u.s. politics: molotov cocktail through the overton window

[DireWolfSpirit]

Hmmm maybe, quite a few people believe Buddhism and atheism/agnostic can be  compatibie. I wonder what influence his spouse has had in this area?

Anyways your 36, your one of the richest people in the World, if your even considering being President of the U.S. for more than one second, you need some serious psychiatric treatment.

[LongRider]

4 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Yeah well that sort of disengenuous, gutless, intellectual dishonesty, loses my vote.

I'd love to support a agnostic (or atheist) with a passion for science, a Neal DeGrasse Tyson type. I'm sick to death of seeing U.S. Presidents that deny evolution, deny man made climate change and believe a magical spirit whispers in their ear.

 

Agreed, whether they really believe in sky daddies or not, like Trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

I am pretty chill. Couldn't get more chill when I was writing that given up how I was lounging outside in a chair with my dog playing in the backyard haha. 

 

As someone else pointed out, you’re lashing out at everyone, and you’re well on your way to being completely ignored by everyone. Grow up and act like an adult.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Bad look for Facebook:

Quote

Until this week, when we asked Facebook about it, the world’s largest social network enabled advertisers to direct their pitches to the news feeds of almost 2,300 people who expressed interest in the topics of “Jew hater,” “How to burn jews,” or, “History of ‘why jews ruin the world.’”

https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters

[karaddin]

Two of you had a go at him for that comment that wasn't directed at anyone on these forums, how about how lay off and cut some slack for the very real concerns about the direction of the country? Less condemning/telling those that oppose fascists to chill and more actual caring about the fascists might help with the anger levels

There are two separate issues that have cropped up in the last two days issues with actual free speech implications, yet when it's a female black journalist that the white house tries to get fired (there may have been some discussion of this last thread?) or the CIA flipping out over Chelsea Manning having a meaningless title that accidentally honours her for one day speaking at Harvard suddenly there doesn't seem to be much concern? Have people just not seen this, or does free speech only concern you when it's Nazis being shouted down by fellow citizens rather than powerful institutions of the state reaching out against private citizens?

[Kalbear]

Like, literally the first amendment is supposed to protect you from the government using action against your speech. How the press secretary calling for someone's firing due to what shs said is any thing other than a massive violation is confusing. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Two of you had a go at him for that comment that wasn't directed at anyone on these forums, how about how lay off and cut some slack for the very real concerns about the direction of the country? Less condemning/telling those that oppose fascists to chill and more actual caring about the fascists might help with the anger levels

It’s not just one post. There’s been a lot of them and it’s not healthy. I agree that one should be vigilante against fascists and white supremacists, but labeling everyone you disagree with as such is incredibly counterproductive and diminishes the meaning of the terms.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Like, literally the first amendment is supposed to protect you from the government using action against your speech. How the press secretary calling for someone's firing due to what shs said is any thing other than a massive violation is confusing. 

I agree that it’s wrong, but I think it only violates the spirit of the First Amendment rather then the actual constitutionality of it.

[James Arryn]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

It’s not just one post. There’s been a lot of them and it’s not healthy. I agree that one should be vigilante against fascists and white supremacists, but labeling everyone you disagree with as such is incredibly counterproductive and diminishes the meaning of the terms.

I agree that it’s wrong, but I think it only violates the spirit of the First Amendment rather then the actual constitutionality of it.

Unfortunate typo.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree that it’s wrong, but I think it only violates the spirit of the First Amendment rather then the actual constitutionality of it.

Probably, but I would say the white house press secretary calling for the firing of a member of the media for tweeting mean things about the president is in and of itself a fireable offense.  And Trump calling for an apology today is equally outrageous if totally unsurprising.  Although he did get one thing right - ESPN's programming is bad.

[all swedes are racist]

16 hours ago, Triskan said:

A reminder that single-payer was on the ballot in Colorado last year, and it was a big loser.  Recall that it went down in flames in Vermont too. 

Something I would be curious about if anyone knows:  in country's that have implemented single-payer what was their health care system before that implementation?  Did anyone do it when most of their populace already had comprehensive insurance coverage of some kind?  If not that might explain why, beyond also the entrenched special interests, why the US is uniquely unsuited for the move to single-payer.

