|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 13 2017 06:51 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing every problem being overshadowed by the constant screams of "Russia!". It's the same thing over and over. People seem to think it is acceptable to focus on something that has absolutely a negligible effect on western (or American, in this case) society at large. Even complaining when people express their opinions that they think there's much bigger issues than some insignificant country with the GPD of Italy that has goals which don't necessarily align with the goals of the society that we live in, but is constantly getting in the headlines because media companies know that people eat this shit up as the concept of "the foreign devil" is great clickbait. I don't know how I can help you understand. Russia is a problem that exists in the world, but it's not worth the attention that its receiving in the grander scheme of things. The media's consistent highlighting of this problem over others and driving the public conversation/narrative away from the things that affect people's every daily lives is ruining my mood.
It isn't just the media or the public that's fixated, and to the extent they are fixated, it is because they have to be. Our Congress needs to spend time investigating, receiving testimonies, and passing legislation to protect sanctions (because apparently they don't trust the President to behave rationally towards Russia...)
And the WH itself is fixated. Everyone is lawyered. Trump can't go a day without tweeting something insane about it.
And you describe it as a small foreign-policy problem. I don't think you appreciate how serious this actually is, not in terms of legality or politics, but how damaging this is to America's foreign and domestic policies on all fronts.
We are the world's empire, militarily. That's a precarious thing to be. We either have to bear some responsibility for the world, or we become a menace.
The dangers of what Trump has done on the world stage is not something to take lightly, and has ramifications beyond description. Trump gave Putin a private 2-hour meeting, for which he cancelled an appearance at an actual G20 conference. Why?
It isn't just the American press. The German press has been much less forgiving or reserved on this issue. German's most popular newspapers regularly refer to Trump as a Russian menace. The German chancellor says, in public, that they can't rely on America.
The ramifications are beyond what you're saying. You talk about Russia's GDP -- that doesn't matter. What matters is Putin's actions on the world stage, and what our allies think of him. It's not Russia's GDP they're concerned about. It's their insane aggression towards their neighbors, and the lies they attempt to tell about it.
It's a giant nuclear arsenal, run by what is, in all actuality, the world's biggest criminal -- a man who has amassed over a $100 billion dollars over a career of "public service" over an economically-poor country. That's a LOT of blood money.
I don't like to stoke fear and sensationalism, but to compare Russia's importance on foreign-affairs by referring to their ransacked GDP numbers is kind of... off-base. This isn't cozying up to some banana republic. This is the POTUS cozying up, publicly, to a man that our allies rightfully consider to be one of the world's greatest evils.
|
On July 13 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:34 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Or you could snidely ignore the article posted about the class action lawsuit bringing that issue through the court system. Honest question here, in your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government done in this case? Okay, I feel like I need to explain why the rocketing of the prison population was a bipartisan effort, and why Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton (pretty prominent Democrats) embraced prison labor even in their own home (Gov Mansion) Bill had the power to stop it and didn't, Hillary didn't even think it something worth thinking about. Instead she pontificated on what intellectual shortcomings made these people work for practically nothing for her just for a chance to be outside the prison walls for however long they could (or volunteers as some may call them) That's symbolic of the Democratic party when it comes to prison labor (modern American slavery). I mean I could go and show you how countless prisoners are in prison on bullshit charges (usually a parole/probation violation like smoking pot to deal with how incredibly messed up our country is to people who have paid their debt to society), or how every year people who were sentenced to die by our system are exonerated by pro bono lawyers who are ashamed of a system that can convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Or how our prisons are in such deplorable conditions it's often cruel and unusual just to have to serve time (so little rehabilitation it's pathetic),or that people without family have no money in prison. That many people report it being easier for them to find drugs inside than out (although more expensive inside), because our "guards" are often just state sanctioned thugs who see their job not as protecting inmates, but punishing them. I mean it's a long and sordid list of the problems with the American Prison Industrial Complex, the idea that some lawsuit shows it's being addressed is absolutely moronic. And I raise the question again: In your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government have done in this case? Because