US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

We have never had a potus endorsed by the KKK before little hands.  Griffith, Dixon etc. tried to get Wilson to endorse them but he wouldn't play that game for them.

He's gonna unleash 'em, and we're going to see a return to the horrors of the Jim Crow years, for there will be no legal repercussions and they want to go huntin' so bad!  Their trigger fingers are itching, itching, itching to turn those big expensive guns on black homse, schools, churches and communities in a communal orgy of blood and terror.

I wouldn't bet money on it. It is true that there is a non-trivial number of individuals who are decently armed, trained in the usage of their weapons and extremely distrustful of the government, but should the executive branch allow them to act without repercussions, the other two branches will step in. Congressional Republicans are barely on Trump's side to begin with and if there is an escalation of violence, they will not protect him. Of course, it is possible to fall back on Mao's slogan regarding the origins of political power, but I really don't think Trump wants to go that way.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

I wouldn't bet money on it. It is true that there is a non-trivial number of individuals who are decently armed, trained in the usage of their weapons and extremely distrustful of the government, but should the executive branch allow them to act without repercussions, the other two branches will step in. Congressional Republicans are barely on Trump's side to begin with and if there is an escalation of violence, they will not protect him. Of course, it is possible to fall back on Mao's slogan regarding the origins of political power, but I really don't think Trump wants to go that way.

So far, have any of your potential stays based on congress held up to muster? Any of them?

[sToNED_CAT]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sorry, but people who actually research this stuff say you're wrong. And the fertile crescent is kind of well-known for agriculture, being the foundation of human civilization and all that fun. 

It wasn't the economy that got thrown to hell; it was the actual infrastructure. When you have a massive amount of people heading to cities without any kind of employment this causes stresses on the country. What Syria experienced is equivalent to the entire California agriculture industry moving en masse to San Francisco. Imagine 500,000 people moving into a major city, all over 1-2 years. That city in the US would have a hard time - Syria had it worse.

I don't have to explain that; each has their own cause. The Syrian one, if you'll remember, happened after Libya and Egypt, and a lot of people believe that it was done because they saw success elsewhere. 

Fertile crescent was known for agriculture - 2000 years ago. Now it's agricultural production is total joke. IMO Arab Spring revolutions had one major common cause, not several separate ones as you alleged - rebellion of more democratic and islamist movements against more secular and authoritarian regimes. The drought contributed just a little. The rebellion would have happened drought or no drought. Also keep in mind that by 2010 the drought mostly ended in 2010 and the situation has improved significantly already in 2009. So why rebel in 2011 after it ended?

[Kalbear]

Just now, sToNED_CAT said:

Fertile crescent was known for agriculture - 2000 years ago. Now it's agricultural production is total joke. IMO Arab Spring revolutions had one major common cause, not several separate ones as you alleged - rebellion of more democratic and islamist movements against more secular and authoritarian regimes. The drought contributed just a little. The rebellion would have happened drought or no drought. Also keep in mind that by 2010 the drought mostly ended in 2010 and the situation has improved significantly already in 2009. So why rebel in 2011 after it ended?

1.5 million people were displaced because of the drought. Researchers from several disciplines disagree with you. The rebellion might have happened - or not - but it certainly was impacted. 

The reason that it continued after the drought in 2009 hit was because those people were still displaced. This really isn't that hard to understand. Did you bother reading either article?

[sToNED_CAT]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Are you saying a food crisis cannot trigger a conflict then?

Not in Syria. The conflict was primarily sectarian - sunni muslim brotherhood majority against Shia, Christians, secularists, and other minorities - it was destined to happen sometimes. Hell it has been going on since 1979 over the whole ME. It already happened in Syria under Assad elder (he crushed the revolt ruthlessly back then)  Inspiration from other Arab Spring movements and Western support were far more important factors than some drought.

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

Quote

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges.

Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

33 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sure. But what scientists agree on is that human activity is the major cause behind the climate change we are seeing today. It's not just about agreeing that it has "a human element" ; it's about admitting that the human element is the driving force behind it.
Anything less seems like an attempt to debate the scientific concensus to me.

That, when in the context of intellegent reasoned discussion of this issue, isn't a bad thing.  The Scientifc concensus was behind a Newtonian Universe until Einstein showed it to be incorrect with General Relativity.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Not in Syria. The conflict was primarily sectarian - sunni muslim brotherhood majority against Shia, Christians, secularists, and other minorities - it was destined to happen sometimes. Hell it has been going on since 1979 over the whole ME. It already happened in Syria under Assad elder (he crushed the revolt ruthlessly back then)  Inspiration from other Arab Spring movements and Western support were far more important factors than some drought.

And your reasoning behind ignoring 1.5 million displaced people without jobs and the multiple researchers who disagree with you is...what, precisely? 

[The guy from the Vale]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That, when in the context of intellegent reasoned discussion of this issue, isn't a bad thing.  

See my point above.The basic facts of the matter are really clear: humanity (and particularly, the use of fossil hydrocarbons) is almost certainly the main factor in this development. See also this for how massive a shift in how short a time current climate change is compared to anything we've discovered about the climate since the last ice age.

[Impmk2]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I have an aquaintance at church who is a Ph.d level oceanographer at our local University.  His take is not that climate change isn't happening.  It is that it is too complex to say with certainty how much impact human civilization has on climate change.  

This is not "denialism".  This is a recognition of what we don't know.  Climate is hugely complicated.  

I work in respiratory disease. It's impossible for us to 100% tell whether or not smoking has lead to someones emphysema, or lung cancer. The body is incredibly complex and people do develop those diseases in the absence of cigarette smoke. That doesn't mean they should just say 'oh well you can't tell I'll just keep smoking then'.

