells. I’ve grown them in the past. Ugh bad food opinions everywhere. Back to politics though. Yes, lets do that. I'm sure you guys can find a food thread if you want to continue. Of course if you look at the main thread, agreeing on how you’re just the worst qualifies as political discussion. And that’s the putatively well-moderated one. 2019 and people are still mad at criticism of the Democratic Party and mainstream candidates from the left. Some things never change. As American politics is, so this forum has become. This is the thread where everyone dumps on the Dems, that one's the thread where everyone dumps on the Repubs. You're deluded if you think this thread is 'better' than that one. They're the same with different participants, and so different flavours. Haha zero responsibility taken. Yeah, you’re better off staying in that thread. The little two minutes of hate by name on GH flies over there, and maybe so does this lame excuse that it’s just what politics has become. And here I thought you wanted people to own Trumps behavior, and you can’t even own your own. Deluded. I'm not even engaging with this. You said you were 'done' with me. Stay done. The posters over there don't like GH, I do and I've never been shy about saying it. We disagree on plenty of things, but I don't hold him in any disregard because of it. The context of the post I think you're thinking of was me pointing out why I was cross-posting. However, I do feel his hatred of the Democrats is a little clouding at times. I don't really hate Democrats so much as don't find where they are leading remotely acceptable. Clearly partisanship is so blinding the other thread literally can't tolerate criticism of Democrats to the point where they couldn't even find some to make me look foolish (which they love to try to do).
I've seen them criticise Democrats plenty of times. It's softer than you'd like, obviously. Not sure on the context of the second part though so I'll take your word for it.
I think in general on Teamliquid this whole thread split is misunderstood. This wasn't necessary because of the quality of discourse, but because a lot of you regulars despise one another and can't have a discussion without it getting personal. You're notably calmer in here than you were back then, I haven't seen XDaunt get heated either. Even your arguments with me and P6, when they've cropped up, have been significantly more civil.
Political is personal and personal is political in this instance, but I really don't know that either thread is quantitatively superior to the other. I see them as two different sources of 'news' to partake in the same as I would reading the Daily Fail and the Guardian. Though that's maybe too extreme a juxtaposition.
Maybe the Mirror and the Guardian.
|
On January 06 2019 01:12 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2019 00:57 iamthedave wrote:On January 06 2019 00:38 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 21:34 iamthedave wrote:On January 05 2019 12:54 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2019 12:45 Danglars wrote:
They’re shaped like bells. I’ve grown them in the past. Ugh bad food opinions everywhere. Back to politics though. Yes, lets do that. I'm sure you guys can find a food thread if you want to continue. Of course if you look at the main thread, agreeing on how you’re just the worst qualifies as political discussion. And that’s the putatively well-moderated one. 2019 and people are still mad at criticism of the Democratic Party and mainstream candidates from the left. Some things never change. As American politics is, so this forum has become. This is the thread where everyone dumps on the Dems, that one's the thread where everyone dumps on the Repubs. You're deluded if you think this thread is 'better' than that one. They're the same with different participants, and so different flavours. Haha zero responsibility taken. Yeah, you’re better off staying in that thread. The little two minutes of hate by name on GH flies over there, and maybe so does this lame excuse that it’s just what politics has become. And here I thought you wanted people to own Trumps behavior, and you can’t even own your own. Deluded. I'm not even engaging with this. You said you were 'done' with me. Stay done. The posters over there don't like GH, I do and I've never been shy about saying it. We disagree on plenty of things, but I don't hold him in any disregard because of it. The context of the post I think you're thinking of was me pointing out why I was cross-posting. However, I do feel his hatred of the Democrats is a little clouding at times. I don't really hate Democrats so much as don't find where they are leading remotely acceptable. Clearly partisanship is so blinding the other thread literally can't tolerate criticism of Democrats to the point where they couldn't even find some to make me look foolish (which they love to try to do). I've seen them criticise Democrats plenty of times. It's softer than you'd like, obviously. Not sure on the context of the second part though so I'll take your word for it.
