Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 05 2019 05:36 redlightdistrict wrote: I don't understand why the dems didn't amalgamate and ameliorate themselves around one established candidate six months ago instead of having a free for all though out the debates. The last couple months has been Gabbard beating up on Kamala, Kamala beating up on Biden, etc the only candidates that seem to get along is Warren and Buttigieg. I dont know nothing about politics but since Warren was the first candidate to enter the race would it not make more sense to rally around her than have 20 more people enter the fray afterwards?
Because right now is the 6 months ago for 6 months from now. We’re still over a full year from the election. You’re right that they should get all of this stuff sorted out before the debates and the election but this is that, they’re sorting it out before the presidential debates with Trump etc. I feel like you’d say they should have rallied around a candidate months ago whenever they did this process.
It's good that the field is still wide open. As soon as a single candidate is picked, the Republicans will have a target to go after and smear the hell out of them. At that point, it becomes all out war against whoever the Democrats pick. Right now, they have to spread their fire and can't focus. They'll put a little extra fire on front runners like Biden, but it can be awfully wasteful of the Republicans to go all out on smearing Biden, just to elevate Warren/Harris/Sanders/Buttigieg and then have to repeat all the smears on the new person. It would be even more clear that it already is that the smear job is phony and they're simply attacking the opponent no matter who it is. It's not about legitimate concerns.
So I say, let the Democrats battle it out, let the best candidate win, and don't destroy each other in the process. Then please god, let the democrats come together and support that candidate en mass. Vote for that candidate and win 40+ states. Unfortunately, the "progressives" will always find a way to stop progress because the progress isn't perfect enough. Maybe Trump is bad enough to finally teach people the lesson that small progress is better than huge leaps in the wrong direction?
On September 05 2019 05:36 redlightdistrict wrote: I don't understand why the dems didn't amalgamate and ameliorate themselves around one established candidate six months ago instead of having a free for all though out the debates. The last couple months has been Gabbard beating up on Kamala, Kamala beating up on Biden, etc the only candidates that seem to get along is Warren and Buttigieg. I dont know nothing about politics but since Warren was the first candidate to enter the race would it not make more sense to rally around her than have 20 more people enter the fray afterwards?
For all intents and purposes, the 3 highest polling Democratic candidates (Biden, Sanders, and Warren) are the only ones with a realistic mathematical shot of winning; they're way ahead of everyone else. Harris and Buttigieg aren't doing as poorly as everyone else, but I think the reasons why the other non-top-3 Democratic candidates haven't dropped out are two-fold: 1. To keep their name recognition as active as possible, so that in 4 or 8 or 12 years they have a better chance of garnering support due to familiarity; 2. To keep pushing any interesting policies that they may favor that aren't quite mainstream (e.g., Yang's suggestion of UBI), just to get a conversation going. A lot of the progressive ideas that Sanders had last election have become normalized now, even though he didn't win the nomination.
Regardless of this, Trump's campaign advisors should definitely be coming up with ammunition against Biden, Sanders, and Warren. Whether or not Trump actually listens to his campaign advisors is another thing, though.
On September 05 2019 05:36 redlightdistrict wrote: I don't understand why the dems didn't amalgamate and ameliorate themselves around one established candidate six months ago instead of having a free for all though out the debates. The last couple months has been Gabbard beating up on Kamala, Kamala beating up on Biden, etc the only candidates that seem to get along is Warren and Buttigieg. I dont know nothing about politics but since Warren was the first candidate to enter the race would it not make more sense to rally around her than have 20 more people enter the fray afterwards?
For all intents and purposes, the 3 highest polling Democratic candidates (Biden, Sanders, and Warren) are the only ones with a realistic mathematical shot of winning; they're way ahead of everyone else. Harris and Buttigieg aren't doing as poorly as everyone else, but I think the reasons why the other non-top-3 Democratic candidates haven't dropped out are two-fold: 1. To keep their name recognition as active as possible, so that in 4 or 8 or 12 years they have a better chance of garnering support due to familiarity; 2. To keep pushing any interesting policies that they may favor that aren't quite mainstream (e.g., Yang's suggestion of UBI), just to get a conversation going. A lot of the progressive ideas that Sanders had last election have become normalized now, even though he didn't win the nomination.
