|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 03 2018 07:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 07:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:Court records show that Ramos pleaded guilty in July 2011 to criminal harassment in Anne Arundel County, where the Capital Gazette is based. A 90-day jail sentence was suspended, and Ramos was placed on 18 months' supervised probation.
Five days later, the Capital Gazette published a column headlined "Jarrod wants to be your friend," profiling the woman who said she was the victim of Ramos' harassment. The article is no longer on the newspaper's website, but it was reprinted in full in the court documents.
In the column, the woman, whose name was withheld, claimed that Ramos, a former high school classmate, tracked her down on Facebook and then harshly harassed her through email for as long as two years.
The column quoted her as saying that Ramos urged her to kill herself and that the bank where she worked put her on probation because of "an email from Ramos and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her."
The column said she was laid off a few months later and "believes, but can't prove, it was because of Ramos."
In July 2012, Ramos, representing himself, sued the Capital Gazette; Eric Hartley, a former reporter who wrote the column; and Thomas Marquardt, the newspaper's publisher at the time, in Prince George's County Circuit Court alleging defamation. He filed a longer complaint in October 2012, two months after the statute of limitations for the alleged defamation had expired, adding an allegation of invasion of privacy.
The circuit judge dismissed the complaint in 2013, saying: "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Ramos appealed, and in September 2015, the appeals court upheld the dismissal, writing that Ramos "never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false."
"The appellant was charged with a criminal act," the court wrote. "The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. ... He does not appear to have learned his lesson."
Marquardt, the former publisher of the Capital Gazette, told the Baltimore Sun that he wasn't surprised Ramos was identified as the suspect because he began harassing the newspaper's staff shortly after the 2011 article was published. www.nbcnews.comThe Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false. That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence. And on the flip side, it's an entirely detestable act to place a crazy shooting up a newspaper years after they published an article at the feet of Trump. You don't want to go down this road. This is the kind of mind-bogging logic that puts the baseball shooter at the feet of anti-GOP rhetoric that makes the left the reason the shooter shot up a baseball stadium. This is where people blame you for being part of the anti-cop rhetoric that inspires leftists to assassinate police officers. It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards GOP Congressmen in this country with any individuals to escalate their beef with the GOP into violence It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing frequency of calling GOP members Nazis in this country with any individuals inspired to shoot Republican Congressmen Just to re-purpose your conclusion to other acts that will be brought up, should more people adopt your logic. You're exploring a very deep and dark pit. I'm probably not the right sympathetic voice to relay this to you, considering last month you accused me of being a threat to your very life and celebratory if you died. But all the same, I hope you get the message. The absolute narcissism of making Ramos in Annapolis, Maryland all about Trump in Washington, DC will end very badly for all parties involved. And on the other flip side, at some point you do have to start attributing responsibility to higher authorities when they use inflammatory rhetoric that encourages and potentially normalizes violence. What is that point? Ramos doesn't cross it (at least from what I've seen) but if someone directly says "I shot up the enemy of the people" does Trump share any blame at all? You extrapolate beyond individual responsibility of authorities towards some greater concept of right and left here. It actually feels a lot like with SHS, where one person kicking someone out of their restaurant for being lying scum who hates people like them into some grand gesture against "the right." (considering whether general sentiment is linked to violence, as Kyadytim does, is also an entirely different kettle of fish from individual violence, but I assume you were just treating that as a jumping-off point) You probably know enough of it yourself. Why do you say "potentially normalizes violence" instead of "it normalizes violence?" It's like you know all the "inflammatory rhetoric" is basically just your characterization of something that escalates tensions, and itself could be used against Black Lives Matter, the media, special interest groups like the SPLC, and all sorts of people and organizations. That level of fog is precisely why we do not carelessly attribute responsibility beyond the individual when he or she has a private grievance and a history of lunatic aims. The best course is to permit hateful speech is not a general incitement to violence. Let me know when Trump says, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" He's smart enough to not cross the line. The count of dead journalists because Trump supporters knew he was really calling on them to take matters into their own hands is quite low. If you want threats of violence, and I don't know if you do, but those are directed at Trump and his officials just as at journalists and opposition politicians. The "share of the blame" argument is complex, because you can regress that one back five decades. I don't think you can make the case that Trump "encourages violence" against