Have you? I don't mean to be a pest, but you have mischaracterized this blog before so I'd like to see some example of what you're talking about so we can assess it on it's merits.
I think in general on Teamliquid this whole thread split is misunderstood. This wasn't necessary because of the quality of discourse, but because a lot of you regulars despise one another and can't have a discussion without it getting personal. You're notably calmer in here than you were back then, I haven't seen XDaunt get heated either. Even your arguments with me and P6, when they've cropped up, have been significantly more civil.
Political is personal and personal is political in this instance, but I really don't know that either thread is quantitatively superior to the other. I see them as two different sources of 'news' to partake in the same as I would reading the Daily Fail and the Guardian. Though that's maybe too extreme a juxtaposition.
Maybe the Mirror and the Guardian.
I've explained this countless times but the reason we're more civil here is because we can trade jabs and move on. Our issue over there was that the people over there love to give it (look at the personal attacks on me and I don't even post there), but can't take it and when they get it returned they go to the mods and the mods side with them.
Before they made the argument we were simply intolerable and their obnoxious behavior was warranted, but this blog shows that without them (specifically them having the moderation advantage) our behavior changed but without us their behavior is largely the same.
When they can't fall back on how we're interrupting the quality discourse they'd be having without us their arguments tend to fall apart.
That said Danglars clearly enjoys antagonizing people but I can think of others that are just as bad or worse over there.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 06 2019 01:12 iamthedave wrote:
I think in general on Teamliquid this whole thread split is misunderstood. This wasn't necessary because of the quality of discourse, but because a lot of you regulars despise one another and can't have a discussion without it getting personal. You're notably calmer in here than you were back then, I haven't seen XDaunt get heated either. Even your arguments with me and P6, when they've cropped up, have been significantly more civil.
For me at least: the entire "schism" heated up when the mods decided that they wanted to take a much more active role in moderating that thread. Heated as some discussions may have gotten, I was always a bigger fan of "let the posters battle it out among themselves" than all successive attempts to control the flow of the discussion, beset far too often by rules that aren't ever as cleanly defined or uniformly enforced as anyone would like. Beyond that, any of the threads around here really are just a sum of the quality of the posters within.
Admittedly I'm also not really a regular of any of the politics threads anymore, because I'm both busier and less interested than before, but it is what it is.
|
On January 06 2019 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 01:12 iamthedave wrote:On January 06 2019 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2019 00:57 iamthedave wrote:On January 06 2019 00:38 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 21:34 iamthedave wrote:On January 05 2019 12:54 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2019 12:45 Danglars wrote:
They’re shaped like bells. I’ve grown them in the past. Ugh bad food opinions everywhere. Back to politics though. Yes, lets do that. I'm sure you guys can find a food thread if you want to continue. Of course if you look at the main thread, agreeing on how you’re just the worst qualifies as political discussion. And that’s the putatively well-moderated one. 2019 and people are still mad at criticism of the Democratic Party and mainstream candidates from the left. Some things never change. As American politics is, so this forum has become. This is the thread where everyone dumps on the Dems, that one's the thread where everyone dumps on the Repubs. You're deluded if you think this thread is 'better' than that one. They're the same with different participants, and so different flavours. Haha zero responsibility taken. Yeah, you’re better off staying in that thread. The little two minutes of hate by name on GH flies over there, and maybe so does this lame excuse that it’s just what politics has become. And here I thought you wanted people to own Trumps behavior, and you can’t even own your own. Deluded. I'm not even engaging with this. You said you were 'done' with me. Stay done. The posters over there don't like GH, I do and I've never been shy about saying it. We disagree on plenty of things, but I don't hold him in any disregard because of it. The context of the post I think you're thinking of was me pointing out why I was cross-posting. However, I do feel his hatred of the Democrats is a little clouding at times. I don't really hate Democrats so much as don't find where they are leading remotely acceptable. Clearly partisanship is so blinding the other thread literally can't tolerate criticism of Democrats to the point where they couldn't even find some to make me look foolish (which they love to try to do). I've seen them criticise Democrats plenty of times. It's softer than you'd like, obviously. Not sure on the context of the second part though so I'll take your word for it. Have you? I don't mean to be a pest, but you have mischaracterized this blog before so I'd like to see some example of what you're talking about so we can assess it on it's merits. Show nested quote +I think in general on Teamliquid this whole thread split is misunderstood. This wasn't necessary because of the quality of discourse, but because a lot of you regulars despise one another and can't have a discussion without it getting personal. You're notably calmer in here than you were back then, I haven't seen XDaunt get heated either. Even your arguments with me and P6, when they've cropped up, have been significantly more civil.
