|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 15:19:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tittletag on Jul 11, 2016 15:26:24 GMT -5
Authoritarian impulses seem to be universal and there always seems to be a significant percentage of people that value "safety" over restraint of our "peace keepers".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 15:29:48 GMT -5
Either way, ignorant malicious peolple will keep (ignorant) people fat, giving more money to the corporations. Sad. 'Love Oreos, but dang. Ahah right? I could eat Kit-Kat all day long (in a world where then my body doesn't just collapse....) doesn't mean I do it or that it'd be healthy.
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Jul 11, 2016 15:29:59 GMT -5
How in God's name did that happen?
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 15:36:39 GMT -5
How in God's name did that happen? An officer's own gun was taken by a suspect, sigh....
|
|
newhivemaster
Hive Listener
Hive Master
Posts: 2,660
Likes: 10,489
|
Post by newhivemaster on Jul 11, 2016 15:37:01 GMT -5
How in God's name did that happen? SSDD.
|
|
|
Post by tittletag on Jul 11, 2016 15:37:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 15:47:09 GMT -5
I think Trump has been watching too many Law & Order episodes, especially the SVU ones where Elliot Stabler beats up perps to force confessions (which is, nearly every episode). Stabler did leave the series after Chris Meloni was tired after years of hard work beating suspects to a pulp and not getting more money for doing it shooting someone, then quit the force. Charles Murray, who is an arch-conservative and libertarian, has long opposed Trump on conservative grounds. He works at the AEI, so he leans as far right as one can, and he will not support Trump. Here's why. www.nationalreview.com/article/435805/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-why-hillary-is-even-worse-doesnt-cut-it(as an amusing sidenote - amusing to me - is that labeling groups of people is often needed, and often overused. SZ does so a lot, and his many said terms help clarify his positions. Murray does so here too with "Establishmentarians," False Priests, and so forth. So I did see a solemnly amusing similarity with term-labeling among many parties here. But the points are well taken.)
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Jul 11, 2016 15:53:38 GMT -5
How in God's name did that happen? An officer's own gun was taken by a suspect, sigh.... Good guy with a gun became a victim.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 16:00:38 GMT -5
I really don't see the distinction. I don't even kinda see the distinction. Sure, there's a time limit on one and not the other, but I don't see any logical reason why you would hold a second vote three weeks after the first. There is no explanation I would consider rational to support such a move. Its not about consequences. You don't get to revote because consequences happened and you don't get to revote because the winning side was revealed to be overselling their position. That's not the same as saying you can never revote - Quebec had two referendums, but how many years were they separated by? Yes, the electorate might vote a different way but all elections are momentary snapshots so that's not a valid argument either. I don't get how people see this as a rational position, how this is justified by *anything* other than confirmation bias. You're trying to override a fair vote. ---------------- Side note, if I'm May, here's what I'd do: I'd negotiate all the free trade deals I need to and get all of the other treaties in place, and then I'd assemble the total package into a final, binding referendum and basically say that the original vote was authorization to do the negotiations, now this is the final decision. You're not disrespecting the will of the original vote because you gave it real meaning and real power, and you're recognizing the contention around it and giving it an explicit set of rules. Actually, Funny you should mention Quebec. Because that kind of ties into your POV - at least insofar as this goes. The way the PQ operate remind me a lot of the GOP - in that they'll just keep trying to hold Referendums until they get the outcome they like (just like the GOP would on ACA). Why wasn't 1980 enough? Why did we need '95? I'm curious - you wrote every election is a momentary snapshot - but the moment changed, and so did peoples views. Why is/was only the first one valid? I"m not trying to be a shit - i'm honestly trying to understand. If you say one is valid - and it is - then why wouldn't a second one be three weeks later, precisely because people changed their mind, and the moment .. i dunno, woke them up to the consequences? Because democracy does not reflect the fluid will but the snapshot opinion. That's the reason "October surprise" is such a big deal - the snapshot can shift suddenly in a panic reaction and regret can come from that. Over time, we want to