if you want to prove that you understand political nuance, this is where you would do it. Because Prison systems, law enforcement, criminal law, it's all a very complicated system spanning multiple government organizations, multiple government bodies, and multiple laws that are both state and Federal. And this is true in basically every nation in the world that splits federal and state/provincial/territorial governments. If this goes through the court system, is deemed to violate laws, and the prisoners win, then this shows what is being done is illegal (within civil law). So, from there, how would a Federal Democrat super majority in all three Federal branches get the Texas police, court and prison system to change their criminal laws, convict less people, arrest less people, and have less people kept in prison? How would they ensure that the laws that are in place are not violated by privately run prisons so that lawsuits are not required to fix the issues? And no, those are not rhetorical questions, and no, I'm not expecting you to have a fully detailed legal essay for any of these. But if you feel like participating in political discussions, it would be nice to have more thought from you that extends past "things are broken and Democrats didn't fix it". Who would you hold accountable if not the people you can vote for that write the laws, assign people to enforce regulations, etc? Absolutely hold the elected officials accountable. Hold the police and courts accountable. Hold the private prison owners accountable But I'm not asking "who?", I'm asking "what?" Because in a governing system that runs through rule of law, and not Divine Right or dictatorial whim, problems have to be fixed through written law. And because of constitutional jurisdiction restricting the powers of each government body, there are also limits to what a Federal government can do to effect the States, and vice versa (barring constitutional amendment, which would be a valid, if optimistic, answer as well). But if someone (GH in this case) has no idea what can be done, how it should be done, or if anything he wants violates existing laws, we're basically in "Thanks Obama" level of argument. People arguing we're bound to this shit system and terrible parties are exactly why we are. So, to ask you again: What would your ideal Federal government do? And again, if your answer is "get a super majority in every branch of Federal government, rewrite the US constitution to take a lot more power away from the States and change everything up", I would at least consider that a valid legal course of action. People could have a lovely discussion about the probability of this happening, but at least it has a legal basis for actually accomplishing something. But if your idea of good government is a party that waves a magic wand and fixes problems without any thought, then please leave the thread to people who are capable of arguing US politics.
Is it just me or are both these answers practically the same?
How is "get a majority and change everything up" any better of an answer to the question of what a good government looks like than "wave a magic wand to make everything better"? There is no content, no substance, nothing of significance in either of these hypothetical answers.
Personally, on the face of it, I think this would a major improvement to US democracy:
The Fair Representation Act, which will never pass in today's political climate, and also receives almost no attention whatsoever. I wonder how much support there would be for this if it was widely known though - could it be like health care, where there's actually signs of major support amongst the populace for universal healthcare (depending on how you phrase the question) but no political will within the institutions to make anything like it happen?
The bill would do three things: require all congressional districts to be drawn by independent redistricting commissions, establish multi-member districts, and have all districts use what’s known as ranked-choice voting (RCV).
The independent redistricting would take power away from partisan legislatures to draw congressional district lines, meaning that one party or another could no longer engage in gerrymandering.
Multi-member districts would mean that voters in each district would have the opportunity to elect multiple legislators to represent them instead of just one — which would mean that more people in the district would have the opportunity to elect someone closer to their own ideology rather than being stuck with one lawmaker who may or may not represent their viewpoint.
Finally, perhaps the most significant reform in the bill is RCV. Under this system, voters would be able to rank their preferences among various candidates and parties, rather than simply casting one vote for each office. If no candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, then second-preferences are accounted for, and so on, until one candidate has a majority. Under RCV, you can vote your conscience without helping a candidate you loathe win instead.
RCV would make it so that there is no longer anything as a “wasted” vote — if your candidate ends up not being one of the top two candidates in the election, you can deliver your other votes to one of those instead. It would also force major party candidates to respect third-party voters and their ideas — after all, they would want their second-preference votes, and their third, and so on and so forth.
Lastly, it would eliminate the need for expensive runoff elections, as under this system the runoffs would be instantaneous.