 

16 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Yup:

Also, this - Why Sanders' Single Payer Plan Failed in Vermont

and? 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

 

and? 

I think the point is self evident:  the difficulties with and forces against single payer - demonstrated in the state of Vermont - are very good reason to be skeptical and cautious of Bernie's plan.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

As someone else pointed out, you’re lashing out at everyone, and you’re well on your way to being completely ignored by everyone. Grow up and act like an adult.

He's kind of the Mirror Universe Lew Theobald, although at this point I'm kind of thinking that's kind of an insult to Lew Theobald.

http://www.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/wire/legacy/star_trek_mirror_mirror.jpg

[Zorral]

At least single payer is something that people can understand, that communicates, and is, actually a worthy issue.  Really, what do the Dems stand on and what are they interested in other than keeping some offices and some power . . . to do . . . what . . . beyond those individuals being enabled to stick their hands in the trough now and again?

Yah, it's tough going to get single payer because the lobbyists for the hospital congloms and insurance and big pharma don't want it.  What they should be doing is educating the public as to why so much of the country has little to no access to health care due to the Big Hospital - Medical Complex Industry, in collusion with Big Pharma and Big Insurance are creating these problems -- NOT DOCTORS or Malpractice.  The local hospitals are shut down, fewer doctors practice in these places, because there's no hospital for them to be affiliated with. Other times hospitals that aren't in the densely populated regions are closed in the interests of "efficiency and cost cutting," which does exactly the opposite.  Where I grew up had three hospitals within a 20 - 30 minute drive from most farms.  Now there are NONE.  The closest hospital to where I grew up is now at least 2 hours away, and it can't deal with certain things such kidney dialysis. Further west there are NONE that one can get to at all within 6 hours.  My mother had to drive back-and-forth for hours for her chemo.  They had to stay overnight, twice.

Have any of you (who aren't women or new parents) looked at what it costs now to have a baby, delivered in a hospital?  It's insane what pregnancy and delivery cost now.  And then, to top it off, way out there in rural landia, there is no way for them to get to a hospital at all in time for many emergencies.  So, as where I grew up, men complain there are no women to marry because women don't want to live in this kind of isolation.

Yet, somehow these people vote for you know who and blame their problems on Hillary and the Dems and the liburrels.

Sometime we are going to have to make a stand for SOMETHING, and FIGHT for it, with the consciousness that the fight won't be won by a single election.  Ya know?  Like in the old days?  Like the fight against slavery?

This seems an excellent issue from where to launch.

Politics is a whole lot more than elections. Moreover elections alone do not = either progress or democracy or even significance.  See, for a single instance, Zimbabwe.  Though yes, elections do = huge amounts of money flowing into many pockets. 

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

Two of you had a go at him for that comment that wasn't directed at anyone on these forums, how about how lay off and cut some slack for the very real concerns about the direction of the country? Less condemning/telling those that oppose fascists to chill and more actual caring about the fascists might help with the anger levels

There are two separate issues that have cropped up in the last two days issues with actual free speech implications, yet when it's a female black journalist that the white house tries to get fired (there may have been some discussion of this last thread?) or the CIA flipping out over Chelsea Manning having a meaningless title that accidentally honours her for one day speaking at Harvard suddenly there doesn't seem to be much concern? Have people just not seen this, or does free speech only concern you when it's Nazis being shouted down by fellow citizens rather than powerful institutions of the state reaching out against private citizens?

 

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Like, literally the first amendment is supposed to protect you from the government using action against your speech. How the press secretary calling for someone's firing due to what shs said is any thing other than a massive violation is confusing. 

Hadn't heard anything about the Manning thing, but as far as the Jemele Hill thing goes, of course that is unacceptable behavior by the White House. That said, it has done nothing to impede her freedom of speech. She didn't take down the Tweets and despite apologizing to her employer has continued to post about it on her Twitter feed. The Trump administration has attacked numerous journalists since its' inception. If this had cost her the job, then yes, I would have an issue with this. Had it compelled her to shut up, I'd have an issue with this. As it stands, it's just another ham-handed and futile attempt by the Trump administration to shut up a critic publicly. It's not cool, but it's also not effective. Look at the pushback Huckabee got from the White House Press Corps seconds after she made the statement.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Unfortunate typo.