journalists. We've had an entire American history of slurs back and forth between branches of government, media, constituencies, and all he's done is insult and give fiery speeches. Your argument basically asks the reader to separate out the many speakers about what's ruining America, and say that this one will actually be seized upon to rationalize their violence. I disagree. The tradition is old and Trump's attacks on the media are vicious but stale. If you're the kind of crazy that theorizes his gun will right the wrongs Trump supposedly points out, the issue is the crazy, not that he selected Trump instead of Schumer, the SPLC, Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates to be his springing board. I draw the line at actual incitement to violence. Not "inflammatory rhetoric" as gets tossed around so easily these days (probably even predates the latest racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic tripe that gets robbed of its meaning these days). I think the history of American politics teaches that the rhetoric was never really tame from founding to today. So whether speech crosses the line is an inherent property of the speech, rather than any consequentialist argument based on what the speech inspires? I think that is dangerous because it implies a large-scale unawareness on the part of the people making speech-if there are "crazies" out there on the border of snapping, *something* pushes that particular crazy over the border. To totally abdicate even personal responsibility (let alone legal responsibility) for all the crazies that follow you paves the way to dangerous precedent, as you point out. As I said before, the Ramos situation is not one of those situations, but I think Trump would absolutely pull those levers if he thought he could get away with it (witness: "I'd like to punch him in the face"). They're just smaller levers for now. If someone cited something I posted here as motivation to kill Paul Ryan, I'd be like "shit, I feel terrible" and would say as much. I don't think Trump would even do that. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. See, I think if they have an expectation that their "blistering criticism" will prompt the crazies to cross the line, they have a moral obligation to refrain from that speech, even if not a legal one. If they could look into the future in that case, they should pick a different line of blistering criticism. And I don't trust Trump to do that. Do you? The idea that people wouldn't refrain from speech that might tip the crazies to win elections is horrifying to me, actually. There's this weird fatalistic view that their speech is powerless to sway the crazies which seems so strange to me. The second part is just saying it's incredibly depressing that we have a leader who would almost certainly feel perfectly fine with someone taking his quotes as a command to murder and go on about his day. Nope. Generally speaking, the measure of your morality is not what the least psychologically stable person might make his or her next cause for personal participation. I gave something like five examples of people and organizations that might inspire somebody sometime. You'd basically have to adopt a police state with the most Orwellian speech codes to overcome a moral burden of that sort. I'm also not going to buy the word of a psychic who knows how Trump will respond in a hypothetical circumstance of your making. Everybody projects their paranoia onto the president these days. I don't consider that to be a good sign of mental health either.
Where did I ever call for state intervention to stop their speech anywhere here? Did I say we should lock up Trump or Milo or whatever? I don't think the point of the state is to legislate all morally repugnant options away. But I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to say "wow, you really should have thought a little more before saying 'all cops are fascists who need to die' or 'man I wish someone would punch that guy' and you're an asshole for not doing so."
I also didn't say I was a psychic or what Trump would or wouldn't do, all I said was I didn't trust Trump to make the moral choice there. I enjoy that you can't even say that you would trust Trump, though-that's pretty amusing.
|
I'd like to point out that Danglar's line of reasoning about how people who incite violence by leveling blistering criticism (which frequently involves talking in sort of abstract terms how it would be nice if the people being spoken of just happened to suffer an unfortunate accident or happened to drop dead) substantially absolves ISIS of responsibility for all of the lone wolf attacks their rhetoric inspired.
|
re: hunts
getting free on bail is very common, even for fairly serious crimes.
the article itself says that, despite how the situation sounds, it's only a misdemeanor crime in that jurisdiction.
so bail would be basically assured.
note that bail can be considerable; I don't have a good sense of what it would be for a crime of this nature. If I were to make a highly inaccurate speculative guess: five thousand.
generally speaking, to not get bail tends to require at least one of (and usually more than that): the crime being a high end felony, like rape, murder, or armed robbery; a past history of skipping bail/failure to appear; a substantial ongoing risk of offending if released; very limited ties to the community/reason to stick around, but moreso specific indicators of a high risk of fleeing.
note that even if bail is allowed, these things can all affect the amount of bail required; and it can reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or even to a million.
|
On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:Court records show that Ramos pleaded guilty in July 2011 to criminal harassment in Anne Arundel County, where the Capital Gazette is based. A 90-day jail sentence was suspended, and Ramos was placed on 18 months' supervised probation.