Source
|
|
|
On July 13 2017 07:23 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:51 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing every problem being overshadowed by the constant screams of "Russia!". It's the same thing over and over. People seem to think it is acceptable to focus on something that has absolutely a negligible effect on western (or American, in this case) society at large. Even complaining when people express their opinions that they think there's much bigger issues than some insignificant country with the GPD of Italy that has goals which don't necessarily align with the goals of the society that we live in, but is constantly getting in the headlines because media companies know that people eat this shit up as the concept of "the foreign devil" is great clickbait. I don't know how I can help you understand. Russia is a problem that exists in the world, but it's not worth the attention that its receiving in the grander scheme of things. The media's consistent highlighting of this problem over others and driving the public conversation/narrative away from the things that affect people's every daily lives is ruining my mood. It isn't just the media or the public that's fixated, and to the extent they are fixated, it is because they have to be. Our Congress needs to spend time investigating, receiving testimonies, and passing legislation to protect sanctions (because apparently they don't trust the President to behave rationally towards Russia...) And the WH itself is fixated. Everyone is lawyered. Trump can't go a day without tweeting something insane about it. And you describe it as a small foreign-policy problem. I don't think you appreciate how serious this actually is, not in terms of legality or politics, but how damaging this is to America's foreign and domestic policies on all fronts. We are the world's empire, militarily. That's a precarious thing to be. We either have to bear some responsibility for the world, or we become a menace. The dangers of what Trump has done on the world stage is not something to take lightly, and has ramifications beyond description. Trump gave Putin a private 2-hour meeting, for which he cancelled an appearance at an actual G20 conference. Why? It isn't just the American press. The German press has been much less forgiving or reserved on this issue. German's most popular newspapers regularly refer to Trump as a Russian menace. The German chancellor says, in public, that they can't rely on America.
Your little empire is already a danger to the world, and it has nothing to do with Russia. I'm not going to list all the evils here and now as it's a very long list (and I've been banned before for bringing parts of it up unprompted), but you should know full well what they are.
On July 13 2017 07:23 Leporello wrote:
The ramifications are beyond what you're saying. You talk about Russia's GDP -- that doesn't matter. What matters is Putin's actions on the world stage, and what our allies think of him. It's not Russia's GDP they're concerned about. It's their insane aggression towards their neighbors, and the lies they attempt to tell about it.
It's a giant nuclear arsenal, run by what is, in all actuality, the world's biggest criminal -- a man who has amassed over a $100 billion dollars over a career of "public service" over an economically-poor country. That's a LOT of blood money.
I don't like to stoke fear and sensationalism, but to compare Russia's importance on foreign-affairs by referring to their ransacked GDP numbers is kind of... off-base. This isn't cozying up to some banana republic. This is the POTUS cozying up, publicly, to a man that our allies rightfully consider to be one of the world's greatest evils.
And yet, somehow, I'm not particularly worried about Putins access to nuclear weapons. There's a certain person that I consider to be far more dangerous, regardless of his potential connections to Russia, who has an equal amount of nuclear weapons at his disposal.
|
It isn't just the American press. The German press has been much less forgiving or reserved on this issue. German's most popular newspapers regularly refer to Trump as a Russian menace. The German chancellor says, in public, that they can't rely on America.
Not sure which newspapers you refer to, usually german newspapers (unlike Bild, which is less newspaper and more tabloid/yellow press) are pretty impartial on the issue.
Mind, i don't disagree with anything you said, but as a german, that feels new to me.
|
|
|
Who made that decision? And how far removed from Trump is that person.
|
From 230 to 6 is a great discount. I wish I could reduce all my bills to 2.6% of their original values.
