US politics - When the Barr's so low.

[ThinkerX]

This purportedly played at one of Trump's clubs. I find this sickening - like glorifying the psychopaths who shoot up churches and schools and stores.  However, it is apparently getting rave reviews from at least some Trump fans.  (Others are insisting it is a 'libtard hoax.')

 

 

[Martell Spy]

3 hours ago, Triskele said:

The rightwing internet sites are all convinced now that something about Warren's pregnancy story is untrue.  Are they right?

Well, getting pregnant in the first place is suspicious on rightwing internet sites. It likely means you are not sufficiently dedicated to the capitalist project. Otherwise you'd have in secret aborted that fetus, while meeting everyone project deadline and making every start of shift, all while not being detected by the Jesus freaks.

[Lykos]

3 hours ago, Triskele said:

The rightwing internet sites are all convinced now that something about Warren's pregnancy story is untrue.  Are they right?

Quote

Right-wing websites picked up the baton from there, digging up schoolboard minutes saying that Warren had in fact been invited back to teach another year.

Warren, though, didn’t lie; her story just became more specific. She wasn’t visibly pregnant when her contract was renewed. Once she was, the principle wished her well and sent her off. Another former teacher at the school has confirmed that this was standard protocol when women became pregnant.

Jill Filipovic in The Guardian

[Paladin of Ice]

15 hours ago, Triskele said:

So....is there any chance of all out war between Turkey and Syria?  

 

15 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Based on no evidence and my own gut feeling?

Doubt it. Highly unlikely Assad wants a full scale war against a strong county after a major civil war. 

I'm inclined to agree with True Kaniggit. Even if there is some clash where a few Syrian and Turks shoot each other or blow each other up, a full scale war is pretty unlikely. I remember in 2016 people whining about how Clinton's "hawkishness" was going to WWIII between Russia and the U.S. once a Russian plane got shot down by accident or something in a potential no fly zone. That ignored all the times during the Cold War that Soviet and American planes got shot down or once side got caught spying or <insert provocative action here> and the missiles didn't fly, because both sides knew there was nothing to gain and the provocation wasn't worth the cost of war.

Hell, December 2016 a Turkish police officer assassinated a Russian ambassador on like TV. Russia and Turkey didn't go to war, they both shrugged and moved on, even though a lot of Turks were furious about what Russians and Russian supported Syria were doing in Aleppo.

Same way we didn't hear shit from Russia after wiping out a group of their soldiers and Syrian patsies in 2018. Russia made up an excuse and some propaganda to save face and moved on.

To a dictator like Erdogan, Putin, and Assad, a few deaths, especially among soldiers, are just the cost of doing business and staying in power, which is more than worth it. You make up a story, you spin it to look good, and you move on.

The only X-factors are what happens if one side can't put a good spin on things, and exactly how determined Erdogan is to wipe out the Kurds and make sure that they're dealt with for good.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I saw some EU politician suggesting this could lead to NATO getting drawn into this.

I don't think it will go that far. I don't think NATO covers wars of aggressions/invasions (first person to not say Yugoslavia gets a cookie, you ahve to go to the shop and treat yourself but you deserved it). And I think as soon as Russia backed Syria starts to flex its muscles there a bit, things will calm down.

As for the Kurds it's a shame, but that's how this story was always going to end. They should have striked a deal with Assad and Iran (the real players in this region) a year ago from a position of relative strength. They kinda missed that opportunity.

[IheartIheartTesla]

14 hours ago, Triskele said:

The rightwing internet sites are all convinced now that something about Warren's pregnancy story is untrue.  Are they right?

Who cares? We should stop giving oxygen to the right wing machine by by going on their turf and endlessly debating the smears they come out with. The best way to defend this is to ignore it.

The strategy from the right is quite clear and has been for many election cycles, take 1 issue and keep plugging away at it until it defines the opposing candidate. Flip-flopping for Kerry, birth certificate for Obama, Benghazi for Hillary and now 'Pocahontas' + pregnancy for Warren. The left has never been able to do this in turn....but the best way to tackle it is to not define you by playing defense all the time.

