Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away


Guest

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I lost somebody whom I loved very much, who was brilliant and wonderful in so many ways.  But she insisted on driving so many times when she was very drunk, insisting that she was actually a better driver then, which is preposterous. The consequence is that she killed herself.  I've gotten past it, as have all of us who loved her, but we've not gotten over this entirely stupid and preventable death.

So many people tried to keep her from driving -- if she'd given her keys to somebody before getting down to serious partying, she'd be alive today.

I have disappointment with those who get hammered and do stupid things that hurt themselves and others, things that one can prevent oneself from doing by taking precautions before-hand, such as driving -- or posting -- or teaching -- or performing -- drunk. 

 

Umm. I have sympathy and all for your loss. But not all of those things are equal. C'mon dude. Chill the fuck out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Umm. I have sympathy and all for your loss. But not all of those things are equal. C'mon dude. Chill the fuck out.

Well, you may be right, though it seems you are deliberately missing the point again.  Even things that aren't perhaps that serious can cause some harm to oneself and others.

Sp why not avoid self destructive behavior in situations where it is easy to do?  People do this all the time with rules they make for themselves about actions when one has been drinking: Never set a mousetrap when one has had more than two beers; Never send an email when one has had more than three beers; etc.  Those are the first two rules of friends of mine that come to mind.  They made those rules for Reasons of Experience.

But of course, this is more than enough of me lecturing on this topic here.

And one doesn't have to be drinking to be a bad poster:

Quote

Donald Trump broke out of his Twitter hibernation on Saturday afternoon just before flying off to Florida for a pair of fundraisers, and used the opportunity to declare himself the “greatest of all presidents.”

He also declares that we need to change the laws that allow babies to be born from the womb in the 9th month of pregnancy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on pathetic jefe saying that the laws allowing babies to be born from their mother's wombs in the 9th month must be changed -- he said the same thing in a speech to back in January 2018.  It seems to have been suddenly edited on the dot gov site as now 'born' has 'torn' in brackets next to it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-march-life-participants-pro-life-leaders/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

And then they came for the drunken posting?  Can we have nothing good in this life?  

Apparently, the only responsible thing to do while drunk or high is to stare at the wall.  I'd say reading or watching something, but that might offend the authors/performers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

I lost somebody whom I loved very much, who was brilliant and wonderful in so many ways.  But she insisted on driving so many times when she was very drunk, insisting that she was actually a better driver then, which is preposterous. The consequence is that she killed herself.  I've gotten past it, as have all of us who loved her, but we've not gotten over this entirely stupid and preventable death.

So many people tried to keep her from driving -- if she'd given her keys to somebody before getting down to serious partying, she'd be alive today.

I have disappointment with those who get hammered and do stupid things that hurt themselves and others, things that one can prevent oneself from doing by taking precautions before-hand, such as driving -- or posting -- or teaching -- or performing -- drunk. 

 

To a great extent, I sympathize.  My corner of the world, alcohol fueled accidents, violence, and major ailments is endemic.  Suicide, domestic violence, gun deaths.  My Dad helped found the local volunteer fire department and was with them for most of twenty years.  Quit because he saw too much of that crap (especially drug overdoses - that was what really got to him.  Last words - literally - for a lot of these people in the ambulance was 'I know what I'm doing.')

 

Later, I got to see more of the long term aftereffects than I cared too while driving for the 'van service' - people who'd drunk themselves into personal catastrophe, and no small number of drug addicts along with them.  That crap inflicts terrible, terrible long term damage on mind and body both.  It was endemic then, a dozen years ago, and is pretty much a catastrophe now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, nah said:

I think we live in different countries.

Mormont’s point is that the law is completely unambiguous here. People may be unhappy with the ruling but there is no cause for calling shenanigans by the result. The idea is just terrible all around.

Also yes, you do live in different countries. And still Mormont has a better grasp of the reality in your country than you do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DMC said:

I'm all for spiking the football in politics, but as @Paladin of Ice pointed out, the new headquarters is nowhere near the scale of the one AOC fought against.