|
On July 13 2017 07:29 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 07:23 Leporello wrote:On July 13 2017 06:51 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing every problem being overshadowed by the constant screams of "Russia!". It's the same thing over and over. People seem to think it is acceptable to focus on something that has absolutely a negligible effect on western (or American, in this case) society at large. Even complaining when people express their opinions that they think there's much bigger issues than some insignificant country with the GPD of Italy that has goals which don't necessarily align with the goals of the society that we live in, but is constantly getting in the headlines because media companies know that people eat this shit up as the concept of "the foreign devil" is great clickbait. I don't know how I can help you understand. Russia is a problem that exists in the world, but it's not worth the attention that its receiving in the grander scheme of things. The media's consistent highlighting of this problem over others and driving the public conversation/narrative away from the things that affect people's every daily lives is ruining my mood. It isn't just the media or the public that's fixated, and to the extent they are fixated, it is because they have to be. Our Congress needs to spend time investigating, receiving testimonies, and passing legislation to protect sanctions (because apparently they don't trust the President to behave rationally towards Russia...) And the WH itself is fixated. Everyone is lawyered. Trump can't go a day without tweeting something insane about it. And you describe it as a small foreign-policy problem. I don't think you appreciate how serious this actually is, not in terms of legality or politics, but how damaging this is to America's foreign and domestic policies on all fronts. We are the world's empire, militarily. That's a precarious thing to be. We either have to bear some responsibility for the world, or we become a menace. The dangers of what Trump has done on the world stage is not something to take lightly, and has ramifications beyond description. Trump gave Putin a private 2-hour meeting, for which he cancelled an appearance at an actual G20 conference. Why? It isn't just the American press. The German press has been much less forgiving or reserved on this issue. German's most popular newspapers regularly refer to Trump as a Russian menace. The German chancellor says, in public, that they can't rely on America. Your little empire is already a danger to the world, and it has nothing to do with Russia. I'm not going to list all the evils here and now as it's a very long list, but you should know full well what they are. Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 07:23 Leporello wrote:
The ramifications are beyond what you're saying. You talk about Russia's GDP -- that doesn't matter. What matters is Putin's actions on the world stage, and what our allies think of him. It's not Russia's GDP they're concerned about. It's their insane aggression towards their neighbors, and the lies they attempt to tell about it.
It's a giant nuclear arsenal, run by what is, in all actuality, the world's biggest criminal -- a man who has amassed over a $100 billion dollars over a career of "public service" over an economically-poor country. That's a LOT of blood money.
I don't like to stoke fear and sensationalism, but to compare Russia's importance on foreign-affairs by referring to their ransacked GDP numbers is kind of... off-base. This isn't cozying up to some banana republic. This is the POTUS cozying up, publicly, to a man that our allies rightfully consider to be one of the world's greatest evils. And yet, somehow, I'm not particularly worried about Putins access to nuclear weapons. There's a certain person that I consider to be far more dangerous, regardless of his potential connections to Russia, who has an equal amount of nuclear weapons at his disposal.
Yes, America has many bad moments throughout history. But I think it's a simplification to use that comparison in regards to current events.
Look, I don't worry about Putin launching nukes either. Just like I don't think Putin kills his political opponents, at least not anytime remotely recent. You're absolutely right to think America is the bigger threat, compared to Russia. But that's kind of my point...
What I'm worried about is how much worse things can and will be if America doesn't confront Russia in this problem fully, and head-on. This is a cultural war, one of actual importance that's hard to overstate.
The problem is largely media, in both countries. And I daresay, in this comparison, Russia loses badly compared to the U.S. You think it's bad our media frenzies over drawing blood from the President? Well, I wish all countries, like Russia, had that problem with their media.
All the fears one has of Putin, the worst of it is that so much of it is beyond Putin's control. For example: Putin didn't kill Boris Nemstov, because his country of nationalists will do that stuff for him. He didn't kill Boris, he created an entire culture that kills people for him. That "85% approval" that Trump brags about, in defense of Putin? That's the scary part. The scary part is having a President who calls that a democracy, and seemingly seeks to see the same in America. Can you imagine that America?
What you SHOULD be ABSOLUTELY worried about, if you live near Russia especially, is what happens when the propagandist leaves or dies, and the propagandized take over. What happens when you have a Russian President who has listened, for most of his life, to his country's media glorify the idea of nuking Western countries, as they do.
And it is very much that same culture that Trump is bringing to America. You don't see the danger of Russian influence on American culture? Really? The war on media, the subversion of checks and balances? As bad as America may have been, as you allude to, do you not think it could get much, much worse?