[Zorral]

Of course the insane consumers of fake conspiracies and noose are wrong about Warren.  Of course she got sent home from school when her pregnancy showed  All women did.  For some reason school boards, etc. were convinced that students seeing a pregnant teacher would -- o, I dunno -- run out and get pregnant too? learn that married people made babies?  That babies came out of a woman's body?  That there was such a thing as pregnancy?  At the same time girls who got pregnant -- even if they got married -- were also expelled from school, though the boys who got them pregnant continued not only with school, but playing on their sports teams and etc. even when they married the girl.

I never got a straight answer about this from anyone I asked, including my own mother, who too was sent home from the school where she taught when she got pregnant with me.  She never went back to teaching except in church contexts after that.  She missed it though.  It was clear she had enjoyed teaching a lot, and was good at it.  It sure did help her children with navigating school and school work that she'd had that teaching experience.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited to add: Hillary nailed bedbug and Turkey in this series of tweets, back in 2016:

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

By the way, support for Trump impeachment is roughly at 50%, while his approval hasnt budged, so I'm not quite sure what is going on. At the same time, it appears as if independents are at 45% for impeachment, so the combination of the high level among Democrats, modest among independents and a few never-Trump Republicans keeps it at that level.

The only thing I can figure out is that there are a few people in support of impeachment who are playing a wait and watch approach while still approving of his job performance. I also dont know what an independent means these days (a large fraction of them tilt one way or another but just dont identify with any party) so there may be a bit of support for him left to erode.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 10/12/2019 at 4:46 AM, Jace, Basilissa said:

I done drunked too much, like to pay for it in the morn. Just Vodka. Vodka and a touch of lemonade. Still need to regulate myself, it seems. A task for another night, admittedly.

Ha, reading through the last few days worth of this thread has been hysterical. You definitely reminded me of one of my favorite comedy sets: Bert Kreischer's I Am The Machine.

[felice]

53 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

By the way, support for Trump impeachment is roughly at 50%, while his approval hasnt budged, so I'm not quite sure what is going on.

I don't see the problem? His approval has never gotten near 50%, has it? So the people supporting impeachment are presumably all people who don't approve.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, felice said:

I don't see the problem? His approval has never gotten near 50%, has it? So the people supporting impeachment are presumably all people who don't approve.

Yep.  Seems pretty clear all we've seen thus far is everybody who already disapproved of Trump coming around to impeachment/removal.  That suggests the ceiling is about 52-54%.  That's nice, and likely all but ensures that those 52-54% will not vote for Trump next year, but 54% didn't vote for him last time either. 

I'd say the threshold for impeachment being a political victory for Dems is at least 55%, which would mean Trump could only possibly garner 45% of the popular vote, which virtually guarantees an electoral college loss unless there's unforeseen strength among third party candidate(s) - which itself is very (very) unlikely.  It's still early, and new revelations and/or Trump doing more self-incriminating things could still definitely get the electorate to that 55 point threshold, but the fact his approval and disapproval have not budged - like, at all - since Pelosi announced the inquiry is not encouraging.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yep.  Seems pretty clear all we've seen thus far is everybody who already disapproved of Trump coming around to impeachment/removal.  That suggests the ceiling is about 52-54%.  That's nice, and likely all but ensures that those 52-54% will not vote for Trump next year, but 54% didn't vote for him last time either. 

I'd say the threshold for impeachment being a political victory for Dems is at least 55%, which would mean Trump could only possibly garner 45% of the popular vote, which virtually guarantees an electoral college loss unless there's unforeseen strength among third party candidate(s) - which itself is very (very) unlikely.  It's still early, and new revelations and/or Trump doing more self-incriminating things could still definitely get the electorate to that 55 point threshold, but the fact his approval and disapproval have not budged - like, at all - since Pelosi announced the inquiry is not encouraging.

This has been on my radar as well. Despite all the hoopla about the Fox News poll, I don't think Ukraine is going to matter at all. Peoples' minds are made up.

ETA: In fact, I've felt for some time now that that initial uptick in folks who supported impeachment was probably the people like myself who were against advancing into such a salient but would answer 'I support' once the die is cast because we got a rooting interest to back up.

[House Balstroko]

Who do you think is the most likely Democrat candidate to take down Trump? I sure hope Hillary doesn't try again.