On the flip side, I'm also fairly sure that the 25K jobs figure for the planned HQ was likely an inflated number, (I mean, Amazon was basically trying to sell the state on the deal, they have every reason to promise big numbers that might not be borne out. I believe it's been mentioned that even Amazon estimated that there would only be  few hundred jobs initially)  and it's likely that the smaller center will grow over time. (The same way Google is paying to double the size of their workforce in NYC.) Which is part of why I ended my post on an uncertain note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DMC said:

Interesting article with various proposals on how to "fix" impeachment - or if it's really what needs fixing.  I like the second one:

Still, while that sounds good in theory, hard to see a president actually signing such a bill into law.

I'm all for spiking the football in politics, but as @Paladin of Ice pointed out, the new headquarters is nowhere near the scale of the one AOC fought against. 

Assuming you think they were telling the truth about the numbers, and besides even with a smaller number of employee's based on the sheer size the the tax break I'm pretty sure New York comes out ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paladin of Ice said:

On the flip side, I'm also fairly sure that the 25K jobs figure for the planned HQ was likely an inflated number, (I mean, Amazon was basically trying to sell the state on the deal, they have every reason to promise big numbers that might not be borne out. I believe it's been mentioned that even Amazon estimated that there would only be  few hundred jobs initially)  and it's likely that the smaller center will grow over time. (The same way Google is paying to double the size of their workforce in NYC.) Which is part of why I ended my post on an uncertain note.

Does NYC need the jobs that badly? And when areas that did need the jobs gave the corporate subsidies did it work out for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

On the flip side, I'm also fairly sure that the 25K jobs figure for the planned HQ was likely an inflated number, (I mean, Amazon was basically trying to sell the state on the deal, they have every reason to promise big numbers that might not be borne out. I believe it's been mentioned that even Amazon estimated that there would only be  few hundred jobs initially)  and it's likely that the smaller center will grow over time. (The same way Google is paying to double the size of their workforce in NYC.) Which is part of why I ended my post on an uncertain note.

Sure, I can't speak for the veracity of either number ultimately, although the estimates for the HQ2 were really 25-40K, so if it's inflated the 25k is actually on the low end of it.  Also, since the new deal is leasing office space in Manhattan rather than an entire building in queens, there's clearly significant differences between the two.

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

Assuming you think they were telling the truth about the numbers, and besides even with a smaller number of employee's based on the sheer size the the tax break I'm pretty sure New York comes out ahead.

My point is while politically I'm all for shoving it in your opponents' faces, on a personal level her tweet here comes off a little eye-rolling when you consider the differences between the two - including the fact the other big reason (beyond the corporate subsidies) AOC objected to the HQ2 proposal was because of the gentrifying and subsequent pricing out of her constituents in the area.  I doubt that's a concern with leasing Manhattan office space.  In other words, I encourage AOC's move to credit claim on a political level (Mayhew would be proud!), but if this was, like, a friend showing off going "see, I was right, in your face!"  I'd be like "...m'kay dude." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

On the flip side, I'm also fairly sure that the 25K jobs figure for the planned HQ was likely an inflated number, (I mean, Amazon was basically trying to sell the state on the deal, they have every reason to promise big numbers that might not be borne out. I believe it's been mentioned that even Amazon estimated that there would only be  few hundred jobs initially)  and it's likely that the smaller center will grow over time. (The same way Google is paying to double the size of their workforce in NYC.) Which is part of why I ended my post on an uncertain note.

Exactly, and this is what has happened in Wisconsin where the former Republican Governor gave Foxcon(sp) a Taiwanese conglomerate) billions in breaks and incentives on a sweetheart Lake Michigan property deal. Foxcon has delivered basically zero on what they promised and likely never will. The upside is we will probably not have to endure cleaning up a environment mess from their operations at least. But the jobs promised for the state incentives and favorable property deal were and never will be delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, nah said:

Really? I'll admit the scenario as it was being discussed was a bit out there, but that wasn't what he was responding to in the message I quoted. The bit I was responding to had him saying there would be "nothing inflammatory or destabilizing" about the Supreme Court invalidating the ticket of a presidential nominee of a major party before an election came down. And yeah, you'd kind of have to not live here to really think that. In fact you'd have not not live here, and be pretty selective in the way you view the news.

