US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9452

On December 06 2017 22:30 zlefin wrote:


is there some particular part of it you want more comment/discussion on?

A dramatic new wildfire erupted in Los Angeles early Wednesday as firefighters battled three other destructive blazes across southern California.

Flames exploded before dawn on the steep slopes of Sepulveda Pass, which carries heavily traveled Interstate 405 through the Santa Monica mountains, where ridge tops are covered with expensive homes.

Firefighters were at the scene as helicopters flying in darkness made water drops on the flames on the east side of the pass. Northbound traffic was halted, but southbound lanes remained open.

Hundreds of homes burned in the area during the famous Bel Air fire of 1961. The Getty Center art complex, on the west side of the pass, employs extensive fire protection methods.

Elsewhere, use of firefighting aircraft has been constrained by the same winds that have spread the fires.

The water-dropping planes and helicopters essential to taming and containing wildfires have been mostly grounded because it was too dangerous to fly them in the strong wind. Tuesday saw gusts of over 50mph (80kph).

Commanders hoped to have them back in the air on Wednesday morning, but all indications were that the winds will be whipping then too, fanning the flames that spurred evacuation orders for nearly 200,000 people, destroyed nearly 200 homes and remained mostly out control.

“The prospects for containment are not good,” Ventura County fire chief Mark Lorenzen said Tuesday. “Really, Mother Nature’s going to decide when we have the ability to put it out.”

Southern California’s Santa Ana winds have long contributed to some of the region’s most disastrous wildfires. They blow from the inland toward the Pacific Ocean, speeding up as they squeeze through mountain passes and canyons.

The largest and most destructive of the fires, an 85 sq mile (220 sq km) wildfire in Ventura County, north-west of Los Angeles, had nearly reached the Pacific on Tuesday night after starting 30 miles inland a day earlier.

Lisa Kermode and her children returned to their home Tuesday after evacuating Monday to find their home and world in ashes, including a Christmas tree and the presents they had just bought.

“We got knots in our stomach coming back up here,” Kermode said. “We lost everything, everything, all our clothes, anything that was important to us. All our family heirlooms it’s not sort of gone, it’s completely gone.”

John Keasler, 65, and his wife Linda raced out of their apartment building as the flames approached, then stood and watched the fire burn it to the ground.

“It is sad,” Keasler said. “We loved this place. We lost everything.”

About 12,000 structures were under threat.

In the foothills of northern Los Angeles, 30 structures burned. Mayor Eric Garcetti said the gusty winds expected to last most of the week had created a dangerous situation and he urged 150,000 people under mandatory evacuation orders to leave their homes before it’s too late.

“We have lost structures, we have not lost lives,” he said. “Do not wait. Leave your homes.”

Fires are not typical in southern California this time of year but can break out when dry vegetation and too little rain combine with the Santa Ana winds. Hardly any measurable rain has fallen in the region over the past six months.

On December 07 2017 05:06 LegalLord wrote:
My two cents on the whole Israel matter as a list.

1. I'm sure that the Trumpian motivations for doing something like this are closely tied to religious sentiment, some mix of "take back the holy land in the name of the West" and "fuck the Muslims" concerns. The religious importance of Jerusalem is not to be ignored, and I don't doubt that causes a lot of the popular support for this.

2. It shouldn't be surprising that Tillerson and Mattis, as the representatives of the diplomatic and military wings of the government, oppose this. It's going to make their lives a whole lot harder. Though little more than a symbolic move, this essentially marks the US taking a very decisive position in favor of one "winner" in that conflict. Which is going to put some strain on the US alliance in the area, a very unwelcome development in light of the fact that it's already slowly but surely drifting apart. Not to mention that this will almost certainly increase the occurrence of Palestinian-based terrorist attacks on Israel and very likely manifest in a new offensive like the 2014 Gaza one. Maybe the price of progress, maybe not, but would they really want that on their plate?

3. It's probably worth noting that Israel isn't going to be able to repel its foes in the region militarily forever. That was the lesson of the Yom Kippur War which, although Israel won, showed that the other countries can definitely muster enough military might to push Israel quite far back. The dynamic is still, as it was then, one where Israel has the best technology in the region and can push back reasonably well against its attackers, but it isn't exactly dominant either. There will come a point where conventional weapons won't stop that offensive and we would be put in a situation where either the world would need to intervene militarily, or Israel would have to go nuclear.

4. In that light, pushing for workable peace agreements makes sense. Though there are many justifications for Israel having kept the Sinai peninsula, Israel and Egypt aren't in open conflict anymore, so it seems to have worked.