periodically refresh that snapshot and that is the idea behind regularly scheduled elections, but that time period isn't every week. A shock one week to the next can induce completely different results but in the meantime, nobody has had a chance to implement the new will of the people. Panic does not necessarily bring us to greater wisdom - any wisdom we reach would be coincidental, not pragmatic or intentional. We vote every 4 years because that's a reasonable balance between giving them a time to implement our will and ensuring that the snapshot is reasonably fresh and reflective of our opinions. As for revoting upon referendums years later: that is reasonable. The will and perspective of the people might have shifted quite measurably - and after Meech Lake, there was plenty of evidence it had and the referendum bore that out considering how close it was. Just like the 21st amendment was passed to reflect the adjusted perceptions of the people. But look at the dates of both of these examples - 13 years on prohibition, 15 years on Quebec Independence. Neither of them were same year rehashes or restarted immediately. And why was that? Because you needed a fundamental shift to justify the revisiting of the question. In the case of Prohibition, it was the implementation of Prohibition and the realization of its inherent follies. In the case of Quebec Independence, it was Meech Lake and the years of Constitutional problems since Trudeau told the PQ to fuck themselves in '82. The more recent third referendum bullshit was not justified - I have no idea why they thought it was worth following through with.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 16:02:36 GMT -5
Because a full on revote says "your vote doesn't matter. If you don't like the outcome, just complain loudly enough and we'll revote upon it." The alternate approach I just listed gives meaning to the first vote: this was a plebicite to reflect the desire of the British people to change their relationship with the EU giving the British government the authority to negotiate the best deal possible for an alternative arrangement. That should be recognized, should be respected, and should be followed to some reasonable extent. Parliament can't just ignored it nor can a revote be called for both fundamentally give the implicit statement of "that first vote was an interesting statement but that's not what we wanted so let's change things". That's so fundamentally a "fuck you" to the voters. How could it not be? Give it meaning, give it real implications, and then give voters a second chance if they really want it, and you've got a balanced approach. May would be justified in just proceeding without the second vote, but beyond those two options, everything else would be dogmatic moves by people acting in a manner that implies "well, we know better than you that you didn't really mean it when you said you didn't want it" Again, saw this after i replied. I should just wait until i read all the comments before asking questions. And then there's me, redrafting my response slowly over the course of three hours as I'm dealing with my god foresaken 3hr meeting so of course the conversation has evolved by the time I hit post
|
|
suen
Hive Whisperer
Oh for fuck's sake!
Posts: 6,159
Likes: 25,504
|
Post by suen on Jul 11, 2016 16:08:18 GMT -5
What does that mean? Is he talking about an even higher degree of militarization of our police forces? Taking away civil liberties? Establishing even more of a surveillance state? declaring martial law? Dear media: A very good question to ask The Donald at your next opportunity would be, "Excuse me, what exactly do you mean?"
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Jul 11, 2016 16:15:18 GMT -5
This just in; Dallas police chief '' We're asking cops to do too much in this country'' Every societal failure , we put it off on the cops to solve said Brown. He listed mental health, drug addiction, loose dogs, failing schools as problems the public expects ''cops to solve'' ''Seventy percent of the African American community is being raised by single women [ except foggy thanks btw] , lets give it to the cops to solve as well'' said Brown. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.'' When ask what advice he would give black men, Brown said, '' become a part of the solution, serve your community . Don't be part of the problem ... we're hiring. Get off the protest line and put an application in. We'll put you in your neighborhood - we will help you resolve some of the problems you are protesting about.'' #alllivesmatter and #bluelivesmatter as well. What did fatherless children have to do with 2 innocent people shot by murderous cops? Nothing. Always think before you write drivel someone else pumped into your vacuous head. What solution in your pathetic mind do you think would have helped the two innocent people shot? Not being black probably but most important, the murderous cops not shooting them for no other reason than being black.