Political is personal and personal is political in this instance, but I really don't know that either thread is quantitatively superior to the other. I see them as two different sources of 'news' to partake in the same as I would reading the Daily Fail and the Guardian. Though that's maybe too extreme a juxtaposition.
Maybe the Mirror and the Guardian.
I've explained this countless times but the reason we're more civil here is because we can trade jabs and move on. Our issue over there was that the people over there love to give it (look at the personal attacks on me and I don't even post there), but can't take it and when they get it returned they go to the mods and the mods side with them. Before they made the argument we were simply intolerable and their obnoxious behavior was warranted, but this blog shows that without them (specifically them having the moderation advantage) our behavior changed but without us their behavior is largely the same. When they can't fall back on how we're interrupting the quality discourse they'd be having without us their arguments tend to fall apart. That said Danglars clearly enjoys antagonizing people but I can think of others that are just as bad or worse over there.
Yeah that's a fair thing to ask.
Courtesy of page 1020 and Luckyfool: "Every time I have hope the Democratic party can right the ship as the party of the sane ones, the ones we can trust to bring sanity back to a troubled landscape, something happens that crushes my hopes. Today, it was congressman Steve Cohen introducing leglislation to abolish the electoral college. Obviously it’ll never pass, as it would take a constitutional amendment to change such a thing, but still, I had never heard of this guy before. I assumed such a ridiculous move might have been attempted by one of the incoming progressive radicals as a publicity stunt, but alas this man has been in congress since 2007. It was a very sad day indeed"
Followed up two posts later by Gorsameth: "Because its pointless showmanship with no hope in hell of ever passing.
Its like the GOP doing a repeal ACA vote 40 times."
I'm pretty sure you'd consider that very very soft criticism but it is still criticism. And that's without digging back to look for a major fuckup. If you like I'll dig deeper.
To your last point; I'd say the other thread is much more cleaned up as well. Your being here has improved your behaviour, your not being there has improved theirs. That sounds like I'm accusing you of course, but really I'm just pointing out that the issue is the interaction of parties. Regardless of quality or lack thereof in either, the behaviour of the posters in the main thread is mostly improved. There hasn't been a major fight or a ban for a while, and the ones that did happen were... well, kind of obviously coming. I'll agree there are occasional jabs thrown at absent posters, but like I said, there's genuine ill-feeling between long term posters on Team Liquid.
Now maybe it's felt more keenly by those over in the main thread. I am no mind reader and can't claim to know that. But there are definitely posters who used to set you off like a claymore mine. Though in general I think you're an excellent poster, most of your old thread bans were justified, because you tended to go through five stages of Hulk once you were wound up.
|
To relate this back to US Politics specifically this all stands as a great allegory for 2020.
Democrats are confounded trying to figure out what Bernie and AOC have in common that makes them so much more popular and are determined to come to any conclusion that isn't "their policy is better than ours".
