newhivemaster
Hive Listener
Hive Master
Posts: 2,660
Likes: 10,489
|
Post by newhivemaster on Aug 10, 2016 5:28:02 GMT -5
Good morning, Hive!!
New pic up in the 1000 words thread.
#wormsign
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Aug 10, 2016 6:22:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Aug 10, 2016 7:53:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Aug 10, 2016 8:02:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixotic on Aug 10, 2016 9:21:35 GMT -5
How can anyone sane support Donald Trump after he openly mused about his opponent being assassinated?
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Aug 10, 2016 9:25:12 GMT -5
How can anyone sane support Donald Trump after he openly mused about his opponent being assassinated? 'Sane' is the operative word. Shannity makes excuses about Trump's own words and Rudy makes himself a bigger fool that ever.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Aug 10, 2016 9:32:44 GMT -5
How can anyone sane support Donald Trump after he openly mused about his opponent being assassinated? Blind Hillary rage? They probably thought it sounded like a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixotic on Aug 10, 2016 9:33:02 GMT -5
One-in-five U.S. Republicans want Trump to drop out: Reuters/Ipsos poll
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN10L0YS Nearly one-fifth of registered Republicans want Donald Trump to drop out of the race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday, reflecting the turmoil his candidacy has sown within his party.
Some 19 percent think the New York real estate magnate should drop out, 70 percent think he should stay in and 10 percent say they "don't know," according to the Aug. 5-8 poll of 396 registered Republicans. The poll has a confidence interval of six percentage points.
Among all registered voters, some 44 percent want Trump to drop out. That is based on a survey of 1,162 registered voters, with a confidence interval of 3 percentage points. That is 9 points higher than his support for the presidency in the latest Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll registered on Monday.
The figures underscored deep divisions within the Republican Party over Trump's candidacy. A number of prominent Republicans have declined to endorse him in the Nov. 8 election against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, citing his fiery rhetoric and policy proposals such as building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country.
I guess these Republicans aren't REAL 'MURRICANS.
|
|
|
Post by roknsteve on Aug 10, 2016 9:58:29 GMT -5
Presidential Debates. I don't think Donald Trump will go to the debates if he can't control and manipulate them. If he doesn't debate they should get Gary Johnson to debate Hillary and have an empty podium with Trump's name on it. Man, I'd watch that with chips and beer!
|
|
|
Post by roknsteve on Aug 10, 2016 10:03:23 GMT -5
Kevin 'Oreo' Wern was sure on a roll yesterday. He likes to talk about himself in the third person. I don't know how to make sense of some of his ramblings. It's a Trifecta of stupid for sure.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Aug 10, 2016 10:03:36 GMT -5
Presidential Debates. I don't think Donald Trump will go to the debates if he can't control and manipulate them. If he doesn't debate they should get Gary Johnson to debate Hillary and have an empty podium with Trump's name on it. Man, I'd watch that with chips and beer! Regardless of whether he goes or not, the number of adults in the room won't be affected
|
|
jarais
Hive Attuned
Forever Larva Millennial
jetski diplomat
Posts: 1,251
Likes: 5,050
|
Post by jarais on Aug 10, 2016 10:12:12 GMT -5
I'm worried. Someone on Twitter reminded me last night that it wasn't so long ago that MP Jo Cox was murdered in the toxic run-up to the Brexit vote. Let's hope the Secret Service has shaped up since their...troubles.
|
|
newhivemaster
Hive Listener
Hive Master
Posts: 2,660
Likes: 10,489
|
Post by newhivemaster on Aug 10, 2016 10:29:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Aug 10, 2016 10:32:12 GMT -5
538 moves Pennsylvania into Clinton's firewall, bringing her firewall total to 269 fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-polls-show-pennsylvania-back-in-clintons-firewall/NC, OH, FL, NV, IA, NH all outstanding as possible tipping points for Clinton. The note is that the firewall is what states she can be comfortable winning *if* the race tightens so yes all of the states listed are Clinton favorites in current polls, but if the race tightens, state polls move the same direction by about as much.
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixotic on Aug 10, 2016 10:39:51 GMT -5
I'm worried. Someone on Twitter reminded me last night that it wasn't so long ago that MP Jo Cox was murdered in the toxic run-up to the Brexit vote. Let's hope the Secret Service has shaped up since their...troubles. If some Trump supporter tried to kill Hillary it would utterly doom the election for Republicans. Hell, their party probably wouldn't survive the fallout.