5. The Palestinian arrangement, however, doesn't seem to be working so well, and the course of events has convinced me that there is no peace to be won through that avenue. The few Palestinians I have talked to have often been willing to straight-up admit that they have no intention of peace, and that their goal is to drive Israel into the sea, only extracting concessions and making compromises they won't hold up to the extent that it furthers that goal. Although whatever backwards-ass stalemate this Israel-Palestine situation is seems to help keep the other nations in the region from pushing for open conflict, I see no future in the "peace process." And the Palestinian tendency towards supporting terrorist organizations does not afford them much sympathy.

6. Israel would ideally not be located where it is, but the ugly reality is that before, during, and after WWII, Jews really didn't have anywhere they could go to be safe from the ugly reality of a Europe that either actively murdered them or, through inaction, was thoroughly complicit in it. A gathering place near the religious origin of all Jewish people that, in the aftermath of a collapsing British hold on the area, could reasonably be taken over, was a logical choice. Were there a better place they could have gathered, maybe it could have gone differently. But it didn't, and Israel isn't going anywhere, so we sort of have to deal with it as is.

7. On the matter of "ethnic cleansing" or more specifically, forcing Palestinians to leave Jerusalem because it is now under control of the Israeli government - yeah, that might be a good option depending on the circumstances. Of course the connotations of that term do draw parallels to the gas chambers and to death marches of some form of other, the process could be done much more humanely, with a reasonable option to remain as subjects of the Israeli government for those who desire it. However, the goal of removing terrorist threats does often involve blanket measures like that, so yeah it might be a good idea.

All in all, my opinion is that there is no viable peace process, and choosing to pretend there is is a means by which to preserve a decaying status quo. I'm not into that, so bring on another open conflict if that's what we need to end this terrible farce of a "peace process."

On December 07 2017 05:04 TMG26 wrote:


Not a specific part, I just found this writting intered and wantef to read critiques against it. I agree with the author on many points, but it's not as black and white as he paints it.
One thing I know for sure, for such concept as minimum wage to worl properly, it needs many clauses because situations are always different and that leads to burocracy and more troublesome enforcement.

On December 07 2017 05:06 LegalLord wrote:
My two cents on the whole Israel matter as a list.

1. I'm sure that the Trumpian motivations for doing something like this are closely tied to religious sentiment, some mix of "take back the holy land in the name of the West" and "fuck the Muslims" concerns. The religious importance of Jerusalem is not to be ignored, and I don't doubt that causes a lot of the popular support for this.

2. It shouldn't be surprising that Tillerson and Mattis, as the representatives of the diplomatic and military wings of the government, oppose this. It's going to make their lives a whole lot harder. Though little more than a symbolic move, this essentially marks the US taking a very decisive position in favor of one "winner" in that conflict. Which is going to put some strain on the US alliance in the area, a very unwelcome development in light of the fact that it's already slowly but surely drifting apart. Not to mention that this will almost certainly increase the occurrence of Palestinian-based terrorist attacks on Israel and very likely manifest in a new offensive like the 2014 Gaza one. Maybe the price of progress, maybe not, but would they really want that on their plate?

3. It's probably worth noting that Israel isn't going to be able to repel its foes in the region militarily forever. That was the lesson of the Yom Kippur War which, although Israel won, showed that the other countries can definitely muster enough military might to push Israel quite far back. The dynamic is still, as it was then, one where Israel has the best technology in the region and can push back reasonably well against its attackers, but it isn't exactly dominant either. There will come a point where conventional weapons won't stop that offensive and we would be put in a situation where either the world would need to intervene militarily, or Israel would have to go nuclear.

4. In that light, pushing for workable peace agreements makes sense. Though there are many justifications for Israel having kept the Sinai peninsula, Israel and Egypt aren't in open conflict anymore, so it seems to have worked.

5. The Palestinian arrangement, however, doesn't seem to be working so well, and the course of events has convinced me that there is no peace to be won through that avenue. The few Palestinians I have talked to have often been willing to straight-up admit that they have no intention of peace, and that their goal is to drive Israel into the sea, only extracting concessions and making compromises they won't hold up to the extent that it furthers that goal. Although whatever backwards-ass stalemate this Israel-Palestine situation is seems to help keep the other nations in the region from pushing for open conflict, I see no future in the "peace process." And the Palestinian tendency towards supporting terrorist organizations does not afford them much sympathy.

6. Israel would ideally not be located where it is, but the ugly reality is that before, during, and after WWII, Jews really didn't have anywhere they could go to be safe from the ugly reality of a Europe that either actively murdered them or, through inaction, was thoroughly complicit in it. A gathering place near the religious origin of all Jewish people that, in the aftermath of a collapsing British hold on the area, could reasonably be taken over, was a logical choice. Were there a better place they could have gathered, maybe it could have gone differently. But it didn't, and Israel isn't going anywhere, so we sort of have to deal with it as is.