|
On January 06 2019 01:29 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2019 01:12 iamthedave wrote:On January 06 2019 01:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2019 00:57 iamthedave wrote:On January 06 2019 00:38 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 21:34 iamthedave wrote:On January 05 2019 12:54 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2019 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2019 12:45 Danglars wrote:
They’re shaped like bells. I’ve grown them in the past. Ugh bad food opinions everywhere. Back to politics though. Yes, lets do that. I'm sure you guys can find a food thread if you want to continue. Of course if you look at the main thread, agreeing on how you’re just the worst qualifies as political discussion. And that’s the putatively well-moderated one. 2019 and people are still mad at criticism of the Democratic Party and mainstream candidates from the left. Some things never change. As American politics is, so this forum has become. This is the thread where everyone dumps on the Dems, that one's the thread where everyone dumps on the Repubs. You're deluded if you think this thread is 'better' than that one. They're the same with different participants, and so different flavours. Haha zero responsibility taken. Yeah, you’re better off staying in that thread. The little two minutes of hate by name on GH flies over there, and maybe so does this lame excuse that it’s just what politics has become. And here I thought you wanted people to own Trumps behavior, and you can’t even own your own. Deluded. I'm not even engaging with this. You said you were 'done' with me. Stay done. The posters over there don't like GH, I do and I've never been shy about saying it. We disagree on plenty of things, but I don't hold him in any disregard because of it. The context of the post I think you're thinking of was me pointing out why I was cross-posting. However, I do feel his hatred of the Democrats is a little clouding at times. I don't really hate Democrats so much as don't find where they are leading remotely acceptable. Clearly partisanship is so blinding the other thread literally can't tolerate criticism of Democrats to the point where they couldn't even find some to make me look foolish (which they love to try to do). I've seen them criticise Democrats plenty of times. It's softer than you'd like, obviously. Not sure on the context of the second part though so I'll take your word for it. Have you? I don't mean to be a pest, but you have mischaracterized this blog before so I'd like to see some example of what you're talking about so we can assess it on it's merits. I think in general on Teamliquid this whole thread split is misunderstood. This wasn't necessary because of the quality of discourse, but because a lot of you regulars despise one another and can't have a discussion without it getting personal. You're notably calmer in here than you were back then, I haven't seen XDaunt get heated either. Even your arguments with me and P6, when they've cropped up, have been significantly more civil.
Political is personal and personal is political in this instance, but I really don't know that either thread is quantitatively superior to the other. I see them as two different sources of 'news' to partake in the same as I would reading the Daily Fail and the Guardian. Though that's maybe too extreme a juxtaposition.
Maybe the Mirror and the Guardian.
I've explained this countless times but the reason we're more civil here is because we can trade jabs and move on. Our issue over there was that the people over there love to give it (look at the personal attacks on me and I don't even post there), but can't take it and when they get it returned they go to the mods and the mods side with them. Before they made the argument we were simply intolerable and their obnoxious behavior was warranted, but this blog shows that without them (specifically them having the moderation advantage) our behavior changed but without us their behavior is largely the same. When they can't fall back on how we're interrupting the quality discourse they'd be having without us their arguments tend to fall apart. That said Danglars clearly enjoys antagonizing people but I can think of others that are just as bad or worse over there. Yeah that's a fair thing to ask. Courtesy of page 1020 and Luckyfool: "Every time I have hope the Democratic party can right the ship as the party of the sane ones, the ones we can trust to bring sanity back to a troubled landscape, something happens that crushes my hopes. Today, it was congressman Steve Cohen introducing leglislation to abolish the electoral college. Obviously it’ll never pass, as it would take a constitutional amendment to change such a thing, but still, I had never heard of this guy before. I assumed such a ridiculous move might have been attempted by one of the incoming progressive radicals as a publicity stunt, but alas this man has been in congress since 2007. It was a very sad day indeed" Followed up two posts later by Gorsameth: "Because its pointless showmanship with no hope in hell of ever passing. Its like the GOP doing a repeal ACA vote 40 times." I'm pretty sure you'd consider that very very soft criticism but it is still criticism. And that's without digging back to look for a major fuckup.
That does qualify as words against (in this case) a specific Democrat
Carefully read though it's clear a criticism of Democrats acting like progressives, which fits my larger point.