Regardless of this, Trump's campaign advisors should definitely be coming up with ammunition against Biden, Sanders, and Warren. Whether or not Trump actually listens to his campaign advisors is another thing, though.
It's been reported that Trump thinks he can hate tweet Warren away. If he calls her names enough her support will go away
On September 05 2019 05:36 redlightdistrict wrote: I don't understand why the dems didn't amalgamate and ameliorate themselves around one established candidate six months ago instead of having a free for all though out the debates. The last couple months has been Gabbard beating up on Kamala, Kamala beating up on Biden, etc the only candidates that seem to get along is Warren and Buttigieg. I dont know nothing about politics but since Warren was the first candidate to enter the race would it not make more sense to rally around her than have 20 more people enter the fray afterwards?
For all intents and purposes, the 3 highest polling Democratic candidates (Biden, Sanders, and Warren) are the only ones with a realistic mathematical shot of winning; they're way ahead of everyone else. Harris and Buttigieg aren't doing as poorly as everyone else, but I think the reasons why the other non-top-3 Democratic candidates haven't dropped out are two-fold: 1. To keep their name recognition as active as possible, so that in 4 or 8 or 12 years they have a better chance of garnering support due to familiarity; 2. To keep pushing any interesting policies that they may favor that aren't quite mainstream (e.g., Yang's suggestion of UBI), just to get a conversation going. A lot of the progressive ideas that Sanders had last election have become normalized now, even though he didn't win the nomination.
Regardless of this, Trump's campaign advisors should definitely be coming up with ammunition against Biden, Sanders, and Warren. Whether or not Trump actually listens to his campaign advisors is another thing, though.
It's been reported that Trump thinks he can hate tweet Warren away. If he calls her names enough her support will go away
I don't think Warren has a real chance anyway. Granted the party and neoliberals are starting to see her as their best option with Biden's unsteady campaigning, she could still end up the party's counter to Bernie and his agenda.
Imagine being the president but still so insecure that when you mistakenly name Alabama as one of the states in danger of the hurricane that instead of quickly clearing up that issue you go full attack on the meteorologists, and then a day later during a hurricane update to the people, have someone use a marker to draw an extra line on a projection map so Alabama is in the projected danger area.
Like how does that conversation go?
'Sir here are the props we will use during the statement 'This map, it doesn't show Alabama affected 'That's because that's not what was projected sir' 'Add it' 'Add what?' "Add a line that goes through Alabama' 'But sir' 'Don't make me repeat mysefl' 'We can't just draw on a..''People will notice' 'Make it so'
Fun part is that altering a map like this and presenting it as official, seems to be federal offense.
I'm also not sure what other date range you'd put on the US's colonial history (as distinguished from westward expansion into Terra Nullius which isn't colonialism (for the record I know there were people living there until white men came and shot them all, but they didn't have a flag which means it's not official)).
As an interesting side note (to me), the concept of Terra Nullius is talked about a LOT in Canada due to indigenous sovereignty entering into school curriculum, but this summer I was reading some indigenous arguments that to my ear didn't really sound like Catholic argumentation that I was familiar with (that the pope believed non-Europeans were subhumans, therefore Terra Nullius). So I did some poking around to read the actual papal bulls that made use of the concept to see the original wording (translated of course.)
What I stumbled upon was rather surprising, I think (unless I can find something else that demonstrates otherwise) that Terra Nullius is a modern invention and that it was not a concept that was utilized by the popes. There are three sources that every article talking about Terra Nullius refer to: Urban II's Terra Nullius bull 1095, Bull Romanus Pontifex 1455, and the bull Iter Caetera 1493.