Five days later, the Capital Gazette published a column headlined "Jarrod wants to be your friend," profiling the woman who said she was the victim of Ramos' harassment. The article is no longer on the newspaper's website, but it was reprinted in full in the court documents.
In the column, the woman, whose name was withheld, claimed that Ramos, a former high school classmate, tracked her down on Facebook and then harshly harassed her through email for as long as two years.
The column quoted her as saying that Ramos urged her to kill herself and that the bank where she worked put her on probation because of "an email from Ramos and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her."
The column said she was laid off a few months later and "believes, but can't prove, it was because of Ramos."
In July 2012, Ramos, representing himself, sued the Capital Gazette; Eric Hartley, a former reporter who wrote the column; and Thomas Marquardt, the newspaper's publisher at the time, in Prince George's County Circuit Court alleging defamation. He filed a longer complaint in October 2012, two months after the statute of limitations for the alleged defamation had expired, adding an allegation of invasion of privacy.
The circuit judge dismissed the complaint in 2013, saying: "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Ramos appealed, and in September 2015, the appeals court upheld the dismissal, writing that Ramos "never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false."
"The appellant was charged with a criminal act," the court wrote. "The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. ... He does not appear to have learned his lesson."
Marquardt, the former publisher of the Capital Gazette, told the Baltimore Sun that he wasn't surprised Ramos was identified as the suspect because he began harassing the newspaper's staff shortly after the 2011 article was published. www.nbcnews.comThe Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false. That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence. And on the flip side, it's an entirely detestable act to place a crazy shooting up a newspaper years after they published an article at the feet of Trump. You don't want to go down this road. This is the kind of mind-bogging logic that puts the baseball shooter at the feet of anti-GOP rhetoric that makes the left the reason the shooter shot up a baseball stadium. This is where people blame you for being part of the anti-cop rhetoric that inspires leftists to assassinate police officers. It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards GOP Congressmen in this country with any individuals to escalate their beef with the GOP into violence It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing frequency of calling GOP members Nazis in this country with any individuals inspired to shoot Republican Congressmen Just to re-purpose your conclusion to other acts that will be brought up, should more people adopt your logic. You're exploring a very deep and dark pit. I'm probably not the right sympathetic voice to relay this to you, considering last month you accused me of being a threat to your very life and celebratory if you died. But all the same, I hope you get the message. The absolute narcissism of making Ramos in Annapolis, Maryland all about Trump in Washington, DC will end very badly for all parties involved. And on the other flip side, at some point you do have to start attributing responsibility to higher authorities when they use inflammatory rhetoric that encourages and potentially normalizes violence. What is that point? Ramos doesn't cross it (at least from what I've seen) but if someone directly says "I shot up the enemy of the people" does Trump share any blame at all? You extrapolate beyond individual responsibility of authorities towards some greater concept of right and left here. It actually feels a lot like with SHS, where one person kicking someone out of their restaurant for being lying scum who hates people like them into some grand gesture against "the right." (considering whether general sentiment is linked to violence, as Kyadytim does, is also an entirely different kettle of fish from individual violence, but I assume you were just treating that as a jumping-off point) You probably know enough of it yourself. Why do you say "potentially normalizes violence" instead of "it normalizes violence?" It's like you know all the "inflammatory rhetoric" is basically just your characterization of something that escalates tensions, and itself could be used against Black Lives Matter, the media, special interest groups like the SPLC, and all sorts of people and organizations. That level of fog is precisely why we do not carelessly attribute responsibility beyond the individual when he or she has a private grievance and a history of lunatic aims. The best course is to permit hateful speech is not a general incitement to violence. Let me know when Trump says, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" He's smart enough to not cross the line. The count of dead journalists because Trump supporters knew he was really calling on them to take matters into their own hands is quite low. If you want threats of violence, and I don't know if you do, but those are directed at Trump and his officials just as at journalists and opposition politicians. The "share of the blame" argument is complex, because you can regress that one back five decades. I don't think you can make the case that Trump "encourages violence" against journalists. We've had an entire American history of slurs back and forth between branches of government, media, constituencies, and all he's done is insult and give fiery speeches. Your argument basically asks the reader to separate out the many speakers about what's ruining America, and say that this one will actually be seized upon to rationalize their violence. I disagree. The tradition is old and Trump's attacks on the media are vicious but stale. If you're the kind of crazy that theorizes his gun will right the wrongs Trump supposedly points out, the issue is the crazy, not that he selected Trump instead of Schumer, the SPLC, Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates to be his springing board. I draw the line at actual incitement to violence. Not "inflammatory rhetoric" as gets tossed around so easily these days (probably even predates the latest racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic tripe that gets robbed of its meaning these days). I think the history of American politics teaches that the rhetoric was never really tame from founding to today. So whether speech crosses the line is an inherent property of the speech, rather than any consequentialist argument based on what the speech inspires? I think that is dangerous because it implies a large-scale unawareness on the part of the people making speech-if there are "crazies" out there on the border of snapping, *something* pushes that particular crazy over the border. To totally abdicate even personal responsibility (let alone legal responsibility) for all the crazies that follow you paves the way to dangerous precedent, as you point out. As I said before, the Ramos situation is not one of those situations, but I think Trump would absolutely pull those levers if he thought he could get away with it (witness: "I'd like to punch him in the face"). They're just smaller levers for now. If someone cited something I posted here as motivation to kill Paul Ryan, I'd be like "shit, I feel terrible" and would say as much. I don't think Trump would even do that. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that.
How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect?
When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'?
Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 03 2018 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
I was talking with a friend the other day and he was worked up about how many business had closed (mainly restaurants and retail) due it part to our rising Minimum Wage. His frustration was that so many jobs were being lost. And a minor frustration that middle class kids living at home were making far more than they needed.
His suggestion was instead of Raising minimum wage to instead raise the floor amount to when you start paying income taxes. So that people could keep more of their take home income but businesses wouldn't have to pay their low skill jobs more.
It was interesting to me and I had not really thought of it as a solution. And maybe not the full solution but some hybrid of the two might be a better solution. What do some of you more in the know think? (for back ground this is not a small raise in minum wage it has gone up 50% in 4 years ($10 in 14 $15 this year) Check how much a person working minimum wage earns and how much taxes they pay on that and I would bet you find your answer.
You can't give big tax breaks to people who are already paying low/no taxes.
|
On July 03 2018 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
I was talking with a friend the other day and he was worked up about how many business had closed (mainly restaurants and retail) due it part to our rising Minimum Wage. His frustration was that so many jobs were being lost. And a minor frustration that middle class kids living at home were making far more than they needed.
His suggestion was instead of Raising minimum wage to instead raise the floor amount to when you start paying income taxes. So that people could keep more of their take home income but businesses wouldn't have to pay their low skill jobs more.
It was interesting to me and I had not really thought of it as a solution. And maybe not the full solution but some hybrid of the two might be a better solution. What do some of you more in the know think? (for back ground this is not a small raise in minum wage it has gone up 50% in 4 years ($10 in 14 $15 this year)
I think the better solution is to create a federally funded and locally administered job guarantee program that serves communities. It can be set at a living wage and creates a buffer stock of labor. Acts as an excellent automatic stabilizer to withstand bubbles and can be used for areas that are ignored by the private sector which aren't profitable. It can expand in downturns and contract when the private sector expands.
It also provides great mobility. Trapped in Flint with toxic water? You can go elsewhere and have a job waiting for you.
It also helps adapt to automation and can retrain workers.
|
I like a federal jobs guarantee more than a minimum wage, but I don't trust our elected officials not to turn it into conscripted labor.
As for minimum wage it doesn't cause businesses to close, but if it does, good. The business shouldn't exist anyway.
|
Trump's presidential campaign manager had previously worked to bolster the international image of Russia. His associate in this work, alleged by Mueller's prosecutors to have had continued ties to Russian intelligence through the 2016 election, told Manafort, after Manafort requested that he reach out to a Russian billionaire, that the billionaire had made offers that concerned the future of Russia. Manafort then agreed to meet with his associate to discuss. At the time Manafort was still Trump's campaign manager. This is not a drill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBI (Universal Basic Income) is a different beast from FJG (Federal Job Guarantee). In my circles there is a lot of debate as to which is better, or a combination of both. The arguments against a UBI, is that it is simply a neoliberal trojan horse that would strip away the safety net and leave people much worse off. You no longer need food stamps and medicare, you got yours (for example). It has no price anchor and would be far inferior in every way to a FJG. You could possibly implement a hybrid, with those unwilling or unable to work collecting UBI benefits, but the important component here is the FJG.
|
On July 03 2018 09:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:04 screamingpalm wrote:On July 03 2018 08:53 JimmiC wrote:
I was talking with a friend the other day and he was worked up about how many business had closed (mainly restaurants and retail) due it part to our rising Minimum Wage. His frustration was that so many jobs were being lost. And a minor frustration that middle class kids living at home were making far more than they needed.