EDIT: I think LL points out how those examples actually quite well demonstrate the immune system like response to variance from a centrist orthodoxy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 06 2019 01:29 iamthedave wrote:
Courtesy of page 1020 and Luckyfool: "Every time I have hope the Democratic party can right the ship as the party of the sane ones, the ones we can trust to bring sanity back to a troubled landscape, something happens that crushes my hopes. Today, it was congressman Steve Cohen introducing leglislation to abolish the electoral college. Obviously it’ll never pass, as it would take a constitutional amendment to change such a thing, but still, I had never heard of this guy before. I assumed such a ridiculous move might have been attempted by one of the incoming progressive radicals as a publicity stunt, but alas this man has been in congress since 2007. It was a very sad day indeed"
Followed up two posts later by Gorsameth: "Because its pointless showmanship with no hope in hell of ever passing.
Its like the GOP doing a repeal ACA vote 40 times."
I'm pretty sure you'd consider that very very soft criticism but it is still criticism. And that's without digging back to look for a major fuckup. If you like I'll dig deeper.
That definitely sounds like far more of a whataboutism than a genuine criticism. Which is something I'd argue is very standard fare over there and has been for years: "yeah, Democrats ain't great, but compared to Republicans should we really care?"
I think it worth noting that there's not exactly a shortage of criticism of Republicans or Trump in here. The "consensus opinion" might be that Democrats are bad, but anyone to the left or anyone to the right is not given a free pass either. Although the conservative group gets higher than average representation here, that much is likely true.
|
On January 06 2019 01:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 01:29 iamthedave wrote:
Courtesy of page 1020 and Luckyfool: "Every time I have hope the Democratic party can right the ship as the party of the sane ones, the ones we can trust to bring sanity back to a troubled landscape, something happens that crushes my hopes. Today, it was congressman Steve Cohen introducing leglislation to abolish the electoral college. Obviously it’ll never pass, as it would take a constitutional amendment to change such a thing, but still, I had never heard of this guy before. I assumed such a ridiculous move might have been attempted by one of the incoming progressive radicals as a publicity stunt, but alas this man has been in congress since 2007. It was a very sad day indeed"
Followed up two posts later by Gorsameth: "Because its pointless showmanship with no hope in hell of ever passing.
Its like the GOP doing a repeal ACA vote 40 times."
I'm pretty sure you'd consider that very very soft criticism but it is still criticism. And that's without digging back to look for a major fuckup. If you like I'll dig deeper. That definitely sounds like far more of a whataboutism than a genuine criticism. Which is something I'd argue is very standard fare over there and has been for years: "yeah, Democrats ain't great, but compared to Republicans should we really care?" I think it worth noting that there's not exactly a shortage of criticism of Republicans or Trump in here. The "consensus opinion" might be that Democrats are bad, but anyone to the left or anyone to the right is not given a free pass either. Although the conservative group gets higher than average representation here, that much is likely true.
They can get a lot of debating of ideas over there, but only if it's accepted that they're small fries issues compared to the villainy of Trump and the several-magnitudes-worse-than-Democrats Republican party.
Iamthedave is not unique in missing the big idea to focus on the little stuff in this respect. Maybe he has a little hotter temper as seen in the sudden "fuck you" here and blowing a fuse on my Kavanaugh defenses in the main thread ("Do you actually believe your own horseshit, Danglars"), but otherwise he's just one of the crowd. Anything less than a complete rejection of everything Trump makes one "full-throatedly endorsed." That's par for the course. Every criticism of the president on tone or actions is lost to the wind, simply because it doesn't make the positive side of the register any less important for the speaker. Eventually, you stop voicing them because most aren't listening (only pretending to listen), and the rest already knew it from the dozen times before.
There isn't much hope for improvements in nuance or understanding given that the only ideas that penetrate must be voiced by someone the progressive crowd respects. It falls under the glib name of Trump Derangement Syndrome, but it's basically just tribalism combined with anger and far-reaching ideological commitments.