The thing is you can't separate what Trump is doing to America, from Trump's relationship with Russia. This story of "collusion" isn't just sprung from random investigations. It's a reaction to Donald's words and actions on the world-stage. What Trump is doing as POTUS is essentially copying the Putin modus operandi. Maybe the Putin-culture doesn't scare you coming Russia, but it will terrify the fuck out of you when it's coming from America. It does me.
|
On July 13 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:From 230 to 6 is a great discount. I wish I could reduce all my bills to 2.6% of their original values.
the fraud was $230m, but the fine was actually $12m. so it was a 50% haircut which is big but not unheard of.
|
The Trump administration stinks to high heaven
|
On July 13 2017 07:31 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +It isn't just the American press. The German press has been much less forgiving or reserved on this issue. German's most popular newspapers regularly refer to Trump as a Russian menace. The German chancellor says, in public, that they can't rely on America.
Not sure which newspapers you refer to, usually german newspapers (unlike Bild, which is less newspaper and more tabloid/yellow press) are pretty impartial on the issue. Mind, i don't disagree with anything you said, but as a german, that feels new to me.
Mostly referring to what I've seen from Der Spiegel.
I'm not going to pretend to regularly read German periodicals, but what I've seen from Der Spiegel is enough to make me realize that America's image has been irrevocably changed for the worse.
edit: and Merkel's direct quotes. Those are saddening.
|
United States41470 Posts
Putin absolutely has his political opponents killed. They don't wake up one morning and fancy a little bit of Polonium in their coffee to spice it up.
|
Some rare positive news:
At the urging of President Donald Trump, U.S. officials have reversed course and decided to allow into the United States a group of Afghan girls hoping to participate in an international robotics competition next week, senior administration officials told POLITICO on Wednesday.
The decision followed a furious public backlash to the news that the six teens had been denied U.S. visas. That criticism swelled as details emerged about the girls’ struggle to build their robot and get visas.
“The State Department worked incredibly well with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that this case was reviewed and handled appropriately,” Dina Powell, Trump's deputy national security adviser for strategy, said in a statement. “We could not be prouder of this delegation of young women who are also scientists — they represent the best of the Afghan people and embody the promise that their aspirations can be fulfilled. They are future leaders of Afghanistan and strong ambassadors for their country.”
Critics had argued that the visa denials sent the wrong message to the people of Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are still fighting Taliban militants who once barred girls from attending school. The denials bolstered allegations that Trump is, via executive orders and other means, trying to impose a ban on Muslims entering the United States. The visa rejections also undercut the administration’s insistence that it cares about empowering women globally.
The State Department dismissed the girls’ visa requests at least twice, according to media reports, though, citing privacy laws, it did not spell out its reasons. One common reason Afghans are rejected for U.S. entry is the concern that they will overstay their visas and refuse to go back home.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/12/trump-afghan-girls-robots-240474?cmpid=sf
|
On July 13 2017 08:05 KwarK wrote:
Putin absolutely has his political opponents killed. They don't wake up one morning and fancy a little bit of Polonium in their coffee to spice it up.
No doubt.
I'm just noting that, perhaps the even bigger concern is all the politicians and journalists killed by Russian nationalists, who may or may not be acting on orders, but may have acted just because they're "good Russians".
Because I don't worry about Trump poisoning anybody. But I do worry about his army of sycophants who'd rather watch RT and Sputnik than read a newspaper, and think CNN is "ISIS".
This is why I will not complain about Trump-Russia media-coverage until Trump is gone. The media didn't start this, but they damn well better fight it.