His suggestion was instead of Raising minimum wage to instead raise the floor amount to when you start paying income taxes. So that people could keep more of their take home income but businesses wouldn't have to pay their low skill jobs more.
It was interesting to me and I had not really thought of it as a solution. And maybe not the full solution but some hybrid of the two might be a better solution. What do some of you more in the know think? (for back ground this is not a small raise in minum wage it has gone up 50% in 4 years ($10 in 14 $15 this year) I think the better solution is to create a federally funded and locally administered job guarantee program that serves communities. It can be set at a living wage and creates a buffer stock of labor. Acts as an excellent automatic stabilizer to withstand bubbles and can be used for areas that are ignored by the private sector which aren't profitable. It can expand in downturns and contract when the private sector expands. It also provides great mobility. Trapped in Flint with toxic water? You can go elsewhere and have a job waiting for you. It also helps adapt to automation and can retrain workers. I've read a little bit on this, but I have not read anywhere that they did it successfully. I know they tried it in Finland and then canceled the program but from what I understand they still didn't do it how it was intended. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-26/finland-s-basic-income-experiment-was-doomed-from-the-startDo you know a place that is doing successfully or is it still theoretical?
Theoretical is the wrong term. Guaranteed jobs programs have a history of not working particularly well. There is no replacement for the market.
|
On July 03 2018 09:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I like a federal jobs guarantee more than a minimum wage, but I don't trust our elected officials not to turn it into conscripted labor.
As for minimum wage it doesn't cause businesses to close, but if it does, good. The business shouldn't exist anyway. Yeah who wants those jobs to exist......
A full time or near-to-it job that does not make enough to pay rent, in a country with next to no safety net, only serves to slightly slow down rot and put a bandaid over a still festering wound. Now you make it to 40 off of dead-end labour rather than 37. Fucking marvelous. If the jobs that weren't enough didn't exist at all and the population of the US wasn't so politically complacent / understood how bullshit the bootstrap rhetoric was, people might actually press their representatives to start making serious change.
And maybe not elect people actively sabotaging the minimal safety nets that do exist.
Not directed at you specifically, but I live in South Africa and I have a family member who can get proper, full-time psychiatric care without emptying the collective bank. A job that can keep you alive while sharing a 1-room apartment between two people means nothing when you get sick. It means nothing if you want a child. It means nothing if literally anything goes wrong, which it will. The situation is the US is seriously fucked, and having a few more minimum wage jobs where people get to keep an extra 10% of nothing they're paid isn't gonna improve the situation in a meaningful way, if at all.
|
On July 03 2018 09:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I like a federal jobs guarantee more than a minimum wage, but I don't trust our elected officials not to turn it into conscripted labor.
As for minimum wage it doesn't cause businesses to close, but if it does, good. The business shouldn't exist anyway. Yeah who wants those jobs to exist......
Not me, or most people left of center. It's hardly a radical position.
|
On July 03 2018 07:47 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 07:33 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 07:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:Court records show that Ramos pleaded guilty in July 2011 to criminal harassment in Anne Arundel County, where the Capital Gazette is based. A 90-day jail sentence was suspended, and Ramos was placed on 18 months' supervised probation.
Five days later, the Capital Gazette published a column headlined "Jarrod wants to be your friend," profiling the woman who said she was the victim of Ramos' harassment. The article is no longer on the newspaper's website, but it was reprinted in full in the court documents.
In the column, the woman, whose name was withheld, claimed that Ramos, a former high school classmate, tracked her down on Facebook and then harshly harassed her through email for as long as two years.
The column quoted her as saying that Ramos urged her to kill herself and that the bank where she worked put her on probation because of "an email from Ramos and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her."
The column said she was laid off a few months later and "believes, but can't prove, it was because of Ramos."