Sorry losers and haters, but my typo is one of the best –and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure,it’s not your fault

54 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Probably, but I would say the white house press secretary calling for the firing of a member of the media for tweeting mean things about the president is in and of itself a fireable offense.  And Trump calling for an apology today is equally outrageous if totally unsurprising.  Although he did get one thing right - ESPN's programming is bad.

You forgot to include:

*in a normal White House

And ESPN produces one great thing – Stugotz!

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

I think the point is self evident:  the difficulties with and forces against single payer - demonstrated in the state of Vermont - are very good reason to be skeptical and cautious of Bernie's plan.

not as much as you seem to imply. at worst, these two examples help to highlight the challenges to be faced and overcome. the vermont case especially just serves to underscore that medicare-for-all need to be instituted at a federal level

[all swedes are racist]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Bad look for Facebook:

https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters

woof

Quote

Facebook’s automated system suggested “Second Amendment” as an additional category that would boost our audience size to 119,000 people, presumably because its system had correlated gun enthusiasts with anti-Semites.

 

[all swedes are racist]

lol, ok that was actually good

[Bonnot OG]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

As someone else pointed out, you’re lashing out at everyone, and you’re well on your way to being completely ignored by everyone. Grow up and act like an adult.

I have an issues with various demographics for various reasons. Sorry that you deem that to be an immature stance. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

We’re screwed:

Quote

At a White House reception last night, Donald Trump reflected on the severity of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, respectively, and referring to the latter, the president said, “I never even knew a Category 5 existed.”

And as strange as this was – a 71-year-old man who watches a lot of television had never heard of a Category 5 hurricane? – it wasn’t the most surprising thing Trump said yesterday in reference to the deadly storms. Consider this exchange aboard Air Force One yesterday between the president and reporters:

Q: Mr. President, the severity of these storms – the one in Florida, the one in Texas – has that made you rethink your views of climate change?

TRUMP: Well, we’ve had bigger storms than this. And if you go back into the 1930s and the 1940s, and you take a look, we’ve had storms over the years that have been bigger than this. If you go back into the Teens, you’ll see storms that were as big or bigger. So we did have two horrific storms, epic storms. But if you go back into the ’30s and ’40s, and you go back into the Teens, you’ll see storms that were very similar and even bigger, okay?

Let’s take a step back for a moment. As Hurricane Harvey approached Texas’ gulf coast, Trump couldn’t stop marveling at its size and intensity. At a news conference, he said, “I’ve heard the words, ‘epic.’ I’ve heard ‘historic.’ That’s what it is.” It followed a tweet in which Trump added, “Many people are now saying that this is the worst storm/hurricane they have ever seen.”

For a while, I assumed this was the president’s way of conveying a sense of urgency to the public, but the more Trump gushed, the more it seemed he was referring to the scope of the challenge on his shoulders. As a Washington Post piece put it a few weeks ago, “By focusing on the historic epicness of the hurricane, Trump has repeatedly turned attention to his role in confronting the disaster.”

Soon after, as Irma approached land, he tweeted, “Hurricane looks like largest ever recorded in the Atlantic!” It was followed by, “Hurricane Irma is of epic proportion, perhaps bigger than we have ever seen.”

But the moment climate change came up, Trump turned on a dime. “We’ve had storms over the years that have been bigger than this” is the new line.

As The New Republic’s Emily Atkin put it, “This is a near-perfect example of how climate deniers will bury their heads in the sand to keep pretending climate change doesn’t exist. Harvey inundated Houston with more than 50 inches of rain – there has never been a bigger rain event in America. Irma, at its peak, reached sustained winds of 185 miles per hour, making it the strongest storm recorded in the Atlantic Ocean outside of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. Trump knew all these things a week ago – but now, suddenly, he doesn’t.”

When confronted with an opportunity for self-aggrandizement, Trump is eager to hype hurricanes. When confronted with a question about the climate crisis, he’s eager to do the opposite.