7. On the matter of "ethnic cleansing" or more specifically, forcing Palestinians to leave Jerusalem because it is now under control of the Israeli government - yeah, that might be a good option depending on the circumstances. Of course the connotations of that term do draw parallels to the gas chambers and to death marches of some form of other, the process could be done much more humanely, with a reasonable option to remain as subjects of the Israeli government for those who desire it. However, the goal of removing terrorist threats does often involve blanket measures like that, so yeah it might be a good idea.

All in all, my opinion is that there is no viable peace process, and choosing to pretend there is is a means by which to preserve a decaying status quo. I'm not into that, so bring on another open conflict if that's what we need to end this terrible farce of a "peace process."

On December 07 2017 05:20 Toadesstern wrote:
realistically the reason Trump ACTUALLY opened that can of Worms (Jerusalem), as in actually pulled the trigger on that, is probablly just to get people to talk about something else.
So that people don't talk about the Russia investigation and whatnot else. Or perhaps... that's probably 90% of it.

At the end of it people talking about Israel is a non-issue to people in the US because it's not part of the US. And there's apparently a big majority of people in the US who think it's good on top of that if I'm looking at the responses in this thread.

On December 07 2017 05:20 Toadesstern wrote:
realistically the reason Trump ACTUALLY opened that can of Worms (Jerusalem), as in actually pulled the trigger on that, is probablly just to get people to talk about something else.
So that people don't talk about the Russia investigation and whatnot else. Or perhaps... that's probably 90% of it.

At the end of it people talking about Israel is a non-issue to people in the US because it's not part of the US. And there's apparently a big majority of people in the US who think it's good on top of that if I'm looking at the responses in this thread.

On December 07 2017 04:38 mozoku wrote:

The hypocrisy here is that you're analyzing this situation under the implicit assumption that Democrats aren't moving to oust Franken out of any ethical or moral qualms, but rather for political strategy reasons. Yet at the same time, you're chastising the GOP for being the morally inferior party because they stand on Moore's side for the same political strategy reasons. The Democrats made the same call with Clinton in the 90s as well.

This would be fine if you (or any of the other liberal/progressive posters here) were willing to acknowledge that the Democrats are cut from the same cloth Republicans are, and that virtually nobody in modern politics cares about much beyond the next election. But each time I point this out, I'm called delusional and subsequently assured that the Democratic politicians are indeed morally superior. I suppose schadenfreude makes the mental gymnastics well worth it for you guys though.

On December 07 2017 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:


You're right. All of that is true. It doesn't change the fact that your plan for how all this should turn out has a 0% chance of ever happening. And do you see the US stopping funding for Israel? In what world does the US stop supporting Israel?

On December 07 2017 05:20 Toadesstern wrote:
realistically the reason Trump ACTUALLY opened that can of Worms (Jerusalem), as in actually pulled the trigger on that, is probablly just to get people to talk about something else.
So that people don't talk about the Russia investigation and whatnot else. Or perhaps... that's probably 90% of it.

At the end of it people talking about Israel is a non-issue to people in the US because it's not part of the US. And there's apparently a big majority of people in the US who think it's good on top of that if I'm looking at the responses in this thread.

On December 07 2017 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:


I am but a single lowly human among millions. Pretending I am the reason your perspective makes zero sense makes it easy for you to pat yourself on the back for being nice, but it doesn't change reality. Your perspectives won't do anything to ever help Palestinians. The longer people keep pretending Palestine has a way out of this checkmate scenario, the more kids get their schools bulldozed.

Israel is the clear shitty part of this scenario. The entire idea of them sitting right in the middle of Muslim turf is beyond ridiculous. Israel never should have even happened. It is a tragedy. But that war is long lost.

Honestly, the idea that your entire argument relies on "Well, once the US stops funding Israel" is just absurd. Really, ask yourself, when do you expect that to stop happen? I'm not asking if people support the idea and if those people are total meanies. I'm asking when you think it'll happen.

On December 07 2017 05:38 Grumbels wrote:

Please don’t pretend like you care that “kids get their schools bulldozed”. This casual evil of saying the correct solution to an ethnic conflict is for one side to be completely eliminated is somewhat unbearable to read.

On December 07 2017 05:26 Logo wrote:


I think that's really not an accurate view of Israel's relationship with the US considering there's tens of millions of dollars spent on pro-Israel lobbying or political donations in the US.

On December 07 2017 05:47 Toadesstern wrote:

what I mean with "people talking about Isreal is a non-issue to people in the US" is that I don't think this would ever influence someones vote. Sure there are maybe some exceptions here and there, but foreign policy doesn't strike me as something the American public is concerned about unless it involves US soldiers or am I seeing that wrong?

I don't think people actually give a fuck about what Trump does about China building islands in the seas next to it. Sure people might talk about it but there wouldn't ever come something out of it if he does something that's perceived to be wrong by one group. Unless that actually leads to WW3 but not until missiles start flying.