In July 2012, Ramos, representing himself, sued the Capital Gazette; Eric Hartley, a former reporter who wrote the column; and Thomas Marquardt, the newspaper's publisher at the time, in Prince George's County Circuit Court alleging defamation. He filed a longer complaint in October 2012, two months after the statute of limitations for the alleged defamation had expired, adding an allegation of invasion of privacy.
The circuit judge dismissed the complaint in 2013, saying: "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Ramos appealed, and in September 2015, the appeals court upheld the dismissal, writing that Ramos "never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false."
"The appellant was charged with a criminal act," the court wrote. "The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. ... He does not appear to have learned his lesson."
Marquardt, the former publisher of the Capital Gazette, told the Baltimore Sun that he wasn't surprised Ramos was identified as the suspect because he began harassing the newspaper's staff shortly after the 2011 article was published. www.nbcnews.comThe Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false. That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence. And on the flip side, it's an entirely detestable act to place a crazy shooting up a newspaper years after they published an article at the feet of Trump. You don't want to go down this road. This is the kind of mind-bogging logic that puts the baseball shooter at the feet of anti-GOP rhetoric that makes the left the reason the shooter shot up a baseball stadium. This is where people blame you for being part of the anti-cop rhetoric that inspires leftists to assassinate police officers. It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards GOP Congressmen in this country with any individuals to escalate their beef with the GOP into violence It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing frequency of calling GOP members Nazis in this country with any individuals inspired to shoot Republican Congressmen Just to re-purpose your conclusion to other acts that will be brought up, should more people adopt your logic. You're exploring a very deep and dark pit. I'm probably not the right sympathetic voice to relay this to you, considering last month you accused me of being a threat to your very life and celebratory if you died. But all the same, I hope you get the message. The absolute narcissism of making Ramos in Annapolis, Maryland all about Trump in Washington, DC will end very badly for all parties involved. And on the other flip side, at some point you do have to start attributing responsibility to higher authorities when they use inflammatory rhetoric that encourages and potentially normalizes violence. What is that point? Ramos doesn't cross it (at least from what I've seen) but if someone directly says "I shot up the enemy of the people" does Trump share any blame at all? You extrapolate beyond individual responsibility of authorities towards some greater concept of right and left here. It actually feels a lot like with SHS, where one person kicking someone out of their restaurant for being lying scum who hates people like them into some grand gesture against "the right." (considering whether general sentiment is linked to violence, as Kyadytim does, is also an entirely different kettle of fish from individual violence, but I assume you were just treating that as a jumping-off point) You probably know enough of it yourself. Why do you say "potentially normalizes violence" instead of "it normalizes violence?" It's like you know all the "inflammatory rhetoric" is basically just your characterization of something that escalates tensions, and itself could be used against Black Lives Matter, the media, special interest groups like the SPLC, and all sorts of people and organizations. That level of fog is precisely why we do not carelessly attribute responsibility beyond the individual when he or she has a private grievance and a history of lunatic aims. The best course is to permit hateful speech is not a general incitement to violence. Let me know when Trump says, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" He's smart enough to not cross the line. The count of dead journalists because Trump supporters knew he was really calling on them to take matters into their own hands is quite low. If you want threats of violence, and I don't know if you do, but those are directed at Trump and his officials just as at journalists and opposition politicians. The "share of the blame" argument is complex, because you can regress that one back five decades. I don't think you can make the case that Trump "encourages violence" against journalists. We've had an entire American history of slurs back and forth between branches of government, media, constituencies, and all he's done is insult and give fiery speeches. Your argument basically asks the reader to separate out the many speakers about what's ruining America, and say that this one will actually be seized upon to rationalize their violence. I disagree. The tradition is old and Trump's attacks on the media are vicious but stale. If you're the kind of crazy that theorizes his gun will right the wrongs Trump supposedly points out, the issue is the crazy, not that he selected Trump instead of Schumer, the SPLC, Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates to be his springing board. I draw the line at actual incitement to violence. Not "inflammatory rhetoric" as gets tossed around so easily these days (probably even predates the latest racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic tripe that gets robbed of its meaning these days). I think the history of American politics teaches that the rhetoric was never really tame from founding to today. So whether speech crosses the