Have you not watched the way Trump fans have responded to perfectly lawful impeachment proceedings? The public death threats, the suggestions of armed insurrection? Remember when the Bernie or Bust people hijacked the convention last time around?

This is a court that practically bends over backwards not to seem political in its decision making. There is ZERO reason for them to take the case before the election, as you can replace a VP after the election in accordance with a court ruling when things are settled.

I realize that I'm suggesting X when the law clearly says Y, but our government does that every day. Trump does it, Obama did it, Bush did the fuck out of it, Clinton did it, etc. The government breaks the law and gets away with it all the time, right in front of everybody's faces, and nobody ever stops them. Idk why this is such a mental hurdle. The law saying you can't do something, and the infrastructure being in place to practically stop you, are two different things. Lincoln and Jackson both ignored Supreme Court rulings during times of national chaos, it's not unheard of.

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review, as it's practiced today, doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. It's based on precedent that the Court just sort of decided for itself, which went unchallenged by the President and Congress at the time because it was politically expedient not to do so (Marshall v. Madison is actually a really fascinating case to get into for a lot of reasons). And believe it or not, the actual letter of what the law says is only one of several ways of interpreting the Constitution. I realize how that sounds, but it's true. I mean, Roe v. Wade draws upon that shit in the Third Amendment that says soldiers can't be quartered in your home during times of peace.

Well, I do live in the US and I think this is total bullshit.  There's nothing inflamatory about adjudicating something that is objectively unconstitutional before an election.  If Trump wanted to run for a third term would that also be too inflamatory?  I mean, this country is fucking whacked but the idea that someone who doesn't meet the age threshold for pres could run is just fucking idiotic.  And I say this as a huge AOC fanboy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nah said:

You know there is a school of constitutional thought called 'original intent' that often does seek to intemperate to the constitution by applying what the Framers intended rather than what they actually wrote down. And you absolutely could make the argument that applying such an age limit, in the digital age when people are becoming more and more educated at a younger age, is itself unconstitutional.

Well sure, I'm aware of the existence of original intent arguments and interpretations, but why would they open the door for such shit as this?  They'd, at best, be pushing a decision further down the road, and if this hypothetical AOC ticket was elected and then voided by the SC you'd have the GOP suing to declare the entire election bogus.  Why would they create a bigger tangle of shit to deal with in a few months, especially on an issue that has such a cut and dried nature?  What other cases have they done this with?  Especially something that's not just in the body but also reinforced in amendments?  (I'm figuring both the 20th and 25th specifically support the idea that the age limits mean something).  Have we seen this tested by say a party nominating a House of Representatives candidate at age 18? 

I would bet my life that the SC would rule on this if brought to them.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize we are talking about the Democratic party -- but why would such a risk-averse and cowardly group make a conscious choice that is such an immediate own goal. The attack ads from the right would actually have more than a shred of truth -- "Do Nothing Democrats don't care about the Constitution -- they ignore the constitution to continue their push towards socialism with AOC." The idea is so blatantly foolish without any clear payoff -- I like AOC and I would not choose her to be a VP even if I could. I'm perplexed as to what the point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Exactly, and this is what has happened in Wisconsin where the former Republican Governor gave Foxcon(sp) a Taiwanese conglomerate) billions in breaks and incentives on a sweetheart Lake Michigan property deal. Foxcon has delivered basically zero on what they promised and likely never will. The upside is we will probably not have to endure cleaning up a environment mess from their operations at least. But the jobs promised for the state incentives and favorable property deal were and never will be delivered.

Awwww...but what about all the years and years of construction along I-94? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...