|
On July 13 2017 07:23 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:34 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Or you could snidely ignore the article posted about the class action lawsuit bringing that issue through the court system. Honest question here, in your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government done in this case? Okay, I feel like I need to explain why the rocketing of the prison population was a bipartisan effort, and why Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton (pretty prominent Democrats) embraced prison labor even in their own home (Gov Mansion) Bill had the power to stop it and didn't, Hillary didn't even think it something worth thinking about. Instead she pontificated on what intellectual shortcomings made these people work for practically nothing for her just for a chance to be outside the prison walls for however long they could (or volunteers as some may call them) That's symbolic of the Democratic party when it comes to prison labor (modern American slavery). I mean I could go and show you how countless prisoners are in prison on bullshit charges (usually a parole/probation violation like smoking pot to deal with how incredibly messed up our country is to people who have paid their debt to society), or how every year people who were sentenced to die by our system are exonerated by pro bono lawyers who are ashamed of a system that can convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Or how our prisons are in such deplorable conditions it's often cruel and unusual just to have to serve time (so little rehabilitation it's pathetic),or that people without family have no money in prison. That many people report it being easier for them to find drugs inside than out (although more expensive inside), because our "guards" are often just state sanctioned thugs who see their job not as protecting inmates, but punishing them. I mean it's a long and sordid list of the problems with the American Prison Industrial Complex, the idea that some lawsuit shows it's being addressed is absolutely moronic. And I raise the question again: In your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government have done in this case? Because if you want to prove that you understand political nuance, this is where you would do it. Because Prison systems, law enforcement, criminal law, it's all a very complicated system spanning multiple government organizations, multiple government bodies, and multiple laws that are both state and Federal. And this is true in basically every nation in the world that splits federal and state/provincial/territorial governments. If this goes through the court system, is deemed to violate laws, and the prisoners win, then this shows what is being done is illegal (within civil law). So, from there, how would a Federal Democrat super majority in all three Federal branches get the Texas police, court and prison system to change their criminal laws, convict less people, arrest less people, and have less people kept in prison? How would they ensure that the laws that are in place are not violated by privately run prisons so that lawsuits are not required to fix the issues? And no, those are not rhetorical questions, and no, I'm not expecting you to have a fully detailed legal essay for any of these. But if you feel like participating in political discussions, it would be nice to have more thought from you that extends past "things are broken and Democrats didn't fix it". Who would you hold accountable if not the people you can vote for that write the laws, assign people to enforce regulations, etc? Absolutely hold the elected officials accountable. Hold the police and courts accountable. Hold the private prison owners accountable But I'm not asking "who?", I'm asking "what?" Because in a governing system that runs through rule of law, and not Divine Right or dictatorial whim, problems have to be fixed through written law. And because of constitutional jurisdiction restricting the powers of each government body, there are also limits to what a Federal government can do to effect the States, and vice versa (barring constitutional amendment, which would be a valid, if optimistic, answer as well). But if someone (GH in this case) has no idea what can be done, how it should be done, or if anything he wants violates existing laws, we're basically in "Thanks Obama" level of argument. People arguing we're bound to this shit system and terrible parties are exactly why we are. So, to ask you again: What would your ideal Federal government do? And again, if your answer is "get a super majority in every branch of Federal government, rewrite the US constitution to take a lot more power away from the States and change everything up", I would at least consider that a valid legal course of action. People could have a lovely discussion about the probability of this happening, but at least it has a legal basis for actually accomplishing something. But if your idea of good government is a party that waves a magic wand and fixes problems without any thought, then please leave the thread to people who are capable of arguing US politics. Is it just me or are both these answers practically the same? How is "get a majority and change everything up" any better of an answer to the question of what a good government looks like than "wave a magic wand to make everything better"? There is no content, no substance, nothing of significance in either of these hypothetical answers.
The point was more about having a good faith discussion about political changes. Even political longshots are worth talking about.
Or even if someone doesn't understand the political process, the laws, the constitution, whatever, and would still like to discuss from that starting point in good faith.
But not GH's "I know nothing about politics but I'm still better than all of you" posts.