|
|
jarais
Hive Attuned
Forever Larva Millennial
jetski diplomat
Posts: 1,251
Likes: 5,050
|
Post by jarais on Aug 10, 2016 10:47:12 GMT -5
I'm worried. Someone on Twitter reminded me last night that it wasn't so long ago that MP Jo Cox was murdered in the toxic run-up to the Brexit vote. Let's hope the Secret Service has shaped up since their...troubles. If some Trump supporter tried to kill Hillary it would utterly doom the election for Republicans. Hell, their party probably wouldn't survive the fallout. I'm not so much worried about Hillary as I am people who volunteer for her campaign, seemingly random acts. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by stuartzechman on Aug 10, 2016 11:13:47 GMT -5
Monopoly Power and the Decline of Small Business: The Case for Restoring America’s Once Robust Antitrust Policies The United States is much less a nation of entrepreneurs than it was a generation ago. Small, independent businesses have declined sharply in both numbers and market share across many sectors of the economy. Between 1997 and 2012, the number of small manufacturers fell by more 70,000, local retailers saw their ranks diminish by about 108,000, and the number of community banks and credit unions dropped by half, from about 26,000 to 13,000. At the same time, starting a new business appears to have become harder than ever. The number of startups launched annually has fallen by nearly half since the 1970s. As stunning as these figures are, there has been remarkably little public debate about this profound structural shift taking place in the U.S. economy. We t end to accept the decline of small business as the inevitable result of market forces. Big companies are thought to be more efficient and productive; therefore, although we may miss the corner drugstore or the family-owned auto repair shop, their demise is unavoidable, and it’s economically beneficial. But our new report suggests a different, and very troubling, explanation for the dwindling ranks of small businesses. It presents evidence that their decline is owed, at least in part, to anticompetitive behavior by large, dominant corporations. Drawing on examples in pharmacy, banking, telecommunications, and retail, it finds that big companies routinely use their size and their economic and political power to undermine their smaller rivals and exclude them from markets. These abuses have gone unchecked because of a radical change in the ideological framework that guides anti-monopoly policy. About thirty-five years ago, policy-makers came to view maximizing efficiency — rather than maintaining fair and open markets for all competitors — as the primary aim of antitrust enforcement. This was a profound departure from previous policy and America’s long-standing anti-monopoly tradition. Over time, this ideological shift impacted more than antitrust enforcement. It infused much of public policy with a bias in favor of big business, creating an environment less and less hospitable to entrepreneurs. This report presents three compelling reasons to bring a commitment to fair and open markets for small businesses back into antitrust enforcement and public policy more broadly: - Small businesses deliver distinct consumer and market benefits, and in some sectors provide more value and better outcomes than their bigger competitors. And they often achieve these superior results because of their small scale, not in spite of it.
- An economy populated by many small, independent businesses produces a more equitable distribution of income and opportunity, creates more jobs, and supports an expansive middle class.
- Small-scale enterprise is compatible with democracy, while concentrated economic power threatens our liberty and our ability to be a self-governing people.
To restore competition and America’s entrepreneurial tradition, we can draw on our own rich antimonopoly history. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, reformers enacted policies to break up concentrated power and ensure a level playing field for small businesses. These laws are still on the books, and the principles they embody are still relevant. With a fresh look at how we enforce them, these policies can go a long way toward reviving competition and small business. This report concludes by outlining several specific steps for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by stuartzechman on Aug 10, 2016 11:24:16 GMT -5
Ah, yes, I see that we're in campaign season. Plus ça change! SZ
|
|
|
Post by phillippatUK on Aug 10, 2016 11:35:42 GMT -5
God Oovening from Rouen! Just waiting for the tennis to start, though since they've scheduled Murray's and Konta's matches in a similar manner (2nd on courts 1 & 2) we're not very happy! (EDIT: The tennis has been delayed - I assume due to weather?) (Not sure which one to watch, if, as and when they do clash, though we get the feeling Konta will need our support more than Murray, considering who she's up against (2nd seed Kerber.)) So we just need to decide if we've got enough time to have some more fun before the matches start - (my Mum is staying the night with us, too )
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Aug 10, 2016 11:45:25 GMT -5
Ah, yes, I see that we're in campaign season. Plus ça change! SZ I'm sorry.... are you really suggesting that Trump's comments were equivalent to Clinton's and that the reaction to them were equally hyperbolic? When you attach Clinton's remarks on Kennedy to her previous comment about her husband, the context clearly shows that's not what she meant. Is there context to Trump's statement that shows he's not suggesting assassination? I'm talking about what was actually said. I'm willing to give his campaign the benefit of doubt that he did mean in a political sense - but what text of his speech suggests that he wasn't talking about assassination. Wording similar to that has been used multiple times over the last several years by extremist petitioners to far more clearly call for the assassination of Obama and more recently for Clinton so why is it a sign of campaign season that when we hear a similar dog whistle, we think that the message is similar?