Which is pretty much what the above is excuse is geared towards.

[Dr. Pepper]

5 hours ago, zelticgar said:

Most conservatives I know don't purposely look to vote for terrible people. Most of the time they are faced with two unappetizing choices and generally the one who is most likely to leave them the hell alone gets the vote. That's not evil or horrible. It just a fact of life.  It is not unreasonable to have made the decision that voting HRC into office is not something to support because you dont think government is being run well. I think a lot of people decided when it came down to it that trying something that represents drastic change is more appealing than the status quo. You may not agree with it but I don't think it makes people evil. You certainly are not going to sway people to your side by telling them they don't care about their children and all they do is vote for horrible people. Keep that attitude and the polarization will become far worse.  

 

That's a complete load of bullshit.  These people probably want schools and roads and law enforcement and fire departments.  They want hospitals and military.  But somehow they want the government to leave them alone?  Lol.  What they want is to direct that government to making the lives of other people completely and utterly miserable.  They want to make it impossible for sick people to have health care, encourage further segregation for children, remove rights for women and LGBT folks, and more. They want government to destroy everyone else's lives and if they suffer, well at least 'those' people got theirs.  I don't know what this crap is about with not holding conservatives accountable for their despicable views.  

I'm not trying to change anyone's minds on some forum for a defunct book series.  I'm not even trying to change minds anywhere else.  Someone else can figure out how to make despicable people into better humans.  

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That, when in the context of intellegent reasoned discussion of this issue, isn't a bad thing.  The Scientifc concensus was behind a Newtonian Universe until Einstein showed it to be incorrect with General Relativity.

How many millions of lives were threatened by living in a Newtonian universe?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

I beg to differ.
The complexity of the climate only means it's harder to predict the consequences of climate change, not that human civilization won't be responsible. Saying anything else is a form of denial.

Let's say were not completely sure that humans are causing climate change. Let's say we are only 60% or 50% sure. Even in that case it would seem prudent to take out an "insurance policy" for the sake of future generations.

Interesting enough, some prominent Republicans just recently came out with climate change plan. Now if they just can convince Republican politicians to publicly disagree with Rush Limbaugh, we might get somewhere.

[Jaxom 1974]

I soooooo want this to happen...

[TrueMetis]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That, when in the context of intellegent reasoned discussion of this issue, isn't a bad thing.  The Scientifc concensus was behind a Newtonian Universe until Einstein showed it to be incorrect with General Relativity.

It is more that Newtonian mechanics where shown to be incomplete, not incorrect. That's why we can, and do, still use Newtonian physics in many applications. There is no "Newtonian climate change" though.

ETA: And if a similar event between current climate theory and a future theory does happen, almost nothing in current climate theory will be shown to be wrong, it will just have more added to it.

[PrettyPig]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Of course he is. What I'm wondering is: can he wait for Gorsuch to be confirmed before asking the Supreme Court to review the case?

I am certainly no expert on the workings of the higher courts, but I would expect Gorsuch to recuse himself if that were the case.     

Trump issued the EO the night of Friday, Jan 27, with the stay sought by the ACLU following right on the heels of immediate implementation.   He officially nominated Gorsuch for SCOTUS on Tuesday, Jan 31 - one day after Washington's AG announced that the state was filing suit in federal court over the travel ban.     There was already buzz about the authority of the EO possibly going all the way to the Supreme Court even at that early time.

If Gorsuch were to gain the bench and be in position to hear the case, it could be argued that the timing of events suggests corruption/influence:   a pay-to-play scheme in which Gorsuch secured the nomination in return for a favorable ruling in a likely SCOTUS case dear to our illustrious president's heart.

The optics are terrible; I have trouble believing that a distinguished career judge like Gorsuch (much less his potential benchmates) wouldn't see this.     IMO it will go 4-4, regardless of whether by non-confirmation or by recusal sua sponte.

[The guy from the Vale]

Also, it would be incorrect to say that Einstein refuted Newton. Rather, Einstein's general relativity is a generalization of Newtonian mechanics on the one hand and special relativity on the other, encompassing both as special cases. Similarly, a better theory of our climate will almost certainly include the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere - and those are based on high-school level physics.

[JGP]

Just now, PrettyPig said:

IMO it will go 4-4, regardless of whether by non-confirmation or by recusal sua sponte.

If it goes to the SCOTUS. And while I personally don't think it'll tie, even if it does, it then defers to the 9th Circuits decision and the EO is done, right?

[PrettyPig]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

If it goes to the SCOTUS. And while I personally don't think it'll tie, even if it does, it then defers to the 9th Circuits decision and the EO is done, right?

That's my understanding.   (I don't think it will tie, either, FWIW....just saying that it would be heard before 8 justices instead of 9.)

[Kalbear]

Just now, PrettyPig said:

That's my understanding.   (I don't think it will tie, either, FWIW....just saying that it would be heard before 8 justices instead of 9.)

Depends on what the actual decision is. Right now there's a temporary ban on it while Robards makes his decision. Once he makes his decision it'll go up again, and once that is decided it'll go up AGAIN. At each level the decision might be different - so just because Robards kills the ban doesn't mean the appealant court will, etc. 

The only statement that we know for certain is that in the case of a 4-4 tie, the decision stays as the last ruling. 

Now, to throw another mix into this, you could have SCOTUS rule on the Robards temporary ban too. I doubt that'll happen, as they'd also have to rule on all the other temp bans too, and that's insane. But they could do that too.