|
On July 13 2017 07:59 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 07:29 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 07:23 Leporello wrote:On July 13 2017 06:51 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing every problem being overshadowed by the constant screams of "Russia!". It's the same thing over and over. People seem to think it is acceptable to focus on something that has absolutely a negligible effect on western (or American, in this case) society at large. Even complaining when people express their opinions that they think there's much bigger issues than some insignificant country with the GPD of Italy that has goals which don't necessarily align with the goals of the society that we live in, but is constantly getting in the headlines because media companies know that people eat this shit up as the concept of "the foreign devil" is great clickbait. I don't know how I can help you understand. Russia is a problem that exists in the world, but it's not worth the attention that its receiving in the grander scheme of things. The media's consistent highlighting of this problem over others and driving the public conversation/narrative away from the things that affect people's every daily lives is ruining my mood. It isn't just the media or the public that's fixated, and to the extent they are fixated, it is because they have to be. Our Congress needs to spend time investigating, receiving testimonies, and passing legislation to protect sanctions (because apparently they don't trust the President to behave rationally towards Russia...) And the WH itself is fixated. Everyone is lawyered. Trump can't go a day without tweeting something insane about it. And you describe it as a small foreign-policy problem. I don't think you appreciate how serious this actually is, not in terms of legality or politics, but how damaging this is to America's foreign and domestic policies on all fronts. We are the world's empire, militarily. That's a precarious thing to be. We either have to bear some responsibility for the world, or we become a menace. The dangers of what Trump has done on the world stage is not something to take lightly, and has ramifications beyond description. Trump gave Putin a private 2-hour meeting, for which he cancelled an appearance at an actual G20 conference. Why? It isn't just the American press. The German press has been much less forgiving or reserved on this issue. German's most popular newspapers regularly refer to Trump as a Russian menace. The German chancellor says, in public, that they can't rely on America. Your little empire is already a danger to the world, and it has nothing to do with Russia. I'm not going to list all the evils here and now as it's a very long list, but you should know full well what they are. On July 13 2017 07:23 Leporello wrote:
The ramifications are beyond what you're saying. You talk about Russia's GDP -- that doesn't matter. What matters is Putin's actions on the world stage, and what our allies think of him. It's not Russia's GDP they're concerned about. It's their insane aggression towards their neighbors, and the lies they attempt to tell about it.
It's a giant nuclear arsenal, run by what is, in all actuality, the world's biggest criminal -- a man who has amassed over a $100 billion dollars over a career of "public service" over an economically-poor country. That's a LOT of blood money.
I don't like to stoke fear and sensationalism, but to compare Russia's importance on foreign-affairs by referring to their ransacked GDP numbers is kind of... off-base. This isn't cozying up to some banana republic. This is the POTUS cozying up, publicly, to a man that our allies rightfully consider to be one of the world's greatest evils. And yet, somehow, I'm not particularly worried about Putins access to nuclear weapons. There's a certain person that I consider to be far more dangerous, regardless of his potential connections to Russia, who has an equal amount of nuclear weapons at his disposal. Yes, America has many bad moments throughout history. But I think it's a simplification to use that comparison in regards to current events. Look, I don't worry about Putin launching nukes either. Just like I don't think Putin kills his political opponents, at least not anytime remotely recent. You're absolutely right to think America is the bigger threat, compared to Russia. But that's kind of my point... What I'm worried about is how much worse things can and will be if America doesn't confront Russia in this problem fully, and head-on. This is a cultural war, one of actual importance that's hard to overstate. The problem is largely media, in both countries. And I daresay, in this comparison, Russia loses badly compared to the U.S. You think it's bad our media frenzies over drawing blood from the President? Well, I wish all countries, like Russia, had that problem with their media. All the fears one has of Putin, the worst of it is that so much of it is beyond Putin's control. For example: Putin didn't kill Boris Nemstov, because his country of nationalists will do that stuff for him. He didn't kill Boris, he created an entire culture that kills people for him. That "85% approval" that Trump brags about, in defense of Putin? That's the scary part. The scary part is having a President who calls that a democracy, and seemingly seeks to see the same in America. Can you imagine that America? What you SHOULD be ABSOLUTELY worried about, if you live near Russia especially, is what happens when the propagandist leaves or dies, and the propagandized take over. What happens when you have a Russian President who has listened, for most of his life, to his country's media glorify the idea of nuking Western countries, as they do. And it is very much that same culture that Trump is bringing to America. You don't see the danger of Russian influence on American culture? Really? The war on media, the subversion of checks and balances? As bad as America may have been, as you allude to, do you not think it could get much, much worse? The thing is you can't separate what Trump is doing to America, from Trump's relationship with Russia. This story of "collusion" isn't just sprung from random investigations. It's a reaction to Donald's words and actions on the world-stage. What Trump is doing as POTUS is essentially copying the Putin modus operandi. Maybe the Putin-culture doesn't scare you coming Russia, but it will terrify the fuck out of you when it's coming from America. It does me.