line is an inherent property of the speech, rather than any consequentialist argument based on what the speech inspires? I think that is dangerous because it implies a large-scale unawareness on the part of the people making speech-if there are "crazies" out there on the border of snapping, *something* pushes that particular crazy over the border. To totally abdicate even personal responsibility (let alone legal responsibility) for all the crazies that follow you paves the way to dangerous precedent, as you point out. As I said before, the Ramos situation is not one of those situations, but I think Trump would absolutely pull those levers if he thought he could get away with it (witness: "I'd like to punch him in the face"). They're just smaller levers for now. If someone cited something I posted here as motivation to kill Paul Ryan, I'd be like "shit, I feel terrible" and would say as much. I don't think Trump would even do that. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. See, I think if they have an expectation that their "blistering criticism" will prompt the crazies to cross the line, they have a moral obligation to refrain from that speech, even if not a legal one. If they could look into the future in that case, they should pick a different line of blistering criticism. And I don't trust Trump to do that. Do you? The idea that people wouldn't refrain from speech that might tip the crazies to win elections is horrifying to me, actually. There's this weird fatalistic view that their speech is powerless to sway the crazies which seems so strange to me. The second part is just saying it's incredibly depressing that we have a leader who would almost certainly feel perfectly fine with someone taking his quotes as a command to murder and go on about his day. Nope. Generally speaking, the measure of your morality is not what the least psychologically stable person might make his or her next cause for personal participation. I gave something like five examples of people and organizations that might inspire somebody sometime. You'd basically have to adopt a police state with the most Orwellian speech codes to overcome a moral burden of that sort. I'm also not going to buy the word of a psychic who knows how Trump will respond in a hypothetical circumstance of your making. Everybody projects their paranoia onto the president these days. I don't consider that to be a good sign of mental health either. Where did I ever call for state intervention to stop their speech anywhere here? Did I say we should lock up Trump or Milo or whatever? I don't think the point of the state is to legislate all morally repugnant options away. But I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to say "wow, you really should have thought a little more before saying 'all cops are fascists who need to die' or 'man I wish someone would punch that guy' and you're an asshole for not doing so." I also didn't say I was a psychic or what Trump would or wouldn't do, all I said was I didn't trust Trump to make the moral choice there. I enjoy that you can't even say that you would trust Trump, though-that's pretty amusing.
That's just the society you'd have to purchase one way or another to avoid all these nasty moral entanglements you're proposing. And now you're jumping to some pretty big platforms for afield from what we were previously discussing, so I'm out until you want to go back to the kind of "inflammatory rhetoric" from Trump.
I stand by my comments on your apprehensions of what Trump would do in a hypothetical situation. The game of pretending something happened, then pretending we know what someone would do if that thing happened (and what moral compunction they would feel), is better left in the schoolyard.
|
Here’s a thought: why don’t we restrict the amount of cheap labor coming into the US so as to create upwards pressure on low paying jobs?
|
On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:Court records show that Ramos pleaded guilty in July 2011 to criminal harassment in Anne Arundel County, where the Capital Gazette is based. A 90-day jail sentence was suspended, and Ramos was placed on 18 months' supervised probation.
Five days later, the Capital Gazette published a column headlined "Jarrod wants to be your friend," profiling the woman who said she was the victim of Ramos' harassment. The article is no longer on the newspaper's website, but it was reprinted in full in the court documents.
In the column, the woman, whose name was withheld, claimed that Ramos, a former high school classmate, tracked her down on Facebook and then harshly harassed her through email for as long as two years.
The column quoted her as saying that Ramos urged her to kill herself and that the bank where she worked put her on probation because of "an email from Ramos and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her."
The column said she was laid off a few months later and "believes, but can't prove, it was because of Ramos."
In July 2012, Ramos, representing himself, sued the Capital Gazette; Eric Hartley, a former reporter who wrote the column; and Thomas Marquardt, the newspaper's publisher at the time, in Prince George's County Circuit Court alleging defamation. He filed a longer complaint in October 2012, two months after the statute of limitations for the alleged defamation had expired, adding an allegation of invasion of privacy.
The circuit judge dismissed the complaint in 2013, saying: "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Ramos appealed, and in September 2015, the appeals court upheld the dismissal, writing that Ramos "never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false."
"The appellant was charged with a criminal act," the court wrote. "The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. ... He does not appear to have learned his lesson."
