US Politics Mega-thread - Page 562

On July 31 2018 20:48 m4ini wrote:


I tend to agree with that assessment, but it's leaving out a few key problems. My stance on nazism should be clear by now, but also the fact that i respect the laws surrounding it (even though i don't agree with them actually). Showing up armed is legal. Is it threatening? Of course. But that doesn't change anything - in fact, it's not like they were the only ones bringing bats.

We can go into an argument if they brought bats/shields to protect themselves, to look like white nerd badasses or whatever, fact of the matter is that there are constant calls for violence. Do i think it's retarded to protest armed? Yeah. On both sides, in fact. And i think the laws absolutely should be changed - but as long as they aren't, they can drive up with a tank. As long as they don't use it, it's still to be considered peaceful even though the very reason for protesting is already "flammable".

That's proving my point though, by calling for violence against Nazis, you give them the excuse to actually come in body armor/shields/things that could be argued "self defense" (even if they aren't necessarily). It really isn't that hard a concept to understand (not pointed at you).

edit: to be even clearer, i grew up in a country where hatespeech (more specifically, nazism) is a crime, and i absolutely agree with those laws.

On July 31 2018 22:07 farvacola wrote:
It's also worth noting that the neo nazis brought far more than mere bats and shields, they were so heavily armed that local police feared direct intervention given the threat of escalation.

On July 31 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:

I would argue they were always going to be violent. That they want people to feel unsafe.

Redding, California (CNN)The catastrophic Carr fire blazed a path of devastation, becoming the 7th most destructive fire in California history as it burned more than 1,100 structures and left six people dead.

The fire, which started more than a week ago, has burned 103,772 acres -- scorching an area bigger than the size of Denver.

The Carr fire is burning so large and intensely that it created its own localized weather system, making it difficult for experts to predict which way the blaze will spread. Wildfires like this can get so hot they make pyrocumulus clouds, formations that look like mushroom clouds and can be seen for miles.

Smoke from the massive blaze and another California fire burning near Yosemite National Park, called the Ferguson Fire, could be seen in satellite images.

As of Monday night, the Carr fire was just 23% contained, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire.

More than 3,300 fire personnel are battling the flames in triple-digit heat, shifting winds, dry fuel and steep terrain --- all conditions stacked against their efforts.

The fire has claimed six lives, including two involved in the firefighting efforts and four residents.

Jeremy Stoke, a fire inspector with the Redding Fire Department, and an unidentified private-hire bulldozer operator died Thursday. A 70-year-old woman, Melody Bledsoe and her two great-grandchildren died when their house was overcome by flames.

Another person was found dead after a fire consumed another house, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko said Sunday.
And at least 19 people were still reported missing in Shasta County, California, officials said at a community meeting Monday evening.

The fire began July 23 when a vehicle suffered a mechanical failure, according to Cal Fire.

The Carr Fire is one of 17 large fires burning in California, which is straining firefighting resources amid multiple states of emergencies.

"What we're seeing in California right now is more destructive, larger fires burning at rates that we have historically never seen," Jonathan Cox, a battalion chief and public information officer with with Cal Fire, told CNN.

The Carr fire last week, aided by a weather anomaly "just exploded the rate of spread of the fire that we have not seen before," he said.

So far, it has destroyed at least 1,132 structures -- of which 818 are residential.

Josh Lister and his family lost their home and belongings after the fire swept through Redding, California, a community of nearly 100,000 people.

"It looked like an atomic bomb went off," Lister said of damage to the home.

"After the fact, we got a few pictures .... from friends, but it was a firestorm when we left," he said said.

On July 31 2018 12:02 m4ini wrote:


That's a misused idiom that has no significance today. The "fire in a theater" example has nothing to do with what people are arguing for/against, and on top of that, the case in which this remark was made originally was overturned 40 years ago.

Put it this way, the phrase itself is entirely legal. You can absolutely falsely shout "fire" in a theatre. Even if you endanger other people. It becomes actionable if it incites an actual riot, and the court can prove that you shouting "fire" was the reason for that riot.



Or a disgusting display of idiocy, because lets face it, most of the laws that we find retarded on TL are based on someone "feeling" something ("damn mexicans taking all dem jobs!!1" even though the US is at full employment). Or, based on a fiction novel written 2000 years ago (marriage can only be between man and woman, jesus said so!!1"), which makes it no less retarded.

On August 01 2018 00:02 KwarK wrote:
The NHS costs way less per person than what we’re currently paying for Medicare, Medicaid, and so forth, and we don’t even get a NHS for our trouble. I’m paying for an entire NHS out of taxes, an additional $8k/year for private coverage for my wife and I, and that doesn’t actually kick in until expenses pass $3k. The inefficiency is obscene. The real terms increase in paychecks Americans would receive from nationalized healthcare are huge.

On August 01 2018 00:08 farvacola wrote:
A lot of media outlets ran with that shitty headline, I noticed the same thing.

On August 01 2018 00:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
And it doesn't help that the Koch brothers are approaching Democrats with funding and so on, and the party seemingly welcoming them with open arms.

On August 01 2018 00:24 Plansix wrote:

The problem is that the party has zero ability to stop candidates from taking money from the Kochs directly and I doubt the party can outspend them.

On August 01 2018 00:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
And it doesn't help that the Koch brothers are approaching Democrats with funding and so on, and the party seemingly welcoming them with open arms.

On August 01 2018 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:

This is the most pathetic possible excuse. Democrats are already pretty ineffective, going with "democrats have no influence over other democrats" is really grasping at straws at this point.

The party supports these mega donor set ups. No reason to suggest otherwise.

On August 01 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:

They don’t. Political parties do not have any real power beyond the offices they are running for. They can’t kick out a candidate. They can’t tell them how to run their campaign. They can deny money, which isn’t that helpful if the candidate is getting more money from folks like the Kochs. They don’t control these candidates, especially when there are so many ways for a candidate to get funding to run their campaign these days.

On August 01 2018 00:04 JumboJohnson wrote:
Huh, that study showed up on my local news site (ksl.com) yesterday under the headline "Medicare for all will cost [some] trillions of dollars." Reading the article it said that was over ten years and had some counterpoints in it but none mentioned any savings. Now looking for it today the article has vanished. What's the scoop?

Edit: In response to above and as a comparison and topic of discussion, I pay 35$ a paycheck for health insurance and have a 1200$ deductible, 20% copay after with a max out of pocket of 2400$. It's also not based on age.