I don't see anything happening in American culture as a result of Russian influence. It's true that Russia is on the conservative side of the global culture war, just like Republicans and Salafists, but it's not their doing. This cultural conflict has sprung up from advances in technology (internet + social media), just like what happened in the early 20th century (radio + literacy). I think that any notion that blames Russia or indeed any external force for this conflict undermines any attempts at finding peaceful internal solutions to the problems that have arisen.
It's not that Russian culture is forcibly taking over America as a result of actions undertaken by the Russian government. That is a ridiculous notion. There is just no way that a country with so little wealth could ever have that much influence over the media empires of the west. This cultural conflict has always existed within America, and indeed in countries all over the globe at any point in history. Externalizing the problem in the way it is happening now is an incredibly flawed and short-sighted approach to any potential solution.
|
On July 13 2017 08:02 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 07:31 m4ini wrote:It isn't just the American press. The German press has been much less forgiving or reserved on this issue. German's most popular newspapers regularly refer to Trump as a Russian menace. The German chancellor says, in public, that they can't rely on America.
Not sure which newspapers you refer to, usually german newspapers (unlike Bild, which is less newspaper and more tabloid/yellow press) are pretty impartial on the issue. Mind, i don't disagree with anything you said, but as a german, that feels new to me. Mostly referring to what I've seen from Der Spiegel. I'm not going to pretend to regularly read German periodicals, but what I've seen from Der Spiegel is enough to make me realize that America's image has been irrevocably changed for the worse. edit: and Merkel's direct quotes. Those are saddening.
"Irrevocably" is hyperbole, outside of left-wing echo chambers. Trump has barely accomplished anything substantive that the next president can't undo in a month. He withdrew from TPP, but Hillary and Bernie were going to do that anyway. It wouldn't be shocking to see TPP revived in some form in the future anyway. He withdrew from the Paris Climate agreement, but that isn't anywhere near large enough to cause irrevocable damage to the US diplomatic future (on its own, at least).
The irony here is that, despite the doomsayers claiming Trump represents death to America's democracy, it's the US institutions and his unpopularity that largely restrained him from accomplishing anything actually harmful long-term.
If the US has a reasonable president or two after Trump, the world is going to be more concerned with being aligned with the world's largest economy/military that also supports democratic ideals than worrying about that country's failed nutcase president 10 years ago. The international community is largely pragmatic; look at how many countries are friendly with China (or even Russia) despite it being ruled by the human rights disaster that is the CCP.
|
On July 13 2017 08:00 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:From 230 to 6 is a great discount. I wish I could reduce all my bills to 2.6% of their original values. the fraud was $230m, but the fine was actually $12m. so it was a 50% haircut which is big but not unheard of.
See I'd love for conversations like this to be about how this is a bipartisan type of deal where there is massive fraud, they pay a relatively small fine (compared to the revenue generated overall) and then it's just another Wednesday.
But instead they can only exist in the window of "how does this fit into the Russia/Trump narrative". And folks like Wulfey act like this is "real corruption" as opposed to the corruption like this we see all the time.
|
On July 13 2017 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 08:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 13 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:From 230 to 6 is a great discount. I wish I could reduce all my bills to 2.6% of their original values. the fraud was $230m, but the fine was actually $12m. so it was a 50% haircut which is big but not unheard of. See I'd love for conversations like this to be about how this is a bipartisan type of deal where there is massive fraud, they pay a relatively small fine (compared to the revenue generated overall) and then it's just another Wednesday. But instead they can only exist in the window of "how does this fit into the Russia/Trump narrative". And folks like Wulfey act like this is "real corruption" as opposed to the corruption like this we see all the time.
If Hillary had been elected and this had still happened we'd all be having brunch. Maybe Republicans would throw a fit and try to blow it up to some kind of huge scandal, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