Urban II's, is a complete dead end. I don't think it exists- I can't find anything by that name. He has the famous Deus vult speech of course, but nothing that talks about empty lands. Romanus Pontifex is pre-Columbian contact and is concerned with opening up a new front in India against the Islamic empire and Iter Caetera is directly to do with the Americas. Neither contain the idea of vacant lands or ownership that doesn't count. What they do recognize is the right of conquest. It's not a right that our modern values recognize, but it is one that was familiar to humans since humans became armed tribes- from the Sumerians to the Etruscans to the Egyptians to the Aztecs to the Iroquois Nations to the Zhou dynasty to the Kushans, to the Mali. (Up until- when was the tipping point, do you think? Maybe some of the Enlightenment thinking? Or maybe so late as post-WWI that decolonization began in earnest- so really just the last century of human existence have we finally abandoned this idea... kinda, sort of.)
Anyways, I thought it was interesting because I had just taken it for granted, but all the primary sources used to underpin the concept have turned up dry thus far.
Surely if every article cites to an Urban II bull then it must exist right? Have you been to a proper library?
The tipping point was probably the Peace of Westphalia.
On September 05 2019 09:05 JimmiC wrote: The stupidity of this boggles my mind, ill spoiler my summary since I think it ruins it but read if you choose. + Show Spoiler +
a Nashville school banned Harry potter because it contains actual spells, and it is trying to convince people that spells can be good and evil when it is clear that magic is all from the devil....
On September 05 2019 09:05 JimmiC wrote: The stupidity of this boggles my mind, ill spoiler my summary since I think it ruins it but read if you choose. + Show Spoiler +
a Nashville school banned Harry potter because it contains actual spells, and it is trying to convince people that spells can be good and evil when it is clear that magic is all from the devil....
How is this guy running a school? He should be laughed out of everywhere and should not be entrusted with anything remotely important!
I thought we were done with that about 15 years ago?
No way, there are still banned book lists that make sure to remove any "promoting" of sorcery, satanism, homosexuality, evolution, etc., especially in some conservative states and schools.
It's almost as if...they forgot...the internet...was invented...
Every time I read something like that, I get a headache. How these kinds of people get into such positions of power and stay there for years unchallenged, is beyond me.
On September 05 2019 21:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: It's almost as if...they forgot...the internet...was invented...
Every time I read something like that, I get a headache. How these kinds of people get into such positions of power and stay there for years unchallenged, is beyond me.
On September 05 2019 22:21 farvacola wrote: The system certainly encourages that kind of power entrenchment, but those awful folks are also a reflection of the place they come from.
Well sure, but that’s an empty designation of the sort meant to be filled by patriotism, I was referring more to the specific region/state at issue. Bonkers religious book banning and Nashville/Tennessee go together quite nicely.
I mean the whole banning of books on those topics is stupid. But this guy to me takes it to the next level of stupid when he believe harry potter is real spells and other magicians show up to do obliterate spells when ever some one casts one.
First it is stupid.
Second, what would be the point of putting your magic spells into the world if you were going to obliterate them.
Third, this is not something that was written 1000's of years ago and is hard to prove who wrote it and where it came from or have any mystery about it.
It makes me sad how little critical thinking some people have and then how many people both believe this guy and how many others have to because some how he got into a position of power.
This is a major reason why uniform education standards and a tightening of home/private school regs are so fought against, it’s a lot easier to convince folks of evil magic books and a war on Christians if you keep from them knowing what the world actually looks like.
On September 05 2019 22:37 farvacola wrote: Well sure, but that’s an empty designation of the sort meant to be filled by patriotism, I was referring more to the specific region/state at issue. Bonkers religious book banning and Nashville/Tennessee go together quite nicely.
Hardly unique to Nashville/Tennessee, it was the most frequently challenged book and on the top 100 list for like a decade
Sure, it doesn’t have to be unique to be indicative, and the timing is part of that equation. Folks up in arms about books that have been out for a long time is part of how the faux-small town religiosity bubble works, it’s as though they are living in a different timeline.
EPT