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Jul 11, 2016 16:19:25 GMT -5
Alas, China has a bad reputation for poor-quality fake merchandise (think poor regulation and oversight, which is ironic given China's ironclad political rule and censorship of free speech and internet access, but I digress). Amazon opened up their market for direct-selling of Chinese goods as a defensive move against their Chinese mega-rival Alibaba. Now it's coming back to bite them in the ass. boingboing.net/2016/07/11/amazon-is-full-of-chinese-coun.html...and this is quite similar to earlier story I posted long ago about Chinese websites selling crappy merchandise to women seeking bargains.... www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/say-no-to-the-dress?utm_term=.xs8ge3lgl#.npomrW5m5The founder of Alibaba came out recently and talked himself warm about how great the copied products were, admitting openly that they're selling counterfeit products. Most of it is shit. My wife buys some stuff from China and while it's cheap the service is terrible and products bad. I don't understand the impulse of buying at bargain knowing that so much of it is bad, but it's a human delusional thing.
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Jul 11, 2016 16:21:12 GMT -5
Because a) He doesn't understand the concept of checks and balances. Or limits. Or the constitution. He'll act like a little kid wanting it NOW. b) He will appoint people who have no business in any government or judicial function. If we have a broken system now, it'll be worse after he starts to load incompetent political fanatics into the system. c) He has zero diplomatic ability. It was bad during the Bush years. But that'll pale in comparison with a world that absolutely loath Trump. And that can only lead to more international diplomatic incidents. RE " He doesn't understand the concept of checks and balances. Or limits. Or the constitution. He'll act like a little kid wanting it NOW." What makes you believe that this is the case? Or are you being hyperbolic? SZ Maybe I shouldn't believe my lying eyes. There's nothing he says that makes anyone believe he understands the basics of government and our 3 branches. Let alone the text it's built on - the constitution.
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Jul 11, 2016 16:22:54 GMT -5
Either way, ignorant malicious peolple will keep (ignorant) people fat, giving more money to the corporations. Sad. Sounds like an important party policy platform thing.
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Jul 11, 2016 16:26:47 GMT -5
I posted a bunch of links of gun related violence a while back. We're up there along with Brazil. It's not something we should be proud of.
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 16:28:03 GMT -5
Again, saw this after i replied. I should just wait until i read all the comments before asking questions. And then there's me, redrafting my response slowly over the course of three hours as I'm dealing with my god foresaken 3hr meeting so of course the conversation has evolved by the time I hit post Hey, what better way to stay awake during a 3 hr. long meeting than to post here? You can always say to the boss during the meeting, "Just typing some important notes for later. I'll get back to you."
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 16:36:00 GMT -5
And then there's me, redrafting my response slowly over the course of three hours as I'm dealing with my god foresaken 3hr meeting so of course the conversation has evolved by the time I hit post Hey, what better way to stay awake during a 3 hr. long meeting than to post here? You can always say to the boss during the meeting, "Just typing some important notes for later. I'll get back to you." Not my boss. Trying to train someone on the 5 billion ways our application is used.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 16:41:52 GMT -5
Calgary Police in excessive force scandal for the arrest of an older white man www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-police-arrest-video-punch-1.3674022What's noticeable to me is that a professor was defending the police use of force when its clear that the reason the officer was trying to punch the man was that he was not giving up his arm to be arrested. Why was he not giving up his arm? He was shielding his face.
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Jul 11, 2016 16:43:26 GMT -5
And then there's me, redrafting my response slowly over the course of three hours as I'm dealing with my god foresaken 3hr meeting so of course the conversation has evolved by the time I hit post Hey, what better way to stay awake during a 3 hr. long meeting than to post here? You can always say to the boss during the meeting, "Just typing some important notes for later. I'll get back to you." My experience with long meetings was that the 16 other people were constantly proposing ideas that my department had to implement. Needless to say I was never late or missed a meeting.
|
|
suen
Hive Whisperer
Oh for fuck's sake!