I don't want to sound like it's all negative, because it is valuable for center-left and the left wing (that isn't quite GH's area of left-wing) to have their space free of Trump voters that bring very incompatible ideas. They can talk inter-party dynamics with people that agree on European ideas of socialized health care, policies on race-class-sex-sexual identity-gender identity, the border/immigration, the supreme court, and many more. Conflicts are minor on the grand scale. People that respond badly to stark differences don't ever get to that point, because people mostly agree on the broad stuff. That's a net benefit to people that are good at discussing things in all other aspects. Since there's substantial agreement among this section of society on Trump's actions and the Republican Party's nature, there's plenty of people with varying opinions under that roof that can hash out the differences in strategy and goals. It's not really US Politics anymore without voices from the political party opposed, but it is a major subset of US Politics within America. I frankly think this sequestered form is useful for future harmony, if the nation endures the current division.
|
I just wish Democrats were half as "bad" as Danglars thinks they are.
They mostly want you want but for it to be diverse among lines of race-class-sex-sexual identity-gender identity, etc...
for example:
How women took over the military-industrial complex
For the first time, the nation's defense hierarchy is no longer dominated by men.
|
On January 06 2019 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:I just wish Democrats were half as "bad" as Danglars thinks they are. They mostly want you want but for it to be diverse among lines of race-class-sex-sexual identity-gender identity, etc... for example: How women took over the military-industrial complexFor the first time, the nation's defense hierarchy is no longer dominated by men.
It's going to be funny when Democrat voters wake up and figure out that their party is run by a bunch of diversity-oriented neocons.
|
On January 06 2019 04:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2019 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:I just wish Democrats were half as "bad" as Danglars thinks they are. They mostly want you want but for it to be diverse among lines of race-class-sex-sexual identity-gender identity, etc... for example: How women took over the military-industrial complexFor the first time, the nation's defense hierarchy is no longer dominated by men. It's going to be funny when Democrat voters wake up and figure out that their party is run by a bunch of diversity-oriented neocons.
I'm not sure that'll ever happen. You guys repainted the political scale quite some time ago. That Barack Obama is somehow considered a crazy left-wing socialist is amusing in a car wreck kind of way, or that Bernie Sanders is considered the second coming of Lenin by some people.
Your political scale is so far out of whack that you barely have a left anymore. Which is very, very unhealthy.
For reference, Bernie Sanders is the only major Democratic Presidential candidate I can think of in living memory who would actually fit in the Labour Party. Barack Obama might squeak in but he'd be very Blairish, towards the centre-right. All the others would be Tories.
|
I like AOC in the way that I like Ron/Rand paul, that they fill the roles they're supposed to and aren't afraid of accepting their roles.
No one should seriously think AOC can become president. But she can do far more good for the country by being the left wing of the left wing. Granted that devalues her impact to that of a jobber but jobbers are important in a political world that increasingly follows professional wrestling rules.
Its like dave deciding he wants to represent the dutch posters in this thread by being a hater.
|
Looks like Bolton et al successfully convinced trump to modify his decision on Syria. This of course could change tomorrow if someone else gets trumps ear, but it's a sign that trumps handlers are still pulling back his decisions on matters of defense.
Keep in mind trump reportedly first made the decision to withdraw during a phone call with Erdogan, following Ersogan's questioning of the US's reason for being in syria.
|
Whenever anyone needs an example of Republicans not giving a damn about the constitution or freedom of speech this one will probably work.
U.S. SENATE’S FIRST BILL, IN MIDST OF SHUTDOWN, IS A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT FROM BOYCOTTS
In the new 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.
But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered – S.1 – is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign-policy related measures, a main one of which is a provision, with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor, to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for AIPAC.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As the Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.
Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.
Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,”
But don't think it doesn't also implicate Democrats too
With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. – who supported Sen. Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists – also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House – now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a long-time Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment – takes it up and passes it into law.
theintercept.com
|
I get that Israel is important to US interests (and the Christian death cultists) but I don't get why it's quite that high on the agenda. Especially in this alleged 'America First' era. Thought they were going to focus on home first and always?
|
On January 07 2019 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Whenever anyone needs an example of Republicans not giving a damn about the constitution or freedom of speech this one will probably work. Show nested quote + U.S. SENATE’S FIRST BILL, IN MIDST OF SHUTDOWN, IS A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT FROM BOYCOTTS
In the new 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.