At this point, impeachment is ill advised. He's got a strong enough base that it would be akin to a conspiracy by the left. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, House Balstroko said:

Who do you think is the most likely Democrat candidate to take down Trump?

Myocardial infarction.

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

In fact, I've felt for some time now that that initial uptick in folks who supported impeachment was probably the people like myself who were against advancing into such a salient but would answer 'I support' once the die is cast because we got a rooting interest to back up.

Well, on the optimistic end (which means the opposite of your end), the trend lines for impeachment have consistently gone up since the inquiry announcement - literally up to today.  It's just hard to see how that trend isn't gonna hit a wall at 52-54 without a corresponding shift in his approval/disapproval.

[Zorral]

WARNING -- Here cometh a rant so just scroll down and move on 

Going from John Jay College in NYC to teaching an ethics course in a small, North Carolina college as an experiment in 'research.'

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/13/america-cultural-divide-red-state-blue-state-228111

I do not agree with much of what's in this piece. For instance, all my studies of the militias back in the day show that the history of the well regulated militia was about controlling slaves and Native Americans, not about overthrowing a government, and incorporated thusly, very much too, to please the slave states, into the Constitution. What this student is arguing is a very contemporary reading of it by gun people advocating right now the overthrow of the government that is oppressive and thus we all need to be and have the right to be armed. 

The student quoted here, btw, identifies as a libertarian.  His parents voted for bedbug and says if he'd been old enough then to vote, he would have too.

The author of the piece goes on to suggest that libertarians are a significant part of the electorate, who don't get tabulated as themselves and their way of seeing things, but are lumped in with independents.  She also suggests that libertarians' minds work differently from those of either 'conservatives' or 'progressives.'

I disagreed with nearly everything stated by this author, who is part of the "Listening Project".  She's another one of those academics or other cushy institutionalized voices that ooze privilege and and utterly unrecognized belief in their own moral superiority -- We / You MUST listen to THEM, that's the only way we can come together!

She is like that NPR program with horrible Krista Tippett and her "On Being" project whose hushed voice, is filled with such sensitive, intimate wonder and optimism,  and o such ingenuous pain that people just don't take the time to listen and be there, the way she is, who has all the time in the world to Be There. She's goes on about spiritual and religious lives, but never once ever has she indicated that she knows there are other modes of religion and spirituality than Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu.  Certainly never any path that happens to be practiced by Africans, Afro Latins, etc. If the African American isn't Christian, forget about it.  And that's who I was hearing all the time too, while reading that piece on Politico.

Nor do I agree that free speech must be free for all, including nazis, especially when nazi speech, which at the beginning most Germans found either horrible or risible, well, within a shockingly short amount of time, with it banging on 24/7, became normal.  Speech can and has hurt people and nations.

Here endth the Rant.  Thank you for your patience.

 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The author of the piece goes on to suggest that libertarians are a significant part of the electorate, who don't get tabulated as themselves and their way of seeing things, but are lumped in with independents.  She also suggests that libertarians' minds work differently from those of either 'conservatives' or 'progressives.'

Uh, what?  I haven't read the piece (looks pretty lengthy), but that tidbit just convinces me not too.  What a bunch of horseshit, especially the latter - their minds work differently?  WTF?  Libertarians are mostly just conservatives who don't want to admit they're conservative.

[DanteGabriel]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, what?  I haven't read the piece (looks pretty lengthy), but that tidbit just convinces me not too.  What a bunch of horseshit, especially the latter - their minds work differently?  WTF?  Libertarians are mostly just conservatives who don't want to admit they're conservative.

As an old friend said, "Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke weed and get laid."

[Freshwater Spartan]

I read the politico article. I thought it was a well written, well thought article on the importance of listening to people, cultivating empathy and becoming a better person. It doesn't solve our 2016 problem but if everyone listened better we would have a more pleasant and less dysfunctional culture.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

I read the politico article. I thought it was a well written, well thought article on the importance of listening to people, cultivating empathy and becoming a better person. It doesn't solve our 2016 problem but if everyone listened better we would have a more pleasant and less dysfunctional culture.

Lalalalalalalalala! Can't hear you!!!