Posts: 6,159
Likes: 25,504
|
Post by suen on Jul 11, 2016 16:56:21 GMT -5
So here's a slightly longer story on Trump as "the law and order candidate" (from Politico, I'm sorry). Apparently he didn't give any specifics on just what that means (surprise!), though it does contain this reassuring little nugget: Oh, good. Because it's not like they don't already get the benefit of the doubt. Sounds like whoever he picks as AG will have lots of time for golf.
|
|
|
Post by tittletag on Jul 11, 2016 17:06:42 GMT -5
So here's a slightly longer story on Trump as "the law and order candidate" (from Politico, I'm sorry). Apparently he didn't give any specifics on just what that means (surprise!), though it does contain this reassuring little nugget: Oh, good. Because it's not like they don't already get the benefit of the doubt. Sounds like whoever he picks as AG will have lots of time for golf. I think his constant admiration for authoritarian dictators that murder their opposition is a strong tea leaf.
|
|
|
Post by phillippatUK on Jul 11, 2016 17:19:38 GMT -5
To completely change the subject - I wish I could send you all a link to the tv programme we just watched - The Sky At Night: Juno: Mission to Jupiter, but it's BBC (iplayer) so... If anyone can find a non-uk link to it, then...?
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 17:26:49 GMT -5
That's actually not an argument. There are plenty of cases in the world in all sorts of positions where an outsider with limited knowledge but a vast skillset comes in and wildly exceeds expectations and fundamentally shifts the field just because they lose the jaded blinders of a longtime operative. That Trump's skillset is weak, one dimensional, and horribly plagued by his other glaring weaknesses is the real argument I think Trump's lack of experience in politics and diplomacy would make his presidency infinitely worse than a Clinton presidency. My counter argument is 2008: Hillary Clinton, John McCain or Barrack Obama. Who did you think would do the best job? Who had been in government the longest? The difference here is Trump's temperment is that of someone I would presume would not be an effective diplomat or politician. Obama might have lacked experience, but he showed a balanced mentality that didn't scare you.
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 17:32:03 GMT -5
To completely change the subject - I wish I could send you all a link to the tv programme we just watched - The Sky At Night: Juno: Mission to Jupiter, but it's BBC (iplayer) so... If anyone can find a non-uk link to it, then...? The so-called iPlayer drives me insane and why I don't rely on BBC much for news, preferring Guardian and other sources. Yeah, it's designed for British citizens, though their squishy statements about "rights agreements" are rather ambiguous. It's obvious the BBC reaches world audiences and has done so for decades, so they could get off their asses and take that extra step of offering online service to their worldwide audiences too. If Brexit goes through and England has to renegotiate trade deals with everyone, I can see Obama (or Hillary) saying to Theresa May, "Yeah, sure, we can strike a new trade deal beneficial to both sides that you'll love ...but first, you have to make BBC open their iPlayer to US audiences too." We'd get an open iPlayer the next day.
|
|
|
Post by tittletag on Jul 11, 2016 17:35:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phillippatUK on Jul 11, 2016 17:40:56 GMT -5
To completely change the subject - I wish I could send you all a link to the tv programme we just watched - The Sky At Night: Juno: Mission to Jupiter, but it's BBC (iplayer) so... If anyone can find a non-uk link to it, then...? The so-called iPlayer drives me insane and why I don't rely on BBC much for news, preferring Guardian and other sources. Yeah, it's designed for British citizens, though their squishy statements about "rights agreements" are rather ambiguous. It's obvious the BBC reaches world audiences and has done so for decades, so they could get off their asses and take that extra step of offering online service to their worldwide audiences too. If Brexit goes through and England has to renegotiate trade deals with everyone, I can see Obama (or Hillary) saying to Theresa May, "Yeah, sure, we can strike a new trade deal beneficial to both sides that you'll love ...but first, you have to make BBC open their iPlayer to US audiences too." We'd get an open iPlayer the next day. Foreign media content license issues - arn't they great
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 17:42:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 17:46:28 GMT -5
Ah, NOW he pushes for this. The first two years of his term would have been better timing when he had a Democratic House and a split Senate (no thanks to Lieberman), as opposed to now with an R Congress and no chance in hell of passing anything. We have to get D voters out this fall to flip both chambers back to give Hillary any chance of getting it done. Here, Sanders can be of help to get the Senate back and lobby hard for health care changes.
|
|