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixotic on Aug 10, 2016 11:51:17 GMT -5
Ah, yes, I see that we're in campaign season. Plus ça change! SZ There's a bit of a difference here where Hillary was saying something insensitive, whereas Trump was seemingly encouraging someone to do it.
|
|
|
Post by tittletag on Aug 10, 2016 11:51:39 GMT -5
Ah, yes, I see that we're in campaign season. Plus ça change! SZ Similar but not remotely equivalent. Politics will always be played but context of Trumps's comments and foaming rage from his supporters is more equivalent to "JFK wanted for treason" posters in Dallas...AND the Republican Nominee winking approval. Context matters.
|
|
newhivemaster
Hive Listener
Hive Master
Posts: 2,660
Likes: 10,489
|
Post by newhivemaster on Aug 10, 2016 12:02:21 GMT -5
Ah, yes, I see that we're in campaign season. Plus ça change! SZ I don't see Hil saying that if she loses, her followers should off the other guy to prevent him from implementing his policies and appointing judges. Non-equivalence.
|
|
jarais
Hive Attuned
Forever Larva Millennial
jetski diplomat
Posts: 1,251
Likes: 5,050
|
Post by jarais on Aug 10, 2016 12:09:12 GMT -5
Ah, yes, I see that we're in campaign season. Plus ça change! SZ The remarks don't add up to being analogous given the context, although I was offended in 2008, too. The circumstances are far worse: A Hillary surrogate didn't call for Obama's death by firing squad, they didn't chant "Lock him up" at Hillary rallies, you didn't hear reports of "kill the bastard" being screamed by random weirdos at Hillary rallies (although later with McCain/Palin there was an isolated incident, IIRC).
|
|
|
Post by tittletag on Aug 10, 2016 12:21:12 GMT -5
Ah, yes, I see that we're in campaign season. Plus ça change! SZ The remarks don't add up to being analogous given the context, although I was offended in 2008, too. The circumstances are far worse: A Hillary surrogate didn't call for Obama's death by firing squad, they didn't chant "Lock him up" at Hillary rallies, you didn't hear reports of "kill the bastard" being screamed by random weirdos at Hillary rallies (although later with McCain/Palin there was an isolated incident, IIRC). Extra bonus context: He was basing it on a LIE that Hillary wants to "essentially" end the 2nd Amendment to gun owners...with guns. Totally politics as usual.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Aug 10, 2016 12:41:03 GMT -5
Still early but it looks like Clinton's numbers are coming back to Earth as of late last week.
|
|
|
Post by stuartzechman on Aug 10, 2016 12:56:23 GMT -5
Ah, yes, I see that we're in campaign season. Plus ça change! SZ The remarks don't add up to being analogous given the context, although I was offended in 2008, too. The circumstances are far worse: A Hillary surrogate didn't call for Obama's death by firing squad, they didn't chant "Lock him up" at Hillary rallies, you didn't hear reports of "kill the bastard" being screamed by random weirdos at Hillary rallies (although later with McCain/Palin there was an isolated incident, IIRC). jarais: I'm curious: why were you offended by that 2008 campaign statement? SZ
|
|
newhivemaster
Hive Listener
Hive Master
Posts: 2,660
Likes: 10,489
|
Post by newhivemaster on Aug 10, 2016 13:18:50 GMT -5
The remarks don't add up to being analogous given the context, although I was offended in 2008, too. The circumstances are far worse: A Hillary surrogate didn't call for Obama's death by firing squad, they didn't chant "Lock him up" at Hillary rallies, you didn't hear reports of "kill the bastard" being screamed by random weirdos at Hillary rallies (although later with McCain/Palin there was an isolated incident, IIRC). jarais: I'm curious: why were you offended by that 2008 campaign statement? SZ For me, it was completely tone deaf. I get what she was getting at, which is that it isn't over until it's over, but she could have just said that, without the gruesome example thrown in.
|
|
|
Post by stuartzechman on Aug 10, 2016 13:27:02 GMT -5
jarais: I'm curious: why were you offended by that 2008 campaign statement? SZ For me, it was completely tone deaf. I get what she was getting at, which is that it isn't over until it's over, but she could have just said that, without the gruesome example thrown in. So you weren't offended in the same way that, say, Democrats aligned with the 2008 Obama campaign were, e.g. "beyond the pale"? SZ
|
|
newhivemaster
Hive Listener
Hive Master
Posts: 2,660
Likes: 10,489
|
Post by newhivemaster on Aug 10, 2016 13:35:47 GMT -5
For me, it was completely tone deaf. I get what she was getting at, which is that it isn't over until it's over, but she could have just said that, without the gruesome example thrown in. So you weren't offended in the same way that, say, Democrats aligned with the 2008 Obama campaign were, e.g. "beyond the pale"? SZ There is really only a certain point of "offended" that I can reach without seeing actual intent. In 2008, I didn't see it. Trump's 2016 2nd Amendment solution to Hillary BS was clearly intentional.
|
|