But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered – S.1 – is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign-policy related measures, a main one of which is a provision, with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor, to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for AIPAC.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As the Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.
Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.
Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” But don't think it doesn't also implicate Democrats too Show nested quote +With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. – who supported Sen. Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists – also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House – now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a long-time Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment – takes it up and passes it into law. theintercept.com
Godawful amendment. The federal government has no authority to compel states and localities to boycott on chosen grounds. Their only related responsibility is regulating interstate commerce. Stupid Republicans.
|
On January 07 2019 08:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2019 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Whenever anyone needs an example of Republicans not giving a damn about the constitution or freedom of speech this one will probably work. U.S. SENATE’S FIRST BILL, IN MIDST OF SHUTDOWN, IS A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT FROM BOYCOTTS
In the new 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.
But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered – S.1 – is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign-policy related measures, a main one of which is a provision, with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor, to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for AIPAC.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As the Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.
Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.
Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” But don't think it doesn't also implicate Democrats too With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. – who supported Sen. Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists – also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House – now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a long-time Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment – takes it up and passes it into law. theintercept.com Godawful amendment. The federal government has no authority to compel states and localities to boycott on chosen grounds. Their only related responsibility is regulating interstate commerce. Stupid Republicans.
But a worthy trade I presume? Because a deliberate and coordinated attack on the first amendment like that is disqualifying of any and all support for me, let alone that they made it priority 1.
|
On January 07 2019 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2019 08:31 Danglars wrote:On January 07 2019 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Whenever anyone needs an example of Republicans not giving a damn about the constitution or freedom of speech this one will probably work. U.S. SENATE’S FIRST BILL, IN MIDST OF SHUTDOWN, IS A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT FROM BOYCOTTS
In the new 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.
But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered – S.1 – is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign-policy related measures, a main one of which is a provision, with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor, to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for AIPAC.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As the Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.
Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.
Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” But don't think it doesn't also implicate Democrats too With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. – who supported Sen. Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists – also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House – now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a long-time Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment – takes it up and passes it into law. theintercept.com Godawful amendment. The federal government has no authority to compel states and localities to boycott on chosen grounds. Their only related responsibility is regulating interstate commerce. Stupid Republicans. But a worthy trade I presume? Because a deliberate and coordinated attack on the first amendment like that is disqualifying of any and all support for me, let alone that they made it priority 1.
If that’s my representative, he’s lost my vote. The federal government has no say in this, short of extreme cases like wars and violations of regulations on trade. I’m a big supporter of Israel, but this is not the way to go about fighting the BDS losers, as despicable as they are. Not even close to being acceptable.
|
On January 07 2019 09:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2019 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 07 2019 08:31 Danglars wrote:On January 07 2019 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Whenever anyone needs an example of Republicans not giving a damn about the constitution or freedom of speech this one will probably work. U.S. SENATE’S FIRST BILL, IN MIDST OF SHUTDOWN, IS A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT FROM BOYCOTTS
In the new 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.
But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered – S.1 – is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign-policy related measures, a main one of which is a provision, with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor, to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for AIPAC.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel.
In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As the Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.
Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.
Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,” But don't think it doesn't also implicate Democrats too With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. – who supported Sen. Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists – also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House – now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a long-time Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment – takes it up and passes it into law. theintercept.com Godawful amendment. The federal government has no authority to compel states and localities to boycott on chosen grounds. Their only related responsibility is regulating interstate commerce. Stupid Republicans. But a worthy trade I presume? Because a deliberate and coordinated attack on the first amendment like that is disqualifying of any and all support for me, let alone that they made it priority 1. If that’s my representative, he’s lost my vote. The federal government has no say in this, short of extreme cases like wars and violations of regulations on trade. I’m a big supporter of Israel, but this is not the way to go about fighting the BDS losers, as despicable as they are. Not even close to being acceptable.
So you would agree that Republicans in the Senate and house (as well as the cosponsoring/supporting Dems) should be removed from office (electorally presumably) to protect the first amendment no? If Trump signed it he should go too?
You also mentioned the feds, are you suggesting that states should have this ability to limit free speech?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