Marquardt, the former publisher of the Capital Gazette, told the Baltimore Sun that he wasn't surprised Ramos was identified as the suspect because he began harassing the newspaper's staff shortly after the 2011 article was published. www.nbcnews.comThe Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false. That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence. And on the flip side, it's an entirely detestable act to place a crazy shooting up a newspaper years after they published an article at the feet of Trump. You don't want to go down this road. This is the kind of mind-bogging logic that puts the baseball shooter at the feet of anti-GOP rhetoric that makes the left the reason the shooter shot up a baseball stadium. This is where people blame you for being part of the anti-cop rhetoric that inspires leftists to assassinate police officers. It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards GOP Congressmen in this country with any individuals to escalate their beef with the GOP into violence It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing frequency of calling GOP members Nazis in this country with any individuals inspired to shoot Republican Congressmen Just to re-purpose your conclusion to other acts that will be brought up, should more people adopt your logic. You're exploring a very deep and dark pit. I'm probably not the right sympathetic voice to relay this to you, considering last month you accused me of being a threat to your very life and celebratory if you died. But all the same, I hope you get the message. The absolute narcissism of making Ramos in Annapolis, Maryland all about Trump in Washington, DC will end very badly for all parties involved. And on the other flip side, at some point you do have to start attributing responsibility to higher authorities when they use inflammatory rhetoric that encourages and potentially normalizes violence. What is that point? Ramos doesn't cross it (at least from what I've seen) but if someone directly says "I shot up the enemy of the people" does Trump share any blame at all? You extrapolate beyond individual responsibility of authorities towards some greater concept of right and left here. It actually feels a lot like with SHS, where one person kicking someone out of their restaurant for being lying scum who hates people like them into some grand gesture against "the right." (considering whether general sentiment is linked to violence, as Kyadytim does, is also an entirely different kettle of fish from individual violence, but I assume you were just treating that as a jumping-off point) You probably know enough of it yourself. Why do you say "potentially normalizes violence" instead of "it normalizes violence?" It's like you know all the "inflammatory rhetoric" is basically just your characterization of something that escalates tensions, and itself could be used against Black Lives Matter, the media, special interest groups like the SPLC, and all sorts of people and organizations. That level of fog is precisely why we do not carelessly attribute responsibility beyond the individual when he or she has a private grievance and a history of lunatic aims. The best course is to permit hateful speech is not a general incitement to violence. Let me know when Trump says, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" He's smart enough to not cross the line. The count of dead journalists because Trump supporters knew he was really calling on them to take matters into their own hands is quite low. If you want threats of violence, and I don't know if you do, but those are directed at Trump and his officials just as at journalists and opposition politicians. The "share of the blame" argument is complex, because you can regress that one back five decades. I don't think you can make the case that Trump "encourages violence" against journalists. We've had an entire American history of slurs back and forth between branches of government, media, constituencies, and all he's done is insult and give fiery speeches. Your argument basically asks the reader to separate out the many speakers about what's ruining America, and say that this one will actually be seized upon to rationalize their violence. I disagree. The tradition is old and Trump's attacks on the media are vicious but stale. If you're the kind of crazy that theorizes his gun will right the wrongs Trump supposedly points out, the issue is the crazy, not that he selected Trump instead of Schumer, the SPLC, Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates to be his springing board. I draw the line at actual incitement to violence. Not "inflammatory rhetoric" as gets tossed around so easily these days (probably even predates the latest racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic tripe that gets robbed of its meaning these days). I think the history of American politics teaches that the rhetoric was never really tame from founding to today. So whether speech crosses the line is an inherent property of the speech, rather than any consequentialist argument based on what the speech inspires? I think that is dangerous because it implies a large-scale unawareness on the part of the people making speech-if there are "crazies" out there on the border of snapping, *something* pushes that particular crazy over the border. To totally abdicate even personal responsibility (let alone legal responsibility) for all the crazies that follow you paves the way to dangerous precedent, as you point out. As I said before, the Ramos situation is not one of those situations, but I think Trump would absolutely pull those levers if he thought he could get away with it (witness: "I'd like to punch him in the face"). They're just smaller levers for now. If someone cited something I posted here as motivation to kill Paul Ryan, I'd be like "shit, I feel terrible" and would say as much. I don't think Trump would even do that. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language.
I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect?
(Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
